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 -

PBP Optel sp. z o.o.
Weare searching new ways - in ultrasonic techniques- in creation of new productsUltrasonic instruments - Ultrasonic Testing Card
1470 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 are out of date and (I judge) inadequate for current digital instruments with cal storage capabilites.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 are out of date and (I judge) inadequate for current digital instruments with cal storage capabilites.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 are out of date and (I judge) inadequate for current digital instruments with cal storage capabilites.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, 1274

Ed Ginzel

R & D, -
Materials Research Institute,
Canada,
Joined Nov 1998
1274
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

TESTD-PT SYSTEM

Pulse thermography is a non-contact test method that is ideal for the characterization of thin fil
...
ms and coatings or the detection of defects. With a remarquable short test time and a high detection sensitivity, the Telops TESTD-PT is the perfect tool for non- destructive testing. With such high frame rates, it is even possible to investigate highly conductive or diffusive materials.
>

NovaScope 6000

The all-digital Novascope 6000 is a portable, ultra-high precision thickness gauge for high-speed
...
thickness measurement. Novascope 6000 has unmatched capabilities and unique features including: •Superior Resolution with high contrast, high-speed color RF display •High pulser voltage •Real-time video output •Increased internal/external data storage •Programmable SetUp features •Battery & AC Powered
>

Cygnus 6+ PRO Multi-Mode Ultrasonic Thickness Gauge

The Cygnus 6+ PRO thickness gauge is the most advance gauge within the Cygnus range with key featu
...
res including: comprehensive data logging; A-scan and B-scan display; manual gain control; Bluetooth connectivity; and much more. With its unique dual display and three measuring modes (Multiple-Echo, Echo-Echo and Single-Echo), this surface thickness gauge offers maximum versatility for inspections.
>

Ultrasonic Testing Immersion Tanks with Unmatched Scanning Features

TecScan’s non-destructive testing Ultrasonic Immersion Tanks & scanners are designed for high pe
...
rformance and demanding NDT testing applications. Our Scan3D™ line of High Precision Immersion Tanks are specifically designed for automated ultrasonic testing of complex composites parts used in aerospace and industrial applications.
>

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