Detachable Active Array Head: A Proposed Solution F.

Mainguy page 1/9

to Help the Proliferation of Manual Phased Array UT
HARFANGs Series on Phased Array Ultrasound Technology
Detachable Active Array Head (DAAH):
A Proposed Solution to Help the Proliferation of
Phased Array Manual UT
by
Franois MAINGUY
HARFANG Microtechniques inc. (Qubec City)


Abstract
As the price of portable phased array instrumentation
drops, the current phased array probe technology doesnt
allow for a major cost reduction, to a point where the
proliferation of phased array for manual UT may be
limited or impossible. The current manufacturing process
is presented to better understand where the high costs
come from. A Detachable Active Array Head (DAAH)
technology is proposed to solve many problems related to
manual phased array UT, but also to semi-automated and
automated UT. Results show that the technology has a
great potential to become the long-awaited solution for
phased array massive adoption.

I. INTRODUCTION
Since the early 1990s, the interest in phased array technology
and equipment increased in the NDT community. Though the
price of the instruments has constantly decreased in the past
years, the price of phased array probes hasnt followed the
same price trend. The cost of good transducers today is
approximately 20% of the instrument price (Figure 1).


Figure 1 Evolution of the probe-to-instrument price ratio (rough estimates).

Both the price and delivery time have been causing problems
to the industry, which has limited the proliferation of phased
array technology.
The major issue is that most potential users will invest in
phased array once they have had the proof their application
can be solved. Of course, one or several probes are needed
for the proof. On a second order, the actual owners of phased
array instrumentation are slowed down in the process of
resolving new applications because it takes a long time for
them to acquire new probes.
Amongst the current limitations to the proliferation of manual
phased array inspection, probe supply is now the most critical
one. With the cost of portable instruments finally decreasing,
its now becoming a serious subject the industry should
resolve. At the root of the problem is the array technology
itself which is much more complicated and expensive than the
mono-transducer technology.
Another problem is the context in which phased array has
been evolving in for the last 15 years. For the entire 1990s it
remained a very expensive technology that most NDT
departments couldnt afford. In most cases, the lucky ones
had enough money for phased array equipment within a
strategic technology surveillance program or research and
development funding. Quite naturally, those programs are
driven by researchers and top-managers, who are often
removed from daily pragmatic considerations. Still, the latter
have enjoyed the benefits of working with phased array
technology because of its power to resolve applications. Due
to the fact they had plenty of budget, only few compromises
were made in the probe design. In the past 15 years, we have
seen array probe designs that are no less than exotic: rho-theta
probes, segmented annular arrays, flexible probes, Fresnel
arrays, and much more. They have been reported in
numerous papers and conferences. Despite a valid theoretical
justification and very exciting conference presentations, their
geometry and beamforming capabilities dont necessarily
appear simple. Additionally when you start to include the odd
example of phased array terminology like focal law and
beamforming, the recipe is perfect to make one think nice,
but not for me.
Theres been of course a great deal of applications solved
with simple linear 1D arrays, most of them providing a great
benefit when compared to other UT or NDT techniques. But
they also suffered from the same science fiction aura as
perceived by most NDT practitioners worldwide.
NDT field practitioners are, to a large extent, down-to-earth,
time-pressurized individuals who dont necessarily value new
technology when results are not readily available. They have
limited spare time for designing and qualifying array search
units and they often lack experience to write procedures based
on phased array apparatus.
It is also a sad truth that NDT, at least in North America, is
struggling with lack of qualified personnel and very tight
budgets, therefore the natural reaction towards phased array is
Well, looks pretty sleek, but I dont have much time or
Transportable or Portable Phased Array :
Probe-to-Instrument Retail Price Ratio
Detachable Active Array Head: A Proposed Solution F.Mainguy page 2/9
to Help the Proliferation of Manual Phased Array UT
money to explore this further. Plus Im not even sure I want
to pay so much money for a single probe!.
Without a doubt, it is essential to convince manual UT
operators that phased array is an excellent technology, but
manufacturers need to speak their language and eliminate as
many barriers as possible.
In average, the mono-channel flaw detectors sell from 7,000
to 14,000 USD, while mono-transducers sell from 200 to 500
USD. The transducer-to-instrument ratio is roughly 3%. The
current ratio for manual phased array is about 15 to 25%. An
array transducer is currently about 10 times more expensive
than a mono-transducer and this is not acceptable to most
users. It is true that a single phased array probe can replace a
few mono-transducers, but most customers have a
psychological barrier with such expensive probes.
Furthermore, there are 5000 to 7000 manual flaw detectors
sold each year, worldwide (excluding China). Phased array
sales are grabbing only a minor fraction of this market.
Immense marketing efforts were made around the systems
themselves, promoting hardware specifications and software
features. There are now about 4 proactive competitors in
portable phased array and about 10 in semi-automatic or
automated phased array. As the market evolves, more and
more competitors compete, and the marketing will
increasingly become more focussed on specifications and
price. This is the natural evolution of a market when in
transition into a stage of maturity.
But is the market ready for maturity? It is strongly believed
that the market cant wait any longer to have affordable and
standard probes [1].
This paper will first summarize what phased array is all about.
Then it will discuss the technical difficulties of array
manufacturing and the different cost issues. It will also
present the current typical workflow for solving applications
and the impracticality of it. Lastly, it will propose a new
workflow based on a new probe technology, for which results
are provided.

II. PHASED ARRAY UT

a. Phased Array Beamforming
Over the past years, many papers have presented the
underlying principles of phased array technology. Following
is a quick overview.
A piezoelectric crystal is split into many small elements, each
individually driven by a pulser-receiver circuitry. On
transmission, elements are excited with a high-voltage pulse,
but at different moments (different phases). The phase pattern
adjusts the relative propagation of wavefronts. It is creating a
transmit beam that is just like any mono-transducer beam
from a catalogue probe. The beam has a focal spot, a beam
width, a depth-of-field, a divergence, and of course an angle
(Figure 2). The electronic activation and phasing of elements
can quickly change the position, the angle and the focus of the
beam, which are the most attractive advantages of phased
array technology.

Figure 2 A phased array beam is just like any other beam, with same
definition of beam width and depth-of-field.

On reception, a synthetic beam is created by the use of
programmable delay lines on each channel (!
N
in Fig.2) and a
summation. Sometimes, channel deactivation and apodization
(a
N
in Figure 3) are used to weigh the contribution of
elements from extremities. The desired effect is to reduce
side-lobes and extend the depth-of-field, while enlarging the
beam width.

Figure 3 Delay-and-Sum Beamforming.

When reflecting on material discontinuities, the back-
propagating echoes are collected by all elements and the
parallel delay lines act like a spatial filter. It means that
echoes coming from a specific location - the focus point - will
emerge at the same time at the end of the delay lines thus
maximizing the sum amplitude. Off-focus echoes will be out
of phase and will produce a weak summation, barely
distinguishable from the noise. This process is known as
delay-and-sum beamforming to which a spatial filter rejection
ratio can be associated. As an example, a linear array probe
can lead to about 60 dB rejection ratio in the lateral vicinity of
the focal spot, which can provide very sharp focusing. It is
good to recall that phased array beamforming can only
carve the focusing within the near field of the overall array
aperture. In the farther range, only deflection remains
controllable. At the time of writing this paper, the available
portable phased array instruments on the market feature a
delay-and-sum beamformer ranging from 16 to 32 active
channels, with a multiplexing stage to address 64 or 128
elements.
b. Imaging Capabilities
Phased array can provide two real-time images, both based on
several A-scans that are generated sequentially by the
D.O.F.
Depth of Field
Focal Length
Divergence
Beam width
Detachable Active Array Head: A Proposed Solution F.Mainguy page 3/9
to Help the Proliferation of Manual Phased Array UT
beamformer. If the beamformer is programmed to sweep the
beam angles (i.e. 35 to 70 degrees in shear waves), a
Sectorial scan image will be displayed on screen (Fig.4).
This image is also known as S-scan and its well known from
the medical industry. However, if the beamformer is
programmed to move the beam linearly at a constant angle
(i.e. 30 degrees in longitudinal wave), a parallelogram image
will be displayed on screen. This image is known as L-scan
for Linear scanning in opposition to sectorial scanning, and
its also very much used in medical and veterinary
applications. Some NDT manufacturers refer to the latter as
E-scan for Electronic scan, but it leaves open a debate as to
what is performed electronically: phasing or activation ?
Most portable phased array instruments are able to produce
more than one real-time image, a feature known as multi-
scan. In this case, the beamformer is able to manage
multiple hundreds if not thousands of beam parameters, also
known as focal laws.
Both S- and L-scans present color-encoded A-scan amplitudes
that are juxtaposed (Figure 4). It must always be noted that
each displayed A-scan line is in fact the integration of the
energy collected from the acoustic sensitivity field. Therefore
is most likely to include echoes coming from reflectors not on
the nominal beam orientation, mainly because of beam width
and potential side effects (i.e. side lobes, mode conversions,
etc.) [2].

!

!

Figure 4 Sequential beams are generated and produce A-scans. A-scans are
collected, color-coded, and juxtaposed to generate a sectorial scan image.

It should also be pointed that both on S-scan and L-scan
images, the phased array system can extract and display a
particular A-scan corresponding to a specific beam. From the
latter conventional UT views can be generated like B-scan, D-
scan, C-scan, strip charts, plus projected views such as Top,
Side, and End [3]. In fact, most commercial systems will
allow many A-scans to be extracted at once.
c. Imaging Approaches
Phased array leads to three different approaches for scanning
a weldment volume. The first method is to use a shear wave
S-scan imaging. The second is shear and/or longitudinal
wave L-scan imaging. The third is zone-discrimination using
D-scan imaging and/or strip charts, as proposed by ASTM E-
1961 for automated ultrasonic testing of girth welds [4]. The
latter uses phased array to generate multiple discrete beams
that will impact the weld bevel areas using a pulse-echo or a
pitch-and-catch method. This is using phased array without
its full imaging capabilities of continuous sweeping, it also
requires a constant and precise positioning of the probe away
from the weld. For those reasons, this method is not
considered manual per se and it falls outside the scope of this
paper.
Most, if not all, phased array techniques refer to weld length
axis as the scan or D-scan axis. The distance from the weld
is referred to the offset, or surface distance, or the B-scan
axis (Figure 5).

Figure 5 Definition of D-scan weld length axis (dotted arrow) and L-scan/S-
scan surface distance axis (plain arrow).
The search unit is moved manually in different patterns,
depending on the sound coverage of the imaging, as well as
the related probability of detection (PoD) [5]. Of course, both
sides of a weldment should be scanned. For thin components
using S-scan, a single line pass could be enough, like the
dotted line on Figure 5. For thicker components, most will
use multiple line passes, away from the weld [6], or use a
raster scan technique, as with a mono-transducer. Of course,
the greatest advantage of manual imaging is the fact the
operators dexterity is not as crucial to see the flaws, and
therefore the scanning speed is higher.
d. Common Errors
It is very common to see arrays that are oversized for the need
of the application. The first consequence is an unstable
couplant layer. This can sometimes be solved using forced
couplant irrigation. The other consequence is the use of too
many elements to perform sector scanning. The number of
active elements define the active aperture and therefore the
beam width and depth-of-field. It is very common to see
arrays with 2 or 3 times the active surface than what would
have been used as a mono-transducer to solve the application.
The result is over-focusing with a very short depth-of-field,
turning into blindness in most of the depth of interest. This
extremely sharp focusing is sometimes nice, and it also shows
clearly an advantage of phased array. But rarely it is desirable
in the context of manual UT like weld inspection. Keeping
the number of elements to the minimum will keep the cost
reasonable. The last consequence is that a bigger probe will
inevitably position the index points away from the weld,
therefore the region of interest couldnt be inspected with the
direct incidence of steep angles. Second leg will have to be
used.
Another common mistake is to count on circular geometries
to solve applications, like rho-theta and segmented annular
arrays. It is perhaps the best geometries to do beamforming
with because the symmetry of revolution will provide nice
acoustic beams in 3D, without edge effects. It is the very
reason why mono-transducers are often circular. But to
manufacture separate disk elements or a circular array
geometry is a lot more difficult and expensive than fabricating
rectangular ones. Since cost is always an issue for manual
UT, those geometries shall be considered for special, well-
funded projects only, at least for now due to the state-of-the-
art.
The next section explains the array manufacturing process.
Detachable Active Array Head: A Proposed Solution F.Mainguy page 4/9
to Help the Proliferation of Manual Phased Array UT

III. ARRAY MANUFACTURING
a. Review
The vast majority of the market is currently for 1D linear
arrays between 1 and 10 MHz. The pitches are generally
higher than 300!m and the kerf (inter-element spacing) is
normally in the range of 50!m. Most probes manufactured so
far feature less than 128 active elements.
EPRI and a few other players have been successfully using
1.5D (i.e. 8 x 4) or 2D arrays, showing the clear advantage of
exploiting the second dimension for skewing the beams [7].
Despite the superiority of results and the reusability of matrix
probes for other applications, their cost and high-channel
count have made most people reluctant to follow this option.
b. Cost
Probes are still expensive and take a long time to
manufacture. As an example, a 32-element probe at 5 MHz
with 65% relative bandwidth is approximately 4000 to 5000
USD and 5 weeks delivery under normal times, in North
America. The retail price is determined by the following cost
implications:
i. Connector;
ii. Multi-coaxial cable length;
iii. Man-hours for assembly of cable and connector;
iv. CAD time and machining of the probe frame;
v. Material processing;
vi. Quality-assurance measurements and report;
vii. Distribution fees;
viii. Profit.
The connector (i), the cable (ii), the machining (iv) and the
material processing (v) have a cost that is difficult to decrease
other than by high quantity production. The quality-assurance
process varies a lot from one manufacturer to another. When
performed manually, it can be a lengthy process and therefore
it will impact the pricing negatively.
The following lines describe the major steps of array
manufacturing, without going into detail.
c. Material Processing
1-3 piezocomposite is the most popular material used to
design high-performance ultrasound arrays with. Its been
used for almost 25 years in medical arrays and for about 15
years in NDT.
A cylindrical bar is made of piezo-ceramic powder like
PZT5H (lead zirconate titanate). A diamond saw is used to
cut very thin slices of the bar. The thickness of the slice is
usually half the wavelength of the desired central frequency,
including a correction factor.
In most cases, the slice is diced into miniature rectangular
pillars using a diamond saw with orthogonal passes (Figure
6). The size and spacing of the pillars are such that an integer
number of pillars, used in cluster, will become an element of
the array. It should be said that this technique called sub-
dicing is used to maximize compression wave generation
while reducing other wave modes that are incombant to the
array performance. A polymer will be poured in to flood the
inter-pillar spacing. Various polymers can be used like
urethane. The acoustic properties of the piezocomposite can
be adjusted by setting the volume fraction of the polymer
(Figure 7). Parametric finite element simulations with tools
like PZFlex can prove to be very practical to avoid trial-and-
error [8]. This whole process is known as the dam-and-fill
technique [9].

Figure 6 The sub-dicing process improves the electro-acoustic performance.
The processed slice is then polished on a lapping or grinding
machine until the exceeding polymer is removed, until a very
precise thickness and surface finish are obtained. The process
requires a very high parallelism in order to ensure the same
thickness and therefore frequency of resonance.
The next step is to perform metallization of the slice surfaces.
The evaporation or sputtering process will deposit a thin layer
of gold that will act as an electrode. Gold will be deposited in
the sub-diced channels, therefore causing a short-circuit of all
elements. A very precise laser-vaporizing process is normally
used to isolate the individual elements of the array.

Figure 7 A polymer is filling the inter-pillar spacing.
Thats where the composite word comes from.

The slice is then machined to create one or many probe
apertures. The actual machined area will be larger to include
dead elements on the perimeter to avoid aperture side
effects.
e. Impedance Matching
The next step is to add acoustic matching. The inner
impedance of the piezocomposite is in the range of 15-20
MRayls while the impedance of typical Rexolite wedges is in
the 2.5 MRayls range. One or two quarter-wavelength ("/4)
layers should be added to help the acoustic energy transfer
into the wedge material, to create a smooth transition to the
ten-fold impedance mismatch. The matching layer(s) play a
crucial role in determining the resonance of the elements
(frequency and damping) [10].
Detachable Active Array Head: A Proposed Solution F.Mainguy page 5/9
to Help the Proliferation of Manual Phased Array UT
The aperture is then cleaned and put into a production gig to
avoid damaging the thin piezocomposite substrate in the
numerous subsequent steps. The last step of material
processing is to pole the substrate. A high DC voltage is used
to create a high-intensity electric field. The piezoelectric
dipoles will be aligned permanently in the axis of electric
field, perpendicular to the electrodes.
d. Interconnect
The next step is to electrically connect the electrodes. For
high-end processes, a flex circuit will be used to link the
electrodes to one or many interconnect printed circuit boards
(PCB), on which individual micro-coaxial wires will be
soldered. The micro-coaxial wires will have a gauge typically
between 36 to 42 AWG, which is extremely small and
requiring a protective epoxy poting.
At the other end, the micro-coaxial wires are soldered to
another set of interconnect PCBs that will link to the multi-pin
connector which will mate to the ultrasound instrument. As
soon as some connectivity is available, a capacitance check is
performed on the entire array of elements in order to track for
bugs such as short-circuits or high cross-talk. The
consistency of results along the array shall be observed at this
point. The critical measurements are element sensitivity,
central frequency and bandwidth. Defective elements may
imply to abandon further array processing.
At this point, we call the assembly an acoustic stack.
Again, consistency along the array must be monitored. Figure
8 shows a piezocomposite assembly with 7 pillars per element
electrode (lateral dimension), featuring a single matching
layer.


Figure 8 A typical 1-3 piezocomposite with a
single quarter-wavelength matching layer.

f. Packaging
The last mechanical step is to insert the acoustic stack and its
interconnect into the probe frame. The volume between the
back of the acoustic stack and the frame top is filled with
damping material which is normally an epoxy mixture that is
optimized for maximum attenuation of back-propagating
sound waves and acoustic matching with the stack. This
backing material will fine-tune the electro-acoustic response
of the array elements. The backing plays an important role in
the pulse compression (or bandwidth) of a transducer. The
epoxy potting will also protect all the micro-coaxial wires and
the fragile soldering work, while providing a stiff support for
the acoustic stack while in operation.
g. Quality-Assurance
The last step is to validate the overall performance of the
array transducer. Typically, all elements are monitored for
their frequency, bandwidth and sensitivity. A report is
created and a print version is provided with each delivered
unit.

IV. OBSERVATIONS
The described process may differ from one manufacturer to
the other, but in essence, the previous steps are used in the
fabrication of phased arrays for NDT. One can predict that
such a process infers a lot of manual operations requiring
dexterity and time. It also often leads to defective arrays,
which will give rise to a higher retail price for the functional
units. The yield is particularly bad when a new combination
of pitch, frequency, bandwidth and impedance matching is
designed. Therefore, the industry would benefit in
standardizing the pitches and frequencies, being able to reuse
them in many array designs.
Another dead cost in each probe is its interconnection. Its
role is simply to link the instrument to the piezo-elements.
Clearly, it has no value-added in an inspection. Interestingly,
it represents a substantial portion of the probe manufacturing
costs, essentially because it takes time to solder micro-coaxial
cables one by one. Unfortunately, low-cost countries are not
interested in the quantities involved in NDT. They can barely
cope with the demand and quantities in medical.
Medical array probes are produced well above 100,000 units
per year and have a cost of approximately 500 to 1000 USD.
It is unlikely that the NDT array probe production will some
day reach this level. At the same time, NDT array
manufacturers have always said the cost of probe would drop
only when the quantities would be significant.
Standardization is obviously required in order to yield
increased quantities in manufacturing.
Due to the state-of-the-art and to financial reasons, the only
way NDT could benefit of much cheaper probes is to restrict
the number of acoustic stack designs and by keeping the
interconnect separate from the active piezo-elements.
Another possibility is to simply reduce the profit. The
problem is that the manufacturers gross margins will become
too tight and there will be an impact in the long term such as
poor quality-assurance or poor service.

IV. CURRENT WORKFLOW
The most common workflow to solve an application with
phased array is the following (or something very similar).
The user:
1. describes the geometry of the component to inspect.
2. reports any previous experience with mono-
transducer ultrasound on the component, either as a
trial or real inspection.

Detachable Active Array Head: A Proposed Solution F.Mainguy page 6/9
to Help the Proliferation of Manual Phased Array UT
Then the application-solver:
3. depicts the insonification requirement.
4. depicts the array design.
5. depicts the wedge design.
6. verifies the practicality of the array and wedge
design, and a redesign may be compulsory.
7. tries to get access to a probe and a wedge of
comparable specification in order to validate the
insonification and procedure. If not available, jump
to step 9.
8. optimizes the probe and wedge design.
9. orders the probe and wedge from manufacturer.
10. uses the new probe and wedge to validate the
insonification and finalizes the procedure.
11. re-designs the probe and wedge to better fit needs, if
ever required. (repeat steps 9 and 10 ).
12. finalizes and publishes procedure.

And lastly, the user:
13. proceeds with on-site inspection with procedure.
14. provides feedback to application-solver (is there a
better term for this?) on the quality of results and
eventual improvements to probe and wedge design.

Although steps 1 to 3 are relatively quick and inexpensive for
most cases, steps 4 to 12 represent a long, tedious, and
expensive adventure, especially for the non-initiated. It
should be noticed that many times, multiple probes are
required to solve an application, perhaps discouraging the
user to pursue the work adequately.
A new probe technology is proposed in order to simplify this
workflow.

VI. NEW PROBE TECHNOLOGY
The new probe concept being proposed consists of
standardizing as much things as possible in a probe design.
Looking at previous section III.b), the connector (i), the cable
length (ii), the man-hours of assembly (iii), and the
mechanical components (iv) can all be standardized very
easily. A study of all popular arrays and applications can also
lead to some standardization of the acoustic stacks (v).
Automation can also decrease the cost of quality-assurance
report generation (vi).
The new concept is a search unit that has low-cost,
Detachable Active Array Heads (DAAH) of standard
connectivity and footprint. The heads are available in two
versions. The first version features the flat array itself with
holes for external wedge mounting. The second version
features an integral wedge. The integral wedge can be made
with the proper cut angle for longitudinal or shear wave
generation, with or without contouring.
The heads are designed to be rugged and as compliant as
possible with popular manual UT codes. The goal is to offer
a low-cost, industrial, hassle-free phased array solution to
very common UT inspections, without an absolute need for
customization. The new technology has several advantages
over the current monolithic approach (all-in-one cable and
array).
The first advantage is to lower production costs and therefore
it allows suppliers to build up inventory in many geographical
locations, closer to the end-user. It allows the retail price to
drop from 20% down to 5 to 8% of the portable instrument
value.


Figure 8 The different parts of a DAAH search unit.

The second advantage is to reduce the cost of the inspection
solution. It saves both the cost of the search unit, but also
avoids spending precious time in the design and qualification
process of an array.
The new concept leads to a third advantage. The user could
try, at low cost, different probe heads to solve an application.
Once the user finds the probe head that works best, an
optional optimization phase can be started in order to get a
final search unit design.
A fourth advantage is that the adaptor can be declined with
different instrument connectors like Hypertronics, ITT-
Cannon, TCZIF, and I-PEX (formerly known as
MajorLeague). Therefore, the users can invest their money in
the acoustics without being tied to a certain instrument
manufacturer.

Figure 9 The DAAH technology allows for integrated interconnect solutions
such as Y-splitting, keeping the heads available for other interconnect contexts.

Strain relief
Socket
Head
Detachable Active Array Head: A Proposed Solution F.Mainguy page 7/9
to Help the Proliferation of Manual Phased Array UT
The fifth advantage is about the interconnect. The concept
reduces the number of insertion cycles in the instrument,
which may reduce the risk of damaging its pins. Also,
adaptors can be produced for multi-head setups, such as Y-
splitters, therefore avoiding multi-level connectivity that is
bulky for on-site inspections.
The new concept leads to a sixth advantage. The standard
footprint leads to the standardization of external wedge
footprint and scanner attachment methods, which is currently
a bit hectic and vendor-specific.
The concept by itself is rather simple. For decades, mono-
transducers have been detachable from the cable. The
proposed design is just a phased array equivalent, as shown in
Table I.
TABLE I
DAAH CONCEPT COMPARISON WITH MONO-TRANSDUCER
Mono-transducer
(conventional UT)
DAAH
(Phased Array UT)
Cable
Adaptor

Detachable
Transducer

External
wedge




Integral
wedge




The only perceivable disadvantage is the limitation imposed
by the footprint size. For the sake of ruggedness, the footprint
is limited to a discreet size in which elements should be
contained. This can be circumvented by the creation of
several footprint families.
The new concept aims at the 80/20 rule, where models and
families should be created for 80% of the market needs.
There will always be a need for custom array designs with
special pitches, frequencies and mechanical dimensions.
The first footprint family (Type 1) allows for a certain degree
of code compliance (Table II).

TABLE II
CODE COMPLIANCE OF TYPE 1 DAAH
AS PER POPULAR MANUAL UT CODES*
AWS D1.1 / D1.5 EN 1712/1714 API 5UE
[11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
Frequency
! ! !
Aperture Almost
! !
Angle
! ! !
Index Point
!
n/a
!
Contour n/a n/a
!
*Model T1-PE-2.25M20E1.2P on external wedge T1-PE-33W0D-AWS-REXO

VII. NEW PROPOSED WORKFLOW
The new probe technology allows for a new proposed
workflow described hereunder.
The user:
1. finds any previous experience with mono-
transducer ultrasound on the component, either as a
trial or real inspection.
2. orders a detachable probe head with specifications
and/or performance that are close to the mono-
transducer(s).
3. uses the probe head to validate the insonification
and finalizes the procedure, if results are
satisfactory. If not, workflow continues with step 4.

Then the phased array expert:
4. re-designs the search unit to better suit end user
needs, if required. The new search unit may be
designed as a custom probe head or a monolithic
probe.
5. finalizes and publishes procedure.

And lastly the user:
6. proceeds with on-site inspection using procedure.
7. provides feedback to the phased array expert on the
quality of results and eventual improvements to the
search unit design.

The new technology should allow for steps 1 to 3 to be
accomplished within 2 to 3 weeks realistically. In
comparison, steps 1 to 9 of the normal workflow (IV) takes
generally 7 to 10 weeks in practice. Major sites and serious
customers may also want to build their own DAAH inventory,
as they already do with mono-transducers. This would allow
urgent inspection needs to be met with phased array.
It is believed the new workflow will enable higher levels of
reactivity for the customers projects, providing a new
reputation for quick turn-arounds, simplicity and low-cost to
phased array manual UT.

VIII. RESULTS
Many prototypes were fabricated and at the time of publishing
this paper, the production units were available in different
frequencies, pitches and wedge integrations. In this section,
well talk about the results obtained for the 5 MHz array
model T1-PE-5.0M32E0.8P. The array has 32 elements and a
pitch of 0.8mm, with an elevation of 12mm. The array had
the following targeted performances:
i. Central frequency of 5.0 MHz +/- 0. 5
ii. Bandwidth of no less than 80% for all elements
iii. Maximum sensitivity deviation of 1.5 dB

a. Electro-acoustic Performance
Detachable Active Array Head: A Proposed Solution F.Mainguy page 8/9
to Help the Proliferation of Manual Phased Array UT
The prototypes were tested using an automated test bench that
records all impulse responses and measures all the important
characteristics of each element. The probe was installed on a
Rexolite block and echoes from the 25mm backwall were
analyzed. Figure 10 shows the consistency among elements
for frequency, bandwidth and sensitivity.




Figure 10 Uniformity of the elements.

The results obtained surpassed the design goals. Four probe
units were tested and the following results account for all of
them. The average frequency was 5.00 MHz with maximum
0.1 MHz deviation for the worst element. The impulse
response was virtually identical for all elements. The average
bandwidth was 100% with no less than 98% for the worst
element. The sensitivity of each element was within 0.42 dB
of the average for all four probes, which is near the best the
state-of-the-art can offer.


Figure 11 A typical impulse response from an element array.

b. Imaging
The prototypes were tested with a shear wave wedge for
imaging on carbon steel blocks. Unlike the medical industry,
there is no reference imaging block for NDT. An AWS
resolution block was used as it minimizes the imaging
artefacts due to bouncing waves on close reflectors. The 60-
degree cluster of three side-drilled holes was imaged with an
optimized focal point located on the center hole. The sector
scan was set to 0.25 degree of resolution and it was zoomed
in. Table III compares the DAAH results obtained with the
results obtained with a well-known probe manufacturer. The
DAAH prototype needed 14 dB less gain to provide the same
A-scan amplitude. The latter probe didnt have the exact same
aperture size, so the relative sensitivity should be computed.
In this case, the DAAH prototype showed a better sensitivity
of 10.4 dB. For applications with high-attenuation materials
or when tip diffraction is essential, such a boost in sensitivity
is very helpful.

TABLE III
IMAGING COMPARED WITH A WELL-KNOWN MANUFACTURER
Manufacturer #1 DAAH

Zoomed S-scan

(from AWS
resolution block)

Aperture 25mm x 10mm 25.6 mm x 12mm
Voltage 100V 100V
Gain 19.0 dB 5.0 dB
Rel. Sensitivity* 0 dB +10.4 dB
*Sensitivity relative to a reference aperture area in pulse-echo.

We also compared the sweep range on an IIW block. The
DAAH prototype had a -6 dB sweep range from 34 to 78
degrees, in shear waves. The peak amplitude occurs at 45
degrees. It showed excellent sensivity at 45, 60 and 70
degrees, which are the most common angles used in manual
UT.


Figure 12 The -6 dB sweep range goes from 34 to 78 degrees (SW).

c. Ruggedness
The design was targeting an industrial protection ranking of
IP-66. The mechanical design of the mating socket and head
had to be resistant to fine dust and high-pressure water jets.
There was no apparent variation of the above results after
Detachable Active Array Head: A Proposed Solution F.Mainguy page 9/9
to Help the Proliferation of Manual Phased Array UT
exposing the units to this environmental stress. We also tried
a full immersion at 15cm with success. The unit was also
drop-tested on a concrete floor from 3 meters of altitude. The
mating of the socket and the detachable head remained perfect
and the only perceivable effect was an aesthetical degradation
of the casing.


Figure 13 The DAAH sealing was tested in immersion at 15 cm.

IX. CONCLUSION
The new Detachable Active Array Head (DAAH) technology
is very promising. The detachable acoustic head becomes the
through value-added of the search unit and provides freedom
in the selection of the instrument model and manufacturer.
Among the numerous advantages of the new concept, the low
price and quick availability should induce a new reputation of
affordability and simplicity to phased array manual UT. The
technology performs as well as the state-of-the-art can offer,
showing electro-acoustic and imaging results that are among
the best available currently.

X. REFERENCES
[1] A Practical Proposal for Designing, Testing and Certification Phased
Array Probes Used in Nuclear Applications, J.Poguet et al., 4
th

International Conference on NDE in Relation to Structural Integrity for
Nuclear and Pressurised Components, London, December 2004.
[2] Multi-Zone Imaging, F. Mainguy, HARFANG Microtechniques inc., 9
th

European Conference on NDT (ECNDT), September 2006.
[3] Phased Array is not the solution to all problems, T. Armott, Lavender
International, American Society of Nondestructive Testing (ASNT) - Fall
Conference, October 2005.
[4] E1961 -1998, Standard Practice for Mechanized Ultrasonic Examination
of Girth Welds Using Zonal Discrimination with Focused Search Units,
American Society of Testing Materials.
[5] Phased Array and TOFD: When they Score, Where they Dont, M.
Moles, R/D Tech inc., American Society of Nondestructive Testing
(ASNT) - Fall Conference, October 2005.
[6] Use of Ultrasonic Examination in Lieu of Radiography, Section I and
VIII, Division 1 and 2, ASME Code Case 2235-8, Cases of ASME Boiler
and Pressure Code, October 2005.
[7] Procedure for Manual Examination of Pressure Vessel Welds from the
Outside Surface Using Phased Array Ultrasonic Technology, G.Selby et
al., Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Charlotte, May 2005.
[8] PZ Flex software, Weidlinger Associates Inc., contact Paul Reynolds and
Robert Banks, Los Altos (CA).
[9] The Role of Piezocomposites in Ultrasonic Transducers, W.A.Smith,
IEEE Proceedings Ultrasonics Symposium, 1989.
[10] Computer Modeling of Diced Matching Layers, G. Wojcik et al., IEEE
International Ultrasonics Symposium Proceedings, 1996.
[11] AWS D1.1:2006, Structural Welding Code Steel, American National
Standards Institute (ANSI).
[12] AWS D1.5:2002, Structural Welding Code Steel, American National
Standards Institute (ANSI).
[13] BS EN1712:1997 Non-Destructive Testing of Welds Ultrasonic
Testing of Welded Joints, European Standards,.
[14] BS EN1714:1998 Non-Destructive Testing of Welds Ultrasonic
Testing of Welded Joints Acceptance Levels, European Standards.
[15] API Recommended Practice 5UE, American Petroleum Institute, June
2005


Franois Mainguy was born in Neuville,
Qubec (Canada) in 1975. He graduated
from Cgep La Pocatire in applied physics
technologies in 1995. He graduated in
electrical engineering in 2000 from cole
de Technologie Suprieure (TS,
Montral), with a specialization in
microelectronics at cole dIngnieurs du Canton de
Neuchtel (ICN, Switzerland). Mr.Mainguy worked at R/D
Tech inc. from 1995 to 1998 as a phased array application
specialist. He also provided services to EPRI in 1999, with
whom he launched the HARFANG research project. In 2001,
he founded HARFANG Microtechniques inc. for which he
was the CEO until 2004. He now occupies the position of
Vice-President of Technology and he works on new product
development.


Contact information:
Franois Mainguy
4975 rue Rideau (suite 140)
Qubec City, Qubec, G2E 5H5 Canada
Phone: +1 (418) 683-6222 x105
Fax: +1 (418) 683-7032
Email; fmainguy@harfangicro.com
Web: www.harfangmicro.com