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 -
1506 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 are out of date and (I judge) inadequate for current digital instruments with cal storage capabilites.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 are out of date and (I judge) inadequate for current digital instruments with cal storage capabilites.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 are out of date and (I judge) inadequate for current digital instruments with cal storage capabilites.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

CIVA 2020 UT Module

CIVA NDE Simulation Software is the world leader of NDT Simulation. The UT simulation Module incl
...
udes: - "Beam computation": Beam propagation simulation - "Inspection Simulation": Beam interaction with flaws or specimens The user can simulate a whole inspection process (pulse echo, tandem or TOFD) with a wide range of probes (conventional, Phased- arrays or EMAT), components, and flaws.
>

NEW - TD Focus-ScanRX

The NEW Next Generation Advanced UT platform, TD Focus ScanRX - Also available as a card stack solut
...
ion. Key Improvements 1. Data acquisition is significantly faster than current design 2. Better aesthetic – closely aligns with HandyScan RX 3. Improved IP rating (Target IP66) 4. Ruggedized housing 5. Connectors are protected from impact and ingress 6. Integrated stand and separate retractable handle easy to keep clean) 7. Touchscreen with ruggedized display glass 8. 3-Axis encoder input
>

SITEX CPSERIES

Teledyne ICM’s CPSERIES has been designed with a view to revolutionizing the handling and perfor
...
mances of portable X-Ray sets. Despite having managed to halve the weight of similar portable X-Ray generators available on the market (while continuing to provide the same power output), the SITEX CPSERIES generators feature a shutter, a laser pointer, a beryllium window, an aluminum filter and two integrated diaphragms (customized sizes are available upon request). Without compromising the robustness and reliability for which ICM products are renowned, the small size and light weight of the SITEX CPSERIES will radically change the way that you perform your RT inspections. And you will see a positive impact in terms of both quality and return on investment (ROI).
>

MUSE Mobile Ultrasonic Equipment

The MUSE, a portable ultrasonic imaging system, was developed for in-field inspections of light-weig
...
ht structures. The MUSE consists of a motor-driven manipulator, a water circulation system for the acoustic coupling and a portable ultrasonic flaw detector (USPC 3010). The MUSE provides images of internal defects (A-, B-,C- and D-scan).
>

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