where expertise comes together - since 1996 -

The Largest Open Access Portal of Nondestructive Testing (NDT)

Conference Proceedings, Articles, News, Exhibition, Forum, Network and more

where expertise comes together
- since 1996 -

780 views
Technical Discussions
Milos
Milos
02:52 Apr-04-2007
TOFD

Hello

I am looking for answer to the following problem.
It is known that the size of the smalest defect detectable by reflection of UT waves is about the hallf of the wave length. What is the theoretical limit of detection when diffraction (TOFD) instead of reflection is used ? Is it the same for PE technique and TOFD? Is it possible to estimate the limits of detection (size of the smalest defect) by TOFD method without experimenting on artificial defects (EDM notches)?

Thanks




    
 
 
Bill Blanshan
Bill Blanshan
03:16 Apr-26-2007
Re: TOFD
Dear Sir,

Theoretically speaking, the detectability will be the same for both methods because ½ wavelength is based on frequency and velocity, and for both methods the waves will travel in identical particle movement, the only difference being amplitude.

Furthermore, you can not base your detectability based on the frequency of the transducer being used. Remember, TOFD transducers are broadband thus having a broad frequency range. A 5 MHz transducer may transmit frequencies up to 10 MHz and smaller defects could be detected within this beam range. You can experiment using side drilled holes at your desired minimum hole size using high frequency transducers.

Let me know a little more about your application and I may be able to help more.

Bill


----------- Start Original Message -----------
: Hello
: I am looking for answer to the following problem.
: It is known that the size of the smalest defect detectable by reflection of UT waves is about the hallf of the wave length. What is the theoretical limit of detection when diffraction (TOFD) instead of reflection is used ? Is it the same for PE technique and TOFD? Is it possible to estimate the limits of detection (size of the smalest defect) by TOFD method without experimenting on artificial defects (EDM notches)?
:
: Thanks
:
------------ End Original Message ------------




    
 
 
Ed Ginzel
R & D, -
Materials Research Institute, Canada, Joined Nov 1998, 1219

Ed Ginzel

R & D, -
Materials Research Institute,
Canada,
Joined Nov 1998
1219
04:58 Apr-26-2007
Re: TOFD
Milos:
A couple weeks ago you asked about smallest detectable flaw using TOFD. You stated:
I am looking for answer to the following problem.
It is known that the size of the smalest defect detectable by reflection of UT waves is about the hallf of the wave length. What is the theoretical limit of detection when diffraction (TOFD) instead of reflection is used ? Is it the same for PE technique and TOFD? Is it possible to estimate the limits of detection (size of the smalest defect) by TOFD method without experimenting on artificial defects (EDM notches)?

This discussion on “smallest detectable flaw” goes back a long way on this Forum, to its earliest days in 1996 (http://www.ndt.net/wshop/wshop_tr/messages/87.htm).

I think it appropriate to add a word about the much used “Rule of thumb” being invoked in this discussion. The idea that “the smallest detectable flaw” is half the wavelength is just a guideline and not a specific target or “absolute” limiting factor.

Long ago the “limits” todetection were considered and “half a wavelength was NOT a “limit”. Lord Rayleigh (Theory of Sound, London, 1926) provided a relationship between a spherical reflector and the wavelength for the condition where the wavelength was much greater than the sphere diameter (amplitude is proportional to D^3/Lamda^2). Ermolov derived similar relationships for several of the more common basic shapes.

In clean low carbon steel I have “detected” pores on the order of 0.2mm diameter using a 5MHz TOFD. That is on the order of 5-6 times smaller than the wavelength! But when the same TOFD technique is applied to austenitic stainless steel with grain size on the order of 50-100 microns, the scatter makes it virtually impossible to detect anything but the largest of flaws. Grain size in chrome stainless steels are typical of this order of magnitude.
(see http://www.ultrasonic.de/abstract/wcndt96/data2/165.htm)

Based on my readings of Krautkramer and Ermolov, the “detection” being discussed by the Rule of Thumbis based on the traditional pulse-echo principles, whereby the beam axis is centred on the flaw and the concern is for the “reflected” wavefront. Finite element modelling or visualisation can be used to illustrate that a slight planar nature of a reflected wavefront can be maintained when the flaw is flat and its dimensions are on the order of a wavelength (perhaps down to approximately a half wavelength). Such a condition would produce a peak in the reflection directivity plot and could be used to maximise the echo response by placing the receiver along the maximum “reflection axis”.

But when we are not concerned with “Reflections” and it is a backscattered or forward scattered “Diffraction” that we are using to “detect” imperfections, the ratio of flaw size to wavelength (and the on-axis prerequisite) can be relaxed to something less than the “half-wavelength guideline”. TOFD is a forward scatter technique. The goal is to detect diffracted wavefronts from flaws in the pressure envelope of the transmitted pulse. We try to optimise detection by placing a receiver in the region where the expected maximum pressure from the forward scattered diffraction will occur from a “crack-tip” (see Charlesworth and Temple, Engineering Applications of Ultrasonic TOFD, Research Studies Press, 2001).

Properties of the materials tested (not just the alloy, since an alloy may be made in many forms of different grain sizes) and the purpose of the test will be critically important factors when considering the answer to your question. We can discuss “theoretical” limits to “detections”; but in UT (including and especially in TOFD) the response of the indication of concern over the background scatter noise from grain structure will be crucial. If you are expecting to RELIABLY “detect” flaws smaller than the grain size you will probably not be successful. The lateral wave will cause you problems at the lower end of thicknesses due to the dead zone (but I have seen shear wave TOFD used on 4mm wall in fine grained zirconium tubing). Thick sections (200-300mm) can also be tested by TOFD but accumulation of scatter increases with increasing soundpaths. In all cases the signal to noise ratio you can achieve will be the limiting factor for practical use of TOFD.

So even the use of EDM notches will be an approximation for the specific material tested. For surface connected conditions they may be “adequate. But as a tool to investigate embedded flaws they cannot be made without access to the ends of the material so you will always have the effect of length to consider as well as the vertical extent (and shape and surface roughness). Ultimately the grain noise will be your limiting factor and the best you can do is increase receiver gain so there is a maximum “noise level” of about 10-15% (as illustrated in BS-7706).

Sorry…no magic bullets for this. It will be empirical.

Ed

----------- Start Original Message -----------
: Hello
: I am looking for answer to the following problem.
: It is known that the size of the smalest defect detectable by reflection of UT waves is about the hallf of the wave length. What is the theoretical limit of detection when diffraction (TOFD) instead of reflection is used ? Is it the same for PE technique and TOFD? Is it possible to estimate the limits of detection (size of the smalest defect) by TOFD method without experimenting on artificial defects (EDM notches)?
:
: Thanks
:
------------ End Original Message ------------




    
 
 

Product Spotlight

Ultrasonic Testing Immersion Tanks with Unmatched Scanning Features

TecScan’s non-destructive testing Ultrasonic Immersion Tanks & scanners are designed for high perf
...
ormance and demanding NDT testing applications. Our Scan3D™ line of High Precision Immersion Tanks are specifically designed for automated ultrasonic testing of complex composites parts used in aerospace and industrial applications.
>

Ceram 35P (Panoramic)

The Ceram 35P is the panoramic brand new portable generators designed by Balteau NDT and is offeri
...
ng no less than 300kV, 5mA and 100% duty cycle for an incredible image contrast even at full power. It will will surely become a reference as it can be classified as a high power portable unit and can be operated with our CF2000 control unit but also with our well known Hand-X Wireless Remote Control.
>

MUSE Mobile Ultrasonic Equipment

The MUSE, a portable ultrasonic imaging system, was developed for in-field inspections of light-weig
...
ht structures. The MUSE consists of a motor-driven manipulator, a water circulation system for the acoustic coupling and a portable ultrasonic flaw detector (USPC 3010). The MUSE provides images of internal defects (A-, B-,C- and D-scan).
>

ISAFE3 Intrinsically Safe Sensor System

ISAFE3 intrinsically safe sensor system of Vallen Systeme is especially targeted at the petrochemica
...
l - as well as oil and gas transportation industry. The sensor system is designed for permanent monitoring or periodic inspection tasks. Sensors are available for different AE-frequency ranges optimized for corrosion and fatigue crack detection and other applications. The ISAFE 3 sensor system consists of an AE-sensor (model ISAS3) certified according to ATEX/IEC for installation in zone 0, gas group IIC, IP68, 20 to +60 °C, and a signal isolator (model SISO3) certified for installation in zone 2. An ISAS3 sensor can be mounted in atmosphere or submerged, e.g. in water or crude oil. It is supported by mounting tools for temporary (magnets) or permanent (welded) installation. ISAFE3 supports automatic sensor coupling test and can be used with any AE signal processor supporting 28V supply at 90 mA peak, e.g. Vallen Systeme ASIP-2/A.
>

Share...
We use technical and analytics cookies to ensure that we will give you the best experience of our website - More Info
Accept
top
this is debug window
s