NDT.net - September 1999, Vol. 4 No.

Dynamic Focusing of Phased Arrays for Nondestructive

Testing: Characterization and Application
André LAMARRE
R/D Tech inc. (Québec)
François MAINGUY
R/D Tech inc. (Québec), École de Technologie Supérieure (Montréal)
Corresponding Author Contact:
Email: info@rd-tech.com, http://www.rd-tech.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract Abstract
Introduction to Technology
Theory of operation
Methodology
Recent developments in Phased Array Results
Depth of field
hardware developed by R/D TECH for Beam spot
nondestructive testing now allow dynamic Beam Divergence
Signal-to-noise Ratio(SNR)
focusing on reception. This new option, Conclusion
References
borrowed from medical technology, enables a
programmable, real-time array response on
reception by modifying the delay line, the gain, and the activation of each element as a
function of time. This technology is presented as a new powerful tool which can
extend the depth-of-field, reduce the beam spread and increase the overall signal-to-
noise ratio. Implementation of dynamic focusing in Phased Array systems will present
many advantages such as an increase of the Pulse Rate Frequency (PRF). The
technology implies a lot of significant possibilities, but also an extensive beam
characterization. Some results are presented to quantify the advantages and
drawbacks of the technique in comparison with standard phased array zone focusing
and conventional UT. Results are clearly demonstrating the effect of dynamic focusing
on the depth- of-field, the beam spread, the signal-to-noise ratio, and the acquisition
rate, both with linear and annular arrays. Therefore this technique is suitable for
applications where long soundpaths and small beam divergence are required as
boresonic, billet, and blade root inspections

Introduction to the Technology

Ultrasonic testing is, by definition, highly dependent of the transducer involved. The
ultrasonic beam generated by the transducer is reponsible for the A-scan obtained. As
the A-scan representation is the parent of all other representations (i.e. B-scans, C-
scans, and S-scans), the ultrasound community has invested efforts to maximize the
reliability of A-scans and to increase the fidelity of the inspections. Two parameters
are indeed very important and related: divergence and amplitude of the acoustical
beam as a function of depth in material. To obtain the maximum spatial resolution or
defect definition, the beam divergence should be small, known, and in accordance
with the application. Same thing for the distance-amplitude curve (DAC) which can be
corrected with simple amplification. So, the more linear is the DAC, and smaller is the
beam and its divergence, the better is the definition of the inspection, and easier the
analysis. The power of standard Phased Array system resides in its ability to
electronically focus an acoustical beam at some specific point. This advantage induces
a side effect because the region of interest is most of the time larger than the focal
area. It means that the pulse-echo sensitivity will tend to ignore off-focus reflectors. To
stretch the beam by applying a more divergent focal law is somehow a solution, but
the beam width will increase. Another solution would be to have multiple foci with
 subsequent firing (multi-zone inspection). However, this technique slows the PRF and
increases the amount of data storage. Then as applications as boresonic, billet and
bladeroot inspections require large depth coverage, high speed acquisitions, and low
storage requirements, a problem occurs. Dynamic focusing on reception, or Dynamic
Depth-Focusing (DDF), is then an interesting solution.

Theory of Operation

Based on the delay-and-sum model for synthetic apertures, Standard Phased Array
Focusing (SPAF) is the simplest beamforming technique possible. For that technique,
the two influent parameters for focusing an array are the delays and the apodization
(gain) of each element of the array. The set of delays is called « delay law », and the set
of gains is called « amplitude law ». Those two laws are often grouped as a single «
focal law ». Standard Phased Array Focusing allows one focal law for transmission and
one for reception. The delay law has, most of the time, an hyperbolic shape as
calculated by raytracing from the elements to the common focal point. SPAF is also
known as multi-zones focusing. Figure 1 demonstrates the principle of SPAF.

Fig 1: Standard Phased Array Focusing Fig 2: Dynamic Depth-Focusing (DDF) : a single focal law is
(SPAF) : a single focal law is applied applied at transmission, but multiple subsequent delay laws
both on transmission and reception, are applied on reception, forming a long and thin pulse-echo
forming a small pulse-echo focal spot. focal spot.
Dynamic Depth-Focusing is also a beamforming technique, but it is more versatile
from an application point of view. It allows while the reception to change the spatial
response of the array, by changing the reception focal laws. In other words, it allows to
move the focal spot off the probe as a function of acquisition time on reception. It is
the main difference in comparison to Standard Phased Array Focusing. This
beamforming technique is actually hardware implemented as variable delay laws as a
function of time. So a single focal law is used for transmission, and many subsequent
delay laws are used for reception. The following table presents the main differences
between conventional UT, Standard Phased Array, and Dynamic Depth-Focusing on
reception.

Topics Conventional SPAF DDF

Beamforming technique no yes yes
Possibility of electronic
no yes yes
focusing
Possibility of electronic
no yes yes
scanning
Number of TX focal laws - 1 1
MULTIPLE delay
Number of RX focal laws
- 1 laws 1 amplitude
while receiving
law
Variable TX aperture no yes yes
Variable RX aperture no no yes**
 while receiving
Table 1 : Principle and performance comparison between conventional UT,
Standard Phased Array Focusing (SPAF), and Dynamic Depth-Focusing (DDF).
**Projected in next R/D Tech hardware

In the Dynamic Depth-Focusing approach, the transmission aperture response acts as

a limiter within the convolution. Indeed, the emitted acoustical beam should be
optimized to maximize the insonification of the region of interest and to minimize the
resulting pulse-echo beam width and divergence. It can also be shown easily that the
minimum beam size and maximum amplitude are obtained with SPAF at the specified
depth. Dynamic Depth-Focusing should then be seen as a good compromise between
linear amplitude response, minimum beam width and divergence, and highest PRF.

Methodology

To determine the proper delays to apply on reception (RX), we used the Fermat
raytracing technique from the center of the elements to the focal point. This technique
produces the so-called « hyperbolic » delay laws. It is the method which offers the
maximum spatial rejection (the smallest focal spot). We used such a technique for all
the delay laws applied on reception, with SPAF or DDF. On transmission (TX), we used
the Fermat technique, but also another one generating triangular delay laws for linear
arrays only. The concept of triangular delay laws is to split the probe into two probes.
From the first element to the center element, a constant delay variation is applied
which deflects the beam. This delay patch is then copied and reversed to the
remaining elements. The resulting pattern gives a pyramidal shape centered on the
middle element. Many other techniques exist to optimize the radiation patterns of
phased arrays like sparsed arrays[] and vernier arrays[].

The methodology to achieve a Dynamic Depth-Focusing scan is the following :

1. Determination of the depth coverage and the angle of the beam

2. Calculation of the transmission focal law
Attention should be paid on the delay law. The calculation technique may be one of
the previously proposed. The amplitude law may be adjusted to correct the material
attenuation.
3. Calculation of the reception focal laws
The number of delay laws will depend on the desired resolution of the depth
coverage. The time elapsed between to subsequently applied delay laws should be
also programmed.

We tested two DDF configurations to depict its power and to isolate the effects of
important parameters on the DDF performances. The first test was a zero degree,
wedged LW scan achieved with the probe A on the block #1. The second one was an
annular array (probe B) on the block #2 with a waterpath. The probes are featured in
Table 2 and the characterization blocks are described in Table 3.

Parameter Probe A Probe B

Geometryof the
Linear Annular
array
Frequency 4 MHz 7.5 MHz
Number of
16 32
elements
Total aperture 40 mm x 30 mm 55 mm diameter
 Dimensions of 2.4 mm x 30 mm Fresnel Distribution
each element
Full aperture 880 mm in
270 mm in steel
near-field aluminium
Wedge 40 mm thick, Plexiglas 75 mm water path
description LW @ 2700 m/s LW @ 1480 m/s
Prefocalization none none
Table 2 :Description of the probe A used to scan with DDF.

Parameter Block #1 Block #2

Type of Side-Drilled Holes (SDH) Flat-Bottom Holes (FBH),
reflectors of 2 mm of diameter diameter of 1 mm
Depth of 3, 5, 10 to 100 mm, 10 mm
50 to 250 mm, 5 mm step
reflectors step
Material Carbon steel Aluminium
Surface
Good Good
quality
Velocity
5780 mm/s 6393 mm/s
(LW)
Table 3 : Description of the blocks used to characterize the beam produced
with DDF.

Probe B with Block

Parameter Probe A with Block #1
#2
Acquisition Tomoscan 68040
micro-Tomoscan
system V3.58
Phased-array unit Focus 16/64 Focus 64/256
Scanner Rover Water tank
Scanner driver MDU-04 MCDU-02
Table 4 : Description of the R/D Tech systems used.

Results

Depth-of-field
The effect of the Standard Phased Array Focusing (SPAF) on the
depth-of-field, or working range, is illustrated in Figure 3. The
SPAF technique generates a limited working range nearby the
focal point. The beam spot is small nearby the focused position,
but very large out of this range. The effect of the Dynamic-Depth
Focusing is also shown in Figure 3. This figure presents a
comparison of the results for a Standard Phased Array Focusing Fig 3: Performance
and Dynamic Depth-Focusing. The effect of dynamic focusing on comparison between
Standard Phased Array
reception is clearly shown. The results are longer depth-of-field Focusing(SPAF) and
and smaller beam spread. We optimized the transmission field by Dynamic Depth-
applying a triangular delay law. Figure 4 and subsequent DDF Focusing (DDF) on the
results presents optimized DDF triangular delay law. depth-of-field. From the
left to the right, SPAF at
FTX/RX=35 mm depth
and DDF at FTX=35 mm
depth respectively.
 Fig 5: DDF small beam
width and divergence
seems to offer the best
Standard Phased Array
Focusing beam width
over the depth.

Fig 4: Depth-of-field comparison between DDF with hyperbolic laws, DDF

with triangular laws, and SPAF.

Fig 6: Beam
Beam spot measurement of a DDF
The DDF technique reduces considerably the variation of the scan achieved with an
beam dimension over a long soundpath range as shown by the annular array with
next figure. The beam dimension variations are very high for FTX= 200 mm.
Comparison with SPAF
Standard Phased Array Focusing. A minimum is obtained at the at different depths
focal position. In opposition to this, the dynamic depth focusing denotes the advatage of
beam is uniform over a large soundpath. Two very important using DDF.
points should be denoted.

1. The beam spot produced by the DDF is always as small as

the one produced by standard phased-array.
2. The DDF diminishes the beam spread without jeopardizing
the dimension of the beam obtained with the standard
phased array. Fig 7: Beam
measurement
comparison between
An annular array was also tried to verify that observation. Figure DDF hyperbolic laws
6 denotes that DDF offers the smallest beam size and divergence and DDF triangular
over the depth coverage (56 mm up to 252 mm in aluminum laws.
billets). Beam measurements were performed with hyperbolic
and triangular types of focal laws using DDF. For all the emission
focal laws used, the beam size is always less than 5 mm large.
The use of the triangular focal law with F=32 mm gets the beam
smaller than 3 mm for all the studied range.
Fig 8: Signal-to-Noise
Beam divergence Ratio comparison
The next table shows the very low half-angles (-6 dB) obtained between DDF and SPAF.
with the linear and annular arrays.

Half-angle (-6
Technique db)
degree(s)
Linear array, Triangular focal law, FTX=32 mm 0,30
Annular array, Hyperbolic focal law, FTX=200
0,14
mm
Table 5 : Half-angle performance report for the linear and annular arrays,
both used with DDF.
 Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR)
Figure 8 presents the improvement of the signal-to-noise ratio with the DDF technique.
For the considered ultrasound path, the obtained SNR with the DDF is always higher
than the one obtained with the SPAF.

Conclusions

The DDF technique as developed by RDTECH gives some improvement in regards with
the standard phased-array focusing. The main advantages are:
1. The depth-of-field generated by an optimized DDF is improved by a factor 4 in
regards to the SPAF ;
2. The beam spot produced by the DDF is always as small as the one produced by
SPAF ;
3. The use of DDF creates very small beam spread. Half-angles as small as 0,30 and
0,14 degree were obtained with linear and annular arrays ;
4. The DDF diminishes the beam spread without jeopardizing the dimension of the
beam obtained with the standard phased array.
5. The obtained SNR with the DDF is always higher than the one obtained with the
SPAF ;
6. File size is greatly reduced because only one A-scan is recorded at one
mechanical position.
7. PRF is increased because only one A-scan is needed to cover a long soundpath.
All those properties make the use of DDF suitable for applications as boresonic, billet
and bladeroot inspections.

References

1. "Optimizing the Radiation Pattern of Sparse Periodic Linear Arrays", Lockwood, Li,
O'Donnell, Foster, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency
Control, vol. 43, n°1, January 1996
2. "Ultrasound Synthetic Aperture Imaging : Monostatic Approach", Ylitalo, Ermert, IEEE
Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, vol. 41, n°3, May
1994
3. "Review of practical applications of Ultrasonic phased-array in NDT", Lamarre A.,
Mainguy F., Q-NDE Conference, Snowbird, Utah, July 1998

© NDT.net - info@ndt.net |Top|

/DB:Article /AU:Lamarre_A /AU:Mainguy_F /IN:RDTech /CN:CA /CT:UT /CT:array /CT:transducer /ED:1999-09