Professional Documents
Culture Documents
of Long-Range Guided-Wave
Ultrasonic Inspections
1
Ultrasonic Inspection was
developed in the 1950s Piezoelectric
crystal oscillated
by RF signal
“Time of Flight” of an
ultrasonic wave is
directly proportional
to the thickness of the
material measured
2
Conventional UT measures the wall thickness at a
spot, while Guided Wave Ultrasonics can identify
locations of metal loss along a length of the pipe
Conventional Flange
Ultrasonic
Test
Localized Weld
Inspection Metal loss Metal loss
Guided Wave
100%
Weld Metal loss Metal loss
Inspection
• Frequencies used in guided wave inspection are much lower than conventional
ultrasonic testing; therefore the wave lengths are much longer and are scattered
instead of reflected from changes in the dimension of the wave guide
• The pipe acts as a wave guide, permitting the waves to travel long distances
4
Guided Wave Ultrasonics rely on the use and
interpretation of far more complex waves than the
compression waves used in conventional UT testing
Longitudinal
Torsional
Flexural
5
Guided waves, typically between 30 – 75 KHz, are
introduced into the pipe by one of two systems:
• An array of piezoelectric crystals are
positioned in modules that typically hold two
transducers each. The modules are spaced
around the pipe under an air bladder which
when pressurized forces the units against the
surface. The individual crystals oscillate at
the frequency at which they are excited and
transmit the wave into the pipe.
6
The power and durability of today’s
electronics has made it possible to field the
GWUT system in a compact package
Laptop
computer
Umbilical
cable
connecting
electronics to
transducers
Pressurized bladder
containing the array of Field
piezoelectric crystals electronics
7
Some Advantages of Guided Wave Ultrasonic Testing
8
Example of graphical data display
Distance Amplitude
Correction (DAC)
Curves
Weld
Welds at two
elbows
Minor
Anomaly
9
Weld
Area of Weld
corrosion
10
Zoom Shot
Welds
Area of
corrosion
11
Some Limitations of Guided Wave Ultrasonic Testing
• Many field conditions exist that limit the distances that can be effectively
inspected and that cause artifacts which can complicate analysis.
12
Examples of conditions that can limit the distance
of a piping segment that can be reliably inspected
• various coating such as coal tar epoxies, asphalt-tar wraps,
concrete, etc,
• plastic sleeves, particularly those with internal mastics
• wet insulation, particularly if ice is present
• rough internal or external surfaces
• direct buried pipe, particularly in situations where heavy or wet soil
is encountered
• dense product, internal buildup of solids, and situations with variable
product flow
• system noise created by factors such as turbulent product flow or
pumps
• temperature variations and gradients that can lead to changes in the
wave velocity
13
Considerations regarding the type of corrosion that
can be reliably located with Guided Wave Ultrasonics
14
Example of resolution of guided wave inspection
relative to the profile of the corroded area for an
ideal situation
15
Wave form obtained from uninsulated section
of a 10” x 0.594” above-grade pipe
16
Largest pit located on 10” Schedule 80 pipe
(0.15 in deep x 4.5 in circumferential extent)
17
Pit at Location +F12 is 25% wall loss, but
only 2% cross-sectional loss
18
Test on Buried Pipeline – loamy, relatively dry soil
19
Example of corrosion that would not have been noted
with Guided Wave on a buried piping segment
• This is a photograph of the
corroded area which caused
the leak in a buried 6” line.
• This is a loss of
approximately 5.2% of the
cross-section. It would not
been seen in a scan since
the section was buried.
However, if this line was
above-grade and exposed
the corrosion probably
would have been noted as a
minor anomaly
20
• A tethered ILI tool run in this 6 inch pipeline located isolated, deep pits separated by thousands of feet
of undamaged pipe. The pit above was 65% of the wall thickness in depth and ½ inch in diameter
21
Weld profiles are assumed to be uniform along the length of the tested
segment, and represent some arbitrary percent change in cross-sectional
area, typically 25% CSC. There is no absolute calibration standard.
This can compromise the accuracy of the results and can even lead to
miss-calls, as in the case below. The high-low condition extended around
approximately one-forth of the circumference, created an asymmetrical
response, and was therefore ranked as a moderate anomaly.
22
Conclusions
• Guided wave offers valuable new inspection technology if it’s capabilities
and limitations are kept in mind.
• If used without other verification, GWT cannot provide the level of detail
needed to ascertain the integrity of piping.
23