ME TECHNICAL PAPER w
x
Synthetic Focusing of Sound Beam Using Linear Array
by Paritosh Nanekar*, N. Jothilakshmi†, Anish Kumar‡, and T. Jayakumar§
ABSTRACT
A sound beam focusing technique called synthetic
focusing using linear array (SFLA) has been
developed. The technique is based on acquiring
the raw B-scan image using a divergent sound
beam emanating from individual elements of an
array and then carrying out synesthetic aperture
focusing technique (SAFT) processing of the raw
data to achieve sound beam focusing throughout
the thickness of the sample. The sound beam
focusing is achieved using much less advanced
resources as compared to the focal law based
phased array technique. The data size for post
processing is also significantly smaller as
compared to the one acquired using full matrix
capture (FMC). The sensitivity for the detection of
discontinuities and the ability to resolve them from
each other using SFLA technique has been
assessed on aluminum and carbon steel samples.
The results obtained by SFLA technique have been
found to be comparable to those obtained by
the full matrix capture – total focusing method
(FMC + TFM). The focusing ability of SFLA
technique has been utilized for accurate depth
sizing of a planar flaw in the weld joint.
KEYWORDS: phased array, synthetic aperture
focusing technique, ultrasonic imaging, sound
beam focusing, flaw characterization.
* B.E., Quality Assurance Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre,
Mumbai 400085, India; Tel: +91 22 25594867; fax: +91 22 25505339;
e-mail: pnanekar@barc.gov.in
† M.Tech, Quality Assurance Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre,
Mumbai 400085, India; e-mail: jothin@barc.gov.in
‡ Ph.D., Non-destructive Evaluation Division, Indira Gandhi Centre for
Atomic Research, Kalpakkam 603102, India; e-mail: anish@igcar.gov.in
§ Ph.D., Visiting Professor, Department of MME, National Institute of
Technology, Warangal 506804, India; e-mail: jayakumar200@gmail.com
From Materials Evaluation, Vol. 75, No. 6, pp: 813-821.
Copyright © 2017 The American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Inc.
Introduction
Sound beam focusing has always been a subject of interest in
ultrasonic nondestructive evaluation. The traditional tech-
nique of sound beam focusing is through the use of an
acoustic lens, which is fitted to the front of the crystal
(Rooney and Reid, 1966; Ezzaidi et al., 2002; Shiloh, Bondt,
and Som, 1993). Such transducers can be used only for
immersion tests, which may not be practical for all compo-
nent geometries. Moreover, the lens based focusing trans-
ducer gives focusing at a fixed distance or in a fixed zone. In
the 1970s, focusing of sound beam by the post-processing
reconstruction technique named SAFT was developed (Fred-
erick, Seydel, and Fairchild, 1974; Kino et al., 1979). In
SAFT, for each transducer position, the raw data containing a
sound beam scattered by a flaw is collected using a divergent
ultrasonic beam. During the reconstruction process, the
sound beams are time shifted or back propagated to the scat-
tering source and averaged out using wave propagation
formulae. The signal amplitude at the discontinuity location is
highly improved as a result of constructive interference of the
sound beam from various locations. At locations other than
the flaw, poor correlation of the signal phase causes the
destructive interference of the sound beam, which leads to a
considerable drop in the signal amplitude (Chahbaz and
Sicard, 2003; Schmitz, Chakhlov, and Müller, 2000). The last
couple of decades have witnessed a phenomenal rise in the
use of linear arrays for ultrasonic examination. Sound beam
focusing using linear arrays is achieved by controlling the
sequence in which the elements of an array are excited and
the time delay in their excitation and reception, referred to as
focal law (Olympus NDT, 2014; Azar, Shi, and Wooh, 2000).
One can focus the sound beam using contact transducers and
the focusing depth and the direction can be varied using a
single linear array transducer by the use of appropriate focal
laws (Gebhardt, 1983; Uchida et al., 1984; Dias, 1981). An
advanced approach of sound beam focusing using linear
arrays is by a technique known as full matrix capture – total
focusing method or FMC + TFM. In FMC, the raw B-scan
data is acquired element by element using a “transmit on
one and receive by all” approach (Holmes, Drinkwater, and
Wilcox, 2005). The imaging of the region of interest (ROI) is
done using TFM algorithm (Lines, Wharrie, and Hottenroth,
JUNE 2017 • MATERIALS EVALUATION 813
ME TECHNICAL PAPER w
x synthetic focusing of sound beam

2012; Holmes, Drinkwater, and Wilcox, 2004). FMC + TFM
leads to a high resolution imaging for the enhanced detection
and sizing of flaws. In the current study, an integrated
approach to sound beam focusing using a linear array and
SAFT has been developed. The technique is named synthetic
focusing using linear array. The methodology followed for the
data acquisition and processing by SFLA technique and its
advantages over the existing sound beam focusing techniques
are discussed in this paper. Moreover, the results of the exper-
imental work carried out for the assessment of the sensitivity,
the lateral coverage, and the resolution that can be achieved
by SFLA technique in comparison to the FMC + TFM tech-
nique have been brought out.
adequate. With FMC technique, the instrumentation needs to
have large number of parallel receiver channels to speed up
the data acquisition process. This adds to the cost of instru-
mentation. However, with the FMC approach, since the raw
data is available for all the transmitter-receiver combinations,
the quality of the processed B-scan image is expected to be
better than SFLA technique.
Figures 1b and 1c show the raw B-scan and the SAFT
processed B-scan images respectively for 0.5 mm diameter
side drilled hole in an aluminum sample located at a depth of
25 mm from the surface using SFLA technique. A 10 MHz,
0.3 mm pitch, a 128 elements linear array is used for this
purpose. The array is symmetrically placed over the hole such

Methodology of Sound Beam Focusing by SFLA

Technique
The sound beam focusing by SFLA technique is a two-step
process. In the first step, the raw B-scan data is acquired by a Electronic scanning
divergent sound beam emanating from a miniature element of Linear
a linear array. In the second step, the raw B-scan is processed array
by a time-based SAFT algorithm. During SAFT processing,
the raw A-scan signals are time shifted, summed, and averaged
to achieve the sound beam focusing at the flaw location Side
(Thomson, 1984; Müller, Schmitz, and Schäfer, 1986). drilled
hole
Figure 1a schematically shows the process of data acquisition
by SFLA technique. A linear array is symmetrically placed (a)
over the 0.5 mm diameter side drilled hole in an aluminum Amplitude (dB)
block, and the raw B-scan image is acquired by electronic 0 100
80
scanning. The data acquisition by SFLA technique is based 5 60

on a “transmit on one and receive by the same element” 40

20
10
Depth (mm)

approach, unlike FMC where the reception is by all the 0

elements of an array. 15 Divergent signal from the hole

SFLA technique has several advantages over the conven- 20
tional SAFT, where the data is acquired by a single crystal 25
piezoelectric element. With SFLA technique, since a single 30
miniature element of an array is used for sound beam trans-
35
mission, a large beam spread is available during data acquisi- 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 38
(b) Distance (mm)
tion. Moreover, the A-scan data are available at a very small Amplitude (dB)
100
interval (pitch of the linear array) using SFLA technique. 0
80
60
Both these factors help in effective SAFT processing, leading 5
40
to a very fine focal spot size. When compared to FMC, SFLA 10 20
Depth (mm)

0
technique offers two distinct advantages. The first one is 15 Signal from hole after processing
related to the data size for post-processing. As an example,
20
when an array with 128 elements is used and the data is
acquired for 10 000 data points (1 byte each), then 25
using FMC the file size would be of the order of 164 MB 30
(128 × 128 × 10000 × 1). Using SFLA technique, the file size 35
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 38
under identical condition would be 1.29 MB (128 × 10000 × 1), (c) Distance (mm)
which is significantly less than FMC. Hence a real-time sound
beam focusing system based on SFLA technique can easily be
realized. The second one is related to the instrumentation Figure 1. Sound beam focusing by SFLA technique: (a) methodology
for data acquisition; (b) raw B-scan; and (c) SAFT processed B-scan
requirements for data acquisition. Since with SFLA technique, image for 0.5 mm diameter side drilled hole in aluminum sample
a single element is used for transmission and reception at any using SFLA technique. SAFT = synthetic aperture focusing technique;
point of time, a single channel instrument with multiplexing is SFLA = synthetic focusing using linear array.

814 MATERIALS EVALUATION • JUNE 2017

that some elements lie on one side of the hole and the
remaining elements on the other. The raw B-scan image
shows a well spread-out signal from the hole. The signal
shows some discontinuity at distances of around 7 mm,
15 mm, and 26 mm. These discontinuities are because of the
dead elements in the linear array used. The well spread-out
signal in the raw B-scan gets reduced to a spot on SAFT
processing. The 6 dB lateral spread of the hole signal, which
can be considered the dimension of the focal spot, is found to
be 0.46 mm. This indicates that with SFLA technique, one
can achieve a very fine focusing of the sound beam. Another
significant outcome is with respect to the amplitude of the
hole signal. The low amplitude signal from the hole in the raw
B-scan image is significantly enhanced after SAFT processing.
There is also a significant reduction in the amplitude of the
initial ringing and its extent in the depth direction upon SAFT
processing.
In a similar manner, the focal spot size is determined for
the depth range of 5 mm to 45 mm. It is observed that the
focal spot size remains uniform at 0.45 ±0.05 mm. The results
indicate that the sound beam focusing achieved by SFLA
technique is independent of depth over a considerable range.
This is one major advantage over the focusing achieved by
focal law based phased array examination, where under iden-
tical experimental conditions, the focal spot size increases
with the depth (Olympus NDT, 2014).
Performance Assessment of SFLA Technique for
Discontinuity Detection by a Focused Sound Beam
The performance of the SFLA technique for the purpose of
discontinuity detection and characterization is assessed for
two specific aspects: the sensitivity and the ability to resolve
two closely spaced discontinuities. To study these, experi-
ments are carried out on a carbon steel sample and an
aluminum sample with side drilled holes located at different
depths from the scanning surface. The raw B-scan images are
acquired using a 10 MHz, 0.3 mm pitch, 128 element linear
array. A phased array system with a configuration of 64
parallel transmitter-receiver channels and 128-channels in
multiplexed mode is used for data acquisition. The raw data is
processed by a time based SAFT algorithm written in an inte-
grated development environment. The results obtained by
SFLA technique are compared with the ones obtained by
FMC+TFM technique. Since the phased array instrumenta-
tion in the authors’ laboratory has only 64 parallel receiver
channels, only 64 of the total 128 elements of the linear array
could be used for data acquisition using FMC. With SFLA
technique, since a single element of an array is active at any
given point of time, the raw data could be acquired using all
the 128 elements of the array. The use of lesser number of
elements for data acquisition has an adverse effect on the focal
spot size achieved.
10 mm
50 mm
Holes are separated
depthwise by 5 mm
Figure 2. Experimental set-up for data acquisition on carbon steel
sample with vertically stacked side drilled holes.
Sensitivity for Discontinuity Detection Using a Focused Sound
Beam
To determine the sensitivity for discontinuity detection using
a focused sound beam by SFLA technique, experiments are
carried out on a carbon steel sample with 1 mm diameter side
drilled hole located at a distance of 10 mm to 45 mm from the
scanning surface. The sketch of the sample showing the
location of the holes and the placement of linear array is
shown in Figure 2. The holes are separated center-to-center
by a distance of 5 mm. Figures 3a and 3b show the raw and
the processed B-scan images using SFLA technique. The raw
B-scan images show a number of signals with the shape of a
hyperbola at various depths corresponding to the side drilled
holes in the sample. For the topmost hole, there is no obstruc-
tion to the sound beam during the transmission and recep-
tion. As a result, an uninterrupted signal is seen in the raw
B-scan image. As one moves towards the holes located at
higher depths in the block, a distinct shadow region is seen in
the central part of the raw image. The shadow region gets
wider and wider for the holes at larger depths. The shadow
region is an indication of the fact that the holes at larger
depths are not detected by the central elements of an array.
These holes are however detected by the elements, which are
away from the central region of an array, by the divergent
sound beam. It is this divergence that is crucial during the
post-processing of the raw data using SAFT algorithm.
The SAFT processed B-scan image shows all the eight
holes present in the sample. The topmost hole shows the least
lateral spread and highest signal amplitude as compared to the
bottommost hole, which shows the minimum amplitude and
the largest spread. The primary reason for the increase in the
lateral spread with the depth is the shadow region that is
encountered for all the holes, except the topmost, during data
acquisition. The shadow region is an indication of the fact
that the hole is not detected by the central region of the sound
beam but by the peripheral beam. Across the sound beam, the
acoustic pressure is highest in the central region and reduces
gradually towards the periphery. As a result, for the bottom
JUNE 2017 • MATERIALS EVALUATION 815
ME TECHNICAL PAPER w
x synthetic focusing of sound beam

Amplitude (dB) Amplitude (dB)

0 128 0 128

100 100
5 5
80 80
60 60
10 10
40 40
20 20
15 15
0 0
Depth (mm)

Depth (mm)
20 20

25 25

30 30

35 35

40 40

45 45
48 48
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 38 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 38
(a) Distance (mm) (b) Distance (mm)

Amplitude (dB)
0 0 128

100
5
80
60
10
40

15 20
0

20
Depth (mm)
Depth (mm)

20
25

30

35

40

40 45

50
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 19
(c) (d) Distance (mm)

Figure 3. B-scan images of a carbon steel sample with vertically stacked holes: (a) raw data; (b) SFLA using 128 elements; (c) FMC + TFM using
64 elements; and (d) SFLA using 64 elements. FMC + TFM = full matrix capture – total focusing method; SFLA = synthetic focusing using linear
array.

holes, the raw A-scans do not have very high signal amplitude
from the hole. Hence, the constructive interference at the hole
location and the destructive interference away from it during
SAFT processing is not as effective for the holes at a larger
depth as it is for the topmost hole. This leads to an increase in
the lateral spread of the hole signal in the processed data.
The FMC + TFM image is shown in Figure 3c. All eight
holes in the block are detected. In this case too, the topmost
hole shows the least lateral spread and the highest signal
amplitude as compared to the bottom holes. For the sake of
comparison, the data by SFLA technique is acquired using
64 elements. The SAFT processed B-scan image is shown in
Figure 3d. Although all eight holes in the sample are detected,
there is a significant increase in the lateral spread of the hole
signals in comparison to the results obtained while using
128 elements.
Table 1 shows the comparison of the results obtained
by SFLA (64 and 128 elements) and FMC + TFM
(64 elements) techniques in terms of the range of 6 dB lateral
spread of the signals and the variation in the signal amplitude

816 MATERIALS EVALUATION • JUNE 2017

TABLE 1
Comparison of 6 dB lateral spread and amplitude variation for carbon steel sample with vertically stacked holes by SFLA and FMC + TFM
techniques.
Sr. Number Technique
1 SFLA 128 elements
2 SFLA 64 elements
3 FMC + TFM 64 elements
from the holes. The lower bound value of the lateral spread,
which is for the topmost hole, is similar for all the cases.
However, the upper bound value, which is for the bottom-
most hole, indicates that the focusing at higher depth is better
with SFLA while using 128 elements as compared to FMC +
TFM technique. The higher value of the lateral spread with
FMC + TFM technique occurs because only 64 elements of
the array are used for data acquisition. As a result, the sound
beam divergence available for post-processing and the total
number of raw A-scans for each hole are significantly less in
the data acquired by FMC. These factors lead to an increase
in the lateral spread, especially at larger depths. However,
when the same number of elements are used for data acquisi-
tion, the results obtained by SFLA and FMC + TFM tech-
niques are similar. As far as the amplitude variation is
concerned, the least variation is observed for SFLA with
128 elements. FMC +TFM and SFLA with 64 elements
show marginally higher variation in the signal amplitudes
from the holes.
Lateral Coverage for Discontinuity Detection by a Focused Sound
Beam
The lateral coverage or the ability of SFLA technique to
detect the discontinuity with a focused sound beam in the
region below the array and also beyond it at the same time is
determined by carrying out the experiments on an aluminum
sample containing fifteen 2 mm diameter side drilled holes
located at the depth of 25 mm from the scanning surface.
Figure 4 shows the experimental set-up and the sample
4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
6 6 6 7.5 8.5
Dimensions (mm)
Figure 4. Experimental arrangement for data acquisition on aluminum sample with horizontally separated holes.
6 dB lateral spread Amplitude
variation (mm) variation (dB)
0.4 to 1.4 23
0.4 to 3.0 25
0.4 to 2.9 27
details. The linear array is placed in such a way that the central
seven holes lie in the region below the array and the
remaining eight (four on each side) are located in the region
away from it. Figures 5a and 5b show the raw and the SFLA
processed B-scan images respectively. The raw image shows
overlapping signals from the holes. The overlapping occurs
because the holes are closely spaced and each hole gives a
wide hyperbolic signal. From the raw image, one cannot get
any information on the number of holes and lateral separation
between them. During SAFT processing, the lateral range for
sound beam focusing is defined in such a way that in addition
to the region below the linear array, the region of approxi-
mately 30 mm on both sides of the array is also included. This
ensures that the holes that do not lie directly beneath the
linear array, and are primarily detected because of the diver-
gent sound beam by the peripheral elements of the array, are
imaged in the processed B-scan image. The processed B-scan
image shows all the fifteen holes that are present in this block,
including the ones that do not lie below the array. The
extreme four holes at both ends, which are not located
beneath the linear array, show lower amplitude and higher
spread as compared to the central holes. The central holes are
detected by the sound beam emanating from the majority of
the elements of the array. As a result, there are a number of
A-scans with measurable signal amplitude from the central
holes for SAFT processing. This leads to better focusing and
higher signal amplitude from the holes in the processed data.
Contrary to this, the holes that do not lie below the array are
detected by the sound beam emanating from very few
25 mm
8.5 7.5 6 6 6
JUNE 2017 • MATERIALS EVALUATION 817
ME TECHNICAL PAPER w
x synthetic focusing of sound beam

Amplitude (dB) Amplitude (dB)

128
0 0 120
100 100
5 80
5 80

10 60
10 60

Depth (mm)
40 40
Depth (mm)

15 20 15 20
0 0
20 20
25 25
30 30
35 35
40 40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
(a) Distance (mm) (b) Distance (mm)

10
Depth (mm)

20

30

40
(c) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Distance (mm)

Figure 5. B-scan images of an aluminum sample with horizontally separated holes: (a) raw data; (b) SFLA; and (c) FMC + TFM. FMC + TFM =
full matrix capture – total focusing method; SFLA = synthetic focusing using linear array.

elements, and that too, is the peripheral sound beam. Hence, the receiving element, producing an indication. The sound
during SAFT processing, the focusing is not very effective, path of this signal is marginally higher than the direct sound
leading to larger lateral spread and lower signal amplitude. path, and so after processing it appears as a separate signal in
The results indicate that SFLA technique is able to detect the image at a slightly higher depth.
and resolve the volumetric discontinuities that are located Figure 5c shows the result of FMC + TFM. The image
close to each other in the region below the array as well as shows all the fifteen holes that are present in the sample. All
away from it. In addition to the signals from the holes at the the holes are clearly resolved.
expected depth, the processed B-scan image shows some Table 2 gives the comparison of results obtained by SFLA
additional signals beneath the signals from the hole. These and FMC + TFM techniques. The results are compared in
low amplitude signals are seen prominently at the locations terms of the lateral coverage achieved, the minimum 6 dB
where the central five holes are present and appear at a
slightly higher depth than the signals from the holes. The TABLE 2
primary reasons for the appearance of these additional signals Comparison of 6 dB spread, lateral coverage, and amplitude
are the beam spread and a small lateral separation between variation using SFLA and FMC techniques for aluminum block with
laterally separated holes.
the holes. When the sound beam is incident on any one of
these closely spaced holes, there is a reflected signal that goes Parameter SFLA FMC + TFM
back directly to the receiving element. Since the reflected Minimum 6 dB lateral spread (mm) 1.0 1.0
sound beam is also divergent, a part of this goes towards the Lateral coverage (mm) 86 86
adjacent hole from where it gets reflected and finally reaches Amplitude variation (dB) 16 21

818 MATERIALS EVALUATION • JUNE 2017

 20
Dimensions (mm)

0.9 1.2

50
0.6 1.1 1.5

(a) Dimensions (mm) (b)

Figure 6. Carbon steel sample with closely spaced side drilled holes: (a) sketch showing the separation between the holes; and (b) magnified
view of the holes in the sample.

spread, and the amplitude variation. The results indicate the

lateral coverage of approximately 86 mm is obtained by both
the techniques. The minimum 6 dB spread value, which Amplitude (dB)
0
corresponds to the central hole, is in a similar range for both 128
5
the techniques. The amplitude variation is higher with 4
100
80
FMC+TFM technique as compared to SFLA, primarily 6 60
because of the fact that only 64 of the total 128 elements of 8 40
Depth (mm)

the array are used to acquire full matrix data. 10 20

12 0

14
Resolving Power 16
In order to determine the resolving power of SFLA technique, 18
experiments are conducted on a carbon steel sample having 20
side drilled holes of 0.5 mm diameter located at a depth of 22
24
20 mm from the surface and separated center-to-center in
26
lateral direction by 0.6 mm to 1.5 mm. Figures 6a and 6b 28
show the sketch and the magnified view of the holes in the 30
sample respectively. Figure 7a shows the processed B-scan 0 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 32 33 34 35 36
(a)
image for this sample using SFLA technique. The image Distance (mm)
shows that all the holes that are present in this sample are 0
very well resolved, including the ones that are separated by
0.6 mm. The above result indicates that the sound beam
focusing achieved by SFLA is very effective and the technique
is able to resolve very closely spaced discontinuities separated
edge-to-edge by a distance of 0.1 mm. Figure 7b shows the
Depth (mm)

B-scan image using FMC + TFM technique. The image

indicates that the holes separated by 0.6 mm are not resolved 20
clearly. The resolution for other holes is satisfactory. The
results by SFLA technique are marginally better than ones
obtained by FMC + TFM technique. This can be attributed
to the higher number of elements used for data acquisition
with SFLA technique (128) as compared to FMC
(64 elements).
(b) 40

Characterization of a Weld Discontinuity

Nondestructive examination provides a vital input in the Figure 7. B-scan images for carbon steel sample with closely spaced
fitness-for-service assessment of a component containing side drilled holes: (a) SFLA technique; and (b) FMC + TFM technique.

JUNE 2017 • MATERIALS EVALUATION 819

ME TECHNICAL PAPER w
x synthetic focusing of sound beam

discontinuities by providing information on the depth

(height or through-wall dimension) of a discontinuity Amplitude (dB)
2 100
(ASME, 2015). The conventional ultrasonic techniques based 4

Depth (mm)
on the amplitude of the reflected signal from the discontinuity 6
are prone to the depth sizing errors (Chapman, 1987). Ultra- 8 Upper tip 0
sonic techniques based on the time of flight of the signals 10 Lower tip
diffracted from the discontinuity extremities are very accurate 12
in this regard (Ogilvy et al., 1983; Charlesworth et al., 2001). 14 –100
These techniques are based on locating the discontinuity 16
extremities with respect to the scanning surface. If a focused 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36
sound beam is used for this purpose, the uncertainty involved (a) Distance (mm)
Amplitude (dB)
in locating the discontinuity extremities would be less, as well 2 100
as the error in the depth sizing. The focusing ability of SFLA

Depth (mm)
technique is utilized for the depth sizing of a sidewall lack of
5
fusion in a 15 mm thick carbon steel weld joint. Figure 8 0

shows the photograph of the weld sample containing the Upper tip

discontinuity. Prior to sectioning the sample, the B-scan data 10

Lower tip
by SFLA and FMC techniques are acquired by placing the linear –100

array symmetrically over the discontinuity. 15

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 38
(b) Distance (mm)

15
Depth (mm)

10

Upper tip
5
Lower tip

Lack of sidewall fusion 0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
(c) Distance (mm)
Weld

Figure 8. Lack of sidewall fusion in the weld sample.
Figures 9a and 9b show the raw and the SAFT processed
B-scan images by SFLA technique. The raw image shows two
hyperbolic signals corresponding to the upper and the lower
tips of lack of sidewall fusion. These signals are reduced to
fine spots on SAFT processing. From the locations of these
spot indications from the scanning surface, the depth of lack
of sidewall fusion is evaluated. Figure 9c shows the FMC +
TFM image for this discontinuity. In this case too, the upper
and the lower tips of the discontinuity are detected. The
depth of lack of sidewall fusion evaluated by SFLA and
FMC + TFM technique is 2.9 mm and 2.8 mm, which is very
close to the true depth of 3 mm found out by metallography.
Conclusions
SFLA has been developed. The technique offers the following
advantages:
l As compared to the conventional phased array using focal
laws, a very fine focal spot size over a significant depth range
Figure 9. B-scan images for carbon steel weld sample with lack of
sidewall fusion: (a) raw B-Scan; (b) SFLA technique; and (c) FMC +
TFM technique. FMC + TFM = full matrix capture – total focusing
method; SFLA = synthetic focusing using linear array.
can be achieved using much less advanced resources in terms
of the instrumentation requirements. A single channel instru-
ment with multiplexing is adequate for data acquisition.
l The sensitivity, the lateral coverage, and the resolving power
for discontinuity detection is comparable to FMC + TFM
technique.
l Since the size of the acquired data for post-processing is
much smaller, a low-cost and compact real-time imaging
system for industrial use based on SFLA technique can easily
be realized.
l The ability to detect and accurately characterize the weld
planar discontinuity has shown that SFLA technique has
immense potential for field applications involving ultrasonic
nondestructive testing and evaluation.

820 MATERIALS EVALUATION • JUNE 2017

REFERENCES:
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code: Section XI: Rules for in-service
inspection of nuclear power plant components, New York, New York.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers. 2015.
Azar, L., Y. Shi, and S.C. Wooh, “Beam Focusing Behaviour of Linear
Phased Arrays,” NDT&E International, Vol. 33, No. 3, 2000, pp. 189–198.
Chahbaz, A. and R. Sicard, (Mar 2003). “Comparative Evaluation Between
Ultrasonic Phased Array and Synthetic Aperture Focusing Techniques,”
AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 657, No. 1, pp. 769–776.
doi:101063/11570213.
Chapman, R. K., “The Assessment of Defect Measurement Errors in the
Ultrasonic NDT of Welds,” CEGB Guidance Document,
OED/STN/87/20137/R, Issue 1, 1987.
Charlesworth, J. P., and J.A.G. Temple, Engineering Applications of
Ultrasonic Time-of-Flight Diffraction, 2nd Edition, Ultrasonic Inspection in
Engineering Series, Baldock: Research Studies Press Ltd., 2001,
ISBN 0-86380-239-247.
Dias, J. Fleming, “Construction and Performance of an Experimental
Phased Array Acoustic Imaging Transducer,” Ultrasonic Imaging, Vol. 3,
No. 4, 1981, pp. 352–368.
Ezzaidi, M., D. Decultot,, D. Maze, and A. Moudden, “Measurement of
Thickness of a Cylindrical Shell with a Focused Beam,” NDT&E
International, Vol. 35, No. 7, 2002, pp. 433–436.
Frederick, J. R., J.A. Seydel, and R.C. Fairchild, “Improved Ultrasonic
Non-Destructive Testing of Pressure Vessels,” Progress Report,
NUREG-0007-1, NRC-5; University of Michigan, Mechanical
Engineering Department, August 1974–July 1975.
Gebhardt, W., “Improvement of Ultrasonic Testing by Phased Arrays,”
Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 76, No. 3, 1983, pp. 275–283.
Holmes, Caroline, Bruce W. Drinkwater, and Paul D. Wilcox, “Post-
Processing of the Full Matrix of Ultrasonic Transmit–Receive Array Data
for Non-Destructive Evaluation”, NDT&E International, Vol. 38, No. 8,
2005, pp. 701–711.
Distributed by:
Anup Nair (Date - 22-09-2017)
.
Distributed to:
1. Gaurav Kaushik
2. K Vijaykannan
3. Dheeraj R
4. Prasanth G
5. Chandana K
6. M Shafi
7. Siraj M
8. Khaja M
Sent as an email, signature not required.
Holmes, C., B. Drinkwater,, and P. Wilcox, “The Post-Processing of Ultra-
sonic Array Data Using the Total Focusing Method,” Insight, Vol. 46, No.
11, 2004, pp. 677–680.
Kino, G. S., P.M. Grant, P.D. Corl, and C.S. De Silets,, “A Digital Synthetic
Aperture Acoustic Imaging for NDE,” IEEE Ultrasonics Symposium
Proceedings, 1978, pp. 459–467.
Lines, David I. A., J. Wharrie, and J. Hottenroth, “Real-time Full Matrix
Capture + Total Focusing and Other Novel Imaging Options Using
General Purpose PC-based Array Instrumentation,” Insight, Vol. 54, No. 2,
2012, pp. 86–90.
Müller, W., V. Schmitz, and G. Schäfer,, “Reconstruction by the Synthetic
Aperture Focussing Technique (SAFT),” Nuclear Engineering and Design,
Vol. 94, No. 3, 1986, pp. 393–404.
Ogilvy, J.A., and J.A.G. Temple, “Diffraction of Elastic Waves by Cracks:
Application to Time-of-Flight Inspection,” Ultrasonics, Vol. 7, No. 6, 1983,
pp. 259–269.
Olympus NDT, Phased Array Testing: Basic Theory for Industrial Applica-
tions, NDT Field Guides, Waltham: Olympus Scientific Solutions
Americas, 2014.
Rooney, J., and A. Reid, “Ultrasonic Inspection of Small Diameter Thin-
Wall Tubing,” Ultrasonics, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1966, pp. 57–63.
Schmitz, V., S. Chakhlov, and W. Müller, “Experiences with Synthetic
Aperture Focusing Technique in the Field,” Ultrasonics, Vol. 38, No. 1–8,
2000, pp. 731–738.
Shiloh, K., L.J. Bondt, and A.K. Som, “Detection Limits for Single Small
Flaws and Groups of Flaws when Using Focussed Ultrasonic Transducers,”
Ultrasonics, Vol. 31, No. 6, 1993, pp. 395–404.
Thomson, R.N., “Transverse and Longitudinal Resolution of the Synthetic
Aperture Focusing Technique,” Ultrasonics, Vol. 22, No. 1, 1984, pp. 9–15.
Uchida, K., S. Nagaii, H. Kashiwaya, and M. Arii, “Availability Study of a
Phased Array Ultrasonic Technique,” Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol.
81, No. 2, 1984, pp. 309–314.
JUNE 2017 • MATERIALS EVALUATION 821