ML20235U428
| ML20235U428 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1988 |
| From: | Kurek D, Rao G WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235U400 | List: |
| References | |
| WCAP-12092, NUDOCS 8903090195 | |
| Download: ML20235U428 (41) | |
Text
, _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _-_ __ ._ _
CLASS 3 CUST0KER DESIGNATED DISTRIBUTION f
i I
I_
ULTRASONIC INVESTIGATION OF THE PRESSURIZER SURGE LINE VELDS AT TROJAN NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION I
l I
December, 1988 D. Kurek
[ G. V. Rao Reviewed By h-R. D. Rishel c
Meta 11urgica & NDE Analysis
,m Approved B _[_ M d( (Lv n s' a w T. R. Mager, Manager Metallurgical & NDE Analysis Although information contained in this report is non-proprietary, no.
distribution shall be made outside Westinghouse or its licensees without the customer's approval.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION ENERGY SYSTEMS P.O. BOX 355 PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA 15230 pg3olBsu 818Ej!y P
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ )
TABLE OF CONTENTS
- SECTION TITLE' PAGE i
1.0 Introduction 1~.1 f 2.0 Part I~- Examinations of Specimen S1Bl. 2 .1. ,
L After Decontamination General 2.1 Examinations '2.3 F
[ Discussion- 2.7
' 3.0 Part II'- Examinations of Specimen S1B1- 3.1 ~ -
.'~-
After Thermal Fatigue Cracking i
General 3.1.
)
Examinations- 3.2 Discussions 3.6 L
1 I
LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1.1 Sectioning Diagram 1.2 U.T. Test Specimen S1B1 Datum Showing Area of Slice 1.3 45 and 60 Manual Examination Data 1.4 Peak A Scan Readings 1.5 UDRPS Calibration Data - 45 1.6 UDRPS Calibration Data - 60 1.7 UDPJS Detection Scans - 45 1.8 UDRPS Detection Scans - 45 Top View and B Projection 1.9 UDRPS Detection Scans - 60 1.10 UDRPS Detection Scans - 60 Top View and B Projection 1.11 50x Micrograph - Area of Responses 5 and 6 1.12 50x Micrograph - Area of Responses 1 and 3 1.13 50x Micrograph - Area of Responses 2 and 4 2.1 Post Crack Evaluation of Specimen S1B1 2.2 Post Crack Evaluation of Specimen S1B1 2.3 UDRPS Low and High Resolution Scans - 45 2.4 UDRPS High Resolution Top and B Projection - 45 2.5 UDRPS High Resolution Scans 45 L Dual (Elbow Side) 2.6 UDRPS High Resolution Scans 45 L Dual Top and B Proj ection l
i l
l I
l
SECTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
CENERAL
, During the 1988 inservice examinations of the Trojan Plant pressurizer surge line, two circumferential pipe to elbow welds were identified as hsving significant flaw-indications based on ultrasonic test data. The two suspect welds.are a field weld between the horizontal pipe section and the elbow, and a shop weld joining the same elbow to a vertical pipe section. The pipe material
. in both cases is identified as 14-inch, schedule 160, fabricated from SA 376 type 316 material. The elbow is 14-inch, schedule 160, fabricated from SA 182F L.
type 316 material. For both welds, a gas tungsten arc welding process (CTAW).
was used with 308 stainless steel welding wire. Records indicate that the horizontal pipe to elbow field weld had previously undergone two repair cycles.
Based on field ultrasonic test data, the worst case was judged to be the field weld identified by inspection subcontractors as having crack.like indications originating at the pipe wall inside surface and extending through about half.
the wall thickness for the full 360 degrees. A metallurgical investigation was performed in order to define the morphology, orientation, depth and distribution of the cracking, establish the mechanism and causes of the cracking, and develop information relative to possible corrective actions. As i
the evaluations progressed, no cracks were seen in the sectioned pieces of the '
o field weld. This result identified the need for further ultrasonic 1.1
]
cxaminatiens in hop 2s th:t dnto cbtain~;d und2r idssi conditions could ba correlated with specific geometric or metallurgical anomalies within the pipe weld examination volume. Specimen S1B1 (figure 1.1) was provided for these supplemental ultrasonic investigations which were conducted in two parts.
In part 1, specimen S1B1, after having been decontaminated, was scanned with common ultrasonic examination techniques, in both the manual and automated code. A best example area of interest was established along the specimen and further sectioning was conducted in an effort to correlate nondestructive and destructive results.
In part 2, the larger remaining piece of specimen S1B1 was subjected to thermal
)
fatigue cracking under controlled conditions. Manual and automated ultrasonic examinations were repeated in an effort to identify crack features from previously recorded metallurgical and geometric features.
This report documents these efforts.
f 1.2
[
., i M.d u * .
j . ,. i b SECTION 2.0 5-
~
PART I - EXAMINATIONS OF SPECIMEN S1B1 AFTER DECONTAMINATION
[
f GENERAL e
Field examinations were duplicated in the laboratory to the extent practical i- with the intent that major reflections from the pipe weld ~ examination volume.
. could be correlated with specific metallurgical and/or geometric. features.
'Y Detection' type scans were conducted manually using 1.5, 2.0, 2.25, and 5.0 MHz I
single and dual element search units in shear and longitudinal modes having
' nominal refracted angles'of 45, 60, and 70 degrees. By experimentation, the 45 and 60 search units at-frequencies.of 2.25 MHz and 5.0 MHz provided L the largest sampling of reflections from within the pipe weld examination volume, clearly establishing a "best example" area of interest for NDE/metallographic correlation. These same conventional test angles and test frequencies were also applied in automated detection type examinations r
utilizing the Dynacon Ultrasonic Data Recording and Processing System (UDRPS).
This system allowc for a more extensive recording of data, and enhanced presentation of results through the use of data processing algorithms and color coded images.
2.1
.i 4
- All dats-u sd in tha metallographic corralstion wza obtainsd exclusively in the i i
cxial scan direction, with the interrogating beam directed towards the weld centerline from the pipe side of the specimen. Scans performed from the elbow cide of the test specimen yielded a relatively low number of interpretable reference responses with severe sound attenuation norfced in most transducer
' combinations.
In the manual examinations, data points were generated by normalizing peak responses from the weld root and fusion face at 80% of full screen height.
Search unit beam exit points were measured with respect to the true weld centerline, which in this case can only be precisely determined by direct measurement of the weld at the specimen edge. Examinations were conducted as geometry permitted from the outside and inside diameter surfaces.
In the automated examinations, a 1.5" thick calibration block having 1/8" diameter side drilled holes was used to perform dynamic transducer characterization and establish acquisition parameters. Scanning of specimen S1B1 was performed axially along 6 one-inch increments (ref. figure 1.2).
Various test sensitivities were used in order to achieve adequate saturation of root and fusion face responses, with optimum values obtained when the major signal groups were normalized at about 80% full screen height.
I 2.2
)
EXAMINATIONS In the manual examinations, tuo persistent response groupings were noticed in the 45 and 60 examinations at 2.25 MHz and 5.0 MHz. " Geometric type" y responses were noted at metal path distances and corresponding search unit l
stand-off positions (transducer surface distance from the centerline of the
( weld) which indicated a trapping of sound energy near the weld rcot on the pipe side. Higher amplitude responses were noted along scan lines where the root
)
was in the shape of a rounded protrusion with local wall thinning on the pipe side edge prep; however, the root responses were not easily dampened at any location along the inside surface, even on scan lines where the geometry was more pronounced. Typical root area respenses for 45 examination angles
)
averaged at about 1.75" metal path for a projected depth around 1.2". These signals are relatively persistent across the weld with 60 to 70 dB required to normalize the signals at 80% of full screen. Axial duration as measured between half maximum amplitude points, generally encompassed 0.45" in metal travel, with greater transducer movement within the echodynamic envelope favoring the forward scan direction. For 60 examinations, intermittent root area responses were noticed at metal paths around 2", projecting to a depth very close to the inside surface at around 1.2". Instrument gain settings of 80 to 90 dB were required to normalize the responses at 80% of full screen height.
2.3
i I
Tha esecnd significant grouping of respenses ware esasntially 'mid-wall" type reflections observed with the transducer front end nearly in contact with the weld crown. On 3 scan lines using the 45 beam, the more pronounced l
responses were measured as having approximately one half the metal path and '
caplitude of the root reflection counterpart. In the 60 examinations at gain settings in the 80 to 90 dB range, similar direct responses were noted in the mid-wall test distances, which generally equalled the root area responses in echo amplitude. Crown geometry did not permit complete coverage of the fusion zone in the upper 1/4 thickness in either case, therefore a judgement of whether or not the indications occur along the entire pipe side weld fusion face cannot be made solely by half node scan results.
In general, the mid-wall responses were persistent across the test specimen, noticeable in clusters or groups with three or four individual reflections per grouping and having little or no measurable length. The "best example" area of interest for both weld root and fusion face indications was along a scan line located approximately 4.5" from the left edge of the test specimen (figure 1.2). In this area, 45 and 60 shear wave peak responses were recorded from the outside and inside diameter surfaces (figures 1.3 and 1.4).
Test angles in the down leg (OD) axial scan direction were determined to be 44 cnd 51 degrees (reference figure 1.3 responses 1 and 4) with 36 and 48 degrees (reference figure 1.3 responses 5 and 6) being the case in the up leg (ID) exial scan direction. Refracted angles were calculated by arranging front ,
i facing search units of the same angle on the OD and ID surfaces and measuring peak responses in the through transmission mode.
l
)
2.4 1
In tha cutenctsd examin:tions using UDRPS, 45 and 60 shnar wcve search units at 5.0 MHz and 2.25 MHz, respectively, were utilized in axial scanning on the pipe and elbow side of the test specimen. Transducer characterization was accomplished dynamically on a 1.5" thick calibration block having 0.125" diameter side drilled holes at 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 thickness (figures 1.5 and 1.6). This characterization ensures that sufficient data is recorded to adequately define ultrasonic reflectors and is a function of the transducer's operating parameters. Scanning on specimen S1B1 (also identified as specimen
- 1) was performed along 6 evenly spaced lines using the Dynacon "Handi Scanner" system at an acquisition speed of approximately 1" per second. Optimum test sensitivities for data acquisition were established by experimentation, with edequate saturation of root and fusion face responses observed when root
)
geometry was at or near 80% of full screen height as a minimum value. This resulted in 45 and 60 test sensitivities of 82 and 86 dB, respectively.
In the 45 composite A-scan or top view (figure 1.7), the pipe side root reflection is seen in all scan lines, with the dynamic extent of the response in direct proportion to amplitude. In the scan line 3 image, this response closely resembles the corner reflection from the calibration block (figure 1.5). Scan line 4, identified in the figure as the area of interest, is within 0.5" of the scan line determined to yield the greatest number of fusion zone responses with the 45 beam in the manual examinations. A larger scale " top" i and B scan view of this area is shown in figure 1.8. As in the manual I
examinations, multiple direct responses appear to originate along the pipe side fusion leg.
)
2.5
-In ths 60* cutomated examinations, root area responses are seen in 5 out of 6 h
) scan lines, with as many as 3 discrete fusion zone responses noted on at least one scan line-(figure 1.9). An elevated general noise level along the fusion I
zone is obvious in all scans. It should be noted that at scan line number 6, l no root area responses are observed with the 60 beam, yet a strong mid-wall signal emanates from the fusion zone. At the area of interest (scan line 4),
the root and mid-wall responses are shown in the projected view (figure 1.10),
i as being roughly equal in amplitude.
Other manual examination techniques included the use of a 70 shear waves, 45 dual longitudinal and shear waves, and a multi-mode search unit having longitudinal and shear wave components. In the 70 shear examination conducted at 2.25 MHz, root reflections are discernable at about three times the general noise level, with system gain at around 90 db. No significant individual reflectors were detected within the 1/2 -vee path along the filler metal / pipe interface; however, feeble broad-based responses are seen on most scan lines. The 45 dual element examinations were performed in shear and longitudinal modes at 1.5 and 2.0 MHz, respectively. No significant findings other than intermittent responses from the root area, which were similar in cetal path and dynamic response to those recorded with the 45 pulse echo units, were noted. The same examinations from the elbow side resulted in a comparatively lower number of root area responses having individual amplitudes :
which did not exceed the general noise level.
2.6
f 1
A 2 MHz single elecant bi-modal cscrch unit producing both high angle longitudinal (70 ) and low angle shear wave (30 ) examination beams was applied to'the specimen. Interaction of the 30 shear wave component with a corner type reflector in.the axial scan direction was ultimately confirmed on the specimen's machined corner, present after removal of the metallographic sample at the 4.5" scan line. Direct and mode converted responses from the corner and edge face were evaluated for signal position and amplitude and were compared to responses from the test specimen examination volume in other i areas. The only reflection emanating from the weld area judged to be of significance is the direct response from the root area with the 30 shear wave component, which is observed at an echo amplitude 11 dB less than the specimen corner reflection in the same scan direction. No crack tip signals
)
were observed with the 70 longitudinal wave component.
DISCUSSION i
Physical removal and subsequent metallurgical analysis of an area at the 4.5" marker of specimen S1B1 which yielded a generous sampling of ultrasonic responses confirmed that the responses did not originate from valid flaw cources, but were likely the result of metallurgical and geometric characteristics of the filler metal / pipe interface.
)
l I
I 2.7 I
J
~ Along tha pips sida fusion fcca, strcight lins. transmission of the shaar wava interrogating beam is complicated to some degree by weld grain orientation, 1
with the strongest direct reflections occurring at locations where the peak l
} beams interact with fusion boundaries having a 90 angls. This is seen more
}
) precisely in figure 1.3, where manual data points are projected on the
}
I metallographic slice, and to a less quantitative extent in the UDRPS displays in figures 1.8 and 1.10. Peak shear wave beams are seen interacting normally with.the root area, crown, and along the pipe side fusion face'where a bulging 1
of the weld occurs near mid-wall. -This mid-wall weld shape is not' considered
, normal and probably results from a repair effort when grinding was used to 1
)
remove flaws which may in fact have been oriented towards the pipe side fusion leg.
i Higher magnification micrographs of the major response areas depicted in figure 1.3 are shown in figures 1.11, 1.12 and 1.13. In all three 50x micrographs, closely spaced multiple solidification wave fronts are' noticeable at the weld interface, reflecting concentration and dendritic orientation changes. In figure 1.13, axially oriented cold work bands are noticed in the pipe base metal adjacent to the filler metal interface. Base metal inclusions are noticed in all three figures; however, they are of little significance from an ultrasonic standpoint.
2.8
f-On a cropsrison with spreimsn S4B2, which is a segmsnt of the shop wald attached to theother end of'the same elbow, the 45 and 60 single element.
techniques yielded the following results:
- 1) In the 45 shear wave examinations at 2.25 MHz and 5.0 MHz, no root area I-or fusion face responses are discernible,.even at gain settings above 80 f dB. *
- 2) In the 60 shear wave examinations at 2.25 MHz, an intermittent metallurgical / mode converted response is noted in the root area which can be normalized at around 70 dB.
. 3) The same inspectability problems with respect to shear wave sound
- penetration remain in the scans performed from the elbow.
2.9
p s.-
l t !
1 SECTION 3.0 !
L PART II -' EXAMINATIONS OF SPECIMEN SIB 1 AFTER THERMAL FATIGUE CRACKING 1;
GENERAL r
Specimen SIB 1 was subjected to thermal fatigue cracking'under controlled conditions in order.to provide a natural' flaw within the pipe to elbow weld examination volume. The filler metal-elbow weld interface on the inside diameter surface was chosen for the crack location based on the following observations:
1
- 1) In the initial investigation (Part I), no major reflectors were detected in scans performed from the elbow side; therefore achieving detection of a crack in this examination direction would tend to validate flaw detectability through the coarse microstructure and provide for reasonable assurance in the selection of optimum inspection techniques.
- 2) Cracks at the pipe / filler metal interface are relatively easy to detect, especially from the more accessible pipe side due to the lack of metallurgical and geometric type reflectors from the weld. These innocious reflectors would be essentially behind the crack. A more important consideration is the types of responses an examiner is likely to encounter when attempting to identify a discrete crack-like response in the presence of a highly reflective weld interface.
3.1
. I Thermal crack growth was achieved in specimen S1B1 as follows: .j i
i p i l 1) The specimen inside diameter surface was blended smooth, removing the root protrusion.
L f 2) An EDM starter notch measuring .010 x 1" deep by 1.0" long was machined L
directly in the middle of the specimen, along the direction of the weld deposit at the weld / elbow interface.
- 3) The specimen was heated to 800 F and subjected to cycles of water bursts, administered through a spray cup attached directly to the specimen inside
)
diameter.
- 4) A crack depth of 0.37" was estimated based on experimental values and by l
measuring surface crack propagation beyond the starter notch dimension.
The depth value is assumed across the crack length, which is approximately 1.5".
i EXAMINATIONS After cracking, the starter notch was removed by grinding, and the O.D. crown was " feathered" down to allow for greater transducer contact across the weld-area. Previous examination angles and test frequencies were repeated with an .
emphasis on crack detection and/or observation of enhanced interface responses as a result 4 i:he creck.
3.2
' Figure: 2.1 depicts the major responses from single element 45 , 2.25 MHz and ~
- 5.0 MHz and 60 , 2.25 MHz shear wave search units, respectively. The single e
olement shear wave. transducers proved to be effective for crack detection only when applied from the. pipe side.
'The 45 ,~2.25'MHz scan showed a strong response from the crack area, which was- normalized at a gain value significantly less than the root area responses.
depicted in figure 1.3 (45 dB versus 66 dB). The 5.0 MHz, 45 beam responded similarly, providing-a well-defined single response from the crack (response 3).- In the'60 , 2.25 MHz scan, a' response is seen in the crack area which is less defined when compared to the starter notch response, an effect which may.
be attributed to the I.D. concavity present after the starter notch removal and changes in reflector characteristics (figure 2.1).
Single element shear. wave scans performed from the elbow were essentially negative for crack resolution / detection. The primary effect seems'to be a dispersion of the shear. wave examination beam as a result of the material'
' characteristics of the elbow, i.e., coarse grain structure. Corner responses from the cut edge of the elbow could not be established.
In figure.2.2, 45 degree dual element shear and longitudinal wave A scan results are depicted. Successful detection was achieved in scans performed I from the elbow where the direct response from the crack is the only significant I
- root area. signal (responses 2 and 4). Crack detection in the pipe side scans 3.3
/
(responses 1 and 3) was complicated to some degree by transducer contact and to a greater degree by the presence of interface responses. One noticeable aspect of dual element examinations from the' pipe side in either transmission mode is that metallurgical type signals observed primarily from the root area have little axial or circumferential duration, making the corner response believed to be from the base of the crack appear as the only reflector of significant length.
l Scans performed with the bi-modal search unit (70 L and 30 S waves) were not'useful from a detection or sizing standpoint and were compicated by the amount of interfering signals which were present at the higher gain settings deemed necessary to extract crack base and tip responses.
The single element 45 and 60 shear wave automated examinations from the pipe side were repeated in an effort to identify' flaw features in the digitally processed data. Also, high resolution " detection type" axial scans were performed from the elbow side, with one of two techniques proven uffective in crack detection in the manual examinations (dual element, 45 longitudinal wave, 2.0 MHz).
In general, the 45 shear and longitudinal wave examinations conducted from the pipe and elbow side were effective in their ability to identify responses having length duration from the area of the crack. Tip responses were 3.4
difficult to extract from the data in any format. The crack is either shallow or not fully insonified in either axial direction by the detection beams due to various metallurgical effects, such as attenuation due to coarse grain structures in the elbow base material and weld or beam dispersion due to weld interfaces. In either case, identification of the crack area response using f the automated data depends greatly on accurately projecting the weld profile at 1
a given scan line, having prior knowledge of potential flaw locations with l respect to the weld, observing the linear extent of the responses, and comparing the dynamic response from the indication with known reflectors, l
In figure 2.3, single element, 5.0 MHz, 45 shear wave low resolution data
)
for scan lines 1 through 4, and a high resolution scan at an area between scan line 2 and 3 are displayed. These scans are from the pipe side. In figure 2.4, a larger-scale top view of the high resolution scan is depicted showing two distinct targets at the longest transit times. When projected in the B l scan view, these are shown as originating from the crack location.
In figure 2.5, 45 longitudinal wave, 2.0 MHz dual element results are displayed in four high resolution scans. These scans are from the elbow side.
In scan line 2, the large signal appears to be emanating from the weld fusion zone on the elbow side near the crack location. The adjacent second response displayed in figure 2.6 as being in the pipe base metal could be classified as the crack tip; however, its relative position with respect to the primary signal in the projected view makes this conclusion less definitive.
3.5
L
'In the single element 60 shear examinations conducted at. 2.25 MHz from the pipe side, poor automated results were obtained due in part to differences'in-the post-crack specimen I.D. contour.
DISCUSSION-
\
Persistent interface type responses in the field weld specimen S1B1 tend to-l complicate the detection of valid flaws in scans conducted from the pipe side i' using conventional techniques. The rate of occurrence, duration and amplitude 1
of interface responses at gain settings marginally above that which would be considered normal for detection type examinations would suggest that the
~
interpretation of crack signals is possible, but would tend to be a qualitative
- judgment. An important consideration from a detection / flaw discrimination standpoint would be the ability to recognize an enhanced singular response with a corresponding measurable length dimension in excess of transducer width,
- particularly with the 45 shear techniques.
As in any examination of austenitic weldments, advance knowledge of the types, variations, locations, critical sizes, and ultrasonic response characteristics of service' induced flaws is helpful. In the case of field weld specimen S1B1, reliable detection of cracking can be achieved with a multi-technique approach including the use of dual element 45 longitudinal wave search units applied from the elbow side, at scan sensitivities sufficiently high as to allow for interpretation .of valid flaw signals above the material noise.
3.6
t A proven automated inspection system such as UDRPS, having a variety of imaging _
formats and averaging techniques, can be used to effectively judge the
)
i significance of reflectors within the examination volume, particularly those '
-which are not typically crack-like. Even in cases where metallurgical l
conditions tend to complicate test resulta, a deeper understanding of the
{ extent of the condition will ensue. In this respect, the manual and automated techniques are complir2entary, providing measurable benefits in the evaluation l= process.
J-3.7
l Dwg. 9405A02 l Vertical Pipe g e", ,
l Piece B N Shop Weld w
'I. PieceA IO)
Horizontal Pipe" I kO) d ~
Field Weld Sectioning of Piece A l N Sc,
() )*
I S1 l An != 0 S181B 0 Intrados SIB 1A SIB Al Sectioning of S1 S1A3A 0 g SlB3A SlA3B SlB l SIB 2 1 bSIA2 51828 I Fig u re 1.1 l Sectioning Dia g ra m I
1;!l 11, i ;
)11ll1 l I!l I1j w
i e
V t
e t n i c
o l
u S
- C r l
F f
- a o .
" i d e 5 - a p a i
4 R P e r
- A "5 g 2 n i
1 w
- o .
h _
2 S _
1 s m m e u n t u e u D a t a
r n D
- u a
- g c
_ 4 1 i S L F [L 7 8 J
l-d .
i 1
S n
e 2,
- - )
. 6 ,
p m o
i
\ c
~
- \ 3_ !
/ ;
T
(
e p
)
~
5 ~ -
S 5 w t 4
D. s
- e 4 _
_ ~
~
O T
/ a
/ /
_ \
s 4 1
- h. i t T.
W .
s e
E 7 n U P
3 O . r e / e B _.
t n
P m
/.
~ _ I i
2 L .
_. f c
_ o e
_ p
)
_ a S s 1 e _
r e _
h A c .
i n .
. 4
( '"
m _
t u r a ee t e t f g D nn ed eU LE C
OB 1 2 3 4 5 6 PM SU _
EN R
f N B p B B B B I
d d d d d d A 2 6 6 6 5 1 G 7 6 8 8 6 9 E
_ D U
T % % % % % %
I L 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 8 8 8 8 8 8 M
- A A T
A D
D " " " " " "
NF 0 3 0 5 5 0
- N 5 6 O AF .
2
{.
I TO 1 1 1 1 1 ,
T S .
A" ,
N5 I ,
M4 H
- 3. A T T 9 3 6 9 1 3
. y .
1 XE A P 5 2 5 1 4 3 k 4 e [/--
4 .
E O O
. in[ - .
e D 1 1 1 1 r L E s
k'. d N
uAI UL L " " "
J g " " "
N AH 2 2 5 TT i
F AN 8 7 9 9 7 0 MC A EA P O 1 2 M O 1 1 S
0
_ 6 Y
D C z z z z z z )
N N H H H H H H :
A E M M M M M M _
U 5 5 5 5 5 5
'5 Q 2 2 2 2 2 2 '
4 E R 2 2 2 2 2 2 '
F L
A * * * * *
- U 4 4 1 1 6 8 E T 4 4 5 5 3 4 L C G A N
A .
S S S S S S M * * *
- O 5 '5 0 0 5 'O N 4 4 6 6 4 G E .
N C A
AF D. D. D. D. i 1D. D.
CR 0 O O O 1 mk,7 r)m d t
y SU S
i
,- Fig ure 1.4 i l
e
)
1
) . -
i M 6 e, ' g eC .,
- W ' , M4 45' FUSION ZONE 45' ROOT AREA RESPONSE NO.1 RESPONSE NO.2 I
) , .
(' !
I I
d o.
A,( %, -
u.a d 'Mhdi a s
SO' FUSION ZONE 60* ROOT AREA I RESPONSE NO.3 RESPONSE NO.4
' V - '
(
i . '
%e A'A. C h/h A_
45' CROWN AREA SO' CROWN AREA RESPONSE NO.5 RESPONSE NO.6 Peak A Scan Readings Scan Lin e at 4.5"
l 1
Fig ure 1.5 l
1
-.i
(-
y .
- l 6
} >
r
- i. *
)
l ..
t -
) *
,, -(i I
() I i
h .
) l l
1
)
(/
z+
l UDRPS 45' CALIBRATION DATA BLOCK THICKNESS 1.5" BLOCK MATERIAL - CARPENTER 455 REFLECTOR SIZE O.125" DIA. SDH IPP = 0.014 - 68 A SCANS / INCH rr 1/s
? 3/s s/a s/a CORNER
\
J
Fig ure 1.6
,~ .
yc e .~,
...'a : ., ; .- . .5. .
e t . .
e i .
) ( ,
p.
i .:
. -t j . ,
i.
) g . *
,2
~
h UDRPS 60* CALIBRATION DATA BLOCK THICKNESS 1.5"
) BLOCK MATERIAL - CARPENTER 455 REFLECTOR SIZE O.125" DIA. SDH IPP = 0.029 - 34 A SCANS / INCH l r m i
1/8 2/s S/S 3/s l
> CORNER I
l
Fig ure 1.7 .
r
.y .
y t ,;
r k ',- p . . .
~
4: '
+ .. ( - ,
l
.. .I ,.
g A' l.g ,- . .,
.i g
) ,' (, 'i ' ,
.e - -
. -' . . .-. . '*b.',.' y 1 .
SCAN UNE 1 SCAN UNE 2 SCAN UNE 3
(
,c . -
.y,. .
) [ -
5
- ,g p-
- t. c.
..p' 9- .,
_9 -
. ,. )' ,,
.. ,g -
l '
'f; s'
~
./
. . g i -" % .
s . . ,
) ,- -
n <
a .
SCAN UNE 4 SCAN UNE 5 SCAN UNE 6 (AREA OF INTEREST)
SPECIMEN #1 45'S DETECTION SCANS (UDRPS) 5.0 MHz, 0.5" DIA. ELEMENT 82dB REFERENCE DATA FILE DTRJOS
' ^%w. .
Fig ure 1.8
^ t a
Pb W I
d i .
f 4
,.i. . r
.y
) ,
=
.5 t %
,i '! ; .,,
e
\I
) .
', . T- .. pIM ,.
. i I
I
', l z. ,
- f..
> .. 8 ,
I t
\
)
a s
l 9
O e I
i, ,
k:
[ SPECIMEN #1 I
45' DETECTION SCANS (UDRPS)
SCAN LINE 4 (AREA OF INTEREST)
J SCAN (TOP) AND B SCAN VIEW 1'
)
1 l
l I l 1
)
h
l Fig ure 1.9 i
l-1
) l . .
SCAN LINE 1 . SCAN UNE 2 SCAN UNE 3 '
) s J
(.
)
EEEEE
. x .
) ..
( .
f
\
SCAN UNE 4 SCAN UNE 5 SCAN UNE 6 (AREA OF INTEREST)
) SPECIMEN #1 60*S DETECTION SCANS (UDRPS) 2.25 MHz. O.5" DIA. ELEMENT
, 66dB REFERENCE l
DATA FILE DTRJ13 i
l I
)
I l
h
Fig ure 1.10 . .
, I
\
l.
m a I
, f 49
- I
. r. ,
I 9
4 s
(
l
-a ,,
~ '
s x ,,
f
}
l
) -
a=
i
)
h -: a.. . 2. e. - . - it.. . ..
) . .
p .,
' l [%' y e l
1 ,
. p - %
) l 1
)
'e
! SPECIMEN #1 l 60* DETECTION SCANS SCAN LINE 4 (AREA OF INTEREST)
J SCAN (TOP) AND B SCAN VIEW t
5
.df l i
- s. ....dish._ S L.k l
,n . h a, g y o.> ;g : f.. . ; m .y Y:,3 e',#A.KmC
,,s. e
- #- y -
o
, , N . ,] ; jf sf .,. h . , ~,. e,.:py %'[
/
, A[ . ~- +h
,,,,, a__ g ,
, i ,
- ,f. ; 3 , '
... ..- s .. #, ,
- !*' -., ilar 4 W '
. E. '
-4
_07 7
" Q y & gd Q ?:H + @. J , $.i ** . , ~oQ'.
\
.Q sb,ra,
- .ww n , %..-.. x:
WC M~;.>c}n',t..a m . .
. "&, n
-~ %; i.
. a.
. e. s.4;c e.y . . , p,
~. ~ . nc . - n?. .
, . . :M y
+7 ;w... -3 v;:n.w, G. w% 3
~ rm'f
.e,;
y'+l7
.. ,,~
a, w,
u.d n y ;
~
. u,, ,p:,4n,, . m: ..n. , ,ans p.4 w m,. . ,e,.n
+
- ww 4~
.,9.< . r s , , , w ,
4 M,
D [.? 9. .
> ,n @wMM,g$7o
%n.p .ww iv mw w_%a.W. s 9
AD[;
,A. :. , . .
w$N,;, : 2 (3 ec i S ; s. w, w;.g <e-;
r : g.
e -c s.rd. d a&w. .
w.s eg
- s. n
. v y m& qw-2 W W.739a, m% m, . ,, < vom m...
> F.I ure 1.11 a N,w;g w . ae m ,., n. ~ x in o
,1 ,g.
y%j.s 44 n . $*$n
'% . % , .' , L -6.- Y'$
50X Enlargement Area Uud s>$7/flSI MA(b.M,_~ R ?I '"y' of Responses 5 and 6 [w'*A@D W
.x2 y~Mys EbDM v /. kiE ./ .
,-s . - v '. M , g P
- $ w ,3,.,q; %. ja-,e
- 4 -
s NW ek $ ., '
kTa'.?6[/*'h.k"@ av shk'4l M ..#$p,h :p ,
/ ~
t~'~~
j
-e1 m.f w.- % 4M:
- '.i'. g rw4. vs-)*N 3 J y.f .(, a -
/[- ,,
e.,
) ;;(<5 k NL A b* , .
99
%jhM(MWhhWGQ W. v,s&.;yQ$&W%M$.Q./
i w wn <~m .&.
- a,. + . w ~ ,
. ., {
.4 e. w g y Q .n~wy$ :: & ?;h NW f ,. h* : ~ v y 3,: f&kf g gg.pp ,4
(;p Jq y gl~.K~,e g y w)p,pwms,.x
- c ., ,
w.. ~Vw L,p ,s?a L e / ,p mQ,
.. r. m4. :
q._%
,j, ..n ' , , ,;
1 ~ 4 i- , cf %..,s % -,.a
) <N'
. p* s v.;I
,y* a,, p)." -?,,m,~g
--.s+ 4 cf~g[,w#.m ..q ^ .
t 1k'> ..,,4 p g
-: ,, , Q J (q'jb. .; , .y. . p
- v. . , n . -
k,, vf}k' s;ihf W.n . , Q ,& ,-
t . ,. w-f - \
],' h l;.'ef,:aN A;&. l}v* ;[w . .m ~e n.s,np9 a,w,x/ <. a s.o a.y.-. ,m>va - fy
- +,.3.- S. <
< e , n ;. , y eya
% y s **'s g4 Y A ~ q r .n ,' 't ' . Q
-* s
,M oe 4 . c .. J ~s
? 1" % s t s -1 u- ; y.,.+t3 . '+4.q's 4"A uu -2 . y; - . fsn 4e +n Le g) m-W- =
T~~= 4 ; .
a
.. .,, * -s+.u. '
t e p w y,[I ey
- 9 T S N w'
.s W q ;p. n[.,y'ev y c, - \
~, :
wf,y <. ' ~p' , nMI cy c-f.. ,.;... QQ,&m
- . eTb,D i g.v qq$ 3.J A, .C<s T y ;,.y., _;*' ,
.I m \ ,y
< ; c s.a 4 ;., g q-w )'g p. .
y.%, < % w;-
, g .n..
- A
- .
c ,
o3 m;:enW= .~ L, a L, - yeq - i . e t c ,. , .<v. g&.-;4.
s . ??,Wew., e s,~a .u 4 " s p n?.q, i s S,q.%,s Jg r p~%
.aO q. W A y:. s..gag,-' " 1; uy*?. W g ye % y . .g4 . 9,qmw .. WJ Qy.1 y a s
v~
x.
p , &.yl v .
- t r.ne4.n'; , ' m%
. .3. w.,Ae.W% & -oe %, w, ay,,y .,, ,s%.Q%yQ., , ,i a s 4 ~ , 4. e .3 .
L. #./.- Q e ; M i
. e * ..- . . t - a map M **' 7 p, ._y. . .a, . , p ,. ,. .. .
m
.c Q m?W, .p.Y&'/ iAg:2 i, 2,:
2 f g 'e <N4ify: 4 m m *o.s. h., .;y %f, W a
5;';;%,. '*;@'
2 r .**y gr '. 'A.W
.n- -Q
. ,,V= C.y n.'n .~; ; y ,1
=N,.,s : w .j.. j. . .*. .H ,y,.
.,r
,,f*~asE 3 4.-Jst/ j v,-
g ,,/
<.,T,"
gL,C
<~ ,
v
,. A .p . ..
T
) m=
) 4 ! :.., l{ $ -
~
~;m;mm g.w$wv% .. e%. =.--C w a:K .w scy;. x t Wy.. a me
.c m' \ fz, n:-
e.
'~
x
,y g .",<. C_ p g g<,W g.; gH.'{ Q ',M W . y ,.; g,jdi R
. ? ;, &
7.
O ~ b'< N 'v Bs;; % f1 M r y ,.f p < : y' r ;
I h., O*m%;
- Q.9 W Q .% C mm,.Q x .u <. t i9l W, m
- .g&
Ma(i' *h\%, .gbfm@~mh'> m
'<mdr h w*To~ u .ppw ms ;x 'm ? .,-w wa. & A'N I
m - :7c, a, c r . . ..
m?<
c
- f. /, ~
1 ,
~ '.
wung ~- e V e..
CQ l y in. g. .w ~Sp. n w$p.G9," %-e.g' . 3
.g /( s v. - Dw p+ m xwl Is . .
3,yu :. ...c m r,w$ ..;4; 7 c,e a . .n ww. s. emem ,
y %s n.,.
t
- m,, 4.<) s
.< . +. v. w
.sv% , K y g; , p f- (w p y, 4 t
g Q 4A p ; R(
p; -4 w& g :,J- p>
I H. , .. : 1 .s ,
,q,. -
z.s A c .-e
~m 1M vp r#.qq, .pp;3.d W .%+.p 7 3 .
.b 4 . m ; gfg 4
_.o 4 y ,
3 f
p.p $ [yT%'~=. ..g 21yr.Q ( g~ /W k.,. pS.6 N *; W;, g % k a
i t. f w% so g
.ye >
+ yp- p L . ;.v., e. > c.
L i M-Wg m . ,j ~w"t% M+ w t6 -
f.C.' w, v tQ,'-~5 ryw W 7 :.,a ,N 1 - J ..
. n, ij~ i
- g. y;r>.>; .1;,
.: . W. syg d , % x --
E
~ ,; ;
.; 4.w..*ffRy y f *m.w eny > % C .ym , #cS9/$p. ::. ;hM jrnyn f .? fLW ww
,q ,,
g
..am w ,a .;+.
~
yy, Ag , v3%p. % g '-jyp,&* 4,.. m. ,ye6 ,3/14_ <_ p Mv ;w Fig ure 1.12 s
I Qg G . W.. tp , y.N.m :cm mw y6 yf.;gA w q gn.1 e N .g:p,9qmp; y y;of 50X Enlargernent Areo
+%3 .m(y%,.nn;-w
+ , 3,
- 4 i ;, 7r ,,,
3 Responses 1 and 3 I
c
-t
. O i.g.s r.p s, @yn ,, s.. -c.W,d wn- p'.
.;a $ n y :ww ,
~
7~. m. n,.. .~ s g c# .m ,
~e2 7g 9 p$ .. . e. #.
- 1 ;. - [ W- h,j r }t . ., . ; ,-. fe
- [ M.. i i M 7 !, .m.7,,,84 ,....
/e .' 'y .-
4., ,.
- f ,2^. ^%*.
_ l- ' c ,$l~Q
- a. l .
.) \ %. ; { " %,. . A *+ r
- 1. [, .~ f.h, 7'
- , y k ' wy> , ' d ' R M.t, Q','le~%gg.k 5
. . (, -- v/3al.fNr>vr ; L' S w, g .. '. N T ' ', g'j. s.,
I 1. .
~,
} .>
9, i,' so c .r* ;w n
- h. ,/,,.# /.,a.Q:
o; f' 'a.j h ji .,, ,{ ". w3 '*% .j i..
,Sc &
s
- v Io~
u 3.,4,
.. * , m, a b
, r D*.
r _*QQy
.*1r
[
1 z'[e s.v4'n.*f..#*',',
n
-(m
- m, ~ O <,'
.k
-M, u, _Q/
w t
-c ,
e g% , 3-%f
, ,e f.c ; <%g ,p. yr f 7, s A.p . ,
I [ ~,
, - r% i .
- , p y ; i;y Q ygg . u., g o; .,
'e n p.eu un.sgm # 3 [i g M[f 1
Qm; ..~ pj r[a . :%w'/
C.h.Mi y [NA;' w .n,.$ n n s.m m p s ? ' if 3 b go..xw , ra& w,.?*f?
~
I
. r
.?.Y + .:(
fL .
. h.'.w g,,w w,. Y <> f A
3
. f ; ;,, ,n .my f
RQ i, l0)y : V J [?f # gs.g u .h. [ 4g % $ m'&WyA,wk,ad%.m,y,",_y<.3~ ,
h
-u+ ,7 ;3x,.n
- ( _ s.x,uz.s. . *a qN r ,. m,. o .
-J
,4 p
/ $~ .k
. i -%. \YU Ch>
', *[ u 5
,e g'M . m , g$ [r 3 tu, E s
, y, , y)}y.1m. . :m ,, #s > N .4 .,f}/ A,. -m%. ,
P
,y .
s d.Q
<~
sg.
W i[4'..g g [
gn , . 3 . ,
I A,)r. ' -
as yN R, %,,
- y+ = . , )g. _ ' f i.
I
' ./n.n >j a"w'7*#*'
,y F'. A 2 pig
- j. , jM I u
.<$j.rgg m[ )N. ,J j3, f , y'*.. *'
.n
,y Q;L . 4*-T 4% . g.
% ^m A l x@ tw
+v g3 .
e
, [ . 3. ( w
.n j , , ,y
- m; ,
. g.p
%<ss.r
- g,3,,, ,,-, -
i
- *~.,y.q:}*y,gg s
m ,;
( -v, a.- . ,s s j. ' >- ~ :-
'.p, ,. nj ...~+) ,- f, s .,w* s ..
) .
- .AJ e =
m . r.,
'j f, - .
- g M,1l y y'gygc.',,'-Q'
'd *
\
~s ,,.E} " .* b ^ '
, g .
. x- f ' 1.4 -(oQ:, e-s.m
- M\ :7 pfl w Q * , l\
JjQ . n ql9'$w..
I a . c- m e
, m m"
( ' y 9 ~;, ' ! ( A, s ,
d ,4.'* ,..[ b , -
.s ,'
i r .s-
, ve 4 e D) . Oyh' - -
,s
.~.d, .g g
,ea n% . e a; , ,-
.* e , %s a
e >%
ss ~ j- - c-,.. . , ,
--.','..A.'as,,<.,A'.. y )p I
,;*', 7 ,*9
, ,mg
- t* . 48 . 4 .g g*.,.%
5
% -I ,
,# 4
[ 7.p,O~ ,A y< . ' +
,i.
N' ? Y
[;M M fy = 1 M*.%*%* h i , a, 4, 'a.s .yb., a, GNyt-0A"' -
9W'#~
4(i
- 1. ,y I t > & */ J, hq ;Jy . , v ' T.as,; . 4 :w% an 1 w
r e v, ,
- n v .q= c ' ,. - 2 9 ..
' ' I C ,, ,f, %4.S(j ..f@%6h.e 9 ay h h% *f t
l MavW. cu h.w.
^S] 1,. , ' t , J * . ,*u ~ p% 7 E ~,
.a>
+> , ,
0Q. : j *U I -
[-*'
' N
- ww ww% , . w',
q' M ' [ ,'Y "l " W b'**'"
I
<- ( A -;
- M y,....-m .. -
4 p. - s V, .
l'g h.,, . , \ , -f ' ' ,* "a ,
f ! ' v.yA ,E ,,e- g' ,<'g*,'c. g
.r,,
- 9
- - -
- j > ; 4 -- . ;,, . ,,
- 9 y >- .,,,J. a v
.p;
,. i .. ~ , i s",*h- , , %' )..ep A .
4 .,* ' p
. s
- 5% ww% g eY'+v di ,
, es 1r I
' t
.e e * ,
%_.. ,.d.
4%
y 49 j .'is.,p ,.
. I *. * ,
lk,' :.p . J em _
,'l'&,' %"Nmp *.
l? $**G'
- ~ 'O ('
]
- s. ( > > r
- . 3 <.as , .w
w, y
- + ,wh, ,.
wh$f& .w bw.,e- &,mw. ,
ry. nq. .
.cA sv A4 ggieWage '
Fig ure 1.13 M[?f0$gMMg*"1C %
h SOX Enlargement Areo ' UMhMIE.%.,eE*ff
%Mai 0 esponses 2 and 4 s Cg th. 4
- . Q %& M C. m.j F *-2*m.w,,s%;e:slsr%$ m Q '^
N.fyw*Y%e ;JO L V o w .- T d :Mmw R ", "
,G ns) n$:.$ h ~
.j.$'.Ef -
/A.L
.. % . A as 5,' 4 W% . .
.w ma;%'at
*.:,a y *A* 's.m o
> c .. .f.
h,At mm J..l&w'9% wsM._ ,j
.- r.
e1 .M 4 ;. ,
*h
@ NhhW s 4
,,a% s m N,W*kW$_klfWbOW$ae s%. ~M_., *j w # w:.a N Le w <g7 g;#y:%yw?y .u,;aa. ,,4.r w .. . ,_y"; gg . e~
r- y Wu V;,n W n',%.. ...w" .;
.: v Ly. S. . a
' , p.
w ;p4 k, u ,9
.;q 4 a? :&: y' .?,av A 4 f *)'I6;g tcW. ,.M,<..+4.
W
' h*E.;M w, O *M&J
- ,4Q2
*? 4e==,.V 3Y' 2$ Y 4.1 ,' $.#'.9.db w : n.
. m.rpie:Mtw
.c W.w w me.4,ytd,iqA.n%, ,
. f?
- 'l b *E :.,
?
. v.W_y r. 4'** p. 4
&:?i&% W'. [. m ";^.
r }; g .?- e ,~ . r, e . + ,p) j . n,&c. m.w' r,),. ., n. . W . / L.Q. \ w
* ; ',u: ys v
y, -+ p s.,.s, y s.m,uQ..g~l':
>r q
yg J u.,':v.rg.?'- J ., */. 7 ,a . . J*hy
.. .m, ,?' *:,\g. se+l> mA>Q4 .u- .. (c, f,u
. , et f,;p f a d' . ~i. q I M .s , D N I
.m,
. .b . . .Nb# j .f ,
O N N .hf COh h*. .. m h~$7.s\[- QM [9. , 3' Y. 4 w. M.,,..= d .. yt pO[hh.%a. I [w HF tt 4 YOW" ~n.?gN' ,,
+YN
. 41 /? o - ;i A f k, &
; b, D.,% s.#<:,p%
1 l L uhs @hM5D}k,;i Y@h
@Ml*,
tk ( h.m .edM@h@ hb&,w f M..hy . s ;wse.w--Me3. n._;u:,h . f e:_,r Ws@fkI h.&s. m r og AMy n.%
;nw
. ~ *, ~ 4 v.-weg/' y;g y j o .
y npo>yf. w. 3 I $h r#
*.f 575 I
n . J y : wT 9 m er.w.y+ m.p,Q,e,xy+m 3'p' gd, $ y . en
, u Mac, .,,,,~;. w : g i w
pY %+.,r.o y,[I e w- wme m:-w, A . n,._ a w.a ~( ww. v,
.L MS* ..
wnn Yr . yq s /
- T; c ,, ,f;ih,. . . -,Q cc a .
mb .n'..ek- ,.w.a ,,G,, f F ~~ n- ! n %u . va%ww. n -}nY,Q,y7 I,A g,.'f~f *p. x, ,: ,ost-"m%, ar-s ,pvw vy.-, Q^,,Y . ,h.gw ,' t, x a e . ,
"*',. v.g" -*
avi' .. . . .Ms jQ ij . . ,
..g>. .-t-My p, i ? % 4 ,. ' . . , .
4 t cyy - 1
* .ar .
- a. w, :.<[* p:,.p /w.J.J ao,
/q,fwsjrx + r, ,.fr % .. ; w ~% p . , -
; ,W%u
,; ,y 7 , Q.
. $, f ' ,x('. ..~ gp,{j .. .. . :m({&;m*nl==ww=wl$,?
g * .#1 .
%w,.,,,,,,,, : . , .
1.; z .-. y,++h, w.,N: t ; .r { r w e.g , ,; Q*hh"}{[
~
,v..a.
Q h:; y,..;Q,f..,,&e!?N &s; .' p,g., W ,e,. )
, Mb/ -
7 .w y n ,g g;; m;.g,n
,j , f.. A g-w gwu. wappy .y #, E 1 % y a /. s>,1 ggas.
7 np. J mJg< w .-- Q g ep g..y.,..y. h ) .ev v. w ,. y -
% gwp
. y .,,. . . c ,, ; < , m
.. f ** f' k yy; $f&pq g.k k g[. 3 l f w. };8 @& .y:m. :.,. a :m-ns v,+
$? hi f yTdr hh
.o x u n
$ "h2 p - nhf]t m y.gw x" .w.gw&
< ~ a
$.jk, ,. ge]l,);$,'. . ,y! l= ,,% 5$h,,,
'f, d s ' - ~ a. 5**YQ.. 5 .n-<=*,,,,=s
- n,.-m.4,L M.""& .a M **..s-i e, .
am .
* > b " f. s ,15-g#$ga .v ean* M
'.d , .
F. Q,. h-[,i.,.M p w 7 *4 b*T F"'asi'.* 4 - me m
,s'*
.e ..,
fA .,g*4'**! c. ,,
,**#~
*r
, eJg sualWI880 f.,. .aere L& *.
! *.Q"**s".,, ne*''' 'Y . .
m.. gg ;...p.,. g
Figure 2.1
/
N \ \
\ /
OG
' / EWOW PIPE ,
/
( 2.95 >
'a.......,............ M 4,
.. : .. - L.1
- 1) 0.010 STARTER NOTCH 2) CRACK AREA I
SO'S 2.25MHz 60*S 2.25MHz 68db I i. i I i
=r%e=- , l_ _ _
l 3) CRACK AREA CRACK AREA 4) 45'S 5.OMHz 66db 45'S 2.25MHz 45db Post Crock Evoluotion of Specimen S181
Figu re 2.2
/
! ) \\ Ogs
/
e G ELBOW I PIPE / ( f a~
\_ i,
)
< 2.95 i
) ) i l '
.a A h $.. a1; ;a= A
{& .
- 1) CRACK AREA 2) CRACK AREA i
45'L DUAL 2.OMHz 70db 46*L DUAL 2.OMHz 74db
' t l
u . .k,k._:.L 2 ' ' '^ ^ ^ b *h? Y
- 3) CRACK AREA 4) CRACK AREA 45'S DUAL 1.5MHz 62db 45'S DUAL 1.5MHz 68db Post Crack Evoluotion of Specimen S181 iimi I
a Fig u re 2.3 ) ) i l j . r I ) , l SCAN LINE 2
^
) SCAN LINE 1 LOW RESOLUTION LOW RESOLUTION I 4 f ,.f SCAN LINE 3 SCAN UNE 4 LOW RESOLUTION LOW RESOLUTION e e a
<8 * / ['
j
,f . .
AREA BETWEEN SCAN LINES 2 AND 3 HIGH RESOLUllCN LOW AND HIGH RESOLUTION SCANS SPECIMEN S181 45'S 5.OMHz
Figure 2.4 s . I -
,,i.'
,s -
- g. --
, g- ..
l i
. {
. 1 I
l l
'. , I.
( 1 l
^
I , . .,- <, ) ' f
. /.
' ~
^:
6 i e
~
7 j HIGH RESOLUTION TOP AND 8 PROJECTION AREA BETWEEN SCAN LINES 2 AND 3 45'S 5.OMHz
i i Fig u re 2.5.
-; A , .
r r r-sW : A
- .$ ? ..g_-
i ! g, ~ _ . );a
,, - y;
- SCAN LINE 1 e
p ,, 4 i , y s ' ;s : a i
. . . .: ' : i y;'.
; - /
4 A) SCAN UNE 2 ' 1
.; .a p ,, .(} "a'
)_ s
=~. 11 4 N SCAN UNE 3 l
... 2 .,.
e. 1 .
.. g
, ~ l l SCAN UNE 4 45'L DUAL 2.OMHz i HIGH RESOLUTION SCANS (ELBOW SIDE) I \
Fig ure 2.6 x r r
~
p - - jj b
~
y ; s , . .
. J' ,
,4/- .c 4
j I , e4 j A , ,,
/ V' ? S;.*
.4 l
j
uf , ;gy t' ; , ,
.' j.' -
- . 1 Yi . . . .
j
..> i - <- .
I l e I ( gnng? , I . . l >r, l , 'e .
- l
,4
. off,'
I lI [ ~ j . .
?,4.
6
.A J,f -
! 45*L DUAL 2.OMHz ) HIGH RESOLUTION SCANS AT SCAN LINE 2 (ELBOW SIDE) TOP AND PROJECTED VIEW I ) I . Du}}