From 2014 ASNT NDE/NDT for Highways and Bridges Structural Materials Technology Paper Summaries, August 2014.

ISBN: 978-1-57117-342-3.
Copyright © 2014 by The American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Inc.
No part of this document or its contents may be copied, uploaded to the internet, or stored in any shared retrieval system.

AWS Application of Phased Array Ultrasonics

Parrish A. Furr
University of Ultrasonics
2159 Rocky Ridge Road – Suite 103, Hoover, Alabama
(205) 822-5203

INTRODUCTION
Volumetric inspection of welds and materials is an integral part of ensuring reliability of fabricated materials and structures.
Radiography and conventional ultrasonics are the standard methods of inspection normally used for these assessments since
they provide us with an internal vantage point of the product. Radiography is normally the preferred choice of inspection
method as individuals achieve comfort in knowing there is auditable hard information (the radiograph itself), which can be
retained for future reference. Radiography does expose cost and safety issues to the fabricator and ultimately the end user.
With ever rising concerns over health and safety, the time involved with examining thicker components, and the lost produc-
tivity resulting from clearing others out of the inspection area, an alternative method of performing volumetric examinations
is being sought by many.

Up 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 which creates no hazards but
provides auditable evidence which can be archived for future reference. PAUT is not just useful as an alternative to radiogra-
phy. There are other clear benefits to the technology over conventional ultrasonics primarily in enhanced flaw detection capa-
bilities driven by multi-angle capabilities. This technology combines the auditable benefits of radiography with the enhanced
planar flaw detection capabilities of ultrasonics.

WHAT IS PAUT
Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing (PAUT) is an advanced form of ultrasonic testing evolved from the medical field with
initial experimentations in nondestructive testing beginning in the early 1980’s1. PAUT is the same technology used today
in several medical assessments such as sonograms and echocardiograms. In the industrial section, the majority of the
applications for PAUT were at first limited to nuclear pressure vessels (nozzles), large forgings, shafts, and low pressure
turbine components.1 The versatility of the technology provided alternatives to these more complex inspections. The
limitations which held the technology back from growing in the industrial sector related mostly to computer speed, size, and
storage. With the evolution of computer technology, these systems are now available in battery-powered portable units which
can easily be taken into even the toughest field conditions. The cost of the equipment is also on the decline which is enabling
individuals and companies to better afford the technology and gradually lower service costs to a more manageable rate.
PAUT implements multiple element transducers, rather than single element transducers typically used in conventional
ultrasonics, providing the ability to sweep the sound field through multiple angles (Sectorial Scans – see Figure 1) or raster
through a series of the same angle from one probe (Electronic Scan – see Figure 2). The systems can be configured to col-
lect 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 (see Figure 3). These modern advanced computerized systems have the ability to
store all the collected information from the weld into a data file which can then be reanalyzed after the acquisition of data is
completed.

146
 Figure 1: Phased Array Sectorial Scan.

Figure 2: Phased Array Electronic Scan (E-Scan).

Figure 3: Multi-Probe Data Collection.

The benefits of this technology also extend to the system’s ability to form the collected data into 2D imagery to assist the
inspector in analysis. There are several versions of software which 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), B-Scan
(back view), and C-Scan (top 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
Figure 4.

Figure 4: Typical PAUT Imaging Views.

147
COMPARING PAUT TO RADIOGRAPHY
For bridge components, radiography has been the most desired inspection technique for full penetration groove welds other
than T and Corner Joints. Several factors seem to have led to these inspection decisions including traceability, the auditable
nature of the inspection results, and often a misconceived notion that radiography will see all flaws in the weldment. Before
comparing the two technologies, it is important to understand that all NDE technologies have benefits and limitations. No
one method is best for finding all types of flaws in a given material or component.

Radiographic testing of weldments provides a two-dimensional top view of the weld showing flaw length and location rela-
tive to weld centerline. Radiography can only be adequately performed on full-penetration groove welds where both sides of
the component are accessible. Radiation hazards exist and examination of thicker components can prove to be difficult and
costly which will be further addressed later in this section. From a quality standpoint, the radiographic test system is primar-
ily sensitive to volumetric type flaws such as slag, porosity, or lack of penetration. More critical planar types of discontinui-
ties, such as cracks and lack of fusion can be easily missed by radiography if the position of the source is not directly over the
major dimension of the flaw. The overall sensitivity of the radiographic inspection is based on factors such as source types,
film or image plate quality, source position and is measured to be sufficient or insufficient by the ability to image a particular
hole or wire size in an Image Quality Indicator (IQI). Following the Code requirements of AWS D1.5 for radiographic proce-
dures ensures that the minimum quality requirements for a given weldment are obtained, but no assertion can be made that all
the discontinuities in the material are visible and assessed.

With the limitation of radiography stated, PAUT has its limitations as well. PAUT is opposite of radiography with regard to
reliability in detection in that the system is more sensitive to more critical planar types of discontinuities such as cracks and
lack of fusion but less sensitive to volumetric slag and porosity. This is due to the fact that ultrasonic detection is based on
reflection of sound from voids in homogenous material. Sound travel is typically at angles between 45 and 70 degrees, which
can lead to near direct incidence with planar types of flaws and return higher amounts of the sound pressure to the probe.
Volumetric, rounded type discontinuities, disperse more of the sound in opposite directions leading to lower energy sound
returns which are more difficult to detect. PAUT is a three-dimensional technique which can provide us with length, location,
and an additional measurement of through wall positioning (depth/height). PAUT inspection is not limited to groove welds as
T and corner joints can be easily assessed as well.

One concern for fabricators has been the fear of increased reject rates when utilizing PAUT over radiography. Ultimately,
the reject rate of components, using PAUT criteria similar to Annex S, has shown to be very similar in industry comparisons.
The primary differences lie in the types of flaws more often rejected from one technology to the other. As noted previously,
radiography tends to lead to the rejection of more slag and porosity whereas PAUT leads to the rejection of the more criti-
cal planar-type flaws. A major benefit fabricators receive when PAUT is permitted is that PAUT can tell the welder exactly
where to repair, from what side to repair, and what depth to repair. This leads to PAUT giving the ability to reduce the extent
of repairs made. Radiography gives no indication to what side of the joint would be more practical to repair from or to what
depth to make the repair.

Cost comparisons can also be made between the two technologies. The faster a product can be inspected the faster any neces-
sary repairs or moving the product to the next stage of production can be accomplished. This also leads to better meeting
project deadlines and helping to reduce potential back-charges and fines. The time involved to perform PAUT on thinner
materials is comparable to the time involved for radiography but clear advantages are present for inspections of thicker mate-
rials, which are not uncommon in the bridge world. Radiographic inspection of thick components, even with the evolution of
Computed and Digital Radiography, can still be very time consuming and slow down production. Higher energy Cobalt 60
sources which can speed up radiographic exposure times are permitted by AWS D1.5 on materials over 3” thick but a com-
promise of quality is the result from the reduction in radiographic contrast. PAUT inspection on thicker components can be
done in a fraction of the time and can be performed as soon as the material is deemed ready for inspection at any time of the
day since no hazards are presented for others.

Research performed by the University of South Florida and sponsored by the Florida Department of Transportation showed
estimated cost savings for the DOT between 2 to 4 million dollars per year if substituting PAUT for radiography. This
research also showed that the overall reject rate for PAUT was nearly identical to that of radiography. Table 1 below shows
some of the data taken from the research as related to reject rate of discontinuities on two projects used to compare the results
between radiography and PAUT.

148
 Table 1: Reject Comparisons of RT versus PAUT2

2 Bridge Welding Projects2

# of Welds
Technique # of Rejects % of Rejects
Tested
RT 108 10 9.3%
PAUT 92 8 8.7%

COMPARING PAUT WITH CONVENTIONAL ULTRASONICS

Conventional ultrasonics is generally reserved for T and corner joints in AWS D1.5 inspections since radiography is not
a practical application on these joint types. Many of these joints exist in bridge components and specifying conventional
ultrasonics sacrifices the quality aspects of traceability and auditable information which radiography provides. When conven-
tional ultrasonics is utilized, a great deal of trust is placed on the education, experience, and attitude of the inspector. With no
record of the inspection process available, the only way to verify the inspection quality requirements of the Code are met is to
stand over the inspector and observe the inspection in process. Even then there are substantial limitations of the verification
which cannot fully be assessed from visual observation.

PAUT delivers an increased quality inspection system which can still provide a data record which can be reviewed and filed
for future use. Many things can be verified from the PAUT data file which includes scan parameters, scan quality, positional
verification, and indication assessment verification. With a little training, individuals with a relative understanding of ultra-
sonic systems can provide this type of data file assessment. This data file review along with periodic monitoring of the data
collection process helps to provide a thorough quality assurance inspection and verification process.

Substantial enhancements using PAUT can be seen when compared to conventional ultrasonic inspection. The most notable
enhancement of PAUT is based on the angular dependence of flaws, meaning that no one angle is best for detecting all dis-
continuities. PAUT gives us the ability to induce a range of beam angles and position certain beam angles in specific parts
of the joints to optimize our detection capabilities of the critical planar flaw types. PAUT also gives us the ability to focus
the ultrasonic sound beam electronically which leads to improved sizing accuracies over conventional techniques utilized in
AWS applications.

Concerns have been made over increased reject rates when substituting PAUT for conventional ultrasonics. The aforemen-
tioned research by the University of South Florida showed that over a fairly large sample size, the reject rate when comparing
conventional ultrasonics to PAUT is very similar as shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Reject Comparisons of UT versus PAUT2

2 Bridge Welding Projects2

# of Welds
Technique Tested # of Rejects % of Rejects
UT 54 4 7.4%
PAUT 92 8 8.7%

Cost comparisons are a little more difficult when comparing conventional UT and PAUT however, conventional ultrasonics
is generally more financially beneficial than is PAUT. PAUT equipment and personnel costs are generally more costly than
conventional equipment and personnel. Some of these higher costs can be recouped by the increased speed at which PAUT
inspections can be performed. The increased speed of the inspection with PAUT is commonly seen in long weldments or
when data is reviewed by additional personnel, allowing the other inspector to focus solely on data collection.

149
PAUT APPLICATION TO AWS D1.5 CODE
Several weld inspection codes and standards have already adopted PAUT technology into its documents. Some recognize
PAUT directly and others with more general indirect reference as “alternative” or “automated ultrasonic” techniques. The
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) was the first of the major industry standards to adopt these alterna-
tive ultrasonic techniques as the first Code Cases were developed in the mid to late 90s. The Code Cases were developed to
provide fabricators with an alternative to radiography and as of 2010 have been fully adopted into the ASME Codes. With
the benefits seen in other industries from implementation of PAUT, many in the AWS structural world are seeking ways to
implement PAUT technology.

The Bridge Welding Code, AWS D1.5, currently only addresses conventional ultrasonic techniques. Engineer approval has
been successfully obtained in some cases for using PAUT in accordance with AWS D1.1 “Structural Welding Code – Steel.
The main body of AWS D1.1 addresses “Advanced Ultrasonic Systems” but provides no direct reference to PAUT, which
has led to the use of AWS D1.1 Annex S, which covers “UT Examination of Welds by Alternative Techniques”. Annex S
is utilized for ultrasonic weld inspections outside the restrictions of the main AWS D1.1 ultrasonic inspection clause, and
are required to be authorized by the Engineer. The details of the application of Annex S to PAUT are not well defined as
Annex S was developed with conventional techniques in mind. It is the vagueness of the current Code in regard to PAUT
and a general lack of understanding of the technology which have led many Engineers to be hesitant in allowing PAUT
implementation.

AWS is currently seeking adoption of a PAUT specific annex into the D1.1 and D1.5 Codes. A great deal of research has gone
into finding a methodology and acceptance standards which best suit the technology and the AWS D1.1 and D1.5 expected
quality levels.

Initial research began with Electronic Scans (as shown in Figure 2 above) at the basic 45, 60, and 70 degree angles in order
to duplicate the current conventional techniques as closely as possible. The primary disadvantages with this stem from the
fact that these types of scans require larger probes and have reduced flaw resolution at higher angles commonly used in AWS
D1.1/D1.5 methodology. Additional research was done with Sectorial Scans (as shown in Figure 1 above), with the current
AWS D1.1/D1.5 methodologies, due to the ability to use smaller probes and improved resolution. This multi-angle scan type
proved challenging but patterns were observed between the AWS D1.1/D1.5 acceptance tables between 70, 60, and 45 degree
angles. Extrapolation of indication ratings between the common angles (i.e., 61 to 69 degrees) were experimented with and
showed to be somewhat comparable but new issues arose with complications of adapting common PAUT calibrations and
assuming attenuation rates at the intermediate angles.

Annex S in AWS D1.1 has been the direction taken with the proposed AWS PAUT annex since it fits PAUT better from a
calibration, setup, and evaluation standpoint. Numerous comparisons performed by the University of Ultrasonics have been
made comparing each proposed methodology as it relates to acceptance. A subset of these comparisons can be seen in Table
3. The research showed that the PAUT Annex S technique nearly duplicated the inspection results obtained from the conven-
tional UT inspection on the same weld discontinuities.

A draft version of a PAUT annex is working its way up through AWS committee approval with hopes of adoption into the
2015 AWS D1.5 Code and later in the AWS D1.1 Code. Sectorial Scans are proposed as the primary inspection technique
with E-Scans allowed for supplemental coverage. The calibration requirements are proposed to be similar to the current D1.1
Annex S, with a Time Corrected Gain (TCG) calibration off a 0.06” diameter side drilled hole. The proposal is to use the
same basic Annex S acceptance tables with modifications to terminology to make it more familiar to conventional AWS UT
inspectors as shown in Figure 5 and Table 2.

150
 Table 3: AWS Acceptance Criteria Comparison

Table Notes:
1. Red = Differs from the conventional assessment – rejected an acceptable discontinuity
2. Green = Differs from conventional assessment but would be identical if rejected on crack characterization.

Figure 5: Proposed AWS Calibration/Setup

D
151
 Table 2: Proposed AWS Acceptance Criteria

Maximum Discontinuity Lengths by Weld Stress Category1

Maximum Discontinuity
Amplitude Level Obtained Statically Loaded Cyclically Loaded

Class A
None allowed None allowed
(Greater than ARL)

Class B2,3
3/4 in [20 mm] 1/2 in [12 mm]
(Between SSL and ARL)

Middle half of weld:

Class C2,3,4 2 in [50 mm]

2 in [50 mm]
(Between SSL and DRL) Top or bottom quarter of weld:

3/4 in [20 mm]

Class D
Disregard Disregard
(Equal to or less than DRL)

CONCLUSION
PAUT is a viable alternative to radiographic or ultrasonic inspections on structural components. Although each NDE tech-
nology has its limitations, PAUT combines some of the benefits of two other technologies to provide a valuable and reli-
able assessment of product integrity with potential cost savings and reliability enhancements. With AWS code approvals in
process, these reliability and cost savings benefits will eventually be readily available with detailed requirements and allowed
to be used with the Engineers approval. Education regarding the technology from all sides of the table will be a vital part of
assuring quality is maintained or elevated.

REFERENCES
1. Olympus NDT, “Introduction to Phased Array Technology Applications”
2. Steve Duke, CPM & Stuart Wilkinson, PhD – University of South Florida “Advanced Ultrasonic Testing Non-
Destructive Testing Techniques in Accordance with the AWS D1.5 Bridge Welding Code”, 2014 ;
3. AWS D1.1:2010 “Structural Welding Code – Steel”
4. AWS D1.5:2010 “Bridge Welding Code”

152