Serviceability-Based

Examinations of Boiler Tube Butt Welds

John L. Arnold, P.E.
Niantic Bay Engineering, LLC
jarnold@nianticbayeng.com

Marshal Clark, Ph.D., P.E.
Investigative Engineering Corp.
mclark@investigativeengineeringcorp.com

Allen Porter
Four Peaks Nondestructive Engineering
allenporter@fourpeaksnde.com

SUMMARY
Changing the method for examining replacement boiler tube butt welds can
generate both immediate and long term cost savings for the end user. As
compared to traditional examination methods, linear phased array ultrasonic
examination methods can be less costly per weld; can identify welding issues
early; and are more capable of detecting weld defects that are likely to result in a
forced outage.


BACKGROUND
The replacement of boiler tubing is a routine activity needed to keep
conventional boilers operating in a reliable manner. Since boiler tubes operate in
an aggressive environment, many damage mechanisms are active including
corrosion, erosion, creep, and creep-fatigue. Because these mechanisms weaken
the tubes and lead to failure, sections of degraded tubes are periodically replaced
by welding in new tubing. As flaws can be formed during welding, there is a need
to examine the new tube welds for conditions that could affect boiler reliability.

That said, neither the ASME Section I Power Boilers nor the National Board of
Boiler Inspectors National Boiler Inspection Code require a volumetric
examination of small diameter and thin wall boiler tube butt welds prior to entering
service. But because of the safety and financial consequences associated with tube
leaks, most boiler owners perform some form of nondestructive examinations to
determine the quality of these butt welds. As these examinations are beyond the
requirements of these construction and repair codes, the acceptance criteria for
these examinations are not specified in a jurisdictional standard, and instead are
based on a mutual agreement between the boiler owner, the welding contractor and
the authorized inspector.



 Serviceability-Based Examinations of Boiler Tube Butt Welds
J. Arnold, M. Clark, A. Porter
EXAMINATION METHODS
Similar to improvements in boiler designs and materials, weld examination
methods have advanced in step with improvements in engineering and material
development. These advances allowed for changes to weld acceptance
philosophy.

Hydrostatic Testing
The historic testing method to evaluate weld quality is hydrostatic testing, and
hydrostatic testing is the only ASME Section I required test for boiler tube butt
welds [PG-99]. The test can detect welds with large voids or cracks that are
either already through-wall or sufficiently severe that the test pressure is
sufficient to propagate the defect to failure.

The test method is limited in the size of flaw that can be propagated to failure
during the test, and is also limited by access. Leaks may not be visible in welds
partially obscured by other tubes deep in a tube bank, or covered with refractory
or insulation. As the propagating flaw size is directly proportional to the test
pressure. As hydrostatic tests of in-service boilers are usually performed at
relatively low pressures to avoid brittle fracture of the thicker drums and
headers, a leak will only develop at the location of a significantly large flaw.

As the units age there are concerns associated with full pressure (1-1/2 times
design) hydrostatic testing, especially for heavy wall components such as the
drums and headers. Additionally, as the unit ages the condition of the support
system ages as well and while the support may be functionally suitable for
service loads they may become damaged from the hydrostatic loads. Therefore
many owners and jurisdictions allow the use of an in-service pressure test or an
air-over-water hydrostatic test pressure test for portions of the system that can
be isolated.

Radiographic Testing
Radiography is an effective test method to find volumetric subsurface fabrication
defects related to weld quality such as porosity and slag inclusions. The detection
capabilities are sufficient to locate subsurface flaws that would not propagate
during a hydrostatic test and as such would not be detected.

However, radiography has very little capability for the detection of cracks or
crack-like (i.e. planar) flaws unless the radiographer knows exactly what they are
looking for and sets the examination equipment up specifically for detection of
that flaw orientation. Furthermore, the radiographic unsharpness limits specified
in ASME Section V [T-274] for weld thickness less than 1 in. result in poor
sensitivity for planar defects.

Radiation exclusion zones limit the performance of radiographic examinations of
boiler tube butt welds. To avoid radiation exposure, welders and other personnel
cannot perform work in the vicinity of the testing. While improvements in

Page 2 of 7
 Serviceability-Based Examinations of Boiler Tube Butt Welds
J. Arnold, M. Clark, A. Porter
radiographic equipment, including digital radiography have significantly reduced
the exclusion zone, it is still present and requires personnel to actively patrol the
inspection area.

Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing
The predominant reason for the increased use of ultrasonic testing is the
widespread availability and affordability of phased array ultrasonic testing
(PAUT) systems. PAUT offers several advantages to the owner and contractor.
Unlike radiography, PAUT inspections can be performed while other work is
being performed eliminating the need for work stoppage or relocation of
welders, which would be required by radiography. PAUT also allows for
essentially immediate feedback regarding weld quality so that welders do not
need to be re-mobilized to a work area should a defect be found.

The PAUT systems are capable of performing rapid, permanently recorded,
inspections. In its most basic form, PAUT easily supports workmanship-based
acceptance criteria that rely on amplitude and flaw length. But the capability of
PAUT is much more advanced, providing the accurate determination of flaw
length, height and type needed to support serviceability-based acceptance
method.

This advancement is achieved by emphasizing resolution rather than amplitude.
PAUT technique enhancements are necessary to maximize imaging resolution
and sizing accuracy. The enhanced inspection techniques require alternative
approaches for focusing and calibration but are ultimately demonstrated on
representative samples to ensure the ability to detect, discriminate and size
critical flaws. The result is a more sensitive and accurate method than is achieved
via ASME Section V calibration procedures. This improvement in resolution
corresponds to a smaller minimum detection threshold, creating a finer mesh for
weld acceptance screening.


FLAW EVALUATION METHODS
While Section I does not require the volumetric examination of boiler tube butt
welds, it is important to understand the basis of the rules developed for thicker
and larger diameter welds. The original weld acceptance standards published in
ASME Section (PW-52) are based on what a good welder could be expected to
produce. By comparing the extent of porosity and slag inclusions, a judgment can
be made to determine if the welding process was not being followed correctly.
These workmanship-based standards are not based upon rigorous flaw tolerance
analysis but rather rely on the use of a qualified welder, a qualified welding
procedure and are verified by conformance to the weld acceptance standards.
While welder quality issues such as slag inclusions and porosity are undesirable
and can conceivably result in a failure under extreme circumstances, under most
boiler operating conditions many of these flaws will not propagate to leak or
rupture. Furthermore, a proactive Quality Control program should be able to

Page 3 of 7
 Serviceability-Based Examinations of Boiler Tube Butt Welds
J. Arnold, M. Clark, A. Porter
identify and redress issues such as inadequate weld cleaning that would lead to
slag inclusions, or inadequate preheating or inappropriate welding electrode
storage, which would lead to porosity.

As discussed above, ultrasonic methods are very sensitive to the detection of
planar defects. This makes the use of PAUT impractical1 if used against the
workmanship-based acceptance criteria specified in PW-52.3.1, where cracks,
lack of fusion, and incomplete penetration are unacceptable regardless of length.
Both industry experience and fracture mechanics have demonstrated that below
a calculable threshold, cracks and incomplete penetration can exist in a boiler
tube butt weld and not have any demonstrative affect on tube serviceability.
Fracture mechanics tools are capable of determining the critical dimensions
beyond which a planar defect is capable of propagating to failure under specific
loading conditions. Using these tools, serviceability-based acceptance criteria
that specify a maximum acceptable flaw length and through-wall dimension can
be calculated. With this approach, serviceability-based acceptance criteria were
developed for the examination of thicker components requiring volumetric
examination in ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Case 2235.

Fracture mechanics and serviceability-based acceptance criteria recognize that
not all weld flaws will result in failure and that the production of an
imperfection-free weld is neither possible nor economically viable. At the same
time, both laboratory testing and real life experience have shown that repair
welds often create more serviceability problems (related to additional residual
stresses, supplemental flaws, etc.). The goal of a fracture mechanics based flaw
tolerance standard is to allow small non-injurious weld defects to remain in
boiler tube welds, while identifying those more significant defects which may
lead to long-term ramifications of the resulting repair are avoided, as well as
financial and schedule-related expenses. Utilizing a FM based approach, a review
of a recent boiler tube replacement project indicated that more than half (50%)
of the rejectable defects (as based on workmanship standards) were non-
injurious and did not require repair.

For a serviceability-based acceptance program to succeed, the examination
method must be capable of detecting and sizing flaws to the level of sensitivity of
the fracture mechanics analysis. Fracture mechanics-based serviceability
acceptance criteria can focus repairs of those flaws that would affect boiler
reliability, but this screening will be limited if the examination procedures cannot
discriminate between acceptable and rejectable embedded flaws. A test method
that is unable to discern the through-wall dimension of a flaw cannot be used
effectively, as any approximation method (e.g. radiographic flaw shadow
measurement) will necessarily and appropriately, be conservative. The
implementation of computer processing advances can refine the examination

1 PW-52 says that all planar defects no matter their source are unacceptable. So if you find a

very small flaw, no matter the length it has to be removed.

Page 4 of 7
 Serviceability-Based Examinations of Boiler Tube Butt Welds
J. Arnold, M. Clark, A. Porter
sensitivity, thereby allowing for better identification of those welds requiring
correction. PAUT, calibrated to take advantage of the resolution of available
transducers, is the appropriate testing method.


EXAMINATION METHOD TRANSITION
While the benefits of using PAUT for the contractual examination of boiler tube
butt welds are significant, the change should be carefully coordinated. Some of
the more significant issues that require address are as follows.


There are no jurisdictional-specified weld acceptance criteria
This statement isnt limited to serviceability-based examinations since, as
previously stated, acceptance criteria for boiler tube welds are not present in either
ASME Section I or the NBIC documents. Instead, criteria must be stated in the
contractual documents.

Serviceability-based acceptance criteria should be created as a blend between

fracture mechanics calculations and general workmanship needs. As such, an
owner-specified maximum allowable flaw length and flaw depth should limit the
extreme ends of the fracture mechanics flaw acceptance curve. The acceptance
criteria should be reviewed by and agreed to by all pertinent parties.

Detection of different types of weld defects
Historically, when transitioning from radiography to PAUT there has been no
appreciable increase in the rejection rate (percentage), but there has been a
significant change in the type of rejectable flaw. As previously discussed
radiography is most effective at detecting volumetric defects such as slag and
porosity, while ultrasonic methods are better suited for detection of planar flaws
such as cracking and lack of fusion (LOF). Industry experience demonstrates the
latter are of greater concern.

As a result, rejectable weld flaws are more likely to be planar flaws not porosity
or slag inclusions. Workmanship-type defects such as porosity and slag are still
not desirable and in the extreme may still lead to service related failures
therefore, QC inspections are still an important part of the quality program to
ensure proper fit-up, weld cleanliness, proper electrode storage, preheating, etc.

No film to look at
The routine use of radiography for weld examination has led to a general comfort
in the review of radiographic film. While film interpretation should only be
performed by qualified personnel (with extensive industry experience and either
a Level II or Level III certification in accordance with ASNT), it is common that
pertinent features, such as slag inclusions or porosity can be shown to and
understood by the average layman.

Page 5 of 7
 Serviceability-Based Examinations of Boiler Tube Butt Welds
J. Arnold, M. Clark, A. Porter
Prior to the introduction of PAUT equipment, ultrasonic examination data was
difficult to interpret by non-technicians as the waveform data (A-Scan) was
evaluated in real time on a modified oscilloscope. It wasnt until the last decade
that computing advances allowed for sufficient data capture to create film-like
presentations (B-Scans) and cross-sectional scans (C-Scans). These presentations
accurately show both the flaw length and through-wall dimension in a manner
similar to a sonogram or a fish/depth finder. Using small commercially available
encoders, the ultrasonic examination data showing flaw lengths can be presented
in a format similar to a piece of radiographic film, and supplemental views can be
created to show the through-wall dimensions (which cannot be quantitatively
measured from radiographic film).

More welds are commonly examined
As stated previously, experience has shown that for a given mechanical
contractor, the weld reject rate (percentage) for ultrasonic examinations is
similar to the historical rate based on radiographic examinations. But, as more
welds are commonly tested when ultrasonic methods are employed, the number
of rejected welds will be higher. While this may be obvious, contract language
should be reviewed as appropriate.

No special access restrictions to the examination areas
Since the ultrasonic examinations do not require any personnel safety-related
exclusion zone, the contractual weld examinations can be performed soon after
the site QC team visually approves the weld and the weld is cool to the touch. In
many cases, the welding team responsible for the examined weld may still be in
the vicinity of the weld at the time of testing, and informal feedback can be given
regarding the examination findings. Often this communication results in a
decrease in future weld rejection rates, as the welding team understands the
abilities of the examination method and self-corrects any borderline issues. By
examining the welds soon after completion, timesaving can be achieved as
repairs can be scheduled while the welding equipment and access remain in
place.

Special ultrasonic equipment calibrations and procedures are required
High-resolution examinations are crucial to an effective serviceability-based
acceptance program. Existing PAUT equipment is capable of performing
examinations at high resolutions that reduce the minimum detectable flaw size;
however, the calibration methods commonly used in the power generation
industry do not take advantage of that ability. Instead, technique enhancements
are necessary to maximize imaging resolution and sizing accuracy beyond the
requirements of ASME Section V.

Any detectable flaw that cannot be resolved and accurately sized (i.e. is present,
but cannot be accurately defined) must be assumed and modeled in the fracture
mechanics analysis as the size of the minimum detectable flaw. For example, lets
assume a minimum detectable flaw length of 0.25" and a minimum through-wall

Page 6 of 7
 Serviceability-Based Examinations of Boiler Tube Butt Welds
J. Arnold, M. Clark, A. Porter
dimension of 0.125". During the examination of a weld, a flaw is found that
appears to have a through-wall dimension less than 0.125". When the flaw
evaluation is performed, the modeled flaw through-wall dimension must be
0.125" even though it is plausible that this value is high. Improving the PAUT
resolution lowers minimum measurable flaw dimensions, resulting in more
accurate flaw assessments.

Recent industry experience indicates that improving the ultrasonic examination
procedure to improve image resolution and size accuracy can markedly reduce
weld rejection rates. One utility had a threefold reduction in the number of
rejectable welds (from 18% to 5%) just by improving the examination sensitivity.


CONCLUSIONS
Transitioning from workmanship-based acceptance criteria to serviceability-
based acceptance criteria can significantly improve the overall quality of the
tubing replacement project by focusing repair efforts away from non-injurious
weld defects and toward those flaws that are likely to propagate in service,
resulting in a tube leak and forced outage.

Further benefits include fewer disruptions to the welding schedule, timely
reporting of welding issues, and reductions in examination costs (per weld). In
some cases, these benefits can lead to weld rejection rate reductions; one utility
reported more than a fifty percent reduction in the number of repairs (40% to
18%).

The team of Niantic Bay Engineering, Four Peaks Nondestructive Engineering,
and Investigative Engineering are pleased to offer support to the power
generation industry to enjoy the benefits of a proper boiler tube butt weld
examination process. Specifically, we believe the following steps will result in a
satisfactory weld evaluation process that will improve your outage experience
and improve boiler reliability.

1. Work with local jurisdictional staff to explain technical approach and offer
examples of successful applications
2. Develop flaw acceptance curves based on component-specific details and
plant risk tolerance
3. Provide specific examination tolerances required to achieve a meaningful
examination
4. Verify examination methods and procedures to confirm adherence with
the required examination tolerances

For more information, please contact:
John Arnold, P.E. Niantic Bay Engineering, LLC
Marshal Clark, Ph.D., P.E. Investigative Engineering Corp.
Allen Porter Four Peaks Nondestructive Engineering

Page 7 of 7