TOFDPROOF

Document Name:
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPLYING
TOFD (FIELD OF APPLICATION,
STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES)


Document Date: 2005-01-11
Document Owner Mitsui Babcock / TWI
Document Author/s: NS Goujon & BW Kenzie
Document approved by:
Task / Deliverable Number: WP2 / 31
Issue: 1
Status
Document Reference Number: 2-31-D-2005-02-1
TOFDPROOF project n G6RD-CT-2001-00626




Institut de Soudure F
IS Service F
Sonovation NL
TWI Limited UK
Mitsui Babcock Technology Centre UK
Staatliche Materialprfungsanstalt Stuttgart D
Tecnatom S. A SP
VTT FIN
Instituto de Soldadura e Qualidade PT
TV Sddeutschland Bau und Betrieb GmbH D


COPYRIGHT 2005 The TOFDPROOF Consortium

This document may not be copied, reproduced, or modified in whole or in part for any purpose without written
permission from the TOFDPROOF Consortium. In addition, to such written permission to copy, acknowledgement
of the authors of the document and all applicable portions of the copyright notice must be clearly referenced.


All rights reserved

Report No: 2-31-D-2005-02-1
TOFDPROOF project n: G6RD-CT-2001-00626
Issue No.: 1
Deliverable n31
Confidential

Page 2 of 14

CONTENTS

CONTENTS......................................................................................................................... 2
1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 3
2. RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON THE TOFDPROOF RRT RESULTS................... 3
2.1 Procedure ............................................................................................................. 3
2.2 Identification of reference marks........................................................................... 4
2.3 Set-up ................................................................................................................... 4
2.4 Classification of indications................................................................................... 6
2.5 Evaluation of indications ....................................................................................... 7
2.6 Personnel qualification........................................................................................ 12
2.7 Acceptance criteria ............................................................................................. 12
3. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 12
4. CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................... 13
5. REFERENCES........................................................................................................... 14


Report No: 2-31-D-2005-02-1
TOFDPROOF project n: G6RD-CT-2001-00626
Issue No.: 1
Deliverable n31
Confidential

Page 3 of 14
1. INTRODUCTION
Following the round robin trial (RRT) exercise and the reporting of the results, the
data were collated and a review focusing on the causes of discrepancies in the
results was carried out by MBEL and TWI. This was in order to highlight the strengths
and weaknesses of the TOFD technique. Report No 2-18-D-2004-01-1
[1]
presents
the discrepancy analysis of the round robin trial results.
In order to complete work package WP2, recommendations were written to explain
when a complementary NDT technique is recommended. This report proposes
recommendations for applying TOFD. The recommendations are based on the
TOFDPROOF project round robin results and the difficulties identified during the
study. Additional considerations must be taken into account when different material
and component geometry are under study. These recommendations will be
transmitted to CEN TC121, TC54, TC138 and EPERC.
2. RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON THE TOFDPROOF RRT RESULTS
The following recommendations are based on the TOFDPROOF project round robin
trials results and the discrepancy analysis report No 2-18-D-2004-01-1. They are
provided for seven categories, including:
Procedure;
Identification of reference marks;
Set-up;
Classification of indications;
Evaluation of indications;
Personnel qualification;
Acceptance criteria.
For each group, comments and recommendations are provided.
2.1 Procedure
A specific procedure shall be written in accordance with the guidelines given in
ENV 583-6
[2]
and PrCEN/TS 14751
[3]
for each individual type of inspection.
The TOFD procedure written under the TOFDPROOF project Procedure for
TOFD Inspection of Welds used for the Round Robin Trials report No. 2-21-Q-
2002-01-4
[4]
can be used as an example.
The procedure shall include the following information:
SCOPE
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
o Description of the component
o Restrictions
o Surface preparation
o Weld profile
o Coverage
o Possible defects
o Inspection conditions (temperature, lighting, etc.)
o Examination level
Report No: 2-31-D-2005-02-1
TOFDPROOF project n: G6RD-CT-2001-00626
Issue No.: 1
Deliverable n31
Confidential

Page 4 of 14
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS & QUALIFICATION
EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
o General requirements
o Equipment
o Scanning mechanism
o Probes
o Reference block
o Couplant
IDENTIFICATION OF REFERENCE MARKS
CALIBRATION & SETTINGS
o Choice of probes and Probe Centre Separation (PCS)
o Sensitivity setting
o Time calibration
o Time window
o Scan resolution setting
o Verification of the setting
WELD INSPECTION
o longitudinal defects
o transverse defects
DATA ANALYSIS
o Interpretation and analysis of TOFD images
o Assessing the quality of the TOFD image
o Classification and evaluation of indications
DATA STORAGE
REPORTING
2.2 Identification of reference marks
The identification of reference marks (including datum on the component and
reference point on the inspection probes array) is critical to allow repeatability of the
inspection and results comparison.
The reference point on the probe array (usually the middle of the back face of one of
the probes) shall be clearly defined in the procedure and the reference marks on the
component should be clearly visible.
2.3 Set-up
Care should be taken to choose appropriate combinations of parameters.
The capability to cover the thickness range of interest must be demonstrated on a
reference block.
Sensitivity setting
Setting of an adequate sensitivity is essential to enable the detection of weak
diffracted signals and at the same time avoiding overloading the system with non-
relevant signals. The inspection teams must make sure that the lateral wave and
the BWE is not saturated to investigate for possible surface breaking defects.
Report No: 2-31-D-2005-02-1
TOFDPROOF project n: G6RD-CT-2001-00626
Issue No.: 1
Deliverable n31
Confidential

Page 5 of 14
Selection of probes and probe configuration
- Always use the most suitable probes for the component and for the type of
defects under investigation. The choice of the type of probes (including:
frequency, crystal diameter and angle) to be used for an inspection can be
critical (especially for defect characterisation). Selection of probes and probe
configuration for full coverage of the complete weld thickness should follow
the recommendations provided in Table 1. The values given in Table 1 relate
to the reviewed values used for the TOFDPROOF project round robin trial.

Thickness
t (mm)
Minimum
number of
TOFD
set-up(s)*
Depth-
range (mm)
Frequency
(MHz)
Beam angle
()
Crystal size
(mm)
Beam
intersection
6-10 1 0-t 15 70 2-3 2/3t
>10-15 1 0-t 15-10 70 2-3 2/3t
>15-35 1 0-t 10-5 70-60 2-6 2/3t
>35-50 1 0-t 5-3.5 70-60 3-6 2/3t
0-t/2 5-3.5 70-60 3-6 1/3t >50-100 2
t/2-t 5-3.5 60-45 6-12 5/6t for 60
or t for 45
* Note that the number of TOFD set-up(s) given in Table 1 is the minimum number of TOFD
set-up(s) recommended.
Table 1: probes set-up versus thickness
- Other probe types and configuration than those given in Table 1 can be used
after demonstration on an appropriate calibration/reference block, see
Appendix 1 of reference [4].
- The probe frequency used has to be high enough to achieve the best possible
resolution taking care of achieving the required sensitivity setting.
- High frequency, small crystal diameter probes (15MHz, 3mm) are preferable
for the inspection of thin samples (up to 15mm) especially when the weld
surfaces are as-welded. An alternative choice (e.g. 10MHz) may not be
appropriate.
- The probe frequency used has to be high enough to achieve the best possible
resolution. However frequencies at the lower end of the bands defined in
Table 1 may be used if the required sensitivity setting cannot be achieved
with higher frequencies.
Consistency in the inspection method has to be adopted. It is essential that the
inspection team follows the procedure provided, or provides a justification for any
variation between the work carried out and the procedure.
TOFD images are commonly represented by a grey scale. This is to allow for
better contrast and to permit the identification of indications. It is recommended
that this approach be used to allow for repeatability and consistency between
inspection teams (although other approaches can be used as long as they are
well understood).

Report No: 2-31-D-2005-02-1
TOFDPROOF project n: G6RD-CT-2001-00626
Issue No.: 1
Deliverable n31
Confidential

Page 6 of 14
The time window for data collection shall be extended to at least 1s beyond the
first mode converted BWE, in order to study possible defect mode converted
echoes. Note CEN/TS 14751 states that the time window shall at least cover the
depth range covered in Table 1, however, defect information may be provided by
mode converted echoes (e.g. transverse cracks) and therefore it is important to
extend the window to allow collection of mode converted echoes, when
appropriate.
Additional scanning
- For wide welds (especially for as-welded and double-V weld preparation), at
least two offset scans must be considered to achieve the whole weld body
inspection coverage, one at each side of the weld centre line.
- A separate root scan should be considered. The resolution of the backwall
echo and the defect tip of a small root defect is difficult, especially when the
root bead is still present. The presence of a weld root can prevent a clear
break of the back-wall (with the exception of the larger defects). Indication of
the presence of defects may be given by the waves arriving after the back-
wall echo. However, small defects can still be missed, or misinterpreted as
point reflectors.
- Inspection from both surfaces is recommended when access permits. This is
especially important for thick as-welded components where satisfactory
coverage of the near surface is not achievable. When inspection from the
internal surface is not possible, it is recommended to use a complementary
NDT technique.
- Inspection for transverse indications can be limited especially when the weld
cap is present. The normal TOFD configuration is not optimised for transverse
defect inspection. When transverse defects are expected and the weld is as-
welded, additional NDT technique(s) should be used.
2.4 Classification of indications
The indications shall be classified into categories clearly defined in the inspection
procedure. The following categories are recommended:
Surface breaking indication (at scanning surface, at opposite surface and 100%
through-wall)
Surface breaking at the scanning surface: this type of indication shows up as
either a weakening, deviation or loss of lateral wave (not always observed)
and an elongated pattern generated by the signal from the lower edge of the
indication. The lower edge can be hidden by the lateral wave, but generally a
pattern can be observed in the mode-converted part of the image. For small
indications, only a slight shift of the lateral wave towards longer time-of-flight
may be observed.
Surface breaking at the opposite surface: this type of indication shows up as
either a weakening, deviation or a loss of the backwall signal (not always
observed) and an elongated pattern generated by the signal emitted from the
upper edge of the indication.
Through-wall indication: this type of indication shows up as a loss or
weakening of both the lateral wave and the backwall signal.
Report No: 2-31-D-2005-02-1
TOFDPROOF project n: G6RD-CT-2001-00626
Issue No.: 1
Deliverable n31
Confidential

Page 7 of 14
Embedded indications (point-like, elongated with a measurable height or without
a measurable height)
Embedded point-like indication: the most common pattern characterised by a
single arc shaped curve fitting the theoretical hyperbolic curve corresponding
to the depth of the indication. This pattern is mostly produced by a pore, but it
can also be generated by the edges of a transverse crack.
Embedded elongated indication with non measurable height: the indication
appears as an elongated pattern corresponding to an apparent upper edge
signal (approximately in phase with the backwall).
Embedded elongated indication with a measurable height: the indication
appears as two separate elongated patterns located at different positions in
depth, corresponding to the upper and lower edges of the indication.
Transverse indications
Transverse indication: can be surface breaking or embedded. The signal from
the upper and lower edges of a transverse crack may appear as a point-like
defect.
Uncategorised
Uncategorised indications: all indications that cannot be properly classified
into one of the above categories.
2.5 Evaluation of indications
Any feature, which is not due to geometry and appears as an indication on the TOFD
image, shall be investigated to the extent that it can be evaluated in terms of
acceptance criteria.
2.5.1 Interpretation of TOFD images
Initial analysis has to be carried out on unprocessed data. Straightening and removal
(for lateral wave and BWE) tools can be use for subsequent analysis e.g.
confirmation of presence/absence of surface defects.
Surface defects
It is well known that one of the limitations of the TOFD technique is the surface inspection
(upper and rear surfaces). The presence of the lateral wave and the backwall echo restrict
the inspection zone. Small defects in these zones can be missed. Surface defects are more
difficult to detect especially when the weld is in the as-welded state. Sizing errors are also
more likely to occur.
Care must be taken when surface indications are observed. Additionnal scanning
may be needed with more appropriate probes type and arrangements.
The RRT results indicate that the height of near surface defects is difficult to
determine and in many cases these are inaccurately sized. Where the apparent
extent of the lateral wave is greater than or equal to the acceptable height of a
surface defect, it may be appropriate to consider all detected upper surface defects
as rejectable regardless of their measured height and confirm results with another
NDT technique.
Report No: 2-31-D-2005-02-1
TOFDPROOF project n: G6RD-CT-2001-00626
Issue No.: 1
Deliverable n31
Confidential

Page 8 of 14
Embedded defects
A number of defects can be wrongly reported as linear if the resolution of the defect
tips cannot be achieved. The probe frequency used has to be high enough to achieve
the required resolution.
Where a large number of point-like indications have been detected that creates a
cluster of indications, that could mask the presence of a more serious defect, the
inspection should be supported by another NDT technique.
Transverse defects
The presence of some mode converted echoes associated with a point like indication
may suggest that transverse defects could be present. The normal TOFD
configuration is not optimised for transverse defect inspection. When transverse
defects are expected or/and when indications on the TOFD image suggest the
presence of such defects (especially if the weld is as-welded), additional NDT
technique(s) should be used.
2.5.2 Determination of indications dimensions
Determination of length
Indications with a length equal to or less than the probes beam width will appear as a
single hyperbolic shaped arc (point-like discontinuity).
For elongated discontinuities with or without a measurable height, depending upon
the type of indication, a technique for length sizing shall be selected from the
following:
Length sizing of linear indications:
This type of indication does not have length measurement characteristics
which change significantly in the through-wall direction, i.e. embedded defects
like slag and lack of fusion.
A hyperbolic cursor, shaped to fit the arc produced by a point-like flaw, is
fitted to the indication. The cursor is fitted at both extremities of the indication
and the difference between the measured positions of the turning points on
the cursors provides the length of the indication, see Figure 1.
Report No: 2-31-D-2005-02-1
TOFDPROOF project n: G6RD-CT-2001-00626
Issue No.: 1
Deliverable n31
Confidential

Page 9 of 14


Figure 1: Length sizing by fitting arc-shaped cursors
If the hyperbolic cursors do not fit the extremities of the indication, the 6 dB
drop method shall be used. The maximum amplitude (where the reflector
extends across the full width of the ultrasonic beam) shall be determined
using the cursor. The extremities of the indication shall be identified where the
amplitude provided by the cursor has fallen by half, see Figure 2.


Figure 2: Length sizing by the 6 dB drop method.
Report No: 2-31-D-2005-02-1
TOFDPROOF project n: G6RD-CT-2001-00626
Issue No.: 1
Deliverable n31
Confidential

Page 10 of 14
Length sizing of extended parabola-like indications:
This type of indication has length measurement characteristics which change
significantly in the through-wall direction, e.g. surface breaking defects like
cracks.
A cursor, shaped to fit the arc produced by a point-like flaw, is positioned at
either end of the indication at a time delay of one third of the indication
penetration. The distance moved between the cursor positions at each end of
the indication is taken to represent the length of the indication, see Figure 3.


Figure 3: length sizing of extended parabola-like indications.

Determination of depth and height
The depth and the height of the indication shall be determined as follows:
Assuming that the ultrasonic energy enters and leaves the specimen at the
probes index points and that the discontinuity is mid-way between the two
probes, the depth of the defect can be given by:
d = [ c
2
(t - t
o
) - S ]
1/2

Where: c is the ultrasonic velocity
t is the transit time
t
o
is the total time delay in the probe shoes
d is the depth of the tip of the discontinuity
S is the mid-distance between the ultrasonic probes index points
To prevent errors that may arise from the estimation of probe delay and probe
centre separation distance, the depth d shall be calculated, where possible, from
the time of flight differences, T, between the lateral wave and the diffracted
pulse or between the backwall echo and the diffracted pulse. Moreover, in order
to reduce the error related to time measurement, the measurement shall be done
Report No: 2-31-D-2005-02-1
TOFDPROOF project n: G6RD-CT-2001-00626
Issue No.: 1
Deliverable n31
Confidential

Page 11 of 14
from the A-scan and by choosing a consistent position on the waveforms. It is
recommended to use one of the methods described below (see Figure 4).

Method 1: by measuring the transit time to the rising signal.
Method 2: by measuring the transit time to the first maximum.
Method 3: by measuring the transit time to the peak amplitude.
Positions for measuring the transit time
Backwall or
defect upper-tip
Lateral wave or
defect lower-tip

Method 1 Method 2 Method 3
Figure 4: Position of the cursor for time measurement Methods 1, 2 & 3.
All depth measurements should be performed after straightening of the position
of the lateral wave or the backwall echo.
The height of a near surface breaking discontinuity is determined by measuring
the distance between the near surface and the lower-tip diffraction signal from the
indication.
The height of a rear surface breaking discontinuity is determined by measuring
the distance between the rear surface and the upper-tip diffraction signal from the
indication.
The height of an embedded discontinuity is determined by the difference in depth
between the upper-tip and lower-tip diffraction. For indications displaying varying
depth along their length, the height is determined at the position along the length
of the discontinuity where the difference is the greatest.
Other measurement methods such as those proposed by ENV 583 part 6 can be
used as long as a justification is provided.
2.5.3 Sizing errors
Errors in reported height and length measurements for the RRT were reported.
Report No: 2-31-D-2005-02-1
TOFDPROOF project n: G6RD-CT-2001-00626
Issue No.: 1
Deliverable n31
Confidential

Page 12 of 14
In general, the discrepancies in length measurement related to the intended
values were significant. The standard deviation of the errors in the reported
length measurements for the RRT was 11.7mm. The errors may have been partly
related to differences between the intended values and the real values. However,
sizing errors also varied between inspection teams. On this basis, length
measurement from TOFD techniques should therefore be treated with caution.
The variations in reported height measurement may have been related to the
teams choice of the variables used to linearise the TOFD results (such as: the
reference time to the lateral wave, the reference time to the backwall echo, the
velocity and component thickness). The standard deviation of the errors in the
reported height measurements for the RRT was 2.0mm. It is important to use a
defined measurement technique.
The sizing method used to determine the defect dimensions (height and length)
should be clearly defined in the inspection procedure. This is in order to provide a
repeatable measurement technique and to allow comparison between inspection
teams and repeat inspections. The measurement techniques used for the calibration
and on the actual component should be consistent.
2.6 Personnel qualification
As the detection and sizing performance were highly dependant on the inspection
team, it was concluded that the training and experience of the inspection
personnel is critical.
In addition to a general knowledge of ultrasonic weld inspection, all key personnel
should be experienced in TOFD inspections.
At least one of the inspection personnel should be familiar with preparation of
written test instructions, final off-line analysis of data and be qualified to approve
the final inspection report. This inspection personnel should be certified as a
minimum to level 2 in accordance with EN 473
[5]
or equivalent in ultrasonic
testing for the relevant industrial sector.
In cases where the above minimum qualifications are not considered adequate,
job-specific training should be carried out.
2.7 Acceptance criteria
Carefully specified acceptance criteria are required to ensure component integrity without
unnecessary rejection e.g. due to innocuous defects or false calls.
3. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Some TOFD technique limitations and recommendations were identified under
another project
[6]
:
A better response is obtained when the included angle between the probes is
120. Experimental results confirms the theory.
Offset-scans, that is, scans parallel to the weld-axis, where the beam intersection
point is not on the centre-line of the weld, should be carried out (especially for
thick X-shaped welds to ensure detection of toe cracks at the surface opposite
Report No: 2-31-D-2005-02-1
TOFDPROOF project n: G6RD-CT-2001-00626
Issue No.: 1
Deliverable n31
Confidential

Page 13 of 14
the scanning surface). Omitting offset-scans could lead to depth position errors,
e.g. indications will tend to be plotted deeper than their true through-wall location.
The operators must ensure the proper coverage of the area of interest. TOFD
can be limited by the geometry of the sample or by an obstruction limiting the
scanning area. For example: at the ends of long seams adjacent to
circumferential seams (require grinding); inspection of mismatch pipe to pipe weld
and material of small wall thickness t such as t 10mm thick. When the required
coverage is not achieved by TOFD, additional NDT techniques are required to
complete the inspection.
Existence of a dead zone of the order of 2-3mm below the scanning surface.
This problem also occurs at the back-wall but the extent of dead zone may vary.
TOFD is not reliable for detecting surface defects of height less than 4mm.
Experimental results showed that root defects with a depth of less than 4mm are
easily missed or misinterpreted. Moreover, the difficulty of detection increases
with the defect offset position relative to the weld centre line.
4. CONCLUSIONS
This document provides recommendations for applying TOFD.
The recommendations are provided for seven categories, including: procedure,
identification of reference marks, set-up, classification of indications, evaluation of
indications, personnel qualification and acceptance criteria. For each group,
comments and recommendations are provided.
The results from the TOFDPROOF project round robin trials confirm some of the
TOFD limitations and highlight the need for an appropriate procedure, a skilled data
analyst and for realistic acceptance criteria.
Report No: 2-31-D-2005-02-1
TOFDPROOF project n: G6RD-CT-2001-00626
Issue No.: 1
Deliverable n31
Confidential

Page 14 of 14
5. REFERENCES
[1] NS Goujon & BW Kenzie, Discrepancy Analysis of the Round Robin Trial
Results, TOFDPROOF report No 2-18-D-2004-01-1.
[2] ENV 583-6: Non destructive testing Ultrasonic examination. Part 6: Time of
flight diffraction technique as a method for defect detection and sizing.
[3] PrCEN/TS 14751: Welding Use of time of flight diffraction technique for
examination of welds.
[4] D Flott, Procedure for TOFD Inspection of welds used for the Round Robin
Trials TOFDPROOF report No 2-21-Q-2002-01-4.
[5] EN 473: Qualification and certification of NDT personnel General principles.
[6] JM Farley, NS Goujon & BWO. Shepherd Critical evaluation of TOFD for
search scanning, 16
th
WCNDT 2004, Montreal, Canada.