APPLICATION OF RADIOGRAPHY IN EVALUATING QUALITY OF

WELDS: CASE OF SELECTED JUA KALI FABRICATED PRODUCTS

IN KENYA

By

Karanja, Stephen Mwangi, B.ED (Sc.)

REG No: S56/63657/2010

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of Master of Science
degree in Nuclear Science of the University of Nairobi.
© July 2015
 Declaration

This thesis is my original work and has not been submitted in support of award of any degree or

qualification of the University of Nairobi or any other University.

ii
 Dedication

My dedication goes to my wife Regina, and my children Dennis, Deren and Stecy. Your

support, patience and encouragement have been very valuable in the completion of this work.

iii
 Acknowledgements

I am grateful for the guidance and assistance of my supervisors; Mr. J. Mangala and Mr. D. M.

Maina, Lecturers at Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology, University of Nairobi. Much

appreciation goes to Dr. M. J. Gatari for facilitating financial assistance towards laboratory

expenses.

I am grateful to Kenya Bureau of Standards (KEBS) management for allowing me to use their

NDT facilities for this project. I also recognize the contribution of all KEBS staff in Mechanical

and Civil Engineering department; in particular Engineer H. Were, Mr. N. Wakalo, Mr. S. Ndeti

and Mr. C. Munyua for their personal contribution in my training on NDT methods.

A lot of thanks go to my wife and other family members for their moral and financial support. In

particular, thanks to brother Muturi and his family for their kind support during my stay in Nairobi.

I also wish to register my sincere gratitude to Alice Wagura and Agnes Wakarima, for their support

in printing of this work.

Finally, I am grateful to everyone who in any way assisted me in the course of this study. May the

Almighty God bless you all.

iv
 Abstract

Radiography is an effective Non Destructive Testing (NDT) method for inspecting internal and

surface defects in engineering materials. It has been applied in this study to establish the integrity

of welded joints in Jua Kali fabricated products. The welds were evaluated and classified based

on type and size of defects observed as per ISO 5817 standard.

Specifically, welded Pull type of hoes and Tee type hinges were the Jua Kali products

investigated. Hoe specimens were sourced from Shauri moyo Jua Kali open air market in Nairobi

along Jogoo road. While hinge specimens were sourced from Nyeri Jua Kali shades next to Nyeri

Municipal Hall. Thirty samples of each were analyzed for defects at the Kenya Bureau of

Standards (KEBS). For comparison purposes, standard based welded specimens were also

evaluated. These specimens were obtained from Kenya Bureau of Standards NDT laboratory

where radiography test was carried out. Radiographic exposure was done in accordance to ISO

17636 standard, while evaluation and classification of defects was done in accordance to ISO 5817

standard.

Key instruments used include x ray machine of model 300, Kodak industrex AA400 films, lead

intensifying screens of 0.1 mm thick, 10FE EN wire penetrameter and DDS2 digital type of a

densitometer. X-ray star type of developer and Primax PT-F type of fixer were used in film

processing.

Lack of fusion was found to be the widely spread defect in Jua Kali welds inspected. Of the sixty

Jua Kali welds inspected, 52 or 83% were observed to have lack of fusion defect. Second in

occurrence was underfill, with a 70% representation. Other observed defects include; porosity,

undercut, burn through, slag and crack. The study showed that 86% to 100% of the Jua Kali welds

were defective hence non compliant to ISO 5817 standard. On the contrary, standard based welded

v
joints failed to comply with only 10% defective welds. The quality welds have been attributed to

application of welding standard by qualified welders.

The results show that at α = 0.5 level of significance, the three types of welds tested are

significantly different. Jua Kali hinges are heavily defective, followed by Jua Kali hoes, whereas

standard based welds were found to have very minimal defects.

Key recommendations include application of welding standards, use of Non Destructive Testing

(NDT) techniques for quality control and revision of applicable product standards to accommodate

Jua Kali innovations. Further study to correlate weld quality and product application has also been

recommended.

vi
 Table of content
Title……………………………………………………………………………………...…..i

Declaration ............................................................................................................................. ii
Dedication ............................................................................................................................. iii
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... iv
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................v
Table of content ................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ..........................................................................................................................x
List of Figures ....................................................................................................................... xi
List of symbols and abbreviations ...................................................................................... xiii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................1
1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................1
1.2 Statement of the problem ..............................................................................................4
1.3 Objectives ......................................................................................................................5
1.3.1 Main objective ........................................................................................................5
1.3.2 Specific objective ...................................................................................................5
1.4 Justification ...................................................................................................................5
1.5 Scope of the study .........................................................................................................6
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................7
2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................7
2.2 Non destructive testing technology ...............................................................................7
2.3 Radiography Testing Technique ...................................................................................9
2.4 Evaluation of weld defects using radiography ............................................................10
CHAPTER 3: PRINCIPLES OF INDUSTRIAL RADIOGAPHY AND
CHARACTERIZATION OF DEFECTS. ......................................................12
3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................12
3.2 Principles of x - ray production .................................................................................12
3.3 Principles of radiographic exposure ............................................................................14
3.4 Processing of radiographic film ..................................................................................19
3.5 Radiograph interpretation and classification of defects ..............................................20
3.5.1 Cracks ...................................................................................................................22
3.5.2 Lack of Fusion ......................................................................................................23
3.5.3 Inclusions (Dense and Less Dense) ......................................................................24
3.5.4 Porosity .................................................................................................................24
3.5.5 Geometric Conditions ...........................................................................................25
vii
 3.6 Sizing and classification of defects observed on the radiograph ................................26
CHAPTER 4: METHODS AND MATERIALS ..................................................................29
4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................29
4.2 Sampling and sample preparation ...............................................................................29
4.2.1 Sampling ...............................................................................................................29
4.2.2 Sample preparation ...............................................................................................32
4.3 Instrumentation of x-ray industrial radiography .........................................................33
4.3.1 X-ray equipment ...................................................................................................33
4.3.2 Radiographic films ...............................................................................................34
4.3.3 Wire penetrameter or image quality indicator (IQI) .............................................34
4.3.4 Intensifying screens ..............................................................................................35
84.3.5 Densitometer .......................................................................................................35
4.3.6 Processing chemicals ............................................................................................36
4.3.7 Radiation monitoring devices ...............................................................................36
4.3.8 Film viewer ...........................................................................................................37
4.3.9 Other facilities and accessories.............................................................................38
4.4 Radiographic Procedure ..............................................................................................39
4.4.1 Film loading and preparation ................................................................................39
4.4.2 X- ray exposure technique ....................................................................................39
4.4.3 Film processing procedure....................................................................................41
4.4.4 Evaluation of radiographs for image quality ........................................................41
4.4.5 Identification and classification of defects in this study.......................................41
4.5 Sampling and statistical methods used in data analysis ..............................................42
CHAPTER 5: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS .................................................................44
5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................44
5.2 Quality assurance ........................................................................................................44
5.3 Defects in standard based welded joints .....................................................................44
5.4 Defects in welded joints of Jua Kali hoes inspected ...................................................47
5.5 Defects in Jua Kali hinge specimens ..........................................................................49
5.6 Comparison of different specimens evaluated. ...........................................................51
5.7 Causes of defects and corrective action ......................................................................57
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................60
6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................60
6.2 Conclusion...................................................................................................................60
6.3 Limitations and challenges ..........................................................................................61
viii
 6.4 Recommendations .......................................................................................................61
References .............................................................................................................................64
Appendices ............................................................................................................................67

ix
 List of Tables

Table 2.1: NDT methods used for the detection of various weld defects ……...……….............10

Table 3.1: Factors affecting radiographic image quality ………………….................................16

Table 3.2: IQI sensitivity values for single wall technique ………..………................................21

Table 3.3: Relation between optical density and transmission...………………………..............22

Table 3.4: Extract of classification criteria used for quality level compliance……………….....27

Table 4.1: Exposure parameters used in this study …………..……………………....................41

Table 5.1: Summary of compliance with ISO 5817 standard for standard welded specimen......46

Table 5.2: A summary of compliance with ISO 5817 standard for welds of Jua Kali hoes.........48

Table 5.3: Summary of compliance with ISO 5817 standard for Jua kali hinge welded.............50

Table 5.4: Summary of specimen compliance with ISO 5817 standard ….………………….…53

Table 5.5: Observed types of defects in tested specimens ……………………….……………..54

Table 5.6: Percentage comparison of the occurrence of defects …………..………...……….....56

x
 List of Figures

Figure 3.1: A schematic diagram of an x-ray tube cross section………….….………………...13

Figure 3.2: Sketch of a radiographic film (self)………………………..…………...…..............15

Figure 3.3: A typical sample of radiographic technique or exposure chart for steel material.....16

Figure 3.4: Typical X-ray setup with X-ray tube, test object, film, and intensifying screens….18

Figure 3.5: Radiograph image showing longitudinal crack defect ………………….…………23

Figure 3.6: Radiograph image showing Transverse crack defect ………..…..………………...23

Figure 3.7: Radiograph image showing lack of fusion defect ……………..……………….….23

Figure 3.8 (a) and (b): Radiograph images showing indication for slag inclusion defect……..24

Figure 3.9 (a) and (b): Radiograph images showing indications of porosity defect……….......25

Figure 3.10 (a), (b) and (c): Radiographs showing indications for common condition defects
geometrical ………………………………………………...………………….…...26

Figure 4.1: A photograph of sample standard based welded specimen……..………….…........30

Figure 4.2: A photograph of a sample Jua Kali hoe……………………….…..........................31

Figure 4.3: A photograph of a a sample Jua Kali hinge …………........…...……………….....32

Figure 4.4: Photograph of the x-ray tube (Smart Hp 300 Model) ………….……………….….33

Figure 4.5: Photograph of x-ray control unit (583 model)………………………………….......34

Figure 4.6: A schematic diagram of a wire penetrameter ………….…………..........................35

Figure 4.7: Photograph of DDs2 densitometer model ……………………………….………...36

Figure 4.8: photograph of FHG-L10 model radiometer ………………….….………………...37

Figure 4.9: Schematic diagram of single wall exposure (ISO 17636) ……….………………...40

Figure 5.1: A sample radiograph of a non defective standard based welded joint……………...45

xi
Figure 5.2: A sample radiograph of a Jua Kali hoe welded joint showing a burnthrough
defect……………………………………………………………………………….47

Figure 5.3: A sample radiograph of a Hinge welded joint ……….………...……………….….49

Figure 5.4: Summary of defects observed in the three samples tested....…................................51

Figure 5.5: Percentage representation of non conforming welds ………….……………….….52

xii
List of symbols and abbreviations

ASME……American Society of Mechanical Engineering

CPF …...…Country Programme Framework

FOD……..Film Object Distance

GOK……..Government of Kenya

HP ……... Hewlett packard

IAEA….. .International Atomic Energy Agency

ILO….…...International Labor Organization

IQI .…..…Image Quality Indicator

ISO ………International Standard organization

KEBS….....Kenya Bureau of Standards

KS ……….Kenya standard

NDT ……..Non Destructive Testing

OFW….….Oxyfuel Gas Welding

PQR….......Procedure Qualification Record

SOD……...Source Object Distance

SMAW..…Shielded Metal Arc Welding

SME……..Small and medium enterprise

WPS……..Welding Procedure Qualification

xiii
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Quality is the ability of the product to meet the design specifications for use intended. It can also

be defined as the product ability to satisfy the customers’ needs. In industrial products, quality is

described by characteristics such as metallurgical structure, shape, design, chemical composition,

strength, toughness and presence of defects (IAEA, 2011). Presence of defects in any component

or product undermines its quality.

A defect is a discontinuity whose size is greater than what has been permitted by applicable

standard quality level. On the other hand, a discontinuity is any spatially sharp departure from

material homogeneity for a product (Davies, 1989). In this regard not all discontinuities qualify to

be a defect. Absolute homogeneity and continuity never exist in any engineering component as

discontinuities exist even at the atomic level (IAEA, 2011). This underscores the fact that no

engineering component is 100% perfect. Knowledge of the various defects, their causes and

remedies is necessary to ensure quality of the end product.

Welding is a metallurgical atom to atom joinery method applied in construction and fabrication

(IAEA, 2011). It involves heating of two metallic parts to be joined and aims to produce a suitable

bond between the parts. Defects in a weld greatly affect product performance and its’ longevity.

Arranged in order of severity, common weld defects include; cracks, lack of fusion, incomplete

penetration, porosities and inclusions (Hellier, 2003).

Cracks are linear ruptures of metal under stress and it is a dangerous defect not permitted by most

standards. Lack of fusion is a defect characterized by absence of metallurgical fusion between a

1
weld pass and the base material or between two successive weld passes. It is narrow, linear, and

tends to be straighter than a crack. At its extremities, the condition “feathers” down to an unusually

sharp edge (IAEA, 2011).

Porosity is a void-type condition created when gas is trapped in a weld metal and is characterized

by different shapes; globular, tailed or elongated. Its’ distribution can either be linear, aligned,

clustered, isolated or scattered). On the other hand, slag is presence of foreign materials entrapped

in the weld (Hellier, 2003). Underfill defect is a depression in a groove and results from

insufficient weld metal fill. Another defect is burnthrough, which is a localized loss of weld pool

in the root. It is characterized by a through-going hole at the edge of the seam. Undercut is an

unfilled groove along the edge of the weld (South African Institute of Welding, 2008).

Aspects of product quality and quality control in Jua Kali welded products are the major concern

of this study. Jua Kali is the name given to informal manufacturing sector in Kenya. This sector

is an integral part of the Kenyan economy which according to Orwa (2007) is a driver for

development and industrial reforms. Over 70% of the employable population in Kenya works in

the informal sector. This sector has therefore been identified as very critical in the achievement of

the vision 2030 goal for a middle income industrialized country (GOK, 2007). It has a role to play

in poverty eradication, improvement of health and uplifting of living standards of the citizens.

Other studies on Jua Kali sector and products have not been exhaustive as more emphasis has

been accorded to social and financial challenges (King k, 1996). To date, there is no available

documentation on assessment of the quality of Jua Kali welded products. This study intends to

fill this gap by providing information on weld quality in selected Jua Kali products; pull type hoes

and T type hinges.

2
Hoes and hinges were selected for investigation because in Kenya the two products are extensively

used in agriculture and building sectors respectively. Of importance is that, each of these products

zis made up of a single welded joint and under normal use the welded joint is under stress. Weld

sizes of these products is within the range of 7 mm to 16 mm which is the common size for most

of the Jua Kali welds. On this basis, welds in the two products are a representative of welds found

in common Jua Kali products.

For the products of interest in this study, the applicable KEBS standards do not address the

evaluation of the welded joint. KS 06-218 (1990) is the standard applicable to hinges and is based

on riveted broad butt hinges. KS 154 2000 is the standard applicable to quality evaluation of hoes

but provides specification for forged hoes. In the current form, these standards do not provide the

means to satisfactory inspect the Jua Kali welded products.

In this study, radiographic testing method was used to inspect welds of Jua Kali products for

structural defects. Radiographic exposure was done in accordance to ISO 17636 standard while

classification of defects was done in accordance to ISO 5817 standard. ISO 17636 standard

specifies fundamental techniques for radiographic testing of fusion welded joints in metallic

materials. It aims to obtain satisfactory and repeatable results using the most economical methods.

ISO 5817 standard defines dimensions of typical imperfections expected in normal fabrication. It

provides quality levels for imperfections in fusion welded joints in all types of steel, nickel,

titanium and their alloys. It outlines three quality levels designated with symbols B, C and D. The

quality levels refer to production quality and not fitness for purpose of the product manufactured.

Quality level B corresponds to the highest requirement on the finished weld.

3
In Kenya, radiography is being used in major industries, particularly in the mainstream industries.

Some of the applications include inspection of fuel tanks, gas cylinders and pipes in power

generating system. Kenya Airways employs radiography for the inspection of aircraft components

for defects. KEBS has also been using this technique to inspect quality of imported and locally

produced goods such as gas cylinders and steel bars used in construction work.

The results of this study will enable an informed judgment on the integrity of the Jua Kali welds

and products under consideration. This will assist in the introduction of mechanism and policies

geared to the improvement of quality in Jua Kali welds and resulting products.

1.2 Statement of the problem

Kenya has heavily invested in the promotion of Jua Kali industry for purposes of economic gains

and industrial development, but with minimal success. Of concern is that in Kenyan context,

shoddy and poor work is often referred, as “Jua Kali job”. This attitude is negative and a drawback

to marketing of Jua Kali products. Of greater concern is that, in welding of Jua Kali metal

fabricated products, no recognized standards are applied. This is reflected by lack of written

welding procedure specification (WPS) and procedure qualification records (PQR). It is also

marked by failure to have set qualification requirement for the welder. The situation is further

exacerbated by lack of scientific and qualified quality control checks. As a result, the integrity of

Jua Kali welds and resulting products are highly compromised and quality cannot be guaranteed.

By nondestructively analyzing defects of various Jua Kali welds, the integrity and reliability of

the weld and the end product can be evaluated.

4
1.3 Objectives

1.3.1 Main objective

The main objective of this study is to use radiography to evaluate quality of welds in selected

Jua Kali fabricated products available in the Kenyan market.

1.3.2 Specific objective

1) To identify and classify weld flaws in Jua Kali fabricated hoes and hinges using

radiography testing method in accordance with ISO 5817 standard

2). To compare the quality of Jua Kali welded joints with standard welded specimens.

3). To evaluate causes of defects identified.

4). To provide potential remedies to Jua Kali weld operations.

1.4 Justification

Radiographic technique is a reliable and an effective method of identifying most types of weld

defects (Valavanis, 2010). By applying radiography to inspect Jua Kali welds, the study provides

accurate and reliable information with regard to defects in the specimen under test. The results of

this study will be relevant to all stakeholders, namely; Jua Kali manufacturers, consumers,

technical training institutions, Kenya Bureau of Standards and other government policy makers.

The information will be helpful in the formulation of appropriate policies geared to the marketing

of Jua Kali products at the local and international markets.

In Kenya’s vision 2030 goal, the informal sector has been recognized as one of the key economic

growth driver. Radiography application in Jua Kali sector will aid in quality control and product

5
improvement in general. This will facilitate promotion of local manufacturing industries for

improvement of local manufactured products.

1.5 Scope of the study

The study applied industrial radiography to investigate quality of welds in Jua Kali fabricated

products namely; Jua Kali Hoes and Jua Kali hinges as found in the Kenyan market. Weld

discontinuities were identified according to the nature of indications visible on the radiograph.

Specific discontinuities were classified into classes B, C and D based on sizes in accordance to

ISO 5817 standard. In this study a defect was taken to be any discontinuity, whose size is greater

than quality level D specification.

The integrity of these welds was compared with standard based welded joints which represent

good quality welds. The standard based specimens have been welded as per acceptable welding

standards under the supervision of KEBS personnel. The study also explores causes of defects

identified and proposes preventive and remedial measures to reduce defects in Jua Kali fabricated

metal products.

6
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

This chapter presents an overview of the application of Nondestructive testing (NDT) methods. It

discusses radiography testing technique as the method of choice in product improvement and

development. Finally the chapter presents an overview on the application of radiography in

evaluation of welds quality.

2.2 Non destructive testing technology

Non destructive testing methods are unique in that the component or product usefulness is not

interfered with. According to Carosena et al (2004), NDT methods allow easy, quick and in situ

analysis of materials. NDT techniques can detect welding defects, recognize materials of different

characteristics and give information about the material modifications induced through welding.

These techniques have successfully been applied in product evaluation, troubleshooting and

research (Mix, 2005). They provide efficient, accurate and reliable evaluation techniques for

product development. When an engineer designs the product, real life testing and non destructive

testing are the only two ways to factually determine if the product is sound enough for intended

purposes.

Real life testing requires huge test facilities which more often than not are prohibitively expensive.

When tested to full load, the part may remain under residual stress thereby weakening the tested

part or may even become permanently damaged. On the other hand, NDT methods are non

destructive by nature and do not affect the product usability, hence can be used with a lot of ease.

7
NDT methods have been applied in pre-construction, during construction and post-construction

of various structures with minimum wastage of resource. Practically, NDT has been applied in

disciplines such as civil engineering, city planning, physics, mechanical engineering, aeronautical

engineering and material engineering (Kasban et al, 2011).

Detection of defects in materials is an important process in the quality control process of any

product development. Brown (1973) emphasized on the need for quality control in the automobile

industry. His conclusions indicated that NDT is a means of reaching quality goals and is an

important economic and moral necessity in automobile industry. According to Liao and Ni,

(1996), NDT has contributed to technological advancement, improvement of materials and

engineering structures. These techniques have largely been used for the evaluation of coating

thickness and the detection of coating flaws without interference or damage to the system. Because

of the stringent safety requirements in these industries, NDT has been employed in quality control

of these products.

Non-destructive methods like radioscopy, ultrasound, optical or thermal imaging has increased in

importance with respect to ongoing product and material development. According to Meola

(2004), for quality assurance, each sensitive welded joint should undergo non-destructive testing.

NDT has developed to be a life management tool, designed to detect defects in components before

they become critical under load. It provides more detailed knowledge about the internal structures

of micro-components and has consequently become a well-established technique to ensure safe

and economic operation of pressurized components. Conventional NDT methods include; visual,

liquid penetrant, magnetic particle, ultrasonic and radiographic testing method. The following is

a brief description of the radiographic testing method, in particular.

8
2.3 Radiography Testing Technique

Industrial radiography is a Non Destructive Testing (NDT) method for inspecting internal and

surface defects in engineering materials (Mix, 2005). It employs penetrating radiation, such as x-

rays, gamma-rays, or neutrons, to make images of object under test. Radiography was first

developed in 1922 when Dr. Lester used x-ray techniques for the examination of castings, welds,

and armor plate (Hellier, 2003). Originally its’ use was basically to improve the quality of

materials used by the army. Over the time, the technique has developed to be a major method of

examining welds and castings.

According to Kasban et al (2011) modern industries use radiography as a means for quality

control. This method is used to check complex assemblies for proper construction and for other

technical applications. According to Hellier (2003) industrial radiography has effectively been

applied in petroleum, petrochemical, nuclear and power generating industries. This technique

plays an important role in quality assurance of component under test. It aids in the assessment of

conformity to requirements of the standards, specifications and codes of manufacturing.

Radiography is used in major engineering industries for quality control and product development

(Mix, 2005). Its application has contributed to improvement of product quality, safety and

reliability. Radiography is one of the oldest and effective NDT methods which reveal both surface

and internal discontinuities in welds. It is also effective in identifying most types of weld defects.

This is well demonstrated in table 2.1.

9
Table 2.1: NDT methods used for the detection of various weld defects (Adapted from
ASME 1996)

Types of defects NDT Method

M P VT UT RT
T T
Burn through X X  
Cracks   X 
Excessive X X  
reinforcement
Slag inclusions X X 
Incomplete fusion X  
Incomplete penetration    
Misalignment  X  
Overlap   X X
Porosity X   
Root concavity X X  
Undercut  

2.4 Evaluation of weld defects using radiography

A weld is the product of a welding process. On this regard, welding is a joinery technique in metal

fabrication where fusing occurs at the atomic level (Dwivedi, 2009). The quality of a weld to a

great extent is determined by the presence or absence of defects. Weld defects detectable by

radiography technique include; undercut, lack of penetration, porosity, slag inclusion, crack ,lack

of fusion, burn through, excessive penetration, misalignment, overlap, external and root concavity

(Silvia et al, 2005).

Radiography employs penetrating radiation, such as x-rays, gamma-rays, or neutrons, to make

images of object under test visible. The penetration and absorption characteristics of radiant

energy are core in radiographic work. The portion of radiation that penetrates the object exposes

the film and forms the latent image of the object (Bray and Stanley, 1989). The amount of

absorption is dependent upon the thickness and density of matter for the given path. This variation
10
is detected and recorded on a radiographic film, and provides the means to see the internal parts

of the material under investigation.

The image formed on the film is evaluated, based on intensity differential which is represented by

difference in shades on the radiograph. Defects such as gas inclusions and less dense material give

rise to local increases in intensity as fewer x-rays are absorbed (Bray and Stanley, 1989). These

kinds of defects appear darker in the radiograph. It is on this basis, that radiography is used in

major engineering industries for the inspection and quality control of welds. Its’ application has

contributed to improvement of product quality, safety and reliability.

Baughurst et al (2009) observed that welding defects greatly affect product performance and

longevity. Early detection and correction of defects is important to ensure that welds carry out

their designed purpose. Kishore et al (2010) indicates that research on welding of materials like

steel is still critical and ongoing. In their findings they concluded that arc voltage, arc current,

welding speed, nozzle to work distance and gas pressure are some of the primary factors that

influence weld quality. They have also shown that workmanship of the welder has a critical role

in the production of a quality weld. According to Serkan and Akgungor (2009), weld defects can

originate either at preparation stage, welding stage or cooling stage. These facts call for clear

guidelines on defect detection and correction, in the upcoming Jua Kali industries in Kenya.

11
 CHAPTER 3

PRINCIPLES OF INDUSTRIAL RADIOGAPHY AND

CHARACTERIZATION OF DEFECTS

3.1 Introduction

This chapter provides the theoretical principles of radiographic testing technique. It also provides

an overview on radiographic procedure which include; specimens and film preparation, exposure,

radiograph processing and finally viewing and interpretation of the radiographs. It concludes with

criteria for interpretation and classification of weld defects.

3.2 Principles of x - ray production

X-rays are electromagnetic radiations whose wavelength is in the range from 0.005 to 10 nm,

produced from an x-ray tube which emits both continuum and characteristic x-rays. Continuous

x-rays are produced when electrons lose energy in passing through the Coulomb field of a nucleus.

The filament (cathode) supplies the electrons and the high voltage applied to the tube accelerates

the electrons to the anode, or target (figure 3.1). On the anode, the high speed electrons collide

with matter and hence change direction and loose energy in form of x- rays (Attix, 2004; Agfa,

2007). The total amount of radiation emitted by an x-ray tube depends on tube current, kilovoltage,

and the time for which the tube is energized (Quinn et al, 1980).

12
Figure 3.1: A schematic diagram of an x-ray tube cross section (Hellier, 2003).

The continuous x-ray spectrum generated by electrons in an x-ray tube is characterized by a short-

wavelength limit λ min, corresponding to the maximum energy of the exciting electrons. The

relation of the short-wavelength limit to the applied potential is shown in Duane–Hunt law as

indicated in equation 3.1 (Grieken and Markowicz, 2001).

hc
λ𝑚𝑖𝑛 = ……………………………………..……………..(3.1)
eVo

where h is Planck’s constant, c is the velocity of light, e is the electron charge, and Vo is the

potential difference applied to the tube.

The energy of x-rays associated with this phenomenon is indicated in equation 3.2.

1
𝑚𝑒 𝑣 2 = 𝑒Vo = ℎ𝑐/𝜆𝑚𝑖𝑛 ………………………….(3.2)
2

where 𝑚𝑒 = mass of the electron

𝑒= the charge on the electron

13
 𝑣= the velocity with which the electron strikes the target.

The production of characteristic x-rays involves transitions of the orbital electrons of atoms in the

target material between allowed electron orbits state. This is associated with ionization of the inner

atomic shells. The atom restores its initial configuration by transferring an electron from the outer

shell. The outer electron has higher energy than the inner electron, thus on transfer the excess

energy is emitted as x rays, referred as characteristic x rays (Grieken and Markowicz, 2001; Agfa,

2007).

3.3 Principles of radiographic exposure

Radiographic exposure involves placing the specimen along the path of radiation and it is

between the radiation source and recording medium. On exposure, a material of finite thickness

x, the transmitted intensity of photons that have not suffered interactions in the material is given

by Beer Lambert law (Grieken and Markowicz, 2001).

𝐼(𝐸) = 𝐼𝑂 (𝐸)𝑒 −μ(E)ρx ………………………………………….(3.3)

The intensity of a beam of x-rays or gamma-rays undergoes local attenuation as it passes through

an object, due to absorption and scattering of the radiation. For a uniform thickness, the attenuation

of the primary beam will also be uniform and the film evenly exposed. If the object contains

defects or is of variable thickness, the surface of the film will be unevenly exposed. This will

result to a shadow image of the object called latent image. When the film is processed, the latent

image on the film becomes visible and provides details of the exposed specimen (General Electric

Company, 2007)

In conventional radiography, a film is used as the recording medium. An x-ray film has a thin

emulsion coating on both sides of a clear plastic base (Fig 3.2). The emulsion is a homogenous

14
mixture of gelatin and silver halide crystals. The base is made of polyester and provides structure

for the emulsion. The polyester base resists warping with age and is strong. When any radiation

strikes the film emulsion, it reacts with the silver sulfide crystals to form black metallic silver

which forms the latent image (Agfa, 2007).

Figure 3.2: Sketch of a radiographic film (self)

Radiographic sensitivity or image quality depends on combined effects of two sets of independent

sets of factors (Quinn et al, 1980). One is radiographic contrast which is density difference

between small detail and its surroundings. The other factor is definition, which is abruptness and

smoothness of the transition. Table 3.1 provides the relationship of factors affecting the image

quality.

15
Table 3.1: Factors affecting radiographic image quality (adapted from Quinn et al, 1980)

Radiographic Image Quality

Radiographic Contrast Definition

Subject Film Contrast Geometric Film Graininess,
Contrast Factors Screen Mottle
Factors
Affected by: Affected by: Affected by: Affected by:
A - Absorption A - Type of Film A – Focal spot A - Type of Film
differences in B - Degree of size B - Type of screen
specimen (thickness, development (type of B – Source film C - Radiation
composition, developer, time and distance wavelength
density) temperature of C - Specimen film D –Development
B - Radiation development, activity distance
wavelength of developer, degree D – Abruptness of
C -Scattered of agitation) thickness changes in
radiation C - Density specimen
D - Type of screens E – Screen film
(fluorescent or lead or contact
none) F - Motion of
specimen

For technique development, the control of these variables is guided by exposure charts. An

exposure chart is a graph showing the relation between material thickness, kilovoltage, and

exposure. A typical exposure chart for an x- ray machine is illustrated in figure 3.3. An important

characteristic of the exposure chart is that; the values from the chart do not represent standards

which must be met, but provide a suitable starting point. Optimum exposure parameters for a

given test specimen are based on the specific x-ray machine and prevailing conditions such as film

storage and processing (Mix, 2005).

16
Figure 3.3: A typical sample of radiographic technique or exposure chart for steel material
(adapted from Hellier, 2003)

Radiographic exposure involves exposing a film to radiation that has penetrated through the test

specimen. The most effective exposure technique is “single wall exposure, single view technique”.

In this technique, radiation passes through a single thickness and the film is in contact with the

surface opposite the exposure side. The radiation passes through one wall of the object (a single

thickness) and evaluation is for one thickness only (Mbuthia, 2007).

The other commonly used technique is “double wall exposure, single view technique.” In this

case, the radiation passes through two walls but only that area closest to the film is evaluated. The

third radiographic technique is where radiation passes through two different walls of the object
17
and both walls are evaluated on the same radiograph. This technique is referred to as the “double

wall exposure, double view technique” and is usually restricted to parts with small diameters,

typically equal to, or less than 3.5mm (Hellier, 2003).

The objective of any radiographic work is to achieve the highest possible quality level of the

radiograph. Verification of quality of radiographic technique and the resulting radiograph is by

measuring optical density and use of image quality indicator (penetrameter). The penetrameter is

placed close to the area under exposure in such a way that it does not cause any interference

(Hellier, 2003; Mbuthia, 2007). Figure 3.4 is a diagram of x-ray exposure set up.

Figure 3.4: Typical X-ray setup with X-ray tube, test object, film, and intensifying screens

(Adapted from Mix, 2005).

When the x-ray film gets exposed to ionizing radiation, the granules of silver bromide in the

emulsion are affected, by absorption of incident radiation photons. These electrons are trapped at

sensitivity centers in the crystal lattice of the silver bromide granules. The trapped electrons attract

and neutralize mobile silver ions (Ag+) in the lattice (Quinn et al, 1980). Small quantities of

metallic silver are deposited in the emulsion, primarily along the surface of the silver bromide

18
granules. Although these changes in the granules are not visible, the deposition of metallic silver

across a film exposed to an x-ray beam is a reflection of the information transmitted to the film

by the radiation. This information is captured and stored as a latent image in the photographic

emulsion (Quinn et al, 1980).

For efficiency, the film is placed between fluorescent intensifying screens or lead screens. The

role of intensifying screens is a multiplication effect where it emits more light when illuminated

by radiation. The emitted light will also illuminate the film and hence reduces the exposure time

necessary to produce a given density (Hellier, 2003).

3.4 Processing of radiographic film

Processing of the radiographic films makes the latent image visible. It involves the following five

stages; development, stop bath, fixing, washing and drying in that order. Time taken at every

stage, affect the quality of the resulting radiograph. Equally important is developer temperature

that affects the radiograph quality. Developer temperature is inversely proportional to

development time.

When the film is placed in a developing solution, additional silver is deposited at the sensitivity

centres (Quinn et al, 1980). Hence the latent image induced by the radiation serves as a catalyst

for the deposition of metallic silver on the film base. The longer the development time, the more

silver is formed and hence the denser the image becomes. No silver is deposited along granules

that are unaffected during exposure of the film to radiation, and these granules are removed by the

sodium thiosulfate or ammonium thiosulfate present in the fixing solution. The fixing solution

also contains potassium alum to harden the emulsion and acetic acid to neutralize residual

developer present on the film (Hellier, 2003).

19
The degree of blackening of a region of the processed film depends on the amount of free silver

deposited in the region and, consequently, on the number of x-rays absorbed in the region. A dark

spot, corresponding to the projected position of the void, will appear on the film when it is

developed. It is the intensity variation of the transmitted radiation in the specimen that forms the

useful image in a radiograph (Greken and Markowick, 2001).

3.5 Radiograph interpretation and classification of defects

Film interpretation is the final and an important stage in radiographic work. Radiographic viewing

is done with the help of a high intensity illuminator designed for viewing of radiographs. The film

radiographs are checked for artifacts, and sensitivity is verified by visibility of IQI wire and

measurement of optical density. The appropriate wire of the IQI must be visible and discernible

on the radiograph (Quinn et el, 1980; Hellier, 2003). Table 3.2 illustrates the smallest IQI wire

which must be visible for the various penetration thicknesses.

20
Table 3.2: IQI sensitivity values for single wall technique (ISO 5817)

Image quality for class A technique

Penetration thickness t (mm) IQI value
t ≤ 1.2 W18
1.2 > t < 2 W17
2 > t < 3.5 W16
3.5 > t < 5 W15
5 > t < 10 W14
10 > t < 15 W13
15 > t < 22 W12
22 > t < 38 W11
38 > t < 48 W10
48 > t < 60 W9
60 > t < 86 W8
86 > t < 125 W7
125 > t < 225 W6
225 > t < 375 W5
t > 375 W4

The optical density within areas of interest must be within recommendations of specified standard

such as ISO 5817. For most standards, acceptable optical density is in the range of 2 to 3.5 (Quinn

et al, 1980). Optical density refers to the quantitative measure of film blackening and it’s

mathematically expressed as indicated in equation 3.4 and relation between optical density and

transmission shown in table 3.3.

𝐼
𝐷 = 𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝐼𝑜 ………………………………….(3.4)
𝑖

where 𝐼𝑜 = light incident on the film

𝐼𝑖 = light intensity transmitted

𝐷 = density

21
Table 3.3: Relation between optical density and transmission (adapted from Quinn et al,
1980)

Transmittance Percentage (%) Opacity Optical

𝑰𝒕 transmission 𝑰𝟎 density
𝑰𝟎 𝑰𝒕 𝑰𝒕 𝑰𝒕
x100 𝒍𝒐𝒈
𝑰𝟎 𝑰𝟎
1.00 100 1 0

0.50 50 2 0.3

0.25 25 4 0.6

0.10 10 10 1.0

0.01 1 100 2.0

0.001 0.1 1000 3.0

0.0001 0.01 10000 4.0

Imperfections are identified and characterized based on their nature and indications on the

radiograph. A dark region on the film represents areas where more radiation has penetrated, while

lighter regions represent areas where more radiation has been absorbed by the test specimen

(Quinn et al, 1980). Figures 3.6 to 3.11 show radiographs with indications of common weld

defects. Important to note is that conventionally, the ratio of the image to object is 1:1. This

permits estimation of defect sizes.

3.5.1 Cracks

In the radiograph, cracks appear as dark, irregular, linear indications (Hellier, 2003; IAEA, 2011).

Figures 3.5 and 3.6 show typical cracks namely, longitudinal and transverse cracks.

22
 Figure 3.5: Radiograph image showing longitudinal crack defect (Agfa, 2007).

Figure 3.6: Radiograph image showing Transverse crack defect (Agfa, 2007)

3.5.2 Lack of Fusion

In a radiograph, lack of fusion defect appears as dark and it is usually straight along one

edge and slight wavy on the other edge (Hellier, 2003; IAEA, 2011). Figure 3.7 shows a

lack of fusion defect.

Figure 3.7: Radiograph image showing lack of fusion defect (Agfa, 2007).

23
3.5.3 Inclusions (Dense and Less Dense)

The lighter-density inclusions results to a dark image on the radiograph and more dense inclusions,

such as tungsten, leads to a lighter image (Hellier, 2003; IAEA, 2011) Figures 3.8 (a) and 3.8(b)

shows less dense and more dense inclusions respectively.

Figure 3.8 (a) Radiograph image showing a typical less dense inclusion defect (Agfa, 2007)

Figure 3.8 (b) Radiograph image showing a typical more dense inclusion (Agfa, 2007)

3.5.4 Porosity

In a radiograph, porosity appears as dark spots as it is a void in the weld. Figures 3.9 (a) and 3.9

(b) shows typical porosity defects (Hellier, 2003; IAEA, 2011).

24
Figure 3.9 (a) Radiograph image showing a clustered porosity defect (Agfa, 2007)

Figure 3.9 (b) Radiograph image showing scattered porosity defect (Agfa, 2007)

3.5.5 Geometric Conditions

Geometric conditions include; undercut burn through, under fill and over reinforcement (Hellier,

2003; IAEA, 2011). In a radiograph the defects appear as shown in figures 3.10 (a), (b) and (c).

25
Figure 3.10 (a), (b) and (c): Radiographs showing indications for common geometrical condition
defects (Agfa, 2007) namely undercut, underfill and burnthrough respectively.

3.6 Sizing and classification of defects observed on the radiograph

ISO 5817 define dimensions of typical imperfections which are expected in normal fabrication. It

provides three quality levels symbolized by B, C and D, where B corresponds to the highest quality

requirement on the finished weld, followed by class C, with D being the most moderate quality

level. Table 3.4 represents an extract of ISO 5817 on discontinuity sizing and classification.

26
Table 3.4: Extract of classification criteria used for quality level compliance (ISO 5817)

DISCONTINUITY ILLUSTRATION REMARK THCKNESS Class D Class C Class B

(t) in mm
Crack > 0.5 Not Not Not
permitted permitted permitted

Lack of fusion >3 Not Not Not

permitted permitted permitted

Undercut >3 h ≤ 0.2 t h ≤ 0.1 t h ≤ 0.05 t

but max but max but max
1mm 0.5mm 0.5mm

Underfill >3 h ≤ 0.25 t h ≤ 0.1 t h ≤ 0.05 t

(incompletely filled but max 2 but max but max
groove) mm 1mm 0.5mm

Burn through ≥ 0.5 Not Not Not

permitted permitted permitted

Porosity ≥ 0.5 ≤ 2.5 % ≤ 1.5% ≤ 1%

27
Slag inclusion Butt weld ≥ 0.5 h ≤ 0.4 s h ≤ 0.3 s h ≤ 0.2 s
but max but max but max
4mm 3mm 2mm
l≤s but l ≤ s but l ≤ s but
max 75 max 50 max 25
mm mm mm
Fillet weld ≥0.5 h ≤ 0.4 a h ≤ 0.3 a h ≤ 0.2 a
but max but max but max
4mm 3mm 2mm
l ≤ a but l ≤ a but l ≤ a but
max 75 max 50 max 25
mm mm mm

Key
a: nominal throat thickness of the fillet;
b: width of weld reinforcement;
h: height or width of discontinuity;
l: the length of discontinuity in longitudinal direction of the weld;
s: nominal welded thickness, whereas t is wall or plate thickness.

28
 CHAPTER 4

METHODS AND MATERIALS

4.1 Introduction

In this chapter, the sampling and sample preparation methods are presented. This is followed by a

discussion of the instrumentation techniques used in this study. It also provides a detailed description

of experimental procedures and concludes by providing data analysis techniques employed in this

study.

4.2 Sampling and sample preparation

4.2.1 Sampling

The pull type hoes used in this study were randomly sourced from Shauri Moyo open air Jua Kali

market in Nairobi while the Tee type hinge samples were randomly sourced from Nyeri town open

air Jua Kali market, next to Nyeri Municipal Council Hall. In each case, thirty (30) samples were

bought for quality of weld evaluation. Shauri Moyo Jua Kali site was selected because it is a major

industrial fabrication sites situated in Nairobi city whereas Nyeri Jua Kali site is a typical Jua Kali

market in Kenya.

For comparison purposes, thirty (30) standard welded plates were also sampled from standard welded

specimens kept at KEBS NDT laboratory. These are weld specimens whose welding parameters are

based on ASME VI standard. The specimens had previously been used for testing of welding

procedure qualification for certification purposes. Figures 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 are sample figures of
29
standard welded joint, Jua Kali hoe and Jua Kali hinge respectively. The area highlighted by white

tape is the weld and forms the area of interest in this study.

30
Figure 4.1: A sample of standard welded specimen

Figure 4.2: A sample of a Jua Kali hoe showing the welded joint

31
Figure 4.3: A sample of Jua Kali hinge showing the welded joint

4.2.2 Sample preparation

The samples were coded for identification purposes; WJJ (Welded Jembe Joint) code for hoes, WHJ

(Welded hinge Joint) code for hinges, and CWJ (Code Welded Joints) code for standard welded joints.

To differentiate one item from each other, each specific item was then given a number which ranging

from 1 to 30. In each case, weld thickness and specimen thickness were measured, to enable

determination of exposure parameters.

32
4.3 Instrumentation of x-ray industrial radiography

4.3.1 X-ray equipment

X-ray machine of Model SMART HP 300 was used to expose the specimen under test. It was used in

conjunction with a control unit model 583. The x-ray tube had a focal spot size of 3mm in diameter

and operated in the voltage range of 50kV to 300kV. It operates at a constant current of 3mA, with

has a power rating of 900w, Its air cooled and weighs 33kg (Figures 4.4 and 4.5 respectively shows

the x ray tube and control unit used).

Figure 4.4: Photograph of the x-ray tube (Smart Hp 300 Model)

33
 Figure 4.5: Photograph of x-ray control unit (583 model)

4.3.2 Radiographic films

Kodak industrex AA400 films were used for radiographic exposure. The film consisted of an

emulsion gelatin containing a radiation sensitive silver compound and a flexible transparent, blue-

tinted base. The emulsion is coated on both sides of the base in layers. Coating on each side increases

the amount of radiation-sensitive silver compound, and thus increases the sensitivity of the film.

4.3.3 Wire penetrameter or image quality indicator (IQI)

For sensitivity check of radiographic technique, a 10FE EN wire penetrameter was used (figure 4.6).

It has seven wires numbered 10 to 16 and encased in a clear plastic holder. The wires range from a

thickness of 0.4 mm for wire number 10 to 0.1mm for wire number 16 (Appendix IV (a) and (b).

34
.

Figure 4.6: A schematic diagram of a wire penetrameter

4.3.4 Intensifying screens

Lead intensifying screens of 0.1 mm thick were placed on both sides of the film. An intensifying lead

screens consist of a thin layer of a lead compound evenly coated on a paper backing. Under the

excitation of x-rays or gamma rays, lead emits electrons which further expose the sensitive

radiographic film. Use of intensifying screens has a multiplication factor in that it increases

photographic effect, hence the reduction of exposure time.

84.3.5 Densitometer

A digital densitometer (DDS2) that comprises of a probe and a display unit was used for measuring

optical density (figure 4.7). Acceptable optical density for most application codes or standards is

between the ranges 2.0 – 3.5 (Agfa, 2007; Quinn et al, 1980).

35
 Figure 4.7: Photograph of DDs2 densitometer model

4.3.6 Processing chemicals

The developer and fixer used were x-ray star type of Primax and PT-F type of fixer respectively. The

developer is an aqueous solution which reduces the silver halide crystals in the film emulsion into

black metallic silver. In the process the latent image is converted into a visible image. The fixer

solution removes undeveloped silver halide salts from the emulsion and thereby renders the image

formed permanent.

4.3.7 Radiation monitoring devices

Two radiation meters were used, namely; Survey meter (FH 40G-L10) radiometer for area monitoring

and Bleeper III radiometer for personal monitoring

a) Survey meter (FH 40G-L10) radiometer

A radiation survey meter, FH 40G-L10 radiometer was used to monitor radiation exposure within the

working area, to ensure that radiation exposures were within acceptable limits (Figure 4.8). A survey

meter is mandatory in the control room whenever radiographic work is in progress.

36
 Figure 4.8: photograph of FHG-L10 model radiometer

b) Bleeper III radiometer

Persons who use radiation source have to monitor their exposure levels. In this study, the researcher

used Bleeper III radiometer of model from Vertic Scientific Ltd. This was placed at a strategic

position on the radiographers’ body. Under background exposures, the device is set to bleep once

after every 30 minutes. If exposure rises above the background radiation, the bleeping rate increases

proportionately. This serves as a warning to the radiographer, to take appropriate action of moving

away from the area of high exposures or stop the operation.

4.3.8 Film viewer

A high-intensity illuminator was used in the examination of radiographs. The viewer provides light

of an intensity that illuminates areas of interest of the radiograph. Areas of the radiograph which are

highly exposed absorb more light and thus they appear darker.

37
4.3.9 Other facilities and accessories

Another important facility is the bunker which is a room that houses the x-ray tube and this is where

the exposure was made. This study was carried out in a bunker whose size is10m by 8m. The walls

are made of 0.5m concrete material with a door made of thick lead metal. These are security measures

to ensure that no radiation escapes from the room when exposure is in progress. Adjacent to the banker

is control room, which houses the control unit of the x-ray system. It is in this room that the

radiographer operates the x ray machine.

A dark room with dry side and wet side was also used in this radiographic work. Before exposure,

the dry side was used for the purpose of loading the film into the film cassette. It was also used after

the exposure while unloading the film and placing each one of them on to film hanger. During these

operations safe light was used. Safe light is red light which does not affect or destroy films. The wet

side houses the processing tanks where processing takes place.

Other items used include; film holder cassettes which house the film under exposure. Lead numbers

and letters were also used in labeling of dates and identification codes. Masking tape was also used

for holding lead numbers and penetrameter in position. Lead sheets were used for back scattering

absorption whereas measuring tape and Vernier caliper were used for measuring essential distances

and weld thickness. Stainless steel film hangers were used to hang film while being processed and

during the drying period. A stop watch was also used for time measurements while a thermometer

was equally used for temperature measurement. Finally a film drier was used in drying of processed

radiographs.

38
4.4 Radiographic Procedure

4.4.1 Film loading and preparation

The radiographic procedure used was as provided for in the laboratory operations manual in NDT

laboratory (Appendix I). In a dark or safely lit room, the films were carefully placed between lead

screens after which they were loaded into film holders. Personal radiation monitoring device (Bleeper

III) and survey meter were used for radiation monitoring.

Film source distance (FSD) was set at 700 mm. Weld thickness for each specimen was measured, and

average thickness was as shown in Table 4.1. Other exposure parameters such as voltage and time

were determined by use of exposure chart and film characteristic curve available in KEBS NDT

laboratory.

4.4.2 X- ray exposure technique

Single wall single image radiographic exposure technique was used in this study (Figure 4.9). 10FE

EN wire penetrameter set was used and placed at the radiation source side of the specimen. Other

appropriate markers such as identification number and marking of date, voltage and exposure time

were put in position so as to be captured on the radiograph. Test specimen and the film were placed

in the appropriate position in front of radiation source. Exposure was made and repeated for all

specimens under investigation. In the event that the radiograph sensitivity was not within

recommendations of this standard, or areas of interest are not within acceptable optical density, then

the exposure of the specific specimen was repeated with appropriate adjustments of exposure

parameters. Exposure parameters were as indicated in Table 4.1

39
Figure 4.9: Schematic diagram of single wall exposure (ISO 17636)

Table 4.1: Exposure parameters used in this study

Samples Average Film Current Voltage Exposure

tested weld source (mA) (kV) time (sec)
Thickness distance
(mm) (mm)
Hinges WHJ 8.0 ± 0.5 700.0±0.5 3 150 60.0
1-30
Hoes WJJ 11.0 ± 0.5 700.0±0.5 3 180 33.0
1-30
Standard CWJ 15.0 ± 0.5 700.0±0.5 3 180 60.0
based welds 1-30

40
4.4.3 Film processing procedure

Processing of radiographs was done manually in a dark room lighted with safe lights. The films were

removed from the holding cassettes and clipped to the channel hangers. The films were then dipped

in developer solution for 5 minutes. For uniform processing the films were well shaken while dipped

in the developer. After the 5 minutes the films were removed from the developer and shaken well to

drain the developer. The films were then transferred into a water bath for rinsing for 5 minutes. This

was followed by placing them into a fixer solution for 5 minutes after which the films were rinsed in

a water bath for 20 minutes and dried in a hot air cabinet for 40 minutes. After drying, the radiographs

were ready for viewing and storage.

4.4.4 Evaluation of radiographs for image quality

The radiographs were viewed using a high intensity viewer (illuminator) in a dimly lit room. First,

the radiographs were inspected for artifacts which interfere with defect indications. Films with

pronounced artifacts were rejected and exposure of the specimen repeated.

4.4.5 Identification and classification of defects in this study

Discontinuity identification was based on the nature of indications observed on the radiograph.

Indications of common defects are as shown in figures 3.4 to 3.10. Classification of defects in this

study was in accordance to ISO 5817 standard, which defines and classifies discontinuities typical to

fusion welded joints. It provides three sets of dimensional values from which a selection can be made

for particular application. These sets are designated by symbols B, C and D. Quality level B

corresponds to the highest requirement on the finished weld (ISO, 2003).

41
Flaws were identified and categorized into types based on indications in the radiographs. For

classification into classes B, C and D quality levels, compliances was based on the size of the

identified flaw as outlined in ISO 5817 (appendix IX). Crack, Lack of fusion and burnthrough could

not be classified into the various quality classes as these flaws are completely not permitted by ISO

5817 standard. As for the other defects such as porosity, undercut, underfill and slag, observed defects

were classified into quality classes B, C or D based on the size or distribution. Those defects whose

size was greater than limits outlined by quality level D were considered non compliant to ISO 5817

standard. It therefore follows that a weld with a non compliant defect was equally considered non

compliant.

4.5 Sampling and statistical methods used in data analysis

Random sampling was used in the selection of the specimen. Percentages and probability of non

conforming welds was determined. And as a central tendency statistic, mean for number of defects in

selected samples was calculated. Standard deviation was determined as the measure of dispersion.

Further statistical analysis was on the difference in means so as to determine the significance of

differences observed. Approach given was as follows; 𝑥̅1 and 𝑥̅2 were assumed to be the sample

means obtained in large samples of sizes 𝑁1 and 𝑁2 drawn from respective populations having means

of 𝜇1 and 𝜇2 and standard deviations б1 and б2 . Standard deviation 𝑠1 and 𝑠2 for the samples was

used to approximate 𝜇1 and 𝜇2 . Thus at α = 0.05 significance level, difference in means was evaluated

using standardized variable (z score) calculated as shown in equation 4.1.

𝑧 = б𝑥̅𝑥1−𝑥
̅2
−𝑥
…………………………………….………Eq 4.1
1 2

42
 б2 1 б2 2
Where б𝑥1 −𝑥2 = √ + …………………….….…...Eq 4.2
𝑁1 𝑁2

43
 CHAPTER 5

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

5.1 Introduction

Results for standard welded joints, Jua Kali hoes and Jua Kali fabricated hinges are presented in this

chapter. A discussion on comparison of defects observed and quality between standard based welds

and the Jua Kali welds has also been presented. The chapter concludes with a discussion on observed

defects, potential causes of these defects, and finally prevention and remedial measures.

5.2 Quality assurance

The reliability and accuracy of these results is as per ISO 5817 standard. One starts by calibrating the

densitometer (appendix II and V). This is followed by ensuring that radiographs meet the minimum

density requirement in areas of concern i.e. the welded part has a density of 2 to 3.5. The other

important quality control measure was the visibility of recommended IQI wire on the radiograph for

specified weld thickness (appendix VI). For given thickness and sensitivity, the standard recommends

the visibility of specific IQI wire on the radiograph. In these experiments, the minimum IQI wire

recommended by the ISO 5817 standard was visible in the radiographs (appendix V). By seeing the

recommended wire in the radiograph, it is evident that the exposure technique and processing of the

radiographs meets the required quality standard.

5.3 Defects in standard based welded joints

Fig 5.1 is a sample radiograph of standard welded joint and shows the date of exposure, the

identification number CWJ and penetrameter 10FEEN. The zero and the arrow mark is a reference

44
point, from which the position of a defect can be traced. The part enclosed by two straight lines is the

weld, which in this sample there was no defect observed.

Figure 5.1: A sample radiograph of a non defective standard based welded joint

45
The results of standard welded joints evaluated are in appendix VI (a) and V1 (b). The summary of

results is as shown in table 5.1.

Table 5.1: Summary of compliance with ISO 5817 standard for standard welded specimen

Type of defect Compliance to ISO 5817

Compliant Non compliant

Crack 30 0

Porosity 29
1

Lack of fusion 28 2

Under cut 30 0

Burn through 30 0

Under fill 30 0

Slag 30 0

The only observed defects was porosity and lack of fusion, with respect to which the affected

specimens were non compliant. Of the 30 standard based welded specimens, 27 (90%) were compliant

to ISO 5817 requirements (appendix VI (a) and (b)). The high quality observed in standard welded

joints can therefore be attributed to application of welding standard in conjunction with welders’ skills

and knowledge. A good weld is a product of good welding procedure and workmanship of the welder

(IAEA, 2011). Our results confirm that application of welding standards leads to quality welds and

hence quality products.

46
5.4 Defects in welded joints of Jua Kali hoes inspected

Each welded joint was inspected for discontinuities and evaluated for compliance. Figure 5.2 is

radiograph sample of a welded joint with a burnthrough defect. Appendix V11 (a) and (b) shows

results for Jua Kali hoe welded joints. The summary of the results is provided in table 5.2.

Figure 5.2: A sample radiograph of Jua Kali welded hoe joint showing a burnthrough defect

47
Table 5.2: A summary of compliance with ISO 5817 standard for welds of Jua Kali hoes

Type of defect Compliance to ISO 5817

Compliant Non compliant

Crack 30 0

Porosity 30 0

Lack of fusion 8 22

Under cut 27 3

Burn through 26 4

Under fill 23 7

Slag 28 2

Of the thirty hoe welds inspected, twenty two (22) welds did not comply with ISO 5817 standard with

respect to lack of fusion defect. This study shows that lack of fusion is a serious and wide spread

defect in Jua Kali hoes. Further analysis reveals that, in total twenty five (83%) of hoe welds inspected

failed to comply with ISO 5817 standard. The effect of defective weld is that the weld and the product

cannot perform to expectation as it will fail prematurely. This state of affairs justifies the concern on

the integrity of Jua Kali welds and hoes in particular.

48
5.5 Defects in Jua Kali hinge specimens

Figure 5.3 is a sample radiograph of a Jua Kali hinge welded joint with indications of lack of fusion

defect.

Figure 5.3: A sample radiograph of Jua Kali welded hinge joint showing lack of fusion defect

The results for discontinuities observed in hinge welded joints are as shown in Appendix V111 (a)

and (b). A summary of compliance for the tested specimens is provided in table 5.3.

49
Table 5.3: Summary of compliance with ISO 5817 standard for Jua kali hinge welded joints

Type of defect Compliance to ISO 5817

Compliant Non compliant

Crack 29 1

Porosity 27 3

Lack of fusion 0 30

Burn through 26 4

Underfill 2 28

Slag 28 2

Undercut 26 4

The results shows that, Lack of fusion and underfill defects are the two main defects that are widely

spread in Jua Kali fabricated hinges. All the 30 samples showed lack of fusion defect. This is a serious

and dangerous defect not permitted by most quality standards, ISO 5817 included. Based on these

observations, all hinge joints inspected were non compliant with ISO 5817. This is a dangerous state

of affairs, since a defective weld and the product in general cannot perform to expectation.

50
5.6 Comparison of different specimens evaluated.

Lack of fusion, underfill and burnthrough emerged as the three major defects of concern. Fig 5.4

portrays a comparison of defect occurrence in the three types of specimens evaluated in this study.

All hinges evaluated were non compliant to applicable standard while of the Thirty (30) hoes tested,

twenty six (26) were non compliant to ISO 5817 standard. Only three (3) standard based welded joints

that failed to comply with ISO 5817 standard. This underscores the importance of application of

welding standards.

35

30
Non compliant samples

25

20

15

10

0
Lack of Burnthroug
Underfill Undercut Slag Porosity Crack
fusion h
CWJ 2 0 0 0 0 1 0
WJJ 22 7 4 3 2 0 0
WHJ 30 28 4 0 0 3 1

Figure 5.4: Summary of defects observed in the three samples tested

Of all the non compliant welds observed, only three (5%) standard welds were on the list. All hinge

welds, thirty of them had a representation of 52% on the list while the remaining twenty five (43%)

were hoe welded joints (Fig 5.8). The high quality observed in standard welded joints can be attributed

to application of standards and the expertise of the welders. On the other hand, non application of
51
standards in Jua Kali welding operations has contributed to highly defective welds and products in

general. This calls for urgent corrective measures, if Jua Kali industries will be of any value with

regard to Kenya vision 2030 of a middle income industrialized country. Furthermore, when products

are defective, buyers decline to buy these products, hence the stagnated growth of the Jua Kali sector.

Standard
welded joints
5%

Hinge welds
52% Hoe welds
43%

Figure 5.5: Percentage representation of non conforming weld.

ISO 5817 standard provides for three quality levels represented by symbols B, C and D where B

represents the highest quality level (Table 3.4). Appendix IX show classification of observed

defects with respect to ISO 5817 standard. Table 5.4 presents a summary of compliance and non

compliance in tested specimens.

52
Table 5.4: Summary of specimen compliance with ISO 5817 standard

Type of Number of Non compliant samples

specimen samples

evaluated Number of percentage Probability of a

samples defective specimen

Standard weld 30 3 10% 0.1

Hoe weld 30 26 86.7% 0.87

Hinge weld 30 30 100% 1

The findings shows that the probability of a defective standard based welded joint is 0.1, the

probability of a defective hoe weld is 0.87 and the probability of a defective hinge joint is 1. Table

5.5 shows observed defects per specimen tested.

53
Table 5.5: Observed types of defects in tested specimen

CWJ Defects WJJ Defects HWJ defects

observed observed observed

1 0 1 3 1 3
2 0 2 1 2 3
3 0 3 2 3 2
4 0 4 1 4 2
5 1 5 1 5 2
6 0 6 2 6 2
7 0 7 1 7 1
8 0 8 0 8 2
9 0 9 1 9 3
10 0 10 1 10 3
11 0 11 2 11 2
12 1 12 1 12 2
13 0 13 2 13 2
14 0 14 2 14 2
15 1 15 1 15 2
16 0 16 0 16 2
17 0 17 1 17 3
18 0 18 1 18 2
19 0 19 1 19 4
20 0 20 1 20 2
21 0 21 3 21 2
22 0 22 2 22 2
23 0 23 1 23 3
24 0 24 0 24 2
25 0 25 2 25 3
26 0 26 1 26 3
27 0 27 1 27 3
28 0 28 2 28 3
29 0 29 0 29 3
30 0 30 1 30 2

54
Different types of defects were observed in specimens evaluated, with some samples having more

than one type of defect. Analyses of the occurrence of different types of defects indicate a mean value

of 1 defect in the standard welded joints 2 defects for the Hoes and 3 defects for the Hinges.

Using equation 4.1 difference in means was calculated in pairs. Results shows that, between the

hinges and standard based welded joints; the test statistic z =18.55, between hoes and standard based

welded joints; the test statistic z = 7.7. While test statistic between hinge welded joints and hoes is

found to be z = 6.3. At α = 0.5 level of significance, the critical value is 1.65. As a result, all the

calculated z values are greater than the critical value. The implication is that all the three samples are

drawn from different populations with different means in number of defects.

Silva (2005) did a similar study where he evaluated weld specimens sampled from International

Institute of Welding (IIW) and Federal Institute of Materials Research and Testing in Berlin. He

sought to verify the accuracy of classification of defects in welded joints following radiographic

examination. In his work, he considered a total of 220 radiographic patterns from His study revealed

that common defects observed in welds include; lack of fusion, lack of penetration, undercut, crack,

porosity and slag inclusion. Silva (2005) observed that porosity occurrence was at 89%, followed by

undercut at 79% and slag inclusion at 62%, Lack of fusion and lack of penetration at 25% and finally

crack defect was observed in 12% of the samples evaluated.

Table 5.6 shows the distribution of defects in hoes and hinges as compared with results obtained by

Silva. In both of these studies, welds tested were not welded during the period of the study; hence the

researcher had no control or influence into the performance of the welder. As for Silva, his work was

only based on readymade plates in the laboratory, while this study has gone further to survey welds

of finished products as found in the Kenyan market.

55
Table 5.6: Percentage comparison of the occurrence of defects

Type of defect Percentage occurrence of non compliance

This study Silva study

Standard Hoes Hinges

welded
Joints
Crack - - 3.3 12.0

Porosity 3.3 - 10.0 89.0

Lack of fusion 6.6 73.3 100.0 25.0

Under cut - 10.0 - 79.0

Burn through - 13.3 13.3 -

Under fill - 23.3 93.3 -

Slag - 6.6 - 62.0

As for the Jua Kali welds, the percentage occurrence of non compliance with ISO 5817 is in the range

73.3% to 100% for lack of fusion, underfill is in the range of 23.3% to 93.3% while burnthrough is

about 13% for both Jua Kali specimens inspected. The similarities are in the type of defects observed,

in that most of the weld defects observed by Silva were also observed in this study. Major difference

observed is in defect distribution where in Silva’ study, porosity was the main defect observed, while

in this study, lack of fusion emerged as the major widespread defect. This difference can be attributed

to the fact that each weld is unique and quality is dependent on many factors which when slightly

varied can lead to significant differences.

56
The result of this study shows that lack of fusion is a widely spread defect in Jua Kali welds. It is a

dangerous defect and not permitted by ISO 5817 standard. Generally, occurrence of defects may lead

to premature failure of the product. It is for this reason that NDT techniques are used as a quality

control and assurances techniques. In particular, radiography is a reliable means of establishing the

structural integrity of a material or product (Correa et al 2009). It gives precise details about material

modifications induced by welding.

5.7 Causes of defects and corrective action

Lack of fusion is a severe defect, not permitted by ISO 5817 standard. In Jua kali samples tested, lack

of fusion could have resulted from failure to raise the base metal or previously deposited bead of weld

metal to the melting temperature. It can also develop as result of presence of flux, oxides and other

foreign material on the surfaces. Other causes include incorrect welding conditions such as current

too low, short arc length, insufficient arc length. This defect can be minimized by training of welders

and adherence to standards when welding. Specific measures should include; proper preparation of

parts before welding, proper fitting and cleaning of surfaces. In addition, proper selection of

electrodes and filler materials used in the welding processes is advised. This type of defect can only

be repaired by grinding/gouging out the defective area and re-welding (Baughurst and Voznaks, 2009;

CINDE, 2000).

Underfill defects observed may have originated from poor welding techniques such as fast nozzle

movement, use of incorrect electrode current or incorrect positioning of the torch. This defect can be

avoided by use of appropriate electrode, current and weaving pattern. Repair can be achieved by

filling the groove or by grinding the base metal on each side of the weld and re-welding. Burnthrough

is also a severe defect not permitted by ISO 5817 standard. It may have been caused by use of too

high current or by use of low welding speed. It can also occur if the root face is too thin or if the root
57
gap is too large. It can be minimized by ensuring that correct welding techniques are used (CINDE,

2010).

Porosity defects observed could have developed as a result contamination, inadequate shielding,

unstable or too short arc. The other major cause is poor welding technique. Preventive and corrective

measures include proper selection of electrodes and/or filler materials, improved welding techniques,

more attention to the work area during weld preparation and a slower speed to allow gasses time to

escape (Baughurst and Voznaks, 2009).

Undercut is a severe weld defect which originates from poor welding technique due to use of high

amperage and long arc. It can also develop as a result of incorrect electrode positioning, incorrect

welding speed and/or improper dwell time in a weave bead. Undercut can be corrected by blend

grinding or depositing an additional bead (CINDE, 2010).

Slag inclusions are caused by trapped oxides and nonmetallic solids in weld. The stirring action of

the arc may force some slag below the surface of the molten metal. Slag may also flow ahead of the

arc like when welding is done downhill. Molten metal may flow over the slag, entrapping the slag

below the bead. Slag weakens the weld, as they do not only reduce the cross sectional area strength

of a joint but may serve as an initiation point for serious cracking. Most slag inclusions can be

prevented by good welding practices. Proper preparation of the groove before depositing the next

bead of weld can also act as a good preventive measure (Baughurst and Voznaks, 2009; Miller, 2012).

Cracks are caused by embrittlement or low ductility of a weld and high restraint during contraction.

Longitudinal cracks can develop as a result of weld metal hardness or different cooling rates. Other

causes include; weld bead being too wide, use of high current, high welding speed or having the root

gap too large. It can also result from shrinkage stresses in high constraint areas. Longitudinal cracks
58
can be prevented by welding toward areas of less constraint, preheating the elements to even out the

cooling rates and by using the correct choice of welding consumables. If cracks do appear, they can

be repaired by grinding out or cutting the members apart and re-welding. Transverse crack develop

as a result of shrinkage stress, and brittleness in the heat affected zone. Transverse cracks can be

prevented by pre-heating of the metal parts and use of a more ductile filler material (Baughurst and

Voznaks, 2009).

Poor quality welds result from a combination of many factors such as poor workmanship, poor welder

procedure specification or none at all. Kishore at el (2010) established that arc voltage, arc current,

welding speed, nozzle to work distance and gas pressure predominantly influence weld quality. In

addition; operator skill, plate thickness and backing plate too have their own effect on weld quality.

For quality weld, they recommended; use of appropriate arc current, voltage, correct weld speed,

nozzle tip and plate distance as some of the factors to be considered in welding operations.

59
 CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the conclusions and recommendations of this study. It also highlight challenges

encountered in the process of carrying out this study. The chapter concludes by giving

recommendations and a proposal on areas for further studies.

6.2 Conclusion

1) A high percentage (90%) of standard welded joints conformed to ISO 5817 standard

requirement. This translates to good quality welds and products that are compliant to welding

standards and procedures. The high quality of standard based welded joints has been attributed

to application of welding standards and competence of the welders.

2) A high percentage of 86.6% to 100 % of Jua Kali welds investigated in this study failed to

conform to ISO 5817 standard requirements. Defects observed include; lack of fusion,

underfill, undercut, porosity, slag, spatter, burn through and gas pore. The high number of

defective Jua Kali welds has been attributed to failure to use acceptable welding standards in

conjunction with poor welding techniques. As a result, the quality of Jua Kali welds and

resulting products is highly compromised.

3) Defects observed in Jua Kali welds are caused mainly by poor weld preparation, poor welding

skill such as cleanliness and equipment handling. The other potential cause is poor working

environment, where the operation area is not properly shielded from wind and dust.
60
 4) Important corrective measures include strict application and adherence to welding standards.

Time has come for the adoption of quality control methods such as NDT technology for the

improvement of Jua Kali products. Other important measures include care while welding and

training or retraining of Jua Kali welders. These measures will greatly aid in the production

of quality goods suitable for intended use.

6.3 Limitations and challenges

i) The available and applicable quality standard, ISO 5817; describe the quality of the welded

joint in a fabricated structure and not the product as a whole. The standard does not specify

other quality aspects of the product, thus impossible to accept or reject the product on the basis

of tests done.

ii) The quality levels provided for in ISO 5817 refers to production quality and not the

appropriateness of the weld or product manufactured. Whereas the weld in a product may be

judged as defective, it may perform to expectation, hence could be appropriate for purpose

intended. This in itself is a contradiction on product quality definition.

6.4 Recommendations

1) Deliberate efforts to eliminate or reduce defects in Jua Kali welds must be put in place. Important

measures include; correct design and preparation of welds, use of recommended tools and fixtures,

use of correct parameters according to the approved procedure. Another important factor is that,

the welder or the machine operator should be proficient in the process selected and all physical

accessories assigned should be ready for use. Among them, all safety accessories like aspirators of

61
 fumes, fans to circulate air, screens to protect other workers nearby, Cleaning of fixtures and work

piece should be performed before setting up the weld.

2) Recognized standards should be employed in Jua Kali metal fabrications. For products where

relevant standard are available, the standards should be applied in Jua Kali product development.

Where none exist, an appropriate standard should be developed and applied as well. On the

minimum there should be clear work instruction and procedures at the operation site. Kenya

Bureau of Standards (KEBS) existing standards for specific products should be revised to

accommodate Jua Kali innovations. Such standards include; KS 154:2000 (Kenya Hoes standard)

and KS 06 -218(1990) (Kenya Steel Hinges Standard) which do not provide guidelines on how to

inspect welds in Jua Kali welded hoes and hinges respectively.

3) Application of advanced and reliable quality control techniques such as Nondestructive testing

(NDT) methods should be adopted in the Jua Kali metal fabrication sector. This will lead to

enhancement and stimulation of technological acceleration with improved quality goods. As a

matter of fact, the cost of inspection using high technology is negligible compared to benefits

associated with its use in the long term.

4) The concerned government departments should develop policies regarding quality management

systems in Jua Kali sector. The policies must address issues like skill development, opening of

new markets and motivation for manufacturers to produce quality goods. In particular, the

following should be put into consideration;

i) Training and qualification policies should be developed to help the workers in the

informal sector to improve on skills and be able to apply new technology.

62
 ii) Jua Kali enterprises with quality products should be certified and accredited by

recognized government institution. Certified traders can then use these certificates as

a platform for expanded marketing and selling of their products.

ii) Technical advisory services and inspection should be offered to small and medium

entrepreneurs at their place of work. This can be done in liaison with technical

institutes within the locality of the traders. This would also form a platform within

which the community and government aided institutions would interact for mutual

benefit. This would form forums for information dissemination in regard to

technological advancement and feedback on challenges encountered.

5) Finally, further studies should be done to relate weld quality to the appropriateness of the

manufactured product. This would form the basis for acceptance or rejection criteria of fabricated

products. In addition, a study should be done to relate the present and future needs of NDT

application and the level of NDT training in the country.

63
 References

Agfa (2007). Industrial Radiography Image Forming Techniques. GE Inspection Technologies,

Rotterdam, Netherlands, 5 – 20.

Amenya, N. B. (2007). A Report on the informal Sector in Kenya. University of Nairobi, Kenya, 1-
10.

Attix, F. H. (2004); Introduction to Radiological Physics and Radiation Dosimetry. Wily VCH,
Weiheim, 65.

Baughurst L and Voznaks G (2009). Welding Defects, Causes and Correction. Aspec Engineering,
Victoria, Australia, 26– 28.

Bray, E. D. and Stanley, R. K. (1989). Nondestructive Evaluation, A Tool for Design,

Manufacturing and Service. McGrow-Hill book company, United States of America, 24 -36.

Brown, R. (1973). Non-Destructive Testing in Industry: NDT and the Automobile Industry. Journal
of Non-Destructive Testing, Volume 6, Issue 2, 81-85.

CINDE (2010). Notes on manufacturing methods and associated defects. Canadian institute for
NDE, Canada, 22-40.

Carosena M, Antonino S, Fabrizio M. Capece M. Renata E. & Morace. (2004). Analysis of

Stainless Steel Welded Joints: A comparison between Destructive and Non Destructive Techniques.
Journal of Materials Processing Technology 155–156, 1893–1899.

Correa S.C.A. Souza E.M. Oliveira D.F. Silva A.X., Lopes.R.T. Marinho.C. (2009). Assessment of
weld thickness loss in offshore pipelines using computed radiography and computational modeling,
Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes 67 (2009) 1824–1828.

Davies, A. C. (1994). Welding (10th ed). Cambridge University Press, New York, 253 -256.

GOK (2010). Country Programme Framework. International Atomic Energy Agency. Vienna,
Austria, 5 – 20.

GOK (2007). Kenya Vision 2030, A Globally Competitive and Prosperous Kenya. Government
printers press, Nairobi, Kenya, 1 -20

Quinn, A. R., Sigi, C. and Callinan J, (1980). Radiography in Modern Industry. Eastman Kodak
company, Rochester, New York, 1 -20.

Grieken, R. E. and Markowicz, A. A. (2001). Handbook of X-ray Spectrometry (Second Edition).

Marcel Dekkel inc, Basel, New York, 28 -32.

64
GOK (2003). Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment Creation. Government
printers press, Nairobi, Kenya, 15-30.

Hellier, C. J. (2003). Handbook of Non Destructive Evaluation. McGraw-Hill Companies inc, New
York, USA. 1 – 7.

IAEA (2011). Training Guidelines for Nondestructive Testing Techniques. (Training course series
number 48) International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria, 1-10, 37-56.

ISO 17636 (2003). Non – destructive testing of welds- Radiographic testing of fusion – welded joint,
Canadian General Standards Board, Gatineau, Canada, 1-10.

ISO ISO 5817 (2003). Welding-Fusion Welded joints in Steel, Nickel, Titanium and their Alloys-
Quality levels for imperfections. Canadian General Standards Board, Gatineau, Canada, 1-12.

Kasban, H, Zahran, O. Arafa, H. Kordy , M. .Elaraby S. AbdEl-Samie, F. (2011). Welding

Defect Detection from Radiography Images with a Ceptral approach. A journal on NDT & E, vol
44, 227-231.

KEBS (1990). Ks 06-218 part one, Specification for general purpose hinges. Part 1 steel hinges;
Kenya Bureau of Standards, Nairobi, Kenya,1- 10.

KEBS, (2000). Ks 154, Specification for plain and fork hoes (Jembes) 3rd edition. Kenya Bureau of
Standards, Nairobi, Kenya. 1- 10.

KEBS (2011). Training Manual for Non Destructive Testing in Industrial Radiography; level 1
training course. Kenya Bureau of Standards, Nairobi, Kenya, 1-30.

King, K. (1996). Jua Kali Kenya: Change and Development in an Informal Economy. James currey
Ltd, London, 15 – 30.

Kishore, k. V Gopal, K Veladri, Syed Qasim (2010). Analysis of Defects in Gas Shielded arc
Welding of Steel using Taguthi method. Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences,Vol 5.

Liao, T.W. and Ni, J. (1996). Automated Radiographic NDT System for Weld Inspection part 1 –
weld extraction. Journal of NDT&E International, 29 (3) 157 – 162.

Liao, T.W. and Yueming. (1997). Automated Radiographic NDT system for Weld Inspection part
11 – Flaw detection. Journal of NDT&E International, Vol. 31, No. 3, 183-192.

Mbuthia, M. T. (2007). Mechanical and Civil Engineering Laboratory Test Method – Radiographic
Film Processing. Kenya Bureau of Standards. Nairobi, Kenya, 1-8.

65
Meola C. Sqillance A. Minitolo F. M. Morace R C .(2004). A comparison between Destructive and
Non-destructive Techniques. Journal on analysis of stainless steel welded joints:156, 1893–1899.

Mix, P .E. (2005). Introduction to Nondestructive Testing – a Training manual. John Wiley & Sons
inc, Hoboken, New Jersey, 320-405.

Orwa, B. (2007). Jua Kali Associations in Kenya: A Force for Development and Reform. Center for
International Private Enterprise, Washington D. C, USA, 10-15.

Papadakis, E. P. (2007). Financial Justification of Nondestructive Testing. CRC press, Taylor &
Francis Group, Boka Roton, USA, 20-30.

Serkan, S. and Kadil, A. (2009). Welding Defects and their Reasons as Observed in Electrofusion
Welding of Polyethylene Pipes, 24th World gas conference, 12-25.

Silva. R.D. Siqueira M. H. Marcos. P.V. Rebello. M. A. Caloba L. P. (2005). Estimated accuracy of
classification of defects detected in welded joints by radiographic tests. Journal of NDT&E
International 38, 335 – 360.

South African Institute of Welding (2008); Fabrication and Application. Crown publications,
Bedfordview, South Africa, 8 – 10.

Valavanis I and Kosmopoulos D (2010). Multiclass Defect Detection and Classification in Weld
Radiographic Images using Geometric and Texture. Elsevier Ltd, Expert Systems with Applications
37 (2010) 7606–7614.

66
 Appendices

Appendix I: A typical procedure for radiographic work (KEBS procedure manual)

1. Understand the codes, specifications, and customer requirements thoroughly

2. Develop a technique based on the thickness and type of material

3. Prepare a shooting sketch

4. In the darkroom, carefully place the radiographic film in the cassette with the proper lead screens

5. Place the film under the area of interest

6. Ensure that the correct source to film distance is being employed

7. Place the appropriate station markers and identification numbers in the area of interest to assure

easy correlation with a discontinuity if one is detected

8. Set up the exposure parameters

9. Make the exposure

10. In the darkroom, unload and process the film

11. Evaluate the film for artifacts

12. Evaluate the film for compliance

13. Complete a report and store the film

67
Appendix II: Densitometer calibration and accuracy check

Number Assigned Densitometer Difference

Assigned Density Reading ±0.005
1 0.38 0.39 +0.01
2 0.54 0.56 +0.02
3 0.89 0.89 0.00
4 1.34 1.34 0.00
5 1.73 1.74 +0.01
6 2.10 2.10 0.00
7 2.58 2.57 -0.01
8 2.93 2.92 -0.01
9 3.25 3.23 -0.02
10 3.62 3.59 -0.03
11 4.06 4.01 -0.05
12 4.37 4.23 -0.14
13 4.70 4.62 -0.08
14 4.94 4.84 -0.1
15 >5.00 5.04 0.04

68
Appendix I11: Typical sample of film characteristic curve (Radiographic operation manual)

69
Appendix 1V: Wire Penetrameter (Agfa, 2007).

a) Arrangement of wires in sets

IQI Wire numbers

1EN 1 to 7

6EN 6 to 12

10EN 10 to 16

13EN 13 to 19

b) Diameters of specific wires

Diameter 3.20 2.50 2.00 1.60 1.25 1.00 0.80 0.63 0.50 0.40
(mm)
Wire no 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Diameter 0.32 0.25 0.20 0.16 0.125 0.10 0.08 0.063 0.05
(mm)
Wire no 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

70
Appendix V: Optical radiograph densities and sensitivity

Specimen Optical IQI Specimen Optical IQI Specimen Optical IQI

code density wire code density wire code density wire
CWJ 1 2.42 13 WJJ 1 2.2 14 WHJ 1 2.12 14
CWJ 2 2.51 13 WJJ 2 2 13 WHJ 2 2.07 14
CWJ 3 2.3 13 WJJ 3 2.2 13 WHJ 3 2.7 14
CWJ 4 2.07 13 WJJ 4 2 13 WHJ 4 2.1 14
CWJ 5 2.28 13 WJJ 5 2.2 14 WHJ 5 2.11 14
CWJ 6 2.13 13 WJJ 6 2.1 14 WHJ 6 2.42 14
CWJ 7 2.48 13 WJJ 7 2.3 14 WHJ 7 2.43 14
CWJ 8 2.2 13 WJJ 8 2.3 14 WHJ 8 2.2 14
CWJ 9 2.55 13 WJJ 9 2.5 14 WHJ 9 2.11 14
CWJ 10 2.21 13 WJJ 10 2.2 14 WHJ 10 2.18 14
CWJ 11 2.12 13 WJJ 11 2.6 14 WHJ 11 2.17 14
CWJ 12 2.07 13 WJJ 12 2.4 14 WHJ 12 2.54 14
CWJ 13 1.86 14 WJJ 13 2.6 14 WHJ 13 2.32 14
CWJ 14 2.15 14 WJJ 14 2.1 14 WHJ 14 2.47 14
CWJ 15 1.95 13 WJJ 15 2.6 14 WHJ 15 2.3 14
CWJ 16 2.01 13 WJJ 16 2.1 14 WHJ 16 2.2 14
CWJ 17 2.15 14 WJJ 17 2.8 13 WHJ 17 2.32 14
CWJ 18 1.96 13 WJJ 18 2.7 13 WHJ 18 2 14
CWJ 19 1.96 13 WJJ 19 2.7 13 WHJ 19 2.02 14
CWJ 20 2.05 13 WJJ 20 2.4 13 WHJ 20 2.6 14
CWJ 21 2.01 13 WJJ 21 2.3 13 WHJ 21 2.46 14
CWJ 22 2.26 13 WJJ 22 1.9 13 WHJ 22 2.13 14
CWJ 23 2.35 14 WJJ 23 2 13 WHJ 23 2.11 14
CWJ 24 2.62 13 WJJ 24 2.3 13 WHJ 24 2.67 14
CWJ 25 2 13 WJJ 25 2.4 13 WHJ 25 2.04 14
CWJ 26 2.06 13 WJJ 26 2.1 13 WHJ 26 2.15 14
CWJ 27 2.06 12 WJJ 27 2.2 12 WHJ 27 2.31 14
CWJ 28 2.38 13 WJJ 28 2 13 WHJ 28 2.3 14
CWJ 29 2.02 12 WJJ 29 2.1 14 WHJ 29 2.12 14
CWJ 30 2.13 13 WJJ 30 2.4 13 WHJ 30 2.23 14

71
Appendix V1 (a): Classification of discontinuities in standard welded joints with respect to ISO 5817 standard Sample 1-15

Type of Classification Quality

Discontinuity Criteria compliance Standard weld (CWJ) sample number 1-15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Crack Not permitted Compliant x x x x x x x x x x x x X x x
Not compliant
porosity Pores area ≤ 4% B x x x x x x x x x x x x x
4%< Pores area ≤8% C x
8%< Pores area ≤16% D
Pores area > 16% Not compliant x
Lack of fusion Not permitted Compliant x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Not compliant x x
Undercut Not permitted B x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
0≤ h ≤ 0.5mm C
0.5< h ≤ 1mm D
h > 1mm Not compliant
Burnthrough Not permitted Compliant x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Not compliant
Underfill h ≤ 0.5mm B x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
0.5< h ≤ 1mm C
1< h ≤ 2mm D
h > 2mm Not compliant
Slag h ≤ 2mm, l≤15mm B x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
2 < h ≤ 3mm, l≤15mm C
3 < h ≤ 4mm, l≤15mm D
h > 4mm Not compliant
Over all remark on quality per sample Compliant x x x x x x x x x x x x
Not compliant x x x

72
Appendix V1 (b): Classification of discontinuities in standard welded joints with respect to ISO 5817 standard (Sample 16-30)

Type of Classification Quality

Discontinuity Criteria compliance Standard weld (CWJ) sample number 16 -30
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Crack Not permitted Compliant x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Not compliant
porosity Pores area ≤4% B x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
4%< Pores area ≤8% C
8%< Pores area ≤16% D
Pores area > 16% Not compliant
Lack of fusion Not permitted Compliant x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Not compliant
Undercut Not permitted B x x x x x x x x x x x x x
0< h ≤ 0.5 C x x
0.5 < h ≤ 1mm D
h > 1mm Not compliant
Burnthrough Not permitted Compliant x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Not compliant
Underfill h ≤ 0.5mm B x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
0.5 < h ≤ 1mm C
1mm < h ≤ 2mm D
h>2mm Not compliant
Slag h ≤ 2mm, l≤15mm B x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
2 ≤ h ≤ 3mm, l≤15mm C
3 ≤ h ≤ 4mm, l≤15mm D
h > 4mm, l>15mm Not compliant
Over all remark on quality per sample Compliant x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Not compliant

73
Appendix V11 (a): Classification of discontinuities in welded hoe joints with respect to ISO 5817 standard (Sample no 1-15)

Type of Classification Quality

Discontinuity criteria compliance Jua Kali Hoe sample number
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Crack Not permitted Compliant x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Not compliant
porosity Pores area ≤4% B x x x x x x x x x x x x x
4%<Pores area ≤8% C x x
8%< Pores area ≤16% D
Pores area>16% Not compliant
Lack of fusion Not permitted Compliant x x
Not compliant x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Undercut Not permitted B x x x x x x x x x x
0 < h ≤ 0.5 C x
0.5 < h ≤ 1mm D x x x
h > 1mm Not compliant x
Burnthrough Not permitted Compliant x x x x x x x x x x x
Not compliant x x x x
Underfill h ≤ 0.5mm B x x x x x x x x x x x
0.5 < h ≤ 1mm C
1 < h ≤ 2mm D x x x
h > 2mm Not compliant x
Slag h ≤ 2 mm, l ≤ 11mm B x x x x x x x x x x
0.5 ≤ h ≤3mm, l≤11mm C x x
3 ≤ h ≤ 4mm, l≤11mm D x
h > 4mm, l≤11mm Not compliant x x
Over all remark on quality per sample Compliant x
Not compliant x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

74
Appendix V11 (b): Classification of discontinuities in welded hoe joints with respect to ISO 5817 standard (Sample no 16-30)

Type of Classification Quality

Discontinuity criteria compliance Jua Kali Hoe (WJJ) sample number
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Crack Not permitted Compliant x x x x x x x x x x x X x x x
Not compliant
porosity Pores area ≤4% B x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
4%< Pores area ≤8% C x
8%< Pores area ≤16% D
Pores area >16% Not compliant
Lack of fusion Not permitted Compliant x x x x x x
Not compliant x x x x x x x x x
Undercut Not permitted B x x x x x x x x x x
0 < h ≤ 0.5mm C x
0.5 ≤ h ≤ 1mm D x x
h > 1mm Not compliant x x
Burnthrough Not permitted Compliant x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Not compliant
Underfill h ≤ 0.5mm B x x
0.5 < h ≤ 1mm C
1 < h ≤ 2mm D x x x x x x x
h > 2mm Not compliant x x x x x x
Slag h ≤ 2mm, l ≤ 11mm B x x x x x x x x x x x x x
2 ≤ h ≤ 3mm, l≤11mm C x x
3≤ h ≤ 4mm, l≤11mm D
h > 4mm, l >11mm Not compliant
Over all remark on sample compliance Compliant x x x
with ISO 5817standard Not compliant x x x x x x x x x x x

75
Appendix XI11 (a): Classification of discontinuities in welded hinge joints with respect to ISO 5817 standard (Sample no 1-15)

Type of Classification Quality

Discontinuity criteria compliance Jua Kali hinge (WHJ) sample number
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Crack Not permitted Compliant x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Not compliant x
porosity Pores area ≤ 4% B x x x x x x x x x x x x
4%< Pores area ≤8% C x
8%< Pores area ≤16% D
Pores area >16% Not compliant x x
Lack of fusion Not permitted Compliant
Not compliant x x x x x x x x x x x x x X x
Undercut Not permitted B x
0 < h ≤ 0.5mm C
0.5 ≤ h ≤ 1mm D
h > 1mm Not compliant x x x x x x x x x x x x X x
Burnthrough Not permitted Compliant x x x x x x x x x x x x X x
Not compliant x
Underfill h ≤ 0.4mm B x
0.4 ≤ h ≤ 0.8mm C
0.8 ≤ h ≤ 2mm D
h > 2mm Not compliant x x x x x x x x x x x x x X
Slag h ≤ 1.6mm, l ≤ 8mm B x x x x x X x
1.6 ≤ h ≤ 2.4, l ≤ 8mm C x x
2.4 ≤ h≤ 3.2, l ≤ 8mm D x x x x x x
h > 3.2mm, l ≤ 8mm Not compliant
Over all remark on ISO 581 Compliant
compliance per sample
Not compliant x x x x x x x x x x x x x X x

76
Appendix V111 (b): Classification of discontinuities in welded hinge joints with respect to ISO 5817 standard

(Sample no 16-30)

Type of Classification Quality

Discontinuity criteria compliance Jua Kali Hinge (WHJ) sample number
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Crack Not permitted Compliant x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Not compliant
porosity Pores area ≤4% B x x x x x x x x x x
4%< Pores area ≤8% C x x x x
8%< Pores area ≤16% D
Pores area >16% Not compliant x
Lack of fusion Not permitted Compliant
Not compliant x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X
Undercut Not permitted B x X
0 < h ≤ 0.5mm C
0.5 ≤ h ≤ 1mm D
h > 1mm Not compliant x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Burnthrough Not permitted Compliant
Not compliant
Underfill h ≤ 0.4mm B
0.4≤ h ≤ 0.8mm C
0.8 ≤ h ≤ 2mm D
h > 2mm Not compliant
Slag h ≤ 1.6mm, l ≤ 8mm B x x x x x x x x x
1.6 ≤ h ≤2.4, l≤8mm C
2.4 ≤ h≤3.2, l≤8mm D
h > 3.2mm, l≤8mm Not compliant x x x x x x
Over all remark on ISO 5817 Compliant
compliance per sample Not compliant x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

77
Appendix IX: Classification of observed defects in accordance to ISO 5817 standard

DISCONTINUITY SPECIMEN NO OF NUMBER NUMBER OF NUMBER OF NOT COMPLIANT TO ISO

SPECIMEN OF SPECIMENS SPECIMENS 5817 STANDARD
TESTED SPECIMENS COMPLIANT COMPLIANT (DEFECTIVE WELDS)
COMPLIANT TO QUALITY TO QUALITY
TO LEVEL C LEVEL D
QUALITY
LEVEL B
NUMBER %TAGE
CRACK Hoe 30 Not classifiable (not permitted in all the quality 0 0
Hinge 30 levels) 1 3.33
Standard 30 0 0
weld
LACK OF FUSION Hoe 30 Not classifiable (not permitted in all the quality 22 73.33
Hinge 30 levels) 30 100
Standard 30 0 0
weld
POROSITY Hoe 30 27 3 0 0 0
Hinge 30 22 5 0 3 10
Standard 30 0 0
weld
UNDERCUT Hoe 30 20 2 5 3 10
Hinge 30 30 0 0 0 0
Standard 30 30 0 0 0 0
weld
BURN THROUGH Hoe 30 Not classifiable (not permitted in all the quality 4 13.33
Hinge 30 levels) 4 13.33
Standard 30 0 0
weld
UNDERFILL Hoe 30 13 0 10 7 23.33
Hinge 30 2 0 0 28 93.33
Standard 30 30 0 0 0 0
weld
SLAG Hoe 30 23 4 4 2 6.66
Hinge 30 30 0 0 0 0
Standard 30 30 0 0 0 0
weld

78