Comparative Precision of Ultrasonic Sizing Techniques for Flaws in SMAW Welds
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Accurate flaw sizing is essential for evaluating weld quality. While ultrasonic testing is widely used, the precision of common manual sizing techniques varies significantly. This study establishes controlled benchmark data for three established methods: distance amplitude correction (DAC), distance gain size (DGS), and the 20-dB drop technique, tested under strictly controlled laboratory conditions. Artificial defects were embedded in shielded metal arc welds and verified by radiography before ultrasonic inspection with 45° and 70° probes. DAC signals often exceeded reference levels, making sizing impossible. DGS was limited to flaws smaller than 10 mm and consistently underestimated size. The 20-dB drop method achieved the highest accuracy, measuring a 4.00 mm defect as 4.02 ± 0.02 mm, with stable results across probe angles. The findings demonstrate that a simple geometric approach can yield reliable, repeatable sizing under laboratory conditions. The study’s scope was limited to lateral sizing by a single operator; future work should expand to multi-operator trials, height measurements, and field conditions for full validation.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Advanced Welding Techniques Analysis · Welding Techniques and Residual Stresses · Ultrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (20)
Show source-provided references
1. Schultz, M., Campbell, L., Bell, R., and Sauser, P., A Study of Phased-Array Ultrasonic Testing (PAUT) for Detecting, Sizing, and Characterizing Flaws in the Welds of Existing Hydraulic Steel Structures (HSS), Report no. ERDC/CERL TR-24-13, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, 2024. https://erdc-library.erdc.dren.mil/jspui/handle/11681/48391.10.21079/11681/48750 ↗
2. Bajgholi, M., Rousseau, G., Viens, M., and Thibault, D., Advanced ultrasonic inspection methodologies for fitness for service (FFS) assessment of hydraulic turbines, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 2023, vol. 129, pp. 2621–2633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-023-12498-410.1007/s00170-023-12498-4 ↗
3. Williams, C., Lappin, E., and Taheri, H., Assessment of process induced welding flaws in structural steel members using phased array ultrasonic nondestructive testing, in Proc. ASME 2024 Int. Mech. Eng. Congr. Expo. (IMECE), Adv. Manuf., vol. 2, 2024, pp. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1115/IMECE2024-14504910.1115/IMECE2024-145049 ↗
4. Ulbrich, D. and Kańczurzewska, M., Correlation tests of ultrasonic wave and mechanical parameters of spot welded joints, Materials, 2022, vol. 15, no. 5, p. 1701. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma1505170110.3390/ma15051701 ↗
5. Felice, M.V. and Fan, Z., Sizing of flaws using ultrasonic bulk wave testing: A review, Ultrasonics, 2018, vol. 88, pp. 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultras.2018.03.00310.1016/j.ultras.2018.03.003 ↗
6. Ono, K. and Su, H., Critical examination of distance gain size (DGS) diagrams of ultrasonic NDE with sound field calculations, Sensors, 2023, vol. 23, no. 15, p. 7004. https://doi.org/10.3390/s2315700410.3390/s23157004 ↗
7. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section V: Nondestructive Examination, New York: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2019.
8. ISO 16811:2014. Non-Destructive Testing—Ultrasonic Testing—Sensitivity and Range Setting, Geneva: International Organization for Standardization, 2014.
9. ISO 17640:2018. Non-Destructive Testing of Welds—Ultrasonic Testing—Techniques, Testing Levels, and Assessment, Geneva: International Organization for Standardization, 2018.
10. Javadi, Y., Sweeney, N.E., Mohseni, E., Macleod, C.N., Lines, D., Vasilev, M., et al., In process calibration of a non destructive testing system used for in process inspection of multi pass welding, Mater. Des., 2020, vol. 195, p. 108981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2020.10898110.1016/j.matdes.2020.108981 ↗
11. Mohseni, E., Javadi, Y., Sweeney, N.E., Lines, D., MacLeod, C.N., Vithanage, R.K.W., et al., Model assisted ultrasonic calibration using intentionally embedded defects for in process weld inspection, Mater. Des., 2021, vol. 198, p. 109330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2020.10933010.1016/j.matdes.2020.109330 ↗
12. Bajgholi, M., Rousseau, G., Viens, M., Thibault, D., and Gagnon, M., Reliability assessment of non destructive testing (NDT) for the inspection of weld joints in the hydroelectric turbine industry, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 2023, vol. 128, pp. 4223–4233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-023-12176-510.1007/s00170-023-12176-5 ↗
13. Kim, Y., Cho, S., and Park, I.K., Analysis of flaw detection sensitivity of phased array ultrasonics in austenitic steel welds according to inspection conditions, Sensors, 2021, vol. 21, no. 1, p. 242. https://doi.org/10.3390/s2101024210.3390/s21010242 ↗
14. Ke, W., Approaching code-compliant non-destructive testing of carbon steel weld using total focusing method technique, e-J. Nondestr. Test., 2024, vol. 29, no. 2. https://doi.org/10.58286/2930410.58286/29304 ↗
15. Duo, I., Lanzagorta, J., Maestre, I., and Galdos, L., Enhancing time-of-flight diffraction (TOFD) inspection through an innovative curved-sole probe design, Sensors, 2024, vol. 24, no. 19, p. 6360. https://doi.org/10.3390/s2419636010.3390/s24196360 ↗
16. Lee, S.E., Kim, H., Park, J., et al., Sizing-based flaw acceptability in weldments using phased array ultrasonic testing and neural networks, Appl. Sci., 2023, vol. 13, no. 5, p. 3204. https://doi.org/10.3390/app1305320410.3390/app13053204 ↗
17. Medak, D., Posilović, L., Subašić, M., Budimir, M., and Lončarić, S., DefectDet: A deep learning architecture for detection of defects with extreme aspect ratios in ultrasonic images, Neurocomputing, 2022, vol. 473, pp. 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2021.12.00810.1016/j.neucom.2021.12.008 ↗
18. Pyle, R.J., Hughes, R.R., and Wilcox, P.D., Interpretable and explainable machine learning for ultrasonic defect sizing, IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control, 2023, vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 277–290. https://doi.org/10.1109/TUFFC.2023.324896810.1109/TUFFC.2023.3248968 ↗
19. Opačić, M., Sedmak, A., Bakić, G., Milošević, N., and Milovanović, N., Application of advanced NDT methods to assess structural integrity of pressure vessel welded joints, Procedia Struct. Integr., 2022, vol. 42, pp. 1185–1189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prostr.2022.12.15110.1016/j.prostr.2022.12.151 ↗
20. McKnight, S., Tunukovic, V.,Gareth Pierce, S., et al., Advancing carbon fiber composite inspection: Deep learning-enabled defect localization and sizing via 3-dimensional U-net segmentation of ultrasonic data, IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control, 2024, vol. 71, no. 9, pp. 1106–1119. https://doi.org/10.1109/TUFFC.2024.340831410.1109/TUFFC.2024.3408314 ↗