Characterization and Sizing of Crack and Porosity Weld Defects Using Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing

Authors

Nardos Mekoya

Manufacturing Industry Development Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (Ethiopia)

Dejene Legesse

Manufacturing Industry Development Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (Ethiopia)

Article Information

DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI.2026.1306000411

Subject Category: Engineering

Volume/Issue: 13/6 | Page No: 5521-5543

Publication Timeline

Submitted: 2026-07-06

Accepted: 2026-07-11

Published: 2026-07-15

Abstract

The accurate characterization and sizing of weld defects are critical for ensuring the structural integrity and safety of industrial fabrications. Mischaracterizing a planar crack as volumetric porosity can lead to catastrophic failure, while mistaking benign porosity for a critical crack result in unnecessary and costly repairs. The study addresses this critical gap by systematically investigating the distinct acoustic signatures of planar cracks and volumetric porosity using Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing (PAUT). Experimental PAUT inspections were performed on 9.50 mm thick steel V-groove butt welds containing induced crack and porosity defects. Data were analyzed using Omni PC software, comparing A-scan, S-scan, and C-scan responses, and evaluating the accuracy of amplitude-based sizing against visual spatial measurements. The results demonstrate that cracks produce linear, well-defined S-scan patterns with sharp A-scan signals and corner trap effects, while porosity generates diffuse, cloud-like S-scan patterns with multiple, overlapping A-scan peaks. Amplitude-based sizing was found to be unreliable for cracks, significantly underestimating crack height (1.69 mm vs. 7.80 mm for a toe crack), whereas it is more appropriate for defining porosity cluster boundaries when using the -6 dB drop method. A comprehensive classification matrix was developed, achieving 100% accuracy in distinguishing these defect types based on S-scan pattern, weld zone location, amplitude behavior, and the relationship between depth amplitude (DA^) and visual amplitude (ViA^). The study concludes that a multi-feature approach, which prioritizes spatial imaging over amplitude alone and advocates for the use of tip-diffraction techniques for crack sizing, is essential for reliable PAUT weld inspections. The findings provide a practical, validated framework to improve defect classification, enhance sizing accuracy, and support informed fitness-for-service decisions in structural welding.

Keywords

Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing (PAUT), Weld Defect Characterization, Crack Detection, Porosity, Non-Destructive Testing (NDT), Sizing Accuracy, Tip-Diffraction.

Downloads

References

1. Bridge, B. (2019). Advanced Ultrasonic Testing Techniques for Industrial Weld Inspections. London: Academic Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Silk, M. G. (2016). Ultrasonic Transducers for Nondestructive Testing. Bristol: Adam Hilger Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Drinkwater, B. W., & Wilcox, P. D. (2006). Ultrasonic phased arrays: A review. NDT & E International, 39(7), 525-541. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Clay, A. C., Wooh, S. C., Azar, L., & Wang, J. Y. (1999). Experimental evaluation of phased array ultrasonic technology for weld inspection. Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation, 18(2), 59-71. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Olympus-NDT. (2022). Phased Array Testing: Technology and Equipment Applications Guide. Waltham, MA: Evident Scientific. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Krautkrämer, J., & Krautkrämer, H. (1990). Ultrasonic Testing of Materials (4th ed.). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Ogilvy, J. A. (1989). Model for the ultrasonic inspection of rough defects. Ultrasonics, 27(4), 194-209. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Langenberg, K. J., Marklein, R., & Mayer, K. (2012). Advanced Electromagnetism and Acoustics: Foundations and Computer Applications. Boca Raton: CRC Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. ASME International. (2023). ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section V: Nondestructive Examination, Article 4: Ultrasonic Examination Methods for Welds. New York: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. American Welding Society. (2020). AWS D1.1/D1.1M: Structural Welding Code – Steel. Miami, FL: American Welding Society. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Moles, M. (2014). Selecting Software-Assisted Post-Processing Parameters for Advanced PAUT Analysis. Toronto: NDT Media Publishing [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

Metrics

Views & Downloads

Similar Articles