NUREG/CR-7235

Results of Blind Testing for the 

Program to Assess the 

Reliability of Emerging 

Nondestructive Techniques 

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 

NUREG/CR-7235 

Results of Blind Testing for 

the Program to Assess the 

Reliability of Emerging 

Nondestructive Techniques

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 

Manuscript Completed: February 2016 

Date Published: June 2017 

Prepared by: 

R. M. Meyer and P. G. Heasler 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

P.O. Box 999 

Richland, WA 99352 

I. Prokofiev and B. Lin, NRC Project Managers

NRC Job Code V6286 

iii 

ABSTRACT 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has established the Program to Assess the 

Reliability of Emerging Nondestructive Techniques (PARENT) whose goal was to investigate the 

performance of current emerging and perspective novel nondestructive examination (NDE) 

procedures and techniques to find flaws in nickel-alloy welds and base materials. This was 

performed by conducting a series of open and blind international round-robin tests on a set of 

nickel alloy piping components that include large-bore dissimilar metal welds (LBDMW), smallbore dissimilar metal welds (SBDMW), and bottom-mounted instrumentation (BMI) penetration 

welds. The project was divided into open and blind testing portions for the purpose of separating 

the evaluation of novel techniques that are at a stage of relative immaturity for field testing and 

which were implemented by teams that may not have significant experience in conducting field 

examinations (open testing) from the evaluation of more established techniques implemented by 

commercial inspection vendors (blind testing). The objective of blind testing was to address a 

cross-cutting need identified as a goal by all international collaborators of PARENT to obtain 

quantitative estimates of the performance of the latest nondestructive evaluation inspection 

techniques used commercially in the field for detection and accurate sizing of primary water stress 

corrosion cracks (PWSCC) or interdendritic stress corrosion cracks (IDSCC). The data generated 

by this effort provides empirical bases that can support regulatory positions and which can inform 

analyses of the effectiveness of NDE and in-service inspection, more generally, by each country 

based on each country’s specific laws, codes, standards, and regulations. 

PARENT was a follow-on to the Program for Inspection of Nickel Alloy Components (PINC), which 

was based on the Bilateral International Agreements with participants and the in-kind contribution 

of resources from organizations of Finland, Japan, Republic of Korea, Sweden, and the United 

States of America to evaluate several nondestructive techniques for detection and 

characterization of PWSCC and IDSCC in SBDMW and BMI components. In February 2012, the 

NRC conducted new agreements with VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Nuclear 

Regulation Authority of Japan, Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety, Swedish Radiation Safety 

Authority, and Swiss Federal Nuclear Safety Inspectorate to establish PARENT to conduct a 

series of round-robin tests on SBDMWs, BMIs, and LBDMWs. In PARENT blind testing, 

inspections were performed on two SBDMWs, six LBDMWs, five BMIs, and one weld overlay test 

block. All of the simulated flaws in SBDMWs and LBDMWs were cracks; mostly tightened 

solidification cracks and a few laboratory-grown SCC flaws. The inspection procedures employed 

in blind testing included combinations and variations of conventional ultrasonic testing (UT), 

phased-array UT (PAUT), UT time-of-flight diffraction (TOFD), and eddy current testing 

techniques. 

Round-robin testing was performed in PARENT to build on the experience in PINC. Whereas 

PINC obtained data for SBDMW components, PARENT obtained data from both SBDMW and 

LBDMW components so that an estimate in the difference in performance for each type of 

component could be obtained and to obtain estimates of performance for techniques applied to 

the inner diameter (I.D.) and outer diameter (O.D.) surfaces of LBDMWs. In PARENT, LBDMW 

and SBDMW test blocks had near ideal surface conditions. Thus, the results obtained from these 

test blocks provide a quantitative measure of performance that can be achieved by I.D. access of 

components with I.D. surface preparation, relative to performance that can be achieved by O.D. 

surface access. 

v 

FOREWORD 

Leakage events due to primary water stress corrosion cracking (PWSCC) or interdendritic stress 

corrosion cracking (IDSCC) have been recorded in the United States and internationally. This 

cracking has been observed at several weld locations in reactor coolant systems including 

penetrations to the reactor vessel (e.g., control rod drive mechanism (CRDM) penetrations, 

bottom-mounted instrumentation (BMI) penetrations, and nozzle penetrations), and nozzle 

penetrations on steam generator and pressurizer components. In-service inspections (ISI) are 

conducted at nuclear power plants to detect cracks before leakage occurs. The effectiveness of 

ISI is dependent on several factors such as the frequency with which periodic examinations occur, 

human factors, the performance capability of the nondestructive examination (NDE) procedures 

and techniques used, etc. Leakage events, both domestic and international, have indicated a 

need for additional research to evaluate the performance of NDE procedures and techniques for 

the detection and sizing of PWSCC and IDSCC flaws in reactor components. 

In February 2012, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission executed agreements with 

organizations in Finland, Japan, Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States 

to establish the Program to Assess the Reliability of Emerging Nondestructive Techniques 

(PARENT) to investigate the performance of current and emerging NDE techniques to find flaws 

in nickel-alloy welds and base material. This assessment was performed by conducting a series of 

open and blind international round-robin tests on a set of component mock-ups. The project was 

divided into open and blind testing to separate the evaluation of novel techniques implemented by 

nonqualified teams from the evaluation of more established techniques implemented by 

commercial inspection service providers. The objective of the blind test was to obtain quantitative 

empirical estimates of the performance of contemporary NDE inspection procedures and 

techniques used within the industry to determine which of these may be more reliable for 

detecting and accurate sizing of PWSCC or IDSCC flaws. The objective of the open testing was to 

evaluate the performance of novel NDE procedures and techniques that have not yet reached the 

maturity appropriate for field testing. 

The purpose of this report is to publish the results of the detection and sizing analyses performed 

on data collected in blind testing for PARENT. The results from open testing are documented in 

another report that is under preparation. The PARENT blind test results provide quantified 

estimates for the performance of various NDE procedures as applied to DMW test blocks with 

crack defects. The data generated from PARENT provides empirical evidence of the impact of test 

block size and procedure variables on NDE performance. Although the test conditions were less 

challenging than field conditions, data were collected for all test blocks and procedures under 

consistent conditions. Thus, conclusions may be derived regarding relative performances that 

should also be applicable under field conditions. The results generated from blind testing can also 

be used to inform analyses of the effectiveness of NDE and ISI performed in nuclear power 

plants. The data generated by the PARENT blind testing provides insight into capabilities of 

current nondestructive methods used to detect cracks in reactor components and the data from 

the open testing will provide insight into capabilities of more experimental nondestructive 

methods. These insights can be used in developing regulatory positions and to help direct 

additional research activities. 

vii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. iii

FOREWORD ................................................................................................................................. v

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... xi

LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................................................... xvii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... xxi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................................... xxv

ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................................... xxvii

DEFINITIONS .......................................................................................................................... xxix

1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1-1

Quick-Blind Study....................................................................................................... 1-2

Bottom-Mounted Instrumentation Test Blocks ............................................................ 1-2

Weld Overlay Test Block ............................................................................................. 1-2

PWSCC/IDSCC Nomenclature ................................................................................... 1-2

PARENT Organization ................................................................................................ 1-3

Organization of This Report ........................................................................................ 1-3

2 TEST BLOCK DESCRIPTIONS ............................................................................................. 2-1

Bottom-Mounted Instrumentation Test Blocks ............................................................ 2-1

Small-Bore Dissimilar Metal Weld Test Blocks ........................................................... 2-6

Large-Bore Dissimilar Metal Weld Test Blocks ........................................................... 2-7

Weld Overlay Test Block ............................................................................................. 2-8

Simulated Flaw Types ................................................................................................. 2-9

Laboratory-Grown SCC [P13, P15, P16, and P17] ......................................... 2-10

Thermal Fatigue Cracks [P6, P8, and P9]....................................................... 2-12

Weld Solidification Cracks [P35, P40, and P33] ............................................. 2-13

Electrical Discharge Machined Notches [P27] ................................................ 2-13

Mechanical Fatigue Cracks [P27] ................................................................... 2-14

Welding Defects [P25, P26, P27, and P40] .................................................... 2-14

True-State Determination ......................................................................................... 2-14

3 TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES DESCRIPTIONS ......................................................... 3-1

Procedure Summary Data Sheets .............................................................................. 3-1

Ultrasonic Testing Background ................................................................................... 3-3

Conventional Ultrasonic Testing Concepts ....................................................... 3-4

Time-of-Flight Diffraction ................................................................................... 3-6

Phased-Array UT .............................................................................................. 3-7

Eddy Current Techniques ......................................................................................... 3-11

4 DATA OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................. 4-1

Data Reporting ............................................................................................................ 4-1
viii 

Records Collection Overview Summary ..................................................................... 4-5

Scoring Procedure Used for PARENT Blind Round Robin ......................................... 4-7

Multiple Indications Associated with One Flaw ........................................................... 4-9

Multiple Flaws Associated with One Indication ......................................................... 4-10

Probability of Detection Representation .................................................................... 4-14

Sizing Analysis for PARENT Blind Round-Robin Test .............................................. 4-16

5 DATA RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 5-1

Results for DMW Test Blocks ..................................................................................... 5-1

Quick-Blind Testing Results .............................................................................. 5-1

DMW Detection and False Call Rate Summary ................................................ 5-4

DMW Depth Sizing Summary ......................................................................... 5-16

DMW Length Sizing Summary ........................................................................ 5-32

Results for BMI Test Blocks ...................................................................................... 5-47

BMI Detection and False Call Rate Summary ................................................. 5-47

BMI Depth Sizing Summary ............................................................................ 5-48

BMI Length Sizing Summary .......................................................................... 5-49

Results for WOL Test Blocks (P27) .......................................................................... 5-49

6 ANALYSIS OF PARENT RESULTS ...................................................................................... 6-1

Influence of Variables on Detection and Sizing Performance ..................................... 6-1

Comparison of Procedures and Procedure Type Performances ................................ 6-8

Quick-Blind Test Comparison.................................................................................... 6-11

Influence of Tolerance Bounds on Detection Results ............................................... 6-12

ASME Procedure for Combining Flaws .................................................................... 6-14

7 COMPARISON OF PARENT VS. PINC ................................................................................. 7-1

Comparison of Performance on PARENT and PINC DMW Test Blocks .................... 7-1

Comparison of Performance on PARENT and PINC BMI Test Blocks ....................... 7-3

Review of PINC Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................ 7-8

Probability of Detection Performance ............................................................... 7-8

Sizing Performance ........................................................................................... 7-8

8 SUMMARY OF PISC III AND PINC OUTCOMES .................................................................. 8-1

PISC III ........................................................................................................................ 8-1

PINC ........................................................................................................................... 8-1

9 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................... 9-1

10 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 10-1

APPENDIX A – TEST BLOCK INFORMATION ....................................................................... A-1

APPENDIX B – SUMMARY OF BLIND TESTING PROCEDURES/TECHNIQUES ................ B-1

APPENDIX C – PROCEDURE SUMMARY SHEETS .............................................................. C-1

APPENDIX D – SCORING PROCEDURE USED FOR PINC .................................................. D-1

APPENDIX E – INDICATION PLOTS ...................................................................................... E-1
ix 

APPENDIX F – PROBABILITY OF DETECTION CURVES ..................................................... F-1

APPENDIX G – SIZING REGRESSION PLOTS ...................................................................... G-1

APPENDIX H – EFFECTIVENESS EVOLUTION OF DMW INSPECTION TECHNIQUES 

ASSESSED THROUGH THREE INTERNATIONAL RRTs ........................... H-1

xi 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1.1 Organization Chart for Steering Committee and Task Groups ............................ 1-3

Figure 2.1 Coordinate System Used for BMI Test Blocks: P6, P8, P9, P25, P26 ................. 2-2

Figure 2.2 Depiction of Configuration for BMI Test Block P25 with Labeled 

Dimensions .......................................................................................................... 2-3

Figure 2.3 Depiction of Configuration for BMI Test Block P26 with Labeled 

Dimensions .......................................................................................................... 2-4

Figure 2.4 Depiction of Configuration for BMI Test Blocks P6, P8, and P9 with 

Labeled Dimensions ............................................................................................ 2-5

Figure 2.5 Coordinate System Definition for SBDMW Test Blocks P35 and P40, 

and LBDMW Test Block P33 ............................................................................... 2-6

Figure 2.6 Coordinate System for LBDMW Test Blocks P15, P16, P17, and P45 ................ 2-7

Figure 2.7 Coordinate System for LBDMW Test Block P13 .................................................. 2-8

Figure 2.8 Coordinate System for WOL Test Block P37 ....................................................... 2-9

Figure 2.9 Depiction of the Approach Used to Produce a Laboratory-Grown 

PWSCC/IDSCC ................................................................................................. 2-11

Figure 2.10 Flowchart of the Process Used to Produce a Laboratory-Grown 

PWSCC/IDSCC ................................................................................................. 2-11

Figure 2.11 Illustration of Typical Flaw Morphology in P13, P15, P16, and P17 .................. 2-12

Figure 2.12 Eddy Current Response from Flaw 2 of Test Block P9 Showing 

Evidence of Flaw Cluster Formation .................................................................. 2-13

Figure 3.1 Example of a Completed Procedure Summary Sheet for Illustration 

Purposes .............................................................................................................. 3-3

Figure 3.2 Illustration of Pulse-Echo UT Applied at Refracted Angle, θ, for 

Examination of I.D. Cracks .................................................................................. 3-4

Figure 3.3 Illustration of Pitch/Catch UT Applied for Examination of I.D. Cracks .................. 3-4

Figure 3.4 Illustration of a Transmit-Receive Transducer ..................................................... 3-5

Figure 3.5 Illustration of Crack Tip Diffraction and Crack Depth Sizing Based on 

Tip Diffraction Signal and Corner Reflection ........................................................ 3-5

Figure 3.6 Illustration of Amplitude Drop Method for Flaw Sizing ......................................... 3-6

Figure 3.7 Diagram of Time-of-Flight Diffraction Technique ................................................. 3-7

Figure 3.8 Illustration of Time Delay Sequencing of Excitation of PAUT 

Transducer Elements to Achieve Beam Steering and Focusing .......................... 3-8

Figure 3.9 Illustration of Beam Skew and Beam Refraction Directions for Matrix 

PAUT Probe ......................................................................................................... 3-8

Figure 3.10 Depiction of Sectorial Scanning with PAUT ......................................................... 3-9

Figure 3.11 Illustration of B-scan, C-scan, and D-scan Views for Displaying PAUT 

Data Responses ................................................................................................ 3-10

Figure 3.12 PAUT Data Represented as A-scan (top left), C-scan (top right), Bscan (bottom left), and D-scan (bottom right) .................................................... 3-10

Figure 3.13 PAUT Data Represented as Sectorial Scan ...................................................... 3-11
xii 

Figure 3.14 Depiction of a Single Coil Eddy Current Probe with an Alternating 

Current Excitation, Induced Magnetic Fields, and Induced Eddy 

Currents. Disturbance of eddy current flow can be caused by existence 

of a defect. ......................................................................................................... 3-12

Figure 3.15 Schematic Illustration of an Eddy Current Probe with Separate Coils for 

Field Excitation and for Signal Detection ........................................................... 3-12

Figure 3.16 Depiction of the Cross-Coil Eddy Current Probe Configuration ......................... 3-13

Figure 4.1 Technique Data Sheets for Techniques ET400Hz and TOFD.Ax for 

Fictitious Inspection 12.P89.1 .............................................................................. 4-3

Figure 4.2 Technique Data Sheet for Technique TOFD.Circ for Fictitious 

Inspection 12.P89.1 ............................................................................................. 4-4

Figure 4.3 Inspection Summary Data Sheet for Fictitious Inspection 12.P89.1 .................... 4-4

Figure 4.4 Illustration of Tolerance (X and Y) Applied Flaw True-State (in red) 

Dimensions for the Purpose of Scoring in PARENT ............................................ 4-8

Figure 4.5 Probability of Detection versus Scoring Tolerance for DMW Test Data .............. 4-8

Figure 4.6 Probability of Detection versus Scoring Tolerance for BMI Test Data ................. 4-9

Figure 4.7 Depiction of Indication Plot Illustrating 2-D Representation of Test 

Block. The red filled rectangles represent the true-state (actual flaws), 

while red empty rectangles surrounding the flaws depict the scoring 

tolerance. Indications are shown as black empty rectangles. .............................. 4-9

Figure 4.8 Indication Plot for ECT.135 Applied to P33 from X = 2000 mm to X = 

2800 mm Illustrating Two Indications Intersecting the Region Bounded 

by the Tolerance Box ......................................................................................... 4-10

Figure 4.9 Illustration of Tolerance Divided Between Flaw and Multiple Indications 

Intersecting the Region Bounded by the Flaw Tolerance Box ........................... 4-10

Figure 4.10 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.108 Applied to Test Block P35 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 0 mm–300 mm) ........................................ 4-11

Figure 4.11 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.108 Applied to Test Block P35 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 0 mm–300 mm) ........................................ 4-12

Figure 4.12 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.115 Applied to Test Block P35 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 0 mm–300 mm) ........................................ 4-12

Figure 4.13 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.TOFD.117 Applied to Test Block P35 

in PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 0 mm–300 mm) .................................... 4-13

Figure 4.14 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.128 Applied to Test Block P35 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 0 mm–300 mm) ........................................ 4-13

Figure 4.15 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.134 Applied to Test Block P35 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 0 mm–300 mm) ........................................ 4-14

Figure 4.16 POD versus Depth (mm) for PAUT Procedures Applied to LBDMW 

Test Blocks with O.D. Access (w/o Quick-blind) ................................................ 4-15

Figure 4.17 Example of Sizing Regression Plot for Depth Sizing Results Obtained 

on LBDMW Test Blocks by Access to the I.D. Surface (dimensions are 

in mm) ................................................................................................................ 4-17

Figure 4.18 Length Sizing Fit (in mm) for UT.PAUT Procedures Applied to 

LBDMWs (O.D. Access – Quick-blind) .............................................................. 4-18
xiii 

Figure 4.19 Depth Sizing Fit (in mm) for PAUT Procedures Applied to LBDMWs 

(I.D. Access – Quick-blind) ................................................................................ 4-19

Figure 5.1 Probability of Detection versus Flaw Depth ......................................................... 5-2

Figure 5.2 Probability of Detection versus Flaw Length ........................................................ 5-2

Figure 5.3 POD versus Depth (mm) for All Procedures Applied to LBDMW Test 

Blocks with I.D. Access ........................................................................................ 5-6

Figure 5.4 POD versus Depth (mm) for All Procedures Applied to LBDMW Test 

Blocks with O.D. Access ...................................................................................... 5-7

Figure 5.5 POD versus Depth (mm) for All Procedures Applied to SBDMW Test 

Blocks with O.D. Access ...................................................................................... 5-7

Figure 5.6 POD versus Depth (mm) for PAUT Procedures Applied to LBDMW 

Test Blocks with O.D. Access .............................................................................. 5-9

Figure 5.7 POD versus Depth (mm) for Conventional UT Procedures Applied to 

LBDMW Test Blocks with O.D. ............................................................................ 5-9

Figure 5.8 POD versus Depth (mm) for PAUT Procedures Applied to SBDMW 

Test Blocks ........................................................................................................ 5-10

Figure 5.9 POD versus Depth (mm) for Conventional UT Procedures Applied to 

SBDMW Test Blocks .......................................................................................... 5-10

Figure 5.10 POD versus Length (mm) for All Procedures Applied to LBDMW Test 

Blocks with I.D. Access ...................................................................................... 5-12

Figure 5.11 POD versus Length (mm) for All Procedures Applied to LBDMW Test 

Blocks with O.D. Access .................................................................................... 5-13

Figure 5.12 POD versus Length (mm) for All Procedures Applied to SBDMW Test 

Blocks ................................................................................................................ 5-13

Figure 5.13 Depth Sizing Fit (in mm) for PAUT Procedures Applied to LBDMWs 

(I.D. Access – Quick-blind) ................................................................................ 5-20

Figure 5.14 Depth Sizing Fit (in mm) for UT.ECT Procedures Applied to LBDMWs 

(I.D. Access) ...................................................................................................... 5-21

Figure 5.15 Depth Sizing Fit (in mm) for UT.ECT Procedures Applied to LBDMWs 

(I.D. Access – Blind + Quick-blind) .................................................................... 5-22

Figure 5.16 Depth Sizing Fit (in mm) for UT.PAUT Procedures Applied to LBDMWs 

(I.D. Access) ...................................................................................................... 5-23

Figure 5.17 Depth Sizing Fit (in mm) for UT.PAUT Procedures Applied to LBDMWs 

(I.D. Access – Blind + Quick-blind) .................................................................... 5-24

Figure 5.18 Depth Sizing Fit (in mm) for UT.TOFD.ECT Procedures Applied to 

LBDMWs (I.D. Access) ...................................................................................... 5-25

Figure 5.19 Depth Sizing Fit (in mm) for PAUT Procedures Applied to LBDMWs 

(O.D. Access) ..................................................................................................... 5-26

Figure 5.20 Depth Sizing Fit (in mm) for Conventional UT Procedures Applied to 

LBDMWs (O.D. Access) .................................................................................... 5-27

Figure 5.21 Depth Sizing Fit (in mm) for Conventional UT Procedures Applied to 

LBDMWs (O.D. Access – Blind + Quick-blind) .................................................. 5-28

Figure 5.22 Depth Sizing Fit (in mm) for UT.PAUT Procedures Applied to LBDMWs 

(O.D. Access – Quick-blind) ............................................................................... 5-29
xiv 

Figure 5.23 Depth Sizing Fit (in mm) for PAUT Procedures Applied to SBDMWs 

(O.D. Access) ..................................................................................................... 5-30

Figure 5.24 Depth Sizing Fit (in mm) for Conventional UT Procedures Applied to 

SBDMWs (O.D. Access) .................................................................................... 5-31

Figure 5.25 Depth Sizing Fit (in mm) for UT.TOFD Procedures Applied to 

SBDMWs (O.D. Access) .................................................................................... 5-32

Figure 5.26 Length Sizing Fit (in mm) for ECT Procedures Applied to LBDMWs 

(I.D. Access) ...................................................................................................... 5-35

Figure 5.27 Length Sizing Fit (in mm) for UT.ECT Procedures Applied to LBDMWs 

(I.D. Access; all dimensions are in mm) ............................................................. 5-36

Figure 5.28 Length Sizing Fit (in mm) for UT.ECT Procedures Applied to LBDMWs 

(I.D. Access – Blind + Quick-blind; all dimensions are in mm) ........................... 5-37

Figure 5.29 Length Sizing Fit (in mm) for UT.PAUT Procedures Applied to 

LBDMWs (I.D. Access; all dimensions are in mm) ............................................ 5-38

Figure 5.30 Length Sizing Fit (in mm) for UT.PAUT Procedures Applied to 

LBDMWs (I.D. Access – Blind + Quick-blind; all dimensions are in mm) .......... 5-39

Figure 5.31 Length Sizing Fit (in mm) for UT.TOFD.ECT Procedures Applied to 

LBDMWs (I.D. Access; all dimensions are in mm) ............................................ 5-40

Figure 5.32 Length Sizing Fit (in mm) for PAUT Procedures Applied to LBDMWs 

(O.D. Access; all dimensions are in mm) ........................................................... 5-41

Figure 5.33 Length Sizing Fit (in mm) for UT Procedures Applied to LBDMWs (O.D. 

Access; all dimensions are in mm) .................................................................... 5-42

Figure 5.34 Length Sizing Fit (in mm) for UT Procedures Applied to LBDMWs (O.D. 

Access – Blind + Quick-blind; all dimensions are in mm) .................................. 5-43

Figure 5.35 Length Sizing Fit (in mm) for UT.PAUT Procedures Applied to 

LBDMWs (O.D. Access – Quick-blind; all dimensions are in mm) ..................... 5-44

Figure 5.36 Length Sizing Fit (in mm) for PAUT Procedures Applied to SBDMWs 

(O.D. Access; all dimensions are in mm) ........................................................... 5-45

Figure 5.37 Length Sizing Fit (in mm) for UT Procedures Applied to SBDMWs 

(O.D. Access; all dimensions are in mm) ........................................................... 5-46

Figure 5.38 Length Sizing Fit (in mm) for UT.TOFD Procedures Applied to 

SBDMWs (O.D. Access; all dimensions are in mm) .......................................... 5-47

Figure 5.39 Depth Sizing Results for the WOL Test Block with Results for Surface 

Breaking (Triangles) and Non-Surface Breaking (Circles) Flaws 

Identified ............................................................................................................ 5-51

Figure 5.40 Length Sizing Results for the WOL Test Block with Results for Surface 

Breaking (Triangles) and Non-Surface Breaking (Circles) Flaws 

Identified ............................................................................................................ 5-52

Figure 5.41 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.108 Applied to WOL Test Block 

(P27) [theta – R view] ........................................................................................ 5-52

Figure 5.42 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.108 Applied to WOL Test Block 

(P27) [theta – Y view] ......................................................................................... 5-53

Figure 5.43 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.126 Applied to WOL Test Block 

(P27) [theta – R view] ........................................................................................ 5-53
xv 

Figure 5.44 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.126 Applied to WOL Test Block 

(P27) [theta – Y view] ......................................................................................... 5-54

Figure 6.1 Depth Sizing Fit for Axial Flaws in LBDMWs (I.D. Access; all 

dimensions are in mm) ......................................................................................... 6-3

Figure 6.2 Depth Sizing Fit for Circumferential Flaws in LBDMWs (I.D. Access; all 

dimensions are in mm) ......................................................................................... 6-4

Figure 6.3 Depth Sizing Fit for Axial Flaws in LBDMWs (O.D. Access; all 

dimensions are in mm) ......................................................................................... 6-5

Figure 6.4 Depth Sizing Fit for Circumferential Flaws in LBDMWs (O.D. Access; 

all dimensions are in mm) .................................................................................... 6-6

Figure 6.5 Depth Sizing Fit for Axial Flaws in SBDMWs (O.D. Access; all 

dimensions are in mm) ......................................................................................... 6-7

Figure 6.6 Depth Sizing Fit for Circumferential Flaws in SBDMWs (O.D. Access; 

all dimensions are in mm) .................................................................................... 6-8

Figure 6.7 Indication Plot for UT.ECT.144 Applied to P33 from X = 0 mm to X = 

1000 mm ............................................................................................................ 6-13

Figure 6.8 Indication Plot for UT.ECT.144 Applied to P33 from X = 1000 mm to X 

= 2000 mm ......................................................................................................... 6-13

Figure 6.9 Indication Plot for UT.ECT.144 Applied to P33 from X = 2000 mm to X 

= 2800 mm ......................................................................................................... 6-14

Figure 6.10 Methodology for Determining Singularity or Multiplicity of Linear 

Surface Flaws. Reprinted from ASME 2007 BPVC Section XI, Figure 

IWA-3400-1, by permission of The American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers. All rights reserved. ........................................................................... 6-15

Figure 6.11 Indication Plot for ECT.135 Applied to P33 from X = 2000 mm to X = 

2800 mm ............................................................................................................ 6-16

Figure 7.1 POD Regression with 95% Confidence Bounds for TOFD.ECT.126 

Procedure Applied to BMI Tube I.D. Examinations in Test Blocks P25 

and P26 ................................................................................................................ 7-4

Figure 7.2 POD Regressions for BMI Tube I.D. Examinations in PINC (Figure 

4.12 from NUREG/CR-7019) ............................................................................... 7-5

Figure 7.3 POD Regression with 95% Confidence Bounds for ECT.124 and 

ECT.108 Procedures Applied to BMI J-groove Weld Examinations in 

Test Blocks P6, P8, P9, and P26 ......................................................................... 7-5

Figure 7.4 Indication Plot for Procedure ECT.124 Applied to P26 [theta – R view] .............. 7-6

Figure 7.5 Indication Plot for Procedure ECT.108 Applied to P26 [theta – R view] .............. 7-7

Figure 7.6 Indication Plot for Procedure TOFD.ECT.126 Applied to P26 [theta – R 

view] ..................................................................................................................... 7-7

Figure 7.7 Indication Plot for Procedure TOFD.ECT.126 Applied to P26 [theta – Z 

view] ..................................................................................................................... 7-8

xvii 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1.1 Summary of Members of the PARENT Steering Committee, NDE Task 

Group, Atlas Task Group, and Invigilator/DAG .................................................... 1-5

Table 2.1 Summary of Categories into which Test Blocks for Blind Testing are 

Classified ............................................................................................................. 2-1

Table 2.2 Tabulation of BMI Test Block Dimensions ........................................................... 2-5

Table 2.3 Summary of Dimensions for SBDMW Test Blocks .............................................. 2-7

Table 2.4 Summary of Dimensions for LBDMW Test Blocks ............................................... 2-8

Table 2.5 Summary of Dimensions for WOL Test Block P27 .............................................. 2-9

Table 2.6 Summary of Flaw Simulation Methods Used and Quantities of Each 

Type of Simulated Flaw ..................................................................................... 2-10

Table 3.1 Definitions of Data Fields in the “Procedure Summary Data Sheet” .................... 3-2

Table 4.1 Definitions of Data Fields for “Technique Data Sheets” and “Inspection 

Summary Data Sheets” ........................................................................................ 4-2

Table 4.2 Number Inspection Summary Data Sheets Collected for Each 

Procedure ............................................................................................................ 4-6

Table 4.3 Number of Inspections by Access ........................................................................ 4-6

Table 4.4 Number of Flaw Observations by Flaw Type ....................................................... 4-7

Table 4.5. Number of Flaw Observations by Flaw Orientation ............................................. 4-7

Table 4.6 Summary of POD (%) versus Depth for Procedure Types for LBDMWs 

(O.D. Access) ..................................................................................................... 4-15

Table 4.7 Summary of POD (%) by Access, Orientation, and Block Type versus 

Flaw Depth ......................................................................................................... 4-16

Table 5.1 Flaw Depth Sizing Error by Procedure ................................................................. 5-3

Table 5.2 Flaw Depth Sizing Error by I.D./O.D. Access ....................................................... 5-3

Table 5.3 Flaw Length Sizing Error by Procedures(a)........................................................... 5-3

Table 5.4 Flaw Length Sizing Error Summary ..................................................................... 5-3

Table 5.5 DMW Detection and False Call Rate Summary Organized by 

Procedure ............................................................................................................ 5-5

Table 5.6 Detection and False Call Rate Summary for Each DMW Test Block ................... 5-5

Table 5.7 Summary of POD (%) versus Depth for Procedure Types for LBDMWs 

(I.D. Access) ........................................................................................................ 5-8

Table 5.8 Summary of POD (%) versus Depth for Procedure Types for LBDMWs 

(O.D. Access) ....................................................................................................... 5-8

Table 5.9 Summary of POD (%) versus Depth for Procedure Types for SBDMWs 

(O.D. Access) ....................................................................................................... 5-8

Table 5.10 Summary of POD (%) versus Depth for Procedures Applied to 

LBDMWs (I.D. Access) ...................................................................................... 5-11

Table 5.11 Summary of POD (%) versus Depth for Procedures Applied to 

LBDMWs (O.D. Access) .................................................................................... 5-11
xviii 

Table 5.12 Summary of POD (%) versus Depth for Procedures Applied to 

SBDMWs (O.D. Access) .................................................................................... 5-11

Table 5.13 Summary of POD (%) by Flaw Length in LBDMW Test Blocks by 

Procedure Type (I.D. Access) ............................................................................ 5-14

Table 5.14 Summary of POD (%) by Flaw Length in LBDMW Test Blocks by 

Procedure Type (O.D. Access) .......................................................................... 5-14

Table 5.15 Summary of POD (%) by Flaw Length in SBDMW Test Blocks by 

Procedure Type ................................................................................................. 5-14

Table 5.16 Summary of POD (%) by Flaw Length in LBDMW Test Blocks for Each 

Procedure (I.D. Access) ..................................................................................... 5-15

Table 5.17 Summary of POD (%) by Flaw Length in LBDMW Test Blocks for Each 

Procedure (O.D. Access) ................................................................................... 5-15

Table 5.18 Summary of POD (%) by Flaw Length in SBDMW Test Blocks for Each 

Procedure .......................................................................................................... 5-15

Table 5.19 Summary of Depth Sizing Errors for Procedure Types Applied to 

LBDMWs with I.D. Access ................................................................................. 5-16

Table 5.20 Summary of Depth Sizing Errors for Procedure Types Applied to 

LBDMWs with O.D. Access ............................................................................... 5-16

Table 5.21 Summary of Depth Sizing Errors for Procedures Types on SBDMWs 

with O.D. Access ................................................................................................ 5-17

Table 5.22 Summary of Depth Sizing Errors for Procedures on LBDMWs (I.D. 

Access) .............................................................................................................. 5-17

Table 5.23 Summary of Depth Sizing Errors for Procedures on LBDMWs (O.D. 

Access) .............................................................................................................. 5-18

Table 5.24 Summary of Depth Sizing Errors for Procedures on SBDMWs (O.D. 

Access) .............................................................................................................. 5-19

Table 5.25 Summary of Length Sizing Errors for Procedure Types Applied to 

LBDMWs (I.D. Access – Outliers Omitted)(a) ..................................................... 5-33

Table 5.26 Summary of Length Sizing Errors for Procedure Types Applied to 

LBDMWs (O.D. Access) .................................................................................... 5-33

Table 5.27 Summary of Length Sizing Errors for Procedure Types Applied to 

SBDMWs (O.D. Access) .................................................................................... 5-33

Table 5.28 Summary of Length Sizing Errors for Procedures Applied to LBDMWs 

(I.D. Access – Outliers Omitted)(a)...................................................................... 5-34

Table 5.29 Summary of Length Sizing Errors for Procedures Applied to LBDMWs 

(O.D. Access) ..................................................................................................... 5-34

Table 5.30 Summary of Length Sizing Errors for Procedures Applied to SBDMWs 

(O.D. Access) ..................................................................................................... 5-34

Table 5.31 Length Sizing Outliers ........................................................................................ 5-35

Table 5.32 BMI Detection and False Call Rate Summary Organized by Procedure ........... 5-48

Table 5.33 Detection and False Call Rate Summary for Each BMI Test Block ................... 5-48

Table 5.34 Summary of POD (%) by Flaw Depth in BMI Test Blocks for Each 

Procedure Type ................................................................................................. 5-48
xix 

Table 5.35 Summary of POD (%) by Flaw Length in BMI Test Blocks for Each 

Procedure Type ................................................................................................. 5-48

Table 5.36 BMI Depth Sizing Results .................................................................................. 5-48

Table 5.37 BMI Length Sizing Results ................................................................................. 5-49

Table 5.38 WOL Test Block Sizing Results ......................................................................... 5-50

Table 5.39 Summary of Sizing RMSEs for the WOL Test Block ......................................... 5-50

Table 6.1 Summary of POD (%) by Access, Orientation, and Block Type versus 

Flaw Depth ........................................................................................................... 6-2

Table 6.2 Depth Sizing Results by Access, Orientation, and Block Type ............................ 6-2

Table 6.3 Length Sizing Results by Access, Orientation and Block Type (Outliers 

Omitted) ............................................................................................................... 6-2

Table 6.4 Summary of POD (%) versus Depth for PAUT and UT Procedure 

Types for SBDMWs (O.D. Access) ...................................................................... 6-9

Table 6.5 Summary of POD (%) versus Depth for PAUT and UT Procedure 

Types for LBDMWs (O.D. Access) ...................................................................... 6-9

Table 6.6 Summary of Depth Sizing Errors for PAUT and UT Procedures Types 

on SBDMWs with O.D. Access ............................................................................ 6-9

Table 6.7 Summary of Depth Sizing Errors for PAUT and UT Procedure Types 

Applied to LBDMWs with O.D. Access ................................................................ 6-9

Table 6.8 Summary of Length Sizing Errors for Procedure Types that do and do 

not incorporate an ECT technique Applied to LBDMWs (I.D. Access – 

Outliers Omitted) .................................................................................................. 6-9

Table 6.9 Summary of Procedures PAUT.115, PAUT.128, PAUT.108, and 

PAUT.126 .......................................................................................................... 6-10

Table 6.10 Summary of Procedures UT.108, UT.126, UT.134, and UT.25 ......................... 6-11

Table 6.11 Comparison of Blind and Quick-blind Sizing Results for UT.PAUT.113 ............ 6-12

Table 6.12 Comparison of UT.ECT.144 (Blind) and UT.ECT.106 (Quick-blind) 

Sizing Results .................................................................................................... 6-12

Table 6.13 Detection and False Call Comparison for 10 mm and 15 mm 

Tolerances Applied for Procedure UT.ECT.144 ................................................ 6-14

Table 6.14 Depth Sizing Error Comparison for 10 mm and 15 mm Tolerances 

Applied for Procedure UT.ECT.144. .................................................................. 6-14

Table 6.15 Length Sizing Error Comparison for 10 mm and 15 mm Tolerances 

Applied for Procedure UT.ECT.144 ................................................................... 6-14

Table 6.16 X1, X2, Y1, and Y2 Coordinates for Indications No. 10 and 11 in Test 

Block P33 by Procedure ECT.135 ..................................................................... 6-15

Table 7.1 Comparison of PINC and PARENT Detection Results [POD (%)] 

versus Depth for DMW Test Blocks ..................................................................... 7-1

Table 7.2 Comparison on Sizing Performances (Depth and Length) for PINC and 

PARENT for DMW Test Blocks ............................................................................ 7-2

Table 7.3 Summary of PARENT Procedures that Produced Depth Sizing RMSEs 

of Less Than the ASME Code Requirement for Depth Sizing Accuracy 

(3.2 mm) ............................................................................................................... 7-3
xx 

Table 7.4 Comparison of PINC and PARENT Detection Results [POD (%)] 

versus Length on BMI Test Blocks for J-groove Weld Surface 

Examinations ....................................................................................................... 7-4

Table 7.5 Comparison of PINC and PARENT Length Sizing Results on BMI Test 

Blocks .................................................................................................................. 7-6

Table 7.6 Subset of Flaws for Test Block P26 ..................................................................... 7-6
xxi 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission executed agreements with VTT Technical Research 

Centre of Finland, Nuclear Regulation Authority of Japan (NRA), Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety 

(KINS), Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (SSM), and Swiss Federal Nuclear Safety 

Inspectorate (ENSI) to establish the Program to Assess the Reliability of Emerging Nondestructive 

Techniques (PARENT) in February of 2012 to investigate the performance of current emerging 

and perspective novel nondestructive examination procedures and techniques to find flaws in 

nickel-alloy welds and base material. This assessment was performed by conducting a series of 

open and blind international round-robin tests on a set of nickel alloy piping components. The 

blind testing portion of PARENT collected data from 71 inspections performed on 6 large-bore 

dissimilar metal weld (LBDMW) test blocks, 2 small-bore dissimilar metal weld (SBDMW) test 

blocks, 5 bottom-mounted instrumentation (BMI) test blocks, and 1 weld overlay (WOL) test block. 

The data was collected by 14 teams using 23 different inspection procedures. The objective of the 

blind testing is to obtain quantitative estimates of the performance of the latest commercially used 

nondestructive evaluation (NDE) inspection procedures to determine which may be more reliable 

for detecting and accurate sizing of primary water stress corrosion cracks (PWSCC) or 

interdendritic stress corrosion cracking (IDSCC). The inspection procedures employed in blind 

testing included combinations and variations of conventional ultrasonic testing (UT), phased-array 

UT (PAUT), UT time-of-flight diffraction (TOFD), and eddy current testing techniques (ECT). 

Quantitative NDE performance data for the latest procedures applied to inspect dissimilar metal 

weld (DMW) components in the field represents a cross-cutting need identified as a goal by all 

international collaborators of PARENT. The data generated by this effort provides empirical bases 

that can support regulatory positions and which can inform analyses of the effectiveness of NDE 

and in-service inspection, more generally, by each country based on each country’s specific laws, 

codes, standards, and regulations. 

PARENT is a follow-on to the Program for Inspection of Nickel Alloy Components (PINC) 

(Cumblidge et al. 2010). In PINC, a study was conducted to quantitatively estimate the 

performance of NDE methods of nickel-alloy SBDMW components. PARENT incorporates both 

SBDMWs and LBDMWs so that the difference in performance for each type of component can be 

observed and quantitatively estimated. In addition, LBDMWs were included in PARENT to allow 

quantitative comparison of NDE performance obtained from procedures that access the inner 

diameter (I.D.) and those that access the outer diameter (O.D.) surfaces of LBDMWs. In 

PARENT, LBDMW and SBDMW test blocks had near ideal surface conditions. Thus, the results 

obtained from these test blocks provide a quantitative measure of performance that can be 

achieved by I.D. access of components with I.D. surface preparation, relative to performance that 

can be achieved by O.D. surface access. Finally, PARENT blind testing was restricted to teams 

and procedures developed by commercial inspection vendors so that the results of aggregate 

analysis provide a better representation of NDE field performance within the industry. 

The primary objective of this report is to publish the results of the detection and sizing analyses 

performed on data collected in blind testing for PARENT. Another report in preparation will 

document the results of PARENT open testing. The purpose of the open testing was to perform 

an evaluation of novel techniques that have not yet reached the maturity level for field testing. In 

open testing, test teams are provided information regarding the locations of flaws in test blocks. 

Most of the teams and procedures included in open testing were not formally qualified. The 

objective of open testing was to assess the basic performance capability of emerging techniques 

by reviewing signal responses for both flaws and noise. 
xxii 

Significant conclusions of PARENT blind testing data analysis include the following: 

 I.D. procedures exhibited superior performance over O.D. procedures for LBDMWs as 

measured by probability of detection (POD) and length sizing root means squared error 

(RMSE). 

 Better performance is observed for inspections performed from the O.D. of SBDMWs in 

comparison to inspections performed from the O.D. of LBDMWs based on POD and depth 

sizing RMSE results. 

 Flaw orientation exhibited an influence on detection performance with circumferential flaws 

being easier to detect than axial flaws. 

 Flaw orientation did not have an influence on depth sizing performance. 

 I.D. procedures that include ECT performed better at length sizing than I.D. procedures that 

do not include ECT in the blind test. 

 PAUT procedures exhibit better performance than conventional UT procedures for O.D. 

examinations of SBDMWs as measured by POD and depth sizing RMSE. 

 PAUT performance is similar to conventional UT performance for O.D. examinations of 

LBDMWs as measured by POD and depth sizing RMSE. 

 PARENT results indicate substantial improvement in PAUT and TOFD performance 

compared with PINC performance data. 

 PARENT results indicate that significant variability in performance can exist for conventional 

UT and PAUT procedures implementing similar techniques. 

 For O.D. examinations of SBDMWs, one of the conventional UT procedures exhibiting lowest 

detection performance employed only one angle for inspection. This conventional UT 

procedure was also the only non-qualified procedure that participated in blind testing. All other 

conventional UT procedures incorporated multiple angles for inspection. 

 One of five procedures applied for length sizing on LBDMW test blocks by O.D. surface 

access in the Blind test exhibited length sizing performance that did not meet the intent of the 

American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME 

Code), Section XI requirement of RMSE within 19 mm. 

 One of nine procedures applied for length sizing on SBDMW test blocks by O.D. surface 

access in the Blind test exhibited length sizing performance that did not meet the intent of the 

ASME Code, Section XI requirement of RMSE within 19 mm. 

 Two of three procedures applied for depth sizing on LBDMW test blocks by I.D. surface 

access in the Blind test exhibited depth sizing performance that met the intent of the ASME 

Code, Section XI requirement of RSME within 3.2 mm. However, the flaw depth size 

distribution in these test blocks tended to be shallower than ASME Code, Section XI 

requirements for flaw size distribution and it was not the intent of the PARENT test blocks to 

meet ASME Code flaw size distribution requirements. 
xxiii 

 Two of nine procedures applied for depth sizing on SBDMW test blocks by O.D. surface 

access in the Blind test exhibited depth sizing performance that met the intent of the ASME 

Code, Section XI requirement of RSME within 3.2 mm. However, the flaw depth size 

distribution in these test blocks tended to be shallower than ASME Code, Section XI 

requirements for flaw size distribution and it was not the intent of the PARENT test blocks to 

meet ASME Code flaw size distribution requirements. 

 ECT POD data is higher for PINC than PARENT. 

 In general, it was felt that insufficient data was collected on BMI test blocks to draw firm 

conclusions regarding detection and length sizing performance. No data was provided to 

assess depth sizing performance for flaws in J-groove welds. In addition, many of the flaws 

implanted in BMI test blocks were considered to have limited relevance to flaws expected in 

the field. 

Recommendations for future work are presented here based on the conclusions from PARENT 

blind testing outlined above and the summary of outcomes from PISC III (Program for the 

Inspection of Steel Components) and PINC. An outline of the recommendations to be addressed 

in the future is provided below: 

 Recommendation 1: Limited data was collected on BMI test blocks in PINC and PARENT, 

so future work could focus on collecting new BMI data for performance quantification and 

consider combining PINC and PARENT BMI data for analysis. 

 Recommendation 2: ECT performance in PARENT is lower than reported for PINC. 

However, the ECT procedures in PARENT were applied to LBDMWs; in PINC, they were 

applied to SBDMWs. Therefore, further evaluation using laboratory parametric studies of ECT 

procedures applied to SBDMW and LBDMW test blocks to assess and understand the results 

in PINC and PARENT is recommended. 

 Recommendation 3: Further work is needed to understand the source of performance 

variability observed for PAUT and conventional UT procedures implementing similar 

techniques in PARENT and to quantify the relative influence of equipment, human factors, etc. 

on performance for procedures employing similar techniques. 

 Recommendation 4: Further work is needed to understand and quantify the influence of 

specific PAUT and conventional UT procedure variables, such as number of inspection angles 

and sectorial versus linear scanning, on detection and sizing performance. 

 Recommendation 5: The flaw simulations used in PARENT approximate PWSCC and 

IDSCC degradation processes but are not actual field PWSCC or field IDSCC flaws. The 

limitations of SCC flaw simulation techniques with respect to their relevance to representing 

field PWSCC and IDSCC flaw NDE responses should be further evaluated. In addition, 

improving the relevance of simulated flaws to field PWSCC and IDSCC flaws, based on such 

an evaluation, should also be investigated. 

xxv 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

There have been significant contributions made by a number of people and organizations to 

accomplish this study. The authors express appreciation to Aladar Csontos, Iouri Prokofiev, and 

Stephen Cumblidge of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for their leadership in 

helping to organize and start the PARENT program; to David Rudland of the NRC for his 

continued commitment to PARENT; to Stephen Cumblidge for continuing to provide technical and 

philosophical input to PARENT; and to Iouri Prokofiev for his continuous leadership of PARENT. 

Brett Braatz was the original Project Manager for PARENT and was responsible for the complex 

task of organizing and executing test block shipping and data collection, including the Quick-blind 

testing. The authors also acknowledge the tireless efforts of the PARENT invigilators—Tommy 

Zetterwall (Europe), Ichiro Komura (Japan), and Kyung Cho Kim (South Korea)—who reviewed 

inspection procedures and monitored the work of inspection teams in their respective regions. 

Without their efforts, PARENT could not have been conducted. 

The following companies participated in the PARENT blind round-robin test and should be 

acknowledged for their significant contributions: 

 European Inspection Teams

– Alstom Power Products

– VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland

– Swiss Association for Technical Inspections, Nuclear Inspectorate (SVTI)

– Dekra Industrial

– Nuclear Research and Consultancy Group (NRG)

– FORCE Technology

 Korean Inspection Teams

– Doosan Heavy Industries & Construction

– Korea Plant Service (KPS)

– Universal Monitoring Inspection (UMI)

– Advanced NDE Service Company (ANSCO)

– SAE-AN Engineering Corporation

 Japanese Inspection Teams

– Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI)

 United States Inspection Teams

– IHI Southwest Technologies
xxvi 

The authors acknowledge the following organizations who have participated in the PARENT. 

Organizations from Japan 

 Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) 

 Japan Power Engineering and Inspection Corporation (JAPEIC) 

 Japanese PWR Industry Group 

 Kansai Electric Power Company 

 Shikoku Electric Power Company 

 Kyushu Electric Power Company 

 Hokkaido Electric Power Company 

 Japan Atomic Power Company (JAPC) 

Organizations from Europe 

 Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (SSM) 

 Swedish Qualification Centre (SQC) 

 VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland 

 Swiss Association for Technical Inspections, Nuclear Inspectorate (SVTI) 

 Swiss Federal Nuclear Safety Inspectorate (ENSI) 

Organizations from South Korea 

 Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety (KINS) 

 Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power (KHNP) 

Organization from the United States 

 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

Finally, the authors thank Ms. Kay Hass for typing and editing versions and revisions of this 

document. 
xxvii 

ACRONYMS 

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers 

ASME Code ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code 

Ax axial

BMI bottom-mounted instrumentation

BWR boiling water reactor 

Circ circumferential

CRDM control rod drive mechanism 

DAG Data Analysis Group 

DMW dissimilar metal weld 

ECT eddy current testing 

EDM electrical discharge machining 

FCP false call probability 

FCR false call rate 

I.D. inner diameter

ID identification

IDSCC interdendritic stress corrosion cracking 

ISI in-service inspection

LBDMW large-bore dissimilar metal weld 

MFC mechanical fatigue crack

NDE nondestructive examination

NOBS number of observations 

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

O.D. outer diameter

PARENT Program for Assessing the Reliability of Emerging Nondestructive 

Technologies 

PAUT phased-array ultrasonic testing

PC pitch/catch

PE pulse-echo

PINC Program for Inspection of Nickel Allow Components 

PISC Program for the Inspection of Steel Components 

PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

POD probability of detection 

PWR pressurized water reactor

PWSCC primary water stress corrosion cracking 

RMSE root mean square error 

RRT round-robin testing
xxviii 

SBDMW small-bore dissimilar metal weld 

SC solidification crack 

SCC stress corrosion cracking 

SI slag inclusion 

TFC thermal fatigue crack 

TOFD time-of-flight diffraction 

TR transmit-receive 

TRL transmit-receive-longitudinal 

UT ultrasonic testing 

WOL weld overlay 
xxix 

DEFINITIONS 

Bottom-mounted 

instrumentation (BMI) 

A cylindrical penetration in the bottom head of a nuclear reactor 

pressure vessel, into which a tube is welded. Typical inside diameters 

are a few centimeters. 

Dendrite weld grain (columnar or tree-like) 

Dissimilar metal weld 

(DMW) 

Weldments joining components made of different alloys. In the context 

of PINC, refers primarily to nozzle welds. 

Heat-affected zone a volume of base metal, adjacent to the fusion zone, changed by the 

heat of welding 

Interdendritic between the tree-like grains, such as can form in castings or weld 

metal 

Intergranular between the metal crystals rather than through them 

J-groove weld a weld with profile shaped as the letter “J,” the seal weld of a CRDM or 

BMI penetration 

Lack of fusion missing metallic bond either between the sidewall of a weld with the 

base metal or between weld passes (inter-run) 

Partial penetration weld the weld preformed to eliminate leakage paths, also called a seal weld 

Primary water stress 

corrosion cracking 

(PWSCC) 

The intergranular or interdendritic cracking of nickel-base alloys that 

occurs in service and originates from the surfaces of a component that 

are wetted by the primary water of a pressurized water reactor (PWR) 

Program for the Inspection 

of Nickel-Alloy Components 

(PINC) 

An international cooperative research program, The purpose of PINC is 

to assess the capabilities of current and emerging NDE techniques to 

detect and size flaws associated with PWSCC in nuclear reactors. This 

information tool is the definitive source of information on PINC. 

Round-robin test (RRT) a test performed independently several times (usually at multiple 

testing facilities) 

1-1 

1 INTRODUCTION 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) executed agreements with VTT Technical 

Research Centre of Finland, Nuclear Regulation Authority of Japan (NRA), Korea Institute of 

Nuclear Safety (KINS), Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (SSM), and Swiss Federal Nuclear 

Safety Inspectorate (ENSI) to establish the Program to Assess the Reliability of Emerging 

Nondestructive Techniques (PARENT) in February of 2012 to investigate the performance of 

current emerging and perspective novel nondestructive examination procedures and techniques 

to find flaws in nickel-alloy welds and base material. This assessment was performed by 

conducting a series of open and blind international round-robin tests on a set of nickel alloy piping 

components. The blind testing portion of PARENT collected data from 71 inspections performed 

on 6 large-bore dissimilar metal weld (LBDMW) test blocks, 2 small-bore dissimilar metal weld 

(SBDMW) test blocks, 5 bottom-mounted instrumentation (BMI) test blocks, and 1 weld overlay 

(WOL) test block. The data was collected by 14 teams using 23 different inspection procedures. 

The objective of the blind testing was to obtain quantitative estimates of the performance of the 

latest commercially used nondestructive evaluation (NDE) inspection procedures to determine 

which may be more reliable for detecting and accurate sizing of primary water stress corrosion 

cracks (PWSCC) or interdendritic stress corrosion cracking (IDSCC). Quantitative NDE 

performance data for the latest procedures applied to inspect dissimilar metal weld (DMW) 

components in the field represents a cross-cutting need identified as a goal by all international 

collaborators of PARENT. The data generated by this effort provides empirical bases that can 

support regulatory positions and which can inform analyses of the effectiveness of NDE and inservice inspection (ISI), more generally, by each country based on each country’s specific laws, 

codes, standards, and regulations. 

PARENT was a follow-on to the Program for Inspection of Nickel Alloy Components (PINC) 

(Cumblidge et al. 2010). In PINC, a study was conducted to quantitatively estimate the 

performance of NDE methods of nickel-alloy SBDMW components. PARENT incorporates both 

SBDMWs and LBDMWs so that the difference in performance for each type of component can be 

observed and quantitatively estimated. In addition, LBDMWs were included in PARENT to allow 

quantitative comparison of NDE performance obtained from procedures that access the inner 

diameter (I.D.) and those that access the outer diameter (O.D.) surfaces of LBDMWs. In 

PARENT, LBDMW and SBDMW test blocks had near ideal surface conditions. Thus, the results 

obtained from these test blocks provide a quantitative measure of performance that can be 

achieved by I.D. access of components with I.D. surface preparation, relative to performance that 

can be achieved by O.D. surface access. Finally, PARENT blind testing was restricted to teams 

and procedures developed by commercial inspection vendors so that the results of aggregate 

analysis provide a better representation of NDE field performance within the industry. All teams 

and procedures participating in blind testing were formally qualified with the exception of one 

conventional ultrasonic testing procedure (UT). The teams and procedures were qualified 

according to the qualification requirements of their country of residence. 

The primary objective of this report was to publish the results of the detection and sizing analyses 

performed on data collected in blind testing for PARENT. Another report in preparation will 

document the results of PARENT open testing. The purpose of the open testing was to perform 

an evaluation of novel techniques that have not yet reached the maturity level for field testing. In 

open testing, test teams are provided information regarding the locations of flaws in test blocks. 

Most of the teams and procedures included in open testing were not formally qualified. The 

objective of open testing was to assess the basic performance capability of emerging techniques 

by reviewing signal responses for flaws and noise. 
1-2 

Quick-Blind Study

Some LBDMW test blocks with laboratory-grown stress corrosion cracking (SCC) flaws, 

contributed by Japan, were immediately available at the start of PARENT and tested separately 

before they were scheduled to undergo destructive evaluation (Braatz et al. 2014). This portion of

testing is referred to as the “Quick-blind” test to distinguish it from the rest of the blind testing 

(referred to as the “Blind” test). The Quick-blind test allowed PARENT to collect additional data

from these test blocks but it was not clear how the expedited timetable might impact results 

relative to the rest of the blind testing. During a June 2014 workshop with PARENT invigilators, a

decision was made to compare Quick-blind results with the rest of the blind testing results to

determine if there were significant differences in the results. Data analysis results for Quick-blind 

test blocks are presented separately from results for other test blocks in this regard. In addition, 

LBDMW testing results are presented in this report both with and without Quick-blind data 

included in the analysis so that the impact of Quick-blind data on results can be observed. Test 

blocks used in the Quick-blind study include LBDMW test blocks P15, P16, P17, and P45. In 

Section 5, Section 6, Appendix F, and Appendix G, “Blind + Quick-blind” is used to highlight

results that are based on data from both Blind and Quick-blind tests and “Quick-blind” is used to 

highlight results based only on Quick-blind data. Red text color is also used to emphasize results 

that include data from Quick-blind testing. 

 Bottom-Mounted Instrumentation Test Blocks 

Five BMI test blocks were employed in PARENT including P25, P26, P6, P8, and P9. Test blocks 

P6, P8, and P9 were contributed for evaluation of J-groove weld inspections and included thermal 

fatigue cracks (TFCs) in the J-groove weld region. Test blocks P25 and P26 included several weld 

defects and were contributed for the evaluation of inspections from the tube inner diameter (I.D.) 

surface. However, some examinations of the J-groove weld were also performed on these test 

blocks. 

 Weld Overlay Test Block 

A WOL test block (P27) is also incorporated into the blind test matrix for PARENT. Weld overlays 

are a common repair practice in which additional material is welded to the surface of a 

component’s original base material to maintain structural and leak-tight integrity. WOLs are of 

interest for an NDE study because flaws in repairs can continue to grow and repairs can be 

subject to degradation themselves. Also, the repair can result in unusual geometric features to 

consider for an examination. Two inspections were performed on P27 in PARENT. 

 PWSCC/IDSCC Nomenclature 

Throughout this report, reference is frequently made to PWSCC/IDSCC as being the target 

degradation mode for this study. Here, PWSCC is defined as: 

The intergranular or interdendritic cracking of nickel-base alloys that occurs in 

service and originates from the surfaces of a component that are wetted by the 

primary water of a pressurized water reactor (PWR). 

IDSCC (interdendritic stress corrosion cracking) refers to SCC in which crack growth propagates 

between the tree-like grains that can form in castings or weld metal. The term PWSCC implies 

applicability limited to PWR-type components, while the test blocks used in this study represent 

PWR and boiling water reactor (BWR) configurations. The convention adopted in this report is to 

refer to the target degradation as PWSCC/IDSCC because the intended focus of the PARENT 

investigation is to address SCC that occurs in nickel alloy components exposed to light water 
1-3 

reactor conditions, inclusive of both PWR and BWR conditions. The methods used to simulate 

PWSCC/IDSCC in PARENT blind testing are briefly described in Section 2. For the SBDMW and 

LBDMW test blocks, all of the flaws introduced to simulate PWSCC/IDSCC are manufactured 

cracks. 

 PARENT Organization 

PARENT is organized with a Steering Committee, a Task Group on NDE, a Task Group on the 

PARENT Atlas, and an Invigilator/Data Analysis Group (DAG) following a convention used in 

PINC and as shown in Error! Reference source not found.. The objectives of these groups for 

PINC are described in Section 1.0 of NUREG-7019 (Cumblidge et al. 2010) and are similar to 

PARENT, although personnel have changed. A summary of the members of the Steering 

Committee, Task Group on NDE, Task Group on the PARENT Atlas, and the Invigilator/DAG, is 

provided in Table 1.1. PARENT participants met twice per year with one meeting in the United 

States and the other meeting rotated among the remaining participant countries. The first 

PARENT meeting was held June 1–3, 2010, at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) in 

Richland, Washington. 

Figure 1.1 Organization Chart for Steering Committee and Task Groups 

Organization of This Report 

Section 2 of this report includes a description of the test blocks used in PARENT blind testing, 

including a description of true states and types of flaws used in each test block. Section 3 

provides a summary of the procedures applied in PARENT blind testing and some background 

technical information so that readers can understand terminology associated with the NDE

procedures applied in blind testing. Section 4 provides an overview of how data was recorded and 

a breakdown of inspections by procedure, test block, flaw type, and flaw orientation. Section 4.0 

also provides an overview of the scoring procedure used in PARENT. Results of data analysis are 

presented in Section 5. The presentation of the results is organized by block type and access 

(LBDMW I.D., LBDMW O.D., SBDMW, BMI, and WOL) and sub-organized by detection analysis 

results, depth sizing results, and length sizing results. Section 6 includes a discussion of the

results in Section 5 including a discussion on the influence of parameters on performance in 

PARENT, a comparison of the performance of procedures, and a comparison of Quick-blind and 

blind results. In Section 7, PARENT results are compared to PINC results and the conclusions 

and recommendations from PINC are revisited in the context of the additional information 

obtained from PARENT. Section 8 provides a summary of outcomes from PISC III (Program for

the Inspection of Steel Components) and PINC round-robin testing outcomes based on a review 
1-4 

of these studies prepared by some of the participants, which is included in Appendix H. 

Finally, additional conclusions from PARENT and recommendations for future work are 

provided in Section 9. 
1-5

Table 1.1 Summary of Members of the PARENT Steering Committee, NDE Task Group, Atlas Task Group, and 

Invigilator/DAG 

PARENT Committee Members

Organization Steering NDE Task Group Atlas Task Group Invigilator/Data Analysis Task Group

Member Name

Finland VTT Esa Leskelä Esa Leskelä Esa Leskelä Aalto University Hannu HänninenJapan 

NRA/JNES Kazunobu Sakamoto

Kikuo Takeshima

Kazunobu SakamotoKikuo Takeshima

Kenjiro Aono Kikuo Takeshima

Kensaku AraiKikuo Takeshima

JAPEIC Ichrio Komura

Toshihiro Yamamoto

Ichiro KomuraToshihiro Yamamoto

Japanese PWR Industry Group 

Yusuke Kono (MHI)Takehiko Yamaguchi 

(MHI) 

Takayoshi Tsuruta (MHI) 

(Rotating Member)Tomonori Shichida (MHI) Yasuto Nagoshi (MHI) Takehiko Sera (Kansai) Yasukazu Takada (Kansai) Seiji Asada (MHI) Junichiro Nishida (MHI)

Tohoku University Tetsuya Uchimoto

Korea 

KINS Sung-Sik Kang Kyung Cho Kim Kyung Cho KimKPS ES DohKHNP Yong-Sik Kim KAERI Hong-Pyo KimDOOSAN DS Lee, Joo Youl HongSKKU Hak-Joon Kim

Sweden SSM Richard Sundberg Giselle García Roldán SQC Tommy Zetterwall Tommy Zetterwall (all of Europe) Ulf Hjern (only invigilation)

Switzerland ENSI Klaus Germerdonk Klaus Germerdonk SVTI Hardy Ernst

USA 

PNNL (Non-Voting) Brett Braatz, Rob Harris

Ryan M. Meyer

Brett Braatz, Ryan M. Meyer

Darren Curtis, Robert HarrisRyan M. Meyer

Steven Doctor, Brett BraatzJack Spanner – DAG (Open Only) Ryan M. Meyer NRC Iouri Prokofiev Stephen Cumblidge

EPRI Jack Spanner Jack Spanner

DOOSAN – Doosan Heavy Industries & Construction KAERI – Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute PNNL – Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

ENSI – Swiss Federal Nuclear Safety Inspectorate Kansai – The Kansai Electric Power Company, Inc. SKKU – Sungkyunkwan University EPRI – Electric Power Research Institute KHNP – Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power SQC – Swedish Qualification Center JAPEIC – Japan Power Engineering and Inspection KINS – Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety SSM – Swedish Radiation Safety Authority  Corporation KPS – Korea Plant Service SVTI – Swiss Association for Technical Inspections, JNES – Japan Nuclear Energy Safety MHI – Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. Nuclear Inspectorate 

 Organization NRC – US Nuclear Regulatory Commission VTT – Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd

2-1 

2 TEST BLOCK DESCRIPTIONS 

The following section provides an overview of the test blocks used in the blind testing activity of 

PARENT. Four different categories of test blocks were used in the blind testing study and are 

summarized in Table 2.1. The four categories include BMI test blocks, SBDMW test blocks, 

LBDMW test blocks, and WOL specimens. A total of 14 test blocks were contributed for the blind 

testing. Table 2.1 also indicates the typical weldment in each test block category, test block 

diameter and wall thickness dimensions, and the identifications (IDs) of test blocks in each 

category. Descriptions of the test blocks in each category are provided in Sections 2.1–2.4, while 

the flaw fabrication methods are described in Section 2.5. True-state information for the flaws in 

each test block is summarized in Section 2.6. 

Table 2.1 Summary of Categories into which Test Blocks for Blind Testing are 

Classified 

Category 

Typical Weldment 

in Category Diameter/Thickness Range 

Test Block 

IDs 

Test Block 

Photographs 

BMI J-groove weld Tube O.D.: 38–45 mm P25, P26, 

P6, P8, P9 

Appendix A.1 

SBDMW DMW piping 

welds, BWR 

Diameters: 289 mm, 815 mm (O.D.) 

Thickness range: 35 mm, 39.5 mm 

P35, P40 Appendix A.2 

LBDMW DMW piping 

welds, PWR 

Diameter range: 852–895 mm (O.D.) 

Thickness range: 68–78 mm 

P15, P16, 

P17, P45, 

P13, P33 

Appendix A.3 

WOL Pipe Diameter: 114 mm (O.D.) 

Overlay Diameter: 180 mm (O.D. – max) 

Pipe Thickness: 14 mm 

P27 Appendix A.4

O.D. = outer diameter 

 Bottom-Mounted Instrumentation Test Blocks 

As Table 2.1 indicates, five BMI test blocks were used in blind testing (P25, P26, P6, P8, and P9). 

The coordinate system defined for acquiring and reporting data on these test blocks is provided in 

Figure 2.1. Figure 2.1 shows that a cylindrical coordinate system is defined for BMI test blocks 

with the azimuthal coordinate, θ, increasing in the clockwise direction when viewed from the top of 

the test block (above the wetted surface) with the zero-point marked on the test block. The radial 

coordinate, R, is defined such that R=0 at the center of the penetration tube at the top (wetted) 

surface of the reactor pressure vessel material attached to the penetration tube. R increases 

outward from this point along a plane that is parallel with the top (wetted) surface. The Z

coordinate is defined as perpendicular to the J-groove weld surface such that Z=0 at the top 

(wetted) surface and increases into the J-groove material. The dimensions of the BMI test blocks 

are labeled in Figures 2.2 to 2.4. The specific dimensions for each BMI test block are tabulated in 

Table 2.2. Figure 2.2 depicts the configuration for test block P25 and Figure 2.3 represents the 

configuration for test block P26. Test blocks P6, P8, and P9 are represented by Figure 2.4. 
2-2 

Figure 2.1 Coordinate System Used for BMI Test Blocks: P6, P8, P9, P25, P26 
2-3 

Figure 2.2 Depiction of Configuration for BMI Test Block P25 with Labeled Dimensions 
2-4 

Figure 2.3 Depiction of Configuration for BMI Test Block P26 with Labeled Dimensions 
2-5 

Figure 2.4 Depiction of Configuration for BMI Test Blocks P6, P8, and P9 with Labeled 

Dimensions 

Table 2.2 Tabulation of BMI Test Block Dimensions 

Test 

Block ID Figure Ref. 

A, 

mm 

B, 

mm 

C, 

mm 

D (angle),

degrees 

E (I.D.),

mm 

F (O.D.), 

mm 

G, 

mm 

H, 

mm 

P25 Figure 2.2 183.5 198.1 (dia.) 634 72.3 15.0 38.2 307.3 121.8 

P26 Figure 2.3 198.1 146.1 (dia.) 634.5 44.0 15.0 38.2 330.2 183.4 

P6 Figure 2.4 86.0 220  227 219 80.0 15.9 44.2 86.0 86.0 

P8 Figure 2.4 110.0 224  228 243 75.0 15.9 44.2 110.0 110.0 

P9 Figure 2.4 91.0 219  223 234 78.0 15.9 44.2 91.0 91.0 

I.D. = inner/inside diameter 

O.D. = outer/outside diameter 
2-6 

 Small-Bore Dissimilar Metal Weld Test Blocks 

Two SBDMW test blocks were utilized in PARENT (P35 and P40 – see Table 2.1). The coordinate 

system defined for acquiring and reporting data on these test blocks is provided in Figure 2.5. The 

zero point is defined as that location on the test block where X=0, Y=0, and Z=0. Figure 2.5 also 

provides the definitions for the directional vectors X+, Y+, and Z+ in relation to the zero point and 

with respect to the material construction of the test block. The location for Z=0, Y=0 is at the O.D. 

surface of the test block, at the center of the weld, and is located a distance “D” from the face 

edge of the carbon steel pipe. The X=0 location is indicated by a punch marking on the test block 

outer surface. A summary of dimensions for SBDMW test blocks is provided in Table 2.3. The 

diameter of test block P40 is actually similar to diameters of large-bore DMWs described in the 

next section. However, the thickness of the P40 test block is consistent with the SBDMW 

classification. 

Figure 2.5 Coordinate System Definition for SBDMW Test Blocks P35 and P40, and 

LBDMW Test Block P33 
2-7 

Table 2.3 Summary of Dimensions for SBDMW Test Blocks 

Test Block ID 

Inner 

Diameter, 

mm 

Outer 

Diameter, 

mm 

Thickness, 

mm 

D, 

mm 

Axial Extent, 

mm 

Circumferential 

Extent, degrees

P35 219.0 289.0 35.0 215.0 --- 360.0 

P40 736.0 815.0 39.5 170.0 --- 360.0

 Large-Bore Dissimilar Metal Weld Test Blocks 

Six LBDMW test blocks (P15, P16, P17, P45, P13, and P33) were utilized in the blind testing 

activities as indicated in Table 2.1. These test blocks use a similar coordinate system definition as 

the SBDMWs. However, one difference for test blocks P13, P15, P16, P17, and P45 with respect 

to SBDMWs is that the test blocks are only sector portions of the DMW cut-out; whereas, the 

SBDMW test blocks are full circumference. Thus, the X=0 point is defined at a sector edge for 

those test blocks. Four of these test blocks (P15, P16, P17, and P45) were utilized in the Quickblind study (Braatz et al. 2014). Figure 2.6 depicts the coordinate system defined for these test 

blocks. The coordinate system defined for test block P13 is shown in Figure 2.7. In this case, 

because the circumferential weld only covers half of the test block, the zero point is defined at the 

opposite end of the test block with respect to the zero-point definition for P15, P16, P17, and P45 

in Figure 2.6 and X values are defined negative from this point. Finally, test block P33 is a full 

circumference specimen and its coordinate system definition is consistent with the definition for 

SBDMW test blocks, as depicted in Figure 2.5. A summary of dimensions for LBDMW test blocks 

is provided in Table 2.4. 

Figure 2.6 Coordinate System for LBDMW Test Blocks P15, P16, P17, and P45 
2-8 

Figure 2.7 Coordinate System for LBDMW Test Block P13 

Table 2.4 Summary of Dimensions for LBDMW Test Blocks 

Test Block 

ID 

Inner 

Diameter, 

mm 

Outer 

Diameter, 

mm 

Thickness,

mm 

D, 

mm 

Axial 

Extent, mm 

Circumferential 

Extent, degrees 

P15 736.6 873.0 68.2 50.0 100.0 60.0 

P16 736.6 873.0 68.2 50.0 100.0 60.0 

P17 736.6 873.0 68.2 50.0 100.0 60.0 

P45 736.6 873.0 68.2 51.5 105.0 60.0 

P13 698.5 852.5 77.0 100.0 200.0 64.5 

P33 741.0 895.0 77.0 300.0 --- 360.0 

 Weld Overlay Test Block 

One WOL test block was utilized in the blind portion of PARENT testing (block P27). The 

coordinate system defined for the test block is indicated in Figure 2.8. The dimensions of P27 are 

tabulated in Table 2.5. 
2-9 

Figure 2.8 Coordinate System for WOL Test Block P37 

Table 2.5 Summary of Dimensions for WOL Test Block P27 

Test Block ID A, mm B, mm C, mm D, mm E, mm F, mm G, mm 

P27 167 233 443 43 57 90 215 

 Simulated Flaw Types 

Field flaws were simulated in PARENT test blocks using similar methods as those used in PINC. 

Simulation flaw types include laboratory-grown SCC, tightened weld solidification cracks (SC), 

TFCs, electrical discharge machining (EDM), and implanted welding defects such as lack of 

fusion, slag inclusion (SI), porosity, and weld repair. A summary of the type and quantity of 

simulated flaws used in each test block is provided in Table 2.6. Brief descriptions of the flaw 

simulation types are provided in the following sections with the objective of highlighting some of 

the advantages and limitations of each flaw simulation type with respect to representing 

PWSCC/IDSCC for assessing NDE performance. 
2-10 

Table 2.6 Summary of Flaw Simulation Methods Used and Quantities of Each Type of 

Simulated Flaw 

Flaw Type Total Flaws 

Laboratory-Grown SCC 4 

Thermal Fatigue Cracks (TFC) 31 

Tightened Weld Solidification Cracks (SC) 44 

Welding Defects 10 

Mechanical Fatigue Cracks (MFC) 5 

Electrical Discharge Machining (EDM) 3 

Total 97 

 Laboratory-Grown SCC [P13, P15, P16, and P17] 

Laboratory methods for introducing SCC flaws allow for the deliberate introduction of realistic 

flaws into test pieces at desired locations. However, even under laboratory conditions, the 

dimensions of SCC flaws can be difficult to control. In addition, it can be difficult to grow SCC 

flaws into complex geometries as it can be difficult to generate the necessary stresses to promote 

SCC growth. Nonetheless, laboratory-grown SCC was introduced into four test blocks, as 

indicated in Table 2.6. 

The two configurations shown in Figure 2.9(a) and (b) were used to fabricate laboratory-grown 

PWSCC in test blocks P13, P15, P16, and P17. In order to grow a deep SCC flaw and also avoid 

the large crack opening, which typically accompanies bending loading techniques, the tensile 

loading type setup shown in Figure 2.9(a) was used to produce the flaw in P15. A tensile stress 

was generated from the difference of shrinkage between restraint weld and fixing frame during a 

cooling process. The bending loading type setup shown in Figure 2.9(b) was used for P13, P16, 

and P17, with the intent to introduce SCC flaws of shallow and medium depth. The process used 

is depicted as a flowchart in Figure 2.10. 

The morphology of the SCC flaws generated by this technique are clustered in nature. An 

illustration of the typical flaw morphology is shown in Figure 2.11. In this case, the flaws resemble 

a cluster of axially oriented cracks with varying depths. 
2-11 

(a) Tensile loading setup for P15 (b) Bending loading setup for P13, P16 and P17 

Figure 2.9 Depiction of the Approach Used to Produce a Laboratory-Grown 

PWSCC/IDSCC

Figure 2.10 Flowchart of the Process Used to Produce a Laboratory-Grown 

PWSCC/IDSCC 
2-12 

Figure 2.11 Illustration of Typical Flaw Morphology in P13, P15, P16, and P17 

 Thermal Fatigue Cracks [P6, P8, and P9] 

Thermal fatigue cracks can be introduced directly into test blocks without welding or machining. 

TFCs can be grown directly into test specimens by placing the coil of a high-frequency inductive 

heater near the surface where the flaw is to be initiated and using water or gas jets to cool. A 

single crack or a network of cracks can be induced in the base material and welded areas without 

artificial crack initiators. An advantage of TFCs is that the location, orientation, and size of 

produced cracks can be accurately adjusted. In addition, TFCs are better at simulating the 

tightness between crack faces of PWSCC/IDSCC relative to mechanical fatigue cracks (MFCs) 

and EDM notches. A total of 31 TFCs were introduced into PARENT BMI specimens P6, P8, and 

P9. Fingerprinting of these flaws in test blocks P6, P8, and P9 indicated that the cracks are wider 

than a typical SCC flaw. Further, flaw clusters are actually observed at several locations. The 

clusters may make certain flaws easier to detect than they would be otherwise. In addition, flaw 

clusters can introduce difficulty in depth sizing because of the interference caused by several 

crack tips in close proximity. Flaw cluster formation is illustrated in the eddy current response from 

flaw 2 of test block P9, shown in Figure 2.12. 
2-13 

Figure 2.12 Eddy Current Response from Flaw 2 of Test Block P9 Showing Evidence of 

Flaw Cluster Formation 

 Weld Solidification Cracks [P35, P40, and P33] 

Weld SCs may be used to simulate service-type defects such as IDSCC or PWSCC. The region 

where the cracks are fabricated are excised and filled with a “poisoned” weld metal that is 

designed to crack upon cooling. In this case, the SCs are tightened either through a welding 

process or through application of a mechanical pressure during fabrication to result in cracks with 

narrower width. Care must be taken when SCs are to be used to determine the capability of NDE 

methods because the region of flaw fabrication may be too obvious for the examination, similar to 

flaws that are implanted, especially in base metal. For this reason, SCs are recommended for 

simulating flaws in weld regions. A total of 44 tightened SCs were used to simulate serviceinduced SCC flaws in test blocks P35, P40, and P33. 

 Electrical Discharge Machined Notches [P27] 

Three EDM notches are included in test block P27. Electrical discharge machining works by 

eroding the material in the path of electrical discharges that form between an electrode and the 

work piece. EDM notches are relatively easy to make and control the dimensions of, but they are 

often criticized for limited representation of real flaw features. In addition, the width of an EDM 

notch is dependent on the depth of the notch, with greater surface opening required with 

increasing depth. 
2-14 

 Mechanical Fatigue Cracks [P27] 

Test block P27 included five MFC flaws. MFCs are formed by cyclic mechanical loading of a test 

block or piece of material that is then implanted into a larger test block. MFCs typically have wider 

crack openings than SCC type flaws and the crack faces generally are not in contact except when 

under compression. Further, MFCs do not exhibit the branching behavior that is sometimes 

associated with SCC flaws. 

 Welding Defects [P25, P26, P27, and P40] 

A total of ten welding defects are included in test blocks P25, P26, P27, and P40. The types of 

welding defects included lack of fusion, SI, porosity, and weld repairs. 

True-State Determination

Information on flaw true states for each test block were documented on test block drawings by the

test block contributors (PARENT participants) based on information documented in the flaw 

fabrication process and by fingerprinting, with the exception of P15, P16, and P17, which were 

destructively analyzed. In this case, the results of the destructive analysis were used to inform 

true-state determination.
3-1 

3 TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES DESCRIPTIONS 

This section describes the techniques/procedures used for testing in the blind portion of PARENT. 

The relationship between techniques and procedures is described in Section 3.1. Section 3.1 

includes an overview of how relevant information on techniques and procedures used by 

participants was collected and organized. This is followed in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 with a brief 

technical background on the techniques used in blind testing, which includes variants of 

conventional UT, phased-array UT (PAUT), time-of-flight diffraction UT (TOFD), and eddy current 

testing (ECT). A tabulated summary of all of the techniques/ procedures applied in the blind 

round-robin testing (RRT) of PARENT is included in Appendix B based on information provided by 

teams in procedure summary data sheets, which are included in Appendix C. The objective of the 

descriptions provided in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 is to provide general descriptions of the techniques 

applied in blind testing and to define terminology used to specify details of the techniques in the 

information provided in Appendix C and summarized in Appendix B. 

 Procedure Summary Data Sheets 

Teams submitted information describing the techniques and procedures used for inspections on a 

standardized form referred to as the “Procedure Summary Data Sheet.” A single inspection may 

require the application of several procedures and/or techniques to the test block. The description 

of the techniques used in a particular inspection is recorded on the “Procedure Summary Data 

Sheet.” This form also includes information describing how the results from individual technique 

applications are combined to provide the final inspection result. If a team used more than one 

procedure during the RRT, then a separate form for each procedure is submitted. 

A summary of descriptions for all of the data fields in the “Procedure Summary Data Sheet” is 

provided in Table 3.1. An example of a completed “Procedure Summary Data Sheet” is also 

provided in Figure 3.1. In this example, a fictitious Team 12 has inspected test block P89 using 

Procedure 12.1. Procedure 12.1 uses three techniques in the inspection, identified as ET400kHz, 

TOFD.Ax, and TOFD.Circ. As indicated, the techniques are combined to obtain a final inspection 

result by using the ET400kHz technique for detection, length sizing, and defect position and using 

the TOFD.Ax and TOFD.Circ techniques for depth sizing and characterization. 

A collection of Procedure Summary Data Sheets is provided in Appendix C. In addition to 

Procedure Summary Data Sheets, for each inspection, teams submitted an “Inspection Summary 

Data Sheet” and “Technique Data Sheets.” These will be described in Section 4. 
3-2 

Table 3.1 Definitions of Data Fields in the “Procedure Summary Data Sheet” 

Field Name Description 

Procedure ID This has format of Team-ID.seq-no and uniquely identifies this procedure in 

the round-robin test.

Team ID This is a unique number assigned to each participating team in the test to 

maintain anonymity.

Procedure Type Techniques utilized in the procedure are entered here (e.g., UT, ECT, 

PAUT). All of the techniques utilized in a procedure should be indicated in 

this field.

Scan Access This field indicates if access is obtained from I.D. or O.D. If access is from 

both sides, “I.D. and O.D.” can be entered.

Scan Direction This field indicates if scanning is performed in the axial or circumferential 

direction. If scanning is performed in both directions, it should be indicated. 

Detection This field should contain “yes” if at least one of the techniques in the 

procedure is able to detect flaws. Otherwise, it should contain “no.”

Length Sizing This field should contain “yes” if at least one of the techniques in the 

procedure is able to length size flaws. Otherwise, it should contain “no.”

Depth Sizing This field should contain “yes” if at least one of the techniques in the 

procedure is able to depth-size flaws. Otherwise, it should contain “no.”

Description for 

Combining 

Techniques 

This field provides a description of how the results on the “Technique Data 

Sheets” are combined together to produce the results on the “Inspection 

Summary Data Sheet.” 

Tech ID This is a unique alpha-numeric Identifier assigned to each technique on the 

data form. The assignment is made by the invigilator/team. 

Description A short description of the technique equipment used. 

Evaluation Method Describe how data from equipment is used to detect or size flaws. 
3-3 

Figure 3.1 Example of a Completed Procedure Summary Sheet for Illustration Purposes 

 Ultrasonic Testing Background 

Several procedures utilized for blind testing in PARENT applied ultrasonic techniques. 

Specifically, the techniques applied included variations of conventional UT, TOFD, and PAUT. 

The following sections (3.2.1–3.2.3) provide a brief overview of these techniques to provide 

relevant background for specific techniques used in blind testing. A summary of these specific 

techniques is provided in Appendix B. 
3-4 

 Conventional Ultrasonic Testing Concepts 

Conventional UT usually refers to UT techniques based on application of single-element 

transducers applied for flaw detection or characterization through information provided by 

attenuation and/or velocity. In the blind testing portion of PARENT, conventional UT was applied 

in both pulse-echo (PE) and pitch/catch (PC) variations. Ultrasonic energy is introduced into the 

test specimen at an angle through the use of wedges to ensure sufficient interaction of the 

ultrasonic energy with planar flaws growing through the thickness of the test piece. Selection of 

the angle may depend on several factors including the material type, component thickness, and 

purpose of the examination. Illustrations of conventional UT applied in both PE and PC modes for 

examination of I.D. cracks are provided in Figures 3.2 and 3.3, respectively. 

Figure 3.2 Illustration of Pulse-Echo UT Applied at Refracted Angle, θ, for Examination 

of I.D. Cracks 

Figure 3.3 Illustration of Pitch/Catch UT Applied for Examination of I.D. Cracks 

The PE mode of conventional UT can be implemented with a dual-mode transducer consisting of 

separate elements for transmitting and receiving signals. As such, these transducers are also 

referred to as transmit-receive (TR) transducers. In TR transducers, the transmit and receive 

sensors are electrically and acoustically isolated (see Figure 3.4) resulting in improved signal-tonoise ratio. Conventional UT performed with TR transducers and based on interrogation of test 

pieces with longitudinal waves is referred to as transmit-receive-longitudinal (TRL) testing. 
3-5 

Figure 3.4 Illustration of a Transmit-Receive Transducer 

Figure 3.2 illustrates that crack detection with PE mode can be based on the reflection of 

ultrasound by the corner where the crack plane intersects the component surface. Crack depth 

sizing can be performed based on both detection of a corner reflection signal and a phenomenon 

known as crack tip diffraction. Crack tip diffraction refers to the emission of a weak ultrasonic 

signal from the tip of an insonified crack, as depicted in Figure 3.5. Figure 3.5 also depicts an Ascan to illustrate how depth can be estimated from the difference in time of arrivals of the tip 

diffraction signal and corner reflection signal. In Figure 3.3, flaw evaluation (detection, sizing, 

characterization) is based on shadowing of the signal from the transmitter, resulting in a drop in 

the signal at the receiver. Sizing (both length and depth) can also be based on amplitude drop 

methods, as illustrated in Figure 3.6. 

Figure 3.5 Illustration of Crack Tip Diffraction and Crack Depth Sizing Based on Tip 

Diffraction Signal and Corner Reflection 
3-6 

Figure 3.6 Illustration of Amplitude Drop Method for Flaw Sizing 

 Time-of-Flight Diffraction 

The TOFD technique is a two-probe method using one probe for transmitting and the other probe 

for receiving (Figure 3.7). The transmitter introduces an L-mode beam at an angle and a so-called 

“lateral wave” that propagates along the component surface. With no flaws present, the receiver 

will pick up a back-wall echo and the transmitted lateral wave. The transit time information for the 

back-wall signal and lateral wave can enable crack detection and location. In the case of frontsurface cracks, crack detection and location will be based on the lateral wave echo. For backsurface cracks, detection and location will be based on the back-wall signal. Depth sizing may be 

accomplished by detection and transit time analysis of a tip-diffracted signal. 
3-7 

Figure 3.7 Diagram of Time-of-Flight Diffraction Technique 

 Phased-Array UT 

Phased-array ultrasonic techniques have been gaining increased acceptance for performing ISI of 

nuclear power plants. PAUT uses a transducer consisting of multiple piezoelectric or 

piezocomposite elements in contrast to conventional UT, which uses transducers with only a 

single element. Electronic beam steering and focusing is achieved by careful time delay 

sequencing of excitation signals to the individual elements in the PAUT transducers to create 

complex constructive and destructive interference patterns to intensify the sound field in a desired 

location (see Figure 3.8). There are several types of phased-array transduces including a linear 

array transducer and 2-D matrix array transducers. A linear array transducer is only capable of 

steering the beam over a range of refraction angles within a single plane while a 2-D matrix array 

is capable of providing adjustments to both beam refraction angle and beam skew, as illustrated in 

Figure 3.9. Figure 3.9 also illustrates that PAUT can be implemented using a TR probe. 
3-8 

Figure 3.8 Illustration of Time Delay Sequencing of Excitation of PAUT Transducer 

Elements to Achieve Beam Steering and Focusing 

Figure 3.9 Illustration of Beam Skew and Beam Refraction Directions for Matrix PAUT 

Probe 
3-9 

One of the significant capabilities facilitated by the use of PAUT is that of sectorial scanning. 

Sectorial scanning refers to sweeping of the sound beam over a range of refraction angles. This 

allows data obtained from many angles to be collected quickly, enhancing flaw detection and 

characterization. This is in contrast to conventional UT, which require change out of transducers 

for each refraction angle desired, or to PAUT performed in linear scan mode, in which the 

refraction angle is fixed. An illustration of sectorial scanning is provided in Figure 3.10. 

Figure 3.10 Depiction of Sectorial Scanning with PAUT 

PAUT data is often presented in A-scan, B-scan, C-scan, and D-scan image form for analysis. An 

A-scan is a trace of the signal amplitude versus time and resembles a trace on an oscilloscope 

display. The A-scan is characterized by peaks at the location of reflectors. Illustrations depicting 

the B-scan, C-scan, and D-scan viewpoints are provided in Figure 3.11. The B-scan could 

represent a single index plane, a selected range of index planes, or all index planes in the scan 

volume. If more than one index plane is selected, the B-scan image is a composite view of all the 

planes. More specifically, the maximum response at each scan and depth position from all 

selected index planes is displayed. The D-scan end view corresponds to a plane along the index 

axis. Therefore, the image horizontal represents the index axis and the vertical represents the 

specimen thickness. Finally, a C-scan top view is a bird’s eye view of the data volume with 

horizontal and vertical axes representing scan and index directions. Figure 3.12 shows an 

example of PAUT data representation as A-scan, B-scan, C-scan, and D-scan images. From 

these data representations, the linear dimensions of a flaw are characterized based on image 

analysis. In addition, data can be presented in a sectorial view (see Figure 3.13). 
3-10 

Figure 3.11 Illustration of B-scan, C-scan, and D-scan Views for Displaying PAUT Data 

Responses 

Figure 3.12 PAUT Data Represented as A-scan (top left), C-scan (top right), B-scan 

(bottom left), and D-scan (bottom right) 
3-11 

Figure 3.13 PAUT Data Represented as Sectorial Scan 

 Eddy Current Techniques 

In practice, an eddy current probe consists of one or more coils with the axis alignment most often 

perpendicular or parallel to the inspection surface normal. An alternating current source is applied 

to the one or more coils, generating magnetic fields. These magnetic fields induce eddy currents 

in the conducting materials when the probe is positioned nearby (see Figure 3.14). Flaws and 

defects in the test material impede the flow of eddy currents manifesting as a change in the 

measurable eddy current coil impedance. An important parameter for ECT is the skin depth, δ, 

 1 

  f (3.1) 

which provides a measure of the depth to which eddy current fields can penetrate in a test 

material. As can be seen from Eq. (3.1), this quantity depends on the coil frequency, f, and 

electrical conductivity, σ, of the test material (μ is the magnetic permeability). Thus, in metal 

components, the depth of penetration is usually small and the eddy current technique is often 

limited to surface examinations. Multi-coil techniques can include separate coils for the generation 

of eddy current fields in the test material and for detection of the fields at the surface, as illustrated 

in Figure 3.15. These types of probes may also be referred to as reflection probes, driver-pickup, 

exciter-pickup, or send-receive probes. This contrasts with absolute coil ECT in which the same 

coil is used for both field generation and for signal reception as illustrated in Figure 3.14. 
3-12 

 

Figure 3.14 Depiction of a Single Coil Eddy Current Probe with an Alternating Current 

Excitation, Induced Magnetic Fields, and Induced Eddy Currents. 

Disturbance of eddy current flow can be caused by existence of a defect. 

Figure 3.15 Schematic Illustration of an Eddy Current Probe with Separate Coils for 

Field Excitation and for Signal Detection 

The cross-coil eddy current probe refers to a configuration with two orthogonal coils (OC) oriented 

relative to the test surface as shown in Figure 3.16. The cross-coil ECT technique is a differential 

eddy current technique meaning that the output of one coil is referenced to the output of the other 

coil. Differential eddy current probes are typically less sensitive to lift-off and surface irregularities. 

One advantage of cross-coil ECT is that it has directional sensitivity to flaws, making it possible to 

distinguish between axial and circumferential defects. The OC configuration helps minimize the 

influence of flaw orientation with respect to the probe performance as defects that are parallel to 

the current flow can be missed. Rotation of the OC-ECT probe can also be performed to further 

minimize the influence of flaw orientation. 
3-13 

In general, the advantage of ECT over conventional UT, PAUT, and TOFD is that it is more 

sensitive to small defects and the probes do not require coupling to the test material surface. As 

noted, a significant disadvantage of ECT is that it is usually relegated to surface inspections and is 

not very useful for characterizing the depth of flaws. In addition, the increased sensitivity of ECT 

can make it more prone to false calls from the pick up of signals from superficial surface 

imperfections (such as scratches) and ECT can be sensitive to lift-off variations and variations in 

material conductivity. 

Figure 3.16 Depiction of the Cross-Coil Eddy Current Probe Configuration 

4-1 

4 DATA OVERVIEW 

This section provides information on what data was recorded and reported during PARENT blind 

round-robin testing and how the data is scored for detection and sizing analysis. Section 4.1 

provides a description of data reporting by describing the data sheets used to record and report 

test data. Section 4.2 provides an overview summary of inspection records collected, while 

Section 4.3 includes a discussion of how data is scored and how it is analyzed. Section 4.4 

includes a discussion of how probability of detection (POD) is calculated and how it is presented 

throughout the report. Section 4.7 includes a discussion of how sizing analysis is performed and 

how sizing results are presented. PARENT utilizes the same procedures for scoring and analyzing 

test data that were used in PINC (Cumblidge et al. 2010) and the relevant description from PINC 

is provided in Appendix D for reference. 

 Data Reporting 

This section provides an example of the completed data forms for one inspection. In this 

inspection, Team 12 has inspected test block P89 using Procedure 12.1. Procedure 12.1 uses 

three techniques in the inspection, identified as ET400kHz, TOFD.Ax, and TOFD.Circ. 

Consequently, this inspection generates three Technique Data Sheets, and one Inspection 

Summary Data Sheet. A Procedure Summary Data Sheet is also necessary to describe the 

inspection procedure, but it may apply to several inspections. Procedure Summary Data Sheets 

are described in Section 3.1. 

Illustrations of Technique Data Sheets and an Inspection Summary Data Sheet are provided in 

Figures 4.1 through 4.3. Information in the Inspection Summary Data Sheets is based on data 

recorded in Technique Data Sheets. For the example provided, techniques TOFD.Ax and 

TOFD.Circ are used for depth sizing and characterization while technique ET400kHz is used for 

detection, length sizing, and positioning. This information is combined in completion of the 

Inspection Summary Data Sheet. Similar data fields are included in Technique Data Sheets and 

Inspection Summary Data Sheets. A summary of descriptions for all of the data fields is provided 

in Table 4.1. Figures 4.1 through 4.3 show that data sheets include a table where information 

about each observed indication is recorded. The information includes a series of coordinates (X1, 

X2, Y1, Y2, Z1, Z2) that describe a cuboid that envelopes an observed indication, allowing for 

comparison of its position and size to true-state information for both detection and sizing analysis. 

In addition, fields “Ymax/Xmax,” “Amp dB,” and “Surface Breaking” are included to allow recording of 

the location where a maximum signal response is observed, the value of that signal, and whether 

or not an observed indication is surface breaking. 
4-2 

Table 4.1 Definitions of Data Fields for “Technique Data Sheets” and “Inspection 

Summary Data Sheets” 

Field Name Description 

Procedure ID This has format of Team-ID.seq-no and uniquely identifies this procedure in 

the round-robin test. This ID originates from the Procedure Summary Data 

Sheet that describes this technique.

Team ID This is a unique number assigned to each participating team in the test to 

maintain anonymity. 

Tech ID This is a unique alpha-numeric identifier assigned to each technique on the 

data form. This ID originates from the Procedure Summary Data Sheet and 

identifies the technique being applied. 

Inspection ID This ID identifies each unique inspection performed. One inspection ID is 

common to all inspections made on a specific test block, by a specific test 

team, for all the Technique IDs applied within a specific Procedure ID. 

Format: Team-id.Block-id.seq-no. 

Test Block ID ID of the test block being inspected. 

Access This field indicates if access is obtained from I.D. or O.D. If access is from 

both sides, “I.D. and O.D.” can be entered.

Date Date of inspection. 

Detection This field should contain “yes” if at least one of the techniques in the 

procedure is able to detect flaws. Otherwise, it should contain “no.”

Length Sizing This field should contain “yes” if at least one of the techniques in the 

procedure is able to length size flaws. Otherwise, it should contain “no.”

Depth Sizing This field should contain “yes” if at least one of the techniques in the 

procedure is able to depth-size flaws. Otherwise, it should contain “no.” 

Weld Volume Inspected Coordinates of the volume of material inspected. 

Defect No. Uniquely identifies each observed indications. 

X1, X2, Y1, Y2, Z1, Z2 These coordinates describe a cuboid that contains the observed indication. 

Ymax/Xmax This identifies the location at which a maximum signal is observed. 

Amp dB The amplitude of the signal observed at Ymax/Xmax is recorded here. 

Surface Breaking Indicate whether or not a flaw is surface breaking. 

Comments To include useful information about each indication found. 
4-3 

Figure 4.1 Technique Data Sheets for Techniques ET400Hz and TOFD.Ax for Fictitious 

Inspection 12.P89.1 
4-4 

Figure 4.2 Technique Data Sheet for Technique TOFD.Circ for Fictitious Inspection 

12.P89.1 

Figure 4.3 Inspection Summary Data Sheet for Fictitious Inspection 12.P89.1 
4-5 

 Records Collection Overview Summary 

The number of inspection summary data sheets collected (equivalent to the number of 

inspections) for each block type (i.e., BMI, DMW, and WOL) is tabulated in Table 4.2 according to 

procedure ID. Procedure ID is expressed here as “Tech1.Tech2...TechN.TeamID” where Tech1 

through TechN represent all the techniques used for a given procedure ID. The possible 

techniques include conventional UT, PAUT, ECT, and TOFD, as mentioned in Section 3. For 

example, team 126 employs a procedure that includes a TOFD technique and an ECT technique; 

thus, its procedure name is TOFD.ECT.126. Table 4.3 breaks down the number of inspections by 

access type (i.e., O.D. vs. I.D.) for BMI, DMW, and WOL test blocks. Table 4.4 tabulates the 

number of flaws by flaw type and Table 4.5 tabulates number of flaws by flaw orientation. Flaw 

orientation is considered axial if the axial dimension of the flaw is 3x the circumferential dimension 

or greater. Flaw orientation is considered circumferential if the circumferential dimension of the 

flaw is 3x the axial dimension or greater. If neither of these criteria is met, the flaw is classified as 

diagonal. In this case, the term diagonal is used to distinguish from axial and circumferential 

orientation and reflect that the flaw does not have a dominant orientation in the axial or 

circumferential direction based on dimensions. 

In these tables, an inspection refers to the application of a procedure to a test block. Thus, the 

number of inspections for BMI test blocks (tube I.D. access) for instance, refers to the number of 

procedures applied to all BMI test blocks by tube I.D. access. The number of flaw observations is 

the number of flaws times the number of times an attempt is made to detect them (equal to the 

number of inspections). For each inspection performed on a test block, it is assumed that an 

attempt is made to detect all of the flaws in the test block. For a given test block, the number of 

flaw observations is equal to the total number of flaws in the test block multiplied by the number of 

times the test block is inspected. For a test block type, such as BMIs, it is equal to the sum of the 

number of flaws in each BMI test block times the number of times each BMI test block is 

inspected. For ECT procedures, subsurface flaws are excluded. 
4-6 

Table 4.2 Number Inspection Summary Data Sheets Collected for Each Procedure 

BMI DMW WOL 

Form Procedure ID 

(Appendix C) 

ECT.108 4 0 0 108.6 

ECT.124 4 0 0 124.1 

ECT.135 0 1 0 135.1 

PAUT.108.1 0 4 0 108.3 

PAUT.108.2 0 0 1 108.4 

PAUT.115 0 2 0 115.1 

PAUT.126.1 0 4 0 126.2 

PAUT.126.2 0 0 1 126.4 

PAUT.128 0 2 0 128.1 

PAUT.132 0 4 0 132.1 

TOFD.ECT.126 2 0 0 126.5 

UT.108 0 4 0 108.2 

UT.126 0 4 0 126.3 

UT.134.1 0 4 0 134.1 

UT.134.2 0 4 0 134.2 

UT.25 0 1 0 25.1 

UT.ECT.106 0 4 0 106.1 

UT.ECT.144 0 2 0 144.1 

UT.PAUT.108 0 4 0 108.1 

UT.PAUT.113 0 5 0 113.1 

UT.PAUT.126 0 4 0 126.1 

UT.TOFD.117 0 2 0 117.1 

UT.TOFD.ECT.101 0 2 0 101.1 

TOTAL 10 57 2 

UT = conventional UT 

Table 4.3 Number of Inspections by Access 

 I.D. O.D. 

BMI 2 (tube) 10 (j-groove) 

DMW 18 39 

WOL 0 2 

Total 25 46 
4-7 

Table 4.4 Number of Flaw Observations by Flaw Type 

BMI DMW WOL 

Mechanical Fatigue Crack (MFC) 0 0 10 

Electric Discharge Machine (EDM) Notch 0 0 6 

Solidification Crack (SC) 0 380 0 

Stress Corrosion Crack (SCC) 0 25 0 

Thermal Fatigue Crack (TFC) 62 0 0 

Weld Defects 15 16 4 

Total 77 421 20 

Table 4.5. Number of Flaw Observations by Flaw Orientation

BMI DMW WOL 

Axial 21 124 0 

Circumferential 43 271 12 

Diagonal 13 26 8 

Total 77 421 20 

 Scoring Procedure Used for PARENT Blind Round Robin 

PARENT utilized the same scoring criteria as PINC which is described in Section 4.1 of 

NUREG/CR-7019 (Cumblidge et al. 2010) and also included in Appendix D of this report for 

reference. Similar to PINC, a tolerance was added to flaw true-state dimensions in PARENT to 

limit systematic positioning error resulting in legitimate detections being classified as misses. 

Once the tolerance is defined, X and Y, then the flaw cuboid, X1, X2; Y1, Y2; Z1, Z2, becomes, 

       X X,X X,Y Y,Y Y,Z ,Z 1 2 1 2 12 (4.1) 

An illustration of tolerance applied to flaw true-state (solid red) dimensions is provided in 

Figure 4.4 resulting in an enlarged region represented by white space with a red border. 

Indications that intersect any portion of this enlarged region are classified as hits. A tolerance 

analysis was performed for PARENT data to determine the appropriate tolerance for both DMW 

and BMI test blocks in PARENT. The POD versus scoring tolerance is plotted in Figure 4.5 for 

DMW test blocks and Figure 4.6 for BMI test blocks. These figures indicate that the POD begins 

to level off with a scoring tolerance of approximately X = Y = 10 mm. This observation is 

consistent with PINC in which a 10-mm tolerance was applied to flaws for detection analysis. A 

collection of indication plots for all of the blind inspections performed in PARENT is included in 

Appendix E. An illustration of an indication plot is provided in Figure 4.7. The red rectangles 

represent the “true-state” (actual flaws) with the surrounding tolerance box. Indications are show 

as empty rectangles. 
4-8 

Figure 4.4 Illustration of Tolerance (X and Y) Applied Flaw True-State (in red) 

Dimensions for the Purpose of Scoring in PARENT 

Figure 4.5 Probability of Detection versus Scoring Tolerance for DMW Test Data 
4-9 

Figure 4.6 Probability of Detection versus Scoring Tolerance for BMI Test Data 

Figure 4.7 Depiction of Indication Plot Illustrating 2-D Representation of Test Block. The 

red filled rectangles represent the true-state (actual flaws), while red empty 

rectangles surrounding the flaws depict the scoring tolerance. Indications 

are shown as black empty rectangles. 

 Multiple Indications Associated with One Flaw 

In a few cases, multiple indications may intersect the region bounded by the tolerance box for the 

same flaw. An example is provided in Figure 4.8 for procedure ECT.135 inspection on test block 

P33. For these scenarios, it is necessary to select one of the indications for performing the sizing 

analysis. The selection is based on the indication with the largest intersecting area with the 

tolerance region. To accommodate indications that may have no width defined in one dimension 
4-10 

(i.e., X or Y), and thus have no area, the tolerance is divided between the flaw and the indications 

with values of X/2 and Y/2 (refer to Figure 4.4). This is illustrated in Figure 4.9. The indication 

whose tolerance boundaries form the largest region of intersection with the area defined by the 

flaw tolerance boundaries is selected as the indication to associate with the flaw for sizing analysis 

purposes. 

Figure 4.8 Indication Plot for ECT.135 Applied to P33 from X = 2000 mm to X = 2800 mm 

Illustrating Two Indications Intersecting the Region Bounded by the 

Tolerance Box 

Figure 4.9 Illustration of Tolerance Divided Between Flaw and Multiple Indications 

Intersecting the Region Bounded by the Flaw Tolerance Box 

 Multiple Flaws Associated with One Indication 

SBDMW test block P35 had a circumferentially oriented flaw and axially oriented flaw with 

overlapping tolerance bounds. These flaws did not meet the criteria for combining flaws as 

defined by the description of the “Scoring Process for Multiple Closely Spaced Cracks” in 
4-11 

Appendix D.5. Six indication plots in Figures 4.10 through 4.15 highlight six inspections in which 

an indication overlapped the tolerance boundaries of the flaws with overlapping tolerance 

boundaries. In this analysis, the indications were scored as a hit for both flaws, and each flaw was 

considered detected. In addition, sizing analysis was performed by comparing the dimensions of 

the indication with the dimensions of each flaw. It is conceivable that the analysis could have been 

performed by associating the indication with just one of the flaws by comparing the orientation of 

the indication with the orientation of the flaws. For instance, it appears that in Figures 4.10 and 

4.11 the indications overlapping the two flaw boundaries have circumferential orientations and 

could be associated with only the circumferential flaw. Conversely, Figures 4.12, 4.13, and 4.15 

have indications that appear to have an axial orientation. Thus, the indication could be associated 

with the axial flaws in these inspections. In Figure 4.14, the flaw orientation is ambiguous and it 

would be difficult to determine which flaw the indication should be assigned to. If the analysis were 

performed in this way, the PODs would be slightly lower because there would be one less hit for 

each inspection represented in Figures 4.10 through 4.15. The results of sizing analysis may be 

influenced positively, assuming the indication is only compared with the flaw that has the most 

similar dimensions. 

Figure 4.10 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.108 Applied to Test Block P35 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 0 mm–300 mm) 
4-12 

Figure 4.11 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.108 Applied to Test Block P35 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Y view, 0 mm–300 mm) 

Figure 4.12 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.115 Applied to Test Block P35 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 0 mm–300 mm) 
4-13 

Figure 4.13 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.TOFD.117 Applied to Test Block P35 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 0 mm–300 mm) 

Figure 4.14 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.128 Applied to Test Block P35 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 0 mm–300 mm) 
4-14 

Figure 4.15 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.134 Applied to Test Block P35 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Y view, 0 mm–300 mm) 

 Probability of Detection Representation 

A logistic regression model was used to relate POD to flaw size, S. Flaw size represents either 

depth or length. The logistic regression model is given by, 

POD(S) logistic       1 2S , (4.2)

where β = (β1, β2) are unknown parameters to be determined by the regression algorithm and the 

function, logistic(x) is defined as 

  

1 logistic (x) 1 x e

(4.3)

Estimates produced by the algorithm are maximum-likelihood estimates. 

In Section 5.1.2, detection performance is presented in a tabular format with POD values provided 

at discrete flaw sizes (i.e., at 0 mm, 5 mm, 10 mm, 15 mm, etc.). The values of POD at these 

discrete flaw sizes are the values estimated by the logistic regression model expressed by 

Eqs. (4.2) and (4.3). This is represented by an example of PAUT procedures applied to the O.D. 

of LBDMW test blocks in Table 4.6 and by a plot of the corresponding logistic regression model in 

Figure 4.16. Table 4.6 includes a column with heading “NOBS,” which refers to the number of flaw 

observations in the sample that POD data in the row is calculated from. In addition, the first 

column includes POD data for flaws that are 0 mm deep. In this case, the value at 0 mm [POD(0)] 

can also be interpreted as the false call probability (FCP) determined by the regression fit. The 

value of the regression fit at 0 mm is influenced by the measured FCP, which is calculated from 

the false call rate (FCR) with Eq. (D.3) in Appendix D. FCR has units of number of false calls per 

meter. Further definitions of the measured FCP and POD can be found in Appendix D.1. Figure 

4.16 also illustrates 95% confidence intervals for the logistic regression curve. 

Section 6.1 includes an analysis of the effect of variables on detection performance, particularly 

with respect to surface access, flaw orientation, and block type. In this case, POD data is again 
4-15 

provided in tabular format. However, in this case, the flaw size is binned into ranges of 0–5 mm, 

5–10 mm, 10–20 mm, and > 20 mm; and POD values are provided for data included in each of 

these bins, as illustrated with Table 4.7. In this case, the POD values represent the mean POD 

and the standard deviation for data included in these bins. In each bin, the data is fit with a 

binomial distribution. 

Figure 4.16 POD versus Depth (mm) for PAUT Procedures Applied to LBDMW Test 

Blocks with O.D. Access (w/o Quick-blind) 

Table 4.6 Summary of POD (%) versus Depth for Procedure Types for LBDMWs (O.D. 

Access) 

NOBS 0 mm 5 mm 10 mm 15 mm 

PAUT 38 5 11 21 37 

┇ ┇ ┇ ┇ ┇ ┇

UT = conventional UT 
4-16 

Table 4.7 Summary of POD (%) by Access, Orientation, and Block Type versus Flaw 

Depth 

Access Orientation Block Type 0–5 mm 5–10 mm 10–20 mm >20 mm 

I.D. Axial LBDMW 25 ± 23 75 ± 13 83 ± 17 75 ± 13 

O.D. Axial LBDMW 0 ± 12 20 ± 11 10 ± 11 67 ± 12 

┇ ┇ ┇ ┇ ┇ ┇ ┇

Sizing Analysis for PARENT Blind Round-Robin Test 

Linear regression was used to analyze sizing data (depth and length) in PARENT Blind testing. 

An error relation between the measured and true sizes of the flaws is defined by the following 

regression formula: 

M B1 B2 T E i i i    (4.4) 

where Mi represents the measured size associated with flaw i 

Ti represents the true size of flaw i 

Ei represents the measurement error in sizing flaw i 

B1 and B2 are the regression parameters usually associated with the Y intercept and slope of 

the linear regression. Ideal performance for sizing would occur when B1 = 0, B2 = 1, and Ei = 0. 

To compare two different regressions, and to order a set of regression fits (from most accurate 

to least accurate as an example), the metric of root mean square error (RMSE) is used. RMSE 

is a statistic that summarizes the three deviations of regression analyses from their respective 

ideals. RMSE is defined by 

  



 2

I I

2 I

M T

RMSE

n

(4.5) 

where all the variables are the same as in the preceding descriptions and n is the total number 

of measurements. RMSE can also be represented in terms of bias and standard deviation as, 

  22 2 RMSE bias StDev . (4.6) 

In this formula, standard deviation is represented with the variable StDev. The bias and StDev 

represent systematic and random components to the error and are calculated with the following 

formulas, 

  





bias

i i

i

M T

n , (4.7) 

  2

bias

StDev

i i

i

M T

n

     



 . (4.8) 
4-17 

An example of a sizing regression curve is provided in Figure 4.17 for depth sizing performed on 

axial flaws in LBDMW test blocks from the I.D. surface. The dark line represents the regression fit 

while the red dashed lines above and below the regression fit are the 95% confidence intervals for 

the regression fit. In this case, the “A’s” represent the data and represent axially oriented flaws, 

“C” would be used to represent circumferentially oriented flaws, and “D” represents diagonally 

oriented flaws which are flaws that do not have a dominant orientation based on dimensions. 

Figure 4.17 Example of Sizing Regression Plot for Depth Sizing Results Obtained on 

LBDMW Test Blocks by Access to the I.D. Surface (dimensions are in mm) 

In some scenarios, the sizing regression analysis for procedures applied to Quick-blind test blocks 

resulted in counterintuitive outcomes. An example is provided in Figure 4.18 below which shows a 

regression curve for the length sizing performance of UT.PAUT procedures applied to Quick-blind 

test blocks with a negative slope. This result is most likely an artifact of the limited sample size, 

the sizing analysis, and/or possibly the morphology of flaws in the Quick-blind test blocks (see 

Figure 2.11), which consist of a cluster of parallel axially oriented cracks with varying depth. From 

the 95% confidence intervals (red dashed lines), it appears that both negative and positive slope 

curves could fit within the bounds of uncertainty. Further, the clustered nature of the flaws in 

Quick-blind test blocks introduces complexity in length sizing of flaws that is not representative of 

what is expected in the field for PWSCC/IDSCC flaws. Therefore, the sizing results represented in 

Figure 4.18 are likely not a good representation of the actual length sizing capability of UT.PAUT 

procedures. 
4-18 

In addition, for some presentations of sizing results for Quick-blind test blocks, plots such as 

Figure 4.19 are provided. In this case, no regression fit is displayed because four data points are 

required to provide a fit for the model in Eq. (4.4). 

Figure 4.18 Length Sizing Fit (in mm) for UT.PAUT Procedures Applied to LBDMWs 

(O.D. Access – Quick-blind) 
4-19 

Figure 4.19 Depth Sizing Fit (in mm) for PAUT Procedures Applied to LBDMWs (I.D. 

Access – Quick-blind) 

5-1 

5 DATA RESULTS 

This section presents the results of data analysis performed for blind test data collected in 

PARENT. The primary data analyses performed includes detection and false call rate analysis, 

length sizing analysis, and depth sizing analysis. Section 5.1 includes the data analysis results for 

DMW test blocks, while Sections 5.2 and 5.3 include results for BMI and WOL test blocks, 

respectively. Additional analysis is performed to compare performance by procedure type, flaw 

type, access type, and flaw orientation in Section 6. The data results presented in this section 

serve as a reference to support analyses and conclusions presented in later sections. The reader 

may wish to skip over this section to Sections 6–9, referring back to this section, as needed. 

 Results for DMW Test Blocks 

This section includes a summary of data analysis results for inspections performed on DMW test 

blocks. This includes detection and FCR results and depth and length sizing results. These results 

are presented for the Quick-blind test in Section 5.1.1 and for the Blind and Quick-blind test data 

in Sections 5.1.2 and 5.1.3. Results from an earlier analysis of the Quick-blind data were 

presented in a report on the Quick-blind testing (Braatz et al. 2014). In the earlier analysis, length 

sizing is performed based on the axial dimensions of the flaws because all flaws in Quick-blind 

test blocks were intended to have axial orientation. However, destructive analysis revealed that 

the flaws in P16 and P17 had circumferential dimensions that were greater than their axial 

dimensions. In this section, the largest flaw dimension in the axial or circumferential direction is 

used as the basis for length sizing analysis of Quick-blind data to be consistent with the analysis 

of Blind data. 

Quick-Blind Testing Results 

Figures 5.1 and 5.2 provide POD curves as a function of flaw depth and length, respectively. 

These were developed from the combined detection and false call data of the six test teams. The 

dashed red lines represent the upper and lower 95% confidence bounds. The wide confidence 

interval is a result of the limited number of data points available. Three flaws were included in 

Quick-blind testing (one in each test block), and all flaws were inspected by each team (total of six 

teams). All the teams detected all flaws in all test blocks. 
5-2 

Figure 5.1 Probability of Detection versus Flaw Depth 

Figure 5.2 Probability of Detection versus Flaw Length 

Table 5.1 shows the depth sizing error by procedure and by I.D. or O.D. access for combined data 

taken on Quick-blind test blocks. Teams 113 and 106 had the lowest RMSE, both having 

accessed the test block from the I.D. 
5-3 

Table 5.1 Flaw Depth Sizing Error by Procedure 

Procedure Access Bias, mm RMSE, mm 

UT.134.1 O.D. −6.5 10.0 

PAUT.132 I.D. −7.5 8.8 

UT.PAUT.108 O.D. −9.1 11.4 

UT.PAUT.126 O.D. −3.5 6.2 

UT.PAUT.113 I.D. 0.9 1.2 

UT.ECT.106 I.D. 0.0 3.3 

UT = conventional UT 

Table 5.2 shows how the depth sizing error differs for I.D. and O.D. access. The RMSE values 

indicate that those procedures that accessed the test block from the I.D. outperformed procedures 

that accessed from the O.D. Table 5.3 shows the length sizing error by test team for data 

collected from Quick-blind test blocks. Table 5.4 provides a summary of the length sizing errors 

for I.D. and O.D. access inspections from Quick-blind testing. 

Table 5.2 Flaw Depth Sizing Error by I.D./O.D. Access 

Access NOBS Bias, mm RMSE, mm 

I.D. 9 −2.2 5.5 

O.D. 9 −6.4 9.4 

Table 5.3 Flaw Length Sizing Error by Procedures(a)

Procedure Access Bias, mm RMSE, mm 

UT.134.1 O.D. −9.0 12.2 

UT.PAUT.108 O.D. −9.0 11.1 

UT.PAUT.126 O.D. 0.7 6.4 

UT.PAUT.113 I.D. −11.7 12.8 

UT.ECT.106 I.D. −9.3 10.0 

(a) Procedure PAUT.132 was not qualified for length sizing 

and this data is not included in the summary. 

UT = conventional UT 

Table 5.4 Flaw Length Sizing Error Summary 

Access NOBS Bias, mm RMSE, mm 

I.D. 6 −10.5 11.5 

O.D. 9 −5.8 10.2 
5-4 

 DMW Detection and False Call Rate Summary 

Table 5.5 provides a summary of detection and FCR results for each procedure applied to DMW 

test blocks. The column headings are: number of observations (NOBS), POD, FCP, FCR, and 

access (I.D vs. O.D.). Table 5.6 provides a summary of detection and FCR results for each DMW 

test block inspected in the blind testing. A collection of indication plots for all of the blind 

inspections performed in PARENT is included in Appendix E. In this section and throughout the 

remainder of this report, “Blind + Quick-blind” is used to highlight results that are based on data 

from both Blind and Quick-blind tests and “Quick-blind” is used to highlight results based only on 

Quick-blind data. Red text color is also used to emphasize results that include data from Quickblind testing. Also, several tables include overall statistics for rows in the tables associated with 

only Blind test data or associated with Blind + Quick-blind data. This includes Table 5.5, Table 5.7, 

Table 5.8, Table 5.13, Table 5.14, Table 5.19, Table 5.20, Table 5.25, and Table 5.26. In this 

case, the symbol “” is used to denote a row that is included in the calculation of overall statistics 

for Blind data only, and the symbol “+” is used to denote a row that is included in the calculation of 

overall statistics for Blind + Quick-blind data. A row can include both symbols; in which case, this 

denotes the row is used in the calculation of overall statistics for both scenarios. 
5-5 

Table 5.5 DMW Detection and False Call Rate Summary Organized by Procedure 

NOBS 

POD, 

% 

FCP, 

% 

FCR, 

#/m Access LBDMW SBDMW 

ECT.135, 16 75 1 0.4 I.D. P33 

PAUT.108.1, 47 64 1 0.6 O.D. P13, P33 P35, P40 

PAUT.115, 28 96 0 0.0 O.D. P35, P40 

PAUT.126.1, 47 51 3 1.2 O.D. P13, P33 P35, P40 

PAUT.128, 28 93 6 2.4 O.D. P35, P40 

PAUT.132 (Quickblind)

3 100 0 0.0 I.D. P15, P16, P17, P45 

UT.108, 47 62 2 0.8 O.D. P13, P33 P35, P40 

UT.126, 47 34 6 2.3 O.D. P13, P33 P35, P40 

UT.134.1 (Quick-blind) 3 100 0 0.0 O.D. P15, P16, P17, P45 

UT.134.2, 47 66 4 1.7 O.D. P13, P33 P35, P40 

UT.25,(a) 12 25 10 4.3 O.D. P35 

UT.ECT.106 (Quickblind)

3 100 0 0.0 I.D. P15, P16, P17, P45 

UT.ECT.144, 19 58 6 2.3 I.D. P13, P33 

UT.PAUT.108 (Quickblind)

3 100 0 0.0 O.D. P15, P16, P17, P45 

UT.PAUT.113 

(Blind + Quick-blind)

21 86 0 0.0 I.D. P33 

P15, P16, P17, P45 

UT.PAUT.113 18 83 0 0.0 I.D. P33 

UT.PAUT.126 (Quickblind)3 100 7 2.9 O.D. P15, P16, P17, P45 

UT.TOFD.117, 28 82 1 0.4 O.D. P35, P40 

UT.TOFD.ECT.101, 19 79 3 1.1 I.D. P13, P33 

All (Blind) 403 65 3 1.2 

All (Blind + Quickblind) 

421 67 3 1.1 

(a) UT.25 was not a qualified procedure. 

UT = conventional UT 

Table 5.6 Detection and False Call Rate Summary for Each DMW Test Block 

Number 

of Flaws 

Number of 

Inspections 

FCR, 

#/m FCP, % POD, % 

P13 1 7 3.65 8.7 42.9 

P15 (Quick-blind) 1 6 0.41 1.0 100.0 

P16 (Quick-blind) 1 6 0.42 1.0 100.0 

P17 (Quick-blind) 1 6 0.43 1.1 100.0 

P33 18 9 1.24 3.1 52.5 

P35 12 9 1.44 3.5 61.1 

P40 16 8 0.81 2.0 84.4

P45 (Quick-blind) 0 6 0.78 1.9 
5-6 

POD versus depth curves for all inspections performed on LBDMWs are provided in Figures 5.3 

and 5.4 for I.D. and O.D. access, respectively. The POD versus depth curve for all inspections 

performed on SBDMWs is provided in Figure 5.5. Tables 5.7 through 5.9 provide results of POD 

versus depth for procedure types applied to LBDMW test blocks with I.D. access, LBDMW test 

blocks with O.D. access, and SBDMW test blocks (all O.D. access), respectively. Figures 5.6 and 

5.7 include POD versus depth curves for PAUT and conventional UT procedures applied to 

LBDMWs with O.D. access, respectively. Figures 5.8 and 5.9 include POD versus depth curves 

for PAUT and conventional UT procedures applied to SBDMWs with O.D. access, respectively. 

Tables 5.10 through 5.12 provide POD as a function of flaw depth for individual procedures 

applied to LBDMW test blocks with I.D. access, LBDMW test blocks with O.D. access, and 

SBDMW test blocks, respectively. 

Figure 5.3 POD versus Depth (mm) for All Procedures Applied to LBDMW Test Blocks 

with I.D. Access 
5-7 

Figure 5.4 POD versus Depth (mm) for All Procedures Applied to LBDMW Test Blocks 

with O.D. Access 

Figure 5.5 POD versus Depth (mm) for All Procedures Applied to SBDMW Test Blocks 

with O.D. Access 
5-8 

Table 5.7 Summary of POD (%) versus Depth for Procedure Types for LBDMWs (I.D. 

Access) 

NOBS 0 mm 5 mm 10 mm 15 mm 30 mm 

PAUT (Quick-blind) 3 3 9 26 56 97 

ECT, 16 3 23 76 97 100 

UT.ECT 19 9 17 30 46 84 

UT.ECT (Blind + Quick-blind) 22 7 15 31 52 92 

UT.PAUT 18 3 42 94 100 100 

UT.PAUT (Blind + Quick-blind) 21 2 47 97 100 100 

UT.TOFD.ECT, 19 7 22 48 76 99 

All (Blind) 72 5 22 59 88 100 

All (Blind + Quick-blind) 81 4 22 64 92 100 

UT = conventional UT 

Table 5.8 Summary of POD (%) versus Depth for Procedure Types for LBDMWs (O.D. 

Access) 

NOBS 0 mm 5 mm 10 mm 15 mm 30 mm 

PAUT, 38 5 10 21 37 82 

UT 57 5 10 19 32 74 

UT (Blind + Quick-blind) 60 5 10 19 34 79 

UT.PAUT (Quick-blind) 6 5 19 49 80 99 

All (Blind) 95 5 10 20 34 79 

All (Blind + Quick-blind) 104 5 11 22 39 85 

UT = conventional UT 

Table 5.9 Summary of POD (%) versus Depth for Procedure Types for SBDMWs (O.D. 

Access) 

NOBS 0 mm 5 mm 10 mm 15 mm 30 mm 

PAUT 112 6 39 87 99 100 

UT 96 8 20 43 69 98 

UT.TOFD 28 4 42 92 99 100 

All 236 6 28 69 93 100 

UT = conventional UT 
5-9 

Figure 5.6 POD versus Depth (mm) for PAUT Procedures Applied to LBDMW Test 

Blocks with O.D. Access 

Figure 5.7 POD versus Depth (mm) for Conventional UT Procedures Applied to LBDMW 

Test Blocks with O.D. 
5-10 

Figure 5.8 POD versus Depth (mm) for PAUT Procedures Applied to SBDMW Test 

Blocks 

Figure 5.9 POD versus Depth (mm) for Conventional UT Procedures Applied to SBDMW 

Test Blocks 
5-11 

Table 5.10 Summary of POD (%) versus Depth for Procedures Applied to LBDMWs (I.D. 

Access) 

NOBS 0 mm 5 mm 10 mm 15 mm 30 mm 

PAUT.132 (Quick-blind) 3 3 9 26 56 97 

ECT.135 16 3 23 76 97 100 

UT.ECT.106 (Quick-blind) 3 3 10 27 56 97 

UT.ECT.144 19 9 17 30 46 84 

UT.PAUT.113 18 3 42 94 100 100 

UT.PAUT.113 (Blind + Quick-blind) 21 2 47 97 100 100 

UT.TOFD.ECT.101 19 7 22 48 76 99 

UT = conventional UT 

Table 5.11 Summary of POD (%) versus Depth for Procedures Applied to LBDMWs (O.D. 

Access) 

NOBS 0 mm 5 mm 10 mm 15 mm 30 mm 

PAUT.108.1 19 3 8 16 30 79 

PAUT.126.1 19 7 14 24 40 81 

UT.108 19 3 8 16 30 79 

UT.126 19 7 11 15 20 40 

UT.134.2 19 6 14 28 49 91 

UT.134.1 (Quick-blind) 3 2 10 35 73 93 

UT.PAUT.108 (Quick-blind) 3 2 8 25 55 97 

UT.PAUT.126 (Quick-blind) 3 9 20 39 61 94 

UT = conventional UT 

Table 5.12 Summary of POD (%) versus Depth for Procedures Applied to SBDMWs (O.D. 

Access) 

NOBS 0 mm 5 mm 10 mm 15 mm 30 mm 

PAUT.108.1 28 5 35 84 98 100 

PAUT.115 28 6 58 97 100 100 

PAUT.126.1 28 3 12 33 65 99 

PAUT.128 28 11 51 89 99 100 

UT.108 28 6 33 81 97 100 

UT.126 28 8 14 23 35 76 

UT.134.2 28 9 28 59 84 100 

UT.25(a) 12 11 17 26 37 74 

UT.TOFD.117 28 4 42 92 99 100 

(a) UT.25 was not a qualified procedure. 

UT = conventional UT 
5-12 

Figures 5.10 through 5.12 include POD versus flaw length curves for all inspections performed on 

LBDMWs with I.D. access, LBDMWs with O.D. access, and SBDMWs, respectively. Tables 5.13 

through 5.15 summarize POD versus flaw length for procedure types applied to LBDMW test 

blocks with I.D. access, LBDMW test blocks with O.D. access, and SBDMW test blocks, 

respectively. Finally, Tables 5.16 through 5.18 provide a summary of POD versus flaw length for 

individual procedures applied to LBDMW test blocks with I.D. access, LBDMW test blocks with 

O.D. access, and SBDMW test blocks, respectively. The results have been presented with and 

without Quick-blind data included, and this is indicated in the tables and figure captions where 

necessary. POD curves without and with Quick-blind data are provided in Appendix F.1 and F.2, 

respectively, as a function of flaw depth and flaw length. 

Figure 5.10 POD versus Length (mm) for All Procedures Applied to LBDMW Test 

Blocks with I.D. Access 
5-13 

Figure 5.11 POD versus Length (mm) for All Procedures Applied to LBDMW Test 

Blocks with O.D. Access 

Figure 5.12 POD versus Length (mm) for All Procedures Applied to SBDMW Test 

Blocks 
5-14 

Table 5.13 Summary of POD (%) by Flaw Length in LBDMW Test Blocks by Procedure 

Type (I.D. Access) 

NOBS 0 mm 5 mm 10 mm 15 mm 30 mm 

PAUT (Quick-blind) 3 1 4 13 32 94 

ECT, 16 2 10 37 76 100

UT.ECT 19 7 14 26 44 89 

UT.ECT (Blind + Quick-blind) 22 5 11 25 46 94 

UT.PAUT 18 1 9 46 88 100 

UT.PAUT (Blind + Quick-blind) 21 1 7 44 89 100 

UT.TOFD.ECT 19 4 14 38 69 99 

All (Blind) 72 3 12 38 73 100 

All (Blind + Quick-blind) 78 2 10 36 75 100 

UT = conventional UT 

Table 5.14 Summary of POD (%) by Flaw Length in LBDMW Test Blocks by Procedure 

Type (O.D. Access) 

NOBS 0 mm 5 mm 10 mm 15 mm 30 mm 

PAUT, 38 4 8 16 28 78 

UT 57 5 8 15 25 70

UT (Blind + Quick-blind)  60 4 8 14 26 75 

UT.PAUT (Quick-blind) 6 4 12 29 55 97

All (Blind) 95 4 8 15 26 74 

All (Blind + Quick-blind)) 104 4 8 16 29 81 

UT = conventional UT 

Table 5.15 Summary of POD (%) by Flaw Length in SBDMW Test Blocks by Procedure 

Type 

NOBS 0 mm 5 mm 10 mm 15 mm 30 mm 

PAUT 112 6 16 37 65 98 

UT 96 8 14 24 37 80

UT.TOFD 28 4 15 41 75 100 

All 236 6 14 30 53 95

UT = conventional UT 
5-15 

Table 5.16 Summary of POD (%) by Flaw Length in LBDMW Test Blocks for Each 

Procedure (I.D. Access) 

NOBS 0 mm 5 mm 10 mm 15 mm 30 mm 

PAUT.132 (Quick-blind) 3 1 4 13 32 94 

ECT.135 16 2 10 37 76 100 

UT.ECT.106 (Quick-blind) 3 1 4 13 32 94 

UT.ECT.144 19 7 14 26 44 89 

UT.PAUT.113 18 1 9 46 88 100 

UT.PAUT.113 (Blind + Quick-blind) 22 1 7 44 89 100 

UT.TOFD.ECT.101 19 4 14 38 69 99 

UT = conventional UT 

Table 5.17 Summary of POD (%) by Flaw Length in LBDMW Test Blocks for Each 

Procedure (O.D. Access) 

NOBS 0 mm 5 mm 10 mm 15 mm 30 mm 

PAUT.108.1 19 2 5 11 23 80 

PAUT.126.1 19 6 11 19 30 72 

UT.108 19 2 5 11 23 80 

UT.126 19 7 9 13 18 39 

UT.134.2 19 6 11 20 33 80 

UT.134.1 (Quick-blind) 3 1 3 12 35 95 

UT.PAUT.108 (Quick-blind) 3 1 4 12 31 94 

UT.PAUT.126 (Quick-blind) 3 8 16 30 48 91 

UT = conventional UT 

Table 5.18 Summary of POD (%) by Flaw Length in SBDMW Test Blocks for Each 

Procedure 

NOBS 0 mm 5 mm 10 mm 15 mm 30 mm 

PAUT.108.1 28 5 14 33 60 97 

PAUT.115 28 6 21 53 83 100 

PAUT.126.1 28 3 7 14 25 76 

PAUT.128 28 11 27 52 76 99 

UT.108 28 6 15 33 59 97 

UT.126 28 9 11 15 20 39 

UT.134.2 28 9 17 31 48 89 

UT.25(a) 12 13 16 19 22 35 

UT.TOFD.117 28 4 15 41 75 100 

(a) UT.25 was not a qualified procedure. 

UT = conventional UT 
5-16 

 DMW Depth Sizing Summary 

Depth sizing errors are provided in terms of bias and RMSE in Tables 5.19 through 5.21 for 

procedure types applied to LBDMW test blocks with I.D. access, LBDMW test blocks with O.D. 

access, and SBDMW test blocks, respectively. Depth sizing errors are provided in terms of bias 

and RMSE in Tables 5.22 through 5.24 for individual procedures applied to LBDMW test blocks 

with I.D. access, LBDMW test blocks with O.D. access, and SBDMW test blocks, respectively. 

Depth sizing data, along with regression curve fits for LBDMW test blocks with I.D. access, are 

provided in Figures 5.13 through 5.18. For LBDMW test blocks with O.D. access, depth sizing 

data along with regression curve fits are provided in Figures 5.19 through 5.22. Finally, depth 

sizing data along with regression curve fits for SBDMW test blocks are provided in Figures 5.23 

through 5.25. Depth sizing regression plots are provided in Appendix G.1.1 and Appendix G.2.1 

for Blind and Blind + Quick-blind results, respectively. 

Table 5.19 Summary of Depth Sizing Errors for Procedure Types Applied to LBDMWs 

with I.D. Access 

NOBS Bias, mm RMSE, mm 

PAUT (Quick-blind) 3 −7.5 8.8 

UT.ECT 9 0.7 2.2 

UT.ECT (Blind + Quick-blind) 12 0.5 2.5 

UT.PAUT 15 2.0 2.9 

UT.PAUT (Blind + Quick-blind) 18 1.8 2.7 

UT.TOFD.ECT, 15 −1.0 3.4 

All 39 0.6 3.0 

All (Blind + Quick-blind) 48 0.0 3.6 

UT = conventional UT 

Table 5.20 Summary of Depth Sizing Errors for Procedure Types Applied to LBDMWs 

with O.D. Access 

NOBS Bias, mm RMSE, mm 

PAUT, 15 0.1 9.7 

UT 16 −4.4 9.8 

UT (Blind + Quick-blind) 19 −4.7 9.9 

UT.PAUT (Quick-blind) 6 −6.3 9.2 

All 31 −2.2 9.8 

All (Blind + Quick-blind) 40 −3.2 9.7 

UT = conventional UT 
5-17 

Table 5.21 Summary of Depth Sizing Errors for Procedures Types on SBDMWs with O.D. 

Access 

NOBS Bias, mm RMSE, mm 

PAUT 84 −0.9 3.6 

UT 54 −3.5 7.9

UT.TOFD 19 0.6 4.1 

All 157 −1.6 5.5

UT = conventional UT 

Table 5.22 Summary of Depth Sizing Errors for Procedures on LBDMWs (I.D. Access) 

NOBS Bias, mm RMSE, mm 

PAUT.132 (Quick-blind) 3 −7.5 8.8 

UT.ECT.106 (Quick-blind) 3 0.0 3.3 

UT.ECT.144 9 0.7 2.2 

UT.PAUT.113 15 2.0 2.9 

UT.PAUT.113 (Blind + Quick-blind) 18 1.8 2.7 

UT.TOFD.ECT.101 15 −1.0 3.4

UT = conventional UT 
5-18 

Table 5.23 Summary of Depth Sizing Errors for Procedures on LBDMWs (O.D. Access) 

NOBS Bias, mm RMSE, mm 

PAUT.108.1 7 −2.8 5.0 

PAUT.126.1 8 2.6 12.5

UT.108 4 −0.3 9.0 

UT.126 4 0.6 6.8

UT.134.2 8 −8.9 11.4 

UT.134.1 (Quick-blind) 3 −6.2 11.3

UT.PAUT.108 (Quick-blind) 3 −9.1 11.4 

UT.PAUT.126 (Quick-blind) 3 −3.5 6.2

UT = conventional UT 
5-19 

Table 5.24 Summary of Depth Sizing Errors for Procedures on SBDMWs (O.D. Access) 

NOBS Bias, mm RMSE, mm 

PAUT.108.1 21 −1.7 2.4 

PAUT.115 25 −0.3 1.8 

PAUT.126.1 14 −5.0 5.9 

PAUT.128 24 1.4 4.2 

UT.108 20 −1.0 4.2 

UT.126 10 −4.1 7.1 

UT.134.2 21 −4.9 9.5 

UT.25(a) 3 −8.8 13.9 

UT.TOFD.117 19 0.6 4.1 

(a) UT.25 was not a qualified procedure. 

UT = conventional UT 
5-20 

Figure 5.13 Depth Sizing Fit (in mm) for PAUT Procedures Applied to LBDMWs (I.D. 

Access – Quick-blind) 
5-21 

Figure 5.14 Depth Sizing Fit (in mm) for UT.ECT Procedures Applied to LBDMWs (I.D. 

Access) 
5-22 

Figure 5.15 Depth Sizing Fit (in mm) for UT.ECT Procedures Applied to LBDMWs (I.D. 

Access – Blind + Quick-blind) 
5-23 

Figure 5.16 Depth Sizing Fit (in mm) for UT.PAUT Procedures Applied to LBDMWs (I.D. 

Access) 
5-24 

Figure 5.17 Depth Sizing Fit (in mm) for UT.PAUT Procedures Applied to LBDMWs (I.D. 

Access – Blind + Quick-blind) 
5-25 

Figure 5.18 Depth Sizing Fit (in mm) for UT.TOFD.ECT Procedures Applied to LBDMWs 

(I.D. Access) 
5-26 

Figure 5.19 Depth Sizing Fit (in mm) for PAUT Procedures Applied to LBDMWs (O.D. 

Access) 
5-27 

Figure 5.20 Depth Sizing Fit (in mm) for Conventional UT Procedures Applied to 

LBDMWs (O.D. Access) 
5-28 

Figure 5.21 Depth Sizing Fit (in mm) for Conventional UT Procedures Applied to 

LBDMWs (O.D. Access – Blind + Quick-blind) 
5-29 

Figure 5.22 Depth Sizing Fit (in mm) for UT.PAUT Procedures Applied to LBDMWs (O.D. 

Access – Quick-blind) 
5-30 

Figure 5.23 Depth Sizing Fit (in mm) for PAUT Procedures Applied to SBDMWs (O.D. 

Access) 
5-31 

Figure 5.24 Depth Sizing Fit (in mm) for Conventional UT Procedures Applied to 

SBDMWs (O.D. Access) 
5-32 

Figure 5.25 Depth Sizing Fit (in mm) for UT.TOFD Procedures Applied to SBDMWs (O.D. 

Access) 

 DMW Length Sizing Summary 

Length sizing errors are provided in terms of bias and RMSE in Tables 5.25 through 5.27 for 

procedure types applied to LBDMW test blocks with I.D. access, LBDMW test blocks with O.D. 

access, and SBDMW test blocks, respectively. Length sizing errors are provided in terms of bias 

and RMSE in Tables 5.28 through 5.30 for individual procedures applied to LBDMW test blocks 

with I.D. access, LBDMW test blocks with O.D. access, and SBDMW test blocks, respectively. A 

list of the sizing outliers is included in Table 5.31 and these were excluded from the analysis. 

Length sizing data, along with regression curve fits for LBDMW test blocks with I.D. access, are 

provided in Figures 5.26 through Figure 5.31. For LBDMW test blocks with O.D. access, length 

sizing data along with regression curve fits are provided in Figure 5.32 through 5.35. Finally, 

length sizing data along with regression curve fits for SBDMW test blocks are provided in 

Figures 5.36 through 5.38. Length sizing regression plots are provided in Appendix G.1.2 and 

Appendix G.2.2 for Blind and Blind + Quick-blind data, respectively. 
5-33 

Table 5.25 Summary of Length Sizing Errors for Procedure Types Applied to LBDMWs 

(I.D. Access – Outliers Omitted)(a)

NOBS Bias, mm RMSE, mm 

ECT, 12 -2.2 6.2 

UT.ECT 11 2.9 4.2 

UT.ECT (Blind + Quick-blind) 14 0.3 5.9 

UT.PAUT 15 10.6 13.3 

UT.PAUT (Blind + Quick-blind) 18 6.9 13.2 

UT.TOFD.ECT, 15 1.1 5.3 

All 53 3.4 8.4 

All (Blind + Quick-blind) 59 2.0 8.7 

(a) Procedure PAUT.132 was not qualified for length sizing and this data is not 

included in the summary. 

UT = conventional UT 

Table 5.26 Summary of Length Sizing Errors for Procedure Types Applied to LBDMWs 

(O.D. Access) 

NOBS Bias, mm RMSE, mm 

PAUT 14 3.1 8.9 

UT, 18 6.9 15.9 

UT (Blind + Quick-blind) 21 4.7 15.4 

UT.PAUT (Blind + Quick-blind) 6 −4.2 9.0 

All 32 5.2 13.3 

All (Blind + Quick-blind) 41 2.8 12.7 

UT = conventional UT 

Table 5.27 Summary of Length Sizing Errors for Procedure Types Applied to SBDMWs 

(O.D. Access) 

NOBS Bias, mm RMSE, mm 

PAUT 84 6.6 11.8 

UT 54 6.0 12.8 

UT.TOFD 23 4.3 11.7

All 161 6.1 12.1 

UT = conventional UT 
5-34 

Table 5.28 Summary of Length Sizing Errors for Procedures Applied to LBDMWs (I.D. 

Access – Outliers Omitted)(a)

NOBS Bias, mm RMSE, mm 

ECT.135 12 −2.2 6.2 

UT.ECT.106 (Quick-blind) 3 −9.3 10.0 

UT.ECT.144 11 2.9 4.2 

UT.PAUT.113 15 10.6 13.3 

UT.PAUT.113 (Blind + Quick-blind) 18 6.9 13.2 

UT.TOFD.ECT.101 15 1.1 5.3 

(a) Procedure PAUT.132 was not qualified for length sizing and this data is not 

included in the summary. 

UT = conventional UT 

Table 5.29 Summary of Length Sizing Errors for Procedures Applied to LBDMWs (O.D. 

Access) 

NOBS Bias, mm RMSE, mm 

PAUT.108.1 7 -0.4 7.2 

PAUT.126.1 7 6.6 10.3 

UT.108 7 4.9 8.1 

UT.126 3 12.3 17.1

UT.134.2 8 6.8 20.0

UT.134.1 (Quick-blind) 3 6.6 8.2 

UT.PAUT.108 (Quick-blind) 3 −9.0 11.1 

UT.PAUT.126 (Quick-blind) 3 −0.7 6.4 

UT = conventional UT 

Table 5.30 Summary of Length Sizing Errors for Procedures Applied to SBDMWs (O.D. 

Access) 

NOBS Bias, mm RMSE, mm 

PAUT.108.1 21 1.0 9.2 

PAUT.115 25 8.2 13.1 

PAUT.126.1 14 5.7 12.4 

PAUT.128 24 10.5 12.0 

UT.108 20 3.9 8.0

UT.126 10 18.6 22.6 

UT.134.2 21 1.4 9.9 

UT.25(a) 3 10.0 12.7 

UT.TOFD.117 23 4.3 11.7

(a) UT.25 was not a qualified procedure. 

UT = conventional UT 
5-35 

Table 5.31 Length Sizing Outliers 

Procedure Flaw ID Indication ID Length Size Error, mm 

UT.126 P33.14 12 374 

PAUT.126 P33.14 9 229 

UT = conventional UT 

Figure 5.26 Length Sizing Fit (in mm) for ECT Procedures Applied to LBDMWs (I.D. 

Access) 
5-36 

Figure 5.27 Length Sizing Fit (in mm) for UT.ECT Procedures Applied to LBDMWs (I.D. 

Access; all dimensions are in mm) 
5-37 

Figure 5.28 Length Sizing Fit (in mm) for UT.ECT Procedures Applied to LBDMWs (I.D. 

Access – Blind + Quick-blind; all dimensions are in mm) 
5-38 

Figure 5.29 Length Sizing Fit (in mm) for UT.PAUT Procedures Applied to LBDMWs (I.D. 

Access; all dimensions are in mm) 
5-39 

Figure 5.30 Length Sizing Fit (in mm) for UT.PAUT Procedures Applied to LBDMWs (I.D. 

Access – Blind + Quick-blind; all dimensions are in mm) 
5-40 

Figure 5.31 Length Sizing Fit (in mm) for UT.TOFD.ECT Procedures Applied to 

LBDMWs (I.D. Access; all dimensions are in mm) 
5-41 

Figure 5.32 Length Sizing Fit (in mm) for PAUT Procedures Applied to LBDMWs (O.D. 

Access; all dimensions are in mm) 
5-42 

Figure 5.33 Length Sizing Fit (in mm) for UT Procedures Applied to LBDMWs (O.D. 

Access; all dimensions are in mm) 
5-43 

Figure 5.34 Length Sizing Fit (in mm) for UT Procedures Applied to LBDMWs (O.D. 

Access – Blind + Quick-blind; all dimensions are in mm) 
5-44 

Figure 5.35 Length Sizing Fit (in mm) for UT.PAUT Procedures Applied to LBDMWs 

(O.D. Access – Quick-blind; all dimensions are in mm) 
5-45 

Figure 5.36 Length Sizing Fit (in mm) for PAUT Procedures Applied to SBDMWs (O.D. 

Access; all dimensions are in mm) 
5-46 

Figure 5.37 Length Sizing Fit (in mm) for UT Procedures Applied to SBDMWs (O.D. 

Access; all dimensions are in mm) 
5-47 

Figure 5.38 Length Sizing Fit (in mm) for UT.TOFD Procedures Applied to SBDMWs 

(O.D. Access; all dimensions are in mm) 

 Results for BMI Test Blocks 

This section includes a summary of data analysis results for inspections performed on BMI test 

blocks. This includes detection and FCR results (Section 5.2.1) and depth and length sizing 

results (Section 5.2.2 and 5.2.3, respectively). Two types of inspections were performed on BMI 

test blocks: a) surface examinations of J-groove welds and b) I.D. examinations of penetration 

tubes. Procedures ECT.108 and ECT.124 were used to examine J-groove welds while 

TOFD.ECT.126 was used for the BMI tube I.D. examination. 

 BMI Detection and False Call Rate Summary 

Table 5.32 provides a summary of detection and FCR results for each procedure applied to BMI 

test blocks. The column headings are similar to those used in Table 5.5 except access refers to 

either the BMI J-groove weld surface or the BMI tube I.D. surface. Table 5.32 summarizes the 

detection probability for all flaws in BMI test blocks, while Table 5.33 provides a summary of 

detection and FCR results for each BMI test block. Tables 5.34 and 5.35 tabulate detection 

performance versus flaw depth and flaw length, respectively, for each procedure type. From 

Table 5.33, it is evident that only test blocks P26 and P6 have a POD of less than 100%. Test 

blocks P6, P8, and P9 consisted of TFC flaws, many of which exhibited unintentional clustering as 

mentioned in Section 2.5.2. It is also worth noting that test blocks P25 and P26 were contributed 

for tube I.D. examinations even though examinations of the J-groove weld surface were also 

performed. POD curves for BMI inspections are included in Appendix F.1.1.4 as a function of 

depth and Appendix F.1.2.4 as a function of length. 
5-48 

Table 5.32 BMI Detection and False Call Rate Summary Organized by Procedure 

NOBS POD, % FCP, % FCR, #/m Access Test Blocks 

ECT.108 34 79 15 7 J-groove P26, P6, P8, P9 

ECT.124 34 94 5 2 J-groove P26, P6, P8, P9 

TOFD.ECT.126 6 83 18 8 Tube I.D. P25, P26 

Table 5.33 Detection and False Call Rate Summary for Each BMI Test Block 

No. of 

Flaws 

No. of 

Inspections FCR, #/m FCP, % POD, % 

P25 2 1 4.36 10.3 100.0 

P26 4 3 2.82 6.8 50.0 

P6 9 2 15.09 31.4 72.2 

P8 9 2 0.00 0.0 100.0 

P9 13 2 6.36 14.7 100.0 

Table 5.34 Summary of POD (%) by Flaw Depth in BMI Test Blocks for Each Procedure 

Type 

NOBS POD 0-mm POD 5-mm POD 10-mm POD 15-mm Access 

ECT 68 27 82 98 99 J-groove 

TOFD.ECT 6 34 56 76 79 Tube I.D. 

Table 5.35 Summary of POD (%) by Flaw Length in BMI Test Blocks for Each Procedure 

Type 

NOBS POD 0 mm POD 5 mm POD 10 mm POD 15 mm Access 

ECT 68 41 57 73 84 J-groove 

TOFD.ECT 6 41 44 48 51 Tube I.D. 

 BMI Depth Sizing Summary 

Only one procedure was applied for depth sizing in BMI test blocks. Sizing results for procedure 

TOFD.ECT.126 are provided in Table 5.36. Procedure TOFD.ECT.126 was only applied to test 

blocks P25 and P26 and was applied to the tube I.D. Therefore, no attempts were made to depthsize clustered flaws in test blocks P6, P8 and P9. The depth sizing regression plot is included in 

Appendix G.1.1.4. 

Table 5.36 BMI Depth Sizing Results 

NOBS Bias, mm RMSE, mm Test Blocks 

TOFD.ECT.126 5 −0.5 1.7 P25, P26 
5-49 

 BMI Length Sizing Summary 

Length sizing results for BMI test blocks are summarized in Table 5.37. Length sizing regression 

plots are included in Appendix G.1.2.4. 

Table 5.37 BMI Length Sizing Results 

NOBS Bias, mm RMSE, mm Access Test Blocks 

ECT.108 27 3.9 8.1 J-groove P25, P26, P6, P8, P9 

ECT.124 32 11.2 15.6 J-groove P25, P26, P6, P8, P9 

TOFD.ECT.126 5 −4.0 7.0 Tube I.D. P25, P26 

All 64 6.9 12.4 

 Results for WOL Test Blocks (P27) 

Two inspections were performed on P27 for a total of 20 flaw observations. All flaws in the test 

block were detected. A summary of depth and length sizing results for procedures PAUT.108 and 

PAUT.126 for the individual flaws in P27 is provided in Table 5.38. A summary of the RMSE 

errors for depth and length sizing on test block P27 is provided in Table 5.39, and plots of depth 

and length sizing data for P27 are included in Figures 5.39 and 5.40, respectively. Finally, 

indication plots for the PAUT.108 inspection on P27 are included in Figures 5.41 and 5.42, and 

indication plots for PAUT.126 are included in Figures 5.43 and 5.44. 
5-50 

Table 5.38 WOL Test Block Sizing Results 

Procedure Flaw ID Orientation 

Flaw 

Type 

Surface 

Breaking 

Depth-Size 

Error, mm 

Length Size 

Error, mm 

PAUT.108.2 P27.1 Diagonal MFC Yes −1.8 −1.9 

PAUT.108.2 P27.2 Diagonal EDM Yes −1 1.5 

PAUT.108.2 P27.3 Diagonal EDM Yes 0 −5 

PAUT.108.2 P27.4 Circumferential MFC Yes −0.5 −8.6 

PAUT.108.2 P27.5 Diagonal EDM Yes −1.5 −1 

PAUT.108.2 P27.6 Circumferential MFC Yes −1.1 −8 

PAUT.108.2 P27.7 Circumferential LOB No −3.2 7.1 

PAUT.108.2 P27.8 Circumferential LOB No −3 −6.8 

PAUT.108.2 P27.9 Circumferential MFC No 1.5 −5.4 

PAUT.108.2 P27.10 Circumferential MFC No 2.8 −6.4 

PAUT.126.2 P27.1 Diagonal MFC Yes 0.2 −1.3 

PAUT.126.2 P27.2 Diagonal EDM Yes −0.3 −0.5 

PAUT.126.2 P27.3 Diagonal EDM Yes 0.4 1 

PAUT.126.2 P27.4 Circumferential MFC Yes 0.2 11.7 

PAUT.126.2 P27.5 Diagonal EDM Yes 0.4 0 

PAUT.126.2 P27.6 Circumferential MFC Yes 0.7 6.3 

PAUT.126.2 P27.7 Circumferential LOB No −5.2 −8.4 

PAUT.126.2 P27.8 Circumferential LOB No −5 2.3 

PAUT.126.2 P27.9 Circumferential MFC No 0.6 −7.7 

PAUT.126.2 P27.10 Circumferential MFC No 1.1 −10.7 

LOB = lack of bond 

UT = conventional UT 

Table 5.39 Summary of Sizing RMSEs for the WOL Test Block 

NOBS RMSE, mm 

Depth 20 2.1 

Length 20 6.2 
5-51 

Figure 5.39 Depth Sizing Results for the WOL Test Block with Results for Surface 

Breaking (Triangles) and Non-Surface Breaking (Circles) Flaws Identified 
5-52 

Figure 5.40 Length Sizing Results for the WOL Test Block with Results for Surface 

Breaking (Triangles) and Non-Surface Breaking (Circles) Flaws Identified 

Figure 5.41 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.108 Applied to WOL Test Block (P27) 

[theta – R view] 
5-53 

Figure 5.42 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.108 Applied to WOL Test Block (P27) 

[theta – Y view] 

Figure 5.43 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.126 Applied to WOL Test Block (P27) 

[theta – R view] 
5-54 

Figure 5.44 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.126 Applied to WOL Test Block (P27) 

[theta – Y view] 
6-1 

6 ANALYSIS OF PARENT RESULTS 

This section includes a discussion of PARENT results presented in Section 5. The influence of 

several test block variables on performance as measured by POD, depth sizing error, and length 

sizing error is provided in Section 6.1. A comparison of PAUT and UT procedures is provided in 

Section 6.2, followed by a comparison of the Quick-blind test results with the blind testing results 

in Section 6.3. Section 6.4 includes a discussion of the influence of the defined tolerance box on 

detection analysis performed in PARENT; and finally, Section 6.5 includes a discussion of the 

influence of following the ASME Code, Section XI IWA-3400 rules for combining multiple closely 

spaced flaws on the results. 

 Influence of Variables on Detection and Sizing Performance 

Table 6.1 provides POD results as a function of depth, flaw orientation, and access for LBDMW 

and SBDMW test blocks. This table indicates that access (O.D. versus I.D.) and block type 

(SBDMW vs. LBDMW) do influence detection performance with better performance observed for 

I.D. access versus O.D. access (with the exception of Quick-blind test blocks) and better 

performance observed for SBDMW test blocks than LBDMW test blocks for a given flaw size. For 

flaw orientation, the general trend observed in Table 6.1 indicates that circumferential flaws are 

easier to detect than axial flaws, although this appears to be dependent of flaw size for SBDMW 

test blocks with the effect diminishing with increasing flaw depth. This is likely an artifact caused 

by saturation of POD with flaw depth in SBDMW test blocks. 

Depth and length sizing performance as measured by RMSE and bias is provided in Tables 6.2 

and 6.3, respectively, for each combination of access, block type, and flaw orientation variables. 

Table 6.2 indicates that block type and access variables influence depth sizing performance with 

better depth sizing performance observed for I.D. versus O.D. access and better depth sizing 

performance observed on SBDMW versus LBDMW test blocks. Flaw orientation does not appear 

to have an influence on depth sizing performance. The data in Table 6.3 indicates that length 

sizing performance is better for I.D. access than O.D. access, and it appears that length sizing 

performance for axial flaws is better for SBDMW than LBDMW test blocks. Otherwise, there does 

not appear to be an effect of block type or flaw orientation on length sizing performance. 

A review of Figures 6.1 through 6.6 indicates a tendency to oversize the depth of shallow flaws 

and undersize the depth of deep flaws, especially with O.D. access procedures. These plots show 

the depth sizing regression fits for axial and circumferential flaws considering I.D. and O.D. access 

on LBDMWs and O.D. access on SBDMWs. Better sizing performance by I.D. access procedures 

is indicated by these plots. In this case, not only is the overall RMSE for I.D. access smaller, but 

the error is more consistent for all flaw depths. Figures 6.1 through 6.6 support the conclusion that 

flaw orientation does not appear to have an influence on depth sizing performance based in data 

in Table 6.2. 
6-2 

Table 6.1 Summary of POD (%) by Access, Orientation, and Block Type versus Flaw 

Depth 

Access Orientation Block Type 0–5 mm 5–10 mm 10–20 mm >20 mm 

I.D. Axial LBDMW 25±23 75±13 83±17 75±13 

O.D. Axial LBDMW 0±12 20±11 10±11 67±12 

O.D. Axial SBDMW 22±14 44±12 78±14 100±7 

I.D. Circumferential LBDMW 43±13 92±9 100±15 100±8 

O.D. Circumferential LBDMW 30±10 27±12 40±22 80±13 

O.D. Circumferential SBDMW 58±7 78±6 88±5 90±5 

I.D. Diagonal LBDMW (Quick-blind) 69±13 85±11 93±8

O.D. Diagonal LBDMW (Quick-blind) 75±16 100±8 88±13 

Table 6.2 Depth Sizing Results by Access, Orientation, and Block Type 

Access Orientation Block Type Bias, mm RMSE, mm 

I.D. Axial LBDMW 0.3 3.0 

I.D. Axial SBDMW 

I.D. Circumferential LBDMW 0.8 3.0 

I.D. Circumferential SBDMW 

I.D. Diagonal LBDMW −2.2 5.5 Quick-blind 

O.D. Axial LBDMW −6.1 10.0 

O.D. Axial SBDMW −1.3 5.0 

O.D. Circumferential LBDMW −0.1 9.7 

O.D. Circumferential SBDMW −1.2 4.7 

O.D. Diagonal LBDMW −6.4 9.4 Quick-blind 

Table 6.3 Length Sizing Results by Access, Orientation and Block Type (Outliers 

Omitted) 

Access Orientation Block Type Bias, mm RMSE, mm 

I.D. Axial LBDMW 5.0 10.0 

I.D. Axial SBDMW 

I.D. Circumferential LBDMW 2.1 6.8 

I.D. Circumferential SBDMW 

I.D. Diagonal LBDMW −10.5 11.5 Quick-blind 

O.D. Axial LBDMW 7.2 15.5 

O.D. Axial SBDMW 3.9 8.7 

O.D. Circumferential LBDMW 3.7 11.2 

O.D. Circumferential SBDMW 7.3 12.6 

O.D. Diagonal LBDMW −5.8 10.2 Quick-blind 
6-3 

Figure 6.1 Depth Sizing Fit for Axial Flaws in LBDMWs (I.D. Access; all dimensions are 

in mm) 
6-4 

Figure 6.2 Depth Sizing Fit for Circumferential Flaws in LBDMWs (I.D. Access; all 

dimensions are in mm) 
6-5 

Figure 6.3 Depth Sizing Fit for Axial Flaws in LBDMWs (O.D. Access; all dimensions are 

in mm) 
6-6 

Figure 6.4 Depth Sizing Fit for Circumferential Flaws in LBDMWs (O.D. Access; all 

dimensions are in mm) 
6-7 

Figure 6.5 Depth Sizing Fit for Axial Flaws in SBDMWs (O.D. Access; all dimensions are 

in mm) 
6-8 

Figure 6.6 Depth Sizing Fit for Circumferential Flaws in SBDMWs (O.D. Access; all 

dimensions are in mm) 

 Comparison of Procedures and Procedure Type Performances 

A review of Table 6.4 indicates that PAUT performance is better than conventional UT 

performance on SBDMW test blocks. However, Table 6.5 indicates that any difference between 

PAUT and conventional UT performance is marginal for LBDMW test blocks (O.D. access). A 

similar trend is observed in the summaries of depth sizing performances for SBDMW and LBDMW 

(O.D. access) test blocks in Tables 6.6 and 6.7, respectively, where it is observed in Table 6.6 

that PAUT depth sizing performance is better than conventional UT depth sizing performance for 

SBDMW test blocks and in Table 6.7 where it appears that the difference in depth sizing 

performance for PAUT and conventional UT applied to LBDMW test blocks (O.D. access) is 

marginal. 

A review of Table 6.8 indicates that procedure types that include ECT exhibit better length sizing 

performance than procedure types that do not include ECT on LBDMW test blocks (I.D. access), 

particularly for axially oriented flaws. 
6-9 

Table 6.4 Summary of POD (%) versus Depth for PAUT and UT Procedure Types for 

SBDMWs (O.D. Access) 

NOBS 0 mm 5 mm 10 mm 15 mm 30 mm 

PAUT 112 6 39 87 99 100 

UT 96 8 20 43 69 98 

UT = conventional UT 

Table 6.5 Summary of POD (%) versus Depth for PAUT and UT Procedure Types for 

LBDMWs (O.D. Access) 

NOBS 0 mm 5 mm 10 mm 15 mm 30 mm 

PAUT 38 5 10 21 37 82 

UT 57 5 10 19 32 74 

UT (Blind + Quick-blind) 60 5 10 19 34 79 

UT = conventional UT 

Table 6.6 Summary of Depth Sizing Errors for PAUT and UT Procedures Types on 

SBDMWs with O.D. Access 

Procedure Type NOBS RMSE, mm 

PAUT 84 3.6 

UT 54 7.9 

UT = conventional UT 

Table 6.7 Summary of Depth Sizing Errors for PAUT and UT Procedure Types Applied 

to LBDMWs with O.D. Access 

Procedure Type NOBS RMSE, mm 

PAUT 15 9.7 

UT 16 9.8 

UT (Blind + Quick-blind) 19 9.9 

UT = conventional UT 

Table 6.8 Summary of Length Sizing Errors for Procedure Types that do and do not 

incorporate an ECT technique Applied to LBDMWs (I.D. Access – Outliers 

Omitted) 

Block Type Orientation Access ECT? NOBS RMSE, mm 

LBDMW Axial I.D. ECT 17 3.8 

LBDMW Axial I.D. No ECT 7 17.5 

LBDMW Circumferential I.D. ECT 21 6.3 

LBDMW Circumferential I.D. No ECT 8 7.8 
6-10 

The detection data for PAUT.108, PAUT.115, PAUT.126, and PAUT.128 is compared by 

considering only data collected from SBDMW test blocks in Table 5.12. This table indicates that 

the performance of PAUT.126 is much worse than the performance observed for PAUT.108, 

PAUT.115, and PAUT.128. Details regarding these procedures are summarized in Table 6.9. 

Overall, this table indicates substantial similarities between the procedures and that PAUT.126 is 

most similar to PAUT.128 with the exception that PAUT.128 is automated while PAUT.126 is 

manual. The variability in performance could be caused by several factors including differences in 

the equipment used, human factors, etc. 

Table 6.9 Summary of Procedures PAUT.115, PAUT.128, PAUT.108, and PAUT.126 

Frequency 

Interrogation 

Modes/Angles for 

Circumferential Defects 

Interrogation 

Modes/Angles for 

Axial Defects 

Manual or 

Automated? Encoded?

PAUT.115 2.0 MHz L25° to L70° (Step 1°) 

S35° to S65° (Step 1°) 

L25° to L70° (Step 1°) 

S35° to S65° (Step 1°)

Manual No 

PAUT.128 1.5 MHz L45°, L60°, L70°, S45°, 

S60° 

L25°, L35°, L45°, 

L55°; S35°, S45°, 

S55°, Skew −25° to 

+25°, step 2.5° 

Automated Yes 

PAUT.108 2.0 MHz L0° to L70° L0° to L70° Manual No 

PAUT.126 1.5 MHz L30°, L45°, L60°, S45°, 

S60° (Nozzle Side) 

L45°, L60°, L70°, S45°, 

S60° (Pipe Side) 

L22.5°, L30°, L37.5°, 

L45° for SBDMWs 

L25°, L35°, L45°, L55° 

for LBDMWs 

Manual Yes 

UT = conventional UT 

Detection results for conventional UT procedures (UT.108, UT.126, UT.134, and UT.25) can also 

be compared in Table 5.12 for SBDMWs. A disparity in performance is observed in the table. To 

gather insight, procedures UT.108, UT.126, UT.134, and UT.25 are summarized in Table 6.10. 

This table indicates that UT.25 employs automated data collection and encoding, while the other 

procedure types are all manual and not encoded. However, UT.25 employs a relatively low 

frequency (0.5 MHz) and only longitudinal waves at one angle, which may contribute to its 

relatively low performance. In addition, UT.25 was also the only non-qualified procedure 

participating in blind testing. However, UT.126 performance is also low despite the procedure 

being substantially similar to UT.108 and UT.134. The variability in performance observed for 

conventional UT procedures could also be caused by several factors including differences in the 

equipment used, human factors, etc. 
6-11 

Table 6.10 Summary of Procedures UT.108, UT.126, UT.134, and UT.25 

Frequency 

Interrogation 

Modes/Angles for 

Circumferential Defects

Interrogation 

Modes/Angles for 

Axial Defects 

Manual or 

Automated? Encoded? 

UT.108 1–5 MHz L30°, L45°, L60° 

CW/CCW scan 

L30°, L45°, L60° 

raster scan 

Manual No 

UT.126 1–1.5 MHz 

base metal 

1–2.25 MHz 

weld or butter 

material 

S45° 

CW/CCW scan 

L30°, L45°, L60° 

CW/CCW scan 

S45° 

raster scan 

L30°, L45°, L60° 

raster scan 

Manual No 

UT.134 1–5 MHz L30°, L45°, L60°, L70° 

CW/CCW scan 

L30°, L45°, L60°, L70° 

skewed scan 

Manual No 

UT.25(a) 0.5 MHz L45° relying on backwall reflection L45° relying on backwall reflection Automated Yes 

(a) UT.25 was not a qualified procedure. 

UT = conventional UT 

Quick-Blind Test Comparison 

Blind test results are compared to Quick-blind test results by comparing sizing results for common 

procedures applied in both tests. In this case, UT.PAUT.113 depth sizing and length sizing results 

are summarized for blind testing and Quick-blind testing in Table 6.11. The most significant 

observation is the large negative bias observed for length sizing in Quick-blind testing in

comparison to the large positive bias observed in blind testing, indicating that there was a 

tendency to significantly undersize flaws in Quick-blind test blocks. Table 6.11 indicates the 

difference in depth sizing error observed for blind testing versus Quick-blind testing is not large 

and that the length sizing error is essentially the same. Another comparison is made of the sizing 

performances of UT.ECT.106 applied in Quick-blind testing to UT.ECT.144 applied in blind testing 

in Table 6.12. These procedures are substantially similar. As in the case of UT.PAUT.113, the 

results do not indicate a large difference in depth sizing performance. The most significant 

observation is the large negative bias for length sizing in Quick-blind testing. Further, Table 6.12 

indicates that the length sizing error is much larger for Quick-blind testing than blind testing. 
6-12 

Table 6.11 Comparison of Blind and Quick-blind Sizing Results for UT.PAUT.113 

Depth Sizing 

Bias, mm RMSE, mm 

Quick-blind 0.9 1.2 

Blind 2.0 2.9 

Length Sizing 

Bias, mm RMSE, mm 

Quick-blind −11.7 12.8 

Blind 10.6 13.3 

Table 6.12 Comparison of UT.ECT.144 (Blind) and UT.ECT.106 (Quick-blind) Sizing 

Results 

Depth Sizing 

Bias, mm RMSE, mm 

UT.ECT.106 (Quick-blind) 0.0 3.3 

UT.ECT.144 (Blind) 0.7 2.2 

Length Sizing 

Bias, mm RMSE, mm 

UT.ECT.106 (Quick-blind) −9.3 10.0 

UT.ECT.144 (Blind) 2.9 4.2 

UT = conventional UT 

 Influence of Tolerance Bounds on Detection Results 

In Section 4.3, tolerance bounds are described that are used to determine if an indication should 

be classified as a hit or miss based on how close the indication is to a flaw. A 10 mm tolerance is 

applied to flaw true states as forgiveness for positioning error. The nature of a collaborative test, 

such as PARENT, requires a more rigid conformance to an agreed upon tolerance to ensure all 

participants are evaluated consistently. However, this also resulted in several genuine detections 
6-13 

being classified as misses by procedure UT.ECT.144 on test block P33. In this case, there were 

five indications located 10 mm to 20 mm from the flaw true states and four of these indications 

were located within 15 mm of the true state. These misses are highlighted in Figures 6.7 through 

6.9 as “Probable Detections.” 

A comparison of performance results obtained as a result of using a 10 mm tolerance versus a 

15 mm tolerance for UT.ECT.144 is presented in Table 6.13 through Table 6.15. Table 6.13 is a 

comparison of detection and false call performance for a 10 mm tolerance versus a 15 mm 

tolerance and shows that the overall POD increases from 58% for a 10 mm tolerance to 79% for a 

15 mm tolerance. Table 6.14 provides a comparison of depth sizing error obtained for both 

tolerance considerations and shows that the depth sizing RMSE for UT.ECT.144 is modestly 

impacted. Finally, Table 6.15 provides a comparison of length sizing errors and indicates a slight 

increase in length sizing RMSE as a consequence of increasing the tolerance from 10 mm to 15 

mm. 

Figure 6.7 Indication Plot for UT.ECT.144 Applied to P33 from X = 0 mm to X = 1000 mm 

Figure 6.8 Indication Plot for UT.ECT.144 Applied to P33 from X = 1000 mm to X = 

2000 mm 
6-14 

Figure 6.9 Indication Plot for UT.ECT.144 Applied to P33 from X = 2000 mm to X = 

2800 mm 

Table 6.13 Detection and False Call Comparison for 10 mm and 15 mm Tolerances 

Applied for Procedure UT.ECT.144 

NOBS

POD, 

% 

FCP, 

% 

FCR, 

#/m Access 

Test Blocks 

(LBDMWs) 

10 mm tolerance 19 58 6 2.3 I.D. P13, P33 

15 mm tolerance 19 79 2 0.8 I.D. P13, P33 

Table 6.14 Depth Sizing Error Comparison for 10 mm and 15 mm Tolerances Applied for 

Procedure UT.ECT.144. 

NOBS Bias, mm RMSE, mm 

10 mm tolerance 9 0.7 2.2 

15 mm tolerance 13 0.4 2.1 

Table 6.15 Length Sizing Error Comparison for 10 mm and 15 mm Tolerances Applied 

for Procedure UT.ECT.144 

NOBS Bias, mm RMSE, mm 

10 mm tolerance 11 2.9 4.2 

15 mm tolerance 15 3.3 4.6 

 ASME Procedure for Combining Flaws 

The Data Analysis Task Group (DAG) used the ASME Section XI IWA-3400 rules for linear 

surface flaws to account for multiple flaws that are in close proximity. 
6-15 

Section XI, IWA-3400 of the ASME Code states the following: 

(a) Linear flaws detected by surface (PT/MT) or volumetric (RT) examination methods 

shall be considered single linear surface flaws provided the separation distance between 

flaws is equal to or less than the dimension S, where S is determined as shown in 

Figure IWA-3400-1.

(b) The overall length of a single and discontinuous linear flaw shall be determined as 

shown in Figure IWA-3400-1.

Figure 6.10 is a reproduction of part of IWA-3400-1 to show the methodology used to determine 

whether multiple flaws should be combined as one flaw with length or whether the flaws should be 

considered as single individual flaws. 

Figure 6.10 Methodology for Determining Singularity or Multiplicity of Linear Surface 

Flaws. Reprinted from ASME 2007 BPVC Section XI, Figure IWA-3400-1, by 

permission of The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. All rights 

reserved. 

An example of the effect of the application of the ASME procedures for combining flaws is 

illustrated by the inspection of test block P33 by procedure ECT.135. Two indications (no. 10 and 

11) are depicted in Figure 6.11 and have the X1, X2, Y1, and Y2 coordinates as indicated in Table

6.16. If these two indications were combined, they will have length of 2187.1 – 2142.4 = 44.7 mm 

which is very close to the true length of a nearby flaw. However, according to the procedure for 

combining flaws indicated in Figure 6.10, these indications should not be combined because the 

distance, S, separating the flaws is greater than the longest flaw. In this case, S = 20.6 mm, and 

the longer of the two indications has a length of 18.6 mm. As a result, the two indications must be 

treated individually and the calculated length sizing error is greater than if the two indications were 

combined. 

Table 6.16 X1, X2, Y1, and Y2 Coordinates for Indications No. 10 and 11 in Test Block 

P33 by Procedure ECT.135 

Indication No. X1, mm X2, mm Y1, mm Y2, mm 

10 2142.4 2161.0 −3.0 3.9 
6-16 

11 2181.6 2187.1 −8.5 −0.2 

Figure 6.11 Indication Plot for ECT.135 Applied to P33 from X = 2000 mm to X = 2800 mm 
7-1 

7 COMPARISON OF PARENT VS. PINC 

This section provides a comparison of results of conclusions from PARENT with the results and 

conclusions from PINC. A comparison of the performance results in PARENT and PINC on DMW 

and BMI test blocks is included in Sections 7.1 and 7.2, respectively. Conclusions and 

recommendations from PINC are reviewed in the context of the information provided by PARENT 

in Section 7.3. 

 Comparison of Performance on PARENT and PINC DMW Test Blocks 

Table 7.1 compares PINC results to the current PARENT round robin for SBDMW test blocks. 

PINC DMW test blocks ranged in thickness from 41 to 47 mm (Cumblidge et al. 2010) while 

PARENT SBDMW test blocks are 35 and 39.5 mm thick (see Table 2.1). Thus, comparable 

procedure types between PINC and PARENT include PAUT, conventional UT, and UT.TOFD, 

which were all applied to SBDMWs in PARENT. PAUT and UT.TOFD procedures employed in 

PARENT appear to have performed better than similar procedures in PINC. In addition, ECT 

procedure performance from PINC can be compared to the performance of I.D. access 

procedures in Table 5.7. It can be seen that the performance of ECT procedures in PINC is much 

better than the performance of I.D. access procedures in PARENT, including the ECT procedure. 

Although I.D. access procedures are applied to LBDMW test blocks in PARENT, test block 

thickness should not have a significant influence on procedures for which detection is based on 

ECT applied to the I.D. The false call probability [FCP, POD(0)] was consistent between PINC and 

PARENT for all procedure types with the exception of UT.TOFD. In this case, FCP was defined in 

terms of a 100 mm long grading unit for PINC and in terms of a 25 mm long grading unit for 

PARENT. The values of POD(0) for PINC procedures are calculated by dividing the values for 

FCP in Table 4.9 of NUREG/CR-7019 (Cumblidge et al. 2010) by 4 to normalize the values with 

PARENT data. This calculation is performed based on the Taylor series expansion of Eq. (D.3), 

which produces a linear proportional relationship between FCP and the grading unit length. 

Table 7.1 Comparison of PINC and PARENT Detection Results [POD (%)] versus Depth 

for DMW Test Blocks 

0 mm 5 mm 10 mm 15 mm 

PINC UT 6 36 51 67 Table 4.9 (NUREG/CR-7019) 

PARENT UT 8 20 43 69 Table 5.9 (SBDMWs) 

PINC PAUT 6 36 51 66 Table 4.9 (NUREG/CR-7019) 

PARENT PAUT 6 39 87 99 Table 5.9 (SBDMWs) 

PINC UT.TOFD 9 44 53 61 Table 4.9 (NUREG/CR-7019) 

PARENT UT.TOFD 4 42 92 99 Table 5.9 (SBDMWs) 

PINC ECT 4 88 100 100 Table 4.9 (NUREG/CR-7019) 

PARENT ECT (LBDMW) 3 23 76 97 Table 5.7 (LBDMWs – I.D. Access) 

UT = conventional UT 
7-2 

Sizing results on SBDMW test blocks are also compared for both PINC and PARENT (refer to 

Table 7.2). Overall depth sizing RMSE is improved for PARENT, although the spread between 

best and worst sizing performers is larger for PARENT than PINC. Length sizing also appears to 

have improved in PARENT relative to PINC (25 mm RMSE for PINC and 12.1 mm for PARENT) 

and the spread between best and worst length sizing performers is narrower for PARENT relative 

to PINC. However, two gross “outlier” measurements were not included in the length sizing 

analysis for PARENT and are listed in Table 5.31. 

Table 7.2 Comparison on Sizing Performances (Depth and Length) for PINC and 

PARENT for DMW Test Blocks 

Depth Sizing (RMSE), mm 

All Best Worst 

PINC 7.07 3.18 10.09 Table 4.20 (NUREG/CR-7019) 

PARENT 5.5 1.8 13.9 Table 5.21 and Table 5.24 

Length Sizing (RMSE) 

All Best Worst 

PINC 25 3.56 91 Table 4.20 (NUREG/CR-7019) 

PARENT 12.1 8.0 22.6 Table 5.27 and Table 5.30(a)

(a) For PARENT evaluation, two “outlier” measurements were excluded from 

length sizing (see Table 5.31). 

Overall depth sizing RMSE for I.D. access to LBDMWs (see Table 5.19) is 3.0 mm (3.6 mm for 

Blind + Quick-blind). Thus, it would appear that the depth sizing results for I.D. access of 

LBDMWs (excluding the Quick-blind data) meet the intent of the ASME Code requirement (less 

than 3.2 mm). All of the procedures that produced depth sizing results that meet the intent of the 

ASME Code requirement are listed in Table 7.3. In PARENT, the flaw depth size distribution in 

test blocks tended to be shallower than ASME Code, Section XI requirements for flaw size 

distribution and it was not the intent of the test blocks to meet this flaw size distribution 

requirement. This is significant for I.D. procedures for which depth sizing becomes more 

challenging with increasing crack depth. Thus, the results obtained for depth sizing by I.D. 

procedures could be optimistic. In all, there are four procedures with two procedures associated 

with I.D. access inspections of LBDMWs and two procedures associated with SBDMW 

inspections. None of the procedures applied to O.D. inspections of LBDMWs produced sizing 

results that would meet the intent of the ASME Code requirements. In PINC, no procedures 

exhibited depth sizing accuracy that would meet the intent of the ASME Code requirement, so 

PARENT results do represent improvement in depth sizing performance compared to PINC based 

on SBDMW data. However, the flaws used in PARENT and PINC were not necessarily selected 

to meet the sizing requirements in ASME Code, Section XI, Division 1, Appendix VIII, so having a 

small RMSE value is insightful but does not necessarily reflect that desired performance has been 

met. 
7-3 

Table 7.3 Summary of PARENT Procedures that Produced Depth Sizing RMSEs of Less 

Than the ASME Code Requirement for Depth Sizing Accuracy (3.2 mm) 

Procedure Block Type Access NOB Bias, mm RMSE, mm 

UT.ECT.144 LBDMW I.D. 9 0.7 2.2 

UT.PAUT.113 LBDMW I.D. 15 2.0 2.9 

UT.PAUT.113 (Blind + Quick-blind) LBDMW I.D. 18 1.8 2.7 

PAUT.108.1 SBDMW O.D. 21 −1.7 2.4 

PAUT.115 SBDMW O.D. 25 −0.3 1.8 

UT = conventional UT 

A review of Tables 5.28 to 5.30 indicates that only two O.D. access procedures (UT.126 and 

UT.134) produced length sizing results that would not satisfy the intent of the ASME Code length 

sizing requirement of 19 mm. 

 Comparison of Performance on PARENT and PINC BMI Test Blocks 

Comparisons of PINC and PARENT BMI results for J-groove weld surface examinations are 

included in Table 7.4, and by Figure 7.3, and for tube I.D. examinations in Figures 7.1 and 7.2. 

The comparisons illustrate that PARENT inspections performed from the J-groove weld surface 

and from the BMI tube I.D. have higher FCPs in comparison to the FCPs observed in PINC for 

these access conditions. The ECT procedures used for J-groove weld surface examinations are 

ECT.124 and ECT.108. ECT.124 utilizes a single sensor excited at 100 kHz. ECT.108 includes an 

array probe operated at 500 kHz. Similar to PINC, the limited amount of data acquired on BMIs 

limits the ability to draw many definitive conclusions. However, the FCPs [POD(0)] of PARENT 

ECT procedures in Table 7.4 are high relative to the ECT procedures used in PINC. This can be 

analyzed by focusing on the subset of flaws for P26. This flaw subset is provided in Table 7.6 for 

convenience. In addition, indication plots for procedures ECT.124, ECT.108, and TOFD.ECT.126 

applied to P26 are provided in Figures 7.4 through 7.7. These plots indicate that flaw P26.6 is a 

large flaw exhibiting low POD, which would have an effect raising the curve for low defect sizes 

and increasing FCP. From Figures 7.4 through 7.6, it is apparent that P26.6 has a small 

dimension in the theta direction, which may contribute to difficulty in detection by a I.D. tube 

examination performed by TOFD.ECT.126. Further, a review of Figures 7.4 and 7.5 indicates that 

flaw P26.6 was actually detected by both ECT.124 and ECT.108, but only one procedure 

(ECT.124) was given credit for the detection because the indication recorded for ECT.108 is just 

outside of the scoring tolerance. 

A comparison of length sizing performance for J-groove weld surface examinations in PINC and 

PARENT is provided in Table 7.5. It appears that the average length sizing performances 

between PINC and PARENT are similar although a smaller spread between the best and worst 

performances are observed in PARENT in comparison to PINC. However, the “worst” RMSE from 

PINC (Table 4.27 of NUREG/CR-7019) appears to be a significant outlier as the second “worst” 

RMSE is reported as 5.46 mm. If this outlier is removed, then the average RMSE is 4.1 mm, 
7-4 

which represents significantly better length sizing performance for PINC in comparison to 

PARENT. 

Table 7.4 Comparison of PINC and PARENT Detection Results [POD (%)] versus 

Length on BMI Test Blocks for J-groove Weld Surface Examinations 

PINC 

0 mm 5 mm 10 mm 15 mm 

ECT 300 kHz 0.03 0.31 0.83 0.98 From Table 4.18 

on pg. 4.26 of 

NUREG/CR7019 

ECT 400 kHz 0.01 0.80 1.00 1.00 

Array ECT 100 kHz 0.34 0.44 0.55 0.65 

Array ECT 200 kHz 0.21 0.37 0.58 0.76 

PARENT 

0 mm 5 mm 10 mm 15 mm 

ECT 0.41 0.57 0.73 0.84 From Table 5.35 

Figure 7.1 POD Regression with 95% Confidence Bounds for TOFD.ECT.126 Procedure 

Applied to BMI Tube I.D. Examinations in Test Blocks P25 and P26
7-5 

Figure 7.2 POD Regressions for BMI Tube I.D. Examinations in PINC (Figure 4.12 from 

NUREG/CR-7019) 

Figure 7.3 POD Regression with 95% Confidence Bounds for ECT.124 and ECT.108 

Procedures Applied to BMI J-groove Weld Examinations in Test Blocks P6, 

P8, P9, and P26 
7-6 

Table 7.5 Comparison of PINC and PARENT Length Sizing Results on BMI Test Blocks 

All Best Worst 

PINC 11.7 mm 2.45 mm 32.28 mm From Table 4.27 of 

NUREG/CR-7019 

PINC 

[RMSE=32.28 mm 

Outlier removed] 

4.1 mm 2.45 mm 5.46 mm From Table 4.27 of 

NUREG/CR-7019 

PARENT 12.7 mm 8.1 mm 15.6 mm From Table 5.37 

Table 7.6 Subset of Flaws for Test Block P26 

Flaw Type NOBS POD, % 

P26.2 Weld Defect 1 100 

P26.3 Weld Defect 3 67 

P26.5 Weld Defect 3 33 

P26.6 Weld Defect 3 33 

Figure 7.4 Indication Plot for Procedure ECT.124 Applied to P26 [theta – R view] 
7-7 

Figure 7.5 Indication Plot for Procedure ECT.108 Applied to P26 [theta – R view] 

Figure 7.6 Indication Plot for Procedure TOFD.ECT.126 Applied to P26 [theta – R view] 
7-8 

Figure 7.7 Indication Plot for Procedure TOFD.ECT.126 Applied to P26 [theta – Z view] 

 Review of PINC Conclusions and Recommendations 

Several conclusions and recommendations are documented in the PINC report (Cumblidge et al. 

2010) based on the results of testing in PINC. It is appropriate to review those conclusions and 

recommendations in light of additional testing results provided by PARENT. 

 Probability of Detection Performance 

PINC Conclusion 1: Eddy current inspection from the cracked surface demonstrated the highest 

POD for all flaws in the DMW round robin. 

PARENT Observation 1: I.D. procedures exhibit higher POD than O.D. procedures for LBDMW 

inspections in PARENT. 

– PINC Recommendation 1: The results of this study show that eddy current inspection is

the preferred detection technique for DMWs, where conditions allow access to the same

surface from which the crack originates and where the surface conditions allow for ECT

testing.

– PARENT Informed Response 1: The results of this study indicate that I.D. procedures

are preferred for detection technique for LBDMWs when access and conditions allow.

 Sizing Performance 

PINC Conclusion 6: Eight teams length-sized flaws with an RMSE within the ASME Section XI 

standard of 0.75 inch (19 mm). Teams that used phased-array UT and eddy current achieved 

higher accuracy than teams that used conventional UT and potential-drop techniques. 

PARENT Observation 6: All but two of the procedures employed in PARENT length-sized flaws 

in DMWs with an RMSE within the ASME Section XI standard of 0.75 inch (19 mm). Overall, 

procedures tended to oversize the length of flaws. Four of the top five best length sizing 

performances included procedures incorporating ECT. Four of the top five best length sizing 

performances included hybrid procedures incorporating multiple techniques. 
7-9 

– PINC Recommendation 6: Phased-array UT or a combination of eddy current

techniques and conventional UT are the preferred method for length sizing.

– PARENT Informed Response 6: PARENT data suggests that hybrid procedures

combining ECT with conventional UT, PAUT, and/or TOFD are preferred for length sizing

from the I.D.

8-1 

8 SUMMARY OF PISC III AND PINC OUTCOMES 

This section provides a summary of PISC III (Program for the Inspection of Steel Components) 

and PINC round-robin testing outcomes based on a review of these studies prepared by some of 

the participants, which is included in Appendix H. In Section 9, the conclusions of PARENT blind 

testing are presented. The conclusions of PARENT blind testing along with the review in Appendix 

H and this summary can be used to provide guidance to future efforts. 

 PISC III 

The PISC Program had the general objective of assessing procedures and techniques in use for 

the inspection of nuclear power plant pressurized components. The third phase of PISC III was 

conducted from 1986 into the early 1990s and consisted of eight actions and Action No. 3 was 

dealing with the evaluation of the effectiveness and reliability of NDE procedures on, at that time, 

realistic defects in dissimilar metal weldments. The study evaluated detection and sizing 

performance and largely focused on what would be considered conventional UT techniques, 

although some X-ray techniques were also evaluated. 

The results of PISC III established the limited reliability of NDE as it was performed at that time as 

evidenced by high FCRs. In addition, the results demonstrated significant variability in 

performance. The study highlighted that there were many potential sources to this variability, 

including parameters associated with techniques and procedures and the surface that is accessed 

for inspection. Some of the parameters associated with techniques and procedures included 

whether the technique was manual or automated and the threshold level for rejecting noise. In 

addition, PISC III results showed that results obtained with longitudinal wave techniques were 

better than results obtained with shear wave techniques. Finally, procedures that employed 

multiple techniques for sizing tended to perform better than procedures that relied on only one 

technique for sizing. 

 PINC 

The PINC program was executed between 2005 and 2008 with the objectives to address the 

problem of PWSCC/IDSCC in pressurized nuclear reactor components (Cumblidge et al. 2010). 

The research was designed to understand the morphology of PWSCC/IDSCC and to assess NDE 

techniques for detection, characterization, and sizing cracks with such morphology. PINC was 

focused on two areas—BMI penetration and DMWs. In PINC, a more diverse set of procedure 

types was evaluated in comparison to PISC III. PINC evaluated ECT, conventional UT, and 

advanced ultrasonic techniques such as PAUT, as well as less established procedure types such 

as potential drop. 

The results of PINC indicated that ECT performed from surface of crack initiation exhibited the 

best detection performance and that none of the procedures exhibited depth sizing performance 

that would meet ASME Code requirements, although a couple of procedures were close. The 

results of PINC also showed that circumferential flaws were easier to detect than axial flaws and 

that PAUT performance did not appear better than conventional UT performance for detection. 

Finally, variability of performance within procedure types was observed in PINC, and the 

qualification of teams and procedures was observed to have an influence on performance. 

9-1 

9 CONCLUSIONS 

This section includes a summary of several conclusions that may be obtained from PARENT blind 

testing results and recommendations for future work. All of the data collected on SBDMW and 

LBDMW test blocks was based on manufactured cracks that were introduced to simulate 

PWSCC/IDSCC. Future work recommendations are based on the conclusions presented here 

and the summary of PISC III and PINC outcomes in Section 8. Conclusions that can be obtained 

from PARENT blind testing results are: 

 PARENT Conclusion 1: I.D. procedures exhibited superior performance over O.D.

procedures for LBDMWs as measured by POD and length sizing RMSE based on data in

Tables 6.1 and 6.3, respectively.

 PARENT Conclusion 2: O.D. inspections performed on SBDMW test blocks exhibit better

performance than O.D. inspections performed on LBDMW test blocks based on POD and

depth sizing RMSE, according to data in Tables 6.1 and 6.2, respectively. Further, length

sizing RMSE of axial flaws is also better for SBDMW test blocks in comparison to O.D. access

of LBDMW test blocks based on Table 6.3.

 PARENT Conclusion 3: Flaw orientation exhibits an influence on detection performance with

circumferential flaws exhibiting a greater likelihood of detection than axial flaws, as a function

of depth, based on data in Table 6.1 for LBDMW and SBDMW test blocks.

 PARENT Conclusion 4: Flaw orientation did not show an influence on depth sizing

performance based on depth sizing RMSE results in Table 6.2 and regression plots in

Figures 6.1 through 6.6 for LBDMW and SBDMW test blocks.

 PARENT Conclusion 5: I.D. procedures that include ECT performed better at length sizing

than I.D. procedures that do not include ECT, particularly for axial flaws, as indicated by

RMSE values in Table 6.8 for LBDMW test blocks.

 PARENT Conclusion 6: O.D. PAUT procedures exhibit better performance than O.D.

conventional UT procedures for SBDMWs as measured by POD and depth sizing RMSE

based on data in Tables 6.4 and 6.6, respectively.

 PARENT Conclusion 7: O.D. PAUT performance is similar to O.D. conventional UT

performance for LBDMWs as measured by POD and depth sizing RMSE based on data in

Tables 6.5 and 6.7, respectively.

 PARENT Conclusion 8: PARENT results indicate substantial improvement in O.D. PAUT

performance for SBDMWs, compared with PINC performance data, based on data in

Table 7.1.

 PARENT Conclusion 9: PARENT results indicate significant variability in performance for UT

procedures employing similar techniques and for PAUT procedures employing similar

techniques on SBDMWs by O.D. access. This is based on detection performance data versus

depth and depth sizing data in Tables 5.12 and 5.24, respectively, and tabulation of procedure

information in Tables 6.9 and 6.10.
9-2 

 PARENT Conclusion 10: One of the conventional UT procedures exhibiting the poorest

performance for O.D. examinations of SBDMWs employed only one angle for inspection. This

conventional UT procedure was also the only non-qualified procedure that participated in blind

testing. All other conventional UT procedures incorporated multiple angles for inspection. This

is based on detection performance data versus depth and depth sizing data in Tables 5.12

and 5.24, respectively, and tabulation of procedure information in Table 6.10.

 PARENT Conclusion 11: One of five procedures applied for length sizing on LBDMW test

blocks by O.D. surface access in the Blind test exhibited length sizing performance that did

not meet the intent of ASME Code, Section XI requirement of RMSE within 19 mm based on

data in Table 5.29.

 PARENT Conclusion 12: One of nine procedures applied for length sizing on SBDMW test

blocks by O.D. surface access in the Blind test exhibited length sizing performance that did

not meet the intent of ASME Code, Section XI requirement of RMSE within 19 mm based on

data in Table 5.30.

 PARENT Conclusion 13: Two of three procedures applied for depth sizing on LBDMW test

blocks by I.D. surface access in the Blind test exhibited depth sizing performance that met the

intent of the ASME Code Section XI requirement of RSME within 3.2 mm and these are

included in the summary in Table 7.3. However, the flaw depth size distribution in these test

blocks tended to be shallower than ASME Code, Section XI requirements for flaw size

distribution and it was not the intent of the PARENT test blocks to meet ASME Code flaw size

distribution requirements.

 PARENT Conclusion 14: Two of nine procedures applied for depth sizing on SBDMW test

blocks by O.D. surface access in the Blind test exhibited depth sizing performance that met

the intent of the ASME Code, Section XI requirement of RSME within 3.2 mm and these are

included in the summary in Table 7.3. However, the flaw depth size distribution in these test

blocks tended to be shallower than ASME Code, Section XI requirements for flaw size

distribution and it was not the intent of the PARENT test blocks to meet ASME Code flaw size

distribution requirements.

 PARENT Conclusion 15: ECT performance results are better for PINC than PARENT based

on POD information in Table 7.1.

 PARENT Conclusion 16: In general, it was felt that insufficient data was collected on BMI

test blocks to draw firm conclusions regarding detection and length sizing performance. No

data was provided to assess depth sizing performance for flaws in J-groove welds. In addition,

many of the flaws implanted in BMI test blocks were considered to have limited relevance to

flaws expected in the field.

As previously mentioned, recommendations for future work are presented here based on the 

conclusions from PARENT blind testing outlined above and the summary of PISC III and PINC 

outcomes in Section 8. Thus, an outline of recommendations for future work is provided below: 

 Recommendation 1: Limited data was collected on BMI test blocks in PINC and PARENT so

future work could focus on collecting new BMI data for performance quantification and

consider combining PINC and PARENT BMI data for analysis.
9-3 

 Recommendation 2: ECT performance in PARENT is lower than reported for PINC.

However, the ECT procedures in PARENT were applied to LBDMWS; in PINC, they were

applied to SBDMWs. Therefore, further evaluation using laboratory parametric studies of ECT

procedures applied to SBDMW and LBDMW test blocks to assess and understand the results

in PINC and PARENT is recommended.

 Recommendation 3: PARENT conclusion 9 states that significant variability is observed for

some conventional UT and PAUT procedures that employ similar techniques. Additional study

could help determine and quantify the relative influence of equipment, human factors, etc. on

performance for procedures employing similar techniques.

 Recommendation 4: Further work is needed to understand and quantify the influence of

specific PAUT and conventional UT procedure variables, such as number of inspection angles

and sectorial versus linear scanning, on detection and sizing performance.

 Recommendation 5: The flaw simulations used in PARENT approximate PWSCC and

IDSCC degradation processes but are not actual field PWSCC or field IDSCC flaws. The

limitations of SCC flaw simulation techniques with respect to their relevance to representing

field PWSCC and IDSCC flaw NDE responses should be further evaluated. In addition,

improving the relevance of simulated flaws to field PWSCC and IDSCC flaws, based on such

an evaluation, should also be investigated.

10-1 

10 REFERENCES 

Braatz BG, PG Heasler and RM Meyer. 2014. PARENT Quick Blind Round-Robin Test Report. 

PNNL-22677, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. ADAMS 

Accession No. ML14276A052. 

Cumblidge SE, SR Doctor, PG Heasler and TT Taylor. 2010. Results of the Program for the 

Inspection of Nickel Alloy Components. NUREG/CR-7019; PNNL-18713, Rev. 1, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 

APPENDIX A 

–

TEST BLOCK INFORMATION 

A-1 

APPENDIX A 

TEST BLOCK INFORMATION 

A.1 BMI Test Blocks 

Figure A.1 BMI Test Block P6 

Figure A.2 BMI Test Block P8 
A-2 

Figure A.3 BMI Test Block P9 

Figure A.4 BMI Test Block P25 
A-3 

Figure A.5 BMI Test Block P26 

A.2 SBDMW Test Blocks 

Figure A.6 SBDMW Test Block P35 
A-4 

Figure A.7 SBDMW Test Block P40 

A.3 LBDMW Test Blocks 

Figure A.8 LBDMW Test Block P13 
A-5 

Figure A.9 LBDMW Test Block P15 

Figure A.10 LBDMW Test Block P16 
A-6 

Figure A.11 LBDMW Test Block P17 

Figure A.12 LBDMW Test Block P33 
A-7 

Figure A.13 LBDMW Test Block P45 
A-8 

A.4 WOL Test Block 

Figure A.14 WOL Test Block P27 
APPENDIX B 

–

SUMMARY OF BLIND TESTING PROCEDURES/TECHNIQUES 

B-1

APPENDIX B 

SUMMARY OF BLIND TESTING PROCEDURES/TECHNIQUES B.1 Summary of Techniques Applied to Quick-blind Test Blocks Team# NDE Technique Description Form Procedure ID Procedure ID Used in Formal Documentation Technique ID Manual or Automated Encoded (Y/N) Exam Surface Probe Frequency (MHz)/Inspection Angle (Deg.)/ Skew (Deg.) Technique Comment 106 Mechanized UT pulse-echo 106.1 UT.ECT.106 106-UT0 Automated Y I.D. 2 MHz Detection, Length, Depth 106 Mechanized ECT 106.1 UT.ECT.106 106-ECT0 Automated Y I.D. 200 kHz Detection, Characterization, Length 108 Conventional ultrasonic 108.1 UT.PAUT.108 108-UT0 Manual N O.D. 1.0 MHz/L45° 1.0 MHz/L60° 1.5 MHz/L35° 1.5 MHz/L45° 2.0 MHz/L33° 2.0 MHz/L45 Detection, Characterization, Length, Depth, Positioning 108 Phased array UT (sectorial) 108.1 UT.PAUT.108 108-PA0 Manual N O.D. 2.0 MHz/L0°~L85° Detection, Characterization, Length, Depth, Positioning 134 Conventional ultrasonic 134.1 UT.134.1 134-UT0 Manual N O.D. 1.5 MHz/L35° 1.5 MHz/L45° 2.0 MHz/L33° Detection, Characterization, Length, Depth, Positioning 126 Conventional ultrasonic 126.1 UT.PAUT.126 126-UT0 Manual N O.D. 2.0 MHz/L45° 2.0 MHz/L60° Detection, Characterization, Length, Depth, Positioning 
B-2

Team# 

NDE 

Technique 

Description 

Form 

Procedure 

ID 

Procedure ID 

Used in Formal 

Documentation 

Technique 

ID 

Manual or 

Automated

Encoded 

(Y/N) 

Exam 

Surface

Probe Frequency 

(MHz)/Inspection 

Angle (Deg.)/ 

Skew (Deg.) Technique Comment 

126 Phased array 

UT (linear) 

126.1 UT.PAUT.126 126-PA0 Manual Y O.D. 1.5 MHz/L25° 

1.5 MHz/L35° 1.5 MHz/L45° 1.5 MHz/L55° 

Detection, Characterization, Length, Depth, Positioning 

113 Ultrasonic, 

TRL 

113.1 UT.PAUT.113 113-UT2 Automated Y I.D. 3 MHz/ 

LAD70°(Transmitter)–

50°(Receiver) 

Longitudinal 

Characterization, Detection, Positioning 

113 Phased array 

ultrasonic, matrix 

113.1 UT.PAUT.113 113-PA1 Automated Y I.D. 2 MHz/45°, 55° 

Longitudinal 

Characterization, Detection, Positioning, Length Sizing, Depth Sizing 

113 Phased array 

ultrasonic, TRL 

113.1 UT.PAUT.113 113-PA2 Automated Y I.D. 5 MHz/TRL35°–55° 

5° increments 

Longitudinal 

Characterization, Detection, Positioning, Length Sizing, Depth Sizing 

132 Linear phased 

array ultrasonic 

132.1 PAUT.132 132.PA0 I.D. 1.5 MHz/L60°–L82°; 

L40°–L46°; L30°–

L70° azimuthal scans

Detection, Characterization, Length, Depth, Positioning 

B.2 Summary of Techniques Applied to SBDMW Test Blocks 

Team# 

NDE 

Technique 

Description 

Form 

Procedure 

ID 

Procedure ID 

Used in Formal 

Documentation 

Technique 

ID 

Manual or 

Automated

Encoded 

(Y/N) 

Exam 

Surface

Probe 

Frequency 

(MHz)/Inspection 

Angle (Deg.)/ 

Skew (Deg.) Technique Comment 

25 Mechanized 

UT through transmission pitch-catch 

25.1 UT.25 25-UTP/C0 Automated Y O.D. 0.5 MHz (1.5 in. 

aperture)/L45° 

Detection, Characterization, Length, Depth, Positioning 
B-3

Team# 

NDE 

Technique 

Description 

Form 

Procedure 

ID 

Procedure ID 

Used in Formal 

Documentation 

Technique 

ID 

Manual or 

Automated

Encoded 

(Y/N) 

Exam 

Surface

Probe 

Frequency 

(MHz)/Inspection 

Angle (Deg.)/ 

Skew (Deg.) Technique Comment 

115 Manual linear 

TR UT-PA 

115.1 PAUT.115 115-PA1 Manual N O.D. 2.0 MHz/216 

elements 

Detection, Characterization, Length, Depth, Positioning 

128 Encoded TR 

UT-PA linear (circ. flaws), sectorial (axial flaws) 

128.1 PAUT.128 128-PA1 Automated Y O.D. Circ. flaws 

1.5 MHz / L45°, L60°, L70°, S45°, S60° 

Axial flaws 

1.5 MHz / L25°, L35°, L45°, L55°, S35°, S45°, S55°, skew −25° to +25°, step 2.5° 

Detection, Characterization, Length (circ. flaws), Depth, Positioning 

117 Mechanized 

UT pulse-echo and TOFD 

117.1 UT.TOFD.117 117-UT0 Automated Y O.D. 1–2 MHz Detection, 

Characterization, Length, Positioning 

117 Mechanized 

UT TOFD 

117.1 UT.TOFD.117 117-

TOFD0 

Automated Y O.D. 3 MHz Depth 

108 Conventional 

ultrasonic 

108.2 UT.108 108-UT1 Manual N O.D. 1.5 MHz/L30° 

L45°, L60° 

2.0 MHz/L30°, 

L45°, L60° 

Detection, Characterization, Length, Depth, Positioning 

108 Phased array 

UT (sectorial) 

108.3 PAUT.108.1 108-PA1 Manual N O.D. 2.0 MHz/ 

L0°~L85° 

Detection, Characterization, Length, Depth, Positioning 

134 Conventional 

ultrasonic 

134.2 UT.134.2 134-UT1 Manual N O.D. 1~5MHz L35°, 

L45°, L60°, L70°

CW/CCW scan 

for circ. flaws 

Raster scan for 

axial flaws 

Detection, Characterization, Length, Depth, Positioning 
B-4

Team# 

NDE 

Technique 

Description 

Form 

Procedure 

ID 

Procedure ID 

Used in Formal 

Documentation 

Technique 

ID 

Manual or 

Automated

Encoded 

(Y/N) 

Exam 

Surface

Probe 

Frequency 

(MHz)/Inspection 

Angle (Deg.)/ 

Skew (Deg.) Technique Comment 

126 Conventional 

ultrasonic 

126.3 UT.126 126-UT1 Manual N O.D. 1~1.5 MHz/S45° 

base metal 

1~2.25 MHz/ 

L30°, L45°, L60° 

weld or butter 

material 

CW/CCW scan 

for circ. flaws 

Raster scan for 

axial flaws 

Detection, Characterization, Length, Depth, Positioning 

126 Phased array 

UT (linear) 

126.2 PAUT.126.1 126-PA1 Manual Y O.D. Circ. Scan 

1.5 MHz/L22.5°1.5 MHz/L25° 1.5 MHz/L35° 1.5 MHz/L37.5°1.5 MHz/L45° 1.5 MHz/L55° 

Axial Scan 

1.5 MHz/L45° 1.5 MHz/L60° 1.5 MHz/L70° 

Detection, Characterization, Length, Depth, Positioning 
B-5

B.3 Summary of Techniques Applied to LBDMW Test Blocks 

Team# 

NDE 

Technique 

Description 

Form 

Procedure 

ID 

Procedure ID Used 

in Formal 

Documentation 

Technique 

ID 

Manual or 

Automated

Encoded 

(Y/N) 

Exam 

Surface

Probe Frequency 

(MHz)/ Inspection 

Angle (Deg.)/Skew 

(Deg.) Technique Comment 

101 Mechanized 

ECT 

101.1 UT.TOFD.ECT.101 101-ECT1 Automated Y I.D. 300 kHz Detection, Length 

101 Mechanized 

UT pulseecho and TOFD 

101.1 UT.TOFD.ECT.101 101-UT0 Automated Y I.D. 2 MHz Detection, 

Characterization, Length, Depth, Positioning 

144 Mechanized 

UT pulseecho 

144.1 UT.ECT.144 144-UT0 Automated Y I.D. 2 MHz Detection, Length, 

Depth 

144 Mechanized 

ECT 

144.1 UT.ECT.144 144-ECT0 Automated Y I.D. 200 kHz Detection, 

Characterization, Length 

108 Conventional 

ultrasonic 

108.2 UT.108 108-UT1 Manual N O.D. 1.5 MHz/L30° 

L45°, L60° 

2.0 MHz/L30°, L45°, 

L60° 

Detection, Characterization, Length, Depth, Positioning 

108 Phased 

array UT (sectorial) 

108.3 PAUT.108.1 108-PA1 Manual N O.D. 2.0 MHz/L0°~L85° Detection, 

Characterization, Length, Depth, Positioning 

134 Conventional 

ultrasonic 

134.2 UT.134.2 134-UT1 Manual N O.D. 1~5MHz L35°, L45°, 

L60°, L70° 

CW/CCW scan for 

circ. flaws 

Raster scan for axial 

flaws 

Detection, Characterization, Length, Depth, Positioning 
B-6

Team# 

NDE 

Technique 

Description 

Form 

Procedure 

ID 

Procedure ID Used 

in Formal 

Documentation 

Technique 

ID 

Manual or 

Automated

Encoded 

(Y/N) 

Exam 

Surface

Probe Frequency 

(MHz)/ Inspection 

Angle (Deg.)/Skew 

(Deg.) Technique Comment 

126 Conventional 

ultrasonic 

126.3 UT.126 126-UT1 Manual N O.D. 1~1.5 MHz/S45° 

base metal 

1~2.25 MHz/L30°, 

L45°, L60° weld or 

butter material 

CW/CCW scan for 

circ. flaws 

Raster scan for axial 

flaws 

Detection, Characterization, Length, Depth, Positioning 

126 Phased 

array UT (linear) 

126.2 PAUT.126.1 126-PA1 Manual Y O.D. Circ. Scan 

1.5 MHz/L22.5° 1.5 MHz/L25° 1.5 MHz/L35° 1.5 MHz/L37.5° 1.5 MHz/L45° 1.5 MHz/L55° 

Axial Scan 

1.5 MHz/L45° 1.5 MHz/L60° 1.5 MHz/L70° 

Detection, Characterization, Length, Depth, Positioning 

113 Ultrasonic, 

TRL 

113.1 UT.PAUT.113 113-UT1 Automated Y I.D. 2.25 MHz/ 

LAD70°(Transmitter)–

50°(Receiver) 

Longitudinal 

Detection, Positioning, Characterization 

113 Ultrasonic, 

TRL 

113.1 UT.PAUT.113 113-UT2 Automated Y I.D. 3 MHz/ 

LAD70°(Transmitter)–

50°(Receiver) 

Longitudinal 

Detection, Positioning, Characterization, Length Sizing, Depth Sizing 

113 Phased 

array ultrasonic, matrix 

113.1 UT.PAUT.113 113-PA1 Automated Y I.D. 2 MHz/45°, 55° 

Longitudinal 

Detection, Positioning, Characterization, Length Sizing, Depth Sizing 
B-7

Team# 

NDE 

Technique 

Description 

Form 

Procedure 

ID 

Procedure ID Used 

in Formal 

Documentation 

Technique 

ID 

Manual or 

Automated

Encoded 

(Y/N) 

Exam 

Surface

Probe Frequency 

(MHz)/ Inspection 

Angle (Deg.)/Skew 

(Deg.) Technique Comment 

113 Phased 

array ultrasonic, TRL 

113.1 UT.PAUT.113 113-PA2 Automated Y I.D. 5 MHz/TRL35°–55° 

5° increments 

Longitudinal 

Detection, Positioning, Characterization, Length Sizing, Depth Sizing 

135 Cross-coil 

ECT 

135.1 ECT.135 135-ECT1 Manual Y I.D. 50 kHz–1 MHz/ 

3 mm–82 ch 

400 kHz dominant 

Detection, Characterization, Length, Positioning 

B.4 Summary of Techniques Applied to BMI Test Blocks 

Team# 

NDE 

Technique 

Description 

Form 

Procedure 

ID 

Procedure ID 

Used in Formal 

Documentation 

Technique 

ID 

Manual or 

Automated

Encoded 

(Y/N) 

Exam 

Surface

Probe 

Frequency 

(MHz)/ 

Inspection Angle 

(Deg.)/Skew 

(Deg.) Technique Comment 

124 Mechanized 

ECT 

124.1 ECT.124 124-ECT0 Automated Y I.D. 100 kHz Detection, 

Characterization, Length, Positioning 

108 Eddy current 108.6 ECT.108 108-ECT0 Auto Y O.D. 32 channel array

500 kHz 

Pancake coil 

probe 

Flexible array 

Examine Only J-Groove Weld [Detection, Characterization, Length, Positioning] 

126 Eddy current 

ECT 

126.5 TOFD.ECT.126 126-ECT0 Automated Y Tube 

I.D. 

400 kHz Detection, 

Characterization, Positioning 

126 Time of flight 

diffraction TOFD 

126.5 TOFD.ECT.126 126-

TOFD0 

Automated Y Tube 

I.D. 

6 MHz Detection, 

Characterization, Length, Depth, Positioning 
B-8

B.5 Summary of Techniques Applied to WOL Test Blocks 

Team# 

NDE 

Technique 

Description 

Form 

Procedure 

ID 

Procedure ID 

Used in Formal 

Documentation 

Technique 

ID 

Manual or 

Automated

Encoded 

(Y/N) 

Exam 

Surface

Probe 

Frequency 

(MHz)/ 

Inspection Angle 

(Deg.)/Skew 

(Deg.) Technique Comment 

108 Phased array 

UT (sectorial) 

108.4 PAUT.108.2 108-PA2 Manual N O.D. 2 MHz/L0°~L85° Detection, 

Characterization, Length, Depth, Positioning 

126 Phased array 

UT (sectorial) 

126.4 PAUT.126.2 126-PA2 Manual N O.D. 2 MHz/ L0°~L85° Detection, 

Characterization, Length, Depth, Positioning 
APPENDIX C 

–

PROCEDURE SUMMARY SHEETS 

C-1 

APPENDIX C 

PROCEDURE SUMMARY SHEETS 

C.1 Procedure 25.1 

Procedure ID: 25.1 Team ID: 25 

Procedure Type: UT Scan Access: O.D.

Scan Direction: CIRC Detection: YES 

Length Sizing: YES Depth Sizing: YES 

C.1.1 Description for Combining Techniques 

Detection

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

25.1 Pitch and catch configuration 

with reflection on back wall and 

inspection angle of 

approximately 45° long. Probe 

separation will be 70 mm 

(approximately twice the wall 

thickness). 

Probe frequency will be 0.5 MHz 

(aperture diameter 1.5 Inch, with 

tapered Rexolite wedge, contact 

area to test block with 

approximately 10 mm diameter). 

Probe index points have to be 

measured and their distance will 

then be used for evaluation. 

Knowledge of the delay of the 

wedges will allow calculating the 

wall thickness (in case of 

changing wall thicknesses). 

Area where cracks are expected 

will be scanned with sound 

direction perpendicular to the 

crack. Therefore more than 1 

direction may be necessary. 

C-scan of 45° LL reflection of back wall will be 

evaluated: 

Where no (perpendicular) crack is present the 

back wall will be detected with high amplitude. At 

positions where the sound path from sender to 

receiver is affected by the crack the amplitude 

will drop. 6 dB drop compared to sound material 

will be used. Additionally pattern recognition will 

be used. 
C-2 

Characterization 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

25.1 See description for detection 

technique. 

A crack connected to the inner surface will result 

in a C-scan where the area with amplitude drop 

will be continuous whereas an inclusion or lack of 

fusion will result in two individual (mirrored) areas 

with amplitude drop). 6 dB drop compared to 

sound material will be used. Additionally pattern 

recognition will be used. 

Length Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

25.1 See description for detection 

technique. 

Length of the crack corresponds to the scanning 

index distance where the crack will be detected. 

6 dB drop compared to sound material will be 

used. 

Additionally pattern recognition will be used. 

Depth Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

25.1 See description for detection 

technique. 

Crack depth is calculated from the scanning 

distance where a drop of amplitude is detected. 

For calculation of crack depth compare attached 

sketch and formula. 6 dB drop compared to 

sound material will be used. Additionally pattern 

recognition will be used. 

Defect Positioning 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

25.1 See description for detection 

technique. 

Sizing technique will be used. Centerline 

(perpendicular to scanning direction) of the area 

with amplitude drop will be used as defect 

position whereas the mechanical reference of the 

C-scan will be the center of the probe assembly. 

6 dB drop compared to sound material will be 

used. Additionally pattern recognition will be 

used. 
C-3 

Figure C.1 

C.2 Procedure 101.1 

Procedure ID: 101.1 Team ID: 101 

Procedure Type: ET Scan Access: ID

Scan Direction: CIRC Detection: YES 

Length Sizing: YES Depth Sizing: NO 

C.2.1 Description for Combining Techniques 

 ET 300 kHz is used for detection and length sizing. 

 This procedure is used combined with procedure ID: 101.2. ET 50 KHz or 300 KHz is used as 

a complement to the evaluation. 

Detection

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

ET 300 KHz 

Circ. and 

Axial defects

Zetec Z001003-2 probe 

Cross point probe, transmit 

receive 

Frequency 300 KHz (50 or 150 

KHz for defects in areas 

detected with UT)

 Defect signal to noise ratio 2:1 (50%)

 Maximum amplitude phase between 80°-130°

 Defect like signal pattern

 Defect pattern for at least 8 consecutive scan 

lines (axial) and 4 consecutive scan lines (circ) 

For UT defect location phase angle restriction do 

not apply. 

Defect indications are considered separate if they 

are separated by at least 6 mm in length 
C-4 

Characterization 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

ET 300 KHz 

Circ. and 

Axial defects

Zetec Z001003-2 probe

Cross point probe, transmit 

receive

Frequency 300 KHz

All defects detected with ET are characterized as 

surface breaking. 

Length Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

ET 300 KHz 

Circ. and 

Axial defects

Zetec Z001003-2 probe

Cross point probe, transmit 

receive

Frequency 300 KHz (50 or 150 

KHz for defects in areas 

detected with UT)

The defect signal is followed down to noise level. 

Depth Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

N/A N/A N/A 

Defect Positioning 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

ET 300 KHz 

Circ. and 

Axial defects

Zetec Z001003-2 probe 

Cross point probe, transmit 

receive 

Frequency 300 KHz (50 or 150 

KHz for defects in areas 

detected with UT)

Based on previous described methodology for 

detection, length and height sizing 

 X positions are as per position from length 

sizing for defects along weld 

 Y positions, across defect, is taken from length 

sizing technique at max amplitude for defects 

along weld 

 Y positions are as per position from detection 

for defects with axial orientation 

C.3 Procedure 101.2 

Procedure ID: 101.2 Team ID: 101 

Procedure Type: UT PE and TOFD Scan Access: I.D.

Scan Direction: CIRC Detection: YES 

Length Sizing: YES Depth Sizing: YES 
C-5 

C.3.1 Description for Combining Techniques 

 UT PE for detection, characterization, length sizing and positioning. TOFD or PE A-scans for 

depth sizing 

 Used together with ET procedure (101.1) 

Detection

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

UT PE 70° TRL2-F 

and 70° TRL2 B 

Circumferential defects Cal+DAC, registration to noise level 

UT PE 70° 

TRL2CW and 70° 

TRL2 AC 

Transverse defects, Z max to be used 

for evaluation is 20 mm

Cal + DAC registration to noise 

level. Separate setting without DAC 

for areas with high noise level. 

UT PE 65° TRL2-F 

and 65° TRL2-B 

Longitudinal defects Cal+DAC, registration to noise level 

UT PE 65° TRL2-

CW and 65° TRL2-

AC 

Transverse defects Cal+DAC, registration to noise level

UT PE Adept 42/55° 

TRL2 F and Adept 

42/55° TRL2 B 

Longitudinal defects Cal + DAC + 4 dB Registration to 

noise level 

UT PE Adept 42/55° 

TRL2 CW and 

Adept 42/55° TRL2 

AW 

Transverse defects Cal + DAC + 4 dB Registration to 

noise level

UT PE 0° TRL Laminar defects Cal 

Characterization 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

UT PE TRL and 

Adept probes 

Volumetric or Planar Volumetric: The echo shape shall 

be smooth without tip reflections 

also not detected with ET 

Planar: Tip reflection or ETdetected 

TOFD 

ET (Proc. 101.1) 

Surface breaking 

near inner surface

ET detected 

Ligament 3 mm or smaller with 

TOFD 

UT PE TRL and 

Adept probes, TOFD 

Embedded Ligament greater than 3 mm 

Length Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

UT PE TRL/Adept 

F/B 

The greatest length taken from forward 

or backward probe 

Sizing down noise level 

UT PE TRL/Adept 

AC/CW 

The greatest length taken from 

clockwise or anti clockwise probe 

Sizing down noise level 
C-6 

Depth Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

UT PE Ascan and 

TOFD

 Defects detected with ET 

(101.1) = inner surface 

breaking

 Defects only detected with ET 

are sized with TOFD PSD 9

 No sizing are performed if 

defects are characterized as 

volumetric

 TOFD 

In case tip reflections are 

present in the A-scan use 

these Z values for probe 

choice and PSD distance.

PSD 9 Z ≤ 5 mm 

PSD 18 Z > 5 mm < 15 mm 

PSD 35 Z > 10 mm for 

transverse defects

A-scan tip reflection in combination with TOFD 

Longitudinal defects: 

TOFD PSD 9, PSD 18 and PSD ≥35 

 TOFD at a flat surface using the lateral wave as 

reference 

TOFD PSD ≥ 35 

 TOFD at a flat surface using the surface or 

bottom reflection as reference 

Transverse defects: 

TOFD PSD 9, PSD 18 and PSD ≥35 

 TOFD at a surface with radius R using the 

lateral wave as a reference 

TOFD PSD ≥ 35 

 TOFD at a surface with radius R using the 

surface or bottom reflection as a reference 

Defect Positioning 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

UT PE 

TRL/Adept 

F/B 

Longitudinal defects 

Y position max amplitude and 

min X and max X position 

Max amplitude of probe with highest signal 

Min and max X signal to noise level 

UT PE 

TRL/Adept 

CW/AW 

Transverse defects 

X position max amplitude and 

min Y and max Y position 

Max amplitude of probe with highest signal 

Min and max Y signal to noise level 

C.4 Procedure 106.1 

Procedure ID: 106.1 

MPP-01 Procedure for mechanized 

Ultrasonic (UT) and Eddy Current (ET) 

Inspection of the Inlet and Outlet Nozzle 

Connection Welds. 

Team ID: 106 

Procedure Type: ET and UT Pulse Echo Scan Access: I.D.

Scan Direction: AXIAL and CIRC Detection: YES 

Length Sizing: YES Depth Sizing: YES (not of embedded flaws)
C-7 

C.4.1 Description for Combining Techniques 

 Detection shall be performed using a combination of both UT and ET techniques. ET will be 

used for detection of fatigue type defects and those clearly open to the surface and both ET 

and UT will be used for detection of those defects with partially intact ligaments, namely 

interdendritic stress corrosion cracking (IDSCC). 

 Characterization between surface breaking and embedded will be performed using ET. 

 Sizing: Any defect that is characterized as surface breaking shall be sized for length using ET 

and/or UT. Any defect that is characterized as surface breaking shall also be sized for height

using UT. 

Detection 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

ET Circ and 

axial 

ET 200 KHz driver/pickup cross 

wound probe with ferrite core 

Has an amplitude ≥ 0.9 V on at least one scan 

line 

Has a phase of 90° ± 20° or 270° ± 20° 

Has a crack like signal (refer to calibration signal) 

UT Pulse 

Echo 

Circ and 

axial 

UT 55° TRL FD 10 as a 

complement in case of partially 

intact ligaments, named IDSCC. 

Long defects: 

Trans defects: 

Amplitude ≥ 4 dB on 3 or more 

consecutive scan lines. 

(equivalent to 4 mm) 

Amplitude above noise on 3 or 

more consecutive scan lines. 

(equivalent to 6 mm) 

Characterization 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

ET Circ and 

axial 

ET 200 KHz Driver/Pickup cross 

wound probe with ferrite core. 

Has an amplitude ≥ 0.9 V on at least one scan 

line 

Has a phase of 90° ± 20° or 270° ± 20° 

Has a crack like signal (refer to calibration signal) 

Only characterization made is surface breaking 

or not. The orientation of the defect shall also be 

determined. 

All defects that are surface breaking shall be 

sized for length and height. 
C-8 

Length Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

ET Circ and 

axial 

ET 200 KHz Driver/Pickup cross 

wound probe with ferrite core. 

Down to noise level 

The length of a defect shall be determined by 

measuring the distance between the first and last 

crack like signal in the direction of the defect. 

Indications along the same line with a distance 

smaller than the measured length of the shortest 

indication shall be regarded as one single defect. 

UT Pulse 

Echo 

Circ and 

axial 

55°TRL2-Aust FD 10 mm Down to noise level 

The length of a defect shall be determined by 

measuring the distance between the first and last 

position where the defect-like signal is discernible 

from the noise. 

Where the length measurements from two beam 

directions differ, the longest length shall be 

reported. 

Indications along the same defect axis with a 

distance between them of ≤ 10 mm shall be 

regarded as one single defect. 

Depth Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

UT Pulse 

Echo 

Circ and 

axial 

55°TRL2-Aust FD 10 mm 

45°TRL2-Aust FD 25 mm 

Pulse Echo Tip Diffraction. If a clear lower tip is 

identified at a depth of < 16 mm, the results from 

the 55TRL FD10 shall be reported. Where the 

depth is measured from both beam directions the 

deepest depth shall be used. 

If a clear lower tip is identified at a depth of ≥ 16 

mm, the results from the 45TRL FD25 shall be 

reported. Where the depth is measured from both 

beam directions the deepest depth shall be used. 

Where depth measurements from both probe 

types are just within their applicable depth zones, 

the depth from the probe with the focal depth 

closest to the measured depth shall be used. 

If no tip responses are evident in the zone 

specified for the applicable probe, tip responses 

from the other probe shall be reported. 
C-9 

Defect Positioning 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

ET circ and 

axial 

ET 200 KHz Driver/Pickup cross 

wound probe with ferrite core. 

X-axis Position: For longitudinal defects, the 

start and end X co-ordinates are the positions 

obtained during the length sizing process. 

The X co-ordinates shall be reported from the 

probe/technique used to report the defect length. 

For transverse defects, the X co-ordinate of the 

maximum response obtained during the ET 

detection / characterization process shall be 

reported. 

Y-axis Position: For transverse defects, the start 

and end Y co-ordinates are the positions 

obtained during the length sizing process. 

The Y co-ordinates shall be reported from the 

probe/technique used to report the defect length. 

For longitudinal defects, the Y co-ordinate of the 

maximum response obtained during the ET 

detection / characterization process shall be 

reported 

UT pulse 

echo 

Circ and 

axial 

55°TRL2-Aust FD 10 mm 

C.5 Procedure 108.1 and 108.2 

Procedure ID: 108.1 and 108.2 Team ID: 108 

Procedure Type: UT Scan Access: O.D.

Scan Direction: AXIAL and CIRC Detection: YES 

Length Sizing: YES Depth Sizing: YES

C.5.1 Description for Combining Techniques 

 Maunal conventional contact pulse echo UT used for detection and length/depth sizing of 

DMW. 

Detection 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

Focused RLDual Probe The primary mode of 

propagation is longitudinal 

waves. 

(1~5 MHz, 30,45,60°) 

For I.D. connected flaw select 

focusing within 75 to 125% T. 

Perform Raster scan for axial 

flaw and CW/CCW Scan for 

circum flaw 

According to Figure C.2. 

Evaluation level is noise level. 
C-10 

Characterization 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

Focused RLDual Probe All suspected flaw indications, 

regardless of amplitude, shall be 

investigated to the extent 

necessary to provide accurate 

characterization, identity, and 

location. 

Perform re-evaluations (relooks) 

with qualified equipment are 

acceptable. 

-According to Figure C.2. 

-All suspected flaw indications shall be plotted on 

a cross sectional drawing of the weld. Indication 

plots shall accurately identify the specific origin of 

the reflector.

Length Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

Focused RLDual Probe Adjust the system gain as 

needed to optimize flaw 

responses. 

Maximize the signal response 

from the flaw indication. Adjust 

the system gain until this 

response is ~ 80 % FSH. 

Even though detected with opposite beam 

direction, report length from near side of weld. 

The end points of flaw shall be determined in 

each direction until the signal response has 

diminished into the general background noise 

(full amplitude drop). 
C-11 

Depth Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

Focused RLDual Probe If tip signal of flaw display, flaw 

depth is the calculated by 

subtracting the remaining 

ligament from the actual 

material thickness. 

If tip signal of flaw not display, 

the amplitude assessment level 

is 6 dB below the maximum 

echo height observed at any 

position along the flaw, rather 

than at a constant. 

Absolute Arrival Time Technique 

−6 dB drop from maximum technique 

 
C-12 

Defect Positioning 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

Focused RLDual Probe Teams identifying on the 

reporting data sheets are 

projected position value from 

flaw. 

P35, P40, P33 

P13 
C-13 

Figure C.2 Indication Evaluation Flow Chart 
C-14 

C.6 Procedure 108.3 

Procedure ID: 108.3 Team ID: 108 

Procedure Type: UT Scan Access: O.D.

Scan Direction: AXIAL and CIRC Detection: YES 

Length Sizing: YES Depth Sizing: YES

C.6.1 Description for Combining Techniques 

 Phased array UT techniques are used for detection, length sizing, and depth sizing. 

Detection 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

PA-01 Phased Array UT Using 2 MHz 

TRL Probe 

Axial Sectorial Scan 

Amplitude 

PA-02 Phased Array UT Using 2 MHz 

TRL Probe 

Circ. Sectorial Scan 

Amplitude 

Characterization 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

PA-01 Phased Array UT Using 2 MHz 

TRL Probe 

Axial Sectorial Scan 

The indication provides responses identifying that 

the flaw initiates at or near the inside surface of 

weld. 

The indication has a high signal-to-noise ratio (> 

2:1) with defined start and stop point. Raising the 

upper and lower amplitude thresholds of the color 

palette and observing signal-to-noise ratio 

contrast across the length of the component can 

support this. 

PA-02 

Phased Array UT Using 2 MHz 

TRL Probe 

Circ. Sectorial Scan 

Length Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

PA-01 Phased Array UT Using 2 MHz 

TRL Probe 

Axial Sectorial Scan 

The flaw length shall be determined by scanning 

along the length of the flaw in each direction until 

the signal response has diminished onto the 

general background noise (full amplitude drop). PA-02 Phased Array UT Using 2 MHz 

TRL Probe 

Circ. Sectorial Scan 
C-15 

Depth Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

PA-01 Phased Array UT Using 2 MHz 

TRL Probe 

Axial Sectorial Scan 

Absolute Arrival Time Technique. 

This technique relies upon obtaining direct signal 

responses (diffraction) from the flaw tip. The 

amount of unflawed material, or remaining 

ligament, is then read directly from either the AScan and/or S-Scan presentations. 

PA-02 Phased Array UT Using 2 MHz 

TRL Probe 

Circ. Sectorial Scan 

Defect Positioning 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

PA-01 Phased Array UT Using 2 MHz 

TRL Probe 

Axial Sectorial Scan 

As access allows, evaluate the flaw signal amplitude responses from each side of the weld. 

Observe if the signal response appears reduced 

due to weld volume sound attenuation from one 

side or another. 

Evaluate the ultrasonic responses from each side 

of the weld in both flawed and unflawed regions. 

If the flaw is only observable one direction, the 

location coordinates shall be determined from 

that observation. 

If the flaw is observable from two opposite directions, the flaw location coordinates shall be determined using an average from both observations. 

PA-02 Phased Array UT Using 2 MHz 

TRL Probe 

Circ. Sectorial Scan 

C.7 Procedure 108.4 

Procedure ID: 108.4 Team ID: 108 

Procedure Type: UT Scan Access: O.D.

Scan Direction: AXIAL and CIRC Detection: YES 

Length Sizing: YES Depth Sizing: YES

 
C-16 

C.7.1 Description for Combining Techniques 

 Phased array UT techniques are used for detection, length sizing, and depth sizing (weld 

overlaid piping welds). 

Detection 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

PAUT-AXIAL Phased Array UT Using 2 MHz 

TRL Probe 

Axial Sectorial Scan 

Amplitude. 0° to 25° angle range examinations 

for laminar defects. 

25° to 85° angle range examinations for overlay 

material welding defects and original material 

defects. 

PAUT-CIRC. Phased Array UT Using 2 MHz 

TRL Probe 

Circ. Sectorial Scan 

Amplitude. 25° to 85° angle range examinations 

for overlay material welding defects and original 

material defects. 
C-17 

Characterization 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

PAUT-AXIAL Phased Array UT Using 2 MHz 

TRL Probe 

Axial Sectorial Scan 

The indication has good signal-to-noise ratio (> 

2:1) with defined start and stop points. 

Lack of Bond or Inter Bead Lack of Fusion 

 The indication has volumetric positioning at the 

weld overlay to base material interface (lack of 

bond) or within the volume of the weld overlay 

material (inter-bead lack of fusion). 

 The indication response is reduced or absent 

when viewing the 25°– 85° angles 

Contamination Cracking 

 The indication provides volumetric positioning 

identifying that the entire flaw is contained within 

the volume of the weld overlay material. 

 The indication response is unobservable or 

substantially reduced from the 0° to 25° angle 

range. 

Original Material Defects 

 The indication provides responses identifying 

that the flaw initiates at or near the inside 

surface of the original base material. 

 The indication response is reduced or absent 

when viewing the 25°–85° angles 

PAUT-CIRC. Phased Array UT Using 2 MHz 

TRL Probe 

Circ. Sectorial Scan 

The indication has good signal-to-noise ratio (> 

2:1) with defined start and stop points. 

Contamination Cracking 

 The indication provides volumetric positioning 

identifying that the entire flaw is contained within 

the volume of the weld overlay material. 

 The indication response is unobservable or 

substantially reduced from the 0° to 25° angle 

range. 

Original Material Defects 

 The indication provides responses identifying 

that the flaw initiates at or near the inside 

surface of the original base material. 

 The indication response is reduced or absent 

when viewing the 25°–85° angles 
C-18 

Length Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

PAUT-AXIAL Phased Array UT Using 2 MHz 

TRL Probe 

Axial Sectorial Scan 

The length of flaws shall be determined by 

scanning along the length of the flaw in each 

direction until the signal response in the A-scan 

has diminished into the general background 

noise (full amplitude drop) or the image response 

in the S-scan has diminished into the general 

image background noise. 

PAUT-CIRC. Phased Array UT Using 2 MHz 

TRL Probe 

Circ. Sectorial Scan 

Depth Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

PAUT-AXIAL Phased Array UT Using 2 MHz 

TRL Probe 

Axial Sectorial Scan 

Absolute Arrival Time Technique. 

This technique relies upon obtaining direct signal 

responses (diffraction) from the flaw tip. The 

amount of unflawed material, or remaining 

ligament, is then read directly from either the Ascan and/or S-scan presentations. 

PAUT-CIRC. Phased Array UT Using 2 MHz 

TRL Probe 

Circ. Sectorial Scan 

Defect Positioning 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

PAUT-AXIAL Phased Array UT Using 2 MHz 

TRL Probe 

Axial Sectorial Scan 

Amplitude. If the flaw is only observable one 

direction, the location coordinates shall be 

determined from that observation. 

If the flaw is observable from two opposite 

directions, the flaw location coordinates shall be 

determined using an average from both 

observations. 

PAUT-CIRC. Phased Array UT Using 2 MHz 

TRL Probe 

Circ. Sectorial Scan 

C.8 Procedure 108.5 

Procedure ID: 108.5 Team ID: 108 

Procedure Type: UT, ET Scan Access: I.D.

Scan Direction: AXIAL Detection: YES 

Length Sizing: YES Depth Sizing: YES
C-19 

C.8.1 Description for Combining Techniques 

 ECT techniques are used for detection and length sizing 

 UT techniques are used for detection, length sizing, and depth sizing 

Detection 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

BMI-TUBETOFD-UT UT Using 10 MHz TOFD UT 

Probe 

TOFD Tip Signal 

Loss of Lateral Wave 

Loss of Backwall 

BMI-TUBEECT ECT Using X-Type Coil Probe Phase Angle and C-scan image 

Characterization 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

BMI-TUBETOFD-UT UT Using 10 MHz TOFD UT 

Probe 

I.D. Connected Defect: The lateral wave break 

and bottom tip signal present in the penetration.

O.D. Connected Defect: The top tip signal from 

a defect emanating from the O.D. surface will 

have no lateral wave break, with back wall 

disturbance present.

BMI-TUBEECT 

ECT Using X-Type Coil Probe The indication provides responses identifying that 

the flaw exist at surface of Tube ID. 

The indication has a high signal-to-noise ratio (> 

2:1) with defined start and stop point. 

Length Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

BMI-TUBETOFD-UT UT Using 10 MHz TOFD UT 

Probe 

The start and stop position of the defect will be 

taken on the last scan line where the 

lateral/backwall disturbance or tip signal is 

evident.

BMI-TUBEECT 

ECT Using X-Type Coil Probe The 6 dB down measurement method

Depth Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

BMI-TUBETOFD-UT UT Using 10 MHz TOFD UT 

Probe 

TOFD Tip Signal 

BMI-TUBEECT 

ECT Using X-Type Coil Probe N/A 
C-20 

Defect Positioning 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

BMI-TUBETOFD-UT UT Using 10 MHz TOFD UT 

Probe 

Location of lateral/backwall wave disturbance or 

crack tip signals 

BMI-TUBEECT 

ECT Using X-Type Coil Probe Phase angle and C-scan image 

C.9 Procedure 108.6 

Procedure ID: 108.6 Team ID: 108 

Procedure Type: ET Scan Access: I.D.

Scan Direction: CIRC Detection: YES 

Length Sizing: YES Depth Sizing: NO

C.9.1 Description for Combining Techniques 

 ECT techniques are used for detection and length sizing of J-groove weld surface flaws. 

Detection 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

BMI-WELDECT Array ECT Using 32 CH Probe Phase Angle and C-scan image 

Characterization 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

BMI-WELDECT Array ECT Using 32 CH Probe The indication provides responses identifying that 

the flaw exist at surface of J-groove weld. 

The indication has a high signal-to-noise ratio 

(> 2:1) with defined start and stop point. 

Length Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

BMI-WELDECT Array ECT Using 32 CH Probe The 6 dB down measurement method. 

Depth Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

N/A N/A N/A 

Defect Positioning 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

BMI-TUBEECT ECT Using X-Type Coil Probe Phase angle and C-scan image 
C-21 

C.10 Procedure 113.1 

Procedure ID: 113.1 Team ID: 113 

Procedure Type: UT Scan Access: I.D.

Scan Direction: AXIAL and CIRC Detection: YES 

Length Sizing: YES Depth Sizing: YES

C.10.1 Description for Combining Techniques 

 The indications with SNR>2 are picked up. The evaluation is performed in consideration of 

the indication amplitude, the distribution of indication in B/C/D scope.

Detection 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

113-UT1 Conventional UT contact technique based 

on reflection signal from a defect using 

probe 2.25C-LAD70-50. 

 Frequency: 2.25 MHz. 

 Inspection angle: 55° (Transmitter: 70°, 

Receiver: 50°) 

Data recording pitch 

 For Axial defect: ⊿X=0.2 mm, ⊿Y=4 mm 

 For Circ. defect: ⊿X=4 mm, ⊿Y=0.2 mm 

Based on Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) 

Evaluation of signals with SNR larger than 

2 

113-UT2 Conventional UT contact technique based 

on reflection signal from a defect using 

probe 3C-LAD70-50. 

 Frequency: 3 MHz. 

 Inspection angle: 55° (Transmitter: 70°, 

Receiver: 50°) 

Data recording pitch 

 For Axial defect: ⊿X=0.2 mm, ⊿Y=2 mm 

 For Circ. defect: ⊿X=2 mm, ⊿Y=0.2 mm 

Based on Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) 

Evaluation of signals with SNR larger than 

2 

113-PA1 PAUT contact technique based on 

reflection signal from a defect using probe 

2C-96ch Matrix phased array probe. 

 Frequency: 2 MHz. 

 Range of angle: 45° (two angles are 

used with probe scanning of forward and 

backward direction 

Data recording pitch 

 For Axial defect: ⊿X=0.2 mm, ⊿Y=2 mm 

 For Circ. defect: ⊿X=2 mm, ⊿Y=0.2 mm 

Based on Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) 

 Evaluation of signals with SNR larger than 

2 

 Final evaluation will be performed using 

45° data. 
C-22 

113-PA2 PAUT contact technique based on 

reflection signal from a defect using probe 

5C-40ch phased array probe. 

 Frequency: 5 MHz. 

 Range of angle: 35–55° 

 Increment of angle: 5° (five angles are 

used with probe scanning of forward and 

backward direction) 

Data recording pitch 

 For Axial defect: ⊿X=0.2 mm, ⊿Y=2 mm 

 For Circ. defect: ⊿X=2 mm, ⊿Y=0.2 mm 

Based on Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) 

 Evaluation of signals with SNR larger than 

2 

 Final evaluation will be performed using 

45° data. 

Characterization 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

113-UT1 

113-UT2 

113-PA1 

113-PA2 

UT contact technique based on reflection 

from defect. 

 All probes are used. 

Characterization is carried out by 

considering signal amplitude and signal 

profile in B-scope, C-scope and D-scope. 

The Criteria of A/B/C/D scope to 

characterize an indication are as follows. 

At first, the indications with SNR>2 are 

picked up. 

Then, the evaluation is performed in 

consideration of the indication amplitude, 

the distribution of indication in B/C/D 

scope, and the movement of waveform 

with the forward and backward probe 

scanning. 

Length Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

113-UT2 

113-PA1 

113-PA2 

UT contact technique based on reflection 

from defect. 

 Conventional UT probe for sizing and two 

phased array probes are used. (3CLAD70-50, 2C-96ch Matrix and 5C-40ch 

TRL) 

Data recording pitch for 113-UT1 

 For Axial defect: ⊿X=0.2 mm, ⊿Y=4 mm 

 For Circ. defect: ⊿X=4 mm, ⊿Y=0.2 mm 

Data recording pitch for other Tech.ID 

 For Axial defect: ⊿X=0.2 mm, ⊿Y=4 mm 

 For Circ. defect: ⊿X=4 mm, ⊿Y=0.2 mm 

Based on the signal amplitude exceed 

noise level. 

Length sizing is obtained from the 

difference of the maximum and the 

minimum. 

Length sizing is performed using the 

maximum value of length sizing data of 

three probes. 
C-23 

Depth Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

113-UT2 

113-PA1 

113-PA2 

UT contact technique based on reflection 

from tip. 

 Conventional UT probe for sizing and two 

phased array probes are used. (3CLAD70-50, 2C-96ch Matrix and 5C-40ch 

TRL) 

Data recording pitch for 113-UT1 

 For Axial defect: ⊿X=0.2 mm, ⊿Y=4 mm 

 For Circ. defect: ⊿X=4 mm, ⊿Y=0.2 mm 

Data recording pitch for other Tech.ID 

 For Axial defect: ⊿X=0.2 mm, ⊿Y=4 mm 

 For Circ. defect: ⊿X=4 mm, ⊿Y=0.2 mm 

Evaluation of each scan line searching for 

diffraction from defect tip. 

Take the value which gives the greatest 

depth. 

Defect Positioning 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

113-UT1 

113-UT2 

113-PA1 

113-PA2 

Based on technique for detection, length 

and depth sizing 

Data recording pitch for 113-UT1 

 For Axial defect: ⊿X=0.2 mm, ⊿Y=4 mm 

 For Circ. defect: ⊿X=4 mm, ⊿Y=0.2 mm 

Data recording pitch for other Tech.ID 

 For Axial defect: ⊿X=0.2 mm, ⊿Y=4 mm 

 For Circ. defect: ⊿X=4 mm, ⊿Y=0.2 mm 

Based on previously described methodology 

for detection, length and depth sizing: 

For axial defects 

 Y positions, along defect, are taken from 

length sizing. (Y position is determined 

based on maximum and minimum of Y 

axis value of defect signal.) 

 Ymax is determined from depth sizing. 

 X position, across defect, is taken from 

depth sizing. 

 Z positions are directly taken from depth 

sizing. 

For circumferential defects 

 X positions, along defect, are taken from 

length sizing. (X position is determined 

based on maximum and minimum of X 

axis value of defect signal.) 

 Xmax is determined from depth sizing. 

 Y position, across defect, is taken from 

depth sizing. 

 Z positions are directly taken from depth 

sizing. 
C-24 

C.11 Procedure 115.1 

Procedure ID: 115.1 Team ID: 115 

Procedure Type: UT Scan Access: O.D.

Scan Direction: CIRC and AXIAL Detection: YES 

Length Sizing: YES Depth Sizing: YES

C.11.1 Description for Combining Techniques 

Detection 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

115.1 Detection is performed with phased 

array pulse echo techniques (TR 

Mode). 

The detection of surface breaking I.D. 

flaws relies upon the corner response 

being observed. 

The optimum technique to generate a 

corner response is the 45° shear 

angle. Since the PWSCC are in the 

anisotropic, heterogeneous DM weld 

material use of shear waves is 

seriously restricted (beam distortion). 

Therefore number of angled 

longitudinal waves shall also be used. 

Axial scan direction (circumferential flaws) 

 25° to 70° long (Step 1°) 

 35° to 65° shear (Step 1°) 

Circ scan direction (axial flaws) 

 25° to 70° long (Step 1°) 

 35° to 65° shear (Step 1°) 
C-25 

Characterization 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

115.1 The characterization is based on the 

identification of flaw like indications 

which cannot be attributed to the 

component geometry based on the 

supplied as built drawings, 

manufacturing defects (reported during 

previous inspections) or indications 

due to reflection’s or scattering on the 

anisotropic und heterogeneous weld 

structure. 

Flaw Indications 

 Good signal to noise ratio (variations along 

the length) 

 Plots to susceptible crack location 

 Substantial echo dynamic travel 

 Areas of unique amplitude 

 Inconsistent time base positions 

 Tip signals 

 Conformation from the opposite direction 

 Seen with many angles 

 Mode converted shear signal (only circ flaws 

with substantial depth) 

Non relevant indications 

 Near WCL or weld geometry 

 Seen continuously 

 Consistent time & amplitude 

 Weak echo dynamic travel 

Length Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

115.1 Length of a flaw shall be determined 

by moving the probe along the flaw. 

On the same side of the weld as the indication 

Optimize the signal from the flaw indication 

Adjust the system gain until the response is ~ 

80 % FSH 

Scan along the length of the flaw in each 

direction until the signal response has been 

reduced to: 

 background noise for fare side indication 

 20% FSH (12 dB drop) for near side 

indication 

The length on outside diameter is longer than 

the actual inside diameter length. Calculate 

correct I.D. flaw length according t: (I.D./O.D.) 

x O.D. flaw length = I.D. flaw length 
C-26 

Depth Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

115.1 For flaw depth sizing the Absolute 

Arrival Time Technique (AATT) is 

used. The technique relies upon 

obtaining a direct signal response from 

the flaw tip using a material depth 

calibration. From the flaw tip response 

the amount of unflawed material or 

remaining ligament can be read 

directly from the Sector-scan. Flaw 

depth is calculated by subtracting the 

remaining ligament from the actual 

material thickness. 

The preferred propagation mode is 

longitudinal. Shear wave propagation 

is not as reliable through austenitic 

weld filler material. However, shear 

waves have better resolution for flaws 

that do not penetrate the DM weld 

material. This should be considered 

when analyzing the data. 

Phasor technique: 

 Find Tip-Diffraction Echo in Sector-scan 

(max. Depth) 

 Put vertical Cursor 1 (blue) to I.D. 

 Adjust Beam Cursor (A-scan) to maximum 

of tip diffraction dynamic 

 Put vertical Cursor 2 (red) to cross point 

 Value D1-2 corresponds to flaw depth 

Defect Positioning 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

115.1 Due to uncertainties associated with 

sound propagation in anisotropic, 

heterogeneous austenitic weld 

material indication positioning require 

detailed evaluation. The information 

provided under “Evaluation Method” 

may assist indication positioning. 

Perform thickness and surface contour 

recordings at the indication position. 

Evaluate the flaw signal amplitude responses 

from each side of the weld. Observe if the 

signal response appears reduced due to weld 

volume sound attenuation from one side or 

another. 

Identify standard benchmark responses (weld 

root, weld noise, acoustic interfaces) and flaw 

indication responses. 

Coordinate and plot the information on a 

cross sectional drawing of the weld. 
C-27 

C.12 Procedure 117.1 and 117.2 

Procedure ID: 117.1 and 117.2 

Detection: P6UP68087-UTC2h (117-1)

Characterization: P6UP68087-UTC2h (117-1)

Length Sizing: P6UP68087-UTC2h (117-1)

Height sizing: P6UP68087-UT-CSl (117-2) 

 Team ID: 117 

Procedure Type: UT 

P-Scan system PS4 for data acquisition and 

analysis

 Scan Access: O.D.

Scan Direction: CIRC and AXIAL 

Automated scanner, X- and Y movement 

Magnetic wheels 

 Detection: YES 

Length Sizing: YES Depth Sizing: YES (only circ. flaws)

C.12.1 Description for Combining Techniques 

 Inspection results are based on two procedures, one for detection, characterization and length 

sizing (117-1) and one for height sizing (117-2). Tip diffraction technique is used for height 

sizing. Different PCS (Probe Centre Separation) and angles depending on crack tip depth 

from O.D. surface. 

Detection 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

117-1 

UT Pulseecho 

P6UP68087-

UTC2h 

Pulse-echo, projection images 

TRL-probes 2 MHz and 1 MHz 

0, 45, 60 and 74 for circ. 

flaws 

40 and 54 for axial flaws

Pattern recognition to noise level 

(S/N about ≥ 6dB) 

Characterization 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

117-1 

UT Pulseecho 

P6UP68087-

UTC2h 

Position of indication or 

maximum amplitude in volume 

TRL-probes 2 MHz and 1 MHz 

0, 45, 60 and 74 for circ. 

flaws 

40 and 54 for axial flaws 

Based on probe angle, beam direction and echo 

dynamics 
C-28 

Length Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

117-1 

UT Pulseecho 

P6UP68087-

UTC2h 

Measurement on images using 

cursor 

10 dB-drop, alternatively down to noise if 10 dB 

cannot be used 

Depth Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

117-2 

UT Tip 

diffraction with 

pulse-echo 

P6UP68087-

UTCSl 

Tip diffraction using A-scan 

composite view 45 and 60

probes from detection 

Identify tip signal and calculate depth from O.D. 

surface 

Only used for I.D.-surface cracks 

Depth Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

117-2 

UT Tip 

diffraction 

with TOFD 

P6UP68087-

UTCSl 

Tip diffraction using TOFD 3 

MHz probes 45 and 60 with 

different PCS based on 

estimated depth from 117-2 Ascan, or fixed values of PCS 

depending on characterization 

result

Identify tip signal and calculate depth from O.D. 

surface 

TOFD result shall correlate with depth from Ascan tip depth measurement where applicable 

Defect Positioning 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

117-1 Cursor measurement on scan 

images in connection with 

length sizing 

Centre of indication in Y-direction and start of 

indication (lowest X-pos value) in X-direction for 

defects parallel to weld and vice versa for defects 

perpendicular to weld. 
C-29 

C.13 Procedure 124.1 

Procedure ID: 115.1 

MPP-08 Procedure for the Mechanized 

Ultrasonic (UT) and Eddy Current (ET) 

Inspection of Bottom Mounted 

Instrumentation (BMI) J-Groove Weld

 Team ID: 124 

Procedure Type: ET and UT pulse echo 

and TOFD 

 Scan Access: I.D.

Scan Direction: AXIAL and CIRC Detection: YES 

Length Sizing: YES Depth Sizing: YES

C.13.1 Description for Combining Techniques 

 Detection: ET is used for detection of transverse and longitudinal defects open to J-groove 

weld surface (IDSCC). 

 Characterization: ET characterizes all defects to be surface breaking. 

 Sizing: Any defect that is characterized as surface breaking shall be sized for length using 

ET. Any defect that is characterized as surface breaking shall also be sized for height using 

UT. 

TOFD PCS 24 and PCS 10 are used for axial defects. 55TRL2 and TOFD PCS 10 are used for 

circumferential defects. 

Detection 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

124.1 

ET Circ and 

axial 

ET 100 KHz X wound probe 

with ferrite core driven both in 

D/P and differential mode. 

Has an amplitude ≥ 1 V on at least one scan line 

Has a phase of 90° ± 20° or 270° ± 20° 

Has a crack like signal (refer to calibration signal) 

Characterization 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

124.1 

ET Circ and 

axial 

ET 100 KHz X wound probe 

with ferrite core driven both in 

D/P and differential mode 

Has an amplitude ≥ 1 V on at least one scan line 

Has a phase of 90° ± 20° or 270° ± 20° 

Has a crack like signal (refer to calibration signal) 
C-30 

Length Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

124.1 

ET Circ and 

axial 

ET 100 KHz X wound probe 

with ferrite core driven both in 

D/P and differential mode. 

Down to noise level 

The length of a defect shall be determined by 

measuring the distance between the first and last 

crack like signal in the direction of the defect. 

Indications along the same line with a distance 

smaller than the measured length of the shortest 

indication shall be regarded as one single defect. 

Depth Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

124.1 

UT Pulse 

Echo and 

TOFD for 

circular 

defects 

UT TOFD for 

axial defects 

55°TRL2-Aust FD 8-10 mm 

TOFD PCS 10 6 MHz 

TOFD PCS 24 or PCS 10 6 

MHz 

Height sizing of J-groove surface breaking 

defects is performed with TOFD and/or 55TRL 

using tip diffraction: 

 Transverse defects will be sized with 

circumferential beam TOFD PCS 24 and/or 

PCS 10. 

 Longitudinal defects will be primarily sized with 

55TRL. TOFD is used when possible with 

regards to the geometry of the defect position. 

Following evaluation of the data the defect height 

will reported as follows: 

 If a clear lower tip is identified the greatest 

depth along the defect length shall be reported. 

 If both 55TRL and TOFD measure an accurate 

depth, the deepest measurement shall be 

reported. 

 If the results show no evidence of a surface 

breaking defect at the location reported during 

detection, the defect height shall be reported as 

< 2 mm. 

Note: The height estimation is based upon the 

vertical distance from the surface to the tip and 

no correction for defect tilt will be applied. 
C-31 

Defect Positioning 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

124.1 

ET Circ and 

axial 

ET 100 KHz X wound probe 

with ferrite core driven both in 

D/P and differential mode. 

X-axis Position 

 For axial defects, the X co-ordinates are the 

positions of the maximum response obtained 

during detection. 

 For circumferential defects, the X co-ordinate is 

the start point of the defect, obtained during 

length sizing. 

Y-axis position 

 For axial defects, the start Y co-ordinates are 

the positions obtained during the length sizing 

process. 

 For circumferential defects, the Y co-ordinate is 

the maximum response obtained during the 

detection process. 

C.14 Procedure 126.1 

Procedure ID: 126.1 Team ID: 126 

Procedure Type: ET and UT Scan Access: I.D.

Scan Direction: AXIAL Detection: YES 

Length Sizing: YES Depth Sizing: YES

C.14.1 Description for Combining Techniques 

 Automatic UT (TOFD) & ET used for detection and length/depth sizing of BMI 

Detection 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

BMI BMI Nozzle I.D. side Inspection 

at Axial Scan 

TOFD technique shall be used 

lateral wave and back wall 

signal to detect the presence of 

O.D./I.D. defect. 

TOFD technique shall be used 

6 MHz 

TOFD technique shall be used 2 

channel (Axial shooting TOFD, 

Circumferential shooting TOFD) 

ET shall be detection for surface 

or near surface indications 

P6, P8, P9, P25, P26 for defects 

TOFD Select channel, display mode to analyze 

(axial shooting the B-Scan (TOPS), 

circumferential shooting TOFD channel: D-Scan) 

Investigate any areas with a loss of the lateral 

wave for tip signals and or loss of back wall. 

ET probe shall be a cross wound driver pickup 

design. 

ET technique shall be used 400 KHz 

Detection with TOFD and ECT enough to 

consider as defect 
C-32 

Characterization 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

BMI TOFD technique shall be used 

lateral wave and back wall 

signal to detect the presence of 

O.D./I.D. defect 

ET using the c-scan, impedance 

plane, and strip chart 

Scan index: circumferential 

clockwise (2 degree increment) 

I.D. surface Indications: A break, or disturbance 

of the lateral wave 

I.D. surface Indications (ET): visual changes of 

C-scan 

O.D. surface Indications: A break, or perturbation 

of the back wall signal 

Length Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

BMI TOFD technique shall be used 

lateral wave and back wall 

signal to detect the presence of 

O.D./I.D. length sizing 

No use ET Technique 

Flaw length sizing shall be determined as follows 

using TOFD techniques. 

In addition to the broken lateral wave, the 

diffracted flaw Arc and loss of back wall 

Depth Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

BMI Flaw length sizing shall be 

determined as follows using 

TOFD techniques. 

The measured tip response 

from a defect emanating from 

the O.D./I.D. surface of the 

lateral wave. 

TOFD technique shall be used lateral wave and 

back wall signal to detect the presence of 

O.D./I.D. Depth sizing 

No use ET Technique 
C-33 

Defect Positioning 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

BMI Teams identifying on the 

reporting data sheets are 

projected position value from 

flaw. 

P6, P8, P9, P25, P26 

θ is measured circumferentially around the 

Penetration tube 

R is distance in the R+ direction from the central 

axis of the penetration tube to a point measured 

on the wetted surface 

Z is measured perpendicular to the surface of the 

J-groove weld 

C.15 Procedure 126.2 

Procedure ID: 126.2 Team ID: 126 

Procedure Type: UT Scan Access: O.D.

Scan Direction: AXIAL, CIRC Detection: YES 

Length Sizing: YES Depth Sizing: YES
C-34 

C.15.1 Description for Combining Techniques 

 Manually driven, phased array UT used for detection and length/depth sizing of DMW. 

Detection 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

PA-DMW-Ax 

PA-DMWCirc. 

Ultrasonic phased array 1.5 

MHz, beam steering with fixed 

refraction angles. 

Used refraction angle 

 L22.5°, L30°, L37.5°, L45° for 

axial defects (O.D.<12") 

 L25°, L35°, L45°, L55° for 

axial defects (O.D.<12" and 

O.D.<40") 

 L30°, L45°, L60° for circ 

(Nozzle Side) 

 S45°, S60° for circ (Nozzle 

Side) 

 L45°, L60°, L70° for circ (Pipe 

Side) 

 S4°5, S60° for circ (Pipe Side) 

Pattern recognition: Stands out from geometrical 

echoes, has through wall characteristics 

Evaluation level is noise level 

Detection with one angle and one direction 

enough to consider as defect 

Characterization 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

PA-DMW-Ax 

PA-DMWCirc. 

All suspected flaw indications, 

regardless of amplitude, shall be 

investigated to the extent 

necessary to provide accurate 

characterization, identity, and 

location. 

Perform re-evaluations (relooks) 

with qualified equipment are 

acceptable. 

According to Figure C.2. 

All suspected flaw indications shall be plotted on 

a cross sectional drawing of the weld. Indication 

plots shall accurately identify the specific origin of 

the reflector. 
C-35 

Length Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

PA-DMW-Ax 

PA-DMWCirc. 

Circumferential Flaw 

 The technique (wave mode: 

SW, LW; beam angle: 45°, 60° 

or 70°) yielding the best 

response shall generally be 

used for length sizing. 

Axial Flaw 

 L35 used for length sizing. If 

not detected with L35, take 

L25,L45,L55 

Even though detected with opposite beam 

direction, report length from near side of weld. 

The end points of flaw shall be determined in 

each direction until the signal response has 

diminished into the general background noise 

(full amplitude drop). 

Figure C.3 Length Sizing Layout 
C-36 

Depth Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

PA-DMW-Ax 

PA-DMWCirc. 

If tip signal of flaw display, flaw 

depth is the calculated by 

subtracting the remaining 

ligament from the actual 

material thickness. 

If tip signal of flaw not display, 

the amplitude assessment level 

is 6 dB below the maximum 

echo height observed at any 

position along the flaw, rather 

than at a constant. 

Display the merged data groups using the 

Display Layout Depth Sizing (see Figure C.4) 

containing the VC-Top (C), VC-Side (B) and VCEnd (D) views 

Figure C.4 Depth Sizing Layout 

Max differences between extremities of defect in 

through wall direction 

Depth sizing for tip-diffraction signal 

Regardless of analysis method, confirmation of 

final flaw depth should generally be available with 

alternative beam angles, beam modes, and/or 

beam directions 
C-37 

Defect Positioning 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

PA-DMW-Ax 

PA-DMWCirc. 

Teams identifying on the 

reporting data sheets are 

projected position value from 

flaw. 

P35, P40, P33 

P13 

C.16 Procedure 126.3 

Procedure ID: 126.3 Team ID: 126 

Procedure Type: UT Scan Access: O.D.

Scan Direction: AXIAL, CIRC Detection: YES 

Length Sizing: YES Depth Sizing: YES

 
C-38 

C.16.1 Description for Combining Techniques 

 Maunal conventional contact pulse echo UT used for detection and length/depth sizing of 

DMW. 

Detection 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

PE-DMW-Ax 

PE-DMWCirc 

The primary mode of 

propagation is shear and 

longitudinal waves. 

 Shear waves shall primarily be 

used for the detection of base 

material flaws (1~1.5 MHz , 

45°) 

 Longitudinal waves shall be 

used for the detection of flaws 

within the weld or butter 

material (1~2.25 MHz, 

30°,45°,60°) 

If Search units with nominal 

angles ≤52° designed to 

produce corner trap responses 

shall be focused within 75 to 

125%T or else 60 to 110%T. 

Perform Raster scan for axial 

flaw and CW/CCW Scan for 

circum flaw. 

According to Figure C.2. 

Evaluation level is noise level. 

Characterization 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

PE-DMW-Ax 

PE-DMWCirc 

All suspected flaw indications, 

regardless of amplitude, shall be 

investigated to the extent 

necessary to provide accurate 

characterization, identity, and 

location. 

Perform re-evaluations (relooks) 

with qualified equipment are 

acceptable. 

According to Figure C.2. 

All suspected flaw indications shall be plotted on 

a cross sectional drawing of the weld. Indication 

plots shall accurately identify the specific origin of 

the reflector.

Length Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

PE-DMW-Ax 

PE-DMWCirc 

Adjust the system gain as 

needed to optimize flaw 

responses. 

Maximize the signal response 

from the flaw indication. Adjust 

the system gain to 80% FSH. 

Even though detected with opposite beam 

direction, report length from near side of weld. 

The end points of flaw shall be determined in 

each direction until the signal response has 

diminished into the general background noise 

(full amplitude drop). 
C-39 

Depth Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

PE-DMW-Ax 

PE-DMWCirc 

If tip signal of flaw display, flaw 

depth is the calculated by 

subtracting the remaining 

ligament from the actual 

material thickness. 

If tip signal of flaw not display, 

the amplitude assessment level 

is 6 dB below the maximum 

echo height observed at any 

position along the flaw, rather 

than at a constant. 

Absolute Arrival Time Technique 

−6 dB drop from maximum technique 
C-40 

Defect Positioning 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

PE-DMW-Ax 

PE-DMWCirc 

Teams identifying on the 

reporting data sheets are 

projected position value from 

flaw. 

P35, P40, P33 

P13 

C.17 Procedure 126.4 

Procedure ID: 126.4 Team ID: 126 

Procedure Type: UT Scan Access: O.D.

Scan Direction: AXIAL, CIRC Detection: YES 

Length Sizing: YES Depth Sizing: YES
C-41 

C.17.1 Description for Combining Techniques 

 Manual Phased Array UT used for detection and length/depth sizing of WOL. 

Detection 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

PA-WOLCirc. 

PA-WOL-Ax 

Used Ultrasonic phased array 

2.0 MHz, Sectorial Scan 

Exam Angle Range 

 0° to 25°: Searched the weld 

overlay to base material 

interface(lack of bond) or 

within the volume of the weld 

overlay material(lack of fusion) 

 25° to 80°: Entire flaw within 

the volume of the weld overlay 

material or near the inside 

surface of the original base 

material. 

According to Figure C.2. 

Evaluation level is noise level 

Characterization 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

PA-WOLCirc. 

PA-WOL-Ax 

All suspected flaw indications, 

regardless of amplitude, shall be 

investigated to the extent 

necessary to provide accurate 

characterization, identity, and 

location. 

Perform re-evaluations (relooks) 

with qualified equipment are 

acceptable. 

According to Figure C.2. 

All suspected flaw indications shall be plotted on 

a cross sectional drawing of the weld. Indication 

plots shall accurately identify the specific origin of 

the reflector. 
C-42 

Length Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

PA-WOLCirc. 

PA-WOL-Ax 

Circumferential Flaw 

 The technique (wave mode: 

LW, Sectorial scan of beam 

angle: 0°~ 75°) 

Axial Flaw 

 The technique (wave mode: 

LW , Sectorial scan of beam 

angle: 0°~ 80°) 

Maximize the signal response from the flaw 

indication. 

Figure C.5. Sectorial Scan 

The length of flaws shall be determined by 

scanning along the length of the flaw in each 

direction until the signal response in the Ascan has diminished into the general 

background noise (full amplitude drop) or the 

image response in the S-scan has 

diminished into the general image 

background noise. 

Depth Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

PA-WOL-Ax 

PA-WOLCirc. 

Flaw depth sizing shall be 

performed utilizing the Absolute 

Arrival Time Technique. 

This technique relies upon 

obtaining direct signal 

responses (diffraction) from the 

flaw tip. The amount of unflawed 

material, or remaining ligament, 

is then read directly from either 

the A-scan and/or S-scan 

presentations. 

Prior to performing final depth sizing efforts, the 

time base accuracy for the angle(s) that provide 

the most favorable flaw tip responses should be 

verified at a depth comparable to the estimated 

flaw depth. Adjustments to the system probe 

delay should be performed as needed. 

Max differences between extremities of defect in 

through wall direction. 

Depth sizing for tip-diffraction signal. 
C-43 

Defect Positioning 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

PA-WOL-Ax 

PA-WOLCirc. 

Teams identifying on the 

reporting data sheets are 

projected position value from 

flaw. 

27 

C.18 Procedure 126.5 

Procedure ID: 126.5 Team ID: 126 

Procedure Type: UT & ET Scan Access: I.D.

Scan Direction: AXIAL Detection: YES 

Length Sizing: YES Depth Sizing: YES

 
C-44 

C.18.1 Description for Combining Techniques 

 Automatic UT(TOFD) & ET used for detection and length/depth sizing of BMI. 

Detection 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

BMI BMI nozzle I.D. side inspection 

at axial scan 

 TOFD technique shall be used 

lateral wave and back wall 

signal to detect the presence 

of O.D./I.D. defect. 

 TOFD technique shall be used 

6 MHz 

 TOFD technique shall be used 

2 channel (Axial shooting 

TOFD, Circumferential 

shooting TOFD) 

 ET shall be detection for 

surface or near surface 

indications 

 P6, P8, P9, P25, P26 for 

defects 

 TOFD Select channel, display mode to analyze 

(axial shooting the B-scan (TOPS), 

circumferential shooting TOFD channel: 

D-scan) 

 Investigate any areas with a loss of the lateral 

wave for tip signals and or loss of back wall. 

 ET probe shall be a cross wound driver pickup 

design. 

 ET technique shall be used 400 kHz 

 Detection with TOFD and ECT enough to 

consider as defect 

Characterization 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

BMI  TOFD technique shall be used 

lateral wave and back wall 

signal to detect the presence 

of O.D./I.D. defect 

 ET using the S-scan, 

impedance plane, and strip 

chart 

 Scan index: circumferential 

clockwise (2 degree 

increment) 

 I.D. surface Indications: A break, or disturbance 

of the lateral wave 

 I.D. surface Indications (ET): visual changes of 

C-scan 

 O.D. surface Indications: A break, or 

perturbation of the back wall signal 

Length Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

BMI  TOFD technique shall be used 

lateral wave and back wall 

signal to detect the presence 

of O.D./I.D. length sizing 

 No use ET Technique 

 Flaw length sizing shall be determined as 

follows using TOFD techniques. 

 In addition to the broken lateral wave, the 

diffracted flaw arc and loss of back wall 
C-45 

Depth Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

BMI  Flaw length sizing shall be 

determined as follows using 

TOFD techniques. 

 The measured tip response 

from a defect emanating from 

the O.D./I.D. surface of the 

lateral wave. 

 TOFD technique shall be used lateral wave and 

back wall signal to detect the presence of 

O.D./I.D. depth sizing 

 No use ET Technique 

Defect Positioning 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

BMI Teams identifying on the 

reporting data sheets are 

projected position value form 

flaw. 

P6, P8, P9, P25, P26 

 θ is measured circumferentially around the 

Penetration tube 

 R is distance in the R+ direction from the central 

axis of the penetration tube to a point measured 

on the wetted surface 

 Z is measured perpendicular to the surface of 

the J-groove weld 
C-46 

C.19 Procedure 128.1 

Procedure ID: 128.1 

Procedure for Encoded, Phased Array 

Ultrasonic Examination of Dissimilar 

Metal Piping Welds 

Zetec OmniScanPA-03-rev A

Team ID: 128 

Procedure Type: UT Phased Array Scan Access: O.D.

Scan Direction: CIRC and AXIAL Detection: YES 

Length Sizing: YES (only circ. flaws) Depth Sizing: YES

C.19.1 Description for Combining Techniques 

 UT Phased Array for detection, characterization and sizing. 

 Tip-diffraction for through-wall sizing (TWS) and “last maxima technique for TW-estimation” is 

used. 

Detection 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

UT Phased 

Array 

Circ. and 

Axial 

Ultrasonic phased array 1.5 MHz, 

beam steering with fixed refraction 

angles. Reflection technique. 

 Circumferential flaws linear scan 

L45°, L60°, L70°, S45°, and S60° 

 Axial flaws sectorial scan L25°, L35°, 

L45°, L55°, S35°, S45°, and S55°; 

skew −25° to +25°, step 2.5° 

Based on pattern recognition 

 Evaluation level is noise level 

 Pattern recognition: Stands out from 

geometrical echoes, has through wall 

characteristics 

 Detection with one angle and one 

direction enough to consider as defect 

Characterization 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

UT Phased 

Array 

Circ. and 

Axial 

Ultrasonic phased array 1.5 MHz, 

beam steering with fixed refraction 

angles. Reflection technique 

 L45° for circumferential flaws 

 L35° for axial flaws 

Based on TW position of corner echo/lower 

signal 

 Makes a difference between 

Geometrical-, Material- and Flaw 

Indications (section 9.3.1) 

 Characterized as surface breaking if 

corner echo/lower signal closer than 

5 mm from nominal back wall 
C-47 

Length Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

UT Phased 

Array 

Circ. 

Ultrasonic phased array 1.5 MHz, 

beam steering with fixed refraction 

angles. Reflection technique

 Circumferential flaws SW and/or LW, 

45°, 60°, 70°

 The best signal response shall 

generally be used 

Differences between extremity of defect 

positions 

 “Full amplitude drop method”, Evaluation 

down to noise level for longitudinal 

defects. 

 No length sizing for Axial defects, 

because the procedure is not qualified for 

this. 

Depth Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

UT Phased 

Array 

Circ. and 

Axial 

Ultrasonic phased array 1.5 MHz, 

beam steering with fixed refraction 

angles. Diffraction technique or last 

maxima technique 

 Circumferential flaws L45°, L60°, and 

L70° 

 Angle that provides the best tip 

signal or L45° 

Evaluation of each scan line searching for 

diffracted signal or DRM (deeper relative 

maximum) 

 Circumferential flaws depth sizing with 

L45°, L60°, and L70°. Take for final value 

1: Tip signal, 2: DRM 

 Axial flaws depth sizing with L25° and 

L45°. Take for final value 1: Tip signal, 2: 

DRM. If all angles/directions show same 

response take deepest size. 
C-48 

Defect Positioning 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

UT Phased 

Array 

Circ. and 

Axial 

Ultrasonic phased array 1.5 MHz, 

beam steering with fixed refraction 

angles. Previous described techniques 

 Longitudinal defects plain geometry 

L45° and L60° 

 Axial defects L25° and L35° 

See Ref. 9.3.3 in IP 

Based on previous described methodology 

for detection, length and height sizing 

 X positions are as per position from 

length sizing for defects along weld 

 Y positions, across defect, is taken from 

length sizing technique at max amplitude 

for defects along weld 

 Y positions are as per position from 

detection for defects with axial orientation 

 X positions, across defect, is taken from 

height sizing technique at max amplitude 

for defects with axial orientation 

 Z positions, through wall position is 

directly taken from height sizing and 

characterization, wall thickness 

C.20 Procedure 134.1 and 134.2 

Procedure ID: 134.1 and 134.2 Team ID: 134 

Procedure Type: UT Scan Access: O.D.

Scan Direction: AXIAL, CIRC. Detection: YES 

Length Sizing: YES Depth Sizing: YES

C.20.1 Description for Combining Techniques 

 Maunal conventional contact pulse echo UT used for detection and length/depth sizing of 

DMW. 

Detection 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

PE Axial & 

Circ. 

The primary mode of 

propagation is longitudinal 

waves. (1~5MHz, 35,45,60,70°) 

Use of focusing transducers 

based on each thickness range 

(upper, middle, lower). 

Perform the skewed scan for 

axial flaw and CW/CCW Scan 

for circum flaw 

In accordance with the Figure C.2. 

Evaluation of signals exceeding the the signal to 

noise ratio of 2:1. 
C-49 

Characterization 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

PE Axial & 

Circ. 

All suspected flaw indications, 

regardless of amplitude, were 

investigated to the extent 

necessary to provide accurate 

characterization, identity, and 

location. 

In accordance with the Figure C.2. 

All suspected flaw indications were plotted on a 

cross sectional drawing of the weld. Indication 

plots were accurately identified the specific origin 

of the reflectors. 

Length Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

PE Axial & 

Circ. 

Adjust the system gain as 

needed to optimize the flaws. 

Maximize the signal response 

from the flaws. Adjust the 

system gain until this response 

is 80 % FSH. 

Although the flaw is detected at both sides of 

weld, the length is reported from the near side of 

weld. 

The end points of flaws were determined in each 

direction until the signal response is diminished 

to 20% FSH (12drop). 

Depth Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

PE Axial & 

Circ. 

If the tip signal of flaw is 

displayed, flaw depth is 

calculated by subtracting the 

remaining ligaments from the 

actual material thickness. 

If the tip signal of flaws not 

displayed, the amplitude 

assessment level is 6 dB below 

the maximum echo height 

observed at any position along 

the flaw. 

Absolute Arrival Time Technique 

−6 dB drop from maximum technique 
C-50 

Defect Positioning 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

PE Axial & 

Circ. 

Identified data are reported from 

the reference position. 

P33, P35, P40 

P13
C-51 

C.21 Procedure 135.1 

Procedure ID: 135.1 Team ID: 135 

Procedure Type: ECT Scan Access: I.D.

Scan Direction: CIRC. Detection: YES 

Length Sizing: YES Depth Sizing: NO

C.21.1 Description for Combining Techniques 

Detection 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

135-ECT1 ECT technique based on eddy 

current signal from a defect using 

Multi cross coil probe (16 cross 

coils). 

 Frequency: mainly 400 kHz 

 (Frequency range: 50 kHz ~ 

1 MHz) 

Sampling pitch along 

circumferential direction is less than 

0.5 mm. 

Sampling pitch along axial direction 

is 2.75 mm. 

Based on signal to noise ratio (SNR). 

Evaluation of signals with SNR larger 

than 2. 

400 kHz frequency data are mainly used for 

detection. 

Characterization 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

135-ECT1 ECT technique based on eddy 

current signal from a defect using 

Multi cross coil probe (16 cross 

coils). 

 Frequency: mainly 400 kHz 

 (Frequency range: 50 kHz ~ 

1 MHz) 

Sampling pitch along 

circumferential direction is less than 

0.5 mm. 

Sampling pitch along axial direction 

is 2.75 mm. 

Characterization is carried out by considering 

signal amplitude and phase of multi 

frequencies. 
C-52 

Length Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

135-ECT1 ECT technique based on eddy 

current signal from a defect 

using Multi cross coil probe (16 

cross coils). 

 Frequency: mainly 400 kHz 

 (Frequency range: 50 kHz ~ 1 

MHz) 

Sampling pitch along 

circumferential direction is less 

than 0.5 mm. 

Sampling pitch along axial 

direction is 2.75 mm. 

Based on the signal amplitude exceed noise 

level. 

Defect length will be determined by measuring 

length of area with S/N ratio lager than 1. 

400 kHz frequency data are mainly used for 

length sizing. 

Depth Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

N/A N/A N/A 
C-53 

Defect Positioning 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

135-ECT1 ECT technique based on eddy 

current signal from a defect 

using multi cross coil probe (16 

cross coils). 

 Frequency: mainly 400 kHz 

 (Frequency range: 50 kHz ~ 

1 MHz) 

Sampling pitch along 

circumferential direction is less 

than 0.5 mm. 

Sampling pitch along axial 

direction is 2.75 mm. 

Based on previously described methodology for 

detection and length sizing: 

For axial defects; 

 Y positions, along defect, are taken from length 

sizing. 

 Y position is determined based on maximum 

and minimum of Y-axis value of defect signal. 

 X positions, across defect, are taken from 

length sizing. 

 X position is determined based on maximum 

and minimum of X-axis value of defect signal. 

 Ymax is determined from maximum defect 

signal. 

 Xmax position, across defect, is taken from 

maximum defect signal. 

For circumferential defects; 

 X positions, along defect, are taken from length 

sizing. 

 X position is determined based on maximum 

and minimum of X-axis value of defect signal. 

 Y positions, across defect, are taken from 

length sizing. 

 Y position is determined based on maximum 

and minimum of Y-axis value of defect signal. 

 Xmax is determined from maximum defect 

signal. 

 Ymax position, across defect, is taken from 

maximum defect signal. 
C-54 

C.22 Procedure 144.1 

Procedure ID: 144.1 

MPP-01 Procedure for mechanized 

Ultrasonic (UT) and Eddy Current (ET) 

Inspection of the Inlet and Outlet Nozzle 

Connection Welds. 

Team ID: 144 

Procedure Type: ET and UT Pulse 

Echo 

Scan Access: I.D.

Scan Direction: AXIAL and CIRC. Detection: YES 

Length Sizing: YES Depth Sizing: Yes (not of embedded 

flaws)

C.22.1 Description for Combining Techniques 

 Detection shall be performed using a combination of both UT and ET techniques. ET will be 

used for detection of fatigue type defects and those clearly open to the surface and both ET 

and UT will be used for detection of those defects with partially intact ligaments, namely 

IDSCC. 

 Characterization between surface breaking and embedded will be performed using ET. 

 Sizing: Any defect that is characterized as surface breaking shall be sized for length using ET 

and/or UT. Any defect that is characterized as surface breaking shall also be sized for height

using UT. 

Detection 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

ET Circ and 

axial 

ET 200 KHz Driver/Pickup 

probe with ferrite core 

Has an amplitude ≥ 0.9 V on at least one scan 

line 

Has a phase of 90° ± 20° or 270° ± 20° 

Has a crack like signal (refer to calibration signal) 

UT Pulse 

Echo 

Circ and 

axial 

55°TRL2-Aust FD 10 mm 

45°TRL2-Aust FD 25 mm 

Long defects: 

Trans 

defects: 

Amplitude ≥ 4dB above noise on 

3 or more consecutive scan lines 

(equivalent to 4 mm) 

Amplitude above noise on 7 or 

more consecutive scan lines 

(equivalent to 6 mm) 
C-55 

Characterization 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

ET Circ and 

axial 

ET 200 KHz Driver/Pickup 

probe with ferrite core 

Has an amplitude ≥ 0.9 V on at least one scan 

line 

Has a phase of 90° ± 20° or 270° ± 20° 

Has a crack like signal (refer to calibration signal) 

Length Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

ET Circ and 

axial 

ET 200 KHz Driver/Pickup 

probe with ferrite core 

Down to noise level 

The length of a defect shall be determined by 

measuring the distance between the first and last 

crack like signal in the direction of the defect. 

Indications along the same line with a distance 

smaller than the measured length of the shortest 

indication shall be regarded as one single defect. 

UT Pulse 

Echo 

Circ and 

axial 

55°TRL2-Aust FD 10 mm Down to noise level 

The length of a defect shall be determined by 

measuring the distance between the first and last 

position where the defect-like signal is discernible 

from the noise. 

Where the length measurements from two beam 

directions differ, the longest length shall be 

reported. 

Indications along the same defect axis with a 

distance between them of ≤ 10 mm shall be 

regarded as one single defect. 
C-56 

Depth Sizing 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method 

UT Pulse 

Echo 

Circ and 

axial 

55°TRL2-Aust FD 10 mm 

45°TRL2-Aust FD 25 mm 

Pulse Echo Tip Diffraction. 

 If a clear lower tip is identified at a depth of < 16 

mm, the results from the 55TRL FD10 shall be 

reported. Where the depth is measured from 

both beam directions the deepest depth shall be 

used. 

 If a clear lower tip is identified at a depth of ≥ 16 

mm, the results from the 45TRL FD25 shall be 

reported. Where the depth is measured from 

both beam directions the deepest depth shall be 

used. 

 Where depth measurements from both probe 

types are just within their applicable depth 

zones, the depth from the probe with the focal 

depth closest to the measured depth shall be 

used. 

If no tip responses are evident in the zone 

specified for the applicable probe, tip responses 

from the other probe shall be reported. 

Defect Positioning 

Tech-ID Description Evaluation Method

ET Circ and 

axial 

ET 200 KHz Driver/Pickup 

probe with ferrite core. 

X-axis Position 

 For longitudinal defects, the start and end X 

coordinates are the positions obtained during 

the length sizing process. 

 The X co-ordinates shall be reported from the 

probe/technique used to report the defect 

length. 

 For transverse defects, the X coordinate of the 

maximum response obtained during the ET 

detection/characterization process shall be 

reported. 

Y-axis Position 

 For transverse defects, the start and end Y 

coordinates are the positions obtained during 

the length sizing process. 

 The Y co-ordinates shall be reported from the 

probe/technique used to report the defect 

length. 

 For longitudinal defects, the Y coordinate of the 

maximum response obtained during the ET 

detection/characterization process shall be 

reported. 

UT Pulse 

Echo 

Circ and 

axial 

55°TRL2-Aust FD 10 mm 

45°TRL2-Aust FD 25 mm 
APPENDIX D 

–

SCORING PROCEDURE USED FOR PINC 

D-1 

APPENDIX D 

SCORING PROCEDURE USED FOR PINC 

This section describes how inspection results were compared to the true state of the DMW and 

BMI test blocks. Specifically, this section describes (1) the method used to determine whether or 

not an individual flaw was detected; (2) if the flaw was detected, what depth and length size 

should be assigned to it; (3) unintended defects (flaws that occurred during the test block 

fabrication process that were not intended to be part of the test block); and (4) the methodology 

used to determine false calls (i.e., indications not associated with any known flaw). 

Scoring merges the inspection results with the true-state results by associating inspection 

indications with true-state flaws. The scoring procedure is summarized by the flowchart in Figure 

D.1. 

Figure D.1 Scoring Procedure for PINC Round Robins 

The first step of the scoring process consisted of uniquely identifying the flaws in the inspected 

volume of the weld. For this analysis, a table of flaws was developed for each test specimen. The 

inspection volume field indicated in the portable document format file record for inspections was 

then compared with the flaw table for each specimen to determine which flaws fell within the 

inspected volume. These flaws are then placed in the inspected flaw table. 

The next step of the scoring process compared the entries in the inspected flaw table to the 

entries in the indication table (the indications that were recorded on inspection data sheets) to 

determine which flaw cuboids intersected with which indication cuboids. 
D-2 

A tolerance box was defined around each flaw to account for possible location error. Figure D.2 

shows the POD versus size of tolerance for the DMW round robin, and Figure D.3 shows the 

same information for the BMI round-robin results. As can be seen in Figures D.2 and D.3, there is 

not much improvement in detection for tolerances larger than 10 mm. The exception is for the 

tube examinations of the BMI samples, which have closely spaced flaws. Therefore, for the 

analysis used in this report, a tolerance box of 10 mm was used to score the DMW and BMI 

results. Without use of a tolerance box, location errors might be misclassified as non-detections. 

Once the tolerance is defined, AX, AY, and AZ, then the flaw cuboid, X1, X2; Y1, Y2; Z1, Z2, 

becomes 

X X,X X,Y Y,Y Y,Z ,Z 1 2 1 2 12       (D.1) 

Figure D.2 Probability of Detection versus Scoring Tolerance for Teams and Flaws for 

DMW Round Robin 
D-3 

Figure D.3 Probability of Detection versus Scoring Tolerance for All Teams and Flaws in 

BMI Round Robin 

A list of all indications not intersecting with any flaws was compiled and was termed the false call 

table. The false call table was compiled after the intersecting flaw-indication cuboids had been 

identified for each indication. 

The scoring process therefore resulted in two outputs—the detection of flaws, including the length 

and through-wall depth determined for each flaw, and a list of false calls. 

Finally, detection and sizing information were appended to all flaws in the inspected flaw table, 

using the intersection information, to produce the detection and sizing results table. 

D.1 Definitions of False Call Probability and Probability of Detection 

False call probability (FCP) and POD quantify inspection performance on blank (unflawed) versus 

flawed material. The FCP is the probability that an inspector will call a flaw in a blank unit of 

material, while POD is the probability that an inspector will call a flaw in a flawed unit of material. 

With these definitions, (FCP, POD) measure the capability for inspection to correctly classify units 
D-4 

of material as unflawed or flawed. Another equivalent term for FCP is false positive probability 

while POD is equivalent to 1 minus false negative probability. 

POD is frequently expressed as a function of various flaw, material, or inspection variables that 

might affect detection performance. For example, in PINC, POD is considered to be a function of 

flaw size, so the expression POD(S) is used to represent the probability of calling a detection in a 

unit of material than contains a flaw of size S. 

One would expect POD(S) to be a monotonically increasing function of flaw size S. Also, one 

should note that using the FCP as the POD for a flaw of size zero (POD(0) = FCP) follows from 

the definition of FCP and POD. When the S = 0 point is included on the POD curve, this curve 

provides the most basic description of inspection efficacy. An inspection that is no more effective 

than guessing will have a flat POD curve. More specifically, if the POD for flaws of size S is equal 

to FCP, (POD(S) = FCP) then flaws of this size aren't really being detected by the inspection 

procedure. 

To be able to calculate FCP and POD, one has to define the applicable unit of material. We call 

this unit of material the grading unit; in other words, each grading unit in the round-robin study will 

generate a detection statistic when inspected. For inspection of dissimilar metal weldments, the 

ideal grading unit would be an entire weld, but a round-robin test that used whole weldments as 

the experimental unit would be too costly. Due to cost constraints, the grading unit used is the 

length of a flaw plus an allowance for sizing error. 

To produce unbiased estimates of FCP and POD, the blank and flawed grading units must be 

identical in all important respects (except that the flawed grading units contain a flaw). Also, if 

multiple grading units are to be placed in a single weldment, they must be separated from each 

other by a sufficient distance. These constraints caused problems in defining blank grading units 

in the PINC specimens. Since reasonable blank grading units could not be defined, we 

constructed a probability model (described in the next section), to estimate FCP from available 

PINC false call statistics. 

D.2 Calculation of FCP 

In the PINC inspections, a false call is defined as a call that does not intersect with a flawed 

grading unit. These false calls were used to estimate a false call rate, λfc (false calls per meter) 

  #False Calls

Length of Material Inspected fc (D.2) 

Using this rate and the assumption that false calls are randomly (i.e., Poisson) distributed one can 

then calculate the probability that a call would intersect a blank grading unit of length Lgu. 

Assuming that the average length of a false call is Lfc, the probability of a false call intersecting the 

grading unit is 

FCP = Pr(Grading Unit Intersection) = 1 exp L L    fc gu fc   (D.3) 

D.3 Logistic Regression Model for POD 

In PINC, a logistic regression model was used to relate POD to flaw size, S. Flaw size represents 

either depth or length. The logistic regression model is given by 
D-5 

POD(S) = logistic 1 2S     (D.4) 

where β = (β1, β2) are unknown parameters to be determined by the regression algorithm and the 

function, logistic(x) is defined as 

    

1 logistic(x) 1 exp x (D.5) 

Estimates produced by the algorithm are maximum-likelihood estimates. The regression fits 

included data for flaw size zero (i.e., the FCP estimates described in the last section). In the 

regression fit plots, you will sometimes see a data point at S = 0 and that represents false call 

data. 

D.4 Scoring Example for Single Flaws 

For all inspections of the DMW test blocks and the inspections of the weld surface of the BMI test 

blocks, the scoring was performed using a 10-mm scoring box. This section presents the scoring 

results for a single inspection, so the reader can more easily understand the scoring process. The 

example used is an inspection of test block 2.9. 

This test block was selected because it contains each type of scoring situation, including missed 

flaws, false calls, and hits on poorly documented flaws. The team has inspected the entire block 

(and this is the case for almost all inspections in the round robin), so all flaws in the block should 

be included in the scoring procedure. The indications called by the inspection team (using their 

labeling system) are summarized in Table D.1. 

The scoring result is summarized visually by Figure D.4. Figure D.4 shows the results in the X, Y 

plane, the plane most relevant to our scoring definition. The locations of the indications called by 

the inspection team are shown as black rectangles in Figure D.4. The test block contains 12 flaws 

used for scoring (shown in red) and 2 poorly documented flaws that were not intentionally placed 

in the test block for the PINC studies but still are detectable (shown in blue). When the 

intersections between the called indications and the actual flaw locations are compared, one can 

determine how well the team performed. 
D-6 

Table D.1 Test Block PINC 2.9 Inspection Results 

Indication 

ID 

X1, 

mm 

X2, 

mm 

Y1, 

mm 

Y2, 

mm 

Z1, 

mm 

Z2, 

mm 

X max, 

mm 

Y max, 

mm 

Z max, 

mm 

1 51 86 −7 −7 16 43 75 1 51 

1a 66 108 19 19 35 43 81 2 66 

2 163 190 −19 −19 37 43 176 3 163 

3 271 304 −18 −18 31 43 298 4 271 

4 375 439 14 14 28 43 412 5 375 

5 496 527 −1 −1 28 43 513 6 496 

6 686 732 −9 −9 27 43 708 7 686 

7 787 807 −18 −18 37 43 798 8 787 

8 860 880 −5 −5 37 43 870 9 860 

9 972 999 −4 −4 36 43 979 10 972 

10 1047 1067 −18 −18 38 43 1058 11 1047 

11 1105 1125 −4 −4 35 43 1111 12 1105 

12 1173 1201 −6 −6 20 43 1180 13 1173 

Figure D.4 Scoring Inspection Results of Test Block 2.9 with 10-mm Tolerance 

The scored results are presented in Table D.2 (detection results). In Table D.2, each row 

describes a flaw in the block. From Table D.2, we see that Flaws 9.8 and 9.9 were not detected, 

while flaws 9.1–9.7 and 9.10–9.14 were detected and are scored as hits, and the supplied lengths 

and depths were used to evaluate the length and depth sizing capabilities of the technique. Both 

of the poorly documented flaws were detected but are not used for depth or length sizing. Missing 

the poorly documented flaws would not have been counted against the inspection because the 

exact locations of the poorly documented flaws are not known. 

The team conducting the examination successfully detected ten of the flaws used for scoring and 

both poorly documented flaws. Additionally, the team missed two flaws and made one false call. 
D-7 

Table D.2 Detection Results for Sample Inspection of PINC Test Block 2.9 

Flaw No. 

Detection: 

0 = no 

1 = yes X1, mm X2, mm 

Indication ID from 

Data Sheet of 

Team 67 

F9.1 1 57.3 95.6 1 

F9.2 1 518.7 544.3 5 

F9.3 1 707.4 745.7 6 

F9.4 1 875.8 898.8 8 

F9.5 1 990.3 1010 9 

F9.6 1 1128 1154 11 

F9.7 1 168.4 194 2 

F9.8 0 360.4 386 N/A 

F9.9 0 613.1 638.6 N/A 

F9.10 1 1054 1080 10 

F9.11 1 791.6 814.6 7 

F9.12 1 1199 1225 12 

F9.13* 1 293 317 4 

F9.14* 1 417 435 3 

N/A = Not applicable. 

*Not used for POD or sizing (see page 2.39 of NUREG/CR-7019). 

D.5 Scoring Process for Multiple Closely Spaced Cracks 

As the Data Analysis Task Group (DAG) reviewed the data from the PINC round-robin exercise, 

members of the DAG recognized that the test blocks used in the BMI did not contain a single 

crack; rather, the test blocks contained multiple cracks. In fact, many cracks in the test blocks 

used for the PINC BMI were close together. The DAG decided to analyze the PINC BMI data 

using a set of proximity rules that would account for the multiple flaws in the test blocks. 

The DAG used the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Section XI IWA-3400 rules 

for linear surface flaws to account for the multiple flaws that were close together. The scoring 

process was the same as that described in Section D.1. 

Section XI, IWA-3400 of the ASME Code states the following: 

(a) Linear flaws detected by surface (PT/MT) or volumetric (RT) examination 

methods shall be considered single linear surface flaws provided the separation 

distance between flaws is equal to or less than the dimension S, where S is 

determined as shown in Figure IWA-3400-1. 

(b) The overall length of a single and discontinuous linear flaw shall be determined 

as shown in Figure IWA-3400-1. 

Figure D.5 is a reproduction of IWA-3400-1 to show the methodology used to determine whether 

multiple flaws in a PINC BMI test block should be combined as one flaw with length or whether the 

flaws should be considered as single individual flaws. 
D-8 

Figure D.5 Methodology for Determining Singularity or Multiplicity of Linear Surface 

Flaws. Reprinted from ASME 2015 Edition, Section XI, Figure IWA-3400-1, 

by permission of The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. All rights 

reserved. 

Once the rules of IWA-3400 were applied to the test blocks, the scoring process described under 

Section D.1 was used on the test blocks. 
D-9 

One can see from Figure D.6 that test block 5.1 has six individual flaws that are very close in 

proximity. Figure D.7 shows that using the rules of IWA-3400, the six individual flaws in test block 

5.1 could be considered as two. 

This procedure was not carried out for Sample 5.2, based on the destructive evaluation results. 

Figure D.6 Test Block 5.1 – Individual Flaws 

Figure D.7 Test Block 5.1 – Individual Flaws Combined Under Rules of IWA-3400 

APPENDIX E 

–

INDICATION PLOTS 

E-1 

APPENDIX E 

INDICATION PLOTS 

Contents 

E.1 Quick-blind Inspection Summary Results ........................................................................ E-2

E.1.1 Plots for Team 106 ............................................................................................... E-2

E.1.2 Plots for Team 108 ............................................................................................... E-6

E.1.3 Plots for Team 113 ............................................................................................. E-10

E.1.4 Plots for Team 126 ............................................................................................. E-14

E.1.5 Plots for Team 132 ............................................................................................. E-18

E.1.6 Plots for Team 134 ............................................................................................. E-22

E.2 DMW Inspection Summary Results ............................................................................... E-26

E.2.1 Plots for Team 101 ............................................................................................. E-26

E.2.2 Plots for Team 108 ............................................................................................. E-30

E.2.3 Plots for Team 113 ............................................................................................. E-50

E.2.4 Plots for Team 115 ............................................................................................. E-53

E.2.5 Plots for Team 117 ............................................................................................. E-59

E.2.6 Plots for Team 126 ............................................................................................. E-65

E.2.7 Plots for Team 128 ............................................................................................. E-85

E.2.8 Plots for Team 134 ............................................................................................. E-91

E.2.9 Plots for Team 135 ........................................................................................... E-101

E.2.10 Plots for Team 144 ........................................................................................... E-104

E.3 BMI Inspection Summary Results ................................................................................ E-111

E.3.1 Plots for Team 108 ........................................................................................... E-111

E.3.2 Plots for Team 124 ........................................................................................... E-116

E.3.3 Plots for Team 126 ........................................................................................... E-121

E.4 WOL Inspection Summary Results .............................................................................. E-123

E.4.1 Plots for Team 108 ........................................................................................... E-123

E.4.2 Plots for Team 126 ........................................................................................... E-124
E-2 

E.1 Quick-blind Inspection Summary Results 

E.1.1 Plots for Team 106 

Figure E.1 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.ECT.106 Applied to Test Block P15 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view) 

Figure E.2 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.ECT.106 Applied to Test Block P15 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view) 
E-3 

Figure E.3 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.ECT.106 Applied to Test Block P16 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view) 

Figure E.4 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.ECT.106 Applied to Test Block P16 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view) 
E-4 

Figure E.5 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.ECT.106 Applied to Test Block P17 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view) 

Figure E.6 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.ECT.106 Applied to Test Block P17 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view) 
E-5 

Figure E.7 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.ECT.106 Applied to Test Block P45 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view) 

Figure E.8 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.ECT.106 Applied to Test Block P45 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view) 
E-6 

E.1.2 Plots for Team 108 

Figure E.9 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.PAUT.108 Applied to Test Block P15 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view) 

Figure E.10 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.PAUT.108 Applied to Test Block P15 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view) 
E-7 

Figure E.11 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.PAUT.108 Applied to Test Block P16 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view) 

Figure E.12 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.PAUT.108 Applied to Test Block P16 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view) 
E-8 

Figure E.13 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.PAUT.108 Applied to Test Block P17 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view) 

Figure E.14 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.PAUT.108 Applied to Test Block P17 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view) 
E-9 

Figure E.15 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.PAUT.108 Applied to Test Block P45 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view) 

Figure E.16 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.PAUT.108 Applied to Test Block P45 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view) 
E-10 

E.1.3 Plots for Team 113 

Figure E.17 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.PAUT.113 Applied to Test Block P15 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view) 

Figure E.18 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.PAUT.113 Applied to Test Block P15 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view) 
E-11 

Figure E.19 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.PAUT.113 Applied to Test Block P16 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view) 

Figure E.20 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.PAUT.113 Applied to Test Block P16 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view) 
E-12 

Figure E.21 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.PAUT.113 Applied to Test Block P17 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view) 

Figure E.22 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.PAUT.113 Applied to Test Block P17 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view) 
E-13 

Figure E.23 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.PAUT.113 Applied to Test Block P45 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view) 

Figure E.24 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.PAUT.113 Applied to Test Block P45 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view) 
E-14 

E.1.4 Plots for Team 126 

Figure E.25 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.PAUT.126 Applied to Test Block P15 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view) 

Figure E.26 I Indication Plot for Procedure UT.PAUT.126 Applied to Test Block P15 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view) 
E-15 

Figure E.27 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.PAUT.126 Applied to Test Block P16 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view) 

Figure E.28 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.PAUT.126 Applied to Test Block P16 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view) 
E-16 

Figure E.29 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.PAUT.126 Applied to Test Block P17 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view) 

Figure E.30 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.PAUT.126 Applied to Test Block P17 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view) 
E-17 

Figure E.31 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.PAUT.126 Applied to Test Block P45 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view) 

Figure E.32 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.PAUT.126 Applied to Test Block P45 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view) 
E-18 

E.1.5 Plots for Team 132 

Figure E.33 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.132 Applied to Test Block P15 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view) 

Figure E.34 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.132 Applied to Test Block P15 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view) 
E-19 

Figure E.35 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.132 Applied to Test Block P16 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view) 

Figure E.36 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.132 Applied to Test Block P16 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view) 
E-20 

Figure E.37 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.132 Applied to Test Block P17 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view) 

Figure E.38 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.132 Applied to Test Block P17 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view) 
E-21 

Figure E.39 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.132 Applied to Test Block P45 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view) 

Figure E.40 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.132 Applied to Test Block P45 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view) 
E-22 

E.1.6 Plots for Team 134 

Figure E.41 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.134 Applied to Test Block P15 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Y view) 

Figure E.42 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.134 Applied to Test Block P15 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Z view) 
E-23 

Figure E.43 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.134 Applied to Test Block P16 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Y view) 

Figure E.44 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.134 Applied to Test Block P16 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Z view) 
E-24 

Figure E.45 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.134 Applied to Test Block P17 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Y view) 

Figure E.46 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.134 Applied to Test Block P17 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Z view) 
E-25 

Figure E.47 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.134 Applied to Test Block P45 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Y view) 

Figure E.48 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.134 Applied to Test Block P45 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Z view) 
E-26 

E.2 DMW Inspection Summary Results 

E.2.1 Plots for Team 101 

Figure E.49 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.TOFD.ECT.101 Applied to Test Block P13 

in PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view) 

Figure E.50 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.TOFD.ECT.101 Applied to Test Block P13 

in PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view) 
E-27 

Figure E.51 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.TOFD.ECT.101 Applied to Test Block P33 

in PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 0 mm–800 mm) 

Figure E.52 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.TOFD.ECT.101 Applied to Test Block P33 

in PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 0 mm–800 mm) 
E-28 

Figure E.53 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.TOFD.ECT.101 Applied to Test Block P33 

in PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 1000 mm–1800 mm) 

Figure E.54 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.TOFD.ECT.101 Applied to Test Block P33 

in PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 1000 mm–1800 mm) 
E-29 

Figure E.55 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.TOFD.ECT.101 Applied to Test Block P33 

in PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 2000 mm–2800 mm) 

Figure E.56 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.TOFD.ECT.101 Applied to Test Block P33 

in PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 2000 mm–2800 mm) 
E-30 

E.2.2 Plots for Team 108 

Figure E.57 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.108 Applied to Test Block P13 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view) 

Figure E.58 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.108 Applied to Test Block P13 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view) 
E-31 

Figure E.59 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.108 Applied to Test Block P13 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Y view) 

Figure E.60 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.108 Applied to Test Block P13 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Z view) 
E-32 

Figure E.61 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.108 Applied to Test Block P33 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 0 mm–800 mm) 

Figure E.62 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.108 Applied to Test Block P33 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 0 mm–800 mm) 
E-33 

Figure E.63 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.108 Applied to Test Block P33 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 1000 mm–1800 mm) 

Figure E.64 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.108 Applied to Test Block P33 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 1000 mm–1800 mm) 
E-34 

Figure E.65 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.108 Applied to Test Block P33 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 2000 mm–2800 mm) 

Figure E.66 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.108 Applied to Test Block P33 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 2000 mm–2800 mm) 
E-35 

Figure E.67 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.108 Applied to Test Block P33 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Y view, 0 mm–800 mm) 

Figure E.68 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.108 Applied to Test Block P33 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Z view, 0 mm–800 mm) 
E-36 

Figure E.69 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.108 Applied to Test Block P33 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Y view, 1000 mm–1800 mm) 

Figure E.70 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.108 Applied to Test Block P33 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Z view, 1000 mm–1800 mm) 
E-37 

Figure E.71 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.108 Applied to Test Block P33 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Y view, 2000 mm–2800 mm) 

Figure E.72 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.108 Applied to Test Block P33 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Z view, 2000 mm–2800 mm) 
E-38 

Figure E.73 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.108 Applied to Test Block P35 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 0 mm–300 mm) 

Figure E.74 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.108 Applied to Test Block P35 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 0 mm–300 mm) 
E-39 

Figure E.75 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.108 Applied to Test Block P35 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 300 mm–600 mm) 

Figure E.76 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.108 Applied to Test Block P35 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 300 mm–600 mm) 
E-40 

Figure E.77 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.108 Applied to Test Block P35 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 600 mm–900 mm) 

Figure E.78 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.108 Applied to Test Block P35 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 600 mm–900 mm) 
E-41 

Figure E.79 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.108 Applied to Test Block P35 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Y view, 0 mm–300 mm) 

Figure E.80 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.108 Applied to Test Block P35 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Z view, 0 mm–300 mm) 
E-42 

Figure E.81 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.108 Applied to Test Block P35 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Y view, 300 mm–600 mm) 

Figure E.82 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.108 Applied to Test Block P35 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Z view, 300 mm–600 mm) 
E-43 

Figure E.83 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.108 Applied to Test Block P35 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Y view, 600 mm–900 mm) 

Figure E.84 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.108 Applied to Test Block P35 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Z view, 600 mm–900 mm) 
E-44 

Figure E.85 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.108 Applied to Test Block P40 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 0 mm–800 mm) 

Figure E.86 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.108 Applied to Test Block P40 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 0 mm–800 mm) 
E-45 

Figure E.87 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.108 Applied to Test Block P40 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 1000 mm–1600 mm) 

Figure E.88 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.108 Applied to Test Block P40 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 1000 mm–1600 mm) 
E-46 

Figure E.89 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.108 Applied to Test Block P40 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 1800 mm–2400 mm) 

Figure E.90 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.108 Applied to Test Block P40 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 1800 mm–2400 mm) 
E-47 

Figure E.91 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.108 Applied to Test Block P40 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Y view, 0 mm–800 mm) 

Figure E.92 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.108 Applied to Test Block P40 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Z view, 0 mm–800 mm) 
E-48 

Figure E.93 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.108 Applied to Test Block P40 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Y view, 1000 mm–1600 mm) 

Figure E.94 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.108 Applied to Test Block P40 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Z view, 1000 mm–1600 mm) 
E-49 

Figure E.95 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.108 Applied to Test Block P40 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Y view, 1800 mm–2400 mm) 

Figure E.96 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.108 Applied to Test Block P40 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Z view, 1800 mm–2400 mm) 
E-50 

E.2.3 Plots for Team 113 

Figure E.97 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.PAUT.113 Applied to Test Block P33 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 0 mm–800 mm) 

Figure E.98 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.PAUT.113 Applied to Test Block P33 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 0 mm–800 mm) 
E-51 

Figure E.99 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.PAUT.113 Applied to Test Block P33 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 1000 mm–1800 mm) 

Figure E.100 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.PAUT.113 Applied to Test Block P33 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 1000 mm–1800 mm) 
E-52 

Figure E.101 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.PAUT.113 Applied to Test Block P33 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 2000 mm–2800 mm) 

Figure E.102 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.PAUT.113 Applied to Test Block P33 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 2000 mm–2800 mm) 
E-53 

E.2.4 Plots for Team 115 

Figure E.103 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.115 Applied to Test Block P35 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 0 mm–300 mm) 

Figure E.104 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.115 Applied to Test Block P35 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 0 mm–300 mm) 
E-54 

Figure E.105 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.115 Applied to Test Block P35 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 300 mm–600 mm) 

Figure E.106 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.115 Applied to Test Block P35 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 300 mm–600 mm) 
E-55 

Figure E.107 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.115 Applied to Test Block P35 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 600 mm–900 mm) 

Figure E.108 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.115 Applied to Test Block P35 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 600 mm–900 mm) 
E-56 

Figure E.109 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.115 Applied to Test Block P40 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 0 mm–800 mm) 

Figure E.110 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.115 Applied to Test Block P40 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 0 mm–800 mm) 
E-57 

Figure E.111 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.115 Applied to Test Block P40 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 1000 mm–1600 mm) 

Figure E.112 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.115 Applied to Test Block P40 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 1000 mm–1600 mm) 
E-58 

Figure E.113 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.115 Applied to Test Block P40 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 1800 mm–2400 mm) 

Figure E.114 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.115 Applied to Test Block P40 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 1800 mm–2400 mm) 
E-59 

E.2.5 Plots for Team 117 

Figure E.115 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.TOFD.117 Applied to Test Block P35 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 0 mm–300 mm) 

Figure E.116 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.TOFD.117 Applied to Test Block P35 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 0 mm–300 mm) 
E-60 

Figure E.117 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.TOFD.117 Applied to Test Block P35 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 300 mm–600 mm) 

Figure E.118 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.TOFD.117 Applied to Test Block P35 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 300 mm–600 mm) 
E-61 

Figure E.119 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.TOFD.117 Applied to Test Block P35 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 600 mm–900 mm) 

Figure E.120 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.TOFD.117 Applied to Test Block P35 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 600 mm–900 mm) 
E-62 

Figure E.121 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.TOFD.117 Applied to Test Block P40 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 0 mm–800 mm) 

Figure E.122 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.TOFD.117 Applied to Test Block P40 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 0 mm–800 mm) 
E-63 

Figure E.123 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.TOFD.117 Applied to Test Block P40 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 1000 mm–1600 mm) 

Figure E.124 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.TOFD.117 Applied to Test Block P40 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 1000 mm–1600 mm) 
E-64 

Figure E.125 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.TOFD.117 Applied to Test Block P40 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 1800 mm–2400 mm) 

Figure E.126 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.TOFD.117 Applied to Test Block P40 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 1800 mm–2400 mm) 
E-65 

E.2.6 Plots for Team 126 

Figure E.127 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.126 Applied to Test Block P13 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view) 

Figure E.128 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.126 Applied to Test Block P13 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view) 
E-66 

Figure E.129 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.126 Applied to Test Block P13 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Y view) 

Figure E.130 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.126 Applied to Test Block P13 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Z view) 
E-67 

Figure E.131 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.126 Applied to Test Block P33 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 0 mm–800 mm) 

Figure E.132 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.126 Applied to Test Block P33 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 0 mm–800 mm) 
E-68 

Figure E.133 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.126 Applied to Test Block P33 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 1000 mm–1800 mm) 

Figure E.134 Indication Plot for ProcedurePAUT.126 Applied to Test Block P33 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 1000 mm–1800 mm) 
E-69 

Figure E.135 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.126 Applied to Test Block P33 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 2000 mm–2800 mm) 

Figure E.136 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.126 Applied to Test Block P33 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 2000 mm–2800 mm) 
E-70 

Figure E.137 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.126 Applied to Test Block P33 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Y view, 0 mm–800 mm) 

Figure E.138 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.126 Applied to Test Block P33 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Z view, 0 mm–800 mm) 
E-71 

Figure E.139 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.126 Applied to Test Block P33 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Y view, 1000 mm–1800 mm) 

Figure E.140 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.126 Applied to Test Block P33 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Z view, 1000 mm–1800 mm) 
E-72 

Figure E.141 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.126 Applied to Test Block P33 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Y view, 2000 mm–2800 mm) 

Figure E.142 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.126 Applied to Test Block P33 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Z view, 2000 mm–2800 mm) 
E-73 

Figure E.143 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.126 Applied to Test Block P35 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 0 mm–300 mm) 

Figure E.144 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.126 Applied to Test Block P35 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 0 mm–300 mm) 
E-74 

Figure E.145 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.126 Applied to Test Block P35 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 300 mm–600 mm) 

Figure E.146 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.126 Applied to Test Block P35 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 300 mm–600 mm) 
E-75 

Figure E.147 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.126 Applied to Test Block P35 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 600 mm–900 mm) 

Figure E.148 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.126 Applied to Test Block P35 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 600 mm–900 mm) 
E-76 

Figure E.149 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.126 Applied to Test Block P35 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Y view, 0 mm–300 mm) 

Figure E.150 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.126 Applied to Test Block P35 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Z view, 0 mm–300 mm) 
E-77 

Figure E.151 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.126 Applied to Test Block P35 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Y view, 300 mm–600 mm) 

Figure E.152 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.126 Applied to Test Block P35 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Z view, 300 mm–600 mm) 
E-78 

Figure E.153 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.126 Applied to Test Block P35 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Y view, 600 mm–900 mm) 

Figure E.154 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.126 Applied to Test Block P35 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Z view, 600 mm–900 mm) 
E-79 

Figure E.155 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.126 Applied to Test Block P40 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 0 mm–800 mm) 

Figure E.156 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.126 Applied to Test Block P40 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 0 mm–800 mm) 
E-80 

Figure E.157 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.126 Applied to Test Block P40 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 1000 mm–1600 mm) 

Figure E.158 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.126 Applied to Test Block P40 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 1000 mm–1600 mm) 
E-81 

Figure E.159 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.126 Applied to Test Block P40 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 1800 mm–2400 mm) 

Figure E.160 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.126 Applied to Test Block P40 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 1800 mm–2400 mm) 
E-82 

Figure E.161 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.126 Applied to Test Block P40 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Y view, 0 mm–800 mm) 

Figure E.162 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.126 Applied to Test Block P40 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Z view, 0 mm–800 mm) 
E-83 

Figure E.163 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.126 Applied to Test Block P40 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Y view, 1000 mm–1600 mm) 

Figure E.164 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.126 Applied to Test Block P40 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Z view, 1000 mm–1600 mm) 
E-84 

Figure E.165 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.126 Applied to Test Block P40 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Y view, 1800 mm–2400 mm) 

Figure E.166 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.126 Applied to Test Block P40 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Z view, 1800 mm–2400 mm) 
E-85 

E.2.7 Plots for Team 128 

Figure E.167 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.128 Applied to Test Block P35 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 0 mm–300 mm) 

Figure E.168 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.128 Applied to Test Block P35 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 0 mm–300 mm) 
E-86 

Figure E.169 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.128 Applied to Test Block P35 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 300 mm–600 mm) 

Figure E.170 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.128 Applied to Test Block P35 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 300 mm–600 mm) 
E-87 

Figure E.171 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.128 Applied to Test Block P35 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 600 mm–900 mm) 

Figure E.172 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.128 Applied to Test Block P35 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 600 mm–900 mm) 
E-88 

Figure E.173 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.128 Applied to Test Block P40 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 0 mm–800 mm) 

Figure E.174 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.128 Applied to Test Block P40 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 0 mm–800 mm) 
E-89 

Figure E.175 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.128 Applied to Test Block P40 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 1000 mm–1600 mm) 

Figure E.176 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.128 Applied to Test Block P40 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 1000 mm–1600 mm) 
E-90 

Figure E.177 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.128 Applied to Test Block P40 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 1800 mm–2400 mm) 

Figure E.178 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.128 Applied to Test Block P40 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 1800 mm–2400 mm) 
E-91 

E.2.8 Plots for Team 134 

Figure E.179 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.134 Applied to Test Block P13 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Y view) 

Figure E.180 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.134 Applied to Test Block P13 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Z view) 
E-92 

Figure E.181 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.134 Applied to Test Block P33 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Y view, 0 mm–800 mm) 

Figure E.182 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.134 Applied to Test Block P33 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Z view, 0 mm–800 mm) 
E-93 

Figure E.183 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.134 Applied to Test Block P33 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Y view, 1000 mm–1800 mm) 

Figure E.184 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.134 Applied to Test Block P33 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Z view, 1000 mm–1800 mm) 
E-94 

Figure E.185 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.134 Applied to Test Block P33 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Y view, 2000 mm–2800 mm) 

Figure E.186 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.134 Applied to Test Block P33 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Z view, 2000 mm–2800 mm) 
E-95 

Figure E.187 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.134 Applied to Test Block P35 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Y view, 0 mm–300 mm) 

Figure E.188 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.134 Applied to Test Block P35 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Z view, 0 mm–300 mm) 
E-96 

Figure E.189 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.134 Applied to Test Block P35 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Y view, 300 mm–600 mm) 

Figure E.190 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.134 Applied to Test Block P35 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Z view, 300 mm–600 mm) 
E-97 

Figure E.191 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.134 Applied to Test Block P35 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Y view, 600 mm–900 mm) 

Figure E.192 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.134 Applied to Test Block P35 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Z view, 600 mm–900 mm) 
E-98 

Figure E.193 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.134 Applied to Test Block P40 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Y view, 0 mm–800 mm) 

Figure E.194 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.134 Applied to Test Block P40 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Z view, 0 mm–800 mm) 
E-99 

Figure E.195 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.134 Applied to Test Block P40 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Y view, 1000 mm–1600 mm) 

Figure E.196 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.134 Applied to Test Block P40 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Z view, 1000 mm–1600 mm) 
E-100 

Figure E.197 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.134 Applied to Test Block P40 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Y view, 1800 mm–2400 mm) 

Figure E.198 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.134 Applied to Test Block P40 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Z view, 1800 mm–2400 mm) 
E-101 

E.2.9 Plots for Team 135 

Figure E.199 Indication Plot for Procedure ECT.135 Applied to Test Block P33 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 0 mm–800 mm) 

Figure E.200 Indication Plot for Procedure ECT.135 Applied to Test Block P33 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 0 mm–800 mm) 
E-102 

Figure E.201 Indication Plot for Procedure ECT.135 Applied to Test Block P33 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 1000 mm–1800 mm) 

Figure E.202 Indication Plot for Procedure ECT.135 Applied to Test Block P33 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 1000 mm–1800 mm) 
E-103 

Figure E.203 Indication Plot for Procedure ECT.135 Applied to Test Block P33 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 2000 mm–2800 mm) 

Figure E.204 Indication Plot for Procedure ECT.135 Applied to Test Block P33 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 2000 mm–2800 mm) 
E-104 

E.2.10 Plots for Team 144 

Figure E.205 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.ECT.144 Applied to Test Block P13 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view) 

Figure E.206 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.ECT.144 Applied to Test Block P13 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view) 
E-105 

Figure E.207 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.ECT.144 Applied to Test Block P33 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 0 mm–800 mm) 

Figure E.208 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.ECT.144 Applied to Test Block P33 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 0 mm–800 mm) 
E-106 

Figure E.209 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.ECT.144 Applied to Test Block P33 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 1000 mm–1800 mm) 

Figure E.210 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.ECT.144 Applied to Test Block P33 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 1000 mm–1800 mm) 
E-107 

Figure E.211 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.ECT.144 Applied to Test Block P33 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Y view, 2000 mm–2800 mm) 

Figure E.212 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.ECT.144 Applied to Test Block P33 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (X – Z view, 2000 mm–2800 mm) 
E-108 

Figure E.213 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.25 Applied to Test Block P35 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Y view, 0 mm–300 mm) 

Figure E.214 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.25 Applied to Test Block P35 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Z view, 0 mm–300 mm) 
E-109 

Figure E.215 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.25 Applied to Test Block P35 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Y view, 300 mm–600 mm) 

Figure E.216 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.25 Applied to Test Block P35 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Z view, 300 mm–600 mm) 
E-110 

Figure E.217 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.25 Applied to Test Block P35 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Y view, 600 mm–800 mm) 

Figure E.218 Indication Plot for Procedure UT.25 Applied to Test Block P35 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (X – Z view, 600 mm–800 mm) 
E-111 

E.3 BMI Inspection Summary Results 

E.3.1 Plots for Team 108 

Figure E.219 Indication Plot for Procedure ECT.108 Applied to Test Block P25 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (theta – R view) 

Figure E.220 Indication Plot for Procedure ECT.108 Applied to Test Block P25 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (theta – Z view) 
E-112 

Figure E.221 Indication Plot for Procedure ECT.108 Applied to Test Block P26 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (theta – R view) 

Figure E.222 Indication Plot for Procedure ECT.108 Applied to Test Block P26 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (theta – Z view) 
E-113 

Figure E.223 Indication Plot for Procedure ECT.108 Applied to Test Block P6 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (theta – R view) 

Figure E.224 Indication Plot for Procedure ECT.108 Applied to Test Block P6 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (theta – Z view) 
E-114 

Figure E.225 Indication Plot for Procedure ECT.108 Applied to Test Block P8 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (theta – R view) 

Figure E.226 Indication Plot for Procedure ECT.108 Applied to Test Block P8 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (theta – Z view) 
E-115 

Figure E.227 Indication Plot for Procedure ECT.108 Applied to Test Block P9 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (theta – R view) 

Figure E.228 Indication Plot for Procedure ECT.108 Applied to Test Block P9 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (theta – Z view) 
E-116 

E.3.2 Plots for Team 124 

Figure E.229 Indication Plot for Procedure ECT.124 Applied to Test Block P25 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (theta – R view) 

Figure E.230 Indication Plot for Procedure ECT.124 Applied to Test Block P25 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (theta – Z view) 
E-117 

Figure E.231 Indication Plot for Procedure ECT.124 Applied to Test Block P26 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (theta – R view) 

Figure E.232 Indication Plot for Procedure ECT.124 Applied to Test Block P26 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (theta – Z view) 
E-118 

Figure E.233 Indication Plot for Procedure ECT.124 Applied to Test Block P6 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (theta – R view) 

Figure E.234 Indication Plot for Procedure ECT.124 Applied to Test Block P6 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (theta – Z view) 
E-119 

Figure E.235 Indication Plot for Procedure ECT.124 Applied to Test Block P8 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (theta – R view) 

Figure E.236 Indication Plot for Procedure ECT.124 Applied to Test Block P8 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (theta – Z view) 
E-120 

Figure E.237 Indication Plot for Procedure ECT.124 Applied to Test Block P9 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (theta – R view) 

Figure E.238 Indication Plot for Procedure ECT.124 Applied to Test Block P9 in PARENT 

Blind Testing (theta – Z view) 
E-121 

E.3.3 Plots for Team 126 

Figure E.239 Indication Plot for Procedure TOFD.ECT.126 Applied to Test Block P25 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (theta – R view) 

Figure E.240 Indication Plot for Procedure TOFD.ECT.126 Applied to Test Block P25 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (theta – Z view) 
E-122 

Figure E.241 Indication Plot for Procedure TOFD.ECT.126 Applied to Test Block P26 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (theta – R view) 

Figure E.242 Indication Plot for Procedure TOFD.ECT.126 Applied to Test Block P26 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (theta – Z view) 
E-123 

E.4 WOL Inspection Summary Results 

E.4.1 Plots for Team 108 

Figure E.243 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.108.WOL Applied to Test Block P27 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (theta – R view) 

Figure E.244 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.108.WOL Applied to Test Block P27 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (theta – Z view) 
E-124 

E.4.2 Plots for Team 126 

Figure E.245 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.126.WOL Applied to Test Block P27 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (theta – R view) 

Figure E.246 Indication Plot for Procedure PAUT.126.WOL Applied to Test Block P27 in 

PARENT Blind Testing (theta – Z view) 
APPENDIX F 

–

PROBABILITY OF DETECTION CURVES 

F-1 

APPENDIX F 

PROBABILITY OF DETECTION CURVES 

Contents 

F.1 Probability of Detection Curves ........................................................................................ F-2

F.1.1 POD vs. Flaw Depth Results ................................................................................ F-2

F.1.1.1 POD vs. Flaw Depth Results for LBDMWs (I.D. Access) ....................... F-2

F.1.1.2 POD vs. Depth Results for LBDMWs (O.D. Access) .............................. F-5

F.1.1.3 POD vs. Depth Results for SBDMWs ..................................................... F-6

F.1.1.4 POD vs. Depth Results for BMIs (Tube I.D. Access) ............................. F-8

F.1.2 POD vs. Length Results ..................................................................................... F-10

F.1.2.1 POD vs. Length Results for LBDMWs (I.D. Access) ............................ F-10

F.1.2.2 POD vs. Length Results for LBDMWs (O.D. Access) .......................... F-13

F.1.2.3 POD vs. Length Results for SBDMWs ................................................. F-14

F.1.2.4 POD vs. Length Results for BMIs (J-Groove Surface) ......................... F-16

F.2 Probability of Detection Curves (Blind + Quick-blind) .................................................... F-18

F.2.1 POD vs. Depth Results ...................................................................................... F-18

F.2.1.1 POD vs. Depth Results for LBDMWs (I.D. Access) .............................. F-18

F.2.1.2 POD vs. Depth Results for LBDMWs (O.D. Access) ............................ F-20

F.2.2 POD vs. Length Results ..................................................................................... F-22

F.2.2.1 POD vs. Length Results for LBDMWs (I.D. Access) ............................ F-22

F.2.2.2 POD vs. Length Results for LBDMWs (O.D. Access) .......................... F-24
F-2 

F.1 Probability of Detection Curves 

F.1.1 POD vs. Flaw Depth Results 

F.1.1.1 POD vs. Flaw Depth Results for LBDMWs (I.D. Access) 

Figure F.1 POD versus Depth (mm) for All Procedures Applied to LBDMW Test Blocks 

with I.D. Access 
F-3 

Figure F.2 POD versus Depth (mm) for ECT Procedures Applied to LBDMW Test Blocks 

with I.D. Access 

Figure F.3 POD versus Depth (mm) for UT.ECT Procedures Applied to LBDMW Test 

Blocks with I.D. Access 
F-4 

Figure F.4 POD versus Depth (mm) for UT.PAUT Procedures Applied to LBDMW Test 

Blocks with I.D. Access 

Figure F.5 POD versus Depth (mm) for UT.TOFD.ECT Procedures Applied to LBDMW 

Test Blocks with I.D. Access 
F-5 

F.1.1.2 POD vs. Depth Results for LBDMWs (O.D. Access) 

Figure F.6 POD versus Depth (mm) for All Procedures Applied to LBDMW Test Blocks 

with O.D. Access 

Figure F.7 POD versus Depth (mm) for PAUT Procedures Applied to LBDMW Test 

Blocks with O.D. Access 
F-6 

Figure F.8 POD versus Depth (mm) for UT Procedures Applied to LBDMW Test Blocks 

with O.D. Access 

F.1.1.3 POD vs. Depth Results for SBDMWs 

Figure F.9 POD versus Depth (mm) for All Procedures Applied to SBDMW Test Blocks 
F-7 

Figure F.10 POD versus Depth (mm) for PAUT Procedures Applied to SBDMW Test 

Blocks 

Figure F.11 POD versus Depth (mm) for UT Procedures Applied to SBDMW Test Blocks 
F-8 

Figure F.12 POD versus Depth (mm) for UT.TOFD Procedures Applied to SBDMW Test 

Blocks 

F.1.1.4 POD vs. Depth Results for BMIs (Tube I.D. Access) 

Figure F.13 POD versus Depth (mm) for ECT Procedures Applied to BMI Test Blocks 
F-9 

Figure F.14 POD versus Depth (mm) for TOFD Procedures Applied to BMI Test Blocks 
F-10 

F.1.2 POD vs. Length Results 

F.1.2.1 POD vs. Length Results for LBDMWs (I.D. Access) 

Figure F.15 POD versus Length (mm) for All Procedures Applied to LBDMW Test 

Blocks with I.D. Access 
F-11 

Figure F.16 POD versus Length (mm) for ECT Procedures Applied to LBDMW Test 

Blocks with I.D. Access 

Figure F.17 POD versus Length (mm) for UT.ECT Procedures Applied to LBDMW Test 

Blocks with I.D. Access 
F-12 

Figure F.18 POD versus Length (mm) for UT.PAUT Procedures Applied to LBDMW Test 

Blocks with I.D. Access 

Figure F.19 POD versus Length (mm) for UT.TOFD.ECT Procedures Applied to LBDMW 

Test Blocks with I.D. Access 
F-13 

F.1.2.2 POD vs. Length Results for LBDMWs (O.D. Access) 

Figure F.20 POD versus Length (mm) for All Procedures Applied to LBDMW Test 

Blocks with O.D. Access 

Figure F.21 POD versus Length (mm) for PAUT Procedures Applied to LBDMW Test 

Blocks with O.D. Access 
F-14 

Figure F.22 POD versus Length (mm) for UT Procedures Applied to LBDMW Test 

Blocks with O.D. Access 

F.1.2.3 POD vs. Length Results for SBDMWs 

Figure F.23 POD versus Length (mm) for All Procedures Applied to SBDMW Test Blocks 
F-15 

Figure F.24 POD versus Length (mm) for PAUT Procedures Applied to SBDMW Test 

Blocks 

Figure F.25 POD versus Length (mm) for UT Procedures Applied to SBDMW Test 

Blocks 
F-16 

Figure F.26 POD versus Length (mm) for UT.TOFD Procedures Applied to SBDMW Test 

Blocks 

F.1.2.4 POD vs. Length Results for BMIs (J-Groove Surface) 

Figure F.27 POD versus Length (mm) for ECT Procedures Applied to BMI Test Blocks 
F-17 

Figure F.28 POD versus Length (mm) for TOFD Procedures Applied to BMI Test Blocks 
F-18 

F.2 Probability of Detection Curves (Blind + Quick-blind) 

F.2.1 POD vs. Depth Results 

F.2.1.1 POD vs. Depth Results for LBDMWs (I.D. Access) 

Figure F.29 POD versus Depth (mm) for All Procedures Applied to LBDMW Test Blocks 

with I.D. Access (Blind + Quick-blind) 
F-19 

Figure F.30 POD versus Depth (mm) for PAUT Procedures Applied to LBDMW Test 

Blocks with I.D. Access (Blind + Quick-blind) 

Figure F.31 POD versus Depth (mm) for UT.ECT Procedures Applied to LBDMW Test 

Blocks with I.D. Access (Blind + Quick-blind) 
F-20 

Figure F.32 POD versus Depth (mm) for UT.PAUT Procedures Applied to LBDMW Test 

Blocks with I.D. Access (Blind + Quick-blind) 

F.2.1.2 POD vs. Depth Results for LBDMWs (O.D. Access) 

Figure F.33 POD versus Depth (mm) for All Procedures Applied to LBDMW Test Blocks 

with O.D. Access (Blind + Quick-blind) 
F-21 

Figure F.34 POD versus Depth (mm) for UT Procedures Applied to LBDMW Test Blocks 

with O.D. Access (Blind + Quick-blind) 

Figure F.35 POD versus Depth (mm) for UT.PAUT Procedures Applied to LBDMW Test 

Blocks with O.D. Access (Blind + Quick-blind) 
F-22 

F.2.2 POD vs. Length Results 

F.2.2.1 POD vs. Length Results for LBDMWs (I.D. Access) 

Figure F.36 POD versus Length (mm) for All Procedures Applied to LBDMW Test 

Blocks with I.D. Access (Blind + Quick-blind) 
F-23 

Figure F.37 POD versus Length (mm) for PAUT Procedures Applied to LBDMW Test 

Blocks with I.D. Access (Blind + Quick-blind) 

Figure F.38 POD versus Length (mm) for UT.ECT Procedures Applied to LBDMW Test 

Blocks with I.D. Access (Blind + Quick-blind) 
F-24 

Figure F.39 POD versus Length (mm) for UT.PAUT Procedures Applied to LBDMW Test 

Blocks with I.D. Access (Blind + Quick-blind) 

F.2.2.2 POD vs. Length Results for LBDMWs (O.D. Access) 

Figure F.40 POD versus Length (mm) for All Procedures Applied to LBDMW Test 

Blocks with O.D. Access (Blind + Quick-blind) 
F-25 

Figure F.41 POD versus Length (mm) for UT Procedures Applied to LBDMW Test 

Blocks with O.D. Access (Blind + Quick-blind) 

Figure F.42 POD versus Length (mm) for UT.PAUT Procedures Applied to LBDMW Test 

Blocks with O.D. Access (Blind + Quick-blind) 

APPENDIX G 

–

SIZING REGRESSION PLOTS 

G-1 

APPENDIX G| 

SIZING REGRESSION PLOTS 

Contents 

G.1 Sizing Results .................................................................................................................. G-2

G.1.1 Depth Sizing Results ............................................................................................ G-2

G.1.1.1 Depth Sizing Results for LBDMWs (I.D. Access) .................................. G-2

G.1.1.2 Depth Sizing Results for LBDMWs (O.D. Access) ................................ G-8

G.1.1.3 Depth Sizing Results for SBDMWs ..................................................... G-15

G.1.1.4 Depth Sizing Results for BMIs (Tube I.D. Access) .............................. G-27

G.1.2 Length Sizing Results ......................................................................................... G-28

G.1.2.1 Length Sizing Results for LBDMWs (I.D. Access) ............................... G-28

G.1.2.2 Length Sizing Results for LBDMWs (O.D. Access) ............................. G-36

G.1.2.3 Length Sizing Results for SBDMWs .................................................... G-43

G.1.2.4 Length Sizing Results for BMIs (J-Groove Surface) ............................ G-55

G.2 Sizing Results (Blind + Quick-blind) ............................................................................... G-58

G.2.1 Depth Sizing Results .......................................................................................... G-58

G.2.1.1 Depth Sizing Results for LBDMWs (I.D. Access) ................................ G-58

G.2.1.2 Depth Sizing Results for LBDMWs (O.D. Access) .............................. G-64

G.2.2 Length Sizing Results ......................................................................................... G-69

G.2.2.1 Length Sizing Results for LBDMWs (I.D. Access) ............................... G-69

G.2.2.2 Length Sizing Results for LBDMWs (O.D. Access) ............................. G-73
G-2 

G.1 Sizing Results 

G.1.1 Depth Sizing Results 

G.1.1.1 Depth Sizing Results for LBDMWs (I.D. Access) 

Figure G.1 Depth Sizing Regression (in mm) for UT.ECT Procedures on LBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (I.D. Access) 
G-3 

Figure G.2 Depth Sizing Regression (in mm) for UT.PAUT Procedures on LBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (I.D. Access) 
G-4 

Figure G.3 Depth Sizing Regression (in mm) for UT.TOFD.ECT Procedures on LBDMW 

Test Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (I.D. Access) 
G-5 

Figure G.4 Depth Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure UT.ECT.144 on LBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (I.D. Access) 
G-6 

Figure G.5 Depth Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure UT.PAUT.113 on LBDMW 

Test Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (I.D. Access) 
G-7 

Figure G.6 Depth Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure UT.TOFD.ECT.101 on 

LBDMW Test Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (I.D. Access) 
G-8 

G.1.1.2 Depth Sizing Results for LBDMWs (O.D. Access) 

Figure G.7 Depth Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure PAUT on LBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (O.D. Access) 
G-9 

Figure G.8 Depth Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure UT on LBDMW Test Blocks in 

PARENT Blind Testing (O.D. Access) 
G-10 

Figure G.9 Depth Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure PAUT.108 on LBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (O.D. Access) 
G-11 

Figure G.10 Depth Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure PAUT.126 on LBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (O.D. Access) 
G-12 

Figure G.11 Depth Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure UT.108 on LBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (O.D. Access) 
G-13 

Figure G.12 Depth Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure UT.126 on LBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (O.D. Access) 
G-14 

Figure G.13 Depth Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure UT.134 on LBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (O.D. Access) 
G-15 

G.1.1.3 Depth Sizing Results for SBDMWs 

Figure G.14 Depth Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure PAUT on SBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (O.D. Access) 
G-16 

Figure G.15 Depth Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure UT on SBDMW Test Blocks 

in PARENT Blind Testing (O.D. Access) 
G-17 

Figure G.16 Depth Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure UT.TOFD on SBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (O.D. Access) 
G-18 

Figure G.17 Depth Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure PAUT.108 on SBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (O.D. Access) 
G-19 

Figure G.18 Depth Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure PAUT.115 on SBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (O.D. Access) 
G-20 

Figure G.19 Depth Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure PAUT.126 on SBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (O.D. Access) 
G-21 

Figure G.20 Depth Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure PAUT.128 on SBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (O.D. Access) 
G-22 

Figure G.21 Depth Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure UT.108 on SBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (O.D. Access) 
G-23 

Figure G.22 Depth Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure UT.126 on SBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (O.D. Access) 
G-24 

Figure G.23 Depth Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure UT.134 on SBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (O.D. Access) 
G-25 

Figure G.24 Depth Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure UT.25 on SBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (O.D. Access) 
G-26 

Figure G.25 Depth Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure UT.TOFD.117 on SBDMW 

Test Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (O.D. Access) 
G-27 

G.1.1.4 Depth Sizing Results for BMIs (Tube I.D. Access) 

Figure G.26 Depth Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure TOFD.ECT.126 on BMI Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing 
G-28 

G.1.2 Length Sizing Results 

G.1.2.1 Length Sizing Results for LBDMWs (I.D. Access) 

Figure G.27 Length Sizing Regression (in mm) for ECT Procedures on LBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (I.D. Access) 
G-29 

Figure G.28 Length Sizing Regression (in mm) for UT.ECT Procedures on LBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (I.D. Access) 
G-30 

Figure G.29 Length Sizing Regression (in mm) for UT.PAUT Procedures on LBDMW 

Test Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (I.D. Access) 
G-31 

Figure G.30 Length Sizing Regression (in mm) for UT.TOFD.ECT Procedures on 

LBDMW Test Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (I.D. Access) 
G-32 

Figure G.31 Length Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure ECT.135 on LBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (I.D. Access) 
G-33 

Figure G.32 Length Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure UT.ETC.144 on LBDMW 

Test Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (I.D. Access) 
G-34 

Figure G.33 Length Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure UT.PAUT.113 on LBDMW 

Test Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (I.D. Access) 
G-35 

Figure G.34 Length Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure UT.TOFD.ECT.101 on 

LBDMW Test Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (I.D. Access) 
G-36 

G.1.2.2 Length Sizing Results for LBDMWs (O.D. Access) 

Figure G.35 Length Sizing Regression (in mm) for PAUT Procedures on LBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (O.D. Access) 
G-37 

Figure G.36 Length Sizing Regression (in mm) for UT Procedure on LBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (O.D. Access) 
G-38 

Figure G.37 Length Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure PAUT.108 on LBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (O.D. Access) 
G-39 

Figure G.38 Length Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure PAUT.126 on LBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (O.D. Access) 
G-40 

Figure G.39 Length Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure UT.108 on LBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (O.D. Access) 
G-41 

Figure G.40 Length Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure UT.126 on LBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (O.D. Access) 
G-42 

Figure G.41 Length Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure UT.134 on LBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (O.D. Access) 
G-43 

G.1.2.3 Length Sizing Results for SBDMWs 

Figure G.42 Length Sizing Regression (in mm) for PAUT Procedure on SBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing 
G-44 

Figure G.43 Length Sizing Regression (in mm) for UT Procedure on SBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing 
G-45 

Figure G.44 Length Sizing Regression (in mm) for UT.TOFD Procedure on SBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing 
G-46 

Figure G.45 Length Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure PAUT.108 on SBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing 
G-47 

Figure G.46 Length Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure PAUT.115 on SBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing 
G-48 

Figure G.47 Length Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure PAUT.126 on SBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing 
G-49 

Figure G.48 Length Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure PAUT.128 on SBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing 
G-50 

Figure G.49 Length Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure UT.108 on SBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing 
G-51 

Figure G.50 Length Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure UT.126 on SBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing 
G-52 

Figure G.51 Length Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure UT.134 on SBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing 
G-53 

Figure G.52 Length Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure UT.25 on SBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing 
G-54 

Figure G.53 Length Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure UT.TOFD.117 on SBDMW 

Test Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing 
G-55 

G.1.2.4 Length Sizing Results for BMIs (J-Groove Surface) 

Figure G.54 Length Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure ECT.108 on BMI Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing 
G-56 

Figure G.55 Length Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure ECT.124 on BMI Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing 
G-57 

Figure G.56 Length Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure TOFD.ECT.126 on BMI 

Test Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing 
G-58 

G.2 Sizing Results (Blind + Quick-blind) 

G.2.1 Depth Sizing Results 

G.2.1.1 Depth Sizing Results for LBDMWs (I.D. Access) 

Figure G.57 Depth Sizing Regression (in mm) for PAUT Procedures on LBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (I.D. Access – Quick-blind) 
G-59 

Figure G.58 Depth Sizing Regression (in mm) for UT.ECT Procedures on LBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (I.D. Access – Blind + Quick-blind) 
G-60 

Figure G.59 Depth Sizing Regression (in mm) for UT.PAUT Procedures on LBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (I.D. Access – Blind + Quick-blind) 
G-61 

Figure G.60 Depth Sizing Regression (in mm) for PAUT.132 Procedures on LBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (I.D. Access – Quick-blind) 
G-62 

Figure G.61 Depth Sizing Regression (in mm) for UT.ECT.106 Procedures on LBDMW 

Test Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (I.D. Access – Quick-blind) 
G-63 

Figure G.62 Depth Sizing Regression (in mm) for UT.PAUT.113 Procedures on LBDMW 

Test Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (I.D. Access – Blind + Quick-blind) 
G-64 

G.2.1.2 Depth Sizing Results for LBDMWs (O.D. Access) 

Figure G.63 Depth Sizing Regression (in mm) for UT Procedures on LBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (O.D. Access – Blind + Quick-blind) 
G-65 

Figure G.64 Depth Sizing Regression (in mm) for UT.PAUT Procedures on LBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (O.D. Access – Quick-blind) 
G-66 

Figure G.65 Depth Sizing Regression (in mm) for UT.134 Procedures on LBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (O.D. Access – Blind + Quick-blind) 
G-67 

Figure G.66 Depth Sizing Regression (in mm) for UT.PAUT.108 Procedures on LBDMW 

Test Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (O.D. Access – Quick-blind) 
G-68 

Figure G.67 Depth Sizing Regression (in mm) for UT.PAUT.126 Procedures on LBDMW 

Test Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (O.D. Access – Quick-blind) 
G-69 

G.2.2 Length Sizing Results 

G.2.2.1 Length Sizing Results for LBDMWs (I.D. Access) 

Figure G.68 Length Sizing Regression (in mm) for UT.ECT Procedure on LBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (I.D. Access – Blind + Quick-blind) 
G-70 

Figure G.69 Length Sizing Regression (in mm) for UT.PAUT Procedure on LBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (I.D. Access – Blind + Quick-blind) 
G-71 

Figure G.70 Length Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure UT.ECT.106 on LBDMW 

Test Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (I.D. Access – Quick-blind) 
G-72 

Figure G.71 Length Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure UT.PAUT.113 on LBDMW 

Test Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (I.D. Access – Blind + Quick-blind) 
G-73

G.2.2.2 Length Sizing Results for LBDMWs (O.D. Access) 

Figure G.72 Length Sizing Regression (in mm) for UT Procedure on LBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (O.D. Access – Blind + Quick-blind) 
G-74 

Figure G.73 Length Sizing Regression (in mm) for UT.PAUT Procedure on LBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (O.D. Access – Quick-blind) 
G-75 

Figure G.74 Length Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure UT.134 on LBDMW Test 

Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (O.D. Access – Blind + Quick-blind) 
G-76 

Figure G.75 Length Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure UT.PAUT.108 on LBDMW 

Test Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (O.D. Access – Quick-blind) 
G-77 

Figure G.76 Length Sizing Regression (in mm) for Procedure UT.PAUT.126 on LBDMW 

Test Blocks in PARENT Blind Testing (O.D. Access – Quick-blind) 

APPENDIX H 

–

EFFECTIVENESS EVOLUTION OF DMW INSPECTION 

TECHNIQUES ASSESSED THROUGH THREE 

INTERNATIONAL RRTs 

H-1 

APPENDIX H 

EFFECTIVENESS EVOLUTION OF DMW INSPECTION TECHNIQUES 

ASSESSED THROUGH THREE INTERNATIONAL RRTs 

1Tommy Zettervall, 2Steven R Doctor 

1SQC Swedish Qualification Centre, 

P.O.Box 519, 183 25 Täby, Sweden 

2Pacific Northwest National Laboratory PNNL, 

P.O. Box 999, MSIN K5-26, Richland, WA 99352, USA 

E-mail address: tommy.zetterwall@sqc.se; steven.doctor@pnnl.gov 

Abstract 

Nickel-based alloy cracking of reactor pressure boundary components has been a worldwide 

concern for about 25 years. Increased inspection frequencies, improved inspection practices, and 

increased licensee vigilance continue to identify nickel-based alloy cracking in vessel penetrations 

and various components of the primary coolant loop. To address the issue of quantifying the 

effectiveness of NDE, a number of international Round-Robin Tests (RRT) have been conducted 

since 1986. 

The first RRT was PISC III Action No. 3 which was initiated in 1986 with the objective to evaluate 

the non-destructive examination (NDE) performance capability of in-service inspection (ISI) 

procedures used for structural integrity assessment of safe-end welds in power plants. A number 

of test pieces were manufactured with state of the art techniques at that time for implanting flaws 

simulating the NDE response expected from service degradation. 

The next RRT was the PINC project initiated in 2005 addressing the problem of primary water 

stress corrosion cracking/interdendritic stress corrosion cracking (PWSCC/IDSCC), which is a 

form of degradation observed in some reactor piping and pressure vessel components. PINC was 

designed to understand the crack morphology and to assess the NDE evaluation of 

procedures/techniques for the detection, characterization and sizing of SCC. PINC provided data 

that enabled a quantitative assessment of both commercially available and evolving laboratory 

NDE techniques. Two types of nickel-alloy components were studied, bottom-mounted 

instrumentation penetrations (BMI) and dissimilar metal piping welds (DMWs). 

An on-going RRT is PARENT that was initiated in 2010 as a follow-up to the PINC RRT and is 

planned to be finished in 2015. The PARENT RRT comprises a study of the efficiency of NDE 

techniques for detecting, characterizing and sizing SCC defect types in nickel-based materials. 

Emerging techniques were demonstrated in open tests and commercial techniques in blind tests. 

The objectives of this paper is to compare results, make conclusions and propose future activities 

based upon these three international RRT’s conducted over the past three decades. The paper 

will also include a comparison of field experience from detected PWSCC/IDSCC at power plants 

in the USA and Sweden. One focus is the NDE signal responses versus the crack morphology 

that have been simulated in test pieces with respect to real crack morphologies. 
H-2 

H.1 Objectives 

Nickel-based alloy cracking of reactor pressure boundary components has been a worldwide 

concern for about 25 years. Increased inspection frequencies, improved inspection practices, and 

increased licensee vigilance continue to identify nickel-based alloy cracking in vessel penetrations 

and various other piping components of the primary coolant loop. To address the issue of 

quantifying the effectiveness of NDE, a number of international RRTs have been conducted since 

1986. 

The objectives of this paper is to compare results, make conclusions and propose future activities 

based upon these three international RRT’s conducted over the past three decades. The paper 

will also include a comparison of field experience from detected PWSCC/IDSCC at power plants 

in the USA and Sweden. One focus is the NDE signal responses versus the crack morphology 

that have been simulated in test pieces with respect to real crack morphologies. 

The first RRT was PISC III Action No. 3 (Programme for the Inspection of Steel Components) 

which was initiated in 1986 and ended in 1993 with the objective to evaluate the NDE 

performance capability of ISI procedures used for structural integrity assessment of dissimilar 

metal safe-end welds in nuclear power plants. A number of test pieces were manufactured with 

state of the art techniques at that time for implanting flaws simulating the NDE response expected 

from service degradation. 

The next RRT was the PINC project (Programme for the Inspection of Nickel-Alloy Components) 

initiated in 2005 addressing the problem of primary water stress corrosion cracking 

(PWSCC/IDSCC), which is a form of degradation observed in some reactor piping and pressure 

vessel components. PINC was designed to understand the crack morphology and to assess the 

NDE performance of procedures/techniques for the detection, characterization and sizing of SCC. 

PINC provided data that enabled a quantitative assessment of both commercially available and 

evolving laboratory NDE techniques. Two types of nickel-alloy components were studied—BMI 

and DMWs. 

An on-going RRT is PARENT (Program to Assess the Reliability of Emerging Non-destructive 

Techniques) that was initiated in 2010 as a follow-up to the PINC RRT and is planned to be 

finished in 2015. The PARENT RRT comprises a study of the efficiency of NDE techniques for 

detecting, characterizing and sizing SCC defect types in nickel-based materials. Emerging 

techniques were demonstrated in open tests and commercial techniques in blind tests. The test 

assemblies included large-bore DMWs, small-bore DMWs, BMIs and a weld overlay configuration. 

H.2 PISC III Action No. 3 

H.2.1 General 

The PISC Program (Program for the Inspection of Steel Components) had the general objective 

of assessing procedures and techniques in use for the inspection of nuclear power plant 

pressurized components. 

The third phase of PISC III consisted of eight actions and Action No. 3 was dealing with the 

evaluation of the effectiveness and reliability of NDE procedures on, at that time, realistic defects 

in dissimilar metal weldments. This phase was conducted during the years 1986 to 1993 as an 

international RRT. 

Action No. 3 consisted of RRT on three test assemblies that were representative of safe-end 

weldments in both BWR and PWR designs based in general on the drawings, materials and 
H-3 

manufacturing procedures actually used in the nuclear industry. All nozzle ends were clad with 

stainless steel and buttered and welded with Ni-alloy (Inconel). A total of 25 flaws were 

intentionally introduced, these flaws having a through-wall depth size ranging from 10% to 50% of 

the local wall thickness. 

The products of the exercise focused on the capability of procedures and techniques for detection 

and sizing, assessment of inspections on the most difficult cases and evaluation of the false calls 

probabilities in safe-end welds. 

Each of the test assemblies was given a blind examination by 20 teams in 10 different countries 

using a range of industrial and laboratory methods that included the best method currently 

available. Most of teams used ultrasonic techniques, both with compression and shear wave 

probes, with manual or automated scanning. Two teams also provided radiography inspection 

results for detection. The flaw detection rate capability for radiography was similar to the average 

of UT, but with a higher false call rate (FCR). For classification and sizing, teams used a variety of 

different techniques including tandem, focusing probes, mode conversion and time-of-flightdiffraction (TOFD). 

H.2.2 Test Pieces in PISC III Action No. 3 

Three test assemblies were available for Action No. 3 having representative drawings, materials 

and manufacturing procedures typical of those employed in the nuclear industry. The three test 

assemblies were named Assembly 20, 24 and 25. However, Assembly 20 contains two safe-end 

pipe configurations, referred as Assemblies No. 21 and No. 22. Assemblies No. 21 and 22 were 

based on a BWR pressure vessel including nozzle to safe-end welds and safe-end to pipe welds. 

Only Assembly 21 is of interest for this study and comparison with other RRT’s due to the flaw 

simulations that it contained. 

H.2.2.1 Assembly No. 20, 21and 22 

Welds in Assembly 21 (PISC 1993a) included crack simulations utilizing both machining and 

welding processes. Two crack simulations were of PISC Type A, which was a machining process 

coupled with electrical discharge machining (EDM). These flaws represent a smooth crack with 

sharp tip. 

The four welding flaws were introduced by ENSA and represent surface breaking smooth cracks. 

These cracks were obtained by welding and modifying the welding process or by including 

poisoning material during welding, and were placed in the weld fusion line. The wall thickness at 

the nozzle to safe-end weld was 40 mm and at the safe-end to pipe weld it was 35 mm. 

Welds in Assembly 22 contained lack of root penetration, several groups of porosities, and lack of 

fusion. These flaws are not of interest in this study for the evaluation of procedures/ techniques to 

detect and size PWSCC/IDSCC and thus, this assembly is not included in this evaluation. 

H.2.2.2 Assembly No. 24 

Assembly 24 (PISC 1993b) was a precise copy of a BWR nozzle to safe-end weld and was 

manufactured with Inconel 182 buttering and weld. Fifteen intentional flaws were introduced using 

different methods, such as welding process errors, welding of implants and three were the PISC 

Type A machined flaws. 

H.2.2.3 Assembly No. 25 

Assembly No. 25 (PISC 1993c) was intended to simulate a PWR safe-end area. The ferritic 

nozzle pipe was clad with stainless steel and joined to a cast pipe using Inconel 182 weld and 
H-4 

buttering. Nine flaws were intentionally introduced by different implanting techniques, where five of 

them were located in the fusion line or in the weld material of the safe-end weld. Fabrication was 

performed with machined slots and then filled using crack type electrodes, e.g., doped electrodes. 

H.2.3 Results of PISC III Action No. 3 

The first important conclusion to be noted is that only a few of the teams reached a flaw detection 

frequency (FDF) of 80%. Moreover the results were further marred by the large number of false 

calls. Considering the effectiveness of through-wall depth sizing there was, on average an overall 

slight tendency to oversize along with a comparatively large standard deviation. The overall 

dispersion of sizing error was of the order of ± 5 mm. 

The effectiveness of correctly classifying flaws, the correct rejection frequency (CRF), was on 

average below 70%. It was found that teams that achieved a high CRF also showed a tendency to 

oversize flaws leading to incorrect rejection of acceptable flaws and also to high FCRs. 

It was also found that the overall effectiveness was somewhat lower for the inspections conducted 

on Assembly 20. This was explained by the existence of many natural occurring welding flaws 

and the smaller size of the intended flaws in the complex heterogeneous weldment. 

Figure H.1 (European Communities 1994; Dombret 1995) illustrates the average flaw detection 

and correct rejection performance of the procedure families A–H, versus their FCRs. Table H.1 

(Dombret 1995) specifies the acronyms used in the evaluation principles of inspection results and 

the Procedure families that were used. 

Table H.1 Procedure Families and Acronyms of Evaluation Principles 

Procedure Families Evaluation Principles 

A: Manual scanning FDF: Reference flaws that are detected by a team 

B: Automatic scanning CRF Rejectable defects that are correctly rejected by a 

team 

C: Recording at noise level CAF Acceptable flaws that are correctly accepted by a team

D: Recording at 10 – 25% DAC MESZ Mean error of sizing in the depth direction 

E: Recording at 50% DAC SESZ Standard deviation of sizing in depth direction 

F: Manual scanning at noise level FCRD No. of false calls in the total number of detected flaws 

G: Automatic scanning at noise level FCRR No. of false calls in rejectable number of detected 

flaws 

H: Focusing probes, with high 

sensitivity from I.D. 

 
H-5 

Figure H.1 PISC III Action No. 3 Results of Inspection Procedure Families 

Considering the relevant points in Figure H.1, it is clearly seen that those techniques which 

recorded all the indications that were above the level of the general background noise, i.e. those 

which did not make use of an amplitude threshold (F, C, G, H) were more efficient than those 

(D,E) which only recorded indications which exceeded a threshold in the range 10% to 25% or 

50% of the standard level. Techniques which limited their reports to only indications which 

exceeded 50% DAC gave unsatisfactory results as seen from Table H.2.1 

 

1 Nichols RW. 1999. “Some Achievements of the Third Part of the OECD/CEC Program for the 

Inspection of Steel Components (PISC III).” 
H-6 

Table H.2 PISC III Action No. 3 Results for Different Reporting Levels 

Evaluation Assembly FDF CRF FCRD FCRR MESZ SESZ 

Noise Level 

20 0,33 0,65 0,29 0,24 3,3 7 

24 0,73 0,77 0,35 0,30 1,5 4 

25 0,78 0,64 0,13 0,08 −2,5 5 

10–25% DAC 

20 0,32 0,27 0,47 0,39 4,0 5 

24 0,54 0,59 0,49 0,38 0,0 5 

25 0,82 0,78 0,24 0,07 −0,3 6 

50% DAC 

20 0,18 0,10 0,17 0,5 −0,5 2 

24 0,34 0,28 0,28 0,0 −1,3 7 

25 0,73 0,62 0,07 0,0 −2,0 5 

It should be noted that each team in presenting its results took account of evidence from more 

than one technique and only a few teams provided detailed results for each of their individual 

techniques. This limits the conclusions on technique effectiveness to stating that the compression 

wave techniques made an essential and important contribution to getting good results. It was also 

noted that the same flaws that proved difficult for X-rays were also difficult for UT examination. 

At first sight a comparison of the effectiveness of those UT examinations that were made from the 

outside surface with those made from the inner surface, as seen from Table H.34 shows a small 

preference for the I.D. scanning, especially in respect to FCRs and for scatter in sizing. 

Table H.3 PISC III Action No. 3 Average Results Comparing Scanning from O.D. and I.D. 

with Focus on DMWs 

Surface Weld FDF CRF FCRD FCRR MESZ SESZ 

O.D. DW 0,80 0,75 0,12 0,04 −2,5 6,3 

I.D. DW 0.75 0,70 0,17 0,03 −3,2 3,5 

With focus on the safe-end welds and buttering, i.e. Ni-based alloy materials, flaws located in 

those materials appear to give the greatest difficulties, compared with flaws located in carbon 

steel or wrought stainless steel materials. 

Another parameter to evaluate is whether the NDE effectiveness depends on the flaw type, flaw 

size or the location of the flaw being examined. The frequency of detection and the frequency of 

correct rejection, shows that the effectiveness of detection was higher for flaw depth dimensions 

exceeding 40% of wall thickness. Detection of reflectors smaller than 2 mm, about 5% of wall 

thickness, lies beyond the reach of the common technology employed at that time. 

An overall result of FDF, CRF and SESZ, i.e., flaw detection, FCR and standard deviation in 

sizing, shows a better result in scanning from the I.D. than from the O.D. Not surprisingly, the 

essential contribution of compression wave techniques gave better results compared with those 

using shear wave probes. Also combinations of different techniques show better results for 

classification and sizing than procedures using only a single technique. 
H-7 

Teams that reached a FDF of 1,0 and had a low rate of false call, used a combination of different 

techniques like compression and shear wave transducers or TOFD and mode conversion 

techniques. Flaws that were correctly rejected were also ones that had a high level NDE response 

producing a CRF >0,8. Procedures applied on all assemblies that were characterized by using 

focusing probes with automated scanning from the I.D. and with a noise level reporting threshold 

was the best combination. 

A systemic trend was that shallow flaws were consistently oversized and large flaws were 

consistently undersized. In general the same performance was found for height sizing of PISC 

Type A machined slots with the height sizing of welding flaws. 

H.3 PINC 

H.3.1 General 

The next large international RRT was the PINC (Program for the Inspection of Nickel-Alloy 

Components) program (Cumblidge et al. 2010) between 2005 and 2008 with the objectives to join 

together for cooperation research and to address the problem of primary water stress corrosion 

cracking PWSCC/IDSCC in pressurized nuclear reactor components. The research was designed 

to understand the morphology of PWSCC/IDSCC and to assess NDE techniques for detection, 

characterization and sizing cracks with such morphology. 

The PINC project (Cumblidge et al. 2010) was focused on two areas—penetration BMI and 

DMWs. The DMW round-robin exercises that were conducted as part of the PINC program was 

an important part of the process in assessing nondestructive testing methods because the data 

that is developed in the round-robin testing offers insight into the capabilities of “current” field 

nondestructive methods used to detect, characterize and size PWSCC and to provide insight into 

the capabilities of more “experimental” laboratory evolving nondestructive methods. 

H.3.2 Test Pieces in PINC 

Participants in PINC offered more than 30 test blocks for use in round-robin tests of NDE 

effectiveness. The test blocks had more than 130 cracks in nickel-base weld metal that were 

intended to simulate PWSCC in a variety of component configurations and geometries. The 

project divided the test blocks into two categories that would be circulated, inspected, and 

analyzed separately. These two categories were mid-thickness DMW with a wall thickness range 

of 41 mm to 47 mm, and BMI with a tube I.D. less than 28 mm. The BMIs were ranked as top 

priority, but dissimilar metal piping welds were considered to also be very important based on the 

cracking that had been experienced at some NPPs. 

Cracks in DMW piping and BMI test blocks were produced as weld solidification cracks and as 

laboratory-grown PWSCC through using a corrosive environment while tensile loading and 

bending. The laboratory-grown cracks were used to simulate medium depth and shallow cracks. 

H.3.3 Result of PINC 

The 16 teams conducting the DMW examinations used a wide mix of nondestructive techniques, 

ranging from standard methods such as conventional ultrasonic inspection to experimental 

techniques such as potential drop. As there was a wide variety of techniques and the application 

of those techniques, comparing the effectiveness of the individual techniques would result in a 

very complex matrix. PNNL divided the different techniques used in the DMW round robin into two 

broad categories, ultrasonic and electromagnetic. 

Within the ultrasonic category the following methods were used: 
H-8 

 Conventional ultrasonic (UT) methods 

 Phased-array UT methods 

 TOFD methods 

Within the electromagnetic category the following methods were used: 

 Eddy current methods 

 Potential-drop methods, both direct current (DC) method, alternating current (AC) method, and 

modified variations of these methods. 

One of the objectives of the round-robin test is to estimate the probability of detection (POD) as a 

function of crack size. All flaws in the test blocks simulated service-induced cracks and thus, were 

surface breaking in axial or circumferential directions, so the most important variables for the 

detection and sizing probability was the variation of flaw length and flaw depth. Another important 

variable in any round-robin test is the skill level of the team performing the test. 

The POD results sorted by procedures and by flaw depth are shown in Table H.4. The procedures 

are grouped by detection technique to allow for an easy comparison of procedures performance 

within the different techniques. The POD is given for 5-mm deep flaws, 10-mm deep flaws, and 

15-mm deep flaws, along with the FCR. 

Table H.4 PINC POD Summary for Procedures 

Procedure Families 

POD for Flaw Depth of False Call 

5 mm 10 mm 15 mm Rate I.D./O.D. 

Eddy Current 0,89 1,00 1,00 0,17 I.D. 

Conventional UT and Phased Array 0,62 0,94 0,99 0,14 O.D. 

Conventional UT 0,36 0,51 0,67 0,23 O.D. 

Phased Array 0,36 0,51 0,66 0,24 O.D. 

Conventional UT and TOFD 0,44 0,53 0,61 0,35 O.D. 

Potential Drop 0,29 0,33 0,38 0,25 I.D./O.D. 

Eddy current had the highest performance in detection of surface breaking cracks and making the 

fewest false calls. Conventional UT in combination with phased array gave similar effective 

performance results. Performance was reduced for conventional UT alone or phased array alone 

while the potential-drop technique showed an even lower performance. 

When looking at the POD of shallow cracks with a depth about 4 to 5 mm, approximately 10% of 

wall thickness, the eddy current technique achieved the highest performance. 

As some techniques are more easily applied along the length of a pipe as opposed to around a 

pipe, it is important to examine the POD of flaws based on their orientation. The POD results are 

shown in Table H.5 and Table H.6. 
H-9 

Table H.5 PINC POD for Circumferential Flaws as Function of Flaw Depth

Procedure 

POD for Flaw Depth of False Call 

5 mm 10 mm 15 mm Rate 

Eddy Current 0,92 1,00 1,00 0,17 

UT 0,41 0,61 0,61 0,23 

Potential Drop 0,28 0,36 0,43 0,23 

Table H.6. PINC POD for Axial Flaws as Function of Flaw Depth 

Procedure 

POD for Flaw Depth of False Call 

5 mm 10 mm 15 mm Rate 

Eddy Current 0,80 0,99 1,00 0,17 

UT 0,32 0,45 0,59 0,21 

Potential Drop 0,24 0,27 0,32 0,20 

The results show that circumferential flaws in these blocks were somewhat easier to detect than 

axial flaws using ultrasound UT, especially for cracks close to 10-mm deep. Eddy current was 

largely unaffected, but does show an 11% greater chance of detecting a 5 mm deep 

circumferential flaw than a 5 mm deep axial flaw. Circumferential flaws were somewhat more 

detectable with the potential-drop technique as well. It was also shown that a higher frequency on 

ECT, 400 KHz gave a better result than for instance of a 100 KHz ECT probe. 

One of the goals of the PINC project was to determine which techniques are the most effective at 

characterizing the through-wall depth and length of PWSCC. Phased-array UT and tip diffraction 

techniques performed well in both detection and sizing. Only one PAUT team had an RMSE of 

3.18 mm and another PAUT was 4.01 mm while all the remainder had substantially larger depth 

sizing RMSE values. However, it needs to be pointed out that the RMSE value is a useful metric 

but the flaws used in PINC were not selected to meet the sizing requirements in ASME Boiler and 

Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code), Section XI, Division 1, Appendix VIII so having a small 

RMSE value is insightful but does not necessarily reflect desired performance. Therefore, when 

reviewing the sizing results, all teams that used the phased-array UT technology performed better 

than teams that only used conventional ultrasonic methods. 

None of the NDE techniques in this round robin demonstrated the capability to accurately depthsize flaws in DMWs. The average depth sizing for all teams and techniques tended to slightly 

undersize the flaws and had standard deviations and root mean square error (RSME) of 

approximately 7 mm. The ASME Code requires a RSME of 0.125 inches (3.2 mm) for depth sizing 

to successfully pass a performance demonstration. No team performed depth sizing to this level of 

accuracy. The depth sizing of flaws could be improved. The use of phased-array UT and 

conventional ultrasound together showed the most promise. This study showed that what is 

important for depth sizing is that the diffracted signals from the crack tip can be detected. Due to 

the fragmented but unbroken ligaments in depth of PWSCC/IDSCC, the challenge is to find the 

deepest through-wall crack tip while only detecting shallower tips leads to systematically under 

sizing the flaw depth. 
H-10 

A review of the information shows that eddy current techniques performed the best for length 

sizing flaws followed by phased-array ultrasonic techniques. Conventional ultrasonic and 

potential-drop techniques were poor at length sizing. Appendix VIII of Section XI of the ASME 

Code states that examination procedures, equipment, and personnel be qualified for length sizing 

when the RMSE of the flaw length measurements in the test set compared to the true flaw 

lengths, does not exceed 0.75 in. (19 mm). A review of the data shows that half (8 out of the 16 

teams) would have passed an Appendix VIII type performance demonstration test for length 

sizing. 

H.4 PARENT 

H.4.1 General 

The third large international RRT is the PARENT program (Program to Assess the Reliability of 

Emerging Nondestructive Techniques) (Braatz et al. 2014) initiated in 2010 and plans to be 

finished in 2015. The objectives of PARENT is to continue the work begun in PINC and apply the 

lessons learned to a series of open and blind international round-robin tests that will be conducted 

on a new set of piping components including large-bore (≈900-mm diameter) DMWs, small-bore 

DMWs, and BMIs. 

The project has objectives to: 

 Pool International expertise and resources to evaluate the inspectability of Ni-alloy 

components and welds. 

 Identify and quantitatively assess NDE methods for accurately detecting, characterizing, and 

sizing PWSCC/IDSCC cracks. 

A. Blind Round-Robin Testing 

1. Evaluate commercially used inspection techniques 

2. Evaluate the effectiveness of qualified procedures and inspectors 

3. Evaluate which commercial techniques are the most effective for different components 

B. Open Round-Robin Testing 

1. Evaluate emerging non-destructive testing techniques, which could be used in the 

future 

2. Evaluate how effective novel techniques are for detecting flaws in Ni-alloy welds 

3. Evaluate the characteristics of each emerging technique for further improvements 

 Investigate and document field locations and crack morphologies for PWSCC and their 

observed NDE responses in an electronic database “ATLAS”. 

 Utilize lessons learned from PINC to employ techniques to manufacture representative NDE 

mock-ups with flaws that simulate real field PWSCC/IDSCC NDE signal responses. 

The blind testing was conducted in two phases, one was called Quick-Blind and the other was 

called Blind. The reason for the Quick-Blind testing was that test blocks had been provided by 

Japan from an on-going program and they needed to be returned to Japan for destructive analysis 

as required by the Japan program when these blocks were provided. 
H-11 

Six testing organizations representing Japan, South Korea, Sweden, and the USA applied NDE 

test procedures that employed conventional ultrasonic, phased-array ultrasonic, and eddy current 

NDE techniques in the Quick-Blind testing. The objective of the tests was to learn how the NDE 

procedures applied performed from the standpoint of flaw detection, flaw depth sizing, and flaw 

length sizing. 

Approximately 170 inspections were scheduled to be performed on 19 test blocks for the open 

testing portion of PARENT by 23 teams from Japan, Europe (Sweden, Finland, Spain, Denmark), 

South Korea, and the USA. Of the 19 open test blocks, only two were BMIs. The NDE techniques 

used in the open portion of study are broadly categorized as ultrasonic techniques, eddy current 

techniques, and other techniques. Motivations for developing many of the open NDE techniques 

can be characterized as addressing one or more of the following challenges: (1) to more 

accurately characterize large defects, (2) to enable inspections of difficult-to-access regions, and 

(3) to improve detectability of small defects. 

H.4.2 Test Pieces in PARENT 

H.4.2.1 Open Trials 

The open trials consisted of four BMI test assemblies, 11 small-bore DMW test assemblies and 

four large-bore DMW test assemblies. A variety of flaw types and locations were included but 

since the flaw locations were provided to the inspection teams, the results are biased and the 

current status of data analysis is in progress and not available when this paper was in preparation. 

These trials were pursued to assess a wide variety of non-standard techniques such as higher 

harmonic UT and nonlinear resonant ultrasound spectroscopy for specific problematic issues 

including detection of small defects, access to challenging geometries and accurately 

characterizing large flaws. There were 209 inspections conducted on DMW test assemblies by 

these techniques. Thus, these open trial studies may provide some important insights as the 

analysis proceeds. 

H.4.2.2 Blind Trials 

The blind trials consisted of a number of test assemblies with five being BMIs, two were smallbore DMWs, six were large-bore DMWs, and there was one weld overlay sample. As already 

noted there were several blind trial inspection sequences conducted based on test assembly 

availability. For use in the Quick-Blind tests, four large-bore DMW test block segments were 

provided. Three of these test blocks contained laboratory-grown axially oriented stress corrosion 

crack flaws and the fourth test block was blank. The other assemblies contained weld solidification 

cracks and repairs. The techniques employed were able to be classified as conventional UT, 

phased-array UT (PAUT), TOFD, or eddy current testing (ECT). Since these are all techniques 

that are commercially available and the examiners have been qualified within their respective 

countries to inspect NPPs, the trials represent current field practice and quality of ISI. In summary 

there were a total of 20 procedures applied by 14 inspection teams. The bulk of the inspections 

were conducted on the small-bore and large-bore DMW test assemblies providing 421 flaw 

observations with 124 of these for axial flaws, 271 for circumferential flaws and 26 for volumetric 

flaws. 

H.4.3 Result of PARENT 

As already noted, since this paper is comparing the results and trends from PISC and PINC with 

those from PARENT, only the blind trials on the small-bore and large-bore DMWs will be 

overviewed in this section. There is substantial data available but when it is broken down to 
H-12 

address specific performance issues for four different inspection techniques (UT, PAUT, TOFD 

and ECT), inspection frequencies, inspection angles, crack location, crack orientation, manual 

inspection, encoded inspection, inside surface versus outside surface for inspection etc. it is 

challenging to address the measurement uncertainties to make definitive conclusions. But it needs 

to be noted that this is the same issue all RRTs have to deal with. The following are global 

numbers obtained by collapsing all data into the four generic categories. The first is looking at the 

data for all flaw types and orientations in Table H.7. 

Table H.7 Summary of PARENT Probability of Detection as a Function of Flaw Depth in 

DMW Test Assemblies for Some Procedure Families 

Procedure Families 

POD for Flaw Depth of False Call 

5 mm 10 mm 15 mm Rate 

Eddy Current 0,22 0,72 0,96 0,03 

UT 0,15 0,31 0,67 0,07 

PAUT 0,23 0,58 0,87 0,06 

UT + ECT 0,15 0,30 0,50 0,07 

UT + PAUT 0,55 0,98 1,00 0,03 

UT + TOFD 0,37 0,90 0,99 0,04 

UT + TOFD + ECT 0,21 0,46 0,74 0,08 

Additional data analysis of the PARENT database is in progress and this work needs to be 

completed in order to understand further insights into what can be learned from this RRT. 

H.5 Results from ISI at NPPs 

H.5.1 Background 

Cracking observed in the early 1990s in reactor components in France and other countries was 

attributed to PWSCC, leading to replacement of reactor vessel heads, piping, etc. The problem 

resurfaced in 2000 when, at the Oconee plant in the United States, leakage was discovered from 

a control rod drive mechanism (CRDM) penetration fabricated using Alloy 600, resulting in 

deposits of boric-acid crystals on the vessel head. Further investigation led to the identification of 

PWSCC cracks in the reactor penetration tubes and attachment J-groove welds. Circumferential 

cracking of CRDM nozzles has been identified at Oconee Units 2 and 3 and Crystal River Unit 3. 

An extreme consequence of such cracking was illustrated by the discovery of wastage on the 

Davis-Besse reactor vessel head. More recently, boric-acid deposits and NDE indications found at 

the South Texas Project BMI nozzles have been attributed to PWSCC. 

Cracks also have been found in reactor nozzle hot leg DMWs at the V.C. Summer plant in the 

United States and at the Ringhals plant in Sweden, providing further evidence that PWSCC is a 

generic concern. 

H.5.2 Experience from Sweden 

In the outage of year 2000 a number of surface breaking transverse defects were detected during 

the ISI of dissimilar connection welds (Alloy 182) in the RC-loops at Ringhals 4 (PWR), Figure 

H.2. The defects were detected with an inspection system qualified for that type of welds, but the 

qualified inspection system did not perform as expected regarding characterization with ET and 
H-13 

sizing utilizing UT. One part of the problem was the defect simulation techniques used in the test 

specimens used for qualification of procedures, equipment and personnel. The defects in the test 

specimens did not give a realistic signal response for the techniques used; ET for 

detection/characterization and UT for sizing of longitudinal and transverse defects in Alloy 182/82 

weld material. 

Figure H.2 Cut-out of a Typical PWSCC with a Depth of Approximately 11 mm from 

Ringhals

The reported height of defects from the qualified inspection system was outside the specified 

tolerances for 2 of the 4 defects. Detection with ET failed due to the unbroken ligaments and small 

crack openings at the component surface. 

An attempt to summarize the main findings are made in the following conclusions. 

 The cracks were, with one exception, oriented across the weld at an angle close to 90°. The 

exception is the V.C. Summer where a crack occurs parallel to the weld. 

 In the boat sample from Ringhals 4 and Barsebäck 1, IDSCC appear in the weld metal, 

primarily consisting of Alloy 182. The V.C. Summer PWSCC occurred in weld metal with the 

essential element being Alloy 82. It was not possible to determine if the crack was initiated in 

weld metal/Alloy 82 or buttering/Alloy 182. 

 The cracks in the Ringhals 4 and V.C. Summer DMWs occurred as a result of internal welding 

repairs. Three of the cracks in the Barsebäck 1 occurred in welding repairs while information is 

missing for the other two crack locations. 

 An unusual feature of PWSCC/IDSCC is that crack width decreases in an area near the 

intersection of the crack with the component surface. Simulated cracks have given a relevant 

signal response with crack widths of approximately 10–35 micrometre. For other crack types, 

the crack width will typically increase at the intersection of the crack with the component 

surface. 

 Result of further investigations showed that some defect parameters must be taken into 

account when simulating PWSCC/IDSCC in test assemblies that have to be used in 

qualification activities, see Table H.8 (SQC 2003). 

Crack 
H-14 

Table H.8 Sizes of Defect Parameters that have to be Taken into Account to Get a 

Relevant Signal Response of PWSCC 

Defect parameter 

Parameter Values to be Simulated in Test Assemblies, 

which gives Relevant Signal Response on UT and ECT 

UT ECT 

Defect width at the surface 10–35 μm 10–35 μm 

Unbroken ligaments at the 

surface 

Length = 1–4 mm; 

Depth = 0.6–2 mm 

Length = 1–4 mm 

Depth = 0.6–2 mm 

Defect width in depth Min/max value > 5μm–0.287 mm 

Average value 0.025–0.060 mm 

- 

Unbroken ligaments in depth Number: 4–17 

Size: 0.14–0.80 mm 

Number: 2–9 

Size: 0.14–0.80 mm 

Crack shape in depth Winding Winding 

Crack shape in length - Winding 

Crack tip radius 7–40 μm - 

Crack roughness Rz = 187–471 μm - 

Branching 0.25–0.60 /mm - 

H.5.3 Experience from United States 

In the USA there have been a number of events related to PWSCC in DMWs (Grimmel 2005). A 

recent report by Sullivan and Anderson (2014) examined the management of PWSCC in butt 

welds by mitigation and inspection. The report provides details and extensive references for these 

events in the USA as well as those that have been reported worldwide. The reader is directed to 

the US NRC website where this report can be downloaded http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/contract/cr7187/). The intent in this paper is to just highlight some of the salient 

features of these events that are relevant. The events in the USA began in 1993 at Palisades with 

PWSCC in the heat-affected zone of a power-operated relief valve Alloy 600 safe-end located 

near the pressurizer. The most recent event occurred at the North Anna Power Station, Unit 1 in 

the ”B” reactor coolant loop hot-leg-to-steam generator nozzle weld in 2012. 

There have been 17 events reported for butt weld PWSCC from 1993 through 2012. It is 

interesting to note that nearly one-half of these events involved PWSCC that had circumferential 

flaw orientation. Only one of these circumferential cracks had significant depth that was estimated 

to be 65% through wall in one location. The axial flaws were typically deeper in through-wall 

extent than the circumferential flaws. Furthermore, a number of these PWSCC were discovered 

by non-NDE methods such as, water on the floor, accumulated boric-acid deposits or leakage 

uncovered when the mitigation was being applied. This has raised some important questions 

about the effectiveness of the NDE being applied to detect PWSCC in DMWs and was one of the 

driving forces for the PINC and the PARENT programs. Since many of these examinations were 

conducted under the requirements of ASME Code, Section XI, Division 1, Appendix VIII, 

questions for why the PWSCC have been missed remain. Many factors such as the NDE methods 

and technology being employed and the representativeness of the simulated PWSCC and 

component configurations in the Appendix VIII testing are being assessed to try to understand 

where improvements need to be made. The PINC and PARENT program results will hopefully, 

answer some of these questions and provide direction on what needs to be done so that there will 

be fewer events in U.S. NPPs. Thus, in the future NDE will find these conditions before leakage 

occurs and in a timely manner so that appropriate mitigation can be deployed. 
H-15 

H.6 Conclusion and Lessons Learned 

The conclusions from PISC III Action 3 was that this action clearly confirmed that the examination 

of safe-end weldment provides some of the most difficult and challenging NDE problems to 

reliably inspect pressurized DMW piping circuit configurations. The effectiveness of focused 

probe techniques was also apparent. Most difficulties were found with flaws which lay in and 

especially those neighboring alongside the weld materials and safe-end fusion line. Detection of 

reflectors smaller than 2 mm, about 5% of wall thickness, lies beyond the reach of the inspection 

technology available at that time. An overall result of flaw detection, FCR and standard deviation 

in sizing, shows a better result in scanning from I.D. than from O.D. A combination of different 

techniques shows a better result in classification and sizing than the use of a single technique. 

Procedures from all assemblies characterized by the use of focusing probes with automatic 

scanner from I.D. and with a reporting at noise level was the best combination. The most frequent 

trend was that shallow flaws were oversized and large flaws were undersized. In general it was 

the same result for height sizing for PISC Type A slots and height sizing for welding flaws. 

The results also clearly indicate that Performance Demonstrations and Qualification tests for each 

industrial application are desirable to check that satisfactory effectiveness can be achieved. 

 The PINC study focused on efforts to characterize PWSCC and the NDE responses that real

service-induced PWSCC have. This guidance was then reflected in the selection of the

methods to introduce simulated and realistic PWSCC in the PINC test assemblies. The

conclusions that were drawn from PINC for piping DMWs and summarized below were

extracted from Cumblidge et al. (2010). Eddy current inspections from the cracked surface

demonstrated the highest POD for all flaws in the DMW test assemblies.

 The POD results for the DMW round robin show significant variability in detection performance

based upon the technique, procedure and inspection team.

 None of the NDE techniques in PINC demonstrated the capability to accurately depth-size

flaws in DMWs to the requirements specified in ASME Code, Section XI, Division 1, Appendix

VIII. The average depth sizing for all techniques in PINC tended to slightly undersize the flaws

and had standard deviations and RSMEs of approximately 7 mm.

 Eight teams length-sized flaws with an RMSE within the ASME Code, Section XI, Division 1,

Appendix VIII requirement of 0.75 inch (19 mm). Teams that used PAUT and ECT achieved

higher accuracy than teams using conventional UT and potential-drop techniques.

 The surface conditions, access to both sides of the weld, and inspection conditions for the

PINC test assemblies provided the inspectors with less challenging conditions than would be

inspected in field inspections of NPP components. Thus, the results in PINC should be

considered upper bounds for the inspection techniques.

 The inspection procedures and inspection teams participating in PINC with formal

qualifications tended to have higher POD values and lower FCRs than the teams and

procedures with no formal qualifications.

The PARENT study was conducted as a second phase of the studies initiated under the PINC 

trials while taking advantage of the lessons learned from PINC. The PARENT test assemblies 

contained smaller (both depth and length) simulated PWSCC than what was used in the PINC 

assemblies. Thus, PARENT trials were more challenging for the inspection procedure and teams 

participating in PARENT. The majority of the results from PINC were confirmed by the PARENT 
H-16 

RRT results. One of the significant differences with PARENT was that there were many more -

procedures that combined a variety of techniques. This was important to gain insights to the 

effectiveness of these combinations but because of this diversity, the data was limited in achieving 

small confidence bounds on performance. All of the conclusions summarized above for PINC 

were supported by the PARENT results. However there are some differences in that procedures 

which employed multiple techniques tended to perform better (higher POD or small sizing RMSE 

values). Complete analysis of all of the PARENT data needs to be completed to fully quantify all 

performance data and to provide insights to what conclusions can be drawn from the data. 

There are differences between the types, number, orientation and sizes of simulated cracks in 

PARENT, PINC and PISC test assemblies. This means that the comparisons between these three 

studies must proceed cautiously to insure that one is making a fair and defensible comparison 

along with drawing accurate conclusions. PARENT included smaller flaws than the smallest in 

PINC (both depth and length) and the largest flaws in both depth and length were also in the PINC 

flaws. However, having stated this there are some observations that can be made at this time. 

There appears to be higher POD performance for the ECT and conventional UT for PINC which is 

probably what should be expected for larger flaws. On the other hand the PAUT performance 

improved for PARENT flaws versus that found in PINC. PAUT is a more commonly used NDE 

technique today than during PINC, and many advances and insights are being gained as it 

evolves. In contrast at the time of PISC III Action No. 3, the dominate inspection methods were 

conventional UT at different sensitivity thresholds with by far the most effective being working 

down to the noise level of the materials being inspected. There were also significant differences in 

the flaw types used in PISC III since at that time PWSCC/IDSCC had not occurred and thus only 

tight fatigue type cracks were employed. 

H.7 Recommendations for Future Activities 

One of the significant differences between PISC III Action 3 and the PINC and PARENT trials is 

that there was considerable experience with PWSCC at the time of PINC and PARENT and that 

got reflected in how the simulated PWSCC were created in the test assemblies as well as their 

NDE response properties. Most of the inspection techniques (except for immersion focused 

probes) employed amplitude response criteria in the PISC III Action 3 studies while these later 

studies focused on advanced methods such as PAUT. Thus, there are significant differences 

between these studies and this makes it challenging to draw definitive conclusions. However, 

there are a number of conclusions that all three studies support: 

 The use of a diversity of techniques tended to improve performance for detection, depth sizing 

and length sizing. 

 The advances in the use and deployment of PAUT are significant and procedures including 

this technology tended to perform better than those relying on conventional UT using one or 

only a few inspection angles. 

 Having access to the surface from which PWSCC initiates for complex DMW configurations, is 

preferred. Some techniques such as ECT require this access. 

 There was a wide variety of scatter in the performance data; thus, all three studies 

recommend the need for procedure, equipment and personnel qualification. 

 DMWs are very complex because of geometry and metallurgy, making them one of the most 

challenging NPP components that need to be reliably inspected during ISI. 
H-17 

 Length sizing accuracy appears to support the needed level of performance required by

current code and standards particularly when the PWSCC initiation surface is available for

inspection.

 All three RRT represent an upper bound of performance since many factors of the test

assemblies and test environment do not reflect the challenges associated with field conditions.

 All three RRTs support using correct flaw simulation techniques in test assemblies as

important to get a realistic signal response compared with real PWSCC/IDSCC.

These conclusions support that improvements are occurring in procedures, equipment and 

personnel conducting ISI on NPP DMW components. They all conclude that DMWs are very 

challenging to inspect and that qualified procedures, equipment and personnel need to be 

employed for ISI. However, in examining the data, it is clear that a very wide range of techniques 

are being pursued which leads to large uncertainty in the quantitative performance values being 

measured since there is limited data about each technique and no ability to collapse data across 

multiple teams basically using very similar techniques. One recommendation for future work would 

be to select some of the best procedures and conduct much more extensive laboratory testing, 

modeling and blind assessment to provide more definitive data with small measurement 

uncertainty on the “true” performance capability of them to reliably inspect DMWs. This work 

needs to be conducted using realistic PWSCC with NDE responses reflecting the properties of 

service degradation. Future work should be conducted to evaluate methods to make these 

realistic defects in a cost effective manner to enhance training and refining the evolution of 

techniques to improve detection, characterization and sizing. 

Efforts should continue to accumulate NDE response data on PWSCC as it occurs in-service to 

augment existing databases, to provide more input to PWSCC simulation methods and to insure 

that future studies are using the “best” flaw simulations known. 

H.8 References 

Braatz BG, PG Heasler and RM Meyer. 2014. PARENT Quick Blind Round-Robin Test Report. 

PNNL-22677, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. ADAMS Accession 

No. ML14276A052. 

Cumblidge SE, SR Doctor, PG Heasler and TT Taylor. 2010. Results of the Program for the 

Inspection of Nickel Alloy Components. NUREG/CR-7019; PNNL-18713, Rev. 1, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 

European Commission. 1994. Non-Destructive Examination Practice and Results, State of the Art 

and PISC III Results, Proceedings of the Joint CEC OECD IAEA Specialists Meeting, March 8–

10, 1994. Report No. EUR 15906 EN, NEA/CSN/R(94)/23, Commission of the European 

Communities, Luxembourg, Petten, The Netherlands. 

Dombret P. 1995. "PISC III Results on Action 3 'Nozzles and Dissimilar Welds'." In Nondestructive Examination Practice and Results; State of the Art and PISC III Results, Proceedings 

of the Joint CEC OECD IAEA Specialists Meeting, pp. 11-31. March 8-10, 1994, Petten, The 

Netherlands. Commission of the European Communities, Luxembourg. 

Grimmel B. 2005. U.S. Plant Experience with Alloy 600 Cracking and Boric Acid Corrosion of 

Light-Water Reactor Pressure Vessel Materials. NUREG-1823, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, D.C. 
H-18 

PISC. 1993a. Evaluation of the Inspection Results of the PISC III Safe-end Assembly No. 20, 

Safe-ends Nos. 21 and 22. PISC III Report No. 20, EUR 15558 EN, Commission of the European 

Communities, Joint Research Centre, Ispra Site. 

PISC. 1993b. Evaluation of the Inspection Results of the Safe-end Areas of the PISC III Assembly 

No. 24. PISC III Report No. 24, EUR 15369 EN, Commission of the European Communities, Joint 

Research Centre, Ispra Site. 

PISC. 1993c. Evaluation of the Inspection Results of the PISC III Safe-end Assembly No. 25. 

PISC III Report No. 25, EUR 15370 EN, Commission of the European Communities, Joint 

Research Centre, Ispra Site. 

SQC. 2003. Project PostDAS - Final Report, Test Specimen Report. Report Nr RAPP0115/03A, 

Swedish Qualification Center (SQC), Stockholm, Sweden. 

Sullivan EJ and MT Anderson. 2014. Managing PWSCC in Butt Welds by Mitigation and 

Inspection. NUREG/CR-7187, PNNL-23659, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

D.C. 


NUREG/CR-7235 

R.M. Meyer and P.G. Heasler 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

P.O. Box 999 

Richland WA 99352 

Division of Engineering 

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) conducted agreements with organizations in Finland, Japan, South 

Korea, Sweden and Switzerland to establish the Program to Assess the Reliability of Emerging Nondestructive 

Techniques (PARENT) whose goal was to investigate the performance of current and emerging nondestructive 

examination (NDE) procedures and techniques to find flaws in nickel-alloy welds and base materials. This was 

performed by conducting a series of open and blind international round-robin tests on a set of nickel alloy piping 

components that included large-bore dissimilar metal welds (LBDMW), small-bore dissimilar metal welds (SBDMW), 

and bottom-mounted instrumentation (BMI) penetration welds. The project was divided into open and blind testing to 

separate the evaluation of novel techniques implemented by nonqualified teams (open testing) from the evaluation of 

more established techniques implemented by commercial inspection service providers (blind testing). The objective of 

blind testing was to obtain quantitative estimates of the performance of the latest NDE inspection techniques used 

commercially in the field for detection and accurate sizing of primary water stress corrosion cracks (PWSCC) or 

interdendritic stress corrosion cracks (IDSCC). The report documents the results of the detection and sizing analyses 

performed on data collected in blind testing for PARENT. 

Nondestructive Examination, Stress Corrosion Cracking, Dissimilar Metal Welds, 

Ultrasonic Testing, Probability of Detection 

June 2017 

Technical 

Results of Blind Testing for the Program to Assess the Reliability of 

Emerging Nondestructive Techniques 

V6286 



NUREG/CR-7235 Results of Blind Testing for the Program to Assess the 

Reliability of Emerging Nondestructive Techniques 

June 2017