Anda di halaman 1dari 2

695_712_18_695_712_18 2/26/13 1:31 PM Page 695

Back to Basics
From Materials Evaluation, Vol. 60, No. 7, pp: 695-696.
Copyright 2002 The American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Inc.

A UK Perspective on Known
Discontinuity Standards
by Peter Stephens*

As the old saying goes, another country has been heard from.
That would seem to be the introduction for this months article. I
did not open Pandoras box with
the publication of an earlier article
on penetrant standards, but it certainly has gotten notice and comments. Good!

is the primary manufacturers requirements which take precedence. Here, such


standards as Rolls-Royce RPS 702 (1999)
and Lucas Aerospace 981-060-021 (1993) are
some of the controlling documents. It is the
approach of these two companies which
will be reviewed here, since this author believes they address some of the points
raised by Vasquez.

The initial calibration


Frank A. Iddings
Tutorial Projects Editor

Introduction
n his paper The Use of Known Discontinuity Standards, Israel Vasquez rightly points out that the phrase noticeably
less than the reference (unused) is open to
a great deal of subjective interpretation
(2002). This author supports his assertion
that not only is the number of indications
(starbursts) important but so are the dimensions of each one.
This piece offers a view from a UK perspective and from the authors experience
in meeting the need for control of the penetrant process.

Codes and Standards


Vasquezs paper refers back to US specifications such as MIL-STD-6866 and
ASTM E 1417, both of which are occasionally called upon in the UK. However, for
the general engineering industries, a more
common specification would be PREN 5711-91 (European Committee for Standardization, 1991). In the aerospace industry, it
* NDTplus, 54 Jordan Road, Sutton Coldfield,
West Midlands B75 5AB, England; 44 121
308 7466; fax 44 121 241 9172; e-mail <peter
@ndtplus.com>.

should be by replica
rather than by
photography.

Calibration and Wear of Test Panels


Appendix B of the Lucas Aerospace Standard 981-060-021 (1993) describes the mandated system for the annual calibration of
the TAM 146040 panel. This involves processing the panel and a physical measurement of the indications that are produced.
Appendix M then contains a specimen
process log pro forma for the recording of
the results obtained.
It is the experience of the author (having
complied with the above standard for
some years) that the cracks do grow and
that the TAM panels require replacement
in surprisingly short time periods. This
seems to relate to the frequency of processing and handling. The frequency of processing will be mandated by the relevant
primary manufacturer and therefore cannot be limited, but the handling is under
the control of the relevant laboratory or
testing facility. It is the authors experience
that it is handling which has the most significance in terms of life and durability of
the panels. In many instances, fresh cracks

emanating from the edges of the plates


have been noted, indicating impact damage during processing. The cumulative effect of these changes makes the panel unsuitable for use.
Recording Initial Calibrations
Assume that during initial calibration
four starbursts are found. This becomes the
base standard for the specific process and
its panel. Should the daily check reveal five
starbursts, then this will require immediate
review to determine what has changed (for
example, the operator, the technique, the
system or the TAM panel).
If, however, during initial calibration all
five starbursts are recorded, crack growth
will not be immediately highlighted until a
comparison with the results of this initial
calibration is made. Even then (as Vasquez
points out) we may only be looking to see if
it is noticeably different.
This leads to a need for precise records
of initial calibration. This author again supports Vasquez in his view that photographs
are unreliable in that they need to be
viewed in white light, may not even be the
same size in reproduction and are not present in the same media or form. A better
approach is the transfer lacquer replica
which can be viewed simultaneously
alongside the panel, in the same booth
under the same lighting conditions.
Some years ago, Rolls-Royce designed a
test piece which was supplied in a lined
case which included the replica for direct
comparison with the test piece (Figure 1).
Since the test panel was made from a steel
plate and the edges were chamfered, the
risk of handling damage was greatly reduced and the potential for crack growth
was minimized. This system ideally met
the needs of a reliable reference standard.
On the negative side, there were only three
starbursts, which resulted in limited sensitivity testing.
Comparator Blocks
A further device worth consideration is
the ASME cracked aluminum comparator
block (1998). Here a cracked aluminum
Materials Evaluation/June 2002 695

695_712_18_695_712_18 2/26/13 1:31 PM Page 696

whole plate is then processed to completion in the relevant way. The indications
from each half can be tested under identical
illumination on the same alloy with the
same surface condition, resulting in a true
comparison of relative sensitivity. The
slight potential for error with this device
arises with the requirement that the discontinuities in both halves be as identical as
possible. An advantage of the method is
that no replica is required, since, in a similar approach of the matched pairs of Ni/Cr
panels, comparison is made on the test
plate itself.

Figure 1 The Rolls-Royce panel and


replica in its case.

plate (Figure 2) is marked across the center


to assign two similar halves. One half is
then covered in unused penetrant and the
other half is covered in used penetrant. The

696 Materials Evaluation/June 2002

Conclusion
This author supports the view expressed in Vasquezs article that users
should carry out an initial calibration
(qualification) of all test panels prior to
first use. The initial calibration should be
by replica rather than by photography. Dimensions of all starbursts should be confirmed at least annually and growth in excess of 25% is cause for rereplication if the
growth is uniform and replacement if the
growth is nonuniform or the plate is damaged.
Consideration is given to the reintroduction of a thicker based test panel, similar to the one described, but with more
(perhaps five) starbursts.

Figure 2 The ASME comparator.

References
ASME, ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, T653.2, Liquid Penetrant Examination, Fairfield, New Jersey, ASME, 1998.
European Committee for Standardization, PREN
571-1-91, Nondestructive Testing Penetrant
Testing Part 1: General Principles for the Examination, Brussels, Belgium, 1991.
Lucas Aerospace, Lucas Aerospace Standard 981060-021, Penetrant Inspection, Hemel Hempstead, Great Britain, 1993.
Rolls-Royce, RPS 702, Non-destructive Testing,
Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection, Derby, United
Kingdom, 1999.
Vasquez, Israel, The Use of Known Discontinuity Standards, Materials Evaluation, Vol. 60,
2002, pp. 141-145.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai