Pipeline Girth Weld Inspections using Ultrasonic Phased Arrays by Michael Moles1, Nol Dub1 and Ed Ginzel2 1 R/D

Tech, Canada 2 Materials Research Institute, Canada Abstract Automated ultrasonics (AUT) is rapidly replacing radiography worldwide for gas pipeline girth weld inspections. Compared with radiography, mechanized ultrasonics is more reliable, faster, has better detection of critical Lack of Fusion defects, and poses no safety hazard. Phased arrays are the latest development in AUT, and present major improvements over conventional multiprobe ultrasonics. Phased array probe pans are lighter and smaller; scans are quicker due to the smaller probe pan; phased arrays are considerably more flexible for changes in pipe dimensions or weld profiles, and for different scan patterns for unusual defects; special scans can be made for specific problems. This paper describes the PipeWIZARD ultrasonic phased array system for girth weld inspections, based on the ASTM E-1961 code and compatible with API 1104 19th Edition. Some comments on AUT codes will be made. The paper will describe the latest phased array UT results, plus developments like automated set-ups and improved imaging using an increased number of zones. PipeWIZARDs track record and capabilities will be illustrated. Keywords: ultrasonics, phased arrays, pipelines, girth welds, electronic scanning, sectorial scanning Introduction Pipelines are typically constructed by joining sections of pipe together, using either manual or automated welding. Since pipelines operate at a high percentage of yield strength, these welds must be constructed to a high standard. The advent of higher strength steels, high demand for pipelines, greater environmental concerns, thinner pipe walls and improved technology have all lead to more demanding inspection requirements. In recent years, Engineering Critical Assessment (ECA - also called Fracture Mechanics, Fitness-For-Service or Structural Integrity) has been used to evaluate defects because ECA is considerably less conservative than traditional workmanship criteria. ECA is advantageous as it can reduce the reject rate significantly, thereby reducing construction costs.

02 a 06 de Junho de 2003 / June 2 to 6 2003 Rio de Janeiro - RJ - Brasil

Radiography has been used to inspect pipeline welds for decades, but has significant limitations, particularly for ECA assessments. As a result, radiography for pipelines is being steadily replaced by ultrasonics worldwide. Specifically, radiography cannot measure defect depths for ECA, is typically slower than ultrasonics, operator-subjective and hazardous. Detection is usually inferior to conventional mechanized ultrasonics as well (Gross et al., 1990). Ultrasonics offers the further advantage of process control, as welds can be inspected soon after completion, and feedback given rapidly to the welding crew. Overall, ultrasonics can save construction costs by process control and the use of ECA to minimize the reject rate, often below 1% (Connelly, 1999). This paper describes a new development in AUT (also called mechanized ultrasonics or Mech UT) inspection of pipelines phased arrays. Phased arrays offer all the advantages of AUT over radiography, plus several more: Smaller and lighter probe pans; Faster inspections; Significant flexibility in pipe diameters, wall thicknesses and weld bevel geometries; Rapid set-ups; Customized inspections; Improved sizing and imaging, plus other advantages described below. Ultrasonic phased arrays

How phased arrays work

Ultrasonic phased arrays are similar in principle to phased array radar, sonar and other wave physics applications. However, ultrasonic development is behind the other applications due to a smaller market, shorter wavelengths, mode conversions and more complex components. Several authors have reviewed applications of ultrasonic phased arrays (Clay et al, 1999, Wustenberg et al., 1999, Lafontaine and Cancre, 2000), though industrial uses have been limited until the last few years. From a practical viewpoint, ultrasonic phased arrays are merely a method of generating and receiving ultrasound; once the ultrasound is in the material, it is independent of generation method, whether generated by piezoelectric, electromagnetic, laser or phased arrays. Consequently, many of the details of ultrasonic inspection remain unchanged; for example, if 7.5 MHz were the optimum inspection frequency with conventional ultrasonics, then phased arrays would typically use the same frequency, focal length, and incident angle. Phased arrays use an array of elements, all individually wired, pulsed and time-shifted. These elements are typically pulsed in groups from 4-32, usually 16 elements for pipeline welds. In order to make a user-friendly system, a typical set-up calculates the time-delays from operator-input, or uses a pre-defined file containing inspection angle, focal distance, scan pattern etc (see Figure 1). The time delay values are back calculated using time-of-

flight from the focal spot, and the scan assembled from individual Focal Laws. Time delay circuits must be accurate to around 2 nanoseconds to provide the accuracy required.

Figure 1: Schematic showing generation of linear and sectorial scans using phased arrays. While it can be time-consuming to prepare the first set-up, the information is recorded in a file and only takes seconds to re-load. Also, modifying a prepared set-up is quick in comparison with physically adjusting conventional transducers. Types of scans Using electronic pulsing and receiving provides significant opportunities for a variety of scan patterns.

Electronic (Linear) Scans

Multiplexing along an array produces linear scans (see Figure 2). Typical arrays have up to 128 elements, pulsed in groups of 8 to 16. Electronic scanning (or rastering) permits rapid coverage with a tight focal spot. If the array is flat and linear, then the scan pattern is a simple B-scan. If the array is curved, then the scan pattern will be curved. Linear scans are straightforward to program. For example, a phased array can be readily programmed to inspect a weld using 45o and 60o shear waves, which emulate conventional manual inspections.

Figure 2: Schematic illustration of electronic (linear) scanning.

Sectorial (Azimuthal) Scans

Sectorial scans use the same set of elements, but alter the time delays to sweep the beam through a series of angles (see Figure 3). Again, this is a straightforward scan to program. Applications for sectorial scanning typically involve a stationary array, sweeping across a relatively inaccessible component like a turbine blade root (Ciorau et al, 2000), to map out the features (and defects). Depending primarily on the array frequency and element spacing, the sweep angles can vary from + 20o up to + 80o.

2......

Figure 3: Schematic showing sectorial scanning used on turbine rotor.

Combined Scans
Combining electronic scanning and sectorial scanning with precision focusing leads to a practical combination of displays (see Figure 4). Optimum angles can be selected for welds and other components, while scanning permits fast and functional inspections. For example, combining electronic and sectorial scanning permits full ultrasonic inspection of components over a given angle range, e.g. + 20o. This type of inspection is useful when simple normal beam inspections are inadequate, e.g. for titanium castings in aerospace where defects can have random orientations. A related approach applies to weld inspections, where specific angles are often required for given weld geometries; for these applications, specific beam angles are programmed for specific weld facets at specific locations. This is the principle of zone discrimination (see below).

Figure 4: top, ultrasonic scanning pattern using sectorial and electronic scanning; bottom, ultrasonic image using all data merged together. Many multiprobe systems and phased arrays use a linear scanning approach. Here the probe pan is scanned linearly round or along the weld, while each transducer sweeps out a specific area of the weld. Multiprobe AUT, as practiced on pipelines, uses up to twenty-four transducers, which makes pipeline AUT much faster than single transducer techniques. Phased arrays for linear weld inspections operate on the same principle as the multitransducer approach, though the probe pans are much smaller; additionally, PAs offer considerably greater flexibility than conventional AUT. Typically, it is much easier to change the set-up electronically, either by modifying the set-up or reloading another; often it is possible to use many more beams (equivalent to conventional transducers) with phased arrays; special inspections can be implemented simply by loading a set-up file. Typical Applications of Phased Arrays Realistically, there is no typical application for PAs. Ultrasonic phased arrays are being installed in a wide variety of industries, where the technology has inherent advantages. These industries include: aerospace, nuclear power, steel mills, pipe mills, petrochemical plants, pipeline construction, defense, heavy industry, plus a selection of special applications. All these applications take advantage of one or more of the dominant features of PAs: Speed: scanning with phased arrays is an order of magnitude faster than single transducer conventional mechanical systems, with better coverage; Flexibility: set-ups can be changed in a few minutes, and typically a lot more component dimensional flexibility is available; Inspection angles: a wide variety of inspection angles can be used, depending on the requirements and the array; Small footprint: small matrix arrays can give infinitely more flexibility for inspecting restricted areas than conventional transducers. Phased arrays are now commercially competitive with multi-transducer systems. However, the technology is new and still requires some set-up efforts, especially for complex 3D applications. 2D pipeline set-ups are generally straightforward. Principles of Pipeline AUT Current pipeline AUT inspections use a number of special developments that have been tried and tested over decades (de Raad and Dijkstra 1997, Kopp et al. 1998, Moles et al 1998, Ginzel 2000). Besides the multiprobe, linear scanning approach, the key developments of the current approach are: zone discrimination, calibration blocks, defect sizing, and

dual gate output display.

Zone Discrimination
Zone discrimination involves slicing the weld into a series of roughly equal zones, each 1-3 mm deep (see Figure 5). A single focused transducer beam inspects each zone. For a typical 10-15 mm weld, this inspection requires half a dozen zones on each side of the weld. Ideally each zone is inspected with a single transducer in pulse-echo mode; however, some of the Fill zones are difficult to inspect in pulse-echo, and require a tandem probe (or pitch-catch) arrangement. For conventional systems, these tandem probe arrangements often dictate the axial length of the probe pan.

Figure 5: Schematic of zone discrimination principle. Top: selection of zones. Bottom: position and angles of transducers for zone discrimination inspection. Using linear scanning, the probe pan is driven round the pipe weld on a welding band so that each transducer sweeps out its own zone. Since the zones are only a few millimeters deep and the beam focal spot even smaller, the probe pan must be accurately located to within + 0.5 mm (0.020). This precision requires good positioning of the welding band, which is readily monitored by looking at the TOF signal on the root gate. Overall, positioning is not a significant problem for AUT, given practice.

Calibration
Calibration for a linear scanning system using zone discrimination requires more than the usual ID and OD notches. Each zone requires its own calibration notch, so half a dozen calibration notches are required for each side as a minimum. AUT has been largely developed for automated welding systems, where the main defect of concern has been Lack of Fusion (LoF) along the fusion line. Since automated welds have defined profiles, calibration notches are machined at an angle to represent LoF. The ASTM E-1961 code (ASTM 1998) recommends 2 mm diameter flat bottomed holes (FBH), machined

perpendicular to the weld line and positioned on the fusion line, plus ID and OD machined notches. A through wall hole along the centerline is used to calibrate the time base (see Figure 6).

Figure 6: typical AUT calibration block, as per code ASTM E-1961. As per ASTM E-1961, the amplitudes from each FBH are set at 80% Full Screen Height (FSH), and the evaluation threshold at 40%. Most amplitude and TOF gates are set to start 3 mm before the weld fusion line and finish 3 mm afterwards, or sufficiently long to include the weld center line. The root TOF gate, as mentioned earlier, is set longer to detect the far side of the weld bead. The TOF gate display is in green or red, depending on the signal amplitude. Thus the operator can see immediately when a signal is above threshold and where the signal lies in the gate: signals on the fusion line (e.g. LoF) lie half way through the gate; mid-weld signals (e.g. centerline cracking) lie about 90% through the gate, while signals before the weld (e.g. burn through) may occur only 10% through the gate (ASTM 1998).

Dual Gate Strip Chart Displays

The AUT output display is specifically designed for speed (see Figure 7): speed in display and speed in interpretation. The display consists of a series of strip charts: o Dual gate strip charts, one for each zone (or channel), laid out in order; o Root and volumetric mapping channels for porosity; o Coupling channels to confirm good coupling on each zone; o Encoder-based position output to accurately locate any defects; o Usually a TOFD (Time-Of-Flight Diffraction) channel.

Figure 7: typical AUT display, with dual gate strip charts, mapping channels, TOFD, position and coupling. This display shows multiple boxed defects in red. The dual-gate strip charts have two outputs: signal amplitudes in the gate, and Time-OfFlight (TOF) of the peak signal. The amplitude gate and the TOF gate may be of different lengths, particularly on the two root channels (upstream and downstream). The threshold levels are also different: typically, amplitude signals greater than 40% FSH trigger the threshold, and signals switch from green to red to alert the operator. The TOF signals typically trigger at 20% FSH so the operator can monitor any low amplitude signals. This is particularly useful for the root, so the operator can monitor the far side of the weld root bead for positioning. With the amplitude signals changing color, the operator can rapidly measure the length of any defect. Sizing is also very quick; if an above-threshold signal is observed on one channel, the operator assumes that the defect depth is that zone depth. If a signal is observed on two channels, the assumption is that this defect is two zones deep. The operator then looks up an ECA-based acceptance table to accept/reject the weld. While this approach is inherently conservative and has technical limitations, defect sizing is very quick. The TOFD channel typically uses high angle, wide beam longitudinal waves, in classical TOFD manner. TOFD has been shown as the optimum defect sizing technique in nuclear applications, but has also shown good defect detection for pipeline mid-wall defects (Verkooijen 1995, Ginzel et al 1998). TOFD can distinguish surface breaking from nonsurface breaking defects, both OD and ID. Data is displayed as a gray-scale B-scan, with the lateral wave and backwall displayed effectively as the OD and ID. With AUT, the TOFD channel is scanned linearly along the weld in the probe pan, so there are potential errors in defect sizing if defects are not centrally positioned between the probes. The main limitations of TOFD include near surface and backwall dead zones, overemphasis of benign defects like porosity and interbead lamellar LoF, and nonlinear displays. Despite these limitations, TOFD is a major asset in girth weld inspections, though not required by code. The overall display consists of the upstream and downstream strip charts in order, such that the weld appears to have been opened out. The center of the display consists of the TOFD channel, plus the root and cap mapping channels. The mapping channels are higher amplitude displays of specific pulse-echo channels for the root and cap to show porosity. Typically porosity is readily detectable by radiography, but less so by ultrasonics, so the gain is increased. At one side are the coupling check channels, and on the other the circumferential position marker. Codes ASTM vs. API In 1998, ASTM published Standard practice E-1961-98, the first code specifically for pipeline AUT, and arguably the first for AUT anywhere (ASTM 1998). In 1999, the American Petroleum Institute published an updated version of API 1104 (19th Edition), which includes the optional use of ultrasonics with client approval of procedure, and the

optional use of ECA (API 1999). In contrast to ASTM E-1961, API 1104 is a very flexible code. API Appendix A permits the use of ECA, which implies some form of zone discrimination to obtain satisfactory sizing. One likely approach to future specifications for AUT of girth welds is a combination of the rigorous ASTM E-1961 and flexible API 1104 codes. This would permit accurate and controlled sizing, while permitting special scans and displays, thereby offering the best of both worlds. PipeWIZARD - Pipeline Ultrasonic Phased Array System Description A typical phased array system for pipeline girth weld inspections consists of two linear arrays, probe pan and motor, umbilical cable, welding band, junction box, plus the motor driver, instrumentation, computer, keyboard and mouse inside the truck or cabinet (Moles et al 1999). The instrumentation and probe pan are shown in Figure 8 below.

Figure 8: Photo of PipeWIZARD onshore/offshore version 2; Left, instrumentation; right, probe pan. Two 60 element, 7.5 MHz arrays are used, one on either side of the weld. These arrays can perform all required pulse-echo and tandem inspections (and more), plus TOFD if required. If needed, separate TOFD transducers or transverse transducers can be installed in extra modules. The phased array probe pan is much reduced in size and weight from a conventional probe pan. The motor and carriage are standard commercial products, as is the welding band. The umbilical is a reinforced cable about 50 mm in diameter containing 128 miniature ultrasonic coaxial cables, power cable, encoder cable and water line for coupling. The instrumentation is a standard 32/128 FOCUS phased array unit, with eight spare cables. The computer is a late-model industrial PC running a customized version of Tomoview specifically for girth weld inspections. As usually specified, scanning speed is 100 mm/sec (4/sec), which inspects a 36 (914 mm) pipeline weld in less than one minute, with real time data display, storage and analysis.

A field comparison on 202 welds on the Maritimes & Northeastern Pipeline in New Brunswick, Canada, in July 1999 used both conventional multiprobe and phased array systems (Sjerve et al. 2000). The results showed very little differences between the two approaches; the phased array system recorded a couple more defects, but these were just under the recording threshold for the multiprobe systems. Overall, the phased array system had equal or slightly better sensitivity, particularly for size estimates, and detected all the same defects. However, the phased array system had 80% fewer moving parts, and was much faster for switching configurations, as expected. Special Applications using Phased Arrays Besides reproducing conventional AUT inspections, phased arrays can perform a number of extra inspections that improve the overall inspection process. The features used depend on the application, and the number is increasing rapidly with time. The following examples describe the specials currently available, or in progress.

Increased number of zones

Conventional AUT is physically limited in the number of inspection zones by the number of transducers that can be put inside the probe pan. This is typically twenty-four transducers, or perhaps ten zones (typically some zones use tandem probes, or TOFD). Phased arrays are not limited in this fashion; in fact, there are an almost infinite number of beams that can be generated or received using two 60-element arrays. Besides strip charts, B-scans, C-scans and D-scans can all be displayed. In practice, thirty-two zones can be used with no penalty in terms of inspection speed, so this is a no cost advantage of phased arrays. Figure 9 below shows a sample set-up on a 15 mm thick manual weld with four EDM notches and an ID slot. Using 31 strips charts in this example, the overall image can be converted into a C-scan for easier interpretation. The B-scan at right assists data interpretation by superimposing the weld profile so defect locations can be determined at a glance.

Figure 9. Strip charts/C-scan and B-scan display of 15 mm manual weld cal block. Eventually, an increased number of zones would slow down the scan, but this is a tradeoff, as is generally the case with phased arrays. Some of the current interest in phased arrays centers around the capability of performing additional scans in the root region, where many of the key defects are likely located. For example, it is quite feasible to use multiple zones in the root area, instead of one, to give improved detection and sizing. Risers (which have significant fatigue loading) are one strong candidate, as well as other root-sensitive components like offshore pipelines and key petrochemical welds. Up to twelve root zones on each side have been used in some set-ups.

Improved Imaging
Improved imaging typically refers to a number of possibilities, such as increased number of zones, alternative displays like B-scans, multiple TOFD channels, top, side, end views, superimposed weld profiles, merged data. (Figure 9 above shows a sample approach.) These scans are all aimed at improving display interpretation, as well as providing better defect characterization and sizing.

Automated set-ups
Phased arrays are inherently complex due to their great flexibility, so set-ups can be difficult and time consuming. As there are several different weld profiles from different manufacturers, plus an almost infinite number of wall thickness and pipe diameter combinations, an automated set-up procedure has been developed. Normally, a set-up file (and calibration block) will be available for the operator on site; however, circumstances are possible where an on-site set-up is required. Figure 10 below shows an automated setup for a CRC-Evans weld profile with a conventional number of zones.

Figure 10: Automated set-up with gates for CRC-Evans weld profile.

To set-up the scan, the operator selects a suitable weld profile from file, then modifies it with the appropriate physical parameters: wall thickness, fill depth and angle, hot pass depth and angle, etc. Alternatively, the operator can input an AutoCAD .dxf file. Then the computer automatically determines the Focal Laws for this particular inspection, and displays them on-screen. The operator can select/deselect beams, shift beam start points, change focal distance etc. as required. Normally, the fine-adjustments would come after calibration to optimize the inspection.

Figure 11: Extra zones using automated set-up for 60o manual weld. Figure 11 above shows a manual weld profile with increased number of zones (see Figure 9). Better coverage is clearly apparent, in principle giving better detection and sizing. Using the standard Tomoview templates, automated set-ups have been prepared for all common weld profiles: CRC-Evans (modified J-bevel), J-bevel, single V, double V, X and 60o manual welds. Unusual set-ups, like electron beam welds, can also be prepared. Calibration blocks have been made for some of these profiles, and the set-ups approved. Some Short Term Developments The following developments are either in progress or have been analyzed to date. Thick section welds Manual welds Small Diameter Piping Repairs and Tie-Ins Improved Defect Sizing Techniques Special Probe Pans PipeWIZARD Track Record To Date

PipeWIZARD has been used onshore and offshore in several countries and oceans, including Canada, the USA, UK, China, plus the North Sea, Gulf of Mexico, off West Africa and Black Sea. About 3,000 km have been inspected to date, with the Blue Stream project and the Chinese West-East Pipeline Project being the largest. Reliability has been good, with a three month no-time-out on one occasion. Conclusions Ultrasonic phased arrays for pipeline girth weld inspections have several advantages over conventional AUT for pipelines. 1. Probe pans are smaller and lighter, making handling easier. 2. Phased array inspections are typically six seconds faster than multiprobe AUT due to the smaller probe pan. 3. Phased arrays can scan from 4 to 56 pipes using the same equipment and arrays; typically only the welding band and wedges need changing. One size fits all. 4. Loading the appropriate set-up file, or automatically creating a set-up file, can inspect any weld profile and pipe parameters. 5. Improved imaging and increased number of zones can produce better detection with no extra inspection time. 6. Special set-ups, like focused TOFD, increased zones, multiple beams for the root, should improve sizing considerably. 7. Reduced mechanics significantly improves reliability. 8. AUT using phased arrays is potentially applicable to a wide range of applications besides pipelines, including risers, tendons, thick-section welds, manual welds, repairs, and tie-ins. References API, American Petroleum Institute Standard 1104, Welding of Pipelines and Related Facilities, Nineteenth Edition, September 1999. ASTM, American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM E-1961-98, Standard Practice for Mechanized Ultrasonic Examination of Girth Welds Using Zonal Discrimination with Focused Search Units, September 1998. Ciorau P., D. MacGillivray, T. Hazelton, L.Gilham, D. Craig and J.Poguet, In-situ examination of ABB l-0 blade roots and rotor steeple of low-pressure steam turbine, using phased array technology, 15th World Conference on NDT, Rome, Italy, October 11-15, 2000. Clay A.C., S-C. Wooh, L. Azar and J-Y. Wang, Experimental Study of Phased Array Beam Characteristics, Journal of NDE, vol 18, no. 2, June 1999, page 59. Connelly T., Update on the Alliance Pipeline, International Conference on Advances in Welding Technology, October 26-28, 1999, Galveston, Texas, sponsored by EWI and AWS. Denys R., Private communication

De Raad J.A and F.H. Dijkstra, Mechanized Ultrasonic Testing on Girth Welds During Pipeline Construction, Materials Evaluation, August 1997, page 890. Ginzel E.A and R.K. Ginzel, Study of Acoustic Velocity Variations in Line Pipe Steel, Materials Evaluation, May 1995, page 598. Ginzel E.A, P. den Boer and M. Hoff, Application of Mechanized Ultrasonic Inspection to Manually Welded Pipeline Girth Welds, Utonline Application Workshop, May 1997 http://www.ultrasonic.de/article/wsho0597/ginzel3/ginzel3.htm Ginzel E.A., H. van Dijk and M. Hoff, TOFD Enhancement to Pipeline Girth Weld Inspections, NDT.net, vol 3 no. 4, April 1998, http://www.ndt.net/article/ginz_tof/ginz_tof.htm Ginzel E.A., Mechanized Ultrasonic Inspections of Pipeline Welds A Brief History, http://www.ndt.net/article/v05n03/eginzel/eginzel.htm, March 2000 Gross B., J. OBeirne and B. Delanty, Comparison of Radiographic and Ultrasonic Inspection Methods on Mechanized Girth Welds, Pipeline Technology Conference, 1517 October, 1990, Ostend, Belgium. Heckhuser H. and S. Shultz, Advanced technology in automatic ultrasonic weld inspection of pipeline girth welds, Insight, vol 37, no. 6, June 1995, page 440. Kopp F., G.G. Perkins, B.S. Laing, G.G. Prentice, S.P. Springmann and D.M. Stevens, Automatic welding, ultrasonic inspection used on J-lay project, Offshore Pipe Line Technology, April 1998, page 17. Lafontaine G. and F. Cancre, Potential of Ultrasonic Phased Arrays for Faster, Better and Cheaper Inspections, NDT.net, vol 5, no. 10, October 2000 http://www.ndt.net/article/v05n10/lafont2/lafont2.htm Moles M.D.C., N. Dub and E.A. Ginzel, Customized Ultrasonic Systems for Gas Pipeline Girth Weld Inspections, IPC 98, Calgary, Alberta, June 7-11, 1998, page 637. Moles M.D.C, E.A. Ginzel and N. Dub, PipeWIZARD-PA Mechanized Inspection of Girth Welds Using Ultrasonic Phased Arrays, International Conference on Advances in Welding Technology, October 26-28, 1999, Galveston, Texas, sponsored by EWI and AWS. Moles M.D.C, N. Dub and M. Russell, Ultrasonic Phased Arrays for Pipeline Girth Weld Inspections, 3rd International Pipeline Technology Conference, Bruges, Belgium, May 21-24, 2000.

Sjerve E., D.C. Stewart and G.F. Bryant, Comparison of Multi-Probe and Phased Array Girth Weld Inspection Systems, IPC 2000, ASME 2000 International Pipeline Conference, Calgary, Alberta, October 1-5, 2000, page 827-830. Verkooijen J., TOFD used to replace radiography, Insight, vol 37, no. 6, June 1995, page 433. Wstenberg H, A. Erhard and G. Shenk, Some Characteristic Parameters of Ultrasonic Phased Array Probes and Equipments, NDT.net, vol 4, no. 4, http://www.ndt.net/article/v04n04/wuesten/wsuesten.htm

Acknowledgements This work has been funded by a wide variety of sources, including internal R/D Tech funds, PRCI, and PipeWIZARD service companies (Canspec, OIS, Institut de Soudure, Saipem and Oceaneering Solus Schall).

The Authors 1. Michael D. C. Moles R/D Tech 5205 Tomken Road Mississauga, Ontario Canada L4W 3N8 Tel: (905) 629-0220 Fax: (905) 629-8383 E-mail:[email protected] 2. Ed A. Ginzel Consultant Materials Research Institute 432 Country Squire Road Waterloo, Ontario Canada N2J 4G8 Tel: (519) 886-5071 Fax: (519) 886-8363 E-mail:[email protected] 3. Nol Dub VP, Industrial Division R/D Tech 505, boul. du Parc-Technologique Qubec, (Qubec). Canada G1P 4S9 Tel: (418) 872-1155 Fax: (418) 872-5431 E-mail:[email protected]