Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 106 views

    Tofd 2

    Uploaded by

    Lương Hồ Vũ
    TOFD is an ultrasonic technique that uses the time difference between diffracted signals from defect tips to determine defect size and depth. The document compares TOFD to radiography and pulse echo techniques for examining defects in thick walled stainless steel welds. TOFD was able to accurately determine defect sizes with less scanning time compared to pulse echo. While all techniques could detect defects, TOFD and radiography had the lowest percentage variations in measured defect size compared to actual sizes. The study concludes that TOFD compares well to conventional NDE and can replace radiography for inspecting thick walled welds.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tofd 2

    Uploaded by

    Lương Hồ Vũ
    106 views22 pages
    TOFD is an ultrasonic technique that uses the time difference between diffracted signals from defect tips to determine defect size and depth. The document compares TOFD to radiography and pulse echo techniques for examining defects in thick walled stainless steel welds. TOFD was able to accurately determine defect sizes with less scanning time compared to pulse echo. While all techniques could detect defects, TOFD and radiography had the lowest percentage variations in measured defect size compared to actual sizes. The study concludes that TOFD compares well to conventional NDE and can replace radiography for inspecting thick walled welds.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    TOFD 2.ppt

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    TOFD is an ultrasonic technique that uses the time difference between diffracted signals from defect tips to determine defect size and depth. The document compares TOFD to radiography and pulse echo techniques for examining defects in thick walled stainless steel welds. TOFD was able to accurately determine defect sizes with less scanning time compared to pulse echo. While all techniques could detect defects, TOFD and radiography had the lowest percentage variations in measured defect size compared to actual sizes. The study concludes that TOFD compares well to conventional NDE and can replace radiography for inspecting thick walled welds.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
    106 views22 pages

    Tofd 2

    Uploaded by

    Lương Hồ Vũ
    TOFD is an ultrasonic technique that uses the time difference between diffracted signals from defect tips to determine defect size and depth. The document compares TOFD to radiography and pulse echo techniques for examining defects in thick walled stainless steel welds. TOFD was able to accurately determine defect sizes with less scanning time compared to pulse echo. While all techniques could detect defects, TOFD and radiography had the lowest percentage variations in measured defect size compared to actual sizes. The study concludes that TOFD compares well to conventional NDE and can replace radiography for inspecting thick walled welds.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
    of 22

    TIME-OF-FLIGHT DIFFRACTION

    TECHNIQUE AN ALTERNATIVE
    TO RADIOGRAPHY
    EXAMINATION OF THICK
    WALLED STAINLESS STEEL
    WELDMENT
    R.Subbaratnam, Dr. B. Venkatraman and
    Dr.Baldev Raj
    Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Reasearch,
    Kalpakkam, INDIA 603 102
    TOFD – An Introduction
     Developed by Dr Silk in 1980’s
     Two probes used a transmitter and a receiver
     The time between the Lateral Wave and the Time
    between the diffracted waves between the top and
    bottom of the discontinuity is taken for arriving the
    location, depth and orientation of the discontinuities
     Now it have been taken by the international codes like
    ASME to replace Radiography
    TOFD – An Introduction
     The defect sizing technique based on the
    measurement of time difference between the
    diffracted signals from the defect tips is called time-
    of-flight diffraction technique.
     The diffracted waves originate at the discontinuity
    tips and thus their separation in space, and hence in
    time, directly relates to the size of the defect.
     Sound energy from the lower tip will arrive later than
    that from the upper tip and this time delay relates to
    the defect dimensions.
     The sound energy travels along the surface (lateral
    wave) and that reflected from the back wall provides
    information about the location of the defect within the
    Geometrical model of TOFD
     Schematic  Typical A-scan
    representation
    Advantages of TOFD
     Use of higher frequencies

     Accurate Sizing

     Angle of examination is not the criteria for detection as


    that in Pulse Echo Tech.

     Number of Scanning is less and hence, less scanning


    time

     Focusing at different thicknesses of specimen by varying


    the transducer separation distance
    Advantages of TOFD over pulse echo UT
    and RT
     Rapid scanning is possible and weldments can be
    scanned in single pass making this technique more
    efficient and faster.
     Discontinuity size and depth can be very accurately
    determined. Since the technique is based on the
    detection of diffracted signals, it is not affected by
    the orientation of the discontinuity and angle of
    examination.
     Longitudinal angle beam being used by TOFD
    makes it possible to examine thick austenitic
    stainless steel weldments.
     Real time discontinuity monitoring is possible and
    the data can be stored for further reference and
    Experimental details
     Material: 316 L Austenitic stainless steel
     Weld process: Shielded Metal Arc Welding (SMAW)
     Induced defects: Lack of Penetration, Slag and
    Porosity
    352
    220 mm

    25 mm 2 mm Land

    Flush Ground 2 mm Root Gap

    Edge preparation
    Radiographic Parameters
     X-ray Source: Seifert 200MF
     Voltage: 180 kV
     Exposure: 60 mA – mins.
     SFD: 800 mm
     Film: Agfa D7
     Technique: Single Wall Single Image (SWSI)
     Image Quality Indicator: Plaque type
     Processing: Manual
     Sensitivity Achieved: 2-2T
     Radiographic Density : 2.0 – 2.5
    Ultrasonic Parameters
    Pulse Echo (Manual) [PEM]
     Equipment: USD 10, M/s Krautkramer, Germany
    Pulse Echo (Automatic) [PEA]
     Equipment: MICROPLUS of AEA Technology, UK
     Software: μ-scan
    TOFD
     Equipment: MICROPLUS of AEA Technology, UK
     Software: TOFD
     Probes: WSY 45, 4 MHz - For all Tech.
    Radiographic Images

     Lack of penetration

     Slag inclusion

     Porosity
    Ultrasonic Images - Pulse echo [PEA]

    Lack of penetration Slag inclusion

    Porosity
    Ultrasonic Images - TOFD

    Lack of penetration Slag inclusion

    Lack of penetration Slag inclusion


    Porosity
    Across weld Across weld
    COMPARISON BETWEEN
    RADIOGRAPHY, PEA & TOFD
    Length and Depth of Discontinuities and
    Porosity Area Arrived by NDE Methods Used
    LOP 1 LOP 2 Slag 1 Slag 2 Porosity

    Discontinuity/
    Exam method
    Length Depth Length Depth Length Depth Length Depth Length Depth Area (mm2)

    Actual 29.5 -- 34.5 -- 34.5 -- 29.5 -- 24.5 -- --

    RT 30.0 -- 35.0 -- 35.0 -- 30.0 -- 25.0 -- 120 & 70

    PE Manual 35.0 10.6 -12.6 45.0 13.1 40.0 10.4 -11.8 35.0 11.8 -13.2 30.0 8.1 -10.76 140 & 80

    PE Automatic 28.0 12.3 38.0 12.3 38.0 10.5 28.0 12.6 25.0 8.9 -10.5 130 & 75

    TOFD 29.0 12.76 38.0 12.76 37.0 10.12 29.0 13.31 22.0 9.0 - 9.9 125 & 75
    Percentage Variations on Sizes of
    Discontinuities
    Discontinuity/
    LOP 1 LOP 2 Slag 1 Slag 2 Porosity
    Exam method

    RT 1.7% 1.45% 1.8% 1.7% 2.4%

    PE Manual 18.6% 30.3% 12.7% 18.7% 22.5%

    PE Automatic -5.1% 10.1% 10.1% -5.1% 2.0%

    TOFD -1.7% 10.1% 7.3% -2.7% -11%


    Percentage variation for LOP1

    TOFD

    PEA
    Techniques

    PEM

    RT

    -5 0 5 10 15 20
    Percentage variation
    Percentage variation for LOP2

    TOFD

    PEA
    Techniques

    PEM

    RT

    0 5 10 15 20 25 30
    Percentage variation
    Percentage variation for Slag1

    TOFD

    PEA
    Techniques

    PEM

    RT

    0 2 4 6 8 10 12
    Percentage variation
    Percentage variation for Slag2

    TOFD

    PEA
    Techniques

    PEM

    RT

    -5 0 5 10 15 20
    Percentage variation
    Percentage variation for Porosity

    TOFD

    PEA
    Techniques

    PEM

    RT

    -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
    Percentage variation
    Reasoning for Variation
     The variation on LP and Slag with respect to
    both Pulse Echo techniques are due to
    Beam Divergence
    Orientation of the discontinuity
    acoustic beam interaction with the discontinuity

     In the case of variation only on porosities in


    case of TOFD is due to diffracted signals. But it
    was observed in the authors lab that specimens
    with single pore or SDH was clearly identified.
    Conclusion
     The experimental work shows TOFD compares
    well with the conventional techniques such as
    radiography and PE ultrasonics for defect
    detection in thick walled weldments.
     TOFD could estimate the size of defects with less
    scanning times compared to automated pulse
    echo.
     RT can be Replaced by TOFD than PE
    Techniques

    You might also like