Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation (2018) 37:49

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10921-018-0498-9

Coherence Weighting Applied to FMC/TFM Data from Austenitic CRA

Clad Lined Pipes
Ricardo Baiotto1 · Benjamin Knight-Gregson2 · Channa Nageswaran3 · Thomas Clarke1

Received: 3 July 2017 / Accepted: 4 June 2018 / Published online: 26 June 2018
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
Lined pipe girth weld regions are challenging to inspect using ultrasonic techniques due to their anisotropic and inhomogeneous
characteristics, which lead to noise and acoustic beam distortion. This paper is focused on the application of coherence
weighting methods to decrease the background noise level and false indications on total focusing method (TFM) images,
encompassing the triple boundary of mechanically lined pipes. Three coherence weighting approaches were used here; the
coherence factor (CF), the sign CF (SCF) and the phase CF (PCF). All three were found capable to improve the TFM images,
however, the CF and the SCF performed better due to their exponential sensitivity factors, unlike the PCF which has a linear
sensitivity factor.

Keywords Mechanically lined pipes · FMC · TFM · Austenitic weld · Coherence weighting

1 Introduction 1.1 Lined Pipes

Austenitic welds are known to significantly impair ultrasonic
inspection [1–3], which is the case for the girth welds found
on mechanically lined pipes. This kind of pipe is typically
employed in the transportation of oil and gas, both onshore
and offshore. Due to the inherent risk associated with the
handling of such materials, it is of great importance to non-
destructively assess the integrity of lined pipes. Besides the
problems due to the weld microstructure, ultrasonic inspec-
tion offers a feasible set of techniques to evaluate their girth
welds, given that the anisotropy and inhomogeneity issues
are addressed.
B Ricardo Baiotto
ricardo.baiotto@ufrgs.br
Benjamin Knight-Gregson
ben.k-g@postgrad.manchester.ac.uk
Channa Nageswaran
channa.nageswaran@twi.co.uk
Thomas Clarke
tclarke@demet.ufrgs.br
1 Physical Metallurgy Laboratory (LAMEF) - PPGE3M,
UFRGS, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
2 TWI Technology Centre (Wales), TWI, Port Talbot, UK
3
NDT Department, TWI, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK
Mechanically lined pipes are comprised of an external pipe
made of C–Mn steel and an inner corrosion resistant alloy
pipe [4,5]. A girth weld is the preferred union method
employed to join lined pipes segments. However this union
process is complex due to the dissimilar materials present.
The joint preparation method consists of the removal of the
liner from the extremity of the pipe, followed by a seal weld
between the liner and host pipe. After the seal weld, the
remaining exposed inner surface of the C–Mn steel pipe is
covered by an overlay weld. Only then the girth weld is cre-
ated [6]. Figure 1 shows an illustration of a mechanical lined
pipe weld joint. This paper will focus on the triple boundary
region where the cladding meets the liner and the external
pipe.
During the life cycle of mechanical lined pipes, the over-
lay cladding is subjected to corrosive fluids [7]. In addition,
they undergo cyclic loading during installation [4,6,8] and,
sometimes, during operation [9,10]. These conditions, asso-
ciated to possible manufacturing defects, can lead to crack
nucleation in the cladding region that can compromise the
corrosion resistance and structural integrity of the instal-
lation. Given that, it is important to be able to detect and
characterise these defects.
Linear array ultrasonic non-destructive methods are used
in the assessment of welds on a regular basis due to the rel-

123
49 Page 2 of 9
Fig. 1 Illustration of a typical girth weld on lined pipes, all the welds
are made using with corrosion resistant alloy consumables
atively high inspection productivity achieved [11]. In the
case of lined pipes, the consumables employed the welds
need to match the corrosion resistance of the inner pipe,
thus generally leading to an austenitic and coarse-grained
weld microstructure. These microstructure characteristics are
known to have a detrimental effect upon ultrasonic non-
destructive methods [1,3,12], since coarse-grain structures
lead to increases in backscattered noise, attenuation and beam
distortion [1]. The first two effects are caused by acoustic
energy being reflected back by the grain boundaries, whereas
the third arises from beam skewing due to grain interfaces
[1]. Since overlay claddings typically have a thickness of
only a few millimeters, it is thought that errors due to beam
skewing are less relevant for the work presented in this
paper.
1.2 Imaging Method
A number of approaches have been developed to help
improve the ultrasonic imaging of coarse grain materials.
Among them there is the Decomposition of the Time Rever-
sal Operator, known by its French acronym DORT [13].
This method has been shown to be effective in improving
the signal to noise ratio (SNR) by isolating the contribu-
tion of single scattering from the signal [13,14] and in the
elimination of artifacts caused by surface guided waves [15].
Another approach proposed by Sharma et al. [16] makes use
of the ensemble empirical mode decomposition to improve
SNR thus revealing indications from flat bottom holes in a B-
scan obtained from an austenitic stainless steel sample. The
main advantage of those methods is that they do not need
any sort of information about the microstructure of the test
piece.
However, some authors resort to computational modeling
in order to assess how sound waves behave inside specific
coarse grain structures. CIVA is an example of commercial
software packages capable of simulating this kind of phe-
nomena. Using a semi-analytical beam computation feature
of this software, Mahaut et al. [17] successfully simulated
propagation in a polycrystalline stainless steel by employing
Voronoi cells with randomly distributed size and velocity.
Additionally, modelling tools such as MINA (Modelling
Anisotropy from Notebook of Arc Welding) have been under
123
Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation (2018) 37:49
development as a form to predict the grain orientation of
coarse grained weld joints [18]. By using information such
as the weld geometry, electrode diameter and number of
weld passes, MINA was capable to repeatedly describe the
microstructure of the welds [18–20].
Nonetheless, the imaging method applied in this paper was
the total focusing method (TFM) [21–24]. Through delay
and sum operations, TFM utilizes full matrix capture (FMC)
data in order to synthetically focus on every point of a previ-
ously defined grid of pixels inside the material [21–23]. The
FMC data set is the collection of the A-scans representing all
the possible combinations of transmit and receive elements
in an array [21,22]. Equation 1 can be used to calculate a
TFM image in a configuration which involves a linear array
transducer, coupled to the flat surface of a homogeneous and
isotropic test piece (and equally isotropic coupling medium
such as a wedge or water layer) [21].
 N N
   
 
IT F M (x, y) =  Am,n tx,y,m + tx,y,n  . (1)
 
m=1 n=1
In Eq. 1, IT F M (x, y) is the intensity of the pixel located at
(x, y) coordinate, Am,n is the A-scan taken from the FMC for
transmit m and receive n, N is the number of active elements
in the array, tx,y,m and tx,y,n are the time values it takes
for the sound to travel between the transmitting element m
and the focusing point and between the focusing point and
the receiving element n, respectively. Due to the reciprocity
principle, tx,y,m is independent of the propagation direction,
i.e., tx,y,m is the same regardless of whether the element is the
transmitter or receiver. As such, the time of flight is defined
by Eq. 2.

(X x,y,m
a − Xm
0 )2 + (Y a
x,y,m − Ym )
0 2
tx,y,m =
C1

(x − X x,y,m
a )2 + (y − Yx,y,m
a )2
+ . (2)
C2
a
In Eq. 2, X x,y,m a
and Yx,y,m are the Cartesian co-ordinates
of the sound wave incidence point in the boundary between
the two materials, X m0 and Y 0 are the Cartesian co-ordinates
m
of the center of the transducer, x and y are the co-ordinates
of the focusing point, C1 and C2 are the velocities of the
sound wave exited by the transmitting element in the coupling
medium and in the test piece, respectively.
Figure 2 is intended to illustrate the TFM imaging pro-
cedure described above. In order to solve Eqs. 1 and 2
a
X x,y,m a
and Yx,y,m must be known beforehand. An analytical
Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation (2018) 37:49
Fig. 2 Illustration of the path taken by a beam in a media composed by
two materials with different sound velocities. The beam either arrives
or leaves transducer m, point (X m 0 , Y 0 ), passes through the interface
m
between the two media at point (X x,y,ma , Yx,y,m
a ) and leaves or arrives
at the focusing point at (x, y). The test piece geometry in this illustration
is taken from the lined pipe girth weld region presented in Fig. 1 and
the focusing point is the triple boundary
method to accomplish this by solving Snell’s law with Fer-
rari’s method as described in detail by Weston et al. [25].
1.3 Coherence Weighting
The FMC/TFM approach is susceptible to the increased
backscattered noise and attenuation caused by the anisotropy
and inhomogeneity similarly to other ultrasonic nondestruc-
tive methods. In order to minimize the attenuation and
backscattered noise in the TFM images, three weighting
factors were investigated regarding their ability to suppress
noise. They are named coherence factor (CF), sign CF (SCF)
and phase CF (PCF).
The concept of CF was first reported by Mallart and Fink
[26] and is defined as the ratio between the coherent intensity
and the total incoherent intensity. Equation 3 adapted from
[27] calculates CF at every (x, y) point of the TFM image.
The parameter PC F is the CF sensitivity, which controls the
relative attenuation between regions with different coherence
level. The multiplication of C F(x, y) by IT F M (x, y) results
in the weighted intensity map or IC F (x, y), as demonstrated
by Eq. 4.
C F(x, y)
⎛  2 ⎞ PC F
 N N 
Am,n (tx,y,m + tx,y,n )
⎜  m=1 n=1 ⎟ phase coherence in a situation where noise and skewing are
=⎝ N N ⎠ , (3)
N2 n=1 |Am,n (tx,y,m + tx,y,n )|
2
m=1
IC F (x, y) = C F(x, y) × IT F M (x, y). (4)
Camacho et al. [28] first presented SCF and PCF as
an alternative to reduce the influence of grating and side
lobes indications while increasing the lateral resolution in
ultrasonic imaging. Their approach is based on the analy-
sis of phase distribution and relies on the assumption that a
perfectly focused scatterer produces echoes with no phase
dispersion, while an unfocused scatterer tends to produce
echoes with random phase distribution. The method to obtain
Page 3 of 9 49
the PCF in (x, y) coordinates is based on the calculation of
the standard deviation of the phases and is determined by
Eq. 5. Similarly to Eq. 4, Eq. 6 provides the weighted inten-
sity map, I PC F (x, y)), for the PCF.
PC F(x, y)

σ (x, y) ∗ P σ (x, y) ∗ P
1 − p σ0 PC F , if p σ0 PC F < 1,
= (5)
0, otherwise,
I PC F (x, y) = PC F(x, y) × IT F M (x, y). (6)
In Eq. 5, PC F(x, y) is the PCF calculated for (x, y)
coordinates, while σ0 is the standard deviation of a random
phase distribution between −π and π , the term σ p (x, y) is
an estimate of the phase diversity calculated from the phase
standard deviation and PPC F is the PCF sensitivity. PPC F
works in a similar way to PC F , controlling the attenuation
level of PC F(x, y). A special case of PCF, named SCF, that
takes into account only the phase polarity was also introduced
by Camacho et al. [28] and employed elsewhere [27,29].
Since only those signals with the same polarity are consid-
ered to be fully coherent, the SCF is stricter than PCF and
is expected to perform better in reducing the noise ampli-
tude than PCF. Equation 7 is used to calculate the SCF as
a function of the (x, y) coordinate, while Eq. 8 gives the
(I SC F (x, y) weighted intensity map likewise Eqs. 4 and 6.
    PSC F
 
  1 N  N

SC F(x, y) = 1 − 1 − sm,n (x, y)  ,
 N
m=1 n=1 
(7)
I SC F (x, y) = SC F(x, y) × IT F M (x, y). (8)
In Eq. 7, sm,n (x, y) is the phase sign for the A-scan rel-
ative to transmitter m and receiver n when focusing on the
pixel located in the (x, y) coordinates and PSC F is the sign
coherence sensitivity factor, which is the analogue of PC F
and PPC F .
Since it is not possible to obtain a perfect intensity or
present, all values in the coherence matrices are below unity
and they drop with the increase of sensitivity factors. The
amplitude drop as a function of the sensitivity factor leads to a
more marked difference between the higher and lower ampli-
tude pixels, which increases resolution. For CF and SCF the
amplitude drops exponentially towards zero and does not
have an upper limit for PC F or PSC F above which the pixel
amplitude is null. However, for PCF this is not the case,
according to Eq. 5; PCF amplitude of a given pixel drops
linearly with the increase of PPC F , eventually reaching zero
σ (x, y) ∗ P
when p σ0 PC F = 1. Therefore, PCF images will lose
pixels when PC F increases above the limiting value and fur-
123
49 Page 4 of 9
Fig. 3 Schematic drawing of the plate used to collect the FMC data.
Dimensions are in millimeters
Fig. 4 Overall image of the plate in the region with 0.8 mm deep notch.
The numbered arrow indicates the front wall (1), the back wall (2), the
thickness change corner (3), the triple boundary (4) and the notch (5).
The scale shown at the bottom is in millimeters
ther increases in PC F will eventually leads to the complete
loss of the image.
2 Methodology
A specially manufactured plate was used in this work as
mock-up in order to simulate the lined pipe triple bound-
ary and cladding regions. A schematic drawing of the plate
can be found in Fig. 3. The plate was made of a 15 mm thick
X65 steel plate half covered with a 2.5 mm thick 625 alloy
plate and half weld-overlay cladded with the same alloy.
Two notches, one approximately 0.8 mm deep and the other
approximately 1.6 mm deep, were inserted via electrical dis-
charge machining in the coated side just below the triple
boundary. All the notches were 25 mm wide and around
0.2 mm thick. In Fig. 4 one can find a macrograph of one
of the inserted notches.
The ultrasonic inspections were conducted in an immer-
sion tank using a 10 MHz linear array probe with 128
123
Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation (2018) 37:49
Fig. 5 Overall TFM image of the plate in the region with 0.8 mm deep
notch. The numbered arrow indicates the front wall (1), the back wall
(2), the thickness change corner (3) and the triple boundary and notch
(4)
elements and a 0.3 mm element pitch. Data was acquired
from only 64 elements in order to keep the size of the data file
manageable. A M2M Multi++ array controller and the Multi
2000 software was used to control the probe and acquire
the data which was saved in FMC format to allow post-
processing it with a TFM algorithm. The phased array probe
was positioned above the plate, which was positioned with its
carbon steel side upwards in order to simulate an inspection
from the outside of a lined pipe. The incidence angle was
set to be approximately 11◦ . For a schematic drawing of the
inspection one can refer to Fig. 2.
Data post-processing was conducted in Matlab. The algo-
rithm first calculated the sound paths by use of Ferrari’s
method as described by Weston et al. [25]. The TFM algo-
rithm, based on Eqs. 1 and 2, was then applied with coherence
weighting factors calculated through Eqs. 3–8. This leads to
TFM images with and without coherence weighting; in addi-
tion to these, images of the coherence weightings themselves
will be presented in the next section.
3 Results and discussion
In Fig. 4 a macrograph of a cross section of the plate expos-
ing the 0.8 mm notch below the triple boundary is shown.
Figure 5 presents a simple TFM image of the same region
of the plate, obtained with Eqs. 1 and 2, in order to illustrate
the standard appearance of the calculated images. Compar-
ing Figs. 4 and 5 one can see that the TFM image presents
indications from the front and back wall (numbers 1 and 2),
the thickness change corner (number 3) and the triple bound-
ary and notch (number 4). These images were obtained with
a conventional TFM algorithm with 0.2 mm grid resolution.
Figure 6 presents a close up view of the triple boundary
and notch region of Fig. 4, obtained with a 0.1 mm step size
and presented with color scale in decibel (dB). In this figure
the three strong indications in the center of the image refer
to the triple boundary in the top, the notch tip in the middle
Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation (2018) 37:49
Fig. 6 TFM image around the region with a 0.8 mm notch. The scale
is in decibels
and the notch root in the bottom. The noise present in the
data is emphasized by the dB scale which will also be used
to evaluate the coherence weights in the following figures. It
is important to note that throughout this work there was no
attempt to correct for the distortion caused by the cladding.
Fig. 7 0.8 mm deep notch image of CF applied on the TFM image with various sensitivity factors (PC F ). The scale is in decibels
Fig. 8 0.8 mm deep notch image of PCF applied on the TFM image with various sensitivity factors (PPC F ). The scale is in decibels
Page 5 of 9 49
Given that, one can observe that the indications around the
triple boundary in Fig. 6 are distorted in the vertical direction
in comparison with Fig. 4.
Figures 7, 8 and 9 display the output images generated
by Eqs. 4, 6 and 8, respectively, for varying sensitivity fac-
tors. The same data set used to obtain 5 and 6 was used
here and, similarly to Fig. 6, these images only include the
triple boundary region on a dB scale in decibels. Figure 7
shows that the multiplication of the image matrix by CF
greatly reduces the noise even for sensitivity factors as low
as one, however for higher PC F values the indication from
the tip of the notch starts to dim and is below −60 dB when
PC F = 4. Figure 8 shows a different behavior for the results
obtained from Eq. 6. In this case, for lower sensitivity val-
ues there is no significant improvement in comparison with
Fig. 6 and for higher sensitivity values the indications from
the triple boundary and notch tip quickly disappear. Figure 9
shows that the SCF behave similarly to CF, although the noise
drops faster for SCF than for CF and the three indications are
present for a wider range of sensitivity factors. To avoid the
presence of low amplitude noise in the images, a threshold
for pixel amplitude was introduced. For the images presented
123
49 Page 6 of 9 Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation (2018) 37:49

Fig. 9 0.8 mm deep notch image of SCF applied on the TFM image with various sensitivity factors (PSC F ). The scale is in decibels

Fig. 10 CF images of 0.8 mm deep notch region using various sensitivity factors (PC F ). The scale is in decibels

Fig. 11 PCF images of 0.8 mm deep notch region using various sensitivity factors (PPC F ). The scale is in decibels

in this paper, the threshold is −60 dB below the maximum
amplitude of each image.
Figures 10, 11 and 12 present the coherence weights
C F(x, y), PC F(x, y) and SC F(x, y) used to create Figs.
7, 8 and 9, respectively. One can notice that both sets of
images are similar, especially for higher sensitivity values
where the coherence weights become dominant. This raises
the possibility of creating ultrasonic images without using
the amplitude of the signals directly.
Figures 13 and 14 present images of the different CFs
investigated in the regions with a 1.6 mm deep notch and
without notch, respectively. Overall, the images follow the
trend presented by the previous images for the 0.8 mm deep
notch. The sensitivity factors were selected in order to obtain

123
Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation (2018) 37:49 Page 7 of 9 49

Fig. 12 SCF images of 0.8 mm deep notch region using various sensitivity factors (PSC F ). The scale is in decibels

Fig. 13 TFM image (a), compared with CF (b), PCF (c) and SCF (d) for the 1.6 mm deep notch region. The scale is in decibels

Fig. 14 TFM image (a), compared with CF (b), PCF (c) and SCF (d) for a region without notches. The scale is in decibels

clear indications of the notch and triple boundary while
minimizing the amplitude of noise. However, two extra indi-
cations at the bottom of the image in the same depth position
as the root of the notch indication are seen in Fig. 13. Fur-
thermore, all the coherence weights images presented extra
indications when there is only the triple boundary present
(Fig. 14b–d). The indications, other than the triple boundary,
located around the coordinates (31, 35 mm), are positioned
around the back-wall of the sample or below. Since the
macrographs and visual inspection did not show any reflec-
tors in that region, it is assumed that those indications are
artefacts caused by the anisotropy and inhomogeneity of the
cladding.

123
49 Page 8 of 9
4 Conclusions
In the present paper the procedure to employ three coherence
weightings, namely CF, PCF and SCF was described. It was
shown that the three factors are capable of improving the
TFM image by reducing noise. However the three different
CFs presented here can be used only within a range of their
respective sensitivity values, i.e., too low a sensitivity value
is not capable improving significantly the image, whereas
too high a sensitivity value attenuates every indication but
the strongest one in the image (for PCF when PPC F is high
enough, all the indications are attenuated). The selection of
the proper sensitivity factors for an unknown specimen being
inspected can be troublesome; in some cases, a reference
testing block may be needed in order to determine an useful
range for those factors. Furthermore, the results obtained in
this work exposed some limitations of the different CFs with
regard to their ability to suppress false indications. Besides
the improvement in the noise level in all the cases, the pres-
ence of false indications can be misleading.
From the comparison between the images created through
the multiplication of the coherence weights matrices by the
TFM matrix and the images from the coherence weights
matrices themselves it is possible to conclude that, in the
present work, Eqs. 4, 6 and 8 have only limited effect upon
the resulting images. This leads to the conclusion that, at least
for the present case, there is no need to calculate the TFM
image and one could rely solely on the coherence weights
images to inspect this sample.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thanks the Brazilian
Governmental Agency Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cient-
fico e Tecnolgico (CNPq) and BG Group for partially sponsoring this
research through the Science Without Borders Program.
References
1. Dissimilar Consortium: Phased Array Ultrasonic Inspec-
tion of Dissimilar Metal Joints. Report, TSB Project No:
P11/MFE/6/IAA058J (2011)
2. Fan, Z., Mark, A.F., Lowe, M.J.S., Withers, P.J.: Nonintrusive esti-
mation of anisotropic stiffness maps of heterogeneous steel welds
for the improvement of ultrasonic array inspection. IEEE Trans.
Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 62, 1530–1543 (2015). https://
doi.org/10.1109/TUFFC.2015.007018
3. Ye, J., Moysan, J., Song, S., Kim, H.J., Chassignole, B., Gueudre,
C., Dupond, O.: Influence of welding passes on grain orientation—
the example of a multi-pass v-weld. Int. J. Press. Vessels Pip. 93–94,
12–21 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2012.02.007
4. Yuan, L., Kyriakides, S.: Plastic bifurcation buckling of lined pipe
under bending. Eur. J. Mech. A 47, 288–297 (2014). https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.euromechsol.2014.04.005
5. Denniel, S., Tkaczyk, T., Pepin, A.: Reeled mechanically lined
pipe: cost efficient solution for static and dynamic applications in
corrosive environment. In: Deep Offshore Technology Conference,
Perth (2012)
123
Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation (2018) 37:49
6. Yuan, L., Kyriakides, S.: Liner wrinkling and collapse of bi-
material pipe under bending. Int. J. Solids Struct. 51, 599–611
(2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2013.10.026
7. Wilmot, D., Montague, P.: The suitability of CRA lined pipes for
flowlines susceptible to lateral buckling. In: SUT Global Pipeline
Buckling Symposium, Perth (2011)
8. Toguyeni, G.A., Banse, J.: Mechanically lined pipe: installation
by reel-lay. In: Offshore Technology Conference, Rio de Janeiro
(2012)
9. Siskandarajah, T., Roberts, G., Rao, V.: Fatigue aspects of CRA
lined pipe for HP/HT flowlines. In: Offshore Technology Confer-
ence, Rio de Janeiro (2013)
10. Tkaczyk, T., Denniel, S., Pépin, A.: Fatigue and fracture of mechan-
ically lined pipes installed by reeling. In: Offshore and Arctic
Engineering, Rio de Janeiro (2012)
11. Schmerr, L., Song, S.J.: Ultrasonic Nondestructive Evaluation Sys-
tems Models and Measurements. Springer, New York (2007)
12. Limthongkul, S.: Validation of wave propagation in austenitic
welds using vibrometer. Master’s Thesis, Brunel University Lon-
don, London (2015)
13. Shahjahan, S., Aubry, A., Rupin, F., Chassignole, B., Derode,
A.: Improvement of flaw detection with ultrasonic array probes
in multiple scattering polycrystalline materials by means of a
random matrix approach. In: 13th International Symposium on
Non-destructive Characterization of Materials. Le Mans (2013)
14. Aubry, A., Derode, A.: Detection and imaging in a random medium:
A matrix method to overcome multiple scattering and aberration.
J. Appl. Phys. 106, 044903 (2009)
15. Villaverde, E.L., Robert, S.: Ultrasonic imaging of defects in
coarse-grained steels with the decomposition of the time reversal
operator. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 140, 541–550 (2016)
16. Sharma, G.K., Kumar, A., Jayakumar, T., Rao, B.P., Mariyappa, N.:
Ensemble empirical mode decomposition based methodology for
ultrasonic testing of coarse grain austenitic stainless steels. Ultra-
sonics 57, 167–178 (2015)
17. Mahaut, S., Darmon, M., Chatillon, S., Jenson, F., Calmon, P.:
Recent advances and current trends of ultrasonic modelling in
CIVA. Insight 51, 78–81 (2009)
18. Moysan, J., Apfel, A., Corneloup, G., Chassignole, B.: Modelling
the grain orientation of austenitic stainless steel multipass welds to
improve ultrasonic assessment of structural integrity. Int. J. Press.
Vessels Pip. 80, 77–85 (2003)
19. Apfel, A., Moysan, J., Corneloup, G., Fouquet, T., Chassignole,
B.: Coupling an ultrasonic propagation code with a model of the
heterogeneity of multipass welds to simulate ultrasonic testing.
Ultrasonics 43, 447–456 (2005)
20. Mark, A.F., Fan, Z., Azough, F., Lowe, M.J.S., Withers, P.J.: Inves-
tigation of the elastic/crystallographic anisotropy of welds for
improved ultrasonic inspections. Mater. Charact. 98, 47–53 (2014)
21. Holmes, C., Drinkwater, B.W., Wilcox, P.D.: Post-processing of
the full matrix of ultrasonic transmit-receive array data for non-
destructive evaluation. NDT E Int. 38, 701–711 (2005). https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ndteint.2005.04.002
22. Nakahata, K., Tokumasu, S., Sakai, A., Iwata, Y., Ohira, K., Ogura,
Y.: Ultrasonic imaging using signal post-processing for a flexible
array transducer. NDT E Int. 82, 13–25 (2016). https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ndteint.2016.04.002
23. Sutcliffe, M., Weston, M., Dutton, B., Charlton, P., Donne, K.: Real-
time full matrix capture for ultrasonic non-destructive testing. NDT
E Int. 51, 16–23 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ndteint.2012.06.
005
24. Felice, M.V., Velichko, A., Wilcox, P.D.: Accurate depth measure-
ment of small surface-breaking cracks. NDT E Int. 68, 105–112
(2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ndteint.2014.08.004
Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation (2018) 37:49 Page 9 of 9 49

25. Weston, M., Mudge, P., Davis, C., Peyton, A.: Time efficient 28. Camacho, J., Parrilla, M., Fritsch, C.: Phase coherence imaging.
auto-focussing algorithms for ultrasonic inspection of dual-layered IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 56(5), 958–974
media using full matrix capture. NDT E Int. 47, 43–50 (2012) (2009). https://doi.org/10.1109/TUFFC.2009.1128
26. Mallart, R., Fink, M.: Adaptive focusing in scattering media 29. Zhang, J., Drinkwater, B.W., Wilcox, P.D.: Comparison of ultra-
through sound-speed inhomogeneities: the van Cittert Zernike sonic array imaging algorithms for nondestructive evaluation. IEEE
approach and focusing criterion. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 96(6), 3721– Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 60, 1732–1745 (2013)
3732 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1121/1.410562
27. Knight-Gregson, B., Peyton, A., Scully, P., Weston, M., Davis, C.:
Improvement of ultrasonic cross-sectional imagery via the applica-
tion of coherence weighting and the total focussing method. In: 55th
Annual Conference of the British Institute for Non-Destructive
Testing, Nottingham (2016)

123