itness-for-purpitness-for-purpositness-for-purpose acceptance criteria such as API

1104 (2) and others permit treatment of porosity as a planar defect. This too is a
very conservative treatment of the flaw type but provides a handy method of
allowing some sort of quantification for ultrasonic testing.

Too often though, the quantification is linked to expectations that ultrasonics

should provide similar results as seen by radiography, which uses comparison
figures (as in API 1104 para.9.3.9) and projected areas. In 1992 the author
attempted to rationalise a porosity quantification policy based on projected area
(3) to "match" the radiographic criteria because no separate ultrasonic criteria
was available. This was subsequently abandoned as the regulatory body permitted
treatment of porosity as a planar flaw.

More recently some practitioners have returned to efforts to "quantify" aspects of

porosity based on both amplitude and duration of signals. Some have applied the
idea to pulse-echo signals while others propose it for TOFD analysis. The following
discussion will show that there is no definitive link between porosity (size,
density and extent) and ultrasonic signal amplitude and "duration".

Backgrounde acceptance criteria such as API 1104 (2) and others permit treatment of
porosity as a planar defect. This too is a very conservative treatment of the flaw
type but provides a handy method of allowing some sort of quantification for
ultrasonic testing.

Too often though, the quantification is linked to expectations that ultrasonics

should provide similar results as seen by radiography, which uses comparison
figures (as in API 1104 para.9.3.9) and projected areas. In 1992 the author
attempted to rationalise a porosity quantification policy based on projected area
(3) to "match" the radiographic criteria because no separate ultrasonic criteria
was available. This was subsequently abandoned as the regulatory body permitted
treatment of porosity as a planar flaw.

More recently some practitioners have returned to efforts to "quantify" aspects of

porosity based on both amplitude and duration of signals. Some have applied the
idea to pulse-echo signals while others propose it for TOFD analysis. The following
discussion will show that there is no definitive link between porosity (size,
density and extent) and ultrasonic signal amplitude and "duration".

Backgroundose acceptance criteria such as API 1104 (2) and others permit treatment
of porosity as a planar defect. This too is a very conservative treatment of the
flaw type but provides a handy method of allowing some sort of quantification for
ultrasonic testing.

Too often though, the quantification is linked to expectations that ultrasonics

should provide similar results as seen by radiography, which uses comparison
figures (as in API 1104 para.9.3.9) and projected areas. In 1992 the author
attempted to rationalise a porosity quantification policy based on projected area
(3) to "match" the radiographic criteria because no separate ultrasonic criteria
was available. This was subsequently abandoned as the regulatory body permitted
treatment of porosity as a planar flaw.

More recently some practitiitness-for-purpose acceptance criteria such as API 1104

(2) and others permit treatment of porosity as a planar defect. This too is a very
conservative treatment of the flaw type but provides a handy method of allowing
some sort of quantification for ultrasonic testing.

Too often though, the quantification is linked to expectations that ultrasonics

should provide similar results as seen by radiography, which uses comparison
figures (as in API 1104 para.9.3.9) and projected areas. In 1992 the author
attempted to rationalise a porosity quantification policy based on projected area
(3) to "match" the radiographic criteria because no separate ultrasonic criteria
was available. This was subsequently abandoned as the regulatory body permitted
treatment of porosity as a planar flaw.

More recently some practitioners have returned to efforts to "quantify" aspects of

porosity based on both amplitude and duration of signals. Some have applied the
idea to pulse-echo signals while others propose it for TOFD analysis. The following
discussion will show that there is no definitive link between porosity (size,
density and extent) and ultrasonic signal amplitude and "duration".
itness-for-purpose acceptance criteria such as API 1104 (2) and others permit
treatment of porosity as a planar defect. This too is a very conservative treatment
of the flaw type but provides a handy method of allowing some sort of
quantification for ultrasonic testing.

Too often though, the quantification is linked to expectations that ultrasonics

should provide similar results as seen by radiography, which uses comparison
figures (as in API 1104 para.9.3.9) and projected areas. In 1992 the author
attempted to rationalise a porosity quantification policy based on projected area
(3) to "match" the radiographic criteria because no separate ultrasonic criteria
was available. This was subsequently abandoned as the regulatory body permitted
treatment of porosity as a planar flaw.

More recently some practitioners have returned to efforts to "quantify" aspects of

porosity based on both amplitude and duration of signals. Some have applied the
idea to pulse-echo signals while others propose it for TOFD analysis. The following
discussion will show that there is no definitive link between porosity (size,
density and extent) and ultrasonic signal amplitude and "duration".

Background
Backgroundners have returned to efforts to "quantify" aspects of porosity based on
both amplitude and duration of signals. Some have applied the idea to pulse-echo
signals while others propose it for TOFD analysis. The following discussion will
show that there is no definitive link between porosity (size, density and extent)
and ultrasonic signal amplitude and "duration".

Background