'' ^

~ JPL F '
' ' ' ' "
'

Q( m,y; @;m; mw ;!
~, . r. -e .c , , ~
w . -
,

k ~ 5.
''

|k *! Y 'S ?

'hi
y .n x-v ' > -
s

2 ,

"

[a S i
i
'

f1 @* LNUREG/CR--587L
-

,t k ;w _ , b ' '

#1 PNL-8064"
.
.
-."
m&
we A .
.
1
.
Voll
nro;. d p : y, o .

'
< ,

~ i[ ~ ;):fi;
r
,

. .
,
,s.,
[ '
s h| W '
.
i' A
_

@qevelopm:entlof Equipment .
-

'.

FRar.ametenTolerances for::the:
,. . . . _. ,.
-

E.,MnsonihIrisP:ectionsof
n ~
.
< .

(Skel:Comnonents;
.n w W .
, - -

*
,p ,
*

wm
_

p g:-w .
n
ja
.
*
, ,
, ,

@wyplichfibn(tb1Co'mp~onsntsiUp
m
to;3LInchesiThicE
; -c| 7 w J..y
,.
,
g ;+s .
e: :.L , s a - .

refrys ~~ : :,, t . -

,ys
.

'
g,,, > = ,- -

w
,
.>
puka
,
& w ~ .
~ '
.. .
'
' ~

4 |. c% ||% .* --.
* + '

M | Prepared bvt J ni, . 1 ;1 J

, .
'. '
_, ..
'

qq:E.
W :t RfGieen,
, m, S; R. Doctor, R. L Hockey?AP
n-9 ~ A. Diaz/ _

.-
,
7
th * sf ' ;; f ? *
,, -

t;

@.M.1
.n $ * 2 i4
'4'-
r
' ,"
eg M A. ,,,- - ,,"M. ' . . ., .

,1
'
-
.
'

@ Pacific | Northwest LabaratoryL -

,
,

MOpersted tiy3 ' f i'

J 4, Bat,te,lle Mernoria. l-Inititutek
- ,
4

[tig
'
~

vi- Ek -( 1

..s+ | .
> r ,
>

(p @up,.;yp. N. , *
%:, c %|G
m .y .,
'L_ _'.,,,& ,'

CsPrepared fore m a4 m
'
,
.,i '

NU.S/NuslenRAdulat'ory Commission? '

y~-
' ' ' '

M e. ,. ,
,~A
'
J
asp h:p ,
' '
y-- +

p%se; - n '
~*x
s@OW
u "'
9'-
-

,
, .

ga v g
~~ j ,
. '

''

Q[^ f , ..

p
;
; ; , ,.

MR , l i- , .. <
RFnt 9207140273 920630
Wt'; PDR NUREG
-

M3 CR-3671 R PDR
-

A
igggy. <- . . ~,
,
!
- 4 o :
*' aq?
1O .' i . .?;p
1

Q ,|'g .v. s -
.f . . . . ":- . . . . . . . . , _ . . . , , ,
, . ,
'- s . .-!
 __
. . . .

i
,

n
+
b

I'
t

G(; ~
'

.
p: ,A

,
. AVAILADit.IYY NOTICE
" .

.Aveltablity of Reference Materials Ctted h NRC Publications

:

Most documer te etted h NRC publicaricos wGl be avaltable from one of the foBowing sources:
' -h - The NRC Public Document Room,2120 t. Street, NW., Lower Level, Washbgton, DC 2055$

' 2, The Superbtendent of Documents, U.S. Govownent Printing Office. P.O. Box 37082, Washington.
- DC 20013-7082 -

*
. 3. The National Technical lnformation Service, Springfield VA 22161

Although the Esting tNat fouows represents the majority of documerits cited h NRC pubtbations, it is not
'
intended to be exhaustive.

Fleforenced documents available for inapection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Document Room
Mclude NRC correspondence and internal NRC memoranda; NRO bulleths, circulars, inforrnation nothes,
inspection and investigation notices; ticensee event reports: vendor reports and correspondence: Commis~
.sion papers; and appRcant and hensee documents and correspondence,-
_

g -;The tonowing documents in the ffUREG series are avanable for purchase from the GPO Sales Program:
' formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC-sponsored conference proceecings, Intsrnational agreement
.
-reports ' grant pubHeations, and NRC booklets and brochures, Aleo available are regulatory guides NRC
,
n* , regulatkons h the Code ct Federal Regulations. and Nuclear Regulatory Commtssion issuanceC
.

' Documente avaltable trom the National Technical information Service include NUREG-series reports and
techrdcal reports prepared by other Federal agencies and reports prepared by the Atomic Energy Commis-
4 ,
; stort; forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commisalon.
'
Documents evaBable from pub!Ic and special techrdcal libraries include all open Storature items,'such as
4 _. ' books; journal articles, and transactions.t Federal Register notices, Federal and State legislation, and con-
'..
1
?gressional reports can usuaBf be obtained from these kbraries.

, s
: Documents such as' theses, dissertations.: foreign reports and translations, and ncn-NRC conference pro-
'
- coedings are avaUable for purchase from the organizaten sponsoring the publication cited.
'
-'S;ngte cop;es of NRC draft reports are avadable free, to the extent of supptt, upon written request to the
Office pf Admblstratton, Distribution'and Malt SeMees Sectiorn U S. Nuefear Regulatory Commission,
m Washington! OC - 20555.
,

?i iCoples of industry codes |and standards used ke a substantive manner trt the NRC rego'atory procest are :
: mahtained at the NRO Ubrary. 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, for use by the public. Codes and
s-di ; standards. are usuaBy copyrightod and may be purchased from the ori(;lnatir+g organization or, if they are '

-e ? Amarkan Nationaf Standards, from the American National Standards Institute,1430 Broadway, New York.
'
1 4 NYI10018,
4

DISCLAIMER NOT:CE -
,

This report was prepared as an account of woric sponsored by an agency of the Urdted States GovemmonL
*
Neith6r the United States Gov emmerv ryx any agency thereof, or any of their employees, rna'xes any warranty,
: expressed or impired,or assumes arv legal liability of fesponsibmty for any third party's use, or the results of
L such use, of any information, apparrtus, product or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use
{ ? by such third party would not infringe private!y owned rights.

. o

------E.. ______.i __
__,_i _ _ _.l .mj _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
 .

N UREG/CR-5871
PN L-8064
Vol.1
..
_____m3

3 eve oamen~: 0:: ncuramerr: .. _

Parameter To erances ::or :ae

E::rasonic Insaec~: ion of
Steel Components
Application to Components Up to 3 Inches Thick

__
_

Yd e n S. R. Doctor, R. L 1hrkey, A. A. Diaz

Pacific Northwest Laboratory

Operated by
llattelle Memorial Institute

Prepared for
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

920630 )
714]
CR-5671 R PDR
 . , ~ - - ~ , . . - - - - ~ _ . . --- - -- .. __~ - . - - -

w:
e
t

AVAILABILITY NOTICE

Avaitabiltf of Reference Matenals Cited in NnC Pubicateans

Most documents cited in NRC publications w:1! be avadab;e from one of the folloeg swees:
'
1; The NRC Public Document Room. 7120 L Street. NW., Lower Level. Washington, DC 20555
.

2; The Superhtendent of Documents. U S, Government Printag Off+ce. P.O. Box 37062. Washington.
1
DC 20013-7082

3, The National Technical Information Serwce. Springf eld. VA 22161

'
Although the 8 sting that fo40*s represents the majority of documents cited in NRC pubucations, it is not
intended to be exhaustive. ;

'

Referenced documents availab!e for inscection and copytng for a fee from the NRC PubEc Document Room
include NRC correspondence and nternal NRC memoranda; NRC budetins crculars. information nottces.
Inspec tion and investigation notices; I;censee event reports: vendor reports and correspondence: Commis-
sion papers; and appiscant and licensee documents and correspondance

The following documents in the NUREG series are avatable for purchase from tne GPO Sa!es Program-
formal NRC staff and contracter reports. NRC-sponsored ccnference proceedings. Internat,ona! a2reement
. reports, grant puchcatbns, and NRC booklets and brochures Afso ava:fabre are regulatory guides; NRC
regulations In the Code of Federal Reguiancns and IM! ear Regwatery commission issuances.
-

Documents avaDable from the National Technical information Service include NUREG-series reports and
technica! reports prepared by other Federa! agencies and reports prepared by the Atcmic Energy Commis-
;.. s:en, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Documents ava;lable from public and special technica! 11ranes incluae an open itterature items. such as
. ; books; }ournal art!cies. and transactions. Federal Regcer notices. Federa and State legislat:en. and con-
gressional reports can usualty be obtained from these libranes.

Documents such as theses. dissertations. foreign reports and translations. and non-NRC conference pro-
coodings are ava!!able for purchase from the organtration sponscong the pub!! cation cited.
_

singte copies of NRC craft reports are avadabie free. to the extent of supply upon written request to the
Office of Acmirustration. Destribution and MaH Seruces Section, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Washington, DC 20555.

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a substantive manner in the NRC regu!atory process are
'

maintained at the NRC Library; 7920 NoricN Avenue. Bethesda. Maryland. for use by the pubbc. Coces and
starmards are usvaily copynghted and may be purchased from the originst:ng orgarnation cr. If they are
American National Standards, from the American National Standards insteu+e.1433 Broadway. New Yort
NY 10018..

DISCLAIMER NOTICE

'
This recort was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency cf the United States Govemment
Neither the United States Govemment nor any agency thereof, or any of their employees. mak es any wanantym
*
expressed or imphed, or assumes any legal habildy of responsib;hty for any third party's use, or the results of
such use, of any information, apoaratus. product or process d;scrosed in tn.is report or represents that its use -
. by such third party wou:d not intnnge povately owned r_ights.

m. - . _. ___ :.____._-.__._.__u.._c
 - - - - -

NUREG/CR-5871
PNL-8064
Vol.1
R5

Development of Equipment
Parameter Tolerances for the
Ultrasonic Inspection of
Steel Comaonents
Application to Components Up to 3 Inches Thick

Manuscript Completed: April 1992

Date Published: June 1992

Prepar-d by
E. R. Green, S. R. Doctor, R. L llockey, A. A. Diaz

Pacific Northwest Laboratory

Richland,WA 99352

Prepared for
Division of Engineering
Ofuce of Neclear Regulatory Research
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20555
NRC FIN B2289

. . . . . . .. . -- - .. . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . - - . . . - . . . . _ - . . . . . - . _ . .
 _ __ _ ._ _ _ __ _ _ > . . __ _ _ - -

Abstract

This report documents work performed at Pacific Northwest Laboratory on the effect of frequency domain equipment
interactions on the reliability of ultrasonic inservice inspection. The primary focus of this work is to proside
information to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the acceptability of equipment parameter
tolerances as given in the American Society of hiechanical Engineers (AShtE) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code
Section XI Appendix Vill.

hicthematical models were developed for the entire ultrasonic inspection system including sound propagation through
the inspection sample. The models were used to determine worst-case inspection scenarios for thin sections (piping),
and these worst-case inspection scenarios were then used in sensitivity studies to determine the suitability of
equipment parameter tolerances. Ultrasonics literature was reviewed to find worst-case inspection scenarios outside
the scope of the model used, but none that were significantly worse were found. Experiments were performed to
confirm the important modeling results. Methods for reducing parameter sensitivity such as the use of a phase
insensitive receiver were also investigated.

The model predicted that ash 1E Code tolerances for equipment bandwidth are acceptable, but tolerances for center
frequency are too broad to provide reliable inspection of wctst-case defects using narrow band sptems. Esperiments
confirmed the basic trends predicted by the rnodel, but the model seems to be conservative in that it shows greater
sensiti.ity than is found empirically.

iii NUREG/CR-5871

~ - , - - -. ...-.. ....,- . . - , _ , . , , - . - . - - . . - - , - . , - - . , - . . - . - . - - . , , . . .
 _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ -

Contents
Page

Abstract...............................................................................iii
Exe cutive S u m m ary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

- A cknowle dge m e n ts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

Previous R eports in Se ries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................................... ........... 1

2.0 Equipme nt f f odels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .............. 3

3.0 D e fe ct M od el . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1 - M odel Th eory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2 Model Assum ptions and Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
33 Model Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................................. .... .... .... 12

4.0 Worst-Case Defects with Respect to Equipment Parameter Sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............,, 27

4.1 Frequency-Domain Interaction of Ultrasonic Inspection Equipment and the Acoustic System . . ...., 27
4.2 Frequency Domain Characteristics of Various Defect Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.2.1 Defect Size and Angle and Probe Position ......................... .. .......... 28
,
'
4.2.2 Defect Roughness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................................... 32
4.23 Coarse-Grained Stainless Steel and Stress-Corrosion Cracking . ....................,,. 32
43 Recognizing and Dealing with WCDASs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
................. ..... . . . . 34
5.0 S e nsitivity S t udies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................ 37
5.1 Modeling Dandwidth Sensitivity Study 45' SV Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... ..... ...... 37
- 5.2. Modeling Center Frequency Sensitivity Study 45' SV Inspection . ......................... 40
53 Modeling Bandwidth Sensitivity Study - 60* SV Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.4 Modeling Center Frequency Sensitivity Study 60* SV Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.5 Experimental Center Frequency Sensitidty Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

6.0 S um m ary of R es ult s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

7.0 Fu t ure Wo r k . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........47

8.0 R e fe re n ces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Figures

2.1 Generic Ultrasonic Inspection System ................................... ............ ... 4

2.2.; Block Diagram of Ultrasonic Inspection Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................ .. ... 4
23.1 Block Diagram of Condensed Ultrasonic Inspection System . . ................................. 5
3.1. Flow Chart for the Model Computer Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. | Amplitude of the Directivity Function for the Line Source Generation of Transverse Waves in Acrylic Plastic 9

v NUREG/CR-5871
|

, - ,. -- -, , - , - , . -
 .

Contents

3.3. Phase of the Directivity Function for the Line Sour:e Generation of Transverse Waves in Acrylic Plastic .. 9
3.4. Amplitude of the Directivity Function for the Line Source Generation of Longitudinal Waves in Acrylic Plast'c 9
3.5. Phase of the Directivity Function for the Line Source Generation of Longitudinal Waves in Acrylic Plastic . , 9
3.6. Configuration for hieasuring the Single Frequency Ultrasonic Sound Field along the Centerline of an
Acrylic Wedge ....... ...... . .... ... .. ..... . . .. .. .. . . 13
3.7. Predicted Versus hicasured Sound Field along the Wedge Centerline at 500 kilz 14
3.8. Predicted Versus hicasured Sound Field along the Weds,e Centerline at I hillz . 14 .

3 9. Predicted Versu- hicasured Sound Field along the Wedge renterline at 2 hiliz . 15
3.10. Predicted Versus hieasured Sound Field along the Wedge Centerline at 5 hiliz 15 . .

3.11. Predicted Versus hicasured Pulse-Echo Response of a 90* Corner in a 20.8 mm Thick Steel Block at 5 hiliz 16
3.12. Predicted Versus Measured through Transmission Sound Field for 45' Longitudinal Wave
Transmission through a 133-mm Thick Steel Block at I hiliz .. . . 16
3.13. Predicted Versus hicasured through Transmission Sound Field for 45' Transverse Wave
Transmission through a 133-mm Thick Steel Block at I htliz . .. . .... .. 17 .

3.14. Predicted (Circles) Versus Measured Tandem Probe Scan Results for a 25-mm Flat-Bottomed llote
in a 193-mm Thick Steel Block at 2.25 htliz . . ..... ...... ........ .. ... 18 .

3.15. Predicted (Circles) Versus hicasured Tandem Probe Scan Results for a 10-mm Strip Defect in a
193-mm Thick Steel Block at 2.25 Milz . . ... .. . . . ... .. . 18
3.16. Predicted (Circles) Versus Measured Tandem Probe Scan Results for a 25-mm Strip Defect in a
193-mm Thick Steel Block at 2.25 Mllz . . . . . . . ....... . ..... . .. 19 .

3.17. Configuration Used to Make Ultrasonic Spectroscopy Measurements . .. . . 19 .

3.18. Predicted Versus Measured Acoustic System Transfer Functions for 40* Aluminum Block Normalized
with Resect to the 45' Aluminum Block . . . . . . .. ..... .. . ... ... .. , 21
.

3.19. Predicted Versus Measured Acoustic System Transfer Functions for 41' Aluminum Block Normalized
with Resect to the 45' Aluminum Block , . . . .. ... . . ... . .
. 21 . .

3.20. Predicted Versus Measured Acoustic System Transfer Functions for 42' Aluminum Block Normaliicd
with Resect to the 45' Alurninum Block .... ... .. .. ... ... . . .. . . 22
3.2L Predicted Versus Measured Acoustic System Transfer Functions for 43' Aluminum Block Normaliicd
with Resect to the 45' Aluminum Block , ,.. . ...,. .,. .. ... 22 ,

3.22. Predicted Versus Measured Acoustic System Transfer Functions for 44* Aluniinum Block Normalized _

with Resect to the 45' Aluminum Block ........ .. ..... . . . . . 23

3.23. Predicted Versus Measured Acoustie System Transfer Functions nor 46' Aluminum Block Normalized
with Resect to the 45' Aluminum Block .. ... . ...... .... .. .. . ...... .. 23
3.24. Predicted Versus Measured Acoustic System Transfer Functions for 47* Aluminum Block Normalized
with Resect to the 45' Aluminum Block . . . ,,... ......... ..... . . . 24 . .

3.25. Predicted Versus Measured Acoustic System Transfer Functions for 48* Aluminum Block Normalized
with Resect to the 45' Aluminum Block . ..... ... ........ ........ ... .. . 24
3.26. Predicted Versus Measured Acoustic System Transfer Functions for 48' Aluminum Block Normalized
with Resect to the 45* Aluminum Block . . . . . . . .. ........ .. ...... . ... 25 .

4.1. Equipment and Acoustic System Interactions for four flypothetical Acoustic Systems . .. ... 29 .

4.2. Pulse-Echo Ultrasonic Test Configuration . . . . . .. ........ .. . .. 30 . .

4.3. Frequency Response for Vertical Defects of Various Lengths . ... .. .. . 30 . .

4.4. Frequency Response for 80* Defects ... ........ ..... ... .. . ... . 31 . .

4.5. Frequency Response for 1-mm Vertical Defects for Various Probe Positions . . . . . ... 31
4.6. Schematic of the Interference Model . . . .. ... ...... . . . . . . 33
5.1. Calculated Transfer Function for Seven Postula:cd WCDASs for 45' SV inspection . .. . .. . .. 37
5.2. Calet: lated Transfer Functions for Three Postulated WCDASs for 60* SV Lispection 38 .

5.3 Bandwidth Sensitisity Study Results for Seven Postulated WCDASs for 45' SV Inspection 38 .

5.4. Center Frequency Sensitivity Study Results fcr Worst-Case Defect E . 39

5.5. Bandwidth Sensitivity Study Results for Three Postulated WCDASs for 60* SV Inspection 41

NUREG/CR-5871 vi

__
- - _ _ _ - _

|
|

Contents

5.6. Slope of Bandwidth Sensitivity Curves for Three Postulated WCDASs for 6& SV Inspection . . . 41
5.7. Center Frequency Sensitivity Study Results for Worst-Case Defect N . . . . . . . . . .. ... . 42
5.8. Slope of Center Frequency Sensitivity Curves for Worst-Case Defect N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.9. Center Frequency Sensitivity Measurement Results for 50% Through-Wall Defects . . . . 44
5.10. Center Frequecey Sensitivity Measurement Results for Angle Blocks . . . . . . 44

Tables
_

3.1. Risley /11arwell Lab Defect Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . ... ... . 17 .

3.2. Comparison Between Predicted and Measured First Minimum in the Acoustic System Transfer Function 20 .

4.1. Equipment and Acoustic System Interactions for Four livpothetical Acoustic Systems . 28
5.1. Postulated WCDASs for Sensitivity Studies ..... .......... ....... . .. . . ... ... ... 39
5.2. Experiment Defect Specimens . . . . . . . ......... . . ... . . . . . . 44
. .

J
4

*
d
vii NUREG/CR-5871

____ _ _ _ _ _ __
 Executive Summary
The purpose of ultiasonic insenice inspection (UT/ISI)
of nuclear reactor piping and pressure vessels is the
- reliable detection and sizing of material defects. Before
defects can be sized they must first be detected. This is
typically done by analyzing ultrasonic echo waveforms
from material defects. Studies performed at PNL and
elsewhere have shown that changing the components of
an ultrasonic inspection sptem can greatly affect echo
cmplitude from a defect even when comentional
calibration procedures are used, thus reducing the
reliability of defect detection. To address this problem,
the American Society for Mechanical Engineers
(ASME) Section XI Code Appendix Vill has provided
tolerance levels for some equipment parameters (e.g.,
center frequency and bandwidth). The purpose of this
report is to evaluate the effects of frequency domain
equipment interactions for setting tolerances for
limiting UT ' equipment parameter variations. This
work will determine the acceptability of equipment
parameter tolerance requirements in the ASME Code.
The current ASME Code requirements are based on
er.gineering judgement (i.e., reasonable estimates).
This report describes the mathematical models
developed at PNL (Mart and Doctor 1987, Green and
Mart 1989) to prcvide an analytical basis for
recommending operating tolerances to the ASME code.
The results of sensitivity studies (Green 1989)
performed to determine the effects of equipment
parameter changes are presented,- and experimental
test results are shawn to support the unportant
modeling results,
The concept behind the modeling cffort is that the
amplitude changes between UT/ISI systems are due to
the frequency domain interaction of the UT/ISI system
spectrum and the material / defect frequency response.
The purpose of the models is to calculate equipment
spectra and defect / material frequency responses and
combine them in sensitivity studies to determine the
. effects of equipment parameter changes. Since this
approach prosides great flexibility in iavestigating
equipment changes, this analpas is more rigorous than
wou'.d be possible with experimental studies and can be
used to conduct a more focused experimental study to
validate the analytical results.
The studies present.:d here deal primarily with the
repeatability and thus the reliability of manual pulse-
echo inspection (45' and 60* shear wave) of thin
ix
. _ _ _ _ _ ,_
sections (i.e., piping with wall thicknesses less than
three inches /76 mm); however, many of the concepts
are applicable to other inspection configurations,
Summary and Conclusions
The model work was very effective in prosiding
trending data to guide the empirical verification work.
This methodology provided a more cost effective means
to reach definitive conclusions concerning equipment
operating tolerances. The detailed summary and
conclusions reached in this study are:
e Model predictions were compared with data from
multi-frequency crperiments, and the validity of the
model for predicting and calculating transfer
functions for specular reflection from worst-case
defect ms established.
* The modei is used to calculate postulated worst-
case transfe ' unctions for seven different
combinations of transducer sizes, pipe wall
thicknesses, and defect angles. The transfer
functions were identified as worst case, because they
displayed distinct minima at the equipment center
frequency, and this feature produces sensitivity to
changing frequency domah equipment parameters.
* An equipment bandwidth sensitivity study was
performed usieg mathematical models for thin
sections (piping) using postulated we st-case
transfer functions. He results indicate that the
ASAfE Code Section XI Appendix 1711 bandwidth
equipment tolerance of10% is suficient to ensure 2
dB signal amplitude trywatability.
* An equipment center frequency sensitivity study was
conducted using mathematical models for thin
sections employing several combinations of worst-
case defects and equipmmt bandwidth. ne modef
rewits indicate that none of the systems considered
would be repeatable to within 2 dB qfter a center
frequency change of 20% The results smest thcf a
centerftequency tolcrance of 10% is not suBicient
for inrpection systems with bandwidths less than
150% A tolerance of 5% appears appropriatefor
systems with bandwidths betwren 100% and 150%. A
tolerance of 3.5% ir indicatedfor systems with
bandwidths between 20% und 100% Systems with
NUREG/CR-5871
_ ._. . . _ , . _ . _ _ __ __ _ _ _

Executive Summary
handwidths less than 2% may be too sensitive to
centerfnquency changes to permit repeatable
inspection of worst case defwls.
e An experiment was performed to test the center
frequency sensitivity of worst-case defect
inspection. The experimentM results were in
general agreement with the modeling results, bus
the experimental reruks do not erhibit as much
sensitivity to equipment centerfrequency changes as
the modeling resuks. The experimental results
indicate that a centerfrequency tokrance of 1% is
requiredfor systems with bandwidths kss than 3%,
and a tolcrance of 11% is nquiredfor systems
NUREG/CR-587.1
w - -,
|
l
with bandwidths greater than 3%. A requirement of
12% is not ssgicient to guarantee impection
repeatability to within 2 dBfor typicalinspwtion
systems. More work needs to be done to determine
if the model is overly conservative in that it shows
greater sensitivity than is found empirically,
* Caleddcas revealed that much of the frequency
domain equipment parameter sensitivity was due to
phase cancellation along the receiring transducer
face. It is suggested that the recching transducer
for dual element search units and tandem
configuration seasch units be made as small as
possible to reduce sensitivity to equipment changes.
x
-y w. , , ---, y - g
 - .-
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by the US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission under Contract DE-AC06-76RIA 1830;
NRC FIN B2289; Dr. Joseph Muscara NRC program
mon: tor; Dr. Steve Dodst PNL program manager.
The ray tracing model was developed with assistance
from D . Bruce Thompson, and Dr. Tim Gray of Ames
Laboratory /lowa State University, and Dr. Bryron
Newberry of the University of Cincinnati (formerly of
Ames Laboratory /lowa State University).
As part of the PISC 111 program, Risley and liarwct!
UKAEA laboratories had developed independent
laboratory measurements and some of these data were
used for model validation.
There are many people to thank who contributed to
this work while at PNL Mr. F. Larry Becker was the
PNL program manager ten years ago, when the initial
experimental data demonstrating the lack of UT/ISI
xi
._ .. _ _ .~ _ - , , _ -
-
- -
repeatability with different UT instruments was taken.
This work demonstrated the need for the modeling
effort reported here. Gary Mart was the technical task
leader for the first two years of the modeling effort.
IIe daeloped the equipment models and wrote the first
vers'.at of the ray tracing model computer program as
wel as, making many of the model validation
me twiements. Dr. Morris Good periormed several of
the. rnodel validation experiments. John Deffenbaugh
made some of the equipment center frequency
sensitisity measurements. Bob Bowey made
measurements during the equipment modeling effort.
Tom Taylor prosided guidance on ASME Code
requirements and calibration requirements. Dr. V.
_ Schmitz's (while on a sabbatical from the Fraunhofer
Insthut fur Zerstorungsfreie Prufverfahren,
Saarbrucken, West Germany) modeling work here at
PNL provided a guide for the early ray tracing model.
Kay Hass assisted in typing this report.
NUREG/CR-5871
, _ _ , ,__.-. _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . . _ , _ _ _ _ _ _
 _ _ _ -. _
Previous Reports in Series
Doctor, S. R., M. S. Good, E. P . Green, P. G. Heasier,
F. A. Simonca, J. C. Spanner, T. T. Taylor, and T. V.
Vo.1991. Nondestmetive Eramination (NDE) Reli.
abilityfor Insenice inspection of Light IVater Reactors.
NUREG/CR-4469, PNL-5711, Vol.1L Pacific North-
west Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
Spanner, J. C., S. R. Doctor, T. T. Taylor /PNL and J.
Muscara/NRC.1990. Quali/ication Process for Ultra.
sonic Testing in Nuclear Insenice Inspection Applica.
tions. NUREG/CR-4882, PNb6179. Pacific Northwest
Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
Doctor, S. R., L D. Deffenbaugh, M. S. Good, E. R.
Green, P. G. licasler, F. A. Simonen, J. C. Spanner,
T. T. Taylor, and T. V. Vo. 1990. Nondestmcrive Er-
amination (NDE) Reliabilityfor Insenice Inspection of
Light IVater Reactors. NUREG/CR-4t&9, PNL-5711,
Vol.10. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland,
Washington.
Doctor, S. R., J. D. Deffenbaugh, M. S. Good, E. R.
Green, P. G. Heasier, F. A. Simonen, J. C. Spanner,
and T. T. Taylor. 1989. Nondestmcrive Eramination
(NDE) Reliability for Insenice knspection of Light IVater
Reactors. NUREG/CR-4469, PNL-5711, Vol. 9. Pacif-
ic Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
Doctor, S. R., J. D. Deffenbaugh, M. S. Good, E. R.
Green, P. G. lleasier, F. A. Simon:n, J. C. Spanner,
and T. T. Taylor 1989. Nondestmetive Eramination
(NDE) Reliabilityfor Insenice Inspection of Light IVater
Reactors. NUREG/CR-4469, PNL-5711, Vol. 8. Pacif.
ic Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
Doctor, S. R., J. D. Deffenbaugh, M. S. Good, E. R.
Green, P. G. Heasier, F. A. Simonen, J. C. Spanner,
and T. T. Taylor. 1988. Nondestm tive Eramination
(NDE) Reliabiaryfor Insenice Inspection of Light 1 Vater
Reactors. NUREG/CR-4469, PNie5711, Vol. 7. Pacif-
ic Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Wr.shington.
Doctor, S. R., J. D. Deffenbaugh, M. S. Good, E. R.
Green, P. G. Heasier, G. A. Mart, F. A. Simonen, J. C.
Spam.er, T. T. Taylor, and L G. Van Fleet. 1987.
Nondestmctive Examination (NDE) Reliability for Inser-
vice Inspection of Light 1 Vater Reactors. NUREG/CR-
4469, PN1-5711, Vol. 6. Pacific Northwest Laboratory,
Richland, Washington.
xiii
___
Doctor, S. R., D. J. Bates, J. D. Deffenbaugh, M. S.
Good, P. G. Heasier, G. A. Mart, F. A. Simonen, J. C.
Spanner, T. T. Taylor, and L G. Van Fleet.1987.
Nondestructive Eramination (NDE) Reliability for Inser.
vice Inspection of Light IYater Reactors. NUREG/CR-
4469, PNie5711, Vol. 5. Pacific Northwest Laboratory,
Richland, Washington.
Doctor, S. R., D. J. Bates, J. D. Deffenbaugh, M S.
Good, P. G.11casler, G. A. Mart, F. A. Simonen, J. C.
Spanner, A. S. Tabatabal, T. T. Taylor, and L G. Van
Fleet.1987. Nondestmetive Eramination (NDE) Reli-
abilityfor Insenice Inspection of Light IVater Reactors.
NUREG/CR-4469, PN1-5711, Vol. 4. Pacific North-
west Laboratory, Richland, Washingto i.
Collins,11. D. and R. P. Gribble. 1986. Siamese imag-
ing Technique for QuasiWertical Type (QVT) Defec;s in
Nuclear Reactor Piping. NUREG/CR-4472, PNL-5717.
Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
Doctor, S. R., D. J. Bates, R. L Lickford, L A.
Charlot, J. D. Deffenbaugh, M. S. Good, P. G. Heasier,
G. A. Mart, F. A. Simonen, J. C. Spanner, A. S.
Tabatabai, T. T. Taylor, and L G. Van Fleet. 1986.
Nondestmetive Eramination (NDE) Reliability for Inser-
vice Inspection of Light IVater R actors. NUREG/CR-
4469, PNL-5711, Vol. 3. Pacific Northwest Laboratory,
Richland, Washington.
Doctor, S. R., D. J. Bates, L A. Charlot, M. S. Good, -
H. R. Hartzog, P. G. Hensler, G. A. Mart, F. A.
Simonen, J. C. Spanner, A. S. Tabatabai, and T. T.
Taylor,1986. Evaluation and Improvement of NDE
Reliabilityfor Insenice Inspection of Light 1 Vater Re-
actors. NUREG/CR-4469, PNb5711, Vol. 2. Pacific
Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
Doctor, S. R., D. J. Bates, L A. Charlot,11. D. Collins,
M. S. Good, II. R. Hartzog, P. G. IIcasler, G. A. Mart,
F. A. Simonen, J. C. Spanner, and T. T. Taylor. 1986.
Integration of Nondestmetive Eramination (NDE) Reli-
ability and Fracture Mechanics, Semi-Annual Report,
April 1984 - September 1984. NUREG/CR-4469, PNL-
5711, Vol.1. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland,
Washington.
Good, M. S. and L G. Van Fleet. 1986. Status of
Activities for inspecting IVeld Overlaid Pipe Joints.
NUREG/CR-5871
 - _ _ _ _
Previous Reports
NUREG/CR-4484, PNL-5729. Pacific Northwest Labo-
ratory, Richland, Washington,
ficaster, P. G., D. J. Bates, T. T. Taylor, and S. R.
Doctor.1986. Perfonnunce Demonstration Tests for
Detection ofIntergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking.
NUREG/CR-4464, PNL-5705, Pacific Notthwest Labo-
ratory, Richland, Washington.
Simonen, F. A.1984. 7he Impact of Nondestructive
Examination Unreliability on Pressure Vessel Fracture
Predictions. NUREG/CR-3743, PNL-5062. Pacific
Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
Simonen, F. A. and 11. IL Woo.1984. Analyses of the
Impact ofinservice Inspection Using Piping Reliability
Afodel. NUREG/CR 3753, PNL-5070. Pacific North-
west Laboratory, Richiarid. Washington.
Taylor, T. T.1984. An Evaluation of Afanual Ultra-
sonic Insocction of Cast Stainless Steel Piping.
NUREG/CR-3753, PNL-5070. Pacific Northwest Labo-
ratory, Richland, Washington.
Bush, S. H. 1983. Reliability of Nondestructive Exami.
nation, Volumes I,11, and Ill. NUREG/CR-3110-1, -2,
und -3, PNL-4584. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Rich-
land, Washington.
Simonen, F. A. and C. W. Goodrich.1993. Parametric
Calesdations of Fatigue Crack Gromh in Piping.
NUREG/CR-3059, PNL-4537. Pacific Northwest Labo-
ratory, Richland, Washington.
NUREG/CR-5871
| .
-
Simonen, F. A., M. E. Mayfield, T. P. Forte, and D.
Jones.1983. Crack Growth Evaluation for Small
Cracks in Reactor-Coolant Piping. NUREG|CR 3176,
PNL-4(A2. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland,
Washington.
Taylor, T. T., S. L Crawford, S. R. Doctor, and G. J.
Posakony 1983. Detection of SmallSized Near-Surface
Under-Clad Cracks for Reactor Pressure Vessels.
NUREG/CR-2878, PNL-43/3. Pacific Northwest Labo-
ratory, Richland, Washington.
Busse, L J., F. L Bccier, R. E. Bowey, S. R. Doctor,
R. P. Gribble, and G. J. Posakony. 1982. Characteri:a-
tion Method for Ultrasonic Test Systems.
NUREG/CR 22fA, PNL-4215. Pacific Northwest Labo-
ratory, Richland, Washington.
Morris, C. J. and F. L Becker.1982. Statecf-Practice
Review of Ultrasonic In-service inspection of Class I
System Piping in Commercial Nuclear Power Plants.
NUREG/CR-2468, PNL-4026. Pacific Northwest Labo-
ratory, Richland, Washington.
Becker, F. L, S. R. Doctor, P. G.1Icaster, C. J. Morris,
S. G. Pitman, G. P. Selby, and F. A. Simonen. 1981.
Integration of NDE Reliability and Fracture hicchanics,
Phase I Report. NUREG/CR 1696-1, PNL-3469. Pacif-
ic Northwest Laboratw;, P.;chland, Washing'on.
Tuyhy, T. T. and G. P. Selby. 1981. Evaluation of
ASAIE Section XI Reference Level S-nsitivity for Initia-
tion of Ultrason!c Inspection Examination.
NUREG/CR-1957, PNL-3692. Pacific Northwest Labo-
ratory, Richhnd, Washington.
*
xiv
--
 _ . _ _.
1.0 Introductinn
This report summarizes work pctformed as part of the
interaction matrix subtask of the NRC program entitled
" Evaluation and improvement in the Nondestructive
Evaluation (NDE) Reliability for Insenice Inspection
(ISI) of Light Water Reactors.' The purpose of this
subtask is to evaluate the effer's of frequency domain
equipment interactions for setting tolerances for
limiting UT equipment parameter variations. This
work will determine the acceptability of equipment
requirements in AShiE Code Section XI Appendix
Vlli. The requirements in the Code Appendix are
based on engineering judgement (i.e., reasonable
estimates). Results of this study are to used to improve
the reliability of piping and pressure vesselinspections.
Portions of this work have been published elsewhere
(Doctes et al 19S6a, Doctor et at 1986b, Doctor et al.
1986c, Doctor et al.1987a, Doctor et al.1987b, Doctor
et at 1983, Doctor et al.1989, Green and Mart 1989,
Mart and Doctor 1987, Green 1989, Green 1990), but
this is the first comprehen,ive report on the work
performed on this subtask.
The purpose of ultrasonic in-service inspectica
(UT/ISI) of nuclear scactor piping and pressure vessels
is the reliable detection and sizing of material defects,
Before defects can be sized they must first be detected.
This is typically done by analyzing ultrasonic echo
waveforms with an amplitude greater than a certain
percentage of that of a calibration reflector (ASME
Section XI,- Appendix III) such as a 10% nc!ch, side-
'p drilled hole, or flat-bottomed hole.
Studies performed at PNL (Doctor et al 1986a,
Posakony 1986) and elsewhere (Borloo et al 1988, .
| MacDonald and Walker 1987, Gregor 1984) have shown
'
that changing the components of an ultrasonic
inspection system can greatly affect echo amplitude
from a defect even when comentional calibration
procedures (ASME Section XI, Appendix III) are used,
i_ thus reducing the reliability of defect detection. To
L - address this problem, ASME Code Sective XI
,
| Appendix Vill has prmided tolerance levels for some
equipment peameters (e.g., center frequency and
- bandwidth). Ilowever, these code requirements are
based on engineering judgement and lack a strong
analytical foundation.
This report describes the mathematical models
developed at PNL (Mart and Doctor 1987, Green and
Mart 1989) to provide an analytical basis for developing
-.
, -- - - - _ , - - - . . - . - . - - - -
_ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ . _ _ . .
improved recommendations for the AShlE code. The
results of sensitisity studies (Green 1989) performed to
determine the effects of equipment parameter changes
are presented, and experimental test results are shown
to support the important modeling results.
The concept behind the modeling effort is that
amplitude changes between UT/ISI systems are due to
the frequency domain interaction of the UT/ISI system
spectrum and the material / defect frequency response.
The purpose of the models is to calculate equipment
spectra and defect / material frequency responses and
combine them in sensitivity studies to determine the
effects of equipment parameter changes. Since this
approach provides great flexibility in investigating
equipment changes, this analysis is more rigorous than
would be possible with experimental studies and can be
used to conduct a more focused experimental study to
validate the model predictions.
The studies presented here deal primarily with the
repeatability and thus the reliability of manual pdse.
echo inspection (45* f,nd 60* shear wave) of thin
sections (piping with wall thicknesses less than three
inches /76 mm), however, many of the concepts are
applicable to other inspection configurations.
Section 2 describes the equipment models that were
developed, while Section 3 describes the defect model
ihat mod:Is the propagation of the clastic sound field
from the transducer through all the intervening layers
to the defect and back to the receising transducer.
Section 4 provides the fundamental concept for
determining worst-case changes that can mur in
ultrasonic signal amplitude that result fron interactions
between the defect and the equipment. The worst case
defects are defined in this r,cction for the various
equipment ud inspection conditions considered in this
study. Section 5 pro ides the details of the sensitivity
studies that were conducted for all parameters studied.
Section 6 delineates the summary and conclusions that
can be derived from this work, and Section 7 identifies
the future dir: etion of this work.
-
1 NUREG/CR-5871
- -

2.0 Equipment Models
A generic ultrasonic inspection system is shown in
Figure 2.1, and Fig 're 2.2 is the corresponding block
diagram. Several difficulties are encountered in
modeling this system. %e puls- ' output waveform
differs depending upon the impewce of the cable and
transducer. The transducer input , opedance, though
nominally rated as 50 ohms, can <ary with frequency
from a few ohms to thousands of ohms, and the
impedance plots for different transducers can also vary
greatly in shape depending on transducer construction
and the tuning circuit employed.
Modeling of the transducer and pulser (hfart and
Doctor 1987) was approached in two different ways.
The first approach was to model the pulser using a
commercially availaMe circuit analysis program and to
model the transducer using the KLM model (Silk 1984),
This approach was abandoned because the circuit
analysis program required discrete circuit components,
and the KLM model output wrs a plot of the
transducer input impedance as a function of frequency,
Also, 'he circuit analysis program was not able to
tecurately n'odel the key semiconductor components of
the pulser because they behaved nonlinearly. He
second approach was to accurately measure the
transciucer transfer function (ratio of the sound
pressure produced to the applied voltage as a function
- of frequency) and assume that the input impedance of
the transducer was large in relation to the pulser output
impedance. In effect, it was assumed that the -
transducer input impedance would not affect
~s ignificantly the output of the pulser. This assumption
was not good, but no satisfactory modeling alternative
existed. The modeling work for the pulser and
transducer was never satisfactorily completed,
The receiver is a relatively simple instrument consisting
of attenuators, amplifiers, and simple filters. A well
designed instrument would have an loput impedsnce of
50 ohm over the measurement frequency range;
however, a wide range of values was observed between
receivers and on the same receiver as front-panel
controls were adjusted (Doctor and Mart 1987). The
rer.civer was "modeled* in terms of measured input
imp-dance and gain as a function of frequency (i.e., the
receiver was replaced by its Thevenin equivalent).
Faced with the difficulties of modeling the individual
components, a simpler approach is used in the work
. reported here. The electrical equipment is modeled as
3 NUREG/CR-5871
-, -
- -
_ . - = - .. - _ .
a waveform that represents the response of the
inspection sptem for an acoustic system frequency
response of unity amplitude and zero phase. The
waveform represents the combined response of the
pulser, cables, piezoelectric transducers, receiver, and
video display. The Fast Fourier Transform (FIT) of
the waveform is taken to determine the equipment
spectrum. The equipment spectrum is multiplied by the
acoustic system frequency response as calculated by the
defect model(both are complex) to obtain a response
spectrum which is inverse FFT'ed to yield the
inspection system echo response (A-scan) for a given
defect.
The representative waveform approach allows the
difficulties of modeling to be avoided. The issue of the
interaction of the pulser and the transducer is avoided
by considering them as a single system which prosides
sound input to the acoustic portion of th Npection
system. In other words, the pulscr ad ' asducer
combined are a type ciblack box inat produces motion
at the transmitting transducer face. In much the same
way, the receiving transducer and the receiver are
combined as a black box that produces voltage
depending on the motion at the receiving transducer
face. To apply linear control theory concepts it is
necessary to assume that the receiving black box and
the acoustical system are linear systems. This is a
reasonable assumption for normal ultrasonic inspection
as long as the receiver is being operated properly. It is
not necessary to assume that the transmitting black box
is linearf as it only provides input to the other systems.
The acoustical system includes the effects of the -
transmitting and receiving transducer directisity
patterns, time-of-flight delays, beam spread, material
attenuation, and flaw scattering. The waveform (A-
scan) produced by the ultrasonic inspection system is:
4)"dO*M0'MO N
where p(t) is the transducer surface displacement
produced by the transmitting black box, hi (t) is impulse -
response (response to a hypothetical unit impulse) of
the acoustic system, h2 (t) is the impulse response of the
receiving black box, and * is the convolution operator.
In the frequency domain:
- - - . --- -- - . - -. - .
Equipment Models - -

PULSER RECEIVER =

{ VIDEO
-
rim. DISPLAY

Acoustical
'
,q Portion of
n'
,
System ,
,

__- L 4 -- J sq
I

V \/ Tine
n | 'ig * Tee

!
" I
u. - _.---- --~a

Figure 2.1. Generic Ultrasonic inspection Sptem

PULSER -> TRANSDUCER > WEDGE > SAMPLE -

-> WEDGE >

TRANSDUCER >|RECEIVER -> A- s c a n

Figure 22. Illock Diagram of Ultrasonle Inspection Systems

S(w) = P(w)R (w)n 2(w) (2) s(w) . p(w)n,(w)n,(w) (3)

where S, P, Hi, and H 2' are the frequency domain or

representations of s, p, hi ,' and h2 , respectively. The
angular frequency is w. 8I*) * Nd*)N (*} 2
II

' Now, the response can be rearranged as: where H3 is the product of P and H . Note that H3 is
2
the equipment spectra of the system. The A-scan
waveform can now be written as:

NUREG/CR-5871 4

. . . -. - .. , . ., . .- - . .- .-
 . ..
EQUIPMENT SYSTEM -*
Figure 2.3. Block Diagram of Condensed Ultrasonle Inspection Sptem
s(r) = h3.h2
es represented in the block diagram in Figure 23. The
term h 3is a waveform representative of the equipment
. system (ie., the waveform that would be obtained if the
acoustic system had unity gair at all frequencies).
The use of a representative waveform prmides
tremendous flexibility, because the analysis can use
either measured waveforms obtained using an ultrasonic
= r.ctect r with an approximately flat spectral reflectance
over the frequency range of interest or hypothetical
waveforms of any type. For the studies presented here,
a cosine-squared-windowed sine wave with the window
centered on a positive going peak was used. The center
frequency is the frequency of the sine wave, and the
bandwidth depends upon the length of the windowing
function. The cosine-squared-windowed sine wave
closely approximaies the waveforms of many inspection
systems both narrow and broadband. The spectrum of
the cosine-squared-windowed sine wave is a bell shaped
curve.
. - .- . . --
_ - _ -
Equipment Models
AC0USTICAL SYSTEM -+ A-Scan
To limit the scope of the work presented bere, the
(I) effect of varying equipment bandwidth and center
frequency using similarly shaped equipment waveforms
was investigated. This approach presupposes that the
waveforms from different uhrasonic inspection
instruments are similar. This is not the case, but
measuring the effect of varying all possible ultrasonic
test sptem variables (pulse rise time, pulse fall time,
pulse shape, cable construction, transducer impedance,
transducer construction, etc.) would require a program
of much larger scope. The representative wavefc.m
approach using equi;> ment model results could be used
for this expanded analysis. The waveforms from
different uhrasonic inspection instruments are believed
to be similar enough that the approach used here which
models changes in the amplitude of the equipment
spectrum will indicate primary effects while parameter
changes that affect the phase of the equipment
spectrum will produce only secondary effects. The
actual effects of changes in the phase of the equipment
spectrum is an area where further research could be
performed.
5 NUREG/CR-5871
. - . .- - - - - - ,_- . . _ . - - - --
 3,0 Defect Model
3.1.Modei Theory
A two-dimensional, ray tracing model to calculate the
tcoustic system transfer function (H3 of Section 2) of a
steel sample with a surface-connected crack is
described. The model un simulate either a pitch.
cctch/ tandem arrangement as shown in Figure 2.1 or a
pulse-echo arrangement. The crack simulation model
cdculated frequency responses are used in conjunction
with frequency spectra representative of the electronics
of a UT/ISI system (H 3of Section 2) to investigate
frequency damain equipment interactions. The model
j
-
considers only specular reflection from the crack.
Crack tip diffraction and diffuse scattering are not
considered.
The crack simulation modelis based on ray tracing
methods similar to those used by Scruby, et al (1986)
except that crack tip diffraction is not included. Other
methods besides ray tracing exist for the modeling of
wave propagation in solids including finite element
analysis, finite difference analysis, modal analysis (T.
matrix), and solution of the governing iniegral
equations (Langenberg and Schmitz 1986, Tempic 1985,
Bond 1982). The ray tracing method was chosen for
the model used here, because the calculation time is
relatively short which is required, since calculations are
completed for many frequencies.
The model program consists of approximately 40 pages
(including comment statements) of FORTRAN 77
code. To date, the program has only been run on a
DEC VAX 11/780 computer. A typical run time is 30
minutes with no other computer users; though, the run
time can vary from several minutes to several hours
'
depending on the application.
The flow chart for the model computer program is
shown in Figure 3.1. First, the analyst selects the path
lp*8 sin 20/ 8 sin 20 -1
6 ,(e) ,
2 0 p2 p _ 4ptsin
(2p2 sin
c s0 ( 2-2 sin 0)
6(0)=
(2 sin
2
0 p2 / - 4s n20 / sin2 -1/ sin2 0-p 2
- - --
of interest (e.g., a shear wave reflecting from the crack
as a siar wave, or a longitudinal wave reflecting from
the sample bottom as a longitudinal wave, etc.). This is
done so that only similar incident wave fronts are
integrated at the recching transducer face as explained
below.
The face of the sending transducer is divided into
elements that are small with respect to the wavelength.
The center of each element is a site from which the
rays originate. The original phase and amplitude of a
ray is calculated using the appropriate directivity
functions (Mille and Pursey 1953, Equations 93 and
94). The directivity functions are the shear and
longitudinai velocity fields in a semi-infinite solid caused
by an infinitely long strip of constant amplitude,
sinusoidally varying pressure acting normal to the free
mface. As the width of the strip is made much
smaller than the wavelengths of sound produced, the
directivity functions describe the behavior of a fluid
presme line source. The directivity functions for shear
and longitudinal waves in acrylic plastic (cty 2,73
mm/us and c7-1.43 mm/us) are shown in Figures 3.2
through 3.5. The corresponding equations for shear
and longitudinal waves are ghen below in Eqns. (6) and (
(7), respectively. Note that "^" indicates a complex
variable (i.e., one having amplitude and phase). The
directivity functions are valid in the far-field region of
the transducer element. As the size of the transducer
elements becomes small, their near field likewise
becomes small, and the model can predict bor.h near u
nd far field of the assemblage of transducer elements.
In the model, both the amplitude and phase of the
directivity expressions are used. Only the longitudinal
.N1 iller and Pursey directivity pattern is used typically,
since the production of transverse waves by a
longitudinal mode transducer is known to be
insignificant for the configurations considered.
2 0 h2 s n2 0-1/p2sin
2 0-p 2
2
7 NUREG/CR-5871
1
_ - _ _ - - _ ______ __ _
,. - - - -- - - .. _- .. .- - .-

Defect Model

DECLARE READ PROBLEM DEFIN1- CALCULATE LOOK-UP TABLES FOR

VARIABLES + T10N DATA FROM FILE + DIRECTIVITY, REFLECTION, -

REFRACTION COEFFICIENTS, ETC.

* SET -
CALCULATE GEOMETRY -
CALCULATE -

CONSTANTS DEPENDENT VARIABLES FREQ. ARRAY

START SENDING ELEMENT LOOP 4

START RAY LOOP *

SET BEGINNING AMPLITUDE AND PHASE FOR THE PAY

TRACE RAYS ACCORDING'.TO SNELL'S LAW UNTIL IT GOES

OUT OF BOUNDS OR HITS THE RECEIVING TRANSDUCER.
MAKE AMPLITUDE AND PHASE ADJUSTMENTS-FOR DISTANCE
TPAVELED, MATERIAL ATTENUATION, REFLECTION COEF,
REFRACTION COEF, CYLINDRICAL SPREADING, AND
RECEIVING ELEMENT DIRECTIVITY FUNCTION.

END RAY LOOP

APPLY SUPERPOSITION PRINCIPLE TO FIND

THE TOTAL PRESSURE ON THE RECEIVING TRANSDUCER
DUE TO RAYS FROM ALL THE SENDING ELEMENTS

END SENDING ELEMENT LOOP

'

NUMERICALLY INTEGPATE OVER THE RECElvlNG TRANSDUCER

FACE TO GET THE RESPONSE AT EACH FREQUENCY

STOP

Figure 3.1. Flow Chart for the Model Computer Program

NUREG/CR-5871 8

_ _ . _ . _ - - _.
 Defect Model

F,
zo-
Lm
Zd
-
i

D D
>- >-
& M
< <
$
m
b
m
& &
CL 6
w w
o o
5
se ?o
as
n. o ct o
2 0,0 90.0 2 0,0 90.0
# 4
ANGLE FROM SURFACE NORMAL [DEG] ANGLE FROM SURFACE NORMAL [DEG)

Figure 3.2. Amplitude of the Directhity function Figure 3.4. Amplitude of the Directhity Function for
for the Line Source Generation of - the Line Source Generation of
Transwerse Wases in Acrylic Plastic Lengitudinal Wases ir Ac7 11e Plastic

o o
N 1
s-
.

sw- s
w
bo bo
gs -

gs
-< <
I I
n. ct
9 o
o d
I N I
"8 i
0.0 90.0 0,0 - 90.0
ANGLE FROM SURFACE NORMAL [DEG] ANGLE FROM SURFACE NORMAL [DEG]

Figure 3.3.- Phase of the Directivity Function for Figure 3.5. Phase of the Directisity Function for the
the Line Source Generation of Line Source Generation of Longitudinal
Transverse Waves in Acrylic Plastic Waves in Acrylic Plastic

i
!

9 NUREG/CR 5871

LE
 _--_ - _ _ _ . _ _ _

Defect hlodel

wherc # is the angle measured from surface normal, a
= ct/C'I' C .t is the longitudinal wave speed, eg. is the
transverse wave speed, and j is the square root of 1.
if in future work it is necessary to reduce computation
time, the poulbility of auuming a perfectly cylindrical
source directivity function could be investigated. This
may work well, since all of the rays that eventu:Jly
intersect the receiving transducer leave the sending
transducer clernent at approximately the same angle,
and the Miller and Pursey longitudinal directhity
function varies slowly for angles near surface normal.
When a ray leaves the sending wedge or enters the
receiving wedge through the couplant, the amplitude
and phase of the trant aitted ray that follows the path
of interest are calculated using the transminion
coefficients of Kuhn and 1 utsch (1961, from Eqns 3c
and 3d) per Eqns (10), (11), (12), and (13).
Krautkramer and Krautkramer (1983, pp. 607 617) give
an alternate form of these equations that does not
include phat.c. The transminion coefficients are
m#. lied slightly to make them ratios of velocity
amplitude rather than velocity potential amplitude. The
radiu. of curvature is a',o changed in accordruce with
the change in the speed of a ray as it goes from one
-

After leasing th: sourc element, a ray is traced ur.tilit material to another per Eqn. (14). The auumption is
either goes out of bounds or intersects the recching made that the cylindrical wavcfront (2 D far field)
trrisducer face. The m2terial medium is auumed to remains cylindrical after refraction from one material to
bv isotropic and homogenous. Within a medium the next.
(acrylic wedge or steel sample), a ray travels in a
straight line and is attenuated based on the change in
the radius of curvature per Eqn. (8), where cylindrical p c'r (6 -1Xb#-1) 8
00)
spreading consistent with the 2 D model has been u , ~T or (3.g3)
usumed. Usually in a ray traring program, the
r
amplitude is calculated based on the spacing between
the rays rather than keeping track of the wavefront's ,

e
radius of curvature. The approach taken here requires c*r hb g
8
gg -

fewer rays, and, therefore, requires less computatmn r,e r t

c'r (A +1 A)
time, but requires that the wavefront be assumed to be
roughly circular. Attenuation by a factor of 1/r as for a
spherical wavefront (3 D far ficid) was found to
produce only slightly di''erent results la the calculated p ,
et c 'r 2b(bd -1) gy)
acoustic system transfc. lanction. T" ray's phase is n e 2
'

decreased according to the number of wavelengths

r cF a '(a +k A')
traveled. Within the wedge, a ray's amplitude is also
decreased exponentially with respect to distance
traveir ~ i account for material attenuation per Eqn. p ,
d, 46
(333
m. ,; (A.u3

* (U
A"'" = A## Rxzw "" (I4)
$
RNKw = R
C kEW
Om\
.

Ausa * Aow c'" (D 2

+ 2b, A' = |(b.2 3)' /h'| + 2b'
where A =l(b ,3)2/2a]2 l
k = p'r'//,pe r
where A is the ray amplitude, R i- the radius of b=[(c /cf)-h]h,a
2 ;'c)-Il
'[(c-/c'T 7,c i "C2) g5,r),a'-[(c
Ci l5I"(a at /c'i, ) 1]I,
curvature of the wavefront, a is the material ittenuation is the angle measured from surf ace normal for the
in nepers/mm, and d is (bc distance trascled between incident longitudinal wave, * indicates properties for
the old and new positions in millimeters. the second medium, and the TL subscript indicates
transminion of a traverse wave to a longitudinal

NUREG/CR-5871 10

_ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
 . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. . , ,
,
y
f

i
i
~

Defect Model

wave, etc. Also, ll. gw, Ilmp cos gp cNtiw are the |
new and old radii of curvature and wavefront speeds, Air -1 + Of

When a ray reflects from a tamdary, the amplitude h' " r a a, [

end phase of the reflected ray that follows the path of i

interest are calculated using the r-ficction coef 0clents where o rand ag, are the angles rucasured from surface !

. per Krautkramer and Krautkramer (1983, pR)5) and normal for the trannerse and longitudinal wases,
d
-alsa Graff (1975, pp. 317 322) as in Eqns. (15), (16), respectively,p=cg/epna f Sin (c rt
/C .)is the critical .i
(17), and (1$ ). IJke the transminion coefficients, the angle .and the TL suttscript i.idicates tellection of a ,

reflection coefficients are modified slightly to make trannerse wave to a longitudinal wave, etc. i

them ratios of velocity amplitude rather than velocity

potential amplitude. It is assumed that the boundary The final amplitude and phase of a ray that intersects
(bottom surface, defect, etc.) is a free boundary (i.e., no the acceiving transducer face h calculated based on the
- si,,4ses). The radius of curvaturc is changed if a mode incident values and the appropriate bliller and Pursey i
: converdon occurs (i.e., the ray speed chanp) per Eqn. directivity functions (Eqns. 6 an 8 7). It is assumed by ;
(14). It is assumed that the cylindrical wattfront reciprouty that the hiiller and Pursey directivity !
I
remains cylindrical after reflection from a planar functions are valid for receiving elements, ns they are
surface both with and without mode comersion. for sending cicenentr The amplitude, phase, and ;
intersection position of each ray intersecting the
receiving transducer is recorded. To obtain the !
8 sin 2at sin 2ar -coss2a r pressure incident on the receiving transducer face due ?
g" , _p gggj
p -8sin 2a sin 2a r*cos 22a I to a single sending transducer element, the recorded
t
intersection information for the element is examined. 7

in order to determine the incident pressure at regular -!

spacings along the receiving transducer face, values are

o 2a eos2a
-2p sin t r ggg determined by linear interpolation of the irregularly
p'# , ,psin2at sin r2a +er s2a yrsed rec rded data, liere it is required that the
angular spacing between the rays be close enough to
'

allow accurate linear interpolation. Because all of the

recorded data are from the same path of interest (the i
p dsin 4a r giath of interest _is selected by the analyst at the
p" , beinning of the_ modeling calculation), a smooth curve
p-8s 'ita sin
t 2a,+cos22a r (373 ,

is farmed when plotted against position, and linear - i

pr or < a, interpolation is possible.
'
To determine the incident pressure at a point on the
receiving transducer face due to the entire sending
_ $n - O transducer, the interpolated pressures at the point for
each sending 1 ansducer element are a ided vectorially,
hf "r aa ce The receiving transducer has only a single output _ .

voltage port, and the output voltage at this port is taken

to be proportional to the integrated pressure over the
'

Arr * A u
. transducer face. Thus, the receiving transducer face is
(ID assumed to be locally reactive (Chapman 1984). The :
8' " r * "we integration is_ performed numerically usir:g the
trapemidal rule, and both the amplitude and phase of
the pressure are usedJ l

By rep ating the above sins!c frequency calculations for !

a range of frerguencies, the frequency response of the 4

|_ ,

; path of inte* cst is calculated. The frequency response

!
h
l.
'. 11' NUREG/CR-5571
i*

,....4,.,_%, m r.- - _ - . . . , _ . . -_,_a,.-.. . ._m

-
 . . - - _ - - - . . - -
Defect htodel
of the entire acoustical system is calculated by adding
vectorially the frequency responses of the significant
paths of interest.
3.2 Model Assumptions and
LIntitatlonS
Several auumptions are made in the sample modch
1. Diffraction effects are ignored (i.e., only specu'a'
reflection frorn the defect is considered). The
specular reflection assumption is valid for specula'
reflection from defects larger than approtimately
three wavelengths. The specular reflection
assumption is especially good for specular
leflection from smooth defects that are lar;w than
the ultrasonic beam width. The stv cular tellection
assumption is an important limitation, because
diffraction scattering can be important in the
detection and sizing of small defects, rough defects
such as intergramilar stress corrosion cracks, and
large smooth cracks at nonspecular angles. In
defense of the mode',it predicts the behavior of
large cracks which are generally a greater
structural integrity concern than small cracks.
False cal of small cracks tend to be more a
financial concern rather than a structural integrit)
concern. A more extendve discuulon of the
- weaknesses of the clastodynamie Kirchhoff theory
(which is emilar to the theory used in this model
except that it weakly estimates diffraction effects)
is given by Chapman (1984),
2. ' The model is two-dimensional . To reduce
cort putation time, J * propagation of sound
throq;h three-dimensional media is modeled in
. two c mensions. Errors associated wnh this
assue ption do not seem to be great for defects
longer than the beam width as evidenced by the -
resulti presented in the model validation section.
floweser, the model does not account for defect
'
skew (only defect tilt), and this is a limitation;
towever, weld cra'cks are typically either
circumferentially or longitudinally oriemed._
Furthermore, since the 'nodel is trying to
.; determine worst-case defects, the changes resulting
from skew should not produce equipment
interaction results worse than those resulting from
tilt.
,
L ' NUREG/CR-5871
y
- ,_ _ . . _ , __ _ . _ _. ~
-
3. The dciect is anumed to be flat, smooth, traction
Irce, and the two sides of the defect are auumed
not to be in contact. A discussion of auumptions
relating to the defect is given by Chapman (1984).
+ The aro$ tic system is anun:ed linear and imariani
so that the principle of superposition and tiansfer
function theory (Goodman 1968) can be applied.
This is a reastmable first anumption for UT/ISI.
i
5. The receiving transducer h, auumed to be locally
reactive. The effect of this assumption is not
believed to be large for typical l>T transduce +
This assumption would tend to overestime - |
degree of constructive and destructive inte ame
pouible at the transducer face, thus, makit ' 4
acoustic system transfer fanction slopes veaer than
those pouible in real systems. The result is an
exaggeration of the effects of equipment parameter
chango making the model conservative in this
,e3p m |
|
(,. At this stage of development, the model can only
consider reflection from planar boundaries. This :
prnents the modeling of reactor noules. Future
work will include modifying the model to include
curved boundaries.
-
7. It is anumed that the cylindrical wavefront remains
cylindrical after refraction from one material to the
nat and after reflection with mode conscrsion.
Ocomenical constructions show that this
auumption is reasonable except when the angle
r.bm surface normal is highly oblique. This limits e
"
3.3 Model Valldntion
As a Gra step in validating the ray tracing model, single
frequency scand Geld measurements were made along
the bottom centerline of an acrylic wedge as shown in
l'igure 3.6 and compared against model predictions. A
tone burst was used as input ta the transducer. A 1.0
inch (25-mm) diameter transmitting transducer was
used for the 500 Lilz and 1 Milz experiments, and a ,
1/& inch (6 mm) diameter transmitting transducer was
used at 2 Mllz and 5 hilli. The pressure field along
,
the wedge bottom was measured using a PNI.
12
_ _ _ . . , . . . _ _ _ . _ _ , _ , _ , _ -
 _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ .

Defect hfodel

Y
n
-.

Battello L-Wave
/Mictoptobe

52 * j'
/
/ Wedge

N Transducer

l'igure 3.6. Configuration for hirusuring the Single l'requency Ultrasonic Sound I'leid
nlong the Centerline of an Acr)lle Wedge

constructed longitudinal wave microprobe consisting of significant, since it showed that under certain conditions
c 0.010 inch (0.25-mm) diameter pieroclectric elemen . a two-dimernional model can be used to model rnore
complex three dimensional inspection configurations
The results at 500 kilt,1 hillr,2 h111x, and 5 htilz are such as this measurement in which a circular transducer
shown in ligures 3.7 through 3.10, respectively, These wat used.
results were normalized to a neak value of 1.0,
Agreement between the eyeilmental and calculated in the next set of single-frequency, salidation
sound fields is good at all frequencies. The results are experiments, the centerline beam patterns of 45' longi-
good considering the fact that the circular f aced tudinal and 45* SV transmission through a 133 mm-
! transducers are modeled la tws dimensions as long thick steel block were mer.$ured at I hllir,. An
strips. immersion setup was used with a non focused probe for
excitation and PNL L wave and S wave microprobes
in the second test of the model's validity, model (Good and Green 1989) for L-wave and S wave recep-
predictions were compared with results from a number tion, resp:ethcly. The comparisons between model
of single frequency experiments, The first experiment predictions and experimental measurements for the two
was a 90* corner reflection measurement at 5 hillt cases are shown in Figures 3.12 and 311 The com-
Figure 3.11 shows the variation in signal amplitude of a parison for 45' L-wave transmission was excellent fer
' 45' SV, pulse-echo probe as a function of distance from both the main lobe (centered at 110 mm) and the
a 90* corner in a 20.8-mm thicit steel block. The corner secondary lobe (centered at 16 im). The comparison
reflection signal was made up of ultrasound from two for 49 SV wave transmission was good but not
different paths within the block - the transducer /end/ excellent, it was believed that differences between
- bottom / transducer and transducer / bottom /end/ model and experiment results were due to
transducer paths. Agreement between the model measurement errors related to the directhity pattern of
prediction and experimental measurement was the S-wave microprobe.
excellent. The excellent agreement was especially

13 NUREG/CR 5871
 - - - . - . _ - _ - . _ _ -- -

D:fect Model

Beam Profile
1.0
4 -- - Experimental Measurements
- Theoretical Predictions
|\
D
Os -
|
'l
06 ~
'
l /
< j
I /
I
J 04 - \
& I ) i

|N \
02 -
/
, ) (Ns
. t -

00 . t I i i -

50 26 0 25 60 75

Position Along Wedge Centerline. mm

l'igure 3.7. I'redicted Versta Measured Sound l'ield along the Wedge Centtrline at 500 kil

Beam Profile
10'
-- -. Experimental Measurements
k Theoretical Predictions
|

08 -
| {}j
<
\
. I
'1 1
3 sl \
g 06 -
I
g
F l
e g
%
I 04 -

$
l \

0.2 -

0.0 % i l i i
50 -25 o 25 50 75
Position Along Wedge Centerhne. mm
i

figure 3.8. I'redicted Versus Meinurrd Sound fitid along the Wedge Centerline at I hiltz

NUREG/CR-5871 14

- _ _ _ _ . . . _.
 - _ - - _ _ _ _ .

Defcol hiodel

Beam Profile
10
- - L apetarnental Measutements
Theof et6 cal Predictions

08 -
'
L

\
$ |\
5 06 - \

g i )
<
*
i |
! \
3 04 -

\
l[
E y
\
l \
0.2 --
/ %s \
./ # \

00 l A
50 25 0 2b '90
75
Position t,long Wedge Centerlme mm

figure 3.9. Predleted Versus Measured Sound l'itid along the Wedge Centerline at 2 Mlle

Beam Profile
10 .

- -- Expenmental Measurements
|
| - Theoretical Predictions ,

08 |
[
e j
$ 06 -

$ b
<
! l
3 04 -
|
#
| \

02 -

A I
| } \

sj V \
00 - i 1
\ l
50 25 0 25 50 75
Pot.ition Along Wedge Centerline, mm

Figure 3.10. Predicted Versus Measured S%nd Iitid along the Wedge Centerline at 5 Milt

15 NUREG/CR 5871

- _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _____-_ - _____- __ -_ - ____-____--__-__-_-_-_- __-_-_ - - _--___ __ - ___ - _ _ .- .

. - - .
 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Defect Model

12

3g ,_
Modet
t wenment
$
5 08 -

I
4
e >

! O6 -

u
O4 -
\
\
02 -
\
/ \
I
0
O 10 20 30
Distance from Corner, mm

l't;;ure 3.11. I'rrdicted Versus Mrasurtd l'ulse 1:tho ite3punse of a 90' Corner
in a 20.H mm Thi(k Stiel lito(L at 5 %111

1.0 -

Model U
~~ "" "
08 -

;
e 4
J
y os -
/
4 /
i
% 04 -
/
i
*
f ,

-
[ s
02 - \ tyli
/ $
\/
I I I
0
O 50 100 150 200
Distance Along Block. mm

l'igure 3.12. l'reditted Versus Measured through Transmission Sound l'ield for 45' Longitudinal
Wase Transmission through a 133-mm Thick Steel lilock at 1 Mllz

NUREG/CR 5871 16

-__--__----_- _ _ . --
 _ _. . - . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ - - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _
_
__ . _..

Defect Model

1.0
i
I
Model
?8 - - - E aperiment g

' '
! | s !
.= ;
f 06 - /
< | \
? f \
3 | \
cI O 4 -
f g
I \
l n
02 - I \y
I y s

/
O */ I I I
"

O $0 100 160 200

Distance Along Block Centerline, mm

l'igurr 3.13. Predicted Wrsus Measured through Transmiulon Sound l'Irld for 45* Transserne
Wase Transinluton through a 133 mm Thltk Steel filotk at I hilla

Ihperimental data from an independent source was Comparisons for the strip defects were very favorable
used for the final set of single frequency comparisons. with only small offsets caused by small diflerences in
PNL obtained tandem probe inspecilon data taken at probe angle. The model scrsus experiment comparison
Risley and liarwell UKAIM laboratories (Murgatroyd was not acceptable for the 25-mr.i flat-Imttom hole.
ct al.1987) for the PISC Ill program. Comparisons The 2 D PNL model performs well for specular
were made for specular reflection from the three defect refiedion from strip defects, but it is not valid for
types shown below in Table 3.1. defects whote length is snialler than the beam width.

To summarize,it was shown that at a single frequency

Table 3.1. Risley /llanstil Lab Defect Typro - the model is valid for specular reflection from ,

essentially two-dimensional defects such as strip defects

Defect 'f%s lih Finidi Fieure and 9m comers. The model did not prove to be valid
for small circular defects.
25 mm diameter re-entrant
machined flat-bottom hole 0* Smooth 3.14 - Multificquency pube-echo measurements (more
commonly known as ultrasonic spectroscopy
10 x 50-mm strip 0*- Smooth 115 measurements) were made on a set of aluminum blocks
with the ends cut at various angles between 40* and 49*
25 x 125-mm strip 0* Smooth 3.16 us shown in Figure 3.I'7.- A very broadband uhrasonic
system was used in corijunction with the computer-
based ultrasonic spectroscopy system described in
Doctor, et al. (1988) to determine transfer functions for
the blocks. The block measurements represent specular
ref cetions from large (100'"v through-wall), smooth

17 NUREGICR 5871

>
 . - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ __. ._ _-__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

!
.

Defect Model

is

to -

t
'
14 -

-
12

to -

8 -

9
--
6

g 4 -
p
r

} e

0 -

-
2

1 1 ri i ! t i I
~
^o yo 4g ~ go 30 1(X) 120 140
(mmi

Tandem Probe Position (mm)

Figure 3.14. Predicted (circles) Versus Measured Tandem Probe Scan itesults for a 25-mm
Flat flottor.ned llole in a 193-mm Thick Stet! Illock at 2.25 Mllz

14

12 -

io -

p 3

k j
)
gs -
<

-a -

'
'j.
. ll
_-

2 +

I I t i l t f
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
(mm)

Tandem Probe Position (mm)

- Figure 3.13. Predicted (Circles) Versus Measured Tandem Probe Scan Results for a 10-mm
Strip Derett in a 193-mm ' thick Steel filock at 2.25 Milz

NUREG/CR 5871 - 18

I-
 _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _
..

Defect Model

20 .
JX "Y
g .. .
u
10 -

$o -

,a
cf -
o-
8 .1o _

.h ..

h -20
-

30 -

TL

.o
_

, , i i , , , i -
- i
,

120
~

50 60 70 *C 90 100 110
40
A tmm)

Tandem Probe Pr4ttion (mm)

Figure 3.16. Predicted (Circles) Versus Measured Tandem l'rotic Scan llennits for a 25-mm
Strip Defect in a 193-mm nick Steel lilock at 2.25 Milt.

12 mm Dicmeter
6mm %
\. 32'
I
A Broad Dand
# Transducer
[ Wedge Made
f rom Rhexotite
. .

N Y "
_ Geometrt
Exit Point
4- 4->
14 mm 11 mm

Aluminum
Diock 51 mm

40* 49'
R9007145 i

Figure 3.17. Configuration Used to Make Ultrasonic Spectroscopy Measurements

19 NUREG/CR-5371

i su i t r-i i i o i .. .. . .....___.._....-..._...-----i.
 - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

Defect Model

defects at variaus angles. Corresponding model Table 3.2. Comparison lictueen l'redicted and
cdculations were made for comparison. A 12-mm (U.5- Measured First Minimum in the
inch) transducer oriented to produce 45' vertically Acoustic S,utem Transfer Function
polarized shear waves was used, and these results
cinnot be generalized to transducers of other sizes and Angle Measured Predicted
oriented at different angles. It is shown later in this negrees _Mijz_ Mllr
report that transducer size affects the acoustic system
trtnsfer function very significantly. 49 3.5 2.75
48 4.0 3.5
Model wrsus experimental results are shown in Figures 47 4.5 5.0
3.18 thiough 3.26. The range of validity for the 46 None None
experimental measurements was 700 klfz to 6 Milt. In 44 None None
each care, the results were normalized with respect to 43 5.75 5.5
the spectrum of the 45* block reflection. In general, ll,e 42 3.5 4.0
comparisons between experimental data and model 41 2.5 3.0
predictions were good, but there were some differences.
To summarize, comparisons between measured data
Figure 3.26 shows the normalized transfer functions for and model predictions confirmed the model's ability to
the 49' block. Uclow 3 Mllz, the measured transfer predict worst case defects Differences between
function is significantly greater in amplitude than the measured d;,ta and model results were not large
predicted result. This trend was also evident for the compared to changes associated with slight a. gle
48*,47*,42*, and 41* blocks; and it grew worse with deviations and repeatability errors.
greater deviation from 45*. This apparent amplification
at low frequsneles is currently unexplained, but the
quality of the low frequency measurements is suspect.

The roodel did well in pred:cting the location of the

first minimum in the acoustic system transfer functior
Comparisons are made in T:.ble 3.2. The ability to
predict the minimum is of primary importarce, since
this feature distinguishes some defects as worst case.
The response of a defect havice a minimym at the
impection system's center freque.ncy will be sensitive to
bandwidth and center frequency changes and is. th.u5.
considered a worst-case defed, The subject of worst-
case defects with respect to equipment parameter
changes is discussed in more detail later in this report.
For the 12-mm (0.5-inch) transducer, the 41' ned 40'
blocks were predicted by the model to be worst case
defects for a typied 2.25 Mllz inspection system, and
the measurements confirmed this prediction. The
model was completely successful in its ability to predict
worst-case defects.

Oae last effect to notice is how much the transfer

functions changed for a change of block angle of it
Part of this effect was due to measurement error, but
much of it was real. This suggests that slight defect
shape irregularities may have a significant impact on
detection reliability.

NUREG/CR 5871 20

_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
 _-. - - _ . - - .

! Defect Model
i

1.0 ,
r 1

. S 40" - - - ered,cied

j Measured
-

\
4 -
\
3
-3
.
\ \
" 0.5 -

I3 -
\
\
M \ j
3 . \ '

3 \ '- N
-
-

O
,/ ~ ~ s,._ s :
l
0 2 4 6 8 10 )
Frequency, MHz

l'igure 3.18. Predicted Versus Measured Acoustit System Transfer Functions for
40* Aluminum Illock Normallred with Resect to the 45' Aluminum filock

1.0 m

~~~ Predicted
,.
\ '"
Measured

(e- ..
g H

3
* \
0 -

15
3
.

*
\
\
s <

)- -
#N
Z
;5
-
/ /- g p%

0 I I I i
0 2 4 6 8 10
Frequency, MHz

l'igure 3.19. Predleted Versus Measured Acoustle System Transfer l' unctions for
41' Aluminum Hlock Normallred with Resect to the 45' Aluminum Illock

21 NUREG/CR 5871
!'

|
 . - . . - - - -. . - . - - . . . . . - . . - . - -..---.- . . - . .

- Defect Model

1.0 1

N ~~ ~ Predicted
.
-
\ Measured
\
f -

N .

.
s .

0.5 -
!

\'
'
!
] -
\
%,
i ;
!
l! . -

I5 b \ - %
z. - N
s
~

0 2 4 6 8 10
Frequoney, MHz
T

Figure 3.20. Predicted Versus Measured Acoustic Sptam Transfer Functions for
42' Aluminum filock Nortnallred witti Resett to the 45' Aluminum filock

l 'N I

-
V --- Predicted
Measured
g : N-
4

~ N
1. 0.5 -
\ .

.
\

3
-

\
.
x -- /
- .
Q %
0 I i |
0 2: 4 6 8 10
-

: Frequency, MHz

Figure 3,21. . Predicted Versus Measured Acoustic System Trarisfer Functions for
. 43' Aluminum Illock Normalized with Resect to the 45' Aluminum Illock

i.
,

r
|

NUREO/CR-5371 22

. . .- . - . - .- -
 Defect Model

1.0 r *
'N
'
~~~ Predicted
.h
g -
Measured
$ -
%

i
-

44 N
=
^ 0.5 - \
\
{ .

\
3
.u
-

N
3 N
g.
-
N
Z -

I I I '
0
O 2 4 0 8 10
Frequency, MHz

Figure 3.22. I'redicted Versus Measured Acoustic Spleu Transfer l' unctions for
44' Aluminum llimk Normalized with llesett ta the 45' Aluminuni lilock

1.0

.
-
46 '' ___. r,eoicted
$ -
Measured
$4 f
d .

3 ''
$ 0.5
.h' .
*% %
N
3 %
e
~

-
%s
N
.

'
Z .. N %,
O I I I i
0 2 4 6 8 10
Frequency, MHz

l'igure 3.23. I'redicted Versus Measured Acoustic Spiem Transfer Functions for
46' Aluminum Illock Normallied with ilesect to the 45" Aluminum filock

23 NUREG/CR 5871
 _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _

Dciect Model

1.0 7- --- -
3 ,
~ ~ ~ Predicted
-
-- Measured
\
d
~

. \
1
-

\
-
\
l"0.5 -
N
< 1 . \
*
~
\\ _ / ,. - ~~~
\
= _ N-
O l< ' ' '
O 2 4 6 8 10
Frequency, MHz

Figure 3.24. I'redicted Versus Measured Acoustic Splem Transfer functions for
47' Aluminum Illock Nortnalized with Resect to the 45' Aluminum I!!ock

1.0

3
-

-
N
\
48 --- r,*ied
5 g Measured
Id ~

-
\
\
i
-
\
l"0.5 _ \
i \
i \ - s
s
z - N# N
%.
O I I I I
O 2 4 6 8 10
Frequency, MHz

Figure 3.25. I' edicted Versus Measured Acoustic Sptem Transfer functions for
i-
48' Aluminum 111ock Normallred with Resect to the 45' Alutninum lilock

NUREG/CR-5871 24
|

_ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ __- .
.. .-
 .- _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Defect Model

1.0 w ,

s
,
-

s 49 --- erwied
5
-
Measuree
\
1
-
\
< -
\
3
-
\
l"o.s - i \
2 '' \
.u -

8
-
g =" / , , , ~ ,

z .

O I _I I

O 2 4- 3 8 10

Frt.quency, MHz

l'igure 3.26. I'redicted Versus Measured Acoustic System Transfer Functions for
48' Aluminum lilock Normaltred witti Resect to Ilie 45' Aluminum lilock

2S NUREG/CR 5871

-- - _ -_- - - --- _ - _ _ - _
 _ _ _ _ _ -.
J.0 Worst-Case Defects with itespect to inpiipment Parameter Sensitivity
Coffey and Chapman (1983) and Coffey et al. (1W2)
considered what special properties a defect would have
to have in order le er N detection by ultrasonic
inspection. In this report, a slightly different question
pertaining to ultrasoni, inspection reliability is
considered, namely, what defect properties affect the
repeatability of an ultrasonic in(pection?
The acoustic sptems associated with certain material
defects can have frequency domain characteristic:. that
cause the ccho aruplitudes to differ signiikantly for
ultrasonic inspection equipment of different bandwidths
and center frequencies even when conventional
calibration procedures are used. These differences
reduce the reliability of defect detection and sometimes
. defect sidng (depending on the sinna method used).
The effects of defect orientation, shape, siic, roughness,
and location on the acoustic sptem transfer funct i on
are discussed from the perspective of how they impact
inspection reliability. Acoustic sptems with
characteristics that strongly reduce inspection
repeatab?hy [hereafter referred to as worst-case defect
acoustic systems (WCDASs)) are identified, and
strategies for idemifying WCDASs and reducing their
impac' on uhrasonic inservice inspections are presented.
Later in ti.is report, WCDASs ase used for the
equipment parameter sensitivity studies to ensme that
conservative tolerances are developed.
The prob!cm of identifying WCDASs is a formidable
- one. The approach of modeling all possible acoustic
systems and performing sensitivity studies to identify
WCDASs is impractical as !s the approach of collecting
samples of 911 possible defects and performing
,
experimental stud:cs. Thus, two alternate approaches
I were taken._ The ray tracit.g model was used to model
acoustic sptems within its scope (large, smooth,
specular reflection). Also, the available literature was
searched for data on acoustic spit ms that were too
complicated for the model. This was done by looking
at the expected frequency-domain interaction of the
,
!
equipment and the acoustic sptem. Many papers have
been written dealing with the ultrasonic trequency
domain response of materials and defects. This fieht is
known as ultrasonic spectroscopy; a fairly
comprehensivc. review of this subject can be found in
Fitting and Adler (19S1). These papers deal primanly
with the use of ultrasonic spectroscopy as a tool for
defect and material chara terization; howeve , the
plotted spectra are also approdmations of transfer
__ __ . _ _ _ _ _ -_. ___ .
|
l
functions of the acoustic spiems. Spectra taken from
the available literature are used to estimate how those
acoustic spitms might ir.teract with ulltbonic
inspection (quipment, ,
|
The effects of the variation of phase with frcrguency are
'
ignored in this simple analysis. This decision was maue
for two reasons: 1) to siinplify the analysis and 2)
because almost no data cidst in J e !iterature on phase
sersus frequency for material defects. Admittedly,
phase interaction between the equipment sptem and
the acoustic system may prove to be significant
(especially for rough defects), but phase intera tion is
not addressed in this repmt.
4.1 Fregiiency-Domtiin Interaction of
Ultrasonic InsEection UIulIment
I
and ilie Acoustic System
To determine what features make an acoustic sptem a
WCDAS, the interactions of the ultrasonic inspection
equipment and the defect specimen are examined here
in detail using simp!e, hypothetical transfer functions.
The interactions of typical ultrasonie equir ment-system
spectra with several hypothetical acoustic sptem
transfer functions are illustrated in rigure 4.1. The
following four cases are considered:
'
* Ca e A - a periect notch filter
* Case B a low pass Glter
* Case C a rapidly oscillating sinusoid (| sin (x)|)
e Case D - a sinc function (| sin (x)/x|)
The calctJated peak time-domain amplitude response
from each of the combinations is summariicd in Table
4.1.
As shown in Figure 4.1, the hypothetical perfec notch
transfer function (Case A) interacts very differently with
cach of the three equipment sprems in this example,
producing responses with peak amplitudes ranging from
i to -34.8 dB (see Table 4.1). From an equipment
interattmn point of view, Case A is a WCDAS. This
type of transfer is highly sensitive to center frequency
and bandwidth changes for equipment systems with
signi6 cant spectral content within th_e rejection band.
Fortunatelv, acoustic sptem transfer functions like Case
A do .at esist in realistic inspection environments;
27 NUREG/CR-5871
 . - - -_ . - _ _ _ _ - ____ ._. . _ - - - - . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - . _ . _

Worst Case Defects

Table 4.1.1:quipment und Acoustic Sptem inttrmth,ns for Four

lijputhrikal Awustic Splems
--

Ilroadband Narrow Iland Natrow Iland

Transfer Function Low Farquenc/ dll Low Frequency, dH liigh Frequency, dll
A - perfect notch filter -4 0 -
"8 0.0

11 low pass filter 2.2 -2.2 5.2

C - | sin (x)] 3,9 -3.9 -4.0

,

.D - | sin (x)/x| -10.M 23.7 40.1

however, acoustic system transfer functiom similar to type of tranir function is a WCDAS. Later in this
those for Cases B, C, and D do exist, as will be seen report, an acoustic sv:. tem wi'h a transfer function of
later in this report. thh form will be identiGed.

The low-pass filter transfer function (Cnc B) is

sensitive to center-frequency changes (the amplitude 1.2 Freqtiency-Do:iialn
dropped from 2.2 to 5.2 dB in the cumple given in
Table 4.1) The degree of center frequency senety Characteristics of VHrl0HS Defect
depends on the slope of the transfer function. There is ,I,1905
very littic sensitivity to equipment bandwidth changes.
In general, acoustic systems with smooth, continuous, 4.2.1 Defect Size and Angle and Probe
and gently sloped transfer functions such as this are not P0dtion
WCDASs from an equipment interaction point of view, ,

flowever, they would be WCDASs, when the slope of The changes in the acoustic system transfer functions
the transfer function is steep, due to defect orientation (tilt), dricct siic, and probe
.
position were investigated using the simple say-tracing
The rapidly varying | sin (x)| transfer function (Case C) model described earlies. The results are for specular
is insemitive to 4th equipment bandwidth and center. rcDection from smooth, planer iciects, so the acoustic
frequency enanges (see Table 4.1). Acoustic sptems system transfer functior varir. ions are due to directhity
with transfer functions that vary rapidly (at least twice of the pierocles le source elemeut, the receptivity of
_

j
per equipment bandwidth) and that have a gentle the accching element, and rubtle geometrical effects
veriation in smoothed amplitude are not WCDASs. and not the defect d;tecthity patterns. The modeled
conGguration is shown in Figure 4.2.
The Case D transfer function (| sin (x)/xl) is
moderately sensitive to bandwidth change 2 (changed gn igure 4.3, the acoustic sptem transfer functions are
from 23.7 dB for narrow band to -10.8 dB for plotted for corner renection fro.n various sires of
broadband in the example given in Table 4.i). The vutical defects (crack angle - 90'). Tbc amplitude at
amplitude response of narrow-band equipment system" es equency is proportional te the defect siic until-
varies with frequency as the transfer function varies; the uefect becomes larger than the it.onifying beam,
therefore, narrow-band equipment systems would and none of the dcfects are worst case.
experience significant center-frequency sensitivity for
acoustic systems with this type of transfer function, in Figure 4A, acmtic sptem transfei functions are
especially when the equipment center frequency is at or plotted (d coiner reflection from urious sizes of
- near a null in the trasfer function. The cente'' nonvertical defects (crack angle = 85-). The amplitude
frequency sensithity decreases with increasing at each frequency is no longer proportional to the
equipment bandwidth. An acoustic system with this

NUREG/CR-5871 28

. _-.
- _ . _. - . - - . . _ . -, . . ..-
. _ _ _ _ _ _ - __ ___-___ _ -- - ___ . _. .. _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

Worst Case D:fects

3 "
q o
E
go
I
o- J -
\
o |
To ~
e.o s .a o
# ~ od # ' od '
Iqulpment
- - ' ' -

5 *' Frog [WHz)

o.o to o o.o 10.o
.L ,
Systems i

3 . 3 , 3 .
. i

O ' O.o . 2s.o 'oo 25.o ' O.o 25.0

Time [ s]
.

Cose C Case D Hypo-

CozeA Cose B thetical
S- 3 3. .. .. S
Acoustic
*
Systems
E
9.$ . $ \ $ bl&Lhl48 $ -~
so.o
o si io.o o.o 10.o o.o io.o c.o
Treq [WHz)
~

S. 2 0
A Combined
S.* * o /k 9 9 ]{ System

oA d.o 1 oI to.c o.o .o 8, P,'[8'

,.

S , S , S Y. ,

*
25.o ' o.o 25.o o.o 2s.o_
' O.o -

3 2 3
Combined
3-y 3-$b , 3-5
g 0.0
A,.;
10.0
System
sponse
gg
k o.o 10.0
_
o.o 10.0

o f -
a
1
-
o
1
-

1 25.0 0.0 2s.o.

0.0 25.0 0.0 "

3- 2 3-
- Combined
System
3 - ! .1 . 3-$... . 3 r- $ ; t. .

1 o.o i _ o.o 10.0 g o.0 101

8P
se C

|y v
i i

9
yv v

. s ,
,
i i
2s.o 0.0 as.o 0.0 2s.o.-
o.o o
3_ y. .

Combined
System
0-y. . 3-$% , S-$ ,

'P " '

10.0 00 10.0 00 80 0
se D
_ _ 0.0
e , s , s .

0.0 25.0 ' O.o 2?.o.

' O.0 25.0

Figure 4.1. Equipment and Acoustic Splem interactions for four li.ipothetical Acoustic Splems

2(> NUREG/CR-5871
 .. . . . ,

Warst-Case Defec:s

defect site, and most of these acoustic systems could be

considered worst tase for narrow band inspection
systems. The hrger defects also tend to have transfer
12 mm Dlamcter funttions win steeper slopes and more frequency
Transducer minJena than smaller defects. making larger defects of
this type more sensitive to equipment changes.
6
ligure 15 shows acoustic system transfer functions for
45'SV a small sertical defect with the pulse-echo probe at
urious hications. As the probe moves away from the
WedOO mnimum amplitude position (50 mm). the transfer
, . , ,
.,,.
Z', N.99,/I',, , function becomes worst cas
, , , _ ,
These curves show that 3
the repeatability of defect siring methods that rely on ~

EI - -

/
1, p /p , p /,- the amplitude as a function of probe position may also
bc seduced by changes in equipment bandwidth and
50 mm v
/
,
Steel -SampleN/,/ '#"'" I' C 4 "# "'Y'
- ' i
/
'

. Crack '
/ -
Using the ray tracing model,it was found that
- '
C Angle predicted, specular reflection, acoustic-system transfer
functions have minima due to phase differen es in the
_
..j.Ii(Z6i .sh 3 sound incident on the receiving pieroclectric element.
C Length v in other words. a response minimum occurs when the
returning wavefront is not parallel to the piezoelectric
Figure 4.2.
element face so that half of the face is in tension and
Pulse-Echo Ultrasonic Test half is in compression. This effect is due to the phase
Configuration sensithity of pieroc!cetrie acceiving elements and was

10 ~
'
- - - - osmm
-.=*~ )mm
[
.. .. ~ tmm
, , . * ~ . "'~, . ....... 5mm
10 aM 25 mm
j *****................. .... .....T
4 10 -
~"--..,,,N'. ,,,, _ ,. . . a.====.. === ..
g
I
K
... ._. - . - .-- . .
..

20
"""*=-,,,*% %
N*=.~-,,,,*** ====

30 a 1 a 1
0 2 4 6 8 10 -
Frequency. MHz

l'agure 43. Frequency Respon.e for Vertical Deferts of Various lengths

NUREG/CR-5871 '.0

.
.
- _ _ _ - _ _ - - _
 _ .
_ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

|
1
Worst-Case Delects
-

10 - 5 , n,,,
* -
... s o mm
- . . .- 20 mm
0-
,- s0 mm
'a
* -
f.N \
f .10 \. \ / '* g
%
E f ..j
\ / '.. % %
%

<<(k./% A
.

1e 20
~

\ \_/-
5
*~ } .~.

|
~

.<o ..

} \., ,
I '
, \l ~
60- i -
o to
0 2 4 0
I eequent f. MHf

f| gutt 4.4. l'requtHQ N0%IHttI%t'Iur h0* l)tfrtt% ,

10
- - - 40 mm ---
52 mm
@ 0 _ ----- 44 mm 56 mm -

g _.. ..- 4a mm .........~ 62 mm

o
.a -10 -
B. ''
T
E
<m .20 y*\ s.g..
s\ s- ~ ~ --- -- ..
-

--.._~~..-
- - ^

=
y
.,s,s.....,-..-,---'-~~ ..
05 ,
.% * %. n*..,.
o .30 -
.:
.,
.
. . . u . s . ,, . .
. . , z. . . ... .
CC ,.- .,,,.- -- 3
-40 ~

8 10
0 2 4 6
Frequancy, MHz
Figure 4.5.1 requency Response for 1 nini Vertle.it ih rects for Various l' robe l'ositions

31 NUREG/ Cit-5871

. _ - - _ _ _ - - _ _ _
_ _____ - - ______-____
Worst-Case Defects
clso noted by lleyman and Cantrell(1977). Using this
simple interptctation, the first acoustic system transitt
function minimum occurs at the frequency, f,, ghen
by Eqn. (21).
'
f* .
(d sinY)
where e is the speed of sound, d is the recching
element diameter, and y is the angle between the
received wavefront and the recching element face.
The frequenct comain features that make the WCDASs
worst case are produced by phase cancellation at the
recchirg pien, electric element. Thus, the use of a
phase insensitive receiver would greatly decrease the
sensithity la equipment chnges. Phase insensitive
reccivers such as miniature hydrophones, vine oxide.
end cadmium sulfide (lleyman and Cantrell 1977)
devices exist but are not generally commerciati)
available.
When the inspection configuration does not allow for
the reception of the sperutarly reflected wasefront, the
received signal (s) ein be thought of as being made up
of a combination of sound di4racted by the edges of
the defect Adler et al. (s977) made ultrasonic
spectroscopy measurements for tellection from smooth
planar reflectors. The measured spectra were found to
undulate, and the r. pacing between consecutive
frequency maxima, Af, was described by a purely
geometricalinterference model according to Eqn (22).
#
of .
d sinD + d sin (Ota'
where e is the speed of sound and d and 6 are the
reflector diameter and angle as shown in Figure 44
The angle between the transmitting and receiving
transducers is a. The inteiference model assumes that
the modulation in the spectrum is due to interference
between wavelets produced by diffraction at the edges
of the reflector, Also, as a simplification, the
diffraction coefficients (both amplitude and phase) are
, ossumed independent of frequency and incident angle.
The wavefront mcident on the reflector is amimed to
be planar. Though these condhions are rarely met m
c
.
practice, tije af estimates are reasonably accurate as
discussed m the origmal article (Adler 1977).
NUREG/CR-5871
. . . . . . . . .
. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ -
in general. if the interference between the edge
ddIraction waselets is strong, the defc(t is worst 4ase
with respect to equipment thanges if Af is compa*able
to the equipment bandaidth. If Af is significantly
smaller than the equipment bandwidth, there is a
smoothing effect as seen in Case C in Section 4.1. If of
(21) h much larger than the equipment bandwidth, the slope
of the acoustic system transfet function is less sescre as
in Case 11 in he: tion 4.1, and again the transfer fuation
is not nortisase.
4.2.3 Defect Roughness
Jungman et al. (1977) made ultrasonic spectro; copy
measurements for renection from surfaces with a
combination of random and periodic roughness profiles. -
The sample surfaces were prepared by successive j
engrasing of a perfect grating and a random profile on
lead blockt The measurements were made by
rcHetting ultrasound at various backscatter angles from
the sample surface immersed in water.
A typical measmed spcctrum from Jungman et al.
(197/) consists of a rapidly alternating background lesel
of approximately 30 dll whh superimposed, strong
peaks. It was shown that the peaks were due to the
engraved grating and obeyed Brargs Law.
Examination of the data in the article by Jungman et al.
(1977) leads to the conclusion that the impact of defect
roughnest depends on the roughness profik. If the
roughness is regularly spaced (as might occur in a L
fatigue track). the acoustic system transfer function will
be dominated by strong peaks with frequencies that
depend on the feature spacing and the backscatter
(22) angle according to Braggs Law. An acoustic system
containin;; this type of defect would be considered worst
case with respect to equipment changes for certain
equipment systemt if the roughness piofile is
predominately rando n, the situation is much like Case
C (see Table 4.1) and the acoustic system containing
this type of defect would not be considered worst case.
4.2,3 Coarse Grained Stainless Steel and
Stress Corrosion Cracking
In order to find equipment combinations to improve the
,
detection of stress-corrosion cracks in coarse-grdned
stainless steel (CGSS), McElroy (1977) used ultrasonic
inspection equipment combinations with a wide variety
3'z
- - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Worst-Case Defects

Transtrwtting
Transducer
Rm'W
l l Transducer

,
o
|
|
'4 n /
|
#
l
1 r
| |
I /
/
Incident /
'
Plane Waves I /
U l V / Rollected Waves
| / I i

l / / rom Edges
/
1

ym
Srnooth
Planar Rollector *
O

R9004120

Figure 4.6. Schematic of the interimace Mooc!

of center frequencies and bandwidths. Both the time- the grain structu c was not de:. ribed by McElroy, so
domain echo response and corresponding frequency-
the cutorr free mcv cannot be cwelated to grain sire.
domain spectra were reported for 45' and 60' pulse. Th: freqc ncy-domain ebet of the Jress-corrosica
.

echo inspections. For each equipirent combination, crack was not apparent from the data g .ca,
measurements were made for reDection from: 1) a
As discussc3 in the presious section na frequery-
0.060-in. (1.5 mm) diameter side-drilled hole in a
carbon steel llW (International Institute of Wriding) .lomaininteraction, the degree of sensitiva) to
block; 2) the corner of a carbon steelllW block; 3) the esuq..i;nt center frcquency changes depends or, the
corner in the CGSS sample; and (4) a stress-corrosion slopa of the acoude spt-a 'rn 'ir function,
crack in the CGSS sample. It was found that the CGSS Thesefore, any C615 accustic nsicm would be
consilerid worst case if a significant portioc of the
produced very strong low-pass filtering with a cutoff
frequency of approximately 1.8 Milt. Unfortanately, equipment system spectrum was above the cutoff

33 NUREG/CR-5871

_
 Worst-Co.c Defects

frequency of the material it is not (lear if stress- instrument settings were noted in advance so that
corrosion cracks can generally be considered worst case the setup (ould be thanged quickly for each probe
defects with respect to equipment changes, during the inspection.

In many wap, identifying WCDASs is easier than

4.3 Itecontilzliin an(I I)ealliig wit |g dealing with them. Some of the ideas developed in the
g presious sections suggest the following techniques for
dealing with % CDAss:

If the echo amplitudes of some types of acousti'

, L When inspecting WCDASs the inspection
systems are very senutive to equ,pment parameter
changes (in particular, center frequency), the field
inspector would like to be able to identify these acoustic
systems so that steps could be talen to ensure
measurement reliability. Ideally, the inspc(tor would
identify the echo waveform of interest and compare its
frequency spectrum with that of a suitable cabbration
,
reflectos such as a 10% notch or a 90* corner. A
change in the spectrum shape such as a strong low pau
filtering effect would identify :he acoustic system a'
worst case.
Unfortunately, the field inspector does not have the
luxury of hasing a sperrum analper and usually has
only a limited amount of time to perform an inspection
due to work schedules, ailist;on exposure, and/or
inhospitable working conditions. Therefore, the
inspector needs to be able to quickly identify a worst.
case defect acoustic syste:n based on the echo
equipment should be fully (haracteriicd. When
component thanges are made, the equi 3 acnt
should be recharacterlied to ensure equivalent
performance. The ASMl! Code Section XI
Appendix Vill provides tolcrances for equipment
wmponent changes. but the inspector or enginea
should recognize that meeting code requirements
may not alwap ensure a repeatable inspection. For
,.u,,iple, the two inpothetical spectra shown in
rigure 4.7 are of typical equipmeu sptcms with
equisalent bandv.idth and center frequencies, but
the shape et it e spectra are different (perhaps
because different types of transducer tuning circuits
were used). For certain WCDASs, an unacceptabl
chance in performance might sesult from going
0.2 -

waveform. Such identification may be accomplished in

the following ways:

1. A change in center frequency (as identified by the

^
,p f i
period) between the defect waveform and the c
calibration waveform would indicate that the U
f
j
(v
acoustic system is acting as a strong low- or high-
pass filter and is therefore a WCDAS.
d ~
a k
,

_
3 '

2. Inspectors could perform sensitivity studies with [

thr:e probes that differ only in center fiequency o
/
~
(e.g.,2.0,2.25, and 2.5 Milt). The inspector
would examine 'he same defect with each scanh--
unit and note the change in the calibrated ech,
amplitude to d rmine the sensithity of the e/ k's
0.0 ' i ' I
acoustic system su equipment center frequency
changes. The pietoclectric elements should be of 0*0 0*5
similar manufacture and hr..e equal diameters, and Freq (MHz)
the wedges should be identicalin material and
physical dimensions. The actualinspection could Figure 4.7. Il 3potheileal Equipment Spectra with
be performed quickly if all three probes were identical llandwidths and Center
calibrated in advance and if the appropriate frequendcs but Dilierent Shapcs

NUREG/CR-5871 34

__ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
 _ _ _ _ _ .
____ _____________ ____ _ _ ________ -

Worst-Case Defects

from one equipment sptem to another. To
maximi /c repeatability with WCDASs, the
inspector might:
e use a replacement transducer of the same
size and shape
e use a replacement wedge of identicai material
and physical dimensions
e match the replacement equipment
system spectrum to the original
equipment system spectrum in
bandwidth, center frequency, and
shape; examine the equipment
spectrum by using the echo from a
suitable broad band calibration
function depends on the configuraten of the probe
(pieroclectric element and wedge angle) as well as
the configuration of the defect. Changing the
wedge angle or reducing the diameter of the
recching piezoelecti element may reduce the
sensithity to equipment parameters. The inspector
could also try a sj ecial phase insensitive recching
probe. This technique may also help identify the
type of material defect because the way that the
calibrated echo responds to reducing the phase-
sensithity of the receiving element provides sorne
evidence about the nature of the defect. For
example, the specular reflection from a nonvertical,
smooth, and flat defect (such as a thermal fatigue
crack) should be much less sensitive to equipment
center frequency changes after switching to a phase-
insensitive recching element. Conversely, a ;

reflector. The general shape of the waveform made up of two overlapping crack tip
waveform produced by the signals may remain sensitive to equipment center
replaccruent system should also l>e frequency changes even after switching to a phase.
similar to that of the original insensitive receiving element.
system. More work is required to
define how closely the replacement
system spectrum should match that
of the original system to ensure a
repeatable inspection.

2. 11ecause of frequency-domain filtering effects, the

echo amplitudes of WCDASs are almost always
lower than those of similarly sized non worst-case
defect acoustic systems; therefore, another way of '
dealing with worst case defects is to lower the
detection threshold levels.

3. The inspector could use the same equipment each

time the defect is inspected, ahhough this might
prove difficult for periodic inspections spanning
months or years (e.g., monitoring the growth of a
- crack that is smaller than critical size), because
transdu.ers and cables must commonly be
replaced due to loss or damage.

4. Usually, the use of broad band equipment reduces

the sensithity of the equipment system when
inspecting WCDASs. It should be noted, however,
that broad-band equipment systems usually have
lower sensithity, thus reducing the signal to noise
ratio.

5. The inspector could try another probe. As

discussed earlier, the acoustic system transfer

35 NUREO/CR-5871

. - - . -- . - -
 - - _ - __ - __

5.0 Sensitivity Studies

As discussed in the presious section, the transfer *

functions of worst case defect acousti c sptems 1EGEND
(WCDASs) have a shape that makes the inspection % 0 Flaw B
results sensitive to equipment system bandwidth and 34% o m Flaw C
center frequency changes. Using the previously
o
N%\ '

u
a = Flaw D
4 = Flaw E
described ray tracing model, postulated WCDAS (Table
5.1) transfer functions were calculated for various
Y cq %-% x m Flaw F
= aw
combinations of material thickness, tran;ducer size and g ,
s
,
defect angle. The defect angle was varied until a 3 bb \ 4,
minimum occurred at 2.25 Milt, in preliminary su
# *
sensitivity studies, this shape was found to be 3S. frq .- ,

approximately the worst for center frequency and :::: '

bandwidth sensitivity. Sensitivity studies were not run E \
6 I r .

to optimize the WCDAS transfer functions, as the time # #

required would be prohibitive. The transfer functions
(Figures 5.1 and 5.2) are used in the sensiti ity studies E. "
.

'
that follow. Note that the transfer functions att as low .

pass filters. Other types of defects have tiansfer 2dll/10%

functions that make inspection results sensitive to Slope
equipment changes, but large, smooth defects arc - .

believed to be the worst. ?' 80

I
The percent bandwidth is defined according to Eqn. 5.1.
"""U

Figure 5.1. Calculated Transfer Function for Sesen

~
Postulated WCDASs for 45' SV inspection.
B.W. (perernt) - (23)
/, Curves are not normalized with respect to
one another,

where f,is the peak frequency of the spectrum, fi and

i nare the lower and upper frequencies, respectively, at 5.1 Modeling Ilandwidth Sensitivity
which the spectrum is at 50% of peak. Study - 45 SV Inspection
ash 1E requirements do not contain tolerances for
An equipment bandwidth sensithity study was
measurement repeatabi!iiv, so adequate measurement
conducted by convohing the worst <ase defect impulse
repeatability is defined he're as 2 dB (126%). The 2
responses (the inserse Fourier transform of the transfer
dB criterion was chosen after discussions between PNL functions) with waveforms representative of ultrasonic
staff and ash 1E Code members. A combination of
inspection sptems with bandwidths ranging fnom 273
changes (e.g., a 10 % change in bandwidth plus a 109
W (12% my narrow-band) to 3.48 htliz (155%, very
change in center frequency) is worth considering here.
broadband). In each case, the equipment center
if the allowable change in echo amplitude due to a
frequency remained at 2.25 hiliz.
bandwidth change is 2 dB and due to a center
frequency change is 2 dB, the possibility exists that the
in Figure 5.3, one curve of normalized amplitude versus
echo amplitude could ch:mge 4 dB. It is also possib'e
bandwidth is plotted for each postulated worst case
that the bandwidth and center frequency changes could
defect. The results in Figure 5.3 indicate that a
cancel! caving the echo amplitude unchanged after the
bandwidth change of 10% would produce a calibrated
equipment replacement.
echo response change of less than 2 dB for the seven
postulated worst-case defects considered (ie., none of
the curves in Figure 5.3 are st-eper than the 2 dB/10%
slope reference line), if the bandwidth tolerance was

37 NUREG/CR 5871

_ - _ _
 .- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
. ..

Sensitivity Studies

'
0

N. -

20 -
s'N
$ ~
~
r
s.\y
,

D 40
0
m
A-
<
-
N,\ 2dB/10%
b" /\

f Y\Aft
\
|et i.

60 -
Flaw M Y i ,

Flaw N
-
- Flaw P

80 . ' ' ' I ' '''

-10' 10'
Frequency (Hz)

Figure 5.2. Calculated Transfer functions for Bree Pouulated WCDASs for 60' SV Inspection
Curves are not normalized with resper. 3 ene another.

o __
"
LEGEND
. a = 90% T.W. Worst-Case Flaw B
o = 90% T.W. Worst-Case Flaw C
^-- A = 90% T.W. Worst-Case Flaw D -
h-
-

+ = 90% T.W. Worst-Case Flaw E -

x = 90% T.W. Worst-Case Flaw F

$ o = 90% T.W. Worst-Case Flaw G
3
-
.
v = 90% T.W. Worst-Case Flaw H
c.
.
o-
c W
-

.N
= ,
'

9-9 : 9--
$ " '
2dD/10%
Slope
.8 '

'O! 't 10
System Bandwidth (Milz)

. Figure 5.3.
-

Bandwidth Sensitivity Study Results for Seven Postulated WCDASs for 45' SV Inspection

NUREG/CR-5871 M

. .
. ._ . _- - _ - - - _ - _ - _ - - - _ _ - - - _ - _ - _ -_-_
 . _ _ _ _

Sensithity Studies

o
"
LEGEND
o = 007. T.W. Worst-Case tir.Dandwidth
o = 90P. T.W. Worst-Case 107.Unndwidth
- a = 00P. T.W. Worst-Case 287.Dandwidth
@ +r 90% T.W. Worst-Case 447.Uandwidth
~c- x = DOT. T.W. Worst-Case 707.Dandwidth
$ ^ = 90% T.W. Worst-Case 112%Ilandwidth
3 v = 00P. T.W. Worst-Case 177%Ilandwidth
=.
o
E
4
VQvvy "S
"6 ** vy
'E \V -

|c. 3? *s ,O
O'
Z.
j% - odd /10%
2
*
Slope
o i '
n..
i'
to
System Center Frequency (Milz)

Figure 5.4. Center l'requency Sensithity Study Results for Worst-Case Defect E

Table 5.1. Postulated WCDASs for Sensithity Studies

.,

Material Percent Angle from luspection

Name Probe Slic Thickness 'through Wall Vertical T 3pe
-

Defect B 6mm 19 mm 90'1 -57** 45' SV

Defect C 12 mm 19 mm 90.1 6.5' 45' SV

Defect D 12 mm 19 mm 90 % -48' 45' SV

Defect E 12 mm 76 mm 90 % 6.5' 45* SV

Defect F 12 mm 76 mm 90 % -49' 45' SV

Defect G 25 mm 76 mm 90 % 3,5' 45' SV

Defect 11 25 mm 76 mm 90 % -45.5* 45' SV

Defect M 12 mm 19 mm 90 % 13' 60* SV

Defect N 12 mm 76 mm 90 % 11' 60* SV

Defect P 25 mm 76 mm 90 % $* 60* SV

*Minus sign indicates that def ct is angled away from the inspection probe.

39 NUREG/CR-5871

..
_ _ _ . _ - _ - _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _

Sensithity Studies
relaxed to a less conservathe value of 20%, a 2 dB
repeatability could still be maintained according to this
model study; but it should be recognized that defects
whose inspections are more sensitive to equipment
bandwidth changes than the postulated worst case
defects used m this study may exist so that some extra
margin should be maintained. It should also be noted
that the AShtE bandwidth equipment tolerance pertains
6 to indhidurl inspection system components (e.g., the
transducer) and nat the entire inspsetion system as
considered here. This should present no problem, since
the change in system bandwidth should be equal to or
smaller than the change in bandwidth of the
component. Thus, this model study succests that the
ASME reauirement of 10% for comnonent bandwid;h
t hences is sufficient.
5.2 Modeling Center Frc9uenC7
Sensitivity Study - 45 SV
Inspection
In the center frequency sensithity study the effect of
equipment center frequency changes about a nominal
value of 2.25 hiliz was determined for various
postulcred worst-case defcet and equipment bandwidth
co.nbinations. Center frequency sensithuy calculation
-
results, for the worst of the seven postulated worst-case
defects (defect E) are plotted in Figure 5.4.
The results in Figure 5A indicate that cone of the
systems considered would be repeatable t' within 2 dB
after a center frequency change of 201 The results
suggest that a center frequency tolerar of 10% is
not sufficient for inspection systems with bandwidths
less than 150%. A tolerance of 3.5% is indicated for
sy;tems with bandwidths betwo a 20% and 100%.
Syste.ns with bandwidths ieu than 20% may be too
sensitive to center frequenej changes to permit
repeatable inspection of worstust defects. To put
these results in perspective, the typical bandwidth of
modern fich inspection, piezoelectric transducers is
approximate 50% Iligh resolution, field inspection
transducers have Landwidths as high as 1LGE Typic-
ally, only laboratory systems have bandwidths greater
than 100%. IUgh penetration, tone burst inspection
systems can have bandwidths of 20%.
, exactly as previously discussed for 45' shear waves.
'
NUREC/CR-5871
_
5.3 Modeling Bandwidth Sensitivity
S - M SV WE du
In many arpheations the source of an inspection system
will operate with either 6(f or 45' shear waves.
Therefore, the same sensithity study discussed above
f r 45'shcar waves has been repeated for 60" shear
waves. hereasing the shear wave angle by 15'should
,
n t alter the fundamental sensitmty of the system
,
equipment parameters; however, it is necessary to
invest!gue all possibilities of the model for
I
C *P ''C^C55'
Three defects (C, E, and G) from Table 5.1, considered
t be worst-case in the 45' shear wave study, were
sclerted for further investigation with 60* shear waves.
Eac'n I these defects (ht, N, and P) can be found in
Table 5.1, riong mth their geometry and general
characteristics. The angic from vertical for each defect
wus varied until the calculated transfer function (Figure
5 2) indicated maximum sensithity to inspection system
equipment parameter changes.
An equipment bandwidth sensithity study was
c nducted for 60* shear waves using the same analysis
as described above for 45* shear waves. Figure 5.5
displays the normalized amplitude versus bandwidth
plotted for each of three postulated worst-case defects;
while Figure 5.6 shows the system sensithity to changes
in bandwidth (slope) calculated from the curves in
{
Figure 5.5, and plotted in dB per 10% change in system ['
bandwidth frequency at six different frequency values.
As reported in the 45* study, the model oredicts a
2dB reneatability could be maintained even when the
bandwidth tolerance is relaxed from its current Code j
ghte of 104 to a %sisonservative value of about 20%
1
5A Modeling Center Frequency
Sensitivity Study - 60' SV
Inspect. ion
The center frequency sens. . .itmty was studied for the
effect of equipment center frequency var, n tio" about a
nominal value of 2.25 hiliz using 60* si.or waves
Results are displayed in Figures 5.7 and 5.8 for one
(defect N) of the three postulated worst case defects.
40
_
 - .
- - _ _ - - _ - _ _ , _ . _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ ._

Sensitivity Studies

10
Center Frequency - 2.24 MHz
$ -o- Flaw M
g ? Flaw N
3 0
-
+ Flaw P
C O
g c :>---c
k 10 -
f

3 2dB/10%
$ Slope
' -

E go - a
0
,_...
.
/
' ' ' !'''' ' ''I''''
-30 7
10' 10' 10

System Bandwidth (Hz)

Figure 5.5. Itandwidth Sensitivity Study Results for Dree Postulated WCDAss
for 60* SV Inspection

Center Freq. = 2.24MHz

+ Flaw M +
1.0
g __- +- Flaw N
--c- Flaw P ,
:- 0.8

i' $ -

@ 0.6 -

E -

*
E 0.4 -

0.2 -

*
u) -

+
0.0 -

i ' i I '''i! ' ' ' l'''''

4.2
10 5 10 8 10 7

System Bandwidth (Hz)

Figure 5.6. Slope of Ilandwidth Sensitivity Cunes for Hree Postulated

WCDASs for 60' SV Inspection

41 NUREG/CR-5871

.
 - - - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Sensithity Studies

10

6
u
0 -

Bandwidth in
5 - \ Percent of
f 2.25 MHz
< .10 -
0 11 %
3 -
+ 18%
j * 28%
% - 0 44 % b
U -20 -
8 70 % s
O 112%
-2dB/10% .'
.

* 177 %
Slope
' I I I II
-30
10 '
Center Frequency

Figure 5,7. Center Frequency Sensithity Study Results for Worst-Case Defect N

Bandwidth
4 -
in Percent of
225 2.2SMHz
-

f
u 8
" 11 %

' $ct 0 - : 18%

E g : 28%
-
4
qf
3 --c 44 %
.

'
[ >

& 2 70%
$
'

khE W 112%
-
= 177 %
P
-8 ' ' ' i ,,,,

10s 107

Center Frequency
Figure 5.8. Slope of Center Frequency Sensithity Cunes for Worst-Case Defect ?!

NUREG/CR 5871 42
,

_ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
-

- - _ -
 - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
Figure 5.7 suggests the response to center frequency
variations of 60' shear waves is very similar to that
found for 45' shear waves. Ilowever, Figure 5.8 shows
the slope of two curves in Figure 5.7 to be slightly
larger for the (XP case than computed for the 45* Study.
h1 ore specificaliy, cunes wpresenting 11% and 28%
bandwidths resulted in about 2dB per 10% frequency
change more sensitive. As found in the 45' study. a
tolerance of 23.5% annears more appropriate for
insocction miems with bandwidths brtween
approximately 20% and 100%.
5.5 Experimental Center Frequency
g,ity Study
The conclusion that the AShtE code center frequency
tolerance of 120% may not be sufficient to ensure
repeatable inspection of worst-case defects is very
sigmficant and warrants further investigation, so an
experiment was performed to test th; center fn,quency
sensitivity of worst-case defect inspection. Existing
samples were pre-screened using broadband ultrasonic
spectroscopy measurements to find wotst-case samples
with spectra that suggest the samples would be sensitive
to center frequency changes. J'ht.Elmples do rmt
ccrrespond to the postulated worst-case defects
considered 3bove'
in the experiment, the echo resnonses from seven
transducers of similar manufacture but with different
center frequencies (1.0,1.5,1.8,2.0,2.25, and 5 hiliz)
were recorded. Two tramiacers whh a center
frequency of 2.25 hiliz were used to prmide statistical
data on measu.cment variation. The echo responses
were obtamed for 45' SV, pulse-echo, contact inspection
of six artificial defects includmg worst-case defects
(those expected to have a high sensitivity to inspection
system center frequency changes) and control defects
(those not anttctpated to be sensitht to center
frequency changes). The defect specimens are
hscribed in Table 5.2. The defects in the 15-mm thick
samples were arcular saw cuts.
%e data from the experiment is plotted as squares and
4 ses in Figums 5.9 and 5.10. A maximum allowable
c .itivity of 2 dB/10% was chosen as discussed above,
omination of Figures 5.9 and 5.10 reveals that ncnc
of the three worstmejefects had center freaurnsy
tensithities croisy_!Mm 2 dB/10%; thus, the center
_
Sensithity Studies
frequency sensitivity of the worst-case defects tested was
acceptable. The control defects displayed no significant
center frequency sensitivity,
All of the transducers tested were relat yely broadband
yieldinp system banawidths of approximately 70%
except the 5 hiliz transducer which produced a system
bandwidth of 149%. The modeling studies showed that
broadband systems are significantly less sensitive to
center f equency changes than narrow-band systems, so
the experimental data was artificially narrow banded to
simulate the response of narrow-band systems with
various center frequencies. The response was narrow
banded by taking the amplitude of the response
sp c rum an wps f ltering the spectrum above the
sptem center frequency and high pass fikermg below
the system center frequency. The inverse Fourier
transform of the filtered spectrum was taken to get the
artificially narrow-banded time response. Filter slopes
of 90 and 130 dB/ decade were used, resulting in system
bandt73ths of approximately 28% and 19%,
respectively.
The artificially narrow-banded resuhs are plotted in
Figures 5.9 and 5.10. The center frequency sensitivities
of the 55' Al block and defect 0 increased significantly
with narrow banding. The center freauency sensithity
for the narrow-band systems is anproximately 4
dB/10% which is unaqsentable ocr the 2 dB/10% limit
that has been adopted for this report. A center
~
freauency tolerance of t$4 annears to be more
pporopriate fetthe 20% and 28% inspection sntems.
The Ash 1E requirement of 20% is not sufficient to
cuarantee insocction rer catability to within 2 dB for
typicalin.s.ptction systems (bandwiths betwren 20% and
100 % )
The experimental results are in general agreement with
the modeling resuks, but the experimental results do
not exhibit as much sensithity to equipment center
frequency changes as the modeling resuks. hfore work
needs to be done to determine if the model is overly
conservative.
43 NUREG/CR-5871
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - __
 . _ _ ._ _

Sensithity Studies

Table 5.2. Experiment Defect Specimens

Pescent Angl e from

Name Type blaterial Thickness Through Wall Vertical
44' Al Cahbration Aluminum 50 mm 100 % -46"
43* Al Control Aluminum 50 mm 100 % -47'
55' Al Worst-Case Alum num 50mm 100 % 35'
90* Corner Calibration Stainless Steel 15 mm Ic^ Yo O'

Defect O Worst-Case Stainless Steel 15 mm 50 % + 15'

Defect R Control Stainless Steel 15 mm 50 % 0'

*htinus sign indicates that defect is angled away from the inspection probe.
!
i

C C
" "
LEGEND LEGEND
o = Fiaw R 60% Bandwidth a = 43 Degree 60% Bandwidth
o = Flaw R 28% Bandwidth o = 43 Degree 28% Bandwidth
-
A = Flaw R 20T. Bandwidth - A = 43 Degree 20% Bandwidth
$
4
+ = Flaw Q 60% Bandwidth A
3-2 + = 55 Degree 60% Bandwidth
x = Flaw Q 28% Bandwidth x = 55 Degree 28% Bandwidth
4 o = Flaw Q 20% Bandwidth 4 o = 55 Degree 20% Bandwidth
.$,
_ _$ o- N m--e
,
h o- aAW h i-
T T
.e .e s

A
;. .
,o.
o
$ ' $
2dB/10% 2dB/10%
Slope slope
8
0.1 to
'
1
o,3 { 10
System Center Frequency (MHz) Systern_ Center Frequency (MHz)

Figure 5.9. Center Farquency Sensitivity Figure 5.10. Center Frequency Sensithity
bicasurement Results for 50% Through- Alcasurement Results for Angle Blocks
Walt Defects

NUREG/CR-5871 44

.- - _ _ _ ___
 - - _ __
..

6.0 Summary of itesults

'
The model work was very effective in providing -
trending data to guide the empirical verification work.
This methodology provided a more cost effecti"e means
to reach definitive condusions concerning equipment
operating tolerances. The detailed summary and
conclusions reached in this study are:
* Model predictions were compared with data fron
multi frequency experiments, and the validity of
the model for predicting and calculating transfer
functions for specular reflection from worst case
defects was established,
* The model was used to calculate postulated worst-
case transfer functions for seven different
combinations of transducer sizes, pipe wall
thicknesses, and defect angles. The transfer
functions were identified as wo.st
-
case, because
they displayed distinct minima at the equipment
center frequency, and this feature produces
sensitivity to changing frequency domain
equipment parameters,
* An equipment bandwidth sensitivity study was
performed using mathematical models for thin
sections (piping) using postulated worst case
transfer functions. The results indicate that the
ASME Code Section XI Anpendix Vill bandwidth
cauipment tolerance of 10% is suf[tt
f isnt to ensure
2 dB sicnal amplitude reneatability.
* An experiment was performed to test the center
frequency sensithity of worst-case defect
inspection. The experimental results were in
general agreement with the modeling results,
but the experiment 2Ltesults do not exhibit as
much sensithity to coulpment center frequency
chances as the modeline results. The
experimental resuits indicate that a center
[rfggency tolerance of t 5% is reauired for
systernLwith bandwidths less than 30% and a
tolerance of 10% is required for systems wilh
bandwidths greater than 30% A trouirement
of !20% is not su,f[icient to cuarantee
inspection repeatability to within 2 dB for
typical insr.ection systems. More work needs to
be done to determine if the modelis overly
conservative in that it shows greater sensitivity
than is found empirically.
* Calculations revealed that rauch of the
frequency domain equipment parameter
sensithity was due to phase cance!!ation along
the receiving transducer f ace. It is suggested
that the recching transducer for dual element
search units and tandem conficitation search
units be made as small as possible to reduce
sensithity to equipment changes.

* An equipment center frequency sensitivity study

was comiucted using mathematical models for thh
-
wctions employicg several combinations of worst-
ease defects and equipment bandwidth. Ihg
model resuhs indicate that none of the systems -c

considered would be repeatable to within 2 dH

after a center frecuency chance of 20% The
results suggest that a center frequency tolerance of
!10% is not sufficient for insocction systems with
bandwidths less than 150% A tolerance of 5%
annears annropriate for systems with bandwidths
between 100% and 150% A tolerance of 3 57 is
indicated for systems with bandwidths between
20% and 100% Swtemtwith bandwidths less
than 70% mrbe too sensitive to center freauuncy
chances to permit repeatable insocction of worst-
case defects.

45 NUREG/CR-5871

_ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
 7.0 Future Work

The work documented in this report will be presented

to be appropdate ASME Section XI Code bodies, and
a specific recommendation will be made to reduce the
tolerance to 15% for the center frequency for
bandwidths less than 30% and also to reduce the
tolerance to 10% for the center frequency fer
bandwidths greater than 30%

The next step in the work reported in this paper will be

to extend the ray tracing model to pressure vessels
(thick sections). Several new capabilities are required:

* The ability to consider reflection from curved

surfaces (e.g., nozzles) will be added to the model.

* The effects of grain scattering will be added w the

model. This will probably be done by some type
of frequency domain filtering of the data.

* The effects of cladding will be added to the model.

After the model is upgraded, worst-case defect acoustic

systems will be identified for thick sections, and
sensitivity studies will be performed as was done in the
work reported here.

47 NUREG/CR-SS71

_ _ _ _ _ _
 . -
8,0 References
Adler, L., K. V. Cook, and W. A. Simpson. 1977.
' Chapter 1:- Ultrasonic Frequency Analysis,' Research
Techniaues in Nondestructive Testine. Vol. 3, Academic
Press Inc., Ltd., New York, pp.1-49.
Bond, L J.1982. " Chapter 3: hiethods for the
Computer hiodelling of Ultrasonic Waves in Solids",
~ from Research Technioues in Nondestructive Testing.
Vol. VI, n. S. Sharpe Editor, Academic Press, London,
pp.107-150.
Borloo, E., F. Lakestani, and F. hierti. 1988. PISC 11 -
farametric Study on the Effect of UT Eouinment
Characterist;cs (EEC) on Detection. Location. and
Sidag, PISC HI Report No.10 - Final Report, available
from Commission of the European Communities, Joint
Research Center, Ispra, Italy.
Chapman, R. K.1984. Ultrasonic Seatterine from
Smooth Fla' Cracks: An ElastoJvnamic Kirchhoff
Diffraction Theory (Main Reporth CEGB Report
NWR/SSD/84/0039/R PWR/RCC/h1WG/P(84)378.
Coffey, J. Af. and R. K. Chapman.1983. ' Application
of Elastie Scattering Theory for Smooth Flat Cracks to
the Quantitative Prediction of Ultrasonie Defect
Detection and Sizing *, Nuclear Fagirering. Vol. 22,
No. 5, October, pp. 319-3''3.
Coffey, J. hi., R. K. Chapman, and D. J. Hanstock.
1982. Ibe Ultrasonic Detectability of a Postulated
" Worst C ise" Flaw in a PWR Vessd, CECB Report
NWR/S! D/82/0045/R PWR/RCC/hfWG/P (82)99.-
Doctor, S. R., D. J. Bates, L A. Chariot, H. D. Collins,
hf. S. Good, H. R. Hartzog, P. G. Hensler, G. A. Mart,
F. A. Simonen, J. C. Spanner, and T. T. Taylor. 1986.
LMeeration of Nondestructive Examination (NDE)
Reliability and Fracture Mechanici, NUREG/CR 4469,
PNL-5711, Vol.1, pp. 6-17, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, D.C 20555.
Doctor S. R., D. J. Bates, LA. Charlot, bl. S. Good,
IL R. Hart .og, P. G. Herster, G. A. htart, F. A.
Simonen, J. C Spanner, A. S. Tabatabai, and T. T.
Taylor.1986. Nondestructive Examination (NDQ
' Reliability for Inservice Inspection of Licht Water
Reactors. NUREG/CR-4469, PNL-5711, Vol. 2, pp.16-
35, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commision, Washington,
D.C 20555.
- .
Doctor, S. R., D. J. Bates, R, L Bickford, L A.
Charlot, J. D. Deffenbaugh, ht. S. Good, P. G. Heasier,
G. A. hf art, F. A. Simonen, J, C Spanner, A. S.
Tabatabai, T. T. Taylor, and L G. VanFleet. 19S6.
Nondestructive Exam * nation (NDE) Reliability for
Insenice inspection of Licht Water Reactors.
NUREG/CR-4469, PN1 5711, Vol. 3, pp. 2-4, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commision, Washington, D.C
20555.
Doctor, S. R., D. J. Bates, J. D. Deffenbaugh, hf. S.
Gnod, P. G. Heasier, G. A. hiart, F. A. Simonen, J. C
Spanner, T. T. Taylor, and L G. VanFleet. 1987.
Nondestructive Examination (NDE) Reliability for
Insenice Inspection of Licht Water Reactors.
NUREG/CR-4469, PNL-5711, Vol. 4, pp. 44, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commision, Washington, D.C
20555.
Doctor, S. R., J. D. Deffenbaugh, bl. S. Good, E. R.
Green, P. G. Heasier, G. A. hlart, F. A. Simonen, J. C
Spanner, T. T. Taylor, and L G. VanFleet.1987.
Nondestructive Examination (NDE) Reliability for
Insenice inspection of Licht Water Reactors.
NUREG/CR-4469, PNL-5711, Vol. 6, pp. 30-39, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commision, Washingtor., D.C
20555.
Docter, S. R., J. D. Deffenbaugh, bl. S. Good, E. R.
Green, P. G. Heasier, G. A. Af art, F. A. Simonen, J. C
Spanner, and T. T. Taylor. 1988._ Nondestructive
Examination (NDE) ReliaNlity for is,senice Inspection
of Licht Water Reactors. NUREG/CR-4469, PNL-5711,
Vol. 7, pp. 37-52, 'U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commision,
. Washington, D.C. 20555.
Doctor, S. R., J. D. Deffenbaugh, M. S. Good, E. R.
Green, P. G. Heasier, F, A. Simonen, J. C Spanner,
and T. T. Taylor 1989. Nondestructive Examin:. tion
(NDE) Reliability for Inservice Inspection of Licht
Water Reactors. NUREG/CR-4469, PNL-5711, Vol. 8,
pp. 2.21-2.34, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commision,
Washington, D.C 20555.
Doctor, S. R., J. D. Deffenbaugh, M. S. Good. E. R.
Green, P. G. Hessler, F. A. Simonen, J. C Spanner,
and T. T. Taylor.1989. Nondestructive Examination
(NDE) Reliability for Inservice Inspection of Licht
Water Reactors. NUREG/CR-4469, PNie5711. Vol. 9
49 NUREG/CR-SS71
.
 _ _ _ _ _ . _ .
References
pp. 313 to 3-45, U.S. Nuclear Regult. tony Commision,
Washingto , D.C. 20555.
Fitting, D. W. and L Adler.1981. Ultrasoaic Socctral
Analysis for Nondestructive Evalual ing, Plenum Press,
New York.
Good, M. S. and E. R. Green.1989 'A Shear-Wave
Microprobe Utilizing Surface-Wave Mode Conversion,'
Review of Procress in Ouantitative Nondestructive
Evaluation. Vol. 8A, Plenum Press, New York, New
York, pp. 881-888.
Goodman, J. W.1968. Introduction to Epurier Optics,
McGraw-liill, New York, New York.
Graff, K. F.1975. Wave Motions in Ela.stic Solids.
Ohio State University Press, pp. 311-343.
Green, E. R.1989. " Worst-Case Defects Affecting
r Ultrasonic Inspection Reliability, Materials Evaluation.
Vol. 47 No.12, December 1989, pp.1401-1407.
Green, E. R.1990. "The Effect of Equipment
Bandwidth and Center Frequency Changes on
Ultrasonic Inspection Reliab!!ity Modeling and
Experimentation Results", to be published in E.gview of
Procress in Ouantitati'r Nondestructive Evaluarian,
Vol. 9, Plenum Press, New York, New York,
Green, E. R. and G. A. Mart.1989. "Modeling
s Frequency Domain Effects for Ultrasonic Flaw
Detection", Review of Procress in Ouantitative
Nondestructive Evaluation. Vol. 8B, Plenum Press, New
York, New York, pp. 2259-2266.
Gregor, M. M.1984. 'The Irifluence of Probe and
Instrument Data on Ultrasonic Testing Results", in
Third European Conference on Nondestructive Testine.
Florence, October 15-18,1984, pp. 84-92,
Heyman, J. S. and J.11. Cantrell, Jr. 1977.
" Application of an Ultrasonic Phase Insensitive
Receiver to Material Measurements," in 1977
Ultrasonics Symoosium Proceedines. IEEE Cat. No.
77CH 12M-ISU, pp. 124 127.
Jungman, A., F. Cohen Tenoudji, and G. Quentin.
1977. ' Diffraction Experiments in Ultrasonic
Spectroscopy; Preliminary Results on the
Characterization of Feriodie or Ouasi-Periodic
NUREG/CR-5871
_
Surfaces / in Conference Proceedincs of Ultrasonin
International 1977. IPC Science and Technology Press,
pp. 385-3%.
Krautkramer, J. and 11. Krautkramer.1983. Ultrasonic
Testine of hiateri:rls. Third Edition. Springer-Verlag,
New York, New York.
Kuhn, G. J. and A. Lutsch. 1961 " Elastic Wave Mod.
Comtrsion at a Solid - Solid Boundary with Traraverse
Slip." The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,
Vol. 33, No. 7, July 1%1, pp. 949-954.
Langenberg, K. J. and V. Schnaitz.1986. " Numerical
Modeling of Ultrasonic Scattering by Cracks " Nucleat
Encineeringand Desien. 94, pp. 427-445.
MacDonald, D. E. and S. M. Walker.1987. Effects of
Ultrasonic Equipment Variations on Crack Lencth
Measurements. EPRI NP-5485, available from Research
Reports Center, P.O. Box 5N90, Palo Alto, CA 94305.
Mart, G. A. and S. R, Doctor.1987. "Modeling for
Quantifying Ultrasonic Test System Component
Interaction (The Interaction Matrix Studyr,
Proceedir.cs of Eichth International Conference on
Nondestructive Evaluation in the Nuclear Industry.
Orlando, Florida (November 17 20,1986), ASM
International, pp. 325-331.
McElroy, J. T.1977. " Detailed Analysis of the
Fundamental Ultrasonic Response Data from Stainless
Steel Stress Corrosion Crack Specimens," Project TPS
75-620, available from Southwest Research Institute,
Quality Assurance Systems and Engineering Division,
Post Office Drawer 28510, San Antonio, Texas.
Miller, G. F. and 11. Pursey.1954. 'The Field and
Radiation Impedance of Mechanical Radiators on the
Free Surface of a Semi-Infinite Isotropic Solid /
Proceedines of the Royal Society. pp. 521-541.
Murgatroyd, R. A., P. J. Highmore, S. F. Birch, T.
Bann, and A. T. Ramsey. September 12,1987. Flaw
Characteri7ation Usine the Tandem and TOFD
Techninues. Draft Final Report on EEC/UKAEA
Contract No. 2871-85-12EN Ir.p GB. Risley Nuclear
Laboratories, Ilarwell, United Kingdom.
50
- - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _

References

Posakony, G. J.1986. " Experimental Analysis of

Ultrasonic Responses from Artificial Defects", Material
Evaluation. 44, December, pp. 1567-1572.

Scruby, C. ft., K. R. Jones, and L Antoniazzi.1986.

J2urnal of Nondestructive Evaluation, Vol. 5, Nos. 3/4,
pp.145156.

Silk, M. G. 1984 Ultrasonic Transducers for

Nondestructive Testine. Adam lillger Ltd, Bristol,
United Kingdom.

Temple, J. A. G.1985. Developments in Theoretical

Modelline for Ultrasonic NDT. POST-SMIRT Seminar
No. 2 - ISPRA 28/29 August 1985, Available from
Theoretical Physics Division, AERE Harwell, Didcot,
Oron. OX11 ORA, United Kindgom.

51 NUREG/CR-5871

._ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
 ,_. _ - . .

NUREG CR/5871
PNL-8064
Vol.1
R5

DISTRIBUTION

k[, - No. of No. of

. Copies Copies

OFFSITE J. P. Durr
NRC/ Region i
2 ' J. Muscara
NRC/RES E. H. Gray
Mail Stop N5 217C - NRC/ Region I

C. Z. Serpan M. C. Modes
NRC/RES - NRC/ Region I
Mail Stop NS 217C
.i. T. Wiggins
F. P. Gillespie NRC/ Region I
, NRC/NRR
Mail Stop 12 G18 J; J. Blake
NRC/ Region 11
M.R. Hum-
NRC/NRR - . A. R. Herdt
Mail Stop 7 D4 - NRC/ Region 11

' G. Johnson J. Shackelford

.- NP.C/NRR NRC/ Region II
Mail Stop 7 D4 ,

K. Ward
E. L Murphy?- NRC/ Region 111
- NRC/NRR
| - Mail Stop 7 D4) - I. Barnes -
E NRC/ Region IV
J. E. Richardson
NRC/NRR W. McNeill
Mail Stop 7 D26 ' NRC/ Region IV-
-

B. E. Thomas - C. A. Clark
NRC/NRR NRC/ Region V
Mail Stop 7 D4
T. Gray
' W. S. Schwink
-

Center for NDE

:-c ^ NRC/NRR . Ames Laboratory
Mail Stop 7 D4 lowa State University
Ames, IA 150010
- Branch Chief
. NRC/NRR EMCS
Mail Stop 7 D4

53 NUREG/CR-5371

. - . -. .
 Distribution

D. S. Kupperman ONSITE
hf aterials Science Center
Argonne National Laboratory 50 heific Northwest Laboratorv
9700 S. Cass Avenue
Building 212 E. S. Andersen
Argonne, IL 60439 R. E. Bo --
D. M. Boyd
R. ~B. Thompson S.1I. Bush
Cenica for NDE A. A. Diaz
Ames Lalmratory S. R. Doctor (28)
lowa State University M. S. Good
Ames, IA 50010 B. F. Gore --

M. S. Greenwood
B. P. Newberry R. V. IIarris
,
Mail Stop 70 P. G. licaster
Dept. of Acrospace Engrg. R. L Ilockey
University of Cincinnati R. J. Kurtz
Cincinnati, OII 45221 F. A. Simonen -

J. C. Spanner
FOREIGN T. T. Taylor
T.V.Vo
A. Rogerson Publishing Coordination
Building RD-9 Technical Report Files (5)
NRI., AEA Technology
Risley Warrington WA3 6AT
Cheshire
'
United Kingdom

J. R. Tomlinson
NDT Applicatiot Centre
Nuclear Electric plc -

fimpson Road
Wythenshawe _

9
Manchester M23 9LL
United Kingdom

NUREG/CR-5871 54

__ - ____- ______-_ _ _ _ __- . _ _ _ . _. . . ..

 . . . _ . . . . _ _ . . . . _ .

posu 335_ 1, RT N ER
_ U S. NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMM155 TON

EE E BIBUOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET

NUREG/CP,-5871
<s,, ,:,,,w ,,, eu ,,,,,,, -
PNL-8064
2. TITLE AND SusT!TLE -

Development of Equipment Parameter Tolerances for the ^''"'"

: Ultrasonic Inspection of Steel Components ,
" "" * '' ,5"j
ne E
Applicationito Components Up to 3 Inches Thick 4. F 4N R SER i

-1

5. AUTHOFliSt - 6 TYPE OF REPORT

ER Green,.5R Doctor, RL Hockey, AA Diaz Technical

7. 9E k LOO COV E R E O n.nuee Oo us

S. FE RFORMWG ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS is' 4*c. areem C. =o=,0"*ce er aspea. v.s sucear meaesen c-eoa. *** **as e**ers, d seaww<. ano**
aeme saf kW8fMF #ddNSLI

Pacific Northwest Laboratory

Richland,.WA_ 99352
-

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADORESS ne mac. ryce %-w as somw '; acoausreer.see de sac 0*e sa. o*re devea. u 5 nww mecaete, coaw=eues.
adabesLJ
eadnie,ionofEngineering
Divis
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
-

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555 -

10. $UPPLEMENTARY NOTES

i :.
EABSTMACT frJo e,as or men. .

This _repor_t documents work performed at PNL on t_he effect of frequency domain equipment.
interactions- en the reliability of ultrasonic inservice inspection. The primary focus of
this work is to provide information to the NRC on the acceptability of equipment paramete r-
tolerances as given-in the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI Appendix VIII.
Mathematical models were developeri for the entire ultrasonic inspection system ' including -

sound ~ propagation.through the inspection sample. The models were used to determine worst --

case inspection scenarios for thin sections (piping), and these worst-case inspection
scenarios were then used in' sensitivity studies to determine the suitability of equipment
paramater tolerances. Ultrasonics literature was reviewed'to find _ worst-case inspection
scenarios outside the scope of the-model .used,cbut none that were significantly worse wer e-
-

found. Experiments were-performed to ~ conf _irm the important c:deling results. _ The model
predicted that. ASME Code tolcrances for equipment' bandwidth are acceptable, but tolerance s
for center frequency are too broad to provide reliable-inspection of worst-case defects
using narrow band systems.- -Experiments confirmed the basic trends predicted by the model ,

but the mode 1L shows: greater sensitivity than is:found empirically.

12, KE Y WOROS.DESCR:PTOHS n,es eene eraaneses emer em asse sawr**v m arceaaf rae resear # iJ **^''*8'b"''I^'t"' N

Unlimited
14 $tGORl I V CLA 5546 0 C A IIVN

nondestr_uctive evaluation, nondestructive testing, modeling of - n ssified

ultrasonic equipment, ultrasonic modeling of flaws, " ~ ~ - "

ultrasonic testing, ultrasonic equipmen_t characterization, ASME Unclassified

Code is. Nuuna o* eAca

16 PRICE

NRC POmts 336 t2 591 -

. _ , , . . - ,. - -
.- - - .-
 - _ -
_ - _ . _ _ _ - - - - _ _ - - - - . _ -- _ - - - - - - - -- - - - -

. 4

10

-s6

THIS DOCUMENT WAS PRINTED USING RECYCLED PAPER

O

_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - - _ - . - - _ - . -
 JUNE 1992 -
NUREG/CR-587I, Vol I . EEVELOPMENT OF EQUIPMENT PARAMETER TOLERANCES F6R Tile
ULTRASONIC INSPECTION OF STEEL COMPONENTS

speciat rour.twaass matt

UNITED STATES eosTact Amo rets pao
NF^ LEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 yj|"[[, ,,
--
.

OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300
'
d7 4_
.

. .
.
 _ . - . . _

; gg
i IUN}y2.
1 !- N. .U. R%, G/CR-58kt,
..
.

-7 Vd.ei..g:-d'! DEUFiOP51ENT OF EQUIPMF T PARAMETER Tb .ERANCES FOR THE

--
e
.
-

-
' i ULTRASONIC INSPECTION OF STEEL COA 1PONENTS
_

,
_.; e. - - -

..

.
.
z.. _ ,
r.
-
- , ,
. .. ~
..
"
=-
. UNITED STATES i '2-. -
'-
'
sete:At. rovam-ctAss aAri
POSTAGE AND MS PAD .
: NUCLEAR REGUt.ATORY COMM;SSICN' l
'

WASHINGTON;).'D.C.120555-0001 - cga: ,
1
.
j"jg,
.

+ -
. . . . -_

.. OFFICIAL BUS 4 NESS = -

q ' g-
.

j
. PENAt.rt FOR PRNATE USE. 4300 - .

- -
i
- 1 . e .- _ 4

.,

l. ~

s - - - - - - ---
-

- -

,x
- -

li -