Technical Report

The Application of Shear Waves to the Time-Of-Flight Diffraction Method

Che Chien Ng, Xiaodong Wang, and Ming J Zuo Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2G8 June 28, 2006 1. Introduction
In the early establishment of ultrasonic nondestructive evaluation, typical crack sizing methods utilized the reflected amplitude of echoes returning from a crack. An ultrasonic NDE that uses separate transmitting and receiving transducers is referred to as the tandem or pitch-catch method. Such a configuration is commonly used in through-transmission testing, in which transducers are placed geometrically aligned and facing one another with a test object resting in between. Defect detection is carried out based on the amplitude level of the signal collected by the receiving transducer. In the absence of defect, the ultrasound signal arriving at the receiving transducer is expected to show constant amplitude. If, on the other hand, the transducer pair encounters a defect, the amplitude of the signal observed at the receiving end will decrease or vanish according to the crack size. This approach is usually referred to as the decibel-drop approach. It is important to note that the through-transmission technique requires good and consistent coupling apart from the obvious: good and consistent alignment of the transducer pair. This technique is used mostly in coarse testing where accuracy was not critical; the advantage to it is that, compared to the commonly used pulse-echo testing, it is a more reliable technique when one inspects a material that has a high scatter or attenuation level such as plywood and reinforced plastics (Szilard 1982) In the late 1970s, a new ultrasonic NDE method was developed by Silk and Ladington (1975). It utilized the pitch-catch configuration of an angle beam transducer pair, with time delay being the only analyzed parameter. This method was later called Time-offlight Diffraction (TOFD) because crack sizing was carried out based on these two aspects: the time-of-flight and the diffraction phenomenon. In this case, time-of-flight is defined as the time required by the ultrasound to propagate through the material; it is measured as the difference between ultrasound excitation time at the transmitter and arrival time at the receiving transducer. The explanation of the diffraction phenomena originated from Huygens principle (Baskaran et al 2004). According to this principle, the crack tip acts as a secondary point source of waves upon wave incidence. The tip thus reradiates ultrasonic energy over a Page 1 of 18

wider angular range than in the case of reflection and transmission in conventional ultrasonic inspection. These diffracted waves are the main object of attention in the TOFD technique.

2. Principles of TOFD
The typical configuration of the TOFD technique and its corresponding A-scan are illustrated in Figure 1. Essentially, there are 4 types of waves that need to be observed in an inspection based on the TOFD technique. The first type is the lateral or near-surface wave that travels directly from the transmitter to the receiver just under the specimens surface with a wave speed equal to that of the bulk longitudinal wave. This wave has a relatively short pulse and a low amplitude standing signal that occurs at a fixed position determined by the probe separation distance. It is used as the first reference for defect depth measurement. In the case of a defective test object, diffracted signals coming from the top and bottom tips of the crack will appear following the lateral wave. The primary backwall reflection signal that is caused by the reflection of the ultrasonic wave at the backwall will close the time envelope in which crack-tip-diffracted signals appear. This backwall reflection is used as the second reference for determining crack location.

Fig 1 - Typical TOFD setup and the resulting A-scan (Apragaz 2004) In general, there are three cases that can be considered when using TOFD method. The first case involves embedded or internal crack. In this case, there will be 2 crack-tipdiffracted waves observed between the lateral wave and the backwall reflection in the TOFD scanning results. The other two cases involves surface breaking cracks in which there is only one crack tip and, hence, only one crack-tip-diffracted wave appears in the scanning results (Silk 1979). See Figure 2 for an illustration of these phenomena. Note that, in the case of surface breaking cracks, the amplitude of the backwall reflection and the lateral wave are significantly reduced when the crack is located either on the opposite side or on the same side of the probe.

Page 2 of 18

Figure 2 Three general cases of TOFD test objects: (a) internal crack, (b) surface breaking crack on opposite side of probe and (c) surface breaking crack on same side of probe (Silk 1979) When the probe spacing and the thickness of the material are known, defect depth and size can be calculated based on the arrival times of the lateral, primary backwall and diffracted waves. Additionally, one will find a secondary backwall reflection due to mode conversion from longitudinal to shear waves. This signal will arrive at the receiving transducer after the primary backwall echo. Although it is often not included in the analysis, this secondary echo may provide better resolution of the flaws (than do longitudinal waves alone) due to its lower velocity (Al-Nuamiy and Zahran 2005 and Birring and Nidathavolu 2005). Unlike conventional ultrasonic inspection which relies on reflected echo amplitude for defect size measurement, TOFD is not amplitude dependent because it observes low amplitude signals diffracted from the extremities of a crack. This forms an absolute basis for crack detection and sizing, regardless of the amplitude of the signal captured by the receiving transducer. Another benefit over conventional pulse-echo ultrasonic inspection is that due to the wide beam probes used and TOFDs focus on extremities of cracks, TOFD is not as dependent on defect orientation as much as pulse-echo is. Nevertheless, TOFD is not without its limitations. Due to the inevitable appearance of lateral waves traveling near the surface (typically 3-5 mm), defects existing in this region are often left undetected. This region is referred to as the dead zone. Since the diffracted signals resulting from the defect are superimposed above the lateral wave signals, detection is still possible, although defect sizing will be less reliable. One solution is the use of a short pulse transducer with small beam divergence; this will limit the effect of lateral waves to 2-3 mm below the surface of steel specimens. It is also Page 3 of 18

possible to electronically process the lateral waves in the same way noise is removed; this is because the signals are consistent, appearing at recurrent position (Browne 1997). It is common to obtain busy A-scan signals only because of the weak amplitude of the diffracted signals combined with the existence of noise originating from small pores or non-uniformity within the specimen (Lawson 1996). TOFD is mostly applicable to, although not limited to, the inspection of welded joints. Experiments on TOFD have been carried out during inspection of pipelines, pressure vessels and railroad tracks. Based on a cracks location, both embedded and surface breaking cracks have been included in the experiments. Baby et al (2003) concluded that TOFD is an excellent method for measuring vertical and inclined slits (100 and 150 from vertical) used as simulated surface-breaking cracks on steel blocks. Mean crack heights errors in vertical and inclined slits are reported to be 0.13 mm and 0.06 mm, respectively. Comparisons were carried out between the actual and the estimated sizes of the cracks. Zippel et al (2000) used saw-cut notches and real fatigue cracks on steel plates for their experiments on the TOFD method. The reported accuracy ratio between the specified and the calculated depths of the cuts were within 5%. Both of these studies agreed that the accuracy of crack depth estimation was reduced when crack tips were located near the surface. In the case of artificial or simulated cracks, Zippel et al (2000) reported a minimum accuracy of 20% for saw-cut notches with depths greater than or equal to 6 mm, while Baby et al (2003) reported difficulty in sizing cracks (slits) having depths of less than 2 mm.

3. Locating and Sizing Cracks

Provided a crack exists in a specimen, and assuming the crack is oriented in a plane perpendicular to the inspection surface, both cracks size and location can be calculated based on the arrival time of various waves as illustrated in Figure 3. It is expected that lateral waves will have the shortest arrival time, followed by diffracted waves coming from the top and bottom of a cracks extremities. The backwall reflection closes the time envelope inspected in TOFD.

Figure 3 Crack measurement in TOFD (Silk 1987)

Page 4 of 18

Complementing variables shown in Figure 3, let: tl = time travel of the lateral wave tdt = time travel of the diffracted wave from the top extremity of the crack tdb = time travel of the diffracted wave from the bottom extremity of the crack tbw = time travel of the backwall reflected wave clw = longitudinal wave speed in the material 2a = crack length Using Pythagoras Theorem (Baby et al 2003) and assuming that the crack is equidistant from the transmitter and receiver, the formulations are: 2S a) t lw = clw

b) t dt = c) t dt = d) t dt =

2 d2 + S2 clw

2 ( d + 2a ) 2 + S 2 clw
2 H 2 + S2 clw

The crack is positioned midway between the transmitter and receiver in order to obtain the shortest time-of-flight for the crack tip diffracted waves. By differentiating the general formula (Figure 4) with respect to the lateral distance between the crack tip and the centerline, the line which marks half the distance separating the transducers, it was found that when this centerline coincides with the crack tip position (X=0), the time-offlight of the crack-tip-diffracted waves are at their minimum and thus, the location of the crack tip can be determined.

centreline
2S S T X R

d
M L

clw.tdt = M + L
=

Crack

d 2 + (S + X )2 +

d 2 + (S X ) 2

Figure 4 - Generalized formulation of TOFD (Silk 1987)

Page 5 of 18

4. Experimental Results and Discussions

TOFD is commonly done using an angle beam longitudinal wave transducer pair that introduces refracted longitudinal waves into the specimen. Refraction phenomena can be predicted using Snells Law, which relates the angle of incidence to the angles of refraction and reflection based on the ratio of material sound velocity: Sin i Sin rs Sin rl = = vi v rs v rl where i, rs and rl correspond to the angles of incident, the refracted shear wave and the refracted longitudinal wave, respectively, and vi, vrs and vrl are the material sound velocity of the incident, the refracted shear wave, and the refracted longitudinal waves, respectively. An illustration of Snells Law can be seen in Figure 5. Regardless of wave type, ultrasound velocity is different for each material and, generally, shear wave velocity is approximately half of longitudinal wave velocity. For mild steel, longitudinal wave velocity is approximately 5.9 mm/s and shear wave velocity is 3.2 mm/s. i
Transducer

rs rl
Test object

Figure 5 - Representation of Snells Law. No literature has reported the use of shear waves in the TOFD method due to their higher attenuation compared to longitudinal waves. Still, there are several advantages to using shear waves. Due to their slower sound velocity, the time-of-flight of a shear wave ultrasound is increased and, as a result, detection and measurement of smaller defects is improved (Golan 1981). It is harder to distinguish between upper and lower crack tips with longitudinal waves because their higher velocity leads to a shorter time-of-flight and, in the case of small cracks, the two diffracted waves superimpose upon each other. Moreover, shear wave amplitude possesses higher sensitivity to changes in transducer displacement and this leads to better positioning to obtain maximum signal amplitude. Note that, in the case of fatigue cracks, Golan reported higher amplitude sensitivity from angle beam transducer pairs that introduce shear waves rather than longitudinal waves into the test object (Golan 1980). Experiments on the use of shear waves for the TOFD method were conducted in the joint laboratory of the Reliability Research Group and the Advance Structures and Materials Research Group at the University of Alberta. The experimental setup consisted of an

Page 6 of 18

AFG320 arbitrary function generator, a TDS3000 digital oscilloscope and a pair of 2.25 MHz, and 0.5 diameter angle beam transducers with 450, 600 and 700 wedges. The specimens being tested were 22.8 mm-thick 4340 steel blocks. One of the steel blocks had an EDM-cut slit with a depth of 12.8 mm. The width of the slit was 0.4 mm. The function generator was set to excite a narrowband pulse, and the subsequent signal response was displayed on an oscilloscope. The first step of the experiment was calibration. Based on the separation distance, the transducer pair was tested on specimen with no slit to confirm the marked beam index on the transducers wedges. Note that, the separation distance, 2S in Figure 4, was measured as the distance between the marked index on the transmitters and receivers wedges. Using the Pythagoras formulation described earlier, it was expected that backwall reflection with maximum amplitude will be obtained when the transmitter and receiver were separated by approximately 45.6 and 78.9 mm on 450 and 600 wedges, respectively. Because the center of the beam exiting the transmitter did not reach the receiver, a reduction of these separation distances led to decreasing amplitude as can be observed in Figure 6. A similar effect was observed as separation distance was increased, because maximum amplitude could be obtained only when the center of the beam from the transmitter reached the receiver.

58.5 mm 39 mm

78 mm

Figure 6 - Backwall reflections of a non-defective steel block at separation distances of 39 mm, 58.5 mm, and 78 mm using a wedge angle of 600 Since the steel block used for calibration in our experiment was defect-free, it was expected that in each scanning, two signals would be found: lateral wave and backwall reflection. From Figure 6, however, it can be seen that the lateral waves were nonexistent. Later, it was learnt that lateral waves are actually longitudinal waves traveling close to the specimens surface. They can be generated only if the transducer has sufficient beam spread so that the outer edge of the beam spread reaches the specimens upper surface. The formulation for beam spread half angle is as follows.

Page 7 of 18

1.22 c fD where denotes the divergence or half beam spread angle, c the material sound velocity, f the transducer central frequency, and D the transducer element diameter. From this formula, it can be seen that using transducers with similar central frequency and element diameter, longitudinal wave transducers, with their higher material sound velocity will produce wider beam spreads than will shear wave transducers and, hence, they allow the generation of lateral waves. Using the specified transducers, the calculated divergence angle is approximately 80. The amount of beam spread in TOFD is commonly sufficient for covering the thickness of a test object at a single scan. It is expected that deficiency in beam spread could be offset by using the transducer pair at various separation distances. Sin = In order to observe the effect of beam spread on crack-tip-detection, a 600 transducer pair was positioned so that the slit was located exactly in the middle and the separation distance was varied to direct the center of the beam at different points along the breadth of the specimen. As the separation distance increases, the center of the beam points further down toward the specimens bottom surface. From Figure 7, one can see that the amplitude of the crack-tip-diffracted wave is reduced because the center of the beam moves away from the tip of the slit as the transducers are moved further apart. From this trend, it can be deduced that ultrasonic waves, which are emitted by the transmitter, are not unidirectional. Instead, there is a certain amount of beam spread and, amplitude of the ultrasound weakens away from the beam center. On experiments with the 450 angle beam wedges, calibration steps similar to those previously discussed were repeated. The resulting separation distance was 46 mm and differed by 0.4 mm of the calculated value. From literature reviews, we learnt that the center of the beam exiting the transducer needs to be directed to approximately half of the specimens thickness midway between the transmitter and receiver. Also, from previous experimental results, we learnt that the maximum diffracted signal amplitude was obtained if the center of the beam impinged on the crack tip (Silk and Lidington 1975). In order to locate the crack tip, two approaches were tested. In the first approach, the separation distance was fixed at 46 mm, and the transducer pair was moved together laterally from the left side to the right side of the slit while keeping a consistent separation distance. Total lateral displacement of the transducer pair was 16 mm, with a 2-mm increment. Zero displacement was set when the centerline between the transmitter and the receiver aligned with the slit. The second approach is to start from a separation distance that is as close as possible to twice the slit depth (25.6 mm) instead of twice the specimen thickness (46mm). This leads to a shorter wave propagation path and better possibility that crack-tip-diffraction echo will be observed. Similarly, a 2-mm increment is used, up to a separation distance of 35.6 mm. In the following, we discuss these two approaches in details.

Page 8 of 18

2S = 55.5 mm Crack Tip

2S = 58.5 mm Crack Tip

Backwall Reflection

Backwall Reflection

2S = 61.5 mm Crack Tip

2S = 72 mm

Backwall Reflection

Backwall Reflection

Figure 7 - Signal response of 600 transducer pair obtained under different separation distance on steel block with slit. In Figure 8, scanning results based on the first approach are shown from the crack position midway between the transducer pair with signals recorded at lateral displacements of 0, 2, 4, 6 and 8 mm to the right. Since no crack-tip-diffracted echo was found using the first approach, and in order to improve time-series observation, only the backwall reflections are displayed. The slight differences among the times-of-flight of the signals are due to the small variation of separation distances. With further observation, one can see that the amplitude of the backwall reflection decreases as the transmitting transducer approaches the slit. The lowest amplitude of the backwall reflection signal shown in Figure 8 was obtained at an 8-mm lateral displacement of the transducer pair. In this case, the distance between the transmitter and the slit location was at its minimum. As the transmitter moved closer to the slit, the portion of the beam reaching the backwall was reduced and as a result, the amplitude of the backwall reflection decreased. At the same time, increasingly the portion of the beam impinged on the tip of the slit;

Page 9 of 18

theoretically, diffraction is supposed to occur. It is suspected that as an incident wave impinges on a crack tip, the low amplitude diffracted wave is unable to overcome the attenuation due to the wave propagation path. In the second approach, the separation distance is reduced to approximately half that was used in the first approach. Scanning was conducted while keeping the slit location midway between the transmitter and receiver as the separation distance varied from 27.6 mm to 35.6 mm in 2 mm increments. In order to reduce transducer placement error, the separation distance was measured from the front side of the transducers wedges instead of from the beam indexes marked on the side of the wedges. This alteration in measurement from 2S to 2Sfw is illustrated in Figure 9.

0 mm displacement 8 mm displacement

Figure 8 - Back wall reflections of a defective steel block using a 46 mm separation distance and 0 mm (red plot) to 8 mm (green plot) lateral displacement of the transducer pair

Figure 9 - Wedge distance measurement (2S = separation distance, 2Sfw = distance between transmitters wedge and receivers wedge front walls)

Page 10 of 18

The distance between the marked beam index and the front wall of the transducer wedge is 12.8 mm as measured with a digital caliper. Hence, the wedge distance, 2Sfw, varied from 2 mm to 10 mm in 2 mm increments. In order to avoid the transmitters coming into contact with the receiver, 2 mm of wedge distance or a 27.6 mm of separation distance is the closest possible transducer pair configuration. Under this condition, the center of the beam will be pointed at a depth of 13.8 mm from the scanning surface, or 1 mm below the tip of the slit; and the corresponding signal response will be marked as the maximum crack-tip-diffracted-wave amplitude. Scanning results from the second approach are presented in Figures 10 and 11.

Crack Tip Signals

Back wall reflections

Figure 10 - Time series for a defective steel block with transducer separation distances of 31.6 mm (green plot), 33.6 mm (red plot) and 35.6 mm (blue plot)

Crack Tip Signals

Back wall reflections

Figure 11 - Time series for a defective steel block with transducer separation distances of 27.6 mm (cyan plot), 29.6 mm (purple plot) and 31.6 mm (green plot) Page 11 of 18

From Figures 10 and 11, it can be seen that both crack-tip-diffraction waves and backwall reflections can be observed when separation distances of the transducer pair are sufficiently small. Note that, amplitude of backwall reflection was reduced because it was measured using the side lobe of the beam. Certain trends regarding the times-of-flight and signal amplitudes of the crack-tip-diffracted waves and backwall reflections are plotted in Figures 12 14.
Time-of-flight vs. Separation Distance
25 Time-of-Flight [ s] 20 15 10 5 0 25 30 35 40 Separation Distance [mm] Diffracted Wave Backwall Reflection

Figure 12 Time-of-Flight vs. Separation Distances ranging from 27.6 to 35.6 mm

Amplitude of Diffracted Waves vs. Separation Distance

0.005 0.004 Amplitude 0.003 0.002 0.001 0 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 Separation Distance [mm]

Figure 13 Amplitude of Diffracted Waves vs. Separation Distances ranging from 27.6 to 35.6 mm

Page 12 of 18

Amplitude of Backwall Reflections vs. Separation Distance

0.05 0.04 Amplitude 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 Separation Distance [mm]

Figure 14 Amplitude of Backwall Reflections vs. Separation Distances ranging from 27.6 to 35.6 mm From Figure 12, it can be observed that time-of-flight of backwall reflections and diffracted waves increases as separation distance, which proportionally affects wave propagation distance, increases. From Figures 13 and 14, opposite trends are found regarding the amplitude of diffracted waves and backwall reflections. As separation distance increases, the center of the beam moves further away from the tip of the slit, and this leads to weaker diffracted waves from the crack tip. At the same time, amplitude of backwall reflection increases as the stronger portion of the beam is reflected against the backwall and is collected at the receiver. The same separation distances of 27.6 cm to 31.6 mm were used to scan a defect-free steel block. The resulting times-of-flight show that the group of signals on the right in Figures 10 and 11 do, indeed, arrive from the backwall. The average difference in timesof-flight of the backwall reflection from defective and defect-free specimens was approximately less than 1 s. By comparing signal responses from defect-free and defective steel blocks, it can be deduced that flaw tip diffracted signals can be observed experimentally using a shear-wave-angle-beam transducer pair. One drawback is its low signal amplitude; it is desirable to incorporate the use of a low-noise amplifier for signal amplification.

5. Future Work

In order to completely assess the use of shear waves for the TOFD method, additional experiments with different specimen conditions need to be conducted. Since the experiments carried out in the development of this report compare only ultrasonic responses of defect-free steel block to another block with a single defect size, a sensitivity assessment of shear wave with regards to small defects has not yet been Page 13 of 18

investigated. Hence, this would be a natural next step. Meanwhile, one long term goal is the completion of experiments on steel blocks that consider different crack orientations; it is hoped these will provide a foundation for testing cylindrical structures such as pipelines and tubing.

References
Al-Nuamiy, W., Zahran, O., Time-of-flight-diffraction From semi-automatic inspection to semi-automatic interpretation, Insight, Vol. 47, No. 10, October 2005, pp: 639-644. Apragaz, TOFD (Time-of-flight Diffraction) / Pulse Echo Ultrasonic Inspection Proposal, http://www.apragaz.com/common/tofd.htm, 2004. Baby, S., et al, Time-of-flight diffraction (TOFD) technique for accurate sizing of surface-breaking cracks, Insight, Vol. 45, No. 6, June 2003, pp: 426-430. Baskaran, G., et al., Ultrasonic TOFD Flaw Sizing and Imaging in Thin Plates using Embedded Signal Identification Technique (ESIT), Insight, Vol. 46, No. 9, September 2004, pp: 537-542. Birring, A.S., Nidathavolu. B.K., Ultrasonic Testing of Welds by Time-of-flight Diffraction: Codes, Guidelines and Standards, Materials Evaluation, September 2005, pp: 910-914. Browne, B., Time-of-flight Diffraction Technique Its Limitations: Actual and Perceived, NDT.net Ultrasonic Testing On-line Journal, Vol. 2, No. 9, September 1997. Golan, S., Optimization of the Crack Tip Ultrasonic Diffraction Technique for Sizing of Cracks, Materials Evaluation, Vol. 39, No. 2, February 1981, pp:166-169. Golan, S., et al, Ultrasonic Diffraction Technique for Characterization of Fatigue Cracks, Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation, Vol. 1, No. 1, March 1980, pp: 11-19. Lawson, S., Ultrasonic Testing and Image Processing for In-progress Weld Inspection, NDT.net Ultrasonic Testing On-line Journal, Vol. 1, No. 4, April 1996. Silk, M.G., Changes in ultrasonic defect location and sizing, NDT International, Vol. 20, No. 1, February 1987, pp: 9-14. Silk, M.G., The Transfer of Ultrasonic Energy in the Diffraction Technique for Crack Sizing, Ultrasonics, May 1979, pp: 113-121. Silk, M.G., Lidington, B.H., Defect Sizing using an Ultrasonic Time Delay Approach, British Journal of Nondestructive Testing, Vol. 17, No. 2, March 1975, pp: 33-36.

Page 14 of 18

Szilard, J., Ultrasonic Testing: Non-conventional testing techniques, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., New York, 1982. Zippel, W.J., Pincheira, J.A. and Washer, G.A., Crack Measurement in Steel Plates Using TOFD Method, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, Vol. 14, No. 2, May 2000, pp: 75-82.

Page 15 of 18

Appendix: Sample Calculation

It is important to note that the resulting time-series in TOFD scanning consists of time measured from ultrasonic pulse excitation to pulse reception. Hence, this includes travel time of the ultrasound within the transmitter and receiver wedges. In order to measure crack depth and length, it is necessary to include this variable in calculations. It has been mentioned previously how calibration of the transducer is done using the combination of arbitrary function generator and oscilloscope. This calibration only confirms, however, the directivity of the transducers. In order to measure travel time within wedges or wedge delays, a pulser-receiver unit was used to scan the corner of a non-defective steel block of known thickness. The wedge delay has been measured as 5.93 s. Table 1 shows the measured time-of-flight and amplitude of diffracted waves and backwall reflections at 5 different separation distances. These results were obtained using a 450 angle beam transducer pair. Table 1 Scanning results on a defective steel block at various separation distances Separation Distance [mm] 27.6 29.6 31.6 33.6 35.6 Diffracted Wave Time-of-flight Amplitude [V] [s] 17.60 0.003985 18.05 0.003172 18.48 0.002507 18.91 0.001627 19.34 0.001373 Backwall Reflection Time-of-flight Amplitude [V] [s] 22.14 0.0088 22.53 0.0128 22.95 0.0202 23.33 0.0278 23.78 0.0416

As an example, a separation distance of 31.6 mm is selected. With reference to Figure 4, wave propagation path and time within the specimen can be calculated using simple Pythagoras theorem and a prescribed formula. Wave propagation path = M + L = d = 12.8 mm S = 0.5 x 31.6 mm = 15.8 mm X = 0 mm Hence, M + L 40.67 mm
d 2 + (S + X )2 + d 2 + (S X ) 2

With a material sound velocity of shear wave equal to 3.25 mm/s, wave propagation time is expected to be 12.51 s. Hence, adding the wedge time delay of 5.93 s yields a total wave propagation time of 18.44 s for the transducer separation distance of 31.6 mm. Table 2 compares theoretically calculated and experimentally measured times-offlight of diffracted waves and backwall reflections for other separation distances.

Page 16 of 18

Table 2 Comparison between theoretical calculations and experimental times-of-flight of diffracted waves and backwall reflections Time-of-Flight Separation Distance [mm] 27.6 29.6 31.6 33.6 35.6 Diffracted Wave Theoretical Experimental [s] [s] 17.51 17.60 17.97 18.05 18.44 18.48 18.92 18.91 19.42 19.34 Backwall Reflection Theoretical Experimental [s] [s] 22.33 22.14 22.65 22.53 23.00 22.95 23.36 23.33 23.73 23.78

From Table 2, it can be seen that the effect of separation distance on measurement accuracy can not be observed clearly. By comparing measurement error for diffracted waves times-of-flight from one separation distance to another, one can find the change from over-sizing to under-sizing. On the other hand, backwall reflections time-of-flight measurement shows the opposite trend. This means accuracy assessment by comparing time-of-flight on the basis of wave propagation path may be unreliable. Still, crack depth and thickness can also be measured using experimental time-of-flight data. From the general formula, the total wave propagation path of a particular signal, M + L, is equal to the multiplication of material sound velocity by the time-of-flight of the corresponding signal. Since we used shear waves in our experiment and the only crack tip observed was the bottom crack tip located midway between the transmitter and receiver, the formula becomes: M + L = csw.tdb = 2 d 2 + S 2 Note that tdb is the time of travel inside the test object and it can be obtained by subtracting the wedge delay from the measured time-of-flight. By varying the transducer separation distance, the position of the tip can be estimated. In Table 3, the resulting crack tip depth and specimen thickness measurements by ultrasonic TOFD are compared with the physical measurements using a digital caliper. One will find that opposing trends in the measurement accuracy of crack tip and specimen thickness can be observed clearly. As the separation distance lengthens, the measurement error of crack tip depth increases. At the same time, it can be seen that values of ultrasonically measured specimen thickness approach the value of physically measured specimen thickness.

Page 17 of 18

Table 3 Comparison between ultrasonic and digital caliper measurements of crack tip depth and specimen thickness Separation Distance [mm] 27.6 29.6 31.6 33.6 35.6 Crack Tip Depth Measurement Ultrasonic Digital Caliper [mm] [mm] 12.480 12.8 12.446 12.8 12.427 12.8 12.153 12.8 12.114 12.8 Specimen Thickness Measurement Ultrasonic Digital Caliper [mm] [mm] 22.016 22.8 22.202 22.8 22.34 22.8 22.459 22.8 22.614 22.8

These trends can be explained if one takes beam spread into consideration. Note that the marked angle on a particular wedge represents the angle at which the centerline of ultrasonic waves is refracted. Due to beam spread, part of the ultrasonic wave away from the centerline will come into contact with the backwall and/or crack at a slightly different angle. Thus, it will lead to a different length of wave propagation path and time-of-flight. More accurate measurements can be obtained using a configuration that yields highest signal amplitude that identifies the contact of the center of the beam with the backwall and/or the crack tip.

Page 18 of 18