S-scan Coverage with Phased Arrays

E.A. Ginzel1 and M.D.C. Moles2

Abstract

This paper describes some ray tracing to show coverage using phased array S-scans for
encoded linear scans. A variety of weld configurations were modeled, from simple butt
welds to double V welds to complex T-welds, including a variety of thicknesses. For
simple butt welds below 10 mm, a single S-scan provided coverage; however, thicker
walls and more complex structures will require multiple S-scans. No definitive rules are
possible, as welds vary so much in configurations, though some guidelines are given.

Introduction

Construction welds in pressure vessels and other components typically require inspection
to “guarantee” structural integrity. Normally, construction welds are inspected to code
(see Codes); however, codes are by necessity well behind technology. While radiography
or X-rays have been the historical inspection techniques, ultrasonics has become more
common in recent decades. In the last few years, phased arrays have become much more
prevalent (see Phased Arrays).

Ultrasonic phased arrays are a recent technology, which can perform S-scans, as well as
raster-type electronic scans, TOFD, tandem and manual inspections. S-scans are a new
technology, with their own learning curve. ASME defines an S-scan as follows (1):
S-scan: (also called a Sector, Sectorial, Azimuthal or swept angle scan). S-scan may refer
to either the beam movement or the data display.
• When used to refer to the beam movement, an S-scan refers to the set of focal
laws that provides a fan-like series of beams through a defined range of angles
using the same set of elements.
• As a data display, an S-scan is a two-dimensional view of all A-scans from a
specific set of elements corrected for delay and refracted angle. Volume-corrected
S-scan images typically show a pie-shaped display with defects located at their
geometrically correct and measurable positions.

Phased arrays can be used in two basic modes: Manual and Encoded. This paper refers to
encoded scanning only, specifically encoded linear scanning for welds. This is defined as
“A linear scan is a single pass scan parallel to the weld to be examined at a fixed distance
from the weld axis”, and is called one-line scanning in some industries. Here, position of
the arrays relative to the weld and the beam coverage are critical.

One issue which constantly re-appears is about the coverage possible with S-scans, and
whether one S-scan is adequate for thin-walled components with linear encoded scanning.
This paper determines the limitations of S-scans for covering welds of different profiles
and thicknesses using modeling. Coverage has already been addressed in the ASME
Section V Code, which will require a Scan Plan to show coverage (2). Actual coverage
will depend on array position, angular range, thickness etc. Ultimately, modeling shows
that a simple guideline is possible for whether one or more S-scans are required.

Phased Arrays

Ultrasonic phased arrays are similar to sonar, radar and other wave physics array
technologies. Briefly, a series of active elements are pulsed, time-delayed, received, A/D
converted and summed independently. The waves interact in constructive and destructive
interference to produce wavefronts, which act very similarly to conventional ultrasonics.
The arrays can be made in many different shapes, sizes and frequencies, and the elements
are all ultrasonically insulated from each other. Phased arrays are described in depth
elsewhere (3).

Besides being able to generate unusual scan patterns, phased arrays have significant
advantages over conventional monocrystal ultrasonics. Specifically:
• Speed; for welds, corrosion and other components, linear scanning can increase
scanning speed (and hence reduce costs) significantly.
• Imaging; S-scans, E-scans and other 2D and 3D imaging can give much better
and more interpretable defect assessments.
• Flexibility; phased arrays can perform a wide variety of scans, for a wide variety
of defects on many different types of components.
• Data storage; full or even partial data storage and display allows better defect
interpretation, plus can be used for archive purposes.
• Reproducibility; though not demonstrated yet by third party trials, using the same
set-up and procedure with phased arrays gives much more reproducible results
than with manual ultrasonics.
In addition to advanced generation/receiving, True Depth or Volume-Corrected S-scans
are popular due to their apparent coverage and imaging. Figure 1 shows an example of an
S-scan with easy defect location analysis. Defects located on the B0 (half skip) horizontal
line are on the ID, and those on the T1 line (full skip) are on the OD. Signals in between
B0 and T1 are midwall. While S-scans such as Figure 1 give apparent coverage, it is not
fully clear that all sections of the weld are actually inspected, or how many S-scans are
required for full coverage. This is the purpose of this paper.
 Figure 1: S-scan of weld with ID and OD defects located.

S-scan Coverage and Bevel Incidence Angles

Coverage for manual inspections using S-scans are not an issue, as procedures normally
require the operator to raster scan over the full weld; this is the same as conventional
manual inspections. However, for encoded linear scans using S-scans, coverage is
important. In order to get the benefits of faster scanning with smaller instruments, a
limited number of S-scans are desired. Clearly, S-scans may cover the whole weld – if
the wall is thin. For thicker walls, multiple scans are obviously needed, either a single
pass with a suitably long array, or multiple passes.

The situation is complicated by the requirements to be close to the bevel incidence angle
(4), or to use “appropriate” angles. How close is close enough? Theoretical work (5)
showed that incidence within 5o of bevel could be considered close enough, while at 10o
off-incidence angle signal amplitudes were starting to drop off significantly. Effectively,
there was no consensus at the practical level.

In addition, monocrystals probes normally only come at fixed angles such as 45, 60 and
70o. If the designer (legitimately) mandated a weld bevel angle of 37.5o, it would never
be possible to inspect within + 5o of bevel incidence angle. Overall, it appears that there
is no uniformity of practice here.

Modeling of bevel incidence angle was performed using Corel, which provides such
information, on a simple butt weld. The results are shown in Figure 2 a-c. Depending on
the bevel incidence angles required, either two S-scans (for + 10o) or three (for + 5o) will
provide “appropriate” angles (4). This Imagine3D work did not define “coverage”,
particularly for thin-walled components.
 Figure 2 (a): + 5o bevel incidence angle coverage. Requires three S-scans for coverage.

Figure 2 (b): + 10o bevel incidence angle coverage. Requires two S-scans for coverage.

Figure 2 (c): + 10o coverage on thicker wall. Still only requires two S-scans for coverage.

Codes

Inspection codes generally accept new technologies like phased arrays. This applies
specifically to the three main North American codes: ASME, API (6) and AWS (7).
However, the techniques and technologies need approval. All these codes have
methodologies for adopting new technologies and techniques.
The general conditions to be met for any weld examination in ASME include “an
appropriate angle” and “full volume coverage” (4).

Modeling Procedures

This work used simple computer modeling to determine coverage of various weld
profiles and thicknesses to show whether full coverage is obtained or not. The software
used (ESBeam (8)) does not calculate Bevel Incident Angles commercially yet, but
readily shows coverage using S-scans. The program is simple to use, and fulfills the
ASME Scan Plan requirements. It is typical of the type of simple ray tracing programs
that are, or should be, available on standard phased array instruments to evaluate ASME
and other code Scan Plans.

Modeling was performed on three basic welds: butt welds, T-welds and K-welds. The
assumption is that the T-welds and K-welds are reasonably thick, while butt welds can be
any thickness. The array was moved to optimize the inspection, on the basis that all
operators will generate a Scan Plan and follow it during inspection.

ESBeam uses standard commercial (ONDT and other) arrays and wedges, which can be
selected as appropriate. These probes are then placed on the modeled component,
including the weld profile, to view the beam patterns. Using S-scan parameters (e.g.
angular range), S-scan coverage can be immediately visualized. Moving the probe around
or changing the set-up parameters allows the operator to optimize the inspection, and
print the results for a Scan Plan and auditable report. Multiple S-scans and multiple
arrays can be modeled, as well as more complex components. The dotted lines beside the
ray trace fan are the 6 dB drop-off points, i.e. what is normally considered adequate
coverage by code.

A prototype software version of ESBeam has bevel incidence angle calculated, as shown
in Figure 3 below. Here, selected angles on a 25 mm pipe wall with a single S-scan are
shown; interestingly, essentially full coverage is obtained, while Bevel Incident Angles
are only just above 10o at worst.

Figure 3: Ray tracing using advanced ESBeam with sample Bevel Incidence Angles
(arrowed) calculated on 25 mm wall double-V weld.
Modeling Results

Single V weld with 2mm land and 60° included angle and 2mm gap

This weld configuration is typical of SMAW weld prep. The probe-wedge combination
for thin wall examples has been selected to minimise the dimension to the nose of the
wedge (see Figure 4a). This is necessary to ensure optimum approach for the root region.
The modeling was performed on walls from 5 mm to 25 mm. The 5 MHz array modeled
used a 16 element, 10mm aperture. Figure 4b shows the dimensions of the 5 MHz 64
element array used for thicker walls.

Figure 4a: Probe/wedge dimensions used for thin wall examples

Figure 4b: Dimensions of larger 64 element array and wedge.

Thin wall sections will be problematic in that the root regions may not be accessible even
with a 70° refracted angle on the half skip. Coverage using a half skip may be possible
with wedge modification. Figures 5 a-d shows a series of welds from 5 to 9 mm wall, all
covered by a single S-scan. Figure 5a shows the coverage on 5 mm with a single skip.
Depending on the geometry and parameters, it may be possible to obtain volume
coverage using a 1.5 skip technique, as shown in Figure 5b.

As thickness increases the traditional approach using 45° to 70° S-scan sweep is feasible,
even with a relatively wide cap. In both cases (5mm and 7mm) the angles of approach for
the root rely on corner reflections and the skip up to the upper weld bevel provides
reasonable angle approach albeit slightly more than 10° off the bevel angle at the upper
extreme (see Figure 5c). However, at the upper extreme (cap region) the corner effect
will again ensure high POD especially at the 45°-50° refracted range.

Of course the gap is critical at this juncture. If the gap gets too wide the 1.5 skip option
would need to be used to ensure suitable root coverage. By the time the wall thickness
reaches 9mm, the coverage of the root-region by a refracted 65°-70° angle can be
reasonably assured for most conditions of cap geometry (see Figure 5d). However, at this
point the cap region could suffer a reduced coverage in the HAZ of the probe-side of the
weld. If the gap is not excessive this can be adapted to by a slight increase in standoff
(see Figure 5e).
5.00mm

Figure 5a: 5mm Wall using standard 45-70o refracted shear wave S-scan

Figure 5b: 5mm Wall using 1.5 skip 50-65o refracted shear wave S-scan
 7.00mm

Figure 5c: 7mm Wall using standard 45-70o refracted shear wave S-scan

HAZ poorly
addressed
9.00mm

Figure 5d: 9mm Wall using standard 45-70o refracted shear wave S-scan
9.00mm

Figure 5e: 9mm Wall using standard 45-70o refracted shear wave S-scan with increased
standoff.

Figure 5: Modeling results with single S-scan on thin walled butt welds.

The minimum angle could be extended to 40° from 45o and still achieve the volume
coverage (if calibratable at this range). However, the assumption that the root is properly
addressed assumes that the gap is not varying and the centre of the weld-cap can be used
as a guide to adequately assure the probe position for alignment. Both of these
assumptions cannot be guaranteed to be true.

In addition, this is a 30o weld bevel; other weld bevels and component geometries are
possible, so the best solution is modeling on the specific weld bevel to produce a Scan
Plan. These modeling results can only be regarded as a “guideline”.
At thicknesses over 9mm, single V bevels should be inspected using a minimum of two
S-scans with two different standoffs from each side of the weld. This may be achieved
by two passes or, if the probe/wedge design is suitable it may be possible to leave the
probe in one position and generate two sets of S-scans per side. Results from 10 mm and
up are shown in Figure 6 a-b. The amount of standoff difference will depend on the
configuration and is typically 0.5 to 1.5 aperture dimension. The illustrations in Figure 6
use a 10mm aperture (16 elements with 0.6mm pitch).

For thicker sections the ratios remain the same; however the probability exists that the
volume of concern extends to greater dimensions due to the HAZ. Two standoff positions
not only ensure required volume coverage it also provides increased POD by providing a
second angle of approach on the bevel face.

These results were essentially established in earlier modeling and experimental work (9).
Here, the concern was more about the bevel incidence angle than coverage; however, the
conclusions are similar. For thin walls, enough ultrasound was “showered” back to the
probe for detection with a single pass. For thick walls, multiple S-scans were required for
“appropriate” angles. Note that two smaller probes were used here, though a single larger
array should be technically feasible.

0mm

0mm
10.00mm

Generated with Eclipse Scientific ESBeamTool2

Figure 6a: 10mm Wall using standard 45-70o refracted shear wave S-scans with two
standoffs
25.00mm
 Figure 6b: 25mm Wall using standard 45-70o refracted shear wave S-scan with two
standoffs

One last point about the modeling images: while ESBeam may not give direct
measurements of the bevel incident angle yet, the images show clearly that in some cases
the angles are not “appropriate”. This does not apply so much on the near bevel, but
Figures 5 and 6 show that angles on the far side weld bevel are clearly inappropriate. The
codes generally require inspection from both sides – which is supported here. Though
angles may be inappropriate, coverage may be adequate on the far bevels.

Double V

Double V weld preparations are typically used where wall thickness increase and access
is available from the two sides. One purpose of double V weld preparations is to reduce
the weld volume that could result from the wide openings that could occur if the single V
was continued. The angles used will be greatly dependent on the welding process and
access. Since no single preparation geometry exists, the one used for illustration here
will consider a relatively wide opening with symmetric geometry left and right and inside
and out.

The probe-wedge combination for heavier wall examples need not be as concerned with
the approach restrictions of cap dimensions so can be larger than those required for thin
wall. A typical off-the-shelf 5MHz 64 element probe can be used for most applications.
Dimensions of such a probe are shown in Figure 4b.

The likely scenario for increased thickness would be to use larger apertures, so this has
been increased to 20 elements or approximately 12mm. Figure 7 a-c shows the modeled
results. Because of the shorter height from the root to the near and far surfaces, the
openings at the surfaces are smaller than was the case for the Single V. This means that a
single S-scan 45°-70° could be used to cover the volume of interest. This is seen in the
“Blue” S-scan below in Figure 7a. However, in order to better address the possibility of
incomplete root penetration (midwall on this illustration) a second S-scan is presented
that covers the root region with a direct soundpath.

Although the “volume” can in some cases be fully addressed by a single focal law the
added coverage of a second S-scan (from both sides of the weld) should be a requirement,
which it is in ASME. In Figure 7a, the apertures are 20 elements and the first start
element is at #7 and the second aperture starts at #40. Hence, almost two aperture
dimensions separate the focal laws. This distance will vary depending on the weld
dimensions.

The ability to address both the weld outer edges at the HAZ and still provide direct
approach to the root area cannot extend continuously and will be limited by the probe
dimensions. As an example, using the same design of bevel and probe/wedge
combination on a 50 mm wall, the coverage cannot be maintained (see Figure 7b). This
would require a third S-scan and a repositioning of the probe/wedge, as shown in Figure
7c.

25.00mm

Figure 7a: 25mm wall using standard 45-70o refracted shear wave S-scans with second
standoff for root

missed
50.00mm

Figure 7b: 50mm wall using standard 45-70o refracted shear wave S-scans with second
standoff for root, showing lack of coverage.
50.00mm

Figure 7c: 50mm wall using standard 45-70o refracted shear wave S-scans with three
standoffs

Sometimes asymmetry of the weld bevel is used to overcome welding approach

difficulties. Bevel angles may then be reduced in some cases but the relative root position
and weld openings must be considered. For thicker sections this will in most cases
require more than two S-scan standoffs. Figures 8 a-c illustrate some examples of
asymmetric welds and possible inspection solutions using S-scans. In Figure 8a, the weld
is well covered using three S-scans. In Figure 8b, the (interior) root is poorly addressed as
a result of only two S-scans. This is improved by using a hybrid triple S-scan as shown
in Figure 8c.
50.00mm

Figure 8a: 50mm wall using standard 45-70o refracted shear wave S-scans with three
standoffs for asymmetric bevel
50.00mm

Figure 8b: 50mm wall using standard 45-70o refracted shear wave S-scans with two
standoffs for asymmetric bevel but now inverted.
50.00mm

Figure 8c: Possible hybrid triple S-scan approach for inspecting double V welds with
asymmetric profiles.
Other Weld Configurations – T-welds

Examination of welds is not always as simple as that presented for butt welds. Curved
surfaces or angled intersections can provide other considerations. As well, access is
always a consideration since some surfaces are often unavailable for inspection.

The general rule for ultrasonic examination is to inspect the weld from the surface on
which the bevel is made. For T-welds this will be dependent on the preparation type. As
with butt welds, the preparation can be single or double-sided. Similar considerations
must be given for access (probe size) and volume coverage as was done for butt welds.
Access to the vertical face (un-bevelled) may be limited or the wall thickness may be
such that no practical skip effect can be used to approach the weld from those surfaces.
Fusion faces provide a major concern for weld quality and the vertical land at the root is
again given extra coverage where possible. This will usually involve two standoff
positions when using S-scans (T-connections are not likely encountered in thinner wall
plate, e.g. less than 10mm). Figures 9 a and b show two sample T-weld profiles and
inspection strategies.

Figure 9a: 20mm beveled T-weld using standard 45-70o refracted shear wave S-scans
with two standoffs

Figure 9b: 20mm beveled plate on 20mm plate using standard 45-70o refracted shear
wave S-scans
Although a single fusion-face is well “approached” from the plate via a skip and a single
standoff may suffice, little useful information is gained and weld surface geometry may
present limitations for access and cause mode conversions.

When access is possible from the opposite wall, the ideal access is made to view the
longest fusion face and also provide access to angle beams to assess the bevelled faces.
Where concern exists for toe cracking on the un-beveled plate a second set of S-scans (or
E-scans) can be made (see Figures 10 a and b).

Generated with Eclipse Scientific ESBeamTool2

Figure 10a: 20mm plates using 0° E-scan, and 0° to 35° S-scans at two standoffs with
another two standoffs for 0° to -35° S-scans using refracted compression mode
 Figure 10b: 20mm plates using two shear mode S-scans 25° to 45° and -25° 0° to -45°
for toe cracking

Discussion

One question that has been asked is: “Do we really need to perform two S-scans on thin
plates to get coverage?” The modeling shows clearly that on butt welds less than 10 mm,
coverage can be achieved in a single S-scan. However, not all bevel incidence angles will
be optimum; will we miss defects? The answer, based on previous modeling (9), is
probably “no” for thin plates, as the probe aperture is relatively large cf. the wall, and
should collect reflected ultrasound well.

However, this is not the case with all welds. Above ~10 mm, two S-scans are definitely
required for coverage. In addition, two S-scans are required for appropriate angles. As the
wall gets thicker, more than two S-scans may be required. For complex weld
configurations, no predictions are possible. However, it is generally straightforward to
model the component, and then determine what the optimum S-scan positions are, and
whether coverage is possible. With ESBeam, a future version will have bevel incidence
angles, so both coverage and appropriate angles can be determined with a simple program.

Codes typically require some knowledge of “coverage”, so this trend of using modeling
should continue, primarily for encoded linear scans. Note that coverage and appropriate
angles are not the same; one can have coverage but inappropriate angles. In this case,
little may be detected.

Conclusions
1. Simple ray tracing programs such as ESBeam can show coverage of welds using S-
scans for linear encoded Scan Plans.

2. To answer the question “Is more than one S-scan required for thin walls?”, the
modeling shows that a single S-scan can obtain coverage for a butt weld up to ~10 mm.

3. For codes such as ASME Section V that will require Scan Plans for linear encoded
scanning, simple modeling appears to be the best solution to show coverage, and
appropriate angles in the near future.

4. Realistically, it is not possible to give rules from this modeling due to the wide
configuration variations in welds (and probes); these results should be treated as
guidelines only.

References

1. ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, Code Case 2557, “Use of Manual Phased array
S-scan Ultrasonic Examination per Section V Article 4”, September 18, 2006.

2. ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, code cases and Mandatory Appendix on
encoded phased arrays – in print and preparation.

3. R/D Tech, “Introduction to Phased Array Ultrasonic Technology Applications – A

Guideline”, published by R/D Tech, 2004. See www.olympusndt.com/books.

4. ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code Section V Article 4, 2007 Edition, 1 July 2007.
(See T472.1.2.)

5. Charlesworth J.P. and J.A.G. Temple, 1989, “Ultrasonic Time of Flight Diffraction”,
Research Studies Press. See Figure 3.2.

6. API, Recommended Practice for “Ultrasonic and Magnetic Particle Examination of

Offshore Structural Fabrication and Qualification of Technicians”, American Petroleum
Institute Recommended Practice RP2X, Third Edition, September 1996.

7. AWS D1:1 2006, AWS D1:1 2006, “Structural Welding Code – Steel”, American
Welding Society, 2006.

8. Eclipse Scientific Products, ESBeam 2.1, www.eclipsescientific.com.

9. M. Moles and J. Zhang, “Construction Weld Testing Procedures using Ultrasonic

Phased Arrays”, Materials Evaluation, January 2005, page 27.
Authors

1. Ed Ginzel
Materials Research Institute
432 Country Squire Road
Waterloo, Ontario N2J 4G8, Canada
Tel: +1 519 886 5071
E-mail: [email protected]

2. Michael Moles
Olympus NDT
73 Superior Avenue
Toronto, Ontario M8V 2M7, Canada
Tel: +1 416 831 4428
E-mail: [email protected]