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!
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.
should be by replica
rather than by
photography.
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.
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.
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.