March 2011

RELIABILITY OF ULTRASONIC INSPECTIONS APPLIED IN

LIEU OF RADIOGRAPHY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASME CODE
CASE REQUIREMENTS
For: A Group of Sponsors

Summary
Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing (PAUT) and Time of Flight Diffraction (TOFD) are increasingly being used
in lieu of radiography (RT) due to the introduction of ASME Code Case 2235; Use of Ultrasonic Examination
in Lieu of Radiography Section I; Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2; and Section XII. These documents define
the conditions and limitations that must be satisfied for UT to be used in place of radiography for welds over
12.5mm thick in pressure vessels and boilers. This same code case has subsequently with some
modification been incorporated into the ASME Gas Process Piping Code B31.3, in the form of Code Case
181, which was issued in January 2007. These documents however present only the minimum requirements
which are frequently inadequate for the demands of the task in hand and are also often misinterpreted.
This project aims to produce a Best Practice Guide for the application of PAUT and TOFD in Lieu of RT and
to compare the performance and pass/fail data achieved when applying RT in accordance with ASME
requirements and best practice UT (TOFD and PAUT) according to code case requirements. Through this
we aim to ensure that ultrasonic inspections conducted in accordance with code case requirements are fit for
purpose, to optimise qualification costs, to distinguish between necessary and unnecessary repairs and to
clarify the implications of applying PAUT and TOFD in lieu of RT.

Copyright TWI Ltd 2011

WORLD CENTRE FOR MATERIALS JOINING TECHNOLOGY

PR17981

Background
Radiography (RT) and ultrasonics (UT) are the two generally-used, NDT methods for the detection of
embedded flaws located within the volume of a component. Many codes and standards have
traditionally specified RT rather than UT for the detection of such flaws with this being largely based
upon the fact that RT unlike manual UT provides a permanent record of the inspections conducted.
The two methods have other intrinsic advantages and disadvantages with RT considered inefficient
for the detection of planar flaws which must be preferentially aligned to the radiographic beam whilst
flaw types such as excess root penetration are difficult to detect with UT. Generally however it is
considered that the flaws which RT can detect and sentence but UT cannot are not of structural
concern, whereas many large planar defects which UT can detect and sentence but RT cannot are
safety critical.
The application of computerised data acquisition to UT has allowed the production of hard copies of
the results whilst at the same time providing higher reliability, repeatability and improved inspection
speed. These improvements when added to the pre-existing advantages of UT over RT such as no
radiation hazard, sensitivity to planar flaws and the provision of depth and positioning information
mean that there is now considerable interest in the use of UT in lieu of RT.
This interest has been increased by the introduction of ASME Code Case 2235; Use of Ultrasonic
Examination in Lieu of Radiography Section I; Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2; and Section XII which
define the conditions and limitations that must be satisfied for UT to be used in place of radiography
for welds over 12.5mm thick in pressure vessels and boilers. This same code case has subsequently
with some modification been incorporated into the ASME Gas Process Piping Code B31.3, in the form
of Code Case 181, which was issued in January 2007. In both cases, fracture mechanics based
acceptance criteria may be used in lieu of good workmanship criteria.
These documents, however, present only the minimum requirements which are frequently inadequate
for the demands of the task in hand. The documents are also often misinterpreted with examples of
these being:

The code cases specify that a qualification block should contain a minimum of 3 flaws. This is
often insufficient to represent the weld preparations to be inspected
The documents state that the procedure shall have been demonstrated to perform adequately on
qualification block(s). Pipe to pipe qualification blocks are often used when the actual weld
configurations to be inspected include not just pipe to pipe joints but configurations such as pipe
to elbow, pipe to reducer and pipe to tee.
The number of qualification blocks employed is often either too few or too many leading to either
lower project costs but with high risk or in an excessively onerous qualification process which can
have an adverse effect upon project timescales.
Inspection procedures and qualification failing to address the requirements of the code case or
applicable standards.

Objectives

Benefits

Following completion of the project, sponsors

will be equipped to

To compare the performance and pass/fail

data when applying RT in accordance with
ASME requirements and best practice UT
(TOFD and PAUT) according to code case
requirements.
To produce a Best Practice Guide for the
application of PAUT and TOFD in Lieu of
RT including:
- Qualification strategy.
- Applicability of computer simulation.
- Test piece design - Number and
position of flaws, number of samples.

Copyright TWI Ltd 2011

Ensure
that
ultrasonic
inspections
conducted in accordance with code case
requirements are fit for purpose.
Optimise qualification costs.
Distinguish between necessary and
unnecessary repairs.
Clarification of the implications of applying
PAUT and TOFD in lieu of RT (e.g. costs,
likely repair rates).

Approach
A set of welded specimens with known flaws
will be fabricated with their dimensions,
material, joint preparations and flaws being to
be defined by the Sponsors. It is envisaged
that these specimens will be of pipe to pipe
configuration but the range of specimens could
be extended to include more difficult
configurations for the ultrasonic techniques to
be employed such as pipe to elbow, reducer or
tee should a sufficient number of sponsors be
obtained.
These specimens will be used for both the
qualification of the inspection procedures
generated and subsequently analysing the
capabilities of the techniques and procedures.
A number of these specimens will contain only
3 flaws to comply with minimum code case
requirements.
The following procedures will be produced for
the inspection of the test specimens:

ASME V compliant radiographic

procedures.
PAUT and TOFD procedures (plus
supplementary techniques as appropriate)
compliant with ASME V and best practice
code case requirements.
PAUT and TOFD procedures compliant
with ASME V and minimum code case
requirements.

These procedures will be approved by the

Level 3 qualified NDT Engineers and members
of the sponsor group.
CIVA modelling of the PAUT and TOFD
procedures produced will be conducted to
validate their capabilities. CIVA is a semianalytical simulation tool developed for
parametric study and development of
ultrasonic inspection procedures. As such it is
capable of simulating quite complex inspection
scenarios. It is composed of a suite of
modules which include the computation of the
sound field and its interaction with defects.
This software is widely accepted by industry
and various aspects of its operation have been
validated by TWI.
Radiographic, PAUT and TOFD inspections of
the welded specimens will be conducted using
the procedures generated. Following these
inspections the data collected will be
interpreted by a minimum of three
appropriately qualified inspectors.

Copyright TWI Ltd 2011

Comparison of the results of the inspections

will be made with measurement after
sectioning of actual defects in the specimens.
The result from this testing and sectioning will
be analysed statistically to compare:

The capabilities of RT with PAUT and

TOFD
inspections
conducted
in
accordance with best practice code case
requirements
The capabilities of PAUT and TOFD
inspections conducted in accordance with
best practice code case procedures and
those conducted in accordance with
procedures compliant with the minimum
requirements of the code cases.

The results of the inspections conducted and

the CIVA modelling will also be analysed to
determine the feasibility of a qualification
approach based upon the use of qualification
pieces representing only the worst case
designs supported by CIVA modelling.
The results of the project will be presented to
the Sponsors in a format that will demonstrate
the capabilities of the inspections conducted
and the techniques employed.

Deliverables

TOFD and PAUT procedures approved

and validated against code case
requirements.
A best practice guide for the application of
PAUT and TOFD in accordance with code
case requirements.
A comparison of the performance of code
compliant RT and PAUT and TOFD
performed in accordance with code case
requirements.

Reporting
Progress reports providing details of
experimental procedures and test data will be
issued every six months, prior to Sponsor
Group meetings. At the close of the project, a
final report detailing the work performed and
main results will be presented.

Price and Duration

The estimated duration of the programme is
18 months involving test piece manufacture,
procedure generation, data collection and data
analysis.
The price of the full 18 months programme is

estimated at 240,000, and it is proposed that

six Sponsors each contribute 40,000. This
price includes the design and the manufacture
of the welded specimens. The work will start
with a reduced scope as soon as four
Sponsors are committed to the project.

A WebEx link will be available for those unable

to attend in person
For further information please contact:

Launch Meeting

Technical: Ivan Pinson

Email: ivan.pinson@twi.co.uk

Date: Wednesday 6 April 2011

Administrative: Danielle Wilson

Email:danielle.wilson@twi.co.uk

Time: 13:30 (12:30 Buffet Lunch)

Venue:
TWI Ltd
Granta Park,
Great Abington,
Cambridge,
CB21 6AL

TWI

TWI Ltd, Granta Park, Great Abington, Cambridge CB21 6AL, UK

Tel: +44 (0)1223 899000

Fax: +44 (0)1223 892588