TUBE BUTT WELD SAMPLE 7C-040

2.5Diameter X .180 Nominal Wall Thickness

0 Flaw #1
Height - .100

7.850 Flaw #2
Height - .111

0
OD ID

Flaw #3
Height - .057

Actual
.35
Height - .130

.21
Height - .067

.35
Height - .094

OD ID

PAUT Detection
.51 .24 .28

OD

RT Detection 0
.25 .19

ID

7.850

Lack of Fusion
Flaw #1 Flaw #2

Slag Inclusion

Babcock & Wilcox Canada

Tube to Tube Butt Weld Nondestructive Examination

TUBE BUTT WELD SAMPLE 7C-041

2.5Diameter X .180 Nominal Wall Thickness
0 Flaw #1
Height - .146

Flaw #2
Height - .138

Flaw #3
Height - .058

7.850

0
OD ID

Actual
.41
Height - .083

.14
Height - .059

.51
Height - .051

OD ID

PAUT Detection
.47 .24 .43

OD

RT Detection 0
.69

ID

7.850

Babcock & Wilcox Canada

Tube to Tube Butt Weld Nondestructive Examination

Lack of Fusion
Flaw #1 Flaw #2

Flaw #3

ID Undercut

TUBE BUTT WELD SAMPLE 7C-042

2Diameter X .260 Nominal Wall Thickness
0 Flaw #1 Actual
Height - .105

6.280 Flaw #2
Height - .123

0
OD ID

Flaw #3
Height - .142

.55

.56

.54 OD

PAUT Detection

Height - .075

Height - .079 Height - .138

ID .55 .71 .71 OD

RT Detection 0
.31

ID

6.280

Babcock & Wilcox Canada

Tube to Tube Butt Weld Nondestructive Examination

Flaw #1

Flaw #2

Incomplete Penetration

Lack of Fusion

Flaw #3

Lack of Fusion

TUBE BUTT WELD SAMPLE 7C-043

2Diameter X .260 Nominal Wall Thickness
0 Flaw #1 Flaw #2
Height - .126

6.280 Flaw #3

0
OD

Height - .141

Actual
.34
Height - .028

Height ( -.202)

ID .29
Height - .067

1.17 OD
Height - .0

PAUT Detection
.39 .55

ID .04 OD

RT Detection
.44 .22 .75

ID

6.280

Babcock & Wilcox Canada

Tube to Tube Butt Weld Nondestructive Examination

Flaw #2

Flaw #1

Lack of Fusion and Small Pore

Lack of Fusion and Small Pore

Excess Penetration
Flaw #3

TUBE BUTT WELD SAMPLE 7C-044

2.25Diameter X .165 Nominal Wall Thickness
0 Flaw #3
Height - .020

Flaw #1
Height - .114

7.850 Flaw #2
Height - .074

0
OD ID

Actual
.21 .25
Height - .028

.40
Height - .106

OD ID

PAUT Detection
.12 .51

OD

RT Detection 0
.44 .38 .25

ID

7.850

Babcock & Wilcox Canada

Tube to Tube Butt Weld Nondestructive Examination

Flaw #1

Flaw #3

Root Concavity

Porosity Cluster

Root Concavity

Flaw #2

Lack of Fusion

TUBE BUTT WELD SAMPLE 1-1

2Diameter X .165 Nominal Wall Thickness

Babcock & Wilcox Canada

0 Flaw #1 Actual Flaw #2
Height - .130

Tube to Tube Butt Weld Nondestructive Examination

6.090 Flaw #3
Height (- .029) Root Porosity

0
OD ID

.13

PAUT Detection

Height - .051

Height - .020

.12

OD ID

.08

.20 OD ID

RT Detection
.08 .13 .13

0 Flaw #1 Flaw #2

6.090

No Flaw Discovered During Cross Sectioning

Porosity Cluster

Porosity in Root
Flaw #3

TUBE BUTT WELD SAMPLE 1-3

1.75Diameter X .200 Nominal Wall Thickness

Babcock & Wilcox Canada

Tube to Tube Butt Weld Nondestructive Examination

0 Flaw #1 Actual
Height (-.133)

5.510 Flaw #2
Height - .090

0
OD ID

Flaw #1

.59

.35
Height - .075

OD ID

PAUT Detection

Height - .0

.35

.35 OD

RT Detection
.44 .38

ID

5.510

Flaw #1

Flaw #2

Porosity Cluster Excess Penetration

TUBE BUTT WELD SAMPLE 1-7

2.5Diameter X .280 Nominal Wall Thickness

Babcock & Wilcox Canada

Tube to Tube Butt Weld Nondestructive Examination

7.850 Flaw #1 0
OD ID

0 Flaw #1 Actual
Height - .142

Flaw #2
Height - .142

.65

.50 OD
Height - .083

PAUT Detection

Height - .146

ID .43 .47 OD ID .50 .56

RT Detection 7.850

Flaw #1

Flaw #1

Incomplete Penetration

Incomplete Penetration

Flaw #2

Porosity Cluster

TUBE BUTT WELD SAMPLE 1-8

2.5Diameter X .280 Nominal Wall Thickness

Babcock & Wilcox Canada

Tube to Tube Butt Weld Nondestructive Examination

Flaw #2
Height - .168

0 Flaw #1 Actual
Height LOF - .097

Flaw #3

7.850 Flaw #1
Height Cap Por - .075

0
OD ID

.56

.55 OD

PAUT Detection

Height - .106

Height - .067

ID .47 .59 OD

RT Detection
.22 .63 .10

ID

7.850

Flaw #1

Flaw #2

Lack of Fusion and Small Pores

Slag Inclusion and Small Pore

Flaw #3

No Flaw Discovered During Cross Sectioning

TUBE BUTT WELD SAMPLE 2-2

2Diameter X .165 Nominal Wall Thickness

Babcock & Wilcox Canada

0 Flaw #1
Height .032

Tube to Tube Butt Weld Nondestructive Examination

Flaw #3 Flaw #2
Height - .037 Undercut Height - .009

5.970 Flaw #1

0
OD ID

.07

Actual
.59 .25 .16
Root Porosity Height (-.021)

OD

PAUT Detection

Height - .031

Height - .028

Height - .020

ID .39 .28 .12 OD

RT Detection
.85 .19 .08

ID

0 Flaw #1 Flaw #2

5.970

Root Concavity

ID Undercut

Flaw #3a

Flaw #3b

Root Porosity

ID Undercut

Overview of Examination Results

Babcock & Wilcox Canada

Tube to Tube Butt Weld Nondestructive Examination

The results of the radiographic, phased array ultrasonic and destructive examination results have been graphically presented. Figures #4 through #6 present the detection and height sizing results with calculated maximum and average height sizing error provided by the phased array ultrasonic examination. The radiographic examination method is incapable of providing flaw height data, however, the flaw detection has been shown. Figures #7 through #9 provide the flaw length sizing capabilities for both the RT and PAUT techniques and Figure #10 provides the flaw positioning capability of the PAUT technique with respect to the nearest surface of the tube (ID or OD). The following graphs have been divided into three flaw groups, planar flaws, volumetric flaws and geometric flaws. These groupings were established based on flaw service severity, variations in sizing methodologies with the PAUT technique and obvious differences in detectability between the PAUT and radiographic methods. For the purpose of this investigation flaws determined to be lack of fusion, incomplete penetration, or cracking have been deemed planar flaws. Flaws determined to be slag inclusions or porosity have been deemed volumetric flaws and flaws determined to be excess penetration, undercut or concave root have been deemed to be geometric flaws.

Detection and Height Sizing Capability Planar Flaws Figure #4

Planar Flaw Detection and Height Sizing
0.2 0.18
Flaw Height (inches)
* Maximum PAUT Height Sizing Error - .113" * Average PAUT Height Sizing Error - .039" * RT height sizing - not applicable - red columns indicate detection only Actual PAUT RT

0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0

1-7 Flaw # 1

1-8 Flaw # 1

7C-040 Flaw # 1

7C-040 Flaw # 3

7C-041 Flaw # 1

7C-041 Flaw # 2

7C-042 Flaw # 1

7C-042 Flaw # 2

7C-042 Flaw # 3

7C-043 Flaw # 1

7C-043 Flaw # 2

Sample #/Flaw #

Observations

7C-044 Flaw # 2

1-8 Flaw # 3

Babcock & Wilcox Canada

Tube to Tube Butt Weld Nondestructive Examination

1.

Six of the twelve planar flaws found during destructive examination were not detected during radiographic examination. Of these, all except 7C-043 Flaw #1 which was misinterpreted as a volumetric flaw by PAUT, were rejected by the PAUT examination. One planar flaw found by radiography was not confirmed by destructive evaluation. All planar flaws confirmed by destructive evaluation were detected by the phased array ultrasonic examination. On average the PAUT height sizing capability (.039) was best when the subject flaw was planar in nature versus volumetric or geometric. The maximum height sizing error (.113) occurred when sizing Sample 7C043 Flaw #1 which was also misinterpreted as a volumetric type flaw.

2.

Volumetric Flaws Figure #5

Volumetric Flaw Detection and Height Sizing
0.18 0.16
Flaw Height (inches)
* Maximum PAUT Height Sizing Error - .110" * Average PAUT Height Sizing Error - .059" * RT Height Sizing - not applicable - red columns indicate etection only

Actual PAUT RT

0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02

1-1 Flaw # 1

1-1 Flaw # 2

1-1 Flaw # 3

1-3 Flaw # 2

1-7 Flaw # 2

1-8 Flaw # 1

1-8 Flaw # 2

7C-040 Flaw # 2

7C-044 Flaw # 1

Sample #/Flaw #

Observations 1. Three of the nine volumetric flaws found during destructive evaluation were not detected during phased array ultrasonic examination. Of these three flaws, Sample 1-8 Flaw 1 was the only RT rejectable flaw. RT and PAUT detected a volumetric flaw (pore) in Sample 1-1 that was not observed during destructive evaluation. All volumetric flaws confirmed by destructive evaluation were detected by the radiographic examination. Significant PAUT flaw sizing error was noted on several volumetric flaws (Max. .110, Avg. .049). In all instances volumetric flaws were undersized for height by the PAUT technique.

2.

Geometric Flaws

2-2 Flaw # 3a

Babcock & Wilcox Canada

Figure #6

Tube to Tube Butt Weld Nondestructive Examination

Geometric Flaw Detection and Height Sizing

0.1 0.05
Flaw Height (inches)

1-3 Flaw # 1

2-2 Flaw # 1

2-2 Flaw # 2

7C-041 Flaw # 3

7C-043 Flaw # 3

-0.05 -0.1 -0.15 -0.2 -0.25

7C-044 Flaw # 3

* Maximum PAUT Height Sizing Error - .192" * Average PAUT Height Sizing Error - .052" * RT height sizing - not applicable - red columns indication detection only

Actual PAUT RT

Sample #/Flaw #

Observations 1. The minor root concavity in Sample 7C-044 Flaw #3 was not detectable by the PAUT technique. This flaw was detected and accepted by RT. The minor undercut flaw in Sample 2-2 Flaw #3b was not detected by RT. This flaw was recorded and accepted by PAUT. The excess penetration flaws in Sample 7C-043 Flaw #3 and Sample 1-3 Flaw #1 were marginally detected by the PAUT technique, however, this technique provides no insight into the severity of the excess penetration condition.

2.

Length Sizing Capability Planar Flaws Figure #7

Planar Flaw Length Sizing
1 0.9
* * * * Maximum PAUT Length Sizing Error - .26" Average PAUT Length Sizing Error - .120" Maximum RT Length Sizing Error - .56" Average RT Length Sizing Error - .294" Actual PAUT RT

Flaw Length (inches)

0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

1-7 Flaw # 1

1-8 Flaw # 1

2-2 Flaw # 3b
1-8 Flaw # 3

7C-040 Flaw # 1

7C-040 Flaw # 3

7C-041 Flaw # 1

7C-041 Flaw # 2

7C-042 Flaw # 1

7C-042 Flaw # 2

7C-042 Flaw # 3

7C-043 Flaw # 1

7C-043 Flaw # 2

Sample #/Flaw #

Observations

7C-044 Flaw # 2

Babcock & Wilcox Canada

Tube to Tube Butt Weld Nondestructive Examination

1.

Planar flaws are oversized for length by PAUT in 67% of the sample flaws. Planar flaws are not detected, or are undersized for length, by RT in 92% of the sample flaws.

Volumetric Flaws Figure #8

Volumetric Flaw Length Sizing
0.7 0.6
* Maximum PAUT Length Sizing Error - .160" * Average PAUT Length Sizing Error - .076" * Maximum RT Length Sizing Error - .130" * Average RT Length Sizing Error - .063" Actual PAUT RT

Flaw Length (inches)

0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1

1-1 Flaw # 1 1-1 Flaw # 2 1-1 Flaw # 3 1-3 Flaw # 2 1-7 Flaw # 2 1-8 Flaw # 1 1-8 Flaw # 2 7C-040 Flaw # 2 7C-044 Flaw # 1

Sample #/Flaw #

Observations 1. On average volumetric flaws are more accurately sized for length, by both PAUT and RT, than planar or geometric flaws.

Geometric Flaws Figure #9

Geometric Flaw Length Sizing
1.4 1.2
* * * * Maximum PAUT Length Sizing Error - 1.130" Average PAUT Length Sizing Error - .277" Maximum RT Length Sizing Error - .420" Average RT Length Sizing Error - .196"

Actual PAUT RT

Flaw Length (inches)

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2

1-3 Flaw # 1 2-2 Flaw # 1 2-2 Flaw # 2 7C-041 Flaw # 3 7C-043 Flaw # 3 7C-044 Flaw # 3 2-2 Flaw # 3b

Sample #/Flaw #

2-2 Flaw # 3a

Babcock & Wilcox Canada

Observations 1.

Tube to Tube Butt Weld Nondestructive Examination

Geometric flaw length sizing is less accurate with PAUT than any other flaw type. On average RT length sizes geometric flaws more accurately than planar flaws and less accurately than volumetric flaws.

PAUT Subsurface Flaw Positioning Capability Figure # 10

PAUT Subsurface Flaw Position Error Versus Actual
0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02

+ Towards Nearest Surface

* Maximum PAUT Flaw Position Error - .114" * Average PAUT Flaw Position Error - .046"

PAUT Error (inches)

0
1-1 Flaw # 2 1-3 Flaw # 2 1-7 Flaw # 2 1-8 Flaw # 1 7C-040 Flaw # 2 7C-041 Flaw # 2 7C-042 Flaw # 3 7C-043 Flaw # 1 7C-043 Flaw # 2

-0.02 -0.04 -0.06 -0.08 -0.1 -0.12 -0.14

- Away From Nearest Surface Sample # / Flaw #

7C-044 Flaw # 1

0 Error Based on Actual Position PAUT Positional Error from Nearest Surface

Observations 1. 2. The general trend reveals the PAUT examination to place the flaw on average .046 further away from the nearest surface (OD/ID) than was found during the destructive examination. The above graph includes both planar and volumetric flaws that were either detected by PAUT and recorded to be subsurface, as well as, those that were found to be subsurface during destructive evaluation. Geometric flaws are inherently associated with surface conditions, therefore, have not been included.

1-8 Flaw # 2

Babcock & Wilcox Canada

Tube to Tube Butt Weld Nondestructive Examination

Summary of Critical Examination Characteristics Table #2 Critical Flaw Evaluation Characteristic

Flaw Detection 1) Planar Flaws 2) Volumetric Flaws 3) Geometric Flaws 1) All planar flaws detected 2) 67% of volumetric flaws detected 3) 86% of geometric flaws detected Flaw Height Sizing 1) Planar Flaws 1) Average error - .039 Maximum error - .113 2) Volumetric Flaws 2) Average error - .059 Maximum error - .110 3) Geometric Flaws 3) Average error - .052 Maximum error - .192 No Information Available 1) 50% of planar flaws detected 2) All volumetric flaws detected 3) 86% of geometric flaws detected

Phased Array Ultrasonic Examination

Radiographic Examination

Flaw Length Sizing 1) Planar Flaws 1) Average error - .120 Maximum error - .260 2) Volumetric Flaws 2) Average error - .076 Maximum error - .160 3) Geometric Flaws 3) Average error - .277 Maximum error 1.130 3) 2) 1) Average error - .294 Maximum error - .560 Average error - .063 Maximum error - .130 Average error .196 Maximum error - .420

Flaw Position Location Within the Weld Cross Section

Average error - .046 Maximum error - .114

No Information Available

General Observations from Investigation

Babcock & Wilcox Canada

Tube to Tube Butt Weld Nondestructive Examination

Figure #11 Planar Surface Flaws

Class 1 & 2 Ferritic Piping Welds - Surface Flaws Aspect Ratio 0.0 ASME Section XI Table IWB-3514.1
0.025

Max. Flaw Height 'a' (Inches)

0.020 0.019 0.018 0.015 0.015 0.014 0.010 0.012 0.016

0.021

0.005

Max. Flaw Height

0.000

0.15

0.16

0.17

0.18

0.19

0.2

0.21

0.22

0.23

0.24

0.25

0.26

0.27

0.28
0.027

Material Thickness (Inches)

Note: Aspect Ratio 0.0 assumes that the length of the flaw is infinite

Figure #12 Planar Surface Flaws

Class 1 & 2 Ferritic Piping Welds - Surface Flaws Aspect Ratio 0.20 thru 0.50 ASME Section XI Table IWB-3514.1
0.030

Max. Flaw Height 'a' (Inches)

0.025 0.025 0.020 0.019 0.015 0.015 0.010 Max. Flaw Height 0.017 0.023 0.021

0.005

0.000

0.15

0.16

0.17

0.18

0.19

0.2

0.21

0.22

0.23

0.24

0.25

0.26

0.27

0.28

Material Thickness (Inches)

Note: Aspect Ratio is calculated from the flaws length (l) and height (a) a/l = AR, therefore, the flaws length (l) is l = a/AR

Figure #13 Planar Subsurface Flaws

0.29

0.29

Babcock & Wilcox Canada

Tube to Tube Butt Weld Nondestructive Examination

Class 1 & 2 Ferritic Piping Welds - Subsurface Flaws Aspect Ratio 0.00 ASME Section XI Table IWB-3514.1
0.060

Max. Flaw Height '2a' (Inches)

0.050 0.048 0.040 0.041 0.037 0.030 0.030 0.020 Max. Flaw Height 0.034 0.045

0.052

0.010

0.000

0.15

0.16

0.17

0.18

0.19

0.2

0.21

0.22

0.23

0.24

0.25

0.26

0.27

0.28
0.064
0.28

Material Thickness (Inches)

Note: Aspect Ratio 0.0 assumes that the length of the flaw is infinite

Figure #14 Planar Subsurface Flaws

Class 1 & 2 Ferritic Piping Welds - Subsurface Flaws Aspect Ratio 0.20 thru 0.50 ASME Section XI Table IWB-3514.1
0.070 0.060 0.060 0.050 0.050 0.040 0.041 0.030 0.020 0.010 0.000
0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.2 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.29

Max. Flaw Height '2a' (Inches)

0.055 0.046 0.037

Max. Flaw Height

Material Thickness (Inches)

Note: Aspect Ratio is calculated from the flaws length (l) and half the flaws height (2a/2) a/l = AR, therefore, the flaws length (l) is l = a/AR

In order to classify a flaw as a wholly subsurface flaw and apply the examples of a less restrictive acceptance criteria given in Figures #13 and 14, the flaw must be at least a distance from the nearest surface equal to its height. Otherwise, the criteria becomes more restrictive incrementally as the flaw is positioned nearer the surface. When the flaw is less

0.29

Babcock & Wilcox Canada

Tube to Tube Butt Weld Nondestructive Examination

than 40% of its own height from the nearest surface it is considered to be a surface flaw and the ligament of sound material between the flaw and the surface is then added to the height of the flaw. The criteria devised by Metalogic, whereby a planar flaw is rejected if its dimensions exceed .24 long X .020 height and it is not separated from the nearest surface by at least .04 to .06 dependent on tube wall thickness, appears to be conservative. This flaw dimension provides an aspect ratio of ~.05 and would clearly be acceptable for any of the tube thicknesses involved in this investigation, as shown in Figure #15 Figure #15
Class 1 & 2 Ferritic Piping Welds - Subsurface Flaws Aspect Ratio 0.05 ASME Section XI Table IWB-3514.1
0.060 0.054 0.050 0.047 0.040 0.039 0.030 0.035 0.031 0.043

Max. Flaw Height '2a' (Inches)

0.050

0.020 Max. Flaw Height

0.010

0.000

0.15

0.16

0.17

0.18

0.19

0.2

0.21

0.22

0.23

0.24

0.25

0.26

0.27

0.28

Material Thickness (Inches)

0.29