' fu R a.

93/
Commission of the European Communities

Nuclear Science and Technology

Shared Cost Action
Reactor Safety Programme 1985-1987

PISC II: PARAMETRIC STUDIES

Flaw Characterisation using the TANDEM and TOFD Techniques

Final Report

Directorate-General for Science Research and Development

Joint Research Centre - Ispra Site

September 1989

EUR 12431 EN

Commission of the European Communities

Nuclear Science and Technology

Shared Cost Action
Reactor Safety Programme 1985-1987

PISC II: PARAMETRIC STUDIES

Flaw Characterisation using the TANDEM and TOFD Techniques

Final Report

Work performed in the frame of the

Shared Cost Action (SCA) programme 1985-87
CEC, JRC Shared Cost Action Contract
No. 2871-85-12 EN ISP - GB

Authors:
R.A. Murgatroyd, P.J. Highmore, T. Bann
UKAEA, RNL, Risley - United Kingdom, Atomic Energy Authority
Risley Power Development Laboratory, Risley, Warrington, Cheshire, WA3 6AT
S.F. Burch, A.T. Ramsey
UKAEA, AERE, Harwell - United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority
Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Harwell, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX 11 ORA

This report has been approved and authorized for publication

by the PISC III Management Board at its meeting of
December 15, 1988 as PISC III - Rep. No. 4.

Directorate-General for Science Research and Development D/

Joint Research Centre - Ispra Site
'
'

September 1989

I CL

A EUR 12431 EN

Published by the
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Directorate-General
Telecommunications, Information Industries and Innovation
Batiment Jean Monnet
LUXEMBOURG

LEGAL NOTICE
Neither the Commission of the European Communities nor any person
acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might
be made of the following information.

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1989

ISBN 92-826-0989-8 Catalogue number: CD-NA-12431-EN-C
ECSC - EEC - EAEC, Brussels-Luxembourg, 1989
Printed in Italy

CONTENTS
PAGE

1.

INTRODUCTION

2.

THE TANDEM INSPECTION PROGRAMME

2.1. Description of test blocks

DATA GATHERING PROCEDURES FOR THE TANDEM TECHNIQUE

3.1. The RNL inspection procedure

3.2. The AERE inspection procedure

3
3

3.

4. RESULTS OF TANDEM INSPECTIONS

5. DISCUSSION OF TANDEM RESULTS

6.

THE TOFD INSPECTION PROGRAMME

6.1. Description of test blocks

DATA GATHERING PROCEDURES FOR THE TOFD TECHNIQUE

7.1. The RNL inspection procedure

7.2. The AERE inspection procedure

RESULTS OF TOFD INSPECTIONS

8.1. Results for Block EDC-20-24

8.2. Results for Block EDC-20-20

10

7.

8.

9. DISCUSSION OF TOFD RESULTS

11

10. REFERENCES

12

11. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

12

TABLES

13

FIGURES

19

1. INTRODUCTION
Studies on the effect of flaw characteristics and selected inspection parameters on the
detection and sizing of flaws in ferritic steel blocks have been performed by the
United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) as part of a larger Commission
of the European Communities (CEC) Parametric Study programme. The techniques included in the UKAEA studies were the 45 tandem and the time-of-flight diffraction
(TOFD) techniques.
The purpose of the work was to acquire reliable experimental data that could be used
both to test and verify theoretical models and to contribute to the resolution of
anomalies encountered in PISC round-robin inspection exercises. To this end, the data
were gathered in a format compatible with that of the theoretical predictions and
scanning parameters were employed that would test the theoretical models over a range
of inspection conditions.
For the studies, eighteen test blocks were fabricated by Ispra in which a range of flaw
types were inserted covering flaw shape, size, roughness and orientation. Thirteen of
these were selected for the UKAEA programme on the basis of their relevance to the
validation of theoretical models and their value to flaw characterisation studies.
The work involved in the programme was shared between Risley Nuclear Laboratories
(RNL) and AERE Harwell, with the teams inspecting to similar procedures. The first
series of test blocks and probes for use with the tandem technique was received in June
1986 and commissioning of scanning and data gathering equipment commenced. This
part of the programme was completed early in 1987. Two test plates suitable for use
with the TOFD technique were received in May 1987 and the experimental scanning
received high priority in the UKAEA to enable the plates to be despatched to
Association Vincotte at the end of May 1987, in accord with the overall programme.
This final report describes the programme, data gathering procedures and the results of
the studies.

2. THE TANDEM INSPECTION PROGRAMME

Following a meeting at Association Vincotte [1], it was clear that to obtain tandem data
which would test theoretical models adequately the extent of scanning of a given flaw
needed to be increased to include angles of skew between the flaw and the ultrasonic
beam. Since this would represent a significant increase in the work involved it was
agreed that a reduction would be made in the number of flaws examined to enable the
increased scanning to be performed within the agreed workload. An assessment was
made of the flaws of interest to the CEC Theoretical Modelling Action, and the
resulting list of flaws selected for inspection by the tandem technique is given in
Table 1. This results in a total of 90 tandem scans being required compared to the contractual requirement of about 30 scans. Also, the data was gathered at 1 mm step intervals rather than 5 mm in order to improve the sensitivity of the data. Thus it is considered that significantly more experimental work has been performed than contracturally required.

2.1 Description of test blocks

The test blocks (EDC-2-0-9 and EDC-40-8) and a reference block (EDC-REF-2) were
inspected at RNL using the tandem technique. They were fabricated from reactor grade
ferritic steel (type ASME SA 533 B Class 1) and were unclad. Each block contained
several machined artificial reflectors (side-drilled holes and flat-bottomed holes [fbh's])
simulating flaws of which only one in each block was suitable for scanning with the
tandem technique. Block EDC-REF-2 contained a 6 mm dia fbh, EDC-2-0-9 contained a 25 mm dia re-entrant machined fbh and EDC-40-8 contained a 25 mm diameter shrink fit fbh. All the holes had smooth end faces and were untilted to ensure
specular reflection of ultrasound. The overall dimensions of the test blocks and relevant
flaws are shown in Figure 1 and details of each reflector scanned are shown in
Figure 2.
A total of nine test blocks (illustrated in Figure 7 is a representative block) containing
a variety of rectangular, "semi-infinite" diffusion-welded strip flaws were inspected at
AERE. The flaws were oriented at various angles of tilt relative to the inspection surface of the test block and had either a rough or smooth surface finish.
Details of all the flaws scanned using the tandem technique are given in Table 1.

3. DATA GATHERING PROCEDURES FOR THE TANDEM TECHNIQUE

The work involved in the programme was shared between RNL and AERE as
described previously. Similar ultrasonic probes and scanning procedures were employed,
although there were some differences in equipment. The main aspects of each data
gathering system are outlined below.

3.1 The RNL inspection procedure

A minicomputer based data-gathering system was used at RNL in conjunction with a 1
metre square rectilinear scanning frame to perform the specified scans. Scanning proceeded in steps of 1 mm with the rectified and smoothed ultrasonic signal being digitised and recorded at each position. For one set of scans on one flaw the unrectified RF
waveform was also recorded. The probes were Krautkramer WB45, 2 MHz, supplied by
JRC Ispra. A Reflectoscope S80 flaw detector provided the ultrasonic signals which
were digitised by a Tektronix Digital Storage Oscilloscope and subsequently analysed.
A single scan was made along the centre-line of a 6 mm diameter flat bottomed
calibration hole to provide a reference signal level (Figure 3). More extensive scanning,
including probes skewed at various angles to the reflector face was performed for the
25 mm diameter reflectors in blocks 2-0-9 and 40-8 (Figure 4). Scans were made along
the centreline of the reflector at skew angles of 0, 5, 10 and 15" and at the same
angles off the centreline by +12 and +24 mm (except at 0 skew when only +12 and
+24 mm scans were required since the -12 and -24 mm scans would be identical). In
total, therefore, 18 sets of results have been obtained for each flaw. However, in order
to capture the complete echo-dynamic it was necessary to perform each scan in two
parts, giving a total of 36 scans. For the flaw in block 2-0-9 both the RF and rectified
waveforms were digitised giving a total of 72 scans for this flaw.
All scans were made in the same direction, namely in the +X direction, and the end
point of each scan was noted from the reflector so as to eliminate the effect of "takeup" or backlash in the scanner and probe holder at the start of the scan. In order to
record the entire ultrasonic response (i.e. down to at least 20 dB below the peak value)
it was necessary to perform each scan in two halves, including the peak response in
both halves to serve as an added check on the X-location of the probes.
Data such as the equipment settings and scan details were recorded and a detailed log
book has been maintained.

3.2 The AERE inspection procedure

The two Krautkramer WB45 transducers (frequency = 2 MHz, crystal dimension =
20 x 22 mm) supplied by Ispra were mounted in the tandem configuration using a
specially designed holder, which maintained a constant separation between transducer
emission points of 224 + 2 mm for blocks 20-14, 20-16 and 20-18 and a separation of
280 + 2 mm for blocks 20-2 to 20-12.
The tandem probe holder was mounted in a stepper-motor driven x-y scanning frame,
under computer control. Linear scans were made over the centre line of the three defects, with skew angles 0 and 15, i.e. a total of six linear scans were recorded from
the defects. Raster (x-y) scans (zero skew) over the calibration reflector were made
before and after the two sets of defect scans having skew angles of 0 and 15". The
stepping interval of the defect scans was 1 mm, while for the calibration scans the interval was 1 mm in both the x and y directions.

The equipment used for recording the ultrasonic data digitally was similar to that
described by Carter and Slesenger [a]. The ultrasonic electronics were standard Harwell
units mounted in a CAMAC crate. A LeCroy (type 2256) 20 MHz waveform digitiser
was used to digitise the unrectified (RF) ultrasonic signals. For each waveform, 1024
successive samples were stored to an accuracy of 8 bits, giving digital data for a continuous period of 51.2 us. The initial time delay on the first digitised sample was adjusted to 165 us, so that the signals of interest were centred in the digitised section of
the waveforms.
The operation of these units was controlled by an LSI 11/23 computer, which was also
used to average 64 independent waveforms from each scan position, thus reducing
random electrical and acoustic noise. After completion of each linear scan the digitised
RF waveform data were stored on computer disc in a single file, known as a B-scan.
The B-scan files recorded on the LSI 11/23 data collection computer were transferred
to a VAX 11/750 minicomputer linked to International Imaging Systems display devices
for subsequent processing and analysis.
To facilitate comparison with theoretical predictions, the variation of peak signal
amplitude with transducer position was derived from the B-scan data using the following method. The pulse envelopes of the digitised RF waveforms were first computed
using the analytic signal method [s], using fast Fourier transforms to calculate the
necessary Hilbert transforms. This enabled the peak signal amplitude to be derived accurately for each transducer position, thus avoiding any under-estimates caused by the
20 MHz digitization.
The peak signal strengths from the calibration scans were then derived. The maximum
difference between the calibration signal strengths obtained before and after the defect
scans was only 0.1 dB. The averages of the very similar calibration signal strengths
were then used to express the defect signal amplitudes in dB relative to the peak signal
from the standard 6 mm diameter calibration reflector.

4. RESULTS OF TANDEM INSPECTIONS

The results of scanning the test blocks listed in Table 1 with the tandem technique are
given in Tables 3 and 4.
4.1

Table 3 gives the peak signal amplitude in dB relative to a 6 mm FBH reflector

for the flaws in Blocks EDC 2-0-9 and 40-8. These flaws were respectively a reentrant FBH and a shrink-fit FBH, both 25 mm diameter and at a depth of
82.5 mm (Figures 1, 2). The variation in signal amplitude with horizontal scan
distance, X, is illustrated in Figure 5 for Block EDC 2-0-9. The results for skew
angles up to 15s are compared. The echodynamic curves obtained on Block EDC
40-8 are displayed in a similar manner in Figure 6.

4.2

Table 4 gives the peak signal amplitude in dB relative to a 6 mm FBH reflector,

for the two sizes of strip flaws studied, and skew angles of 0 and 15. The
details of the flaws included in this part of the programme are illustrated in
Figure 7 and Table 1. The variation in signal amplitude with scan distance X, is
illustrated in Figures 8 to 13. In the Y-direction, the echodynamics for smooth
and rough flaws are shown in Figures 14 and 15 respectively. For the rough
flaws the curves show significant variability along the flaw edge with a tendency
for a minimum near the centreline position.

5. DISCUSSION OF TANDEM RESULTS

5.1

The amplitudes obtained for 0 skew and tilt scans on the re-entrant 25 mm flatbottomed hole (block 2-0-9) and the 25 mm shrink-fit (block 40-8) defect agree
to better than 0.1 dB (Table 3). Differences exist in the data obtained for these
reflectors for other tilt and skew conditions but the trends observed are similar.
This is illustrated in Figures 16 and 17 for 0 and 15 skew angles respectively.

5.2

Skew has a pronounced effect on signal amplitude. The results for the re-entrant
FBH in Block 2-0-9, Figure 18, shows in excess of a 40 dB decrease in peak
signal amplitude on the flaw centreline as the skew angle increases from 0 to
15. A similar decrease occurs for the strip flaws. This is due to the loss of much
of the specular reflection as the beam skews with respect to the flaw. As the
tandem system scans parallel to the flaw in the skewed orientation, peaks appear
at the position of the flaw edges which are in excess of 30 dB below the
maximum centreline value. The peaks at the flaw edge are attributed to edge
diffracted waves. It is conceivable that this phenomenon could lead to incorrect
flaw characterisation and sizing with amplitude-based techniques.

5.3

Amplitude peaks are not observed for the strip flaws since transverse scanning
was not included in the studies. However, it is anticipated that the behaviour
would be similar at the edge of the flaws.

5.4

The studies on the strip-flaws (Table 4) included flaws with either rough or
smooth crack faces, and a significant difference in behaviour occurred between
the two types (Figure 19). The peak amplitude for the smooth flaws decreased by
over 40 dB along the flaw centreline as skew increased from 0 to 15. Flaw tilt
further decreased the signal. A combination of 15 skew and 15 tilt resulted in a
55 dB decrease in amplitude for scans along the flaw centreline.

5.5

"Rough" flaws, as defined in the sample studied, are less affected by skew than
are smooth flaws.

5.6

A noteworthy feature of the results is that the signal amplitude from "rough"
flaws exceeds that from smooth flaws for skew angles above 5 to 10, for the
conditions studied.

5.7

The effect of tilt along the centreline of the flaw is less pronounced than that of
skew for the strip flaws (Figure 20) and decreases with increasing flaw skew.

5.8

The results for the 25 x 125 mm smooth strip flaws (Figure 21) show similar
trends for tilt and skew to those of the smaller strip flaws.

6. THE TOFD INSPECTION PROGRAMME

6.1 Description of Test Blocks

The test blocks chosen for the UKAEA TOFD studies contained sharp-edged, circular
flaws which in some cases were within 3 mm of the surface, in others were closely
spaced, multiple discs. It was recognised that this geometry presents difficulties to the
TOFD technique due to the weak diffracted signal or the proximity to the surface of
the test block, and the flaws were selected to enable a detailed assessment of the
capability of TOFD to be made under onerous conditions. The results are considered to
be representative of capability under extreme conditions.
6.1.1 Test Block EDC-20-24
The test block inspected by RNL (EDC-20-24) contained two untitled (i.e. normal to
inspection surface) 25 mm diameter near-surface diffusion welded flaws, one with a
"rough" surface finish and one "smooth".
There was insufficient information contained in the drawing to identify which of the
flaws was "rough" and which "smooth" and so the flaws were identified as "FLAW A"
and "FLAW B" with a test block identify mark acting as a reference point.
6.1.2 Test Block EDC-20-20
The test block inspected at Harwell contained two composite defects at equal depths
from opposite faces. Each defect appeared from the drawing (Figure 22) to contain
three coplanar vertical 10 mm discs separated from a parallel 40 mm diameter disc by
10 mm in the x-direction. The near-surface edges of the 40 mm discs were at a depth
of 15 mm from opposite faces. This specimen was originally constructed for pulse-echo
and tandem work and the defects were near one end. In order for TOFD to be used,
therefore, an extra block had been welded on to the end of the original specimen at
Ispra, thus extending the block by some 75% over that shown in Figure 22.
Details of the flaws in both test blocks are given in Table 2.

7. DATA GATHERING PROCEDURES FOR THE TOFD TECHNIQUE

7.1 The RNL inspection procedure

The same scanning equipment as used for the tandem studes was used for the TOFD
scans but a Harwell "Zipscan" digital ultrasonic inspection system was used to drive the
versatile scanner and rectilinear scanning frame via an independent microprocessorbased scan controller developed at RNL. The ultrasonic probes were scanned over the
flaw in 1 mm steps and at each scan position the unrectified RF ultrasonic waveform
was digitised by a 21 MHz 8-bit D/A converter into 512 points, resulting in a digitised
window approximately 25 ys long. A high speed hardware signal averager was used to
average 256 waveforms at each position to improve the signal-to-noise ratio of the
waveform. Such averaging is essential for processing the often weak diffracted signals
encountered in TOF inspection.
The digitised RF ultrasonic waveforms, i.e. A-scans, were displayed on-line as a greyscale B-scan and stored on an integral hard disc at the end of each linear scan.
Analysis of the data to extract flaw depth and dimensions was performed either on
Zipscan or the B-scans were transferred to the NDT department's DEC Microvax II
multi-user computer system for subsequent processing, display and analysis. Hard
copies of the data were made using a video copier from a monochrome video display
terminal.
The test block was examined from the two opposite faces and therefore each flaw was
inspected twice: one as a near-surface flaw and once as a deeply-buried flaw, close to
the backwall of the test block.
Probe separation was optimised for the detection of signals from the top, middle or
bottom of each flaw. In order to obtain the best response from the flaws several types
of probes were employed. In general, 60 compression probes were used for the nearsurface flaw and 45 compression probes for the buried flaw. The probes used in the
exercise were short pulse length, 2 1 ' 4 MHz immersion types with 1/2 inch diameter
crystals of a type normally used in TOFD inspections at RNL. Scan lengths were sufficient to capture the full extent of the flaw signals, with data being recorded at 1 mm
steps.
Stand-off immersion scanning was performed with the probes fixed at the correct
angles in teflon probe bodies. There were two types of scan in mutually orthogonal
directions (Figure 23). In one, the probes were scanned, together (at a fixed probe
separation) in a direction normal to the face of the flaw. This is termed a longitudinal
scan. In the other the scan direction was parallel to the face of the flaw with the
probes positioned symmmetrically about the centre of the flaw. This is termed a transverse scan. This was performed at skew angles of 0" and 15 relative to the flaw. All
the above scan patterns are shown in Figure 23.

7.2 The AERE inspection procedure

A series of scans were carried out at Harwell using the Time of Flight Diffraction
technique on block PISC-EDC-20-20. A pair of 12 mm diameter, nominally 45 MHz
G5KB probes were mounted in perspex shoes which gave a beam angle in the steel of
60 degrees. The probes were acoustically coupled to the block with a light oil. The data
were gathered at 1 mm stepping intervals using the same hardware as in the tandem
measurements (see Section 3.1). The received data were amplified using a wide band (1
to 30 MHz) amplifier and digitized using a LeCroy 2256 20 MHz waveform digitizer
linked to an LSI 11/23 computer. A 40 dB pre-amplifier was used where necessary to
increase the intensity of the received signal.
Initially, coarse raster scans were performed to find the position of the defect. Two
perpendicular sets of scans were performed with a raster spacing of 5 mm. From these
the probe position where the maximum intensity of the signal from the 10 mm defect
occurred was found. This was 710 mm from the unwelded end of the original block
(before extending for TOFD) in the x-direction, and on the block centreline in the ydirection. This position agreed well with that shown on the block drawings supplied by
JRC, Ispra (Figure 22).
In order to achieve accurate defect sizing for all depths in the block, different probe
separations were used for:
a) the top of the upper defect;
b) the bottom of the upper defect and;
c) the lower defect.
Transverse and longitudinal scans (see Figure 24) were then performed at angles of
skew of zero and 15 degrees (achieved by skewing the block) for each separation - a
total of 12 B-scans. As seen from Figure 24 the transverse B-scans (at 0 degrees skew)
were performed across the block with the probes centred 710 mm from the original
end, and the longitudinal B-scans were performed along the centreline of the block.
Calibration scans were performed on blocks containing side-drilled holes at depths of
20 mm and 50 mm (close to the depth of the ends of the upper 40 mm disc).
The B-scans were transferred to the VAX 11/70 mini-computer for analysis using the
Image Processing hardware (International Imaging Systems I2S) and our specially developed software. Techniques were available to measure accurately the arrival times of
the pulses and relate these to a depth measurement, assuming either two compression
paths or one compression path, one shear path.
Measurements on the calibration scans enabled the accuracy of the depth measurements
to be calculated. The calculated depths on these scans agreed to within 0.5 mm of the
actual depths.

8. RESULTS OF TOFD INSPECTIONS

8.1 Results for Block EDC-20-24

Typical TOFD inspection data from the several scans performed on the test block are
presented as grey-scale B-scan displays (Figures 25 to 27), with the horizontal axis representing probe movement and the vertical axis depth in the test block (both in mm).
Both axes are linear.
The average depths of the indications from the two flaws in the test block, extracted
from this data, are given in Table 5.
The B-scan display from the longitudinal scan over the near-surface flaw (Figure 25a)
shows the bottom of the flaw located at a depth of 30 mm, indicated by the arc-like
signal response present at the expected depth of the flaw extremity. The corresponding
transverse scan (Figure 25b) shows the limited region of the flaw over which diffracted
signals are observed.
The indication from the top of the near-surface flaw, although visible as a "disturbance" in the near-surface wave (nsw) signal, was not resolved. This is to be expected
due to the close proximity of the top of the flaw to the surface of the test block (only
3 mm). However, the fact that the nsw was only attenuated and not totally interrupted
confirms that the flaw is not surface-breaking. Further signal processing may enable
the indication from the top of the flaw to be extracted from the nsw.
The top of the buried flaw also appears as an arc-like signal (Figure 26), but this is
much weaker than for the near-surface flaw and is superimposed on horizontal signals
thought to be associated with the welds surrounding the flaw. Similarly extremely weak
signals were observed just in front of the back wall which suggest the location of the
bottom of the buried flaw. However, these signals were on the limit of detection and
further processing and analysis is required to attempt to extract them from the large
backwall signals with which they merged.
In all cases the TOFD displays were complicated by extraneous signals, both arc-like
and planar, thought to be due to flaws in, and the properties of, the welds by which
the flaws were inserted in the test block.
When scans were performed with the probes skewed at an angle of 15 relative to the
face of the flaw, in order to simulate a flaw skewed relative to linear scanning axes,
multiple arc-like signals were observed instead of the usual single indication from the
tip of the buried flaw (Figure 27b). No similar signals were observed for the nearsurface flaw (Figure 27a).
Probe skewing also reduced the amplitude of the planar indications from the weld,
(also shown in Figure 27), easing observation of the arc-like signals and also enabling
the tip of the flaw to be located more accurately. It should be stressed, however, that
these complications with the fabrication welds are an artifact of the fabrication method
and are not necessarily a limitation of the TOFD technique.

8.2 Results for Block EDC-20-20

The drawings of block 20-20 supplied by JRC, Ispra (Figure 22) showed that the upper
and lower multiple defects each consisted of a 40 mm disc, separated from three
10 mm discs by 10 mm in the x-direction. The larger 40 mm disc was therefore
expected to shadow some or all of the signals from the smaller 10 mm discs. As shown
below, the TOFD results fully confirmed this interpretation of the defects.
Some recent suggestions that the larger 40 mm discs were merely the (non-reflecting)
peripheries of inserted plugs, with the defects comprising two groups of three 10 mm
discs are inconsistent with the TOFD results.
The longitudinal scan performed at the smallest separation (52.0 mm) shows a series of
defect signals (see Figure 28a). The,tops of the 40 mm diameter disc and the uppermost
"10 mm" disc (signal 1 & 2) are quite distinct and appear at depths of 13.4 mm and
15.3 mm respectively. The diffracted compression wave from the bottom of the
"10 mm" disc is not seen, presumably because it is shadowed by the "40 mm" disc.
However, the mode-converted shear wave from the bottom of the "10 mm" disc (signal
8) is observed (at a depth of 25.5 mm) as it travels at a steeper angle in the block and
emerges between the two discs. This gives a size of 10.2 mm for the small disc. Several
other signals appear whose arrival times and probable interpretations are summarised in
Figure 29 and Table 6. Some of these signals are reduced in amplitude (or do not appear) on the scan performed under the same conditions when the block was skewed by
15 degrees (Figure 28b). This supported the suggestion that these signals involve
multiple reflections between the defects. Later analysis has shown that signal 5 could
also be due to a compression wave mode-converting to a Rayleigh wave which travels
up the 10 mm defect from bottom to top before reverting to a compression wave.
Although many signals appear on this scan, the defect locations and sizes can be
calculated only from signals 1, 2 and 8. All the other signals are fully consistent with
the presence of a large reflector separated in the x-direction by 10 mm from a 10 mm
high reflector.
At the intermediate probe separation (190.5 mm) strong signals from both the top and
bottom of the upper defect are seen (signals 1 and 2 in Figures 30a and b). The signal
from the bottom of this defect appears at a depth of 53.1 mm (see Table 7) giving a
size of 39.7 mm for the large disc. Signals 7 and 8 are the compression-shear and
shear-compression waves from the bottom of the upper 40 mm disc, and signal 9 comprises two signals formed by mode-conversions to Rayleigh waves which travel along
the upper 40 mm defect (one signal for a downwards travelling Rayleigh wave and one
for an upwards travelling wave). This twin signal (No. 9) disappears when the defect is
skewed by 15 degrees, suggesting that skewing the defect affects the generation of
Rayleigh waves. A vertical series of as yet unexplained signals appear on scans performed at both this and the largest probe separation (360 mm) when either of the
probes is above the composite defect. It is possible that some kind of waveguide effect
may be occurring between the 40 mm and 10 mm discs. A few unexplained signals also
appear at apparent depths between the upper and lower composite defects. These disappear when the block is skewed, suggesting some form of multiple reflections have
occurred between the 40 mm and the three 10 mm discs.

10

The scans performed on the lower defect (Figures 31a and b) show a signal at a depth
of 139 mm which is assumed to be from the upper edge of the composite defect (see
Table 8). Very weak signals appear at depths of 162 and 170 mm. A signal appears at a
depth of 180 mm on the skewed scans and corresponds to the bottom of a 41 mm high
defect whose top is at 139 mm. This presumably does not appear on the scan performed at zero skew due to shadowing by the lowermost "10 mm" disc.
Also on the two deeper sets of scans appear the mode-converted shear waves from the
bottom of the upper defect.
The TOFD results for Block 20-20 were fully consistent with both the upper and lower
multiple defects being 40 mm diameter discs saparated from (by 10 mm in the xdirection) and shadowing 10mm discs.
Regarding the upper or near-surface defect, the "40 mm" and uppermost "10 mm" discs
were detected and sized as 39.7 mm and 10.2 mm respectively. The "40 mm" disc was
located at a mean depth of 33.3 mm and the "10 mm" disc was found to have a mean
depth of 20.4 mm. The depth measurement of the bottom of the "10 mm" disc was
achieved by studying the mode-converted signals, as the direct diffracted compression
signal was shadowed by the "40 mm" disc. No obvious signals were observed from the
other two "10 mm" discs in this composite defect. The lower defect was seen to contain
a 41 mm high vertical feature at a mean depth of 160.5 mm, but no unambiguous
signals were observed from the smaller defects in this cluster.
We would suggest that for a full evaluation of this defect, scans using pulse-echo and
tandem techniques in conjunction with TOFD be employed.

9. DISCUSSION OF TOFD RESULTS

The TOFD technique has been applied to the characterisation and sizing of flaw types
which were selected to provide an exacting examination of the capability of the
technique. It is concluded that:
9.1

The TOFD technique detected and located accurately the top and bottom of the
flaws accessible to the technique. Agreement with block fabrication data was
better than 2 mm.

9.2

Performance was limited by two inspection conditions. The first was where some
of the smaller flaws were obscured by larger ones, as seen in Block 20-20. This
would not necessarily occur with other techniques using single probes, such as
conventional pulse-echo. This indicates that whilst TOFD is a valuable sizing
technique, other diverse techniques should be included in an inspection for
reliable flaw characterisation. The second arose when defect edges lay close to a
surface making discrimination from the lateral wave difficult with standard
TOFD techniques. Further study on this aspect is planned by the UKAEA.
11

9.3

The limited data obtained at a skew angle of 15 indicates the relative insensitivity of the TOFD technique to flaw skew. In view of this it is considered that
further studies should be performed on the Ispra test blocks over a wider range
of skew and on other flaw types.

10. REFERENCES
[l]

Special Meeting of Parametric Studies Effect of the Defect Characteristics. Association Vincotte, February '86. 173/40-97/86/SC/rm.

[2]

P. Carter and T. Slesenger - UKAEA Harwell Report AERE-R 10386, 1981.

[3]

P.M. Gammell - Ultrasonics, 18, 73-76 1981.

11. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The valuable assistance of A.J. Plevin and N. Bealing in the experimental measurements
is acknowledged.

12

TABLE 1 - Flaw and scanning detaits for TANDEM technique.

TANDEM SCANNING PARAMETERS

FLAW PARAMETERS

TEST BLOCK
IDENTITY
SIZE
(mil)

DEPTH
(mm)

2-0-9
40-8

is 25
0 25

82.5
82.5

FBH, Re-entrant
FBH, shrink-fit

20-14
20-16
20-18

25 x 125
25 x 125
25 x 125

82.5
82.5
82.5

Strip, DW
Strip, DW
Strip, DW

20-2
20-4
20-6
20-8
20-10
20-12

10
10
10
10
10
10

55
55
55
55
55
55

Strip,
Strip,
Strip,
Strip,
Strip,
Strip,

x
x
x
x
x
x

50
50
50
50
50
50

DW = Diffusion Welded Flaw ;

TILT

TYPE

DW
DW
DW
DW
DW
DW

S = Smooth Flaw Surface ;

SURFACE

SKEW

RASTER

0, 5, 10, 15"
0, 5, 10, 15

Centre, +12, +24

Centre, +12, +24

Circular flaws

0
7
10

0, 15
o, 15
0, 15

Centre
Centre
Centre

Tilted strip flaws

0*
0
7
7
15
15

0, 15"
0, is0
0. is
0, is-

Centre
Centre
Centre
Centre
Centre
Centre

Smooth and rough tilted

strip flaws

o. is"
0, 15

R = Rough Flaw Surface

TABLE 2 - Flaws for TOFD technique studies.

TEST BLOCK
IDENTITY

20-20
20-24

COMMENTS

FLAW PARAMETERS
SIZE
(mm)

DEPTH
(imO

TYPE

TILT

SURFACE

3 - 18
25

37.5
15.5

Composite, DW
Composite, DW

0
0

S
R,S

DW Diffusion Welded Flaw ;

S = Smooth Flaw Surface ;

COMMENTS

R = Rough Flaw Surface

Composite flaw
Near surface, sharp-edged flaw

TABLE 3 -

Results of TANDEM inspection of Test Blocks EDC 2-0-9 and 40-8: peak flaw signal amplitude
relative to 6 mm diameter FBH reference reflector.
Flaws: 26 mm dia, 82.5 mm deep (Table 1).

SKEW ANGLE
(De,jrees)

0
0
0

14

Y+AXIS OFFSET

(mm)

PEAK SIGNAL AMPLITUDE

(dB)
EDC-2-0-9

EDC-40-8

0
+ 12
+ 24

21
12
- 11

21
14
- 13

0
+ 12
+ 24

0
-

2
8
7

- 12
- 24

- 17

3
5

- 13

- 15

- 11
- 13
- 12

+
+
+
+
+

+
+
+
+
+

10
10
10
10
10

+
+
-

+
+
+
+
+

15
15
15

0
+ 12
+ 24

- 11
- 22

- 28
- 15
- 22

16
15

- 12
- 24

- 12
- 27

- 18
- 3

5
5
6
5

0
12
24
12
24

3
5
2

- 14
- 7
- 21
- 21

- 28

TABLE 4 - Results of TANDEM inspection of strip flaws: peak flaw signal amplitude relative to 6 mm FBH
reference reflector.

TEST BLOCK
IDENTITY

FLAW PARAMETERS
SIZE
(mm)

DEPTH

TYPE

(mm)

TILT
(deg.)

SCAN

MAX AMP

SURFACE

SKEW
(deg.)

(dB)

20-2
20-2

10x50

55

Strip, DW

0
16

+ 2.7
- 22.7

20-4
20-4

10x60

65

Strip, DW

0
15

+ 1S.S
- 29.1

20-6
20-6

10x50

55

Strip, DW

0
15

+ 0.6
- 36.5

20-8
20-8

10x50

65

Strip, DW

0
15

- 7.6
- 15.8

20-10
20-10

10x50

55

Strip, DW

15

0
15

- 41.0

20-12
20-12

10x50

55

Strip, DW

15

0
16

13.6
- 23.6

20-14
20-14

25 x 125

82.6

Strip, DW

0
15

- 18.0
- 27.0

20-16
20-16

25 x 125

82.5

Strip, DW

0
16

- 4.0
- 37.0

20-18
20-18

25 x 125

82.5

Strip, DW

10

0
15

- CO
- 34.0

8.2

DW = Diffusion Welded Flaw ; S = Smooth Flaw Surface ; R = Rough Flaw Surface

TABLE 5 - Siting results from TOFD inspection of Test Block EDC-20-24.

FLAW

FLAW TIP

DEPTH FROM INSPECTION SURFACE (mm)

AS NEAR-SURFACE FLAW

AS DEEPLY-BURIED FLAW

TOP

Not resolved

165.0

BOTTOM

30.0 + 1.0

Not resolved

TOP

Not resolved

166.6 + 1.5

BOTTOM

28.0 + 0.5

Not resolved

15

TABLE 6 - Interpretation of signals appearing in Figures 28a and b.

x/mm

COMMENT

INFERRED DEPTH
(mm)

SIGNAL No.

ARRIVAL TIME
(psec)

1.10

c/c from C

13.4

1.40

- 10

c/c from A

15.3

1.85

c/c diffracted from

A on to C

4.50

- 3 to 5

c reflected off 40 mm
defect on to B, c to R

5.90

- 14

c to C, s to A, c to R

6.35

c to B, diffracted to 40 mm
defect, reflected to 10 mm,
c to R (all compression)

10

7.65

13

8.05

- 22

diffracted s wave off B

8.70

- 27

c to B, c t 40 mm defect,
e to A, diffracted shear
wave to R

9.35

- 12

c to B, s to 40 mm defect,
reflection to 10 mm defect,
mode conversion to c to R

c to B, s to 40 mm defect,
c to 10 mm defect, c to R

c
s

= compression wave
= shear wave

A
B
C

= top of uppermost 10 mm defect

= bottom of 10 mm defect
= top of upper 40 mm defect

signal 5 could also be due to a Rayleigh wave travelling up the 10 mm defect

16

25.5

TABLE 7 - Interpretation of signals appearing in Figures 28a and b.

SIGNAL No.

ARRIVAL TIME

x/mm

COMMENT

( V"<0

INFERRED DEPTH
(mm)

c/c to top of 40 mm defect

c/c to bottom of 40 mm defect

63.1

59

c/s to bottom of 40 mm defect

62.8

16.40

82

s/c to bottom of 40 mm defect

53.0

16.3
(cross-over point

11

4.65

- 12

7.56

11-32

9.10

11-34

12.10

16-30

13.76

13-26

15.35

8
9

10

18.8

86

11

18.1

111

= compression wave

= shear wave

,1

<J,

TABLE 8 - Interpretation of signals appearing in Figure! 31a and b.

SIGNAL No.

ARRIVAL TIME
(usee)

x/mm

COMMENT

2.8

- 14 to 29

e/c to bottom of upper

40 mm defect

7.4

46 to 74

15.9

- 13 to + 7

c/c from top of lower

INFERRED DEPTH
(mm)
65.6

138.7

40 mm defect
4

14.6

144

c/s to bottom of upper

52.8

40 mm defect

c
s

18

14.6

18.1

17.7

22.7

9
10

= compression wave
= shear wave

147

s/c to bottom of upper

40 mm defect

62.8

170

174

13

(0 deg. skew only)

170

20.9

(15 deg. skew only)

162

25.2

10

c/c from bottom of lower

40 mm defect
(15 deg. skew only)

180

L
W
T
D

X
Figure 1 -

REF-2

2-0-9

40-8

459.5
2C0
193.5
82.5
50

449.5
299
192.5
82.5
30

600
299.5
194
82.5
30

Dimensions of test blocks and flaws examined by RNL using the

TANDEM technique.

3J'
PLUG

END-FACE
REFLECTOR
Figure 2 -

18

>
Of ENTRANT HOLE
RE

Details of flaw sizes and shapes.

19

PLAN VIEW

centreline
scan only

-X-*

Figure 3 -

Scan for 6 mm dia. flat-bottomed

coordinate conventions.

hole (FBH) in Block ref-2

PLAN VIEW

Skew ang!e f G=o:5;iO;i5'

Figure 4 -

20

Scan paths for Blocks 40-8 and 2-0-9.

and

YrOmm

SKEW ANGLE * 0*, 5* 10* 15

>
<
_i
UJ

a.

100.0

Figure 5 -

110.0

120.0

130.0

Echo-dynamic plots for Test Block 2-0-9 (Y = offset = - 0 mm).

Y-0mm

40.0

SKEW ANGLE- 0*. S M 0 ' , 15'

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

110.0

120.0

130 0

X Imml

Figure 6 -

Echo-dynamic plots for Test Block 40-8 (Y offset 0 mm).

21

TEST BLOCK IDENTITY

DRAWING

10

PISC - E D C - 2 0 - 2

81-1192-EDC-20-2

10 SO

WEIGHT ~ 350 Kg

ALL DIMENSIONS IN MM

C=M

at

at

CD
CM

195,5
757,3
MATERIAL

ASME SA 533 B C1.1

CLADDING

NONE

TYPE OF FLAW Diffusion welded flaws

Rough surfact of the flaw
Tilt angle: 0
Dimensions 5 0 x 1 0 mm

Figure 7 - Test block PISC-EDC 20-2.

22

20

95,

-28.0
14.0

fdB)

(dB)

(dB)

-30.0

12.0

10.0

4.0

2.0

-20.0

-34.0

-36.0

8.0
6.0

/\

-32.0

2o.o r

-2.0

-38.0

/'

-40.0

,1

60.0

-42.0
-44.0

(mm)
100.0

1
140.0

A
A

,1mm)
-20.0

10.0
12.0

14.0

(mm)

60.0

20.0

100.0

16.0

140.0

18.0

Figure 10 -

Figure 9 -

Echo-dynamic plot Block 4, Sm ooth, 0* tilt, 0* skew.

Echo-dynamic plot Block 6, Sm ooth, 7* tilt, 0' skew.

Echo-dynamic plot Block 4, Sm ooth, 0" tilt, 15* skew.

340

-8.0

-40.0

(dB)

36.0

(dB)

-10.0

38.0

140.0

6.0

-46.0

. -.

100.0

2D

-20.0

20.0

4.0

/V

8.0

Figure 8I

(dB)

2.0

40.0

-14.0

42.0

-16.0

44.0

-18.0

46.0

-20.0

41.0

-22.0

50.0

-24.0

-42.0

-12.0

/
/

-46.0

\
\

-48.0
-50.0

n
Jr
A^

-44.0

-52.0

52.0 f-

-20.0

-26.0
1

20.0

60.0

100.0

(mm)
140.0

Figure 11
ynamic plot Block 6, Smooth, 7* tilt. 15* skew.
M
GO

-20.0

-54.0
1
20.0

_i

. _

60.0

i
100.0

( mm

140.0

Figure 12 Echo-dynamic plot Block 10, Smooth, 15* tilt, 0' skew.

-20.0

20.0

J _

60.0

100.0

(mm)
140.0

Figure 13 Echo-dynamic plot Block 8, Sm ooth, 15* tilt, 15* skew.

-21

-+

-12

12

Y-OFFSET
( mm )

24
i
X E0C 2 - 0 - 9
E0C 4 0 - 8

-10-

BLOCK 20-4 (TILT 0 )

- 60.0

400

60.0

PEAK SIGNAL
-to-- AMPLITUDE
(dB)

Figure 14
Smooth defects 0 deg. skew; Echodynamic when scanning parallel to the
defect.

Figure 16 Comparison of Blocks EDC 2-0-9 and 40-8 for 0* skew, 0* tilt.
PEAK SIGNAL
AMPLITUDE
dB)

10.0,

-60.0

EDC
EDC

2-0-9
40-8

60 0

BLOCK 20-2 (TILT 0 )

Y-OFFSET
( mm )

-5-10-

Figure IS
Rough defects 0 deg. skew; Echodynamic when scanning parallel to the
defect.

-15--

Figure 17 Comparison of Blocks EDC 2-0-9 and 40-8 for 15 skew, 0 tilt.

AMPLITUDE
IdB)
0*

TILT

SMOOTH . 1 5 ' SKEW

Figure 18 - Amplitude from 25 mm re-entrant flat-bottomed hole along direction

parallel to flaw (relative to 6 mm FBH).

Figure 20 - Variation in peak signal amplitude with tilt for 10 x 50 mm strip flaws .

PEAK
AMPLITUDE
(dB )

SH00TH

ROUGH

AMPLITUDE
IdB)

HAW
FLAW

to

SKEW

ANGLE

10

" ^v^

ROUGH , 7 * TILT
ROUGH , TILT
ROUGH , 1 S * TILT

-11 -

TILT

ANGLE

SKE

SHOOTH , 0 * TILT
-10
SMOOTH . V TILT
SMOOTH , 15* TILT

"**.

-JO

oi

Figure 19 - Variation in peak s ignal amplitude with skew for 10 x 50 mm strip flaws .

,Jt

I S ' SKEW

Figure 21 - Variation of amplitude from 25 x 125 mm s mooth s trip flaw with tilt and
skew.

TEST BLOCK IDENTITY P ISC-EDC-20-20

DRAWING

81-1192-EDC-20-20

WEIGHT ~

350Kg

20 -95

ALL DIMENSIONS IN MM

- co v
en

35

35
195,9

756,6

MATERIAL

ASME SA 533 B CI. 1

CLADDING

NONE

TYPE OF FLAW Composit detects (shadow)

Smooth surface with sharp crack edges
Tilt angle : 0
Dimensions : diameter: 40 x 10 mm

Figure 22 -

26

Diagram of block PISC-EDC-20-20 as supplied by JRC, Ispra.

10

SCAN TYPE
Rx PROBE

FLAW

Tx PROBE

1*

0SKEW
XY SCAN
TOP VIEW

SCAN DIRECTION

0SKEW
YX SCAN
TOP VIEW

15SKEW
XY SCAN
TOP VIEW

15SKEW
YX SCAN
TOP VIEW

BEAM PATHS
SIDE VIEW

Figure 23 -

Scan configurations used for TOFD inspection of Test Block 20-24.

27

00

TRANSVERSE

Y=0

TRANSVERSE

.
LONGITUDINALS I

in f
10mm
DEFECT

---J-o
_e

LONGITUDINAL

40 mm
DEFECT

710mm

x=o

Figure 24 -

[ e = ANGLE OF SKEW]

Coordinate system used for TOFD scans.

(a) XY SCAN

XY SCAN!

(b)'YX'SCAN

F 170
a.
a

-60 -40-20

20 40 60

X"POSITION (MM)

-40-20

20 40

Y POSITION (MM)
Figure 25

TOFD B-scans for near-surface flaw (non-skewed probes)-Test Block

20-24.
CO

-150

-110

"

-70

-30

30

70

X "POSITION'(MM)'
Figure 26

no

lso

TOFD B-scans for buried flaw (non-skewed probes)-Test Block 20-24.

(a) XY SCAN OVER

NEAR-SURFACE FLAW

CO

140 <b2 XY SCAN OVER BURIED FLAW

=n 170
a.
UJ
a

UJ

-60 -40-20

20 40 60

X~P0SITi0N~(MM)
Figure 27 -

-150 -110

-70

-3D

30

70

110

X~ POSITION" (MM)

TOFD B-scans for near-surface and buried flaws (skewed probes)-Test

Block 20-24.

150

Figure 28a -

Longitudinal scan of top of upper defect with a probe separation of

52.0 mm at 0 deg. skew. Scan is 100 A-scans (x 0.89 mm) by 256
samples ( 12.8 us).

Figure 28b -

Longitudinal scan of top of upper defect with a probe separation of,

52.0 mm at 15 deg. skew. Scan is 100 A-scans (x 0.89 mm) by 256
samples (- 12.8 us).

31

<,

t = 1.A0M S

@^K

zS>

<h

t = 4.50 Ms

t = 1.85 MS

<?
< ^

zg>

Z>

<,

t = 9.3Ms

KEY
COMPRESSION WAVE
SHEAR WAVE

Figure 29 32

Probable interpretations of signals in Figures 28a and b and Table 6.

to

Figure 30 -

Longitudinal scan of bottom of upper defect with a probe separation of

190.5 mm at 0 deg. skew. Scan is 300 A-scans (x 0.89 mm) by 512
samples (= 25.6 us).

Figure 31a -

Longitudinal scan of lower defect with a probe separation of 360 mm at

0 deg. skew. Scan is 450 A-scans (x 1.02 mm) by 800 samples (- 40 us).

Figure 30b -

Longitudinal scan of bottom of upper defect with a probe separation of

190.5 mm at 15 deg. skew. Scan is 350 A-scans (x 0.89 mm) by 512
samples (- 25.6 us).

Figure 31b -

Longitudinal scan of lower defect with a probe separation of 360 mm at

15 deg. skew. Scan is 450 A-scans (x 1.02 mm) by 800 samples (- 40 us).

European Communities - Commission

EUR 12431 EN Flow Characterisation using the TANDEM and TOFD
Techniques
R.A. Morgatroid, P.J. Highmore, T. Bann, S.F. Burch, A.T. Ramsey
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
1989 - IV, 36 pp. 21.0 x 29.7 cm
Series: Nuclear Science and Technology
EN
ISBN 92-826-0989-8
Catalogue number: CD-NA-12431-EN-C
Price (excluding VAT) in Luxembourg: ECU 5,00

Studies on the effect of flaw characteristics and selected inspection parameters on the
detection and sizing of flaws in ferritic steel blocks have been performed by the United
Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) as part of a larger Commission of the European Communities (CEC) Parametric Study programme. The techniques included in the
UKAEA studies were the 45 tandem and the time-of-flight diffraction (TOFD) techniques.
The purpose of the work was to acquire reliable experimental data that could be used
both to test and verify theoretical models and to contribute to the resolution of anomalies encountered in PISC round-robin inspection exercises. To this end, the data were
gathered in a format compatible with that of the theoretical predictions and scanning
parameters were employed that would test the theoretical models over a range of inspection conditions.
For the studies, eighteen test blocks were fabricated by Ispra in which a range of flaw
types were inserted covering flaw shape, size, roughness and orientation. Thirteen of
these were selected for the UKAEA programme on the basis of their relevance to the
validation of theoretical models and their value to flaw characterisation studies.
The work involved in the programme was shared between Risley Nuclear Laboratories
(RNL) and AERE Harwell, with the teams inspecting two similar procedures. The first
series of test blocks and probes for use with the tandem technique was received in
June 1986 and commissioning of scanning and data gathering equipment commenced.
This part of the programme was completed early in 1987. Two test plates suitable for
use with the TOFD technique were received in May 1987 and the experimental scanning received high priority in the UKAEA to enable the plates to be despatched to Association Vingotte at the end of May 1987, in accord with the overall programme.
This final report describes the programme, data gathering procedures and the results
of the studies.

Venta y suscripciones Salg og abonnement Verkauf und Abonnement ;

Sales and subscriptions Vente et abonnements Vendita e abbonamenti
Verkoop en abonnementen Venda e assinaturas
BELGIQUE / BELGIE

FRANCE

PORTUGAL

Moniteur beige / Belgisch Staatsblad

Rue de Louvain 40-42 / Leuvensestraat 40-42
1000 Bruxelles / 1000 Brussel
Tel 512 00 26
CCP / Postrekening 000-2005502-27

Journal officiel
Service des publications
des Communautes europeennes
26. rue Desaix
75727 Paris Cedex 15
Tel ( 1 ) 4 0 58 75 00

Imprensa Nacional
Casa da M oeda. E P
Rua D Francisco M anuel de M elo. 5
1092 Lisboa Codex
Tel 69 34 14

Sous-depots / Agentschappen:
Librairie europeenne /
Europese Boekhandel
Rue de la Loi 244 / Wetstraat 244
1040 Bruxelles / 1040 Brussel
CREDOC
Rue de la M ontagne 34 / Bergstraat 34
Bte 11 / Bus 11
1000 Bruxelles / 1000 Brussel

DANMARK
J. H. Schultz Information A / S
EF-Publikationer
Ottiliavej 18
2500 Valby
Tlf: 0 1 44 23 00
Telefax: 01 44 15 12
Glrokonto 6 0 0 08 86

BR DEUTSCHLAND
Bundesanzeiger Verlag
Breite Strae
Postfach 10 80 06
5000 Koln 1

Tel. (02 21) 20 29-0

Fernschreiber:
ANZEIGER BONN 8 882 595
Telecopierer: 20 29 278

GREECE
G.C. Eleftheroudakis SA
International Bookstore
4 Nikis Street
105 63 Athens
Tel.: 322 22 55
Telex: 219410 ELEF
Telefax: 3254 889
Sub-agent for Northern Greece:
Molho's Bookstore
The Business Bookshop
10 Tsimiski Street
Thessaloniki
Tel. 275 271
Telex 412885 LIM O

ESPANA
Boletin Oficial del Estado
Trafalgar 27
E-28010 M adrid
Tel. (91) 446 60 00
Mundi-Prensa Libros, S.A.
Castell 37
E-28001 M adrid
Tel. (91) 431 33 99 (Libros)
431 32 22 (Suscripciones)
435 36 37 (Direccin)
Telex 49370-M PLI-E
Telefax: (91)275 39 98

IRELAND
Government Publications Sales Office
Sun Alliance House
Molesworth Street
Dublin 2
Tel 71 03 09

Distribuidora Livros Bertrand Lda.

Grupo Bertrand. SARL
Rua das Terras dos Vales. 4-A
Apart 37

2700 Amadora Codex

Tel. 493 90 50 - 494 87 88
Telex 15798 BERDIS

or by post

UNITED KINGDOM

Government Stationery Office

EEC Section
6th floor
Bishop Street
Dublin 8
Tel. 78 16 66

HMSO Books (PC 16)

HMSO Publications Centre
51 Nine Elms Lane
London SW8 5DR
Tel. (01) 211 77 02
Sub-agent:

ITALIA
Licosa Spa
Via Lamarmora, 45
Casella postale 552
50 121 Firenze
Tel. 57 97 51
Telex 570466 LICOSA I
CCP 343 509
Subagenti:
Libreria scientrfica Lucio de Biasio -AEKXI
Via M eravigli. 16
20 123 M ilano
Tel. 80 76 79
Herder Editrice e Libreria
Piazza M ontecitorio, 117-120
00 186 Roma
Tel. 67 94 628/67 95 304
Libreria giuridica
Via 12 Ottobre. 172/R
16 121 Genova
Tel. 59 56 93

Alan Armstrong & Associates Ltd

Arkwright Road
Reading.' Berks RG2 OSQ
Tel (0734) 75 17 69
Telex 849937 AAALTD G

TURKIYE
Dnya super veb of set A S .
Narlibahce Sokak No. 15
Cagaloglu
Istanbul
Tel. 512 01 90
Telex: 23822 dsvo-tr.

UNITED STATES OF AM ERICA

European Community Information
Service
2100 M Street. NW
Suite 707
Washington, DC 20037
Tel. (202) 862 9500

GRAND-DUCHE DE LUXEM BOURG

Office des publications officielles
des Communautes europeennes
2. rue M ercier
L-2985 Luxembourg
Tel. 49 92 81
Telex PUBOF LU 1324 b
CCP 19190-81
CC bancaire BIL 8-109/6003/200
Messageries Paul Kraus
11. rue Christophe Plantin
L-2339 Luxembourg
Tel. 48 21 31
Telex 2515
CCP 49242-63
NEDERLAND
SDU uitgeverij
Christoffel Plantijnstiaat 2
Postbus 20014
2500 EA s-Gravenhage
Tel. (070) 78 98 80 (bestellmgen)

CANADA
Renouf Publishing Co., Ltd
61 Sparks Street
Ottawa
Ontario K1P 5R1
Tel. Toll Free 1 (800) 267 4164
Ottawa Region (613) 238 8985-6

Telex 053-4936
JAPAN
Kinokuniya Company Ltd
17-7 Shinjuku 3-Chome
Shiniuku-ku
Tokyo 160-91
Tel. (03) 354 0131
Journal Department
PO Box 55 Chitose
Tokyo 156
Tel. (03)439 0124

co

NOTICE TO READER
All scientific and technical reports published by the Commission of the European Communities are
announced in the monthly periodical euro abstracts". For subscription (1 year: ECU 76,50) please
write to the address below.

Price (excluding VAT) in Luxembourg: ECU 5,00

g | *.
***

OFFICE FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS

OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
L-2985 Luxembourg

ISBN TS-flSb-DTflT-fl