SINCE2011

Singapore International NDT Conference & Exhibition , 3-4 November 2011

Capabilities and Limitations of Radiography and Phased Array Ultrasonic

Test in the Detection of subtle welding defects

Fereidoon MAREFAT 1, M.Reza FAGHEDI 2, A.Reza KHODABANDEH 3, M.Reza

AFSHAR 4, Ali AMADEH 5 , Afshin YOUSEFI 6
1
Department of Materials Engineering, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University,
Quality Coordinator- Mapna MD2 Co. Tehran, Iran;
Phone: +989111373228, Fax: +982182987814; Email: marefat_f@mapnamd2.com, marefat_msa@yahoo.com
2
QC&QA Manager MapnaMD2 Co. Tehran, Iran; Email: faghedi@mapnamd2.com
3
Department of Materials Engineering, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran;
Email: metallurgy@srbiau.ac.ir
4
Department of Materials Engineering, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran;
Email: mafshar@srbiau.ac.ir
5
School of Metallurgy and Materials Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Iran; Email:
amadeh@ut.ac.ir
6
Laboratory Managers Iran Welding Research and Engineering Centre; Tehran, Iran; Email:
a8688_yousefi@yahoo.com

Abstract
Not only progression of technology will not be conducive in development of construction processes ranging
from forming and welding processes as well as development of advanced materials without modern processes of
inspecting about the reliability of the final product, but also may cause irreparable damages. In order to do so,
the modern method of Phased Array Ultrasonic, having potential abilities, has been invented to be substituted
with radiographic inspection which has been a common but old method of assessing quality of production and
welding of different parts. In this article, we are to check the possibility of substituting the new approach
(Phased Array Ultrasonic) with the former laborious method in some power plant connections. And for this
purpose we have focused on each methods weak points i.e. inability of radiography to detection of delicate but
dangerous flaws especially in the thick sections and ultrasonic weakness in detection of surface flaws.

Keywords: Non Destructive Test (NDT), Phased Array Ultrasonic Test (PAUT), Radiographic Test (RT),
Artificial Defects, Gas Tungsten Arc Welding (GTAW), Shielded Metal Arc Welding (SMAW)

1. Introduction

Non Destructive Tests (NDT's) are referred to the techniques which are often used to
distinguish defects and disorders of materials. In most cases, they are unique methods to get
information about perfectness of both parts and processes. As the matter of fact, it is not easy
to contrast between what called as physical properties of material and what maybe
imperfections and thus, it causes to fail in detecting imperfections and defects as well as
wrong consideration of some information as a defect. Moreover, personal errors always
interact and affect whole process. A proper application of NDT leads to enhance information
which helps for the healthy and correct application of part and equipment. In contrast, any
wrong result will make an incorrect picture of health and integration of product which may
bring non- compensable detriments [5].Nowadays, regarding growing rates of industrial
requirements, NDT procedures are rapidly developing. These requirements are able to be
categorized as:

1- Reducing the total prices

 2- Increasing reliabilities for detecting defects.
3- Reducing inspection procedure times
Meanwhile, providing an easy comprehended and sensible inspection report is always on all
clients' desires so that NDT equipment suppliers have special concerns in this regard. It is
true that both radiographic and ultrasonic techniques have been successfully developed based
on their physical fundamentals in recent years. However, by innovation the Phase Array
Ultrasonic Technique (PAUT) the rate of improvement for ultrasonic techniques are much
higher than radiographic ones. Although it is not justly to compare PAUT with traditional
radiographic and one may claim to compare PAUT with the latest digital radiographic
aspects, it is a fact that in most industrial cases, traditional radiographic techniques are still
used and these techniques are susceptive to be substituted by PAUT. Considering above
mentioned facts, it is critical to prove the reliability of the new born Phased Array Ultrasonic
Test (PAUT) techniques, especially for extremes of detection and subtle defects considering
manufacturing processes, while here we are focusing on welding process which is known as
the most popular manufacturing processes.

2. Concerns and matters

Welding processes have been under special considerations in recent decades. According to
global statistics, above 50% of whole metallic products, regardless the kinds of their
materials are provided or combined with one of the welding processes [6]. The estimated
metallic products exceed than 1,220 million tons per year which contain about 1,200 million
tons of steel products [6]. Having these simple data, someone can easily conclude that more
than 600 million tons of steel products are combined or completed with one of the welding
processes. These products vary from bridges, offshore facilities, pipelines, atmospheric or
pressure vessels, to ships, aircrafts, and many other applications in oil& gas, petrochemical
and power generation equipments [12].In addition, according to industrial needs, welding
processes are also rapidly developing in a way to increase productivity. However, there is no
ideal process to ensure the product will be of complete health, unless otherwise using
subsequent inspections or examinations. Therefore, in a welding joint, factors such: advanced
joint design, accurate metallurgical studies and suitable process selection are necessary, but
not adequate. What bring the required reliability during manufacturing and operation will be
held on inspection methods, normally NDT procedures [1].

Defects (or flaws) are unwanted discontinuities with size of greater than permission limits so
that utilizing the parts or equipment will be risky [2]. The permission limits of each part are
defined on the basis of design requirements. These requirements are established based on
experiences, advanced "Fitness- for- Service" technology, or fracture mechanic criteria.
The "Fitness-for-Service" methodology helps designer to decide whether it is necessary to
remove a specific defect or not. According to this, the maximum permitted size of defects
may depend on the geometry or function of parts during application.
This is while fracture mechanics is the technique for quantity analysis and numerical
calculations to evaluate behaviors of a part under applied loads. These analysis and
calculations deal with several parameters such as: shape and mode of imperfections as well as
geometry of a specific part.
The consequences of these approaches have conducted to standards and codes which are
widely used in different industries.
Geometry is a main factor to evaluate the level of risks brought by defects. Cracks and planar
discontinuities are the most dangerous defects under dynamic loads. They generally
propagate in two dimensions and cause stress risers via geometrical stress concentration.
Different kinds of cracks have been identified and categorized and mostly they are not
permitted. They can propagate until ultimate failure or fracture. In these cases, it is always
necessary to study and thus, research for the root causes of the nucleation phase should be
done.
Volumetric defects such as: porosities and inclusions are evaluated according to their
plentitude, size, direction, and positioning. Porosities not only are not dangerous in fatigue
susceptive cases, but also it has been reported that they could positively affect the static loads
at welding joints [6].
Lack of penetration and lack of side wall fusion are of the most dangerous defects which
sometimes are hard to distinguish to some extents. These defects often cause to brittle
fracture during low temperature services, especially in parts with low impact energy, and or
materials with high Ductile to Brittle Transition Temperature (DBTT) [8-9].
Hence, as a conclusion we can see that:
1- Some defects seriously threaten the reliability of parts in service
2- The detection of these defects is of high importance to prevent failure of welding
joints.
3- These defects are mostly planar
4- In cases of dynamic loads where planar defects reach the surface, it is even more
destructive.
There are many efforts concerning assessment of abilities come with electromagnetic waves
as well as ultrasonic ways, and also comparing these two with each other. However, because
of the fact that phase array technology is known as a new one, it is just recently under
consideration of researchers. This is while we generally face with two facts [10]:
1- Detection of planar defects by radiography is applicable only when the defect planes
are not perpendicular to radiation direction.
2- Ultrasonic waves successfully interact with planar defects.

Since the main objective of present study is to evaluate and assess both mentioned methods to
detect subtle defects like: cracks, lack of side wall fusions, and lack of inter-pass fusions, we
tried to provide defined and proper test plates for purposes including defined and deliberately
made with defects.

3. Description and examinations

To deliberately produce of welding defects we have used following techniques:

3.1 Lack of side wall fusion

A piece of machined small part with the same material as the base metal has been installed
and accurately seal welded to the bevel using Gas Tungsten Arc Welding (GTAW) or
Shielded Metal Arc Welding (SMAW) with small sizes of consumables. Obviously seal
welding quite guarantee that the interface of the piece to bevel remained with no fusion.
 Figure1. schematic of creating lack of side wall fusion

3.2 Crack producing

To provide a crack sample, there are different recommended methods such as using E12018
or E11018 consumables in an abnormal condition, or installing a small piece of Copper at the
melting zone in a carbon steel base metal [11]. It is also recommended to use Sulfur to
produce solidification cracks [3]. Cracks which are resulted by E11018 are completely linear
and in the centerline of welding joint, but cracks resulted from Copper presence are melting
cracks which are in different and random directions. As the matter of fact, crack occurs at the
zones with higher copper concentration due to fluctuation in melting pool which is not under
adequate control.

Figure2. (Right): Crack made of E11018 electrode. (Middle): Copper installation to produce crack (Left):
Melting cracks due to inhomogeneous solution of copper in consumable

3.3 Lack of inter-pass fusion

Similar to the first item (lack of side wall fusion), in this case, the desired place of weld
metal is accurately grinded and a proper piece (narrow sheet) with the same material as base
metal is installed and subsequently welding passes are done over that.

3.4 Lack of root penetration

That is provided by ignoring back chipping while it is necessary for a perfect welding
process. In thicker sections, with X joint designs, it is possible to use a ceramic piece, while
in thinner sections with V joint designs, it is possible to make a lack of penetration defect
using spark process just after first pass. In our case, we used the former method.

Figure3. (Right) Lack of Inter-pass fusion (Left) lack of root pass penetration
3.5 Experiments

As mentioned for this research we had to prepare some defective samples with different
thicknesses. Then radiography and phased array tests must be performed on them according
to the related standards. In this stage we performed our tests on such sections which to be
expected that radiography has not restrictions in detection of their internal defects (i.e. thin
sections). Artificial defects were deliberately made as lack of side wall fusion, lack of root
penetration, and crack which radiography is not suitable inspection method for detection
them while they are very important defects that greatly affect the applications and services.

For radiographic test we used ASME standard section V while for PAUT (Phased Array
Ultrasonic Test) ASTM E2491-06 were used. Radiography has done by Rigaku-Radioflex
300EG-S3 X-ray generator with 2.5*2.5 focused size - Film type: MX125 Kodak SFD
(Source to Film Distance): 45 cm~60cm Energy: 190~200 Kilovolts- Exposure time:
240~360sec. depending on plate thickness. Then PAUT (Phased Array Ultrasonic Test) were
performed by Harfang equipment X32 series - Probe model: PE-500 MI.00 P32E - Wedge
model: PE-35WOR-2 and scan specification settings were as follows:

Figure4. Sketch of weld joint, PAUT Probe, angle of beams and some dimensions for 30mm Thk. Plate

Scan t ype: Sectorial Ang le: Min 40-Max 7 0- Element No: 1~32 and Gain: 25~35db
Radiographic images were interpreted with conventional viewer and phased array data
studied with UT-STUDIO 2.37R software. We have brought 2 samples of the results here.
Figure 4 shows the coverage area by the adjusted Sectorial beams.

In the first sample, coded as FWST, we made some defects in 8 deferent locations. As it can
be seen in the radiograph, only 3 of them No. 1, 2 and 4 were distinguished. The defects No.
3 and 5 cannot be detected and if we were not aware of them, they probably would not be
recognized. To decrease the probabilities of human errors and also to apply an actual
condition for interpretation, the radiograph was shown for judgment of several experts who
were qualified as ASNT RT LEVEL II, whereas they did not report them as defects. But
Phased Array Ultrasonic could detect them clearly as it can be seen in the figure No.5 (lower)
 Fig 5: (Top) location of artificial flaws in the FWST-30 sample, (Middle) the radiograph related to the FWST-
30 sample, (Lower) phased Array top and end view of Plate No. FWST-30

The other joint made from dissimilar material containing stainless steel 304 and simple
carbon steel ST-37. The purpose was to evaluate the effect of stainless steel as a material with
larger grain size on the same frequency used probe for simple carbon steel while we compare
the deferent Inspection methods. Also it could be useful as a typical introductory study for
black/white (dissimilar joints) for further studies.

Although we can see all the defects on both radiograph and Phased Array Ultrasonic images,
we are able to get more information about the defects characteristics from Phased Array
Ultrasonic images. In this regard, the special note is that for detection of all flaws with the
Phase Array Ultrasonic according to ASTM E2491-06, we have to perform our scanning
from both side of the weld (left and right of the weld axis) .as it can be seen the defect No.3 is
not detected in the first scan which was done on the ST-37 material, but it was detected by
second scan which performed from other side on the Stainless steel.
 Fig 6: (Top) location of artificial flaws created in the dissimilar joint, (Middle) the radiograph related to the
dissimilar sample, (Lower) phased Array top and end view of Plate No. dissimilar

Also this situation has repeated for defect No. 1 and 2 which they were located on the
stainless steel face of bevel. In addition, Phased Array Ultrasonic test, comparing
conventional Ultrasonic Test, has better ability to detect surface defects like the defect No.3
which is a surface crack.

4. Conclusion
According to our researches up to now, it seems that there would be no defect on
radiographic images which it is not be able to be detected by Phased Array Ultrasonic [4]. In
most cases especially in detection of subtle welding defects the Phased Array ultrasonic
technique is more reliable than RT. Phased Array Ultrasonic has many different inspection
methods and for getting the best results we have to continue our investigations on its
application using its different aspects. In order to detect of all detectable defects, Phased
Array Ultrasonic should be performed from both sides of the weld axis particularly when
the dissimilar joint is being tested. Also it can be concluded that Phased Array Ultrasonic
has no limitation to detection of surface longitudinal cracks in comparison with
conventional Ultrasonic test while same frequency transducer can be used for dissimilar
joint containing stainless steel 304 and simple carbon steel. In spite of these facts, for more
clarifications, we have to continue and develop our investigations with larger varieties of
welded joints (i.e. plate, pipe with deferent thicknesses) with any probable pairs of
materials, and test them with all available Phase Array techniques and developed methods.

Acknowledgements
Authors thanks Mapna Power Generation Company for their kind supports. It is also for
laboratory management of IWREC (Iran Welding Research and Engineering Centre) who
helped the team during present research.

References

1- Barry Hull & Vernon John - Non Destructive Testing-First Published 1988
Macmillan Education Ltd
2- Baldev Raj, C.V. Subramanian, T.Javakumar - Non destructive Testing of Welds
3- Sindo kou - Welding Metallurgy 2nd edition, 2003
4- Guidebook for the Fabrication of Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) Test Specimens-
Printed by the IAEA in Austria June 2001
5- "Basic of phased array ultrasonic and its applications in quality evaluation of welded
joints on combined cycle power plants boilers" F.Marefat, M.Reza faghedi, A. Reza
Khodabandeh, A. Afshar, A.Amadeh International Congress on Advances in
Welding Science and Technology for Construction, energy and Transportation
Systems. 24-25 October 2011, Antalya, Turkey
6- www.hes.gov.uk/inspection and nondestructive testing
7- www.news.imidro.org
8- www.simafelez.com
9- www. welding adviser.com
10- www. fabrication .com
11- www. ndt-ed.com
12- www. ndt.net/forum/thread.php
13- www.simafelez.com