Time of Flight Diffraction Technique (TOFD) -

An Ultrasonic Testing Method for all Applications?

1. Introduction

The first information on Time of Flight Diffraction Technique (TOFD) for

ultrasonic testing on welds was introduced in 1977 [1]. The method was
reported extensively in English publications and was also introduced in
Germany [2]; nevertheless the method was more or less ignored by German
NDT experts. Finally, in 1996, a European pre-standard was announced and
thanks to that and some newly published papers [4-6] it seems that TOFD is on
the way to replacing radiography and other UT techniques. One paper
published in 1995 [7] referred to the wide acceptance of the method with a
"TOFD Comes of Age" article.
The following main principles describe TOFD: 

1. Two angle beam probes (usual 45°) are placed as a

transmitter-receiver arrangement and are connected
together (Fig 1). The distance of the probes is calculated
according to the wall thickness.
2. Longitudinal waves are usually applied. The sound beam
spread is large to maximize the extent of the scan.
3. The A-scan (Fig 4) [9] shows the so-called lateral wave, the
back wall echoes and between both signals other signals
can possibly appear, which can occur due to
inhomogeneity. The A-Scan is not rectified in the TOFD
technique.
4. TOFD technique is always applied with imaging methods
(Fig 5) [9].

Fig 5 shows the B-Scan image generated by horizontal probe movement and
sound time of flight in a vertical direction. The echo amplitude is displayed as
gray scale, usually zero amplitude light gray (negative maximum amplitude
black, positive maximum amplitude white). For weld testing it is important to
notice that the probes are aligned transversal to the weld, while the image is
generated in the direction of the weld. That means the image projection of Fig 5
stands perpendicular to the probe projection shown in Fig 1!

In practice, testing with the TOFD method is only applied by continuously

moving the probe pair along the weld seam, while in traditional UT techniques
the probe must be also moved perpendicular to the weld seam. Depending on
the equipment the scan is performed either manually or by use of an automated
 manipulator. In any case a computerized data evaluation is necessary. In a very
early stage of the TOFD method an instrument called "ZipScan" was applied,
while today many instruments which can perform B-Scans can be used - many
of those are available worldwide.

Three recent examples

As already mentioned TOFD weld testing was mainly applied outside Germany
- here are three recent examples:
1. A platform in the North Sea was inspected for underwater
welds of a repaired construction with a speed of 45 minutes
for each. A radiography would need 16 to 29 hours [4].
2. In West Java 2000 m welds on 8 gas containers, the test was
carried out at a very high speed. Every day 60 - 100 m of
welds were tested with TOFD /5/.
3. A report of the Netherlands welding institute (NIL)
documented a higher probability of detection and lower test
costs for the TOFD technique than other NDT methods [6].
So TOFD is twice as reliable than manual UT and by 1,3
more reliable than radiography. The latter is by 1,5 more
expensive than TOFD. Besides flaw detection, TOFD can also
perform sizing.

Can TOFD perform all NDT tasks?

Does that mean that TOFD is a testing technique which can perform all NDT
tasks?
In the author's opinion the three most important drawbacks of TOFD are
described herein:
1. Sensitivity level

The European pre-standard [3] points out that TOFD only evaluates the time
of flight and not the amplitude of the diffracted echoes.
If the instrument sensitivity (gain) is set on very low level, the TOFD image
would display no diffracted echo. If the instrument sensitivity is set just
above electronic noise level, the TOFD image will display a lot of diffracted
echoes which are caused by very small inhomogeneities of the weld seam
and does not mean that the weld is really bad.

Also for the TOFD technique it is necessary to define a gain or an amplitude

level because the performed test always demands acceptance criteria.

2. Crack size determination

The following case is described: A weld was tested during production

according to AD-HP 5/3 with a sensitivity of detection of FBH 3 mm. That
means that the weld possibly contains many inhomogeneities of FBH 1mm.
 In-service by use of the traditional angle beam testing can find a crack. The
same crack can only be detected with a much higher gain setting if the TOFD
technique is applied, since crack tip echoes respond with a very small
amplitude in a range of FBH < 0,7 mm.

In practice, diffracted echoes at crack tips are not so clear as they are
displayed in Figs 4 and 5. Crack tip echoes are part of a noise area caused by
other irrelevant diffracted echoes of inhomogeneity. That can make sizing
with the TOFD technique impossible. A TOFD image inspector needs to
perform depiction decisions similar to that used in radiography. He or she
must distinguish the relevant echoes.

3. Detection of small cracks at backside

This is one of the main disadvantages of TOFD. For in-service inspection of

welds it is usually not so important to find old defects inside the weld seam.
More important is the detection of cracks at the backside of containers or
piping. As an inspection example defects of 0.5 mm depth and app. 10 mm
length must be tested at a pressure component or container of 30 mm wall
thickness

The use of diffracted echoes is for that task is not possible. So close to the
back wall the crack tip echo amplitude is very small. In that case traditional
UT techniques with angle beam probes and use of the mirror effect must be
applied . The TOFD technique is not applicable here!

Conclusion

Considering the limitations of the TOFD technique described above, discarding

proven test methods in favor of the cost-saving factor of TOFD is not
recommended, however, TOFD can be a valuable add-on for other test
methods.

Let's look at the example of the automated UT of welds for pipelines. By use of
mechanized test systems like ROTOSCAN or PIPECAT it was possible to
replace the radiography method. The latter uses 8 focused angle beam probes in
pulse echo technique in as in conjunction with one probe pair for TOFD.
Nobody would take the risk of using only the TOFD technique, however it is a
valuable add-on for the complete test.

Of course improvement in the TOFD technique results is possible by post-

processing with the SAFT method. The author does not know if that application
has been applied.

For those who want to read more on TOFD, we suggest:

 o A literature search via the FIZ-W. 
o A keyword search (e.g. "tofd") in World Wide Web by use of the search
engines like AltaVista, Lycos, Magellan, etc.
http://www.tabbbsplus.com/other/hottest.htm 
o A keyword search in Ultrasonic-Testing-Online Journal also in World
Wide Web: http://www.ndt.net 

search_TOFD

Literature

1. M. G. Silk: "Sizing crack-like defects by ultrasonic means", in Research

Techniques in Non-destructive Testing, Vol. III, edited by R. S. Sharpe,
Academic Press, 1977. 
2. H. Heckhäuser, K.-H. Gischler: "Das Zipscan-System bei der
Ultraschallprüfung an plattierten Bauteilen und Rohrleitungen", DGZfP-
Seminar "Automatisierung in der Ultraschallprufung", Berlin, 7. -
8.11.1988 
3. CEN/TC 138/WG 2 N 173, work item 00138051, European Prestandard
final draft 1996: "Non-destructive Testing - Ultrasonic Examination -
Part 6: Time-of- Flight Diffraction Technique as a Method for Defect
Detection and Sizing". Review 
4. INSIGHT Vol. 38 No. 8 August 1996, S. 549 
5. INSIGHT Vol. 37 No. 8 August 1995, S. 581 
6. INSIGHT Vol. 38 No. 6 June 1996, S. 391 
7. F. A. Wedgwood, "TOFD Comes of Age"; Inspection, January 1995, S.
35 - 37 
8. Personal Information: Mr. R Verhaeghe, Vincotte 
9. Shaun Lawson, Ultrasonic testing and image processing for in-progress
weld inspection,
Ultrasonic testing online Journal April 1996.

Author

Dr.-Ing Andreas Hecht 

Andreas Hecht is since 1993 in charge of the NDT-unit with a staff of 39
people at BASF´s plant in Ludwigshafen. He is responsible for the NDT at the
plant equipment where all typical NDT-methods are applied. Andreas Hecht
was born 1953 in Berlin. After his masters degree in material sciences he
joined The German Federal Institute for Materials Testing (BAM), where he
worked with ultrasonic propagation in structured materials and constructed one
of the first computer-aided immersion tank systems with a modular
architecture. During his work with BAM he was also involved in the training of
 level 3 personnel at the German Society for NDT (DGZfP) as well as training
of NDT-personnel in Indonesia and Kenya.

In 1986 Andreas Hecht finished his thesis on the grain size determination in
austenitic sheets by ultrasonic backscattering and moved from BAM to BASF
in Ludwigshafen. At the BASF he was first in charge of NDT of composite
materials and for the development and application of new scanning inspection-
systems before having his present position. 
BASF AG
D-67056 Ludwigshafen 
Phon: +49-0621-60-56466, Fax: +49-0621-60-54088
Email:

The paper was presented at the DGZfP workshop "Methodische Ansätze zur Lösung

von speziellen Prüfproblemen", Berlin, 25.-26. November 1996. The original title:
Beugungslaufzeittechnik (TOFD) - eine Ultraschall-Prüftechnik für alle
Anwendungen?
 The following main principles
describe TOFD: 

The Time-of-Flight-Diffraction-Technique

1. Introduction
1 = transmitted wave
2 = reflected wave
The Time Of Flight Diffraction (TOFD) is a 3 = through transmitted wave
NDT method developed in the 70's by AEA. 4 = diffracted wave at upper crack tip
AEA Sonomatic specializes in this method. 5 = diffracted wave at lower crack tip

This method differs from traditional pulse echo

technique in that it monitors diffracted signals at the
edges of defects which are directly related to the true
position and size of the defect, as opposed to the
reflection on defects according to a reference
reflector.
1- lateral wave
The TOFD technique uses two probes in a 2 - diffraction signal at upper crack tip 
transmitter-receiver arrangement. When sound is 3 - diffraction signal at lower crack tip 
4- back wall reflection
introduced into the material via the transmitter the
defect will oscillate. Each defect edge works as a
source point of ultrasound signals. These very weak
signals are called diffracted waves and their
appearance does not relate to the orientation of flat or
spherical defects. These diffracted signals are
received via the receiver probe. The diffracted signals
are evaluated with the Microplus-Systems to clear
gray scale B-scan or D-scan images (transversal- or
longitudinal projection of the object being tested).

The amplitude of the signal is not displayed ,

but the position of the signals on the time scale
are. Thus it is possible to determine the defect
location exactly - length, and defect height.

Therefore the Probability of Detection (POD)

increases greatly (up to 90 % !) for flat or
spherical defects when compared to traditional
techniques.

By use of today's advanced computer

techniques it is possible to evaluate signals
very rapidly. That makes it possible to perform
scans with a speed of hundreds of millimeters
per second. In practice speed is limited only by
the mechanic.
Applications for TOFD

The main TOFD applications are:

o In-service defect monitoring. 

o Defect detection, documentation and evaluation during the production.

The dead zone under the outside surface has always been a limitation of TOFD.
Defects close to the surface could not be detected (surface breaking cracks are
detectable).. AEA Sonomatic succeeded in reducing this zone to 2 mm! For
that reason TOFD can be applied down to 6 mm wall thickness. On the upper
end it is usual to inspect up to 350 mm wall thickness.

Advantages of TOFD

 TOFD defect detection does not depend on the defect orientation, in contrast to
the pulse echo technique . 
 In contrast to the radiography method, planar defects and cracks, which are not
perpendicular to the measured surface can be detected . 
 Defect height can be exactly determined. 
 Higher POD improves risk reduction and calculation. 
 The evacuation of areas because of radiation is not necessary. That means less
interruption in the production process less during pre-service or in-service
inspections and fewer logistical problems for the manufacturer. 
 The inspection results are immediately available, as is a permanent record and a
permanent print as longitudinal or transversal projection of the weld is
available. 
 When Engineering Critical Assessment (ECA) is applied, only the relevant
defect has to be cut, thereby preventing needless repairs which could harm the
integrity of the weld. 
 Because of the high test speed the costs are less than those for radiography for
wall thickness above 25 mm. 
 The inspection can be performed above 200° C. 
 Since the Microplus-System is easy to transport, it is possible to perform test
on all feasibly accessible areas. 
 TOFD saves costs, if applied during construction, since it is possible to
distinguish pre-service and in-service defects. That means the unit can stay
longer in production, and is safe.

Drawbacks of TOFD

 The weld must be feasibly accessible from both sides. 

 There is a dead zone for defect detection under the surface.
Author

Ing. Norbert Trimborn

Norbert Trimborn studied Physics, Economics and certificated as NDT Level 3.
1986-1993 DSM Development department for NDT.
Started in 1993 with AEA SONOMATIC, Oosterhout (NL), 
as application engineer and works since 1994 as technical manager.
Since 1995 he gives lectures for UT at the PTU.

The paper was presented at the DGZfP workshop "Bildhafte Darstellung und

Auswertung der Ergebnisse der ZfP", Studensee, 27.-28. November 1995. The
original title: Die Time-of-Flight-Diffraction-Technik 
TIME OF FLIGHT DIFFRACTION 
Its Limitations - Actual & Perceived
by Bill Browne *

INTRODUCTION

Plant owners are under increasing pressure to ensure the integrity of their
valuable production assets - both at the point of acquisition and throughout
useful working life.

The dilemma they face centres around the delicate balance between safety
conformity and economic survival.

Preventative maintenance strategies alone are no longer considered a viable

solution to the problem because of the inherently high cost of upkeep and the
even more significant impact of downtime. Such precautionary measures are
increasingly considered an unaffordable luxury.

On the other hand, the attendant risk and commercial consequence of

unscheduled stoppages and the increased sensitivity of ecologically driven
public opinion are equally onerous and unacceptable burdens.

Non-destructive testing, as a means of establishing 'as-built' quality and 'in-

service' condition, has promised for many years to provide operators with the
information they need to effectively manage their assets, but so far singularly
failed to deliver. Not surprisingly, many of those responsible for the operational
safety, reliability and commercial performance of critical industrial installations
are wary of the claims made by those advocating the broader use of NDT for
this important task.

It is really only in the last few years that the limitations of long established
inspection methods have started to be accepted - that radiography, despite its
representative hard copy evidence, is not sensitive to critical defects such as
cracks and structural degradation; that electromagnetic methods are severely
'depth' restricted and that conventional 'reflectivity base' ultrasonic techniques
can be highly subjective and not necessarily accurate in sizing and
characterising integrity affecting defects. It is also somewhat ironic that,
despite major technological advancement in the field of fault diagnosis and
prognosis, visual and surface inspection methods are still almost exclusively
relied upon as means of assessing and certifying the safety, reliability and
longevity of economically critical plant components such as statutory pressure
systems which suffer structural rather than superficial damage as a
consequence of the extreme operating conditions they routinely endure.
Perhaps the greatest surprise of all is that until very recently the view was
upheld that these methods of assessment could, in isolation, be used as some
form of magic oracle to pass judgement on the quality and condition of critical
components in fabrication and in service. These somewhat naive beliefs are
borne partly out of the false claims practitioners have made about their non-
destructive testing capabilities in the past and partly out of industry's over
expectation which results from the desperate need to find cost effective
solutions to performance affecting problems.

As yet the all embracing panacea has eluded scientists. Increasingly, it is

rightly accepted that no particular method holds all the answers but that a
combination of complementary inspection methods used in conjuction with
process knowledge, metallurgical assessment and operational history provide a
more complete picture of condition than could be achieved by any single
inspection method and that this integrated approach constitutes the most
effective basis for the management of important and valuable industrial assets.

Time of Flight Diffraction is such an inspection tool.

In isolation it is prospectively one of the most effective and reliable methods

of non invasive condition assessment yet developed but, like all other
methods, it is not without limitation. Developed in the late 1960's by the
safety conscious nuclear industry, in recognition of the inherently poor defect
sizing and characterisation capabilities of available inspection techniques,
TOFD is an ultrasonic method which, rather than (conventionally) relying on
the amount of energy reflected by discontinuities, measures the time
differences from signals diffracted by the extremities of such defects. In doing
so, it provides an exact statement of size and position while eliminating one of
the main variables of ultrasonic testing - amplitude.

Despite being increasingly recognised as a worthwhile method of determining

condition, TOFD remains inadequately prescribed and poorly understood and,
despite being generally acclaimed as an accurate defect sizing technique, little
is known about its 'screening' capabilities and even less about its applicational
shortcomings.

Some of this lack of understanding emanates from the mystique built up by

those responsible for its introduction. For many years scientists promoted the
technique as a highly specialised 'sizing' tool - so complex that it required their
specialist knowledge and sophisticated technology to effectively apply - and
unsubstantiated claims were made about what the technique could and could
not achieve.
 This may have been the case in the very early stages of evolution but TOFD
has now been around for more than 25 years, its effectiveness has been proven
by performance demonstration (more so than all other inspection
methodologies combined) and whatever mystery once surrounded the
technique has been completely dispelled by repeated applicational success in
the hands of routinely qualified personnel using what is now relatively
'standard' equipment.

The following attempts to explain TOFD in layman's terms, to throw light on

its shortcomings and to allay many of the myths that surround what is
undoubtedly a very powerful and viable plant asset management tool.

PRINCIPLES OF OPERATION

It should perhaps first be restated that TOFD is an ultrasonic technique and, as such, it
is governed essentially by the same laws of physics which apply
to established reflectivity methods and is therefore subject to many of the same
limitations.

Most notably these are the laws of wave propagation at the frequencies in question -
typically 5 - 10 MHz. - and consequently an elastic medium is necessary to support
the transmission of vibrational energy on which all ultrasonic techniques depend. A
coupling medium must therefore be maintained between the transducers and the items
under test and this must be adequate to ensure signal transmission at all times. Loss of
couplant will result in loss of signal which, in turn, results in lack of coverage. TOFD
does however enjoy the benefit of continuously monitoring and recording couplant
status so that any shortcomings can be identified and addressed.

Where TOFD differs radically from all other ultrasonic based methods is that it
relies on the detection of diffracted rather than reflected signals. On initial
assessment this may not appear all that significant, but closer analysis shows
that the consequences of this have a major bearing on the techniques
capabilities and its limitations.

Rather than monitoring the (high) amplitude response of reflected energy and
using this to make a comparative assessment of 'equivalent' defect size, TOFD
relies on the detection of relatively low amplitude signals diffracted only from
the tips of defects which forms a basis for absolute position (and therefore size)
measurement - irrespective of amplitude response. This is achieved by using
two separate transducers in a directly opposed tandem configuration - both
being reasonably well matched short pulse, wide beam probes of the same
angle but one acting as transmitter and the other as a discreet receiver. As with
conventional ultrasonic testing the majority of transmitted energy is lost
through absorption and diffusion by the material under test or it is reflected by
any discontinuities falling within its effective envelope - but some is radiated
by these discontinuities and it is these very low amplitude diffracted signals on
which TOFD relies. By capturing these responses and processing them in a
fashion whereby they can be discriminated from background and structural
noise it is possible to create an image which, by differentiation, makes it
possible to identify the presence and location of defects and to accurately
position these with respect to the geometry of the item under test.

Because the technique does not rely on detection of reflected energy it is not
amplitude dependant (for defect size measurement) and therefore not so
susceptible as 'pulse echo' testing to consistent surface and consequently
couplant conditions.

Also, because of the comprehensive coverage afforded by the characteristically

wide probe beams used for TOFD the technique is not as dependant as
conventional pulse echo ultrasonics to variances in probe position or defect
orientation relative to nominal probe angle. This makes TOFD much less
subjective in application and more effective as a routine detection method.

TOFD also differs from conventional ultrasonic examination by virtue of the

fact that is performed using only compression waves and consequently any
mode converted signals which propagate at lower velocity do not confuse the
picture.

But perhaps the most significant distinction between TOFD and all other non-
invasive volumetric inspection methods is the manner in which these diffracted
signals are captured and processed for display in the form of a proportionate
sectional image of the item under test.

This is achieved by digitising all 'raw' position related radio-frequency

waveforms which are amplitude quantised using a grey scale to provide pattern
differentiation when a series of collected A scans are stacked together to create
a coherent sectional B or D scan image representing depth through and distance
along the material under examination. The geometry or profile of the item
under test is also usually 'imaged' by virtue of a near surface lateral wave
transmitted between the two transducers which highlights the test surface and
signals which are direct compression wave reflections off the far surface. Any
defects encountered within the volume of material by the probe beam are
consequently displayed in true relative position to the geometry in question.

This means that for the first time in the chequered history of NDT, engineers,
production managers, safety responsible personnel and those involved with the
commercial aspects of their plants integrity can be provided with absolute and
accurate dimensional information presented in a fashion that they can readily
understand.
 One fundamental problem with TOFD is that these diffracted defects signal
responses are exaggerated in length on the on-line display as a consequence of
being scanned across by the wide beam envelope. Consequently even an
isolated gas pore will appear initially as a linear response on the created image.

However, this problem is readily overcome because it is of a recurrent and

known nature - caused specifically by beam geometry. Knowing the beam
characteristics, it is possible to rectify this effect either visually (by using a
profiled cursor) or electronically using a process referred to as Synthetic
Aperture Focusing - but both techniques can only be used off-line to correct pre
recorded data. It is likely, however, that the next generation of instruments
available to perform TOFD will incorporate effective real time SAFT
algorithms to produce corrected on-line images.

The resultant picture is a dimensionally true sectional elevation showing the

through wall characteristics and condition of the item under test - in much the
same way that medical scanners are now able to illustrate the internal condition
of the human body without having to resort to technical jargon and 'industry
gobble-de-gook' to explain what is going on.

ToFD 'D' SCAN IMAGES

Figure: Hard copy print out of a 'D'

scan as collected in real time on a
heavy wall clad reactor in Petro-
chemical service. It is evident from
the hard copy print out that
underclad cracking has occurred.
The crack is 445mm in length and 28mm in through wall extent. The scan also clearly
identifies the cladding interface as well as an included welding defect.

Images of poor
Through wall
Indication of lack quality welding
linear welding
of interun fusion depicting linear
defect
and point defects

ToFD with its inherent capability of imaging the metallurgical structure of

areas examined as well as the speed with which data can be collected, which is
a direct result of the single pass data collection technique employed, is the ideal
tool for defect detection (screening), critical sizing, defect characterisation and
propagation monitoring. Not only are on line hard copy print out's of the areas
 inspected produced, as evidenced above, but all the ultrasonic data is digitised
and stored to magnetic medium (These archives can be maintained for the life
of the plant). The stored data is then available for further off line processing
and forms a fingerprint on which the assessment of future material degradation
can be based. Because the results of inspections produce accurate
measurements of the defects detected the results can be used to carry out
fracture mechanic studies with confidence.

DETECTION & SIZING

The sizing capabilities of TOFD are now almost universally accepted but,
because of this distinction, the techniques detection capabilities are often
assumed to be inferior to those of other established inspection techniques. As
a consequence, TOFD is often 'reserved' for use only in critical circumstances
when all else fails. Under the "fire fighting' conditions, the cost of application
is high and the real benefits of the technique are lost. But this assumption is
fundamentally incorrect.

Because it is fast, efficient. 'sees' everything and records all raw data for
presentation in a proportionate and representative fashion, TOFD is an ideal
detection tool which provides an accurate and invaluable 'fingerprint' of
condition as a quality control function at the time of construction. Because the
process is highly repeatable it also constitutes the most reliable means of
propagation monitoring and, because of its inherent accuracy, this provides
plant operators with invaluable management tool.

These defect detection capabilities have been validated by numerous

independently conducted performance demonstration trials under the auspices
of such organisations as TW1, DDT, EPRI, Lloyds, etc. And proven by literally
thousands of routine applications where physical assessment of defect
condition has subsequently been endorsed the finding of TOFD results.

From a commercial point of view, one of the major advantages of TOFD is that
both detection and sizing can usually be performed instantaneously from the
same source data without any need to recalibrate and rescan using additional or
alternate techniques. This clearly has a radical bearing on time and on cost.

ACCURACY & REPEATABILITY

It is perhaps understandable why engineers, used to absolute facts and

physical measurement, balk at radiographic, pulse echo ultrasonic and
'surface' inspection methodology and reporting phraseology.
Statement like '2dBs above grass', 'cluster of porosity' and 'intermittent LOIF'
do little to instil confidence and even less as a reliable basis for structural
integrity assessment.

Unlike virtually all other inspection techniques TOFD does not rely on
comparative assessment to quantify the significance of a detected defect.

Not only is it capable of visualising virtually every material or structured

anomaly in characteristic fashion, it is also capable of giving such
discontinuities true dimension and location to an order of accuracy and
repeatability that is unprecedented in the field of NDT.

These are measurements related in millimetres, not dB's or 'equivalent' scales

of response. The dimensions are absolute and unambiguous. Evasive
descriptive jargon is not necessary when absolute size and accurate
classification can be readily derived; as is the case in all but the most complex
application.

The proven levels of accuracy attainable are often to within ± 0,1mm in terms
of (critical) through wall extent and ± 0,1 - 0,5mm in terms of horizontal and
vertical dimensional extent. Position is usually established to within 0,5mm and
angular dispositions can be resolved to within a few degrees when appropriate
scan procedures are used. For the first time accurate and reliable defect data
can be used as a basis for fracture mechanics assessment without resorting to
self-defeating methods entailing destructive intervention and physical
measurement.

Other inspection techniques have been claimed to achieve similar dimensional

and positional accuracy and to offer consistency - but have any of these been
repeatedly proven capable of producing these results across the spectrum of
conditions which prevail in industrial application and do any of the
practitioners of these techniques have the confidence to quote actual defect size
in their final reports? Unless applied under controlled laboratory conditions -
without consideration to time, cost and effort - the answer is an emphatic NO!

With TOFD all relevant parameters are accurately recorded at very high
resolution. These are stored digitally and can be retrieved and redisplayed at
any time. All data is position related so that location can be reliably identified
and results from recurrent inspection can be directly compared for change and
propagation monitoring. The fact that the data is so comprehensive and
inherently accurate means that sophisticated analysis techniques can be used
for this purpose - including pattern recognition processes which are capable of
eliminating any spurious factors such as couplant variation and datum
displacement.
COVERAGE & RESOLUTION

i) Near Surface Resolution

This is by far the most commonly quoted limitation of TOFD and one of the
few substantiated by hard fact.

As previously explained, TOFD relies upon the reception of angled

compression ultrasonic waves generated by a discreet transmitter and diffracted
by the tips of any defects falling within its envelope of coverage. Because the
two transducers used to achieve this condition are configured to face each
other, an element of the beam is detected which travels direct from the transmit
to the receive crystal just beneath the material surface. This is referred to as the
lateral wave which, in effect, is a relatively short pulse/low amplitude 'standing'
signal occurring at a fixed position along the timebase, dictated by probe
separation.

In some respect this phenomena is useful in that, with known velocity and fixed
probe separation, it defines the inspection surface and creates an important
datum for defect depth positioning.

However, the fact that it is always present means that the very near surface -
(typically 3 - 5mm) will always contain a signal which is often construed as a
negative factor affecting near surface resolution - sometimes described by the
ill-informed as a 'dead zone'.

But this description is not strictly valid. Any defects occurring within this
region can still be observed (albeit at low amplitude) and their response will be
out of phase from and superimposed above the lateral wave signal - making
detection possible but rendering sizing and characterisation less reliable near
the surface than through the rest of the depth range.

By using very high energy, short pulse (shock wave) transducers whose beam
envelope is concentrated in the main area of interest, it is possible to reduce this
lateral wave effect to 2 - 3mm in steel and to suppress its amplitude effect to
just a few dB's - making defect discrimination more effective.

Because the lateral wave is a consistent signal occurring in a predictable and

recurrent position it is possible to electronically (and visually) nullify its effect
in much the same way that unwanted noise is eliminated in audio equipment.

Even when the regularity of the lateral wave is disturbed by uneven surface or
by unstable couplant conditions, it is possible to 'process out' these anomalies
by 'electronically straightening' the signal trace to further improve defect
discrimination.
So in other words - Yes - TOFD does suffer from a near surface effect caused
by its inherent lateral wave but his is not a serious problem unless very near
surface sizing is called for. Being pragmatic, very few near surface (included)
defects can be considered integrity critical and it is debatable whether the 'near
field' characteristics of single compression probes and the inherent 'dead zone'
effects of twin probes could provide better resolution using conventional
reflectivity methods.

While radiography may be a little more sensitive at detecting such minor

inclusions it would not provide any depth or worthwhile through wall
positional information.

If such defects are of genuine concern than a combination of TOFD and remote
field eddy current or ultrasonic 'head wave' testing should be performed.

ii) Volumetric Coverage

With the vast majority of available inspection techniques, coverage and

resolution and inextricably linked to speed - and therefore cost. This is not the
case with TOFD. By virtue of the comprehensive volumetric coverage afforded
by linearly scanning very wide beam transducers at relatively high speed and
processing all high resolution positional and inspection data in effective real
time, it is possible to rapidly inspect large areas and thick sections without
unacceptable degradation in performance.

With a TOFD tandem array straddling a 50mm thick weld it is possible, by

virtue of the divergent beam, to inspect the full volume of weld material and
HAZs at speeds which cannot be comtemplated by conventional reflectivity
ultrasonics methods which rely on comprehensive raster scan coverage by a
number of relatively focused probes of different angle. TOFD has also been
demonstrated to be faster than field radiography on all but the thinnest
materials. Because of the simplicity of the transducer configuration and its ease
of application, set up and calibration are also far more efficient than with
alternate methods of ultrasonic testing.

The coverage rates attainable are restricted only by the practicalities of

scanning and production rate of 100 -150mm/sec are not out of the question
using manual deployment methods and even higher rates of coverage can be
achieved when automated scanning is used. It should be remembered that these
statistics relate to the length of weld volumetrically inspected in a single 'pass'
of the transducer array and not just the scanning speed of the probes.

Many people are still of the impression that ultrasonics is as range limited as
radiography and that TOFD, being dependant upon the detection of low
amplitude signals, is even less effective than conventional probe echo methods
on thicker material sections.

This is not the case.

If anything TOFD becomes even more effective and reliable on thicker material
because trigonometric displacement ensures greater separation between
signal responses at long range (so improving signal discrimination and
positional measurement) and the effects of signal attenuation are not an
important issue providing sufficient energy is available to enable the detection
of very small changes (± 0.5dB) in signal amplitude response.

More importantly, from a commercial point of view, there is no time (and

therefore cost) premium to pay in achieving such depth or volumetric coverage
as there is for instance with angle shear wave pulse echo testing and with
radiography. Very often a single 'pass' is sufficient to adequately cover the
volume of material under test and scanning is so efficient that even when
multiple passes are required there is no real time penalty.

Clearly at very long ranges or on coarse materials the effects of signal

attenuation apply; but TOFD has been proven to be highly effective at reliably
reporting code critical defects (missed by other methods) on 250mm thick
reactor vessels for the nuclear and chemical industries - including over
extended 'ranges' caused by complex geometry in the vicinity of flanges,
nozzles and penetrations.

iii) Far Surface Resolution

Because of its effectiveness at longer ranges, TOFD is ideally suited to those

'far surface' inspection applications which prove so difficult for more
established methods of testing.

Austenitically clad ferritic components are often assumed to be beyond the

scope of TOFD but again this is a misconception. Whereas radiographic and
reflective ultrasonic methods are virtually worthless at detecting and depth
reporting cracks propagating from such metallic interfaces, TOFD is perfectly
suited to imaging both the interface (indicating bond integrity) and even minor
(micro) cracks emanating from the bi-metallic fusion face.

As with interface cracking TOFD is perfectly suited to resolving intrusive root

defects (including lack of penetration and cracking) in a very efficient 'single
pass' fashion. Mismatch or HI/LO can also be detected but additional scans are
required if transverse position is required.
 TOFD is also particularly suited to the resolution of surface breaking
circumfereneial cracks such as those caused by fatigue and prevalent in
cyclically loaded rotating machinery.

DEFECTIVE TYPES

i) Cracks & Lack of Fusion

TOFD is generally accepted as being particularly sensitive to 'tight' vertically

orientated planar defects such as cracks and LOF, where the disposition of the
discontinuity is ± 30 degrees off normal to the main beam axis. What is less
often appreciated is that the technique is also sensitive to virtually all types of
defect; irrespective of orientation. This versatility is partly attributable to the
very wide fan of angular coverage afforded (in all planes) by the
characteristically divergent beam used and partly as a consequence of the
physics involved. These are probably worth restating. In very simple terms, all
discontinuities absorb and radiate the mechanical energy induced by
ultrasonic excitation (vibration). Because TOFD employs a discreet transmitter
and receiver, the majority of radiated (reflected) energy is ignored and only
the (diffracted) signals emanating from the peripheries of defects are
detected. This applies irrespective of size, type, orientation or position and,
providing the defects fall within the effective beam envelope, the (very low
amplitude) signals diffracted from its edges will be captured and displayed in
correct relative position.

With very tight cracks, or where discontinuities are contaminated with material
deposits capable of supporting the passage of ultrasound, The phenomena of
through transmission can sometimes occur. The resultant image appears as a
ghostly translucent 'shadow' made up of processed signals
diffracted through the body of the defect and these can often highlight
microscopic details such as 'beachmarks' where cyclic fatigue crack
propagation has arrested during its destructive progression.

ii) Horizontal Planar Defects - Laminations

Another popular misconception is that TOFD is not effective at detecting and

sizing defect lying parallel to the inspection surface. This is probably borne out
of the fact that the technique is hypersensitive to vertically orientated cracks
but, dependent upon the scan format prescribed, TOFD not only reliably
detects the presence of such defects as laminations and lack of inter-run
fusion but is also capable of accurately depth positioning and area sizing them.
 iii) Transverse defects

Because defects radiate diffracted signals in all directions and because the
characteristic wide beam fans both horizontal and vertical planes, TOFD is
equally sensitivity to most transverse defects - even when axial scanning is
performed where the main beam axis lies in the same plane as the defect
itself.

This includes the ability to detect irregular structural defects such as 'chevron
cracking' and the resolution of multi-faced defects such as stress or hydrogen
induced micro-cracks.

iv) Inclusions

Again, it is commonly believed that TOFD cannot resolve 'included' defects

such as fabrication induced slag and porosity. This is not the case - but with
particularly poor quality welding where the incidence of such defects is high, it
can prove difficult to report porosity in accordance with established
radiographic accept/reject criteria and linear inclusions need careful analysis
(and possible additional scan coverage) to discriminate from more integrity
affecting flaws such as lack of inter run fusion. None the less these limitations
and their resolution is no more of a problem than with other non invasive
inspection techniques and TOFD is demonstrably more reliable at detecting
really critical defects than any of the other commercially available methods of
non-destructive testing.

v) Structural Defects

Because TOFD 'images' everything in its envelope of detection, it is possible to

observe and report microscopic degradation caused by fatigue, stress and
chemical attack - including such effects as Type 4 cracking, IGSCC, HIC and HHA
- it has even proven possible to quantify micro cracking caused by copper
dilation through weld electrode contamination - providing some knowledge of
the probable fault mechanism is suspected prior to intervention.

These can be serious integrity affecting conditions which are beyond the scope
of detection, let along quantification, of the majority of available NDT
methods, and which cost industry billions each year in maintenance, repair and
downtime.

OTHER APPLICATIONAL CONSTRAINTS

i) Temperature Limitations

Again TOFD is not significantly different to other 'contract' inspection methods

when it comes to its usability on components at elevated temperature - the
effectiveness of a suitable couplant medium often being the limiting factor. By
using high temperature tolerant probe construction materials, water cooling
techniques and high temperature grease for coupling, it is possible to apply
TOFD at temperatures up to 200° and, where 'local' cooling is permitted, at
operating temperatures in the region of 350°C.

Where TOFD scores over alternate inspection techniques is in the speed at

which it can be applied and the method by which it captures its data. One metre
of 50mm thick weldment can be volumetrically covered and all data captured
for off-line analysis in less than 10 seconds. This equates to more than 10,000
high resolution waveforms, each of which represents every event with the body
of the weld and both HAZ'S over the full depth of interest. The composite
image is immediately available for initial assessment and each individual
waveform can be retrieved and analysed off-line in an environment more
conducive to decision making than in the glaring heat radiating from an on
stream pressure vessel.

ii) Materials

As with all other non-invasive techniques where the measurement of

transmitted signals is used to determine condition, TOFD is susceptible to the
effects of energy dissipation through diffusion, absorption and attenuation
and, because very small changes in signal response provide the basis of
detection, the technique is arguably less suited to use on very coarse grain
material than its counterparts.

iii) Complex Geometry

Because of its nuclear origins, TOFD has been developed and proven for use in
some very complex geometric conditions. These include flange to vessel welds
hemispherical components, nozzles (including the detection and sizing of
radial cracks propagating from the 'crotch' area) and other forms of set in and
set on penetrations.

In more recent years this expertise has been adapted for non nuclear
applications including vessels for the chemical/process industries, complex
forgings and castings (eg turbine discs) and nodal configurations on tubular
structures.
 However, the scan procedures, calibration, data presentation and analysis
processes involved are often as complex as the geometry itself and the cost of
implementation is usually proportionately high.

iv) Continuous Condition Monitoring

There are clear commercial advantages to be had in reliably monitoring

condition 'on stream' as opposed to using scheduled or unscheduled
intervention techniques. There is also a popular misconception that TOFD can
only be effectively applied in a dynamic (scan) fashion. This is not the case.
Where known defects exist, and are considered to be safety and reliability
critical, they can be regularly or even continuously monitored using
strategically positioned TOFD transducers coupled to a remote instrument
capable of monitoring change characteristics of the signal waveform
'signature' and, using appropriate thresholding procedures, to output
immediate hard copy evidence or alarm signal. The latter can be used in
conjunction with other performance affecting parameters (including plant
operational data) to trigger process control and even shut down mechanisms
or without operator intervention.

v) Safety

Again, there is no real distinction between TOFD and other ultrasonic

methods. With the exception of one or two limited function devices, none of
the systems in current use are classified as intrinsically safe and, given the
characteristics of a piezo electric transducer, none are likely to become so. But
clearly the technique is inherently safer than any form of industrial
radiography and more environmentally acceptable.

In terms of overall safety it could be argued and demonstrated that the

improved defect reporting accuracy and reliability of TOFD is a very powerful
tool in the risk assessment equation and that, as such, it is in itself an important
safety device.

EASE OF INTERPRETATION

One of the more subjective limitations of TOFD is the psychological barrier

caused by its sensitivity. The technique 'sees' literally everything - like an
ultrasonic microscope - right down to grain structure.
 This is not problematic when applied to relatively 'clean' or refined material
where major anomalies are to be reported but - in coarse material, poor
fabrication or where the true extent of problems is not desirable information -
the techniques sensitivity can be construed as a hindrance and, in certain
circumstances, can make interpretation and sentencing a less than straight
forward task.

However, once again, this must be viewed in the context of how other available
techniques would deal with such problems. The same or even greater
difficulties would be encountered under these circumstances with reflectivity
based ultrasonic testing (with arguably less reliable results), and radiographic
examination would probably prove totally ineffective save for reporting non
critical defects such as porosity and slag.

One of the real advantages of TOFD, in this respect, is that because all hi-
resolution position related data is captured and stored, very detailed off-line
analysis can be performed and a wide range of validated analytical tools have
been developed which aid and improve this process.

ACCEPTABILITY

Perhaps the single most significant limitation facing the routine application of
TOFD is the fact that, despite the vast amount of evidence substantiating the
techniques effectiveness amassed over the last 25 years, it remains poorly
prescribed in Codes, Standards and Procedures.

The logic behind this is something of an enigma and it can only be concluded
that the inertia of the regulatory bodies and the vested interests in some areas of
the NDT fraternity are the attributable reasons for this prolonged gestation.

The broader acceptance and specification of TOFD has not been assisted by the
fact that most acceptance criteria in use today relates to radiographic and
reflectivity based ultrasonic techniques prescribed as Fabrication Quality
control methods during the construction boom of the 60's and 70's.

Despite major advancements in material science, improved knowledge of

degradation processes, better fabrication techniques, more refine operating
processes and revolutionary progress in inspection technology, many of these
often archaic standards are still in use today and are regularly proposed for in
service condition assessment applications to which they hold no relevance.

It is really only over the last 2-3 years when these legacies have started to be
eroded away. TOFD is now 'accepted' by Lloyds, it carries its own British and
(pending) European standards and it is under review by all major international
 bodies including ASME and API. Perhaps more importantly, industry itself has
recognised the technical and commercial benefits the technique holds and
major client organisations across every sector of the market are now specifying
the use of TOFD on an increasingly routine basis.

AVAILABILITY

Until the early 1990's very few organisations were offering commercial TOFD
services and, even then, these tended to apply to specific industrial
applications where the vendors involved commanded a relatively high price
which they justified by their overhead recovery on investments made in
pioneering their respective market positions.

Other recognised players fought hard to discourage the broader acceptance of

TOFD because it was in commercial conflict with their established businesses.
Under these circumstances many influential bodies (eg. Corporate research
establishments, technical support organisations and regulatory 'institutions')
fought shy of endorsing the routine application of TOFD because of industry
inertia. A classic example of this is the attitude of certain personnel training
and certification bodies who have done everything within their power to
perpetrate the myths that their particular brand of NDT (ie. that in which they
have a vested commercial interest) is, without question, the most effective and -
more importantly - the one 'endorsed' by them.

However, over the last few years, it would appear than common sense has
prevailed.

The cost of TOFD is now more affordable; industrial awareness has improved
and an increasing number of reputable vendors have adequately resourced to
offer the service.

These currently number five or six established companies with international

representation, an equal number of new players who have geared up to support
their domestic market needs and one or tow new organisation set up
specifically to provide competent and cost effective TOFD services on a world-
wide scale.

COST

Until very recently the general perception of TOFD has been that it is
prohibitively costly. This misconception is largely due to the belief that the
technique is essentially a specialised sizing tool and the knowledge that most
potential users have that the equipment involved is sophisticated and
therefore construed as inevitably expensive.

Whereas the former factor is totally invalid the latter, until the early 1990's, was
certainly true.

The few commercially available instruments capable of performing the

technique, typically retailed for in excess of $200k. They were logistically
cumbersome (and therefore expensive to ship) and required the attention of
highly skilled and equally expensive operatives.

In response to this situation, a number of organisations have been tempted to

try to 'cheapen' the technique by attempting to perform TOFD with
conventional 'manual UT sets' and traditionally certified personnel - with
disastrous effects which caused them commercial embarrassment and did
nothing to improve the credibility of the technique self.

However, in response to increasing market recognition, a number of

manufacturers have now developed instrumentation which is substantially less
expensive, more portable and more reliable, and which is de-sophisticated to
the point where it is user friendly in the hands of conventionally skilled
personnel.

Recent commercial applications where this new generation technology has

been deployed have shown that production rates of up to 250m/shift can be
achieved by a single operator using automatically actuated scanning on
repetitive tasks. Under construction site conditions, where access and logistics
are less conducive. Production rates of 100m/shift have been routinely achieve
by a 2 man team. On a 24 hour day cover basis, this equates to inspection costs
as low as $4/m under ideal 'production' conditions and less than $10/m 'in the
field' where reasonable access and good continuity are assured. These viable
production costs do not however prevent a few vendors from believing that,
because TOFD is so powerful, they can still command excessive premiums for
the service.

Not withstanding the rates charged for implementation of the technique, the
main economic benefits of TOFD do not lie simply in the reduced cost of
inspection.

Increased productivity afforded by reduced 'scheduled' downtime and improved

availabitly as a consequence of fewer 'unscheduled' stoppages are the real
commercial bonuses. The factors - combined with increased confidence,
improved plant reliability and safety, and therefore better (asset) management
control that ensues from improved awareness of condition - constitute a
powerful argument for the more expansive use of TOFD.
 It is here, in the area of consequential benefits, where the real value of TOFD
lies - despite its few inherent limitations.

SUMMARY

In conclusion - yes, TOFD does have its limitations - but so do all other
techniques when used isolation.

None of these limitations can be considered as serious and most can be

quantified and adequately resolved or compensated for.

The technique is faster, more reliable, more accurate, more comprehensive in

terms of coverage and more cost effective than any alternate available
methodology for quantifying the integrity of industrial plant in construction and
in service.

It is safer and more sensitive to integrity critical defects than any form of
radiography.

It has been largely misunderstood, often badly presented and has historically
been over priced - but these commercial inadequacies no longer apply.

It has also been restricted by availability and by prescription. Availability has

significantly improved in recent years and most end users are increasingly
aware of and comfortable with its capabilities - but isn't it a pity than 'learned'
organisations have vacillate for many years and the cost of this indecision to
industry is of enormous economic proportion.

It has been jealously ignored or attacked by those equally learned organisations

who failed to spot the obvious or who considered it a threat to their particular
thread of direction research, commercial bias or perceived lifeline for survival.

But, in final analysis and despite these evolutionary difficulties, TOFD has now
'come of age'.

No longer can its attributes be ignored, no longer can its effectiveness be

avoided and no longer will industry continue to be deprived of an integrity
assessment technique so crucial to the management of its assets that its value
should be measured on what real benefits it can offer - nor on what it is
perceived to cost.

Author

Bill Browne started his career in NDT in the early 1970's as a member of the
RPS design team which created the world's first commercial ASME IX
complaint capability for ISI on nuclear primary circuit components. After
spending 2 years as Chief Engineer with MatEval, he co-founded what
developed in the Sonomatic Group of companies - pioneers of the commercial
application of TOFD - who, over the last 15 years, have arguably done more
than anyone to overcome the techniques limitations and improve market
understanding. Bill Browne now acts as a consultant to industry, offering
advisory services on plant performance optimisation based upon improved
techno-economic condition awareness achieved through the application of
technologically innovative methods of testing. He is also the Group Managing
Director of CATS International - an organisation set up specifically to provide
such services on a world-wide basis. 
CATS Homepage: http://www.cooperheat.co.za/
CATS SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD 
Email: William R. Sharp [email protected]
CATS UNITED KINGDOM
Email: William Browne [email protected]
The European TOFD standard draft 
ENV 583-6 Non-destructive testing - Ultrasonic examination part 6:
Time of Flight diffraction technique as a method for defect detection and sizing

The draft standard [1] was created by the technical committee CEN/TC 138
"NDT" with intensive assistance of the German working group NMP 832.

The standard describes the general principles of the TOFD method for defect
detection and sizing. The draft incorporates, by reference, provisions from
specific editions of other publications. Those are EN 473, EN 583-1, EN 583-2,
EN 583-5, EN 1330-4, Characterization and Verification of Testing equipment
- Ultrasonic prEN 00138007, 00138058, 00138059.

In the initial description of TOFD it is mentioned that if the work piece is

available for testing from both sides and defects are suspected to be in all
thickness sections, better results are achieved when performed from both sides,
especially defects near the surface .

Since the diffracted signals are very weak, the draft points out that good surface
and coupling conditions are essential for the test. Also the material must have a
low attenuation, that means the method is not suitable for coarse grained
materials.

The draft mentioned that personnel must be certified according to EN 473. The
equipment must fulfill at least the above mentioned standard (prEN) for
Characterization and Verification of Testing equipment. Additional
requirements are cited, which are:

 Amplifier bandwidth 
 Shape of the exiting pulse 
 Sample rate must be 4 times of the nominal probe frequency 
 Minimum one A-scan for each 1mm probe index 
 Special demands for gate ranges 
 Minimum 64 digitalization steps of gray or color images of the scan 
 Memory capability for A or B images for a later display of the results 
 The equipment must be able to do signal averaging.

Probes applied for TOFD must meet the following conditions:

 Two probes (transmitter and receiver) 

 All probes can be used (see table 1) 
 Longitudinal waves should be used; the use of shear waves is more
difficult, however, it can be done. 
 The two probes must have frequencies within 20% of each other 
  Frequency used (see table 2) 
 A maximum signal ring of two wavelengths (10% of maximum) 
 The PRF must be low enough to prevent 'ghost echoes'.

Probe manipulators must be used to perform a constant scan. Manual or

motorized devices which have a positioning accuracy of 10% in relation to the
probe distance can be used .

The figures in tables 1 & 2 are guidelines for achieving good test results on thin
as well as thick components. The use of one probe pair is enough for up to 70
mm thickness. Above 70 mm more probes must perform the test in different
sections.

Table 1: Recommended probes for a working range up to 70 mm

Wall Thickness Nominal Frequency Crystal Diameter Nominal Angle
< 10 mm 10 MHz to 15 MHz 2 mm to 6 mm 50° to 70°
10 mm to < 30 mm 5 to 10 MHz 2 mm to 6 mm 50° to 60°
30 mm < 70mm 2 MHz to 5 MHz 6 mm to 12 mm 45° to 60°
Table 2 : Recommended probes for a working range from 70 mm to 300 mm
Depth Range Nominal Frequency Crystal Diameter Nominal Angle
0 < 30 mm 5 MHz to 10 MHz 2 mm to 6 mm 50° to 70°
30 mm to < 100 mm 2 to 5 MHz 6 mm to 12 mm 45° to 60°
100 mm < 300mm 1 MHz to 3 MHz 10 mm to 25 mm 45° to 60°

The evaluation of diffracted signals is optimized by use of a 120 ° angle

between the probes. A mismatch of - 35° or +45° can cause small echoes. The
electronic noise must be 6 dB less than the lateral wave amplitude, the latter
must be adjusted on approx. 5% of full screen. The adjusted equipment can be
tested on reference blocks (Fig. 1).

Basics on how to analyze the defects are given as well as interpretation of

surface breaking cracks - the determination of position, length, depth. A more
detailed analysis can be done for defects which are already detected by normal
TOFD techniques. Therefore the variation of frequencies and angles can be
used as well as advanced algorithms such as SAFT.

The draft describes the TOFD method limitations with respect to resolution and
accuracy. For sizing errors and the influence of the dead zone, formulae are
provided for error determination.

Regarding test reports, the draft refers to the EN 583-1 and outlines some
additional TOFD-specific requirements.
 Fig 1. Reference Block
The reference block verifies the equipment setup and the
performance in a particular scan section. The block should
contain reference flaws such as side drilled holes and slits
of different depths of the component wall thickness.
References

1. ENV 583-6: The European TOFD standard draft.

Non-destructive testing - Ultrasonic examination part 6:
Time of Flight diffraction technique as a method for defect detection and
sizing.

Orders should be addressed to the DIN publisher:

Beuth Verlag GmbH Berlin
Tel: +49-30-2601-2260 and Fax: +49-30-2601-1260 
DIN Home Page : DIN - Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. Berlin.