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 Research,
Kalpakkam, INDIA - 603 102
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.
Typical A-Scan Image
 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 specimen.
Basic Formulas
 Lateral wave arrival: tL=
 Top diffracted echo: t1=
 Bottom diffracted echo: t2=
2
 Back wall echo: tbw= S2  H2
C
2S
 Variables
C
2  C: Velocity of sound
S2  d2
C  2S: Probe separation
2  H: Thickness of the
S 2  (d  a) 2
C specimen

 From the above equations, it can be shown that

1
 Depth of the defect d = (C 2 t1  4 S 2
2

2
1
C 2 t 2  4S 2  d
2
 Extent of the defect a = 2
History of TOFD Development
 TOFD was developed by Dr. M G Silk and his co-workers at the Harwell
Laboratory, UK in 1970s.
 This was developed as a laboratory hand held tool with one transmitter
transducer and one receiver transducer.
 The technique was initially applied to cracks growing from the inspection
surface.
 The first application to thick-section steel was done as part of the Defect
Detection Trials (DDT) by United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority
(UKAEA) for the construction of PWR vessel. The sample were about 250
mm.
 TOFD has now been demonstrated on a thick section (350 mm)
qualification block, to meet the requirement of ASME Code Case 2235,
‘Use of ultrasonic examination in lie of radiography’, Section V111,
Division 1 and 2 which become effective in 1996.
International Scenario and Codes
 Detection and quantification of discontinuities are very
important especially in strategic and core sectors such as
nuclear, petrochemical, and process industries.
 Conventional non-destructive testing (NDT) techniques such
as radiographic testing (RT) and ultrasonic testing (UT) play a
very crucial role during fabrication and in-service ensuring the
safety, reliability and compliance to codal requirements.
 Codes of practice such as ASME now permit UT in place of
radiographic examination.
 Now TOFD is replacing RT and UT.
Need for Present Study
 Internationally, a number of studies have been undertaken on
the application of TOFD for detecting and sizing defects.
 In a project by the Netherlands Institute of welding, the
reliability of TOFD was compared with radiography on steel
section between 6 mm and 15 mm thick. TOFD was found to
be about 25% more reliable than X-ray and 45% more reliable
than manual UT.
 At the author’s lab, a study was undertaken to compare the
detectability of defects such as lack of penetration, porosity
and slag in thick walled weldments by conventional techniques
such as radiography, pulse echo UT and TOFD.
 Results clearly indicate that TOFD has the advantage of faster
scanning and can be used for quantitative characterization
(size and depth) of discontinuities with accuracies better than
 10%.
Advantages of TOFD
 Angle of examination is not the criteria for detection as that in
Pulse Echo Technique.

 Accurate Sizing of defects.

 It is a single scan method and hence less time is needed for

examination of defects.

 Focusing at different thicknesses of specimen is possible by

varying the transducer separation distance.
Advantages of TOFD compared to 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 analysis.
Limitation of TOFD
1. TOFD cannot characterize the signals from different
defects/discontinuities like porosity, slag inclusion, lack of
fusion and lack of penetration, cracks and undercuts.
2. It requires access to both the sides of a discontinuity from
one surface.
3. Due to the presence of lateral wave, subsurface defects in a
thin specimen will not be clear enough.
4. The applicability may be limited because the lower crack tip
may not always diffract enough energy to be detected.
5. Because of the small signals and high gains required, image
processing system and pre-amplifier are usually required.
Weld Pad Details
 Material: 316 L Austenitic stainless steel
 Weld process: Shielded Metal Arc Welding
 Induced defects: Slag, Porosity and Lack of Penetration

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: 2-2T
 Radiographic Density in region of interest: 2.0 – 2.5
Ultrasonic Pulse-Echo Features
 Pulse Echo Manual [PEM]
 Equipment: USD 10, M/s Krautkramer, German

 Pulse Echo Automatic [PEA]

 Equipment: M/s AEA Technology, UK
 Software: μ-scan

 In both cases probes used was 45, 60 and 70 degrees shear

wave probes
Features of TOFD Equipment
 Equipment: MICROPLUS of AEA Technology, UK

 The main software packages:

 Multiple channel pulse echo weld and corrosion inspection - SCAN
 Detection and accurate defect sizing using the Time-of-Flight Diffraction
technique - TOFD

 Instruments:
 Laptop system with up to 16 transmitter/receiver channels
Comparison between Radiography PEA &
TOFD cntd

 Lack of penetration
 Radiography Technique

 Pulse Echo

 TOFD
Comparison between Radiography PEA &
TOFD cntd

 Slag Inclusion
 Radiography Technique

 Pulse Echo

 TOFD
Comparison between Radiography PEA &
TOFD
 Porosity
 Radiography Technique

 Pulse Echo

 TOFD
Some TOFD Images across weld
 TOFD Images Across weld

 Slag Inclusion

 Lack of Penetration
Length and Depth of Discontinuities and
Porosity Area Arrived by NDE Methods
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 with respect to pulse echo technique is due to

 Specular reflection which depends on defect orientation
 Acoustic beam interaction with the discontinuity
 Beam divergence
 The variation with respect to TOFD is due to the diffracted
signals. This variation is more in the case of porosity there the
diffracted signals from the tiny pores may overlap to produce
error. Specimen with single pore can be clearly identifies.
 Radiography is based on differential absorption of radiation
and hence the volume and orientation of the defect would be a
cause for error.
Immersion TOFD
Immersion Studies on Thin Specimen

 Basic Principle
 Due to the lack of time difference between various signals from
the thin specimen, the diffracted beam can not be identified H
clearly. 3
 With the commercially available probes, the probe spacing
condition S > can not be satisfied on thin specimen.
 The water path used in immersion technique provides enough
time delay to separate the signals in the receiver.
 Snell’s law of refraction helps to maintain enough angle of
incidence inside the material.
Specimen used for immersion studies

 3 SDH on 10 mm specimen

 5 mm specimen with SDH and

Notches

 3 mm specimen with Notch

Immersion B-Scan Images cntd

 Immersion TOFD images of side drilled holes and notches

SDH

Notch

10 mm Thk with SDH 5 mm Thk. with SDH and

notch – Notch at Bottom

5 mm Thk with SDH

and notch – notch at 3 mm Thk. with notch at
Top top

Combined TOFD and immersion images of the side drilled holes and notches in 10 mm, 5mm
and 3 mm thick specimens. A 5 MHz flat TOFD Probes with 45° angle (~10° probe tilt) with
15.0 mm Probe separation, ~8 mm water path and 65 dB gain was used. Arrows indicate the
notches and SDH.
Immersion B-Scan Images

 TOFD immersion images of 3 mm thick specimen with notches

Time
Delay
due to
water
path

Combined TOFD and Immersion images of 3 mm thick specimen with notches. 5

MHz flat TOFD Probes with 20° angle was used. Arrows indicate the notches.
Future Developments in TOFD

 Since the physics behind the TOFD is well understood, the

future work will be concentrating in the characterization of
defects from the TOFD signals.
 Many signal processing methods including SAFT, ESIT are
established for this purpose.
 People are working on Artificial Neural Networks for the
defect characterization.
 The combination of signal processing methods and the
invention of new techniques are essential for the reliable
characterization of TOFD signals.
 Also probe developing is a pioneering research area.
Conclusion
 The experimental work by the authors as well as international
literature clearly indicates that TOFD compares well with the
conventional techniques such as radiography and ultrasonics
for defect detection in thick walled weldments.
 TOFD could estimate the size of defects such as lack of
penetration and slag with errors less than 7.5 % and scanning
times about 1/10th to 1/20th compared to automated pulse
echo.
 In the case of rounded indications the errors were found to be
higher (~11%).