Influential & Essential Parameters For Inspection Effectiveness

ENIQ Recommended Practice 1
Influential / Essential Parameters
Issue 2
ENIQ Report nr. 24
EUR 21751 EN
Mission of the Institute for Energy
The Institute for Energy provides scientific and technical support for the conception, development, implementation
and monitoring of community policies related to energy.
Special emphasis is given to the security of energy supply and to sustainable and safe energy production.
European Commission
Directorate General Joint Research Centre (DG JRC)
http://www.jrc.cec.eu.int/
Institute for Energy
http://ie.jrc.cec.eu.int/
Contact:
Arne Eriksson Tel.: +31 (0) 224 565383
E-mail: arne.eriksson@jrc.nl
Legal Notice
Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for
the use, which might be made of the following information.
The use of trademarks in this publication does not constitute an endorsement by the European Commission.
The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect
the views of the European Commission.
A great deal of additional information of the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed
through the European server(http://europa.eu.int/).
Luxemburg; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2005
EUR 21751
© European Communities, 2005
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Printed in The Netherlands, Institute for Energy – JRC IE, PR & Communication
COVER: JRC IE, R. Houghton

No commercial use. Credit “Audiovisual Library European Commission”.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate General Joint Research Centre (DG JRC)
Institute for Energy
Petten
The Netherlands
ENIQ RECOMMENDED PRACTICE 1:

INFLUENTIAL/ESSENTIAL PARAMETERS
ISSUE 2
June 2005 ENIQ Report nr. 24 EUR 21751 EN
Approved by the Steering Committee of ENIQ for publication
Directorate General
Joint Research Centre
RP1 - Influential/Essential Parameters, Issue 2
CONTENTS
1. Introduction.................................................................................................................2
2. Concept of influential/essential parameters................................................................4
3. Application of the concept of influential/essential parameters in the overall

qualification process ...................................................................................................8
4. References ...............................................................................................................12
Appendix 1: Checklist of parameters which can be influential for the case of

an ultrasonic inspection of welds ...........................................................13
Appendix 2: Checklist of parameters which can be influential for the case of

an eddy current inspection of steam generator tubes............................16
Appendix 3: Overview of published ENIQ Recommended Practices: Titles and

Abstracts ................................................................................................19
1
1. Introduction
The European Methodology Document [1] is intended to provide a general framework for
development of qualifications for the inspection of specific components to ensure they
are developed in a coherent and consistent way throughout Europe while still allowing
qualification to be tailored in detail to meet different national requirements.
In the European Methodology Document one will not find a detailed description of how
the inspection of a specific component should be qualified. A recommended practice is a
document produced by ENIQ to support the production of detailed qualification
procedures by individual countries. A recommended practice is the next level of
document below the methodology. A recommended practice is applicable in general to
any qualification. This general scope means that valuable advice can be given by ENIQ
to promote a uniform approach to qualification throughout Europe but the detail of how
qualification is to be done is determined at the national level in line with the regulatory
and technical requirements in that country. Organisations will be free to make use at
national level of the existing recommended practices, as they see fit.
This ENIQ recommended practice should assist those involved in inspection qualification
in how to use and implement the concept of influential/essential parameters in agreement
with the spirit of the European methodology. The main objectives of this recommended
practice are:
- to explain the proposed concept of influential/essential parameters,
- to indicate how the concept could be used in inspection qualification according to the
European methodology,
- to give advice concerning the classification of influential parameters,
- to give examples of parameters which can be influential as a function of the specific
inspection to be qualified for 2 cases: an ultrasonic inspection of welds and an eddy
current inspection of steam generator tubes.
This recommended practice is relevant to any non-destructive testing method. Examples

given are taken from ultrasonic and eddy current inspections.
It is emphasised that the general principles given in this recommended practice can also
be used for qualification of manufacturing inspections or of inspections performed in the
non-nuclear field, although it was developed specifically for in-service inspection of
nuclear power plant components.
The definitions, as given in the second issue of the ENIQ glossary [2], apply to this
recommended practice.
2
The first issue of ENIQ Recommended Practice 1 was produced by the ENIQ Task
Group 2.2 and was approved by the Steering Committee of ENIQ for publication in
September 1998. The present document is Issue 2 and builds upon the experience
gained in the use of Issue 1 since then.
This RP1 on Influential/Essential Parameters, Issue 2, has been developed as a

consensus document amongst the members of TGQ. The contributors include (in
alphabetical order):
J-A Berglund Ringhals NPP, Sweden

R Chapman British Energy, United Kingdom
O J V Chapman OJVC Associates, United Kingdom
D Couplet Tractebel, Belgium
A Eriksson Directorate General JRC, European Commission
L Horácek NRI-REZ, Czech Republic
A Jonsson Forsmark NPP, Sweden
P Kelsey Rolls-Royce Marine Power, United Kingdom
P Krebs Engineer Consulting, Switzerland
B Neundorf Vattenfall Europe Nuclear Energy, Germany
T Seldis Directorate General JRC, European Commission, Co-chairman
of Task Group Qualification
H Söderstrand SQC, Sweden
C Waites Serco, United Kingdom
A Walker Rolls-Royce Marine Power, United Kingdom
J Whittle John Whittle & Associates, United Kingdom, Chairman
of Task Group Qualification
H Wirdelius SQC, Sweden
The Steering Committee of ENIQ has formally approved this RP 1, Issue 2, for
publication during the 28th Steering Committee meeting held at Řež, Czech Republic on
13-14 June 2005. The voting members of the Steering Committee of ENIQ are (in
alphabetical order):
R Chapman British Energy plc, United Kingdom, ENIQ Chairman

D Couplet Tractebel, Belgium
C Faidy EDF-Septen, France
K Hukkanen Teollisuuden Voima OY, Finland
P Krebs Engineer Consulting, Switzerland
B Neundorf Vattenfall Europe Nuclear Energy, Germany, ENIQ Vice-Chairman
J Neupauer Slovenské Elektrárne, Slovakia
U Sandberg Forsmark NPP, Sweden
J Shejbal Dukovany NPP, Czech Republic
D Szabó Paks NPP, Hungary
R Van Beusekom EPZ, The Netherlands
European Commission representatives in the SC:
A Eriksson. Directorate General JRC, ENIQ Network Manager

T Seldis Directorate General JRC, Scientific Secretary to ENIQ
J Guinovart Directorate General Transport and Energy, Luxemburg
3
2. Concept of influential/essential parameters
2.1 Influential and Essential Parameters
There are many parameters which can potentially influence the outcome of an
inspection. These are the influential parameters. The list of influential parameters to be
considered will depend upon the specific inspection to be qualified.
Those influential parameters whose change in value would actually affect a particular
inspection in such a way that the inspection could no longer meet its defined objectives
are defined as the essential parameters and are the parameters (together with a
tolerance where appropriate) which need to be considered for the qualification. A case-
by-case analysis has to be performed for each particular qualification in order to identify
the essential parameters for a specific inspection.
In Appendix 1, one finds examples of parameters which can be influential for the case of
an ultrasonic inspection of welds. In Appendix 2, examples of parameters are given
which can be influential for the case of an eddy current inspection of steam generator
tubes.
The above appendices are not intended to be exhaustive but they can be used as check
lists by those developing and justifying inspections to help identify the essential
parameters. They can also be used by qualification bodies in the same way to check that
all essential parameters have been identified and treated in the technical justification.
Consideration of the influential parameters for any particular inspection shows that they
can be divided into two distinct groups (see Figure 1):
- input (component characteristics, characteristics of defects to be detected and sized,
environment etc.),
- NDT inspection system. This includes procedure parameters (for example probe
frequency, beam angles, recording level, personnel requirements etc) and equipment
parameters (for example digitisation rate, horizontal linearity, etc).
2.2 Input Parameters
The first group contains parameters which define the particular inspection problem. Their
values and the range over which they can vary determine the inspection approach which
is appropriate to the problem. Details of the component such as its dimensions, material
and geometry are included in this group along with the parameters of the defects which
need to be detected and assessed. The particular defect parameters which have to be
considered depend on the NDT method being used. This group of parameters is referred
to as the Input Group.
4
2.3 NDT Inspection System Parameters
The second group of parameters includes firstly those which are chosen to ensure that
the NDT to be used is matched to the component, the defects to be sought (and/or sized)
and the performance required. Logically, they should follow from the value of the
parameters in the Input Group, although code requirements or previous practice are
sometimes the basis of the initial choice. Examples of such parameters are, in the case
of ultrasonic inspection, the wave modes, frequencies, beam angles chosen and analysis
criteria. The parameters are specified in the inspection procedure and one of the
purposes of the technical justification is to justify the choices made and determine the
resulting performance to be expected from the inspection. Some of the parameters in
this group can often vary within their specified tolerance without affecting the outcome of
the inspection. Examples are the beam angles and the frequency for ultrasonics. A
function of the technical justification may be to determine and justify the tolerance
allowed for the variation of parameters where the outcome of the inspection is particularly
affected by variations of the particular parameter.
The requirements of the inspection procedure in turn determine the kind of equipment
which is to be used to implement the inspection. Some of the parameters in the Input
Group can also be important. For example, a hostile environment or the need for
precision in size measurement may dictate the use of automated rather than manual
scanning. The need to operate the equipment remotely from the ultrasonic transducers
may require the use of long cable lengths and these can influence the performance of the
equipment and so on. As above, there will often be a tolerance within which the
parameter will not affect a specific inspection. The need to ensure that the equipment
parameters remain within such tolerances requires regular calibration. Those
parameters which can change most rapidly require most frequent calibration. The
parameters relating to the inspection procedure and the equipment used are included in
the NDT Inspection System Group.
2.4 Summary
2.4.1 All influential parameters of the two groups discussed above whose change in
value actually affects the outcome of the inspection in such a way that it can no longer
meet its objectives (and hence be qualified) will be considered as essential parameters
and those from the second group must be specified in the inspection procedure. The
values chosen for the NDT Inspection System Group parameters must be justified in the
technical justification (TJ). The influential parameters which do not affect the qualification
of the particular inspection considered are non-essential parameters and need not be
considered in the TJ.
5
However, identifying those parameters in the TJ and justifying why they are not essential
might provide even greater confidence for the end user if needed but at the expense of
greater complexity in producing the TJ.
2.4.2 Many NDT inspection system parameters can vary within a tolerance. One of the
purposes of the technical justification is to show that such variations do not affect the
outcome of the inspection. The calibration requirements of the inspection procedure need
to ensure that such parameters are checked at appropriate intervals to ensure that they
remain within the specified tolerance.
2.4.3 The role of the different participants in inspection design and qualification in relation
to the essential parameters is summarised in Table 1 below:
Table 1: The role of different participants in relation to essential parameters
Participant Vendor (Developer Qualification Body Owner of the plant

of the NDT) (Manager of the (Buyer of the
qualification qualified
Parameter process) examination)
INPUT parameters Input to the Vendor Input to the QB for Defined by the
(related to real on for correct design of correct design of Owner according to
site conditions for the inspection the qualification ISI objectives,
implementation of system procedure component
the NDT system) (verification of the characteristics and
performance for all other site conditions
specified
conditions)
NDT inspection Defined by the The QB verifies that The Owner verifies
system parameters Vendor to fit the the whole that the on site
(related to the input parameters’ qualification implementation is
instructions of the range of values (to process is done with the
procedure, to the be demonstrated) performed with the defined values of
characteristics and defined values of the NDT system
settings of the the NDT system
equipment and to
the personnel)
6
Input Parameters
Procedure Parameters
NDT Inspection
System Parameters
Equipment Parameters
Figure 1: Different categories of influential/essential parameters
7
3. Application of the concept of influential/essential parameters in the

overall qualification process
3.1 Use of Essential Parameters in the Technical Justification
The second issue of the ENIQ European Methodology Document [1] describes
inspection qualification as the sum of the following items:
a. practical assessment (blind or non-blind), conducted on simplified or representative
test pieces resembling the component to be inspected;
b. technical justification, which involves assembling all evidence on the effectiveness of
the test, including previous experience of its application, experimental studies,
mathematical modelling, physical reasoning (qualitative assessment) and so on.
The aim is that the practical assessment and technical justification should together
provide convincing evidence that the proposed inspection will achieve the desired
performance targets, in terms of defect detection and sizing capability.
Technical justification (TJ) forms a key part of the ENIQ approach to qualification. Two
recommended practices have been published on technical justification: one on the
recommended contents of a TJ and one on a strategy of how to use a TJ [5-6]. The
document dealing with the contents of a TJ recommends that it contain a section
identifying the essential parameters for the inspection.
An analysis of the specific inspection to be qualified has to be done in order to determine

which are the essential parameters. The TJ can have a number of purposes and the
precise function of the TJ determines what must be included in it. In most cases the TJ
will contain a list of essential input and NDT inspection system parameters for the
inspections of the components in question and will describe how they will be dealt with in
the TJ. This involves demonstrating that the NDT inspection system parameters are
appropriate to the different values that input parameters can assume.
3.2 Choice of Essential Parameters
Usually it will be clear which of the parameters in the lists given in the Appendices (or
similar lists for other inspection techniques) are essential for a specific inspection. Some
of the parameters will clearly be inappropriate to the particular inspection e.g. pipe
diameter for plate inspection but many of them have the potential to change the outcome
of the inspection if they are changed sufficiently and so are essential.
8
3.3 Treatment of Essential Parameters in the TJ
Review of the essential parameters of the NDT inspection system group will reveal that
the outcome of the inspection would be particularly affected by changes in the values
chosen for certain of them. When this is the case, it must be demonstrated in detail in the
TJ that appropriate values have been chosen and specified in the IP in relation to the
input parameters and the values the input parameters can assume and that, where
appropriate, the inspection will not be degraded if the inspection system parameters vary
over their full allowable tolerance. Those compiling the TJ should determine which
system parameters fall into this category for the particular inspection. In the case of
ultrasonic inspection, these might include scanning areas, scanning and recording
sensitivity, sizing method and so on. The precise choice for a particular inspection must
be determined from analysis of that inspection. The values chosen for these parameters
and their tolerances where appropriate must be justified in some detail in the TJ. In
ultrasonic testing, the beam angle is a key parameter and must be chosen according to
the orientation of the defects being sought. If component geometry is complex, the
angles of incidence on the defects in relation to the beam angles selected may require
detailed calculation and this should be included in the TJ. Justification of the beam
angles selected for the inspection will usually be a key part of the TJ of an ultrasonic
inspection. However, the inspection would usually not be significantly affected if each
angle were to differ by a few degrees from its nominal value and so the effect of
tolerance in beam angle is often insignificant. Beam angle is an example of a parameter
that must be justified in detail in the TJ even though its tolerance is usually of little
consequence,
In many other cases, general experience and recognised theoretical or empirical

knowledge provide clear evidence that the outcome of the inspection is not particularly
affected by changes in the value of an essential parameter within its defined
range/tolerance and there is no need to treat it in detail in the TJ. An example of such a
parameter is probe centre frequency in ultrasonics. The parameter is essential because
if it is increased by an order of magnitude or more from its specified value the inspection
can be affected by material noise whereas if frequency is too low, the inspection
resolution and sensitivity to defects will diminish. Because it is essential, it must be
specified in the inspection procedure (IP) together with its tolerance. However, the
tolerance will usually be ±25% of nominal centre frequency or lower. This means that
variation within its specified tolerance will not normally affect the inspection. Because the
exact choice of frequency within a fairly broad range and also tolerance in frequency will
not affect the inspection critically, all the TJ needs to contain is a brief statement
justifying the choice of frequency e.g. “2MHz chosen to give reasonable resolution and
sensitivity to defects”. The QB should check the IP to ensure the tolerance and
calibration requirements are suitable but these need not be justified in detail in the TJ.
9
Such a treatment is acceptable as long as the brief statement is sufficient to provide the
required confidence (depending on the qualification level) that the qualification
conclusion is correct.
It is suggested that the section of the TJ which deals with essential parameters contains
a table listing all the essential parameters identified for the inspection. For those
parameters whose precise values particularly affect the inspection, the table should
contain a reference to the part of the TJ in which they are treated in detail. For other, less
critical essential parameters, the table itself should contain a brief justification of the
value chosen.
Some judgement by the TJ compiler is needed to determine which parameters are

treated in detail and which are not. This decision should be taken with great care
because, in some cases, the influence of the parameter may not be obvious. For
example, tolerance in beam angle may not affect detection capability but may affect the
correct sizing and positioning of the defect which may determine whether the defect is
classified as acceptable or not. A decision not to treat an essential parameter in detail
may be briefly justified in the TJ to strengthen the case and give higher confidence. The
QB will need to be satisfied with whatever treatment is given to each parameter and early
discussions between the QB and TJ compiler have the potential to save unnecessary
effort.
In many cases, for logistical reasons, the TJ is produced following experimental trials. If
the trials are successful, the TJ will need to show that they would still have been
successful over the full range of input parameter values. Most NDT inspection system
parameters whose variation does not affect the outcome of the inspection until they vary
by considerable margins from their specified value are effectively qualified by the trials. In
this situation, the table should simply record which parameters are qualified by the
successful trials.
Where the value or range for an essential parameter is not defined, this should generally
be stated in the TJ together with the reason for this, e.g. no information on the value of
the parameter is available or there is no way currently known to predict the effect of
varying the parameter. This makes a potential weakness in the justification apparent.
The values of the essential parameters of the NDT inspection system group may be
based on previous practice, on the requirements of codes or standards or on an
assessment of the requirements following from the input parameters. The TJ will usually
involve assessing the proposed inspection system through the identified essential
parameters to determine whether its performance matches the requirements.
10
This assessment may reveal deficiencies, which then lead to a process of iteration to
produce a satisfactory inspection system or to a decision to limit the application of the
inspection system.
3.4 Summary
In summary, the analysis of the influential/essential parameters can be done in

successive phases and the TJ compiler should follow the steps below:
- Determine the value and the tolerance/range for the essential parameters of the input
group related to the component and the defects,
- Determine which of the influential NDT inspection system parameters are essential for
a particular inspection
- Determine the value of the essential parameters of the NDT inspection system group
and ensure the IP includes values for all of them together with allowable tolerances
- Divide the essential NDT inspection system parameters into two sets –
Those which particularly affect the outcome of the inspection taking into account
the selected values for the input essential parameters related to the component
and the defects. (Set 1)
Those which affect the outcome of the inspection but only if they differ by a
substantial margin from their chosen values (Set 2)
- List all essential parameters, including input parameters, in the appropriate section of
the TJ in a table. For input parameters, identify in the table where evidence is given in
the TJ that the NDT system will meet its objectives for all values in the range of each
essential parameter. For each Set 1 system parameter, identify in the table where it is
treated in detail in the TJ. Include a brief justification in the table for the value (and
tolerance where applicable) chosen for each of the Set 2 system parameters.
- Demonstrate in detail in the TJ that Set 1 parameter values are correctly chosen in
relation to input parameter values and that allowable tolerances for any of the Set 1
parameters does not lead to an unacceptable value for that parameter. This situation
is unlikely to arise for Set 2 parameters because, by definition, the outcome of the
inspection will not be affected unless their value changes by very large amounts.
- Check that calibration requirements are included in the inspection procedure to ensure
that all parameters are and remain within their specified tolerance and include a
statement in the TJ to this effect
11
4. References
1. The European methodology for qualification of non-destructive testing, Second

Issue, EUR 17299 EN, published by the European Commission, Brussels-
Luxembourg, 1997.
2. ENIQ glossary of terms, second issue, ENIQ Report 12, EUR 18102 EN.
3. Technical Justification: Pre-Trials, (first ENIQ pilot study), ENIQ Report 10,
EUR 18114 EN, published by the European Commission, Brussels-Luxembourg,
1998.
4. Inspection procedure for the first ENIQ pilot study, ENIQ Report 11, EUR 18115 EN,
published by the European Commission, Brussels-Luxembourg, 1998.
5. ENIQ Recommended Practice 2: Recommended contents for a technical
justification, Issue 1, ENIQ Report 4, EUR 18099 EN, published by the European
Commission, Brussels-Luxembourg, 1998.
6. ENIQ Recommended Practice 3: Strategy document for technical justification, Issue
1, ENIQ Report 5, EUR 18100 EN, published by the European Commission,
Brussels-Luxembourg, 1998.
12
APPENDIX 1
Checklist of parameters which can be influential for the case of an ultrasonic

inspection of welds
1. Input group
1.1 Component:
• geometry of the component
• access possibilities (including radiation, etc.)
• surface conditions
• weld crown configuration
• weld root configuration
• wall thickness of the straight pipe
• diameter of the pipe
• counterbore
• counterbore dimensions
• weld mismatch (misalignment)
• macrostructure of the base material
• macrostructure of the weld
• presence of buttering (in case of dissimilar metal welds)
• temperature.
1.2 Defects:
• type of defect
• degradation mechanism
• shape of the defect
• through-wall extent of the defect
• position of the defect through the thickness of the component
• position of the defect along the axis of the component
• tilt angle of the defect
• skew angle of the defect
• roughness/branching of the defect
• presence of residual stresses.
2. NDT inspection system group
2.1 Procedure parameters

• wave mode
• probe type
• probe configuration (pulse echo, tandem, pitch/catch etc.)
• probe size
• frequency
13
• beam angle
• pulse length
• focal characteristics of (twin crystal) probes
• sensitivity for scanning and recording
• scanning pattern and step
• scanning speed
• scanned area on component surface
• personnel training , experience and qualification
• sizing method
• recording/identification criteria
• data analysis scheme.
2.2 Equipment parameters

The influential parameters of the NDT equipment are classified in different
categories:
• hardware pulser/receiver and data acquisition
• cable
• transducers
• scanner.
2.2.1 Hardware pulser/receiver and data acquisition:

• vertical linearity (screen height)
• horizontal linearity (time base)
• resolution of digitiser
• sampling rate
• averaging rate
• points per A-scan sampling
• pulse amplitude of the emitter
• pulse width of the emitter
• pulse fall time of the emitter
• pulse rise time of the emitter
• bandwidth of receiver
• available gain of receiver
• band pass filter of receiver
• time base setting for pulse echo probes
• time base setting for TOFD probes
• sampling gate.
All of these parameters will in general be parameters to be fixed within a

tolerance in the inspection procedure. Calibration requirements will be
chosen to ensure that unacceptable variations have not occurred.
14
2.2.2 Cable:
• cable length
• impedance.
2.2.3 Probe:
• probe frequency
• probe index point
• beam shoe angle
• probe shoe angular deviations (squint angle)
• twin crystal probe shoe focal characteristics
• bandwidth.
2.2.4 Scanner:
• linearity of the scanner
• repeatability
• resolution.
• water path (for immersion inspection)
The following procedure parameters concerning the scanner were already

mentioned:
• scanning pattern and step
• scanning speed.
• scanned area on component surface
15
APPENDIX 2
Checklist of parameters which can be influential for the case of an eddy current
inspection of steam generator tubes
1. Input group
1.1 Component:
1.1.1 General geometry and environment:
• access restrictions
• channel head dimensions
• manway configuration
• temperature
• radiation
• structures (internals).
1.1.2 Geometry of tubes:

• diameter
• wall thickness
• U-bend radius
• length
• expansion geometry
• nature of deposits (copper, sludge, etc.)
• presence of denting, etc.
• presence of tube supports or anti-vibration mounts
1.2 Defects:
• type of defect
• degradation mechanism
• origin of defects (inside or outside)
• through-wall extent of defects
• length of defects
• orientation of defects
• location of defects.
2. NDT inspection system group
2.1 Procedure parameters

• number of probes
• probe type
• probe dimensions
• frequencies
16
• type of generation of frequencies (simultaneous or multiplexed)

• number of channels (number of probes /frequencies)
• sensitivity for scanning and recording
• scanning pattern
• scanning speed
• personnel training, experience and qualification
• detection method
• sizing method
• recording/identification criteria
• data analysis scheme.
2.2 Equipment parameters
2.2.1 Transmitter:
• total harmonic distortion
• output impedance
• linearity of phase
• linearity of amplitude.
2.2.2 Receiver:
• input impedance
• amplifier linearity and stability
• bandwidth.
2.2.3 A/D converter:

• A/D resolution
• dynamic range
• sample rate.
2.2.4 Cable:
• type
• length
• impedance.
2.2.5 Probe:
2.2.5.1 General:
• type of probe
• impedance
• frequency range
• resonance frequency.
2.2.5.2 Bobbin coil:

• effective scan field width
• fill factor coefficient
• depth coefficient
17
• axial length coefficient

• transverse width coefficient
• phase to depth curve
• D.C. saturation strength.
2.2.5.3 Pancake coil:

• effective scan field width
• lift-off value
• depth coefficient
• axial width coefficient
• transverse width coefficient
• phase to depth curve.
2.2.6 Scan device:

• axial accuracy
• accuracy of scan speed
• speed range.
18
APPENDIX 3
Overview of Published ENIQ Recommended Practices (RP): Titles and Abstracts
The RPs may be downloaded at: http://safelife.jrc.nl/eniq/
RP1 Influential/essential parameters, EUR 21751 EN
ENIQ Recommended Practice 1 should assist those involved in inspection

qualification how to use and implement the concept of influential/essential
parameters in agreement with the spirit of the European methodology. This version
of RP 1 – Issue 2 – builds upon the experience gained in the use of Issue 1since it
was published in 1998. The main objectives of this recommended practice are:
- to indicate how the concept could be used in inspection qualification according
to the European methodology,
- to give examples of parameters which can be influential as a function of the
specific inspection to be qualified for 2 cases: an ultrasonic inspection of welds
and an eddy current inspection of steam generator tubes.
RP2 Recommended contents for a technical justification, EUR 18099
RP 2 defines a list of recommended contents for writing technical justifications. It

should assist those producing technical justifications to identify the material that
might be included. It should also assist in producing technical justifications in a
uniform format throughout Europe.
RP3 Strategy document for technical justification, EUR 18100
The purpose of this RP is to describe a strategy on how to use and implement the
concept of technical justification, which is an important element of the ENIQ
European methodology for qualification of NDT. The main objectives are:
• to explain the different purposes of technical justifications
• to indicate how the specific purpose or application of the technical justification

may affect its contents
• to give guidance on the relative weight which has to be given to test piece trials
and technical justification taking into account a number of factors such as level,
available evidence, specific application etc.
19
RP4 Recommended contents for the qualification dossier, EUR 18685
This RP should assist those doing qualifications to identify the material which might
be included in the qualification dossier, which is defined as an assembly of all the
information relevant to the definition and execution of the qualification. It should
also assist in producing qualification dossiers in a uniform format throughout
Europe, an essential element in providing a general framework for a scheme of
recognition of qualifications performed in the EU. Note that the concept of dossier
is not that of a single document or report but rather that of a file in which key
documents of the qualification are inserted.
RP5 Guidelines for the design of test pieces and conduct of test piece trials, EUR
18686
The purpose of RP5 is to provide guidelines for the design of test pieces and the
conduct of test piece trials, once it is has been decided (for example, as a result of
the analysis done in the technical justification) that they are required. It refers
especially to those test piece trials (open or blind) that are supervised by the
qualification body.
RP6 The use of modelling in inspection qualification, EUR 19017
This RP deals with the use of mathematical modelling in inspection qualification.

Mathematical models have been developed by several organisations for various
inspection situations and, where applicable, can provide valuable evidence on
inspection capability for inclusion in a technical justification. Authors of technical
justifications may therefore be considering the use of models. This RP provides
advice on:
• the types and range of mathematical models which are available
• how the models can be used to generate evidence for a technical justification
• important considerations and constraints in using models.
20
RP7 Recommended general requirements for a body operating qualification of non-

destructive tests, EUR 20395
The document provides guidance on the minimum criteria that a body operating
qualification of non-destructive testing should follow if it is to be recognised as
impartial, independent of operational pressures, competent and reliable. Three
types of qualification body are considered within the RP:
Type 1: A qualification body which is an independent third party organisation
Type 1: A qualification body which is an independent part of the utility’s

organisation set up on a permanent or long-term basis
Type 3: An ad hoc qualification body set up for a specific qualification.
The RP is mainly intended to provide guidance on the requirements for qualification

bodies of types 1 and 2. An ad hoc qualification body, type 3, being more
temporary and inspection-specific in nature, will generally be established in a less
formal way than qualification bodies of types 1 and 2. However, many parts of the
RP should still provide useful guidance for setting up an ad hoc qualification body.
The RP should assist those who want to establish a qualification body and those
who have to audit the competence of a qualification body. It should also assist in
providing a general framework for a scheme of recognition of qualifications
performed in the European Union (EU).
RP8 Qualification Levels and Qualification Approaches, EUR 21761
This RP is intended to provide guidance on the setting of Qualification Level and on

determining the Qualification Approach based partly on this choice of level. The
Qualification Level required reflects the assurance required that the inspection will
attain its objectives in demonstrating structural integrity and may depend on e.g.
safety significance of the component, the role of the inspection in assuring
structural integrity and associated costs. In practice, qualification can be done with
varying degrees of complexity and cost. The way such work is carried out is
defined in this document as the “qualification approach”, and needs to take into
account both the structural integrity significance and difficulty of each specific
inspection. The qualification approach determines to what extent the various
aspects of qualification, i.e. technical justification, open trials, blind trials etc., are
included in a particular case.
21
European Commission
DG JRC – Institute for Energy
EUR 21751 EN ENIQ RECOMMENDED PRACTICE 1:
INFLUENTIAL/ESSENTIAL PARAMETERS Issue 2
Editor: A. Eriksson
J. Whittle
Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
2005 - 21 pp. -21.0x29.7 cm
Scientific and Technical Research Series
Abstract
ENIQ Recommended Practice 1 should assist those involved in inspection qualification how to
use and implement the concept of influential/essential parameters in agreement with the spirit of
the European methodology. This version of RP 1 – Issue 2 – builds upon the experience gained in
the use of Issue 1since it was published in 1998. The main objectives of this recommended
practice are:
- to indicate how the concept could be used in inspection qualification according to the European
methodology,
to give examples of parameters which can be influential as a function of the specific inspection
to be qualified for 2 cases: an ultrasonic inspection of welds and an eddy current inspection of
steam generator tubes.
The mission of the Joint Research Centre is to provide customer-driven scientific and technical support for the
conception, development, implementation and monitoring of EU policies. As a service of the European
Commission, the JRC functions as a reference centre of science and technology for the Union. Close to the
policy-making process, it serves the common interest of the Member States, while being independent of
commercial or national interests.

Influential & Essential Parameters For Inspection Effectiveness

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Influential & Essential Parameters For Inspection Effectiveness

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

ENIQ Recommended Practice 1

Influential / Essential Parameters

ENIQ Report nr. 24

Luxemburg; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2005

© European Communities, 2005

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

COVER: JRC IE, R. Houghton

ENIQ RECOMMENDED PRACTICE 1:

June 2005 ENIQ Report nr. 24 EUR 21751 EN

Approved by the Steering Committee of ENIQ for publication

2. Concept of influential/essential parameters................................................................4

3. Application of the concept of influential/essential parameters in the overall

Appendix 1: Checklist of parameters which can be influential for the case of

Appendix 2: Checklist of parameters which can be influential for the case of

Appendix 3: Overview of published ENIQ Recommended Practices: Titles and

This recommended practice is relevant to any non-destructive testing method. Examples

This RP1 on Influential/Essential Parameters, Issue 2, has been developed as a

J-A Berglund Ringhals NPP, Sweden

R Chapman British Energy plc, United Kingdom, ENIQ Chairman

European Commission representatives in the SC:

A Eriksson. Directorate General JRC, ENIQ Network Manager

2. Concept of influential/essential parameters

2.1 Influential and Essential Parameters

2.2 Input Parameters

2.3 NDT Inspection System Parameters

Table 1: The role of different participants in relation to essential parameters

Participant Vendor (Developer Qualification Body Owner of the plant

Figure 1: Different categories of influential/essential parameters

3. Application of the concept of influential/essential parameters in the

3.1 Use of Essential Parameters in the Technical Justification

An analysis of the specific inspection to be qualified has to be done in order to determine

3.2 Choice of Essential Parameters

3.3 Treatment of Essential Parameters in the TJ

In many other cases, general experience and recognised theoretical or empirical

Some judgement by the TJ compiler is needed to determine which parameters are

In summary, the analysis of the influential/essential parameters can be done in

1. The European methodology for qualification of non-destructive testing, Second

Checklist of parameters which can be influential for the case of an ultrasonic

2. NDT inspection system group

2.1 Procedure parameters

2.2 Equipment parameters

2.2.1 Hardware pulser/receiver and data acquisition:

All of these parameters will in general be parameters to be fixed within a

The following procedure parameters concerning the scanner were already

1.1.2 Geometry of tubes:

2. NDT inspection system group

2.1 Procedure parameters

• type of generation of frequencies (simultaneous or multiplexed)

2.2 Equipment parameters

2.2.3 A/D converter:

2.2.5.2 Bobbin coil:

• axial length coefficient

2.2.5.3 Pancake coil:

2.2.6 Scan device:

Overview of Published ENIQ Recommended Practices (RP): Titles and Abstracts

The RPs may be downloaded at: http://safelife.jrc.nl/eniq/

RP1 Influential/essential parameters, EUR 21751 EN

ENIQ Recommended Practice 1 should assist those involved in inspection

RP2 Recommended contents for a technical justification, EUR 18099

RP 2 defines a list of recommended contents for writing technical justifications. It

RP3 Strategy document for technical justification, EUR 18100

• to explain the different purposes of technical justifications

• to indicate how the specific purpose or application of the technical justification