By Parrish A.

Furr

Feature

Application of Phased Array Ultrasonics to

AWS Codes
Phased array ultrasonic testing is a viable alternative to radiographic or conventional
ultrasonics for volumetric assessment of structural components
Volumetric inspection of welds
and materials is an integral part of
ensuring reliability of fabricated
materials and structures. Radiography
and conventional ultrasonics have been
the standard methods of inspection
used for these assessments since the
inception of the AWS codes.
Radiography has normally been the
preferred inspection method because
individuals are comforted by the
knowledge there is auditable
information (the radiograph itself) that
can be retained for future reference.
Radiography does impose cost and
safety issues for the fabricator and,
ultimately, the end user. Because of the
ever-rising concerns over health,
safety, and radiographic material costs,
many are seeking an alternative
method of performing volumetric
examinations.
Until this last decade, the only
other viable alternative to radiography
has been conventional ultrasonics. The
constraints and the hesitancy on
implementing conventional ultrasonics
usually stems from the lack of
auditable information. A simple report
form is the only significant traceable
evidence to hold for record.
Phased array ultrasonic testing
(PAUT) provides a viable volumetric
inspection alternative that creates no
hazards but provides the capability to
produce an auditable data record.
PAUT is not just useful as an
alternative to radiography. There are
other clear benefits to the technology
over conventional ultrasonics primarily
in enhanced flaw detection capabilities
driven by multiangle capabilities. This
article reviews the basics and benefits
of PAUT technology, and discusses the
basics of implementation to meet AWS
code requirements.

An advantage to using phased array ultrasonic testing is the capability to produce an

auditable data record.

What Is PAUT?
Phased array ultrasonic testing is
an advanced form of ultrasonic testing
that evolved from the medical field
with initial experimentations in
nondestructive testing beginning in the
early 1980s (Ref. 1). Phased array UT
is the same technology used in several
medical assessments such as
sonograms and echocardiograms. In
the industrial arena, the majority of the
applications for PAUT were at first
limited to nuclear pressure vessels
(nozzles), large forgings, shafts, and
low-pressure turbine components (Ref.
1). The versatility of the technology
provided alternatives to these complex
inspections. The limitations that held
the technology back from growing in
the industrial sector related mostly to
equipment costs, computer speed,
computer size, and data storage

limitations. With the evolution of

computer technology, these systems are
now available in battery-powered
portable units that can easily be taken
into even the toughest field conditions
and at more practical costs.
Phased array UT implements
multiple-element transducers, rather
than the single-element transducers
typically used in conventional
ultrasonics, providing the ability to
sweep the sound field through multiple
angles (Fig. 1) or raster through a
series of the same angle from one
probe Fig. 2. The systems can be
configured to collect data from
multiple probes in sequence to
optimize data collection from opposite
sides of the weld or multiple positions
from the same side of the weld in one
scan Fig. 3. These modern,
advanced computerized systems have
the ability to store all the collected
Inspection Trends / Winter 2015 15

Fig. 1 Phased array sectorial scan.

Fig. 2 Phased array electronic scan (E-scan).

Fig. 4 Typical PAUT imaging views.

Fig. 3 Multiprobe data collection.
Table 1 Proposed AWS Acceptance Criteria
Maximum Discontinuity
Amplitude Level Obtained

Maximum Discontinuity Lengths by Weld Stress Category (Ref. 1)

Statically Loaded
Cyclically Loaded

Class A
(Greater than ARL)

None allowed

None allowed

Class B (Refs. 2, 3)
(Between SSL and ARL)

Class C (Refs. 24)

(Between SSL and DRL)

2 in. [50 mm]

Middle half of weld:

2 in. [50 mm]
Top or bottom quarter of
weld: 34 in. [20 mm]

Class D
(Equal to or less than DRL)

Disregard

Disregard

4 in. [20 mm]

2 in. [12 mm]

Table 2 Reject Comparisons of RT vs. PAUT (Ref. 2)

2 Bridge Welding Projects (Ref. 2)
Technique
RT
PAUT
UT

# of Welds Tested
108
92
54

information from the weld into a data

file that can then be reanalyzed after
data acquisition has been completed.
The benefits of this technology
also extend to the systems ability to
form the collected data into 2D or 3D
imagery to assist the inspector in
analysis. There are several versions of
software that vary in complexity,
display, and processing options. The
most commonly used displays consist
of A-scan (source of all other displays),
S-scan (cross-sectional/side view), Bscan (back view), and C-scan (top

16

# of Rejects
10
8
4

% of Rejects
9.3%
8.7%
7.4%

view). These views allow the operator

to sift through the collected
information efficiently and help to
build confidence regarding locations
and types of flaws. The perspective of
the common display options are shown
in Fig. 4.

Application of PAUT to
AWS D1.1
Currently, AWS D1.1, Structural
Welding Code Steel, addresses
advanced ultrasonic systems, which

Inspection Trends / February 2015

is applicable to but not limited to

multiple probe, multichannel,
automated inspection, time-of-flight
diffraction, and PAUT. The advanced
ultrasonic systems section also lists
basic requirements for procedures,
personnel, and reporting, but provides
no specific requirements for PAUT or,
for that matter, any other advanced
ultrasonic system. This requires users
who want to implement these
technologies to adapt the systems to the
code requirements in the best manner
possible using their knowledge of the
technologies and how they relate to the
product forms to be tested.
Phased array UT does not fit well
with the standard dB rating system
defined in the main body of the code.
There are several reasons, but the
primary limitations include the
necessity of larger probes to utilize Escans at the fixed angles specified in
the procedure charts, the reduced
resolution created inherently using Escans at higher angles (70 deg), and
complications with scanning gain and
resulting signal saturation using
scanning gain requirements of the main
body. This has led users to seek the
alternative path in AWS D1.1 Annex S,
which covers UT examination of
welds by alternative techniques.
AWS D1.1 Annex S provides an
alternative and more conducive avenue
for applying PAUT in accordance with
the current code and may be used with
the Engineers approval. Annex S was
created with the intent to provide users

Fig. 5 DAC to TCG correlation.

Fig. 6 PACS block.

Fig. 7 Proposed AWS calibration/setup.
a method for inspecting materials
outside the limitations of the main
body of the code. The most common
industry use for this annex is the
inspection of materials below 516 in. or
above 8 in., which is the limitation of
Section 6 Part F of D1.1. Phased array
UT has been found to adapt well to this
methodology, and has been approved
and used successfully on several
projects to date.
Annex S utilizes a distance
amplitude correction (DAC) based
inspection methodology that is much
more conducive to PAUT technology.
Because DAC-based systems measure
sound losses through the material,
additional aperture and frequency
options are available for use. This gives
the PAUT user the ability to use Sscans, which can be configured with
smaller footprint probes and enhanced
resolution over their E-scan
counterparts. The other advantage of a
DAC-based system is that it allows for
the conversion to and use of time
corrected gain (TCG), which is more
adequate for PAUT inspection systems,

especially when encoding the data.

Time corrected gain adds gain to
the returned signal at specified time
intervals, which equalizes the
amplitude response off of a given flaw
size at various depths. The TCG
calibration results in a consistent
amplitude response [% full screen
height (FSH)] from a given size
reflector regardless of depth in the
material or the configured angle. This
balance in color is important to
detection capabilities of PAUT since
flaw detection is based on the color and
color is based off of amplitude. This
also simplifies the evaluation. A
correlation from the Annex S DAC
illustration and the corresponding TCG
calibration is shown in Fig. 5.
Calibration to Annex S is based off
the 0.06-in.- (1.5-mm-) diameter sidedrilled hole as in the International
Institute of Welding (IIW) standard.
The reflector may be placed in a
specially designed calibration block,
weld mockup, or in a production piece.
Carbon steel PACS type blocks, as
shown in Fig. 6, with 0.06-in.- (1.5-

mm-) diameter side-drilled holes at

multiple depths, can be used to
establish the TCG through the entire
thickness range to be tested and
provide relatively easy calibration and
reduced potential disturbances from
other nearby holes or reflectors. Blocks
of the same material with other hole
diameters can still be used for basic
linearity and TCG calibration, but final
reference level sensitivity must be
established off the 0.06-in.- (1.5-mm-)
diameter hole.
Once the TCG is established, the
0.06-in.-diameter hole is maximized
and placed at 50% FSH, which
establishes the standard sensitivity
level (SSL) of the test system as
illustrated in Fig. 5. This is a slight
modification from the standard
reference level threshold establishment
of 80% FSH, but modified to allow all
relevant thresholds (% screen height)
to be visible on the screen at reference
level dB. With a proper TCG
calibration, all focal laws will equal
approximately 50% FSH off of the
reference reflector regardless of depth
Inspection Trends / Winter 2015 17

Table 3 Conventional UT vs. PAUT Acceptance Criteria Assessment

AWS D1.1 Statically Loaded Structures 1-in., Single-V Plate
Flaw Type
LOSWF
OD Toe Crack
Slag
Slag
OD Toe Crack
LOSWF
Root Crack
Slag
Slag
Slag
Slag
Root Crack
Root Crack
OD Toe Crack

Rating (Conventional)
A
A
D
D
A
A
D
D
D
D
D
A
A
A

in the material. An additional disregard

level (DRL) is then specified to be set
at 6 dB below the SSL, which equates
to 25% FSH and is illustrated in Fig. 5.
The calibration stage is also the
verification point for the essential parts
of PAUT sound wave generation.
Parameters such as aperture size,
frequency, and focal depth can greatly
affect the quality of the sound field, not
greatly in difference from how the
parameters affect conventional
ultrasonic sound fields. The benefit in
PAUT is the user has several adjustable
parameters within one probe/aperture
that can be adjusted to improve
penetration, sensitivity, and beam
divergence. If the user sets up an
inspection and realizes that adequate
sound pressure cannot be obtained
from one or more calibration reflectors,
aperture size and/or focal depth
settings can be modified, rather than
immediately reducing frequency, to
help obtain the proper reflection and
validate the adequacy of the sound
field.
Once the system is established and
proper calibration is achieved, the
evaluation can be applied directly to
the Annex S acceptance tables with one
additional modification made to help
greater simplify the evaluation. The
acceptance criteria of Annex S call for
rejection of all indications exceeding 5
dB over SSL regardless of length.
Using the basic dB ratio formula of
[dB = 20 log (h1/h2)], we can calculate
this corresponding screen height
division of 89% FSH and establish an
additional threshold mark were calling
the automatic reject level (ARL),
which is illustrated in Fig. 5. This
proves four distinct zones of
classification on the screen as can be
18

Disposition (Conventional)
Reject
Reject
Accept
Accept
Reject
Reject
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Reject
Reject
Reject

Rating (PAUT Annex S)

A
A
C
C
A
A
B
D
D
D
D
B
B
A

seen in Fig. 5. The flaw is

dispositioned based upon which zone
the maximum amplitude of the
indication falls into.
Current Industry Acceptance
Phased array UT fits AWS D1.1
Annex S very well as we have
described, which makes Engineer
approval obtainable, provided a proper
procedure and qualification is in place.
We must be mindful when trying to
implement PAUT to either AWS D1.1
or D1.5, Bridge Welding Code, that
there are still specific variables that are
not detailed in the current code.
Fundamentals related to scan plans,
specific focal law requirements, data
collection requirements, and data
integrity are not specified in the Annex,
but should be specified in the
procedure by a UT Level III with
PAUT experience and training. Due to
this lack of specific information, the
qualification process required in Annex
S is of paramount importance to ensure
the relevant reflector size can be
detected in the given joint being
inspected. Qualification is then used to
verify that the inspection system works
as designed and configured and gives
the Engineer evidence that acceptable
quality can be obtained.
The basics for the mock-up block
used for procedure qualification are
defined in D1.1 Annex S and include
specification for insertion of sidedrilled holes in the ultrasonically most
difficult-to-reach locations. Proving
detection, characterization, and sizing
capabilities of the system on this mockup block is used for validation of the
complete test system and is necessary
for achieving approval of use. These

Inspection Trends / February 2015

Disposition (PAUT Annex S)

Reject
Reject
Accept
Accept
Reject
Reject
Reject
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Reject
Reject
Reject

mock-up blocks must be created for

each joint type and each thickness
differential to be examined so the
downside to current implementation is
that numerous mock-up blocks may be
required to be manufactured for each
project. There is an allowance for these
reflectors to be placed in production
material, which is one way around
some of the potential elevations in cost
and time.
The acceptability for use on AWS
D1.5 projects is less clear for some
users. D1.5 currently only addresses
conventional ultrasonics and makes no
mention of any advanced ultrasonic
technique options. This could lead to a
more difficult road for
implementation, but Engineer
approval on several D1.5 projects has
been successfully obtained utilizing
PAUT in accordance with AWS D1.1
Annex S. This has been possible
through the consideration that both
codes are structured very similarly in
regard to ultrasonic inspection
requirements and acceptance criteria.
As with D1.1 application, the written
procedure must be qualified to the
satisfaction of the Engineer before
implementation of the technology can
occur.

Future Requirements for

PAUT in AWS Codes
The American Welding Society is
currently seeking adoption of a PAUTspecific annex into the D1.1 and D1.5
codes. A great deal of research has
gone into finding a methodology and
acceptance standards that best suits the
technology and the AWS D1.1 and
D1.5 expected quality levels. The end
goal is to define the essential

parameters and acceptance criteria to

eliminate ambiguity in regard to PAUT
application and allow users to access
the benefits under these defined set of
rules.
A draft version of a PAUT annex is
currently working its way through the
AWS committee approval process with
hopes of adoption into the 2015 AWS
D1.5 code and later in the AWS D1.1
code. The proposed annex is following
the lines of the D1.1 Annex S
methodology and is designed for
encoded line scanning. There will be
some slight differences in the annexes
between D1.1 and D1.5, but the overall
application requirements will likely
end up being almost identical.
The annex as it is proposed
mandates sectorial scans as the primary
inspection technique with E-scans
allowed for supplemental coverage.
Scan plans are specified and required
to be generated for each weld to be
examined. The scan plan in concept is
very similar to a radiographic
technique sheet in its intent to help
produce a repeatable and defined
inspection procedure for each joint to
be examined. The proposed annex also
includes specifics related to calibration
and mandates a requirement of time
corrected gain (TCG) calibration off a
0.06-in.-diameter side-drilled hole for
all focal laws that will be utilized in the
examination. The proposal is to use the
same basic Annex S acceptance tables
with terminology modifications to
make it more familiar to conventional
AWS UT inspectors, as shown in Fig. 7
and Table 1.
The proposed annex also looks to
remove procedure qualification
requirements, in which costs could
deter some users from implementing
the technology. To allow the
elimination of qualification, users
would have to follow a specific method
of configuration and scanning
requirements, as detailed in the annex.
This includes specific focal law
configuration requirements, aperture
size restrictions, beam sweep
restrictions, and joint coverage
requirements among others. These
parameters as defined help ensure
optimized detection can be obtained
from the most critical flaw types
(cracks, incomplete fusion, incomplete
penetration). Procedure qualification
would then only come into play if the
user could not meet the annexs setup
parameters.

The quality level comparison was

one of the key assessments used to
make sure the proposed PAUT
methodology was acceptable for use.
There have been concerns in the AWS
community with regard to reject rate
comparison of PAUT with the two
common volumetric inspection
methods commonly used, radiography
and conventional ultrasonics.
Research performed by the University
of South Florida and sponsored by the
Florida Department of Transportation
showed the overall reject rate for
PAUT using Annex S criteria was
nearly identical to that of radiography
and ultrasonics over a reasonable
sample size. The data were collected
by implementing each technology to
test welds on two actual bridge
projects, and is shown in Table 2.
Additional research was performed
for the AWS code committee by the
University of Ultrasonics to compare
various PAUT methodologies to
conventional ultrasonics in regard to
acceptance criteria. This research
helped verify that the PAUT version of
the Annex S technique nearly
duplicated the inspection results
obtained from conventional UT
inspection on the same weld
discontinuities. A subset of these
comparisons can be seen in Table 3. In
this small set of data, the highlighted
row indicates the only significant
differential between the conventional
assessment and the PAUT assessment
of the flaw. Through all the research
performed, the differences in flaw
disposition between PAUT and
conventional were minimal and
representative of the sample data set
presented in Table 3.

Conclusion
Phased array ultrasonic testing is a
viable alternative to radiographic or
conventional ultrasonics for volumetric
assessment of structural components.
Although the technology can be
adapted to the current version of the
AWS D1.1 and D1.5 codes, the lack of
detailed information in the current code
could cause substantial variance from
one project to another. For immediate
use, a thorough procedure written by a
UT Level III with PAUT experience
and qualification is an essential first
step. The procedure must thoroughly
define the requirements specified in the
D1.1 code for advanced ultrasonic

systems and then be qualified to prove

the inspection system works as
intended. The procedure must also
define what is required for personnel
working to the procedure.
Qualifications should be established for
personnel who design scans, perform
calibrations, make production scans,
evaluate results, and report the
findings. Data management should also
be defined to ensure all relevant
information is obtained and submitted
at the end of the project.
The adoption of specific
requirements into the AWS D1.1 and
D1.5 codes will be paramount to
ensure users understand the proper way
to achieve consistent quality results
and provide engineers a level of
comfort in allowing users to opt for the
technological benefits.
As with any new technique or
application, education regarding the
technology from all sides of the table
will be a vital part of ensuring quality
is maintained or elevated. Personnel
representing quality assurance, quality
control, engineering, and fabrication
must have a sufficient understanding to
know when and how it should be
implemented. Phased array is a
powerful tool, but one that must be
carefully carried out to ensure that
insufficient or excessive quality levels
are not a result.
References
1. Introduction to Phased Array
Technology Applications. Olympus
NDT, Waltham, Mass.
2. Duke, S., and Wilkinson, S.
2014. Advanced ultrasonic testing nondestructive testing techniques in
accordance with the AWS D1.5 Bridge
Welding Code. University of South
Florida, Tampa, Fla.
3. AWS D1.1:2010, Structural
Welding Code Steel. Miami, Fla.:
American Welding Society.
4. AWS D1.5:2010, Bridge
Welding Code. Miami, Fla.: American
Welding Society.

PARRISH A. FURR
(parrish@universityofultrasonics.com)
is with the University of Ultrasonics,
Hoover, Ala. He is also an
ASNT Level III.

Inspection Trends / Winter 2015 19