DOI: 10.1784/insi.2016.58.9.

475
PHASED ARRAYS

Acceptance for phased array inspection of small

bore butt welds in power generation
C Ward and C Brett

Phased array ultrasonic testing is seen as a viable replacement for radiography in the NDT of welded tubing in boiler
plant. At present, however, there are a number of hurdles to overcome before the method can become widely accepted. A
project by the UK Coal Generators Safety and Integrity Programme (GENSIP) has identified that the inspections currently
being offered vary significantly in performance and has attempted to create workable defect acceptance criteria that are
appropriate to the performance of the techniques being employed.

Introduction The project had two main elements: derivation of defect acceptance
criteria based on a modification of those in BS 2633[1], supported
Phased array ultrasonic testing (PAUT) is a well-established NDT by fracture mechanics calculations, and an assessment of service
method in power generation, with the hardware for many common providers’ PAUT capability and performance on a wide range of
applications reaching a mature level. One such application is the weldment defects. The focus of this paper is on the latter element.
use of PAUT to inspect new butt welds in small bore tubes and
pipes (Figure 1), a common inspection requirement in the power
generation industry. Identified as a viable and desirable technology Background – the problem of
that could replace radiography in the NDT of welded tubing in acceptance
boiler plant, a significant number of NDT service providers are
now offering this technique in the UK power generation market. In theory, PAUT provides all the advantages of radiography (visual
However, it is apparent that there is a wide range of inspection results and a permanent quality assurance (QA) record) without
capabilities being offered and the results have exposed limitations most of its disadvantages (hazardous and cumbersome operation and
in the available flaw acceptance standards. poor detection capability on misaligned planar defects). So, on the
face of it, there are few arguments for continuing with radiography.
However, the increased sensitivity to flaws afforded by PAUT means
that many more flaws are being reported than has been the case
with radiography, with the consequence being that the cost of
repairs escalates considerably without any real benefit. This requires
careful management and highlights the one significant hurdle to
PAUT adoption: how to align the technique with a suitable defect
acceptance standard. There is a range of standards available that

l Submitted 06.01.16 / Accepted 01.08.16

Dr Chris Ward has worked in the power
generation industry for 15 years,
specialising in the plant integrity field,
predominantly in NDE but also in
mechanical engineering and metallurgy.
While working in the industry, he gained
Figure 1. New butt welds in small bore tubes inserted during a a doctorate in NDE through the RCNDE
boiler overhaul EngD Centre in 2010. He has worked
on phased array of small bore butt
welds since 2009, both in validating the
In order to address the above issues and realise the benefits of technique and carrying out inspections.
PAUT, the UK Coal Generators Safety and Integrity Programme Dr Colin Brett has worked in the power
(GENSIP), comprising RWE Generation UK, Uniper (Eon), SSE, generation industry for 32 years and is
Scottish Power, EDF Energy, Engie (GDF Suez), Drax Power, currently the Technical Head of Inspection
Eggborough Power and China Light and Power, embarked on a Management at Uniper Technologies
project in 2011, led by RWE Generation and Uniper, to address the Ltd. He has developed and delivered
NDT, integrity and commercial consequences of moving to phased NDE solutions for nuclear, coal, oil, gas
array inspections of welds in small bore tubing. The main objective and renewable generation assets. He is
of the project was to deliver workable defect acceptance criteria for currently a Vice President of the British
Institute of Non-Destructive Testing.
PAUT that are appropriate to the inspection performance of NDT
service providers operating in the UK power generation industry.

Insight • Vol 58 • No 9 • September 2016 475

PHASED ARRAYS

cover newly-constructed welds, but close reading of these standards were included in the project. It was decided not to include tubes
shows that few, if any, are applicable to welds in walls as thin as below this diameter because some participants’ equipment cannot
4 mm. In the UK power generation industry, new plant is commonly accommodate smaller diameter tubes and also obtaining defect
built to the standards set out in BS EN 13480[2] or BS EN 12952[3]. length measurements becomes more inaccurate.
Retrofits to existing plant are usually built to PD 5500[4], or more Initially, participating NDT service providers were asked
commonly to BS 2633 for ferritic-tube pressure part installations, to complete a questionnaire detailing their claimed inspection
for historical reasons relating to the quality level required by the capability (detection, sizing capability, inspection rate, etc)
code. These standards reference UT and radiographic testing (RT), and information about their technique (hardware, validation,
but not PAUT. It could be argued that PAUT is just a variation on acceptance criteria and operator qualification). Although there
UT, but putting that argument to one side for now, there are still a was a reasonable degree of commonality in terms of hardware and
number of problems with applying PAUT to these codes. claimed inspection capability, there was a wider range of disparity
BS 2633 sets out a series of defect acceptance limits, largely in terms of validation, qualification and acceptance criteria.
derived from an acceptable level of weld rejection based on UT Using the aforementioned range of tube dimensions and the
and RT inspections at the time of the standard being written. feedback from the NDT service providers, a set of 50 sample tubes
However, much of what is specified in BS 2633 cannot be practically (Figure 3) containing about 100 relevant defects was produced for a
and precisely tested with RT, particularly where through-wall blind trial to be completed by the NDT service providers. The tubes
measurements are quoted. It is widely accepted that RT cannot manufactured were of three different outside diameters, 33 mm,
reliably detect the planar defects that are rejectable according to the 38 mm and 50 mm, and three different wall thicknesses,
standard; therefore, supposedly rejectable planar defects are being approximately 4 mm, 6 mm and 10 mm.
accepted. Use of the acceptance levels in the standard has, however,
served the test of time and produces an acceptable level of welding
quality.
PAUT has the capacity to reliably detect rejectable planar and
volumetric defects that could potentially be missed by UT and RT
(Figure 2), resulting in higher rejection rates when used against the
acceptance criteria.

Figure 3. Two banks of butt-welded small bore tubes inspected

during the blind trial

Some tubes contained no defects; however, the majority contained

one or more defects. The defects were deliberately induced in the
Figure 2. Example of phased array detection of a planar defect in a welds and characterised by multiple-shot radiography provided by
butt weld, not detected by radiography the manufacturer; it is noted that the precise sizes of the defects
may not be in full accordance with the information supplied by the
manufacturer, but it does provide a consistent common reference.
While better NDT detection could undoubtedly improve the The flaws were inspected with PAUT prior to the round robin trial
quality of the welds being produced, history shows that increasing as a quality check on the information provided. With the exception
the weld rejection rate on planar defects is not necessarily of isolated pores, all flaws were rejectable to the defect acceptance
particularly beneficial or cost effective. Certain flaw types have a criteria derived by GENSIP. The following types of flaw were present
greater likelihood of leading to tube failure than others. Wormhole in the samples:
defects are considered to represent one of the greatest threats to l Lack of root fusion
tube integrity, while a lack of sidewall fusion can often be benign. l Lack of root penetration
Therefore, a detailed consideration of the defect risk and defect l Misalignment
detection potential is needed in the adoption of any acceptance l Root concavity
criteria. To complement this, the inspection method must be shown l Cracks
to be able to effectively characterise the defects rather than using l Lack of sidewall fusion
any amplitude/equivalent-reflector criteria. l Wormholes
l Inclusions
l Isolated pores
Scope of investigation l Group porosity.
The inspections considered were limited to the inspection of ferritic
butt-welded tubes of 4 mm to 12 mm wall thickness. No upper limit
on component outer diameter was determined, as this is dependent
Blind trial ‘round robin’
on equipment availability rather than on any physical limitation of Ten NDT service providers were invited to participate in a blind
the technique. At the lower end, 33 mm OD (1" nominal bore) tubes trial ‘round robin’ inspection of the sample tubes. The results were

476 Insight • Vol 58 • No 9 • September 2016

 PHASED ARRAYS

benchmarked against the performance of two of the GENSIP

members’ own NDT departments and against radiography. Two
radiographic inspections were carried out: one was an assessment
of the three-shot radiographs (X-ray inspection using a Philips/
AGO 165 kV set operating at 24 mA/min for a double wall double
image technique, taking exposures at 120º intervals around each
tube). This used an Agfa D4/D4 film and a sensitivity of 1.6% (wire
14 visible) provided with the test samples (broadly indicative of
the best achievable inspection with radiography). The second was
a single approach angle gamma ray inspection, representative of a
typical on-site inspection.
A two-axis scoring system was developed to compare the results,
with detection on one axis and a semi-quantitative characterisation
score, comprising elements of sizing, positioning and flaw Figure 5. Performance on porosity flaws, showing a wide variation
characterisation on the other. Previous studies into the capability in phased array capability but the potential to match radiography
of PAUT, such as HSE Research Report 301[5], do not provide a detection performance. The y-axis is semi-quantitative, based on
comparison between the characterisation capabilities of PAUT and scores awarded for characterisation, positioning and sizing within
RT on the basis of RT being unable to size flaws through wall. The defined limits
method used here, whilst simplified and qualitative, does provide
a consistent assessment of the method’s combined capability of flaws in Figure 6. The technique’s ability to successfully characterise
characterisation and detection, which is very relevant in the context such defects is very variable, however, with signal saturation on
of potentially applicable acceptance criteria. thin sections being a particular source of error in the author’s
experience.

‘Round robin’ results

Whilst the full list of NDT service providers participating in the
trial was disseminated to GENSIP members, the performance
of individual companies has remained confidential within those
analysing the results. Each company is represented by a number,
which was divulged only to that company so that they could see
their performance relative to their peers (Figure 4).

Figure 6. Performance on lack of sidewall fusion flaws, showing

superiority of phased array in detection relative to radiography,
but a large variation in characterisation performance with
technique/operator

The detection of flaws relating to the weld geometry, such as

excess penetration, could be considered to be a strength of RT. The
results in Figure 7 suggest that, in general, PAUT is a match for
RT, with scope for superior detection, but also that some PAUT
Figure 4. Overall performance of NDT service providers operators are unaware of how to identify such a flaw. Those service
participating in blind trials (GENSIP benchmark for PAUT in top providers participating with operators who had good levels of
right corner, ten participating companies shown in red and product knowledge tended to perform better on these flaws, which
radiography, one- and three-shot, shown in blue) produced signals away from the main areas of interest. Sizing such
flaws is very difficult with both PAUT and RT; however, those
companies that excelled at detecting excess penetration also made
It was anticipated that PAUT, when applied diligently, would be a very good job of characterisation. This is likely to be attributable
able to reliably detect each of the different flaw types included in to the operator’s product knowledge and applying common sense to
the study[6]. For the majority of flaw types, the better performing flaw dimensions based on this.
participants in the PAUT round robin outperformed radiography on Comparison graphs for each defect type were produced to show
flaw detection, except those where the flaw geometry is particularly the detailed capability and then combined into overall graphs for
favourable to RT, ie porosity, as illustrated in Figure 5. Even in this the full flaw population. This approach produced a snapshot of
case the results show that there is the potential for PAUT to match overall inspection success as well as additional detail to ascertain
the performance of RT. whether PAUT could perform as well as radiography on each defect
On planar flaws, there are clear benefits to PAUT in terms of type.
detection, as illustrated in the results for lack of sidewall fusion The overall results confirmed a number of points that had been

Insight • Vol 58 • No 9 • September 2016 477

PHASED ARRAYS

improvements they may have made to their technique/training.

Those that have taken this opportunity to date have demonstrated
a significant improvement, both in detection and characterisation.
Additional investigations into the capability of the technique,
including evaluating performance on pinhole flaws, are also in
progress.

Conclusions
The overall result is that workable defect acceptance criteria make
ultrasonic phased array inspection, given the right equipment,
technique, training and application, a viable alternative to
Figure 7. Performance on excess root penetration, showing radiography. This is a technique that, when applied diligently, is not
phased array outperforming radiography in some instances, but vulnerable to missing significant, rejectable flaws, such as lack of
also significantly underperforming in others sidewall fusion. The sensitivity of the inspection, ie the threshold
above which flaws are detected, and the level at which flaw sizes are
measured are critical. In order to strike the right balance between
anticipated prior to the trials: firstly, that there would be a wider detection success and good characterisation, it is necessary to
range of performance of PAUT inspection than had been suggested have some control over variation of the sensitivity level between
by the questionnaires, both in terms of detection success and detection and analysis. This can be achieved through the use of
characterisation; secondly, that PAUT offers a significantly improved multiple scanning groups, using equipment with larger dynamic
characterisation of relevant defects compared to radiography; and ranges or by operator training.
thirdly, that the detection success of PAUT relative to radiography Those companies that performed well in the trials had carried
would be dependent upon the specific detail of the application of out the most robust technique qualification, had specific in-house
the technique. training programmes and generally had extensive experience of
Overall, the trial gave confidence that PAUT is a viable, and working in the power generation industry.
indeed superior, alternative to radiography on these inspections, The results of the blind trial were often in contrast to the claims
provided that it is applied diligently. This was highlighted by made in the initial questionnaire, with capabilities in terms of sizing
the variation in the quality of characterisation with PAUT, with accuracy and speed of acquisition being overstated. This often
spread of approximately 40% in terms of both detection and reflected a lack of thorough validation of the equipment, much of
characterisation observed. In all cases, PAUT characterisation was which is now available as an off-the-shelf solution from equipment
better than radiography on these predominantly non-acceptable providers, and faith in the theoretical performance data of
defects and, in many cases, detection levels were better, which could individual hardware elements. Consequently, it was emphasised to
lead to higher than desired weld repair rates. GENSIP members that there is a need for them to satisfy themselves
The results showed that there is a range of inspection of the performance of an NDT service provider being engaged for
capabilities. Companies that are familiar with the types of flaw that a given inspection, or indeed any critical inspection. The following
might be expected in these welds tend to perform reasonably well at recommendations were made:
characterising the flaws, but companies that have limited familiarity l Prior to inspection, ensure that an agreement has been reached
with the specific application often misdiagnose the type of flaw regarding the defect acceptance standard between manufacturer,
or, in the case of mismatch/excess root penetration, are unaware purchaser, service company and plant insurer (for example
that these flaws require reporting. Weld root flaws, such as lack of Royal and Sun Alliance).
root penetration, lack of root fusion and root cracks, are generally l Request validation showing how the NDT service provider’s
detected and sized well, but mid-weld flaws, such as porosity and technique meets the requirements of specific codes and where
wormholes, are often difficult to characterise. there are necessary deviations.
l Performance demonstration should be on samples provided
by agreement between the purchaser and manufacturer, rather
Next steps than the service company. The samples used in the blind trial
The defect acceptance criteria that have been developed are described here are available for GENSIP members to use for this
currently being used by GENSIP members and feedback on the purpose, but strictly in the context of a blind trial.
success of their implementation is being collected over a two-year l Record/proof of operator’s training and experience should be
period. The acceptance criteria retain most of the criteria from BS provided.
2633 for volumetric flaws but relax the requirements for certain
planar flaws. Initial feedback from power stations suggests that Alongside the GENSIP-derived defect acceptance criteria,
the technique can result in acceptable repair rates, although it can a GENSIP approval for a company’s training scheme would be a
be prone to oversizing defects. This situation can be improved by progressive move for the UK power generating industry. This
refinement of the technique and hardware and, most significantly, approach may also act as a basis for similar activities in other industries,
by educating inspection personnel about the welding defects or could contribute to the development of an overall standard.
commonly encountered in these butt welds. It is also possible that an industry standard could be developed
Companies that participated in the blind trial have been given with an authorised qualifying body (AQB), leading to a PAUT
feedback on their performance and are offered the opportunity small-bore category for UT under the PCN scheme, for
to retest the welds, again in ‘blind’ condition, following any example.

478 Insight • Vol 58 • No 9 • September 2016

 PHASED ARRAYS

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the people and companies who
gave up their time to participate in the investigation. In particular,
Ultrasonic Flaw Detection for
thanks go to Ben Roche from Uniper for administering and Technicians – 3rd Edition
analysing the round robin trials, to all of the companies that
participated in the round robin trial and also to other colleagues at
Uniper and RWE Generation who made valuable contributions to by J C Drury
the project. Additionally, thanks go to Sonaspection for producing
In the twenty-five years since the first
the test samples.
edition of ‘Ultrasonic Flaw Detection
References for Technicians’ was published, there
1. BS 2633, ‘Specification for Class 1 arc welding of ferritic steel have been a number of advances
pipework for carrying fluids’. in transducer technology and
2. BS EN 13480, ‘Metallic industrial piping’. flaw detection instruments. The
3. BS EN 12952, ‘Water-tube boilers and auxiliary installations’. gradual acceptance by industry
4. PD 5500, ‘Specification for unfired fusion welded pressure that the sizing of weld defects
vessels’. by intensity drop was not as
5. ‘Replacement of radiography by ultrasonic inspection’, HSE accurate as had been claimed led
Research Report 301, Prepared by Mitsui Babcock, 2005. to the development of the TOFD technique. Modern digital
6. F Marefat et al, ‘Capabilities and limitations of radiography flaw detectors and computer technology allow far more
and phased array ultrasonic testing in the detection of subtle information to be stored by the operator. The author thus felt
welding defects’, Singapore International NDT Conference & that it was time to give the book a thorough review and to try
Exhibition, 3-4 November 2011. to address some of the advances. The result is this new edition.

Price: BINDT Members: £22.50; Non-Members: £25.00

Available from: The British Institute of Non-Destructive Testing,

Midsummer House, Riverside Way, Bedford Road, Northampton NN1 5NX, UK.
Tel: +44 (0)1604 438300; Fax: +44 (0)1604 438301; Email: [email protected]

Order online via the BINDT Bookstore at www.bindt.org/shopbindt

Insight • Vol 58 • No 9 • September 2016 479

Copyright of Insight: Non-Destructive Testing & Condition Monitoring is the property of
British Institute of Non-Destructive Testing and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.