‘MATERIALS & TESTING 05’

Advances with the Time of Flight Diffraction Technique

30th October – 2nd November 2005

The Esplanade Hotel, Fremantle WA

Jan Verkooijen, Alex McLay

The Sonovation Group, Krombaak 13, 4906 CR Ooosterhout, Netherlands

ABSTRACT

The Time of Flight Diffraction Method (TOFD) has now been in regular use in Industry for over 20 years.
This paper will describe some of the advances made in the application of the technique within several types of industry
and demonstrate various applications with attendant technical and financial benefits. In addition comparisons will be
made with the use of TOFD as a replacement to radiography.

Further description of software enhancements for procedure development will be described. The progress made in
accredited training, personnel qualification and standardisation of TOFD will also be detailed.

1 INTRODUCTION detection using conventional ASME V procedures at

the time.
The Time of Flight Diffraction Technique was first
developed at the National NDT Centre Laboratories of To complement this, in the early 90’s the Dutch
the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority in the Society for Quality, Inspection and Non Destructive
early 1970’s. Testing (KINT) and the Dutch Welding Institute (NIL)
carried out a similar exercise with Dutch Industry, on
It was primarily developed to accurately measuring thin walled welds in the range of between 6mm and
flaws in nuclear reactor pressure vessels. However, the 18mm thick. Once again TOFD offered high
PISC Program initiated a large scale round robin Probability of Detection whilst highlighting the
exercise in 1978 when it was used to both detect and advantages of utilising TOFD over conventional
size flaws in welds. It became clear after the exercise radiographic and ultrasonic techniques.
that TOFD was an excellent, fast and reliable means of
weld inspection giving full digital recording. 90,0%
80,0%
Indeed the document stated that “So called ‘special 70,0%
procedures’ that combine standard techniques and 60,0%
advanced techniques for sizing (but often also for 50,0%
detection, e.g. TOFD) obtain nearly perfect results”. 40,0%
POD
1.0
SPECIAL
FCR
PROCEDURES 30,0% Reliability
(EUROPEAN)

MARSHALL COMMITTEE 20,0%

10,0%

ASME 20 OR 10%
0,0%
DAC PROPOSAL)
0.5
(NEW
TOFD PE PE X-ray Gamma Manual
POD
Meander Line ray UT
scan scan

ASME 50%
(INDUSTRIAL)

Figure 2: POD and FCR of NDT methods compared

0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Defect size
The table above shows the findings of the exercise
demonstrating not only POD, but also the False Call
Figure 1: High performance of ‘special procedures’ compared with
the average performance of ASME type procedures
Rate (FCR) which if high also leads to costly
unnecessary repairs. All of the more then 200 flaws
The above graph shows clearly the extremely high were confirmed and sized by destructive examination.
Probability Of Detection (POD) of the “special
procedures” (TOFD), compared to the probability of
 1.1 Method Description

Two ultrasonic transducers are positioned on either

side of the weld. One acts as an emitter of ultrasound, The image build up is in effect a through sectional
the other as a receiver. The longitudinal sound beam view of the weld examined and can be used for
can encounter obstacles on its path, which cause accurate sizing and monitoring of indications.
reflected and diffracted signals (Figure 3).
The occurrence of diffracted signals is largely
independent of the type and orientation of the defect, 0.6
0.4
hence the basis for the excellent detection capability of 0.2

TOFD. -0.2
0

-0.4

-0.6

2.3 2.35 2.4 2.45 2.5 2.55 2.6 2.65 2.7 2.75
-5
x 10

0.5

1.5
50 100 150 200 250 300

Figure 3 Diffraction signals during TOFD inspection.

Analysis of the signals occurring, making use of simple
geometric calculations in combination with the
accurate measurement of time, leads to unrivalled
accuracies that can be achieved in determining the
through wall size and location of the defect, the most
important measures for calculating remaining lifetime
of components (Figure 4).
Tx
Figure 6 Grey scale imaging.
1.2 TOFD Advantages
• Because no ionising radiation is required, the
inspection does not interfere with the production
process. TOFD inspections can therefore take place in
parallel to production work. This allows 24-hour
construction availability if required.
• There is no need for transportation of pipe-spools,
Rx

Inspection Surface

D
vessels or other parts to an X-Ray facility with the
attendant cost savings.
• Thickness variations do not significantly affect the
Indication

T H

Isotropic inspection speed.

Component
• Thicknesses within the range of 6 to 450mm can be
Backwall
examined.
• TOFD examinations are possible to temperatures of
D H

Indication
more than 400ºC
• Partly welded thick sections can be examined at
Signal Time
@ Rx

T
Lateral wave
Figure 4 Principle of position and height determination.
When the probes are moved parallel along the weld
(Figure 5), the resultant waveforms are digitised, stored
on hard disk and displayed on the video-screen as a
grey scale image (Figure 6).
pre-heat temperature to avoid costly root repairs after
Backwall completion of welding
• TOFD data is very accurate and is presented in an
easily understandable format. All data is stored
digitally for future reference and can be made available
to the client in a format compatible to that used in data
bases for future inspection and maintenance
management. Any differences between results after a
period in service and the newly build “fingerprint” can
be easily established. This forms a good basis for Life
Time and Inspection Interval Extension programs
• Insensitivity to defect orientation, together with
encoded positioning leads to improved inspection
sensitivity and accuracy, which results in optimised
reproducibility.

Figure 5 Probe movement along the weld.

1.3 TOFD limitations (perceived and real)

No Non Destructive Testing method in the world

exists, that is capable of finding all defects in all
circumstances. TOFD is no exception, and also has its
limitations:
• Limited inspection capability in near surface zone:
The lateral wave, basically the edge of the ultrasonic
beam, has certain time duration. This time, like all
other signals in TOFD, is representative for a certain
depth. This results in a zone directly underneath the
near surface where the detection and sizing capabilities
are limited, compared to the rest of the material depth.
The depth of the near surface limitation can be
minimised by optimising settings, i.e. high frequency,
large angles, small probe centre separation et cetera.
Furthermore, TOFD should not be regarded as a Figure 7 Modern, one-box solution for multi-channel TOFD/PE.
surface inspection technique, but as a volumetric
inspection technique and should therefore, as in 2 APPLICATIONS
radiography and Pulse Echo inspection, be
complemented with by example Magnetic Particle 2.1 Construction Welding Inspection
Inspection.
• Not established in all codes and standards, and still As mentioned earlier, TOFD can now be used as a
specialised technique requiring highly skilled direct replacement of radiographic methods with all the
personnel. Although this was a valid statement, this attendant advantages, typically for pipe welds over
paper will describe advances made over the last few 100mm diameter and 6mm thick right up to large
years. pressure vessels as shown following.
• Applicable to fine grain material only. Because of
Using TOFD procedures, the above pressure vessel,
the extreme sensitivity of TOFD, grain boundaries are
with a wall thickness of 80mm, containing several
also picked up and imaged. When inspecting Austenitic
hundreds of meters of weld, was fully examined on site
welds, this creates such a grainy image, that real
in a period of 100 hours, without the necessity to
defects may not always be visible. For austenitic base
evacuate the site for radiographic examination. TOFD
material, as well as many Duplex materials, TOFD has
provided a replacement in accordance with the code for
been shown to be suitable.
the fabrication inspection, but at the same time it
• Far surface dead zone. This is a particular example provided the fingerprint, or baseline inspection for later
of not fully understanding the background of the comparison with In Service Inspection results.
physics behind TOFD. As normal Physics and
geometrical constraints apply to TOFD just as with any
other technique, it is relatively easy, with the right
tools and understanding, to calculate the width over
which TOFD is effective at the far surface. Should this
not be adequate, and then this can be overcome by
applying offset scanning.

1.4 Equipment

In the early days, large, bulky complex and expensive

computers were used. Now, with the rapid advances
made in the IT industry, it is possible to utilise
ruggedised laptop systems. These have the advantage
of easy integration with office and reporting systems,
and at the same time have all ultrasonics build into the Figure 8 large pressure vessel, examined to PED with TOFD.
same housing, thus making them easily operationally,
both on site and in the office. 2.2 Intermediate inspections

When utilised with simple hand operated encoded
scanning systems it is now relatively easy to apply in
many types of site situations.
When welding relatively thick materials, and certainly
in high strength applications, repair of weldments are
difficult and costly.
When defects are detected at deep positions in the
weld, e.g. in the root region of a double-V bevelled
weld, or J-preparations with back-gouged weld
preparations at the inner side, subsequent repairs can
be costly and time consuming. In addition when
performing such repairs, deformation of the welded
component beyond allowable limits is a major concern.
This challenge has been accepted and techniques have
been developed using the Time Of Flight Diffraction
method (TOFD) to examine partially filled welds at the
preheat temperature.
The procedure allows for the inspection of welds in
different stages of the welding process. For example,
the following weld was examined with only a root and
hot pass as the first stage inspection, filling from the
back added is the 2nd stage, further filling from the
outside is the 3rd stage and finally the completed weld
is inspected (see example below.)
Figure 9: 1st, 2nd and 3rd stage of weld completion inspection
The main challenges faced to achieve reliable and
accurate inspection under those conditions are
temperature, and of course the fact that there is only a
small proportion of weld material present, whilst the
parent material is much thicker.
TOFD offers the advantage (as in many other
applications) that these challenges can be adequately
overcome.
Amongst projects performed with similar challenges,
where welds were examined at a partially completed
stage, is a large project where a pipeline was laid in
Duplex material and intermediate inspection using
TOFD, was validated and subsequently used on a sub
sea pipeline 11 kilometres long. The aim was to inspect
the root and hot pass of the 12 mm thick weld, and to
detect root defects at a welding station where any
repair was still possible. Detection of a flaw in the root
region would have met costly in the last stage before
laying the line in the sea and would have meant cutting
back several good welds from the pipe to enable
repairs to be carried out at the first welding station.
Another example was inspection of around 800 welds
in heavy wall piping, where the repair rate dropped to
less than 1% after an adequate inspection using high
temperature TOFD at preheat temperature was made
and necessary repairs carried out at the stage with only
the root and hot pass present.
The example depicted in the figure above was an
inspection of a vessel with length of 40 meters,
diameter 4 meters, and a wall thickness of 140 mm and
made of high strength steel. A repair of the root area
after completion of the full weld would almost
certainly have led to a major distortion of the vessel,
apart from a significant delay and additional costs to
the welding company and the owner. Sonovation has
now completed inspection of the first of a series of 3
vessels successfully.
Inspections of welds in a partly finished state, and
certainly at preheat temperature, are not a simple
exercise and require careful preparation. However,
experience has shown us, that this procedure can be
achieved, and once the particular inspection procedure
is validated, advantages, both technical and
economically of delivering a product of a much higher
quality, with less time lost greatly outweighs the initial
effort.
2.3 High temperature In Service Inspection
High temperature, high-pressure components in
industrial plant, such as piping and vessels represent a
large investment. In combination with the other parts
of the plant, the availability of such components during
the economical lifetime and where possible beyond the
design lifetime, is vital. Shutdowns of such plant, and
certainly when unplanned, represent large economical
setbacks to the owner of such plant. When the safe
operation is no longer guaranteed, such equipment
needs to be replaced, which involves long lead-times.
Knowledge of the safe remaining life time is therefore
crucial information for the plant owner and can help
him to optimise the planning of his maintenance and
replacement or upgrade programmes. The ideal
situation for the plant owner would therefore be, to be
able to know at all times what the remaining safe
lifetime of such components is, and being able to
acquire such information on line. Certainly when
damage is suspected to be present already, being able
to achieve the delivery of such information without the
requirement of an unplanned shutdown can safeguard
the owner from large loss of production costs.
Figure 10 In Service Inspection at 420 ºC
Such and exercise was carried out, after careful
preparation and a thorough validation of a TOFD
technique, on a high pressure, high temperature vessel
in a chemical plant. Considering the difficulties
presented by high temperature inspections, the first
challenge lies in maintaining coupling with the
material. An adequate couplant medium is therefore
required that has the required viscosity at the
temperature at which the inspection is to take place, in
this situation at around 400 °C. Other challenges
requiring attention are to maintain the probes and probe
shoes in working order. Special precautions have to be
taken here, such as probe cooling.
Considering physical background of ultrasonic
technique applications, the velocity of sound changes
with temperature, which not only has an influence on
the time of flight of diffracted and reflected signals, but
also on the angles of refraction. In addition, and
usually of greater importance is the fact that the
ultrasonic noise from the material increases. This,
together with increased noise from the coupling
interface and the transducers, probably creates the most
significant obstacle to efficient inspection. Such
conditions are difficult to predict and model.
The challenge described above, led to a thorough
validation of the inspection technique, complemented
with safety procedures to allow the TOFD operators to
work safely under these harsh conditions.
The result of the exercise, was that during a series of
inspections at high temperature, the growth of the
damage in the vessel could be monitored accurately,
which gave the plant owner the time window required
to still safely operate his plant during the time required
to have a new reactor vessel constructed. Significant
other experience in high temperature inspections has
been achieved, using methodology, successfully
validated by several clients in the temperature range up
to over 400 ºC.
In view of these situations, and in order to ensure an
adequate inspection, validation of the inspection is
necessary. In our experience, no two high temperature
inspections are the same; many factors influence the
successful completion of the inspection, a good
preparation and performance demonstration is vital for
success.
2.4 Complex geometries
Figure 11 Typical setup for a nozzle inspection
It is now possible to carry out inspections on certain
complex geometry configurations. TOFD however is
not suitable without modelling software where such
work has been validated with trials.
It is obviously more economical to carry out than pulse
echo automated techniques where complex and
expensive automated scanners are required. “Blind
spots” can be accurately predicted during the procedure
development stage with the software developed, and
can later be addressed with alternative techniques.
There are however certain geometrical restrictions and
we usually work under the formula that the vessel
diameter must be equal or more than 4 times the
diameter of the nozzle.
Figure 12 typical models for a nozzle inspection
The advantage of using TOFD for complex geometry
inspections obviously lies in the relative simplicity of
the approach compared to Automated Pulse Echo
techniques, but also in the accuracy and reproducibility
of the results. Many clients have seen the benefit of
investing in the inspection of nozzles during the
manufacturing stage, offering the benefit of being able
to use this inspection as the baseline for their later life
time extension programmes.
3 RELATIVE TOFD COSTS
The inspection speed of TOFD is extremely high, and
is hardly affected by the weld thickness. Whether a
weld is 6 mm thick or 50 mm does not generally alter
the time spent on one weld, because the weld can still
be examined in one single pass of the probes.
 • As no ionising radiation is used, a saving in
construction time on most projects of several weeks
The manufacturer of piping welds during a project in can be achieved!
1995/1996, calculated that to have each weld inspected • The inspection does not interfere with the
TOFD was actually cheaper than radiography for 25 construction program.
mm wall thickness and over as illustrated in the
following graph, (comparing relative inspection prices • During the prefabrication stage the sometimes very
for welds in piping as a function of wall thickness. large pipe spools can be inspected at the welding
1.0 location without the need for moving them to an X-Ray
Relative price of NDE per weld
(circumferential welds in piping)
facility, saving the manufacturer considerable
transportation cost and providing the manufacturer
with more flexibility in the production planning.
• During site construction, welding can take place
around the clock because there is no necessity to
Radiography
(DWSI) evacuate large areas for the inspection.
• The cost of missing a defect can be significant, for
0.5

example if a missed defect leads to unplanned

shutdown of a plant.
• If a method has a high false call rate, this will
TOFD
inevitably lead to unnecessary repairs. Because of the
proven low false call rate of TOFD these are kept to a
0 minimum.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Wall thickness
[mm] _
• All data is stored for future reference, not only as
Figure 13 Relative prices of RT vs. TOFD for piping welds hard copies, but also in digital form, such that the
source data can be compared to future inspections,
During recent years, due to the better availability of allowing for accurate flaw growth measurements,
TOFD, the ever-increasing speed of computing power which can be used in a Risk Based Inspection planning
and experience being, the price for inspection with approach. Because of the high accuracy of TOFD, this
TOFD has come down. Due to increased emphasis on leads to more accurate predictions of the next
radiation safety, the price of radiography has ever inspection needed, which in many cases results in
increasing direct and indirect costs. longer inspection intervals and extended lifetime.
TOFD
1-POD

1-Prob
ability
Of Detectio
n X-RAY

ll Rate
X-RAY
FCR TO
FD 4 TOFD SCANPLAN SOFTWARE
False Ca

As part of the ongoing development and progress of

Cost of uneccessary
Repair Price of TOFD inspection
the Time of Flight Diffraction Technique, Sonovation
Cost of missing
Cost of unneccessary
Repair realised there was considerable progress to be made,
Defects
Cost of missing both in terms of quality of inspection, as well as
Cost of Defects
Delays &
Production loss
Price of X-Ray inspection savings in preparation time, when using software to
predict coverage, accuracy and optimum positioning of
transducers for different weld geometries. In addition,
the ASME Code Case 2235 requires detailed scan
Cost of Evacuation plans as part of the inspection documentation.
& transport to/from
X-Ray facility Although it is possible to manually produce sketches of
coverage, based upon many basic calculations for any
COST OF X-RAY COST OF TOFD particular geometry, it is cumbersome and prone to
error. Small changes in the geometry often require a
Figure 14 Relative costs of RT vs. TOFD for piping welds
complete re-calculation and new sketch for the altered
geometry, which again is time-consuming.
These factors have pushed the break-even point ever
further down, to probably around 10mm wall
The software was developed initially as an in-house aid
thickness.
for the preparation of Sonovation inspections with
well-proven TOFD methodology and previously
However, a true cost comparison should not only be
validated procedures. Theoretical calculation models
based on the inspection price per weld, but should
were used to produce a user-friendly software routine,
include the following factors to arrive at the inspection
which can be used with the vast majority of TOFD
cost:
inspection configurations encountered during many
years of Sonovation’s inspection experience.
The following points are indicative of how savings can
be made: -
 The software has build in algorithms to propose initial
set-ups in accordance with European and American
specifications, and display the coverage achieved in a
comprehensive manner. The user can alter the set ups
to enhance the coverage for the particular geometry,
which is instantly displayed.
30.0
20.0
10.0
-75.0 -55.0 -35.0 -15.0
0.0
5.0 25.0 45.0
-10.0
-20.0
-30.0
-40.0
-50.0
Figure 15 TOFD setup for vessel shell to head connection weld
The setup details the position of transducers used, their
technical specification such as frequency, diameter and
angle. The actual coverage is then displayed including
locus curves for not only the principal longitudinal
beams, but also for mode converted signals.
Print outs can be easily generated. These serve as the
work instruction for the particular inspection weld
configuration, detailing everything necessary for the
operator to start his inspection.
Further enhancements will be the direct coupling to the
TOFD inspection system software, which will allow
the setup to be used directly by the system, as well as
the display of indications found during inspections in
the weld configuration. Obviously the detail achieved
will depend on the setup chosen, as for the lateral
position more then one scan would be necessary.
5 STANDARDS
To make full use of TOFD as a fabrication inspection
tool, it is necessary to embed TOFD in codes and
standards. The three key elements are:
• A standard to describe the use of TOFD as a
method on welds
• An acceptance standard to evaluate and classify the
findings in order to sentence the weld
• A training, qualification and certification
programme to assure the competence of the operators.
5.1 Method description standards in Europe
Significant has been put into the description of the key
elements for a good inspection with TOFD over the
past years. The first standard that was written
specifically for TOFD was British Standard 7706:
Calibration and setting-up of the ultrasonic time-of-
flight-diffraction (TOFD) technique for the detection,
location and sizing of flaws. This standard contains
information about the method, and key information and
examples on its application. Due to the harmonisation
of standards process in Europe, it was necessary to start
with the process of embedding TOFD in the European
framework of standards. In the first instance, this led to
the development of ENV 583 pt6: Non-Destructive
Testing – Ultrasonic Examination – Part 6: Time-of-
flight diffraction technique as a method for detection
and sizing of discontinuities.
The ENV 583 pt6 has the role of a general standard
65.0
describing the method. However, within the European
framework of standards, a specific standard was
required for the use of TOFD as a fabrication
inspection method for welds. An initiative of the Dutch
and French national normalisation institutes, supported
by the TOFDPROOF project, led to a new standard,
compiled by a CEN TC 121 workgroup consisting of
regular members, complemented by selected experts
from the TOFDPROOF project. In 2003, this resulted
in PrCEN/TS 14751: Welding – Use of time-of-flight
diffraction technique (TOFD) for examination of welds
5.2 Acceptance Criteria standards in Europe
The Dutch society for Quality, Inspection and Non
Destructive Testing (KINT) led a series of projects
during the 1980’s and 90’s, in collaboration supported
by a large part of Dutch industry. One result was the
Thin Plate Project, which provided a large, well-
described database of results of the capabilities of
TOFD compared to conventional methods. A follow up
project, ‘Development of Acceptance Criteria for
TOFD’, led to the acceptance of a national standard,
NEN 1822: Acceptance criteria for the Time Of Flight
Diffraction inspection technique. This standard was
formerly known under the project reference number of
TO 97-50 rev 1. As this is a standard, recognised by
one of the EU member states, this standard can be used
to fulfil the requirements of the Pressurised Equipment
Directive (PED) or the European Union. One drawback
however is, that it only addresses one of the different
quality levels described in the European standards.
Part of the TOFDPROOF project, was the development
of a proposed standard for TOFD acceptance criteria.
This proposal has now been accepted as a work item of
TC 121 and will lead to an official European standard
in the near future.
5.3 EN 473 Qualification and Certification
Although TOFD is probably the most forgiving
ultrasonic method for achieving adequate test results,
reliable and reproducible results can only be assured
when the operators performing the inspections are
competent in the application of the technique and have
the required theoretical background of the capabilities
of the technology.
Building on the many years of experience in training,
qualifying and certifying it’s own staff in accordance
with the requirements of ASNT’s SNT TC-1a,
Sonovation have offered this program as the basis for
an EN 473 based training, qualification and
certification programme. The advantage of bringing it
under EN 473 obviously is the examination by an
independent institute. This program, supported by the
main companies and institutes of the Dutch NDT
industry has now been in successful operation for over
5 years in The Netherlands and Germany, although
participants from many other areas in the world have
been certified in accordance with the scheme already.
A similar program has been initiated in the UK and has
now been in operation for a few years. Bilateral talks
are now underway, to synchronise the programs for
further acceptance and expansion.
5.4 ASME and TOFD
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
supported by users of TOFD in other countries such as
Japan, have allowed the use of TOFD through the
acceptance of Code Case 2235: Case of ASME Boiler
and Pressure vessel code Section I and Section VIII,
Divisions 1 and 2, Use of Ultrasonic examination in
Lieu of Radiography.
Like the European standards, although in less detail,
Code Case 2235: addresses all necessary elements for
the use of TOFD in a structured manner as a
fabrication inspection method. It describes the
requirements for the procedure, the acceptance criteria
and the competency of staff. A drawback of the code
case is, that there is a fair amount of latitude for
interpretation, which can lead to significant differences
between the requirements of different Authorised
Inspectors.
British Standardisation Institute, BS 7706, Guide to
Calibration and setting up of the ultrasonic Time of
Flight (TOFD) Technique for the detection, location
and sizing of flaws 1993
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Code case
2235 Use of Ultrasonic examination in lieu of
radiography, ASME Section VIII, div 1 & 2
CEN TC 138, ENV 583 pt 6 TOFD technique as a
method for defect detection and sizing,2000
KINT, TO 97-50 rev 1 Acceptance Criteria for TOFD
(KINT project), 1997
Dutch Normalisation Institute, NEN 1822 Acceptance
Criteria for TOFD, 2004
J. Verkooijen TOFD used to replace radiography,
Insight Vol. 37 No. 6 June 1995
KINT, Final report KINT project Non Destructive
Testing of Thin Plate (6-15mm), Dr. T. Bouma, Ing.
C.J. Halkes, Drs. W. van Leeuwen and Ir. J.J.M. van
Nisselroij. April 1995
KINT TO 98-54 The development of acceptance
criteria for the TOFD examination technique, Final
report,E. Zeelenberg, U. Stelwagen, N. Trimborn, G.
Liefting, F. Dijkstra, 1998.
CEN TC 121, prCEN/TS 14751 Welding – Use of time-
of-flight diffraction technique (TOFD) for examination
of welds, 2003
J. Verkooijen Developing realistic acceptance criteria
for advanced NDT methods, UNCERT AM conference
Stuttgart, Management of uncertainties in mechanical
testing and inspection, 8 September 2003

6 CONCLUSIONS
The Time of Flight Diffraction technique has now been
extensively trialled and validated by numerous
respected international bodies. Since then it has shown
its versatility for use in other situations where
conventional techniques are either not practicable or
economic.

With the increasing availability of codes and standards

and the establishment of well-founded training,
qualification and certification programmes, TOFD is
now a well-proven tool in the NDT society’s toolbox
of NDT methods.

7 REFERENCES
Dr.G. Engl and E. Borloo, Proceedings of the
International Workshop on the contribution of PISC to
Codes and Standards, in particular to Performance
Demonstration, PISC report No. 29 p40, Joint
Research Centre of the European Communities, 1992
Dr.Martin Wall and Dr. Alan Wedgwood NDT value
for Money, MTQ94 Birmingham, Insight vol 36 No.10
October 1994