ARTICLE IN PRESS

NDT&E International 39 (2006) 525–541

www.elsevier.com/locate/ndteint

Ultrasonic arrays for non-destructive evaluation: A review

Bruce W. Drinkwater, Paul D. Wilcox
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bristol, University Walk, Bristol, BS3 1TR, UK
Received 1 September 2005; received in revised form 23 March 2006; accepted 29 March 2006
Available online 22 May 2006

Abstract

An ultrasonic array is a single transducer that contains a number of individually connected elements. Recent years have seen a
dramatic increase in the use of ultrasonic arrays for non-destructive evaluation. Arrays offer great potential to increase inspection quality
and reduce inspection time. Their main advantages are their increased flexibility over traditional single element transducer methods,
meaning that one array can be used to perform a number of different inspections, and their ability to produce immediate images of the
test structure. These advantages have led to the rapid uptake of arrays by the engineering industry. These industrial applications are
underpinned by a wide range of published research which describes new piezoelectric materials, array geometries, modelling methods and
inspection modalities. The aim of this paper is to bring together the most relevant published work on arrays for non-destructive
evaluation applications, comment on the state-of the art and discuss future directions. There is also a significant body of published
literature referring to use of arrays in the medical and sonar fields and the most relevant papers from these related areas are also
reviewed. However, although there is much common ground, the use of arrays in non-destructive evaluation offers some distinctly
different challenges to these other disciplines.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Arrays; Ultrasonic; Modelling; Signal processing

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 526
2. Array design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 526
2.1. Transducer geometries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 526
2.2. Array transducer materials and manufacture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 528
2.3. Inspection modalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 529
3. Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 530
3.1. Modelling array elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 531
3.2. Beam profile modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 532
3.3. Point spread function modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 533
3.3.1. Array modelling example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 534
3.3.2. Apodisation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 534
3.3.3. Element spacing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 535
4. Signal processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 536
4.1. Full matrix capture and post-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 536
4.2. Signal encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537
5. Future directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538
5.1. Adaptive arrays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538

Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 117 9289749; fax: +44 117 9294423.
E-mail address: b.drinkwater@bristol.ac.uk (B.W. Drinkwater).

0963-8695/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ndteint.2006.03.006
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
526 B.W. Drinkwater, P.D. Wilcox / NDT&E International 39 (2006) 525–541

5.2. Data fusion . . . . . ............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539

5.3. Harmonic imaging and elastic imaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539
6. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . ............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 540

1. Introduction centre frequency of 2.25 MHz. They demonstrate the use of

an array to steer the beam through a range of angles thus
This paper reviews recent developments in ultrasonic ensuring good sensitivity to a range of crack angles in
array technology. Ultrasonic arrays are used for a wide geometrically complex components. Smith et al. [5] and
range of applications including sonar and medical imaging. Brotherhood et al. [6] show applications of arrays in the
However, the focus of this paper is on their application to aerospace industry including the inspection of both
non-destructive evaluation (NDE) using bulk waves. aluminium and carbon fibre reinforced composite wing
Ultrasonic arrays offer two key advantages over standard sections. Both use 64 element, 10–12 MHz arrays and
monolithic transducers. Firstly, a particular array is able to describe the principal advantage as being the ability to
undertake a range of different inspections from a single rapidly image large areas of uniform geometry.
location and so is more flexible than a single element Section 2 of this paper gives an overview of the different
transducer. In fact, an array can generate ultrasonic fields array transducer geometries and inspection modalities used
of almost infinite variety. However, they are most in NDE applications, with a focus on the array transducers
commonly used to produce fields similar to those from rather than the instrumentation. It should also be noted
traditional single element transducers, i.e. plane, focused that this paper describes exclusively bulk wave based
and steered beams. Secondly, most types of array (with the inspection modalities and so the use of array technology
exception of annular arrays) can be used to produce images for Guided/Lamb wave inspections is not reviewed. This
at each test location. This allows rapid visualisation of the section also covers transducer materials, although this is a
internal structure of a component. large research field in its own right and not the principal
An ideal array would have an infinite number of focus of this review. Section 3 reviews techniques for array
infinitesimally spaced elements, each able to independently modelling, and represents the most detailed part of this
generate an arbitrary waveform and receive reflected paper. Due to the wide variety of different array geometries
signals. Although such an array is far from achievable at and inspection modalities, it is the authors’ belief that
the time of writing, the increased performance and reduced modelling is a key step in the selection and optimisation of
size of electronics, as well as the yearly increase in an array for a given inspection. Alongside array modelling,
computing power means that this aim is getting closer. signal processing is the other focus of this review and is
The best achievable performance is limited by both the discussed in Section 4. Techniques employed to produce
transmit–receive instrumentation and the array transducer improved images of test structures using signal processing
design. Currently the transmit–receive instruments used are highlighted. Finally, Section 5 describes a number of
with NDE arrays are limited to below 256 independent possible future directions of array technology. An extensive
transmit–receive channels and so this represents the list of references is then given. Whilst the research papers in
maximum number of elements which can be used the field of ultrasonic arrays for NDE have been
simultaneously. Multiplexing then allows the available thoroughly searched, those referenced have been selected
transmit–receive channels to be switched to excite and to be the most useful in terms of relevance and novelty.
receive using a subset (termed the aperture) of the elements
in a larger array. For example, in the medical field Yen and 2. Array design
Smith [1] used a multiplexing system to enable a 256
channel transmit–receive instrument to be connected to a 2.1. Transducer geometries
64,000 element array.
These advantages have led to a significant take-up of Ultrasonic array transducers can be loosely classified as
ultrasonic array technology by the engineering industry. At one-dimensional (1-D), two-dimensional (2-D) or annular.
the time of writing there are at least five companies 1-D linear arrays are by far the most widespread in
manufacturing array systems world-wide and many hun- industry. These consist of a row of strip shaped elements as
dreds of array systems in use in industry. For example, shown in Fig. 1(a). Throughout this paper, the Cartesian
Song et al. [2], Chatillon et al. [3] and Mahaut et al. [4] all coordinate system shown in this figure will be used. Here,
describe the application of ultrasonic arrays in the nuclear the array lies in the x–y plane and the normal or axial
power industry. Song et al. describes the inspection of direction is parallel to the z-axis.
turbine blade roots using a 64 element array with a centre In the case of 1-D arrays, the array elements are
frequency of 7.5 MHz and Chatillon et al. and Mahaut et distributed in the x direction. Typically the elements in
al. describe the inspection of welds in thick (30–50 mm) 1-D arrays are relatively long in the y direction and hence
steel plates using a 24 element conformable array with a approximately behave as infinitely long strip sources. The
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
B.W. Drinkwater, P.D. Wilcox / NDT&E International 39 (2006) 525–541
Imaging plane
z y
L
x a
(a) Array element
(c)
Fig. 1. Definitions of most common array transducer geometries: (a) 1-D linear array, (b) annular array, (c) 1.5-D array, and (d) 2-D array with elements
arranged in a grid pattern.
image produced is therefore 2-D and lies in the x–z plane as
shown in Fig. 1(a).
Although full 2-D arrays are gaining in importance in
the medical sector they have yet to see widespread take-up
by the NDE industry. Fig. 1(b) shows a 2-D array which
uses square elements arranged in the x–y plane in a grid
pattern and which is able to image the three dimensional
(3-D) volume in front of it.
Annular arrays of the type shown in Fig. 1(c) are
somewhat different from other arrays in that they are
designed to provide variable focal depth only and do not
allow beam steering. In this context they are used as a
direct replacement for one or more conventional focused
probes to perform, for example, the inspection of titanium
billets [7]. Such probes are typically convex rather than
planar as this provides some initial focussing and reduces
the number of elements required [8].
The array configurations shown in Fig. 1 are the simplest
but there are many other possible element patterns.
Needless to say, the 2-D array offers the most room for
innovative element patterns. This is particularly important
as the number of elements required to fully populate a grid
pattern as shown in Fig. 2(a) quickly becomes large. 1.5-D
arrays have been used to reduce the numbers of elements
relative to a fully populated 2-D array [9]. Typically 1.5-D
arrays contain a small number of parallel rows of elements
as shown in Fig. 2(b). The primary imaging plane still
passes through the x-axis (i.e. along the rows of elements),
527
Array element
a
a
z y
x
(b)
Array element
but the addition of the extra rows enables a limited amount
of steering of the imaging plane in the y–z plane.
To allow the full 3-D imaging potential of 2-D arrays to
be realised, various alternative array element distributions
have been suggested. For example, Martinez et al. [10]
compared the imaging performance of a fully populated
array with an array in which the elements were arranged in
a series of three concentric circles, as shown in Fig. 2(c).
They showed both experimentally and through simulation
that this array had similar imaging performance to that of
a fully populated array of the same overall size. Norton [11]
modelled the use of the configuration shown in Fig. 2(d) in
which elements were distributed around a single circle for
medical imaging and showed that its effective aperture is
the same as a fully populated array when correct
transmit–receive weightings are used to compensate for
the element directivity. The Mills cross configuration
shown in Fig. 2(e), is commonly used in radar and was
also investigated by Mondal et al. [12]. In that paper, the
Mills cross configuration was shown to be inferior to the
circular configuration for the same number of elements.
Recently in the medical imaging field a number of authors
have suggested the use of arrays with very large numbers of
elements and investigated methods of selecting the optimal
numbers and distribution of elements for the transmit and
receive apertures. For example, Yen and Smith [1] selected
sub-apertures of 256 elements from within a 65,000 element
array. As shown in Fig. 2(f), they used four elements
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
528 B.W. Drinkwater, P.D. Wilcox / NDT&E International 39 (2006) 525–541

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of a range of different 2D array geometries: (a) fully populated circular array, (b) elements distributed around three concentric
circles, (c) elements distributed around a single circle, (d) the Mills cross configuration and (e) random element excitation within a fully populated array.

randomly distributed in a 16 element unit cell which was
then repeated and demonstrated that this approach
improved the imaging performance when compared to
regular element distribution patterns even when the
element spacing was large.
The geometry of arrays is physically limited by a number
of factors relating to the physical manufacture, connectiv-
ity and the number of channels of array controller
instrumentation. These limitations have meant that, despite
the obvious potential for imaging, currently there has been
very little industrial take-up of 2-D arrays for NDE and
such systems are still at the research stage [13]. One
exception is Lasser [14] who developed an ‘‘ultrasonic
camera’’ (marketed though Imperium Inc., USA) which is
a 2-D array receiver with a very high element density
(128
128 elements over 1 cm2). A plane wave generator is
used to uniformly illuminate the structure and the array
receives the transmitted or reflected signals. The maximum
signal amplitude of each element is then displayed as an
intensity. This produces a 2-D image of the object with the
array element size being the resultant pixel size.
2.2. Array transducer materials and manufacture
There has been significant development of ultrasonic
array materials over the last 10 years. Much of this
development has been driven by the medical (see for
example [15]) and underwater sonar fields (see for example
[16]), both of which require highly sensitive and linear
transduction systems. Traditionally arrays were manufac-
tured from blocks of piezoceramic material, such as lead
zirconate titanate (PZT-5 H), divided into elements using a
diamond wire saw. The gaps between elements can be filled
with a lossy polymer in an attempt to reduce element-to-
element cross-talk. As the piezoceramics have high acoustic
impedance they are inefficient when coupled to low
impedance materials such as water. Due to the requirement
to couple to living tissue in the medical field and water in
the sonar field, this has driven much of the recent
developments in piezoelectric materials for ultrasonic
generation and reception. In particular, this has lead to
the development of piezocomposites, in which
small piezoceramic rods are set in a polymer matrix.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
B.W. Drinkwater, P.D. Wilcox / NDT&E International 39 (2006) 525–541
Piezocomposites have lower acoustic impedance than
traditional piezoceramics and so are better acoustically
matched to water [17,18]. In addition the cross-talk is
significantly reduced and the bandwidth improved [19].
Since their initial development, a range of manufacturing
techniques including mechanical dicing, injection moulding
and laser machining [20] have been developed.
In NDE, the requirement to match to water is less
important than in the medical and sonar fields as the test
structures are typically solids. However, the cross-talk
reduction and bandwidth improvement advantages of
piezocomposites mean that most arrays in the NDT field
are manufactured in this way. Of particular importance are
the 1–3 composites, an example of which is shown in Fig. 3.
This configuration of piezocomposites has a particularly
high piezoelectric efficiency and near unimodal motion in
the direction of the piezoceramic pillars leading to
extremely low cross-talk. Methods for optimal design for
1–3 composite piezoceramic transducers and reduction in
lateral motion are discussed in detail by Hayward and
Bennett [19]. A further advantage of these materials is that
they can be adapted to a range of applications. For
example, the addition of a soft polymer matrix has enabled
the development of flexible arrays [21,22] which can
conform around the test structure. However, despite this
promise, flexible arrays for NDT applications are currently
confined to research laboratories and are not commercially
available.
A new range of single crystal piezoelectric materials,
such as niobate-lead titanate, have recently attracted
Piezoceramic pillar
Polymer matrix
Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of an element manufactured from 1–3
connectivity piezocomposite material.
529
significant research interest [23]. The advantage of these
new materials stems from the fact that their electromecha-
nical coupling efficiency is significantly larger than that of
standard piezoelectric ceramics. This implies better sensi-
tivity and potential for bandwidth enhancement over
existing transducers. These new materials are yet to make
an impression on the NDE marketplace and it will be some
years before they are routinely used in array manufacture.
Capacitive micromachined arrays have also been shown
to offer excellent acoustic performance, particularly
matching to water [13] and air [24]. Their key advantage
over other transducer technologies is the ease with large
2-D arrays can be manufactured and integrated with
electronic circuits. This approach offers the potential to
solve the connectivity issues which become a significant
problem when large numbers of elements are used.
The common ‘‘dice and fill’’ manufacturing method
means that the gap between elements is governed by the
width of the finest saw blade which is typically of the order
of 50–100 mm [25]. The size of elements governs their
electrical properties and the range of sizes present in a
particular array may have to be limited to suit the electrical
characteristics of the array controller instrument [26]. This
can be a particular problem in the case of annular arrays
where element areas are non-uniform leading to large
capacitance variations between elements.
2.3. Inspection modalities
Arrays can be used for NDE in a wide range of different
inspection modalities. In general, the approach is to use the
array to mimic a range of different ‘standard’ ultrasonic
transducers. An exhaustive description of array inspection
modalities would require another paper and so this section
reviews only the most common approaches. The simplest
approach is to position the array parallel to the surface of
the test structure and either couple it directly [3,27] or
through some intervening coupling medium [6]. In this
configuration plane B-scans, focused B-scans or angular
sweeps can be performed as shown in Figs. 4(a–c). In the B-
scan shown in Fig. 4(a) a subset of the array elements
(termed the aperture) is used to inspect the component and
the reflected signals are plotted as intensity. The aperture is
then moved electronically along the array to produce an
image. The elements within the aperture can be either fired
in-phase to produce a plane beam or fired with delays to
produce a focused beam as shown in Fig. 4(b). As each
focal position requires a different set of delays (often
termed a ‘‘focal law’’) each also necessitates a further
excitation-reception cycle. Therefore, as the number of
different focal positions required increases the inspection
speed decreases, which is a major issue in the medical sector
where real-time imaging is a key objective.
Angular sweeps (or sector scans) can be carried out with
directly coupled arrays as shown in Fig. 4(c), but are more
commonly used in conjunction with an angle wedge. The
angle wedge, typically made from a low loss material, such
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
530 B.W. Drinkwater, P.D. Wilcox / NDT&E International 39 (2006) 525–541
Aperture
(a)
(b)
θ approaches which have been adopted to assess the
(c)
Angle
wedge
θ a more abstract mathematical formalism in which the array
(d)
Fig. 4. Array inspection modalities: (a) B-scan, (b) focused B-scan, (c)
angular sweep or sector scan, and (d) angular sweep with angle wedge.
as polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA, also known by trade
names Plexiglas and Perspex), is used to orient the array at
a fixed angle to the test piece as shown in Fig. 4(d) so that
mode converted shear waves are excited in the test piece by
longitudinal waves in the wedge. In this way the array can
be used to steer the shear waves in the test piece over a
limited range of angles [28]. Typically the range of angles
for longitudinal waves in the wedge is kept beyond the
longitudinal critical angle, so that only shear waves are
excited in the test piece to simplify the inspection. The
reason for sweeping the inspection angle in this configura-
tion is usually to increase the detectability of cracks which
can occur over a range of angles, although it can also be
used to increase coverage from a particular location.
Essentially the swept angle approach emulates the more
traditional approach for crack detection where a number of
monolithic wedge transducers with different wedge angles
would be employed. This will be considered further in the
next section. Care must be taken to ignore spurious signals
which can often reverberate in the wedge and contaminate
the resultant image. However, as these remain constant
over time they do not represent a significant problem.
3. Modelling
Because of the wide range of possible array geometries
and inspection modalities, modelling plays a crucial part in
the use of arrays for NDE. Typically the challenge is to
select an array to achieve a required level of performance.
This performance requirement could include a specification
of minimum detectable defect size, defect sizing accuracy,
maximum steering angle, depth of penetration, range of
inspection angles, volume inspected from each position or
speed of inspection. This section reviews the modelling
performance of a given array and inspection modality.
There are two related, but distinct modelling philoso-
phies described in the literature; beam profile modelling
(see for example [29–31]) and point spread function (PSF)
modelling (see for example [32,33]). Both types can be
performed in either the time or frequency domain. Here the
frequency domain formulation is used as it is straightfor-
ward to relate it directly to the modular systems approach
to ultrasonic NDE modelling used by Schmerr [34] and
others.
Both these modelling techniques are based on directly
emulating the physical operation of an array. A third
approach that will not be covered in detail here is based on
is regarded as a spatial sampler [35]. In this approach the
operation of an array and subsequent imaging is described
in terms of a spatial Fourier transform. The attraction is
the mathematical insight obtained into array performance
and phenomena such as spatial sampling frequency and
aperture size.
As its name suggests, beam profile modelling simulates
the ultrasonic field pattern produced by an array. For a
given array each focal law must be modelled separately.
The advantage of beam profile modelling is that it is very
quick to perform and easy to obtain an impression of the
effect of applying a particular focal law. Whilst beam
profile modelling enables grating lobes and beam width to
be visualised, it does not give a quantitative representation
of these effects on the final image produced by the array. A
further problem with beam profile modelling is that it does
not take reception into account. For a monolithic
transducer the sensitivity in reception is identical to that
in transmission. However, for arrays there is no reason why
the same set of element delays or the same signal processing
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
B.W. Drinkwater, P.D. Wilcox / NDT&E International 39 (2006) 525–541 531

approach has to be used in both transmission and (x,y,z)

reception. This means that there is in effect a ‘‘reception’’
beam profile and this should be multiplied with the
‘‘transmission’’ beam profile before any quantitative
performance analysis is undertaken.
In the PSF approach the ability of a given array and z
imaging algorithm to image a point reflector is modelled.
To achieve this, ultrasonic data from an array due to a y
point reflector at a particular point is simulated and the
image of the reflector is then plotted using the appropriate θ
imaging algorithm applied to the simulated data. The
advantage of PSF modelling is that the effect of artefacts
such as grating lobes can be seen exactly as they will appear
in the final image. The disadvantage of PSF modelling is
the computational cost required to produce a single PSF
image and the fact that a single PSF only gives information φ
L
about a reflector at the point modelled. x

3.1. Modelling array elements

Many authors have produced models of transducer and

array transducer performance using either the beam profile
or PSF approach. Both types of models always need to
start from a model of an individual element. There are a
variety of techniques for modelling array element output
including finite element analysis (see for example [36]) and
Huygens’ principle (see for example [37]). Finite element
analysis has been used to model both the electromechanical
effects within the element and the propagation of ultra-
sound into the surrounding media. For example, Robert-
son et al. [38] used finite elements to relate the voltage
applied across a piezocomposite array element to the
displacement field in the surrounding media. This approach
is time consuming to set-up but lends itself to modelling
more complex geometries [39], near field effects and details
such as inter-element cross-talk [40].
In the Huygens’ principle approach the output of a
transducer is described in terms of the summation of point
(for a 3-D model) or line (for a 2-D model) sources
representing the surface of the transducer. Huygens’
principle only models the mechanical aspects of the element
(or transducer) and so the distribution of pressure across
the element must be know a priori. However, for an array it
is common to assume that the elements are small and can
be modelled by their far field performance, in which case
closed form analytic solutions are readily derived for the
fields from simple element shapes. In 3-D, elements are
modelled as either circular or rectangular emitters and, in
2-D, as infinitely long strip emitters [41]. A directivity
function is then used to describe the angular distribution of
the emitted field of each element. Various directivity
functions are described in the literature. Consider the
array element shown in Fig. 5 and the spherical polar
coordinate system shown. The most common approach
(see for example [42]) is to integrate a series of point
sources to obtain the 3-D element directivity function
due to the finite size of a rectangular element. In the
a
Fig. 5. Definition of parameters for modelling the output of a rectangular
array element.
far field, this is:



pa sin y cos f pL sin y sin f
Df ðo; y; fÞ ¼ sinc sinc ,
lðoÞ lð o Þ
(1)
where Df is the directivity function due to the finite size of
an element and l is the ultrasonic wavelength. The other
terms in Eq. (1) are shown in Fig. 5 from which it can be
seen that a and L are the dimensions of the rectangular
element and y and f are the elevation and azimuth angles
respectively.
It is common to model 1-D linear arrays using a 2-D
model, in which each element is assumed to behave as a
strip source that is infinitely long in the y direction. For
clarity, this approach is adopted for the remainder of this
paper. In this case, Eq. (1) can be simplified by setting
f ¼ 0 to give the directivity of an element in a 2-D plane:


pa sin y
Df ðo; yÞ ¼ sinc . (2)
lðoÞ
Eqs. (1) and (2) are based on integrating the fields from
point and line sources that radiate uniformly in three and
two dimensions, respectively. This is an acceptable
approximation for arrays radiating into fluid, but for
arrays coupled to a solid the fields to be integrated are not
uniform in all directions. In the case of isotropic solids, the
fields to be integrated should be those provided by Miller
and Pursey [43]. From this paper, the far field directivities,
DL and Ds, of longitudinal and shear waves generated in
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
532 B.W. Drinkwater, P.D. Wilcox / NDT&E International 39 (2006) 525–541

the 2-D case by line loading on the surface of a semi-infinite half-space loading are shown in Fig. 6(c). Comparison of
elastic solid can be written as Figs. 6(a) and (c) shows that there are significant
 2  differences between the basic directivity pattern for
cL =cS  2 sin2 y cos y radiation into fluid and into a solid half-space. It is
DL ðyÞ ¼ , (3)
F 0 ðsin yÞ particularly interesting to observe the large amplitude of
shear waves which are predicted in the solid case.
 

5=2 c =c 2 sin2 y  1 1=2 sin 2y Fortunately, the shear waves travel significantly slower
cL L S
than the longitudinal waves and so their impact on the
D S ð yÞ ¼ , (4)
cS F 0 ðk sin yÞ resultant image is often small. Fig. 6(d) shows the
where cL and cS are the bulk longitudinal and shear wave directivity pattern into a solid half-space of a l width
velocities and element and it can be seen that this exhibits significantly
greater directionality in terms of longitudinal waves. Note

2 !2
cL that the large, off-axis shear wave lobes due to line loading
F 0 ðzÞ ¼ 2z2  seen in Fig. 6(b) are significantly suppressed by the effect of
cS
the finite element width in Figs. 6(c) and (d).

2 !1=2

2 2
1=2 2 cL
 4z z  1 z  . ð5Þ
cS 3.2. Beam profile modelling
The far field directivity, D, of a strip source of finite width
on the surface of a semi-infinite solid can therefore be In the frequency domain the radiated pressure field from
obtained by multiplying the line source directivity of the mth element may be written in terms of a combination
Eq. (3) or (4) by Eq. (2): of transfer functions (see for example [34]):

Dðo; yÞ ¼ Df ðo; yÞ  DL;S ðyÞ.
Fig. 6 shows the effect of the terms in Eq. (6). In all cases
cL= cS ¼ 2 and the directivities are normalised by DL(0). In
Fig. 6(a) the directivity pattern for longitudinal waves
radiated into fluid by a l/2 width element is shown. The
underlying directivities of longitudinal and shear waves due
to line loading of a solid half-space are shown in Fig. 6(b)
and the combined effect of both the element width and the
°
(6) pm ðrm ; ym Þ ¼ I ðoÞT ðoÞAðo; rm ÞDðo; ym ÞeikðoÞrm , (7)
where I is the Fourier transform of an electrical input
signal, T is the impulse response function of an element, A
is a function to account for energy loss through beam
divergence and attenuation, rm and ym are local polar
coordinates with their origin at the centre of the element, k
is the relevant wavenumber and D is the element directivity
function defined in Eq. (6).

°
0°

0°
22.5

22.5
°

°
45

45

° °
67.5 67.5

90° 90°
(a) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 (b) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Longitudinal
Shear
°

°
0°

0°
22.5

22.5
°

°
45

45

° °
67.5 67.5

90° 90°
(c) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 (d) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Fig. 6. Comparison of array element directivity functions: (a) l/2 width element radiating into fluid, (b) longitudinal and shear wave amplitudes due to
line loading of a solid half-space, (c) l/2 width element radiating into solid half-space, and (d) l width element radiating into solid half-space. In all cases
cL =cS ¼ 2 for the solid. All waves are normalised to PL(0).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
B.W. Drinkwater, P.D. Wilcox / NDT&E International 39 (2006) 525–541 533

In order to model the beam profile from an array
under a particular focal law, the fields from each individual
element given by Eq. (7) must be converted to a
global coordinate system and superposed with the appro-
priate amplitude weightings and phase delays. The
beam profile in global Cartesian coordinates (x,z) is
therefore:
X
N mental signals are obviously obtained in the time-domain,
pðx; zÞ ¼ am eikbm pm
m¼1

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  
2 2 1 x  xm

ðx  xm Þ þ z ; tan , ð8Þ
z ting and the nth element is receiving in the presence of a
where am is the amplitude weighting and kbm is the phase
delay. For clarity, it has been assumed in Eqs. (7) and (8)
that the elements in the array are identical although it is
straightforward to extend the procedure to non-uniform
elements.
The values of am and bm for some common imaging
algorithms are shown in Table 1. To model reception an
identical construction can be used to create a received
beam profile. The overall sensitivity of the array is then the
transmit beam profile multiplied by the receive beam
profile. In the case where the same focal law is used in
transmission and reception these are identical, hence the
transmit beam profile can be simply squared to obtain the
overall sensitivity.
3.3. Point spread function modelling
In order to perform PSF modelling it is first necessary to
simulate the complete data set obtained from the array.
This data set comprises an N
N matrix of signals from
every transmit–receive element pair and is referred to as the
full matrix. Each signal in the full matrix can be expressed
in either the time- or frequency-domain. Although experi-
the frequency-domain representation is again used for
consistency.
The signal obtained when the mth element is transmit-
single point reflector is given by
H m;n ðoÞ ¼ I ðoÞ½T ðoÞ2 Dðo; ym ÞDðo; yn ÞRðo; ym ; yn Þ

Aðo; d m ÞAðo; d n ÞeikðoÞðd m þd n Þ , ð9Þ
where I is the Fourier transform of the electrical input to
the transmitting element, T is the impulse response
function of an element, A is an amplitude factor to account
for energy loss through beam divergence and attenuation, k
is the relevant wavenumber, d is the propagation distance
from an element to the reflector, R is the reflection
coefficient of the reflector, D is the element directivity
function defined in Eq. (6) and the subscripts m and n refer
to the transmit and receive elements, respectively.

Table 1
Beam and PSF modelling parameters for common imaging algorithms

Beam model parameters PSF model parameters

(for plane and focused B-scans aperture is of width a and (for plane and focused B-scans aperture width is a)
centred on x ¼ x0 ; for beam steering, steering angle is ys)

Algorithm am bm wm,n(x,z) em,n(x,z)

(
Plane B-scan 1 jxm  x0 j  12a em ¼ z
wm ¼
0 jxm  x0 j412a
( (
Contributions from 1 jxm  x0 j  12a 0 1 jxn  x0 j  12a en ¼ z
elements in aperture wn ¼
0 jxm  x0 j412a 0 jxn  x0 j412a
summed without time
delays
( qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Focused B-scan 1 jxm  x0 j  12a em ¼ ðxm  xÞ2 þ z2f
wm ¼
0 jxm  x0 j412a
( qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ( qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Contributions from 1 jxm  x0 j  12a 1 jxn  x0 j  12a ðxn  xÞ2 þ z2f
zf  ðxm  x0 Þ2 þ z2f wn ¼
en ¼
elements in aperture 0 jxm  x0 j412a 0 jxn  x0 j412a
summed with phase delay
to focus at depth zf

Beam steering em ¼ r þ xm xr
Contributions from 1 en ¼ r þ xn xr
1 xm sin ys pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
elements summed with where r ¼ x2 þ z2
phase delay to steer beam
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Total focusing method
em ¼ ðxm  xÞ2 þ z2
Beam model of limited applicability as only one focal spot qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
All elements used to focus 1
can be modelled at a time en ¼ ðxn  xÞ2 þ z2
at every point
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
534 B.W. Drinkwater, P.D. Wilcox / NDT&E International 39 (2006) 525–541

For PSF predictions, the reflector is assumed to reflect
omnidirectionally and material attenuation is neglected.
Hence for a 2-D model the following expressions for R and
A are used in Eq. (9):
Rðo; ym ; yn Þ ¼ 1,
1 Gaussian windowed five cycle (length in cycles defined by
Aðo; d Þ ¼ pffiffiffi .
d 40 dB points of window) input signal, a point reflector
The PSF of a given array and imaging algorithm can then
be computed by summing up weighted and delayed
contributions from all the transmitter-receiver pairs used.
The PSF (in the x–z plane), PSF(x,z), of an N element
array can be written as
Z 1 m¼N
X nX ¼N
PSFðx; zÞ ¼ wm ðx; zÞwn ðx; zÞ
1 m¼1 n¼1

H m;n ðoÞeikðoÞðem ðx;zÞþen ðx;zÞÞ do,
where w and e are parameters which describe the element
amplitude weighting and phase for the imaging algorithm.
The values of w and e for the basic implementation of
various imaging algorithms are summarised in Table 1.
3.3.1. Array modelling example
Fig. 7 shows beam profiles and PSFs for a typical NDE
1-D array. In this and subsequent figures, the beam profile
is the transmit beam profile only and is plotted on a 20 dB
greyscale, while the PSF is plotted on a 40 dB greyscale.
However, because both the transmit and receive apertures
are the same in the cases considered, the overall sensitivity
based on beam profiles is equal to the transmit beam profile
squared (i.e. the 20 dB greyscale is effectively doubled to
40 dB). Hence the grey-scales of beam profiles and PSFs are
directly comparable. The PSF calculations are based on a
ð10Þ
located on the central axis at (0, 8l and the impulse
response functions of the transducer elements are assumed
to be unity. The array has 64 elements with l/2 element
spacing and l/2 element width. The array controller
instrumentation is assumed to be such that up to 16
elements can be fired independently.
Fig. 7(a) shows the beam profile and the PSF for a 16
element aperture plane B-scan, while Fig. 7(b) shows the
beam profile and the PSF for a 16 element aperture B-scan
ð11Þ focused at a depth of 8l. The imaging artefacts seen behind
the image of the reflector in the PSF in Fig. 7(a) are a result
of the cylindrical edge waves generated at the edges of the
rectangular aperture interacting with the reflector. Note
that the presence of these artefacts is not readily apparent
from the equivalent beam profile in Fig. 7(a).
3.3.2. Apodisation
In Table 1 the aperture weighting in the plane and
focused B-scan cases is rectangular. However, in terms of
side lobe suppression, performance can be improved by

20 0 20 0
z/λ
z/λ

dB
dB

0 -20 0 -40
-10 0 10 -10 0 10
(a) x/λ x/λ

20 0 20 0
z/λ
z/λ

dB
dB

0 -20 0 -40
-10 0 10 -10 0 10
(b) x/λ x/λ

Fig. 7. Performance of 64 element array with l/2 element width, l/2 element pitch and 16 element active aperture: (a) plane B-scan and (b) B-scan focused
at depth 8l. The PSFs are for a point reflector at (0,8l.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
B.W. Drinkwater, P.D. Wilcox / NDT&E International 39 (2006) 525–541 535

making the aperture weightings smooth functions and this
is termed apodisation [37].
The effect of applying a raised cosine apodisation
function to the aperture is shown in Fig. 8 in the same
format as Fig. 7. The artefacts seen in the PSF in Fig. 7(a)
are not visible in Fig. 8(a) due to the apodisation. The
spatial extent of the PSF is also reduced slightly as, in this
example, a smaller beam width is produced by the
apodisation. In focusing the converse is true and apodisa-
tion reduces the effective aperture which reduces the
focusing performance, although in the case shown in
Fig. 8(b) this effect is small.
3.3.3. Element spacing
Fig. 9 shows the beam profile and PSFs for the same
configurations as in Fig. 7 except with l element spacing.
To make this a fair comparison with Figs. 7 and 8, which
used an element spacing of l/2, the number of elements
used to plot Fig. 9 was halved to keep the aperture size
constant. Extra signals are apparent either side of the
expected reflection from the point reflector. These spurious
images are the effect of grating lobes and can be thought of
as resulting from spatial undersampling across the array,
i.e. the spatial equivalent of the well known picket fence
effect in the time domain (see for example [44]).
Grating lobes are even more problematic for beam steering
inspections as one or more extra steered directions can be
generated in addition to that intended by the applied delays.
Fig. 10(a) shows beam profile generated when a l/2 element
spacing array (as in Figs. 7 and 8) was used to steer a beam at
+451. In Fig. 10(a) the main lobe of the beam can be seen at
approximately +451 while the other lobes visible are side
lobes of diminishing amplitude. These side lobes occur due to
the rectangular apodisation of the array but no grating lobe
is generated as the l/2 element spacing criterion is satisfied.
Fig 10(b) shows the beam profile from a l element spacing
array (as in Fig. 9) steered at +101. In Fig 10(b) it can be
seen that, as well as the main lobe and side lobes, an
additional grating lobe is now present at approximately
501, although its amplitude is somewhat smaller than that
of the main lobe. This demonstrates than such an array can
perform limited beam steering with only a small grating lobe
occurring. Fig. 10(c) shows the same l array steered at +451
from which it can be seen that very poor steering in the
desired direction is achieved. The grating lobe which occurs
is at approximately 201 can be seen to be of significantly
higher amplitude than the main beam.
In beam steering grating lobes will appear when these time
delays are such that there are one or more other directions in
which the waves from the elements are an integer number of
wavelengths out of phase. It is straightforward to show that
grating lobes cannot exist for any steering angle if the
spacing between elements is less than half a wavelength–the
so-called l/2 criterion. However there are a number of
mechanisms that suppress grating lobes and hence allow this
criterion to be somewhat relaxed in practice.
Firstly, array excitation is by short pulses a few
wavelengths in duration rather than continuous waves

20 0 20 0
z/λ
z/λ

dB
dB

0 -20 0 -40
-10 0 10 -10 0 10
(a) x/λ x/λ

20 0 20 0
z/λ
z/λ

dB
dB

0 -20 0 -40
-10 0 10 -10 0 10
(b) x/λ x/λ

Fig. 8. Performance of 64 element array with l/2 element width, l/2 element pitch, 16 element active aperture and raised cosine apodisation: (a) plane
B-scan and (b) B-scan focused at depth 8l. The PSFs are for a point reflector at (0,8l).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
536 B.W. Drinkwater, P.D. Wilcox / NDT&E International 39 (2006) 525–541
20 0 20
z/λ
dB
0 -20
-10 0 10
(a) x/λ
20 0 20
z/λ
dB
0 -20
-10 0 10
(b) x/λ
Fig. 9. Performance of 64 element array with l element width, l element pitch and 16 element active aperture: (a) plane B-scan and (b) B-scan focused at
depth 8l. The PSFs are for a point reflector at (0,8l).
and hence the constructive interference produced by
superposed pulses separated by one wavelength is less than
in the case of continuous waves.
Secondly, the element width is normally such that the
gap between elements is very small, hence the element
width increases with element pitch. Wider elements are
more directional (Fig. 6) and hence grating lobes at angles
greater than the steering angle are suppressed relative to
the main beam. (However, note that for large steering
angles the same effect causes grating lobes at smaller angles
than the steering angle to be amplified relative to the main
beam as in the case of Fig. 10(c).)
Finally, if grating lobes are generated using an array in a
wedge configuration it is highly likely that the orientation
of the grating lobes will be such that they do not pass
directly through the bottom of the wedge into the test-
piece. Instead the energy in the grating lobes will
reverberate within the wedge itself rather than causing
spurious ghost signals due to features in the test-piece. The
reverberations will be manifested as constant coherent
noise at the start of time-domain signals recorded from the
array. [28].
4. Signal processing
4.1. Full matrix capture and post-processing
Under conventional array operation, a number of
channels are used as parallel transmitters with pro-
0
z/λ
dB
0 -40
-10 0 10
x/λ
0
z/λ
dB
0 -40
-10 0 10
x/λ
grammed delays and amplitudes to reflect the am and bm
functions in Eq. (8) for the chosen imaging algorithm. The
physical wavefront injected into the specimen therefore
follows the pattern described by the beam profile. The
received signals are summed and so contain the linear
combinations of signals from different transmitter ele-
ments.
An alternative mode of array operation demonstrated by
Holmes et al. [27] is to actually obtain the full matrix of
data experimentally and this operation is referred to as full
matrix capture. Any algorithm can then be applied by post-
processing the data. The only limiting factor for such post-
processing is computation time. Holmes et al. investigated
and quantitatively compared the performance of a number
of different algorithms in post-processing, such as B-scans
and focused B-scans, to image a crack in an aluminium
block.
It should be noted that the concept of using full matrix
capture and digital post-processing is already used
extensively in guided wave arrays. Here, sophisticated
algorithms are routinely applied in post-processing for
mode and direction separation [45], dispersion compensa-
tion [46] and frequency dependent beam steering [47,48].
Holmes et al. also processed the array data such that the
array was focused on every point in the field of view and
termed this the total focusing method. The relevant w and e
functions for total focusing method are given in Table 1.
Fig. 11 shows the total focusing method applied to data
from a 64 element linear array with l/2 element width and
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
B.W. Drinkwater, P.D. Wilcox / NDT&E International 39 (2006) 525–541 537

100 20
0 0
z/λ

z/λ
dB 10
dB

-20 -40
0 0
-50 0 50 -10 -5 0 5 10
(a) x/λ x/λ

100 Fig. 11. PSF generated using the Total Focusing Method algorithm for a
0 point reflector at (0,8l using a 64 element array with l/2 element width
and l/2 element pitch.

l/2 element pitch. In the PSF in Fig. 11 the reflector is at

(0,8 l) and so is directly comparable with Fig. 7.
The main drawback of the full matrix capture approach
z/λ

dB is that using a single element in transmission limits the total

acoustic power output and hence degrades the signal to
random noise ratio (SNR) of each transmit-receive pair
relative to traditional multi-element aperture approaches.
This degradation is tempered by an improvement in SNR
due to the averaging effect of the imaging algorithm. The
net effect is that the SNR of data reconstructed from full
0 -20
matrix capture compared to that obtained from an
-50 0 50
(b) x/λ equivalent multi-channel parallel
pffiffiffiffiffi transmitter configuration
100 is reduced by a factor of N where N is the number of
0 elements in the aperture involved [27,49].

4.2. Signal encoding

The signal-to-noise ratio, bandwidth and scanning speed

of arrays can all be improved by the use of various
encoding schemes such as Golay sequences [50] and chirps
z/λ

dB [51]. Typically the code (or sequence) is sent to the

transducer and a decoding filter used on reception. For
example, with Golay codes two binary pulse trains are sent
in two successive transmission cycles. One of these is the
anti-phase version of the other as shown in Fig. 12. The
received signals are then cross-correlated with the corre-
-20 sponding input signals and the pair of cross-correlated
0
-50 0 50 signals summed. The procedure works because the auto-
correlation functions for each input signal have sidelobes in
(c) x/λ
the time-domain that are in anti-phase with each other and
Fig. 10. Beam steering using (a) 16 elements, l/2 element width, l/2 which therefore cancel out on addition. The final time
element pitch, steering angle +451, (b) 8 elements, l element width, domain signal has a signal-to-noise ratio which is propor-
l element pitch, steering angle +101 and (c) 8 elements, l element width,
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
tional to 2:sequence length [52]. The net result is that for
l element pitch, steering angle +451.
the same peak-to-peak voltage applied to a given array
element, the resultant signal-to-noise ratio can be improved
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
538 B.W. Drinkwater, P.D. Wilcox / NDT&E International 39 (2006) 525–541
Cross-correlation
functions
Decoded
Input Output result
Golay Received
code A signal A
Golay Received
code B signal A
Fig. 12. Schematic diagram of the use of Golay codes (denotes
correlation).
above that achievable using simple pulsed excitation. This
approach is therefore particularly useful in ‘lossy’ materials
where the penetration depth is limited by attenuation. One
disadvantage of the use of coded sequences is that they
result in a ‘dead’ zone in front of the transducer as the
elements cannot receive until after they have completed
the transmission of the sequence. In practice workers in the
medical field have found that this limits the codes to 40–80
bits in length [53].
In an array, the signal-to-noise ratio of the full matrix
capture approach described in Section 4.1 can be improved
by simultaneously firing different combinations of binary
codes on all elements [54]. This idea is illustrated in Fig. 13
for an array with four elements. The net result is a series of
four simultaneous equations, from which the received
signals from four separate individual element firings can be
reconstructed. The number of firings is equal to the number
of elements, N, in the array and so the time required to
perform capture of the full-matrix remains unchanged
relative to that required if individual elements are fired.
This then yields the full matrix of transmit–receive
combinations from which the desired imaging algorithm
can be implemented as before. However, as the signal
associated with a particular element transmitting is now
obtained by combining the N different signals thepsignal
ffiffiffiffiffi to
random noise ratio is improved by a factor of N . This
precisely balances the degradation in signal to random
noise associate with full matrix capture that was discussed
in the previous subsection.
The codes are also designed to have a very wide
bandwidth. For example, chirps [55] are defined in terms
of a start frequency, an end frequency and (typically) a
linear variation of frequency with time. However, as the
codes must be passed though the transducer they are
inevitably affected by the transfer function of the
transducer. Due to this effect, although the bandwidth of
the code may be extremely wide, the transducer still limits
the practically achievable bandwidth.
In addition to the above uses, coded waveforms can also
be used to increase the speed of inspection. This is possible
as encoding strategies have been developed which allow a
reduced number of firings which is often the time-limiting
Array elements
F(t) F(t) F(t) F(t)
Transmit 1
F(t) -F(t) F(t) -F(t)
Transmit 2
F(t) F(t) -F(t) -F(t)
Transmit 3
F(t) -F(t) -F(t) F(t)
Transmit 4
Fig. 13. Sequences of simultaneously fired encoded signals.
step in array imaging. Two approaches to increasing
imaging speed are frequency division and simultaneous
transmission of multiple coded waveforms (see for example
[54]). The concept of frequency division is the most simple
conceptually. It involves splitting the available frequency
bandwidth into distinct frequency regions. Different coded
(or uncoded) waveforms are transmitted in each frequency
region and processed separately. This yields an imaging
speed increase proportional to the number of frequency
regions as the total number of firings can be reduced by this
fraction. The practical limitation of this approach is that
the response of the test-piece needs to be frequency
independent over the range of frequencies used. Simulta-
neous firings of different Golay codes can be used if their
cross-correlation functions are sufficiently small relative to
their auto-correlation functions. This difference defines the
cross-talk from one coded sequence to another. To date
these approaches have only been used in the medical sector
but there are obvious applications in the NDT field where
it is required to inspect large structures rapidly.
5. Future directions
5.1. Adaptive arrays
The ability of arrays to generate wavefronts of infinite
variety lends itself to adaptive approaches. The principle is
that the element amplitudes and delays (and in principle
also the waveforms) can be adjusted to adapt to
uncertainties in the test structure. A number of authors
have investigated these approaches for a variety of different
reasons. For example Clark et al. [56] used high power
lasers to generate an arbitrary distribution of light on a
surface which then excited a surface acoustic wave. They
then adaptively adjusted the distribution of light to
compensate for acoustic aberrations due to material
inhomogeneities and hence produce a good focus. With
this system they were able to undertake surface acoustic
wave imaging at 82 MHz. In the medical imaging field
Karaman et al. [57] used an adaptive approach to
compensate for tissue motion when using an array to
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
B.W. Drinkwater, P.D. Wilcox / NDT&E International 39 (2006) 525–541
perform synthetic aperture focusing. Of more direct
relevance to this paper, the group at Commissariat à
l’Energie Atomique, France [3,4,58] have investigated the
effect of surface irregularities on array imaging perfor-
mance. They have developed a flexible array which can
conform to the surface features of the component. The
element delays are then adaptively adjusted to optimise the
beam profile. Significantly improved sensitivity to defects
(side drilled holes) was demonstrated after the adaption.
Very few of these adaptive systems have moved beyond the
laboratory stage of development but the potential for
improved performance appears large. As there is a
significant desire by industry to inspect complex compo-
nents it is anticipated that adaptive array approaches will
become increasingly commonplace and this research area
will expand rapidly.
5.2. Data fusion
Arrays offer the ability to produce many different images
from each transducer location. It is already standard
industrial practice when using arrays to perform a number
of different inspections, for example performing both a
sector scan and a plane B-scan. The challenge, which is as
yet unresolved, is how to make best use of the potentially
massive amount of image information. A number of
authors have looked at data fusion in NDE. For example
Horn and Mayo [59] assessed the inspection reliability
gains which could be obtained from combining eddy-
current and ultrasonic data. They investigated a number of
different ways of combining the data, such as logical-OR
decision making as well as weighted combinations and
showed that all these approaches produced measurable
reliability improvements (in terms of probability of
detection). Hall et al. [60] used image fusion between
different tomographic reconstruction techniques. They
fused reflection, transmission and time-of-flight images
using a fuzzy pixel fusion technique. Essentially this looked
to see if a given pixel was above a threshold in each image.
If it was above this threshold in any of the images then it
was definitely in the final fused image, if it was below then
it became part of a weighted sum with the equivalent pixels
from the other images. It is clear that there is a huge
amount of work to be performed in this area before NDE
engineers routinely use data fusion and fuzzy logic
approaches. However, it seems undeniable that, given the
wide range of possible inspection modalities, array imaging
data is not being used optimally at present.
5.3. Harmonic imaging and elastic imaging
The last 10 years has seen a massive expansion in interest
in both harmonic imaging [61] and elastic imaging [62] for
medical applications. Both approaches have now been
demonstrated for various diagnostic purposes (see for
example [63]). Harmonic imaging relies on the inherent
nonlinearity of various types of tissue. This nonlinearity
539
results in the distortion of the ultrasonic waveforms, which
in turn results in the generation of harmonics in the
frequency domain. The harmonics are measured using
higher order resonances of the transducer and their
amplitude relates to the extent of the nonlinearity. This
has two advantages; firstly as the harmonics are at higher
frequencies, the imaging resolution is inherently improved
and secondly, it has been shown to have increased
sensitivity to certain medical conditions. In elastic imaging
the test medium is excited using a low frequency pulse or
step function. The effect of this low frequency loading is
then measured by ultrasonic imaging. For example, in step
loading an image is taken before and after the application
of the load and the displacement measured. Although it is
not obvious how these two medical imaging approaches
could be transferred to NDE there would be clear
advantages if they could be. For example, nonlinear
NDE is in its own right, a rapidly growing area of research
(see for example [64]) and the possibility of nonlinear
imaging would be very attractive. The measurement of
elastic properties and residual stress is an on-going area of
interest in the NDE community.
6. Conclusions
This paper has reviewed current research progress in the
use of ultrasonic arrays for NDE. This is an area in which
the industrial uptake is progressing as rapidly as the
research. The benefits of arrays for NDE are in terms of
inspection performance, flexibility and rapid imaging. In all
these areas, arrays offer a step change over traditional
single element transducers. It is anticipated that the
performance of commercially available instrumentation
will improve dramatically over coming years. This should
lead to systems in which more elements are used and, in
particular, full 3-D imaging is realised. Clearly these
systems will require more sophisticated electronics, and
faster computational performance. Given the current rate
of development these steps seem inevitable.
As noted, the array imaging algorithms discussed in
Section 3 are based on the emulation of monolithic
transducers. For this reason their resolution in all cases is
ultimately diffraction limited. With access to the full data
set from an array, the diffraction limit can potentially be
overcome using so-called ‘‘super-resolution’’ imaging
techniques. For example Prada et al. [65] describes a
technique based on decomposition of the time-reversal
operator (DORT) to identify the location of a number of
point reflectors and Devaney [66] suggests an enhancement
termed multiple signal classification (MUSIC). Although
super-resolution imaging can only be used to resolve a
limited number of targets, it is likely that the next few years
will see the emergence of this technology in certain
specialised ultrasonic array applications [67].
This paper has also highlighted the importance of
modelling in the selection of arrays to fulfil a given
performance specification. It is the authors’ belief that it is
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
540 B.W. Drinkwater, P.D. Wilcox / NDT&E International 39 (2006) 525–541
essential for such modelling to be performed as part of the
inspection development process. A number of possible
future areas for development including adaptive arrays,
data fusion and harmonic and elastic imaging have also
been discussed.
References
[1] Yen JT, Smith SW. Real-time rectilinear 3D ultrasound using receive
mode multiplexing. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferr Freq Cont 2004;51(2):
216–26.
[2] Song SJ, Shin HJ, Jang YH. Development of an ultrasonic phased
array system for non-destructive tests of nuclear power plant
components. Nucl Eng Design 2002;214:151–61.
[3] Chatillon S, Cattiaux G, Serre M, Roy O. Ultrasonic non-destructive
testing of pieces of complex geometry with a flexible array transducer.
Ultrasonics 2000;38:131–4.
[4] Mahaut S, Roy O, Beroni C, Rotter B. Development of phased array
techniques to improve characterisation of defect located in a
component of complex geometry. Ultrasonics 2002;40:165–9.
[5] Smith RA, Bending JM, Jones LD, Jarman TRC, Lines DIA. Rapid
ultrasonic inspection of ageing aircraft. Insight 2003;45(3):174–7.
[6] Brotherhood CJ, Drinkwater BW, Freemantle RJ. An ultrasonic
wheel-array sensor and its application to aerospace structures. Insight
2003;45(11):729–34.
[7] Friedl JH, Gray TA, Khandelwal P, Dunhill T. Ultrasonic phased
array inspection of seeded titanium billet. In: Thompson DO,
Chimenti DE, editors, Review of Progress in QNDE. vol. 23. 2004.
p. 809–16.
[8] Lupien V. Phased array ultrasonic probe design: from art to science
through optimization. Thompson DO, Chimenti DE, Review of
Progress in QNDE, vol. 23. 2004. p. 761–8.
[9] Wildes DG, Chaio RY, Daft CMW, Rigby KW, Smith LS,
Thomenius KE. Elevation performance of 1.25D and 1.5D transdu-
cer arrays. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferr Freq Cont 1997;44(5):1027–37.
[10] Martinez O, Akhnak M, Ullate LG, de Espinosa FM. A small 2D
ultrasonic array for NDT applications. NDT&E Int 2003;36:57–63.
[11] Norton SJ. Annular array imaging with full-aperture resolution. J
Acoust Soc Am 1992;92(6):3202–6.
[12] Mondal S, Wilcox PD, Drinkwater BW. Design of two-dimensional
ultrasonic phased array transducers. Trans ASME—J Pressure Vessel
Technol 2005;127(3):336–44.
[13] Oralkan O, Ergun AS, Cheng C-H, Johnson JA, Karaman M, Lee
TH, Khuri-Yakub BT. Volumetric ultrasound imaging using 2-D
CMUT arrays. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferr Freq Cont 2003;50(11):
1581–94.
[14] Lasser M, A novel high speed, high resolution, ultrasound imaging
system. Thompson DO, Chimenti DE, editors. Review of Progress in
QNDE, vol. 17. 1998. p. 1713–9.
[15] Oralkan O, Ergun AS, Johnson JA, Karaman M, Demirci U, Kaviani
K, Lee TH, Khuri-Yakub BT. Capacitive micromachined ultrasonic
transducers: next generation arrays for acoustic imaging? IEEE Trans
Ultrason Ferr Freq Cont 2002;49(11):1596–610.
[16] Caiti A, Bergem O, Dybedal J. Parametric sonars for seafloor
characterisation. Meas Sci Technol 1999;10:1105–15.
[17] Hayward G, Hossack JA. Unidimensional modelling of 1–3
composite transducers. J Acoust Soc Am 1990;88(2):599–608.
[18] Smith WA, Auld BA. Modelling 1–3 composite piezoelectrics:
thickness-mode oscillations. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferr Freq Cont
1991;38(1):40–7.
[19] Hayward G, Bennett J. Assessing the influence of pillar aspect ratio
on the behaviour of 1–3 connectivity transducers. IEEE Trans
Ultrason Ferr Freq Cont 1996;43(1):98–108.
[20] Abrar A, Zhang D, Su B, Button TW, Kirk KJ, Cochran S. 1–3
connectivity piezoelectric ceramic-polymer composite transducers
made with viscous polymer processing for high frequency ultrasound.
Ultrasonics 2004;42:479–84.
[21] Powell DJ, Hayward G. Flexible ultrasonic transducer arrays for
non-destructive evaluation applications—part 1: the theoretical
modelling approach. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferr Freq Cont 1996;
43(3):385–92.
[22] Powell DJ, Hayward G. Flexible ultrasonic transducer arrays for
non-destructive evaluation applications—part 2: performance assess-
ment of different array configurations. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferr
Freq Cont 1996;43(3):393–402.
[23] Marin-Franch P, Cochran S, Kirk K. Progress towards ultrasound
applications of new single crystal materials. J Mat Sci Matls in
Electroincs 2004;15:715–20.
[24] Hutchins DA, McIntosh JS, Neild A, Billson DR, Noble RA.
Radiated fields of capacitive micromachined ultrasonic transducers in
air. J Acoust Soc Am 2003;114(3):1435–49.
[25] Turnbull DH, Foster FS. Fabrication and characterisation of
transducer elements in two-dimensional arrays for medical imaging.
IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferr Freq Cont 1992;39(4):464–75.
[26] Powell DJ, Hayward G, Ting RY. Unidimensional modelling of
multi-layered piezoelectric transducer structures. IEEE Trans Ultra-
son Ferr Freq Cont 1998;45(3):667–77.
[27] Holmes C, Drinkwater BW, Wilcox PD. Post-processing of the full
matrix of ultrasonic transmit-receive array data for non-destructive
evaluation. NDT&E Int 2005;38(8):701–11.
[28] Crowther P. Practical experience of phased array technology for
power station applications. Insight 2004;46(9):525–8.
[29] Wooh SC, Shi Y. Influence of phased array element size on beam
steering behaviour. Ultrasonics 1998;36:737–49.
[30] Lee J-H, Choi S-W. A parametric study of ultrasonic beam profiles
for a linear phased array transducer. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferr Freq
Cont 2000;47(3):644–50.
[31] Ahmad R, Kundu T, Placko D. Modelling of phased array
transducers. J Acoust Soc Am 2005;117(4):1762–76.
[32] Chiao RY, Thomas LJ. Analytic evaluation of sampled aperture
ultrasonic imaging techniques for NDE. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferr
Freq Cont 1994;41(4):484–93.
[33] Lingvall F, Olofsson T, Stepinski T. Synthetic aperture imaging using
sources with finite aperture: deconvolution of the impulse response.
J Acoust Soc Am 2003;114(1):225–34.
[34] Schmerr Jr LW. Fundamentals of ultrasonic non-destructive evalua-
tion. New York: Plenum Press; 1998.
[35] Goodman J, Moeller M. Introduction to Fourier optics. McGraw-
Hill Book Co Ltd; 2004. ISBN:0974707724.
[36] Lerch R. Simulation of piezoelectric devices by two- and three-
dimensional finite elements. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferr Freq Cont
1990;32(2):233–47.
[37] McNab A, Cochran A, Campbell MA. The calculation of acoustic
fields in solids for transient normal surface sources of arbitrary
geometry and apodisation. J Acoust Soc Am 1990;87(4):1455–65.
[38] Robertson D, Hayward G, Gachagan A, Reynolds P. Minimisation
of mechanical cross-talk in periodic piezoelectric composite arrays.
Insight 2004;46(11):658–61.
[39] Yaralioglu GG, Ergun AS, Khuri-Yakub BT. Finite-element analysis
of capacitive micromachined ultrasonic transducers. IEEE Trans
Ultrason Ferr Freq Cont 2005;52(12):2185–98.
[40] Wilm M, Armati R, Daniau W, Ballandras S. Cross-talk phenomena
in a 1-3 connectivity piezocomposite. J Acoust Soc Am 2004;116(5):
2948–55.
[41] McNab A, Stumpf I. Monolithic phased array for the transmission of
ultrasound in NDT ultrasonics. Ultrasonics 1986;24:148–55.
[42] Wooh SC, Shi Y. Three-dimensional beam directivity of phase-
steered ultrasound. J Acoust Soc Am 1999;105(6):3275–82.
[43] Miller GF, Pursey H. The field and radiation impedance of
mechanical radiators on the free surface of a semi-infinite isotropic
solid. Proc Roy Soc Lond 1954;34:521–41.
[44] Randall RB. Frequency analysis. 2nd ed. Copenhagen: Bruel &
Kjaer; 1987.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
B.W. Drinkwater, P.D. Wilcox / NDT&E International 39 (2006) 525–541
[45] Cawley P, Lowe MJS, Alleyne DN, Pavlakovic BN, Wilcox P.
Practical long range guided wave testing: applications to pipes and
rails. Mater Eval 2003;61:66–74.
[46] Wilcox PD. A signal processing technique to remove the effect of
dispersion from guided wave signals. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferr Freq
Cont 2003;50(4):419–27.
[47] Wilcox PD. Omni-directional guided wave transducer arrays for the
rapid inspection of large areas of plate structures. IEEE Trans
Ultrason Ferr Freq Cont 2003;50(6):699–709.
[48] Sicard R, Chahbaz A, Goyette J. Guided lamb waves and L-SAFT
processing technique for enhanced detection and Imaging of
corrosion defects in plates with small depth-to-wavelength ratio.
IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferr Freq Cont 2004;51(10):1287–97.
[49] Sharples SD, Clark M, Somekh MG. All-optical adaptive acoustic
microscope. Ultrasonics 2003;41:295–9.
[50] Chiao RY, Hao XH. Coded excitation for diagnostic ultrasound: a
system developer’s perspective. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferr Freq Cont
2005;52(2):160–70.
[51] Gan TH, Hutchins DA, Green RJ, Andrews MK, Harris PD.
Noncontact, high-resolution ultrasonic imaging of wood samples
using coded chirp waveforms. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferr Freq Cont
2005;52(2):280–8.
[52] Nowicki A, Litniewski J, Secomski W, Lewin PA, Trots I. Estimation
of ultrasonic attenuation in a bone using coded excitation. Ultra-
sonics 2003;41:615–21.
[53] Misaridis T, Jensen JA. Use of modulated excitation signals in
medical ultrasound. Part II: Design and performance for medical
imaging applications. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferr Freq Cont 2005;
52(2):192–207.
[54] Misaridis T, Jensen JA. Use of modulated excitation signals in
medical ultrasound. Part IIII: High frame rate imaging. IEEE Trans
Ultrason Ferr Freq Cont 2005;52(2):208–19.
541
[55] Misaridis T, Jensen JA. Use of modulated excitation signals in
medical ultrasound. Part I: basic concepts and expected benefits.
IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferr Freq Cont 2005;52(2):177–91.
[56] Clark M, Sharples SD, Somekh M. Fast, all-optical Rayleigh wave
microscope: imaging on isotropic and anisotripic materials. IEEE
Trans Ultrason Ferr Freq Cont 2000;47(1):65–74.
[57] Karaman M, Bilge HS, O’Donnell M. Adaptive multi-element
synthetic aperture imaging with motion and phase aberration
correction. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferr Freq Cont 1998;45(4):1077–87.
[58] Mahaut S, Roy O, Serre M. An adaptive system for advanced NDT
applications using phased arrays. Ultrasonics 1998;36:127–31.
[59] Horn D, Mayo WR. NDE reliability gains from combining eddy-
current and ultrasonic testing. Ultrasonics 2000;33:351–62.
[60] Hall ID, McNab A, Hayward G. Improved ultrasonic image
generation through image fusion. Ultrasonics 1999;37:433–43.
[61] Duck FA. Nonlinear acoustics in diagnostic ultrasound. Ultrasound
Med Biol 2002;28(1):1–18.
[62] Parker KJ, Taylor LS, Gracewski S. A unified view of imaging the
elastic properties of tissue. J Acoust Soc Am 2005;117(5):2705–12.
[63] Dresser TS, Jesrzejewicz T, Bradley C. Native tissue harminic
imaging: basic principles and clinical applications. Ultrasound Quart
2000;38:273–7.
[64] Van Den Abeele KE-A, Sutin A, Carmeliet J, Johnson PA. Micro-
damage diagnostics using nonlinear elastic wave spectroscopy.
NDE&E Int 2001;34:239–48.
[65] Prada C, Thomas JL, Fink M. The iterative time reversal process:
analysis of the convergence. J Acoust Soc Am 1995;97(1):62–71.
[66] Devaney AJ. Time reversal imaging of obscured targets from
multistatic data. IEEE Trans Antennas and Propag 2005;53(5):1600–10.
[67] Simonetti F. Multiple scattering: the key to unravel the subwave-
length world from the far field pattern of a scattered wave. Phys Rev
E 2006;73(3):036619.