Determination of the POD to Assess the Reliability of Ultrasonic

Testing of Safety Relevant Components

44th MPA-Seminar
Leinfelden-Echterdingen - October 17-18, 2018

Hans Rieder and Martin Spies

Fraunhofer-Institute for Nondestructive Testing IZFP,
Campus E3 1, 66123 Saarbrücken, Germany

Anne Jüngert and Sandra Dugan*

MPA Universität Stuttgart,
Pfaffenwaldring 32, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany

*now with the Swiss Federal Nuclear Saftey Inspectorate ENSI, Brugg, Switzerland

© Fraunhofer

Determination of the POD to Assess the Reliability of Ultrasonic

Testing of Safety Relevant Components

 Project objectives
 Experiments
 Fracture mechanics
 Ultrasonic testing
 Quick introduction to POD and MAPOD
 Rayleigh-Rice approach for MAPOD calculations
 Simulation of defects amplitudes
 POD/MAPOD study on a welded austenitic pipe
 â vs a – analysis
 Results – base metal vs weldment

 Conclusion and outlook

© Fraunhofer
Project Objectives
 Reliability assessment uses probabilistic fracture mechanics and probability
of failure (POF) curves.

Uncertainties in input variables:

• material parameters (e.g.
fracture toughness)
• crack sizes (from NDT)

POF from X-Pipe

© Fraunhofer

Project Objectives
 Determination of uncertainties

 Material parameters => fracture mechanics tests - MPA

 J-Integral: plastic analog to stress intensity factor K

 Ultrasonic testing - MPA and IZFP

=> experimental database for POD calculations
 Results from previous projects
 Experiments at austenitic pipe weld with notches
 Experiments at dissimilar metal welds (bars and pipes) with notches and
intergranular stress corrosion cracks
 Simulations

 New approach for probabilistic reliability assessment of welded

components

© Fraunhofer
Austenitic Test Specimens
Austenitic pipe weld

base material 1.4550

weld material 1.4576

Fracture mechanics tests Ultrasonic testing

© Fraunhofer

Fracture Mechanics

© Fraunhofer
 Fracture Mechanics

Single edge bend specimen SE(B) Weld

(ASTM E 1820) material X-Z

Initial notch in weld material or

heat affected zone (HAZ)

HAZ X-Z

HAZ X-Y

© Fraunhofer

Fracture Mechanics – Cyclic Three-Point Bending Test

© Fraunhofer
Initiation Parameter Ji
450
400
350
300
Ji / N/mm

250
200
150
100
50
0
ZA1
ZA2
ZA3
ZA4
ZA5
ZA6
ZA7
ZA8
ZA9
ZA10
ZB1
ZB2
ZB3
ZB4

ZD1a
ZD2a
ZD3a
ZD4a
ZD1i
ZD2i
ZD3i
ZD4i
Weld material X-Z HAZ X-Z HAZ X-Y

© Fraunhofer

Resistance Curves
Weld material X-Z HAZ X-Z

HAZ X-Y

• Fracture toughness in HAZ is

nearly the same as in weld
material

© Fraunhofer
 Ultrasonic Testing

© Fraunhofer

Welded Test Specimen

3 longitudinal
notches
L= 20 mm
D=1.5/2/4 mm

Lower velocity
Transverse waves @ 45° Use corner effect to detect flaws

© Fraunhofer
 Austenitic Weld Specimen
Single element transducer, notch 1.5 mm

© Fraunhofer

Ultrasonic Testing of Austenitic and Dissimilar Welds

Specimen
coarse • elastic anisotropy • wrong location of defect echoes
columnar • reflections • reflections from weld material
grains • scattering • reduced signal-to-noise ratio

α=60° α=45°
T

© Fraunhofer
 Quick Introduction to POD and MAPOD

© Fraunhofer

How to Obtain a POD-curve? â-vs-a-Analysis

Defect size a

Noise Threshold

Defect size a

© Fraunhofer
 MIL-HDBK-1823 – Software mh1823

 well accepted international standard Source:

www.statisticalengineering.com
 preconditions to apply model:
 linear fit of â-vs-a-data
 Normal distribution of data
 variance of deviations from fit is the same
for all defect sizes
 final result â-vs-a-analysis:

© Fraunhofer

MAPOD – Part 1: POD-Model

Probability Distribution Functions, POD and PFI

Noise: Rayleigh Signal: Rice

Threshold T

S0 Noise
 Flaw signal S0
Probability density

T  statistical Signal
‚white noise‘
PFI
(inspection system &
N0 material) POD
 provide measured signal
Amplitude

© Fraunhofer
MAPOD – Part 2: Validated Simulation Method
Generalized Point Source Superposition GPSS

Source: Krautkrämer & Krautkrämer‚

Werkstoffprüfung mit Ultraschall‘,
(Springer, Berlin)

Integral equation for beam field calculation

Integral equation for flaw signal calculation (Kirchhoff-approximation)

© Fraunhofer

Validation versus Experimental Data

 45° T-wave inspection  amplitudes agree within ±1-2 dB

 2.25 MHz  0.5 mm notch => ??
 different notch depths
 2 mm SDH as a reference (0 dB)

Experimental data from: K. Matthies et al.

‚Ultrasonic Testing of Austenitic Materials‘
DVS-Media/DGZfP, Berlin 2009 (in German)

© Fraunhofer
 POD / MAPOD Study – Austenitic Half Pipes

© Fraunhofer

Austenitic/Ferritic Half-Pipe ‘A’ with Model Defects

 Notches in base metal and in the DMW

 Inspection for transverse defects
 Crack in the weld
Austenite

Cladding
Ferrite

© Fraunhofer
Inspection Results ‘A’ – C-Scan (Probe RTD 45 ET1)

© Fraunhofer

Inspection Results ‘A’ – Defect Amplitudes

 Circumferential scanning, probe not adapted to surface

 7 mm notch (base metal) => 80 % screen height
 Noise level in the base metal => 6 % screen height
 Noise level in the weld => 8 % screen height (average)

 Clockwise scanning  Counter-clockwise scanning

Length  Depth  Length  Depth 
A.Max % [mm] [mm] A.Max % [mm] [mm]
57.9 22 5 Notch – B 59.9 21 5 Notch – B
30.2 22 3 Notch – B 25.4 20 3 Notch – B
72.2 22 7 Notch – B 79.4 21 7 Notch – B
15.1 20 5 Notch – W 15.1 16 5 Notch – W
11.9 22 6 Crack – W 13.9 11 6 Crack – W
19.4 22 7 Notch – W 15.5 20 7 Notch – W

© Fraunhofer
Base Metal - Simulated versus Experimental Results
 Variation of wedge angle within  = ±3°
 Corresponds to sound velocity variation of ±10 %
 Wedge angle 30.8°  Wedge angle varied

 Decision threshold 6 dB above noise!

© Fraunhofer

Base Metal - Resulting POD/MAPOD Curve

 POD curve  Wedge angle varied

© Fraunhofer
Inspection Results – Defect Amplitudes

 Circumferential scanning, probe not adapted to surface

 7 mm notch (base metal) => 80 % screen height
 Noise level in the base metal => 6 % screen height
 Noise level in the weld => 8 % screen height (average)

 Clockwise scanning  Counter-clockwise scanning

Length  Depth  Length  Depth 
A.Max % [mm] [mm] A.Max % [mm] [mm]
57.9 22 5 Notch – B 59.9 21 5 Notch – B
30.2 22 3 Notch – B 25.4 20 3 Notch – B
72.2 22 7 Notch – B 79.4 21 7 Notch – B
15.1 20 5 Notch – W 15.1 16 5 Notch – W
11.9 22 6 Crack – W 13.9 11 6 Crack – W
19.4 22 7 Notch – W 15.5 20 7 Notch – W

 Amplitudes in the weld only 25 % compared to those in the base metal!

 Assumption: this is due to microstructure-related scattering.

© Fraunhofer

Inspection Results ‘A’ – C-Scan (Probe RTD 45 ET1)

 No mislocation of indications
 => no influence of anisotropy for transverse defect inspection!

© Fraunhofer
Base Metal versus Weld

 Base metal data  Weld metal data

 Decision threshold 6 dB above noise!

© Fraunhofer

Base Metal versus Weld - Resulting POD/MAPOD Curves

 Base metal  Weld

© Fraunhofer
Austenitic/Ferritic Half-Pipe ‘B’ with Model Defects

 Notches in base metal and in the DMW

 Inspection for longitudinal defects
 Crack in the weld

Austenite
Cladding

Ferrite

© Fraunhofer

Inspection Results ‘B’ – C-Scan (Probe RTD 45 ET1)

© Fraunhofer
Inspection Results ‘B’ – Defect Amplitudes

 Axial scanning, probe not adapted to surface

 7 mm notch (base metal) => 100 % screen height
 Noise level in the base metal => 6 % screen height
 Noise level in the weld => 10 % screen height (average)

 Scan direction 0°  Scan direction 180°

Length  Depth Length  Depth
A.Max % [mm] [mm] A.Max % [mm] [mm]
95.6 21 7 Notch – B 99.6 21 7 Notch – B
78.6 20 5 Notch – B 85.7 20 5 Notch – B
57.9 22 3 Notch – B 62.3 22 3 Notch – B
37.7 22 2 Notch – B 42.1 22 2 Notch – B
22.6 20 2 Crack – B ‐‐‐ 20 2 Crack – B
not  not 
detected > 24 5 and 7 Weld detected > 24 5 and 7 Weld

© Fraunhofer

Base Metal ‘B’- Simulated versus Experimental Results

 Variation of wedge angle within  = ±3°
 Corresponds to sound velocity variation of ±10 %
 Wedge angle 30.8°  Wedge angle varied

 Decision threshold 6 dB above noise!

© Fraunhofer
Base Metal ‘B’ - Resulting POD/MAPOD Curve

 POD curve  Wedge angle varied

© Fraunhofer

Base Metal ‘A’ versus ‘B’ - Resulting POD/MAPOD Curves

 Base metal ‚A‘  Base metal ‚B‘

© Fraunhofer
Inspection Results ‘B’ – Defect Amplitudes

 Axial scanning, probe not adapted to surface

 7 mm notch (base metal) => 100 % screen height
 Noise level in the base metal => 6 % screen height
 Noise level in the weld => 10 % screen height (average)

 Scan direction 0°  Scan direction 180°

Length  Depth Length  Depth
A.Max % [mm] [mm] A.Max % [mm] [mm]
95.6 21 7 Notch – B 99.6 21 7 Notch – B
78.6 20 5 Notch – B 85.7 20 5 Notch – B
57.9 22 3 Notch – B 62.3 22 3 Notch – B
37.7 22 2 Notch – B 42.1 22 2 Notch – B
22.6 20 2 Crack – B ‐‐‐ 20 2 Crack – B
not  not 
detected > 24 5 and 7 Weld detected > 24 5 and 7 Weld

 Notches in weld not detected in 0° scan

 Indications found in 180° scan with additional 6.2 dB gain

© Fraunhofer

Inspection Results ‘B’ – C-Scan (Probe RTD 45 ET1)

 Indications with amplitudes on noise level

 => influence of weld anisotropy for longitudinal defect inspection!

© Fraunhofer
 Summary & Outlook Supported by:

 Variations in
on the basis of a decision
 the material properties or by the German Bundestag

 the inspection settings

directly influence the POD
 Reduction of experimental efforts via MAPOD
 Uncertainty of NDT results relevant to fracture
mechanical considerations.

 Further work in the project addresses the use of

POD/MAPOD-results within fracture mechanical
calculations.
 Many thanks to Dr. Georg Wackenhut / MPA for
the fracture mechanical results.

© Fraunhofer