See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309713494

Advanced phased array technology

application for single-sided access weld
inspection

Article in Insight - Non-Destructive Testing and Condition Monitoring · November 2016

DOI: 10.1784/insi.2016.58.11.585

CITATIONS READS

0 20

3 authors, including:

Dheeraj P R
Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur
3 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

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

CIVA Simulation - Paper 1 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dheeraj P R on 30 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 DOI: 10.1784/insi.2016.58.11.585
PAUT

Advanced phased array technology application for

single-sided access weld inspection
P R Dheeraj, S Khaja M and I Mohsin

Ultrasonic imaging examination methods such as phased array ultrasonic testing (PAUT) and time-of-flight diffraction
(TOFD) are effective methods for the volumetric examination of welds. This is true where access from both sides is possible
for scanning; however, for welds with single-sided access, such as welds at the elbow, flange and cross-section of pipes,
limited scanning compromises the detection of lack of fusion (LOF) on the bevel opposite to the probe side. As a common
industrial practice, single-sided access ultrasonic weld examination for welds with a crown (as-welded condition) using
a linear phased array probe employs a second leg ultrasonic beam examination that utilises the tip diffraction signals
for LOF detection or a third leg ultrasonic beam examination that utilises the specular reflection signal for LOF detection.
This paper considers a linear array probe as conventional phased array technology and a dual matrix array (DMA) probe
as advanced phased array technology. The objective of this paper is to evaluate the probability of LOF detection through
conventional and advanced phased array technology in single-sided access carbon steel weld examination through a
case study using simulation software and practical examination on welded specimens. The probability of LOF detection is
considered based on the amplitude, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and sizing of the ultrasonic signal response from the LOF.
Keywords: ultrasonic, conventional phased array technology, linear array probe, advanced phased array technology, DMA
probe, single-sided access welds, simulation, focal law, probability of detection.

1. Introduction particulars. Section 3 describes the specimen selection, which

Phased array ultrasonic testing (PAUT) is vested with immense
capabilities to perform high-quality weld examination that meets
the corresponding established code requirements and, when PAUT
is applied with appropriate focal law parameter selection, it yields
efficient results. Elaborate considerations for selecting appropriate
focal law parameters have been discussed in a previous paper,
titled: ‘Effect of focal law parameters on probability of detection in
phased array ultrasonic testing using a simulation and case study
approach’[1].
In general practice, ultrasonic weld examination requires probe
placement on both sides of the weld to completely cover the weld
volume. If certain weld joint configurations restrict the probe
placement to be at only one side of the weld, then those weld joints
are specified as single-sided access weld joints. The requirement
for examination of single-sided access welds is a common scenario
faced in various industries, which includes the examination of pipe-
to-reducer weld joints and other similar pipe-to-fitting weld joints.
Mostly, these weld joints have weld crown ripples that deviate
the ultrasound beam from its intended path and create irrelevant
indications, thus increasing the difficulty in ultrasonic application
of single-sided access weld examination.
Generally, any ultrasonic weld examination needs to be validated
according to the corresponding project requirements using an
appropriate demonstration block. It has been emphasised in ASME
Section V Article 4 mandatory Appendix IX-435.8[2] that the one-
sided (single-sided access) weld examination technique requires
validation using an appropriate demonstration block, which will
contain two sets of flaws, one set on each side of the weld axis. This
paper enumerates a study of the ultrasonic response of opposite
side subsurface lack of fusion (LOF) in single-sided access carbon
steel weld joints.
Section 2 describes the selection of examination, which
includes background, examination types, equipment and probe
includes the dimensions of the natural LOFs evaluated by PAUT.
Section 4 provides the eight scan plans, which include the focal
law parameters. Section 5 describes the objective of the case study,
Section 6 provides the case study of a 12.5 mm-thick weld specimen
and Section 7 provides the case study of a 20 mm-thick weld
specimen. Section 8 describes the observations based on the case
studies. Section 9 presents the conclusions of this paper.
2. Selection of examination
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (US NRC) conducted
research at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) to
assess the effectiveness and reliability of PAUT for the detection and
characterisation of welding fabrication flaws in carbon steel welds.
A technical study report[3] has been published by the US NRC based
on this research. The following provides a few of the conclusions
from the technical study report:
l In carbon steel, PAUT is found to detect flaws by using the
second leg (one full-V beam path) or third leg (one and a half
full-V beam paths) of the ultrasonic beam
l Single-sided examinations would not be expected to detect all
potentially significant flaws
l It is recommended that all weld crowns be ground flush with
l Submitted 12.05.16 / Accepted 16.09.16
Based on a paper presented at the Malaysia International NDT
Conference and Exhibition 2015 (MINDTCE-15), 22-24 November
2015, Sunway Putra Hotel, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
P R Dheeraj, S Khaja M and I Mohsin are with Research & Development,
A-Star Training & Consultancy, #05-111, 18 Tradehub 21, Boon Lay
Way, Singapore 609966.

Insight • Vol 58 • No 11 • November 2016 585

PAUT
the surfaces of adjacent materials to increase the probability of
detection of LOF.
Based on the above conclusions, the following are the possible
single-sided access ultrasonic weld examinations in the as-welded
condition using conventional phased array technology, which are
also common practice in industry:
l Second leg examination (tip diffraction technique)
l Third leg examination.
The following provides single-sided access ultrasonic weld
examination in the as-welded condition using advanced phased
array technology:
l TRL technique using DMA probes.
The tip diffraction technique utilises the second leg of the
ultrasonic beam from a linear phased array probe to cover the far-
side bevel region. A typical probe placement with a second leg to
cover the far-side bevel is illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Typical probe placement with a second leg ultrasonic
beam to cover the far-side bevel
As the bevel face is close to parallel for the second leg of the
beam, there will not be any possible reflected echo from the LOF.
However, there is a possibility of weak tip-diffracted echo signals
from the extreme tips of the LOF, which requires a considerable
increase in dB (gain) level for tip detection.
The third leg of the ultrasonic beam from a linear phased array
probe is used to cover the far-side bevel region. A typical probe
placement with a third leg to cover the far-side bevel is illustrated
in Figure 2.
For conventional phased array technology, Probe 1, a linear
array 5 MHz probe of 1.0 mm pitch, is used. For advanced phased
array technology, Probe 2, a DMA 4 MHz probe of 1.0 mm pitch,
is used. Figure 3 illustrates the wedges (natural angle 55º, velocity
2330 m/s) used in this study. Equipment with 32 pulsers and 128
channels is used.
Figure 2. Typical probe placement with a third leg ultrasonic beam
to cover the far-side bevel
586 Insight • Vol 58 • No 11 • November 2016
Figure 3. Schematic of conventional (wedge 1) and advanced
(wedge 2) phased array wedges
Simulation is performed using CIVA 11.1 simulation software,
with mode conversion included in the simulation settings. An
isotropic carbon steel specimen (both parent metal and weld) is used.
By assuming a homogeneous and isotropic material, the acoustic
velocity in the material is constant for all angles for a particular wave
mode. A rectangular slit is selected as a close representative defect
for LOF. The Kirchhoff and geometrical theory of diffraction (GTD)
model is used for beam interaction with the flaw.
Figure 4 illustrates the amplitude colour scale representation for
images involved in the simulation software and PA equipment.
Simulation Practical
Figure 4. Amplitude colour scale representation for simulation
software and PA equipment
3. Specimen selection
Welded specimens of two different thicknesses, 12.5 mm and
20 mm, with weld crowns are chosen for this study. As LOF is the
most commonly missed defect in single-sided access ultrasonic
weld examination, it has been chosen as the target reflector. Each
specimen contains a natural LOF with a specific length, height and
position in the weld. All the LOFs are chosen to be on one side of the
bevel and this bevel side is termed as the skew 90 side. The opposite
bevel side, where there is no LOF, is termed as the skew 270 side. A
typical skew 90 side and 270 side is illustrated in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Typical skew
The dimensions of the LOFs are evaluated using conventional
phased array technology (scan plans 1 and 5), which utilises linear
phased array probe placement at skew 90 (the same side as the LOF,
as of two-sided weld examination) at reference dB and listed in Table
1. Reference dB is considered as the dB level at which time-corrected
gain (TCG) is drawn based on an 80% full screen height (FSH) echo
response from a 2.5 mm SDH of 38 mm length at different depths.
4. Scan plan
The conclusion from a previous study[1] has been used to generate
the most appropriate scan plans for phased array examination.
 PAUT

Table 1. LOF dimensions

Specimen thickness 12.5 mm 20 mm

Defect LOF1 LOF2 LOF3 LOF4
Depth 7 mm 7.5 mm 13.8 mm 10.5 mm
Length 10 mm 12 mm 14 mm 10.75 mm
Height 2.4 mm 1.7 mm 1.9 mm 3.7 mm
Volumetric position –3.5 mm –3 mm –3.4 mm –5 mm

Cross-section view

The scan plans for a 12.5 mm-thick weld specimen are provided
in Table 2. Scan plan 1 provides the second leg of the ultrasonic
beam for examination from skew 90 using a linear phased array
probe. Scan plan 2 provides the second leg of the ultrasonic beam
for examination from skew 270 with the tip diffraction technique
using a linear phased array probe. Scan plan 3 provides the third
leg of the ultrasonic beam for examination from skew 270 using
a linear phased array probe. Scan plan 4 provides the first leg of
the ultrasonic beam for examination from skew 270 using a DMA
probe.
The scan plans for a 20 mm-thick weld specimen are provided
in Table 3. Scan plan 5 provides the second leg of the ultrasonic
beam for examination from skew 90 using a linear phased array
probe. Scan plan 6 provides the second leg of the ultrasonic beam
for examination from skew 270 with the tip diffraction technique
using a linear phased array probe. Scan plan 7 provides the third
leg of the ultrasonic beam for examination from skew 270 using
a linear phased array probe. Scan plan 8 provides the first leg of
the ultrasonic beam for examination from skew 270 using a DMA
probe.
5. Objectives of the case study
The objectives of the case study are:
l To perform a simulation and practical study on the
welded specimens as described in Section 3 of this paper to
detect skew 90 side LOFs through the use of single-sided access
ultrasonic weld examinations, as described in Section 2 of
this paper, with the scan plan as provided in Section 4 of this
document.
l To tabulate the results of each selected single-sided access
ultrasonic weld examination. The result includes amplitude in
%FSH, SNR and height of the LOFs. The tabulated results are the
practical results obtained from PA equipment.

Table 2. Scan plan for 12.5 mm-thick weld specimen

Scan plan 1 Scan plan 2

Conventional phased array technology (examination from skew 90) Conventional phased array technology (examination from skew 270)
Probe 1 Probe 1
Probe offset 9 Probe offset 9
Element quantity 26 Element quantity 26
Start element 7 Start element 7
Angle range 50-72 Angle range 50-72

Scan plan 3 Scan plan 4

Conventional phased array technology (examination from skew 270) Advanced phased array technology (examination from skew 270)
Probe 1 Probe 2
Probe offset 9 Probe offset 9
Element quantity 26 Element quantity 64
Start element 7 Start element 1
Angle range 50-72 Angle range 50-87

Insight • Vol 58 • No 11 • November 2016 587

PAUT

Table 3. Scan plan for 20 mm-thick weld specimen

Scan plan 5 Scan plan 6

Conventional phased array technology (examination from skew 90) Conventional phased array technology (examination from skew 270)
Probe 1 Probe 1
Probe offset 32 Probe offset 32
Element quantity 26 Element quantity 26
Start element 7 Start element 7
Angle range 50-72 Angle range 50-72

Scan plan 7 Scan plan 8

Conventional phased array technology (examination from skew 270) Advanced phased array technology (examination from skew 270)
Probe 1 Probe 2
Probe offset 32 Probe offset 15
Element quantity 26 Element quantity 64
Start element 7 Start element 1
Angle range 50-72 Angle range 50-72

6. Case study 1: 12.5 mm
6.1 Conventional phased array technology
(scan plan 1)
Scan plan 1 utilises the second leg of the ultrasonic beam from a
linear phased array probe with probe placement at skew 90. The
S-scan images and observed results (amplitude, SNR and height)
of scan plan 1 over the two natural LOFs are tabulated in Table 4.
Sizing is performed using the 6 dB amplitude drop method. These
observed results are considered as a reference for comparing the
results of the other scan plans: 2, 3 and 4.
6.2 Conventional phased array technology
(scan plan 2)
Scan plan 2 utilises the tip diffraction technique, which uses the
second leg of the ultrasonic beam from a linear phased array probe
with probe placement at skew 270 to detect the tip-diffracted signals
of the LOF. The S-scan images and observed results (amplitude,
SNR and height) of scan plan 2 over LOF1 and LOF2 are tabulated in
Tables 5 and 6, respectively.
At the reference dB, it is observed that the LOFs are almost
missed, as the tip-diffracted signals are much weaker. The reference
dB is increased gradually until the tips of the LOF are accurately
detected. LOF1 is accurately detected at +25 dB and LOF2 is
accurately detected at +26 dB. However, the additional dB depends
on the nature of the LOF tip and may vary considerably from case
to case.
Sizing is performed by measuring the distance between the tip-
diffracted signals. It is observed that an increase in dB for detection
comes at the cost of an increased noise level, which is undesirable
above a certain extent. A greatly reduced SNR and noise signals
mixed with defect signals will create confusion for the interpreter.
This tip diffraction technique can be applied on a case-by-case basis
with great caution in respect of a desirable SNR.

Table 4. S-scan image and results of scan plan 1 for LOF1 (left) and LOF2 (right)

LOF1 LOF2
Practical Simulation Practical Simulation

Amplitude SNR Height Amplitude SNR Height

100% FSH >10 1.9 mm 100% FSH >10 1.4 mm

588 Insight • Vol 58 • No 11 • November 2016

 PAUT

Table 5. S-scan image and results of scan plan 2 for LOF1

LOF1
Reference dB +25 dB
Practical Simulation Practical Simulation

Amplitude SNR Height

Amplitude below evaluation level
100% FSH 3.8 2.1 mm

Table 6. S-scan image and results of scan plan 2 for LOF2

LOF2
Reference dB +26 dB
Practical Simulation Practical Simulation

Amplitude SNR Height

Amplitude below evaluation level
100% FSH 4.0 1.9 mm

6.3 Conventional phased array technology
(scan plan 3)
Scan plan 3 utilises the third leg of the ultrasonic beam from a
linear phased array probe with probe placement at skew 270. This
examination depends on the specular reflection from the LOF. The
reflection signal from the LOF is highly dependent on the nature of
the weld cap ripples, as the ultrasonic beams get distorted and mode
converted at the ripples of the weld crown, resulting in a positional
shift.
The S-scan images and observed results (amplitude, SNR and
height) of scan plan 3 over LOF1 and LOF2 are tabulated in Tables
7 and 8, respectively. Sizing is performed using the tip diffraction
method.
This examination has to be applied with caution as the additional
dB required to evaluate the defect and the SNR depends on the
nature of the weld crown ripples. In this selected case study, an
additional +12 dB is required above the reference dB.
6.4 Advanced phased array technology (scan
plan 4)
Scan plan 4 utilises the first leg of the ultrasonic beam from a DMA
probe with probe placement at skew 270. The DMA probe is of the
transmit/receive longitudinal (TRL) type, in which the refracted
longitudinal wave is transmitted by one array and is received by
another. It has the advantage of sweeping a wide range of angles
(up to 87º) with a better focusing option when compared to a linear
array probe. The S-scan images and observed results (amplitude,
SNR and height) of scan plan 4 over the LOF1 and LOF2 are
tabulated in Tables 9 and 10, respectively. Sizing is performed using
the maximum amplitude[4] method. It is observed that scan plan 4 is
able to detect LOF1 and LOF2 with accurate positioning and a good
signal-to-noise ratio.

Insight • Vol 58 • No 11 • November 2016 589

PAUT

Table 7. S-scan image and results of scan plan 3 for LOF1

LOF1
Reference dB +12 dB
Practical Simulation Practical Simulation

Amplitude SNR Height

Amplitude below evaluation level
100% FSH 4.4 3.9 mm

Table 8. S-scan image and results of scan plan 3 for LOF2

LOF2
Reference dB +12 dB
Practical Simulation Practical Simulation

Amplitude SNR Height

Amplitude below evaluation level
100% FSH 3.8 3.45 mm

7. Case study 2: 20 mm 7.2 Conventional phased array technology

7.1 Conventional phased array technology
(scan plan 5)
Table 11 provides the S-scan images and observed results (amplitude,
SNR and height) of scan plan 5 over LOF3 and LOF4, respectively.
These results are considered as the reference for comparing the
results of the other scan plans: 6, 7 and 8.
(scan plan 6)
Tables 12 and 13 provide the S-scan images and observed results
(amplitude, SNR and height) of scan plan 6 over LOF3 and LOF4,
respectively.
In this case study of the 20 mm-thick specimen, the LOFs are
missed at the reference dB, which is similar to the results observed
in the earlier case study of the 12.5 mm-thick specimen. Additional

590 Insight • Vol 58 • No 11 • November 2016

 PAUT

Table 9. S-scan image and results of scan plan 4 for LOF1

LOF1
Practical Simulation

Amplitude SNR Height

100% FSH >10 2.2 mm

Table 10. S-scan image and results of scan plan 4 for LOF2

LOF2
Practical Simulation

Amplitude SNR Height

100% FSH >10 1.8 mm

Table 11. S-scan image and results of scan plan 5 for LOF3 (left) and LOF4 (right)

LOF3 LOF4
Practical Simulation Practical Simulation

Amplitude SNR Height Amplitude SNR Height

100% FSH >20 2.2 mm 100% FSH >20 3.3 mm

Insight • Vol 58 • No 11 • November 2016 591

PAUT

Table 12. S-scan image and results of scan plan 6 for LOF3

LOF3
Reference dB +25 dB
Practical Simulation Practical Simulation

Amplitude SNR Height

Amplitude below evaluation level
100% FSH 3.67 3.3 mm

Table 13. S-scan image and results of scan plan 6 for LOF4

LOF4
Reference dB +32 dB
Practical Simulation Practical Simulation

Amplitude SNR Height

Amplitude below evaluation level
100% FSH 4.5 4.8 mm

dB is required for good detection of the tip diffraction signals. noise ratio, which is similar to the results observed in the earlier
However, the additional dB depends on the nature of the LOF tip case study of the 12.5 mm-thick specimen.
and may vary considerably from case to case.

7.3 Conventional phased array technology 8. Observations

(scan plan 7)
Tables 14 and 15 provide the S-scan images and observed results
(amplitude, SNR and height) of scan plan 7 over LOF3 and LOF4,
respectively. In this case study of the 20 mm-thick specimen, the
S-scan images are highly distorted, which is similar to the results
observed in the earlier case study of the 12.5 mm-thick specimen.
7.4 Advanced phased array technology (scan
plan 8)
Tables 16 and 17 provide the S-scan images and observed results
(amplitude, SNR and height) of scan plan 8 over the LOF3 and
LOF4, respectively. In this case study of the 20 mm-thick specimen,
S-scan images provide accurate positioning and a good signal-to-
This paper compares the results of two-sided weld examination with
those of one-sided examination options on the selected samples
and draws a conclusion on the best available options in terms of
detection capability and reliability of weld examination with one-
sided access.
The result of two-sided access ultrasonic weld examination (scan
plan 1 for the 12.5 mm specimen and scan plan 5 for the 20 mm
specimen) is considered and set as a reference for comparison.
The amplitude response of the LOF between the simulation and
practical examination differs slightly due to the nature of the LOF
(natural LOF was used in selected samples, whereas the simulations
considered a rectangular slit). Background noise in practical
examination may differ slightly from the simulation, but the images
show that they are comparable.

592 Insight • Vol 58 • No 11 • November 2016

 PAUT

Table 14. S-scan image and results of scan plan 7 for LOF3

LOF3
Reference dB +18 dB
Practical Simulation Practical Simulation

Amplitude SNR Height

Amplitude below evaluation level
100% FSH 1.67 4.8 mm

Table 15. S-scan image and results of scan plan 7 for LOF4

LOF4
Reference dB +15 dB
Practical Simulation Practical Simulation

Defect signal missed due to distortion from the weld crown

The consolidated observations for the 12.5 mm-thick and
20 mm-thick weld specimens are tabulated in Tables 18 and 19,
respectively.
9. Conclusion
Within the scope and limited trials of this paper, a comparison
of the ultrasonic weld examination results of two-sided access
versus restricted single-sided access provides the following
conclusions:
l The conventional phased array technology using tip diffraction
at increased dB over the reference results in the LOF tip signals
entirely merging with noise and irrelevant signals. Practically,
this condition may result in false calls or missed calls by
considering noise and irrelevant indications. Both scenarios
are possible and this may vary from one weld to another
depending on the thickness and material property. Caution is
recommended while using this technique, unless this is only
possible option left. Additional specific training for the NDT
operator and validation is strongly required.
l The conventional phased array technology using the third leg
ultrasonic beam for examination with a weld crown is more

Insight • Vol 58 • No 11 • November 2016 593

PAUT
Table 16. S-scan image and results of scan plan 8 for LOF3
Practical
Amplitude
100% FSH
Table 17. S-scan image and results of scan plan 8 for LOF4
Practical
Amplitude
100% FSH
unreliable than the above as the reflected LOF response is highly
distorted or completely missed due to beam interaction with
the weld crown ripples. Practically, this possibility creates more
confusion for the interpreter and this option should be used
with caution or avoided. However, this option will prove better
if the weld crown is flushed to merge with the parent material,
in which case the beam reflected from the flattened weld
crown reaches the opposite bevel face as per the scan plan. The
quality of machining may have an effect on achieving better
results.
l The advanced phased array technology using a dual matrix
array probe with a transmit-receive longitudinal wave (DMA-
TRL) to detect far-side bevel defects is a very efficient technique
as, in many industrial applications, the weld being ground
flush is not desired due to economic or design needs. The LOF
responses were accurately positioned with a good signal-to-
noise ratio, thereby making it easy for the interpreter assessing
the weld.
l Many applications based on DMA probe technology can be
further studied, although this is not part of the present case
study. The following are some examples:
594 Insight • Vol 58 • No 11 • November 2016
LOF3
Simulation
SNR Height
>10 2.6 mm
LOF4
Simulation
SNR Height
>10 3.7 mm
– DMA refracted shear wave for complex configuration, such
as nozzles from carbon steel material;
– Detection probability for LOF existing on the same bevel
(which is less responsive than the opposite side LOF).
Acknowledgements
This paper was presented at the MINDTCE-15 conference, held
in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Input from conference delegates and
peer reviewers has been incorporated into this paper to make it
more comprehensive. We would like to thank Mr Sirajul Hameed
Masroor for his review and feedback.
References
1. P R Dheeraj, I Mohsin, S K Mohiuddin and S H Masroor,
‘Effect of focal law parameters on probability of detection in
phased array ultrasonic testing using a simulation and case
study approach’, Materials Evaluation, Vol 74, No 11, pp 1574-
1591.
2. ASME Boiler Pressure Vessel Code, Section V – Non-
Destructive Examination, ASME, July 2015
3. US NRC, ‘Applying ultrasonic testing in lieu of radiography for
 PAUT

Table 18. Consolidated observation for 12.5 mm weld specimen

Access from Technique Detected Detection LOF1 LOF2 Remarks

from based on Height (mm) SNR Height (mm) SNR
Two sides PA Skew 90 Specular 1.9 >10 1.4 >10 Considered and set as reference
reflection
Single side PA Skew 270 Tip 2.1 3.8 1.9 4.0 Poor detection probability and SNR.
diffraction Highly dependent on the tip nature
of the LOF
Single side PA Skew 270 Specular 3.9 4.4 3.45 3.8 Detection probability is poor and
in the reflection is highly dependent on weld crown
third leg ripples.
Note: Weld crown flush with parent
material will increase detectability;
however, this too is dependent on the
quality of the flush
Single side DMA Skew 270 Specular 2.2 >10 1.8 >10 Detection probability is good
(TRL) reflection

Table 19. Consolidated observation for 20 mm weld specimen

Access from Technique Detected Detection LOF3 LOF4 Remarks

from based on Height (mm) SNR Height (mm) SNR
Two sides PA Skew 90 Specular 2.2 >20 3.3 >20 Considered and set as reference
reflection
Single side PA Skew 270 Tip 3.3 3.67 4.8 4.5 Poor detection probability and SNR.
diffraction Highly dependent on the tip nature
of the LOF
Single side PA Skew 270 Specular 4.8 1.67 Detection probability is poor and
in the reflection is highly dependent on weld crown
third leg ripples.
Not detected Note: Weld crown flush with parent
material will increase detectability;
however, this too is dependent on the
quality of the flush
Single side DMA Skew 270 Specular 2.6 >10 3.7 >10 Detection probability is good
(TRL) reflection

volumetric examination of carbon steel piping’, PNNL-24232,
September 2015.
4. US Department of Energy, ‘Replacement for radiography
with ultrasonics for the non-destructive inspection of welds –
evaluation of technical gaps’, PNNL-19086, April 2010.
5. M Darmon, R Raillon, V Dorval and S Chatillon, ‘Generic
GTD-Kirchhoff scattering model for the ultrasonic response
of planar defects’, 10th International Conference on NDE in
Relation to Structural Integrity for Nuclear and Pressurized
Components, Cannes, October 2013.
6. M Moles, ‘Phased arrays for general weld inspections’, 10th
ECNDT, Moscow, 2010.
7. G Grün, ‘Considerations about ultrasonic inspection of welded
joints using phased array’, 5th International Conference on
Structural Integrity of Welded Structures, Romania, November
2007.
8. T Armitt, ‘Phased arrays are not the answer to every application’,
9th ECNDT, Berlin, 2006.
9. T L Moran, P Ramuhalli, A F Pardini, M T Anderson and S R
Doctor, ‘Replacement of radiography with ultrasonics for the
non-destructive inspection of welds: Evaluation of technical
gaps – an interim report’, April 2010.
10. M Moles and E Ginzel, ‘Phased arrays for small-diameter,
thin-walled piping inspections’, 18th World Conference on
Non-Destructive Testing, Durban, South Africa, 16-20 April
2012.
11. F Foucher, P Dubios, V Gaffard, H Godinot, H Romazzotti, A
Courbot and E Schumacher, ‘Validation of the simulation of
pipeline girth welds PAUT inspection’, ASNT Fall Conference,
Orlando, Florida, USA, 29 October-1 November 2012.
12. R Raillon, G Toullelan, M Darmon, P Calmon and S Lonne,
‘Validation of CIVA ultrasonic simulation in canonical
configurations’, 18th World Conference on Non-Destructive
Testing, Durban, South Africa, 16-20 April 2012.
13. E Ginzel and D Stewart, ‘CIVA modelling for pipeline zonal
discrimination’, NDT.net, 2011.
14. B Chapuis, 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, pp 433-441, 2014.
15. A S Birring, ‘Ultrasonic phased array for weld testing’, Materials
Evaluation, Vol 66, No 3, pp 282-284, 2008.

Insight • Vol 58 • No 11 • November 2016 595

View publication stats