Reid Feature IT Winter 2013_Layout 1 12/20/12 8:00 AM Page 22

By David J. Reid

Feature

What Is Your Role in Monitoring

Shear Wave UT?
Heres advice from an experienced CWI to help you understand whats happening during
shear wave ultrasonic testing
One of the responsibilities of AWS
Certified Welding Inspectors is to
monitor nondestructive examinations
(NDE). Most CWIs know enough about
magnetic particle testing (MT) and
liquid penetrant testing (PT) to feel
comfortable monitoring these NDE
methods. And some know enough about
radiographic testing (RT) that they can
review X-ray film. But how many CWIs
know enough about ultrasonic shear
wave inspections (UT SW) to have that
same warm fuzzy feeling of confidence?
Ultrasonic shear wave inspections
are voodoo and witchcraft. I dont care
what your magic box says, show me
something I can believe in like an Xray film or a red line from a PT
indication. How many times have you
heard someone say that or even said
something like it yourself? With that in
mind, the goal of this article is to give
you a little inside information about
ultrasonic shear wave inspections. This
is not going to be another rehash of
basic ultrasonic theory there are
plenty of other resources for that but
some practical information from a
practicing CWI and UT technician.
Most of the rejectable indications I
have seen were incomplete fusion or
slag inclusions just above the root pass,
along the square edge of a single bevel
groove weld. I recommend making this
part of a complete-joint-penetration
(CJP) weld a quality control (QC) hold
point to minimize welds being rejected.
What about that equipment the UT
SW tech is using? If inspection is to
AWS D1.1, Structural Welding Code
Steel, make sure the technician is
using code-approved equipment. Shear
transducers typically are rectangular
and are attached to a wedge that
together makes the search unit (Ref. 1).
Straight beam transducers typically are

22

Inspection Trends / January 2013

Fig. 1 UT shear wave legs. What are you going to see in the third leg that could
not be seen in the first or second leg?
round (Ref. 2). They do make round
transducers that can be attached to a
wedge, but they are not AWS D1.1
Code approved. Dont let the UT SW
tech try to tell you that his or her round
transducer is prequalified for AWS
D1.1 shear wave inspections.
If the inspection is to the
requirements of the ASME Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Code, make sure the
technician is using the code-approved
calibration block (Ref. 3). Make sure
an IIW (Ref. 4) or DSC block (Ref. 5)
is not going to be used instead.
How clean is the inspection area?
You can get by with minimal surface
prep and a bucket of dirty, nasty
couplant (a.k.a. gel) when taking
thickness measurements, but I would
not recommend it for shear wave
inspections.
Ask the shear wave UT tech to do
a straight beam examination of the base
metal next to the weld (Ref. 6). Ask the
technician to do this after the normal
surface prep and using that bucket of
dirty, nasty gel. Take note of how much
gain had to be used to get a good signal
at 75% full screen height (Ref. 7) and

what it took to keep it up there during

scanning.
Now, ask the technician to do the
same examination on a surface wiped
clean with a solvent such as acetone
and using clean couplant. You should
notice a difference in the amount of
gain that is needed and that it is much
easier to keep it up there during
scanning.
So, what do you think happens
when the technician calibrates for the
shear wave exam on a clean calibration
block but does an inspection on a dirty
surface? If you guessed that some
sensitivity was lost, you are right.
The D1.1 Code mentions legs
and faces (Ref. 8). I address legs first
since they also apply to inspections
done according to the ASME Code as
well Fig. 1.
Most of the rejectable indications I
have seen were in Leg I, although there
have been a few in Leg II. However, if
you hear something said about Leg III
(Ref. 8), you may want to question
why it could not be seen in Legs I or II.
This might be something that should be
inspected using a different test angle

Reid Feature IT Winter 2013_Layout 1 12/20/12 8:00 AM Page 23

Fig. 2 A B-U4a column splice (scan from both top and

bottom sides of Face A); B B-U4a beam-to-web moment
connection (scan from only one side of Face A at two different
angles); C T-U4a beam-to-flange moment connection (scan
from both Face A and Face C).

than what is called for (Ref. 8) or using

a transducer that is not prequalified by
the code (Ref. 1).
What can be done once an
indication has been identified without
trying to second guess the UT SW tech?
The following is a reasonable question to
ask: Can it be identified as being in the
same location from two different
directions or angles? AWS D1.1 states,
It is intended, as a minimum, all welds
be tested by passing sound through the
entire volume of weld and the heataffected zone (HAZ) in two crossing
directions, whenever practical (Ref. 9).
The ASME code book contains a similar
statement (Ref. 10).
My experience has been that if
scanning from one direction shows an
indication is here, but from the other
direction it shows the indication is over
there or there is no indication at all, I
am inclined to dismiss it as a
nonrelevant indication. That is a
judgment call only the UT SW tech can
make. But when scanning from two
different directions points to the same
location, it is a rejectable indication
you can take to the bank.
For a B-U4a column splice, the two

directions would be
from both sides of
Face A (Ref. 8) Fig.
C
2A. However, on that
same joint design BU4a as a beam-to-web
moment connection,
the continuity plate
might not be long
enough to use both
sides of Face A. An
alternative method
would be to look at it
twice from the flange
side of Face A with
two different angles
(Ref. 11) Fig. 2B.
As for a T-U4a beamto-flange moment connection, it can be
examined from both Face A and Face C
(Ref. 8) Fig. 2C. It should be noted
that scanning from Face B is not
normally done except on material
thicknesses greater than 3 in. (Ref. 8).
One issue I hope the D1.1
Committee will review is examination
of material thicknesses less than 34 in.
(Ref. 8). The current code-approved
transducer, wedge, and frequency (Ref.
1) are too big to reach the root of a 45deg single-bevel groove weld in Leg I
from Face A on material thicknesses
less than 34 in. (Ref. 12). For this, the
API Qualification of Ultrasonic
Examiners (QUTE) procedure calls for
a -in. transducer with a frequency of
5.0 MHz (Ref. 13).
With this, I hope some of the
mystery behind that voodoo and
witchcraft we call ultrasonic shear
wave inspections has been cleared up
for the CWI.
References
1. AWS D1.1:2010, Structural
Welding Code Steel. 2010. Clauses

6.22.7.1 and 6.22.7.2, plus Fig. 6.18.

Miami, Fla.: American Welding
Society.
2. AWS D1.1:2010, clause 6.22.6.
3. ASME Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Code, Section V, Article 4, Figs.
T-434.2.1 and T-434.3. New York,
N.Y.: ASME.
4. ASME Section V, Article 4, Fig.
B-461.2.
5. AWS D1.1:2010, Fig. H.1.
6. AWS D1.1:2010, clause 6.26.5.
7. AWS D1.1:2010, clause
6.25.4.2.
8. AWS D1.1:2010, Table 6.7.
9. AWS D1.1:2010, clause
6.26.6.2.
10. ASME Section V, Article 4,
clauses T-472, T-472.2, and T-472.3.
11. AWS D1.1:2010, Fig. S.10.
12. Material thickness 70 TAN
= distance from the index point of a 70deg search unit to a point on the
surface directly above the intersection
of Legs I and II. For a 45-deg singlebevel groove weld, this distance needs
to be greater than (Material thickness
45 TAN) + (the measurement from
the index point to the front surface of
the search unit) + (116-in. for
reinforcement toe lap).
13. API-UT-2 Rev. 1, clauses 6.3.1
and 6.4.2. Washington, D.C.: American
Petroleum Institute.

DAVID J. REID
(flawgate@yahoo.com) is with
Froehling & Robertson, Inc.,
Chesapeake, Va. He is an AWS CWI
and ASNT Level II in
MT, PT, and UT.

Inspection Trends / Winter 2013

23