Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Prepared by
Visser Consultancy Limited
for the Health and Safety Executive
Dr W (Pim) Visser
Visser Consultancy Limited
3 Valiant Road
Weybridge
Surrey KT13 932
United Kingdom
HSE BOOKS
© Crown copyright 2002
Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to:
Copyright Unit, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office,
St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ
ii
Table of contents
Summary
Glossary of terms
1. Introduction 1
2. Main findings 2
3. Fundamental aspects
3.1 Description of defects 5
3.2 Calibration & sizing 5
3.3 Definitions 5
3.4 Inspection methods 6
3.5 Statistics of POD/POS 9
3.6 Codes and guidance 12
6. Other aspects
6.1 Human factors 23
6.2 Flooded member detection 24
6.3 Acoustic emission 24
6.4 Pipelines 25
6.5 Workmanship 25
6.6 Potential areas for future developments 26
7. References 28
Tables
Table 1 Definitions of terms
Table 2 Overview of acceptance standards
Table 3 Overview of NDT methods and the main NDT projects
Table 4 Flow diagram for defect detection and assessment
Figures
iii
Appendices
Detailed reviews of main projects
Appendix A PISC-II and III
Appendix B Nordtest
Appendix C NIL
Appendix D UCL
Appendix E ICON
Appendix F TIP
Appendix G Flooded member detection
Appendix H Potential areas for future developments
iv
Summary
On behalf of the HSE a review has been made of relevant results on POD (probability
of detection) and POS (probability of sizing) of defects in welded structures. The aim is
to obtain quantitative information on these topics which can subsequently be used in a
probabilistic defect assessment and fitness for purpose (FFP) evaluations in the context
of the Brite Euram project SINTAP, co-ordinated by British Steel.
The main reports of these six projects have been reviewed in detail. The emphasis of
these reviews was on information on POD/POS of surface breaking defects but relevant
information on buried defects has been extracted as well.
This report does not address the issue of how this information can be used, and which
information is still required, to carry out fitness for purpose (FFP) evaluations.
v
Glossary of terms
abbr. explanations
vi
MaTSU Marine Technology Support Unit
MDU mobile display unit
MESD mean error of sizing of depth
MESL mean error of sizing in length
MESZ mean sizing error in z-direction (=depth)
MPI magnetic particle inspection
NDE non-destructive examination
NDT non-destructive testing
NIL Nederlands Instituut voor Lastechniek
NNDT nil ductility transition temperature
OSEL a brand name for MPI equipment
OTN Offshore Technical Note (a type of HSE publication)
PC personal computer
PFM probabilistic fracture mechanics
PISC programme for inspection of steel components
PMP, NL Projectbureau voor onderzoek aan Materialen en
Produktietechnieken
POD probability of detection
POS probability of sizing (length or depth)
PSA probabilistic safety assessment
PSE probabilistic safety evaluation
PSI pre-service inspection
PV pressure vessel
PVRC Pressure Vessel Research Committee
PWR pressurised water reactor
RMS root mean square
ROC response operator characteristic
RRT round robin testing or tests
RT radiographic technique
RTD Röntgen Technische Dienst (Rotterdam)
SAFT synthetic aperture focusing technique
SC solidification cracking
SCC stress corrosion cracking
SE UT technique with emitter and receiver separated in the same
body
SESD/L standard deviation in depth and length
SESZ standard deviation in depth sizing
SINTAP Structural INTegrity Assessment Procedure (for European
Industry)
SMAW submerged manual metal arc welding
SS stainless steel
SZ depth sizing
T thickness
TEL Transportable Environmental Laboratory
TIP Topsides Inspection Project
TOFD time-of-flight diffraction
TWI The Welding Institute
UCL University College London
UCW ultrasonic creeping wave
UMFRAP UMIST developed fracture assessment procedure
vii
UMIST University of Manchester Institute of Science & Technology
UT ultrasonic testing or technique
VTT Technology Research Centre of Finland
viii
1. Introduction
Recently, a large European joint industry project on structural integrity was initiated by
British Steel plc as a Brite-Euram Project, No BE 95-1426. The acronym for the project
is SINTAP, which stands for Structural INTegrity Assessment Procedure for European
industries. The final results of the project will have a bearing on the contents of
Eurocodes on steel structures and as such they are beneficial to the whole European
steel and construction industry.
Task 3 of the project was to do with reliability based defect assessment procedures
which takes account of reliability of data inputs, scatter in material properties and
consequences of failure of a structure and its component members. Part of this sub task
was related to the development of POD (probability of detection) of crack like defects
for various non-destructive inspection techniques (NDT). The focal point on this sub
task was JRC (1).
The purpose of the final results of SINTAP is that these results are suitable for
application both to the offshore and the onshore steel construction industry. As far as
offshore is concerned: the work at UCL (40) , the ICON project (42) and most recently
the TIP project (45), (46), have resulted in recognised findings on POD for a number of
inspection methods. These should be supplemented by the review of data and the
development of PODs for other components more common in onshore welded
fabrication.
Data from existing projects will be used to derive suitable requirements for a European
procedure. For example, the programme for inspection of steel components (PISC) has
generated a large amount of information regarding the effectiveness of different NDE
techniques (25), (26). In the preparation of the SINTAP programme it was therefore
concluded that the PISC results are very suitable to improve and identify suitable
inspection techniques.
Surface and buried defects should be considered. Buried defects have been addressed
by JRC (1), although some findings will also be given here in order to further develop
understanding.
This report is arranged that fundamental issues are addressed first (Section 3) followed
by a summary description of the six projects (Section 4) and their main findings
(Section 5). Finally in Section 6 other aspects, such as human factors, FMD and
workmanship are addressed. The appendices A-F address the six projects in detail and
contain, at the end of each individual appendix, the relevant figures from the main
report. Details on FMD are given in Appendix G and potential areas for future
developments in Appendix H.
-1-
2. Main findings
General
· For the review of POS/POD information six projects have been identified as
providing potential sources of material.
· A ROC diagram, as used in this report, reflects the presentation of an NDE method
using the detection rate of rejectable defects and the false call rate of rejectable
defects as the two axes.
· A ROC diagram is a suitable means of comparing the performance of different NDE
methods, provided the same defect library is used for the comparison.
· Valuable information on the detection of surface breaking and buried defects has
been identified: Nordtest, UCL, ICON and TIP for surface breaking defects and
PISC, Nordtest and NIL for buried defects.
· However, as shown later, the number of POD curves with an acceptable confidence
level is small.
Special issues
· For manual inspection systems it is noted that in many cases the variations in
performance between different operators on a single system are larger than the
variations between the systems.
· Under ICON the large variation in false call rate for the same system under slightly
different conditions was noteworthy.
· In UT the employment of the higher sensitivity of 20% DAC as compared with the
engineering approach of 50% DAC has now been well established. The further
enhancing to 10% DAC has no effect on performance.
· The employment of more than one method, as for example in mechanised UT for
pipeline inspection, significantly enhances performance.
· The POD of small surface breaking defects (i.e. = 1mm deep) is low.
· It has been demonstrated by UCL that the ignoring of interbead cracks does not
affect performance significantly.
· UT is mainly used for the detection of buried defects. Yet UCW is able to detect
surface breaking defects and TOFD methods for the detection of surface breaking
defects < 5.0mm deep is under development.
· The derivation of POD with confidence levels requires a defect database of some
100 defects. Only a few databases: Nordtest, NIL and UCL complied with this
criterion.
· For surface breaking defects both the ACFM and ACPD systems were found to give
acceptable estimates of defect depth.
· For the defect length estimation of surface breaking defects the accuracy is ±20%
(RMS) for MPI and UCW and ±40% (RMS) for ACFM and EC systems.
-2-
· The position and length of buried defects in thin plates are determined with an
accuracy of 10mm and 1.5mm (RMS) respectively.
· In addition to the comments made above the following observations on the six
major projects can be made:
· PISC: the benefit of RRT (round robin testing) and the difficulty in correctly sizing
of buried defects is noted.
· Nordtest: the defect library is particularly large; for MPI a POD>80% is found for
defects > 4 mm deep which is much better than the TIP results using MPI.
· NIL: particularly the thin plate project was useful for POD, sizing and location of
defects; the average POD is ± 50%.
· UCL: a high emphasis was placed on consistency and on the size of the database;
therefore for underwater usage the POD curves established this way have an
acceptable level of confidence.
· ICON: this project is characterised by the many different parameters that have been
investigated; it demonstrated the suitability for underwater use of a large variety of
different NDE methods.
· TIP: except for the poor results on MPI, the electronic imaging through ET is an
advantage over MPI; both ACFM and ET demonstrated the good performance on
coated specimens.
The results of these six projects are summarised in Table 3 and in Figures 1-3.
· The presentation of results in the form of graphs can be found in Figures 1-20.
· Figures 1-3 provide summaries of results for the two categories: surface breaking
defects and buried defects, in two forms: the POD as a function of defect depth and
the ROC diagrams.
· A number of specific observations from these figures are:
• there is a substantial variation of results both between methods and between
individual NDE projects;
• the graphs fully illustrate that there is a fair chance of missing surface breaking
defects at or in excess of 5.0mm in depth; therefore the Nordtest curves are too
optimistic;
• the observation in PISC that variations between teams are as large as between
methods seems to apply to surface breaking defects as well;
• certain discontinuities in the POD curves are caused by the small size of the
database;
• for surface breaking defect the POD curves are primarily presented in terms of
defect depth; an exception is made for MPI for which also the defect length
presentation is given (Figure 1.6).
-3-
On workmanship
Other issues
· Separate sections have been devoted to four specific issues: human effects, FMD,
AE and pipelines.
· The IIW activities on NDE are addressed by IIW Workgroup V, that meets on a
regular basis, and its developments are reported in its annual report (15).
· With the improvement of NDE methods it is justifiable to adjust the codes for defect
acceptance as well.
-4-
3. Fundamental aspects
There are various forms of welding defects and for buried defects the distinction can be
made between volumetric and crack like defects. The former can be porosity and
inclusions that can suitably be detected using a radiographic technique (RT). However,
from a fracture mechanics point of view, crack like defects are more significant.
The following five main classes of defects can be identified: porosity, slag inclusion,
incomplete penetration, lack of fusion and cracks (47).
A main activity for each project is to determine the actual defects. The two options are
destructive testing or the testing by using better equipment and/or a better inspection
environment. Both methods are used.
Examples will show that for buried defect even the best equipment has difficulty in
being precise in the sizing of defects. Hence it is difficult to judge when to reject a
defect and the rejection criterion may therefore be dependent on the inspection
technique.
3.3 Definitions
The following definitions have been developed in the course of the UCL/ICON projects
At the start of the UCL project (40), three principal defect classifications for surface
breaking defects had been identified. These were called Classification A for individual
defects, Classification B (B & B1) for combined defects in a region and Classification
PD6493 for combining closely spaced defects. Diagrams of the first two types of
defects can be found in Figure 4.1 and the PD6493 defect coalescence procedure is
sketched in Figure 4.2.
For buried defects various options are available depending on the size and location of
defects; here only PD6493 (8), and ASME (10), are mentioned.
The characteristic length of a defect is the length of a defect as established in-air with
the best possible method. The length ratio is then defined as the measured length under
water over the characteristic length. In Ref. 40 a method is presented to calculate the
accuracy of the underwater crack lengths as compared with those measured in-air in a
consistent manner for the various underwater inspection methods. The final
conclusions have been captured in Section 5.2.4.
-5-
3.3.3 Spurious indications or false calls
Spurious indications are indications obtained during the inspection which do not
correspond to actual defects.
False calls, on the other hand, are defined as all defects that are repaired even if, in
hindsight, they could have been left unrepaired. The difference between false calls and
spurious results is therefore that a false call is either a spurious indication or a defect
that could have been left in place. In this report spurious indications are in most cases
identified by a percentage: namely the false call rate (FCR).
The term false call rate for rejectable defects is also used; these are false calls where the
inspector has identified that the defect is most likely a rejectable defect; this is reflected
by the term FCRR.
Clearly the number of spurious indications should be kept relatively low. Some
investigator’s claim a relation between the number of spurious indications to achieve a
previously specified level of the POD but this is not confirmed by this report.
Missed defects are those crack indications that are not reported by the inspectors. The
distribution of the missed defects as a function of length and depth is the basis for the
determination of the POD.
Particularly important are the missed rejectable defects. In that case the term FCRR:
false call rate for rejectable defects, can be used. As shown elsewhere, the ROC
diagrams for all defects and for rejectable defects only can be significantly different.
For surface breaking defects it has been found that the inaccuracy in determining the
defect location is dependent on the inaccuracy of the defect length. In this case the
defect location is well established provided clear markers on the structure are used. For
buried defects this is a main problem area and will be further addressed under NIL
results (Section 5.2.3).
In the generation of fatigue defects some interbead cracks can also be formed. For
example, in the UCL library (see Figure 10) there were in total some 19 individual
interbead cracks in the database, of which only 5 were deeper than 1.0mm. As
illustrated in Ref. 40 only one of these interbead cracks could be classified in the B1
category and this defect was 2.0mm deep. Hence for this database, by ignoring
interbead cracks altogether, the average POD would have to be reduced by only 1%.
This observation is of significance for MPI, with which a few interbead cracks were
missed, and for eddy current methods with which interbead cracks cannot be detected.
-6-
3.4 Inspection methods
This section provides brief outlines of the various inspection methods that have been
used in the execution of the projects; they have been put in alphabetic order. For more
detailed descriptions of the methods Reference 2 and 3 could be consulted.
The two advanced visual methods for surface flaw detection in welded structures are
MPI and the dye penetrant (DP) technique.
MPI
Magnetic particle inspection (MPI) has been used in air and under water for many years.
It is the most commonly used NDT method for detecting surface breaking defects in
welds and is easily carried out using equipment that is well proven.
For underwater applications the normal method of producing the magnetic field is by
the use of current carrying coils. The alternative is a magnetic yoke, either using a
permanent magnet or a coil; here the fluorescent particles can be made visible under
water using ultraviolet light. For surface applications ordinary non-fluorescent light is
more common.
Under this heading the following three methods will be discussed: ACPD, ACFM and
eddy current methods.
ACPD
The alternating current potential drop (ACPD) method was developed at UCL as a
method of crack depth measurement (5). Underwater ACPD equipment has been
produced by OSEL and DnV based on similar principles.
-7-
When an alternating electric current flows between two electrodes connected to the
surface of a metal, it will tend to flow in a thin layer close to the surface. This current
must also follow the profile of a surface breaking crack. This will result in a voltage
drop across the crack that can be measured by a suitable probe. The voltage drop is
proportional to the depth of the crack and the current in the test-piece. A comparison of
the voltage drop across a crack and across a similar uncracked (reference) area will
enable an assessment of the crack depth to be made.
ACFM
The alternating current field measurement (ACFM) is a technique developed by
Technical Software Consultants Ltd for underwater use following theoretical studies at
UCL. The method has been derived from the ACPD (alternating current potential drop)
technique (4,5). The surface conduction current, normally introduced into a component
for ACPD, produces a magnetic field in the free space above the metal surface.
ACFM perturbations in a uniform magnetic field can be detected with coils parallel or
perpendicular to the field or perpendicular to the surface. No electrical contact is
required between probe and component, thus making the technique suitable for partially
cleaned and coated components.
When an eddy current inspection probe carrying an alternating current is placed close to
or on the surface of a conductor (such as steel) eddy currents are induced in the
conductor material due to the alternating flux produced by the coil. The induced eddy
currents in turn produce an alternating magnetic flux which opposes the field produced
by the current-carrying coil; this effect is detected as a change in the electrical
impedance of the coil which can be measured electronically. Alternatively, the effect
of the flux produced by the eddy current is detected by monitoring the voltage induced
in a second coil similar to the excitation coil. The magnitude of the eddy current (and
hence of the response of the instruments) will be affected by cracking, surface pitting,
inclusions and micro-structure i.e. all discontinuities.
RT is probably the oldest method for weld inspections. Using a source and a film, a
permanent record of defects in a weld or in parent material is obtained. Primarily
voluminous defects are detected using RT. Special precautions are required to protect
inspectors from radiation hazards. Furthermore, the required strength of the source
depends on the wall thickness.
-8-
on a cathodic ray screen and records any deviations in the material, either through back
wall reflections or from reflections of buried or surface flaws.
UT
Ultrasonic techniques are well known and there are many publications on this subject.
The variations are also large in terms of probe angles frequencies and more recently on
DAC level to be used.
DAC stands for distance amplitude correction that is well explained in Ref. 3.
Historically a 50% DAC level is used but both PISC and Nordtest found substantial
improvement for a 20% DAC level. No further improvement for 10% DAC level has
been found.
UT is a good method to detect crack like defects but it is a disadvantage that for manual
systems no permanent electronic or photographic record is given for retention.
TOFD
The time-of-flight diffraction technique (TOFD) is an ultrasonic technique and relies on
the measurement of signal time differences between known paths and those of defects.
In the past the method was only used for the library crack characterisation but more
recently, through advances in PC computing and new software, it is rapidly extending
its field of application (6).
TOFD is particularly suitable for measuring the depth of a defect in excess of 5mm
although some more recent developments reduce this depth. A permanent record of an
inspected weld can be obtained and as such it is a serious competitor for RT,
particularly for thicker sections.
UCW
The ultrasonic creeping wave (UCW) technique operates by using the refracted
compression wave from an angled beam ultrasonic transducer to obtain a reflection
from a surface crack (7). The creeping wave probes are typically 4 MHz twin crystal
probes and can only be used at short ranges. The compression wave is transmitted just
below the surface of the material under test. For weld inspection it is used to detect
cracks in the weld toe.
Two other methods are addressed in this report, namely acoustic emission and flooded
member detected. These are described in some detail in Section 6.
-9-
· acceptance and rejection of defects.
A suitable method of presentation is the ‘correct rejection rate’ (CRR) versus ‘false call
rate in rejection’ (FCRR) together with the area of good performance determined by:
· good performance: CRR = 80% and FCRR = 20%
3.5.1 POD
POD stand for probability of detection. Yet there is some difference in opinion in the
industry as to which POD to use. In ICON and TIP all defects are accounted for
whereas PISC concentrates mainly on rejectable defects. This latter criterion is
preferred because the missing of rejectable defects provides direct information on
unacceptable workmanship whereas the missing of acceptable defects does not provide
that information. The differences between these two representations can be quite
significant.
Therefore it has been decided that the presentation of results in the ROC diagram is for
rejectable defects when PISC and NIL data are involved, while for ICON and TIP the
norm will be at 1mm deep defects. Otherwise the performance for the 0 - 1mm deep
defects appear to characterise the performance, which is incorrect.
For the POD curves reference is made to the UCL underwater inspection review report
OTN 96 179 (40) and to Nordtest (32). The computerised ICON database allows the
printing of POD curves; however, the format of these prints is not ideal and therefore it
has been decided to use the POD curves given in Ref. 44 instead.
A more crucial element is the number of cracks in the database with which POD curves
can reliably be established: 500 were used in Nordtest, 90 in UCL and in many cases 25
in ICON.
b. On depth or lengths
There is a choice in the ICON database to use either lengths or depths as the governing
criterion. Although lengths are easier to measure it is more important that deep cracks
are found with a high degree of accuracy. Therefore depth will be used primarily as the
governing parameter. TIP (45,46) is very useful in offering pictorial diagrams of all the
major defects.
- 10 -
c. Defect characterisation (B1 or PD6493)
In the ICON database information on surface breaking defects is given either under B1
or PD 6493:1991 (8). The B1 classification reflects the dominant crack in the weld
region which is separated from all other defects by 30°, or by 50 or 100mm, whereas
under PD6493 adjacent cracks are combined if the separation between two indications
is less than the individual lengths of these indications (see Figure 4.2). Since the depth
will be used in most of the comparisons there is apparently little distinction in the
results whichever criterion in adopted.
3.5.2 POS
POS stands for the probability of sizing or the correct sizing of a defect for
acceptance/rejection. Although this term is often used it will reflect, in general, the
accuracy of estimating the size of a defect.
The following information with regards to POS for surface breaking defects will be
used:
On lengths: The results obtained in OTN 96 179 (40) are used for length
comparisons.
On depth: the ACPD calibration curve has been derived in OTN 96 179 (40) using
the information of Ref. 9.
In PISC-III sizing has been addressed as well; the efforts are quite substantial; the
results, as given in Figure 5, are discussed in Section 5.2.
3.5.3 ROC
ROC stands for Response Operator Curve or Characteristics. These parameters are used
when the information from a large number of NDE trials is presented in a diagram with
the following axes:
number of spurious rejectable indications
- horizontal: FCRR =
total number of rejectable defects
number of rejectable defects found
- vertical: CRR =
total number of rejectable defects
The ROC-characteristics provides a single point in the diagram with the above axes. It
provides an excellent means to compare various methods when the same database has
been used. Examples of this presentation are given in various figures. A diagram of
this type will be called a ROC-diagram.
- 11 -
The ROC characteristic does not provide an absolute means for comparison: for
example no information on the database itself is provided. Possible criteria for the
soundness of the database are: distribution of defects and relevance of the defects.
The codes distinguish between inspection for surface defects, using MPI or dye
penetrant, and for buried defects employing radiographic and ultrasonic examination.
Hence electromagnetic methods (EC or ACFM) are not yet incorporated.
From this table it can be concluded that it is important not only to find the defect, to
determine its size but also to characterise the defect. It is here where the inspector’s
expertise is of prime importance. Secondly, it is apparent from this table that crack like
defects are considered unacceptable under almost all conditions.
- 12 -
4. Six major projects
Six major projects have been identified as providing suitable data for this current
exercise. These projects are, approximately in historic order, PISC, NORDTEST, NIL,
UCL, ICON and TIP.
In this chapter these projects will be summarised together with their aims in an
abbreviated form. More complete reviews are given in Appendices A-F. A summary of
the major achievements, particularly those of interest with regards to POS/POD, is
given in Section 5.
PISC-II was set up to examine in more detail which techniques could provide the
desired level of capability in detection and sizing of defects in nuclear pressure vessel
components. The work concentrated on RRT (Round Robin Testing) of four thick
plates of some 250mm thickness, one curved and two with a nozzle. The results of
PISC-II are well reported (25).
Some of the comments in the final report identify certain limitations, such as (a) the
ratio between manual and automated inspection, (b) the difference between ISI (in-
service inspection) and in the tests; and (c) the regular presence of satellite defects. The
results had an important effect on defect acceptance to ASME.
PISC-III (26) is a follow up of PISC-II to confirm the conclusions under more realistic
conditions and to address many other components. Most of the attention focused on
typical nuclear reactor components as highlighted by the major parts of the project:
4.2 Nordtest
The Nordtest NDE programme took place from 1984-1990 in the four Scandinavian
countries (28-33). A detailed review of this set of programmes can be found in
Appendix B.
- 13 -
· NDE reliability (MPI, penetrant, Eddy current, UT, RT and reliability factors)
· Sizing of defects (testing and evaluating techniques)
· NDE data processing
Much information has been developed and various results were presented around 1990
and published as IIW documents (28-31). Other references (32,33) presented the
Nordtest data on surface breaking defects in another format and this information has
also been used.
A high degree of repetition has been chosen for this project as shown in Table 2 for
surface breaking defects. In summary, some 300 defects and about 1000 readings were
used to develop PODs for MPI and dye penetrants in the 1-5mm defect depth range.
The number of Nordtest samples for surface breaking defects is shown in the following
table.
The advantage of Nordtest is that in this way POD results have been obtained with a
better degree of accuracy.
4.3 NIL
NIL is the acronym for Nederlands Instituut voor Lastechniek (Dutch Institute of
Welding). In the field of NDE it appears that NIL acts as a moderator on the Dutch
NDE scene: they provide an organisation and a framework but no expertise in this area.
Useful material in a number of areas has been obtained from NIL. The four report titles
(34-37) on their main JIP projects in the area of NDE can be summarised as follows.
These titles provide a fair reflection on the contents. A detailed review of this set of
programmes can be found in Appendix C. Particularly the thin plate project report (37)
is useful because of the simplicity of some of the configurations and still deviations
from 100% POD were found consistently. More detailed information on the thin-plate
project has been found in Ref. 38.
- 14 -
The size of these projects is reflected in the following numbers. The manual UT
investigation comprised some 700 defects of which approximately 80% were non-
acceptable; 10 inspection teams were employed. Similarly, the thin plate project
comprised 240 defects, inspected using nine methods and three different operators each.
Finally NIL acts also as the secretariat for IIW (International Institute of Welding) and
some information on IIW Workgroup V (15) and on Nordtest was obtained in this way
(Section 4.2).
In the period 1986-1991 UCL (University College London) was heavily involved in
NDE for underwater applications. Therefore this UCL work on underwater inspection
can be considered as an important predecessor to ICON. More specifically, the Non-
Destructive Evaluation (NDE) Centre at UCL has been instrumental in providing data
on the probability of detection and of sizing of fatigue cracks using a variety of
inspection techniques, which are in historic order: magnetic particle detection, eddy
current systems, ultrasonic creeping wave technique and alternating current field
measurement.
The main recent activities of UCL were on underwater inspection (40) and on topsides
inspection (see Section 4.6). A detailed review of this UCL underwater inspection
programme can be found in Appendix D. Besides MPI, the review report (40)
addresses five other methods (ACFM, three eddy current systems and the ultrasonic
creeping wave method). The database, alternatively named the defect library, contained
approximately 90 combined B1 type surface breaking fatigue defects in tubular joints.
The emphasis of the UCL work was on uncoated joints but also some data on coated
nodes have been made available. Much of the ideas on the library of nodal joints and
on crack relevance as used under ICON were developed here.
4.5 ICON
ICON addresses many different aspects on underwater inspection. The main part of the
work was to test some eight NDE methods on four different types of samples, using
both CAT (= computer assisted telemanipulator) and manual systems (see the table on
page E1 of Appendix E for details). The NDE methods were based on MPI, ACFM and
eddy current and the samples were tubular joints, welds between different metals,
(corroded) tee butt welds and coated specimens. For many investigations only a sub-set
- 15 -
of the UCL model library of nodes was used. Hence only in a few cases the number of
datapoints is more than 30.
The final report contains much of the concluding results in the form of graphs of this
project. An ICON database is also provided which supplies a great deal of information
on equipment selection.
4.6 TIP
TIP (Topside Inspection Project) was also executed via UCL (45,46). The components
inspected for TIP were in line with details that can be found in offshore topsides
structural steel, both in the unprotected and the coated condition. A detailed review of
this programme can be found in Appendix F.
· various forms of welded plates with realistic rat holes subject to fatigue
· aluminium sprayed and painted components for testing EM methods
· butt welds and T-butt welds using topsides inspection methods.
The programme results are based on the inspection findings of four methods (MPI,
ACFM and two eddy current systems) and three operators each.
- 16 -
5. Major findings of each project
From the review of the various projects a number of forms of representation for
POD/POS were found. They can be divided into two categories, namely:
· numerical representation
· graphical representation
Both methods will be employed because they can serve different purposes.
Secondly attention should be given to definitions. The most important one is whether
or not all defects of the crack library are considered or only the rejectable defects. The
two sets of terms for the performance diagrams are:
· for the vertical axis:
- POD or CRR - probability of detection or correct rejection rate
· for the horizontal axis:
- FCRD or FCRR - false call rate in detection or false call rate of rejectable
defects
Rather than presenting all the information in a comprehensive fashion, in this section
the principal results obtained in each project will be summarised. The main
observations are based on the figures that can be found at the end of this report
Also it is shown in Figure 5.1 that the results for advanced methods and industry
methods for crack sizing were not too dissimilar.
Furthermore, it is shown that Figure 5.2, with results on all defects, is quite different
from Figure 5.3, containing results on rejectable defects only. These figures have been
derived using 22 teams.
An overall conclusion of PISC III is that, based on ASME, the average detection rate is
60% and the average rejection rate is 70%. This should be compared with the good
performance rejection rate of 80%.
One of the organisations interviewed for this study for the HSE used a simple
expression to characterise performance, namely that a CRR < 50% is poor and >70% is
suspect. This simple expression is clearly confirmed by the findings in Figure 5.2.
- 17 -
Much more comprehensive information on PISC-II and PISC-III findings can be found
in Appendix A.
5.2.2 Nordtest
Figure 7.1 contains the POD curves for RT for the different types of defects; this figure
confirms the well-known conclusions that porosity and slag inclusions are well recorded
using RT, that lack of fusion and cracks are poorly detected, while results on incomplete
penetration are in between.
Also the Nordtest results on common methods such as MPI and dye penetrant testing as
inspection methods for surface breaking flaws should be mentioned here (see Figure
7.2). Note that the MPI method is the method used for onshore applications and that
these POD curves are based on over 300 crack specimens. The three parts illustrate:
· the POD for linear and surface flaws (together and separately)
· the effects of inspectors’ competence (see Section 6.1)
· only for flaws deeper than 4mm can a POD > 80% be expected for both methods.
5.2.3 NIL
Various observations can be made in the NIL project reports (34-37). The conclusions
are supported by Figures 8-9. The conclusions are:
- 18 -
5.2.4 UCL
The emphasis of this UCL work (40) was on the development of reliable POD curves
and the size of the database was an area of prime concern. The tubular joint library,
developed for this purpose, is shown in Figure 10; this library has also been used for
ICON.
Indeed with approximately 100 B1 defects a reasonably accurate POD curve can be
developed. Some examples are given in Figures 11-12.
· it is understood that the UCL database is part of the ICON database
· 90 points are considered adequate.
· the UCL laboratory trials can be put in an ROC diagram; the diagram shows with
one exception a high POD with a substantial variation in false calls.
The POD curves in Figures 11-12 are shown for a variety of methods; all these curves
are based on a set of some 90 datapoints. Therefore it was considered meaningful, in
line with earlier UCL reports, to include the 90% confidence curve as well (see Ref. 40,
Appendix B for details).
The length accuracy was also determined (40). It can be summarised by the following
two statements:
It was also found that the POD using ACFM and the Harwell eddy current system on
coated nodes, with a 1-2mm epoxy coating, was quite similar to the POD using these
methods on uncoated nodes. This observation is based on a sample of 20 joints with
defects ranging from 2-9mm in depth.
The overall conclusion was that, with one exception, MPI, EC, ACFM and UCW can
all be used for weld toe crack detection underwater. The exception demonstrates the
value of an inspection performance trial. This is confirmed by the performance shown
in Figure 13.
5.2.5 ICON
ICON was a large project with variations in many parameters; some 32 different
systems have been evaluated. Some of the major findings are given in Figures 14-16
from which the following conclusions can be drawn:
· the various MPI trials show a high POD but a large variety in false calls (Figure 14)
· the non-MPI systems have a performance close to the MPI results in terms of ROC
· the trials at sea show a large variety of false calls; no trend has been observed.
· these results are confirmed by the diagrams taken from Ref. 44 (see Figure 15)
· Figure 16 proves the validity of ACPD and ACFM for crack depth determination
- 19 -
Also the following observation can be made: whenever trials were done at different
locations the variation in POD is small but the variation in FCR is large.
In quite a number of cases the POD for defects deeper than 1mm is close to 100%
(Figure 14). In that case little additional information is provided by the POD curve as
determined in Figure 15. Finally, ICON was not always able to comply with the sound
UCL rule of having a large number of cracks for establishing POD curves. For
example, in some of the cases in Figure 15 the POD curves have been established while
the number of defects >1mm deep was no more than 15.
The following three overall conclusions can be found in the final report (42):
· CAT deployed techniques using precise tracking (single sensor) for tubulars
(450mm max diameter) and 'pick and place' (array) for plates have been assessed
and been shown to be practicable for use offshore deployed from an ROV.
· For manual (diver) crack detection it has been possible to show that seven systems
are suitable for of tubulars. These are, in alphabetical order, ACFM, Cx EC, Lizard
EC, MPI (Coil), MPI(Yoke), UCW. The ACFM array had successful laboratory
trials but no results were obtained in sea trials due to accidental damage to the
equipment.
· For manual (diver) crack detection on tubulars, tee butts, metal difference, corroded
tee butts and coated tubulars ACFM, Cx EC and Lizard EC gave good crack
detection performance. The systems also had a low false call rate although
considerable variation in operators was observed.
It is also noted that the information on ROC diagrams in Ref. 42 is based on all defects
rather than on defects of a depth >1mm. The consequence of this is that the information
in the range of 0-1mm defect depth has a substantial detrimental effect on the POD of
most methods. Therefore the ROC diagrams in this report have been adjusted for that
effect.
5.2.6 TIP
The topsides inspection project (TIP) addressed a number of different aspects. Some of
the results are illustrated by the ROC diagrams Figure 17 and 18 developed from the
data in Ref. 45 and 46. In addition, the TIP database was used to develop POD curves
for the defects in the butt and T-butt welds; the results are given in Figure 19. The
performance diagrams are particularly useful for direct comparison but in some cases
unexpected results require an explanation. The following conclusions have been
derived:
· the poor performance on MPI for the ICON specimens seems to be the result of the
land-based technique together with the distribution of defects in the library
· the EC and ACFM systems performed well for all specimens but there is large
variation in false calls
- 20 -
· EC and ACFM confirmed the good performance for crack detection in coated
specimens.
In Section 3 the various inspection methods and in Section 4 the main programmes in
the field of NDT for POD/POS have been discussed. In this Section 5 the principal
findings of these programmes are given.
The findings of the NDE methods in the six major NDE programmes are also
summarised in Table 3. In correspondence with Section 3.4 the NDE methods have
been divided into methods for surface defect inspection (MPI and DP), methods based
on electromagnetic principles (ACPD, ACFM and eddy current methods), radiography
(RT) and ultrasonic techniques (UT, TOFD and UCW).
The emphasis in Table 3 is on POD (probability of detection) and FCR (false call rate).
These findings have been adjusted, as in the associated figures, for insignificant defects.
Secondly an effort is made to highlight the level of the average POD and FCR with
regards to good performance, as defined by an average POD = 80% and an FCR = 20%.
Also, when data are available in a suitable format, the defect size corresponding with a
POD of 80% is given as well.
In the process of evaluating the various projects it was noted that there are some marked
differences in the description and performance with regards to surface flaws and buried
defects. The following is only a short-list of these differences:
- 21 -
· the sizing of buried defects, also of volumetric defects, is critical.
During the review of the various projects, statements were found which are worthwhile
retaining for future reference:
- 22 -
6. Other aspects
Human factors are a recognised aspect for all manual inspection methods: but even
mechanised UT systems require interpretation and thus also here operator performance
should be regularly checked.
In each of the projects the effects of human factors is addressed albeit in a variety of
ways. The following procedures were considered.
The above comments are for UT inspection but, most likely, they apply to other
inspection systems as well.
At AEA progress is being made to develop computer models of the inspection process.
For example, human reliability models (16) can be used to correct predicted POD
values for human error using well reported POD studies, such as Nordtest. Also the
computer and its screen can be used for the development of training tools.
- 23 -
6.2 Flooded member detection
Flooded member detection (FMD) is a technique finding rapid introduction with many
North Sea offshore operators of steel offshore platforms. Much information has been
obtained from an FMD conference in Aberdeen early 1997; details of this conference
can be found in Appendix G.
The method employs a yoke with a transmitter and a receiver on either side of a tubular.
The received signal is compared with the calculated signal for an empty and a water-
filled tubular of the same diameter and wall thickness.
This FMD method in terms of POD (detection of (partial) flooding) was investigated as
one of the topics in ICON: both UT and RT techniques have been addressed. RT is
used in combination with an ROV because of potential radiation hazard whereas UT
can be used manually.
For UT the following results can be found (42): only when a tubular was for less than
50% filled with water the POD was 70%. For higher levels of water, using a sample of
approximately 10 tests under simplified laboratory conditions, the POD was 100%
although with some variation in the detected water level (See Table H1 for details).
For RT the POD was invariably 100% and also the actual level of the water in the
tubular was found. However, because of the ROV a locally complex geometry may
prohibit the use of the RT method.
The main problem area with FMD is that not all through thickness cracks lead to water
filling of a tubular: the tube can already be filled with water or the pressure is too low to
cause the water to flow. Yet through thickness defects have been found which could
have been missed with other methods.
Acoustic emission (AE) is a well-known phenomenon through which crack growth can
be measured (3,17). However, in the field of crack detection and sizing of cracks the
methods based on AE are of an ad-hoc nature only.
The first phenomenon that should be kept in mind is that in order to generate EA at a
measurable level the crack growth rate has to exceed a minimum crack growth rate.
A very special application was found in NIL (34) where AE was used during welding to
check that proper weld defects were generated.
In summary AE can primarily be used for monitoring a known crack or defect but it is
not suitable for defect detection after fabrication of a component. Therefore it is not
surprising that no information with regards to POD has been found.
- 24 -
6.4 Pipelines
Not only in the fabrication of offshore structures and pressure vessels but also in the
construction of onshore and offshore pipelines there is a high emphasis on inspection.
Historically, RT was used exclusively because of its known record and because a hard-
copy proof of the inspection findings is obtained for future reference.
With the development of stronger, PC based inspection techniques, such as TOFD (18),
the emphasis is gradually changing towards these UT based, mechanised inspection
systems (19). The advantages of a pipeline are that a pipeline is a simple structure and
that there is a high degree of repetition, making it worthwhile to develop ad-hoc tools
and use duplicate systems. In that case the improvement in defect detection as reflected
in the equation in Section 5.4 applies.
The problem with providing POD for mechanised UT is that no data on POD and FCR
are available in the public domain. Secondly there are rapid developments making it
necessary to go for an ad-hoc approval of the mechanised inspection system.
Mechanised UT was part of the last NIL project (See Figures 8.2-9.3) from which it can
be concluded that the POD and FCR of rejectable defects are favourable for a
mechanised system but that the characterisation (planar or non-planar) is lower than
with other methods. On the other hand pipeline project results (21) on root defect
evaluation using UT are worth mentioning.
6.5 Workmanship
In a number of publications and discussions the term ‘workmanship’ is used. This term
is quite helpful in understanding and justifying the classical approach to the structural
design of highly stressed structures. For example, in one of the NIL reports the
statement was found: inspection is not only to find defects but, more importantly, to
signal deviations from workmanship levels.
In short the term ‘good workmanship’ can be used whenever inspection is carried out
and the defect distribution as found using this inspection is in accordance with the code,
e.g. ASME. It is well recognised that the POD for rejectable defects is well below
100% and hence even though the structure complies with the code, because of the
inspection results, it does not comply in theory.
Secondly, a strength analysis code is used to design the structure under consideration.
Application of the code is subject to the condition that the structure will be
manufactured using ‘good workmanship’, again without precisely defining what is
implied by such an assumption.
- 25 -
The two components, design and fabrication/inspection, are brought together in the
pressure test and the operation of the structure and these two parts: the test and the
operation, provide the proof that ‘good workmanship’ is acceptable in practice.
With new methods more defects are found, i.e. the POD is significantly higher. Yet,
from a ‘good workmanship’ point of view, this extra may not be necessary. Therefore it
could be justified that, for methods with a high POD and good defect sizing, the defect
reject criterion could be somewhat relaxed. It is in this field that advanced defect
assessment procedures should assist in the future.
The following eight potential areas for future developments have been identified (see
Appendix H for supporting information):
The topic addressed under items 7-8 of full scale testing and re-assessment of older
structures falls outside the scope of the present study. However, it seems to be the only
rational basis to ensure that a higher performance in inspection is cost effective and fit-
for-purpose.
The full scale testing of specimens with known defects has been applied before; for
example, in Ref. 22, tubular joints with fatigue cracks were tested to destruction. It has
- 26 -
been demonstrated in these tests that for good quality steel the detrimental effect of
defects can be calculated by considering the net effective area only. Hence the effect of
small defects on the ultimate capacity of tubular joints is small.
Secondly, in the NIL project it was mentioned that it is very well possible to weld
structures with pre-determined welding defects. Also JRC-Petten is able to fabricate
surface defects of known shape through spark-erosion. Ref. 23 addresses this topic of
full scale testing of pipeline structures and the consequences of given Charpy and
CTOD values. A similar, more general approach is proposed in Ref. 24.
- 27 -
7. References
General
- 28 -
21. AGA-PRCI, Evaluation of ultrasonic inspection techniques for the root
region of girth welds, Report for project AGA PR-220-9123, AGA-PRCI, 1996
(Purchase price US$ 500).
22. Stacey, A., Sharp, J.V. and Nichols, N.W., Static strength assessment of
cracked tubular joints, Proc. 15th OMAE Conf., Vol.3, p.211, 1996.
23. Denys, R.M., Strength and toughness requirements for girth welds in
overloaded pipelines, Proc. Pipeline Technology, Vol. II, Ed. R. Denys, Elsevier,
p.513-521, 1995.
24. Visser W., Potential contradictions in the fracture assessment of steel
tubular joints, OMAE-1998 (to be published).
25. PISC-II: Nichols, R.W. and Crutzen, S., Ultrasonic inspection of heavy
section steel components, The PISC II final report, Elsevier Applied Science,
Barking UK, ISBN 1-85166-155-7, 1988.
26. PISC-III: Lessons learned from PISC-III, Report No EUR 16366 EN,
Draft, 1/2/96.
27. PISC-III: Evaluation of the sizing results of 12 flaws of the full scale
vessel installation, PISC III report No 26 - Action 2 - Phase 1, JRC report No
EUR 15371 EN, 1993.
Appendix B Nordtest
28. Førli, O., Development and optimisation of NDT for practical use -
Nordtest NDT programme - project presentation, 5e Nordiska NDT Symposiet
Esbo, Finland, IIW Report Number IIW-V-967-91, 1990.
29. Førli, O., Development and optimisation of NDT for practical use -
Optimal NDT efforts and use of NDT results, 5e Nordiska NDT Symposiet
Esbo, Finland, IIW Report Number IIW-V-968-91, 1990.
30. Førli, O., Development and optimisation of NDT for practical use -
Reliability of radiography and ultrasonic testing, 5e Nordiska NDT Symposiet
Esbo, Finland, IIW Report Number IIW-V-969-91, 1990.
31. Kauppinen, P. and Sillanpää, J., Reliability of magnetic particle and
liquid penetrant inspection, IIW Report Number IIW-V-970-91, 1990.
32. Kauppinen, P. and Sillanpää, J., Reliability of surface inspection
techniques for pressurised components, SMIRT 11 Transactions Vol.G No
G15/5, Tokyo, August 1991.
33. Kauppinen, P. and Sillanpää, J., Reliability of surface inspection
techniques, Proc. 12th World Conf. on Non-Destructive Testing, Elsevier Publ.
Amsterdam, 1989SMIRT 11 Transactions Vol.G No G15/5, Tokyo, August
1991.
Appendix C NIL
- 29 -
36. NIL, Advanced flaw size measurement in practice, NIL report GF 91-04,
1991 (in Dutch).
37. NIL, Non destructive testing of thin plates, NIL report NDP 93-40, 1995.
38. NIL, NDT of thin plates - evaluation of results, NIL report NDP 93-38
Rev.1, 1995 (in Dutch).
39. NIL, NDT-Regulations, NIL Report NDP 95-85, 1995.
Appendix D UCL
40. Visser, W., Dover, W.L. & Rudlin, J.R., Review of UCL underwater
inspection trials, HSE OTN 96 179, 1996.
Appendix E ICON
Appendix F TIP
45. Rudlin, J. and Austin, J., Topside inspection project: Phase I Final
report; Offshore Technology Report OTN 96 169 Nov. 1996
46. Rudlin, J. , Myers, P. and Etube, L., Topside inspection project: Phase II
Final report; Offshore Technology Report OTN 96 169 Nov. 1996
Additional reference
- 30 -
Tables
In PISC-II (25) a number of definitions on POD related quantities are introduced, as summarised below:
n
1. Defect detection probability (DDP): DDP = N
n = the number of teams detecting a particular defect
N = the number of teams inspecting a particular zone or nozzle with the defect
d
2. Defect detection frequency for all flaws (DDF): DDF =
D
d = the number of defects detected
D = the total number of intended defects
This quantity reflects the success of individual teams or procedures on a set of defects.
dR
3. Defect detection frequency for rejectable defects (DDFR): DDFR =
R
dR = the number of rejectable defects detected
R = the total population of rejectable defects
dT
4. Defect detection frequency for the total number of defects (DDFT): DDFT =
T
dT = the total number of defects detected
T = the total number of all (intended and unintended) defects > 3mm in height
r
5. Correct rejection probability (CRP): CRP =
N
r = the number of teams detecting a defect and correctly sizing it for rejection
N = the number of teams inspecting a particular zone or nozzle with the
rejectable defect
a
6. Correct acceptance probability (CAP): CAP =
N
a = the number of teams failing to detect or detecting a defect and correctly
sizing it for acceptance
N = the number of teams inspecting a particular zone or nozzle with the
acceptable defect
dF
7. Correct rejection frequency (CRF): CRF =
R
dF = the number of defects in a group correctly rejected by a team
R = the total number of rejectable defects in the group
This quantity reflects the success of individual teams or procedures on a set of defects.
dA
8. Correct acceptance frequency (CAF): CAF =
A
dA = the number of defects in a group correctly accepted by a team
A = the total number of acceptable defects in the group
This quantity reflects the success of individual teams or procedures on a set of defects.
NORSOK DnV-primary DnV-special Stoomwezen (NL) EEMUA-158 BS5500 ASME Sect. VIII
Standard M101 (1997) Rules mobile units (1996) Rules mobile units (1996) T0111, T0117 (1985,1994) (Rev. 1995) (1995) (1995)
MPI/DP surface flaws not acceptable not accepted not accepted free of relevant linear free of relevant linear
indications indications
RT isolated porosity t/4 and 6mm t/5 and 4mm t/4 and 6mm long: length: t/3 and 20mm long: length: t/3 and 20mm t/4 and ˜4mm t/3 and 6mm
round: t/4 round: t/4 and 4mm
cluster porosity 3mm 2mm 3mm 4mm t and 12.5mm 2% of as isolated pores t/4 and 5mm
scattered porosity 20mm 20mm 25mm t/3 and 20mm 2% of as isolated pores special graphs
slag inclusion width: t/4 and 6mm width: t/5 and 4mm width: t/4 and 6mm long: length: t/3 and 20mm long: length: t/3 and 20mm main butt: t/10 and 4mm see porosity
length: 2t and 50mm length: 2t length: 2t round: diam. < t/4 round: d < t/4 and 4mm other welds: t/4 and 4mm
incomplete penetration length: t and 25mm not acceptable for full t and 25mm -- not acceptable any size not permitted not permitted
penetration welds
lack of fusion length: t and 25mm not acceptable not acceptable -- not acceptable any size not permitted not permitted
cracks not acceptable not acceptable not acceptable -- not acceptable any size not permitted not permitted
lack of fusion or at >100%: t and 25mm depending on depending on flat imperfections are at >100%: unacceptable long.: at 50-100%: unacceptable regardless
incomplete penetration at 50-100%: 2t and 50mm characterisation: see cracks characterisation: see cracks acceptable in no case at all at 50-100%: t/3 and 20mm if h = 3 then l = 5mm of length
(original text) long.: at 20-50%:
if h < 3 then l < t/2
cracks unacceptable regardless of not acceptable at 20% of not acceptable at 20% of unacceptable any size not acceptable, regardless trans.: at 20-50%: if h < 3 unacceptable regardless
size and amplitude ref. level ref. level of amplitude then l < t/3 and 20mm of length
Notes - ‘a and b’ implies ‘not exceeding a and not exceeding - within 6mm of surface is considered a surface flaw - ‘long’ stands for longitudinal planar defect
b’ - ‘at >100%’ implies ‘exceeding the reference curve’ - ‘perp’ stands for perpendicular planar defect
- the table is limited to thicknesses t > 20mm - ‘at 50-100%’ (or at 20-50%) implies between 50% and - ‘round’ stands for rounded defects
- for NORSOK UT: type of defect to be decided by 100% (or between 20% and 50%) of the ref. curve
supplementary NDT
Table 3 Overview of the main NDT methods and the main NDT projects for flaw detection
PISC-III (Fig. 2) Nordtest (Fig. 3-4) NIL (Fig. 5-6) UCL (Fig.8-10) ICON (Fig. 11-12) TIP (Fig. 14-15)
-- An extensive comparison between -- MPI is used as the prime tool for MPI showed good results for POD The MPI results on topsides
MPI
DP and MPI was carried out. crack length determination. on tubular joints with a large components depended strongly on
(magnetic variation in FCR. the type of components and the crack
For round surface flaws (welding MPI was one of the best methods for
particle library. Results of POD of 80%,
defects) DP was better but for linear underwater crack detection. On the other hand, for metal
inspection) 60% and 30% have been reported.
surface flaws (fatigue) MPI is The POD for 2mm deep defects was difference butt welds the POD was
preferred. 80% with an FCR of 50%. well below 50% up to defects of MPI can only be applied to bare
5mm depth. metal components.
-- Both for MPI and DP an average -- -- -- DP (dye penetrant) was used on
DP
POD of 80% for 2-3 mm deep aluminium sprayed TIP samples with
(dye defects was found. (fatigue) defects > 1mm deep. The
penetrant) overall POD was ± 60%.
ACPD -- -- -- ACPD is used extensively for depth ACPD is well established for depth ACPD with MPI were used for crack
(alternating assessment of known defects. The assessment of known defects in characterisation.
current calibration shows a 10% accuracy in offshore applications (see ACPD
potential depth (see Figure 13). under UCL).
drop) ACPD with MPI were used for crack
characterisation.
ACFM -- -- -- ACFM results on the UCL samples The favourable performance of ACFM depth accuracy is comparable
(alternating was favourable: all surface defects ACFM was confirmed under ICON, to ACPD. The POD and missed
current field = 5mm were detected. particularly for the trials at sea. defects were close to the 80%/20%
measurement) The POD for 2mm deep defects was For one of the series of ICON tests target area in the ROC diagram.
80% with an FCR of 15%. the FCR for ACFM was high.
-- Although the scope of the project -- A variety of EC systems have been Under ICON the EC systems had The EC systems performed well both
EC
contained EC methods as well no tested. Most were in a development been improved although there was on bare metal and coated specimens.
(eddy current results in the reports reviewed for stage and therefore the results were still quite some variation in the There was, however, substantial
systems) this project revealed any data on EC quite varied with a POD of 80% for performance of the various systems variation in the FCR for some of the
methods. 3-5mm deep defects. systems.
The poor POD of UT in past PISC Nordtest confirmed other UT This project confirmed the high UT was not part of the projects -- --
UT
projects led to adaptation of a new findings: (a) the benefit of 20% DAC variability of POD and false calls. which concentrated on surface flaws.
(ultrasonic inspection strategy in ASME. and (b) a 80%m POD for 3mm deep A POD/FCR of 50%/50%
testing) planar defects.
UT was the main method for defect performance was obtained rather
sizing in thick-walled components. than the 80%/20% target.
TOFD was used in combination with -- TOFD was applied extensively for TOFD was used as a calibration -- --
TOFD
other methods to arrive at the sizing the NIL thin plate project. method for depth characterisation.
(time of flight of known defects. The accuracy was similar to that for
The performance was similar to other
diffraction) ACPD and could only be used for
UT methods: with POD/FCR ratios
of 50%/30% and 80%/50%. deeper defects (>5mm).
-- -- -- A limited number of tests were Under ICON UCW came out The results on UCW on coated
UCW
carried out. UCW had some reasonably well in the laboratory specimens in TIP was quite varied.
(ultrasonic difficulty in detecting deep defects trials with a high overall POD and a Very poor results were noted for
creeping under geometrically difficult FCR of 40%. complex geometries and good results
wave) locations. for butt and T-butt specimens.
DESIGN Design
CODES Codes
assume good
workmanship
ignore defects
assume good
material
structure
WELDING welding
AND optimise
INSPECTION welding to
defects
welding
procedure
NDT
optimise
inspection to welder
reduce qualification
missing of
accept go for further
inspected analysis
inspection
histogram of
procedure
defects
qualification
missed
rejectable
inspector histogram of
qualification rejectable
determine the
size of
defects for
DEFECT Defect
ASSESSMENT assessment
determine
material
property
check
acceptance of
solutions if
unacceptable
try more
accept/reject modify
advanced
structure structure
methods
100%
80% Nordtest
60% UCL
ICON-tub
40% ICON-other
20% TIP
MPI
0%
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
defect depth (mm)
100%
80%
60% UCL
ICON-tub
40% ICON-other
20% TIP
0% ACFM
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
defect depth (mm)
100%
80% UCL (1)
60% UCL (3)
ICON-tub
40%
ICON-other
20% TIP
eddy current
0%
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
defect depth (mm)
80%
Nordtest (MPI)
60% Nordtest (DP)
40%
20%
dye penetrant
0%
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
defect depth (mm)
100%
80%
60% ICON
UCL
40%
20%
UCW
0%
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
defect depth (mm)
100%
80%
60% TIP
UCL
40% ICON-tub
ICON-T/butt
20%
0%
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
defect length (mm)
100%
UCL
80%
ICON-tub
60% ICON-other
TIP
40% TIP-other
good perf.
20%
ACFM
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
FCR (= false call rate)
Figure 2.2 ACFM POD versus FCR
100%
80% UCL
ICON-tub
60% ICON-other
TIP
40% TIP-other
good perf.
20%
eddy current
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
FCR (= false call rate)
40%
100%
80%
U20
60% R4-cracks
R4-vol
40% PISC
20%
0%
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
defect depth (mm)
100%
TOFD-mean
80% manual UT
radiography
60% gammagraphy
PISC-UT
40% good perf.
20%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
FCRR (= false call rate in rejection)
d
a b c
Classification e
d
cracked region
cracked region for crack b for crack e
30°
Classification b e
cracked region
cracked region for crack b for crack e
a1 a2
coplanar surface
flaws 2 c1 s 2 c2
2c
effective a = a2 2 c = 2 c1 + 2 c2 + s
dimensions
after interaction
80%
8 methods
60% good perf.
40%
POD
20%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
FCR (false call rate)
100%
80%
8 methods
60% good perf.
40%
20%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
FCRR (false call rate in rejection)
Figure 6.3 POD versus defect height for planar weld defects using UT and RT
(Nordtest)
(a) MPI (MT) and liquid-penetrant (PT) (b) MPI(MT) and liquid-penetrant (PT)
testing of linear and round surface flaws testing of linear surface flaws only
100%
80% Rotoscan
Rotomap
60% TiPE (pulse echo)
Man-UT
40% Radiography
Gamma
20% good perf.
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
correct planar classification
Figure 8.2 NIL: classification performance 6-12mm
100%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
FCRR (false call rate in rejection)
100%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
FCRR (false call rate in rejection)
100
90
80
70
60
50
POD
40
30 POD (rev.)
20
95% conf.
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
crack depth (mm)
Figure 11.2 Eddy current inspection:(tool 1): defect depth dependent POD
100
90
80
70
60
50
POD
40
30 POD (rev.)
20
95% conf.
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
crack depth (mm)
Figure 11.3 Eddy current inspection (tool 2): defect depth dependent POD
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30 POD
20
95% conf.
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
crack depth (mm)
Figure 12.2 ACFM defect depth dependent POD
100
90
80
70
60
50
POD
40
30 POD (rev.)
20
10 95% conf.
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
crack depth (mm)
Figure 12.3 UCW defect depth dependent POD (Classification B2)
100%
80% MPI
EC-1
60% EC-2
EC-3
40% ACFM
UCW
20% good perf.
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
FCR (false call rate)
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
FCR (false call rate)
Figure 14.1 ICON: various MPI trial results (= 1mm deep defects)
100%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
FCR (false call rate)
100%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
FCR (false call rate)
butt)
Ref. 44 Fig. 2b
2. MPI yoke
performance trend for
dissimilar metals (depth)
tubulars
(20 cracks)
(tubulars and metal diff. butts
metal difference butts) (35 cracks)
Ref. 44 Fig. 3b
3. ACFM
performance trend for
corrosion (depth)
tubulars
(43 cracks)
corr. tee butts
(tubulars and (31 cracks)
corroded T-butts)
Ref. 44 Fig. 4b
4. Comparison of
tank and sea results for
MPI freshwater
MPI coils system (depth) tank (43 cracks)
MPI sea trials
(tank tests and sea (9 cracks)
trials)
Ref. 44 Fig. 6b
5. Comparison of
CAT and manual results
for Comex EC on EC tub. (man.)
tubulars (depth) (51 cracks)
EC tub. (CAT)
(7 cracks)
(tubulars and
CAT)
Ref. 44 Fig. 8b
Figure 15 ICON depth dependent POD results (44)
Figure 16.1 ACPD results for three ‘regularly shaped’ defects (12,40)
80% MPI
Hocking
60% ACFM
Lizard
40% good perf.
20%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
FCR (= false call rate)
100%
80% MPI-AC
Hocking
60% ACFM
Lizard
40% good perf.
20%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
100%
80% MPI-PM
Hocking
60% ACFM
Lizard
40% good perf.
20%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
FCR (= false call rate)
20%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
FCR (= false call rate)
100%
80% UCW
Hocking
60% ACFM
Lizard
40% good perf.
20%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
FCR (= false call rate)
100%
80%
Hocking
60% ACFM
Lizard
40% good perf.
20%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
FCR (= false call rate)
80%
60%
ACFM
40% EC1
EC2
20% MPI
0%
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
defect depth (mm)
PISC-II
- A1 -
PISC-III programme
The full title of the PISC-III draft final report26 is:
Programme of inspection of steel components, PISC-III Report No 42,
Lessons learned from PISC-III, Report No EUR 16366 EN, Draft, 1/2/96
- PISC-III is a follow up of PISC-II to confirm the conclusions under more realistic conditions. It
was a 30 million ECU EU sponsored project. The following parts of the report concerned with
POD/POS appear to be particularly useful:
- Action 2: Full scale vessel tests
- Action 3: Nozzles and dissimilar metal weldments
- Action 7: Human reliability in NDE
- Action 8: The relation of PISC-III to codes and standards
- These topics will be further reviewed and discussed in the following paragraphs.
- A2 -
techniques, including: CW, SW, TOFD and SAFT both from the inside and the outside.
- Conclusions
1. only a few teams reached a flaw detection frequency (FDF) of 80%; in addition there
were a large number of false calls.
2. the correct rejection frequency was below 70%
3. teams with a high CRF showed a tendency to oversize defects, leading to incorrect
rejection of acceptable defects, and to high false call rates
- 2 out of the 20 teams were able to perform successfully judged by all the criteria.
- The overall conclusions from Figure 10 in the report are:
average detection rate: 60% mean false calls 25%
average rejection rate 70% mean false calls in rejection 15%
- Good performance is:
rejection rate > 80% false calls in rejection < 20%
- By taking averages, Table 3 can be summarised as follows:
- This table shows a low level of CRF for 50% DAC and an improvement by a factor 2 if a 20%
DAC is used.
- The RRT could not provide a definite answer on the comparison between automatic and manual
techniques.
- Each team took account of evidence from more than one technique.
- Radiography and UT techniques had a similar performance, but the disadvantages of X-ray were:
higher false call rates and (as applied) were not suitable to making depth-size assessments.
- Inspection from the inside and outside gave similar results
- Immersion focusing transducers have been shown to have a high effectiveness.
- The rejectable flaws were with a few exceptions in the 20-40%T range (Fig. 11 of the report)
and a mean size of about 7mm (for the rejectable flaws about 11mm).
- Note that the difficulties had to do with the complex geometries and the dissimilar materials of
the tested assemblies.
- Figures A2 & A3 illustrate some of the results.
- A3 -
PISC-II.
- In order to check human reliability, manual UT inspectors with relevant experience were
observed by skilled observers. Two facilities were used: RS (Reliability Studio) and TEL
(Transportable Environmental Laboratory). Tests were on both the steel plates.
- The five main conclusions were:
- the variability of calibration was acceptably small;
- the flaw detection performance (FDF) varied between 65% to 100% between
inspectors;
- variability for single inspectors was also due to tiredness (a factor 2 in FDF is quoted);
- there was initial adjustment but also long shifts in the TEL had a marked effect;
- the UT simulator proved to be very useful
- also there were a significant number of reporting the errors (left for right, etc.);
- Suggestions are made to reduce the lowering of NDE effectiveness by human errors:
- it is desirable to have some form of indication warning device if high integrity is
required;
- the UT simulator is a valuable tool particularly to note poor ultrasonic coupling and/or
incomplete scanning;
- long day’s work has an effect on effectiveness; this has implications in trials for
personnel certification and performance demonstration;
- be aware that there are also human effects in automated UT .
- A4 -
Figure A1 Sizing performance flaws in full scale vessel (PISC-III)
(flaws 1, 2, 7, 11, 12)
40
35
30
advanced
25 industry
20
15
10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
real size in depth (mm)
80%
8 methods
60% good perf.
40%
20%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
average false call rate in detection (%)
80%
8 methods
60% good perf.
40%
20%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
average false call rate in rejection (%)
- A5 -
APPENDIX B NORDTEST PROGRAMME
Introduction
- The Nordtest NDE programme took place from 1984 - 1990 in the four Scandinavian countries.
- It consisted of four part-projects dealing with:
- NDE systematics (inspection models, important parameters, FFP, case studies)
- NDE reliability (MPI, penetrant, eddy current, UT, RT and reliability factors)
- Sizing of defects (testing and evaluating techniques)
- NDE data processing
- Much information has been developed and various results were presented around 1990.
- The Nordtest programme can be summarised as follows:
- 730 embedded weld defects and 635 surface defects
- 3400 RT, 4600 UT, 9000 MPI and 9000 penetrant observations
- The four main references (IIW documents) on Nordtest will be reviewed here.
- There are a few other references which partly duplicate the information or deal with
topics of secondary importance for this project.
IIW-V-968-91 Optimal NDT efforts and use of NDT results29 (not much new)
- B1 -
TK joints and butt-welds in thicker plates (up to 50mm).
- This publication deals with buried defects.
- The defect type distribution of the 729 defects in 144m weldment is:
- porosity (A) 95 13%
- slag inclusion (B) 179 25%
- incomplete penetration (D) 75 10%
- lack of fusion (C) 248 34%
- cracks (E) 121 17%
- other types -- 11 2%
- total 729 100%
- The defect heights are up to 13mm with 90% of the defects below 5mm.
- The average height is 2.5mm.
- The average POD for UT and the defect heights corresponding to a POD of 50% are (Fig. B3):
- U20 69% 0.5 mm
- U50 56% 1.2 mm
- U100 36% 3.6 mm
- The average POD for RT and the defect heights corresponding to a POD of 50% are (Fig. B3):
- R5 55% 1.2 mm
- R4 47% 1.8 mm
- R3 36% 3.6 mm
- R2 16% 11.5 mm
- The levels R2-R5 correspond with the IIW degrees (IIW-1952).
- In addition to previous graphs Figure B4 showing the POD for different types of defects using
RT (at R4 level) is of interest.
- This reference will be reviewed together with the references 32 and 33 on the same topic by the
same authors.
- This publication deals with surface defects.
- The text in the IIW publication and the figures in another publication are used.
- 14-16 inspection teams were involved
- For MPI the participants were free to use whatever they preferred: all chose wet methods but
both fluorescent and coloured penetrants were used.
- The samples:
MPI penetrant
material Fe Fe Al SS
no of specimens 67 6 33 33
no of defects 294 31 151 190
total no of inspections 977 83 505 499
- Overall: less than 50% of the cracks exceeding the acceptance limit of ASME were detected in
the RRT. (Note that the average depth was 2.5mm).
- B2 -
Figure B1 Scatter diagram of UT echo amplitude versus weld defect height (Nordtest)
Figure B3 POD versus defect height for planar weld defects using UT and RT (Nordtest)
- B3 -
Figure B4: POD curves for RT (sensitivity level R4) for different defect types
(a) MPI (MT) and liquid-penetrant (PT) (b) MPI(MT) and liquid-penetrant (PT)
testing of linear and round surface flaws testing of linear surface flaws only
- B4 -
APPENDIX C NIL PROJECTS
The titles of four main NIL reports34-37 with regards to POD/POS are:
1. NIL, Evaluation of some non-destructive examination methods for welded connections with
defects, NIL report NDO 86-23, 1986 (in Dutch).
2. NIL, Optimisation of manual ultrasonic investigations for welded connections with defects, NIL
report NDO 90-07, 1990 (in Dutch).
3. NIL, Advanced flaw size measurement in practice, NIL report GF 91-04, 1991 (in Dutch).
4. NIL, Non destructive testing of thin plates, NIL report NDP 93-40, 1995.
These reports are the result of a series of joint industry projects supported by, and executed by, Dutch
industries.
In the following section reviews of these reports will be given with the emphasis on the HSE objectives
regarding POD/POS.
For the abbreviations used in this note reference is made to the table of abbreviations.
p.1 The programme consisted of a series of RRTs for manual UT, mechanised UT, acoustic emission
and radiography.
p.4 30 testplates in thicknesses varying from 30-50mm with some 200 welding defects have been
examined. In addition mechanised UT was applied to 150mm thick plates with known defects.
- AE was used to guard the welding processes to develop the required welding defects. This was
also an objective of the programme (p.6).
- Both the POD and the characterisation of defects were examined.
p.5 Disadvantages of manual UT: dependence of the examiner and results not properly recorded.
- Part of the work was related to develop procedures to introduce the required welding defects.
p.7 This page describes the planning of the welding defects and can be described in two ways:
General:
- typical welding defects in butt welds
- defect lengths 10-100mm and defect depths 2-8mm
- the locations of the defects;
- distribution of defects (isolated and combined defects)
Specific characteristics of the defects:
- gas inclusions ±15%
- slug inclusions ±25%
- poor connections ±15%
- lack of fusion ±15%
- crack-like defects ±25%
p.8 Actual defects: a programme of destructive testing after the RRT was carried out with the
emphasis on (a) defects identified by none or some of the participants and (b) at least one of each
type; ±40% of the defects were examined.
- Most of the defects were as planned with the exception of cold cracking.
p.9 Radiographic examination
- The work was carried out in accordance with DIN 54111 Pt.1.
- In the recognition and judgements of defect the film-reader plays an important role; more than
one experienced film-reader was used and the films were offered in an arbitrary sequence.
- The readers should indicate for each defect: its location, the type of defect and its acceptance to
ASME.
p.10 Gas and slug inclusion and cross-cracking were identified with a high %; lack of fusion and long-
cracking were poorly recognised.
- The same applies to the recognition by individual film-readers. There was also a thickness
influence (the % for 30mm were higher than the % for 50mm plate).
p.11 300kV and 420kV gave similar results and were better than those for Ir-192 and Co-60 particular
- C1 -
with regards to planar defects.
- The picture quality indicator did not provide a measure for the flaw detection.
p.12 For the best method (300kV) the characterisation of the defect is on average 85% but particularly
for planar defects the score is low (Comment in the report: these defects are often unacceptable).
- In the characterisation (non-acceptance to ASME) there is a marked difference between the
results for 30 and 50mm plates;
- lack of fusion, crack like defects: 95% for 30mm and 75% for 50mm
p.13 - gas inclusions (range for 4 readers): 45-100% for 30mm and 45-70% for 50mm
- slug inclusions (range for 4 readers): 75-100% for 30mm and 70-90% for 50mm
- The work did not resolve the issue how to improve the reliability of the film-reader.
p.14 Manual UT
- 4 procedures and, on average, 2 inspectors (experienced level 2) per procedure were used with
own equipment under favourable circumstances.
- For every flaw the following should be reported: location of flaw, echo vs. ref. level, length and
height, characterisation and acceptable.
- many reference welding defects are not reported and there are large differences between the
teams:
p.15 in 30mm plates: - 55% reported by all and 15% not reported by anybody
in 50mm plates: - 45% reported by all and 10% not reported by anybody
- no influence in the UT procedure.
- the same results are obtained for planar and non-planar defects
- Hence, using routine inspection, identification of the type of defect is poor.
p.17 The results in Table 5 on reported and non-accepted defects are all below 40%.
- Many unacceptable planar defects are not recognised as planar defects.
- The location of the defects is within a error of 10mm but difficulties arise with multiple defects.
- The conclusion (in 1986) is that manual UT is a doubtful method.
p.19 Mechanised UT (note that this report was written in 1986)
- Three systems have been tested (P-SCAN, SUTARS and ROTOSCAN) details of the systems are
provided.
- Two of the three systems (P-SCAN and ROTOSCAN) report a high percentage of the reference
defects (70-90%); the results of these two are close.
- Both methods are sensitive to the defect size:
- non-planar defects: 70-100%
- small planar defects (<30mm2): 0-35%
- large planar defects (>30mm2): 60-100%
- The length location is good but the depth location is system dependent (P-SCAN ±5mm,
ROTOSCAN ±10-15mm).
- Flaw characterisation is impossible.
- The time for preparation was also mentioned as variable but no actual times were reported.
p.23 Comparison manual and mechanised UT
- The main point is that the efforts for preparation and evaluation for mechanised UT are much
more time consuming than for manual UT.
p.25 Comparison radiography and manual UT
- For thicknesses in excess of 50mm radiography is becoming less reliable.
- Radiography is better in detecting volumetric welding defects by a significant margin.
- But RT is less suitable for lack of fusion.
- There is a greater uniformity in the reporting by the film-readers than by the UT inspectors.
- Also acceptance and rejection of defects using RT is more in line with the current (1986)
acceptability criteria.
p.27 Mechanised UT in welds in a 150mm plate.
- Two systems have been used and the conclusion is that the detection by tandem technique is
more reliable than using a single probe (tool).
p.29 Acoustic emission (AE)
- In the context of this project it is used to detect, characterise and reduce the number of defects
during welding. Details are provided.
p.33 Final comments and recommendations
- Manual UT and radiography are considered to be similarly suitable.
- Mechanised UT has a higher POD but the characterisation is equally difficult as with manual UT.
- C2 -
2. Optimisation of manual ultrasonic investigations for welded connections
with defects (1990)35
- The report deals with many detailed aspects of the investigation. Therefore only major points
will be summarised in this note.
- The prime objective was to identify the reasons for the poor results of the RRT and which
recommendation for changes could be made.
- A number of models were developed for the operator, the measurements, the evaluation etc.
- The core of the project was the inspection by 10 UT operators on 25 testplates of 15 and 30mm
with 136 flaws.
- All operators inspected the testplates once and three of the plates twice (without knowing)
- Five different sets of probes were tested
- In one of the sub projects the factors were measured that play a role in the detection phase:
coverage of probe scanning, coupling, probe swivel and screen observation.
- On p.21 of the report ROC (relative operator characteristics) analysis was further developed.
- Poor performance is not the result of a single mistake of the operator but of the combined
negative influence of many factors.
- However, manual UT has the potential to perform equally well to mechanised UT.
- The characterisation of the flaw type is highly unreliable.
- Operators tend to work conservatively.
- Recommendations fall under the following categories:
- improvements via changes in the procedure
- improvement of probe properties (selection of dedicated probes)
- improvement of operator kills
- improvement by using additional techniques
- One of the observations is: “routine manual UT weld inspection is clearly not fulfilling the
requirements of FFP (fit for purpose).
- The following sentence is worth reporting:
- The user should recognise the role of routine UT weld inspection as being a monitoring
tool, thereby reducing discomfort currently present with UT inspectors as well as users.
- The report is written qualitatively. Although data are included it requires some efforts to
quantify the findings.
- In Figure C1 “HITS” is the percentage of non-acceptable defects which are identified as non-
acceptable; the number of ‘FALSE CALL’ is the number of defects incorrectly identified as non-
acceptable.
- These points reflect the performance of 10 individual inspectors.
- The following tables summarise the inspection results in terms of numbers and percentages of
defects.
- The report provides a clear overview of the findings from an extensive project in which five
techniques, three mobile display units (MDU) and five types of structures were examined.
- The five techniques were:
- C3 -
1. FTR is a single probe TOFD
2. TOFD
3. Supersaft
4. ACPD
5. DCPD is a direct current potential drop technique
- Supersaft is a modification to SAFT (synthetic aperture focusing technique) in which the data
from several probes of probe positions is recorded, thereby giving the effect of a very large
probe.
- The MDUs were from RTD, Nucon IPS and AEA Harwell.
- The five types of structures were:
1. flat butt welded plates (10 & 30mm), with U and V welds and intentional defects
2. T shaped samples with K welds (30mm) containing fatigue cracks
3. three tubular T and X joints (D = 200 & 460mm, t = 8 & 16mm) with fatigue cracks and
a notch simulating a weld root defect
4. a split-tee pipe repair with notches in the weld toe (thicknesses: 9mm pipe and 27mm
repair shell).
- The main conclusions were:
- FTR is not really suitable because of difficulty in signal interpretation.
- TOFD on simple geometries is manually applicable by good level II UT operators.
- MDUs did not contribute in signal interpretation
- Manual and advanced TOFD were accurate in flaw sizing (RMS deviations 1 - 1.5mm)
- Comments were made on various TOFD systems regarding suitability & applications.
- e.g. Harwell Zipscan would be suitable for t<15mm because of sampling frequency
- for flaw detection with TOFD advanced systems have to be used
- The dead zone in TOFD of the upper 3-4mm was mentioned a number of times, but the
back wall accuracy is the same as in the middle.
- TOFD on complex geometries requires special equipment and skilled operators.
- The accuracy in sizing of Supersaft is similar to TOFD but it gives more info on defect
type.
- Supersaft is not (yet) suitable for complex geometries.
- DCPD was not a suitable technique.
- ACPD as applied in this project on welded plates with non-prepared surface conditions
is not suitable for flaw height measurements.
- In the text (p.21) the condition is made: unless reference pieces are of the same surface
condition as the actual components.
- The objective of the programme is similar to PISC III Part 1, namely defect sizing.
p.1 Summary
- The objective of this JIP was:
- To assess the reliability of mechanised UT in comparison with the ‘standard’ NDI
techniques (i.e. RT and manual UT) for detection of defects in welds in steel plates in
the wall thickness range 6-15mm.
- 11 commercially available NDT methods were evaluated on 21 planar steel welded testplates
with 244 artificial, yet highly realistic, defects.
- The standard of the work was in line with RTOD (Dutch rules for pressure vessels - Regels voor
Toestellen Onder Druk).
- The evaluation techniques were:
- mechanised ultrasonic TOFD (3 systems)
- mechanised ultrasonic pulse-echo (4 systems)
- manual UT (4 operators)
- standard (0°) radiography, gammagraphy and double exposure weld bevel radiography
(3 film readers each)
- a few experimental, non-commercial techniques (not further reviewed in this note).
- After inspection all testplates were examined destructively and this information served as the
reference point.
- The following quantitative indicators of reliability performance were calculated:
- C4 -
- POD, false call rate, localisation and sizing accuracy, correct rejection rate, false
rejection rate, relative-operating-characteristics (ROC)
- a brief assessment was given on the influence of defect depth position and defect
classification on the detection frequency.
- The main conclusions were:
- the results mechanised UT systems were better than those of the manual systems
- the exception is double exposure weld bevel radiography with regards to POD
- on localisation there is no preference for manual or mechanised systems
- for defect length sizing, the mechanised techniques usually outperform manual
techniques
- the reliability with respect to defect sentencing (accept/reject) is poor for all techniques
- for the 6-12mm range there is no wall thickness dependency.
p.8 Introduction
- The study anticipates on industrial trends towards increased application of mechanised UT, use
of high strength steels as well as the application of FFP based on FM and improved NDT.
- The study results seem to be applicable to a much wider range of problems.
- NORDTEST project 72-76 is referred to; its objective was a comparison of RT and UT.
p.10 Testplates and destructive results
- Details of the welding processes are described.
- There are a total of 199 defects when chain defects are counted as one or 244 individual defects.
- The types of defects are: lack of penetration, lack of fusion, slag and gas inclusions, cracks.
p.12 Of these 244 defects 32 were acceptable to RTOD.
- From the destructive examination: the defect free regions were indeed defect free and there was a
good agreement between planned and actual defects dimensions.
p.13 Techniques, procedures and codes
p.15 The standard is to good workmanship criteria (GWS)
p.18 Here the “Certainty Rating” for ROC (relative operating characteristic) is described. It refers to
the rating for the inspection results which ranges from 1 (very obvious rejection) to 6 (very
obvious acceptance)
p.20 Evaluation of results
- The five sections of this chapter are well organised and address, successively:
- reliability parameters
- detection
- localisation and sizing
- acceptance/ejection and ROC (ROC = relative operating characteristic)
- effect of defect depth and classifications
- These five topics will be reviewed in this order.
p.20 Reliability parameters (taken from PISC III)
- The terms: FDF, MFDF, (M)FCRD, MELX, SELX(SX, LZ, SH), (M)CRF, (M)FCRR, ROC
- Also da, the ROC related parameter are addressed.
- The first parameters are absolute and the last three depend on the chosen acceptance/rejection
criteria.
p.21 Detection
- The detection rates for 6-12mm can be summarised as follows:
- mechanised UT-PE & TOFD 60-80%
- manual UT 50%
- 0° radiography 65%
- double exposure weld bevel RT 95%
- False call rates are mainly in the range 10-20%
- In these tests there was no correlation between high detection rate and high false call rate.
- For 15mm the results were markedly better, except for RT.
- The results are illustrated by Figures C2-C5.
p.24 Localisation and sizing
- The mean location and sizing were quite accurate but the stand. dev. was large.
- The performance was independent of thickness (6-12mm) but for 15mm the results are different.
- No information is given on the actual sizing distribution.
p.28 Acceptance/ejection and ROC
- The results are presented in various diagrams to illustrate performance:
- correct rejection frequency and false rejection rate per technique
- correct rejection frequency versus false call rate in rejection
- correct rejection versus detection
- C5 -
- The ideal corner in the diagrams is also indicated (e.g. CRF 80-100%, FCRR 0-20%)
p.34 Effect of defect depth and classifications
- This section deals with defect depth dependency and technique used.
- Classification of planar and non-planar was also attempted but the results are a matter of
interpretation:
- the report states that only radiographic methods should be considered
- for other methods it is difficult if not impossible
p.36 - however, with advanced processing methods a 90% correct classification can be
obtained
p.37 Conclusions and recommendations
- Except for the previously reported conclusions the following points should be noted:
- sizing is much less reliable than the location reliability
- various conclusions are made on defect sentencing
- an important conclusion may well be the importance of good workmanship (to ASME
BPV Code Section V, 1989).
- A steel backing strip did not affect the results
- The report contains many suitable graphs and the data to generate these graphs.
- This report describes the evaluation of the result of the NIL project "NDT of Thin Plate". The
aims and general set-up of this project are given in Appendix 11.
- The main goal of the project is: To assess the reliability of mechanised ultrasonic inspection in
comparison with the 'standard' non-destructive inspection techniques (radiography and manual
UT) for detection of defects in welds in steel plate in the wall thickness range 6-12 (15) mm
- The following parameters were calculated for all NDE methods applied in the project:
- the percentage of defects detected & percentage of false calls
- the defect localisation and sizing accuracy
- the percentage of correctly & incorrectly rejected defects
- ROC (Relative Operating Characteristic)-curve and the related parameter d,,
- In addition the influence of the defect position on detection and the defect characterisation (in
terms of planar/non-planar) have been investigated.
- The test specimen are described and the parameters used are defined. The principle of the ROC
analysis is discussed as well as the correlation of the actual defects with the reported data. Also
the procedure followed during the evaluation is discussed.
Detection
- Standard radiography (perpendicular irradiation) ± 65 % detection probability.
- Manual ultrasonic testing ± 50 % detection probability.
- The probability of detection for mechanised pulse echo systems is highly dependent on the
specific way the system is implemented (50-90 %).
- Mechanised systems ensure a high POD (50-90 %) as compared with manual UT (50 %).
- Radiographs taken along the weld preparation yield a high probability of defect detection (95%).
- The false call rate is highly dependent on the specific system implementation, but does not
correlate with the probability of detection.
Accuracy
- As a rule of thumb the following accuracies apply for defect localisation and sizing for all
techniques in the wallthickness range under investigation (6-15 mm):
- defect localisation + 10 mm - defect length + 15 mm
- defect depth (TOFD technique and some mechanised UT systems only) ± 1.5mm
- defect height (TOFD technique and some mechanised UT systems only) ± 1.5mm
Interpretation
Current acceptance criteria based on Good Workmanship are not well suited for application in
combination with modern mechanised UT systems.
- Defect characterisation (planar/non-planar) capabilities are limited for all mechanised systems.
- C6 -
- For plates between 6 and 15mm TOFD tends to detect defects that are located close to the
surface better than defects located far from the surface. For mechanised pulse echo systems
exactly the opposite is the case.
100%
80% Rotoscan
Rotomap
60% TiPE (pulse echo)
Man-UT
40% Radiography
Gamma
20% good perf.
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
correct planar (%)
- C7 -
Figure C3 NIL: plates 6-12mm (all defects)
100%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
FCRD (%)
100%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
FCRR (%)
100%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
FCRR (%)
- C8 -
Some points on the NIL reports
- whenever possible:
- location & sizing performance in x-direction (approx.): ux = 0 mm sx = 10 mm
- location & sizing performance in x-direction (approx.): uz = 1 mm sz = 1.5 mm
- error in the defect length ±15mm
- C9 -
APPENDIX D UCL UNDERWATER INSPECTION TRIALS
Introduction
- The reliability of four different inspection techniques was explored, i.e. magnetic particle
inspection (MPI), three eddy current methods, ultrasonic creeping wave inspection UCW) and
alternating current field measurement (ACFM).
- With the completion of the work on ACFM no more methods were envisaged requiring testing
through the UCL library. Moreover, in 1991 the emphasis moved to the European ICON project
which was even much more comprehensive and included field testing under real offshore
conditions.
- It is essential to emphasise that the POD curves produced from this project are a comparison of
the underwater nondestructive tests and tests in air using different techniques. Their accuracy is
therefore dependent on the accuracy of the in air crack measurement.
- Moreover, this report provides information on the performance of various inspection systems
available between 1988 and 1992; care should therefore be taken in extrapolation of the
conclusions to current systems.
- The crack details in the library of specimens are treated as confidential material, hence the term
‘confidential library’.
- An important part of the work has to do with the statistics of POD and on the presentation of
results. In accordance with the original reports, the total database of some 90 defects has been
divided into three groups of some thirty defects each and the POD curves established
accordingly. An extension is that curves are given not only for crack lengths but also for crack
depths.
- An important point is also to make the results more engineering friendly.
Inspection methods
- The discussion of results on inspection methods, both in this section and in the main report,
follows the historic order. The methods are: magnetic particle inspection, three devices based on
the eddy current principles, an ultrasonic creeping wave tool and a probe based on the alternating
current field measurement principles.
- D1 -
- The testing at UCL confirmed the adequacy of magnetic particle inspection (MPI) as a suitable
underwater crack detection method. The MPI method resulted in a higher number of spurious
results than other methods.
- The AV100 Hocking eddy current device provided acceptable results in terms of POD although
it missed one short, relatively deep defect. The method did not detect any of the interbead
cracks.
- The results on the EMD-III eddy current device formed a clear example of how to identify,
through the UCL database, the confidence in terms of POD of a method.
- The Harwell eddy current system appeared to be a suitable tool for overall crack detection. This
observation was subject to the independent expert review of the POD trial results which
improved the overall findings with this prototype system.
- The alternating current field measurement (ACFM) method was suitable for defect detection and
establishing defect lengths. Defect depths were also determined with ACFM but the comparison
with the laboratory methods showed that the ACFM results did not always agree with its results.
- The underwater creeping wave (UCW) devices were reasonable for crack detection apart for
detecting defects at certain positions of angled joints in the library.
Other findings
- The calibration of ACFM showed an underestimation of the depth by 10%.
- The results in terms of depth dependent POD are given in Figure D2. The total number of points
is approximately 90.
- The results in terms of POD/FCR are given in Figure D3.
- It is shown that only for defects > 10mm can a POD with 95% of 90% or higher be obtained.
- The datapoints are given for the higher depths in each interval.
- The length accuracy of surface breaking defects was estimated to be as follows:
method accuracy
MPI 20%
AV100 40%
EMD 40%
ACFM 50%
UCW 20%
- The coated node tests were carried out on 18 samples, and three techniques (ACFM, eddy
current and UCW). The defect depths were 1.5-9.0mm and a 1-2mm epoxy coating was used.
The POD of these methods was high and very similar to those for uncoated nodes.
- D2 -
Figure D1 Confidential node library (UCL/ICON)
- D3 -
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30 POD
20
95% conf.
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
crack depth (mm)
100
90
80
70
60
50
POD
40
30 POD (rev.)
20
95% conf.
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
crack depth (mm)
100
90
80
70
60
50
POD
40
30 POD (rev.)
20
95% conf.
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
crack depth (mm)
Figure D2 (part 1 of 2)
Defect depth dependent POD, Classification B1 (UCL)
- D4 -
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30 POD
20
10 95% conf.
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
crack depth (mm)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30 POD
20
95% conf.
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
crack depth (mm)
100
90
80
70
60
50
POD
40
30 POD (rev.)
20
10 95% conf.
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
crack depth (mm)
Figure D2 (part 2 of 2)
Defect depth dependent POD, Classification B1 (UCL)
- D5 -
UCL: laboratory trials
100%
80% MPI
EC-AV100
60% EC-EMD
EC-Harwell
40% ACFM
UCW
20% good perf.
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
FCR (%)
- D6 -
APPENDIX E INTERCALIBRATION OF OFFSHORE NDT (ICON)
InterCalibration of Offshore NDT (ICON), HSE Offshore Technology Report OTN 96 150,
August 1996.
Table of contents
- The review follows the chapters in the table of contents with the emphasis on quantification of
information.
- The table of contents:
Acknowledgement
Executive summary
1. Introduction/project objectives
2. General description of the project
3. Presentation of project partners and sponsors
4. Project review
5. Database
6. Procedures and specimen library
7. Results for partial POD trials
8. Intercalibration
9. Results analysis for CAT systems
10. Manual sea trials
11. CAT sea trials
12. Performance trends
13. Quality management
14. ICON project discussion
15. Final summary
Appendices: ICON meetings and ICON reports.
- A glossary of terms is included which is essential for documents of this nature.
0. Executive summary
- Reference is made to the UCL programme (see Appendix D).
- For crack detection the range of trials extended across tubulars up to 450mm diameter, metal
difference butt welds, tee but welds, corroded specimens and coated specimens.
- The report claims that it is now possible to choose techniques with a high POD and low False
Call.
- The following table summarises all the test combinations:
sample type tubulars metal difference corr. tee butt tee butt coated
technique man. CAT man. CAT man. CAT man. CAT man.
ACFM v v v v v v v v v
ACFM array v v v v
Cx EC v v v v v
Lizard EC v v v v v v
MPI (coils) v v v NA
MPI (SL) v NA
MPI (yoke) v v v v v NA
UCW v v v v v
- E1 -
1. Introduction/project objectives
- Aim 1: to provide a (computerised) database of operational and technical characteristics
- Aim 2: to conduct probabilistic assessment of the performance of the techniques
- Aim 3: to allow quantitative comparisons between the techniques
- Contribution of data to the structural reliability and stochastic fatigue models was an additional
objective.
- CAT tests for operating a selected number of tools were also included.
4. Project review
- Task 1: establishing databases for equipment, procedures and performances
- Task 2: the laboratory testing of the procedures of the equipment
- Task 3: the intercalibration for manual and CAT tools
- Task 4: Offshore trials (not reported in this document)
5. Database
- A questionnaire was sent to major operators, service companies and inspection equipment
specialists on equipment and typical defects of interest.
- The following databases were developed:
- the equipment available for subsea tasks
- the operating procedures for subsea equipment
- the performance of typically used subsea equipment.
- 12 types have been identified but: high on the list is cracks at structural joints.
** In addition to crack detection and sizing, crack monitoring is also mentioned.
- A comment is made why crack detection is supplemented by GVI and FMD and the use of ROV.
- FMD is seen as a safety net.
- The equipment list for ICON contains 32 types of equipment.
** There are four pages on the ICON database (p.15-19). This database will be reviewed
separately.
- E2 -
- procedure development & confirmation
- blind trials
- results analysis, review and issuing of final results.
- The role of the sponsors is emphasised:
- staff time to identify tasks, equipment, procedures, witnessing, reviewing of data
6.4 Specimen library
- A recommendation for crack characterisation is made to avoid destructive testing
- The library can be summarised as follows:
8. Intercalibration
- Intercalibration is a term to reflect ‘comparison of results’ between methods or definitions.
- Graphs should be based on the same library. Therefore OSEL MPI (100% of the library) cannot
be put in the same diagram as BG MPI(50% of the library), p.65.
- Figure 8.4 of the ICON final report adopts another presentation: the same % of spurious results
and the POD for ‘all cracks’, ‘cracks > 1mm deep’ and ‘cracks > 5mm deep’.
- E3 -
- The depth graphs seem to be more meaningful than the length graphs.
- The definitions for capability and reliability are not given in the report but have verbally been
explained:
- capability = the % of defects found by any of the investigators using a given system;
- reliability = the % of defects found by all investigators using that same system.
.- If the number of samples in a group is small the POD curve can show serious discontinuities.
This can be overcome using the method of OTN 96 179.
- FMD measurements are covered in Appendix G.
- The results of crack detection through a 1.0 or 2.0 mm coating can be summarised as follows:
- ACFM 20 out of 20 (crack depth « 1mm ignored)
- EC 20 out of 20 (crack depth « 1mm ignored)
- UCW 18 out of 20 (two cracks of ±5mm depths missed)
- Some typical results are collected in Figures E2 and E3.
1. The Certifying Authority (Bureau Veritas) role in ICON was to ensure that the production of
equipment performance data was done in a very rigorous manner thus giving high confidence in
the use of results, which were certified together with the trial procedures.
2. Thirty two procedures were produced and tested for both manual (diver) techniques and CAT
deployed techniques.
3. Most currently available techniques for crack detection and sizing have been compared across
the same range of specimens.
4. CAT deployed techniques using precise tracking (single sensor) for tubulars (450mm max dia)
and 'pick and place' (array) for plates have been assessed and been shown to be practicable for
use offshore deployed from an ROV.
5. Capability and reliability comparisons have been made for several techniques (best and worst
performance) showing the sensitivity to operator.
6. POD success data together with false call data has been produced giving some measure of
reliability operating characteristic (ROC) of NDT systems.
7. New formats for POD data have been produced which are suited to fracture mechanics analysis.
These include plots against crack depth and also crack lengths defined using PD6493 criteria.
8. Data has been produced on the accuracy of crack sizing for surface breaking cracks.
9. For manual (diver) crack detection it has been possible to show that 7 systems are suitable for of
tubulars. These are, in alphabetical order, ACFM, Cx EC, Lizard EC, MPI (Coil), MPI(Yoke),
UCW. The ACFM array had successful laboratory trials but no results were obtained in sea
trials due to accidental damage to the equipment.
10. For manual (diver) crack detection on tubulars, tee butts, metal difference, corroded tee butts and
coated tubulars. ACFM, Cx EC and Lizard EC gave good crack detection performance. The
systems also had a low false call rate although considerable variation in operators was observed.
11. For CAT deployment the number of cracks tested are fewer in number and hence statistical
confidence is much lower than with the manual diver system results. However, ACFM, ACFM
array and MPI (Single Leg) all detected over 80% of the cracks inspected with a very low false
call ratio for the trials carried out.
12. Crack sizing was found to be accurate with ACPD (TSC) and also possible with ACPD (BG),
ACFM and Lizard in descending order of accuracy. For ACPD (TSC) the overall accuracy of
the mean prediction was within +10% with a standard deviation of about 1 mm (see Figure E4).
13. Flooded Member Detection was found to be possible with both ROV and Manual (Diver)
systems. The Tracerco system correctly estimated all fill levels tested, and the Gascosonic and
- E4 -
ROVPROBE equipment both recorded as filled all samples of 50% full or more.
14. Measurement of remaining ligament and wall thickness was found to be possible and accurate
using both manual (diver) and ROV deployment.
15. Anode current measurement using GSCAN was found to be possible with errors limited to about
0.3 amps.
16. Visual inspection using the TV Trackmeter deployed from an ROV, was found to be quite
practical for member sizing. Accuracy was found to be within about 2%.
17. Measurement of dents was found to be quite practical using photogrammetry. Using the Camel
70 sizing within about 10% was possible.
19. All the equipment details, procedure, and trials results have been assembled in three databases.
This software package allows the choice of the most suitable equipment on the basis of a chosen
task.
coplanar surface a1 a2
flaws s 2 c2
2 c1
2c
effective dimensions a = a2 2 c = 2 c1 + 2 c2 + s
after interaction
- E5 -
ICON: various MPI trial results
100%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
FCR (%)
100%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
FCR (%)
100%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
FCR (%)
- E6 -
1. Comex Hocking
performance trend for
geometry (depth)
Ref. 44 Fig. 2b
Ref. 44 Fig. 3b
Ref. 44 Fig. 4b
Ref. 44 Fig. 6b
Ref. 44 Fig. 8b
- E7 -
a. ACPD results for three ‘regularly shaped’ defects12,40
- E8 -
Table: ICON some results for FCR and POD
- E9 -
Some points on ICON:
- The main tables in the ICON database are for the POD versus defect length or depth.
- However, only when the dataset contains more than say 25 defects > 1mm deep can a POD curve
be established.
- For the same reason the POD curves with confidence levels have been abolished, probably
because not many of the results had enough datapoints
- On the other hand for many methods the POD for defects >1mm is close to 100% hence then no
new information is obtained from a POD curve.
- The tables with length comparison were missing from my copy of the ICON database.
- Spurious results in the database could be either in number (according to the ROC tables) or in
percentage (according to the ROC graphs. The latter is assumed for the figures in Note 007.
Executive summary
- Defects are based on the PD6493 method of combining adjacent cracks.
- E10 -
4.2.8 Performance trends
- This section comprises both an overview of the tests performed as well as some of the results.
However, results will be based on the ICON database itself.
- The two tables on the next page are worth recording: crack detection trials and crack sizing
trials.
- The predictions for crack depth from 1-6mm using TSC ACPD on plates and from 6-25mm on
tubulars is good. Additional information on this issue can be found in the UCL review report.
4.3 Intercalibration
- This section describes details of the various testsites of the full POD trials, POD as a function of
method and crack length, ROC.
- On ROC (reliability operating characterisation): this is more involved than indicated on p.57.
** It is interesting to note that ICON concentrates on POD whereas PISC on probability of
detection and correct rejection.
- p.61, in Fig. 12 and 13 information on crack depth sizing is given in the range 4-25mm showing
a small negative bias.
- The predictions for crack depth from 1-6mm using TSC ACPD on plates and from 6-25mm on
tubulars is good. Additional information on this issue can be found in the UCL review report.
** It is interesting to note that ICON concentrates on POD whereas PISC on probability of
detection and correct rejection.
- p.61, in Fig. 12 and 13 information on crack depth sizing is given in the range 4-25mm showing
a small negative bias.
uncoated tee butts metal diff. corroded T coated nodes sea trials
tub.
MPI coils C C C
MPI yoke C C C C
Comex EC C C C C C
Lizard EC C C C C C
ACFM C C C C C C
ACFM array C C C C C
UCW C C C
Table 11 Crack detection performance trend trials (p.46, title misleading: crack detection trials)
5. Project management
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Procedure development
6.3 Capability and reliability
- E11 -
- No proper definitions of these terms have been given in text except that capability is what the
equipment can perform and reliability what an operator can perform. From the database:
- capability is the best result for a certain technique;
- reliability is the poorest results for a certain technique.
6.4 Quantification of POD performance
- All quantifications are on length whereas defect rejection will be on depth (although depth can
only be measured with a limited number of techniques.
6.5 POD performance for FM, inspection scheduling, etc.
** page 83 is missing from this copy of the report.
6.6 CAT system POD quantification
- Some useful comments are made on the use of CAT tools, or the execution of tests with CAT.
6.7 ROV CAT inspection for cracks
- Some useful comments are made on the use of CAT tools, or the execution of tests with CAT.
6.8 ICON software
Results: some results on FCR (false call rate) and POD (probability of detection) are presented in this
note as well. These are based on findings for defects > 1mm deep. Hence both FCR and POD
differ from those in ICON where all defects are counted.
- E12 -
APPENDIX F TOPSIDES INSPECTION PROJECT
PHASE I REPORT45
Executive summary
- Defects are based on the PD6493 method of combining adjacent cracks.
- Advantages of EM methods over MPI are:
- their ability to operate through coatings
- the possibility for sizing of crack depth
- the electronic recording of the data scan
- The main conclusions were:
- EM methods performed equally well to MPI
- the variation between operators on each system tended to be greater than the differences
between the systems.
- the capability of ACFM and Lizard for depth sizing was similar to ACPD but operator
dependent.
1. Introduction
- The aim was to check the viability of the methods for more complex geometries as found in
topsides such as ratholes, weld ends, corners, heavy corrosion and coatings, including metal
sprayed coatings.
- Five methods were tested: Hocking Phasec, TSC U9, Millstrong Lizard and MPI permanent
magnet and AC yoke both using black ink.
- Operator variability was tested by taking three operators from each technique: one from a service
company, one from the steering committee and one from the manufacturer.
- The EM probes were still in a state of development with the exception of Hocking for which
operational procedures had been developed and approved by CAs.
2. Specimens
- The basic configuration was a 1 x 0.4m base plate with a 0.6 x 0.1m vertical attachment plate
with a semi-circular cut-out to simulate a rathole. The plates were 15mm thick BS4360:43A.
- Three types were manufactured (see Appendix B of Ref. 45 for details). The main type (Type II)
was with continuous welding and representative for current offshore fabrication practice. The
Types I and III are variations with respect to Type II, with Type I not really representative.
- The trials were based on 12 Type I specimens, 9 Type II specimens and 6 Type III specimens.
- Three point bending fatigue tests were used to generate fatigue cracks:
Type I: 4 longitudinal 11 transverse cracks
Type II/III 14 longitudinal 14 transverse cracks
- Hence, the main library (Type II/III) contained 28 cracks which is insufficient to develop POD
curves.
- In addition, from ICON, T-butt specimens and butt-weld specimens of 20mm thick plates were
also used.
- F1 -
large repetition of detailing and stresses and where defect inspection is relatively cheap once the
operator is on the platform.
- Tables with all the details are presented, e.g. on length accuracy.
8. Conclusions
- EM through epoxy coating gave similar results to MPI on bare metal.
- Destructive results showed that MPI and ACPD characterisation were accurate for length and
depth.
- Variability between operators was considerable both in reporting cracks and spurious
indications.
- Most spurious results reported were less than 20mm long.
- The ACFM and Lizard systems were similar to ACPD on crack depth sizing; but this sometimes
depended on the operator.
PHASE II REPORT46
Executive summary
- Three specific topics were investigated under TIP-II regarding fatigue crack detection:
- on aluminium flame sprayed samples using various techniques
- on small scale tubular joints with red oxide coating using EM
- on some samples of heavily pitted surfaces using EM.
- The conclusions were:
- EM was feasible on aluminium sprayed samples but signals were difficult to interpret
- UCW worked well under simple geometries
- EM worked satisfactorily on the coated tubulars
- pitting corrosion (3mm deep) reduced efficiency of EM and increased FCR.
1. Introduction
- The reasons for the selection of these samples are given in the introduction:
- Al sprayed coating could affect EM because of different conductivity and ultrasonic
signal transmission
- small tubulars have rapidly changing geometries
- EM methods allow non-removal of coatings
- F2 -
- corroded surfaces and EM may allow non-removal of rust.
- Some work on rusty surfaces has been carried out under ICON (check).
- F3 -
TIP Type II/III specimens > 1mm deep
1.00
0.80 MPI
Hocking
0.60 ACFM
Lizard
0.40 good perf.
0.20
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
FCR
1.00
0.80 MPI-AC
Hocking
0.60 ACFM
Lizard
0.40 good perf.
0.20
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
FCR
1.00
0.80 MPI-PM
Hocking
0.60 ACFM
Lizard
0.40 good perf.
0.20
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
FCR
- F4 -
Butt &T butt, aluminium sprayed, >1mm deep
1.00
dye penetrant
0.80 UCW
Hocking
0.60 ACFM
Lizard
0.40 good perf.
0.20
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
FCR
1.00
0.80 UCW
Hocking
0.60 ACFM
Lizard
0.40 good perf.
0.20
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
FCR
1.00
0.80
Hocking
0.60 ACFM
Lizard
0.40 good perf.
0.20
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
FCR
- F5 -
100%
80%
60%
ACFM
40% EC1
EC2
20% MPI
0%
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
defect depth (mm)
- F6 -
APPENDIX G FLOODED MEMBER DETECTION (FMD)
This appendix outlines the presentation in Aberdeen on FMD (flooded member detection). This meeting
was arranged by the British Institute for Non-Destructive Testing in Aberdeen on Wednesday 26th
February 1997. The programme consisted of six presentations and an introduction. In this appendix the
salient points on detection methods and confidence are summarised together with findings in the ICON
final report)42.
1. Introduction
- The essence seems to be on through thickness defects, particularly those generated from the root
of the weld. Other causes could be accidental damage and failure of an anode bracket. Two
methods of detection (UT and gamma ray) are in use.
- Furthermore, whenever this method is discussed the structural implications and the planning of
inspection should be given adequate attention.
- At the moment some operators only apply visual inspection supplemented by FMD for steel
platform underwater inspection.
- G1 -
Trial Result
Set Filling 0% 10% 50% 90/100%
0% 9 1
105 3 2 4 1
50% 7 1
90/100% 12
- G2 -
APPENDIX H POTENTIAL AREAS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
In order to identify areas for potential future developments in POD/POS it is important to highlight the
place of NDT in the overall process of arriving at safe, welded structures. The elements to arrive at safe
structures can be put in the following three categories (Table H1):
- design and design codes
- welding and inspection
- defect assessment
H.2 Welding
Welding is a well established method of construction. The aim should be, as identified in Table H1, to
optimise welding to reduce defects. This is achieved through the detailed description of the welding
procedures and a QA plan to ensure that the procedures are complied with in practice. In addition, much
attention is paid to welder qualification.
Secondly, once the code for fabrication has been defined then also defect acceptance from NDT is part of
the fabrication. Here an economic argument comes in: if the number of defects are too high then the
manufacturer has an economic interest in improving welding because the repair of welding defects is a
costly process which also has a bearing on the scheduling of the manufacturing.
It is important not only from an economic point of view but also for structural safety to have an indication
of the unacceptable defects left in-place. If the CRR (correct rejection rate) is of the order of 60% then
the number of repairs per metre of welding provides a good, first order estimate of the number of
rejectable defects left in place as well. Therefore:
Item 1: More information should be collected on the number of repairs per metre of welding.
The number of repairs, or rejectable defects left in place, should have a bearing on the defect assessment.
It will depend on the type of structure and on the adoption of a manual or automatic welding process.
H.3 Inspection
The main objective of this report is on POD/POS of inspection. Historically the main methods for the
detection of buried defects are RT and UT. Much effort is put in optimising inspection methods by
procedures and to train inspectors and insist on inspector qualification. Much work both in the USA and
Europe are ongoing in this area.
In the report a CRR of 60% was quoted as a suitable first approximation for the detection rate of
rejectable defects. The question should be asked how the size of rejectable defects are determined. It is
based on historic evidence: the detection rate of the rejectable defects should be sufficiently large so that
the majority of these defects can be found. Often inspection is directed through economic arguments: i.e.
what is the cheapest, accepted inspection method for a certain application. Therefore:
Item 2: More information on the economics of inspection should be gathered and analysed.
- H1 -
The POD can be improved by using two independent methods. In that way the CRR can be improved
from say 60% to over 80%, which is a major step. This leads to the following question:
Item 3: Analysis should be carried out to determine the economic advantage in increasing the
correct rejection ratio (CRR) from 60% to 80%.
In other words, if a CRR of 60% leads to a structure which is fit-for-purpose then the increase to a POD
of 80% is an unnecessary expenditure.
An other item with regards to POD, which should be further addressed, is related to the high variability in
POD for MPI. Both in UCL and ICON, where underwater MPI was used, the POD even for small defects
was high whereas for TIP and Nordtest the POD for MPI, using land-based methods, showed large
variations. Therefore:
Item 4: More fundamental work is required in the area of MPI to explain the large difference in
POD between onshore and offshore practices.
If inspection is considered as a QA tool then the fabricated structure, after inspection and repair, is a
sufficient condition to ensure that the structure is fit-for-purpose. In other words: in that case NDT
ensures good workmanship.
Finally, it is not uncommon to use RT to check for defects and supplement it by UT for the sizing and
categorising (reject/accept) of the defect. Particularly the developments of TOFD are worth mentioning:
it is the application of geo-science applied to welded structures. It provides an independent method with
excellent potential for automation (as for example shown on pipeline inspection) and currently
particularly suitable for defect sizing in simple geometries. Therefore:
Item 5: The development of TOFD for the sizing of defects in complex geometries should be
stimulated.
This is an ongoing activity for example at NIL.
- H2 -
H.6 Closing remarks
The topic addressed under items 7-8 of full scale testing and re-assessment of older structures falls outside
the scope of the present study. However, it seems to be the only rational basis to ensure that a higher
performance in inspection is cost effective and fit-for-purpose.
The full scale testing of specimens with known defects has been applied before; for example, in Ref. 22,
tubular joints with fatigue cracks were tested to destruction. It has been demonstrated in these tests that
for good quality steel the detrimental effect of defects can be calculated by considering the net effective
area only. Hence the effect of small defects on the ultimate capacity of tubular joints is small.
Secondly, in the NIL project it was mentioned that it is very well possible to weld structures with pre-
determined welding defects. Also JRC-Petten is able to fabricate surface defects of known shape through
spark-erosion. Ref. 23 addresses this topic of full scale testing of pipeline structures and the
consequences of given Charpy and CTOD values. A similar, more general approach is proposed in
Ref. 24.
- H3 -
DESIGN CODES Design Codes
assume good
workmanship
ignore defects
assume good
material
structure
WELDING welding
AND optimise
INSPECTION welding to
defects
welding
procedure
NDT
optimise
inspection to welder
reduce missing qualification
of rejectable
accept inspected go for further
structure analysis
inspection
histogram of
procedure
defects
qualification
missed
rejectable
inspector histogram of
qualification rejectable
determine the
size of defects
for further
DEFECT Defect
ASSESSMENT assessment
ignore defect
assume defect
assessment
determine
material
property (CTOD)
check
acceptance of
solutions if
unacceptable
try more
accept/reject
modify structure advanced
structure
methods
OTO 2000/018