where expertise comes together - since 1996

Web's Largest Portal of Nondestructive Testing (NDT)
Open Access Database (Conference Proceedings, Articles, News), Exhibition, Forum, Network

All Forum Boards
Technical Discussions >
TOFD made simple
Career Discussions
Job Offers
Job Seeks
Classified Ads
About NDT.net
Articles & News

371 views
03:52 Mar-15-2000
Brian Hawker
TOFD made simple

Response to enquiry from John Johnson at INEEL, Idaho Falls re
"TOFD made simple".

I've been working on the development and application of TOFD
methods at AEA Technology for the past 20 years and I hope
the comments below will be helpful.

John,

The experts on TOFD in the US are at AEA Technology Engineering
Inc., contact Everett@aeatech.com . They can give you any
assistance you might need to inspect welds using TOFD.
Alternatively you can contact any of the AEA Technology offices
worldwide by getting references from our website. TOFD was first
invented by our National NDT Centre here in the UK and we have
accumulated extensive expertise in its application.

In the meantime I can offer you the following answers to your
questions :-

Q1. Why use L-waves?
A1. There are lots of reasons for the use of L waves and against
Sv waves :-
a) As you said. It reduces ambiguity about sources of signals.
b) The diffraction coefficient for L waves varies with angles
subtended, but there is only one narrow range of angle conditions
for which the coefficient is null (sum of angles subtended at Tx
and at Rx is about 76 degrees). Using Sv waves there are lots of
null amplitude conditions so detection is unreliable.
c) Using L waves the signal phase reliably distinguishes between
defect top and bottom edges except that, if the angle sum (see
above) is less than 76 degrees, then the crack bottom signal
phase is inverted. Using Sv the phase pattern is very dependent
on subtended angles, so you lose any benefit from slower velocity
due to uncertain timing references.
d) Using l waves you can use the lateral wave as a reliable
timing reference. Using Sv there is no equivalent to the lateral
wave, only the Rayleigh surface wave which has a slower velocity
so that it obscures part of the region of interest.
For these reasons Sv waves are not used by well informed
inspection agents, for manual or automated methods, apart from
very specific cases.
You can use Sh waves but they are inconvenient.
The arguments about beam divergence and velocity are not relevant
because you can match wavelengths to achieve comparable
divergences using L or Sv waves.

Q2. Compromises.
A2. You have to compromise on your probe selection in all
ultrasonic inspection techniques. There is always a trade off
between s/n ratio and resolution because both vary with
wavelength. You ask how to compromise. Use the highest frequency
at which you can penetrate your material and see your defects of
interest with adequate s/n performance. Begin by trying probes
small enough to give you a good beam divergence to cover your
region of interest. If this gives you inadequate resolution, you
may have to use higher frequency probes to improve the resolution
and you may then also have to choose probes with larger crystals,
which give you a narrower beam, less coverage but better s/n.

If grain size is a problem, use of Sv makes the s/n many times
worse at the same frequency and slightly worse at the same
wavelength. If the material is anisotropic (eg austenitic welds),
then Sv is affected far worse and you cannot expect to get any
useful sizing results without knowing all about the velocity
dependence.

Q3. Interference from the crown
A3. None. The lateral wave results from the quickest possible
path between the probes (Fermat's principle) and is not affected
by convex features in the surface profile. It is hardly affected
even by shallow concave features as the indentation would have to
be large to significantly obstruct or delay the lateral wave.

Q4. Stainless steel.
A4. We at the National NDT Centre, AEA Technology in the UK, and
also in Holland, have had lots of experience of trying to use
TOFD on austenitic castings and welds. Results have been
exceptionally variable and unpredictable. Some inconel welds
cause virtually no problems and most duplex steels seem to be OK.
All austenitic stainless steel welds are anisotropic, so that the
velocities of the lateral wave, back-wall and intermediate depth
features are significantly different and the calculations become
complicated. eg The lateral wave is always delayed by slow
velocity through the top of the weld. The grain size is more
relevant to the stainless parent materials each side of the weld.

Cast stainless is virtually impenetrable for TOFD applications,
even using Sh waves (despite some claims to the contrary). You
are in with a chance if the parent material is well forged or
rolled so that the grain size is very small - but still beware of
the weld's anisotropy.

Q5. Other non-amplitude methods
A5. I'm not the best person to respond to this question.

General.
TOFD remains the best method for sizing sub-surface defects in
ferritic steel and in several round-robin trials has also been
the best, or among the best, also for detection. (DDT trials in
UK, PISC-II (International), NIL (Netherlands), EPRI (US), etc.),
but it does need to be applied properly to achieve good results.

The book by J P Charlesworth and J A G Temple (John Wiley & Sons,
NY, ISBN 0 471 92386 9) is a good reference but is currently out
of print. A second edition is expected later this year.) Also
there is the British Standard BS7706 and a European working
pre-standard pr ENV-583 Part 6.

Brian Hawker
c/o AEA Technology, UK
brian.hawker@aeat.co.uk




 
02:55 Aug-07-2001
mohsen_shahini
Re: TOFD made simple : Response to enquiry from John Johnson at INEEL, Idaho Falls re
: "TOFD made simple".

: I've been working on the development and application of TOFD
: methods at AEA Technology for the past 20 years and I hope
: the comments below will be helpful.

: John,

: The experts on TOFD in the US are at AEA Technology Engineering
: Inc., contact Everett@aeatech.com . They can give you any
: assistance you might need to inspect welds using TOFD.
: Alternatively you can contact any of the AEA Technology offices
: worldwide by getting references from our website. TOFD was first
: invented by our National NDT Centre here in the UK and we have
: accumulated extensive expertise in its application.

: In the meantime I can offer you the following answers to your
: questions :-

: Q1. Why use L-waves?
: A1. There are lots of reasons for the use of L waves and against
: Sv waves :-
: a) As you said. It reduces ambiguity about sources of signals.
: b) The diffraction coefficient for L waves varies with angles
: subtended, but there is only one narrow range of angle conditions
: for which the coefficient is null (sum of angles subtended at Tx
: and at Rx is about 76 degrees). Using Sv waves there are lots of
: null amplitude conditions so detection is unreliable.
: c) Using L waves the signal phase reliably distinguishes between
: defect top and bottom edges except that, if the angle sum (see
: above) is less than 76 degrees, then the crack bottom signal
: phase is inverted. Using Sv the phase pattern is very dependent
: on subtended angles, so you lose any benefit from slower velocity
: due to uncertain timing references.
: d) Using l waves you can use the lateral wave as a reliable
: timing reference. Using Sv there is no equivalent to the lateral
: wave, only the Rayleigh surface wave which has a slower velocity
: so that it obscures part of the region of interest.
: For these reasons Sv waves are not used by wellinformed
: inspection agents, for manual or automated methods, apart from
: very specific cases.
: You can use Sh waves but they are inconvenient.
: The arguments about beam divergence and velocity are not relevant
: because you can match wavelengths to achieve comparable
: divergences using L or Sv waves.

: Q2. Compromises.
: A2. You have to compromise on your probe selection in all
: ultrasonic inspection techniques. There is always a trade off
: between s/n ratio and resolution because both vary with
: wavelength. You ask how to compromise. Use the highest frequency
: at which you can penetrate your material and see your defects of
: interest with adequate s/n performance. Begin by trying probes
: small enough to give you a good beam divergence to cover your
: region of interest. If this gives you inadequate resolution, you
: may have to use higher frequency probes to improve the resolution
: and you may then also have to choose probes with larger crystals,
: which give you a narrower beam, less coverage but better s/n.

: If grain size is a problem, use of Sv makes the s/n many times
: worse at the same frequency and slightly worse at the same
: wavelength. If the material is anisotropic (eg austenitic welds),
: then Sv is affected far worse and you cannot expect to get any
: useful sizing results without knowing all about the velocity
: dependence.

: Q3. Interference from the crown
: A3. None. The lateral wave results from the quickest possible
: path between the probes (Fermat's principle) and is not affected
: by convex features in the surface profile. It is hardly affected
: even by shallow concave features as the indentation would have to
: be large to significantly obstruct or delay the lateral wave.

: Q4. Stainless steel.
: A4. We at the National NDT Centre, AEA Technology in the UK, and
: also in Holland, have had lots of experience of trying to use
: TOFD on austenitic castings and welds. Results have been
: exceptionally variable and unpredictable. Some inconel welds
: cause virtually no problems and most duplex steels seem to be OK.
: All austenitic stainless steel welds are anisotropic, so that the
: velocities of the lateral wave, back-wall and intermediate depth
: features are significantly different and the calculations become
: complicated. eg The lateral wave is always delayed by slow
: velocity through the top of the weld. The grain size is more
: relevant to the stainless parent materials each side of the weld.

: Cast stainless is virtually impenetrable for TOFD applications,
: even using Sh waves (despite some claims to the contrary). You
: are in with a chance if the parent material is well forged or
: rolled so that the grain size is very small - but still beware of
: the weld's anisotropy.

: Q5. Other non-amplitude methods
: A5. I'm not the best person to respond to this question.

: General.
: TOFD remains the best method for sizing sub-surface defects in
: ferritic steel and in several round-robin trials has also been
: the best, or among the best, also for detection. (DDT trials in
: UK, PISC-II (International), NIL (Netherlands), EPRI (US), etc.),
: but it does need to be applied properly to achieve good results.

: The book by J P Charlesworth and J A G Temple (John Wiley & Sons,
: NY, ISBN 0 471 92386 9) is a good reference but is currently out
: of print. A second edition is expected later this year.) Also
: there is the British Standard BS7706 and a European working
: pre-standard pr ENV-583 Part 6.

: Brian Hawker
: c/o AEA Technology, UK
: brian.hawker@aeat.co.uk
hajhiaHA



 


© NDT.net - The Web's Largest Portal of Nondestructive Testing (NDT) ISSN 1435-4934

Open Access Database, |Conference Proceedings| |Articles| |News| |Exhibition| |Forum| |Professional Network|