Comparison of Field and Manufactured Flaw Data in Austenitic Materials

1011613

Effective December 6, 2006, this report has been made publicly available in accordance with Section 734.3(b)(3) and published in accordance with Section 734.7 of the U.S. Export Administration Regulations. As a result of this publication, this report is subject to only copyright protection and does not require any license agreement from EPRI. This notice supersedes the export control restrictions and any proprietary licensed material notices embedded in the document prior to publication.

Comparison of Field and Manufactured Flaw Data in Austenitic Materials

1011613 Technical Update, December 2005

EPRI Project Manager B. Rassler

ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE 3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1395 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 USA 800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES

THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM: (A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR (B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT. ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) KANDE International, Ltd.

This is an EPRI Technical Update report. A Technical Update report is intended as an informal report of continuing research, a meeting, or a topical study. It is not a final EPRI technical report.

NOTE
For further information about EPRI, call the EPRI Customer Assistance Center at 800.313.3774 or e-mail askepri@epri.com. Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. Copyright 2005 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

CITATIONS
This document was prepared by Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) NDE Center 1300 W. T. Harris Blvd. Charlotte, NC 28262 Principal Investigators B. Rassler E.K. Kietzman C. Miller KANDE International, Ltd. 61 Warren Avenue Knutsford Cheshire WA16 0AL United Kingdom Principal Investigators I. Atkinson W. Daniels This document describes research sponsored by EPRI. This publication is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner: Comparison of Field and Manufactured Flaw Data in Austenitic Materials. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2005. 1011613.

iii

ABSTRACT
This document is an update to the December 2004 report of the same name (Product ID 1009642). The information in this document supersedes the previous report. This report is a summary update of a continuing project. Over the last thirty years, primary water stress corrosion cracking (PWSCC) in pressurized water reactors (PWR) has been observed in numerous Alloy 600 component items and their associated welds, sometimes after relatively long incubation times. Wrought Alloy 600 and its weld metals were originally used in PWRs due to the material's inherent resistance to general corrosion in a number of aggressive environments and because of a coefficient of thermal expansion that is very close to that of low alloy and carbon steel. The occurrence of PWSCC has been responsible for significant downtime and replacement power costs. This study is part of the continuing efforts to address these concerns by developing flaws with realistic responses and comparing the non-destructive examination (NDE) responses with similar field identified flaws. Realistic mockups are important for technique development and/or performance demonstration. After discoveries of circumferential cracks in the control rod drive mechanism (CRDM) penetrations and attachment welds, a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Bulletin modified the examination requirements and reclassified the failure of the nozzles as safety significant. Inspection results show that failure of the nozzle is likely preceded by flaws in the J-groove weld. With recent discoveries of cracking in bottom-mounted instrumentation (BMI) nozzles, a similar situation is anticipated. This project considers these specific component geometries and the appropriateness of the flaw for the NDE technologies used for inspection of the austenitic components. Field data and performance demonstration data have been collected whenever possible and have been used for this project. The field and demonstration data have been collected into a database for comparison. A parallel project, Development of Flaw Making Techniques for use in NDE Mockups of Austenitic Materials. (Product ID 1011620), investigates flaw-manufacturing techniques for interdendritic and intergranular flaws in austenitic materials. This project is also being coordinated with the Material Reliability Program (MRP) Alloy 600 Inspection Technical Group (ITG) to ensure no gaps or overlaps in scope.

CONTENTS
1 NDE MOCKUPS AND DATA .................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Background ..............................................................................................................1-1 1.2 NDE Techniques Need Appropriate Realistic Mockups ...........................................1-1 1.3 Data Comparison Difficult and Time Consuming .....................................................1-2 1.3.1 Variability of Different UT Techniques Used ......................................................1-2 1.3.2 Collection of Data from Multiple Vendors ...........................................................1-2 1.3.3 Vendors Data Are in Multiple Digital Formats and/or Storage Media ................1-2 1.3.4 Variability of the Quality of Inspection Data........................................................1-3 1.3.5 Use of Utility Data...............................................................................................1-3 2 DEMONSTRATION PROCESS..............................................................................................2-1 2.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Demonstration Mockups with Manufactured Flaws..................................................2-2 3 MANUFACTURED FLAW DATA AND FIELD DATA ............................................................3-1 4 COMPARISON OF SELECTED FLAW RESPONSES ..........................................................4-1 5 FLAW DATABASE.................................................................................................................5-1 5.1 Introduction...............................................................................................................5-1 5.2 Existing Elements.....................................................................................................5-1 5.3 Recent Developments ..............................................................................................5-1 5.4 Using the Flaw Database .........................................................................................5-3 5.4.1 DataLog..............................................................................................................5-3 5.4.2 InSight Data Display and Analysis Software ......................................................5-3 5.4.3 Truthwriter ..........................................................................................................5-4 5.5 Intended Users .........................................................................................................5-5 6 FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS...................................................................................................6-1 6.1 Program for Inspection of Nuclear Components Participation .................................6-1 6.1.1 NDE Mockup Design and Construction..............................................................6-1 6.1.2 Sharing of NDE Mockups ...................................................................................6-1 6.1.3 Laboratory Examinations of Mockups ................................................................6-2 6.1.4 PINC Meeting Participation ................................................................................6-2 6.1.5 Data Grafting for Ultrasonic Inspection Qualification..........................................6-2 6.1.6 General Qualification..........................................................................................6-3 6.1.7 Outline Qualification Strategy for SCC ...............................................................6-3 6.1.8 Use of Lab-Grown SCC Specimens...................................................................6-4 6.1.9 Grafting Software ...............................................................................................6-7 7 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................7-1 7.1 References ...............................................................................................................7-2
vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4-1 A-Scan, B-Scan, C-Scan, and D-Scan Display from Thermal Fatigue Flaw #1 Using 5 MHz TOFD UT with 5/8 in. (16 mm) Probe Center Separation (PCS) ..................4-10 Figure 4-2 Close-Up of the B-Scan Display from Figure 4-1 of Thermal Fatigue Flaw #1 Using 5 MHz TOFD UT with 5/8 in. (16 mm) PCS .............................................................4-11 Figure 4-3 A-Scan, B-Scan, C-Scan, and D-Scan Display from Thermal Fatigue Flaw #7 Using 5 MHz TOFD UT with 5/8 in. (16 mm) PCS .............................................................4-12 Figure 4-4 A-Scan, B-Scan, C-Scan, and D-Scan Display from Thermal Fatigue Flaw #1 Using 5 MHz 0 PE UT.......................................................................................................4-13 Figure 5-1 Partial Screenshot of the DataLog of the CRDM and BMI Excel Database .............5-2 Figure 5-2 Screenshot of the InSight UT Data Analysis Program..............................................5-4 Figure 5-3 Schematic Diagram Showing the Relationship Between the Different Parts of the Proposed EPRI Flaw Database .....................................................................................5-5 Figure 6-1 OD Lab-Grown SCC Sample - Axial Flaw Coupon Before Machining and Insertion into the Specimen Holder ......................................................................................6-5 Figure 6-2 ID Lab-Grown SCC Sample. Note that the Specimens Are Only Sections of the Full Length and Circumference of the Plant Items and that They Are Manufactured from Typical Inconel 600 Tubing Backed by Inconel 182 Weld Metal..................................6-5 Figure 6-3 Perspex Specimen Holder of the CRDM Tube Replica with OD Lab-Grown SCC Samples in the Axial and Circumferential Orientations with the SCC Growing Through the Weld and into the Base Metal ..............................................................................................6-6

ix

LIST OF TABLES
Table 4-1 Response Data from the Following Sources Have Been Used in This Study............4-2 Table 4-2 UT B-Scan TOFD Images of Flaw Signals and Noise Statistics for Selected Flaws .4-2 Table 4-3 Summary of Flaw Amplitude Measurements Ranked by S/N rms Performance .......4-8

xi

1
NDE MOCKUPS AND DATA
1.1 Background This document is an update to the December 2004 report of the same name (Product ID 1009642). The information in this document supersedes the previous report. This report is a summary update of a continuing project. Over the last thirty years, primary water stress corrosion cracking (PWSCC) in pressurized water reactor (PWR) has been observed in numerous Alloy 600 component items and their associated welds, sometimes after relatively long incubation times. Wrought Alloy 600 and its weld metals were originally used in PWRs due to the material's inherent resistance to general corrosion in a number of aggressive environments and because of a coefficient of thermal expansion that is very close to that of low alloy and carbon steel. The occurrence of PWSCC has been responsible for significant downtime and replacement power costs. This study is part of the continuing efforts to address these concerns by developing flaws with realistic responses and comparing the non-destructive examination (NDE) responses with similar field identified flaws. 1.2 NDE Techniques Need Appropriate Realistic Mockups

Realistic mockups are important for technique development and/or performance demonstration. After discoveries of circumferential cracks in the control rod drive mechanism (CRDM) penetrations and attachment welds, a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Bulletin modified the examination requirements and reclassified the failure of the nozzles as safety significant. Inspection results show that failure of the nozzle is likely preceded by flaws in the J-groove weld. With recent discoveries of cracking in bottom-mounted instrumentation (BMI) nozzles, a similar situation is anticipated. This project considers these specific component geometries and the appropriateness of the flaw for the NDE technologies used for inspection of the austenitic components. NDE demonstration has largely relied upon assessment of inspection capability in practical trials on representative specimens containing manufactured flaws whose nature is known to a high confidence. The inspection results obtained by application of the inspection procedure are compared with the known flaw population and a quantitative assessment of capability made against specified criteria. While these experimental methods are accepted and technically sound for a wide range of materials and flaw types, there are acknowledged difficulties in their application to stress corrosion cracking (SCC) flaws. Demonstration of the capability of ultrasonic inspections (UT) to be performed on critical plant operation is recognized as a necessary part of the safe operation of high integrity plants. Currently, demonstrations are conducted with a combination of manufactured and field removed flaws. There is no question that field removed flaws are representative. However, field removed flaws are difficult to acquire, of limited flaw size range, the removed component may be radioactive, and/or the

1-1

component may be of limited use for NDE inspection due to its physical size and shape after removal from the field. This project has focused on the review of UT, as this is the NDE method used for depth sizing. In particular, it reports on a comparison of UT time of flight diffraction (TOFD) response data from genuine field removed SCC flaws and the manufactured flaws widely used in demonstration of inspections prior to their use in the field. The study reported here compares genuine and manufactured flaw responses for a range of manufactured flaw types in specimens used to demonstrate UT TOFD inspections of CRDM and BMI components. 1.3 Data Comparison Difficult and Time Consuming

The comparison of UT data between field and manufactured flaws has proven to be very difficult and time consuming due to the following: Variability of different UT techniques used Collection of data from multiple Vendors Vendors data is in multiple digital formats and/or storage media Variability of the quality of inspection data Use of Utility data

1.3.1 Variability of Different UT Techniques Used The UT TOFD techniques can vary in the probe size, probe center separation (PCS), frequency, bandwidth, applied filters, A-to-D converters, and collection systems, along with many other variables. Attempting to compare signals collected from various systems is a daunting task. 1.3.2 Collection of Data from Multiple Vendors The in-service inspection (ISI) vendors demonstration data have been collected by EPRI during the MRP CRDM and BMI demonstration process. EPRI has worked with the utilities and the ISI vendors to acquire the data collected during the utilities outage. The utility is the owner of the data, but the ISI vendor usually stores the data at their facility. 1.3.3 Vendors Data Are in Multiple Digital Formats and/or Storage Media Collecting the demonstration and ISI data from the vendors and utilities is only the first step of the process. Each system has a unique digital data format and sometimes it may have a unique physical storage format. Some vendors have multiple inspection systems, each with its own format considerations. EPRI has worked with each of the vendors and acquired their analysis programs to review the collected data. Learning to use each analysis program can be time intensive as each program has a unique presentation of the data, which can add another level of variability when comparing signals between inspection systems. In a related project, EPRI was working with the vendors to develop data enhancement algorithms to better detect and characterize the collected inspection data. In this related project, EPRI acquired the vendors data file formats. In an agreement between the vendors and EPRI, this proprietary information has

1-2

been passed on to KANDE International, Ltd. located in the United Kingdom. They have applied these data file formats to their own UT TOFD analysis program, called Insight. This has allowed EPRI to view all the data on a single analysis system and remove one of the analysis variables. 1.3.4 Variability of the Quality of Inspection Data Each vendor has several different physical probe inspection packages and each package can deal with uneven geometries in their own unique way. Some inspections are done with the thermal sleeves in place and some with them removed. The quality of data collected can vary due to these various factors. Normally the demonstration data are of the highest quality, as it is in the most controlled environment and the ISI data can be of varying degrees of quality. Trying to compare data of varying qualities can be very difficult if not next to impossible. 1.3.5 Use of Utility Data Utilities have concerns about allowing plant data to be reviewed by others when the component is still in service. This is a very real concern for utilities as anything that might be seen in the ISI data might need to be addressed and this could lead to an unscheduled outage and cost millions of dollars. Care has been taken to keep field data anonymous.

1-3

2
DEMONSTRATION PROCESS
2.1 Overview Any UT inspector is composed of several interacting components (procedure, equipment, personnel, and NDE technique) and inspection capability depends upon the appropriateness and correct operation of all of these components. In broad terms, demonstrations tend to consider the capability of inspections in two categories: System demonstration - In which the requirement is to demonstrate whether the inspection procedure is capable of meeting the inspection requirement if perfectly applied and whether the selected equipment is fit for purpose. Personnel demonstration - In which the requirement is to assess if personnel performing critical tasks in the inspection process have the necessary skills and are able to apply them consistently.

The balance of effort involved in each of these demonstration activities varies with the complexity of the inspection (automated or manual), the significance of the component (simple or complex, safety critical or non-critical), and the requirements of the relevant controlling authorities. When first introduced, performance demonstration tended to rely very heavily on practical demonstration on representative components containing manufactured flaws. For inspection system demonstration, as understanding and experience of demonstration has improved, it has been possible to reduce this reliance on purely experimental demonstration and in some regions of the world the use of technical justification, often in conjunction with some element of practical demonstration, is now the accepted norm. This change has been aided by the development of predictive inspection modeling as a design and assessment tool. However, experimental assessment remains of pivotal importance in demonstrating capability for situations involving complex materials and/or flaw species, and for emerging flaw/inspection issues. In order to assess the performance of inspection personnel performing flaw assessment, it is common to use some level of test of the application of the inspection procedure to representative data obtained from a test specimen. Frequently these data are gathered during equipment and procedure trials, although in principle there is nothing to prevent the use of relevant data from any source, provided the data content is well characterized. The personnel are judged by comparing the known defect parameters with those that are reported. In the ideal case, the specimens used and the flaws they contain would be totally characteristic of the plant situation that could be encountered and the size and location of flaws would be known to high accuracy. It is generally possible to produce a realistic copy of the component to be inspected, although full replication of geometry, materials, welding procedures, and heat treatment are frequently both expensive and time consuming to achieve. In practice however,

2-1

there is no such thing as a fully characteristic flaw, since every flaw is in some sense unique. Instead specific flaw types should be thought of as having common characteristics that can be described in terms of parameters that describe observable and preferably quantifiable flaw features such as roughness, size, and orientation. For any particular flaw type, each of these parameters is likely to fall within a characteristic range of values and it is common for the inspection scope to define these parameter ranges in order that the inspection designers can optimize their inspections to deliver the required capability. Any individual flaw would be expected to have parameters that fall within the parameter range expressed in the inspection scope. It would also be expected that the broader these ranges of parameters and hence the greater the diversity of flaws that might be encountered, the greater is the number of flaw/inspection interactions that require demonstration to provide confidence that an inspection system is capable of finding and characterizing all possible flaws of concern. For the ideal inspection demonstration model discussed above, it is necessary that the flaws used in test pieces correspond well in terms of their characteristic parameters to those addressed by the inspection scope. While this can be achieved satisfactorily for many flaw types, for example welding flaws and fatigue cracks, it has proven significantly more difficult for SCC. The problem is that this class of flaw can exhibit a particularly complex surface morphology and they often occur in materials that are themselves inherently difficult to inspect, such as nickel-based alloys and austenitic weld metal. Of principal importance to this study is the PWSCC flaw type as it occurs in the Alloy 600 tubes of CRDM and BMI components in PWRs. Since 1991, flaws of this type have been reported in plants around the world. They tend to initiate either on the wetted surface of the attachment weld surface or in the inside diameter (ID) and/or outside diameter (OD) of the Alloy 600 tubing in the regions of high stress. Currently, the main means of detecting PWSCC propagating in the attachment welds is surface inspection; primarily eddy current (ET) methods deployed from the vessel head inner surface. Tubing flaws, including those initiating in the weld and growing into the tube material, are generally detected using UT TOFD inspections applied from the tube internal surface. To date, such inspections have concentrated on finding flaws in the Alloy 600 tube, with some limited additional capability for inspection of the attachment weld also being demonstrated. 2.2 Demonstration Mockups with Manufactured Flaws

There are a number of ways of generating and inserting synthetic flaws into the test specimens used in technique development and performance demonstration. These range from simple drilled holes and machined notches, through modified slots and deliberately inserted fatigue cracks, to welding flaws generated by the use of special procedures or crack prone electrode materials (weld contamination). In some cases, these may be generated at the required location, while in others, coupons containing the synthetic flaw are inserted into the component. Notches and holes are easy and relatively cheap to insert, with size and location known to a very high degree of accuracy, but they give signals that can be significantly easier to detect than real flaws. Especially when assessing inspection techniques based upon the detection of diffracted UT signals, it is important to be aware that even relatively narrow notches, such as those produced by electrical discharge machining (EDM), can give rise to reflected signal components with amplitudes larger than true diffracted signals.

2-2

For a number of years, EPRI has made extensive use of cold isostatic processing (CIP) flaws. These are EDM notches that have been squeezed under high pressure so the flaw tip radius and the flaw face separation are reduced. As a result of this, CIP flaw tip diffracted signals have amplitude and shape more characteristic of real flaws than do ordinary EDM notches, while retaining the benefits of having well defined size and location, without incurring excessive costs. The disadvantage of CIP flaws, especially for simulating SCC flaws, is that overall their morphology is less complex than real flaws. Although successful attempts have been made to represent some of the features of SCC flaws, such as multiple branching and tight flaw tip, it is not feasible to completely simulate the 3-D complexity of this type of flaw with CIP. Recently there has been increased interest in the use of artificially grown thermal fatigue cracks by Trueflaw, Ltd., located in Espoo, Finland. Such flaws can be grown in any reasonably accessible location using a process of radio frequency (RF) induction heating and forced air or liquid spray cooling. It is claimed that by careful control of the operating parameters, it is possible to produce flaws within very tight size and location tolerances, although this has not been verified. The advantages and disadvantages of thermal fatigue flaws are very similar to those of the CIP flaws but with a greater degree of difficulty in manufacturing, including time and cost. Since they are real cracks, the flaw tip diffracted signal amplitude should be of the required magnitude. The greater surface roughness of the flaw faces makes scattering more likely and signal transmission between the flaw faces should be more representative of some types of real flaw behavior than can be achieved exclusively with CIP flaws. This latter point is likely to be less relevant in the case of PWSCC flaws as the morphology of fatigue cracks is, in general, significantly different to that of PWSCC. There has also been recent progress in the development of techniques to grow accelerated SCC flaws under controlled conditions by Serco Assurance, located in Warrington, United Kingdom. While this has the advantage of producing a flaw with representative morphology, it is so far not possible to control the other important parameters, especially flaw size, to the accuracy required for all performance demonstration requirements. In addition, due to the nature of the process, it is difficult to insert flaws in large or complex components and it is relatively expensive. These flaws have however, proven very useful for eddy current demonstration. The crack opening can be characterized using a scanning electron microscope, and compared to eddy current detection results. Another issue particularly relevant to synthetic SCC flaws in general, but also to all flaws that are not produced by a machining operation, is that of determining the true size of the flaw. This is especially true when the flaw is grown in the test piece to be used for demonstration, as it may be the case that the only viable method for determining flaw size is using the NDE technique that is to be demonstrated. This raises issues of possible common mode failure in the inspection process. Furthermore, it may well be the case, especially when the inspection addresses emerging requirements, that the only viable source of an accurate fingerprint of the test piece is those very inspection vendors undergoing performance demonstration, which poses obvious problems of data security for the qualification body. The production and insertion of weld flaws in components has been used in performance demonstration in the United States and the European community. This approach can give very good representation of a number of different types of welding flaws, but it is difficult and relies on a very high degree of welder skill and process assessment to produce reliable flaws within the

2-3

necessary tolerances. The use of inserted coupons containing well-characterized flaws allows these flaws to be grown in simple components in easily controlled conditions. The coupons containing the resulting flaws can be extensively characterized using a variety of NDE methods applied from surfaces not available when installed in the final component, which allows flaw size to be determined with a high degree of accuracy. This approach has been successfully applied in thick section ferritic steel components. Although even here, when very high sensitivity inspection methods are applied, it is not always possible to be certain that signals from the implant weld, rather than from the intended flaw, are not responsible for a giving a false impression of inspection capability. In austenitic base metals and welds, differences between the implant and the material into which it is inserted, can be enough to bar the use of this approach. For example; material differences in the crack prone welding electrodes used to produce cracks at specified locations, along with changes in heat treatment required to generate flaws in crack prone material, and the change of welding pattern involved in the insertion of flaw coupons can all create additional UT signals. These additional UT signals may indicate the presence of an implanted flaw and may be significantly easier to detect than the actual intended flaw. At present, the mandatory demonstrations for BMI and CRDM inspections are limited to system capability, without supplementary operator or data analyst assessment. The vendor inspections of these components are all based on the UT TOFD technique supplemented by varying degrees of pulse-echo (PE) inspection. The inspections are performed with automated data collection systems and analyzed using various proprietary software tools. It is of course not possible to fully separate the influence of personnel and system capability in performance demonstrations, since the detection, characterization, and sizing of flaw indications is performed by inspection personnel and subject to influence by human factors. The significance of the personnel input is usually reduced in system demonstration by adopting one of a number of strategies during the demonstration exercise. One of these strategies is sometimes referred to as open trials where the personnel are given access to flaw information before or during the demonstration process. The idea being to assess the capability of the inspection system decoupled from any additional human error. In such trials, the personnel are usually required to demonstrate that application of the specified inspection procedure and equipment is capable of detecting and sizing, within the required accuracy, all flaws of concern in the regions of the component inspected. It is quite common for such trials to use a range of flaw sizes, so that the demonstration process can determine the limiting performance of the procedure under idealized operating conditions. Blind trials are an alternative approach, where the inspection personnel are denied access to details of the flaw population. This gives a good indication of overall inspection capability but can make it more difficult to identify the source of any problems encountered, as system problems may be dismissed as human factors problems unless very careful scrutiny is applied. In addition, the need to maintain security of flaw population information, exacerbated by the cost and difficulty of producing multiple test pieces, makes it very difficult to provide constructive feedback on inspection performance issues. For both types of demonstrations, when assessing detection capability, it is desirable, that the response data from synthetic flaws closely resembles that from the defects of interest in plant (PWSCC in our case). However, it is essential that characteristic differences between the realistic and synthetic responses be known. With this information, it is then possible to infer performance

2-4

on genuine defects from performance on manufactured flaws. For example, in the detection of defects, the basic analysis operation of identifying flaw responses is strongly influenced by the extent to which flaw signals can be identified in noise. Thus, if the characteristic differences between signal-to-noise levels from genuine and manufactured flaws are known, an appropriate correction can be made and the detection margin duly reassessed. For other measurements performed as part of the inspection task, such as sizing, signal-to-noise characteristics are also of significance in determining whether an inspection can credibly enable the measurement to be made within the tolerances specified in the inspection scope. Once again for this type of assessment, it is desirable that the response obtained during the demonstration process closely resembles that which might be expected from a genuine plant defect. However, it is essential that where they exist, the differences in the key response parameters be known. Frequently, tight tolerances on flaw location (particularly ligament size) and flaw size measurement are raised in the inspection scope. This is generally because the structural integrity case for plant operation must exclude the possibility of defects in certain regions exceeding certain critical sizes. For demonstration of such cases, there must be a low uncertainty in the measured defect size and location. Thus there are two desirable qualities of flaws for use in demonstration; that the response from them be representative of that which would be obtained from genuine defects, and that their size and location is known to high accuracy. In practice, these two requirements tend to be mutually exclusive, that is flaws can be either highly representative in appearance or tightly controlled in terms of size, location, and orientation but are very rarely both. For the demonstration of the inspection system, excluding a specific test of personnel competence, it is generally more desirable to have defects whose physical parameters are well known than to sacrifice this in order to obtain highly representative flaw responses. A good compromise is to use manufactured flaws whose key response parameters closely match those of flaws of concern and whose size and location can be known with a high degree of accuracy. EPRI has developed the CIP process for just this purpose. The procedure demonstration also provides a means of assessing the ability of the inspection equipment to function correctly and accurately. In order to maximize the benefit from this, it is common to use highly representative component geometry in the system demonstration. The features of response data that make them difficult or easy for analysts to correctly identify, characterize, and then size, are difficult to define with confidence. As was discussed, the difference in amplitude of local noise and response signals is important, but so too are the proximity of other signals such as those from geometry or mode conversions. When the TOFD technique is applied to large PWSCC cracking, it tends to produce TOFD images with a distinct appearance. This multi-arced appearance is likely due to the roughness on the crack face and an irregular depth profile, which is not well replicated in the bulk of synthetic flaw types. Such character is much less marked in small flaw responses because the morphology differences that can be resolved by TOFD are less likely to be present.

2-5

Thus, for small flaw assessment, it may be appropriate to use relatively simple synthetic flaw species, for larger flaws, representative synthetic flaws are more important. As part of the process for judging analyst competence, high accuracy location and size flaw information is also important. As stated above, synthetic flaw realism and high size/location confidence have proved difficult to obtain concurrently.

2-6

3
MANUFACTURED FLAW DATA AND FIELD DATA
As stated previously, the inspection data were collected during the MRP demonstration or in a round robin type of process. They include flaw types of EDM notches, CIP EDM notches, hot isostatic pressing (HIP) EDM notches, accelerated SCC, and thermal fatigue flaws. The flawed mockups are manufactured from Alloy 600/82/182 austenitic material and are in partial scale and full scale configurations used for the CRDM and the BMI demonstration process. The field data have been collected from several utilities during their upper and lower head vessel examinations.

3-1

4
COMPARISON OF SELECTED FLAW RESPONSES
The data used for this comparison originated from the EPRI fingerprinting measurements, vendor demonstrations, and selected plant inspections. The comparison has considered the following signal characteristics: The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) measured with respect to peak and root-mean-square (RMS) noise levels in the vicinity of the response data The ratio of flaw amplitude to the lateral wave (LW) amplitude The spectral content

The comparisons have been made using data from flaws in similar locations interrogated by broadly equivalent probes in each case. While it would be preferable to have directly comparable data for all the flaw types and inspection systems investigated, this was not feasible in the circumstances of this study and the quantitative results presented should be taken as being indicative rather than absolute. The flaws selected for comparison were axially orientated and located in the wall of CRDM penetration tubes. The CIP flaws used were both contained in EPRI mockup J, with one being an OD crack of approximately 3/4 of the pipe wall thickness (T) extent and the other being a crack of approximately 1/4 T. Where possible, the other flaws, synthetic and field, included in the study were selected for their similarity to these CIP flaws. In the same way, the data sets selected were those obtained using circumferential oriented for axial flaw (COAF) UT TOFD probe pairs with similar probe center separations 0.87 in.-1.02 in. (22 mm-26 mm) and similar operating frequencies (approximately 5 mega hertz (MHz)). However, because the probes used by EPRI and the two inspection vendors do not have identical parameters, the results presented should not be used as a definitive measure of inspection system performance in each case. The flaw types are listed in Table 4-1. The flaw signals studied and the statistics of the noise in the immediate area of each flaw are given in Table 4-2 and the results are summarized in Table 4-3.

4-1

Table 4-1 Response Data from the Following Sources Have Been Used in This Study Flaw Type CIP/EDM EDM Thermal Fatigue Manufactured SCC Flaw Source EPRI CRDM Mock-up J Vendor Calibration Block EPRI CRDM Mock-up S (Trueflaw Specimen) EPRI CRDM Mock-up N (Serco MISTIQ Specimen) Various Field Data X X Vendor 1 Data X X Vendor 2 Data X X X X EPRI Data X

Field SCC

Table 4-2 UT B-Scan TOFD Images of Flaw Signals and Noise Statistics for Selected Flaws
EPRI CIP Flaw 1 Statistics of Peaks with 1547 Peaks Detected in 4972 Data Points Min 1 Max 12 Mean 4.5 Median 2 Mode 4 Stdev 2.6 RMS Amplitude 4.32 LW Amp = 50 Signal Amplitude = 30 Signal-to-Lateral Wave Signal (S/LW) = -4.4 dB Signal-to-Noise Ratio (S/N) Root Mean Square (rms) Series1 = 16.8 dB Signal-to-Noise Peak S/N pk) Series1 = 8.0 dB EPRI CIP Flaw 2 Statistics of Peaks with 1227 Peaks Detected in 4074 Data Points Min 1 Max 12 Mean 4.5 Median 2 Mode 4 Stdev 2.5 RMS Amplitude 4.35 LW Amp = 46 Signal Amplitude = 29 S/LW = -4.0 dB S/N rms Series1 = 16.5 dB S/N pk Series1 = 7.7 dB

4-2

Table 4-2 (cont.) UT B-Scan TOFD Images of Flaw Signals and Noise Statistics for Selected Flaws
Vendor #1 CIP Flaw 1 Statistics of Peaks with 1089 Peaks Detected in 3240 Data Points Min 1 Max 20 Mean 7 Median 2 Mode 6 Stdev 4.5 RMS Amplitude 7.45 LW Amp = 28 Signal Amplitude = 31 S/LW = 0.9 dB S/N rms Series1 = 12.4 dB S/N pk Series1 = 3.8 dB Vendor #1 CIP Flaw 2 Statistics of Peaks with 982 Peaks Detected in 3560 Data Points Min 1 Max 20 Mean 7 Median 4 Mode 6 Stdev 4.5 Signal RMS Amplitude 7.55 LW Amp = 32 Signal Amplitude = 31 S/LW = -0.3 dB S/N rms Series1 = 12.3 dB S/N pk Series1 = 3.8 dB Vendor #2 CIP Flaw 1 Statistics of Peaks with 949 Peaks Detected in 2688 Data Points Min 1 Max 39 Mean 9.9 Median 8 Mode 9 Stdev 5 RMS Amplitude 8.35 LW Amp = 90 Signal Amplitude = 65 S/LW = -2.8 dB S/N rms Series1 = 14.6 dB S/N pk Series1 = 1.2 dB

4-3

Table 4-2 (cont.) UT B-Scan TOFD Images of Flaw Signals and Noise Statistics for Selected Flaws
Vendor #2 CIP Flaw 2 Statistics of Peaks with 912 Peaks Detected in 2625 Data Points Min 1 Max 41 Mean 10.6 Median 8 Mode 10 Stdev 5.6 RMS Amplitude 8.73 LW Amp = 85 Signal Amplitude = 42 S/LW = -6.0 dB S/N rms Series1 = 13.6 dB S/N pk Series1 = 0.2 dB Vendor #1 ID EDM Slot Statistics of Peaks with 627 Peaks Detected in 2190 Data Points Min 1 Max 11 Mean 3.2 Median 2 Mode 3 Stdev 2 RMS Amplitude 2.94 LW Amp = 45 Signal Amplitude = 44 S/LW = -0.2 dB S/N rms Series1 = 23.5 dB S/N pk Series1 = 12 .0 dB Vendor #1 OD EDM Slot Statistics of Peaks with 688 Peaks Detected in 2449 Data Points Min 1 Max 19 Mean 4 Median 2 Mode 3 Stdev 3.8 RMS Amplitude 4.91 LW Amp = 40 Signal Amplitude = 43 S/LW = 0.63 dB S/N rms Series1 = 18.8 dB S/N pk Series1 = 7.1 dB

4-4

Table 4-2 (cont.) UT B-Scan TOFD Images of Flaw Signals and Noise Statistics for Selected Flaws
Vendor #2 EDM OD Flaw 1 Statistics of Peaks with 1348 Peaks Detected in 3795 Data Points Min 1 Max 40 Mean 12 Median 9 Mode 11 Stdev 6 RMS Amplitude 9.69 LW Amp 48 Signal Amplitude = 75 S/LW = 3.9 dB S/N rms Series1 = 17.8 dB S/N pk Series1 = 5.5 dB Vendor #2 EDM OD Flaw 2 Statistics of Peaks with 1348 Peaks Detected in 3795 Data Points Min 1 Max 40 Mean 12 Median 9 Mode 11 Stdev 6 RMS Amplitude 9.69 LW Amp = 53 Signal Amplitude = 103 S/LW = 5.8 dB S/N rms Series1 = 20.5 dB S/N pk Series1 = 8.2 dB EPRI Trueflaw Thermal Fatigue Flaw #7 Statistics of Peaks with 1617 Peaks Detected in 4914 Data Points Min 1 Max 33 Mean 10.8 Median 12 Mode 10 Stdev 5.8 RMS Amplitude 10.06 LW Amp = 30 Signal Amplitude = 42 S/LW = 2.9 dB S/N rms Series1 = 12.4 dB S/N pk Series1 = 2.1 dB (Note Depth ~11.1 mm confer [cf.] Intended 4.6 mm)

1 mm = 0.039 in.

4-5

Table 4-2 (cont.) UT B-Scan TOFD Images of Flaw Signals and Noise Statistics for Selected Flaws
EPRI Trueflaw Thermal Fatigue Flaw #5 Statistics of Peaks with 1744 Peaks Detected in 5457 Data Points Min 1 Max 32 Mean 10.5 Median 7 Mode 10 Stdev 5.6 RMS Amplitude 10.15 LW Amp = 38 Signal Amplitude = 40 S/LW = 0.4 dB S/N rms Series1 = 11.9 dB S/N pk Series1 = 1.9 dB (Note Depth ~13.3 mm cf. Intended 11.3 mm) EPRI Synthetic SCC Flaw #1 (MISTIQ) Statistics of Peaks with 3341 Peaks Detected in 10206 Data Points Min 1 Max 53 Mean 16.5 Median 11 Mode 16 Stdev 8.5 RMS Amplitude 16.11 LW Amp = 50 Signal Amplitude = 73 S/LW = 3.3 dB S/N rms Series1 = 13.1 dB S/N pk Series1 = 2.8 dB EPRI Synthetic SCC Flaw #2 (MISTIQ) Statistics of Peaks with 3077 Peaks Detected in 9362 Data Points Min 1 Max 54 Mean 16.5 Median 13 Mode 16 Stdev 8.9 RMS Amplitude 16.26 LW Amp = 58 Signal Amplitude = 66 S/LW = 1.1 dB S/N rms Series1 = 12.2 dB S/N pk Series1 = 1.7 dB

1 mm = 0.039 in.

4-6

Table 4-2 (cont.) UT B-Scan TOFD Images of Flaw Signals and Noise Statistics for Selected Flaws
Vendor #1 Field SCC Flaw #1 Statistics of Peaks with 1744 Peaks Detected in 5457 Data Points Min 1 Max 32 Mean 10.5 Median 7 Mode 10 Stdev 5.6 RMS Amplitude 10.15 LW Amp = 33 Signal Amplitude = 75 S/LW = 7.1 dB S/N rms Series1 = 17.4 dB S/N pk Series1 = 7.4 dB Vendor #1 Field SCC Flaw #2 Statistics of Peaks with 996 Peaks Detected in 3552 Data Points Min 1 Max 21 Mean 4.9 Median 3 Mode 4 Stdev 4 RMS Amplitude 5.42 LW Amp = 33 Signal Amplitude = 18 S/LW = -5.3 S/N rms Series1 = 10.4 dB S/N pk Series1 = -1.3 dB Vendor #1 Suspect Field SCC Flaw Statistics of Peaks with 2051 Peaks Detected in 5460 Data Points Min 1 Max 44 Mean 14.2 Median 13 Mode 13 Stdev 7.7 RMS Amplitude 11.69 LW Amp = 36 Signal Amplitude = 36 S/LW= 0 dB S/N rms Series1 = 9.8 dB S/N pk Series1 = -1.7 dB

4-7

Table 4-3 Summary of Flaw Amplitude Measurements Ranked by S/N rms Performance Flaw Type EDM (ID) EDM (OD) EDM (OD) EDM (OD) Field SCC #1 CIP #1 CIP #2 CIP #1 CIP #2 Synthetic SCC #1 Thermal Fatigue #1 CIP #1 CIP #2 Synthetic SCC #2 Thermal Fatigue #2 Field SCC #2 Field Suspect SCC Data Source Vendor #1 Vendor #2 Vendor #1 Vendor #2 Vendor #1 EPRI EPRI Vendor #2 Vendor #2 EPRI EPRI Vendor #1 Vendor #1 EPRI EPRI Vendor #1 Vendor #1 S/LW dB -0.2 5.8 0.6 3.9 7.1 -4.4 -4 -2.8 -6 3.3 2.9 0.9 -0.3 1.1 0.4 -5.3 0 S/N pk dB 12 8.2 7.1 5.5 7.4 8 7.7 1.2 0.2 2.8 2.1 3.8 3.8 1.7 1.9 -1.3 -1.7 S/N rms dB 23.5 20.5 18.8 17.8 17.4 16.8 16.5 14.6 13.6 13.1 12.4 12.4 12.3 12.2 11.9 10.4 9.8

The results of the flaw signal comparison show that there is little difference between the signalto-noise figures for the various flaw/data source combinations studied. There is a slight trend present, with the simpler manufactured flaws giving the highest signal-to-noise figures but the differences are not large in comparison with the variation that can occur between or even within individual ultrasonic scans. Furthermore, if the EDM notches are excluded from the comparison, the maximum difference between any of the artificial flaws is less than 7dB, which appears remarkably small given the differences in probes, inspection systems, flaw locations, and base material noise that have not been taken into account. Nor can it be said that the synthetic flaw responses are unrepresentative of real SCC flaws, as the field data available shows examples that have higher signal amplitude than all the synthetic flaws except the EDM slots. Looking at the images in Table 4-2 above, it is clear that signal amplitude is not the only factor that affects flaw detection; signal shape also plays a significant part. While EDM notches and CIP notches tend to give the characteristic TOFD arc generated by diffraction at the flaw tip, the other flaw types have more varied character. The SCC flaws tend to show only limited evidence of the characteristic arc shape (see the example for Vendor #1, Field SCC Flaw #2 in Table 4-2) and in the extreme case take on the appearance of a stack of short, flat, black and white bands (see Vendor #1, Field SCC Flaw #1 in Table 4-2).

4-8

The synthetic SCC flaws show the same characteristics as the real SCC flaws. The thermal fatigue flaws tend to have an appearance that falls somewhere between that of the CIP flaws and the SCC flaws, having an arc at the flaw tip and short flat bands below (see the example given above for Thermal Fatigue Flaw #2 in Table 4-2). A point of some concern regarding the thermal fatigue flaws studied is the accuracy of the flaw depth that can be achieved in manufacturing. In the examples given above, the measured flaw depth is different from the intended flaw depth; in one case the difference is at the upper limit of the combined manufacturing and measurement tolerances; in the other it is considerably larger. This indicates that the flaws either possess some characteristics that make it difficult to detect the flaw tip, or the manufacturing tolerances are larger than claimed. At present, this issue is unresolved, but it is likely that at some point in the future destructive examination of the test piece will be undertaken to resolve it. An NDE roundrubin is currently being conducted on this test sample with other organ reactions It is also possible that the flaw is so tight (narrow) at its end, that sound is transmitted through the flaw making the full extent of the flaw undetectable using the current inspection frequency. If this were the case, the flaw would not be considered appropriate for PWSCC demonstrations, as it is not a representative of PWSCC flaws. Figures 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, and 4-4 show how the flaw is currently being undersized with UT.

4-9

1 mm = 0.039 in. Figure 4-1 A-Scan, B-Scan, C-Scan, and D-Scan Display from Thermal Fatigue Flaw #1 Using 5 MHz TOFD UT with 5/8 in. (16 mm) Probe Center Separation (PCS)

4-10

1 mm = 0.039 in. Figure 4-2 Close-Up of the B-Scan Display from Figure 4-1 of Thermal Fatigue Flaw #1 Using 5 MHz TOFD UT with 5/8 in. (16 mm) PCS

4-11

1 mm = 0.039 in. Figure 4-3 A-Scan, B-Scan, C-Scan, and D-Scan Display from Thermal Fatigue Flaw #7 Using 5 MHz TOFD UT with 5/8 in. (16 mm) PCS

4-12

1 mm = 0.039 in. Figure 4-4 A-Scan, B-Scan, C-Scan, and D-Scan Display from Thermal Fatigue Flaw #1 Using 5 MHz 0 PE UT

PWSCC flaws have a corrosion component that inherently gives them some width. Thermal fatigue cracks have no corrosion component. It has been shown by destructive analysis of thermal fatigue flaws in other samples that these flaws can be extremely tight and will probably require further processing to be representative of actual PWSCC.

4-13

5
FLAW DATABASE
5.1 Introduction As has been stated previously, EPRI holds a large amount of data and records relating to CRDM and BMI inspection. They range from printed reports and procedures to inspection data recorded on a range of media and are largely accessible only through manual searches. The aim of the flaw database is to make greater use of this valuable resource by making it more easily accessible and using it as an aid to qualification and training activities. This would be done by creating a single, cross-referenced and searchable system linking inspection data, reports, records, and the existing CRDM inspection results database. The records would be held in electronic format on secure servers with access controlled by EPRI. 5.2 Existing Elements

Many elements of the proposed system already exist but are not directly linked to each other. Examples include: Mockups: For performance demonstration and technique development, EPRI uses mockups containing well-defined artificial and synthetic flaws. The "truth data" relating to these mockups are derived from design drawings, manufacturing records, and baseline inspections and is securely stored. Performance Demonstration Records: Paper and electronic records, including inspection procedures, inspection reports, and data are generated by the open and blind trials administered by EPRI during the performance demonstration. Field Inspection Data: In addition to internally generated data and records, EPRI also has access to large amounts of external data such as inspection reports and field data provided by its subscribers. Recent Developments

5.3

In the past year, EPRI has been working on the development of a new flaw database that aims to bring together the elements of the existing system in a way that potentially will allow all EPRI utilities and inspection vendors to benefit. The development work has concentrated on CRDM and BMI inspection and the result is a prototype flaw database and a series of tools that can be used to identify and interrogate selected data. The prototype flaw database is a collection of approximately 600 CRDM and BMI data files held by EPRI. These are a mixture of open trial data, largely gathered from mockups containing synthetic flaws; field data and laboratory data from field removed specimens. These are stored

5-1

on dedicated portable hard drives and the storage location recorded in an Excel spreadsheet along with basic information about the data. In the fully developed system, it is envisaged that data and records will be held on a secure file server with controlled access procedures, although portable discs may be used to distribute subsets of the database for purposes such as training. The reason for using Excel in preference to a dedicated database program such as Access is because the target users of the database are more likely to have access to and be familiar with the operation of Excel. In the future, it is intended to link the Excel database to the existing Plant Flaw database that is held in Access. The database spreadsheet is shown in Figure 5-1.

Figure 5-1 Partial Screenshot of the DataLog of the CRDM and BMI Excel Database

5-2

5.4

Using the Flaw Database

In order to make use of the prototype database, a set of tools have been developed to access, display, and analyze the data. 5.4.1 DataLog DataLog is the Excel spreadsheet that holds the data records. In the prototype version, it is populated manually, although the aim is to automate this process where possible by taking data directly from data file headers and inspection reports. Macros and filters are used to manipulate and sort the records and to aid the identification of records of interest. Once a record has been identified as being of interest, the data can be recalled and displayed using the InSight data display program. Figure 5-1 displays a screenshot of DataLog. 5.4.2 InSight Data Display and Analysis Software With the support of EPRI and the major CRDM/BMI inspection vendors, KANDE International, Ltd. has developed a data display and analysis program. This program is called InSight and it is capable of working with all the commonly used UT data file formats. EPRI is using this program as a means of reviewing and assessing the large amounts of performance demonstration and field inspection data that have been made accessible. InSight provides all the usual display and measurement options that are available, for example A-scan, B-scan, C-scan, and D-scan (or B-prime) displays, image optimization, position, depth and length measurement, and flaw reporting. In addition, it provides a range of advanced signal processing tools including frequency analysis, synthetic aperture focusing technique (SAFT), split-spectrum processing (SSP), and correlation. When used with the DataLog spreadsheet, it allows a fully interactive interrogation of the selected data, including any stored analysis record. There are a number of advantages in having such a program available for this task. Once familiar with its operation, EPRI personnel can review data from different inspection vendors without needing to be fully conversant with the operation of the vendors own data analysis systems. The availability of a common set of analysis tools makes it easier to perform direct comparisons between data collected in different formats. The need for the vendors to provide scarce expert resources in support of review operations is reduced, which improves overall operational flexibility.

In addition to data review activities, InSight is also used as a platform for performing signal processing. A number of established signal processing routines, for example SAFT and SSP, are available as well as more novel techniques based on the use of correlation algorithms. These tools will be used to identify and investigate the conditions under which signal processing might aid flaw detection and sizing in CRDM/BMI components. The results of this work, including details of signal processing algorithms and methodologies, will be disseminated to the supporting inspection vendors. Another important element of the InSight software package is the inspection reporting tool. This is used to identify and record volumes within the component that contain flaw indications, or

5-3

other signals of interest. The content of each of the volumes is described using a range of descriptors selected from drop-down menus. These descriptors can be used to sort the inspection results and generate the records held in the EPRI flaw database (see the input screen in Figure 5-2). Figure 5-2 shows a screenshot of the InSight software with an A-scan, B-scan, C-scan, and D-scan being displayed.

Figure 5-2 Screenshot of the InSight UT Data Analysis Program

5.4.3 Truthwriter Truthwriter is a record editor that generates overlay plots for InSight from Truth Data for mockup specimens. This provides a quick method for identifying where flaws should be located in the mockup data according to the mockup design drawings and the inspection parameters used. In a similar way, it can also be used to generate flaw location overlays from written inspection reports, thereby allowing a reviewer to quickly locate and examine the data containing the reported indication without having to search through the whole data set manually. Flaw location overlays can also be used as a training aid, for example to guide trainee data analysts to

5-4

examples of specific flaw responses, or as a rubric to help assess operator performance in practical tests. 5.5 Intended Users

The flaw database is intended to be a useful tool across the industry. It is envisaged that EPRI, the utilities, and inspection vendors will use it as an aid for inspection record review, personnel qualification, and as a training aid, with the main uses being: Reviewing inspection results and comparing with previous inspections Operator training using stored data Sharing experience of limited data from rare flaws Personnel Qualification using stored data

Figure 5-3 Schematic Diagram Showing the Relationship Between the Different Parts of the Proposed EPRI Flaw Database

5-5

6
FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
6.1 Program for Inspection of Nuclear Components Participation EPRI and the NRC have been in talks to participate in the Program for Inspection of Nuclear Components (PINC) that would investigate the following tasks in their current agreement, which has gone through several drafts. NDE mockup design and construction Sharing of NDE mockups Laboratory examinations of mockups Meeting participation

6.1.1 NDE Mockup Design and Construction EPRI is prepared to share relevant documents and experience with PINC. EPRI has years of experience in the manufacture of representative mockups, including: Specifications Mockup configurations Flaws Design Qualification of mockup fabricators In-process monitoring of mock-up construction Documentation of flaw truth Fingerprinting of finished mockups Efficient use of mockups for the purpose of NDE research and development (R&D) and qualification Technical basis for use of mockups

Sharing of this information will be subject to export control screening and assurance of confidentiality that includes the security of the sample information. 6.1.2 Sharing of NDE Mockups EPRI has an extensive library of mockups that includes: DMWs, CRDM, and BMI penetrations. At present these mockups are being used for NDE R&D, training, practice in preparation for demonstration and/or qualification, demonstration/qualification of personnel, and procedures. EPRI is also prepared to share open mockups with the PINC participants depending on availability and the need for existing work. Available mockups would include those presently being used for R&D and practice for performance demonstration. Blind samples would not be

6-1

available for sharing. Many new mockups are being designed to address as-built configurations of head penetrations and DMWs. 6.1.3 Laboratory Examinations of Mockups EPRI proposes to examine selected mockups and samples obtained through the PINC program and provide results to the participants. One of the mockups being proposed for this is the partialscale tube mockup with thermal fatigue flaws in it. The EPRI NDE Center has conducted several ET, TOFD, and PE UT inspections of the grown thermal fatigue flaws. The sample has been sent to the NRC for a round-robin NDE inspection. The NRC is using Pacific Northwest National Laboratories (PNNL), located in Richland, Washington, to conduct their NDE inspections. After PNNL finishes with their NDE inspections, the sample will be available to other participants in the round-robin study, such as Framatome ANP/AREVA (USA), Tecnatom s.a. (Spain), Tohoku University (Japan), and WesDyne International (USA) with the possibility of additional inspections being conducted at the EPRI NDE Center. After the round-robin studies, there is the prospect of sending the mockup back to Trueflaw, Ltd. for additional processing of the sample. When all the PINC participants have completed the collection of their respective NDE data, a consensus with the participants will be made to determine which flaws will be chosen to be destructively examined for comparison with the NDE data. The PINC participants will be given access to this destructive examination information. 6.1.4 PINC Meeting Participation The EPRI staff will participate in the PINC meetings. There is a project authorization being brought forward to the EPRI NDE Center Steering Committee in November 2005, which will provide funds for participation in the PINC meetings and the associated round-robin studies. There is also the potential for EPRI to host a PINC meeting in Charlotte in the future. 6.1.5 Data Grafting for Ultrasonic Inspection Qualification Data grafting is another way to use the field-collected data, with detection of actual PWSCC flaws, in combination with lab-acquired data. The ability to access a database of UT response data (using KANDE Internationals InSight software) which have been collected using vendors inspection systems raises the possibility of using prerecorded data in inspection qualification exercises. This has advantages because, in principle, inspections could be assessed using real plant data rather than completely relying on the applicability of the mockups. Extending the idea to take data from genuine flaws and mix the data with response data from unflawed components holds the further benefit of significantly extending the numbers of qualification exercises which could be constructed while maintaining the ability to conduct fully-blind trials as part of the qualification exercise. This data blending operation is also referred to as data grafting. Working together EPRI NDE Center staff and KANDE International have devised an outline strategy for using prerecorded data in CRDM J-weld inspection qualifications. A portion of this

6-2

scheme, along with a demonstration of a prototype software system for grafting datasets, was demonstrated to an MRP meeting in Austin, Texas in September 2005. The main focus of the CRDM inspections is the detection and disposition of SCC species that tend to have a characteristic appearance to inspection that is not fully replicated in conventional synthetic species. In particular for ultrasonic inspections which rely heavily on analysts pattern recognition skills, there is the concern that analysts trained and tested exclusively on responses from conventional synthetic species might fail to recognize genuine SCC. While this is potentially the case for any inspection, the issue is of more pressing concern here because fabrication of realistic defects is more demanding for SCC in Inconel alloy than has been the case for many other inspection situations. An additional issue is that there is a number of fabrication and repair imperfections found in plant that give responses that can be confused with SCC. Vendor inspections tend to provide capabilities aimed at distinguishing these from SCC. 6.1.6 General Qualification Inspection qualification is normally split into qualification of the procedure (including inspection techniques and equipment) and qualification of personnel. For the case in hand, substantial work has already been done on procedure qualification of candidate inspections. Inspection techniques and parameters have been demonstrated to be adequate by testing that sufficient signal levels would be returned from flaws, anywhere within the inspection volume, to enable their detection and that beyond this inspections enabled accurate sizing and characterization of flaw origin (for example: ID breaking or OD breaking). In the general case there follows: An assessment of the adequacy of the inspection procedure to direct the data collection and interpretation processes to collect data sufficient to enable detection and sizing of the flaws of concern and, given this is successful, An assessment of the skills of personnel in interpretation of the data and measurements from it.

6.1.7 Outline Qualification Strategy for SCC From experience of SCC flaws in plant and studies of lab-grown SCC, it is apparent that SCC flaws in the tubing material have a characteristic appearance to inspection and that this is different in some respects than that observed from conventional synthetic flaws used in qualification. The strategy proposed here for the use of prerecorded data seeks to address this issue in two steps: 1. Improved access to SCC response data from field removed and lab-grown samples for training purposes enabling analysts to be fully conversant with typical response data. 2. Use of a combination of response data from genuine plant flaw and lab-grown SCC to obtain the necessary confidence that analysts can recognize and interpret response data from anticipated flaws in plant in an exam/qualification situation.

6-3

Step 2 will be delivered by using data from reported flaws from the field supplemented by data from lab-grown SCCs. In the scheme proposed, data to be analyzed in qualification will have been originally collected by the vendor undergoing qualification using the methods and, as far as possible, the equipment that will be deployed in the field. The degree to which field samples may be used therefore depends upon how many flaws the candidate vendor has found in the field. Thus for established vendors, there could be several such samples and for vendors new to this inspection, there could be no directly relevant samples. In this case, there will be a higher reliance on data from lab-grown flaws. 6.1.8 Use of Lab-Grown SCC Specimens Specimens would be machined to have the same ID and OD profile over the region of interest as the CRDM/BMI tube. For specimens used in the assessment of flaws in the weld region, the external surface of the Alloy 600 material would be machined to match (approximately) the OD of the 600 tubes and then welded with Alloy 182 simulating the runs used in plant. Figure 6-1 shows the specimen during crack fabrication and prior to final machining. Two block orientations would be required to mimic circumferential and axial flaws.

6-4

Figure 6-1 OD Lab-Grown SCC Sample - Axial Flaw Coupon Before Machining and Insertion into the Specimen Holder

It is envisaged that a number of SCC flaws will be grown in specimens of the type shown in Figure 6-1 and 6-2.

Figure 6-2 ID Lab-Grown SCC Sample. Note that the Specimens Are Only Sections of the Full Length and Circumference of the Plant Items and that They Are Manufactured from Typical Inconel 600 Tubing Backed by Inconel 182 Weld Metal.

6-5

For specimens used for assessment of tubing only flaws, the Alloy 182 weld buildup is not required. It could very well be that it can be demonstrated that data grafting methods can be used to remove the need for the 182 weld buildup in any specimens, but it is prudent to produce at least some. The flaw specimens could be mounted in a Perspex replica of the CRDM tube. Slots would be cut in the tube to allow SCC specimen bars to be mounted. Use of such a system allows the vendors to use their normal data collection system. Vendors need only scan part of the axial and circ regions of the tube. Figure 6-3 shows the coupons mounted into the Perspex holder.

Figure 6-3 Perspex Specimen Holder of the CRDM Tube Replica with OD Lab-Grown SCC Samples in the Axial and Circumferential Orientations with the SCC Growing Through the Weld and into the Base Metal

The vendor would collect data from the specimens using their own inspection methods and equipment. Data would be retained by EPRI. EPRI already has significant amounts of data from vendors inspection systems deployed on both mockups and plant. These data are stored in the vendors own file formats in computer files. EPRI already possesses the capability to read these data formats. A prototype data blending tool has been developed and demonstrated. Lab-grown specimens, which are relatively inexpensive, can be destructively examined following UT and ET inspection and the true nature and extent of the flaws ascertained beyond dispute.

6-6

In this way, analysts will be able to analyze real SCC response data in realistic configurations. The nature and extent of the SCC will be known accurately to EPRI following the specimens destructive examination. While there is likely to be a requirement for the vendor to collect additional data from the lab-grown SCC, they need not scan the full inspection volume and so the collection activity need not be excessively time consuming. A combination of use of field data and data from specimens strengthens confidence in the appropriateness of the outcome. 6.1.9 Grafting Software A special development of KANDE Internationals InSight software has been produced and demonstrated. The software allows the user to open a donor data file and isolate a volume of interest that contains a flaws echo response. This selected volume can then be inserted into either the same or a different file. The recipient file can then be saved in the original file format that can then be analyzed by the inspection vendors using their own analysis software. Use of the demonstration software confirms that the method is appropriate and produces a convincing dataset when used with care in most situations in which it has been tested. There are currently some restrictions on how the grafting software could be used and a number of enhancements are required to the software to eliminate these restrictions and improve some aspects of the grafting operation. While the grafting method has specifically been demonstrated for the TOFD inspection of CRDM tubing, it has a far wider field of potential use within inspection qualification.

6-7

7
SUMMARY
When the appropriate manufactured flaw type is used for the development and demonstration process, it should deliver an NDE response similar to a field flaw. In general, performance demonstration relies to a great extent upon practical demonstration of inspection capability in representative components containing realistic flaws. Central to this methodology is the ability to generate the realistic flaws at the required locations and to a known size. The ideal would be to generate fully representative flaws capable of testing the limits of the inspection procedures applied to the components. Unfortunately, constraints of manufacturing capability, cost, and time make it very difficult to achieve this ideal for all but the simplest of flaw types and components. In the case of SCC cracking in austenitic materials, it is very difficult to generate realistic flaws to the required degree of accuracy and in such situations the pragmatic approach taken by EPRI is to use a mix of fully and partially representative flaws. For a number of years, EPRI has based performance demonstration operations for CRDM, and more recently BMI inspection, on flaws generated using the CIP process. The advantage of CIPd flaws is the size, location, and orientation can be controlled within very close tolerances at a reasonable cost, while the signal amplitude obtained using flaw tip diffraction methods is more representative to that of real flaws than is obtained from the more commonly used EDM notch. Until relatively recently, the only alternative source of more realistic flaws were field removed examples and the limited supply and difficulty of handling such flawed material makes its large scale use in performance demonstration impractical. The more recent developments in the production of the more realistic models of SCC flaws originating from Trueflaw, Ltd., located in Espoo, Finland, and Serco Assurance, located in Warrington, United Kingdom, have been closely followed by EPRI with studies performed on sample flaws. It has been shown that in some cases, the signal amplitude generated by these flaws under typical inspection conditions is very close to that generated by CIP flaws in similar locations and by flaws detected in field inspections. There are differences in character between the different flaw types, with the artificially induced accelerated SCC flaws produced by Sercos MISTIQ process being very similar to the field flaws and the Trueflaw thermal fatigue cracks showing a character midway between that of the CIP flaws and the SCC flaws. However, because there appear to be issues regarding the control of the manufacturing process for both of these flaw types and because of the high degree of difficulty and cost involved in producing them, it is not considered feasible to use them for all demonstration activities. Rather, it is expected they will be integrated into the demonstration process, with CIP flaws continuing to be used to define the performance envelope of the inspection procedure, for example, by testing the coverage of a particular region that can be achieved with adequate sensitivity and with the other flaw types being used for operator training and assessment or for testing signal processing procedures. EPRI will continue to collect flaw data from the demonstration process and data of interest from utilities. Comparison of the collected data will continue in the future with additional flaw types and field data to be filled in. ET data comparison will also be addressed.

7-1

A parallel project investigates flaw-manufacturing techniques for interdendritic and intergranular flaws in austenitic materials (Product ID 1011620). [1] This project is also being coordinated with the MRP Alloy 600 Inspection Technical Group (ITG) to ensure no gaps or overlaps in scope. 7.1 References 1. Development of Flaw Making Techniques for use in NDE Mockups of Austenitic Materials. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2005, 1011620.

7-2

Export Control Restrictions Access to and use of EPRI Intellectual Property is granted with the specific understanding and requirement that responsibility for ensuring full compliance with all applicable U.S. and foreign export laws and regulations is being undertaken by you and your company. This includes an obligation to ensure that any individual receiving access hereunder who is not a U.S. citizen or permanent U.S. resident is permitted access under applicable U.S. and foreign export laws and regulations. In the event you are uncertain whether you or your company may lawfully obtain access to this EPRI Intellectual Property, you acknowledge that it is your obligation to consult with your companys legal counsel to determine whether this access is lawful. Although EPRI may make available on a case-by-case basis an informal assessment of the applicable U.S. export classification for specific EPRI Intellectual Property, you and your company acknowledge that this assessment is solely for informational purposes and not for reliance purposes. You and your company acknowledge that it is still the obligation of you and your company to make your own assessment of the applicable U.S. export classification and ensure compliance accordingly. You and your company understand and acknowledge your obligations to make a prompt report to EPRI and the appropriate authorities regarding any access to or use of EPRI Intellectual Property hereunder that may be in violation of applicable U.S. or foreign export laws or regulations.

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), with major locations in Palo Alto, California, and Charlotte, North Carolina, was established in 1973 as an independent, nonprofit center for public interest energy and environmental research. EPRI brings together members, participants, the Institutes scientists and engineers, and other leading experts to work collaboratively on solutions to the challenges of electric power. These solutions span nearly every area of electricity generation, delivery, and use, including health, safety, and environment. EPRIs members represent over 90% of the electricity generated in the United States. International participation represents nearly 15% of EPRIs total research, development, and demonstration program. TogetherShaping the Future of Electricity

2005 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights reserved. Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. Printed on recycled paper in the United States of America 1011613

ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE 3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1395 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 USA 800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com