The new parameter

-The TFM algorithm would calculated the TFM image based on the selected mode velocity. Hence the
propagation mode selection is a major parameter for this new technique. Some modes are known to be
more sensitive for specific flaw orientation. Hence, if you may be able to qualify one weld configuration
using one mode only, you may need two or more mode to qualify complex weld geometry. Validated
your inspection setup on mock up is the best practice here in case of doubt.

Figure 1 TT mode are more sensitive for direct flaw, TTT mode are better for vertical flaw, and the TT-TT mode are more
sensitive for rebound flaw.

-Also, an insufficient image resolution, may induce a lost in amplitude fidelity. This is a similar
phenomena as the conversion of an analogue signal into a digitalise signal (image resolution≈ acquisition
frequency). If your inspection procedure is amplitude based, you must be carful with this parameter. To
stay in within 2dB amplitude tolerance Sonatest would recommend a minimal resolution of λ/5. The
amplitude tolerance would increase as this ratio decrease.
 Figure 2 TFM image with(left) and without(right) an insufficient resolution of the same porosity cluster

-The Zone of interest is the physical area inside your part where you want to calculate the TFM image,
this parameter has a huge impact in case of mistake.

- The FMC signal characteristic requirement, shall be in RF rectification mode, the A scan shall have an
sufficient acquisition frequency and the ADC resolution should be high enough (12 bit or higher). Any
new filter or signal processing should be validated as well and would impact your TFM image.

-Any image smoothing, or enhancement might have an impact over your inspection and should be
validated if changed.

The advantage/Specificity of the Full matrix capture (FMC).

The Pulsing & Receiving algorithm

The Pulsing & Receiving algorithm patterned of the array element for the build up of the matrix have
and important impact on the overall inspection outcome. For a better understanding, let resume, briefly
this Matrix acquisition pattern.

Compared to Phased-Array, the electronic of the phased-array system, won’t apply any delay to
achieved steering nor focusing at the acquisition state. Those delay would eventually be taken into
account in the post processing TFM algorithm. The electronic would simply pulse one element at a time
and receive the signal on all the other element of the array independently. For one complete FMC frame
acquisition the whole array as to be incremented while pulsing with one element and receiving with all
the other. The system would stock NXN, where N is the number of element of the array, raw A-scan.
This pulsing & receiving algorithm has few interesting characteristics that would eventually have an
impact over the inspection outcome.

1) By pulsing and receiving on distinguish set of elements, according to the selected post
processing mode, would be more or less sensitive to some specific flaw orientation and would
increased the spatial coverage of the inspected geometries
2) The postprocessing image coverage could be increased under the probe as soon as there is still
sufficient level of ultrasonic wave energy in the computed area. This Could be used, per
example, to increase an inspection coverage hence productivity or to access to an hardly
accessible location with conventional Ultrasonic.
3) Since one FMC data set is composed of N X N A-scan, this technique generated quite big DATA
files, the acquisition speed would be also affected.
4) When you the technique is made in two step, FMC generation and TFM image processing, there
is two gain parameter, the gain at the acquisition and the software gain after the post
processing of the image
5) The level of energy transmitted inside the part by one element is considerably smaller compared
to a typical Phased-array or conventional Ultrasonic A-scan. This energy difference is
compensated during the post processing phase by doing the summation of all the A-scan in the
matrix passing by all computation point. Once the computation done, the overall SNR of an
indication would generally be lower compare to PA.

The following table compare a Phased-Array data set and a TFM data set for a same acquisition using a
5Mhz-32E-0.8P on a titanium calibration block. In both scan, the first reflector have been set to 80%
FSH.

Phased-array acquisition TFM image processing

80% FSH 80% FSH

Table 1 Energy Level comparison on a really attenuative titanium calibration block

To achieve a similar energy level, the gain in the TFM image had to be increase significantly, affecting at
the same time the noise level on the TFM image. In between both scan there is 10.6 dB difference in
Terme of gain adjustment to set the first reflector at the same reference.

Acquisition Gain
It's also important to keep in mind that, when the FMC is kept, The TFM algorithm is not as sensitive to
the acquisition gain of the electronic as the other ultrasonic based technique. Indeed, the algorithm, by
doing the summation with the phase information of all the A-scan passing by a computation point, tend
to increase the distinguishing in between the noise and an indication.

The following image illustrated this concept. Three acquisitions have been taken using the same hole
with different acquisition gain, 0dB 30 dB, 60dB. The left image for each acquisition represents the TFM
process image and the right one represents a linear PA scan both at the same gain. As you can see, in
the first acquisition the Linear scan doesn’t have a proper amplification to detect the hole, however at
this an equivalent gain the TFM algorithm is able to extract this information from the FMC, a similar
thing is happening for oversaturated signal. Sonatest still recommend a unsaturated gain to maximise
the TFM imaging.

For the acquisition FMC gain we recommend an equivalent gain as an inspection with a PA probe