Contract No.

and Disclaimer:

This manuscript has been authored by Savannah River Nuclear

Solutions, LLC under Contract No. DE-AC09-08SR22470 with the U.S.
Department of Energy. The United States Government retains and the
publisher, by accepting this article for publication, acknowledges that
the United States Government retains a non-exclusive, paid-up,
irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published
form of this work, or allow others to do so, for United States
Government purposes.
Title: Benefits of the Multiple Echo Technique for Ultrasonic Thickness
Testing
Author / Co-author: James B. Elder / Rodney W. Vande Kamp,
SRNL Document number: SRNL-STI-2011-00070
Organization: Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, Savannah River National Laboratory, Materials
Science and Technology
Address: Savannah River Site, Bldg. 730-A, Aiken, SC. 29808
Contact: 803.725.9844, james.elder@srnl.doe.gov

ABSTRACT
Much effort has been put into determining methods to make accurate thickness measurements, especially at
elevated temperatures. An accuracy of +/- 0.001 inches is typically noted for commercial ultrasonic
thickness gauges and ultrasonic thickness techniques. Codes and standards put limitations on many
inspection factors including equipment, calibration tolerance and temperature variations. These factors are
important and should be controlled, but unfortunately do not guarantee accurate and repeatable
measurements in the field. Most technicians long for a single technique that is best for every situation,
unfortunately, there are no “silver bullets” when it comes to nondestructive testing. This paper will
describe and discuss some of the major contributors to measurement error as well as some advantages and
limitations of multiple echo techniques and why multiple echo techniques should be more widely utilized
for ultrasonic thickness measurements.

Background and Requirements

Codes and standards give guidance for ultrasonic thickness measurements. One can look at ASTM
standards or ASME Section V and find various articles that address the process of thickness measurements.
While multiple echo is mentioned as being an option, little to no direction is given for its use. Here is the
familiar formula, T=Vt/2. T = Thickness, V = Longitudinal velocity in the material being tested (common
materials listed in Table 1). “t” is transit time. Thickness is a product of the longitudinal velocity in the
material and ½ the transit time through the material. The ultrasonic thickness value is determined by a
measurement of time at a given velocity. Most methods discussed make the measurement from the first
reflection or back-wall signal. When calibrating this type of setup, you essentially delay all of the time for
the electrical pulse to travel through the instrumentation and cables as well as the time for the electrical
pulse/ultrasound to travel in the transducer, the delay line or wear face and the layer of coupling media.
Measurements are made from the calibrated point in time where the sound enters the test piece. (Figure 1)
This is often a perfectly acceptable method, especially in the laboratory or for measuring the smooth
calibration step wedge and some components at ambient conditions. The first back-wall contact method is
often necessary when looking for laminations and especially for detection of pitting or other imperfections.

To obtain accurate thickness measurements utilizing the first back-wall (contact) method there are a
multitude of conditions that the UT technician must consider and control to obtain reliable measurements in
harsh field conditions.

When the item to be inspected is painted, most technicians know they must either remove the coating or
utilize a multiple echo technique. For high temperature inspections, those where the item is over 125oF
(Fahrenheit) or 50oC (Celsius), high temperature couplant and special high temperature transducers and/or
delay tips are recommended. This paper will show that multiple echo should be utilized for high
temperature measurements.

The examples provided here are intentionally broad because the intent of this paper is to show how utilizing
a multiple echo technique can provide an accurate measurement in the field without the need for formulas,
manual calculations and correction factors. These techniques are applicable to manual and automated
techniques, conventional or phased array systems. Many commercially available ultrasonic thickness gages
include the option to use multiple echo techniques.

Some of the conditions that commonly interfere with obtaining accurate field measurements are presented
later in this paper, but first, consider the basics of how contact measurements are determined:
 Figure 1: Sketch of Basic Time Components of a Thickness Measurement

Cable and
connectors “B”

Transducer “C”

UT Delay tip “D”

(may be
Instrument
internal)
“A”

Coupling media “E”

“F” Round trip time

in material
( T=Vt/2 )

In the typical ultrasonic thickness calibration, all of the time it takes for the signal to travel through the
instrument electronics, cables, transducer, delay tip or wear face and couplant are subtracted from the total
time, or delayed off the screen. As depicted in Figure 1, the ultrasonic thickness measurement equals the
total round trip time A though F minus A+B+C+D+E. Assuming the calibration is correct, the majority of
measurement error comes between The transducer crystal “C” and the test part “F”. Multiple echo
techniques remove these from the measurement thereby minimizing any potential error they may cause.

In a multiple echo technique, the measurement is made from 1 round trip signal (back wall) in the material
“F” to the next back wall signal and is primarily dependant on velocity in the material being tested. All of
the time represented by A thorough E, and the associated sources of error, are excluded from the
measurement. Variations in the couplant layer from inconsistent contact force, wedge delay (time in
transducer/delay tip, which can be affected by temperature or probe wear), or coating thickness are all
minimized by using a multiple echo technique.

Coupling force
The amount of contact force on the probe affects the coupling layer thickness. Remember the couplant
layer is part of the time that is not included in the contact thickness measurement. However, more or less
force causes the couplant gap to be thinner or thicker. Considering that the velocity of longitudinal waves
in couplant is about ¼ that of steel, there is around a 4:1 ratio of measured thickness. Therefore, the time
required for the ultrasound to travel through 0.001 inches of couplant would equate to about 0.004 inches of
thickness in steel. This is illustrated in the condition where one can watch the thickness values change as
the transducer is pressed more firmly against the part. Similarly, acrylic (typical of transducer delay line
material) is about ½ that of steel or approximately a 2:1 ratio. Many commercial coatings have an
approximately 3:1 ratio for velocity to steel. These ratios are only considering velocity differences. Probe
wear and coatings are discussed later.

Consider the temperature effects on the ultrasonic measurements

Another important consideration is the coefficient of linear expansion; the change in length per unit length
resulting from a one degree rise in temperature, expressed in degrees. Approximate values for common
materials are listed in Table 1.
 Table 1 Common Material Properties
Coefficients of Coefficients of
Long. Velocity Long. Velocity linear expansion linear expansion
Material (mils/usec) (mm/usec) (m/m.K x 10-6) (in/in.oF x 10-6)
Aluminum 251 6.38 22.2 12.3
Acrylic 113 2.87 81 45
Carbon Steel 232 5.89 13.0 7.3
Motor Oil 69 1.75 - -
Plexiglas 106 2.69 ~ acrylic ~ acrylic
Stainless Steel 223 5.66 17.3 9.6
Ultragel II 64.9 1.65 - -
Water 58 1.47 - -

Most technicians are familiar with the code requirements of being within 25oF (14oC). for the calibration
block and test piece. A rule of thumb is available that states that the apparent thickness reading obtained
from steel walls having elevated temperatures is too high (too thick) by a factor of about 1% per 100oF
(55oC). The entire ultrasonic measurement system must be stable at the measurement temperature for this
direction to work as intended. Rather than blindly following written direction, we should consider what
additional measures should be implemented to make sure accurate (true) thickness values are provided. If
you haven’t seen it for yourself, ask a technician who has performed inspections where large temperature
variations were present if they have seen the ultrasonic signals walk across the screen as the transducer
temperature changes. If we consider the coefficient of linear expansion of common transducer components
compared to common test materials we can see there is quite a variation. Where steel is 7.3 (in/in.oF x 10-6)
and aluminum is 12.3, Standard delay tip material has a value of 45. This illustration is not meant to be a
precise formula nor does it take into account velocity variation with temperature or the use of high
temperature delay tips, but merely illustrates the point that there are factors other than calibration block and
test item temperature that must be considered.

If we are utilizing a contact measurement technique, where we have set the entry surface to zero and made
our measurement based on the time it takes for one round trip of the longitudinal wave in the material we
could have a problem if the wear plate or delay line changes temperature. Not only is there a 2:1 variation
of sound velocity, but the coefficient of linear expansion of the wedge material could be 3 to 6 times that of
the material being tested.

At a 25oF variation, acrylic (delay tip material) can change by 0.001 inches in length. For simplicity, we
will assume the velocity ratios remain constant and a 25oF. temperature variation would equate to a
perceived variation of 0.002 inches material based on the increased time within the delay tip. If we
increase the temperature to a 200 oF variation, which is not uncommon if you calibrate with your transducer
at room temperature, then measure a hot steam pipe, the length variation of the delay tip could be 0.009
inches and would equate to 0.018 inches of material. Again, these values are crude estimations meant to
illustrate the point that the transducer temperature can have a major affect on the measurement accuracy.
Here again, if a multiple echo technique is utilized for the thickness measurement, these effects are
minimized.
 Figure 2: Linear Expansion Graph

~ Change in Length due to Change in Temperature

0.010

0.009

0.008
Aluminum
0.007
Change in Length (in.)

0.006 Acrylic

0.005
Carbon
Steel
0.004
Stainless
0.003 Steel
0.002

0.001

0.000
0 deg 25 deg 50 deg 100 deg 200 deg 300 deg
Change in Temputature (deg. F)
To illustrate the affects of temperature changes a simple experiment was performed. Various transducers
and delay lines were calibrated. The transducers and a calibration block are shown in Figure 3. Although
not evident from the exterior, the dual element transducer incorporates a delay line for each element within
the metal housing. The single element transducer with a high temperature delay line (on left) was
calibrated at room temperature for one series of tests and at the measurement temperature for another
series. For the multiple echo examination, the dual element transducer (on right) was calibrated in a
multiple echo technique at the measurement temperature. The dual element transducer was used because it
is utilized for field scanning due to its superior sensitivity to pitting and good performance for multiple
echo techniques in the thickness range required. It is not a high temperature probe, and it requires special
considerations for performing multiple echo techniques.

Figure 3: Typical Transducers and Calibration Block

For this experiment the 0.400 inch thick step was used for all measurements. All three calibrations were
utilized to make measurements at 62, 100, 200, 300 and 400 degrees F. Results are illustrated in Figure 4.
 Figure 4: Graph of Results of Contact vs. Multiple Echo Technique at Elevated Temperature

Measured Thickness at Elevated Temperatures

0.500

0.480
Indicated Thickness (in.)

0.460

0.440

0.420

0.400

0.380
62 F 100 F 200 F 300 F 400 F
Increasing Temperature (deg. F)
Actual
Multiple echo
Contact with High Temp Probe - Calibrated at Ambient temperature
Contact with High Temp Probe Calibrated at part temperature

Probe Wear and Mechanized Scanning

During application where the transducer delay line may wear, contact methods are more susceptible to
going out of calibration. This is due to the decreased time to the part entry surface due to loss of delay line
material. This type of probe wear may occur from manually scanning or making multiple readings on
rough surfaces. Probe wear should also be a major consideration when performing mechanized scanning.
During mechanized scanning the probe is mechanically coupled and may be mounted in some type of
holder. Both the means of mechanical coupling and probe holders are other potential sources of
measurement error. Variations in contact force affect the thickness of the couplant layer. Where probe
holders are used, the transducer may move in the holder and change the couplant layer thickness or cause
the transducer wear face to contact the surface and be worn down. As the transducer wear face is gradually
removed during scanning, the measured thickness value will decrease if a contact method is being utilized.

The following figure provides an example of probe wear during a mechanical scan. Figure 5 provides an
example of thickness mapping data collected remotely on an under-ground waste tank. The image is from
a vertical scan of a carbon steel plate on a waste tank that has been in service for over 30 years. The image
represents an area 9 inches wide and 120 inches long. The transducer was moved though this area at 0.050
inch increments, thereby traveling over 1,700 linear feet over unprepared carbon steel walls. Although the
probe (transducer) was mounted in a probe holder with a slight stand-off from the wear-face to minimize
wear, the probe was dislodged during deployment for this remote inspection, which allowed the probe to
wear slightly. The figure includes two images from the same scan collected with the same transducer
simultaneously. Both are shown at the same display settings. The top image is from a contact method (first
echo technique) and the bottom image is from a multiple echo technique. In the color pallet used, the
darker blue represents thick material and the light blue, green and then yellow move toward thinner
material. In the top portion of Figure 5, it appears that the material gets thinner as the scan progressed from
0 to 120 inches.
 Figure 5: Comparison of First and Multiple Echo Techniques

The top image appears to show thinning as the scan progresses, starting dark blue and changing to light
blue, green and light green at the end. The bottom image shows that the thickness actually remained
consistent over the length of the plate. The thinner, inside surface grinding areas at the end are displayed in
both images. The probe wore slightly as the scan progressed, thereby indicating thinner than actual
readings. The contact technique used in the top image was found to be out of tolerance on the calibration
check, but the multiple echo technique remained in calibration. The calibration check showed the first echo
technique to read over 0.030 inches thinner than actual, but the multiple echo technique remained within
0.005 inches of the initial calibration. The contact techniques are for information and increased sensitivity
to pitting.

Thickness Inspection with Phased Array Equipment

The same physical laws, principals and guidelines for standard ultrasonic testing apply to phased array
testing as well. The image in Figure 6 shows data from a linear array transducer and an electronic or linear
scan with an indication from a single pit using a first echo technique. Although multiple echo techniques
are often very useful, the first echo techniques are still best for detecting pitting or other small indications.
 Figure 6: Phased Array Linear Scan, First Echo from Pit

The phased array thickness data in Figure 7 shows data from the same pitting sample, but here a C-scan
was produced showing three pits. This data is also collected with a linear array probe performing a linear
scan. The A-scan portion of the image shows the entry surface and four back-wall signals. The Red and
Green gates are on the first and second back wall signals. The indication from a pit is also evident in the A-
scan. The B-scan or End view shows the four back wall signals as red horizontal lines. The pit indications
can be seen clearly in the first back wall indication but a loss of signal is evident in the remaining back wall
lines. The first back wall data (red gate) was used to make the C-scan image in the bottom portion of the
image where three pits can be seen. Pits may not be detected and imaged when utilizing a multiple echo
technique, as illustrated in the bottom C-scan which was created from the multiple echo signal.
Figure 7: Comparison of First and Multiple Echo Techniques
Trending of Corrosion Protection Performance
The benefits of the field stability of the multiple echo technique described in this paper are especially
beneficial where repeat inspections are to be made over a period of time to track component performance
and project remaining life. The graph in Figure 8 displays thickness measurements made over a period of
35 years on a buried carbon steel waste tank. The data had to be collected remotely due to the fact that the
tank is buried under ground and the only access is through 6 inch diameter riser pipes.

Figure 8: 35 Years of Multiple Echo Data

35 Years of Multiple Echo Thickness Data

Collected Remotely from Buried Waste Tank

Nominal
0.590
Nom - 0.01"
0.570

Reportable
0.550 (Nom -10%)
Thickness (in.)

ME Ave East
0.530 Jan 2009
Skate, East
0.510 1974
Skate East,
0.490 1978
Skate East,
0.470
1981

0.450 Skate, East

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 July 1985
Distance from Top (~ft.)

Thickness Measurement Calibration With Multiple Echo Techniques

Multiple Echo techniques offer many benefits to the UT technician, but the limitations or possible
complications of multiple echo testing calibration should be considered prior to settling on a technique or
techniques.

As with any examination, it helps to know what you are looking for prior to determining what technique
will be used. If pitting, small inclusions, laminations, step-wise cracking or other, possibly small, reflectors
are of concern, then one would likely want to include a first echo test for maximum sensitivity. As you
consider incorporating a multiple echo technique, consider the thickness of the parts (as well as possible
thinned areas) and make sure that the probe and delay tip combination are suitable for the inspection. Even
dual element transducers may be useful for multiple echo examinations, but usually they are only good for
a specific thickness range before the return signal from the delay line will be in the area of interest. Many
instruments now allow for multiple gates and displays, so it should be possible to run a high sensitivity first
echo gate or display in addition to a multiple echo gate or display for accurate thickness measurements.

In the A-scan presentation in Figure 9, data from a straight beam, longitudinal wave transducer is
displayed. From left to right there is the entry surface signal, a small pit indication and four back-wall
signals. A gate is displayed on the first and the second back wall signals. To calibrate for a multiple echo
measurement, adjust the instrument to calculate a measurement by subtracting the 1st. back wall
measurement from the 2nd back wall. Different instruments provide different options which should be
considered carefully in determining the best technique for the particular inspection to be performed.
 Figure 9: Typical A-scan Presentation with Gates

Conclusion
As can be seen by the data presented in this paper, the use of multiple echo techniques can be used to
greatly increase the accuracy and repeatability of thickness measurements in field conditions. The
technique is not as susceptible to error from field conditions, surface conditions or temperature fluctuations.
Where accurate thickness measurements are required and trending of thickness conditions are planned,
multiple echo techniques should be used. It should be considered that multiple echo techniques are not as
sensitive to pitting or small indications within the material.