The Performance of Automated Ultrasonic Testing

(AUT) of Mechanised Pipeline Girth Welds

Lewis Morgan,
Advantica Technologies,
United Kingdom.
lewis.morgan@advanticatech.com
Paper presented at the 8th ECNDT, Barcelona, June 2002

ABSTRACT
The use of ultrasonics to test pipeline girth welds during pipeline
construction has increased substantially around the world since equipment
first became available in the 1980s. This has been driven in part by a
substantial improvement in the ultrasonic technology and in part by the
safety and environmental benefits of avoiding the use of ionising radiation
for radiography.
This paper describes work conducted at Advantica Technologies to support
a Transco Pipeline construction programme. Two types of weld were
studied. Samples of both were prepared containing a range of defects.
Seven AUT contracting companies then tested the sample welds in blind
trials. Their results were then compared with the best of several
radiographic inspections. Some of the defects were then cut open for a
definitive appraisal.
Particular attention was paid to the types of defect associated with
mechanized welding such as copper pick-up, cold laps and other lack of
fusion defects. Cracking, transverse to the direction of welding, was also
simulated.
In general, results were obtained which were comparable to radiography in
all areas except for isolated pores and inclusions. Copper cracking was
generally misclassified and transverse defects were not detected reliably.
The novelty and complexity of the AUT data places a renewed demand on
the skills of company representatives in terms of overseeing the
application of AUT in the field. Measures, including training, need to be
considered in order to guarantee the quality of contractor performance and
this would best be addressed as an industry-wide activity. It is also

important that users get the best economic benefit from the new
technology and this means using the capability of ultrasonics to define the
size of any defects that are found. This would be in order to leave small
defects unrepaired where they are shown to be safe through a fitness-forpurpose analysis. The issues surrounding the accuracy of size evaluation
and further work needed in this area is discussed.
Introduction
Traditionally, pipeline girth welds made during pipeline construction in the
UK have been manufactured using the Manual Metal Arc (MMA) welding
process and inspected using 100% X-radiography. There is some degree of
radiation hazard to the public and operators in using x-rays and Transco
have considered whether this can be reduced or removed.
In 1981 work was conducted by British Gas to assess five ultrasonic
scanner systems to replace x-rays but they were all found to have
deficiencies, especially in discriminating different defect types. Since then
there has been several technical developments so that, today, the use of
automated ultrasonic testing (AUT) of girth welds is becoming
increasingly accepted as a reliable and beneficial alternative to
radiographic testing (RT). Confidence has been generated by an extensive
list of pipeline construction projects where it has been used successfully.
While the basic approach is similar from most suppliers, there are
significant differences as well as new developments in response to the
demands of the marketplace. It was decided to conduct a trial of several
AUT systems to establish the capabilities. It was carried out by Advantica
Technologies on behalf of Transco.
AUT developments
The early AUT systems used probes to focus beams of ultrasound onto
zones along the weld fusion line. They were set at appropriate angles to
detect reflected energy from any lack of fusion at the focal areas. A set of
probes was therefore needed to cover the whole of the weld thickness, one
set on each side. This is illustrated in figure.1.

Fig 1: Schematic of pulse-echo reflection beam paths.

Since then further probes have been added to inspect the volume of the
weld, another pair to give diffracted data and two more pairs for transverse
defect detection. The evolution of the equipment has thus led to a complex
set of data requiring analysis. Further details of these elements can be
found in references 1-3.
The plan of work
Nine butt welds were fabricated in 48 inch (1220mm) diameter, X80
grade, pipes using two mechanised welding systems. These welds
contained a range of deliberately made defects. Seven AUT contracting
companies were invited to bring their equipment to inspect the welds at a
Transco site and report on the defects they found.
Each company inspected the welds independently, under the oversight of
Advantica staff. Data collected was interpreted off-site following each test
and the reports were then sent to Advantica for comparison against
radiographic inspection, which was taken as the standard. Some of the
defects were cut open to confirm their nature and size.
The objective was to establish the effectiveness of AUT as an adequate
alternative to radiography for pipeline construction when using
mechanised welding. It was also intended that the evaluation should
prepare for the drafting of a specification for AUT use, which could then
be applied to future construction projects.
COMPANIES INVOLVED
In alphabetical order, the AUT companies who took part in the trials were:
Institut de Soudure, France

 OIS, Aberdeen
RTD, Rotterdam
Servicios de Control e Inspeccin SA, (SCI), Madrid
Shaw QED, Great Yarmouth
Solus Schall , Oceaneering, Aberdeen
Weldsonix, Canada
Several other companies were invited to take part in the trials but, for a
variety of reasons, were unable to do so.
PREPARATIONS
Pipe material:
In order that the AUT contractors were able to set up their equipment
effectively, a coupon of pipe material was sent to each one, to be made
into calibration pieces, as specified in the ASTM standard (Ref.4.). This
was modified to comply with the requirement to detect transverse defects.
There is a considerable time and cost involved in this preparatory work.
Weld profile
Companies who offer mechanised welding services use various types of
welding preparations for the profile of the ends of the pipe. There are two
types in common use; the CRC-type of preparation and the J-type,
illustrated below:

a) The CRC-type weld has a root deposited

from an internal head. b) The J-prep is
deposited from the outside against an
internal copper backing ring
Fig 2: Weld Profiles.

The different welding processes can result in some differences in the types
of defect that can occur. Consequently, both types of weld were used for
the trial.
Since the AUT systems are set up with the focussed beams of sound
directed at different regions of the fusion faces of the weld (as described
previously), it follows that the precise weld preparation profile must be
specified to each prospective inspection contractor for the systems to be
set up appropriately. This information was provided along with the
calibration coupons to each company.
WELD DEFECTS
A wide range of defect types and condition was specified for specialised
welding contractors to insert into the welds during their fabrication. These
included both simple defects such as lack of fusion (LoF) both in the root
and the sidewall (at and between different weld passes) as well as lack of
penetration (LoP) at the root. Areas of porosity were required, as this was
believed to be a feature that could be a problem for AUT detection.
Combination defects were also requested, so that some features would
extend across more than one weld pass at, or near, the same
circumferential position. The possibility of copper being picked up from
the copper backing (as used in the J-preparation weld) was of some
concern. It was intended to simulate the inclusion of copper, both as
copper pickup from the backing bar and also where the welding head
copper tip might make contact with the joint. Transverse cracking was also
included in the specification. Such cracking could not readily be induced
during welding so it was decided to machine narrow slots into the welds
after fabrication. To be consistent with the API 5L specification (Ref.5.)
for axial weld cracking in linepipe, the slot depths were made around 10%
of wall thickness i.e. approximating to an N10 notch.
After being welded, the welds were inspected using panoramic Xradiography. These radiographs were analysed by four independent,
qualified interpreters. They were also re-radiographed and digitised both
for the record and as a further check. This degree of rigor was warranted
since the RT results were to be used as the baseline to evaluate the
reliability of the AUT results. The interpretation of the radiographs
demonstrated that the welding companies had produced a good set of
defects in both types of weld and the defects were well distributed around
the weld circumferences. Additionally, two slots were ground externally,
one through the weld cap of each type of weld and two more were ground

internally, through the weld root of each type. The locations of these slots
were randomly located away from other defects.
The distribution of the types of defect that were produced is illustrated in
the table of fig.3. A plot of the RT lengths of the defects, also shown in
figure 3, demonstrates that they were deliberately made to be short and so
were more difficult to detect by the AUT. This had the added advantage of
allowing a lot of defects to be included. Nearly 90 defects were used; eight
inspections (from seven companies) thus gave a reasonable statistical set
of data.
Type of defect
Porosity
Lack of Fusion
Lack of Root
Fusion/Pen.
Transverse
Other

Numbe
r
15
44
17
7
14

Fig 3: The distribution of length and types of defect

included in the tests.

The nine welds amounted to 35 metres of weldment. This means there was
a considerable length of non-defective weld. If any company had
attempted to achieve good detection by over-reporting this would give
spurious indications that would be evident. (In the event this didnt
happen; the spurious indications were consistently low).
TRIALS
The two pipe spools were located with good access and good facilities in
terms of comfort a dry working environment with light, power and

water. Adequate time was given to each AUT company to ensure that they
would not be pressured by time. This was because it was intended to test
only the capability of the equipment and interpretation. A standard briefing
was given to each company. The weld caps were covered with tape to
prevent sight of the external defects and the pipe ends were covered to
prevent access to see the insides. No accept/reject level was defined all
reflectors considered significant were to be reported.
RESULTS
The first analysis of results was to compare how the AUT indications lined
up with the RT results. The accuracy of characterisation was evaluated
subsequently on a subset of defects by metallographic section of all the
defects in one weld, selected with a good selection of defect types.
The results confirmed that very good detection performance is available
from AUT systems generically. All linear features longer than about 10
mm were detected by some of the systems tested, as well as most clusters
of porosity above 10 mm. Overall the Lack-of-Fusion and Lack-of-RootFusion defects were detected in 94% and 90% of the cases, while porosity
was detected only 75% of the time. The transverse defects were detected
only in about 70% of the cases. Scattered or isolated features, including
pores, cavities and inclusions (metallic and non-metallic), were generally
not detected. Neither were geometric features, such as low cap,
underflush or flush root, reported.
It is generally considered that AUT is better than RT in detecting planar
defects. This is confirmed by these results. The start of a defective area
was shown to be detected earlier by the AUT in many of the defects that
were sectioned (e.g. Figure 4 indicates that a Lack of Side Wall Fusion of
even 0.5 mm through-wall height has been detected .)

Fig 4: The LoF defect on the left fusion face, at 5 mm from the outer surface, was
found by all but one AUT system. It was not visible at all on the radiographs. (Wall
thickness = 16mm) (1 mm bar on enlargement.).

Some variation between inspection companies was apparent, indicating a

lack of consistency. This is illustrated in the table below.
Defect Type
Porosity
Lack of Fusion
Lack of Root
Fusion/Penetration
Transverse
Other

Missed by 1 or
more
inspections
58%
38%

Missed by 2 or
more
inspections
41%
23%

Missed by 3 or
more
inspections
41%
13%

Missed by 4 or
more
inspections
25%
8%

46%

40%

27%

13%

100%
88%

60%
75%

40%
62%

20%
50%

Table 1: Breakdown of missed defects.

While porosity is confirmed as problematic for defection, it is worth

noting that half the inspections found 75% of these small areas of porosity.
The transverse defects were not detected well, especially the external slots.
The other defects include geometric features (such as low cap,
underflush or flush root), which are not good ultrasonic reflectors,
accounting for the low detection rate.
An important factor is likely to be the human operators individual
interpretation of the data, when the complexity of the data involved is

considered. In order to get good performance in field operations with AUT

systems, this suggests that attention to the competence of the operator is
essential. An on-the-job test of operator competence has been proposed for
Transco operations, much as is done for welders.
Three of the eight inspections were conducted using phased array
equipment. No trend was evident to suggest that either better or worse
results were obtained with the phased arrays.
When considering the deficiencies of AUT, it should be remembered that
RT is by no means a perfect inspection system to compare it with.
However, the approach does allow a good breadth of coverage in the
comparison.
The Detection of Copper.
Several areas of copper, inserted into the weld, were available for study.
No pick-up of copper from the internal backing plate was evident.
The most easily detected area (called craze cracks by RT) was detected
by all the AUT systems, but was generally characterized as porosity. A
section, (Figure 5), shows this form of cracking to be much like liquation
cracking and is distributed throughout the weld so that its misclassification
as porosity is understandable.

Fig 5: Defects associated with copper in the

weld.

The second area of copper was only detected by RT as a small transverse

defect; most of the feature was invisible on the radiographs, even on
careful re-interpretation. When it was sectioned it proved to be more
complex than expected and extended along the weld length (>12 mm ).
Only one company detected it as a transverse feature, though two others
also reported a planar element. Generally it was reported as porosity.

Since these defects seemed to tax the interpreters capabilities, an

explanation was sought. The two features were included into a set of other,
real areas of porosity and the list fed back to each AUT contractor. They
were asked if they could distinguish the two areas of copper-related defect
and invited to say what, in the signals, made them think it might be due to
copper. Generally, only one of the two areas was picked out, but three
companies picked out neither area. More experience is clearly needed.
This is important since the significant size (the accept/reject boundary) is
very different for the two types of feature. Misclassifying a planar defect
as volumetric might effectively be the same as missing it altogether, since
it might not be investigated or repaired.
Transverse defects
The transverse slots that were cut across the welds were generally
detectable, but with some notable misses. Each of the internal slots was
eventually detected across the board (one company did so only on a
second attempt). The detection of the external slots was more variable.
About half the AUT companies missed the external slot in the J-prep. weld
but only two missed that in the CRC-type weld.
Each of the contractors set up their equipment with transverse slots in the
calibration coupons but these are made of plane pipe with no weld cap or
root bead. This geometry difference may account to some degree for the
missed defects. A false cap may be worth including with the calibration or
set-up block to reduce timing errors.
The detection of these defects is not covered in standards and an industry
initiative to improve this aspect may be warranted.
Seam weld region defects
The region where the pipes seam welds run into the girth weld is also a
region needing special attention. The ultrasonic properties of the seam
weld material are unknown, so it cannot be assumed that the ultrasonic
beams are appropriately targeted. In practice, any defect that extends into
such an area might need to be further examined, manually, for any
extension that would take it into the reject class. Alternatively, such a
defect could be assessed with an additional length added equal to the width
of the pipe seam weld i.e. assume that the defect extends right across the
seam weld area. This does not appear to be done generally and needs to be
included in specifications. The location of the seam weld is generally
visible on the TOFD trace.

Size measurement
Two size measures of a defect are significant the length along the line of
the weld and the length through the thickness of the wall i.e. its height.
Only the first measure is available from radiography but both can be
estimated from the ultrasonic data.
The length along the weld tends to be longer when measured
ultrasonically. Measuring the through-wall height of a defect by
ultrasonics is conventional, but is prone to errors. This is even truer of
AUT systems, where only amplitude data at a fixed range are available,
though Time Of Flight Diffraction (TOFD) probes are also now used.
TOFD size measures have been proven to be good for buried and deep
defects (Ref.6.) but are limited in accuracy when used on shallow, nearsurface features. Conventional, zone-based sizing can give an error band in
the range from 0-6mm. A comparison of amplitude based AUT size values
with destructive measures (Ref.7.) has shown that these are generally, but
not exclusively, conservative. The defects in this Advantica study have
been analysed in a similar way and have led to a similar conclusion.
Details of this will be included in a future publication.
An improved method, using the special options of phased array data, has
been demonstrated on calibration defects (Ref.8.). An accuracy of better
than 1 mm has been cited but it is unlikely to be as good for real defects.
Neither is it yet a viable method of sizing defects in field operations where
rapid processing is required.
When defect size values are put into ECA assessments a substantial
conservatism becomes apparent. Real defects are rarely of the simple
parabolic shape assumed by the ECA. The sensitivity of AUT may indicate
a long tail either side of a short feature, but it will then be assessed as
having the depth of the short section and the length of the whole
indication, including the tails; it is therefore more likely to fail assessment
and to be repaired, perhaps unnecessarily. The fracture mechanics method
needs to be able to handle complex shaped defects to reduce such overconservatism.
Field experience
Following the positive results of this work the practical aspects of using
AUT have been evaluated during construction of a new pipeline in
Scotland in 2001. For the first 26 km of the line both RT and AUT were
carried out and the results compared. Every indication noted on both

records was entered onto a database, of a substantial size. This allows the
impact of different inspection criteria to be studied. For example, with the
same specification the repair rates using AUT or RT were shown to be
comparable. If an engineering critical assessment (ECA) specification
were to be used, however, the repair rate was shown to drop substantially,
with the potential for significant cost savings.
A similarly low repair rate of 1% was reported (Ref.7.) for the Alliance
pipeline construction, coupled with a very high productivity rate, which
AUT can support. This has also been experience in a recent British Gas
offshore pipe-lay, where even lower repair rates were achieved with an
API1104 based ECA (Ref .9.)
Conclusions
The AUT systems on trial have produced inspection results that compare
well with radiography, with good detection except for isolated pores and
inclusions. Clustered porosity is frequently found, especially larger
clusters. Copper cracking is generally misclassified when it is detected and
so may be left unrepaired. Transverse defects are not detected reliably.
Further work is needed to improve the detection of both copper and
transverse defects. Some variations are apparent in the performance of
different operators and companies and an on-the-job testing of operator
competence has been proposed as this is such a crucial element of the
operation.
References
1. J.A.de Raad, High Speed Ultrasonic Inspection of Field Girth Welds
During Pipeline Construction, Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostende,
Belgium, 1990
2. E.Ginzel & R.Ginzel, B.Gross, M.Hoff, P.Manuel, Developments in
Ultrasonic Inspection for Total Inspection of Pipeline Girth Welds, 8th
Symposium on Pipeline Research, Houston, Texas, August 1993.
3. E.Ginzel, "http://www.ndt.net/article/ginz_pl/ginz_pl.htm">Further
Developments In Ultrasonic Inspection of Pipeline Girth Welds, NDT.net
(http://wwww.ndt.net) - June 1996, Vol.1 No.06.

4. ASTM Standard Practice for Mechanised Ultrasonic Examination of

Girth welds Using Zonal Discrimination with Focused search Units, E1961-98.
5. API Specification 5L. Specification for Line Pipe.
6. J.Bowers, and E. Warren, EMC Ltd., "The Application of Automatic
Ultrasonic (AUT) Inspection For Subsea Pipelines", 24 th Offshore Pipeline
Technology Conference, Amsterdam, Feb.2001.
7. B. Gross, T. Connelly, H. van Dijk and A. G-Scott, "Flaw sizing using
mechanised ultrasonic inspection on pipeline girth welds", - NDT.net- July
2001, Vol.6, No.7.
8. Michael Moles, Pascal Pich and Nol Dub, "Application of Phased
Array Ultrasonics for Girth Welds", Final Report 1999 PRCI Project
Number PR-270-9813.
9. API Standard 1104, Welding of Pipelines and Related Facilities,
Nineteenth Edition, September 1999.