where expertise comes together - since 1996 -

The Largest Open Access Portal of Nondestructive Testing (NDT)

Conference Proceedings, Articles, News, Exhibition, Forum, Network and more

where expertise comes together
- since 1996 -

IMG ULTRASUONI SRL
Ultrasonic transducers for industrial applications (NDT) and medical (Doppler effect). Probes, Ultrasonic instruments, Special systems for NDT.
1507 views
Career Discussions
Larry Mullins
Consultant
NxtNdT, USA, Joined Apr 2006, 7

Larry Mullins

Consultant
NxtNdT,
USA,
Joined Apr 2006
7
00:00 Apr-13-2006
Calibration rule for digital UT instruments

Current ASME (and other) rules for UT scope calibration - e.g. linearity, cal. check frequency, duration etc. are out of date and (I judge) inadequate for current digital instruments with cal storage capabilites. The rules do not address the real issues - verification of cal when switching between, real need to fully re-cal etc.

Also I feel today's instruments stability is far greater than when the Codes were written, so . . . has anyone written or found a good set of practical "rules" that fit today's need. Are there any efforts to codify these rules?


 
 Reply 
 
Ed
Ed
09:34 Apr-13-2006
Re: Calibration rule for digital UT instruments
----------- Start Original Message -----------
: Current ASME (and other) rules for UT scope calibration - e.g. linearity, cal. check frequency, duration etc. are out of date and (I judge) inadequate for current digital instruments with cal storage capabilites. The rules do not address the real issues - verification of cal when switching between, real need to fully re-cal etc.
: Also I feel today's instruments stability is far greater than when the Codes were written, so . . . has anyone written or found a good set of practical "rules" that fit today's need. Are there any efforts to codify these rules?
------------ End Original Message ------------

That's a very good question. One that the ASME V Code Committee should probably address. I wonder if anyone has submitted a Technical Inquiry.


 
 Reply 
 
LAWRENCE MULLINS
Consultant
NxtNdT, USA, Joined Apr 2006, 7

LAWRENCE MULLINS

Consultant
NxtNdT,
USA,
Joined Apr 2006
7
00:24 Apr-13-2006
Re: Calibration rule for digital UT instruments
----------- Start Original Message -----------
: : Current ASME (and other) rules for UT scope calibration - e.g. linearity, cal. check frequency, duration etc. are out of date and (I judge) inadequate for current digital instruments with cal storage capabilites. The rules do not address the real issues - verification of cal when switching between, real need to fully re-cal etc.
: : Also I feel today's instruments stability is far greater than when the Codes were written, so . . . has anyone written or found a good set of practical "rules" that fit today's need. Are there any efforts to codify these rules?
: That's a very good question. One that the ASME V Code Committee should probably address. I wonder if anyone has submitted a Technical Inquiry.
------------ End Original Message ----------
I think not. I sat w/ SecV last month. I'm writing my own. Does anyone care to co-author and submit as a Code Case?


 
 Reply 
 
Ed Ginzel
R & D, -
Materials Research Institute, Canada, Joined Nov 1998, 1287

Ed Ginzel

R & D, -
Materials Research Institute,
Canada,
Joined Nov 1998
1287
03:25 Apr-13-2006
Re: Calibration rule for digital UT instruments
----------- Start Original Message -----------
: : : Current ASME (and other) rules for UT scope calibration - e.g. linearity, cal. check frequency, duration etc. are out of date and (I judge) inadequate for current digital instruments with cal storage capabilites. The rules do not address the real issues - verification of cal when switching between, real need to fully re-cal etc.
: : : Also I feel today's instruments stability is far greater than when the Codes were written, so . . . has anyone written or found a good set of practical "rules" that fit today's need. Are there any efforts to codify these rules?
: : That's a very good question. One that the ASME V Code Committee should probably address. I wonder if anyone has submitted a Technical Inquiry.
: ------------ End Original Message ----------
: I think not. I sat w/ SecV last month. I'm writing my own. Does anyone care to co-author and submit as a Code Case?
------------ End Original Message ------------

ASTM E07-06 committee has already formed a working group on this and made some revisions to E-317. Similar tests can be run on analogue and digital units but old terminology often gets in the way. e.g. a CRT (cathode ray tube) is now rarely used and the A-scan display is usually on a computer-like monitor.
Larry's comments on stability of instruments is another matter and very valid! Most Codes have "required" calibration intervals that are quite short. For most digital units these could be longer.
Ed



 
 Reply 
 
Thomas E Pedersen
Thomas E Pedersen
01:57 Jun-02-2006
Re: Calibration rule for digital UT instruments
----------- Start Original Message -----------
: : : : Current ASME (and other) rules for UT scope calibration - e.g. linearity, cal. check frequency, duration etc. are out of date and (I judge) inadequate for current digital instruments with cal storage capabilites. The rules do not address the real issues - verification of cal when switching between, real need to fully re-cal etc.
: : : : Also I feel today's instruments stability is far greater than when the Codes were written, so . . . has anyone written or found a good set of practical "rules" that fit today's need. Are there any efforts to codify these rules?
: : : That's a very good question. One that the ASME V Code Committee should probably address. I wonder if anyone has submitted a Technical Inquiry.
: : ------------ End Original Message ----------
: : I think not. I sat w/ SecV last month. I'm writing my own. Does anyone care to co-author and submit as a Code Case?
: ASTM E07-06 committee has already formed a working group on this and made some revisions to E-317. Similar tests can be run on analogue and digital units but old terminology often gets in the way. e.g. a CRT (cathode ray tube) is now rarely used and the A-scan display is usually on a computer-like monitor.
: Larry's comments on stability of instruments is another matter and very valid! Most Codes have "required" calibration intervals that are quite short. For most digital units these could be longer.
: Ed
-T----------- End Original Message ------------




 
 Reply 
 
Thomas E Pedersen
Thomas E Pedersen
02:03 Jun-02-2006
Re: Calibration rule for digital UT instruments
----------- Start Original Message -----------
: : : : Current ASME (and other) rules for UT scope calibration - e.g. linearity, cal. check frequency, duration etc. are out of date and (I judge) inadequate for current digital instruments with cal storage capabilites. The rules do not address the real issues - verification of cal when switching between, real need to fully re-cal etc.
: : : : Also I feel today's instruments stability is far greater than when the Codes were written, so . . . has anyone written or found a good set of practical "rules" that fit today's need. Are there any efforts to codify these rules?
: : : That's a very good question. One that the ASME V Code Committee should probably address. I wonder if anyone has submitted a Technical Inquiry.
: : ------------ End Original Message ----------
: : I think not. I sat w/ SecV last month. I'm writing my own. Does anyone care to co-author and submit as a Code Case?
: ASTM E07-06 committee has already formed a working group on this and made some revisions to E-317. Similar tests can be run on analogue and digital units but old terminology often gets in the way. e.g. a CRT (cathode ray tube) is now rarely used and the A-scan display is usually on a computer-like monitor.
: Larry's comments on stability of instruments is another matter and very valid! Most Codes have "required" calibration intervals that are quite short. For most digital units these could be longer.
: Ed
-T----------- End Original Message ------------
There is one major factor I see often with the use of digital calibrations,mainly with thickness measurements,People take for granted that the computer goes to "0" digitally but Hardware used cannot resolve the rejectable measurement due to nearfield of the transducer.



 
 Reply 
 
Martyn
Martyn
02:08 Jul-28-2006
Re: Calibration rule for digital UT instruments
----------- Start Original Message -----------
: : : : : Current ASME (and other) rules for UT scope calibration - e.g. linearity, cal. check frequency, duration etc. are out of date and (I judge) inadequate for current digital instruments with cal storage capabilites. The rules do not address the real issues - verification of cal when switching between, real need to fully re-cal etc.
: : : : : Also I feel today's instruments stability is far greater than when the Codes were written, so . . . has anyone written or found a good set of practical "rules" that fit today's need. Are there any efforts to codify these rules?
: : : : That's a very good question. One that the ASME V Code Committee should probably address. I wonder if anyone has submitted a Technical Inquiry.
: : : ------------ End Original Message ----------
: : : I think not. I sat w/ SecV last month. I'm writing my own. Does anyone care to co-author and submit as a Code Case?
: : ASTM E07-06 committee has already formed a working group on this and made some revisions to E-317. Similar tests can be run on analogue and digital units but old terminology often gets in the way. e.g. a CRT (cathode ray tube) is now rarely used and the A-scan display is usually on a computer-like monitor.
: : Larry's comments on stability of instruments is another matter and very valid! Most Codes have "required" calibration intervals that are quite short. For most digital units these could be longer.
: : Ed
: -T----------- End Original Message ------------
: There is one major factor I see often with the use of digital calibrations,mainly with thickness measurements,People take for granted that the computer goes to "0" digitally but Hardware used cannot resolve the rejectable measurement due to nearfield of the transducer.
------------ End Original Message ------------

I believe the current code does indeed address the need to verify the calibration when switching from one probe to another, as would be the case when changing cals via the digital scope. One should be very weary of assuming that a stored calibration is still valid, without a reverification. Items such as wear face deterioration, temperature, probe/wedge coupling etc. can all lead to a small, yet significant, variation in calibration. better to just perform the quick and dirty verification as called out in the code, in my opinion.



 
 Reply 
 
Csaba Hollo
Csaba Hollo
01:13 Dec-15-2006
Re: Calibration rule for digital UT instruments
----------- Start Original Message -----------
: : : : : : Current ASME (and other) rules for UT scope calibration - e.g. linearity, cal. check frequency, duration etc. are out of date and (I judge) inadequate for current digital instruments with cal storage capabilites. The rules do not address the real issues - verification of cal when switching between, real need to fully re-cal etc.
: : : : : : Also I feel today's instruments stability is far greater than when the Codes were written, so . . . has anyone written or found a good set of practical "rules" that fit today's need. Are there any efforts to codify these rules?
: : : : : That's a very good question. One that the ASME V Code Committee should probably address. I wonder if anyone has submitted a Technical Inquiry.
: : : : ------------ End Original Message ----------
: : : : I think not. I sat w/ SecV last month. I'm writing my own. Does anyone care to co-author and submit as a Code Case?
: : : ASTM E07-06 committee has alreadyformed a working group on this and made some revisions to E-317. Similar tests can be run on analogue and digital units but old terminology often gets in the way. e.g. a CRT (cathode ray tube) is now rarely used and the A-scan display is usually on a computer-like monitor.
: : : Larry's comments on stability of instruments is another matter and very valid! Most Codes have "required" calibration intervals that are quite short. For most digital units these could be longer.
: : : Ed
: : -T----------- End Original Message ------------
: : There is one major factor I see often with the use of digital calibrations,mainly with thickness measurements,People take for granted that the computer goes to "0" digitally but Hardware used cannot resolve the rejectable measurement due to nearfield of the transducer.
: I believe the current code does indeed address the need to verify the calibration when switching from one probe to another, as would be the case when changing cals via the digital scope. One should be very weary of assuming that a stored calibration is still valid, without a reverification. Items such as wear face deterioration, temperature, probe/wedge coupling etc. can all lead to a small, yet significant, variation in calibration. better to just perform the quick and dirty verification as called out in the code, in my opinion.
------------ End Original Message ------------

Martyn,

I believe the discussion involved the instrument performance calibration methods and intervals, such as the 3 monthly requirement in ASME, or the annual or bi-annual outlined in other codes and internal QC documentation.
The inspection calibrations dealing with specific testing parameters including transducers, cables, etc. are most certainly a requirement each and every time the test is performed, or when an inspection variable such as probe wear, different operator, reset from another calibration, etc. occurs. I hope that anyone simply recalling a stored instrument setting and proceeding to test prior to verifying the parameters with the appropriate blocks has thier insurance paid up.

Csaba


 
 Reply 
 

Product Spotlight

NEOS III

NEOS III is Logos Imagings lightest DR system. With a built-in battery and internal wireless commu
...
nication, the NEOS III is perfect for users that want to quickly assess an item.
>

TraiNDE UT

TraiNDE UT is a virtual tool associated with a signal database which simulates real inspection con
...
ditions for numerous applications (Type A/V1 block, DAC block, welds and plates).
>

Echomac® Small

Available with up to eight channels of electronics to detect and evaluate thickness, flaws and eccen
...
tricity, this UT tester is housed in a convenient, smaller cabinet. This instrument can be used in conjunction with bubbler or immersion tank systems, or with a test bench or in laboratory applications. The Echomac® Small is available in the FD4, FD6 or FD6A versions.
>

Varex Imaging Large Field of View (FOV) Digital Detector Arrays (DDAs)

A larger FOV DDA can reduce the space and volume of the X-ray inspection system on the factory floor
...
, enable faster scanning times, better throughput and better resolution images at a lower dose. Customers can also save time and money. With these benefits in mind, Varex Imaging has designed a family of large FOV detectors (4343HE, XRD 1611, 4343DX-I, 4343CT) for our industrial imaging customers.
>

Share...
We use technical and analytics cookies to ensure that we will give you the best experience of our website - More Info
Accept
top
this is debug window