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 -

Eddyfi
Eddyfi Technologies provide the most advanced NDT technologies in the world, helping OEMs, asset owners and service companies enhance productivit ...
516 views
Technical Discussions
James Dolfi
Director
ford, USA, Joined Oct 1999, 8

James Dolfi

Director
ford,
USA,
Joined Oct 1999
8
00:42 Oct-07-1998
Ultrasonic testing of spot welds

(Here is the completed version of the message 2 days ago)

The following is quoted from the paper on testing of autobody spotwelds.

'A modified ultrasonic testing method clearly detects stick welds and
cold welds, this is not possible with normal ultrasonic methods.
When testing under production conditions, 98% of the welds tested are
correctly evaluated, i.e. values obtained from the ultrasonic test
satisfactorily corresponded to the results from the teardown test.'
The link to the paper is: http://www.ndt.net/article/0498/spotw/spotw.htm

The above quoted statement would be true of most testing of autobody
spotwelds for the following reason.---

The body welding performance is typically very high and can reach 98% or
more. When an operator calls all welds good he can only be wrong 2% of
the time. If the report claims 98% correlation or 98% reliability I believe
that is misleading the readers to believe the testing system is capable of
accurately detecting both good and bad welds (with one calibration
setting). I have read detailed reports that do just as outlined above.
They report 98% accuracy but the item under test had 98% good items (welds)
in the test population. I could claim the same accuracy and be correct by
simply reporting all welds are good!

The way to present reliability data is to include the ALPHA and BETA
error data along with the claim of reliability for the test system. As
mentioned in other articles, the way to report could be:

1-ALPHA * 1-BETA = TEST RELIABILITY

Where:
ALPHA is the proportion of good called bad
BETA is the proportion of bad called good

I believe that a standard method of reporting or at lease the
computational method used to establish reliability should be included in any
such report.

Is there a standard with which you expect data to be reported?
Would you please comment on the appropriate measure of a
checking-gauge's performance?

Note:
My concern is that the measurement system should reject bad items and
not reject good items. Any checking system looses effectiveness when it
begins to reject good or accept bad items. My present requirement for
testing is 3% alpha (max) error and 15% beta (max) error (without
re-calibrating the system). Using the above 3% and 15% requirements,
the system only has to be about 82% reliable.



 
 Reply 
 
rasul maleki
rasul maleki
03:37 Mar-04-2002
Re: Ultrasonic testing of spot welds
dear,i studid your paper and enjoyed that.please send me more information about the method of your testing and describe me how did you do that.my email is maleki_ir@yahoo.com
thanks alot.


 
 Reply 
 

Product Spotlight

iProbe - USB Phased Array Probe

Turn your PC, Laptop or Tablet into a powerful 32:64 Phased Array system with our USB powered Phas
...
ed Array iProbe and inspection software package. Perform affordable weld inspection and corrosion mapping inspections with this powerful but small system. The probe has a 100V pulser, 8K PRF, dual axis encoder input and achieves outstanding signal quality.
>

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
>

NDT.net launches mobile-friendly design

NDT.net has revamped its website providing a mobile-friendly design.The front page received a comp
...
letely new design and all other sections are now reacting responsively on mobile devices. This has been a major step to make our website more user- friendly.
>

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