Recent Developments in Ultrasonic NDT Modelling in CIVA

P. Calmon, A. Lhmery, I. Lecur-Tabi, R. Raillon

CEA / CEREM(French Atomic Energy Commission)
CEA-Saclay, bt. 611, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette cedex, France.
Contact

1. Introduction
Industrial methods of ultrasonic testing (UT) must perform ever more accurate and
reliable defect characterization and sizing in cases of growing complexity.
Simulation is increasingly used at the various stages of UT engineering, that is,
both in laboratories and in field work. It is an effective way of determining or
designing the appropriate transducer given a specific application. Performances of
methods in complex configurations may be demonstrated at a far lower cost than
experimentally. In field work, experts are helped in their interpretation by running
simulations to check their guess, this resulting in more reliable diagnoses, and may
even intervene in their formation.
The CEA (French Atomic Energy Commission) has been developing for several
years UT simulation tools, conceived to be easy to handle and use, accurate and
efficient. Development is based on a two-step approach. At first, a tool is devoted
to the calculation of ultrasonic fields radiated by transducers in components.
Another one simulates an examination. It deals with various echo-formation
mechanisms such as beam-defect interaction and transducer scanning. It uses
previously computed field results as an input. These tools have been made
progressively able to cover most UT configurations. The various stages in
upgrading their capabilities have been validated experimentally, from the early
simple ones (isotropic blocks of simple shape) to the present stage handling
complex cases (heterogeneous anisotropic component of complex geometry). They
are implemented in the CIVA system for processing, imaging and simulating NDT
data [1, 2] and are operated through interactive graphical user interfaces (Figure 1).

Fig 1: Graphical User Interface displaying the scene of the simulation

(contact transducer inspecting a component of irregular shape). Various
views may be displayed. Menus allow for the definition of the component,
the transducer and its course, flaws and echo-structure to simulate (the whole
or selected echoes).

At first, the paper describes modeling tool capabilities. Then, examples of

industrial applications of these UT simulation tools are presented.
2. Modeling tools
Tools are 3D to account for transducer diffraction effects and complex geometry of
scatters and components. They are time-dependent for accurate prediction of
waveforms variations.
2.1. Ultrasonic field computation [2-4]
2.1.1. Sources of ultrasound
The model accounts for arbitrary ultrasonic sources of the industrial practice. The
software deals with monolithic transducers or phased-arrays. Transducer is coupled
directly to the component or by a coupling medium (solid wedge, fluid). Excitation
pulse is arbitrary. Auxiliary tools are provided to conceive transducers (focusing
probes, phased-arrays).
2.1.2. Components geometry and constitutive materials
Some UT applications involve components of simple shape ; others involve
components of complex geometry. The model deals with arbitrary shaped
components. The software handle components defined by a few parameters or
complex ones described by CAD. Component may be of homogeneous isotropic or
heterogeneous anisotropic structures. An heterogeneous material is described as a
set of homogeneous regions described by CAD, each region having specific elastic
properties (of arbitrary anisotropy).

2.1.3. Theoretical model of field radiation

Only approximate semi-analytic approach can deal with arbitrary configurations
whilst fulfilling requirements of accuracy and numerical efficiency for intensive
use. Numerical integration is performed each time analytic methods fail at dealing
with arbitrary descriptions. For example, an arbitrary source is treated as the
superimposition of elementary point sources. Thus, the kernel of the computation
consists in formulas derived for predicting the field radiated by a given source
point at a given calculation point. The theoretical model has been derived by
extending a geometrical method (pencil method, initially developed in
electromagnetism [5]) to the case of elastic waves in arbitrary elastic media [2-4].
The pencil method efficiently handles complex geometric description of
components. Then, the field radiated by the whole transducer at one calculation
point is obtained by simply summing contributions of the various source points at
the same calculation point.
2.2. Simulation of UT examination [2, 6-9]
2.2.1. Transmission, reception and transducer scanning
The model allows for the simulation of both pulse-echo and tandem configurations,
and the scanning is either constrained by the component shape or independent of it.
Calculations of the field radiated by the transmitter or of the sensitivity of the
receiver to scattered waves involve most of the propagation phenomena. They are
most demanding in computation time and therefore computed independently of the
inspection simulation. The modeling tool for simulating UT experiments is
restricted to the scattering processes.
2.2.2. The component and the defects within
The component geometry may be simple and defined by a few parameters, or
complex defined elsewhere by CAD. In performances demonstration, artificial
defects are machined in test blocks such as flat-bottom holes, side-drilled holes,
notches. In field works, defects like voids, inclusions or cracks are generally not of
regular shapes. The software gives various means of defining several defects into
the component, their shape, size and position.
2.2.3. Scattering by defects and component boundaries
Various wavepaths from the transmitter to the receiver give rise to measurable
contributions. Some involve only the interaction with the defects (direct
contributions), others involve interaction only with the boundary of the component
(geometric contributions), and others involve interaction with both component
boundaries and defects (indirect contributions, e.g. corner effect). Each time waves
interact with material discontinuities (boundary, defect), they are scattered as waves
of the same nature or partially mode-converted. In some circumstances, one defect
is seen by the receiver until the wavepath is intercepted by another defect
(shadowing effect). All these complex features are commonly encountered in
practice. The model must account for them and treats them separately to ease
further interpretations.

2.2.4. Theoretical model of echo-formation

Again, only a semi-analytic approach can lead to computation time compatible with
intensive use. Numerical integration is proceeded wherever necessary to account
for arbitrary geometry of component or defect. Kirchhoff's elastodynamic formulas
are used [6-8] to predict the amplitude of contributions scattered by defects or by
irregularities of the boundary. Waves reflected or mode-converted on regular
regions of the boundary are locally treated by the theory of plane wave scattering at
interfaces. In tandem methods such as in TOFD configurations and when the
insonified surface of the crack is not seen by the receiver, Kirchhoff's formulas
cannot apply. A time-dependent Geometrical Theory of Diffraction has been
especially derived to handle these cases [9 11]. This latter theory has been extended
to deal with contributions involving scattering of Rayleigh waves along planar
defects.
3. Examples of industrial application
Examples of industrial application, among numerous other ones, are given that use
some of the model capabilities described in the previous paragraph. A short
presentation is made to show how the problem in hand relates to features that are
often encountered in industrial practice, though not necessarily commonly solved.
3.1. Scan coverage improvements for the UT of a component of irregular shape
When an ultrasonic source radiates into the component through a surface of
irregular shape, beam pattern depends on transducer position and may be strongly
affected (deviation, splitting or spreading). Field predictions help to determine if
the zones of interest for the test are properly covered When conventional non
adaptive transducers do not ensure scan coverage, phased-arrays may achieve it.
Phased arrays are constituted of independently controlled elementary transducers.
An adapted delay law makes it possible to synthesize a complex shaped wavefront
that compensates for surface irregularities. By applying adapted laws at each
transducer position, an ultrasonic beam of steady wanted characteristics may be
obtained for the whole scanning.
The three upper images of field radiation shown on Figure 2 illustrate how the field
varies from one position to another in the case of a rather simple irregularity. Huge
beam distortions are observed. In these examples, the transducer is a planar phasedarray with no delay law applied, therefore behaving as a standard planar transducer.
It is oriented to generate a refracted beam of compression waves propagating at 45
(L-45) when insonifying a
Fig 2: a) CAD defined component of cylindrical symmetry.
cylindrical component.
b) Fields radiated in the incident plane by a linear phasedNow, the same phased-array is considered
together with the ability to control it. First,
the model for computing the field radiated
is used to compute a prioriadapted delay
laws, given the CAD description of the
component. Then, these laws being applied
to field predictions, simulations
demonstrate accurate compensations.

array at three different positions without any delay law

(upper) and with adapted delay laws accounting for the
actual geometry of the
component (lower).

Lower results shown on Figure 2 show that previous undesired behaviors are corrected
with adapted delay laws at the various positions considered before. Delay laws were
calculated to generate a L-45 beam focused at a depth of 30 mm (middle of the
component). The 24 element linear phased-array considered is proved sufficient to
compensate for sloop variations of the component surface.
3.2. Beam prediction in an austenitic stainless steel weld
Complex inner structure of an austenitic stainless steel weld affects considerably
ultrasonic beam propagation, and may lead to poor probability of detection of
defects within. This depends on the type of ultrasonic source used for the test. More
generally, beam propagation into heterogeneous and anisotropic structures cannot
be intuited. Only ad hoc simulation tools can predict the complex phenomena
arising in these cases.
An austenitic stainless steel weld is consistently described at an ultrasonic scale as
a set of homogeneous regions made of the same material (same stiffness constants)
but of different crystallographic orientation, this leading to heterogeneous
properties [12].
Fig 3: An austenitic stainless steel weld is described as a set
An example is shown on Figure 3. The
of nine homogeneous regions. Regions 0 are isotropic.
weld and the surrounding component are
Regions 1 to 7 are anisotropic. Crystallographic orientation
described as a heterogeneous medium
is defined by a rotation around the [010] axis parallel to the
made of nine homogeneous regions. Two of welding direction. Field results displayed correspond to
vertical displacements.
them describing the components to be
welded are made of isotropic ferretic steel.
The others describing the weld itself are
made of stainless steel (orthotropic crystal
which stiffness constants were measured
ultrasonically [10]). Each region is oriented
so that the crystallographic axis [010] lays
along the welding direction. Thus,
crystallographic directions of one homogeneous region are defined by one angle of
rotation around this axis as tabulated in the figure. A disk transducer working in the
thickness mode and directly coupled to the weld is considered. The field radiated shows
both splitting and deviation effects, whereas, if an isotropic homogeneous piece be
assumed, the field radiated would be of cylindrical symmetry.

3.3. Echo-structure composed of geometric contributions and defect echoes

The component considered is constituted of two distinct sections which are welded. The
surface on which the contact transducer is scanned has not been flattened and the surface
opposite to it is very irregular (taper, root). This results in two effects. First, the
orientation of the transducer wedge relatively to the local normal to the component
slightly varies from one position of the scanning to one other. As a consequence, the
direction of the transmitted beam varies too. Second, some contributions can be measured
resulting of scattering of the incoming waves by the irregular geometry of the backwall
and may be misinterpreted for defect echoes. Simulation helps the interpretation of
measured data by distinguishing echoes involving a defect from those which do not. The
various contributions being computed independently, they are recorded separately and
therefore can be also analyzed one by one after the simulation has been computed. This

allows for the true interpretation of the complex echo-structure produced in such
complex configurations.
Figure 4 shows a configuration where one reference reflector has been drilled (2mm-diam side drilled hole) in the most regular region of the mock-up and three
notches of 4-mm-height (10% of the average thickness of the component) have
been machined, one in the same regular region, one in the tapered part close to the
weld and a last one in the root of the weld.
Fig 4: UT of an irregularly shaped component (taper weld). Two views of the
component and the defects within are displayed. Simulated results are
reconstructed in the component coordinate system and superimposed with CAD
description. SDH denotes reference contributions from a side-drilled hole, G1 and
G2, geometric contributions, N1 to N3, contributions from the
notches.

The simulated result is displayed after image processing as a reconstructed B-scan

(B-scan data being transformed into data depending only on spatial coordinates). CIVA imaging tools permit to superimpose on this image the CAD
description of the component. This allows straightforward interpretation of the
various contributions. For the side-drilled hole reference, the echo-structure is
composed of direct, corner and indirect echoes. The echo-structure arising from the
first notch N1 is composed of a main contribution in the form of a corner echo and
of contributions diffracted by the tip of the notch (direct and indirect diffraction),
these two latter being of far lower amplitude. Then, contributions scattered by
backwall irregularities are observed (G1). They are of low amplitude, however of
the same order as that of the contributions scattered by the second notch (N2).
Other geometric contributions scattered by surface irregularities nearby the weld
root are observed (G2). Finally, the third notch gives rise to a complicated echostructure (N3) where direct diffraction as well as a corner echo distorted by the
irregular geometry of the backwall surface are observed. Without an accurate
knowledge of the contributions generated by geometrical irregularities,
experimental data may be misinterpreted by mistaking a geometric echo for a
defect echo or vice-versa.
4. Summary - Perspectives
Modeling tools developed at the French Atomic Energy Commission for UT
simulation handle a wide range of UT configurations, including complex ones.
They are numerically efficient and allow for their intensive use in an industrial
context. They are most useful tools in NDT engineering, for the help they provide
for conceiving UT methods or demonstrating their performances. They also help
experts to interpret actual measured data, by either simple comparison with
simulated data or more sophistically by model-based inversion [11].
Capabilities of these models have been discussed in the first part of the paper.
Some of these capabilities have been illustrated by examples given in the second

part. Further modeling capabilities are under development or will be considered in

the future to extend the ranges of applications to more unusual configurations of
UT.
5. References
1. L. Paradis, M. Talvard, Ph. Benoist, Ph. Rizzo, G. Pascal and G. Bayon, Rev. Prog.
QNDE, D. O. Thompson and D. E. Chimenti eds., 17 (Plenum Press, New-York,
1998), pp. 1981-1987.
2. A. Lhmery, Rev. Prog. QNDE, op. cit., 18 (1999), pp. 671-678.
3. N. Gengembre and A. Lhmery, Rev. Prog. QNDE, op. cit., 18 (1999), pp. 11311138.
4. N. Gengembre and A. Lhmery, Rev. Prog. QNDE, op. cit., 19 (2000), pp. 977-984.
5. G. A. Deschamps, Proc. I.E.E.E. 60 (1972), pp. 1022-1035.
6. P. Calmon and O. Roy, Rev. Prog. QNDE, op. cit. 13 (1994), pp. 101-108.
7. R. Raillon, P. Calmon, L. Paradis and Ph. Morisseau, in proceedings of
the 1st International Conference on NDE in relation to structural integrity for
nuclear and pressurised, M. Bith and J.-L. Monjaret eds., (Woodhead, 1998), pp.
933-940.
8. R. Raillon and I. Lecur-Tabi, Ultrasonics 38 (2000), pp. 527-530.
9. L. Butin and A. Lhmery, Rev. Prog. QNDE, op. cit., 18 (1999), pp. 135-142.
10.B. Chassignole, D. Villard, G. N'guyen Van Chi, N. Gengembre, A. Lhmery, Rev.
Prog. QNDE, op. cit., 19 (2000), pp. 153-160.
11. M. Faur, O. Roy, Ph. Benoist, J. Oksman and Ph. Morisseau, Rev. Prog. QNDE, op.
cit. 16 (1997), pp. 67-74.
AIPnD , created by NDT.net

http://www.ndt.net/article/wcndt00/papers/idn639/idn639.htm

|Home|

|Top|