November 2010
Environmental Technology
Verification Report
VJ TECHNOLOGIES
IXS HIGH FREQUENCY
INTEGRATED X-RAY GENERATOR
ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY FOR SEALED SOURCE
RADIOGRAPHY CAMERAS
Prepared by
Battelle
Batreiie
The Business of Innovation
Under a cooperative agreement with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
November 2010
Environmental Technology Verification
Report
ETV Advanced Monitoring Systems Center
VJ TECHNOLOGIES
IXS HIGH FREQUENCY
INTEGRATED X-RAY GENERATOR
ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY FOR SEALED SOURCE
RADIOGRAPHY CAMERAS
by
Stephanie Buehler, Bruce Nestleroth, Karen Riggs, and Amy Dindal, Battelle
John McKernan and Madeleine Nawar, U.S. EPA
ET1/ET1/ET1/
-------
Notice
Funding for this verification test was provided under Contract No. GS-23F-0011L-3, Task Order
1145, National Homeland Security Research Center, US Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). The U.S. EPA, through its Office of Research and Development, managed the research
described herein. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review. Any
opinions expressed in this report are those of the author (s) and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the Agency, therefore, no official endorsement should be inferred. Any mention of trade
names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
Foreword
The EPA is charged by Congress with protecting the nation's air, water, and land resources.
Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement
actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural
systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, the EPA's Office of Research and
Development provides data and science support that can be used to solve environmental
problems and to build the scientific knowledge base needed to manage our ecological resources
wisely, to understand how pollutants affect our health, and to prevent or reduce environmental
risks.
The Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program has been established by the EPA to
verify the performance characteristics of innovative environmental technology across all media
and to report this objective information to permitters, buyers, and users of the technology, thus
substantially accelerating the entrance of new environmental technologies into the marketplace.
Verification organizations oversee and report verification activities based on testing and quality
assurance protocols developed with input from major stakeholders and customer groups
associated with the technology area. ETV consists of six environmental technology centers.
Information about each of these centers can be found on the Internet at http://www.epa. gov/etv/.
Effective verifications of monitoring technologies are needed to assess environmental quality
and to supply cost and performance data to select the most appropriate technology for that
assessment. Under a cooperative agreement, Battelle has received EPA funding to plan,
coordinate, and conduct such verification tests for "Advanced Monitoring Systems for Air,
Water, and Soil" and report the results to the community at large. Information concerning this
specific environmental technology area can be found on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/etv/centers/centerl.html.
in
-------
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the support of all those who helped plan and conduct the
verification test, analyze the data, and prepare this report. We also would like to thank Terry
Webb, BP; Temeka Taplin, U.S. Department of Energy; and Mike Eagle, U.S. EPA for their
careful review of the test/quality assurance plan and this verification report. Quality assurance
(QA) oversight was provided by Michelle Henderson, U.S. EPA, and Zachary Willenberg and
Rosanna Buhl, Battelle.
IV
-------
Contents
Page
Chapter 1 Background 1
Chapter 2 Technology Description 2
Chapter 3 Test Design and Procedures 3
3.1 Introduction 3
3.2 Test Facility 5
3.3 Test Procedures 5
3.3.1 Test Sample Preparation and Storage 8
3.3.2 Test Sample Analysis Procedure 8
3.4 Test Parameters 9
3.4.1 Detection of Defects - Qualitative Results 9
3.4.2 Detection of Defects - Quantitative Results 10
3.4.3 Operational Factors 11
Chapter 4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 12
4.1 Radiography Camera Reference Method and Vendor Technology QC 12
4.2 Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection, Maintenance, and Calibration 13
4.3 Audits 13
4.3.1 Technical Systems Audit 13
4.3.2 Data Quality Audit 14
4.4 QA/QC Reporting 14
4.5 Data Review 14
Chapters Statistical Methods 15
5.1 Percent Error 15
5.2 Percent Difference 15
5.3 Operational Factors 16
Chapter 6 Test Results 17
6.1 Detect! on of Defects-Qualitative Results 17
6.2 Detection of Defects - Quantitative Results 23
6.2.1 Percent Error 24
6.2.2 Percent Difference 29
6.3 Operational Factors 34
Chapter 7 Performance Summary 37
Chapter 8 References 41
Appendix A Pipe Sample 1 Defects Characterizations A-l
-------
Figures
Figure 2-1. VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator 2
Figure 3-1. Pipe Sample 1 (top, right) with insulation and Pipe Sample 2 5
Figure 3-2. Assessment zones for Pipe Sample 1 weld with five zones shown as examples 10
Figure 6-1. A comparison of radiography camera and VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency
Integrated X-Ray Generator images with identical image processing applied 18
Figure 6-2. Example VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator results
without adjustment (left) and with ADE adjustment 19
Figure 6-3. Pipe Sample 2 contact images for radiography camera and VJ Technologies IXS
High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator without adjustment and with ADE adjustment... 20
Figure 6-4. Uninsulated Pipe Sample 2 simulated defects 24
Figure 6-5. Radiation safety boundary for the operation of the VJ Technologies IXS High
Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator 35
Tables
Table 6-1. Weld Image Assessment Based on Radiography Camera Image 21
Table 6-2. Weld Image Assessment by Mistras Based on VJ Technologies X-ray Image 21
Table 6-3. Weld Image Assessment by VJ Technologies Based on VJ Technologies X-ray
Image 22
Table 6-4. Assessment of Level of Corrosion for Natural Corrosion Area Using 90 ° View
Images from Radiography Camera (Radiography) and VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency
Integrated X-Ray Generator (X-ray) 23
Table 6-5. Assessment of Level of Corrosion for Natural Corrosion Area Using 0 ° View Images
from Radiography Camera (Radiography) and VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated
X-Ray Generator (X-ray) 23
Table 6-6. Defect P1 -7 Measurements (in Inches) and Percent Error Results 25
Table 6-7. Defect P1 -18 Measurements (in Inches) and Percent Error Results 26
Table 6-8. Defect PI-23 Measurements (in Inches) and Percent Error Results 26
vi
-------
Table 6-9. Defect P1 -1 Measurements (in Inches) and Percent Error Results 27
Table 6-10. Measurements (in Inches) and Percent Error Results for Drilled Defects on Pipe
Sample 2 28
Table 6-11. Average Percent Error and Standard Deviation Results for All Percent Errors
Reported in Tables 6-6 Through 6-10 for Individual Defect Measurement Categories 28
Table 6-12. Defect Pl-7 Measurements (in Inches) and Percent Difference Results 30
Table 6-13. Defect Pl-18 Measurements (in Inches) and Percent Difference Results 30
Table 6-14. Defect Pl-23 Measurements (in Inches) and Percent Difference Results 31
Table 6-15. Defect Pl-1 Measurements (in Inches) and Percent Difference Results 32
Table 6-16. Measurements (in Inches) and Percent Difference Results for Drilled Defects on
Pipe Sample 2 32
Table 6-17. Average Percent Difference and Standard Deviation Results for All Percent
Differences Reported in Tables 6-12 to 6-16 for Individual Defect Measurement Categories.... 33
Table 7-1. Summary of VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator
Percent Error and Percent Difference Results for Defects under Insulation 38
Table 7-2. Summary of VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator
Percent Error and Percent Difference Results for Defects Not under Insulation 39
vn
-------
List of Abbreviations
ADE
AMS
API
ASNT
ATI
DQI
EPA
ESH&Q
ETV
GE
HV
IAEA
IQI
IRRSP
kV
mA
mm
NDT
OAR
PE
QA
QC
QMP
SOP
ISA
VMI
Advanced Defect Enhancement
Advanced Monitoring Systems
American Petroleum Institute
American Society for Nondestructive Testing
Alternative Technologies Initiative
data quality indicator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environment, Safety, Health, and Quality
Environmental Technology Verification
General Electric
high voltage
International Atomic Energy Agency
image quality indicator
Industrial Radiography Radiation Safety Personnel
kilovolt
milliamp
millimeter
non-destructive testing
Office of Air and Radiation
performance evaluation
quality assurance
quality control
Quality Management Plan
Standard Operating Procedure
technical systems audit
Virtual Media Integration
Vlll
-------
Chapter 1
Background
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) supports the Environmental Technology
Verification Program (ETV) to facilitate the deployment of innovative environmental
technologies through performance verification and dissemination of information. The goal of the
ETV Program is to further environmental protection by accelerating the acceptance and use of
improved and cost-effective technologies. ETV seeks to achieve this goal by providing high-
quality, peer-reviewed data on technology performance to those involved in the design,
distribution, financing, permitting, purchase, and use of environmental technologies.
ETV works in partnership with recognized testing organizations; with stakeholder groups
consisting of buyers, vendor organizations, and permitters; and with the full participation of
individual technology developers. The Program evaluates the performance of innovative
technologies by developing test plans that are responsive to the needs of stakeholders,
conducting field or laboratory tests (as appropriate), collecting and analyzing data, and preparing
peer-reviewed reports. All evaluations are conducted in accordance with rigorous quality
assurance (QA) protocols to ensure that data of known and adequate quality are generated and
that the results are defensible.
The EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) and its verification
organization partner, Battelle, operate the Advanced Monitoring Systems (AMS) Center under
ETV. The AMS Center recently evaluated the performance of the VJ Technologies IXS High
Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator for determining the ability of x-ray technologies to
determine defects in pipeline, particularly to adequately identify defects through insulation to
provide an alternative for radiography cameras.
-------
Chapter 2
Technology Description
The objective of the ETV AMS Center is to verify the performance characteristics of
environmental monitoring, sampling, characterization, and detection technologies. This report
provides results for the verification testing of the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency
Integrated X-Ray Generator. The following is a description of the VJ Technologies IXS High
Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator, based on information provided by the vendor; this
information was not verified.
The IXS technology (see Figure 2-1) is a compact, portable x-ray generator. It integrates a high-
voltage (HV) power supply, an x-ray tube, and a filament supply into one single module. The
design features a high-frequency inverter for compact design, power factor correction to
minimize input power requirements, self-cooling to improve reliability and prolong product life,
and radiation self-containment to ensure low x-ray leakage.
The product comes with a HV module connected to a control
module. The control module is powered by 110 volt (V) or 220 V
of alternating current. The control interface uses a RS232 cable
between the control module and a computer via a graphic user
interface. The digital interface provides the ability to program and
monitor the output voltage and current, monitor any fault
conditions, and operate the x-ray interlock.
The IXS series x-ray systems are designed to be used for a wide
range of non-destructive testing (NDT) applications including:
industrial radiography, baggage security inspection, medical
radiography and fluoroscopy, food and package inspection, and
electronic component inspection. The product offers a platform
with output power ranging from 10 kilovolts (kV) to 160 kV, and
up to 500 watts (W) continuously, with higher power available
for x-ray pulsing applications. Its modular design allows customization of beam shapes (cone or
fan), focal spot sizes (0.05 millimeters [mm] to 1.5 mm), and mounting methods.
Figure 2-1. VJ
Technologies IXS High
Frequency Integrated X-
Ray Generator.
The IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator is 16 inches long by 5.6 inches wide by 15
inches high. It weighs 59 pounds. The list price for a 500 W (160 kilovolts @ 3.12 milliamp
[mA]) model is $15,000. A computer, imaging plates, and image processing equipment are not
included with the unit, and must be purchased separately.
2
-------
Chapter 3
Test Design and Procedures
3.1 Introduction
Radioactive materials, such as sealed sources of Cobalt-60, Cesium-137, Selenium-75, and
Iridium-192 oxides, are found in medical, commercial, and industrial devices such as those used
for measuring material thickness. Minimizing the number of such radioactive sources in the
public domain is more sustainable for the environment and would decrease opportunities for
terrorists to obtain radioactive sources when inappropriately disposed.
As a major component of NDT, radiography cameras use gamma-rays to penetrate material and
provide an image of hidden flaws. Radiography cameras employ film plates to record an image
of the pipe or vessel being inspected. Generally, standard methods such as American Society of
Testing Materials (ASTM) E 941, International Organization for Standardization ISO 55792, and
the British Standard BS EN 4443 provide guidelines to ensure safe and quality testing using
radiography cameras. This test utilized ASTM E 94 to define image quality for the reference
method. Iridium-192 and Cobalt-60 are the most common gamma radiation sources used. In
addition to the significant safety concerns if sealed source radiation is mishandled or improperly
disposed, use of these cameras calls for meeting specific licensing and regulation requirements
and restricting access to large areas. The use of sourced alternative technologies, where
applicable, could help to eliminate these health and safety concerns. These technologies include
x-ray (pulsed or high voltage) sources.
The EPA's Office of Radiation and Indoor Air in the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR)
established the EPA's Alternative Technologies Initiative (ATI). Part of the EPA ATI aims to
foster the acceptance and voluntary market adoption of technologies; i.e., alternative
technologies to those that currently use sealed radioactive sources. The EPA ATI is focusing
primarily on alternative technologies for devices with Category 3 and 4 radioactive sources as
classified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Commercial-ready or available
alternatives to radiography cameras are being considered.
X-ray devices can be operated more safely than sealed-source radiography cameras because they
do not contain radioactive sources and therefore operators do not have the same waste concerns.
However, their ability to perform comparably to sealed-source radiography cameras in various
situations is not well characterized. Although x-ray technologies have been used for decades,
isotope-based radiography is still commonly used in oil refineries and petrochemical plants
because the sources are generally easier to transport and position. One particular area of interest
-------
in the capabilities of x-ray devices is their ability to detect pipeline defects through insulation.
This verification test evaluated the ability of an x-ray technology to determine defects in pipeline
similar to that found in an oil and gas industry refinery in comparison to a commonly used
radiography camera with a Selenium-75 source. Testing was designed in particular to identify
defects through pipeline insulation.
The VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator was verified by
evaluating the following parameters.
Detection of defects - qualitative results
Detection of defects - quantitative results
- Percent error
- Percent difference
Operational factors
Testing was conducted on June 1, 4, 5, and July 8, 2010 on subsections of two pipes at Battelle's
Pipeline Facility in West Jefferson, Ohio, according to procedures specified in the Test/QA Plan
for Verification of Alternative Technologies for Sealed Source Radiography Cameras and
Amendment 1 dated July 6, 20J04 and in compliance with the data quality requirements in the
AMS Center Quality Management Plan (QMP).5 As indicated in the test/QA plan, the testing
conducted satisfied EPA QA Category II requirements. The test/QA plan and this verification
report were reviewed by the following experts in the fields related to NDT pipeline inspections
and alternatives to sealed-source technologies.
Terry Webb, BP, Refining NDT Specialist
Temeka Taplin, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy
Mike Eagle, U.S. EPA
Two of these technical experts also came to the field site to observe testing. Verification testing
was conducted by appropriately trained personnel following the safety and health guidelines for
Battelle's Pipeline Facility, and following the guidance of Battelle's radiation safety officer.
The ability of the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator to detect
the defect was compared to the radiography camera's findings. Qualitative results of defect
detection were determined by viewing the image(s) of the defect, and assessing if the technology
did indeed discover a defect of appropriate size and shape in the appointed area. These results
were then compared to those from the radiography camera. A number of images were also
compared qualitatively by dividing the area of interest (i.e., weld and natural corrosion) into 10
zones and discussing the detection of defects in those zones. The number and type of defects
found by the x-ray technology were compared qualitatively to the number and type of defects
found by the radiography camera.
As described in Chapters 5 and 6, quantitative results of defect detection were determined by
performing percent error and percent difference calculations on measurements determined from
images obtained by the radiography camera and the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency
Integrated X-Ray Generator. Percent error was calculated for the reference (i.e., radiography
-------
camera) and x-ray technology by subtracting the actual physical measurement of the defect from
the estimated measurement, and normalizing the calculation to the wall thickness of the pipe.
Percent difference was assessed by comparing the difference between the x-ray and radiography
camera results. Operational factors and sustainability metrics were evaluated based on testing
observations and input provided from the testing staff and the Verification Test Coordinator.
These factors and metrics included maintenance needs, power needs, calibration frequency, data
output, consumables used, ease of use, repair requirements, training and certification
requirements, safety requirements, and image throughput.
3.2 Test Facility
Testing was conducted on June 1, 4, 5 and July 8, 2010 at Battelle's Pipeline Facility in West
Jefferson, Ohio.
3.3 Test Procedures
Subsections of two pipes (see Figure 3-1) were examined by both the VJ Technologies IXS High
Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator and a radiography camera. These pipe samples were
similar but not identical to pipes in a refinery, as the verification test pipes had similar diameter
but thinner wall thickness. Refineries typically use four to 12-inch diameter pipes, and the pipe
samples used were eight inches in diameter. The test was conducted outdoors in Battelle's pipe
specimen storage yard. The pipe was placed about three feet off the ground on stands or timbers
as shown in Figure 3-1.
Figure 3-1. Pipe Sample 1 (top, right) with insulation and Pipe Sample 2 (bottom, left).
Pipe Sample 1 was a seam-welded carbon steel pipe measuring approximately 35 feet in length.
The wall thickness was 0.188 inches. This sample consisted of three pipe sections welded
together (two circumferential welds) and contained simulated corrosion defects set along two test
lines 180 degrees apart. A five foot section in the middle of Pipe Sample 1 also contained
natural corrosion from a pipe pulled from service. The pipe sections with the simulated
-------
corrosions were manufactured to American Petroleum Institute (API) specification X-52. The
API grade of the pipe section with natural corrosion was not known.
To simulate the refinery environment, a portion of Pipe Sample 1 was insulated with calcium
silicate material, a common industrial insulating material. The insulation was jacketed with
aluminum sheet metal. The jackets were held on by aluminum banding material (see Figure 3-
1).
While Pipe Sample 1 had over a dozen corrosion areas and three welds, a subset of the welds and
corrosion was used to assess the x-ray technologies. The assessment included the following:
Four simulated corrosion defects. Two images of each defect were collected with the x-ray
beam oriented 90 degrees to the centerline of the pipe. One was to assess the length and
width of the corrosion, and the other was to assess the length and depth.
One weld. Two images were collected 90 degrees from the centerline.
One natural corrosion area. Two images were collected 90 degrees from the centerline.
The natural corrosion was close to the weld, and both areas were assessed from the same image.
Four simulated corrosion defects (Pl-18, Pl-7, Pl-1, and Pl-23), one natural corrosion defect
(PI-9), and the weld next to the selected natural corrosion region were used. The test/QA plan4
called for only three simulated corrosion defects to be used for this verification test. All three of
these defects (Pl-18, Pl-7, and Pl-23) were under the insulation that was placed on Pipe Sample
1. During testing, however, an additional simulated corrosion defect on Pipe Sample 1 that was
not covered by insulation was imaged by both the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency
Integrated X-Ray Generator and the radiography camera. This was done to provide further
information on the capabilities of the x-ray technology on exposed pipe corrosion. All areas of
interest on Pipe Sample 1 were defined as 'patches'. Each patch on Pipe Sample 1 was a specific
area of general corrosion with defined pits within it. Further details on this can be found in
Appendix A.
Pipe Sample 2 was a stainless steel alloy of unknown composition measuring approximately 52
inches in length. The wall thickness was 0.515-inch. The surface was nominally in original
condition. Since there were no corrosion anomalies, three holes of varying diameter and depth
were drilled into the pipe using handheld tools to simulate pit defects. Two images were
collected for the simulated defects on Pipe Sample 2 by the VJ Technologies IXS High
Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator and the radiography camera; One to assess the diameter
of the drilled hole, and the other to assess the depth. In addition, a 'contact image' (i.e., the
camera was placed in contact with the pipe) was collected for the simulated defects on Pipe
Sample 2 by both the vendor and reference technology. The contact image was not called for in
the test/QA plan4 but was conducted to provide a comprehensive picture of the VJ Technologies
IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator performance.
The defects on both pipes were labeled alphabetically, and their location under the insulation was
marked with a spot on the aluminum sheeting using a marker. This was done to ensure that the
VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator and the reference technology
were imaging the same location. This was not a test to see if the technologies could find the
same area under the insulation, but how well they could detect the same defects under insulation.
6
-------
The defects were evaluated in no particular order. Reference testing of these defects using a
radiography camera was conducted prior to testing using the x-ray technology.
Testing was conducted outdoors on separate days for the radiography camera and the VJ
Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator. This allowed each technology
operator ample time and space to set up and collect images with the devices. The VJ
Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator was operated by VJ
Technologies and their representatives. The radiography camera was supplied and operated by
Mistras, a local professional NDT company (Columbus, OH). Mistras employed a radiography
camera with a QSA Global Selenium-75 spherical source with an activity of 41 Curies. This
source was chosen by Mistras based on current NDT practices, and the needs of this test.
Operation of the instruments, and the establishment of radiation safety boundaries were
conducted by persons with an American Society for Nondestructive Testing (ASNT) Industrial
Radiography Radiation Safety Personnel (IRRSP) certification.
Both Mistras (the radiography camera operator) and VJ Technologies collected analog images on
General Electric (GE) phosphor imaging plates. After exposure, each imaging plate was placed
into a computed radiography scanner where the image was retrieved using laser light scanning,
and stored as a digital file. The corresponding images were assessed and evaluated by their
respective operators (VJ Technologies for the x-ray technology images and Mistras for the
radiography camera images) to determine specific characteristics of the defects used for analysis
of the technology. Mistras also assessed and evaluated the VJ Technologies IXS High
Frequency Integrated X-ray Generator images. Battelle technical staff members who specialize
in NDT measurements also reviewed the images from both the VJ Technologies IXS High
Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator and the radiography camera used by Mistras to confirm
the results.
The initial round of testing was performed in June 2010. During this testing, Mistras used a
Virtual Media Integration (VMI) 5100 computed radiography scanner and associated Starr View
7 software to retrieve the image onsite from the phosphor imaging plates generated by the
radiography camera. Images collected by the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated
X-Ray Generator were processed by VJ Technologies with an AllPro Imaging computed
radiography scanner and GE Rhythm software. Using this processing equipment, the images
collected by the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator were not
providing images of the defects. It was unclear if this result was related to the performance of
the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator, or a problem with the
processing equipment and software. Therefore, images from the initial round of testing were not
used for the performance evaluation of the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-
Ray Generator.
Re-testing was performed in July by the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray
Generator with Mistras onsite to provide and process the phosphor imaging plates (GE imaging
plates) using the same system (VMI 5100 computed radiography scanner and associated
StarrView 7 software) used initially for the radiography camera. Because the radiography
camera images could be interpreted, no additional images were collected using the radiography
camera. The same VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator was used
in both the June and July tests. As described in an amendment to the test/QA plan that was
7
-------
requested by the EPA Quality Manager after the June testing, electronic image files were labeled
with the date and approximate time the image was captured in July. Both Mistras and the vendor
evaluated the images from the x-ray system and provided measurements for data analysis.
Images collected during re-testing using the GE imaging plates and VMI 5100 computed
radiography scanner and associated StarrView 7 software were readable and were used to
evaluate the performance of the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray
Generator. It is assumed that because images were obtained using the VJ Technologies IXS
High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator and the Mistras image processing system, that there
was a problem with the original image processing system used by VJ Technologies (AllPro
scanner and Rhythm software), though this could not be independently verified. Discussions in
the remainder of this report of the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray
Generator performance refer to testing and results that occurred during the re-testing on July 8,
2010 using the VMI 5100 computed radiography scanner and associated StarrView 7 software
with GE imaging plates.
3.3.1 Test Sample Preparation and Storage
The simulated corrosion in Pipe Sample 1 was created using electrochemical etching techniques.
These areas of simulated corrosion were prepared prior to the development of this verification
test, as Pipe Sample 1 has been used in other Battelle studies. The defects on Pipe Sample 1
were thoroughly characterized at the time of their creation. Appendix A provides detailed
information on the characteristics of the defects on Pipe Sample 1 as determined during this
previous characterization. The insulation on Pipe Sample 1 was installed professionally by a
qualified local company, Sauer Group, Inc., Columbus, OH for this verification test.
Three simulated defects on Pipe Sample 2 were created using a drill. Each defect depth was
measured using a Starrett 449 depth micrometer. Each defect diameter was measured using a
Starrett 120 slide caliper. Measurement accuracy was within ± 10% of the wall thickness of Pipe
Sample 2 (0.515 inch). Accuracy was measured to ± 0.002 inch. The actual diameter and depth
of these defects are below.
Pit 1: 0.375 inch diameter, 0.188 inch depth
Pit2: 0.313 inch diameter, 0.115 inch depth
Pit 3: 0.252 inch diameter, 0.316 inch depth
3.3.2 Test Sample A nalysis Procedure
The VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator was operated by a
representative of VJ Technologies. Scanning of the phosphor imaging plates was conducted by a
Mistras representative. A radiation safety area between 40 to 80 feet (technology dependent)
was established, and entry to this area was restricted during the testing. The exposure time for
the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator was 1 minute. The x-ray
generator was placed 28 inches away from the defect (except for the contact image) and was
operated at 3 mA and 160 kV. The IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator was either
placed on a tripod stand for images through the diameter of the pipe, or on a forklift for images
captured above the pipe. A one inch comparator ball shielded in lead, the same one as used by
Mistras with the radiography camera, was taped to the pipe and used in each image. For the
-------
contact image, an ASTM B wire pack as well as ASME 1025 stainless steel number 12, 15, and
17 plaque hole penatrameters were used to assess image quality. These image quality indicators
were taped onto Pipe Sample 2 beside the visible defects. Lead markers ("0" and "1") were also
used to note the direction of the images for all images. Mistras also used lead markers during the
reference testing, and wrote the placement of these lead markers in permanent marker on the
pipe. VJ Technologies then used the marks made by Mistras to ensure the images and placement
of their plates was as close as possible to those collected by the reference technology. The
images were collected on GE phosphor imaging plates and were scanned on-site using a VMI
5100 computed radiography scanner and associated StarrView 7 software. Initially, multiple
images were collected for one defect until the right distance and exposure time were determined
to obtain the best image quality for subsequent defect images. Only images that yielded the
appropriate image quality, and where the lead comparator ball was clearly visible in the image,
were used in assessing the defects.
3.4 Test Parameters
The performance of the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator was
verified based on the qualitative and quantitative detection of defects and operational factors, as
noted in Section 3.1. The images from the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-
Ray Generator and the radiography camera were not expected to be identical since small
positioning differences between the source, detector, and pipe as well as exposure time could
cause differences in image intensity for the anomalies. The following sections describe in detail
the evaluation of the testing parameters.
3.4.1 Detection of Defects Qualitative Results
Detection of a single defect was determined by viewing the resulting image(s) of the defect and
assessing that the technology did capture the defect in the appointed area. The defect location,
size, and shape were known from previous mapping of the pipe. The presence of insulation was
noted. The ability of the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator to
capture a defect was compared with findings from corresponding radiography camera image.
The weld images for Pipe Sample 1 were compared qualitatively. The weld region was divided
into 10 areas or zones, enabling isolation of weld anomalies such as lack of penetration in the
root pass, undercut in the crown, slag inclusion, porosity, as well as regions of acceptable welds.
These welds were not high quality; rather, they were fabricated to hold the pipe together.
Therefore, weld defects were expected with the potential for the entire weld to be defective.
Figure 3-2 shows example placement of zones 1-5, with the remaining zones of similar
dimension continuing below Zone 5. The presence or absence of defects in each zone was noted
by the technology operator and then reported. Both weld images (0 ° and 90 ° images) were
assessed. The zones were assessed in the circumferential direction in both images. The number
and type of weld defects found by the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray
Generator were compared qualitatively to the number and type of weld defects found by the
radiography camera.
-------
Figure 3-2. Assessment zones in the circumferential direction for Pipe Sample 1 weld
with five zones shown as examples.
The performance of the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator in
detecting the natural corrosion on Pipe Sample 1 was evaluated by a similar process, dividing the
natural corrosion region into 10 zones. The level of corrosion was noted by the technology
operator with the qualitative terms of none, light, moderate, or heavy for defects in each zone.
Both corrosion images were assessed and compared to actual corrosion depth measurements that
had already been made in a previous mapping of the pipe. The corrosion levels found by the VJ
Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator were compared qualitatively to
the levels found by the radiography camera and the actual corrosion depth measurements (see
below for evaluation criteria).
None: < 10% wall loss
Light: 10% < depth < 25% wall loss
Moderate: 25% < depth < 50% wall loss
Heavy: > 50% wall loss
3.4.2 Detection of Defects Quantitative Results
Quantitative measures were used to assess the performance of the VJ Technologies IXS High
Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator in measuring simulated corrosion anomalies on Pipe
Sample 1. The images obtained by the x-ray and radiography camera were used to assess the
following six parameters:
1. Axial extent (length) in inches
2. Circumferential extent (width) inches
10
-------
3. Number of pits (typically 2 or 3)
4. Axial extent of deepest pit (pit length) in inches
5. Circumferential extent of deepest pit (pit width) inches
6. Depth of deepest pit (inches)
For the simulated defects (drilled holes) in Pipe Sample 2, the depth and diameter of each defect
were assessed on each image collected by the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated
X-Ray Generator and the radiography camera.
3.4.3 Operational Factors
Operational factors to assess the sustainability of the technology include parameters such as
maintenance needs, power needs, calibration frequency, data output, consumables used, ease of
use, repair requirements, training and certification requirements, safety requirements and image
throughput were evaluated based on testing observations and input provided from the vendor.
Input was provided by the vendor, and Battelle technical staff also observed and recorded their
own observations of these operational factors. Examples of information recorded included the
daily status of diagnostic indicators for the technology, use or replacement of any consumables,
use and nature of power supply needed to operate the technology, the effort or cost associated
with maintenance or repair, vendor effort (e.g., time on site) for repair or maintenance, the
duration and causes of any technology downtime or data acquisition failure, observations about
technology startup, ease of use, clarity of the instruction manual, user-friendliness of any needed
software, overall convenience of the technologies, the safety hazard associated with the use of
the technology, and the number of images that could be collected and processed per hour or per
day. These observations were summarized to aid in describing the technology performance in
this verification report.
11
-------
Chapter 4
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
QA/Quality Control (QC) procedures were performed in accordance with the quality
management plan (QMP) for the AMS Center5 and the test/QA plan for this verification test.4
4.1 Radiography Camera Reference Method and Vendor Technology QC
This verification test included a comparison of the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency
Integrated X-Ray Generator results to those of the radiography camera reference method. The
quality of the reference measurements were assured by adherence to the requirements of the
reference method, including the use of all applicable image quality indicators (IQIs). A one inch
comparator ball wrapped in lead was used in every image collected by the radiography camera.
The comparator ball is used to calibrate interpretation software to ensure exact line
measurements and to confirm radiographic technique. This reference comparator (ball) indicated
the sharpness of the image by providing a known actual dimension and a measured value on the
image from which the sharpness could be calculated. The comparator ball was always clearly
visible in all acceptable unprocessed images.
For the contact image, an ASTM B wire pack was used. The pack was two sheets of clear plastic
that contained six wires arranged by increasing diameter. The diameter of the thinnest wire
clearly visible on the image was used as a measure of IQI sensitivity. Four wires were visible on
the contact image for the radiography camera. ASME 1025 stainless steel number 15 and 17
plaque hole penetrameters were also used on the contact image. A 2T sensitivity was obtained
for each penetrameter using the radiography camera. No quality criteria were established for the
contact images as these were not intended for measurement purposes but were used to determine
differences in image quality between the tested devices. The data quality indicators as specified
in the test/QA plan were met.
The same comparator ball as used by the radiography camera was also used in each image
collected by the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator. The
comparator ball was always clearly visible in all acceptable images. The same ASTM B wire
pack was also used for the contact image collected with the VJ Technologies IXS High
Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator. Five wires were visible on the resulting image. ASME
1025 stainless steel number 12, 15 and 17 plaque hole penetrameters were also used on the
contact image. A 2T sensitivity was obtained for each penetrameter using the VJ Technologies
IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator.
12
-------
4.2 Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection, Maintenance, and Calibration
The radiography camera does not require calibration. It is simply a shielding container for an
isotope to be positioned from or retracted to. The source itself, however, does decay over time.
A QSA Global Selenium-75 spherical source was used for the radiography camera. The original
source activity was 89 Curies in January 2010. It had decayed to 41 Curies at the time of testing.
Manufacturer recommendations for calibration of the micrometer and calipers are related to
usage patterns. The calipers and micrometer used in this test are not regularly used. Both
instruments were inspected to observe that they attained zero measurement properly prior to be
used in this verification test. Calibration was not performed prior to being used in this
verification test. Calibration was not performed prior to the verification test in accordance with
the manufacturer's guidance given the limited use history. As well, the level of accuracy needed
from the calipers and micrometer for this test are approximately an order of magnitude higher
than the actual accuracy of the instruments. As such, the lack of a recent calibration for the
calipers and micrometer is not believed to impact their performance for this test.
The VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator was calibrated by the
manufacturer according to the technology's specified procedures. This calibration was
performed at the factory during the production of the specific VJ Technologies IXS High
Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator used for testing. The VJ Technologies IXS High
Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator comes factory-calibrated to the end user and does not
otherwise require calibration. Techniques can be applied (such as the use of comparators and
other image quality indicators) to determine image quality and assist in image interpretation.
4.3 Audits
Two types of audits were performed during the verification test: a technical systems audit (TSA)
of the verification test performance and a data quality audit. Because of the nature of the
samples evaluated in this verification test (i.e., defects on a pipe), a performance evaluation (PE)
audit was not conducted as PE audit samples were not available. Audit procedures are described
further below.
4.3.1 Technical Systems Audit
The Battelle Quality Assurance Officer (QAO) performed a TSA during this verification test.
The purpose of this audit was to ensure that the verification test was being performed in
accordance with the AMS Center QMP,5 the test/QA plan,4 and any standard operating
procedures (SOPs) used by Battelle. In the TSA, the Battelle QAO reviewed the reference
method used, compared actual test procedures to those specified or referenced in this plan, and
reviewed data acquisition and handling procedures. The Battelle QAO also toured the test site,
observed and reviewed the test procedures, and reviewed record books. He also checked
calibration certifications for test measurement devices.
The TSA resulted in two observations, noting that one extra defect and a contact image, in
addition to the defects called for in the test/QA plan, were imaged by both the radiography
13
-------
camera and the vendor technology during testing. These observations did not detract from the
quality of the data but served to augment it. A ISA report was prepared, and a copy was
distributed to the EPA.
The EPA AMS Center Quality Manager also conducted an independent on-site TSA during the
verification test. The TSA observations were communicated to technical staff at the time of the
audit and afterward in a teleconference. No applicable findings were reported in either TSA.
4.3.2 Data Quality Audit
At least 25% of the data acquired during the verification test were audited. The Battelle QAO
traced the data from the initial acquisition, through reduction and statistical comparisons, to final
reporting to ensure the integrity of the reported results. All calculations performed on the data
undergoing the audit were checked. The data quality audit resulted in two findings and two
observations. The findings and observations were related to data tracking and labeling errors.
All issues were resolved.
For one defect, Pl-23, the assessment to measure pit length and width as performed by Mistras
on the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator image was not
provided by Mistras for review as the image had been lost. As such, the measurement results for
this defect could not be fully reviewed.
4.4 QA/QC Reporting
Each assessment and audit was documented in accordance with Sections 3.3.4 and 3.3.5 of the
AMS Center QMP.2 Once the audit reports were prepared, the Battelle Verification Test
Coordinator ensured that a response was provided for each adverse finding or potential problem
and implemented any necessary follow-up corrective action. The Battelle QA Manager ensured
that follow-up corrective action was taken. The results of the TSA and data quality audit were
submitted to the EPA.
4.5 Data Review
Records generated in the verification test received an independent internal review before these
records were used to calculate, evaluate, or report verification results. Data were reviewed by a
Battelle technical staff member involved in the verification test, but not the staff member who
originally generated the data. The person performing the review added his or her initials and the
date to a hard copy of the record being reviewed.
14
-------
Chapter 5
Statistical Methods
The statistical methods and calculations used to evaluate the quantitative performance
parameters listed in Section 3.1 are presented in this chapter.
5.1 Percent Error
The quantitative results were assessed by calculating the percent error between the actual and
measured defect characteristics. For depth measurements, the pipeline industry typically
normalizes the error to the wall thickness of the pipe rather than the actual reading.6 This
method is useful since small defects are not as important, but small errors on small defects can
lead to large and misleading errors in percentages when actual depths are used as the normalizing
factor. Percent error for depth measurements was calculated using the following equation:
Estimate - Actual
%Error = x 100 (1)
Wall Thickness
For all other measurements, percent error was calculated by dividing by the actual measurement.
5.2 Percent Difference
The quantitative results were also assessed by calculating the percent difference between the
measurements made by the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator
and the radiography camera. This evaluation, in conjunction with the qualitative parameters,
helped in assessing the performance of the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-
Ray Generator in relation to that of the reference technology results. Percent difference was
calculated using the following:
..., (X - Ray Technology Result - Radiography Camera Result]
^Difference = '- x 100
Radiography Camera Result
(2)
15
-------
5.3 Operational Factors
Operational factors were determined based on documented observations of the testing staff.
Operational factors are described qualitatively, not quantitatively; therefore, no statistical
approaches were applied to the operational factors.
16
-------
Chapter 6
Test Results
The results of the verification test of the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray
Generator are presented below for each of the performance parameters. Note that only the VJ
Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator images and results that occurred
during the re-testing on July 8, 2010 using the VMI 5100 system, software, and GE phosphor
imaging plates are presented and evaluated in this section. Images from the VJ Technologies
IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator were collected by the vendor and processed by
Mistras staff. The processed images were assessed by both Mistras (the same staff that evaluated
the radiography camera image) and VJ Technologies. Defect evaluations were made using the
StarrView 7 software using a 6 Megapixel monitor. Additionally, VJ Technologies evaluated the
images using their VI-3 imaging software. The VI-3 software incorporated their Advanced
Defect Enhancement (ADE) technology proprietary software to improve the visibility of the
defects. The vendor then used the comparator ball measurements made by Mistras to calibrate
the measurements in their software and took their own measurements of the defects. Reference
images from the radiography camera were collected and assessed by Mistras staff. Mistras used
the same StarrView 7 software package and 6 Megapixel monitor to evaluate the radiography
camera images. Results from the evaluation of the IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray
Generator images by both the vendor and Mistras are discussed in this section.
6.1 Detection of Defects - Qualitative Results
Both the radiography camera and the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray
Generator were able to show the defect patches, natural corrosion, and weld under the insulation,
as well as the defects on uninsulated pipe. Raw images were comparable in quality for non-
contact images, as shown in Figure 6-1. After applying VJ Technologies ADE software to refine
images, the x-ray technology images were clearer than those without adjustment. Figure 6-2
provides an example.
For defect PI-23, there were three pits in the defect. The radiography camera identified two pits,
while the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator identified all three
pits. Depth measurements could only be determined for one defect using the x-ray device (PI-7)
and two defects using the radiography camera (Pl-7 and Pl-11). These depth measurements
were made based on the apparent depth of the patch and associated pits from the profile image.
Depth measurements were not determined using the interior pipe wall, as would normally be
done. Both the radiography camera and the x-ray device had difficulties detecting the interior
pipe wall on the images. This led to an inability to make depth measurements on the defects. It
17
-------
was suggested that the inability to detect the interior pipe wall could be related to the diameter of
the pipes. The pipes used were larger in diameter than those typically imaged using the
radiography and x-ray cameras.
Figure 6-1. A comparison of radiography camera (top) and VJ Technologies IXS High
Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator (bottom) images with identical image processing
applied.
18
-------
Figure 6-2. Example VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-
Ray Generator results without adjustment (left) and with ADE adjustment
(right).
For the contact images on Pipe Sample 2, the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated
X-Ray Generator provided a clearer image of the defects (see Figure 6-3). This is evidenced by
the fact that more wires from the ASTM B wire pack were visible on the x-ray image (5 wires
visible) than the radiography camera image (4 wires visible). The three simulated defects were
well-defined in the x-ray image and the 2T holes in the penetrameter were readily visible.
19
-------
SHEc
** SB?-
Figure 6-3. Pipe Sample 2 contact images for radiography camera (top) and VJ
Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator without adjustment
(bottom left) and with ADE adjustment (bottom right).
For interpretation, the images containing the weld and the natural corrosion area from Pipe
Sample 1 were used to assess the weld integrity. When assessing the weld, the image was
divided into 10 equal zones (see Figure 3-2 for example zone placement) by the evaluator.
Within each zone the weld was evaluated for root, crown, slag, and porosity defects. The weld
was under insulation. Results for the radiography camera and the VJ Technologies IXS High
Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator are presented in Tables 6-1 through 6-3. Results in the
tables are presented for the 90 ° view, with difference in the 0 ° view noted. Based on previous
characterization, the actual weld defects were noted to be incomplete penetration (IP) in all 10
zones. No other defects were determined.
Both devices noted IP in most of the 10 zones. Both the radiography camera and the x-ray
device images, as interpreted by Mistras, indicated that there was one inch of acceptable weld in
Zone 5. The Mistras representative was not able to determine weld defects in Zones 1 and 10 for
the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator images, while the VJ
Technologies representative was able to determine IP in these zones using their proprietary
software. Neither the radiography camera, nor the x-ray device found crown or slag defects on
the weld, which is in agreement with the actual weld anomalies. The radiography camera image
20
-------
indicated porosity in Zones 2, 3, 5, and 7. Porosity was noted in Zones 5, 6, and 7 in the
interpretations of the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator images.
Table 6-1. Weld Image Assessment Based on Radiography Camera Image
Zone
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Root
IP
IP
IP
IP
Approximately 1
inch of OK weld3
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
Crown
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Slag
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Porosity
NA
Porosity3
NAb
NA
Porosity3
NA
NAb
NA
NA
NA
No Defect
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
a Not noted in 0 ° view
b Porosity found in 0 ° view
NA - Not applicable (weld defect not observed)
Table 6-2. Weld Image Assessment by Mistras Based on VJ Technologies X-ray Image
Zone
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Root
unable to
determine
IP
IP
IP
IP3
IP
IP
IP
IP
unable to
determine
Crown
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Slag
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Porosity
NA
NA
NA
NA
NAb
Porosity0
NA
NA
NA
NA
No Defect
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
a One inch of penetration noted in 0 ° view
b Porosity found in 0 ° view
0 Not noted in 0 ° view
NA - Not applicable (weld defect not observed)
21
-------
Table 6-3. Weld Image Assessment by VJ Technologies Based on VJ Technologies X-ray
Image
Zone
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Root
IP/Undercut3
IP/Undercut
IP/Undercut
IP/Undercut
IP/Undercut
IP/Undercut
IP/Undercut
IP/Undercut
IP/Undercut
IP/Undercut
Crown
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Slag
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Porosity
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Porosity
NA
NA
NA
No Defect
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
a Difficult to separate IP from undercut on source side as weld suffers from both conditions
NA - Not applicable (weld defect not observed)
Both the radiography camera and the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray
Generator were able to detect the natural corrosion area under the insulation on Pipe Sample 1.
Pictures and details on the defect as determined in a previous characterization study prior to this
verification test can be found in Appendix A. Tables 6-4 and 6-5 present the qualitative
assessment of the natural corrosion area based on images from the radiography camera and the
VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator using both the 90 ° view
(Table 6-4) and the 0 ° view (Table 6-5). VJ Technologies did not provide interpretations of the
natural corrosion area for the 0 ° view. The interpretations were based on contrast that was
apparent in the image, not actual measurements. As with the qualitative assessment of the weld,
the natural corrosion area was separated into 10 equal zones for its evaluation. Actual corrosion
level assessments based on the previous characterization of Pipe Sample 1 are provided in each
table. As noted in Section 3.4.1, the level of corrosion in the natural corrosion area was assessed
based on the following guidelines:
None: < 10% wall loss
Light: 10% < depth < 25% wall loss
Moderate: 25% < depth < 50% wall loss
Heavy: > 50% wall loss
Results of the 90 ° view from the radiography camera are shown in Table 6-4. They were
consistent with the actual corrosion levels in six of the 10 zones. The interpretations from the x-
ray images agreed with the actual corrosion level in two and six of the 10 zones, depending on
which software was used to perform the interpretations. The x-ray results agreed with the
radiography camera results in six (Mistras evaluation) and four (VJ Technologies evaluation) of
the zones.
For the 0 ° view results shown in Table 6-5, the radiography camera images were consistent with
actual corrosion levels in five of the 10 zones. The results from the VJ Technologies IXS High
Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator agreed with the actual corrosion level estimates in four
22
-------
zones. The radiography camera and VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray
Generator image interpretations were in agreement in two zones. Both of these interpretations
were performed by the same Mistras representative.
Table 6-4. Assessment of Level of Corrosion for Natural Corrosion Area Using 90 ° View
Images from Radiography Camera (Radiography) and VJ Technologies IXS High
Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator (X-ray)
Zone
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Actual
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Heavy
Heavy
Moderate
Heavy
Moderate
Light
Radiography
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Light
Light
X-ray (Mistras)
None
Light
Light
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Light
None
X-ray (VJ Technologies)
Light
Light
Heavy
Moderate
Moderate
Heavy
Moderate
Heavy
Moderate
Light
Table 6-5. Assessment of Level of Corrosion for Natural Corrosion Area Using 0 ° View
Images from Radiography Camera (Radiography) and VJ Technologies IXS High
Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator (X-ray)
Zone
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Actual
Light
Light
Moderate
Moderate
Heavy
Moderate
Moderate
Light
Light
Light
Radiography
Moderate
Moderate/Heavy
Moderate
Heavy
Moderate/Heavy
Moderate
Moderate
Heavy
Moderate
Light
X-ray (Mistras)
None
None
Light
Moderate
Heavy
Moderate
Light
Light
None
None
6.2 Detection of Defects - Quantitative Results
Quantitative measurements were made for defects P1-1,P1-18, and PI-23 on Pipe Sample 1 as
well as the simulated defects on Pipe Sample 2. Each defect area on Pipe Sample 1 had two or
three pits. There were three simulated defects on Pipe Sample 2. Using the comparator ball to
calibrate the measurements, the images of each defect from the radiography camera and VJ
23
-------
Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator were measured using software to
determine the length, width, and depth of each pit as well as the overall length and width of the
defect patch. Appendix A provides pictures and details from a previous characterization study
prior to this verification test for the defects on Pipe Sample 1. A picture of the Pipe Sample 2
simulated defects is provided in Figure 6-4. Results for the quantitative measurements are
discussed in the following sections.
Figure 6-4. Uninsulated Pipe Sample 2 simulated defects.
6.2.1 Percent Error
Percent error measurements were calculated for both the radiography camera and VJ
Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator images for each of the defect
measurements reported. As discussed in Section 5.1, the percent error calculations were
normalized to the wall thickness of the pipe being imaged for pit depth. For Pipe Sample 1, the
wall thickness was 0.188 inches. This thickness measurement was used for determining percent
error on defects Pl-1, -7, -18, and -23. PI-7, -18, and -23 were under insulation; Pl-1 was not.
The Pipe Sample 2 wall thickness was 0.515 inches. The individual pits in each defect were
contained in an overall patch of corrosion that was rectangular in shape. The length and width of
each patch was evaluated by each device, along with the measurements of the individual pits
within the patch.
Percent errors for the measurements on defect PI-7 are presented in Table 6-6. Actual
measurements as well as measurements from the radiography camera and VJ Technologies IXS
High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator images are also presented. Percent errors ranged
from 5 to 46% for the radiography camera results. The lowest errors (5 and 6%) were found for
the patch length and width measurements while the highest errors were found in measuring the
length, width, and depth of the pits in the defect. Percent error for the VJ Technologies IXS
High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator image measurements ranged from 0 to 51%.
Percent errors were higher in the Mistras interpretation of the defect using the VMI Starr View 7
software. Defect measurements made by VJ Technologies using their ADE software had a
24
-------
smaller range of errors, from 14 to 31%. Percent errors in determining the pit lengths and widths
from the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator images were similar
to the radiography camera image measurements using the same software. Pit depths could not be
determined from the x-ray images. However, patch depth was determined from the by VJ
Technologies' analysis of the images. This was included as a surrogate measure of pit depth in
Table 6-6. Both the radiography camera and the x-ray device were able to find both pits in the
defect patch.
Table 6-6. Defect Pl-7 Measurements (in Inches) and Percent Error Results
Patch Length (in)
Patch Width (in)
Number of Pits
Pitl Length (in)
Pit 2 Length (in)
Pit 1 Width (in)
Pit 2 Width (in)
Pit 1 Depth (in)
Pit 2 Depth (in)
Actual
2.0
1.9
2.0
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.50
0.14
0.13
Radiography
1.9
1.8
2.0
0.41
0.39
0.36
0.27
0.08
0.09
% Error
5
6
-
32
35
40
46
33
20
X-ray
(Mistras)
2.0
1.8
2.0
0.42
0.30
0.39
0.26
DTD
DTD
% Error
0
4
-
30
51
35
48
NA
NA
X-ray
(VJ Technologies)
2.1
1.9
2.0
0.52
0.48
0.55
0.42
0.08
0.08
% Error
2
2
-
14
19
8
17
31
26
UTD - Unable to determine
NA - Not applicable. Pit depth measurements were not able to be determined.
Percent errors for the measurements on defect Pl-18 are presented in Table 6-7. Ranges of
percent errors for measurements made from the radiography camera and VJ Technologies IXS
High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator images were similar to those determined for defect
Pl-7. Percent errors for defect Pl-18 ranged from 7 to 31% for the radiography camera and 3 to
56% for the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator. Pit depth
measurements could not be made from any of the images. For the radiography camera, errors in
the measurements of Pit 1 and Pit 2 were similar and higher than errors in the measurement of
the patch dimensions. Reduced error was found in the measurement of Pit 2 length and width
using the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator images as
compared to the radiography camera results. Measurements made on the Pit 1 length and width
by VJ Technologies resulted in increased error over the same measurements made by Mistras on
the x-ray images as well as those made using the radiography camera images. Measurements of
patch length and width as determined using the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated
X-Ray Generator images had errors slightly lower for length and higher for width as compared to
the radiography camera results.
Table 6-8 provides the percent errors and measurements for defect PI-23. This defect had three
pits. Two were detected by the radiography camera. The x-ray device identified all three pits.
The percent errors for measurement of the patch length and width using the radiography camera
image were 37% for both. Percent errors for these measurements were 4.6 to 37 times lower for
25
-------
the images made by the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator.
Percent errors for the measurement of pit length and width varied for both devices. Pit 3
measurements had the lowest percent error based on images from the VJ Technologies IXS High
Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator determined by Mistras using the VMI StarrView 7
software. Pit depth measurements could not be determined from the VJ Technologies IXS High
Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator images.
Table 6-7. Defect Pl-18 Measurements (in Inches) and Percent Error Results
Patch Length (in)
Patch Width (in)
Number of Pits
Pit 1 Length (in)
Pit 2 Length (in)
Pit 1 Width (in)
Pit 2 Width (in)
Pit 1 Depth (in)
Pit 2 Depth (in)
Actual
4.0
1.7
2.0
1.4
0.50
1.3
0.50
0.15
0.12
Radiography
3.7
1.8
2.0
1.0
0.40
0.90
0.36
DTD
DTD
% Error
7
8
-
28
20
31
28
NA
NA
X-ray
(Mistras)
3.9
1.9
2.0
0.92
0.52
1.1
0.46
DTD
DTD
% Error
3
13
-
34
5
16
8
NA
NA
X-ray
(VJ Technologies)
4.1
2.0
2.0
0.69
0.52
0.57
0.62
DTD
DTD
% Error
3
18
-
51
3
56
24
NA
NA
UTD - Unable to determine
NA - Not applicable. Pit depth measurements were not able to be determined.
Table 6-8. Defect Pl-23 Measurements (in Inches) and Percent Error Results
Patch Length (in)
Patch Width (in)
Number of Pits
Pitl Length (in)
Pit 2 Length (in)
Pit 3 Length (in)
Pit 1 Width (in)
Pit 2 Width (in)
Pit 3 Width (in)
Pit 1 Depth (in)
Pit 2 Depth (in)
Pit 3 Depth (in)
Actual
3.7
1.7
3.0
0.30
0.50
0.80
0.20
0.60
0.70
0.05
0.07
0.09
Radiography
2.3
1.1
2.0
0.40
Not Seen
0.49
0.32
Not Seen
0.48
0.04
Not Seen
0.07
% Error
37
37
-
34
NA
39
60
NA
32
4
NA
13
X-ray
(Mistras)
3.8
1.6
3.0
0.52
0.75
0.75
0.47
0.72
0.69
UTD
UTD
UTD
% Error
4
8
-
72
50
7
136
20
1
NA
NA
NA
X-ray
(VJ Technologies)
3.8
1.8
3.0
0.65
0.96
1.0
0.52
0.79
0.68
UTD
UTD
UTD
% Error
1
5
-
118
93
30
159
31
3
NA
NA
NA
UTD - Unable to determine
NA - Not applicable. Pit depth measurements were not able to be determined.
26
-------
Table 6-9 provides the percent errors and measurements for defect Pl-1, the uninsulated defect
on Pipe Sample 1. Both pits were detected in images from both the radiography camera as well
as the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator. Pit depths were not
able to be determined on images from either device. Percent errors were the largest for both
devices on the measurement of width for Pit 1. The percent errors for patch length and width
measurements were similar between the two devices. The percent errors were lowest for the VJ
Technologies ADE software interpretations.
Table 6-9. Defect Pl-1 Measurements (in Inches) and Percent Error Results
Patch Length (in)
Patch Width (in)
Number of Pits
Pitl Length (in)
Pit 2 Length (in)
Pit 1 Width (in)
Pit 2 Width (in)
Pit 1 Depth (in)
Pit 2 Depth (in)
Actual
2.0
1.9
2.0
0.50
0.50
0.70
0.40
0.15
0.13
Radiography
1.9
1.9
2.0
0.34
0.52
0.30
0.50
DTD
DTD
% Error
6
2
-
32
5
57
24
NA
NA
X-ray
(Mistras)
1.9
1.9
2.0
0.37
0.60
0.32
0.58
DTD
DTD
% Error
5
2
-
26
20
54
45
NA
NA
X-ray
(VJ Technologies)
2.0
1.9
2.0
0.45
0.50
0.50
0.38
DTD
DTD
% Error
2
1
-
11
1
29
6
NA
NA
UTD - Unable to determine
NA - Not applicable. Pit depth measurements were not able to be determined.
Table 6-10 presents measurements and percent errors for the simulated defects on the
uninsulated Pipe Sample 2. Percent errors for all measurements for both the radiography camera
and the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator were < 5% in all
cases but one. These are the most consistently low percent errors seen for any defects. As
evidenced in the images, the definition of the simulated defects was more pronounced than with
the other defects, including the uninsulated defect on Pipe Sample 1. This is likely related to the
fact that these were clearly defined holes in the pipe and not a patch of corrosion with pits in it.
Pit depth could not be determined from any image for either device.
27
-------
Table 6-10. Measurements (in Inches) and Percent Error Results for Drilled Defects on
Pipe Sample 2
Pit 1 Diameter (in)
Pit 1 Depth (in)
Pit 2 Diameter (in)
Pit 2 Depth (in)
Pit 3 Diameter (in)
Pit3 Depth (in)
Actual
0.38
0.19
0.31
0.12
0.25
0.32
Radiography
0.36
UTD
0.32
UTD
0.25
UTD
% Error
4
NA
1
NA
3
NA
X-ray
(Mistras)
0.39
UTD
0.33
UTD
0.26
UTD
% Error
3
NA
4
NA
5
NA
X-ray
(VJ Technologies)
0.34
UTD
0.30
UTD
0.25
UTD
% Error
9
NA
4
NA
2
NA
UTD - Unable to determine
NA - Not applicable. Pit depth measurements were not able to be determined.
Tables 6-6 through 6-10 present percent error measurements for each individual defect and the
measurements associated with each defect. For each defect, measurements were made for
different characteristics of the defect (i.e., patch length, patch width, pit length, etc.). Each of
these characteristics was evaluated for each defect. In an effort to provide a better overall
understanding of how the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator
performed in comparison to actual measurements, average percent errors were calculated for
each defect characteristic across all defects. For example, the percent errors for patch length for
defect PI-7, -18, -23, and -1, were averaged and the pit length errors for all of the pits in defect
PI-7, -18, -23, and -1 and Pipe Sample 2 were averaged. These average percent errors, along
with their associated standard deviation, are presented in Table 6-11.
Table 6-11. Average Percent Error and Standard Deviation (StDev) Results for All Percent
Errors Reported in Tables 6-6 Through 6-10 for Individual Defect Measurement
Categories
Patch Length
Patch Width
Pit Length
Pit Width
Pit Depth
Radiography
14
13
28
30
18
StDev
15
16
11
21
12
X-ray
(Mistras)
3
7
33
31
NA
StDev
2
5
22
38
NA
X-ray
(VJT)
2
6
38
29
29
StDev
1
8
42
44
4
NA - Not applicable. Pit depth measurements were not able to be determined.
Average percent errors for the radiography camera ranged from 13% for all patch width
measurements to more than twice that with 28 and 30% errors for all pit length and width
measurements, respectively. Standard deviations for the radiography camera average errors were
28
-------
similar across the different measurement categories (i.e., patch length and width and pit length,
width, and depth). The average percent error range was wider for the results for the VJ
Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator, ranging from 2 to 38% average
error. Measurement of all pit lengths and depths from the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency
Integrated X-Ray Generator images as determined using the VMI StarrView 7 software and the
VJ Technologies ADE software were similar across all defects and similar to the average percent
errors for the radiography camera, indicating that measurements were able to be obtained from
images from both devices with similar accuracy. The average percent error for all patch lengths
and widths based on images from the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray
Generator was two to seven times lower than those for the radiography camera. The standard
deviations for these average errors were also smaller for the vendor's device, indicating that
patch dimensions were more accurately determined using the VJ Technologies IXS High
Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator images.
A variable sensitivity analysis of the method used to predict the remaining strength of corroded
pipe, ASME Standard B31G, shows that this method is more sensitive to wall thickness than to
length or width. The radiography camera was able to assess depth more often (four out of 12
pits) than the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator (two out of 12
pits). When both were able measure depth, the radiography camera was 50% more accurate.
However, the interior pipe walls were not defined in images from either technology, so depth
measurements were not able to be made based on the internal pipe wall. However, depth
measurements could be made by basing measurements on the exterior wall. The ASME
assessment criteria are not as sensitive to errors in length estimations. Length errors that are on
the order of a wall thickness or two are typically tolerable. For all length measurements made,
the radiography camera had one significant error while the VJ Technologies IXS High
Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator did not have any. The radiography camera's error was
with the shallowest of the four patches tested. Quantification of the edges of shallow corrosion
is often difficult, but these anomalies usually do not affect structural performance. The width
estimate is the least important parameter in corrosion characterization and is often omitted by the
assessment methodologies.
6.2.2 Percent Difference
Percent difference was calculated for the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-
Ray Generator measurement results in comparison with the radiography camera results. Percent
difference calculations were made for all measurements on each defect. Percent difference was
also calculated for each set of interpretations on the x-ray images (i.e., those measurements made
by Mistras and those by VJ Technologies and their ADE software). Percent differences were
calculated for defects PI-7, PI-18, and PI-23 that were under insulation on Pipe Sample 1;
defect Pl-1 that was uninsulated on Pipe Sample 1; and the simulated defects on Pipe Sample 2
that were uninsulated.
Percent difference results for the defect Pl-7 are provided in Table 6-12. Percent differences
ranged from -24 to 56%. Within the Mistras interpretation method, the percent differences were
low; with all but two measurements showing positive percent differences less than 10%.
Positive percent differences indicate that the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-
29
-------
Ray Generator measurement estimates were larger than those made from the radiography camera
images. When compared to the x-ray device interpretations by Mistras, measurements for Pit 2
were larger for the radiography camera image. Pit width and depth measurements were the
largest based on interpretations by VJ Technologies.
Table 6-12. Defect Pl-7 Measurements (in Inches) and Percent Difference Results
Patch Length (in)
Patch Width (in)
Pitl Length (in)
Pit 2 Length (in)
Pit 1 Width (in)
Pit 2 Width (in)
Pit 1 Depth (in)
Pit 2 Depth (in)
Radiography
1.9
1.8
0.41
0.39
0.36
0.27
0.08
0.09
X-ray
(Mistras)
2.0
1.8
0.42
0.30
0.39
0.26
DTD
DTD
% Difference
6
2
3
-24
8
-3
NA
NA
X-ray
(VJ Technologies)
2.0
1.9
0.52
0.48
0.55
0.42
0.08
0.08
% Difference
8
4
27
24
53
56
4
-13
UTD - Unable to determine
NA - Not applicable. Pit depth measurements were not able to be determined.
Defect PI-18 percent difference results are provided in Table 6-13. The difference between the
patch length and width measurements for the two devices using the VMI StarrView 7 software
was 4 and 5%, respectively. Differences in pit measurements, however, were higher, up to nine
times for the Pit 2 width measurements. The percent difference for Pit 2 width as estimated by
the VJ Technologies ADE software was even higher at 73%. Only Pit 1 measurements were
larger for the radiography camera than the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-
Ray Generator.
Table 6-13. Defect Pl-18 Measurements (in Inches) and Percent Difference Results
Patch Length (in)
Patch Width (in)
Pitl Length (in)
Pit 2 Length (in)
Pit 1 Width (in)
Pit 2 Width (in)
Pit 1 Depth (in)
Pit 2 Depth (in)
Radiography
3.7
1.8
1.0
0.40
0.90
0.36
UTD
UTD
X-ray
(Mistras)
3.9
1.9
0.92
0.52
1.1
0.46
UTD
UTD
% Difference
4
5
-9
32
22
28
NA
NA
X-ray
(VJ Technologies)
4.1
2.0
0.69
0.52
0.57
0.62
UTD
UTD
% Difference
11
10
-31
29
-36
73
NA
NA
UTD - Unable to determine
NA - Not applicable. Pit depth measurements were not able to be determined.
30
-------
Percent differences between the radiography camera and VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency
Integrated X-Ray Generator image measurements were generally higher for PI-23, as shown in
Table 6-14, then those found for Pl-18 (see Table 6-13). The measurements based on images
from the x-ray technology were always higher than those based on the radiography camera, thus
resulting in positive percent errors. Percent differences ranged from 28 to 65% with one
measurement for Pit 3 using the VJ Technologies ADE software resulting in a 113% difference
from the radiography camera result. Pit 2 was not seen in the radiography camera image but was
measureable in the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator image.
However, comparisons to the radiography camera results could not be made.
Table 6-14. Defect Pl-23 Measurements (in Inches) and Percent Difference Results
Patch Length (in)
Patch Width (in)
Pitl Length (in)
Pit 2 Length (in)
Pit 3 Length (in)
Pit 1 Width (in)
Pit 2 Width (in)
Pit 3 Width (in)
Pit 1 Depth (in)
Pit 2 Depth (in)
Pit 3 Depth (in)
Radiography
2.3
1.1
0.40
Not Seen
0.49
0.32
Not Seen
0.48
0.04
Not Seen
0.07
X-ray
(Mistras)
3.8
1.6
0.52
0.75
0.75
0.47
0.72
0.69
UTD
UTD
UTD
% Difference
65
44
28
NA
52
48
NA
45
NA
NA
NA
X-ray
(VJ Technologies)
3.8
1.8
0.65
0.96
1.0
0.52
0.79
0.68
UTD
UTD
UTD
% Difference
60
65
62
NA
113
62
NA
42
NA
NA
NA
UTD - Unable to determine
NA - Not applicable. Pit depth measurements were not able to be determined.
Percent differences were lower for the defect Pl-1 measurements. As Table 6-15 shows, percent
difference ranged from -24 to 31% with one measurement for Pit 1 width using the VJ
Technologies ADE software resulting in a 64% difference from the radiography camera result.
The measurement estimates reported by Mistras from the x-ray device images had a smaller
overall range, with percent differences from -4 to 17%. Pit 2 measurements had the largest
percent differences in this range at 14% for length and 17% for width measurements. Patch
length and width measurements for the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray
Generator image were within 4% of the radiography camera results. Pl-1 was the uninsulated
defect on Pipe Sample 1.
31
-------
Table 6-15. Defect Pl-1 Measurements (in Inches) and Percent Difference Results
Patch Length (in)
Patch Width (in)
Pitl Length (in)
Pit 2 Length (in)
Pit 1 Width (in)
Pit 2 Width (in)
Pit 1 Depth (in)
Pit 2 Depth (in)
Radiography
1.9
1.9
0.34
0.52
0.30
0.50
UTD
UTD
X-ray
(Mistras)
1.9
1.9
0.37
0.60
0.32
0.58
UTD
UTD
% Difference
1
-4
9
14
5
17
NA
NA
X-ray
(VJ Technologies)
2.0
1.9
0.45
0.50
0.50
0.38
UTD
UTD
% Difference
4
-1
31
-5
64
-24
NA
NA
UTD - Unable to determine
NA - Not applicable. Pit depth measurements were not able to be determined.
As with the percent error results, percent difference results for the simulated defects in Pipe
Sample 2 (see Table 6-16) were among the lowest obtained for all defects. Low percent
differences were obtained for all measurements, with percent differences ranging from -5 to 8%.
Depth measurements could not be determined for any of the pits in this defect. Only
measurements made using the VJ Technologies ADE software produced estimates that were
smaller than the radiography camera image measurements.
Table 6-16. Measurements (in Inches) and Percent Difference Results for Drilled Defects
on Pipe Sample 2
Pit 1 Diameter (in)
Pit 1 Depth (in)
Pit 2 Diameter (in)
Pit 2 Depth (in)
Pit 3 Diameter (in)
Pit 3 Depth (in)
Radiography
0.36
UTD
0.32
UTD
0.25
UTD
X-ray
(Mistras)
0.39
UTD
0.33
UTD
0.26
UTD
% Difference
7
NA
3
NA
8
NA
X-ray
(VJ Technologies)
0.34
UTD
0.30
UTD
0.25
UTD
% Difference
-5
NA
-5
NA
1
NA
UTD - Unable to determine
NA - Not applicable. Pit depth measurements were not able to be determined.
32
-------
Table 6-17. Average Percent Difference and Standard Deviation (StDev) Results for All
Percent Differences Reported in Tables 6-12 through 6-16 for Individual Defect
Measurement Categories
Patch Length
Patch Width
Pit Length
Pit Width
Pit Depth
X-ray
(Mistras)
19
14
21
18
NA
StDev
31
20
16
16
NA
X-ray
(VJT)
21
20
40
38
8
StDev
27
30
33
26
6
As in Table 6-11, average percent differences were calculated for each defect characteristic
across all defects. The absolute value of all individual percent differences was used in the
average calculations. Thus, there is no indication of which measurement was greater (that from
the radiography camera or that from the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray
Generator) in the averages. Tables 6-12 through 6-16 show that estimate of defect characteristics
made using the radiography camera were greater than those made using the VJ Technologies IXS
High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator in four instances as determined by Mistras and in
seven instances as determined using the VJ Technologies ADE software. In all other cases, the
measurement estimates made using the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray
Generator were greater than those made using the radiography camera images. The average
percent differences, along with their associated standard deviation, are presented in Table 6-17.
Average percent differences for the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray
Generator ranged from 14% for all patch width measurements to 40% for all pit length
measurements. Standard deviations were similar for patch width and length measurements,
regardless of who interpreted the images. Standard deviations for pit length and width
measurements were greater for estimates made using the VJ Technologies ADE software.
One corrosion patch was not assessed as well as the other four. Individual percent differences
for patch length and width for four of the defects ranged from -5 to 11%. This percent difference
would typically have minimal effect on pipeline assessment calculations. The higher average
percent difference for patch length and width are driven by large percent differences ranging
from 44 to 65% for defect PI-23. Though these values indicate a large difference from the
radiography camera results for these measurements, it should be noted that the VJ Technologies
IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator results were actually closer to the actual
measured value for this defect (1 to 8% percent error for the VJ Technologies IXS High
Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator versus 37% error for the radiography camera). The patch
with the high error was also the shallowest. In pipeline assessments, it is more important to
assess length of corrosion patches when the depth is greater, which both techniques did in defects
Pl-7,-18,-l,andPS2.
33
-------
Average percent differences between the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-
Ray Generator and radiography camera results were less than 22% for all defect measurement
categories for interpretations made using the VMI StarrView 7 software. Larger percent
differences of 40 and 38% for pit length and width (respectively) found from images interpreted
using the VJ Technologies ADE software were driven mainly by large individual percent
difference for defect Pl-23 (see Table 6-14).
Table 6-17 shows that for most tests, the pit depth was not able to be visualized; but typically
depth is the most important measurement in pipeline assessments. The average percent
difference for pit depth measurements for the VJ Technologies ADE software was based on two
individual pit depth measurements.
6.3 Operational Factors
The VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator required the use of a
typical 110 V or 220 V power outlet to operate the technology. A connection to a computer was
also required to program the x-ray device for taking images. The computer and associated
software controlled the power output of the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-
Ray Generator and turned the tube on and off. The exposure time is determined by the user and
is controlled by manually turning the device on and off. The exposure time was recorded by a
simple stopwatch or timing device during testing.
The imaging exposure time used for this test was 1 minute. This time is adjustable to the needs
of the project. In order to determine an appropriate exposure time and source power, initial
images were collected and evaluated until the proper exposure situation was determined. This
process took approximately one hour. Preparation of the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency
Integrated X-Ray Generator involved setting it up on a tripod stand and attaching the imaging
plate and associated markers and image quality indicators to the pipe and inputting the correct
parameters into the software. This process took approximately 10 to 15 minutes for each image.
Similar preparation times were noted for the radiography camera. Positioning the VJ
Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator for images above the pipe
required the use of a platform to suspend the device the proper distance above the pipe. The
radiography camera did not require substantial equipment (i.e., a platform or any such device) to
collect images above the pipe.
The x-ray device was placed 28 inches away from the defect (except for the contact image) and
was operated at 3 mA and 160 kV. The radiography camera was 32 inches away from the pipe
and used an exposure time of 1.5 minutes.
The VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator weighs approximately 59
pounds and is a self-contained unit with electrical and computer cables, as well as a computer,
needed for operation. The x-ray tube in the unit has a life span of six to eight years. The
radiography camera weighs approximately 50 pounds. A radioactive source, guide tube, and
drive cable are needed for its operation. No computer or electricity is needed for the radiography
camera. The 89 Curies Selenium 75 source will have decayed by a factor of eight down to 11
Curies in one year from its purchase, with a subsequent increase in necessary exposure times.
34
-------
The VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator produces radiation,
though not from a radioactive source. Thus, an operator must be properly licensed to handle
radiation safely. This technology is also intended to be used by field staff experienced in
performing pipeline inspections. To account for the emission of radiation from the VJ
Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator, a radiation safety boundary had
to be established prior to the operation of the device. Figure 6-5 shows the radiation safety
boundaries used for the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator.
These boundaries were similar to those established for the radiography camera.
No maintenance or calibration was needed for the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency
Integrated X-Ray Generator. The technology came calibrated from the factory and does not need
further calibration at any point of its operation. The technology is rated to perform in
temperatures up to 30 °C. The day of testing, it was very hot and sunny, with temperatures
reaching upwards of 32 °C. Images were collected between 9 a.m. and 1 p.m. Similar conditions
were encountered during the testing of the radiography camera. There were no operational
issues during the verification testing.
Figure 6-5. Radiation safety boundary for the operation of the VJ Technologies IXS High
Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator.
Phosphor imaging plates were used to record the images collected by the VJ Technologies IXS
High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator. Generally, these plates are continually reused
when taking images. Significant ghosting was noted on the imaging plates when using this
35
-------
technology. That is, images from previous images using the VJ Technologies IXS High
Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator were burned onto the plate and could not be cleared.
These burned images did not appear to impact the ability of the VJ Technologies IXS High
Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator to take new images or interfere with the interpretation of
any images, but they remained on the imaging plates and rendered them useless after the testing
was completed. The cost of each phosphor imaging plate was approximately $500.
Testing was originally conducted using an AllPro scanner and GE Rhythm software for
processing the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator images.
Proper images were not able to be obtained using these processing components. Retesting was
conducted, and images from the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray
Generator were processed using the VMI 5100 computed radiography scanner and associated
StarrView 7 software. Image processing took less than 1 minute. No problems were
encountered with this processing.
36
-------
Chapter 7
Performance Summary
The VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator showed defect patches,
natural corrosion, and weld under the insulation, as well as the defects on uninsulated pipe. Raw
images were comparable in quality to the radiography camera images for non-contact images.
For the contact image, the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator
provided a clearer image of the defects. For defect Pl-23, there were three pits in the defect.
The radiography camera identified two pits, while the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency
Integrated X-Ray Generator identified all three pits. Both the radiography camera and the x-ray
device had difficulties detecting the interior pipe wall on the images. This often led to an
inability to make depth measurements on the defects for both the radiography camera and the x-
ray technology. Depth measurements were determined for one defect using the x-ray device (Pl-
7) and two using the radiography camera (PI-7 and Pl-11).
Tables 7-1 and 7-2 provide measurement results for each of the defects evaluated in this
verification test. Results are shown for estimates made from both the radiography camera and
the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator images. For the VJ
Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator images, interpretations were
made by both the same Mistras staff who interpreted the radiography camera images (using the
same VMI StarrView 7 software package) and by the vendor using their own ADE software
application. Table 7-1 provides results from defects under insulation on Pipe Sample 1. Table 7-
2 provides results from the uninsulated defect on Pipe Samples 1 and 2. Pit depth measurements
could not be determined in all but one of the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-
Ray Generator images.
Average percent differences were calculated for each defect characteristic (e.g., pit length, patch
width, etc.) across all defects and ranged from 14% for all patch width measurements to 40% for
all pit length measurements. Standard deviations were similar for patch width and length
measurements.
Average percent errors for the radiography camera ranged from 13% for all patch width
measurements to more than twice that with 28 and 30% errors for all pit length and width
measurements, respectively. Standard deviations for the radiography camera average errors were
similar across the different measurement categories (i.e., path length, pit width, etc.). The
average percent error range was wider for the results for the VJ Technologies IXS High
Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator, ranging from 2 to 38% average error.
37
-------
Table 7-1. Summary of VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator
Percent Error and Percent Difference (% Diff) Results for Defects under Insulation
X-ray X-ray
Defect Pl-7
Patch Length (in)
Patch Width (in)
Number of Pits
Pitl Length (in)
Pit 2 Length (in)
Pitl Width (in)
Pit 2 Width (in)
Pit 1 Depth (in)
Pit 2 Depth (in)
Defect Pl-18
Patch Length (in)
Patch Width (in)
Number of Pits
Pitl Length (in)
Pit 2 Length (in)
Pitl Width (in)
Pit 2 Width (in)
Pit 1 Depth (in)
Pit 2 Depth (in)
Defect Pl-23
Patch Length (in)
Patch Width (in)
Number of Pits
Pitl Length (in)
Pit 2 Length (in)
Pit 3 Length (in)
Pitl Width (in)
Pit 2 Width (in)
Pit 3 Width (in)
Pit 1 Depth (in)
Pit 2 Depth (in)
Pits Depth (in)
Actual
2.0
1.9
2.0
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.50
0.14
0.13
4.0
1.7
2.0
1.4
0.50
1.3
0.50
0.15
0.12
3.7
1.7
3.0
0.30
0.50
0.80
0.20
0.60
0.70
0.05
0.07
0.09
Radiography
1.9
1.8
2.0
0.41
0.39
0.36
0.27
0.08
0.09
3.7
1.8
2.0
1.0
0.40
0.89
0.36
DTD
DTD
2.3
1.1
2.0
0.40
Not Seen
0.49
0.32
Not Seen
0.48
0.04
Not Seen
0.07
% Error
5
6
32
35
40
46
33
20
7
8
28
20
31
28
NA
NA
37
37
34
NA
39
60
NA
32
4
NA
13
(Mistras)3
2.0
1.8
2.0
0.42
0.30
0.39
0.26
DTD
DTD
3.9
1.9
2.0
0.92
0.52
1.1
0.46
DTD
UT
3.8
1.6
3.0
0.52
0.75
0.75
0.47
0.72
0.69
DTD
DTD
DTD
% Error
0
4
30
51
35
48
NA
NA
3
13
34
5
16
8
NA
NA
4
8
72
50
7
136
20
1
NA
NA
NA
% Diff
6
2
3
-24
8
-3
NA
NA
4
5
-9
32
22
28
NA
NA
65
44
28
NA
52
48
NA
45
NA
NA
NA
(VJT)b
2.1
1.9
2.0
0.52
0.48
0.55
0.42
0.08
0.08
4.1
2.0
2.0
0.69
0.52
0.57
0.62
DTD
DTD
3.8
1.8
3.0
0.65
0.96
1.0
0.52
0.79
0.68
DTD
DTD
DTD
% Error
2
2
14
19
8
17
31
26
3
18
51
3
56
24
NA
NA
1
5
118
93
30
159
31
3
NA
NA
NA
% Diff
8
4
27
24
53
56
4
-13
11
10
-31
29
-36
73
NA
NA
60
65
62
NA
113
62
NA
42
NA
NA
NA
aVJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator image measurement estimates as determined by
the same Mistras staff who interpreted the radiography camera images using VMI StarrView 7 software.
b VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator image measurement estimates as determined by
the vendor using their ADE software.
NA - Not applicable. This measurement was not determined.
UTD - Unable to determine
38
-------
Table 7-2. Summary of VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator
Percent Error and Percent Difference (% Diff) Results for Defects Not under Insulation
X-ray X-ray
Defect Pl-1
Patch Length (in)
Patch Width (in)
Number of Pits
Pitl Length (in)
Pit 2 Length (in)
Pitl Width (in)
Pit 2 Width (in)
Pit 1 Depth (in)
Pit 2 Depth (in)
Defect PS 2C
Pit 1 Diameter (in)
Pit 1 Depth (in)
Pit 2 Diameter (in)
Pit 2 Depth (in)
Pits Diameter (in)
Pits Depth (in)
Actual
2.0
1.9
2.0
0.50
0.50
0.70
0.40
0.15
0.13
0.38
0.19
0.31
0.12
0.25
0.32
Radiography
1.9
1.9
2.0
0.34
0.52
0.30
0.50
DTD
DTD
0.36
DTD
0.32
DTD
0.25
DTD
% Error
6
2
32
5
57
24
NA
NA
4
NA
1
NA
3
NA
(Mistras)3
1.9
1.9
2.0
0.37
0.60
0.32
0.58
DTD
DTD
0.39
DTD
0.33
DTD
0.26
DTD
% Error
5
2
26
20
54
45
NA
NA
3
NA
4
NA
5
NA
% Diff
1
-4
9
14
5
17
DTD
DTD
7
NA
3
NA
8
NA
(VJT)b
2.0
1.9
2.0
0.45
0.50
0.50
0.38
DTD
DTD
0.34
DTD
0.30
DTD
0.25
DTD
% Error
2
1
11
1
29
6
NA
NA
9
NA
4
NA
2
NA
% Diff
4
-1
31
-5
64
-24
NA
NA
-5
NA
-5
NA
1
NA
aVJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator image measurement estimates as determined by
the same Mistras staff who interpreted the radiography camera images using VMI StarrView 7 software.
bVJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator image measurement estimates as determined by
the vendor using their ADE software.
°Pipe Sample 2 simulated defects.
NA - Not applicable. This measurement was not determined.
UTD - Unable to determine
Measurement of all pit lengths and depths from the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency
Integrated X-Ray Generator images were similar across all defects and similar to the average
percent errors for the radiography camera, indicating that measurements were able to be obtained
from images from both devices with similar accuracy. The average percent error for all patch
lengths and widths based on images from the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated
X-Ray Generator was two to seven times lower than those for the radiography camera. The
standard deviations for these average errors were also smaller for the vendor's device, indicating
that patch dimensions were more accurately determined using the VJ Technologies IXS High
Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator images.
A variable sensitivity analysis of the methods used to predict the remaining strength of corroded
pipe, ASME Standard B31G, shows these assessment criteria are significantly more sensitive to
wall thickness than to length or width. The radiography camera was able to assess depth more
often (four out of 12 pits) than the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray
39
-------
Generator (two out of 12 pits). When both were able measure depth, the radiography camera
was 50% more accurate. Depth measurements were not able to be made to the internal pipe wall.
The ASME assessment criteria are not as sensitive to errors in length estimations. Length errors
that are on the order of a wall thickness or two are typically tolerable. For all length
measurements made, the radiography camera had one substantial error while the VJ
Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator did not have any. The
substantial error observed for the radiography camera was with the shallowest of the four patches
tested. Quantification of the edges of shallow corrosion is often difficult, but these anomalies
usually do not affect structural performance. The width estimate is the least important parameter
in corrosion characterization and is often omitted by the assessment methodologies.
The VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator required the use of a
typical 110 V or 220 V power outlet to operate the technology. A connection to a computer was
also required to program the x-ray device for taking images and to control the power output. The
x-ray tube in the unit has a life span of six to eight years.
The exposure time used for this test was 1 minute. In order to determine an appropriate exposure
time and source power, initial images were collected and evaluated until the proper exposure
situation was determined. This process took approximately one hour. Preparation of the VJ
Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator involved setting it up on a tripod
stand and attaching the imaging plate and associated markers and image quality indicators to the
pipe and inputting the correct parameters into the software. This process took approximately 10-
15 minutes for each image. Similar preparation times were noted for the radiography camera.
Positioning the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator for images
above the pipe required the use of a platform to suspend the device the proper distance above the
pipe. The x-ray device was placed 28 inches away from the defect (except for the contact image)
and was operated at 3 mA and 160 kV. The radiography camera was 32 inches away from the
pipe and used an exposure time of 1.5 minutes.
The VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator produces radiation,
though not from a radioactive source. Thus, an operator must be properly licensed to safely
operate this technology. No maintenance or calibration was needed for the VJ Technologies IXS
High Frequency Integrated X-Ray Generator. The technology came factory calibrated and does
not need further calibration at any point of its operation. There were no operational issues with
the technology during the verification testing.
Significant ghosting was noted on the imaging plates when using this technology. These burned
images did not appear to impact the ability of the VJ Technologies IXS High Frequency
Integrated X-Ray Generator to take new images or interfere with the interpretation of any
images, but they remained on the imaging plates and rendered them useless after the testing was
completed. The cost of each phosphor imaging plate was approximately $500.
40
-------
Chapter 8
References
1. ASTM Standard E-94, "Standard Practice for Radiographic Testing", ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, 2009.
2. ISO 5579, "Non-destructive testing - Radiographic examination of metallic materials by X-
and gamma-rays - Basic Rules", International Organization for Standardization, Geneva,
Switzerland, 1998.
3. BS EN 444, "Non-destructive testing; general principals for the radiographic examination
of metallic materials using X-rays and gamma-rays", British Standards Institution, North
Hampton, United Kingdom, 1994.
4. Test/QA Plan for Verification of Alternative Technologies for Sealed Source Radiography
Cameras, Battelle, Columbus, Ohio, May 28, 2010.
5. Environmental Technology Verification Program Quality Management Plan, EPA/600/R-
08/009, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, January 2008.
6. American Petroleum Institute Standard 1163, "In-line Inspection Systems Qualification
Standard, Edition 5", API Publications, Englewood, CO, August 2005.
41
-------
Appendix A
Pipe Sample 1
Defects Characterizations
A-l
-------
Metal Loss Corrosion Assessment
Pipe Sample 1, an 8-inch diameter seam-welded pipe measuring approximately 35 feet in length,
was used in this verification test. This sample consisted of three pipe sections welded together
(two circumferential welds) and contained simulated corrosion defects set along two test lines
180 ° apart. The simulated corrosion was created using electrochemical etching techniques. A
five foot section of Pipe Sample 1 also contained natural corrosion from a pipe recently pulled
from service.
The donated natural corrosion pipe sample had a field girth weld with corrosion on both sides of
the weld. The weld drop through was too large for the inspection tool specifications and as such
the pipe was trimmed to include roughly two feet of corrosion on one end, three feet of full
thickness pipe at the other end, and no field welds. The pipe was then sandblasted and welded
between two new pipes to comprise Pipe Sample 1. When the pipe was being fully
characterized, an additional weld was found in the middle of the corrosion area. This weld was
very fine and did not have a significant crown.
A-2
-------
8-iNCH DIAMETER CORROSION DEFECT ASSESSMENT DATA
Date:
Company:
Sensor Design:
CALIBRATION DATA
Pipe Sample
Calibration Pl-1:
"ibra*n,"oentalL° MM,LoSSLe«hawi« Depth o, M,, L.5S "S^S* Oe^S'oSt »«=
center of defect inches inches
PIPE SAMPLE 1:
361" (59" from End A) 2x2 See profile
Pipe Sample:
Defect Set:
Defect
Numbe
Pl-12
Pl-11
Pl-10
WELD
PI -9
Pl-8
WELD
Pl-7
Pl-6
Pl-5
Pl-4
Pl-3
Pl-2
Pl-1
Search Region
(Distance from End
B)
inches
52" to 64"
76" to 88"
100" to 112"
120"
120" to 144"
160" to 172"
ISO"
184" to 196"
208" to 220"
232" to 244"
256" to 268"
280" to 292"
304" to 316"
328" to 340"
PIPE SAMPLE 1
8" Diameter, 0 IKK11 Wj II 1 n> k iess Pip_e Sam ih '-, lej nl<- 10; U mth = 34' 11.75"
TEST LINE 1
Start of Metal Loss
Region from Side B
56.75"
-
120"
190.625"
232.75"
259.625"
287.75"
-
End of Metal Loss Region
from Side B
Total Length of Metal Loss
Region
Width of Metal Loss
Region
60.875" 4.125" 2"
140.25"
...
20.25"
192.75" 2.125"
235.75"
263.625"
290.875"
3"
4"
3.125"
...
...
Full Circumference
2"
1"
2"
2"
...
Maximum Depth of
Metal Loss Region
inches
0.122"
...
0.146"
0.147"
0.081"
0.063"
0.096"
...
Additional Data
Attached?
Y/N
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Counts
Defect 6
BLANK 6
BLANK 5
PI-NCI
BLANK 4 (natural corrosion pipe segment)
Defect 5
BLANK 3
Defect 4
Defect 3
Defect 2
BLANK 2
BLANK 1
Defect
Numbe
Pl-22
WELD
Pl-21
Pl-20
WELD
Pl-19
Pl-18
Pl-17
Pl-16
Pl-15
Pl-14
Pl-13
Search Region
(Distance from End
B)
inches
98" to 110"
120"
120" to 144"
160" to 172"
180"
186" to 198"
210" to 222"
234" to 246"
258" to 270"
282" to 294"
306" to 318"
330" to 342"
Start of Metal Loss
Region from Side B
inches
79.75"
108"
120"
213.625"
...
...
308.875"
335.75"
End of Metal Loss Region
from Side B
inches
83.75"
110"
140.75"
217.875"
...
...
312"
339.625"
Total Length of Metal Loss
Region
inches
4"
2"
20.75"
4.25"
...
...
3.125"
3.875"
Width of Metal Loss
Region
inches
2"
2"
Full Circumference
2"
...
...
1"
1.75"
Maximum Depth of
Metal Loss Region
inches
0.097"
0.12"
0.127"
0.145"
...
...
0.115"
0.095"
Additional Data
Attached?
Y/N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
Counts
Defect 1 1
Defect 10
P1-NC2
BLANK 11 (natural corrosion pipe segment)
BLANK 10
Defect 9
BLANK 9
BLANKS
BLANK 7
Defect 8
Defect 7
Table A-l. Corrosion Anomalies in 8-inch Diameter Pipe Sample 1
A-3
-------
8 INCH PIPE SAMPLE 1 DOCUMENTATION
mches
feel
1 Pipe Sample #1 - 8" Pipe Sample with Manufactured Corros on Metal Loss
Linel
Line 2
End Effects -
CALIBRATION ! i DEFECT P1-3 i DEFECT P1-4 DEFECT Pl-5
P1-1 I II (Defect 2) (Defect 3) (Defect 4)
»
feel 0
* I * i * I
^"~ ; ^ i i ''
DEFECT P1-7
(Defect 5)
i *
1
: . . . 60S metal loss i ; ; 20°* metal loss ; 20«c metal loss 20°'o metal loss ! i 40% metal loss
=j!j 2" width x 2" long ! BLANK 1 BLANK 2 r wjd(h x 3« |ong | 2- Wiclth x 4" long 1" width x 3" long BLANK 3 J2" width x 2" long
I r r T I PIPE 1
(Defect?) (Defects)
' ' ^J :
5 6 7 8 9 10
i
n
1 0
420' 408
N24 36
0 30
j9Sr 384
48
40
60 72 84 % 108 120
50 60 70 80 90 100 1
372r 360r 343' 336' 324' 312' 300
I
"] f f r f f " | |
(Defects)
'f i f i * i '
=1-15) | (P1-16) (P1-17) i 2726,c
11 2 13 U 15 16
Axial Dista
32 144 156 168 180 192 204
0 120 130 140 150 16.0: 17.0
S3 278 264 252 24fl' 223' 216
i '
x4-|ona BLA^
ol radius
^ 18
216 228
180 190
204 ' 192
<
19)
9 ;
24[
20 C
181
1
(P1-NC1)
x
BLANK 4 1' 8 75" long BLANK 5
(P1-8) 4"wirJe (P1-10)
Natural Corrosion
'
BLANKS
(P1-11)
DEFECT P1-1Z
(Defects) .'.::;;'::.:. -.. :
Avoid End
Effects -
4 ft from end
55°4 metal loss l;.. ;:..
v width x 3" long ;: ::
PIPIE2 DEFEcV1! ! PIPES
:^I^!^ ^Sftdlo)22 °"S"l!M
V ^1 : li
BLANK11 | CBTFIong y width x 2" long
ip1-20* I 4-""te 272St0olrad,uS
) 21 22 23 24
252 264 276 288 3(
21.0 220 230 240 25
163 156 144 132r V,
25 26 2
7 2
a
2
3
0
D
5
- :-4 :
312 324
26.0 27.0
' 108^ 9S
336
280
34
34B 360
29 0 30 0
72r 60
372 384 396
31.0 32.0 33.0
48' 3Sr 24
408 420 432
34 0 35 0 36.0
12 0 NCHES
Defect Number
Calibration P1-1
Blank 1 (P1-1
Blank2iP1-2
C5fs:t P'-- 'Defect 2
:^U:t P'-4 iDefect 3;
Defect P1-5i 'Defect 4!
B!ank3(P1-6;
:-r-?:i - ' Defect i:
Blank4(P1-3
Detect F'1-nC1 iP1-cj;
Blank; ip1-1u
Blank f ipl-11
Defect P1-12iDefect 6;
:,;; =.: ['iT5:t -
Defect P1-14 (Defect 3
Blanl-7iP1-1s
BlankSIP1-16
Blank £! (P1-17
C^fe::t F"i-1i3 -Defect S
Blank 10 (P1-1S
Blank 10IP1-20)
Defect P1-NC2|P1-21
Distance
from End
A to
Defect
[inches)
590
840
1030
1305
1530
1355
2040
2230
2520
289.5
.3120
3360
361 5
320
10S5
1320
1560
1300
2040
2230
2520
2390
Distance
from End
A to
Defect
Center
(feet)
PIPE
4916667
7
9
10375
13 16667
1545333
17
19
PIPE
21
24 125
PIPE
26
23
30 125
PIPE
6 833333
9125
11
13
15
17
19
Length of
Defect (in)
1 Line 1
2
3
4
3
2
2 Line 1
2025
3 Line 1
3
1 Lino 2
4
3
4
PIPE 2 Line 2
21
24 08333
20 75
Width of
Defect (in)
2
1
2
1
2
4
1
2
1
2
4
Max Depth
of Metal
(in)
0 151
000
000
0096
0063
0081
000
0147
000
0 146
u 00
000
0 122
0095
0 115
000
000
000
0 145
000
'.. Metal
Loss
30°;
0%
0%
51%
34%
43%
0%
73%
0%
78%
0%
0%
65%
51%
61%
0%
0%
0%
77%
0%
000
0 127
0%
63%
Radius of
End Mill
Tool
2726
1417
2726
2726
1417
1417
2726
1 417
2 726
2726
PIPE 3 Line 2
Defect P1-22 (Defect 10:
iT-e :'"-_. Defect 11:
311 0
3330
2591667
. ' : : :
2
4
2
2
0120
0097
64%
52%
2726
2726
Figure A-l. 8-inch Pipe Sample 1 Defect Map
A-4
-------
Pipe Sample 1 Simulated Corrosion Defect Photos
S10
S1
345678
Axial Distance (0.25" increments)
10 11
no-o.01 no.oi-o.02 no.02-0.03 no.os-o.04 0.04-0.05 BO.05-0.oe o.oe-o.o? no.07-o.os Bo.os-o.og 0.09-0.1 no.1-0.11
DO.11-0.12 DO.12-0.13 DO.13-0.14 0.14-0.15 B0.15-0.16
Figure A-2. Defect Pl-1 (Defect 1)
A-5
-------
S10
S1
34567
Axial Distance (0.25" increments)
10
DO-0.01 DO.01-0.02 DO.02-0.03 DO.03-0.04 0.04-0.05 0.05-0.06 0.06-0.07 DO.07-0.08 BO.08-0.09 BO.09-0.1 DO.1-0.11
DO.11-0.12 DO.12-0.13 DO.13-0.14 0.14-0.15
Figure A-3. Defect PI-7 (Defect 5)
A-6
-------
Figure A-4. Defect Pl-9 (PI-NCI)
A-7
-------
S15
(A
Axial Distance (0.25" increments)
DO-0.01 nO.01-0.02 nO.02-0.03 nO.03-0.04
no.11-0.12 no.12-0.13 no.13-0.14 BO.14-0.15
10.04-0.05 BO.05-0.06 BO.06-0.07 nO.07-0.08 BO.08-0.09 BO.09-0.1 HO.1-0.11
Figure A-4 (cont). Defect Pl-9 (PI-NCI)
A-8
-------
S10
S1
23456
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Axial Distance (0.25" increments)
DO-0.01 DO.01-0.02 DO.02-0.03 DO.03-0.04 0.04-0.05 0.05-0.06 0.06-0.07 DO.07-0.08 BO.08-0.09 BO.09-0.1 DO.1-0.11
DO.11-0.12 DO.12-0.13 DO.13-0.14 0.14-0.15
Figure A-5. Defect Pl-18 (Defect 9)
A-9
-------
S10
S1
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Axial Distance (0.25" increments)
13 14 15
17 18
DO-0.01 DO.01-0.02 DO.02-0.03 QO.03-0.04 0.04-0.05 BO.05-0.06 BO.06-0.07 DO.07-0.08 0.08-0.09 0.09-0.1
Figure A-6. Defect Pl-23 (Defect 1)
A-10
------- |