Time of Flight Diffraction Technique (TOFD) An Ultrasonic Testing Method for all Applications?

By A. Hecht *
English by Rolf Diederichs

Abstract
The article begins with an introduction of TOFD technique principles. The main part
reviews some recent literature wherein excellent results for TOFD were obtained,
especially regarding speed. The author gives examples of known problems when TOFD
is used and recommends not discarding proven test methods in favor of the cost-saving
factor of TOFD, however, TOFD can be a valuable add-on for other test methods.

Table of contents
1. Introduction
2. Three recent examples
3. Can TOFD perform all NDT tasks?
4. Conclusion
5. Literature

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 prestandard 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!

TOFD-UT Inspection Technology

Time of Flight Diffraction (TOFD) is different from conventional pulse-echo (PE) ultrasonic
examination in that it detects low-amplitude diffracted pulses from flaw edges or tips.
Most P-E UT techniques detect high-amplitude reflected pulses from flaws.
Two separate probes, a transmitter and a receiver, are used in a tandem configuration. The
probes are placed on either side of a weld with UT beams directed into the weld. A lateral
wave travels along the contact surface in between the two probes. The longitudinal wave of
the angle beam is reflected from the back wall surface. Flaws generate diffracted pulses that
appear in between the lateral wave and back wall signals. All of the R-F A-scan data are
recorded and stored in memory for later recall and analysis. The A-scans can then be
stacked together to create B-scan or D-scan images that show a cross-sectional view in
proportion to the weld thickness and scan position. Additionally, R-F and D-scan images can
be viewed in real time as scanning is performed. Because this technique does not rely on
detection of reflected pulses, it is not amplitude dependent for flaw detection or
measurement.

Example of TOFD-UT inspection technique