POTENTIAL OF TIME-OF-FLIGHT DIFFRACTION

AS A STAND-ALONE WELD INSPECTION TECHNIQUE

BY

EGWUNYENGA, A. O.

AND

OKONJI, P. O.

DELTA STATE POLYTECHNIC, OGWASHI-UKU

PRESENTED AT THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF WELDERS AND THE NIGERIAN
INSTITUTE OF WELDERS HELD AT ABUJA, MARCH 3 – 6, 2009
Abstract
Prevention of industrial disasters has become a major concern for the Manufacturing Industry,
especially in the construction of pipelines, and non-destructive testing has played an effective
role in this regard. In the light of the increasing demand for more thorough inspection of
pressure vessels the “Fitness-For-Service” (FFS) criteria for accept/reject of weld defects,
especially for pipelines, are now being used. FFS require accurate measurement of defect
height for Engineering Criteria Assessments (ECA). The standard pipeline weld inspection
technique of radiography is not capable of such measurements, even the ultrasonic amplitude
techniques proved unreliable. Now the Time-Of-Flight Diffraction (TOFD) technique, based on
the time measured for diffracted waves to travel from the ends of a defect has proved to be an
effective technique for determination of size and location of defects. Specifically, the technique
is more suitable for thick structures (above 10mm) and for such defects as cracks, lack of
penetration, lack of fusion, porosity and slag in welds. In this paper, which is based on review
of related literature, the principles and operation of TOFD are discussed, the advantages and
disadvantages of its utilisation listed and the performance highlighted. The paper goes on to
show how TOFD cannot be an effective stand-alone UT technique for the need of pipeline weld
inspection, especially where ECA criteria are used, but can act as an effective safety net for
some critical defects. The paper recommends that other proven inspection techniques should
not be discarded in favour of TOFD but that TOFD can be a valuable add-on for other UT
inspection techniques. Areas for further work were also suggested.

2
Introduction

Defects invariably occur from welding even with the most stringent procedures. In practice it is
not possible to remove all defects by repair, so some acceptance criteria must be adopted to
determine which defects should be removed and which should be left in place. This situation
has become even more necessary with the introduction of high strength steels, where grinding
and re-welding typically destroy the controlled microstructure. In fact repair may create more
damage than allowing the defect to remain. In the last 20 years there has been a shift away from
“Workmanship” criteria for accepting/rejecting welds to “Fitness-For-Service” (FFS) criteria.
While workmanship criteria are based purely on what the inspection instrument could detect,
FFS is based on Fracture Mechanics, also known as Engineering Criteria Assessment (ECA).
Typically FFS allows much larger defects and so reduces reject rates and costs. However for
FFS it is very necessary to measure the key defect parameter (the defect height) accurately and
reliably.

For several decades the prime weld inspection technique (including pipeline welds) was
radiography, which is based on workmanship criteria. Besides the obvious safety hazards,
radiography has the major deficiency in its inability to measure defect height thereby
eliminating FFS as an option. The use of FFS criteria has made the automated ultrasonic testing
(AUT) techniques, especially the Time-of-Flight Diffraction (TOFD) technique the inspection
method of choice.

This paper examines the potential of TOFD as a stand-alone weld inspection technique on the
basis of review of related literature.

Time-of-Flight Diffraction Technique

TOFD is an advanced ultrasonic non-destructive weld testing (NDT) method developed in the
1970s by Silk (1979) in response to the demand for better sizing of defects. The technique was
first applied in 1985 at Harwell Centre (UK) to meet the need for precise sizing of cracks
especially in nuclear reactor welds.

Principles and Operation of TOFD

The technique is based on diffraction of ultrasonic waves on the tips of defects, instead of the
geometrical reflection on the interface of the defects. It uses a single probe pair in a transmitter-
receiver arrangement usually applied with an angle of incidence range of 45o to 70o.

When ultrasound is introduced into the material via the transmitter the defects oscillate
producing diffracted waves from the tips of the defect, whose appearance does not relate to the
orientation of flat or spherical defects, as well as the normal reflected wave. In addition TOFD
also detects a surface (lateral) wave travelling directly between the probes and a back wall echo
from waves that reach the back of the test piece without interference from defects. The
diffracted signals are received via the receiver probe.

The presentation of data is usually by means of a B-scan, showing a two dimensional view of a
cross section of the test piece, with one representing probe motion and the other depth, showing

3
front and back surfaces and the defects in between. Two kinds of B-scan images can be
considered based on the scan direction of the probe with respect to a weld axis, only where weld
inspection is concerned, as follows:

• The scan direction of probes is normal to the direction of the beam along a weld or
defect. This is referred to as linear, non-parallel or longitudinal scan and the result is
used to locate and size defects.

• The scan direction of probes is in the direction of the beam transversely across a weld or
defect and referred to as transverse, parallel or lateral scan. The result of this scan is
used to size defects.

Performance of TOFD

The major aim of NDT is assurance of integrity by confirming a lack of defects in the
construction process and during the service life of an engineering component. The
developments in automated inspection methods and the growth of FFS inspection propelled
such technique as TOFD to the forefront of industry. In order to give the technique reputation,
acknowledgement and recognition it has been subjected to many validations over the years.
These validations include the performance of the method in several “Round Robin” exercises
organised in different formats and by various organisations and in four phases (Trimborn,
1998).

Phases 1 and 2

The aim of these two phases of the round-robin trials was to assess TOFD as an accurate defect
sizing tool. The result is summarised in the report of the study undertaken by Electric Power
Research Institute (EPRI), USA to assess the performance of different UT techniques and
procedures of relevance to reactor vessel examination (Crutzen, 1994). The techniques assessed
were TOFD, backward-scattering tip diffraction and conventional dB drop technique. The
results showed that TOFD techniques were the most accurate for measuring the through-
thickness dimension of defects. The reaffirmation of TOFD as one of the most powerful defect
sizing tools was established through the Programme for Inspection of Steel Components (PISC).
The programme was carried out in three phases under the supervision of the Joint Research
Centre of the Commission of the European Committee. The results were encouraging
(Highmore, Rogerson and Poulter 1998).

Phase 3: TOFD as a Preferred Detection and Sizing Tool

A round robin trial of thin plates was carried out at the Dutch Welding Institute (Stelwagen,
1996) to evaluate the reliability of AUT inspection in comparison with standard non-destructive
inspection techniques like radiography and manual UT for the detection of defects in welds in
steel plates with wall thickness in the range of 6 – 15mm. The project used various techniques
and procedures which satisfy the Dutch “Rules for Pressure Vessels”. The evaluated techniques
were TOFD, mechanised Pulse Echo (PE), manual UT, standard radiography, gamma
radiography and double exposure weld bevel radiography.

4
The performance of TOFD was very reliable. The project recommended that if high detection
reliabilty as well as good sizing and localisation are important then TOFD or PE are to be
preferred above other techniques.

Phase 4

Development of Acceptance criteria

The increased experience acquired in application of TOFD has fully demonstrated its reliability
and detection capacity with respect to other methods thus making it a very popular tool for weld
inspection. This has induced potential users to establish procedures for coding TOFD in
recognised standardised norms.

The British Standard Institute has issued the first draft: BS 7706; the comite Europeen de
Normalisation (CEN) has issued the document CEN/138/WG on practical application of TOFD
for ultrasonic examination of welds. These act as the baselines for the general application of
TOFD. ASME code has included TOFD technique for ultrasonic inspection of welds in section
V, Art 4 Appendix E. Also an “ad hoc” workgroup has been set up from within ASME
technical committee to prepare a document establishing the conditions for using TOFD in
replacing Radiography examinations of welds in over 100mm thickness range5.

Experiences on the Examination of welds

One of the major applications of TOFD is the ultrasonic examination of welds after heat
treatment and/or hydraulic testing to verify the absence of cracks not detectable by radiography
and to prove its conformity with existing ultrasonic manual examination carried out during
construction.

The experiences are referred to the girth, nozzle-shell, nozzle-heads and longitudinal welding of
a number of high thickness reactors. The welds were examined using three techniques in order
to compare the accuracy of TODF with the traditional NDT as follows:

• Ultrasonic TOFD according to BS/CEN and ASME Code Case 2235;

• Ultrasonic pulse echo (PE) according to ASME section VIII;

• Radiography (RT) according to ASME section VIII.

The tests were performed during construction, after post weld heat treatment and after hydraulic
test. The following were observed:

• All defects visible on RT were visible on TOFD image. Defects such as lack of fusion
(LoF) with planar characteristics, not detectable by RT were clearly displayed on the
TOFD image showing the type of defect.

• All defects detected with PE were also displayed on TOFD image. In addition, some
minor defects which PE could not detect, using standard ASME calibration, were clearly
displayed on the TOFD image.

5
Besides the above observations the clad layer was clearly displayed on the TOFD image during
the examination of clad reactors. This is an indication that TOFD can be used to examine and
measure clad thickness as well as discover cracks or other defects.

The table below indicates some of the more common defects and the weld process they are
associated with. Also shown is a very approximate probability of detection (POD) with various
NDT techniques used in pipeline weld inspection.

Table1. Common Defects and POD with various NDT techniques

Defect Mechanise Manual Probability of Detection (%)

Welding Welding
X-ray Pulse Strip TOFD
Echo Chart
(map) (TOFD

Lack of Fusion Yes Yes 90 95 95 OD 0, ID

surface 60

Lack of fusion Yes Yes 50 100 100 100

subsurface

Lack of fusion Yes Yes 0 50 30 100

interpass

Slag No Yes 100 90 90 100

Porosity (>5%) Yes Yes 100 95 50 95

Undercut Yes Yes 100 90 90 ID 50, OD

0

Misfire Yes No 100 100 100 55

Lack of cross Yes Yes 90 75 75 100

penetration

Incomplete No Yes 100 100 100 75

penetration

Hollow bead No Yes 100 25 25 0

Centreline crack Yes No 75 75 75 100

Under-bead crack No Yes 60 100 100 100

Transverse crack No Yes 75 75 75 0

Mismatch (high-low) Yes Yes 60 10 10 100

Root bead Yes No 50 100 100 100

misalignment

Burn through Yes Yes 100 50 30 100

6
All the techniques provide relatively high POD but will complement each other when used in
combination. A combination of all NDT methods will provide the highest POD but at very high
cost.

Advantages of TOFD

The following are some of the advantages of TOFD

• Defect detection does not depend on the defect orientation, in contrast to the pulse echo
technique

• In contrast to the radiography method, planar defects and cracks, which are not
perpendicular to the measured surface, can be detected.

• Defect height can be exactly determined.

• Higher POD improves risk reduction and calculation

• The evacuation of areas because of radiation is not necessary. This means less
interruption in the production process during pre-service or in-service inspections and
fewer logistical problems for the manufacturer.

• The inspection results/data are immediately available with the aid of computers; they are
also digitised and stored so that the same can be recalled and processed for in-service
inspection.

• When Engineering Critical Assessment (ECA) is applied, only the defect has to be cut,
thereby preventing needless repairs which could harm the integrity of the weld.

• Because of the high test speed the costs are less than those for the radiography for wall
thickness above 25 mm

• The inspection can be performed above 200 degrees Centigrade

• Since the equipment is easy to transport, it is possible to perform test on all feasibly
accessible areas.

• TOFD saves cost, if applied during construction, since it is possible to distinguish pre-
service and in-service defects. That means the unit can stay longer in production, and is
safe.

Limitations of TOFD

In spite of the obvious advantages TOFD has the following limitations:

• TOFD is insensitive to surface defects of welds with thickness less than 12.5mm deep.
This is because as the thickness of the specimen decreases, lateral waves, diffracted
echoes from the tips of defects and the back wall echo merge together making it difficult
7
 or impossible to identify and size defects. However, by a novel combination of
immersion and TOFD as well as PE and TOFD, examination of specimens of thickness
down to 3mm was successfully carried out.

• For TOFD the sensitivity (gain) must be very high, which produces a very high back
wall echo and it is not suitable for coarse-grained materials.

• The technique is not effective at detecting and sizing defect lying parallel to the
inspection surface.

• The need for experienced and skilled operator.

Further Work

• More work needs to be done in the positioning of defects to ensure a faster detection
process.

• The examination of austenitic welds is generally problematic due to the nature of its
structure. There is need for more work to be done in this area.

Conclusion

Despite few drawbacks, the Time of flight Diffraction (TOFD) technique is rapid, versatile,
reliable and an effective advanced UT based NDT method for inspection of welds especially
for heavy walled pressure vessels (both pre-service and in-service) aimed at better detection,
accurate evaluation, location and sizing of defects with real time weld integrity assessment
and acquisition of data stored for future inspection reference. With the recognition from
international bodies like ASME, BSI, etc TOFD will gain much more importance across the
globe and will be applied for weld inspection very widely in the future. However, given the
limitations of TOFD it is obvious that it cannot be effective as a stand-alone inspection
technique for all applications. Therefore discarding proven test methods in favour of TOFD
is not recommended rather it can be a very valuable add-on for other techniques.

References

Crutzens, S. (1994). PISC status report. NDE practice and results. Proceedings of the Joint
CEC, OECD, IAEA Specialist meeting in Petten, March, 8 – 10

Highmore, P. J., Rogerson, A. And Poulter, L. N. J. (1988). The ultrasonic inspection of

PISC Plate 2 by the Riseley Nuclear Laboratories. British Journal of NDT, pg 9

8
Silk, M. G. (1977). “Sizing crack-like defects by ultrasonic means”, in Research Techniques
in Non-destructive Testing, vol. 111, edited by Sharpe, R. S.

Silk, M. G. (1985). The time of flight diffraction technique: Theretical aspects and practical
applications. Harwell Laboratory, UK

Stelwagen, U. (1996). NIL project. Non-destructive testing of thin plates, Final report. The
Netherlands

Trimborb, N. (1998). The performance of the time of flight diffraction TOFD) technique in
various international round robin trials and continuing research work underway. British
Journal of NDT vol.3 No. 10