ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 83 (2006) 736741

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpvp

The use of radiography for thickness measurement and corrosion

monitoring in pipes
K. Edalati, N. Rastkhah, A. Kermani, M. Seiedi, A. Movafeghi
Department of NDT, Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection Technological Centre, AEOI, P.O. Box 14155-1399, Tehran, Iran
Received 13 October 2004; received in revised form 26 December 2004; accepted 26 July 2006

Abstract
In this study of pipes of 150 mm diameters, thickness ranging from 4.2 to 15.0 mm was determined by using two radiography
techniques: tangential radiography and double wall radiography. It was concluded that thickness losses of 10%, 20% and 50% could be
determined by these methods. Formulae were developed for the double wall radiography method with a high precision of thickness
measurement for non-insulated pipes. The precision was comparable with ultrasonic measurement results. Corrosion type and corrosion
surface could be observed by these methods. Internal or external corrosion produced different effects in tangential radiography.
Insulation removal was not necessary using the radiographic techniques.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Pipe; Radiograph; Optical density; Corrosion; Tangential radiography

1. Introduction
Pipes are widely used for liquid and gas transportation in
the petroleum and chemical industries. Corrosion, erosion,
wear and deposit formation cause reduction of pipe
lifetimes. In-service inspections are carried out to detect
these factors. The ultrasonic test (UT) is a common method
for wall thickness measurement and corrosion inspection in
pipelines. Insulation should be removed for ultrasonic
testing. Surface condition and corrosion type affect UT
measurements. Radiography is another method for thickness loss evaluation. Two techniques can be implemented
in this respect:
The tangential radiography technique (TRT) (shown in
Figs. 1a and 1b) [15]
The double wall radiography technique (DWT) (shown
in Figs. 1c and 1d) [6,7]

Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 21 88005 053; fax: +98 21 88008 376.

E-mail addresses: NDT99@aeoi.org.ir, Edalatik@yahoo.com.au

(K. Edalati).
0308-0161/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpvp.2006.07.010

Recently research has been carried out on digital

radiography, tomography and some automated radiography methods for in-service corrosion evaluation [8,9].
In the tangential method, radiation passes through the
sidewall thickness of the pipe and the area of the
radiograph, which is located below the tangential position,
is interpreted. This method provides some advantages over
common methods for determination of the thickness of the
insulation, pipe and deposit as well as detecting internal
and external corrosion. There are some limitations in TRT
including the need for higher energy and intensity of the
radiation due to long beam pass through the matter in
comparison with DWT.
Thickness loss in DWT is determined by densitometry of
the radiograph, and a larger area of pipe can be
investigated relative to TRT. Defect types are also
detectable using this technique. Measurement errors
increase with this technique when pipes contain insulation,
deposit or are lled with a substance. The radiography
arrangement also affects the density and the results of
measurements in DWT. The other limitation of this
technique is that density measurements refer to both side
of the beam path of the pipe and any indication of

ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Edalati et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 83 (2006) 736741

source
*

source
*

737

source
*

pipe
pipe

pipe
film

film
tangential technique
(a) (D0<203 mm)
source
*

*
pipe

film
r

rad
(d)

film

tangential technique
double wall double
(b) (D0<203 mm)
(c) image technique
*
tmax
1
t
2

= r
D0

1
T = T0
2
x

film

Fig. 2. 150 mm cylindrical step blocks.

double wall single image technique

Fig. 1. TR techniques for corrosion inspection.

thickness loss would be the sum of the thickness reduction

of the pipe wall (top and bottom wall) under the
investigated area.
Only limited investigations have yet been done on the
numerical approach with these methods [1012]. In the
present study, effects of some parameters such as radiography arrangement, source to lm distance, exposure and
beam path thickness as well as build-up factor and linear
atomic absorption coefcient in non-insulated pipes have
been quantied in DWT. For this aim, a theoretical model
has rst been developed, and then this model has been
solved for thickness measuring in pipes. The absolute
thickness value and corrosion depth have been determined
by TRT and DWT and the precision of these techniques is
discussed.
2. Experimental procedure
Two 150 mm cylindrical pipe blocks, as shown in Fig. 2,
were selected and wall thickness reductions of 011 mm
were fabricated on the inside of one block and on the
outside of the other block. The blocks were made from St37 Steel. The specications of the blocks are shown in
Table 1.
Three at bottom holes in each step of each block were
machined with a hole depth of 10%, 20% and 50% of the
step thickness. The diameter of the holes was equal to the
step thickness. A at surface (notch) with 1.5 mm depth on
the outside and along the axes of the inside-machined block
and a groove with 1.5 mm depth inside the outsidemachined block were machined. A gamma projector with
Ir-192 source and MX-125/Pb and AA-400/Pb lms were
used for exposures.
Radiography was done for all steps of the prepared
blocks of different exposures. Variations of radiographic
density with respect to the centre of the lm were studied
both in the direction of the radius with MX-125 lms.

Table 1
Specications of step blocks
(a) Inside machined pipe block

(b) Outside machined pipe block

Step no. Wall

Inner
Outer
Step no. Wall
Outer
Inner
thickness diameter diameter
thickness diameter diameter
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

4.2
5.6
7.1
8.6
10.1
11.5
12.8
14.7

156.3
153.5
150.5
147.5
144.5
141.7
139.1
135.3

164.7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

4.5
6.0
7.5
9.0
10.5
12.0
13.5
15.0

143.5
146.5
149.5
152.5
155.5
158.5
161.5
164.5

134.5

The radiography arrangement is shown in Fig. 1d. Tangential

radiography was also used for remaining thickness measurements (with AA-400 lms and the radiography arrangement
shown in Fig. 1b). Densitometry was carried out by an
X-Rite densitometer with maximum absolute error of 0.02.
Film processing was done manually at a processing
temperature of 21 1C. A standard step optical density tablet
was used for calibration of the dosimeter.
3. Results and discussion
The radiation exposure in Roentgen (I) for a radioactive
source that passes through a material is given by
I I 0 B exp
m tt0 ,

(1)

where m is the atomic absorption coefcient of the material,

t is the thickness of material, I0 is initial intensity, B is
build-up factor and t0 is the exposing time. Measurement
of B is practically difcult. However, the MCNP simulator
can give the numerical values of B. Simulation results for
Ir-192 radiation passing through iron plates, having
different thicknesses, are shown in Fig. 3. Increases of
thickness lead to increased build-up factor, as given by
B expn t.

(2)

ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Edalati et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 83 (2006) 736741

738

the build-up factor is as follows:

12

B cosa expn t,
B =e0.025t

6
4
2
0
0

20

40
60
Thickness, mm

80

100

Fig. 3. The change of build-up factor as a function of penetrated thickness

of plate, simulated by MCNP software.

Here n is a constant value for a dened material and

radiation. Therefore, the variation of radiation exposure
can be given by
I I 0 exp
m
nt t0 I 0 exp
meff t t0 ,

(3)

where meff is called an effective linear atomic absorption

coefcient and it has a lower value than m due to the buildup factor effect [13]. I0 is given by [13]
I0

GA
,
d2

(4)

where G is the radiation exposure in Roentgen per hour per

Curie at 1 m distance to source (g-factor), A is the activity
of the source in Curie and d is the distance in metre. It has
been claimed that the optical density of the radiograph has
a linear relation with radiation exposure in Roentgen. [2].
However, the authors observations show that a power
relation between the optical density and thickness is more
consistent with real data as follows:
D k0 I d ,

(5)

where D is the optical density of the radiograph

(dimensionless) minus fog density (fog is the optical density
of unexposed lm), k and d are constant coefcients
dependant on lm type and radiation source. Ideally, d
should be 1. An equation for density calculation, obtained
by combining Eqs. (3)(5), is as follows:
D k0 G d E d d
2d exp
meff d t,

(7)

where a is radiation angle as shown in Fig. 1 and n is a

constant. Combining Eq. (7) with Eqs. (35) leads to


r
(8)
exp
mp t,
D k E d d
2d cosd
D0

(6)

where E is exposure in Ci.min and d is source to lm

distance. The term meff  d was called a practical linear
atomic attenuation coefcient, mp, dependant on the lm
type, radiation source and the material of the absorber. For
the iron plate, Ir-192 radiation and MX-125 lm,
calculated values of m, n, meff, d and mp by this model are
respectively, 0.076, 0.025, 0.051, 0.85 and 0.043 mm
1.
Eq. (6) has been obtained for plates; however, it can be
used for pipes with some variations. We assume that in
the DWT radiographic arrangement of this investigation

where r is the circumferential distance from the centre of

the lm, D0 is outside diameter of the pipe and k is k0Gd.
Values of k, d and mp may be practically calculated by
regression analysis.
Variations of density in the centre of the radiograph
(r 0) as a function of beam path thickness are shown in
Fig. 4 for different exposures. Increases of beam path
thickness and source to lm distance or decreasing
exposure lead to decreased density. The regression results
show that the change of density in the centre of the
radiograph cosa 1 is given by
D 2450E 0:894 d
1:788 exp
0:0397t,

(9)

where E is in Ci.min, t is in mm (equal to sum of top and

bottom wall thicknesses, T, in r 0) and d is in mm (equal
to outside diameter of pipe, D0, in r 0). Calculated values
of d and mp by this regression analysis are respectively,
0.894 and 0.0397 mm
1, which are in good agreement with
the theoretical model.
The change of position of a certain point along the pipe,
x, and around the pipe, r, (shown in Fig. 1d) will affect the
source to lm distance, the beam path thickness and the
build-up factor. The effects of variation in the value of x
are negligible in the circumferential arrangement when the
width of the lm is 100 mm and less. However, in a
longitudinal lm arrangement, the change of x value
should be considered.

Subject: Pipe
Material: Steel St-37
Source: Ir-192

Film: MX-125
D0= 165 mm

D = 2450.E

0.894

.d

-1.788

12.90 Ci.min
18.75 Ci.min
19.35 Ci.min

-0.0397t

.e

25.00 Ci.min

5.0
Density of radiograph

Build-up factor

10

25.80 Ci.min
31.25 Ci.min

4.0

37.50 Ci.min
38.55 Ci.min

3.0

50.00 Ci.min
51.45 Ci.min

2.0

62.50 Ci.min
64.35 Ci.min

1.0

77.10 Ci.min
0.0
0

10

15

20

25

30

Beam path thickness, mm

Fig. 4. The change of optical density as a function of beam path thickness
in different exposures.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

(a)

200
150
100
50
0
-250 -150

50
-50
r, mm

150

250

Beam path thickness,

mm

Source to film distance,

mm

K. Edalati et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 83 (2006) 736741

(b)

739

100
80
60
T0 = 15 mm
T0 = 10 mm
T0 = 5 mm

40
20
0
-250

-150

-50
50
r, mm

150

250

Fig. 5. The change of: (a) source to lm distance, d, and (b) beam path thickness, t, as functions of r.

Fig. 6. The prole of beam path thickness, T, as a function of r in three

different thicknesses, disregarding r changes and only disregarding cos(a)
changes.

The effect of r can be discussed as following:

The change of source to lm distance, d, and beam path
thickness, t, obtained by elementary geometry, can be
calculated by Eqs. (10) and (11), respectively:


r
d D0 cos
,
(10)
D0

Fig. 7. The prole of thickness, T0, obtained by Eq. (13) with density
measurements as compared with real thickness values for three steps of
block.

s


r
2
t2 .
T D0
D0
2D0 t cos
D0

(11)

The variations of source to lm distance and beam path

thickness as functions of r are shown in Fig. 5. Eq. (11) can
be used for beam path thicknesses up to the tangential

ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Edalati et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 83 (2006) 736741

point of the internal surface of the pipe as shown in Fig. 1d.

Here the beam path thickness is a maximum and is given by

35
R2 = 98% for wall

30

R2 = 97% for holes

25

tmax

20
15
In wall

10

In hole

5
0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

Real thickness values, mm

outside-machined

1.0

hole 10%
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
0

12

15

18

hole 50%
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
0

12

15

0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
0

12

15

0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0

(g)

12

12

15

18

True pipe wall thickness (mm)

15

True pipe wall thickness (mm)

1.0

notch

0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
0

(h)

12

15

18

inside-machined

1.0

hole 20%

0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
3

12

15

18

True pipe wall thickness (mm)

inside-machined
1.0

groove

0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
0

18

True pipe wall thickness (mm)

Mean deviation (mm)

Mean deviation (mm)

hole 50%

(f)

inside-machined
1.0

-1.0

18

True pipe wall thickness (mm)

(e)

-0.5

(d)

inside-machined
hole 10%

1.0

0.0

18

True pipe wall thickness (mm)

(c)

0.5

outside-machined

outside-machined

1.0

(12)

outside-machined
hole 20%

1.0

(b)
Mean deviation (mm)

Mean deviation (mm)

True pipe wall thickness (mm)

(a)

Mean deviation (mm)

Mean deviation (mm)

Mean deviation (mm)

Fig. 8. The comparison between the real and measured beam path
thickness values, T, in the circumferential arrangement (inside machined
block and MX-125 lms).

r
2D0

1.
T
T

The beam should be passed from this thickness in

tangential radiography. So, the required radiation energy
and exposure for this method are higher than that required
in DWT.
The desired lm length is limited by d and t in the double
wall single image method. Due to increasing d and t with
increasing r, an increase in r caused a high geometrical
unsharpness (Ug) and a reduction in the sensitivity of
radiography. According to Fig. 5, the desired lm length is
decreased when the pipe thickness increases.
Mean deviation (mm)

Measured thickness values, mm

740

12

15

True pipe wall thickness (mm)

Fig. 9. The results and the precision of tangential radiography.

18

ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Edalati et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 83 (2006) 736741

For modelling the variation of actual thickness as a

function of optical density, it can initially be assumed that
as r changes, the variations of t and d are approximately
unaffected, meaning that r is negligible and t T and
d D0 in Eq. (8). The measured thicknesses, which are
obtained by this assumption, are shown in Fig. 6. It can be
seen that the calculated results are acceptable.
The error of the measurement increases with simultaneous changes in t and d and disregarding cos(a) in Eq. (8).
This can be seen in Fig. 6.
g-scattering and build-up factor inuence the measured
values. Build-up factor is affected by thickness, atomic
absorption coefcient of the material, radiation energy and
the geometry of the certain point. Therefore, we used the
model described in Eq. (8). Although the origin of the term
cos(a) is unclear, it practically exists in the results. With
this assumption for build-up factor values, the change of
density can be measured as is followed:


0:894
r
D 2450 cos
E 0:894 d
1:788 exp
0:0397t.
D0
(13)
This formula denes a method for the penetrated
thickness calculations. However, these values can be
converted to the sum of the top and bottom wall
thicknesses by using Eq. (11). Because, the top wall
thickness is constant in all positions of a radiograph,
which may be calculated by UT, so the bottom wall
thickness, T0, in each position can be determined. The
results, which are calculated by this method, are shown in
Fig. 7. It is observed that an acceptable relation between
the real and calculated values exists.
Other observations of this study show that all thickness
losses of 10%, 20% and 50% can be detected by this
method in pipes, as shown in Fig. 8. This method has a
precision as high as 9798% for 150 mm pipes. The results
of investigations for the longitudinal arrangement can be
seen in [10].
In TRT, the exposure times were chosen so that the
density at the maximum penetration thickness (tmax in
Fig. 1d) was in the range 1.01.5. In TRT, thickness was
measured on the lm and the real thickness, T0, allowing
for a magnication factor was calculated from [2,3]



D0
0
T0 T0 1

,
(14)
2d
where T 00 is the measured wall thickness on the lm. The
results of tangential radiography are shown in Fig. 9. It is
observed that the maximum error of measurements is
1.0 mm and the maximum standard deviation (6 measurements) is almost 0.5 mm. External or internal corrosion is
also observable with TRT and the images differ from each

741

other. TRT with Ir-192 source cannot be used for pipes

with a diameter greater than 180 mm.
4. Conclusions
Thickness proles of pipes were determined by using
radiograph density measurement (double wall radiography) and tangential radiography. A numerical method was
suggested for measuring the thickness by densitometry. It is
concluded that thickness losses of 10%, 20% and 50% can
be measured by these techniques with a precision as high
than 95%.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the extension of
opportunity and facilities essential to completion of this
project afforded to them by the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA).
References
[1] Burkle WS. Application of tangential radiographic technique for
evaluating pipe system erosion/corrosion. Mater Eval 1989;47(10):
11868.
[2] Zecherpel U. Corrosion and deposit evaluation in large diameter
pipes by radiography. Internal report of the second RCM of the
CRP, IAEA, Istanbul, Turkey, March 2004.
[3] ASNT. Nondestructive testing handbookradiographic testing, vol.
4. USA: American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Inc; 2002.
[4] Krolicki RP. Internal corrosion examination and wall thickness
measurement of pipe by radiographic method. Mater Eval 1997;
35(2):323.
[5] Ekinci S, Bas N, Aksu M, Yildirim A, Binggoldag M, Kurtcebe T, et
al. Corrosion and deposit measurements in pipes by radiographic
technique. Insight 1998;40(9):6025.
[6] Rheinlander J, Christiansen H. Using lm density variations for
determination of pipe thickness variation in gamma-ray radiography.
Insight 1995;37(9):6914.
[7] Kajiwara G. Examination of the X-ray piping diagnostic system
using EGS4 (examination of the lm and iron rust). In: Proceedings
of the second international workshop on EGS, Tsukuba, Japan,
August 2000. p. 199208.
[8] Willems P, Vaessen B, Hueck W, Ewert U. Application of CR for
corrosion and wall thickness measurements. Insight 1999;41(10):
6357.
[9] Marstboom N. Computed radiography for corrosion and wall
thickness measurements. Insight 1999;41(5):3089.
[10] Edalati K, Rastkhah N, Kermani A, Seiedi M, Movafeghi A. Inservice corrosion evaluation in pipelines using gamma radiography
a numerical approach. Insight 2004;46(7):3968.
[11] Lee SS, Lee JK, Kim YH. Study on quantitative thickness evaluation
using lm density variation in lm radiography. Journal of Korean
Society in Non-Destructive Testing 1999;19(5):35662.
[12] Lee SS. Thickness evaluation of pipes using density prole on
radiographs. In: Proceedings of the10th Asia-Pacic conference on
non-destructive testing, Brisbane, Australia, September 2001.
[13] Cember H. Introduction to health physics. Oxford: Pergamon Press;
1983.