Quick Flaw Evaluation in Ultrasonic Testing

Using Microprocessor Assisted Methods

Dipl. Phys. Michael Berke
Contact to author

Abstract:
Even the commonly used flaw evaluation methods can be considerably simplified by the use of
microprocessor controlled ultrasonic instruments. This results in advantages such as saving of
time and increased test reliability.
Table of contents
Two methods
The DGS method.
Procedure
Electronic DGS evaluation

In nondestructive ultrasonic testing of materials, high frequency sound pulses (approx. 1 to 10
MHz) are beamed into the workpiece to be tested by means of a probe. The sound is reflected
from internal non homogeneities, e.g. a flaw in the material. These sound reflections are again
received by the probe and processed in the ultrasonic instrument. This is followed by the
evaluation of the signals (echoes), viz. with the standard methods on the basis of acoustic time of
flight and amplitude.
Two methods
Present day evaluation methods produce reliable and reproducible results providing that the
testing device meets technical requirements and that the test personnel are accordingly qualified.
The position of a flaw in the workpiece is calculated quickly and very accurately on the basis of
the measured acoustic time of flight of an echo. This means that a flaw location takes place. The
echo amplitude is used for an estimation of the flaw size. However, this is not quite as easy as
flaw location because the echo amplitude is subjected to much more influences than the acoustic
time of flight. Two methods have become generally accepted in manual ultrasonic testing
worldwide:
the reference block method and
the DGS method.
Though the two methods differ very much with regard to their application, they are not different
with regard to the physical principles of sound propagation and sound reflection that they are
based on. The reason is that, in both methods, the inspector determines the size (diameter) of a
reference reflector (disk shaped reflector, cylindrical reflector). The size thus determined is not
identical with the actual flaw size and it is therefore termed as the equivalent circular disk or side
drilled hole diameter. The shorter term "equivalent reflector size" (ERS) has become generally
accepted when using disk shaped reflectors. The reason for the fact that the actual flaw size does
not correspond to the equivalent reflector size is because the sound fractions reflected from a
natural flaw are additionally influenced by the shape, orientation and surface quality of the flaw.
In this respect further tests are difficult and not very practical in manual ultrasonic testing so that
most specifications and guidelines for ultrasonic testing attach the criteria for flaw recording to a
defined equivalent reflector size. This means: the inspector determines whether a detected flaw
reaches or exceeds the equivalent reflector size indicated as a limit value (recording level) in the
standard specifications. In addition to this, the inspector must carry out other tests, e.g. regarding
the recording length, echo dynamics, etc., further details of which are not discussed here.
DGS diagram
The regularities of sound propagation in material have been
theoretically known for a long time and were confirmed in practice by
numerous experiments. The development of modern evaluation
methods shows two ways. With the reference block method the
characteristic curve of the sound field is always determined before
carrying out an ultrasonic test, whereas in the DGS method DGS
diagrams for probes are applied for this. A DGS diagram shows the
echo amplitudes of disk shaped reflectors with different diameters and those of large, flat
reflectors (backwall) as a function of the distance Fig.1 DGS Diagram.
Procedure
To understand this better, let us start by explaining the sequences for both evaluation methods at
this point.
The reference block method requires that a reference block, corresponding to the test
object and containing one or more reference reflectors, be available for the test. The
distance dependence of echo amplitudes is determined experimentally by means of
drilled holes in the reference block, the resulting curve is then transmitted to the screen
display of the test instrument (DAC Distance Amplitude Correction). This curve
automatically includes all probe (sound field) and material effects. The test object can
now be scanned with the probe. An indication recording is made when an echo reaches
the DAC curve or exceeds it.
A prerequisite with the DGS method is that the corresponding DGS diagram be
available for the probe used in the test application. The reference gain of the test
instrument, with which the reference echo is at a fixed screen height (reference level), is
determined for a specific reflector, i.e. the reference reflector. After this, the instrument
gain is increased by a certain value, i.e. the test sensitivity is adjusted. If the reference
reflector is a circular arc from one of the standardized calibration blocks, then the
instrument gain should be varied in accordance with the correction value given for the
angle beam probe: the amplitude correction value is adjusted. With different surface
qualities between the test object and the calibration block the transfer correction must be
determined experimentally and likewise taken into consideration. The gain difference
with regard to the reference echo is determined for the maximum echo from a detected
indication. This is followed by a graphic determination of the equivalent reflector size
using the DGS diagram. If required, the sound attenuation correction is additionally
carried out. This makes it possible to assess whether the indication is to be recorded or
not. Nevertheless, by using the DGS scale it is possible to significantly simplify
evaluation with the DGS method (Fig.2).
Fig. 2 Evaluation using a DGS scale.
In this connection, the inspector uses an attachment scale for the screen of
the ultrasonic instrument. This scale contains one or several ready made
recording curves. The tiresome graphic evaluation with the DGS diagram
can thus be omitted. The inspector can directly assess flaw indications by
means of the curve.
A comparison of the test sequences for the reference block method and DGS method shows the
pros and cons in this table.
Pros and cons of the DGS and reference block method

Refernce block methode DGS-method
Pros
The DAC curve contains all test-
related
Influences, i.e. no time-consuming
corrections are recuired.
Easy and reliable evaluation.
No reference blocks required.
Cons
Fabrication or procurement of a
suitable reference block.
Recording of a DAC curve for every
test application
Measurement and consideration of different
individual corrections.
Graphic determination of the equivalent reflector
size.

Electronic DGS evaluation
The use of microprocessor controlled ultrasonic instruments considerably simplifies both
evaluation methods, resulting in saving of time and higher test reliability. The DGS evaluation
now becomes particularly easy in an ultrasonic instrument like the USN 50 by an optional
evaluation program (Fig.3):
Fig.3 The ultrasonic flaw detector USN 50 with DGS display

There are DGS diagrams for 13 standard probes stored in the instrument.
However, other probes can also be programmed on the basis of their parameters
and filed in one of the 30 data sets. A flat bottom hole (disk shaped reflector), side drilled hole or
backwall can be selected as reference reflectors. Owing to the operational concept, the use of the
DGS method in the USN 50 is especially easy and reliable, operating errors by the inspector are
largely excluded due to the display of warning messages on the screen. After the input of all
parameters necessary for the flaw evaluation, the corresponding recording curve is electronically
displayed on the instrument screen (Fig.4).
Fig.4 Display contents of the USN 50 with active DGS function

The evaluation program ensures a direct evaluation of a detected indication. All the
necessary corrections are taken into consideration in this respect: exceeding of the
recording threshold, i.e. the dB value by which the flaw indication exceeds the preset recording
curve, is directly displayed on the screen. This type of evaluation meets the practical
requirements specified in most of the testing guidelines. For example, these do not only include
e.g. the widely known HP 5/3, DIN 54 125, SEL 072, etc., but also all other specifications
requiring flat bottom holes as reference reflectors.

The author:
Dipl.-Phys. Michael Berke
was for many years a trainer for ultrasonic testing methods
and is today Product Manger for ultrasonic flaw detectors
for Krautkrmer GmbH D-Hrth.
E-Mail: 100656.65@compuserve.com

| Frontpage ||Top to this page|
Rolf Diederichs 1.Febr.1996, info@ndt.net
/DB:Article /AU:Berke_M /IN:Krautkramer /CN:DE /CT:UT /CT:instrument /ED:1996-02