Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
If the ultrasonic beam were like a laser beam we would have a method of sizing flaws based on the extent of probe
movement and the distance along the beam where the flaw is found. By simple plotting of coordinates we could
determine with a high degree of accuracy the size or vertical extent, position in the structure and orientation. Because
the beam spreads, the ability of the system to resolve reflectors in close proximity to each other, adds a significant error
factor to sizing. The benefit of the phased array method, allows manipulation of the beam width at selected locations
along the beam, thus improving flaw sizing. You tell the instrument where you would like to have the beam focused,
and the focal law will be calculated by manipulation of the active aperture (number of elements firing) and where you
want the beam to focus. Focus is not what you might think, and there are limitations to where and to what degree you
can have focus. The limit of focus is the near zone (or natural focus) manipulated by the active aperture (changing
element size in conventional UT). For general interrogation of the weld, a long focus is selected which gives a nominally
focused beam somewhere at 0.7 of one near zone, and the active aperture, 16 to 24 elements firing. The natural focus
of the probe is extended out by utilizing higher frequencies (one near zone is proportional to the element size squared
and the frequency). Thus we now have probe design factoring into sizing techniques.
Criteria for developing sizing techniques: Critical sizing of flaws requires that you develop an engineering specification
which specifies the criteria for minimum flaw size, flaw type, and depending whether the flaw is ID or OD connected,
and if not connected, what is the allowable ligament length between the flaw and the ID or OD surface. The ASME Code
requires that any sizing technique be qualified and demonstrated to show that the technique can reliably size the flaw
within the engineering specifications criteria, and what are the allowable error limits. Test samples are fabricated with
known flaws, and the samples scanned using the inspection procedure to collect the UT data. Based on this written
procedure, the flaws are sized and the results evaluated based on radiography or actual sectioning through the flaw and
physical measurement. Following a successful qualification of the inspection/ sizing procedure, technician training will
follow, and each technician will complete a written and practical test of his/her ability to size the flaws within the error
limits.
Phased array lends itself well to this qualification process, and can be adjusted where accuracy can be improved, and
with the superior computer processing power, and the use of Tomoview software, removes much of the subjectivity and
error due to manual manipulation of the probe. However there are basic principles that you must follow if you are to
use beam spread sizing.
Basic criteria for meeting resolution requirements: The IOW calibration block was designed in the early 60s to
provide beam qualification and sizing. Specifically, the minimum frequency required to resolve the 1/16 diameter
holes, see figure 1.
When this occurs, the operator must be aware of this and if the desired amount of travel to at least cover the beam
width is not obtained, he/she should enter to the report, no measureable vertical extent.
We have featured in this paper, a flaw that has significant vertical extent and is close enough to the ID surface that we
need to accurately determine its vertical extent and the ligament spacing between the bottom of the flaw and the ID
surface. In addition, the flaw has two parts (A and B) to show how we consider the two parts resolved and unresolved
based on pulse frequency. We have not considered pulse damping, which can also be a function of resolution.
Sizing using Maximum Peak: In the simulated flaw in the animations, the maximum peak has been determined to be
+4dB to reference. The following graphic is taken from an animation showing, a plot of the flaw using 2.25MHz and a
6dB beam spread. The flaw is plotted as a single point with no measureable vertical extent. This is the expected
outcome when using low frequency interrogation of the flaw with 6dB beam spread.
The flaw, by virtue of its high amplitude would have significant vertical extent and in addition would be very close to the
back surface.
Figure 3
Animation 1: To view this animation, click on the following link: Animation 1
The second scenario we have used is one with a 7MHz probe that meets the resolution criteria of the IOW Block. In this
animation you will see the process of interrogating the flaw and determining with a high degree of accuracy the
resolution of the flaws two parts, and the extremities of the flaw. We have used a 6dB beam spread to determine the
extent of the flaw. The choice between a 6dB beam spread and a 20dB beam spread will be based on your proven
accuracy of the performance demonstration. The difference is not likely to be significant.
Animation 2: To view this animation, click on the following link: Animation 2
Animation 3: We have summarized videos 1 and 2. Click on the following link: Animation 3
Last significant echo (LSE): This technique is very similar to the technique discussed above except that beam spread is
not used, and the proponents of this technique do not see the benefit of using beam spread to determine the
Copyright imagineNDE - 2011
extremities of the flaw, only the center of beam location of all associated (connected) peaks. Again, the decision to use
beam spread or not, will be based on the findings of the performance demonstration for accuracy. The application of
Pahsed Array uses this methodology.
ASME Sizing : The performance demonstration procedure previously discussed, is a requirement of the ASME Code. The
ASME Code Section V, Article 4 provides an example of a sizing technique that would yield a result very close to the
above plot, and uses terminology such as toward and away, for back and front of beam. The concept is very simple: You
interrogate the flaw and determine its max peak relative to DAC Reference. Add 14dB of gain to your reference gain,
and record probe position and position on the A scan timebase. Move the transducer toward the flaw until the
amplitude drops to 20% of DAC (at +14dB indication is brought to DAC). Record the probe position, and the reading on
the A scan time base. We will call this CT . Move transducer away from flaw and observe the indication rise then drop
to 20% of DAC. Record the probe position, and the reading on the A scan time base. We will call this CA. The vertical
extent of the flaw is then calculated as:
Flaws which can have significant vertical extent are side wall lack of fusion, cracking at any location in the weld, and incomplete penetration of the root pass in single vee butt welds, and at the juncture of a double vee prep. The ASME
Code designates these types of flaw as being unacceptable regardless of length and must be repaired. It is vital that the
operator performing the inspection must be able to recognize with a high degree of certainty, these types of flaws.
Simple is good, and a simple way of determining if a flaw has significant vertical extent, as can be the case for cracking, is
to observe the dynamics of the indication (A scan signal envelope) while pivoting the transducer about its axis. The
beam will trace an arc across an imaginary vertical face. Therefore flaws that have significant vertical extent will be
touched by this arc at all locations about its vertical face, as the probe pivots. The visual result is a signal envelope that
appears to roll across the screen. With flaws that are confined within weld passes, the arc will touch the flaw at only the
top of the arc, and the signal envelope will appear to simply rise and fall without this characteristic roll.
Animation 5: Click on the following link to watch an animation of this pivot technique. Animation 5
Some who write about this theory of determining flaw type, consider the echo dynamics or the shape of the A scan
signal, as being a function of flaw type. There is some truth to this especially with porosity which exhibits a low
amplitude cluster of indications, lack of fusion which exhibits a slim uncomplicated signal typical of the signal you
observe when you calibrate with an IIW block, inclusions which can look like anything and cracking, some report as
recognizing a Christmas tree like signal. This author puts no credibility on signal recognition and if you find this works for
you, good luck! The sectorial scan with Phased Array offers promise that we can reliably determine type of flaw using
signal recognition, but it does require considerable experience examining welds.