See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320124192

Effect of Focal Law Parameters on Probability of Detection in Phased Array

Ultrasonic Testing Using a Simulation and Case Study Approach

Article  in  Materials Evaluation · November 2016

CITATIONS READS

3 1,084

1 author:

Dheeraj P R
Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur
7 PUBLICATIONS   16 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

CIVA Simulation - Paper 1 View project

Evaluation of synthesis technologies of batteries for EV application View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dheeraj P R on 07 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ME TECHNICAL PAPER w
x
From Materials Evaluation, Vol. 74, No. 11, pp: 1574-1591.
Copyright © 2016 The American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Inc.
Effect of Focal Law Parameters on Probability of
Detection in Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing Using a
Simulation and Case Study Approach
by P.R. Dheeraj*, I. Mohsin†, Shaik Khaja Mohiuddin†, and Sirajul H. Masroor§
ABSTRACT
The growing energy industry has demands for
high-quality, cost-effective solutions in design,
fabrication, and inspection. Nondestructive testing
(NDT) has always played a crucial role in the
overall product integrity. Phased array ultrasonic
testing (PAUT) is one of the advanced inspection
technologies that promises to become the primary
inspection technique for most applications in the
industry. PAUT has immense inherent capabilities
but, as a system, possesses controllable and
uncontrollable variables, which influence its repro-
ducibility, repeatability, and detection capability. In
general, the challenge of NDT system capability is
further compounded by the latest advancements in
material and product diversities, which demand
system validation. Validation using simulation
software is likely to be a promising alternative to
conventional validation techniques that utilize
specimens with known reflectors. Simulation
software takes into account most of the influential
parameters involved during an inspection
regarding the transducer, geometry, and material
inspected. This paper provides outcomes on the
effects of focal law parameters of PAUT on proba-
bility of detection in the aspects of detectability,
resolution, and sizing of flaws. Several S-scan
plans were formulated using focal parameters,
* ASNT NDT Level III; e-mail dheeraj@astar-training.com.
† M.Tech., ASNT NDT Level III; e-mail mohsin@astar-training.com.
† ASNT NDT/ACCP Professional Level III; e-mail khaja@astar-training
.com.
§ ASNT NDT/ACCP Professional Level III; e-mail siraj@astar-training
.com.
1574 MATERIALS EVALUATION • NOVEMBER 2016
including element quantity, pitch, focal depth,
range of angle, and angle resolution. All of the
scan plans were analyzed using simulation and
practical trials to derive the best scan plan in
terms of detectability, resolution, and sizing.
Factors affecting the PAUT signal response due to
the NDT system (probe configuration and scan
plan), part (geometry and material properties), and
flaw (size and orientation) were accounted for.
However, other factors, including psychological
and physiological human factors, were not consid-
ered. The study infers that for an effective PAUT
examination, focal law parameters must be
validated either through practical or simulation
approach. In addition to proving the necessity of
validating the focal law parameters, a simulation
approach to evaluate the smallest detectable
discontinuity based on effective scan plan was also
done.
KEYWORDS: PAUT, POD, BIA, S-scan, beam width,
focal law, aperture, pitch, simulation
Introduction
Phased array ultrasonic testing (PAUT) is widely employed as
a volumetric examination technique for welds. This is
employed either directly or in lieu of manual ultrasonic testing
(UT) or radiography (Moles, 2005). PAUT is fundamentally
the same as UT; hence, the technical dependence and limita-
tions are similar for both manual UT and PAUT (Birring, 2008;
Ginzel, 2013). As a general industrial practice, for weld
inspection using PAUT, the requirements of ASME Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC), Section V, Article 4; ASTM E
2700; and so on, are prescribed (ASME, 2015; ASTM, 2014).
This paper deals with the American Society for Mechan-
ical Engineers (ASME)-based PAUT S-scan application for
examination of carbon steel plate butt welds of selected
thicknesses in single-V bevel configuration with the objective
to study the effect of PAUT S-scan focal law parameters (scan
plan) on probability of planar weld flaw detection, resolution,
and sizing.
In this paper, the aforementioned objective is presented
through the following sequence:
l Selection of scan plan: various scan plans were generated
with a desired combination of focal law parameters for
12.5 and 25 mm thick single-V weld configurations.
l Experiment: scan plans of 12.5 and 25 mm were analyzed
using simulation and practical trials to derive the effective
scan plan in terms of detectability, resolution, and sizing.
l Smallest detectable flaw: the derived effective scan plans of
12.5 and 25 mm were analyzed using various tools to find the
smallest detectable flaw in terms of length and height.
l Conclusion.
Selection of Scan Plan
Per ASME code, a scan plan (documented examination
strategy) is a preliminary, mandatory requirement that needs
to be developed to achieve full weld volume (weld plus heat
affected zone [HAZ]) with appropriate angles (range of angle
in S-scan) on the weld bevel to be examined. A scan plan
comprises selection of a certain combination from available
focal law (phased array operational file that defines the search
unit elements and their time delays) parameters.
(a)
(b)
Figure 1. Schematic of wedges coupled with: (a) 0.6 mm pitch; and
(b) 1 mm pitch probes.
Selection of an “appropriate” range of angles to cover the
full weld volume is considered to be the primary basis of a
scan plan. As ASME code terminology, “appropriate” is not
well defined; it could be estimated as ±10 and ±5° to formu-
late the scan plan (Moles, 2010; Moles and Ginzel, 2012).
Following general industry standards, 5 MHz search units of
0.6 mm (probe 1) and 1.0 mm (probe 2) pitch were consid-
ered. Equipment with 16 and 32 pulsers are widely used;
therefore, 16 and 32 element quantities were considered.
Figure 1 shows the wedges (natural angle 55°, velocity
2330 m/s) used in this study.
Based on the preceding, a combination of focal law param-
eters including element quantity, pitch, focal depth, range of
angle, and angle resolution were considered to cover the
inspection volume. Selection of these parameters is at the
disposition of qualified PAUT personnel, and these combina-
tions of focal law parameters make weld examination better
or inferior in terms of flaw detectability, resolution, and sizing.
In this paper, two cases with different thicknesses
(12.5 and 25 mm) were considered. In both cases, eight scan
plans were chosen by a combination of probe pitch, element
quantity, start element, angle range, and probe offset.
Throughout the study, the focus was on fusion face disconti-
nuities, in the form of lack of fusion (LOF), as they have high
dependency on the beam incidence angle (BIA), which in
turn is determined based on the scan plan parameters
(Armitt, 2006; Grün, 2007; Moles, 2011). Scan plans with a
BIA of 5 and 10° were trialed and evaluated in the following
sections.
A sample scan plan for a single-V, 30° bevel of 25 mm
thickness with emphasis on the fusion bevel is shown in
Figure 2. For a 30° bevel, the complementary angle to detect
LOF with high probability of detection (POD) is 60°. The
region shown in green is covered by angles between 55 and
65°, so the maximum deviation from the ideal 60° angle is 5°,
which is the BIA value for this angle range. Considering the
scan range in the red zone, the fusion bevel was covered by 50
to 70°, for which the BIA is 10°.
It is evident from Figure 3a that, using one probe and one
group at one offset, only a BIA of 10° can be achieved. In
order to achieve a BIA of 5°, either two groups of 55 to 65° or
Figure 2. Schematic representation of beam incidence angle (BIA) of
5 and 10°.
NOVEMBER 2016 • MATERIALS EVALUATION 1575
ME TECHNICAL PAPER w
x phased array pod

one group with two offsets have to be used, as shown in

Figures 3b and 3c, respectively. In the following two sections,
the scan plans were derived based on the preceding concept
and the probe index offset was set for the angle range to have
suitable coverage of the complete bevel.

Case Study 1 Scan Plan

The 12.5 mm thick weld with bevel configuration and HAZ
details (Figure 4) was selected for case study 1. Eight different
(a) scan plans, shown as follows, were formulated using beam
software with a combination of two different search units,
three different element quantities, and two different BIAs. For
each of the scan plans, three different focus depths were
chosen: unfocused (1000 mm), 18.75 mm, and 25 mm. Scan
plans 1.1 to 1.7 had a fixed probe offset of 12 mm. Scan plan
1.8 had two probe offsets, 9 and 15 mm, to achieve 5° BIA, as
discussed in the preceding section.

Probe 1 and Wedge 1

For scan plan 1.1 (Figure 5a):
l Pitch: 0.6
(b)
l Probe offset: 12
l Element quantity: 16
l Start element: 49
l Angle range: 40 to 70°
l BIA: 10°
For scan plan 1.2 (Figure 5b):
l Pitch: 0.6
l Probe offset: 12
l Element quantity: 16
l Start element: group 1, 49; group 2, 28
(c)
l Angle range: 40 to 70°
l BIA: 5°
Figure 3. Typical scan plan to achieve: (a) beam incidence angle (BIA)
of 10°; (b) BIA of 5° using one offset; and (c) BIA of 5° using two
For scan plan 1.3 (Figure 5c):
offsets. l Pitch: 0.6
l Probe offset: 12
l Element quantity: 32
l Start element: 33
l Angle range: 40 to 70°
l BIA: 10°
For scan plan 1.4 (Figure 5d):
l Pitch: 0.6
l Probe offset: 12
l Element quantity: 32
l Start element: group 1, 33; group 2, 21
l Angle range: 40 to 70°
l BIA: 5°
For scan plan 1.5 (Figure 5e):
l Pitch: 1
l Probe offset: 12
l Element quantity: 16
l Start element: 17
l Angle range: 40 to 70°
Figure 4. Bevel configuration for case study 1. l BIA: 10°

1576 MATERIALS EVALUATION • NOVEMBER 2016

 (a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

(g) (h)

Figure 5. Derived scan plans for case study 1 using probe 1 and wedge 1: (a) scan plan 1.1; (b) scan plan 1.2; (c) scan plan 1.3; (d) scan plan
1.4; (e) scan plan 1.5; (f) scan plan 1.6; (g) scan plan 1.7; and (h) scan plan 1.8.

For scan plan 1.6 (Figure 5f): l Start element: 5

l Pitch: 1 l Angle range: 40 to 75°
l Probe offset: 12 l BIA: 10°
l Element quantity: 16 For scan plan 1.8 (Figure 5h):
l Start element: group 1, 17; group 2, 5 l Pitch: 1
l Angle range: 40 to 70° l Probe offset: 9, 15
l BIA: 5° l Element quantity: 26
For scan plan 1.7 (Figure 5g): l Start element: 7
l Pitch: 1 l Angle range: 50 to 72°
l Probe offset: 12 l BIA: 5°
l Element quantity: 32

NOVEMBER 2016 • MATERIALS EVALUATION 1577

ME TECHNICAL PAPER w
x phased array pod

l Start element: 33
l Angle range: 40 to 70°
l BIA: 10°
For scan plan 2.4 (Figure 7d):
l Pitch: 0.6
l Probe offset: 40
l Element quantity: 32
l Start element: group 1, 33; group 2, 1
l Angle range: 40 to 70°
l BIA: 5°
For scan plan 2.5 (Figure 7e):
l Pitch: 1
l Probe offset: 44
l Element quantity: 16
l Start element: 17
Figure 6. Bevel configuration for case study 2. l Angle range: 40 to 70°
l BIA: 10°
For scan plan 2.6 (Figure 7f):
l Pitch: 1
Case Study 2 Scan Plan l Probe offset: 44
The 25.0 mm thick weld with bevel configuration and HAZ l Element quantity: 16
details (Figure 6) was selected as case study 2. Eight different l Start element: group 1, 17; group 2, 1
scan plans, shown as follows, were formulated using beam l Angle range: 40 to 70°
software with a combination of two different search units, two l BIA: 5°
different element quantities, and two different BIAs. For each For scan plan 2.7 (Figure 7g):
of the scan plans, three different focus depths were chosen: l Pitch: 1
unfocused (1000 mm), 37.5 mm, and 50 mm. Each of the l Probe offset: 27
scan plans had one probe offset, as shown in the Table 1, l Element quantity: 32
whereas scan plan 2.8 was designed with two probe offsets to l Start element: 1
satisfy a 5° BIA, as discussed in Selection of Scan Plan section. l Angle range: 40 to 70°
The probe index offset for the scan plans varied with different l BIA: 10°
active probe apertures. They were chosen to have satisfactory For scan plan 2.8 (Figure 7h):
coverage of the complete bevel from root to cap, as shown in l Pitch: 1
the following. l Probe offset: 27, 55
l Element quantity: 32
Probe 2 and Wedge 2 l Start element: 1
For scan plan 2.1 (Figure 7a): l Angle range: 50 to 72°
l Pitch: 0.6 l BIA: 5°
l Probe offset: 32
l Element quantity: 16 Experiment
l Start element: 33 To study the effects of the scan plans derived in the preceding
l Angle range: 40 to 70° section on the detectability, sizing, and resolution of planar
l BIA: 10° flaws, two blocks of thickness 12.5 and 25 mm with planar
For scan plan 2.2 (Figure 7b): reflectors were considered. Electrical discharge machining
l Pitch: 0.6 (EDM) slots and surface notches were embedded to replicate
l Probe offset: 32 the fusion line discontinuities and surface discontinuities,
l Element quantity: 16 respectively. Simulation and practical trials for the derived
l Start element: group 1, 33; group 2, 1 scan plans were performed on these two blocks, the results
l Angle range: 40 to 70° of which are discussed in the sections on Simulation and
l BIA: 5° Practical Trials: 12.5 and 25 mm. Among the several desired
For scan plan 2.3 (Figure 7c): scan plans, the scan plan that delivered the best amplitude
l Pitch: 0.6 response, detection, and sizing of all given reflectors and good
l Probe offset: 40 resolution that provides discrimination from the adjacent
l Element quantity: 32 reflectors was considered to be the appropriate scan plan.

1578 MATERIALS EVALUATION • NOVEMBER 2016

 (a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

(g) (h)

Figure 7. Derived scan plans for case study 2 using probe 2 and wedge 2: (a) scan plan 2.1; (b) scan plan 2.2; (c) scan plan 2.3; (d) scan plan
2.4; (e) scan plan 2.5; (f) scan plan 2.6; (g) scan plan 2.7; and (h) scan plan 2.8.

Two types of sizing techniques were used: maximum ampli-
tude and 6 dB drop techniques. The maximum amplitude
technique uses a measure of the probe/angle cursor
movement between the maximized signals from flaw extremi-
ties and the 6 dB drop technique uses the reduction in the
signal amplitude as the probe travels across the flaw as an indi-
cator of its dimensions (Moran et al., 2010). The efficiency of
the scan plan on both fusion line and surface discontinuities
are evaluated in this section.
Specimen Design
The 12.5 mm block had five planar reflectors, among which
three reflectors were 30° fusion line EDM slots, one was an
outer diameter notch, and the other was an inner diameter
notch. In this paper, the reflectors N1, N2, and N3 are referred
to as LOF 1, LOF 2, and LOF 3, respectively. Considering the
low thickness case, equidimensional fusion line discontinuities
were placed equidistant from each other. A detailed drawing of
this block is shown in Figure 8, with dimensions in Table 1.

NOVEMBER 2016 • MATERIALS EVALUATION 1579

ME TECHNICAL PAPER w
x phased array pod

(a)

(b)

Figure 8. Block design for case study 1: (a) front view; and (b) detail of region AD in Figure 8a.

TABLE 1 TABLE 2
Detail of region AD* Detail of region AE*
Notch Length Height Width Notch Length Height Width
N1 25 2 1 N1 25 2 1
N2 25 2 1 N2 25 3 1
N3 25 2 1 N3 25 4 1
N4 25 1 2 N4 25 3 1
N5 25 1 1 N5 25 2 1
N6 25 1 1
* All dimensions in mm * All dimensions in mm

(a)

(b)

Figure 9. Block design for case study 2: (a) front view; and (b) detail of region AE in Figure 9a.

1580 MATERIALS EVALUATION • NOVEMBER 2016

 The 25 mm block had six planar reflectors, among which
four reflectors were 30° fusion line EDM slots, one was an
outer diameter notch, and the other was an inner diameter
notch. In the paper, reflectors N1, N2, N3, and N4 are
referred to as LOF 1, LOF 2, LOF 3, and LOF 4, respectively.
Fusion line discontinuities of three sizes (2, 3, and 4 mm)
were fabricated along the fusion line. A detailed drawing of
this block is shown in Figure 9, with dimensions in Table 2.
Simulation and Practical Trials: 12.5 mm
Simulations and practical trials were performed for all the
eight scan plans listed in Case Study 1 Scan Plan, with three
different focusing cases (1000, 18.75, and 25 mm) on the
block shown in Figure 8. The S-scan image output of the
simulation and practical trials was recorded and compared to
determine the appropriate scan plan. Among the eight chosen
scan plans, scan plan 1.1 was seen to be least effective and
scan plan 1.8 was proven to be most effective. S-scan image
outputs corresponding to the least and most effective cases
are tabulated in Figures 10 and 11.
The results of scan plan 1.1 are compiled in Figure 10,
Tables 3 and 4. This scan plan with 0.6 mm pitch, 16
elements, and BIA 10° was proven to be inefficient in detec-
tion, resolution, and sizing of most of the flaws. LOF 1 was

(a) (b)

(d)
(c)

Figure 10. S-scan images of scan plan 1.1 using 0.6 mm pitch, 16 elements, and beam incidence angle of 10°: (a) 18.75 mm focus simulation;
(b) 25 mm focus simulation; (c) 18.75 mm focus practical result; and (d) 25 mm focus practical result.

TABLE 3
Detection and resolution values based on scan plan 1.1
Value Outer diameter notch Lack of fusion 1 Lack of fusion 2 Lack of fusion 3 Inner diameter notch
Detection Yes No Yes Yes No
Resolution Good n/a Bad Bad n/a

NOVEMBER 2016 • MATERIALS EVALUATION 1581

ME TECHNICAL PAPER w
x phased array pod

TABLE 4
Height sizing values based on scan plan 1.1 using two techniques
Technique Outer diameter notch Lack of fusion 1 Lack of fusion 2 Lack of fusion 3 Inner diameter notch
(1 mm) (2 mm) (2 mm) (2 mm) (1 mm)
Maximum amplitude 2 mm – – 3 mm –
6 dB drop 5.4 mm – – – –

not detected, whereas the resolution of the detected LOF 2, and BIA of 5° detected all the flaws with good resolution and
LOF 3, and inner diameter notch was very poor. sizing. Also, it can be inferred from Table 5 that focusing
From Figure 11, Tables 5 and 6, it can be inferred that the beam in the region of interest is vital, as it improved the
scan plan 1.8 with 1 mm pitch, 26 elements, focused beam, resolution of the flaws. The actual size of the reflectors is

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 11. S-scan images of scan plan 1.8 using 1 mm pitch, 26 elements, and beam incidence angle of 5°: (a) 15 mm probe offset focused at
25 mm simulation; (b) 9 mm probe offset focused at 18.75 mm simulation; (c) 15 mm probe offset focused at 25 mm practical result; and (d)
15 mm probe offset focused at 18.75 mm practical result.

TABLE 5
Detection and resolution values based on scan plan 1.8
Value Outer diameter notch Lack of fusion 1 Lack of fusion 2 Lack of fusion 3 Inner diameter notch
Detection Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Resolution Good Good Good Good Good

1582 MATERIALS EVALUATION • NOVEMBER 2016

TABLE 6
Height sizing values based on scan plan 1.8 using two techniques
Technique Outer diameter notch Lack of fusion 1 Lack of fusion 2 Lack of fusion 3 Inner diameter notch
(1 mm) (2 mm) (2 mm) (2 mm) (1 mm)
Maximum amplitude 1 mm 1.9 mm 1.7 mm 1.3 mm 1.1 mm
6 dB drop 1.9 mm 3.3 mm 3.3 mm 3 mm 2.3 mm

mentioned below the reflector name in the table. Out of
the two sizing techniques used, the maximum amplitude
techniques produced values closer to the actual height of the
reflectors.
Simulation and Practical Trials: 25 mm
Simulations and practical trials were performed for all the
eight scan plans listed in Case Study 2 Scan Plan, with three
different focusing cases (1000, 37.5, and 50 mm) for all of
them. The S-scan image output of the simulation and prac-
tical trials was recorded and compared to determine the
appropriate scan plan. Among the eight chosen scan plans,
scan plan 2.1 showed ineffective results and scan plan
2.8 showed the best result. The S-scan image outputs
corresponding to the ineffective and effective cases are
tabulated in Figures 12 and 13.
The results of scan plan 2.1 with 0.6 mm pitch,
16 elements, and BIA of 10° are compiled in Figure 12,
Tables 7 and 8. This scan plan was proven to be inefficient
in detection, resolution, and sizing of most of the flaws.
None of the discontinuities were detected clearly in this
case.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 12. S-scan images of scan plan 2.1 using 0.6 mm pitch, 16 elements, and beam incidence angle of 10°: (a) 37.5 mm focus simulation;
(b) 50 mm focus simulation; (c) 37.5 mm focus practical result; and (d) 50 mm focus practical result.

NOVEMBER 2016 • MATERIALS EVALUATION 1583

ME TECHNICAL PAPER w
x phased array pod

TABLE 7
Detection and resolution values based on scan plan 2.1
Value Outer diameter notch Lack of fusion 1 Lack of fusion 2 Lack of fusion 3 Lack of fusion 4 Inner diameter notch
Detection Yes No No Yes Yes No
Resolution Good n/a n/a Bad Bad n/a

TABLE 8
Height sizing values based on scan plan 2.1 using two techniques
Technique Outer diameter Lack of fusion 1 Lack of fusion 2 Lack of fusion 3 Lack of fusion 4 Inner diameter
notch (2 mm) (2 mm) (3 mm) (4 mm) (3 mm) notch (1 mm)
Maximum amplitude 2 mm – – – – –
6 dB drop 5.4 mm – – – – –

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 13. S-scan images of scan plan 2.8 using 1 mm pitch, 32 elements, and beam incidence angle of 5°: (a) 55 mm probe offset focused at
50 mm simulation; (b) 27 mm probe offset focused at 37.5 mm simulation; (c) 55 mm probe offset focused at 50 mm practical result; and
(d) 27 mm probe offset focused at 37.5 mm practical result.

TABLE 9
Detection and resolution values based on scan plan 2.8
Value Outer diameter Lack of fusion 1 Lack of fusion 2 Lack of fusion 3 Lack of fusion 4 Inner diameter
notch notch
Detection Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Resolution Good Good Good Good Good Good

1584 MATERIALS EVALUATION • NOVEMBER 2016

TABLE 10
Height sizing values based on scan plan 2.8 using two techniques
Technique Outer diameter Lack of fusion 1 Lack of fusion 2
notch (2 mm) (2 mm) (3 mm)
Maximum amplitude 1 mm 1.9 mm 1.7 mm
6 dB drop 1.9 mm 3.3 mm 3.3 mm
From Figure 13, Tables 9 and 10, it can be inferred that
scan plan 2.8 with 1 mm pitch, 32 elements, focused beam,
and a BIA of 5° detected all the flaws with good resolution.
Analyzing the values derived from the two sizing techniques
(maximum amplitude and 6 dB drop techniques), the
maximum amplitude technique undersized the flaws in most
occasions. The 6 dB drop technique produced relatively
better results than the other technique. Also, it can be inferred
that reflectors in the region of focusing have better resolution
than other discontinuities.
Conclusion from Case Study 1 and 2
Analyzing the results of each of the 48 trials performed
(24 scan plans for each thickness), the following can be
derived:
l Element quantity (32 rather than 16) plays a major role in
making a scan plan better for the POD, resolution, and sizing.
l Element pitch (1 mm rather than 0.6 mm) adds to the
element quantity selected by providing deeper focus for
better resolution and sizing of the reflectors.
l Focusing at the right depth or region of interest is important
in better resolution and sizing.
l BIA within 5°, which is better than within 10°, plays a major
role in detectability of fusion discontinuities such as LOF.
l An angle range satisfying a BIA of 5° for fusion bevel has
proved to be very effective.
l Simulation results are in close proximity with the practical
results and the variation is less than 2 dB in the case of
detection amplitude and 1 mm in the case of sizing.
In the case of restriction to use two groups/two offsets to
achieve a 5° BIA (scan plan 1.8 and 2.8), alternatively using
32 elements, 1 mm pitch, and proper focusing with one
sectorial group (scan plan 1.7 and 2.7) yielded the next best
results.
Effect of Focusing
The best scan plans from Case Study 1 Scan Plan and Case
Study 2 Scan Plan were chosen and the effect of focusing
was visualized by comparing the results of the beam focused
in the region of interest with that of the unfocused beam
(1000 mm). Figures 14 and 15 show the S-scan images from
the simulation and practical for scan plans 1.8 and 2.8, with
and without focusing.
Lack of fusion 3 Lack of fusion 4 Inner diameter
(4 mm) (3 mm) notch (1 mm)
1.1 mm 1.1 mm 1.1 mm
3 mm 3 mm 2.3 mm
In Figure 14, it is seen that the 15 mm offset probe, when
focused, produced the best detection and resolution of
discontinuities near the cap. When the unfocused beam is
used at the same offset, the outer diameter notch goes almost
undetected and irrelevant signals are observed. A similar situa-
tion was observed in the case of 9 mm offset probe also, where
the discontinuities in the focused region (lower half of the
weld) had the best detection and resolution.
Similarly, in focusing effect experiments, the simulation
results were in close proximity with the experimental results.
The variation was less than 2 dB.
In Figure 15, it is seen that the 55 mm offset probe, when
focused, produced the best detection and resolution of
discontinuities near the cap, but when the unfocused beam
was used, the outer diameter notch and LOF 1 went almost
undetected. A similar situation was observed in the case of the
27 mm offset probe also, where the region of interest was the
lower half of the weld.
It can be clearly concluded from Figures 14 and 15 that
focusing plays a dominant role in detection and resolution of
discontinuities. In both the 12.5 and 25 mm cases, the unfo-
cused scan plan showed poor result, with none of the disconti-
nuities clearly detected.
Smallest Detectable Flaw
The scan plans that were determined to provide the best
results in the preceding section were used to perform trials by
varying the height and length of fusion line discontinuities to
determine the smallest flaw detectable by them. The height
was varied from 0.25 to 4 mm, and the length was varied from
0.51 to 20 mm in the following trials. Further in this study, the
final outcome of the smallest flaw detectable was simulated
with an exact inspection setup.
Simulation Study: Length and Height Variation
Simulation acts as a very supportive tool in understanding the
effectiveness of a scan plan. It is a cost-effective and time-
saving technique to find the smallest detectable flaw by a
chosen scan plan. Practically, it is almost infeasible to fabricate
hundreds of discontinuities in specimens with varying heights
and lengths to analyze the detection capability, whereas simu-
lation provides a helping hand. A deterministic approach
was used in this study; statistical parameters were excluded.
NOVEMBER 2016 • MATERIALS EVALUATION 1585
ME TECHNICAL PAPER w
x phased array pod

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 14. S-scan simulation (top) and practical results (bottom) for scan plan 1.8 (using 1 mm pitch and 26 elements) with focused and
unfocused beam: (a) 15 mm probe offset unfocused (1000 mm focus); (b) 15 mm probe offset focused at 25 mm depth; (c) 9 mm probe offset
unfocused (1000 mm focus); and (d) 9 mm probe offset focused at 18.75 mm depth.

Individually, the LOFs, at each specific location of the weld,
were varied in both length and height to find the smallest flaw
detectable. For each LOF centered at a particular depth, the
calibration was performed using a 1.6 mm side-drilled hole
(SDH) centered at the same depth to achieve 100% ampli-
tude. The reference variation curve for a 1.6 mm SDH is
shown as a black solid line.
Effect of Size: Case Study 1, 12.5 mm
Scan plan 1.8 with a 1 mm pitch probe, firing 26 elements
starting from element 7, focused at 25 mm thickness (probe
offset of 15 mm), and focused at 18.75 mm depth (probe
offset 9 mm) was chosen for the variation study. Variation
graphs for LOF 1, LOF 2, and LOF 3 are represented in
Figures 16a, 16b, and 16c, respectively. The regions of discon-
tinuities that were expected to be undetected are highlighted
within the red box in each of the graphs. Dotted curves
indicate discontinuities of different heights.
It can be inferred from Table 11 that the chosen scan plan
can be used to detect fusion face discontinuities of size larger
than 0.51 and 3.303 mm length for a height of 2 and 0.25 mm,
respectively. The minimum detectable flaw indications are
shown in Figure 17. Detection angle is very critical for LOF,
as the smallest detectable size varies for all the LOFs with vari-
ation in detection angle, unlike SDH, which behaves
uniformly for all angles. LOF with a height of 0.75 mm

1586 MATERIALS EVALUATION • NOVEMBER 2016

 (a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 15. S-scan simulation (top) and practical results (bottom) for scan plan 2.8 (using 1 mm pitch and 32 elements) with focused and
unfocused beam: (a) 55 mm probe offset unfocused (1000 mm focus); (b) 55 mm probe offset focused at 50 mm depth; (c) 27 mm probe offset
unfocused (1000 mm focus); and (d) 27 mm probe offset focused at 37.5 mm depth.

behaves very similar to a 1.6 mm SDH in all the three posi-
tions of the weld. For the three LOFs, the amplitude
increased until a length of 12.8 mm and remained constant
after that. This effect can be associated with the effect of beam
divergence. Discontinuities smaller than the beam width tend
to show a lower response (amplitude). Once the discontinuity
length exceeds the beam width, the ultrasonic response ampli-
tude reaches the maximum value.
Effect of Size: Case Study 2, 25 mm
Scan plan 2.8, 1 mm pitch firing 32 elements starting from
element 1 focused at 50 mm depth (probe offset 15), and
focused at 37.5 mm depth (probe offset 9 mm) was chosen
for the variation study. Variation graphs for LOF 1, LOF 2,
LOF 3, and LOF 4 are represented in Figures 18a, 18b, 18c,
and 18d, respectively. The regions of discontinuities that went
undetected are highlighted within the red box in each of the
graphs. Dotted curves indicate discontinuities of different
heights.
It can be inferred from Table 12 that the chosen scan plan
can be used to detect fusion face discontinuities of size larger
than 0.51 and 3.44 mm length for a height of 3 and 0.25 mm,
respectively. The smallest detectable flaw indications are
shown in Figure 19. A similar effect of detection angle on the
smallest detectable flaw size and amplitude saturation shown
on the 12.8 mm long discontinuity can been seen in the

NOVEMBER 2016 • MATERIALS EVALUATION 1587

ME TECHNICAL PAPER w
x phased array pod

(a)

(a)

(b)

Figure 17. A 3D view of: (a) 0.25 × 3.303 mm fusion discontinuity;

(b) and (b) 2 × 0.51 mm fusion discontinuity.

25 mm case also. LOF with a height 0.5 mm behaves very

(c)
Figure 16. Variation graph showing detection amplitude for varying
length and height for case study 1: (a) lack of fusion (LOF) 1;
(b) LOF 2; and (c) LOF 3.
similar to 1.6 mm SDH. The beam was computed for scan
plan 2.8 and is shown in Figure 20, where it has been noted
that the beam width in the direction of the passive width
(using a 12 dB drop technique) is 14 mm, which provides the
possible reason for the amplitude saturation for all the LOFs
longer than 12.8 mm.
The results in this section were obtained with the assump-
tion of ideal conditions throughout the simulation. Real test
conditions might deviate from the ideal conditions in material
property, surface profile, weld final geometry (after fusion),
and probe element sensitivity, which might lead to a variation
in results.

TABLE 11
Detection capability of scan plan 1.8
Height (mm)
Reflector Detected angle (°) 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2
Smallest detectable length (mm)
Lack of fusion 1 58 1.68 1.1 1.1 0.51 0.51
Lack of fusion 2 58.5 2.35 1.68 1.1 1.1 0.51
Lack of fusion 3 63 3.303 1.68 1.1 1.1 0.51

1588 MATERIALS EVALUATION • NOVEMBER 2016

 (a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 18. Variation graph showing detection amplitude for varying length and height for case study 2: (a) lack of fusion (LOF) 1; (b) LOF 2;
(c) LOF 3; and (d) LOF 4.

TABLE 12
Detection capability of scan plan 2.8
Height (mm)
Reflector Detected angle (°) 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Smallest detectable length (mm)
Lack of fusion 1 56.5 2.356 1.1 1.1 0.51 0.51 – – – –
Lack of fusion 2 60 3.44 1.68 1.1 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 – –
Lack of fusion 3 56 2.356 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.51 0.51 0.51
Lack of f usion 4 60 3.44 1.15 1.1 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 – –

(a) (b)

Figure 19. A 3D view of: (a) 3 × 3.44 mm fusion discontinuity; and (b) 1.25 × 3.44 mm fusion discontinuity.

NOVEMBER 2016 • MATERIALS EVALUATION 1589

ME TECHNICAL PAPER w
x phased array pod
14 mm
Figure 20. Beam computation results of scan plan 2.8 with 3D and 2D views of the beam.
Conclusion
Combining all the focal parameters discussed in this paper, a
scan plan with greater element quantity, a larger pitch, focus
near the region of interest, and angle range satisfying a lower
BIA with the fusion face bevel proved to deliver the best
detection, resolution, and sizing of flaws. This sheds light on
the importance of choosing the “appropriate” focal law
parameters for an effective inspection.
For an effective PAUT examination, understanding the
effect of focal law parameters is required. It is impossible to
derive standard formula that could provide selection of focal
law parameters; however, from the case studies it can be
noted that through the evaluation and validation of scan plans
on appropriate sample blocks with reflectors or using appro-
priate simulation software, one can achieve effective selection
of focal law parameters.
Conducting case studies on numerous samples to evaluate
the effectiveness of scan plans is an expensive and time-
consuming process. It was observed in the study that the
simulation results were within 2 dB of practically observed
results. Alternatively, using the simulation software could
provide an effective solution (Chapuis et al., 2014; Foucher et al.,
2012; Ginzel and Stewart, 2011; Raillon et al., 2012).
If the scan plan is made appropriate for the required
configuration, even small discontinuities on the order of
0.5 mm can be detected clearly, but if the scan plan is not
appropriate, even larger discontinuities can go undetected,
mispositioned, or have poor resolution—enlightening the
significance of the word “appropriate” mentioned in ASME
1590 MATERIALS EVALUATION • NOVEMBER 2016
BPVC, Section V, Article 4, Mandatory Appendix V, V-471.1
(ASME, 2015).
It is a common practice in industry to apply one S-scan
(from each or either side of the weld) for examination of
welds of all bevel configurations. The myth surrounding
“one scan sees all” was addressed in a past work, and the
importance of BIA was addressed in another past work,
yet it is a common practice to use one S-scan (Armitt, 2006;
Grün, 2006). This paper reinforces the need for an appro-
priate scan plan for effective application of phased array
examination of welds. 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to extent gratitude towards team members
Prasanth Geddam, Martin Antony, and Roy Frans Hutapea, who
supported in data collection and analysis. The authors would also like to
thank Olivier Dupuis, business development manager at Olympus, for
his review and feedback. This paper is based on content presented by
the authors at the 7th Middle East NDT Conference & Exhibition,
13–16 September 2015.
REFERENCES
Armitt, T., “Phased Arrays Not the Answer to Every Application,” Proceed-
ings of the 9th European Conference on Non-Destructive Testing, Berlin,
Germany, 25–29 September 2006.
ASME, ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section V – Nondestructive
Examination, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York,
New York, 1 July 2015.
ASTM, ASTM E 2700-14, Standard Practice for Contact Ultrasonic Testing
of Welds using Phased Arrays, ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania, 2014.
Birring, A.S., “Ultrasonic Phased Array for Weld Testing” Materials Evalua-
tion, Vol. 66, No. 3, 2008, pp. 282–284.
Chapuis, B., F. Jenson, P. Calmon, G. DiCrisci, J. Hamilton, and L. Pomié,
“Simulation Supported POD Curves for Automated Ultrasonic Testing
of Pipeline Girth Welds,” Welding in the World, Vol. 58, No. 4, 2014,
pp. 433–441.
Foucher, F., P. Dubios, V. Gaffard, H. Godinot, H. Romazzotti, A.
Courbot, and E. Schumacher, “Validation of the Simulation of Pipeline
Girth Welds PA UT Inspection,” ASNT Fall Conference, 29 October–
1 November 2012, Orlando, Florida.
Ginzel, E., and D. Stewart, “CIVA Modelling for Pipeline Zonal
Discrimination,” NDT.net, Vol. 16, No. 4, 2011.
Ginzel, E., Phased Array Ultrasonic Technology, second edition, Eclipse
Scientific, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2013.
Grün, G., “Considerations About Ultrasonic Inspection of Welded Joints
Using Phased Array,” 5th International Conference on Structural Integrity
of Welded Structures, Timisoara, Romania, 20–21 November 2007.
Moles, M., “ASME Codes and Standards for Boiler Inspections,” Proceed-
ings of the National Seminar & Exhibition on Non-Destructive Evaluation,
8–10 December 2011.
View publication stats
Moles, M., “Phased Arrays for General Weld Inspections,” 10th European
Conference and Exhibition on Non-destructive Testing, Moscow, Russia,
7–11 June 2010.
Moles, M., “Portable Phased Array Applications,” 3rd Middle East
Nondestructive Testing Conference & Exhibition, Manama, Bahrain,
27–30 November 2005.
Moles, M., and E. Ginzel, “Phased Arrays for Small Diameter, Thin-walled
Piping Inspections,” 18th World Conference on Nondestructive Testing,
Durban, South Africa, 16–20 April 2012.
Moran, T.L., P. Ramuhalli, A.F. Pardini, M.T. Anderson, and S.R. Doctor,
“Replacement of Radiography with Ultrasonics for the Nondestructive
Inspection of Welds – Evaluation of Technical Gaps – An Interim Report,”
U.S. Department of Energy, April 2010.
Raillon, R., G. Toullelan, M. Darmon, P. Calmon, and S. Lonne, “Valida-
tion of CIVA Ultrasonic Simulation in Canonical Configurations,” 18th
World Conference on Non-destructive Testing, 16–20 April 2012, Durban,
South Africa.
NOVEMBER 2016 • MATERIALS EVALUATION 1591