Enhancing reliability for CRA Clad piping weld joints utilizing advanced

Phased Array Ultrasonic inspection

Niyant J MEHTA
QA, QC, NDE Department,
Larsen and Toubro Heavy Engineering LLC, Sohar, Oman.
Niyant.Mehta@larsentoubro.com
More info about this article: http://www.ndt.net/?id=24368

Abstract

Corrosion resistant alloy pipe materials are more popular for the transport of hot and corrosive gases and fluids.
For the Offshore Gas projects, the offshore platforms and producing facilities produce Sour gas which is being
transported through these Pipelines. The use of clad corrosion resistant alloy (CRA) pipes for the transport of
hot and corrosive fluids is desirable as they offer the corrosion resistance of solid CRA materials, whilst the use
of a high strength substrate significantly reduces material costs and pipeline weight. However due to highly
attenuating weld joints and the dissimilar metal welding offers challenge in flaw assessment and inspection
methods.

This paper explains how the advanced Phased Array Ultrasonic Inspection is best suitable for CRA clad Piping
weld joints having material of construction as API5L Gr X65 with Inconel 625 weld overlay. The real challenge
is to identify and size the indications situated at root areas with adequate signal to Noise ratio to achieve due to
noise indications coming from base metal and Inconel weld overlay interface. This advanced Phased Array
Ultrasonic Inspection system utilizes DMA (Dual Matrix Array) Probes with special wedges which have
significantly improved Probability of Detection (PoD), Signal to noise ratio and widen the weld area coverage.
Dual Matrix Array probe utilizes transmit/receive arrangement of elements ensuring uniform sound pressure in
the area of interest. The conventional RT has inherent limitations including safety hazards. A comparison with
conventional RT and advanced Phased Array UT is carried out to understand the limitations of conventional
method and advantages of advanced Phased Array UT inspection technique. Actual weld mock up/Validation
blocks were prepared with artificial defects in weld and HAZ areas to assess the technique capabilities in
detection and sizing of such defects. Advanced Phased Array Ultrasonic inspection was successfully
demonstrated on validation pieces and more safe and reliable inspection was carried out.

Keywords: CRA, Phased Array, DMA, Dissimilar metals, Mock up/Validation blocks.

1. Introduction to CRA Pipes:

According to DNV-OS-F101 [7] a clad pipe is defined as “a pipe with internal (corrosion
resistant) liner where the bond between (line pipe) backing steel and cladding material is
metallurgical”. Base material of clad pipe is usually high-strength-low-alloy (HSLA) steel,
such as X52, X60 and X65 which has superior mechanical properties. This combination is
cost effective solution against solid SS piping. Figure 1 shows offshore platform and
circumferential weld overlay on the inner surface of CS pipe.

Figure 1, Offshore Platform and circumferential weld overlay inside CS Pipe.

Corrosion Resistant Alloys (CRAs) are typically used to protect the base material from
corrosion due to corrosive fluids, Wet H2S/Sour service, high temperatures and pressures
including partial pressure of Co2 and H2s.The typical clad pipe girth welding is being done
using CRA filler throughout the complete joint using GTAW and/or SMAW welding
processes. Figure 2 shows typical cross section of CRA clad weld joint.
Figure 2, Typical Cross section of CRA Clad weld joint

2. Challenges in inspection of CRA Clad piping joint

Because material, velocity, grain structure, and other properties of the CRA material differ
from the base material, these types dissimilar weld joints raise new challenges in the
inspection of the same. The Non Destructive Testing of such welds to assure weld
quality/integrity at the point of fabrication and during services is complicated by their
inhomogeneity and anisotropy. Both radiography and conventional ultrasonic inspection
techniques have limited capability for the detection of flaws at the dissimilar materials
interface.

Past experimental studies have shown that longitudinal wave is generally best suited for the
inspection of austenitic stainless steel welds due to more sound energies and less attenuation.
Transverse waves due to their nature are more sensitive to scattering and highly attenuated
due to coarse grain structure which resulted into seldom use of them for inspection of
austenitic materials. To reduce the effect of scattering, low frequency ultrasonic transducers
with longitudinal wave are used for inspection of coarse grained materials. At grain
boundaries longitudinal waves experience reflection; refraction, mode conversion and beam
skewing. Beam skewing can lead to depth errors and confusion between actual indications
and indications due to interferences. Inspection in second leg is almost impossible because of
the clad layer and highly attenuating weld joint. Coarse grain material and dissimilar metal
weld joint makes penetration difficult for transverse waves or even conventional longitudinal
waves. Defects situated at root area are much more difficult to find due to issues with SNR
ratio, standing echoes and reflections from root areas. Challenge increases when single side
access is available for Pipe# Elbow type of joints. In such case, scanning to be done from
single side and defects to be captured from weld and HAZ areas including opposite side of
the probe scanning surface. (Refer figure 3)
Figure 3-Pipe# Fitting configuration with Single side access for PAUT inspection

Latest ASME Code is addressing this issue by adding in clause no T-451 of Article 4 as
“Additional items, which are required, are weld mock-ups with reference reflectors in the
weld deposit and single or dual element angle beam longitudinal wave transducers.” Hence
welded mock up block with reference reflectors are mandatory to ensure detectability, sizing
of indications and weld volume coverage. Signal to Noise ratio is an important indicator of
the quality of the technique for the inspection of austenitic welds, as it quantifies reliability of
detection and characterization of small flaws.

3. Solution for CRA Clad piping weld joint inspection

In order to improve the inspection of austenitic welds, longitudinal waves with transmit and
receive configuration, focused beam, and signal processing method are key parameters to
overcome the limitations. Conventional probes are having fixed focus and hence required
many probes to cover full weld volume. Advanced Phased Array UT utilizes Dual Matrix
Array (DMA) Probes which offers full weld volume coverage, deep penetration in coarse
grain material, flexible focusing thus improving sizing and SNR ratio combining advantages
of TRL probes. Dual Matrix Array probe utilizes transmit/receive arrangement of elements
ensuring uniform sound pressure in the area of interest. DMA probe constructed from two
matrix array as shown figure 4. This provides capability to focus electronically at different
depths as well as allows to perform skew angles to verify any oblique flaws. DMA probe
configuration is 7X4 elements utilizing 28 elements for the transmitter and 28 elements for
the receiver with an aperture of 19 x 12 mm. (See figure 4)

Figure 4, DMA Probe with Dual Matrix elements arrangement

 4. Validation of CRA Clad piping weld joint using DMA probes
Successful validations were carried out from 12” OD to 60” OD pipe with thickness range
from 12.5mm (+ 3 mm clad) to 53.77 mm (+ 3mm clad) was carried out for CRA clad piping
weld joints. Since inspection in second leg is not feasible, weld cap was flush ground to
ensure detectability and sizing of flaws. Sample validation details are as follows:

4.1 Important Parameters:

Material MOC: API5L Grade X 65 (base material) + INCONEL 625 Clad.
Thickness: 53.77 + 3 mm Clad
Outer Diameter: 12 Inch
WEP/Joint type: Single V to Compound (Pipe # Fitting)
Probe/Wedge details: 2.25M7x4-19X12-A17 / SA17-DN55L0-IHC-AOD12.75 DMA
Surface: Flush Ground.
Angular Range: 35-70(Group 1), 35-70 deg (Group 2) & 65-87 deg (Group 3)
Angular increment: 1 Deg.

4.2 Calibration Block:

Welded Calibration block was used with same material/product form, welding parameter,
cladding and WEP to simulate actual job configuration with set of SDH on weld fusion zone
as well as at the centre of the weld ensuring exact sensitivity setting without any transfer
correction. In addition to top and bottom notches, creepwave notches (at depths 1mm, 2mm
and 4mm) are added to ensure detection of surface flaws.

Figure 5, Calibration Block

4.3 Validation block

Validation block was made with same material/product form, welding parameters, cladding
and WEP as per actual job. The same was made in line with ASME B 31.3 Code Case 181
and ASME Section V article 4 appendixes IX requirements with additional flaws in weld
volume and HAZ area to ensure full weld volume coverage with adequate sensitivity.EDM
notches were made to simulate Lack of fusion at weld fusion line, Lack of penetration at root
area, toe cracks near HAZ area and transverse cracks in weld volume as shown in figure-6.

Figure -6, Validation Block

4.4 Scan Plan

Weld was divided into three zones i.e. Top, Middle and Bottom. Scan Plan was designed to
ensure complete weld coverage with adequate focus at each zone. Due to elbow at opposite
side, only one probe was kept to ensure middle (weld volume) and bottom (root) zone flaws
(Sector scan 35 to 70 deg). A dedicated sector scan i.e. 65 to 87 Deg was kept from both sides
for the surface flaws.
Figure- 7, Scan Plan showing all the probes and full weld volume coverage.

4.5 Validation block images-Critical Sample Flaws

4.5.1 Flaw-1-Surface Flaw at Weld HAZ area-OD surface

Flaw-1 was captured with 65 to 87 deg sector scan focusing at top/OD surface
Area. Height and length Sizing also shown in the below image.

Figure 8, Flaw-1 PAUT image

Flaw 1

S Scan

C Scan

A Scan
4.5.2 Flaw-4-Surface Flaw at Root area-ID Surface
Flaw-4 captured with 35 to 70 deg sector scan focusing at root/ID Surface area.
Height and length Sizing also shown in the below image. Signal of flaw 4 is
Very clear even though the presence of root indication and interface echoes.

Figure 9, Flaw-4 PAUT image

Flaw-4

Clad interface echoes

Root geometry indication

S Scan

C Scan

A Scan
 4.5.3 Flaw-11-Sub-Surface Flaw at Weld side wall

Flaw-11 captured with 35 to 70 deg sector scan focusing at weld volume and from both side
of the weld. However to achieve better signal to Noise ratio, the same was captured with
probe placing same side of the flaw and on the weld cap area. Height and length Sizing also
shown in the below image.

Figure 10, Flaw 11-PAUT image

Flaw-11

S Scan

C Scan

A Scan
 4.3 Comparison with Radiography:

It was observed that surface flaws (except ID surface flaws are clearly captured with
radiography however few sub-surface flaws are difficult to identify. Flaw no 12 was not at all
found in radiography. 100% detection was achieved with PAUT whereas 91.6% detection
was achieved with radiography. Accurate height sizing was achieved in PAUT thus Fracture
mechanics based acceptance criteria can be applied whereas radiography does not give height
sizing and thus workmanship based acceptance criteria is applicable. At offshore
structure/platforms these piping weld joints are located at height and sometimes radiography
is not at all feasible due to geometry and sizes of the joints. For these joints, double wall
technique calls for Cobalt RT as the thickness increases to 114 mm.Cobalt RT is banned at
many places due to its safety hazards. In case of Cobalt RT, complete evacuation of site area
is mandatory resulting into man-hour losses and safety hazards. Refer below figure 11
showing image of RT film. Table -1 shows detailed comparison chart between actual planned
indications, PAUT and RT.

Figure-11 Showing surface flaws (Flaw 1,2 & 3) detection in radiography film image.

Flaw-1

Flaw-2

Flaw-3

Figure 12 showing sub surface flaws (Flaw 9, 10 & 11) detection in radiography film
Image.

Flaw-10

Flaw-9 Flaw-11
Table-1 Comparison table-Planned indications Vs PAUT and RT

4 Way Forward:
PAUT with DMA probe can be utilized in conjunction with Total Focusing Matrix and Full
Matrix Capture techniques to further enhance the sizing capabilities thus improving quality of
inspection.

5 Conclusion:
PAUT with DMA probe and specific setup, root indications which are difficult to identify
due to clad interface echoes and root geometry indications, can also be successfully detected
and sized with adequate SNR ratio. Weld with complex geometries like Pipe# Fittings can be
successfully inspected using DMA probe with full weld volume and HAZ coverage.100%
detection was achieved with the DMA probe against 91.6% detection in radiography.14dB
SNR ratio was achieved against conventional PAUT does not have even detection of
indications due to highly attenuating Inconel 625 weld. Hence advanced PAUT inspection
with DMA probe is the best solution for CRA clad piping weld joints. The only drawback
visible with this technique is to flush ground the weld cap to ensure 100% detection and
adequate sizing of indications.

6 References:
[1] American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,
B 31.3 Code Case 181 Ed 2012.
[2] American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,
Section V, Article 4, Edition 2017.
[3] DNV-OS-F101 Ed 2013.