Jan Cowan

SAQCC NDT Level 3

NDT Lecturer, Southern African Institute of Welding
Radiographic testing:
Increased detection sensitivity using
optimum source-to-object distance
When using a Se-75 isotope as source, that not only is the Double
wall single image DWSI Technique as effective as the Double
wall double image DWDI Technique for finding linear cracks in
welded pipe samples.
But in some instances even superior, both in the geometric
unsharpness and exposure duration, with an improved probability
for detection of discontinuities.
(Test sample: Pipe - 50mm outside diameter, 3.9mm wall thickness
and up to 3mm weld build-up)
Count the number of discontinuities in the following two slides.
Previous research, reflected in the following six slides, has
shown.
Radiograph 1 Double wall double image source side IQI the 0.25mm
wire is visible. The geometrical unsharpness is 0.5mm
Double-wall/double-image 0 to 4 & 8 to 12cm
Double wall double image : Positions 4 - 8 & 12 - 0
Radiograph 2 Double wall double image, source side IQI, the 0.25mm wire is
visible. The geometrical unsharpness is 0.5mm.
We see a tungsten inclusion some porosity and some undercut lets compare this
to some double wall single image radiographs number 3 to 8
Double wall single image : Source side penetrameter
Position 0 - 4
Radiograph 3 Double wall single image, with a source side IQI placed
inside the pipe, the 0.20mm wire is visible, the diagnostic film length is
0 to 4cm and the geometrical unsharpness is 0.3mm (Masking of light
areas was required to ensure suitable photographs of film to be taken,
thus the abrupt color / density change)
Radiograph 4 Double wall single image with a source side IQI placed
inside the pipe the 0.20mm wire is visible, the diagnostic film length is 4
to 8cm and the geometrical unsharpness is 0.3mm
Double wall single image : Source side penetrameter
Position 4 - 8
Double wall single image : Source side penetrameter
Position 8 - 12
Radiograph 5 Double wall single image with a source side IQI placed inside
the pipe the 0.20mm wire is visible, the diagnostic film length is 0 to 4cm and
the geometrical unsharpness is 0.3mm
Double wall single image : Source side penetrameter
Position 12 - 0
Radiograph 6 Double wall single image with a source side IQI placed
inside the pipe the 0.20mm wire is visible, the diagnostic film length is 12
to 0cm and the geometrical unsharpness is 0.3mm
Compliance with the code?
Conformance with ASME V Article 2 is achievable, as may be seen from
the following quote from ASME V Article 2 Paragraph T-271.2 (b)
For pipe diameters not exceeding 89 mm, a technique may be used
in which the radiation passes through two walls and the weld
(material) in both walls is viewed for acceptance on the same
radiograph.
Care should be exercised to ensure that the required geometric
unsharpness is not exceeded.
If the geometric unsharpness cannot be met, then single-wall
viewing shall be used.
Compliance with the code?
I.e. ASME V Article 2 allows double wall imaging techniques, without
specifying whether the image should be double-wall or single-wall,
unless geometric unsharpness cannot be met if this is the case, then
single-wall images are mandatory!
ASME V Article 2 Paragraph T-276.2 and table T- 276 requires that,
with the allowable weld reinforcement and the nominal single wall
thickness, wire no. 6 with a outside diameter of 0.25mm, of the ASTM
IQI, must be visible.
With an achieved density between 2 and 4
This proves the acceptance of double wall single image radiography to
ASME 5 Art 2 for density and IQI visibility.
Compliance with the code?
Conformance with EN1435 Image Quality Class A may be achievable if
we can somehow find the 0.16mm outside diameter wire. However, the
requirements for minimum source to film distance of EN1435 Class B,
are not attainable due to the non-linear nature of the formula applied for
determining the minimum source-to-object-distance.
Lets investigate further:
With a Gilardoni X ray machine Serial No. 22070002 with a
4.5 X 4.5mm focal spot size
Some radiographs of the parent material of a 10mm plate butt weld
were taken at different source to object distances and object to film
distances, on Agfa D4 film.
Spacers were used to increase the object to film distance where
necessary.
Radiograph no 7: 155 mm focus-to-object distance and 16mm
object-to-film distance. A crack is visible above the weld and wire no 14 of the
10FEEN penetrameter is visible. The geometrical unsharpness is 0.66mm.
Radiograph no 8: 160 mm focus-to-object distance and 10mm
object-to-film distance. A crack is visible above the weld and wire no 15 of the
10FEEN penetrameter is visible. The geometrical unsharpness is 0.4mm
Radiograph no 9: 225 mm focus-to-object distance and 10mm
object-to-film distance. A crack is visible above the weld and wire no 15 of the
10FEEN penetrameter is visible. The geometrical unsharpness is 0.28mm
Radiograph no 10: 475 mm focus-to-object distance and 10mm
object-to-film distance. A crack is visible above the weld and wire no 15 of the
10FEEN penetrameter is visible. The geometrical unsharpness is 0.14mm
Radiograph no 11: 692 mm focus-to-object distance and 63mm
object-to-film distance. A crack is visible above the weld and wire no 15 of the
10FEEN penetrameter is visible. The geometrical unsharpness is 0.58mm
Conclusion:
From 0.14mm to 0.58mm geometric unsharpness, no significant visible
change in IQI sensitivity is noticeable.
I can only conclude from this, that, for X-Ray machine work, and most
probably due to the better subject contrast ,geometric unsharpness less than
0.58mm is not necessary.
It is my opinion that conformance to EN 1435 Class B, with its overly long
focal-to-object distance, as far as geometrical unsharpness is concerned, is a
total waste of time.
It would be better to use a shorter focus-to-object distance on curved objects
and to observe the 1.1 factor or 10% maximum change in wall thickness.
I.e. double wall single image radiography instead of double wall double image
radiography as illustrated at the start of the paper.
Conclusion:
We saw that this is easy to apply to ASME 5 Art 2 of 2010
If we have to comply with EN 12952 of 2002 for boilers on a new power
station started around 2008:
EN 12952-6 of 2002 sends us to EN 1435 of 1997 class A or B?
for radiography.
EN 12952-6 of does not refer us to a class.
EN 12952-6 do reference EN 25817 of 1992 in its normative
references however this does not refers to a class either.
So class A may do and we may develop procedure to do this.
Conclusion:
See the following slides as a example of this, however this was done
with a Gilardoni tank unit X ray machine, with a outside diameter of 220
mm and source to object distance of 160mm
8 Exposures were required to meet the requirements of
EN 1435 class A
A constant potential X - Ray machine with a outside diameter of
100mm will only require 5 exposures.
And a small Ytterbium source will only require 4 exposures.
Radiograph 12 Double wall double image : Film side IQI
Position 0 - 4cm and 8 - 12 cm.
Radiograph 13 Double wall double image : Film side IQI
Position 0 - 4cm and 8 - 12 cm.
Shot from the opposite side as radiograph 12.
Radiograph 14 Double wall double image : Film side IQI.
Position 4 - 8cm and 12 - 0cm.
220mm outside diameter X Ray machine set up for double wall single
image radiography on a 50mm outside diameter pipe butt weld 8
exposures would give adequate coverage.
110mm
160mm
100mm outside diameter constant potential X Ray machine set up for
double wall single image radiography on a 50mm outside diameter pipe
butt weld 5 exposures would give adequate coverage.
50mm
100mm
0.8mm spherical Ytterbium 7Ci Gamma-ray set up for double wall single
image radiography on a 50mm outside diameter pipe butt weld, 4
exposures would give adequate coverage.
50mm
Radiograph 15 Double wall single image 0 to 2cm
Film side IQI
Radiograph 16 Double wall single image 2 to 4cm
Film side IQI
Radiograph 17 Double wall single image 4 to 6cm
Film side IQI
Radiograph 18 Double wall single image 6 to 8cm
Film side IQI
Radiograph 19 Double wall single image 8 to 10cm
Film side IQI
Radiograph 20 Double wall single image 10 to 12cm
Film side IQI
Radiograph 21 Double wall single image 12 to 14cm
Film side IQI
Radiograph 22 Double wall single image 14 to 0cm
Film side IQI
Bibliography:
EN 12952-6 of 2002
EN 25817 of 1992
EN 1435 of 1997
ASME V art. 2 of 2010
End of the presentation
The following slides may be used to answer
Economic questions
Conventional double-wall/double-image, side view
Double-wall/double-image, top view
exposures 90 to each other
Area where the radiation is
difficult to contain
Area where the
radiation is difficult
to contain
350mm
Double-wall/single-image, side view
Collimator
sheet
Double-wall/single-image, top view
Rubber and tungsten powder
collimator sheet
Film
Penetrameter
Jig to position the source and the collimator
easily held in place with masking tape
80mm
Why is there an interest in the double-
wall/single image technique?
It offers potential for:
Shorter exposure times
Better safety
Easier set up
Cost savings for high workload jobs
So why has double-wall imaging become standard practice?
Double-wall/double-image radiography is perceived to be
a code requirement
Few exposures are required and this is perceived to be
lower cost
Reasons why double-wall/double-image practice has
become standard?
Results of a comparative study!
Are the potential benefits of double-wall/single-image
radiography real?
Experimental comparison of techniques
Test Parameters:
50mm outside diameter pipe butt welded with a nominal wall thickness
of 3.9mm and a weld build up on the cap of 1.5mm and on the root of
1.5mm
Iridium 192 source with activity 185 GBq (5 Curies) and focal spot
size 2.24mm
Selenium 75 source with strength 463GBq (12.5 Curies) and focal spot
size 3mm
Experimental comparison of techniques
Iridium 192 Source
Results were obtained meeting the recommended maximum
geometrical unsharpness value of 0.51mm but none were obtained
which met sensitivity requirements for either the double-wall/double-
image or double-wall/single-image techniques
Experimental comparison of techniques
Selenium 75 Source
Results:
Using the double-wall/double-image technique and meeting the
recommended maximum geometrical unsharpness value of 0.51mm and
ASME sensitivity requirements:
A minimum source-to-film distance of 350mm is required
A 31minute exposure time is required
2 Exposures were required for full weld coverage
Experimental comparison of techniques
Selenium 75 Source
Results:
Using the double-wall/single-image technique:
A geometric unsharpness value of 0.29mm was achieved with a 80mm
source-to-film distance
An exposure of 1 minute and 30 seconds was required
4 exposures were required for full weld coverage
Experimental comparison of techniques
Selenium 75 Source
Summary of experimental results:
The Double-wall/single-image technique has significant benefits
including a much sharper image with better sensitivity as can be seen
in the following slides.
Double-wall/single-image 0 to 4 film side IQI
Comparison of Practical Issues
Parameter Double-wall/double-image Double-wall/single-image
Set up Requires special clamps for
guide tube, collimator and
shielding
Easy set-up with duck tape and easy
shielding
Safety Problematic because of longer
source to film distances
and often needs large
safety areas
Radiation can be contained in a small
area (see next slide)
Exposure times Long unproductive operator
time
Short exposure times highly
productive
Number of exposures Minimum 2 offset exposures
or 3 superimposed images
4 exposures required but overall shot
time much lower
Reading on the radiation monitor of 1mR/h @ 3m
from the source 463 GBq Selenium 75 source
shielded by 9mm of Lead
Cost in time
The highest cost in radiography is down time for non radiation workers
not being able to work in the radiation area
Double-wall/double-image 2 exposures with a 46Ci selenium isotope
of 8 minute 25 seconds or 3 welds per hour at best (not possible with
full collimation)
Double-wall/single-image 4 exposures with a 18Ci selenium isotope of
62 seconds per exposure or 5 welds per hour (Possible with full
collimation)
Film cost and Isotope usefulness
Double-wall/double-image 2 films at R6,50 per film
Double-wall/single-image 4 films at R6,50 per film a cost of R13,00
more
The Selenium 75 isotope cost is higher than Iridium 192
Double-wall/double-image A 5Ci Selenium source will require a 77
minute exposure (useless)
Double-wall/single-image A 5Ci Selenium source will require a 3
minute 45 second exposure (still useful) after 360 days
Conclusions
It is questionable if conventional practice using an Iridium 192 source
meets ASME requirements under the parameters considered in this
study
Double-wall/single-image radiography is permitted by ASME for this
application and combined with the use of a Selenium 75 source
produces excellent quality results
Safety is easier to achieve using the double-wall/single-image method
of testing
The conventional wisdom of the economics of radiography of small
bore tubing is flawed and there are cost advantages to the double-wall/
single-image technique. These are especially significant in plant
shutdowns or other high intensity testing periods