UNDERSTANDING THE CHALLENGES IN THE TRANSITION FROM FILM TO DIGITAL

RADIOGRAPHY IN THE NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY

RM Meyer*, P Ramuhalli*, TL Moran*, CA Nove, and AF Pardini*

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rockville, MD, USA

*
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, USA

ABSTRACT
The use of film radiography for nondestructive examination (NDE) applications in the nuclear power
industry is diminishing due to the advent of modern digital imaging technologies. Technologies that are
used routinely in the medical industry for patient diagnosis are being adapted to industrial NDE
applications, including the detection and characterization of defects in welds. From the user perspective,
non-film inspection techniques provide several advantages over film techniques. It is anticipated that the
shift away from the application of film radiography in the nuclear power industry represents an
irreversible trend. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has noted this trend in the U.S.
nuclear power industry and will be working to ensure that the effectiveness and reliability of component
inspections is not compromised by this transition. Currently, specific concerns are associated with 1)
obtaining a fundamental understanding of how inspection effectiveness and reliability may be impacted by
this transition and 2) ensuring training standards and qualifications remain compatible with modern
industrial radiographic practice. This paper discusses recent trends in industrial radiography and assesses
their advantages and disadvantages from the perspective of nuclear power plant component inspections.

INTRODUCTION
The use of film radiography for nondestructive examination (NDE) applications in the nuclear power
industry is diminishing due to the advent of modern digital imaging technologies. Technologies that are
used routinely in the medical industry for patient diagnoses are being adapted to industrial NDE
applications including the detection and characterization of defects in welds. From the user perspective,
non-film inspection techniques provide several advantages over film techniques including the elimination
of film costs (which are rising) and costs associated with film handling, processing, and long-term storage.
Other advantages associated with non-film radiography techniques include increased image contrast
dynamic range and better linearity, digital image enhancement and manipulation capabilities, and lower
radiation exposure requirements for image generation. Based on the advantages just cited, it is anticipated
that the shift away from the application of film radiography in the nuclear power industry will continue.
The NRC is interested in obtaining a more fundamental understanding of how radiographic
inspection effectiveness and reliability are impacted by factors that differentiate film and digital
radiographic techniques, and to ensuring that training standards and qualifications of NDE personnel in the
nuclear industry are compatible with modern industrial radiographic practice.

RECENT TRENDS IN INDUSTRIAL RADIOGRAPHY

An overview of industrial radiography trends is provided in [1]. Filmless radiographic testing (RT)
techniques, such as fluoroscopes and direct imaging methods, have been investigated and used since at
least the late 1980s [2]. Recent advances in solid-state technology have led to the development of highly
sensitive digital detectors for radiography, leading to what is commonly called digital RT (DRT) [3].
Interest in DRT for industrial applications seems to be increasing world-wide, with organizations such as
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) supporting Coordinated Research Programs (CRP) in
this area [4]. In the United States, progress in DRT is being monitored by the Federal Working Group on
Industrial Digital Radiography (http://www.dwgndt.org/fwgidr.htm). The key to DRT is to find a way of
directly recording the RT image on a computer (or other digital media). DRT first made its appearance in

478

medical diagnostics. Until recently, limitations on detector size and image quality have hindered the
adoption of these detectors in industrial NDE.
DRT is a generic term encompassing several filmless detector technologies. DRT is to be
distinguished from digitized radiography, which consists of the digitization of exposed film. DRT
currently uses one of the following types of detectors [5]:
Storage phosphor plates (so-called computed radiography or CR).
Indirect digital detectors (scintillation detectors or scintillators).
Direct digital detector arrays (DDA flat panels).
The remainder of this paper covers only standard radiographic techniques that acquire images from
a single view (i.e., single angle of incidence of the x-radiation). Multiview approaches, such as computed
tomography, are rarely used for nuclear power plant (NPP) inspections, although a multi-view device has
recently been qualified by European standards for weld inspections in NPPs [6]. These techniques may be
used with greater prevalence in the future; but regardless, a greater understanding of single-view
techniques is needed initially, to assess current industry practice and to benefit future assessments of
multi-view techniques.

FILM-TO-DIGITAL TRANSITIONUNDERSTANDING THE IMPACT ON INSPECTION

RELIABILITY
In NDE, performance is often specified in the form of probability of detection (POD), probability of false
calls (PFC), and/or probability of rejection (POR). POD or POR curves may be used to evaluate individual
systems. Additionally, plotting POD vs. PFC gives the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve that
demonstrates the tradeoff between increased detection rates and increased false-call rates. The ROC
method has been used for quantifiable training and evaluation of medical radiologists [7]. In. radiography,
the ROC curve will depend in a holistic way on all the parameters that describe the radiographic system
and the ways these parameters are related to and interact with each another.

Performance Aspects Affected by Transition from Film to Digital Techniques

The reliability of a radiographic inspection will depend on the quality of the radiographic image and on the
quality of the analysis of that image. In turn, both the image quality and the quality of image analysis
depend on the quality of the equipment, procedures, and personnel involved in the radiographic system.
This relationship is illustrated in Figure 1. The quality of an image may be quantitatively described in
terms of the image contrast, sensitivity, and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR).

479

Figure 1 Illustration of performance aspects impacted by the film-to-digital transition and potentially
affecting the reliability of radiographic examinations

Performance Parameter Comparison Film and Digital RT Systems

The impact of the film to digital transition in radiography depends on several performance factors
that can be ascertained from a review of the literature. A summary of key literature findings is provided in

Table 1 [1]. There are several disadvantages to using digital detectors in terms of image quality,
including inferior native contrast sensitivity, inferior modulation transfer function (MTF), and inferior
limiting spatial resolution (LSR). Other disadvantages in current inherent digital detection equipment
include poorer basic spatial resolution (SRb) and lower dose tolerance than film media. However, the
storage of radiographic images digitally allows for greater flexibility in terms of image processing, image
enhancement, and image interpretation. Sophisticated filters can be applied to reduce noise and enhance
radiographic images overall. The use of post-processing (such as high-pass filtering [8]) can further
improve contrast sensitivity and detection reliability. Additionally, detector limitations with respect to
exposure tolerance can potentially be compensated for by digitally combining several exposures. Further,
digital storage of radiographic images allows for the application of image analysis algorithms to automate
flaw detection and sizing. It is possible that these advantages of digital radiography can compensate for
poorer native image quality. This is partly reflected in the final row of

480

Table 1, which indicates that some studies show that radiography performed with DDAs provides better
crack-detection sensitivity than film.

Table 1 Summary of factors impacting radiographic detection reliability [1]

Issues Impacting
Reliability
Dynamic Range
SRb

Key Findings:
Digital Detectors
Key Findings: CR
Higher than film
Higher than film
Lower resolution than
Lower resolution than
film
CR
MTF and LSR
LSR less than that of film LSR less than that of
(MTF is narrower than
film (MTF is
that of film), implying narrower). This implies
lower contrast sensitivity.
lower contrast
sensitivity.
Contrast Sensitivity Generally lower than that Generally lower than
of film. Among CR
that of film (under
detectors, higher
identical conditions).
resolution (HD-CR) has
Higher resolution
better contrast sensitivity provides better contrast
under similar exposure
sensitivity under
conditions. Smaller
similar exposure
changes in contrast
conditions. Smaller
sensitivity for varying
changes in contrast
thickness, due to larger sensitivity for varying
dynamic range.
thickness, due to larger
dynamic range.
Dose and Dose Rate,
Lower dose rates
Lower dose rates than
Exposure Setting
required than film. Under film. For the same dose
identical conditions, film rates, DRT using digital
has higher sensitivity
detectors had better
leading to higher quality detectability than film.
(Class B).
Thickness of
Limitations in dose rates
Limitations in dose
Specimens
and resolution may not
rates and resolution
permit applicability of
may not permit
CR to thick specimens.(a) applicability of DRT
using digital detectors
for thick specimens.(a)

481

Relevant
References
[9]
[5, 10-16]
[5, 10-13,
16, 17]

[16-18]

[14-16]

[9, 14-16]

Issues Impacting
Reliability
Increased Exposure
Time

Front Lead Screens

Key Findings: CR
Can saturate detector.
Structure noise becomes
apparent at longer
exposures.

Decrease contrast
sensitivity and degrade
image quality

Post Processing

Geometric
Unsharpness

Limited by code to twice

the basic spatial
resolution (EN 444, EN
462-5, ASTM-E 2002).
This will limit maximum
projection magnification.

Projection
Magnification (PM)

Can improve
detectability. However,
too high a value of PM
increases geometric
unsharpness and reduces
detectability.
Can improve detection
sensitivity to cracks,
when used with
projection magnification

Microfocus Tubes

Manufacturing
Variabilities

Differences in detector
sensitivity, SNR and
CNR

Key Findings:
Relevant
Digital Detectors
References
Can saturate detector.
[15]
However, can improve
SNR by resetting
sensors periodically,
and averaging over
multiple images.
[14-16]

Improved sensitivity
[8]
(by about 12 wire pair
IQI)
Limited by code to
[9]
twice the basic spatial
resolution (EN 444, EN
462-5, ASTM-E 2002).
This will limit maximum projection
magnification.
Can improve
[15, 19-21]
detectability. However,
too high a value of PM
increases geometric
unsharpness and
reduces detectability.
Can improve detection [15, 16, 19sensitivity to cracks,
21]
when used with
projection
magnification.
[22]

Calibration

Necessary to correct for [15, 16]

pixel-pixel variations.
Detection
Poorer than film (on
Better than film (on
[16]
Sensitivity for
limited set of flaws)
limited set of flaws).
Cracks
Higher spatial
resolution (smaller
pixel pitch) gives better
detection sensitivity.
(a)Maximum wall thicknesses described in the published literature are
typically tens of millimeters, though there appears to be no restriction on the
maximum wall thickness that may be radiographed with DRT detectors provided
the right source with adequate energy is used to fully penetrate the part.
The information in the table should be interpreted with caution. Almost all of the studies cited
above draw conclusions based on a limited set of flaws, and the conclusions reached in these studies may
not be applicable to inspection scenarios in the nuclear industry. Moreover, the experimental conditions
482

(such as detectors, source strengths, specimen thicknesses, etc.) are not the same across all of these
studies. With these caveats, some general trends may be observed. First, detection sensitivity in DRT is a
complex function of several variables. Understanding how each of these variables impacts the sensitivity
is important for obtaining high-quality radiographic images. Characterization of the detector response,
either experimentally or through simulation [23], may be necessary to ensure that appropriate calibration
(such as the multi-gain calibration procedure [16]) can be performed to address any pixel-to-pixel or
detector-to-detector variability. On the other hand, current CR technology does not appear to match the
detection sensitivity of film RT, and further developments in this technology may be necessary.
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) conducted a multi-year program called Evaluation of
Filmless Radiography to better understand the capabilities of digital radiographic inspections using both
CR and DR techniques. This program aimed to assess the capability of CR and DR for detection of cracks
and SCC flaws in piping welds, considered examinations of water filled components using DRT
techniques, and evaluated oriented slotted-bar reference blocks as a method to measure the tolerance of a
DRT technique to crack orientation misalignment. These studies resulted in the accumulation of a
significant set of data useful for assessment of inspection performance using DRT techniques [24-26].

CODES, STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES

Standards and Regulatory Guides Relevant to Digital Radiography Equipment and Practice
A significant need for standardization arises in the field of digital radiography because of the nature of
technology progression and also because of the large number of vendors of digital radiography
technology. The development of a methodology to transition from film to CR while meeting regulatory
requirements has been the focus of a recent Edison Welding Institute (EWI) effort. As part of this effort, a
review of CR codes and standards was performed [27].
ASTM International has published several standards related to digital radiography equipment and
standard practices for usage of digital radiography equipment. Several ASTM standards related to both CR
imaging plate technologies and DDAs are tabulated in
Table 2.
Table 2 List of ASTM standards relevant to digital radiography using CR and DDA technologies
Standard
ASTM E1475
ASTM E2339
ASTM E2699

ASTM E2738

ASTM E2597
ASTM E2698
ASTM E2736
ASTM E2737

Title
Standard Guide for Data Fields for Computerized Transfer of Digital
Radiological Examination Data
Standard Practice for Digital Imaging and Communication in
Nondestructive Evaluation (DICONDE)
Standard Practice for Digital Imaging and Communication in
Nondestructive Evaluation (DICONDE) for Digital Radiographic
(DR) Test Methods
Standard Practice for Digital Imaging and Communication
Nondestructive Evaluation (DICONDE) for Computed Radiography
(CR) Test Methods
Standard Practice for Manufacturing Characterization of Digital
Detector Arrays
Standard Practice for Radiological Examination Using Digital
Detector Arrays
Standard Guide for Digital Detector Array Radiology
Standard Practice for Digital Detector Array Performance Evaluation

483

ASTM E2007
ASTM E2033
ASTM E2445
ASTM E2446

& Long Term Stability

Standard Guide for Computed Radiography
Standard Practice for Computed Radiology (Photostimulable
Luminescence Method)
Standard Practice for Qualification and Long-Term Stability of
Computed Radiology Systems
Standard Practice for Classification of Computed Radiology Systems

In addition to the standards in

Table 2, codes have been developed in the United States and Europe (EN 14784, and Mandatory
Appendix VIII of Section V, Article 2, ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code [BPVC]) for weld
inspection using CR. The European codes split the testing into two classes (A and B), with differing
quality requirements. Requirements on contrast sensitivity, normalized signal-to-noise ratio (nSNR), and
SRb are specified, based on such parameters as the source energy and specimen density/thickness. The
ASME Code specifies contrast sensitivity only through the use of IQIs. Mandatory Appendix IX of
Section V, Article 2, ASME BPVC includes requirements for performing examinations using DR. The
specification for image quality assessment is through the use of IQIs.
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has published the first international
standard for digital radiographic inspection of pressurized welded piping in gas and oil industries
ISO/DIS 10893-7 [28]. This code specifies the use of IQIs for assessing the image quality.
The Federal Working Group on Industrial Digital Radiography (FWGIDR) has published white
papers dealing with recommended guidelines for qualification of digital radiography systems and
processes, based on currently available codes and standards, recommended guidelines for standardization
and management of digital data, and guidelines for the conformance and verification of DICONDE data
[29-31].

PERSONNEL - TRAINING AND QUALIFICATION

Digital radiography procedures are sufficiently different from film radiography procedures that individuals
qualified for film RT are not necessarily competent in digital RT procedures. Among the major differences
are the digitization of images and the handling of digital imaging media. Individuals qualified for film RT
can lack fundamental knowledge regarding digital representations of information and digital image
processing. They may also lack an understanding of digital detectors and storage media. The FWGIDR has
recognized the need to standardize the qualifications of NDT personnel who perform DRT examinations
and has worked on the development of supplemental training requirements for individuals who perform
DRT examinations. The FWGIDR has published white papers dealing with guidelines for qualifications of
Level I, II, and III digital radiography personnel [32-34].

Performance-based Criteria for Film and Digital Radiography

Traditionally, RT inspections have been performed to workmanship standards that have focused on
detecting and identifying volumetric inclusions in construction and fabrication welds [1]. The detection
performance of RT is due to a combination of the instrumentation settings (source, detector, exposure
time, etc.) and operator performance. In the case of film RT, film processing also plays an important role
in detection performance [35]. RT is not generally used for inservice inspections due to its sensitivity to
the orientation of planar flaws, which limits its effectiveness and reliability for detection of cracks and its
effectiveness for depth sizing of planar flaws. As the industry moves towards the adoption of fitness-forpurpose standards for construction and fabrication inspections, planar flaw detection and depth sizing is of
greater importance. This raises questions with regard to the ability of RT to meet construction and
fabrication inspection requirements of this alternative philosophy, independently of whether film or digital

484

radiography is used. Few round-robin studies exist that explicitly separate the effect of each of these
contributors to the final result.
There have been a number of studies on NDE reliability in general [36], and on human factors in
NDE reliability in particular [37-39]. NDE reliability is a function of several variables, including the socalled application variables and human factors. All of these variables need to be controlled sufficiently if
the reliability of the technique is to be improved [37-40]. A lack of adequate training for operators in DRT
principles is likely to play a decisive role in the performance of individual inspectors, though there are few
studies to address this. Training for NDT personnel has been identified as an important issue impacting the
transition to DRT [32-34]. This indicates that digital RT is very skill-dependent and that there may be a
need to develop and implement a performance demonstration process to ensure that digital RT inspections
are effective at reliably detecting and accurately sizing the target flaw types and sizes.

CONCLUSIONS
Studies indicate that the performance of DRT techniques (using DDAs) may be able to equal or exceed
that of film procedures with respect to sensitivity and POD for detection of cracks [16]. Despite generally
poorer native image quality obtained with digital equipment versus film, the ability to digitally manipulate
images may be able to compensate for this. However, such studies have been conducted on a limited
number of specimens not necessarily relevant to inspection scenarios of the nuclear industry. Evidence
also highlights that DRT techniques are very skill-dependent and that training is needed to ensure the
competency of personnel performing DRT examinations. At the moment, no comprehensive studies have
been performed to determine the effectiveness and reliability of DRT techniques for inspections in the
nuclear power industry and to understand the separate impacts of equipment, procedure, and personnel on
overall performance. As a consequence, the adequacy of current standards and training requirements for
DRT inspections is difficult to judge. The implications of the film-to-digital RT transition on inspection
performance for both volumetric and planar flaws in the nuclear industry needs to be individually
assessed. The qualification of digital RT inspections in lieu of film RT will need to be performed for each
type of flaw. Obtaining a more fundamental understanding of how the multiple factors of DRT
examinations impact overall performance will benefit modeling of digital RT performance and planning of
potential round-robin studies to enable demonstrating the need for the creation of compatible standards
and qualification processes.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work was sponsored by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) through project number
JCN V6097.

REFERENCE
1) Moran, T L, Ramuhalli, P, Pardini, A F, Anderson, M T, and Doctor, S R, Replacement of
Radiography with Ultrasonics for the Nondestructive Inspection of Welds - Evaluation of Technical
Gaps - An Interim Report, PNNL-19086, Richland, Washington: Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory; 2010.
2) Fletcher, M J, "Fully Automatic Inspection of Welds Now a Reality," Welding and Metal Fabrication,
1988 56(2) 70-72.
3) Klyuev, V V, and Sosnin, F R, "The Current State of Digital X-ray Technology," Russian Journal of
Nondestructive Testing, 1999 35(4) 297-305.
4) Ewert, U, Zscherpel, U, Fratzscher, D, and Alekseychuk, O, "Optimization of Digital Industrial
Radiography (DIR) Techniques for Specific Applications: An IAEA Coordinated Research Project,"
4th Pan American Conference for NDT (PANNDT 2007), Buenos Aires, 2007.
5) Mishra, D, Venkatachalam, R, and Manoharan, V, 2007, "Digital Radiography for Non-destructive

485

6)

7)
8)

9)

10)
11)

12)

13)

14)

15)

16)
17)

18)

19)
20)
21)

22)
23)

Testing," Computerized Tomography for Scientists and Engineers, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida p.
176-213.
Ewert, U, and Redmer, B, "Lecture: Radiographic In-Service Inspection in Nuclear Power Industry
and Mobile Tomographic Cross Sectioning of Weldments," Conferncia de Tecnologia (Conference
on
Equipment
Technology),
Salvador,
Brazil,
2009.
http://www.abende.org.br/down2/radiografic_in_serv.pdf.
Swets, J A, and Pickett, R M, Evaluation of Diagnostic Systems: Methods from Signal Detection
Theory, New York, Academic Press, 1982.
Moreira, E V, and Simeies, H R, "Flat-Panel Detectors are Accepted for Digital Radiography in Place
of Conventional Radiography in Pipeline Weld Inspection," 4th Pan American Conference for NDT
(PANNDT
2007),
Buenos
Aires,
Argentina,
2007.
Available
at
http://www.ndt.net/search/pdf2html.php?url=article/panndt2007/papers/127.pdf.
Ewert, U, Zscherpel, U, and Bavendiek, K, "Replacement of Film Radiography by Digital Techniques
and Enhancement of Image Quality," Annual Conference of Indian NDT Society, Kalkutta, 2005.
http://www.ndt.net/article/v12n06/ewert.pdf.
Mohr, G A, and Bueno, C, "GE a-Si Flat-Panel Detector Performance in Industrial Digital
Radiography," Insight (UK), 2002 44(10) 631-633.
Spartiotis, K, Pyyhtia, J, Schulman, T, Puhakka, K, and Muukkonen, K, "A Directly Converting HighResolution Intra-Oral X-ray Imaging Sensor," Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research
A, 2003 501 594-601.
Spartiotis, K, Havulinna, J, Leppanen, A, Pantsar, T, Puhakka, K, Pyyhtia, J, and Schulman, T, "A
CdTe Real Time X-ray Imaging Sensor and System," Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics
Research A, 2004 527 478-486.
Spartiotis, K, Leppanen, A, Pantsar, T, Pyyhtia, J, Laukka, P, Muukkonen, K, Mannisto, O, Kinnari, J,
and Schulman, T, "A Photon Counting CdTe Gamma- and X-ray Camera," Nuclear Instruments and
Methods in Physics Research A, 2005 550 267-277.
Beckmann, J, Rachny, S, Zscherpel, U, and Ewert, U, "Improved Procedure for Computed
Radiography - A Comparative Study on Welded Tube Sections by Film Radiography and Computed
Radiography," 17th World Conference on Nondestructive Testing, Shanghai, China, 2008.
Ewert, U, Zscherpel, U, and Bavendiek, K, "Strategies for Film Replacement in Radiography - Films
and Digital Detectors in Comparison," 17th World Conference on Nondestructive Testing, Shanghai,
China, 2008.
[16] Marinho, C A, Lopes, R T, and Rebello, J M A, "Film Replacement by Digital Techniques in
Weld Testing," Mater Eval, 2009 67(5) 529-539.
Howard, B D, "Lens-Coupled, Area-Detector Digital Radiography versus Conventional Radiography
of Fusion Bonded Pinch Welds: Are They Equivalent?," Digital Imaging IV Topical Conference,
Mashantucket, Connecticut, 2001. http://www.osti.gov/src/servlets/purl/783028-f1k3tT/native/.
Lu, Z F, Nickoloff, E L, So, J C, and Dutta, A K, "Comparison of Computed Radiography and
Film/Screen Combination Using a Contrast-Detail Phantom," Journal of Applied Clinical Medical
Physics, 2003 4(1) 91-98.
Ewert, U, "Upheaval In Industrial Radiology," Journal of Nondestructive Testing, 2002 7(12) 1-13.
Blakeley, B, and Spartiotis, K, "Digital Radiography for the Inspection of Small Defects," InsightNon-Destructive Testing and Condition Monitoring, 2006 48(2) 109-112.
Jaenisch, G R, Bellon, C, and Ewert, U, "Reliability Assessment by Simulation for High Energy
Radiography," 33rd Annual Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation, Volume
26, Portland, Oregon, American Institute of Physics, Melville, New York, 2007.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2718186.
Charnock, P, Connolly, P A, Hughes, D, and Moores, B M, "Evaluation and Testing of Computed
Radiography Systems," Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 2005 114(1-3) 201-207.
Jensen, T, and Xu, J, "Computer Modeling of Digital X-ray Detector Response," Review of
Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation, Volume 23, Green Bay, Wisconsin, American Institute of

486

Physics, Melville, New York, 2003.

24) EPRI, Nondestructive Evaluation: Evaluation of Filmless Radiography, 2008 Update, Report No.
1016656, Palo Alto, California: Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI); 2008.
25) EPRI, Nondestructive Evaluation: Evaluation of Filmless Radiography, 2009 Update, Report No.
1019121, Palo Alto, California: Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI); 2009.
26) EPRI, Nondestructive Evaluation: Evaluation of Filmless Radiography, 2010 Update, Report No.
1021154, Palo Alto, California: Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI); 2010.
27) Clear, K, and Lozev, M, Developing and Validating a Methodology for Transitioning from Film to
Digital Computed Radiography, EWI Cooperative Research Program Report, Report No. MR1011,
Columbus, Ohio: Edison Welding Institute (EWI); 2010.
28) Moreira, E V, Rabello, J M B, Pereira, M D S, Lopes, R T, and Zscherpel, U, "Digital Radiography
Using Digital Detector Arrays Fulfills Critical Applications for Offshore Pipelines," Journal on
Advances in Signal Processing, 2010. Article 894643.
29) FWGIDR, Guide for the Qualification of Digital Radiography Systems and Processes, Rev. 1, Paper
No. 002-12: Federal Working Group on Industrial Digital Radiography (FWGIDR); 2012.
30) FWGIDR, Guide for the Standardization and Management of Digital NDT Data, Paper No. 004-09:
Federal Working Group on Industrial Digital Radiography (FWGIDR); 2009.
31) FWGIDR, Digital Imaging and Communication in Nondestructive Evaluation (DICONDE)
Conformance and Verification, Paper No. 008-12: Federal Working Group on Industrial Digital
Radiography (FWGIDR); 2012.
32) FWGIDR, Recommended Training Curriculum for Digital Radiography Personnel (Level I), Paper
No. 006-11: Federal Working Group on Industrial Digital Radiography (FWGIDR); 2011.
33) FWGIDR, Recommended Training Curriculum for Digital Radiography Personnel (Level II), Paper
No. 005-11: Federal Working Group on Industrial Digital Radiography (FWGIDR); 2011.
34) FWGIDR, Recommended Training Curriculum for Digital Radiography Personnel (Level III), Paper
No. 001-09: Federal Working Group on Industrial Digital Radiography (FWGIDR); 2009.
35) Lapides, M E, Radiographic Detection of Intergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking: analysis,
Qualification, and Field Testing, Report NP-3164-SR, Palo Alto, California: Electric Power Research
Institute; 1983.
36) Singh, R, Three Decades of NDE Reliability Assessment, Karta-3510-99-01, San Antonio, Texas:
Karta Technologies, Inc.; 2000.
37) Fucsok, F, "Experiences and Problems of a Manual Ultrasonic Round Robin Test," 7th European
Conference
on
Non-destructive
Testing,
Copenhagen,
Denmark,
1998.
http://www.ndt.net/article/ecndt98/weld/190/190.htm.
38) Dymkin, G Y, and Konshina, V N, "Systematics of NDE Reliability: A Practical Point of View," 15th
World Conference on Nondestructive Testing, Rome, Italy, 2000. Available at
http://www.ndt.net/article/wcndt00/papers/idn738/idn738.htm.
39) Rummel, W D, "Qualification and Validation of the Performance Capability (POD) For
Nondestructive Inspection Procedures," 16th WCNDT 2004 - World Conference on NDT, Montreal,
Canada, 2004. http://www.ndt.net/article/wcndt2004/html/htmltxt/619_rummel.htm.
40) Rebello, J M A, Carvalho, A A, Sagrilo, L V S, and Soares, S D, "Reliability of the Ultrasonic
Technique Applied to Detection of Pipe Weld Defects," 33rd Annual Review of Quantitative
Nondestructive Evaluation, Volume 26, Portland, Oregon, American Institute of Physics, Melville,
New York, 2006.

487