Phased Array Technical Guidelines

Useful Formulas, Graphs,

and Examples

R/D Tech Corp.

Introduction

One of the major contributors to the reliability of any nondestructive

testing (NDT) method is the human factor. The personnel involved in
the phased array ultrasonic inspection must be trained and certified.
Through his or her skills, education, and training, the NDT practitioner
must demonstrate that he or she can handle specific requirements
related to the procedure and equipment (phased array ultrasonic
instrument, scanners, probes, software, analysis layouts, and
reporting). The practitioner must be familiar with the basic features of
phased array ultrasonic technology applied to specific components.

The customer-oriented philosophy of R/D Tech resulted in the

publication of the first book dedicated to phased array ultrasonic
technology: Introduction to Phased Array Ultrasonic Technology
Applications: R/D Tech Guideline. This Guideline was intended for a
large audience, with extensive chapters on basic ultrasonic testing,
data representation and scanning patterns, phased array probes, and
applications. The Guideline contains more general information
compared to the booklet. The Guideline can be purchased by e-mail
order through our Web site.

The Phased Array Technical Guidelines booklet was written for the NDT
practitioner as an aide-mémoire of the basic phased array ultrasonic
technology. It is oriented toward day-to-day activities, and know-how
and how-to problems (procedure compliance, calibration,
characterization, new setup construction, and solved inspection
problem). By its contents and dimensions, the booklet was designed to
fit into a pocket. The booklet must withstand field conditions, hence
we produced the book on water- and tear-resistant synthetic paper,
with a sturdy cover and binding.

The Phased Array Technical Guidelines booklet contains the following:

• Chapter 1, “Phased Array Ultrasonic Technology—General

Features”
Describes the PAUT principles, and presents the main hardware
components and type of phased array beam forming and
movement (linear, azimuthal, depth, plane, and 3-D).
• Chapter 2, “Phased Array Probes—General Features”
Describes the PA probes and their main features required to be
used for day-to-day inspections. The examples are based on the

R/D Tech Introduction 1

 1-D planar linear array, the most commonly used type of probe for
many applications.
• Chapter 3, “Focal Laws—General Examples”
Illustrates the basic steps in defining focal laws for Tomoscan III™
PA (TomoView™ 2.2R9) and OmniScan® PA for linear array
probes.
• Chapter 4, “Scanning Patterns, Views, and Layouts”
Presents the major data representations (A-scans, S-scans, B-scans,
C-scans, and D-scans) and the basic layouts and scanning patterns
for Tomoscan III PA (TomoView 2.2R9) and OmniScan PA.
Recommended layouts for specific applications are also noted.
• Chapter 5, “Ultrasound Settings, Calibration, and Periodic
Checking”
Presents basic examples for ultrasonic settings and optimization,
equipment calibration, and in-the-field periodic checking.
• Chapter 6, “Useful Tables, Charts, and Formulas”
Is a useful review of the main formulas, such as: Snell’s law, near-
field length, wavelength, beam width, half-angle beam spread.
Special emphasis is focused on defect sizing using different
methods. Besides tables and formulas, the chapter incorporates
graphs for a quick evaluation of specific features: refracted angle,
equivalent delay, and reflector size.
• Appendix A: “Unit Conversion”
Provides the metric-English conversions for units used in this
booklet.
• Appendix B: “Support and Training”
Presents the R/D Tech Web site section where you can find or post
added information related to this booklet.
• “Selected References”
Lists basic materials, which support and enrich the booklet ideas.
The booklet is written as an open dialog; we include hints, important
marks, and caution or warning signs for specific activities.

As the R/D Tech CEO and President mentioned in the preface of this
booklet, we welcome your opinion, comments, and ideas to improve
on the Phased Array Technical Guidelines booklet with the aim of
making a second edition.

Please use the Web site forum link, at www.rd-tech.com, for a real-
time communication. Our marketing team thanks you in advance for
your input and will contact you for specific problems you may raise.

We hope this booklet will be a great help in carrying out phased array
ultrasonic inspections.

Noël Dubé
Business Development Vice-President, R/D Tech

2 Introduction R/D Tech

1. Phased Array Ultrasonic
Technology—General Features

The phased array ultrasonic technology is based on the following

technical features:

a) Multiplexing of a large number of identical crystals as a single

probe
b) Control of the focal depth
c) Control of the steering angle
d) Control of the beam width
e) Program of the virtual probe aperture (VPA) [see Figure 1-1]
f) Scan with a large number of A-scans
g) Display of the UT data in a generic view called S-scan

VPA2 VPA1

Probe 2 Probe 1

+∆β1

-∆β2

F1

F2 Sweep range 1

Sweep range 2

Figure 1-1 Multielement probe focusing at different depths and for different angles.
Note that the sweep range could be positive and/or negative; different numbers of
elements may be grouped to form a virtual probe aperture (VPA).

R/D Tech Phased Array Ultrasonic Technology—General Features 3

Specific features of phased array technology include the following:

a) Probe design is based on modeling.

b) Each active element of a multielement probe is excited by an
independent pulser (see Figure 1-2).
c) The excitation time is computer-controlled and delayed
according to Fermat principle in such a way that the cylindrical
(spherical) wave front will reach in the same time (in phase) the
specific points in space.
d) The beam is cylindrically or spherically focused (see chapter 2
for more details).
e) The wave front reflected by the defect reaches the reception;
time of flight is delayed according to the focal point, refracted
angle, and number of active elements.
f) The individual amplitudes from each active element are
summed up (amplitude and same phase).
g) The focal law calculator determines the time delay on individual
elements to steer and focus the beam at different depths and
angles. See Figure 1-3 for an example of delay value (in
nanoseconds [10−9 s], that is, a billionth part of a second!). More
details are presented in chapter 3.
h) Analog signals are rectified, smoothed, averaged, and may be
compressed in an 8-bit or 12-bit option (see Figure 1-4).
i) Beam movement is linked with scanner axes and part geometry.
Data may be viewed in a single plane or through a projection
between reference and measurement cursors (see chapter 5 for
more details).
j) The focus pattern of S-scan may be changed (see Figure 1-5).
k) Inspection data is displayed in multiple views or layout; defect
amplitude is color-coded based on specific color palette
(rainbow, gray, unrectified, specific custom-built); data is
plotted into 2-D specimen for each view (see chapter 4 for more
details).
l) Data analysis is more reliable and efficient with customized
defect table and merging A-scans (see chapter 5 for more
details).

4 Chapter 1 R/D Tech

 Probe Incident wave front
Emitting Pulses
Trigger
Acquisition Phased array
unit unit Flaw

Reflected wave front

Receiving Echo signals

Acquisition Phased array

unit unit Flaw

Figure 1-2 Principle of phased array emitting and receiving with a multielement
probe.

The main advantages of phased array technology can be summarized

below:

1. Faster. Phased array inspections with linear scanning are typically

an order of magnitude faster than conventional single probe raster
scanning. This saves significantly in plant downtime and operator
costs.
2. Flexibility. A single array can inspect many different components
with different inspection patterns, using electronic setup files.
3. Complex inspections. Phased arrays can be programmed to inspect
geometrically complex components, for example automated welds
or nozzles, with relative ease. Phased arrays can also be
programmed to perform special scans, for example tandem,
multiple angles, multiple modes, and zone discrimination.
4. Small array size. The small size of arrays makes them perfect for
specific applications, for example turbines and discs, where space
is limited.
5. Mechanical reliability. Fewer moving parts make a more reliable
inspection system. Replacing mechanics with electronics reduces
wear and tear, as well as increases significantly system reliability.
6. Increase the detectability of misoriented defects. Focus beam increases
the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). The multitude of A-scans grouped
in a sector with specific angular resolution contributes to detection
probability.

R/D Tech Phased Array Ultrasonic Technology—General Features 5

 Analog
Filters Smoothing
rectification

A/D Averaging Compression

Figure 1-3 Block diagram for RF signal processing on the receiving chain, after the
summation of individual amplitudes (see Figure 1-2).

1 32 1 32 1 32

-30˚ 0˚ 30˚

Figure 1-4 Example of delay values on individual elements for steering the beam of a
longitudinal wave from −30° to +30°.

aa
bb cc dd

Figure 1-5 Different types of focusing will generate different S-scan views:
(a) projection S-scan is very useful for narrow-gap weld inspection; (b) true depth is
useful for detection and sizing defects at a constant depth (for example, inner wall
fatigue cracks); (c) half-path S-scan is the most commonly used S-scan; (d) focal
plane S-scan is useful for detection of lack of fusion along the weld geometric
preparation.

6 Chapter 1 R/D Tech

Examples of pattern recognition are given in Figure 1-6 to Figure 1-8.

Figure 1-6 Multiangle inspection of a calibration block with stacked side-drilled holes.
Left: inspection setup; right: ultrasound display—sectorial scan.

Figure 1-7 Linear (electronic) scan with a static probe over a test piece with artificial
defect of variable shape and depth. Top: scanning pattern; bottom: ultrasound
display—side (B) view.

R/D Tech Phased Array Ultrasonic Technology—General Features 7

 UT
ran
β start β finish g e

0.5 t

1.5 t

Figure 1-8 Example of UT range selection and sweep range for a crack detection
and sizing with skip angles. Top: principle and UT range setting; bottom: OmniScan
results for a fatigue crack of 8 mm height.

Tip:

• For a reliable detection and sizing of inner-surface breaking

cracks ( h crack < ( 1 ⁄ 3 )t piece ), set the ultrasonic range between
( 0.5 – 1.5 ) × t piece ⁄ cos β optimum , to display the crack facets in
direct and skip detection the crack (see Figure 1-9).
• Use the zoom and software color palette functions for a better
sizing and crack orientation.

8 Chapter 1 R/D Tech

 • Set the sweep range in such a way to detect the crack by at least
two angles at a difference of >10 degrees when the probe is
moved backward (see Figure 1-9).

Figure 1-9 Example of UT sweep range for a crack detection by two angles at
difference >10 degrees. Left: detection with 38.5°; right: detection with 60°. Remark
the crack facets, detected also by skip, at 60°.

Data analysis and defect characteristics (height, orientation, location)

is very reliably performed by plotting UT data into 2-D and 3-D
specimen (see Figure 1-10).

Courtesy of Ontario Power Generation Inc., Canada

Figure 1-10 Example of UT data plotting (VC S-scan) of a crack into an isometric
view of a turbine component.

R/D Tech Phased Array Ultrasonic Technology—General Features 9

Construction Weld Testing Procedures Using Ultrasonic Phased Arrays

INTRODUCTION
Construction welds in pressure vessels and other components typically require
testing to guarantee structural integrity. In the past, such welds were
radiographed, though ultrasonic testing has become more prevalent in recent
decades. These tests are performed to a code (discussed below). Perhaps more
important to the practical engineer, all these tests have limitations, both on
discontinuity detection and sizing.

In the last few years, a new technology has become available for testing welds -
ultrasonic phased arrays. Phased arrays differ from conventional industrial
ultrasonics in that beams can be focused, steered and scanned. While this
permits new test techniques, it also means that codes originally developed for
conventional ultrasonics (or even radiography) may be inappropriate for phased
arrays.

As plate walls get

thicker, detection drops
rapidly with S-scans.

This paper uses computer modeling to analyze discontinuity detection using two
common procedures: standard American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME) raster scans and sectorial scans (or S-scans), both easily performed by
phased arrays. The emphasis is on midwall discontinuities, which are a known
weakness of standard raster test techniques. A limited amount of experimental
data is given to qualitatively support the general modeling conclusions and we
present some recommendations.

Industrial Phased Arrays

Figure 1 - Phased array techniques: (a) linear scan; (b) sectorial scan; (c) depth
focusing.

Phased arrays use an array of elements, all individually wired, pulsed and time
shifted. These elements are typically pulsed in groups of approximately 16
elements at a time for weld tests. With user friendly systems, a typical setup
calculates the time delays from operator input or uses a predefined file calculated
for the test angle, focal distance, scan pattern and so on (Figure 1). The time
delay values are back calculated using time of flight from the focal spot and the
scan assembled from individual focal laws. Time delay circuits must be accurate
to around 2 ns to provide the required accuracy. Due to the limited market,
complexity, software requirements and manufacturing problems, industrial uses
have been limited until the last few years (Lafontaine and Cancre, 2000).

From a practical viewpoint, ultrasonic phased arrays are merely a method of

generating and receiving ultrasound. Consequently, many of the details of
ultrasonic testing remain unchanged; for example, if 7.5 MHz is the optimum test
frequency with conventional ultrasonics, then phased arrays would typically use
the same frequency, focal length and incident angle.

While it can be time consuming to prepare the first setup, the information is
recorded in a file and only takes seconds to reload. Also, modifying a prepared
setup is easy in comparison with physically adjusting conventional transducers.
Using electronic pulsing and receiving provides significant opportunities for a
variety of scan patterns.

Electronic Scans
Figure 2 - Electronic (linear) scanning configuration.
Multiplexing along an array generates electronic scans (Figure 2). Typical arrays
have up to 128 elements, pulsed in groups of 8 to 16. Electronic scanning
permits rapid coverage with a tight focal spot. If the array is flat and linear, then
the scan pattern is a simple B-scan. If the array is curved, then the scan pattern
will be curved. Linear scans are straightforward to program. For example, a
phased array can be readily programmed to test a weld using both 45 and 60
degree shear waves, which mimic conventional manual tests or automated raster
scans.

Sectorial (Azimuthal) Scans

Figure 3 - Sectorial scanning of a turbine rotor.

Sectorial scans use a fixed set of elements, but alter the time delays to sweep
the beam through a series of angles (Figure 3). Again, this is a straightforward
scan to program. Applications for sectorial scanning typically involve a stationary
array, sweeping across a relatively inaccessible component like a turbine blade
root (Ciorau et al., 2000) to map out the features and discontinuities. Depending
primarily on the array frequency and element spacing, the sweep angles can vary
from ±20 to ±80 degrees.

Figure 4 - S-scan testing of a weld fusion line.

Sectorial scans are unique to phased arrays and can be used for weld tests.
However, common sense (and computer modeling) indicates that the ultrasonic
response will depend on angle of impact, location of the array and the thickness
of the plate (Figure 4). S-scans will test a weld feature at a given angle for each
array location, not at all angles. Thus, some discontinuities will be better
positioned and oriented than others for detection; of course, this applies to all
ultrasonic procedures, not just S-scans. However, the limitations of S-scans for
construction welds have not been investigated yet.

Combined Scans
Phased arrays permit the combining of electronic scanning, sectorial scanning
and precision focusing to give a practical combination of displays. Optimum
angles can be selected for welds and other components, while electronic
scanning permits fast and functional tests. This introduces the concept of tailored
tests to optimize detection, sizing and testing time. This approach is discussed in
ASTM E-1961 for automated ultrasonic testing of girth welds in pipelines
(American Society for Testing and Materials, 1998).

CODES
Test procedures are based on requirements stipulated by standards and codes
and then generalized to address the day to day requirements for typical
components or industries. Thus, the codes are the key issues, with procedures or
techniques following. There are many different codes available for ultrasonic
testing; mostly these codes are written for conventional manual tests, with some
permitting automated procedures. Almost no codes mention phased arrays,
though most do not specify the method of generating and receiving.

In North America in particular, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers

code family is dominant (American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2003).
However, there are a number of other codes available for specific uses: API 1104
and API 620 (American Petroleum Institute, 1999; 2002), DNV OS F101 (Det
Norske Veritas, 2000), AWS D1:1 (American Welding Society, 1999) and
international codes such as EN 1714 (European Committee for Standardization,
1998). ASME Code Case 2235 (American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
2001) is unusual in that it specifies automated tests, computerized data
collection, performance demonstrations and fitness for purpose. In effect, ASME
2235 aims at using modern developments in automated ultrasonics and fracture
mechanics.

None of the codes specify the actual procedure to be used; ASME generally
requires that two angles be used in a raster pattern for coverage and that
calibration be performed on side drilled holes. However, calibrating on side drilled
holes is not demanding for phased arrays, using either raster scans or S-scans,
as side drilled holes are omnidirectional reflectors. More importantly, the side
drilled holes may not be representative of the inservice discontinuities and hence
can give misleading setups and procedures.

MODELING

Figure 5 - The six notches used for modeling on a 12.7 mm (0.5 in.) plate.

Modeling was performed using commercial software. A simulated 30 degree half

angle weld profile was used, with six 5% notches either on the weld centerline or
fusion line, as shown in Figure 5. A 1 mm (0.04 in.) cap was modeled, but the
root was effectively flat. Three wall thicknesses were used: 12.7 mm (0.5 in.);
25.4 mm (1 in.) and 50.8 mm (2 in.). Two basic procedures were used: ASME
raster scans at 45 and 60 degrees and sectorial scans (S-scans) from 35 to 70
degrees. These are standard tests on a common weld design, though there are
many more possible configurations.

The S-scans were modeled at two positions: near the weld and far away. Near to
the weld was defined as 5 mm (0.2 in.) from the toe for all thicknesses, a typical
location. Far from the weld was defined as 5 mm (0.2 in.) plus 10, 20 or 30 mm
(0.4, 0.8 or 1.2 in.) depending on the thickness. For 12.7 mm (0.5 in.), this would
mean a distance of 15 mm (0.6 in.) from the modeled weld toe; for 25.4 mm (1
in.), the far distance is 25 mm (0.98 in.) and for 50.8 mm (2 in.), the far distance
is 35 mm (1.4 in.). These are admittedly fairly arbitrary distances, but not
unrealistic.

MODELING RESULTS

12.7 mm (0.5 in.) Plate

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 6 - Software modeling: (a) of a 12.7 mm (0.5 in.) plate for 45 degrees southwest
on a root notch; (b) of the midwall centerline notch for 45 degrees southwest on a 12.7
mm (0.5 in.) plate; (c) of an S-scan in near position at 50 degrees southwest for a
centerline midwall discontinuity; (d) of an S-scan in near position for 60 degrees
southwest for a fusion line midwall discontinuity.
The 45 degree tests detected all the root and cap notches as expected (Figure
6a).

The midwall notches were not so detectable. Figure 6b shows the centerline
notch detected, but by an indirect reflection that depends on cap geometry.
There is effectively no direct reflection from the notch. Note that the strong
reflection occurs much later than predicted, which suggests why some operators
call discontinuities far from the actual location.

The 60 degree tests were not so satisfactory; however, the ASME code requires
detection on only one angle, so this was an acceptable result overall.

The S-scans showed more variable results. In the near weld position (5 mm [0.2
in.] from the weld toe), the root notches were detectable at high angles. At 50
degrees the signal was direct, but at 60 degrees the returned signal was a
fortuitous bounce.

The midwall notches were unpredictable. The optimum for the centerline notch
was 50 degrees, based on a number of bounces (Figure 6c). As before, this type
of reflection depends on actual array location, perhaps on cap geometry and on
suitable bounces. Also, these multiple signals typically occur further down the
time base and can lead to misinterpretation. The A-scan display shows the
amplitude of the returned signal. Other angles showed lower amplitudes in this
simulation.

The fusion line midwall discontinuity was only detected at 60 degrees, again
through a fortuitous reflection off the plate bottom (Figure 6d).

(a) (b)

Figure 7 - Far position S-scan of a midwall centerline notch: (a) at 55 degrees; (b) at 60
degrees, showing good detection.

For the far position, the centerline midwall discontinuity was detected at 55
degrees only, as shown in Figure 7a. Again, the signals bounced off the bottom
of the plate before returning. Detection in this instance would depend on weld
geometry and discontinuity characteristics.

Predictably, the far position S-scan detected the fusion line midwall notch clearly
at a 60 degree incident angle (Figure 7b). This is a "one and a half skip" test and
is a normal ASME procedure; it is also similar to the drawing in Figure 4.

In summary, S-scans detected all the notches in the welds for the 12.7 mm (0.5
in.) plate, at both the near and far positions. However, many of the signals came
from fortuitous bounces and were neither direct nor predicted.

25.4 mm (1 in.) Plate

(a) (b)

Figure 8 - S-scan data: (a) a midwall centerline notch for a 25.4 mm (1 in.) plate at 45
degrees; (b) a fusion line midwall discontinuity at 60 degrees in the near position for a
25.4 mm (1 in.) plate.

The results on the 25.4 mm (1 in.) plate were less encouraging. The root and cap
notches were predictably detected, especially on the raster scans. However, the
midwall discontinuities presented significant detection issues for both raster
scans and S-scans. Figure 8a shows the near weld (5 mm [0.2 in.] from weld toe)
centerline midwall notch S-scan at 45 degrees, which was the only S-scan to
detect the notch at all. The signal is relatively weak and depends on multiple
reflections and on the cap profile.

For the midwall fusion line notch in the near position, the results were much the
same (Figure 8b). Only the 60 degree S-scan detected the notch, again by
indirect reflections off the bottom of the plate.

In the far position (25 mm [0.98 in.] from the weld toe), only the 35 degree S-scan
detected the notch, again by multiple reflections. The signal was strong, but far
down the time base, which could cause significant positioning errors.

None of the S-scan angles in the far position detected the fusion line midwall
notch, including the 60 degree "one and a half skip" test. Obviously, the predicted
detection at 60 degrees depends on actual positioning of the array and on
indirect reflections.

In summary, notch detection for 25.4 mm (1 in.) plate was worse than for 12.7
mm (0.5 in.) plate and unpredictable.

50.8 mm (2 in.) Plate

For the centerline midwall discontinuity using S-scans in the near position (5 mm
[0.2 in.] from weld toe) and raster scans, there was no detection at any angle. In
all cases, the beams were reflected away from the probe. Similar results
occurred for the midwall fusion line notch; no detection was made at any angle.

In the far position (35 mm [1.4 in.] from weld toe), there was no detection of the
midwall centerline notch at all. Likewise, there was no detection of the fusion line
midwall notch at any angle. While signals were reflected around the plate as
normal, in the thicker plates, these typically did not find their way back to the
probe.

In summary, S-scans performed very poorly and unreliably on thicker plates.

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 9 - S-scans from a 25.4 mm (1 in.) plate with an artificial fusion line discontinuity
approximately two thirds down towards the root: (a) near weld position (approximately 5
mm [0.2 in.] from the toe) - discontinuity is clearly visible; (b) approximately 15 mm (0.6
in.) from the toe (in between position) - discontinuity is clearly visible; (c) at the far
position of approximately 25 mm (0.98 in.) - the discontinuity is disappearing; (d) just
past the far position at approximately 30 mm (1.2 in.) - the discontinuity has
disappeared.

Unfortunately, it is difficult and expensive to reproduce these modeled results

experimentally, largely due to the problems and cost of making discontinuities.
However, some preliminary experimental results using S-scans qualitatively
support the modeling. Figure 9 shows a series of S-scans on a 25.4 mm (1 in.)
plate looking at a fusion line artificial discontinuity. This discontinuity was
measured at 19 mm (0.7 in.) below the surface (that is, two thirds of the way
down to the root). The discontinuity is readily visible in the near S-scan positions,
but gradually disappears in the far positions.

DISCUSSION
The modeling results here are discouraging, in the sense that phased array
technology does not appear to be detecting discontinuities as well as expected.
However, this is not necessarily the case; what is really happening is that a new
procedure is being used that is neither tried nor tested in construction weld
applications and the codes have not fully addressed this yet. One of the
conclusions of the massive PISC II trials for the nuclear industry was that
procedure was critical then (Bush, 1997) and is obviously just as critical now.

This is a procedural issue, not a technological issue; the test approach is the
issue, not phased arrays. Phased arrays work well and offer many commercial
advantages over conventional ultrasonics, including speed, flexibility and size.
The problem is that S-scans (and raster scans) are not tailored to midwall
discontinuities, or some corner discontinuities.

Sectorial scans have many useful applications: stress corrosion crack detection,
testing for creep damage, hydrogen induced crack tests, shaft crack tests, small
diameter tube tests, weld tests, nozzle tests, testing composites, rapid manual
tests with good imaging and special applications (Dubé, 2004). The modeling
shows that thin plates (less than 25 mm [0.98 in.] as a guideline) are generally
tested using S-scans. However, thick plate tests are both unreliable (don't find
the discontinuities) and unpredictable (results depend on probe position, cap
geometry, discontinuity location and character). This is particularly true for
midwall discontinuities; however, it should be pointed out that ASME rasters have
significant limitations for midwall effects as well.

Despite the major benefits of computer modeling, it has significant limitations. All
beams are calculated as rays with software, while actual ultrasonics is more
complex. Discontinuities are simulated as flat reflectors, while real discontinuities
are typically more omnidirectional (this will influence detection). S-scans are
performed from specific locations, whereas in reality probes may scan from
anywhere. The software also does not include diffraction. However, diffraction
signals are typically 20 to 40 dB below pulse/echo signals and would be ignored
in normal pulse/echo tests. One obvious step would be to compare raster scans
and S-scans in the next plate test trials.

Despite these limitations, the implication of this study is clear: S-scans have
severe limitations for thick construction welds. In particular, S-scans are both
unreliable and unpredictable for critical midwall discontinuities. In contrast, ASME
raster scans are unreliable but predictable for midwall discontinuity detection;
since raster scans cover the whole area, if the discontinuity is well oriented, the
operator can expect to detect it using automated scanning with raster scans. In
practice, S-scans are probably more reliable with manual than automated scans,
since the operator can scan around the weld as normal and quickly look for
discontinuities.

The ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (2003) is not clear on the
applicability of S-scan tests using a single pass. The code simply states that the
search unit and beam angle selected shall be appropriate for the configuration
being tested. This paper would argue that the angles are inappropriate since
discontinuities are clearly going to be missed.

So, what can we do to improve these tests?

Figure 10 - Pulse/echo and time of flight diffraction scan of a plate with midwall
discontinuities.

• First, use time of flight diffraction as well as ASME raster scans or S-

scans. Time of flight diffraction is very good at detecting midwall
discontinuities and is permitted under ASME Code Case 2235 (2001).
Figure 10 shows a scan using both pulse/echo and time of flight
diffraction; the midwall discontinuity at location 106.3 is not detected on
any of the pulse/echo channels, but is clearly detected by time of flight
diffraction.
• Second, it may be desirable to use multiple S-scan passes to improve
discontinuity detection; however, this will slow down tests significantly and
require the use of a second mechanical axis.
• Third, one excellent solution is to use tailored scans, along the lines of the
ASTM E-1961 zone discrimination technique (ASTM, 1998). Also, it is
easy to use a tandem probe arrangement with phased arrays, which is a
good technique for midwall discontinuity detection.
• Fourth, it may be necessary to refine the codes to ensure that S-scans
have higher discontinuity detection probability. Specifically, ASME Code
Case 2235, which uses side drilled holes for setup and also performance
 demonstrations, may need to specify alternate reflectors and scans for S-
scan tests.

CONCLUSION

• Computer ray tracing shows that both ASME and S-scans have detection
limitations, particularly with midwall discontinuities.
• ASME rastering is more consistent, but misses the same discontinuities
each time.
• S-scan detection depends on gate, geometry, skip pattern, wall thickness
and location of the probe and is less consistent than raster scanning.
• As plate walls get thicker, detection drops rapidly with S-scans. Plates
above approximately 25 mm (0.98 in.) show low detection rates.
• Limited experiments qualitatively support this modeling.

RECOMMENDATION

• Perform trials comparing ASME raster scans with S-scans to verify these
results.
• To improve probability of detection, use tailored tests, if possible, and
always use time of flight diffraction as well as raster or S-scans.
• Discourage S-scan tests for thick walled construction welds.
• Modify codes to ensure greater reliability from S-scans.

ACKNOWLEDGES
Chris Magruder, of R/D Tech, performed the experimental scans. Ed Ginzel, of
the Materials Research Institute, Waterloo, Ontario, critiqued the paper. The
software used was supplied by UTEX Scientific Instruments, Inc.

REFERENCES
American Petroleum Institute, Standard 1104, Welding of Pipelines and Related
Facilities, 19th edition, Washington, DC, American Petroleum Institute, 1999.

American Petroleum Institute, API 620, Design and Construction of Large,

Welded, Low-pressure Storage Tanks, 10th edition, Washington, DC, American
Petroleum Institute, 2002.
American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM E-1961-98, Standard Practice
for Mechanized Ultrasonic Examination of Girth Welds Using Zonal
Discrimination with Focused Search Units, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania,
ASTM, 1998.

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, ASME Code Case 2235-4, Use of

Ultrasonic Examination in Lieu of Radiography: Section I and Section VIII,
Divisions 1 and 2, New York, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2001.

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, "Nondestructive Examination," Boiler

and Pressure Vessel Code, Section V, Article 4, New York, ASME, 2003.

American Welding Society, AWS D 1.1:2000, Structural Welding Code - Steel,

17th edition, Miami, Florida, American Welding Society, 1999.

Bush, S.H., "Ultrasonic Examination of Heavy-section Steel Components PISC-II

and PISC-III Action 2 as They Apply to Nonnuclear Thick-walled Pressure
Vessels," Welding Research Council Bulletin 420, New York, Welding Research
Council, 1997.

Ciorau P., D. MacGillivray, T. Hazelton, L. Gilham, D. Craig and J. Poguet, "In-

situ Examination of ABB l-0 Blade Roots and Rotor Steeple of Low-pressure
Steam Turbine, Using Phased Array Technology," 15th World Conference on
NDT, Rome, Italy, 11-15 October 2000.

Det Norske Veritas, DNV OS-F101, Submarine Pipeline Systems, Appendix D,

Det Norske Veritas, 2000.

Dubé, N., Introduction to Phased Array Ultrasonic Applications - R/D Tech

Guideline, M. Moles, ed., Mississauga, Canada, R/D Tech, 2004.

European Committee for Standardization, EN 1714: Non Destructive

Examination of Welded Joints - Ultrasonic Examination of Welded Joints,
Brussels, European Committee for Standardization, 1998.

Lafontaine, G. and F. Cancre, "Potential of Ultrasonic Phased Arrays for Faster,

Better and Cheaper Inspections," NDT.net, Vol. 5, No. 10, October 2000,
<www.ndt.net/article/v05n10/lafont2/lafont2.htm>.

* R/D Tech, 73 Superior Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M8V 2M7, Canada; (416) 831-
4428; fax (416) 255-5882; e-mail <michael.moles@rd-tech.com>.
+
R/D Tech, 505 boul. du Parc Technologique, Québec PQ G1P 4S9, Canada;
(418) 872-1155; fax (418) 877-0141; e-mail <jinchi.zhang@rd-tech.com>.