This Research Report is for the exclusive use of

Industrial Members of The Welding Institute, and

its content should not be communicated to other
individuals or organisations without written
consent. It is in the interest of all members to
respect this confidence.

August 2006 856/2006

Standardisation of NDT by
time-of-flight diffraction for
fabrication inspection

By B W Kenzie

No embargo

Electronic copyright
in this document as follows:
Copyright © 2006, TWI Ltd

TWI
15032.02/2005/1251.3

The Welding Institute, Granta Park, Great Abington

Cambridge CB1 6AL, United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 (0)1223 899000
Telefax: +44 (0)1223 892588

© TWI Ltd 2006

CONTENTS

TECHNOLOGY BRIEFING i
Background i
Objectives i
Experimental Approach i
Results and Discussion ii
Main Conclusions and Recommendations ii

APPENDIX A TOFDPROOF report ‘Recommendations for applying TOFD

(field of application, strengths, weaknesses) (2005-01-11)
APPENDIX B TOFDPROOF report ‘Recommendations for TOFD Training’
(2005-02-28)
APPENDIX C TOFDPROOF report ‘Recommendations for TOFD Certification’
(2005-03-15)

15032.02/2005/1251.3
Copyright © 2006, TWI Ltd
TECHNOLOGY BRIEFING
Background
This work in this report was carried out within the European Community ‘TOFDPROOF’
project GRD1-2001-40106 funded by the ‘Competitive and Sustainable Growth’ Programme.
The Institut de Soudure led the TOFDPROOF project and TWI was one of the partners.
Additional financial support to TWI was provided through Core Research Programme
projects 0101-12 and 0401-17. A first report CRP report (805/2004) on TOFDPROOF was
produced and distributed to TWI Industrial Members in 2004. This second report provides
Members with information about the work that TWI has undertaken since the first report.

The primary aim of TOFDPROOF is to develop and promote the effective industrial
application of the Time-of-Flight Diffraction (TOFD) technique, a non-destructive testing
(NDT) technique using the diffraction of ultrasonic waves to detect and size flaws in
materials, especially welds. A lack of appropriate European standards, in particular for
acceptance criteria, and agreed operator training/certification requirements, have hindered the
application of TOFD as a routine NDT technique for weld inspection. More specifically, the
TOFDPROOF project aims to make recommendations to European standards (CEN) for
applications including the manufacture of unfired pressure vessels according to EN 13445.

Objectives
The objectives of the work covered in this report are:
• To provide recommendations for applying TOFD, including the assessment of a
recommended TOFD procedure.

• To provide guidelines for training and certification of TOFD operators.

While reference is made to draft TOFD acceptance criteria for consideration by CEN, these
were addressed more fully in the first report (805/2004).

Experimental Approach
A round-robin test programme was performed on a collection of 72 welded samples
containing 150 intentional defects. The test samples were ferritic steel plates or pipes,
containing butt welds with wall thickness range from 6 to 100mm. These contained a mixture
of single and double sided joints with varying cap conditions. Welds in austenitic and other
coarse grain materials were outside the scope of TOFDPROOF. The conclusions below may
not apply to such welds.

For the purposes of conducting the round-robin trial, the TOFDPROOF partners developed a
specific TOFD procedure. The procedure was initially developed to be in accordance with the
European pre-standard ENV 583-6. As the project progressed, information was exchanged
with the working group for a new CEN specification, CEN/TS 14751, covering the use of
TOFD for examination of welds, and this influenced the final procedure that was developed.

TWI and Mitsui Babcock carried out an analysis of the discrepancies in the TOFD results
from the round-robin trials in order to assess and further improve the TOFD procedure and to
highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the TOFD technique.

15032.02/2005/1251.3
Copyright © 2006, TWI Ltd
Following this assessment, TWI produced a set of recommendations for the training and
certification of NDT operators applying TOFD. These take account of the existing TOFD
certification schemes in the UK (administered by PCN) and in The Netherlands (administered
by SKO). The recommendations cover

• Details of the training syllabuses for TOFD at Levels 1, 2 and 3,

• The necessary experience and pre-qualifications required, and

• A format and marking scheme for the theoretical and practical parts of the
examinations.

Results and Discussion

A report containing a series of recommendations for applying TOFD, designed to address the
discrepancies observed in the TOFD data collected during the round-robin trials, is provided
in Appendix A. Recommendations are provided for seven aspects of TOFD application:
procedure, identification of reference marks, set-up, classification of indications, evaluation
of indications, personnel qualification and acceptance criteria.

Recommendations for TOFD training and certification are provided in the reports reproduced
in Appendices B and C. Training and experience requirements for TOFD personnel are
recommended as follows:

• Minimum training requirements

Level 1 3 days (24 hours)
Level 2 5 days (40 hours)
Level 2 (direct) 8 days (64 hours)

• Minimum experience requirements

Level 1 3 months
Level 2 6 months
Level 2 (direct) 9 months

Main Conclusions and Recommendations

The following conclusions and recommendations for the application of TOFD are based on
the analysis of the results of the TOFDPROOF round-robin trials. For the trials, it was the
intention to apply the agreed TOFDPROOF procedure. (Note that this procedure is based
solely on the use of non-parallel scans (D-scans). For optimum characterisication and sizing
of flaws, TWI also recommends the use of parallel scans (B-scan)).

• A specific TOFD procedure should be written in accordance with the guidelines

given in ENV 583-6 and CEN/TS 14751 for each type of inspection.

• The identification and inscription of reference marks (including datum and scan
direction on the component and reference point on the inspection probes array) is
critical to allow comparison of results and repeatability of an inspection.

ii

15032.02/2005/1251.3
Copyright © 2006, TWI Ltd
• Selection of probes and probe configuration for full coverage of the complete weld
thickness should follow the guidance provided in Table 3 of CEN/TS 14751. The
capability to cover the thickness range of interest must be demonstrated on a
reference block. It may be found that slightly different configurations to those given
in CEN/TS 14751 are also acceptable under some circumstances.

• The test sensitivity shall be sufficient to enable the detection of low amplitude tip
diffracted signals whilst maintaining an un-saturated lateral wave response.

• The time window for data collection should be extended to at least 1µs beyond the
first mode converted back-wall echo (BWE) in order to study possible defect mode
converted echoes.

• Inspection from both surfaces is recommended where access permits. This is

especially important for thick as-welded components where satisfactory coverage of
the near surface is not achievable. Where access to the internal surface is not
possible, it is recommended that a complementary NDT technique is used to detect
external surface flaws. The characterisation of root connected flaws that have been
detected with TOFD from the external surface can also be difficult. In such cases
the use of another NDT technique is strongly advised.

• The TOFDPROOF project confirmed the well-known limitations of the TOFD

technique to detect and characterise near surface (both scan and far) flaws. Care
must be taken when near surface indications are observed. Additional TOFD scans
may be required with different probes and configurations, or a complimentary NDT
technique used.

• Inspection for transverse flaws across a weld can be limited, especially when the
weld cap is present. The normal TOFD configuration is not optimised for transverse
flaw inspection. Where transverse flaws are expected, and the weld is as-welded,
additional NDT technique(s) should be used.

• Indications should be classified into categories clearly defined in the inspection

procedure. The following categories are recommended:

i. Surface breaking indications: at the scanning surface, at the opposite surface

and through-wall.

ii. Embedded indications: point-like, elongated with a non-measurable height and

elongated with a measurable height.

iii. Transverse indications

iv. Uncategorised indications

iii

15032.02/2005/1251.3
Copyright © 2006, TWI Ltd
• For the interpretation of the TOFD images, initial analysis should be carried out on
unprocessed data. Straightening and removal (for lateral wave or BWE) tools can be
used for subsequent analysis e.g. to aid the interpretation of near surface defects.

• The techniques used to determine the indication dimensions (length, depth and
height) should be clearly defined. The figure of 11.7mm given in Appendix A as the
standard deviation of the errors in the reported length measurements relative to the
intended lengths should be treated with reservation, since the actual lengths were
not determined by sectioning after the round-robin trials. However, the standard
deviation of the errors in the reported height measurements from the round-robin
trials was consistent with accepted values. Length measurements from TOFD
techniques should be treated with the same degree of caution as when using manual
ultrasonic testing, while height measurement is more accurate.

• Carefully specified acceptance criteria for flaws detected by TOFD are required to
ensure component integrity without unnecessary rejection (e.g. due to innocuous
flaws or false calls). Acceptance criteria (based on length and height) for flaws
detected by TOFD in unfired pressure vessels constructed to EN13445 have been
established during the TOFDPROOF project (see CRP Report 805/2004). These
criteria have ensured rejection rates that are consistent with existing practice and are
being put forward for standardisation by CEN. Flaws outside these criteria may also
be acceptable based on fracture mechanics arguments.

• Appropriate training and experience of the personnel used for TOFD inspections is
crucial for successful application. The experience of all key personnel should
include use of written test instructions and final off-line analysis of data.

• While no NDT technique is 100% reliable, the TOFDPROOF project has shown
that, when properly applied by experienced personnel, the sole use of TOFD as an
initial search scanning technique is more reliable than either radiography or manual
ultrasonic testing.

Postscript
Following the TOFDPROOF project, TWI has produced an on-line best practice guide for
users of the TOFD technique. Industrial Members who are registered users of TWI’s website
can access the guide entitled ‘A guide to the ultrasonic time-of-flight diffraction (TOFD)
non-destructive testing (NDT) technique’. Please follow these instructions to view this guide:

- Go to TWI’s website at www.twi.co.uk

- Now login: click Login at the top right of the homepage and enter your User ID and
Password.

- Next, type bptofd in the search box (top right of homepage) and then click the
Search button.

- Finally, click the descriptive link to open the guide.

iv

15032.02/2005/1251.3
Copyright © 2006, TWI Ltd
 APPENDIX A

TOFDPROOF report ‘Recommendations for applying TOFD (field of application,

strengths, weaknesses) (2005-01-11)

15032.02/2005/1251.3
Copyright © 2006, TWI Ltd
 TOFDPROOF

Document Name: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPLYING

TOFD (FIELD OF APPLICATION,
STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES)
Document Date: 2005-01-11
Document Owner Mitsui Babcock / TWI
Document Author/s: NS Goujon & BW Kenzie
Document approved by:
Task / Deliverable Number: WP2 / 31
Issue: 1
Status
Document Reference Number: 2-31-D-2005-02-1
TOFDPROOF project n° G6RD-CT-2001-00626

Institut de Soudure F
IS Service F
Sonovation NL
TWI Limited UK
Mitsui Babcock Technology Centre UK
Staatliche Materialprüfungsanstalt Stuttgart D
Tecnatom S. A SP
VTT FIN
Instituto de Soldadura e Qualidade PT
TÜV Süddeutschland Bau und Betrieb GmbH D

 COPYRIGHT 2005 The TOFDPROOF Consortium

This document may not be copied, reproduced, or modified in whole or in part for any purpose without written
permission from the TOFDPROOF Consortium. In addition, to such written permission to copy, acknowledgement
of the authors of the document and all applicable portions of the copyright notice must be clearly referenced.

All rights reserved

 CONTENTS

CONTENTS......................................................................................................................... 2

1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 3

2. RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON THE TOFDPROOF RRT RESULTS................... 3

2.1 Procedure ............................................................................................................. 3

2.2 Identification of reference marks........................................................................... 4

2.3 Set-up ................................................................................................................... 4

2.4 Classification of indications................................................................................... 6

2.5 Evaluation of indications ....................................................................................... 7

2.6 Personnel qualification........................................................................................ 12

2.7 Acceptance criteria ............................................................................................. 12

3. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 12

4. CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................... 13

5. REFERENCES........................................................................................................... 14

Page 2 of 14
1. INTRODUCTION

Following the round robin trial (RRT) exercise and the reporting of the results, the
data were collated and a review focusing on the causes of discrepancies in the
results was carried out by MBEL and TWI. This was in order to highlight the strengths
and weaknesses of the TOFD technique. Report No 2-18-D-2004-01-1 [1] presents
the discrepancy analysis of the round robin trial results.

In order to complete work package WP2, recommendations were written to explain

when a complementary NDT technique is recommended. This report proposes
recommendations for applying TOFD. The recommendations are based on the
TOFDPROOF project round robin results and the difficulties identified during the
study. Additional considerations must be taken into account when different material
and component geometry are under study. These recommendations will be
transmitted to CEN TC121, TC54, TC138 and EPERC.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON THE TOFDPROOF RRT RESULTS

The following recommendations are based on the TOFDPROOF project round robin
trials results and the discrepancy analysis report No 2-18-D-2004-01-1. They are
provided for seven categories, including:
• Procedure;
• Identification of reference marks;
• Set-up;
• Classification of indications;
• Evaluation of indications;
• Personnel qualification;
• Acceptance criteria.
For each group, comments and recommendations are provided.

2.1 Procedure

• A specific procedure shall be written in accordance with the guidelines given in

ENV 583-6 [2] and PrCEN/TS 14751 [3] for each individual type of inspection.

• The TOFD procedure written under the TOFDPROOF project ‘Procedure for
TOFD Inspection of Welds used for the Round Robin Trials report No. 2-21-Q-
2002-01-4 [4] can be used as an example.

• The procedure shall include the following information:

! SCOPE
! GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
o Description of the component
o Restrictions
o Surface preparation
o Weld profile
o Coverage
o Possible defects
o Inspection conditions (temperature, lighting, etc.)
o Examination level

Page 3 of 14
 ! REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
! PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS & QUALIFICATION
! EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
o General requirements
o Equipment
o Scanning mechanism
o Probes
o Reference block
o Couplant
! IDENTIFICATION OF REFERENCE MARKS
! CALIBRATION & SETTINGS
o Choice of probes and Probe Centre Separation (PCS)
o Sensitivity setting
o Time calibration
o Time window
o Scan resolution setting
o Verification of the setting
! WELD INSPECTION
o longitudinal defects
o transverse defects
! DATA ANALYSIS
o Interpretation and analysis of TOFD images
o Assessing the quality of the TOFD image
o Classification and evaluation of indications
! DATA STORAGE
! REPORTING

2.2 Identification of reference marks

The identification of reference marks (including datum on the component and

reference point on the inspection probes array) is critical to allow repeatability of the
inspection and results comparison.

The reference point on the probe array (usually the middle of the back face of one of
the probes) shall be clearly defined in the procedure and the reference marks on the
component should be clearly visible.

2.3 Set-up

• Care should be taken to choose appropriate combinations of parameters.

• The capability to cover the thickness range of interest must be demonstrated on a

reference block.

• Sensitivity setting
Setting of an adequate sensitivity is essential to enable the detection of weak
diffracted signals and at the same time avoiding overloading the system with non-
relevant signals. The inspection teams must make sure that the lateral wave and
the BWE is not saturated to investigate for possible surface breaking defects.

Page 4 of 14
• Selection of probes and probe configuration

- Always use the most suitable probes for the component and for the type of
defects under investigation. The choice of the type of probes (including:
frequency, crystal diameter and angle) to be used for an inspection can be
critical (especially for defect characterisation). Selection of probes and probe
configuration for full coverage of the complete weld thickness should follow
the recommendations provided in Table 1. The values given in Table 1 relate
to the reviewed values used for the TOFDPROOF project round robin trial.

Minimum
Thickness number of Depth- Frequency Beam angle Crystal size Beam
t (mm) TOFD range (mm) (MHz) (°) (mm) intersection
set-up(s)*
6-10 1 0-t 15 70 2-3 2/3t
>10-15 1 0-t 15-10 70 2-3 2/3t
>15-35 1 0-t 10-5 70-60 2-6 2/3t
>35-50 1 0-t 5-3.5 70-60 3-6 2/3t
>50-100 2 0-t/2 5-3.5 70-60 3-6 1/3t
t/2-t 5-3.5 60-45 6-12 5/6t for 60°
or t for 45º
* Note that the number of TOFD set-up(s) given in Table 1 is the minimum number of TOFD
set-up(s) recommended.
Table 1: probes set-up versus thickness

- Other probe types and configuration than those given in Table 1 can be used
after demonstration on an appropriate calibration/reference block, see
Appendix 1 of reference [4].

- The probe frequency used has to be high enough to achieve the best possible
resolution taking care of achieving the required sensitivity setting.

- High frequency, small crystal diameter probes (15MHz, 3mm) are preferable
for the inspection of thin samples (up to 15mm) especially when the weld
surfaces are as-welded. An alternative choice (e.g. 10MHz) may not be
appropriate.

- The probe frequency used has to be high enough to achieve the best possible
resolution. However frequencies at the lower end of the bands defined in
Table 1 may be used if the required sensitivity setting cannot be achieved
with higher frequencies.

• Consistency in the inspection method has to be adopted. It is essential that the

inspection team follows the procedure provided, or provides a justification for any
variation between the work carried out and the procedure.

• TOFD images are commonly represented by a grey scale. This is to allow for
better contrast and to permit the identification of indications. It is recommended
that this approach be used to allow for repeatability and consistency between
inspection teams (although other approaches can be used as long as they are
well understood).

Page 5 of 14
 • The time window for data collection shall be extended to at least 1µs beyond the
first mode converted BWE, in order to study possible defect mode converted
echoes. Note CEN/TS 14751 states that the time window ‘shall at least cover the
depth range covered in Table 1’, however, defect information may be provided by
mode converted echoes (e.g. transverse cracks) and therefore it is important to
extend the window to allow collection of mode converted echoes, when
appropriate.

• Additional scanning

- For wide welds (especially for as-welded and double-V weld preparation), at
least two offset scans must be considered to achieve the whole weld body
inspection coverage, one at each side of the weld centre line.

- A separate root scan should be considered. The resolution of the backwall

echo and the defect tip of a small root defect is difficult, especially when the
root bead is still present. The presence of a weld root can prevent a clear
break of the back-wall (with the exception of the larger defects). Indication of
the presence of defects may be given by the waves arriving after the back-
wall echo. However, small defects can still be missed, or misinterpreted as
point reflectors.

- Inspection from both surfaces is recommended when access permits. This is

especially important for thick as-welded components where satisfactory
coverage of the near surface is not achievable. When inspection from the
internal surface is not possible, it is recommended to use a complementary
NDT technique.

- Inspection for transverse indications can be limited especially when the weld
cap is present. The normal TOFD configuration is not optimised for transverse
defect inspection. When transverse defects are expected and the weld is as-
welded, additional NDT technique(s) should be used.

2.4 Classification of indications

The indications shall be classified into categories clearly defined in the inspection
procedure. The following categories are recommended:

• Surface breaking indication (at scanning surface, at opposite surface and 100%
through-wall)
! Surface breaking at the scanning surface: this type of indication shows up as
either a weakening, deviation or loss of lateral wave (not always observed)
and an elongated pattern generated by the signal from the lower edge of the
indication. The lower edge can be hidden by the lateral wave, but generally a
pattern can be observed in the mode-converted part of the image. For small
indications, only a slight shift of the lateral wave towards longer time-of-flight
may be observed.
! Surface breaking at the opposite surface: this type of indication shows up as
either a weakening, deviation or a loss of the backwall signal (not always
observed) and an elongated pattern generated by the signal emitted from the
upper edge of the indication.
! Through-wall indication: this type of indication shows up as a loss or
weakening of both the lateral wave and the backwall signal.

Page 6 of 14
 • Embedded indications (point-like, elongated with a measurable height or without
a measurable height)
! Embedded point-like indication: the most common pattern characterised by a
single arc shaped curve fitting the theoretical hyperbolic curve corresponding
to the depth of the indication. This pattern is mostly produced by a pore, but it
can also be generated by the edges of a transverse crack.
! Embedded elongated indication with non measurable height: the indication
appears as an elongated pattern corresponding to an apparent upper edge
signal (approximately in phase with the backwall).
! Embedded elongated indication with a measurable height: the indication
appears as two separate elongated patterns located at different positions in
depth, corresponding to the upper and lower edges of the indication.

• Transverse indications
! Transverse indication: can be surface breaking or embedded. The signal from
the upper and lower edges of a transverse crack may appear as a point-like
defect.

• Uncategorised
! Uncategorised indications: all indications that cannot be properly classified
into one of the above categories.

2.5 Evaluation of indications

Any feature, which is not due to geometry and appears as an indication on the TOFD
image, shall be investigated to the extent that it can be evaluated in terms of
acceptance criteria.

2.5.1 Interpretation of TOFD images

Initial analysis has to be carried out on unprocessed data. Straightening and removal
(for lateral wave and BWE) tools can be use for subsequent analysis e.g.
confirmation of presence/absence of surface defects.

Surface defects

It is well known that one of the limitations of the TOFD technique is the surface inspection
(upper and rear surfaces). The presence of the lateral wave and the backwall echo restrict
the inspection zone. Small defects in these zones can be missed. Surface defects are more
difficult to detect especially when the weld is in the as-welded state. Sizing errors are also
more likely to occur.

Care must be taken when surface indications are observed. Additionnal scanning
may be needed with more appropriate probes type and arrangements.

The RRT results indicate that the height of near surface defects is difficult to
determine and in many cases these are inaccurately sized. Where the apparent
extent of the lateral wave is greater than or equal to the acceptable height of a
surface defect, it may be appropriate to consider all detected upper surface defects
as rejectable regardless of their measured height and confirm results with another
NDT technique.

Embedded defects

Page 7 of 14
 A number of defects can be wrongly reported as linear if the resolution of the defect
tips cannot be achieved. The probe frequency used has to be high enough to achieve
the required resolution.

Where a large number of point-like indications have been detected that creates a
cluster of indications, that could mask the presence of a more serious defect, the
inspection should be supported by another NDT technique.

Transverse defects

The presence of some mode converted echoes associated with a point like indication
may suggest that transverse defects could be present. The normal TOFD
configuration is not optimised for transverse defect inspection. When transverse
defects are expected or/and when indications on the TOFD image suggest the
presence of such defects (especially if the weld is as-welded), additional NDT
technique(s) should be used.

2.5.2 Determination of indications dimensions

Determination of length

Indications with a length equal to or less than the probes beam width will appear as a
single hyperbolic shaped arc (point-like discontinuity).

For elongated discontinuities with or without a measurable height, depending upon

the type of indication, a technique for length sizing shall be selected from the
following:

• Length sizing of linear indications:

! This type of indication does not have length measurement characteristics
which change significantly in the through-wall direction, i.e. embedded defects
like slag and lack of fusion.
! A hyperbolic cursor, shaped to fit the arc produced by a point-like flaw, is
fitted to the indication. The cursor is fitted at both extremities of the indication
and the difference between the measured positions of the turning points on
the cursors provides the length of the indication, see Figure 1.

Page 8 of 14
 Figure 1: Length sizing by fitting arc-shaped cursors
! If the hyperbolic cursors do not fit the extremities of the indication, the 6 dB
drop method shall be used. The maximum amplitude (where the reflector
extends across the full width of the ultrasonic beam) shall be determined
using the cursor. The extremities of the indication shall be identified where the
amplitude provided by the cursor has fallen by half, see Figure 2.

Figure 2: Length sizing by the 6 dB drop method.

Page 9 of 14
• Length sizing of extended parabola-like indications:
! This type of indication has length measurement characteristics which change
significantly in the through-wall direction, e.g. surface breaking defects like
cracks.
! A cursor, shaped to fit the arc produced by a point-like flaw, is positioned at
either end of the indication at a time delay of one third of the indication
penetration. The distance moved between the cursor positions at each end of
the indication is taken to represent the length of the indication, see Figure 3.

Figure 3: length sizing of extended parabola-like indications.

Determination of depth and height

The depth and the height of the indication shall be determined as follows:

• Assuming that the ultrasonic energy enters and leaves the specimen at the
probes index points and that the discontinuity is mid-way between the two
probes, the depth of the defect can be given by:
d = [¼ c2(t - to)² - S² ] 1/2
Where: c is the ultrasonic velocity
t is the transit time
to is the total time delay in the probe shoes
d is the depth of the tip of the discontinuity
S is the mid-distance between the ultrasonic probes index points
• To prevent errors that may arise from the estimation of probe delay and probe
centre separation distance, the depth d shall be calculated, where possible, from
the time of flight differences, ∆T, between the lateral wave and the diffracted
pulse or between the backwall echo and the diffracted pulse. Moreover, in order
to reduce the error related to time measurement, the measurement shall be done

Page 10 of 14
 from the A-scan and by choosing a consistent position on the waveforms. It is
recommended to use one of the methods described below (see Figure 4).

! Method 1: by measuring the transit time to the rising signal.

! Method 2: by measuring the transit time to the first maximum.
! Method 3: by measuring the transit time to the peak amplitude.

Lateral wave or
defect lower-tip

Positions for measuring the transit time

Backwall or
defect upper-tip

Method 1 Method 2 Method 3

Figure 4: Position of the cursor for time measurement – Methods 1, 2 & 3.

• All depth measurements should be performed after straightening of the position

of the lateral wave or the backwall echo.

• The height of a near surface breaking discontinuity is determined by measuring

the distance between the near surface and the lower-tip diffraction signal from the
indication.

• The height of a rear surface breaking discontinuity is determined by measuring

the distance between the rear surface and the upper-tip diffraction signal from the
indication.

• The height of an embedded discontinuity is determined by the difference in depth

between the upper-tip and lower-tip diffraction. For indications displaying varying
depth along their length, the height is determined at the position along the length
of the discontinuity where the difference is the greatest.

• Other measurement methods such as those proposed by ENV 583 part 6 can be
used as long as a justification is provided.

2.5.3 Sizing errors

Errors in reported height and length measurements for the RRT were reported.

Page 11 of 14
 • In general, the discrepancies in length measurement related to the intended
values were significant. The standard deviation of the errors in the reported
length measurements for the RRT was 11.7mm. The errors may have been partly
related to differences between the intended values and the real values. However,
sizing errors also varied between inspection teams. On this basis, length
measurement from TOFD techniques should therefore be treated with caution.

• The variations in reported height measurement may have been related to the
teams choice of the variables used to linearise the TOFD results (such as: the
reference time to the lateral wave, the reference time to the backwall echo, the
velocity and component thickness). The standard deviation of the errors in the
reported height measurements for the RRT was 2.0mm. It is important to use a
defined measurement technique.

The sizing method used to determine the defect dimensions (height and length)
should be clearly defined in the inspection procedure. This is in order to provide a
repeatable measurement technique and to allow comparison between inspection
teams and repeat inspections. The measurement techniques used for the calibration
and on the actual component should be consistent.

2.6 Personnel qualification

• As the detection and sizing performance were highly dependant on the inspection
team, it was concluded that the training and experience of the inspection
personnel is critical.

• In addition to a general knowledge of ultrasonic weld inspection, all key personnel

should be experienced in TOFD inspections.

• At least one of the inspection personnel should be familiar with preparation of

written test instructions, final off-line analysis of data and be qualified to approve
the final inspection report. This inspection personnel should be certified as a
minimum to level 2 in accordance with EN 473 [5] or equivalent in ultrasonic
testing for the relevant industrial sector.

• In cases where the above minimum qualifications are not considered adequate,
job-specific training should be carried out.

2.7 Acceptance criteria

Carefully specified acceptance criteria are required to ensure component integrity without
unnecessary rejection e.g. due to innocuous defects or false calls.

3. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Some TOFD technique limitations and recommendations were identified under

another project [6]:

• A better response is obtained when the included angle between the probes is
120°. Experimental results confirms the theory.

• Offset-scans, that is, scans parallel to the weld-axis, where the beam intersection
point is not on the centre-line of the weld, should be carried out (especially for
thick X-shaped welds to ensure detection of toe cracks at the surface opposite

Page 12 of 14
 the scanning surface). Omitting offset-scans could lead to depth position errors,
e.g. indications will tend to be plotted deeper than their true through-wall location.

• The operators must ensure the proper coverage of the area of interest. TOFD
can be limited by the geometry of the sample or by an obstruction limiting the
scanning area. For example: at the ends of long seams adjacent to
circumferential seams (require grinding); inspection of mismatch pipe to pipe weld
and material of small wall thickness t such as t ≤10mm thick. When the required
coverage is not achieved by TOFD, additional NDT techniques are required to
complete the inspection.

• Existence of a dead zone of the order of 2-3mm below the scanning surface.
This problem also occurs at the back-wall but the extent of dead zone may vary.
TOFD is not reliable for detecting surface defects of height less than 4mm.
Experimental results showed that root defects with a depth of less than 4mm are
easily missed or misinterpreted. Moreover, the difficulty of detection increases
with the defect offset position relative to the weld centre line.

4. CONCLUSIONS

This document provides recommendations for applying TOFD.

The recommendations are provided for seven categories, including: procedure,

identification of reference marks, set-up, classification of indications, evaluation of
indications, personnel qualification and acceptance criteria. For each group,
comments and recommendations are provided.

The results from the TOFDPROOF project round robin trials confirm some of the
TOFD limitations and highlight the need for an appropriate procedure, a skilled data
analyst and for realistic acceptance criteria.

Page 13 of 14
5. REFERENCES

[1] NS Goujon & BW Kenzie, ‘Discrepancy Analysis of the Round Robin Trial
Results’, TOFDPROOF report No 2-18-D-2004-01-1.

[2] ENV 583-6: Non destructive testing – Ultrasonic examination. Part 6: Time of
flight diffraction technique as a method for defect detection and sizing.

[3] PrCEN/TS 14751: Welding – Use of time of flight diffraction technique for
examination of welds.

[4] D Flotté, ‘Procedure for TOFD Inspection of welds used for the Round Robin
Trials’ TOFDPROOF report No 2-21-Q-2002-01-4.

[5] EN 473: Qualification and certification of NDT personnel – General principles.

[6] JM Farley, NS Goujon & BWO. Shepherd ‘Critical evaluation of TOFD for
search scanning’, 16th WCNDT 2004, Montreal, Canada.

Page 14 of 14
 APPENDIX B

TOFDPROOF report ‘Recommendations for TOFD Training’ (2005-02-28)

15032.02/2005/1251.3
Copyright © 2006, TWI Ltd
 TOFDPROOF

Document Name: Recommendations for TOFD Training

Document Date: 2005-02-28

Document Owner TWI
Document Author/s: BW Kenzie
Document approved by:
Task / Deliverable Number: 3.2 / 28
Version: 1
Status Draft
Document Reference Number: < Assigned by PM >

Institut de Soudure F
IS Service F
Sonovation NL
TWI Limited UK
Mitsui Babcock Technology Centre UK
Staatliche Materialprüfungsanstalt Stuttgart D
Tecnatom S. A SP
VTT FIN
Instituto de Soldadura e Qualidade PT
TÜV Süddeutschland Bau und Betrieb GmbH D

 COPYRIGHT 2002 The TOFDPROOF Consortium

This document may not be copied, reproduced, or modified in whole or in part for any purpose without written permission
from the TOFDPROOF Consortium. In addition, to such written permission to copy, acknowledgement of the authors of the
document and all applicable portions of the copyright notice must be clearly referenced.

All rights reserved

 TOFDPROOF
TECHNICAL REPORT

Doc. No. Rev. No. 1 Date 2005-02-28

Title: Recommendations for TOFD Training

Issued by: TWI

Summary:
This document contains recommendations for the number of hours, syllabus, and training pre-
requisites for a training course on TOFD.

This document is intended to be complementary to the TOFDPROOF document containing

recommendations on TOFD certification.

Authors (names): B W Kenzie

(signatures)

Verified by: Approved by:

Key words:

For issuing partner use Total no. of pages incl. 8

tables, figures,
appendices
 TOFDPROOF
DOCUMENT REVISION RECORD

Report title: Recommendations for TOFD Training

Issued by: TWI Doc. No.

Rev. No. Date Nature of revision No. of

pages
0 2005-01-31 Original issue 8

1 2005-02-28 Inclusion of comments from working group 8

4
 TOFDPROOF
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INFORMATION

This sheet prepared by:

Report title:

Doc. No Rev. No. Date:

Part 1: The following information contained in this report is identified as Pre-existing know-how *
Owner (Project Partner) Details (include references to reports where possible)

Part 2: The Knowledge * generated in connection with the work described in this report is owned by:
Owner (Project Partner) Details (where necessary, e.g. when more than one Project Partner is
involved)

* as defined in Annex II - General conditions of the CEC

Table of contents
1. SCOPE.......................................................................................................................................................... 6

2. LEVEL 1 SYLLABUS ................................................................................................................................ 6

2.1 LEVEL 1 SECTOR SPECIFIC THEORY .......................................................................................................... 6
3. LEVEL 2 SYLLABUS ................................................................................................................................ 7
3.1 LEVEL 2 SECTOR SPECIFIC THEORY .......................................................................................................... 7
3.2 LEVEL 2 NDT PROCEDURE WRITING ........................................................................................................ 8
4. LEVEL 3 SYLLABUS ................................................................................................................................ 8
4.1 LEVEL 3 SECTOR SPECIFIC THEORY .......................................................................................................... 8
4.2 LEVEL 3 NDT PROCEDURE WRITING ........................................................................................................ 8

Revision number: 1 Page 5 of 8 Restricted

1. Scope
This document contains recommendations for the number of hours, syllabus, and training pre-
requisites for a training course on TOFD.

This document is intended to be complementary to the document containing

recommendations on TOFD certification.

2. Level 1 Syllabus
Note: Trainees are expected to have already covered the syllabus of general theory on UT of
welds at the appropriate level.

2.1 Level 1 Sector Specific Theory

The following will be covered in a series of modules over a minimum period of 3 days (24
hours):

• History and background to TOFD development

• Principles of TOFD including basic set-up, phase and timing of signals

• Types of TOFD scan, parallel and non-parallel

• Basic hardware description

• Software knowledge and menu structure

• Signal averaging and S/N ratio

• Grey scale imaging and B-scan presentation

• Manual and mechanised scanning

• Data collection and storage

• Encoder calibration

• Lateral wave and back wall straightening

• Parabolic cursors

• Data assessment – satisfactory images

• Data assessment – flaw identification

Revision number: 1 Page 6 of 8 Restricted

3. Level 2 Syllabus
Note: Trainees are expected to have already covered the syllabus of general theory on UT of
welds at the appropriate level and have covered the syllabus for sector specific theory on
TOFD at level 1.

3.1 Level 2 Sector Specific Theory

The following will be covered in a series of modules over a minimum period of 5 days (40
hours).

• Summary of the capabilities and limitations of TOFD

• Digitisation of signals and sampling rate

• Pulse width control, bandwidth and filtering

• Selection of number of scans

• Scans for transverse flaws

• Choice of probe frequency, angle, crystal size and probe delay / index point

• Coverage and beam spread calculations

• Choice of probe centre separation (PCS)

• Setting of sensitivity, reference blocks and reflectors/diffractors

• Summary of choice of parameters for TOFD scan

• Analysis software facilities

• Linearisation

• Reflection, refraction, diffraction (Snell’s law) and angular dependency of diffracted

signals

• Near surface / back wall blind zones, subtraction of the lateral wave / back wall signals

• Recognition of geometrical responses

• Types of flaws, typical defect responses and flaw characterisation

• Reliability, POD and false-call rates

• Data assessment – flaw sizing

• Accuracy and errors in position and sizing

Revision number: 1 Page 7 of 8 Restricted

• Monitoring growth

• TOFD on curved surfaces

• TOFD on coarse grained materials

• Data assessment - reporting, examination parameters, data presentation and findings

• Application of the TOFD method in respect of codes and standards

• Application of TOFD acceptance criteria

3.2 Level 2 NDT Procedure Writing

The trainee will have supervised practice at writing a comprehensive work instruction for
TOFD inspection of a plane geometry welded component to a specified European standard.

4. Level 3 Syllabus
Note: Trainees are expected to have already covered the syllabus of general theory on UT of
welds at the appropriate level and have covered the syllabus for sector specific theory on
TOFD at level 1 and 2.

4.1 Level 3 Sector Specific Theory

The following will be covered over a minimum period of 2 days (16 hours).

• Comparison of flaw sizing for different UT techniques

• Synthetic Aperture Focussing Technique (SAFT)

• TOFD on complex geometry welds

• Codes and standards for TOFD in relation to other NDT codes, standards and regulations

• Comparison of different acceptance criteria for TOFD

4.2 Level 3 NDT Procedure Writing

The trainee will have practice at writing a comprehensive test procedure for TOFD inspection
of a specific geometry welded component to a specified standard.

Revision number: 1 Page 8 of 8 Restricted

 APPENDIX C

TOFDPROOF report ‘Recommendations for TOFD Certification’ (2005-03-15)

15032.02/2005/1251.3
Copyright © 2006, TWI Ltd
 TOFDPROOF

Document Name: Recommendations for TOFD

Certification

Document Date: 2005-03-15

Document Owner TWI
Document Author/s: BW Kenzie
Document approved by:
Task / Deliverable Number: 3.2 / 28
Version: 2
Status Draft
Document Reference Number: < Assigned by PM >

Institut de Soudure F
IS Service F
Sonovation NL
TWI Limited UK
Mitsui Babcock Technology Centre UK
Staatliche Materialprüfungsanstalt Stuttgart D
Tecnatom S. A SP
VTT FIN
Instituto de Soldadura e Qualidade PT
TÜV Süddeutschland Bau und Betrieb GmbH D

 COPYRIGHT 2002 The TOFDPROOF Consortium

This document may not be copied, reproduced, or modified in whole or in part for any purpose without written permission
from the TOFDPROOF Consortium. In addition, to such written permission to copy, acknowledgement of the authors of the
document and all applicable portions of the copyright notice must be clearly referenced.

All rights reserved

 TOFDPROOF
TECHNICAL REPORT

Doc. No. Rev. No. 2 Date 2005-03-15

Title: Recommendations for TOFD Certification

Issued by: TWI

Summary:
This document prescribes the specific requirements and procedures by which personnel may be
examined and if successful, certified competent for Ultrasonic Time of Flight Diffraction (TOFD)
testing of linear butt welds in ferritic steel.

Certification described in this document is available only to holders of current, valid ultrasonic weld
testing certification.

Candidates will be required to demonstrate that they meet the prescribed minimum supplementary
training and certification requirements before they will be allowed to take TOFD examinations.

Authors (names): B W Kenzie

(signatures)

Verified by: Approved by:

Key words:

For issuing partner use Total no. of pages incl. 9

tables, figures,
appendices
 TOFDPROOF
DOCUMENT REVISION RECORD

Report title: Recommendations for TOFD Certification

Issued by: TWI Doc. No.

Rev. No. Date Nature of revision No. of

pages
0 2005-01-31 Original issue 9

1 2005-02-28 Inclusion of comments from working group 9

2 2005-03-15 Change of minimum experience requirements 9

4
 TOFDPROOF
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INFORMATION

This sheet prepared by:

Report title:

Doc. No Rev. No. Date:

Part 1: The following information contained in this report is identified as Pre-existing know-how *
Owner (Project Partner) Details (include references to reports where possible)

Part 2: The Knowledge * generated in connection with the work described in this report is owned by:
Owner (Project Partner) Details (where necessary, e.g. when more than one Project Partner is
involved)

* as defined in Annex II - General conditions of the CEC

Table of contents
1. SCOPE.......................................................................................................................................................... 6

2. EXAMINATION CONTENT..................................................................................................................... 6
2.1 LEVEL 1..................................................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 LEVEL 2..................................................................................................................................................... 7
2.3 LEVEL 3..................................................................................................................................................... 8
3. RENEWAL AND RECERTIFICATION.................................................................................................. 8

4. SUPPLEMENTARY EXAMINATION CONTENT ................................................................................ 9

Revision number: 2 Page 5 of 9 Restricted

1. Scope
This document prescribes the specific requirements and procedures by which personnel may
be examined and if successful, certified competent for Ultrasonic Time of Flight Diffraction
(TOFD) testing of linear butt welds in ferritic steel.

Certification described in this document is available only to holders of current, valid

ultrasonic weld testing certification.

Candidates will be required to demonstrate that they meet the following minimum
supplementary training and certification requirements before they will be allowed to take
TOFD examinations.

Minimum Training Requirements

Level 1 3 Days (24 Hours)
Level 2 5 Days (40 Hours)*
Level 2 (direct) 8 Days (64 Hours)
* Contains additional modules covering interpretation of TOFD images and instruction
(procedure) writing.

Minimum Experience Requirements

Level 1 3 Months
Level 2 6 Months
Level 2 (direct) 9 Months

Candidates are encouraged to bring their own equipment including probes, but examination
centre equipment may be hired subject to availability. The candidate’s attention is drawn to
clauses 2.1.2 and 2.2.2 on calibration; extra time will be allowed in the practical examination
part (i) for candidates hiring examination centre equipment.

2. Examination Content
2.1 Level 1
All candidates attempting this examination must hold level 1 certification in ultrasonic weld
testing. Except where exemptions apply, all candidates will be required to attempt an
examination comprised of the following parts:

1. Sector specific theory of the application of the Ultrasonic Time of Flight Diffraction
method for testing of welds. Twenty multiple-choice questions to be answered in 60 minutes.
The minimum pass mark is 70%.

2. Sector specific practical examination comprising:

i) Assembly and calibration of TOFD data acquisition equipment.

NOTE. This part of the examination will involve the setting up of the equipment followed
by a calibration exercise to check test system performance. At the discretion of the examiner,

Revision number: 2 Page 6 of 9 Restricted

this part may include oral questions. Candidates will then be required to demonstrate that
they are familiar with the data display, computer and data handling and storage methods
used by the TOFD system in use. If this part of the examination is satisfactory the candidate
may proceed to the remainder. If not, he may repeat the exercise once. If it is still
unsatisfactory, the examination will be discontinued.

ii) Collect and store TOFD data from two linear butt welds in accordance with written
instructions provided. One weld to be less than 50mm wall thickness and one weld to be
greater than 50mm wall thickness (but less than 100mm).

iii) Examine data to identify all flaws and comment on its suitability for interpretation or
whether further scans are required e.g. B-scans.

The total time allowed for the practical examination is 4 hours. The minimum pass mark is
70% for each sample.

In addition, the successful level 1 candidate must obtain an overall combined mark from the
sector specific theory and the practical examinations equal to 80% or greater.

2.2 Level 2
All candidates attempting this examination must hold level 2 certification in ultrasonic weld
testing (plate or pipe). Except where exemptions apply, all candidates will be required to
attempt an examination comprised of the following parts:

1. Sector specific theory of the application of the Ultrasonic Time of Flight Diffraction
method for testing of welds. Thirty multiple-choice questions covering the TOFD testing of
linear butt weld joint defects. The maximum time allowed is 90 minutes. The minimum pass
mark is 70%.

2. Sector specific practical examination comprising:

i) Calibration of TOFD test equipment as defined for level 1.

NOTE. Level 2 candidates holding current valid level 1 Ultrasonic Time of Flight Diffraction
testing of welds certification will be exempt from examination part 2.2.2 (i) above.

ii) Collect and store test data for two linear weld samples. One weld to be less than 50mm
wall thickness and one weld to be greater than 50mm wall thickness (but less than 100mm).
NDT instructions, including information and test parameters will be provided to all
candidates.

NOTE. Level 2 candidates holding current level 1 TOFD certificates will be required to
attempt only one sample.

iii) Interpret and report the recorded weld scan file(s). Display the results in an indicated
format, showing the location and size of flaws present in the weld.

The total time allowed for the practical examination is calculated by adding 1 hour per sample
tested and 1 hour for each sample interpreted and reported. The minimum pass mark for the

Revision number: 2 Page 7 of 9 Restricted

practical part is 70% per sample tested (failure to detect and report a reportable discontinuity
in any one sample will result in failure of this examination part).

3. Prepare a detailed NDT instruction suitable for level 1 certificate holders to follow for
TOFD testing of one linear butt weld sample to a provided code, standard or specification.
The maximum time allowed is one hour and 30 minutes. The minimum pass mark for the
NDT instruction is 70% (failure to produce an acceptable NDT instruction, will result in
failure of this examination part).

In addition, the successful level 2 candidate must obtain an overall combined mark from the
sector specific theory, the practical examinations and the NDT instruction writing equal to
80% or greater.

2.3 Level 3
All candidates attempting this examination must hold level 3 certification in ultrasonic weld
testing. Except where exemptions apply, all candidates will be required to attempt an
examination comprised of the following parts:

1. Main method theory examination:

i) Exempt – candidate will hold level 3 ultrasonic weld testing.

ii) Twenty multiple-choice questions covering the sector specific theory of Ultrasonic Time of
Flight Diffraction testing of welds. The maximum time allowed is 60 minutes. The minimum
pass mark is 70%.

2. Level 3 candidates who do not hold, or have not held, EN 473 level 2 certification for the
Ultrasonic Time of Flight Diffraction testing of welds will be required to successfully
complete the sector specific practical examination described in 2.2 above.

3. The candidate will be required to produce a comprehensive Ultrasonic Time of Flight

Diffraction test procedure embodying an NDT instruction for a specific weld configuration to
a provided specification, standard or code. The maximum time allowed is 3 hours. The
minimum pass mark is 70%.

In addition, the successful level 3 candidate must obtain an overall combined mark from the
sector specific theory, the practical examinations (where applicable) and the test procedure
writing equal to 80% or greater.

3. Renewal and Recertification

Level 1 and level 2 certification is initially valid for a period of 5 years.

Level 1 certificate holders seeking recertification will be required to undertake the practical
examination detailed in clause 2.1 above.

Level 2 certificate holders seeking recertification will be required to undertake the practical
examination detailed in clause 2.2 above.

Revision number: 2 Page 8 of 9 Restricted

The minimum pass mark for recertification is 70% for each sample and the NDT instruction,
and 80% overall. Only one retest of failed recertification examinations is permitted. Level 2
candidates MUST pass the NDT instruction writing part in order to recertify.

4. Supplementary Examination Content

Level 1 Ultrasonic Time of Flight Diffraction certificate holders wishing to upgrade to level 2
are required to be successful in all level 2 written examination parts detailed in 2.2 above, and
to test one sample selected by the examiner.

Revision number: 2 Page 9 of 9 Restricted