where expertise comes together - since 1996

Web's Largest Portal of Nondestructive Testing (NDT)
Open Access Database (Conference Proceedings, Articles, News), Exhibition, Forum, Network

All Forum Boards
Technical Discussions >
Re: Inadvertant testing
Career Discussions
Job Offers
Job Seeks
Classified Ads
About NDT.net
Articles & News

Hillger Ing. Büro
was founded in 1984 and develops special ultrasonic imaging systems for high-tech materials.

115 views
05:20 Nov-11-2003
Nick Welland
Re: Inadvertant testing

----------- Start Original Message -----------
: : : : What is the prevailing attitude to "inadvertant testing", as in RT when a defect is seen outside the length marked for inspection. My own attitude is, call it but note where it is. Some Codes are specific on the subject, but other remain silent as if this never happened. What is the concensus of the Forum?
: : : If, just by case, an inspector finds a flaw outside of the intended inspection area, this flaw has to be recorded and to be evaluated according to those codes, which are valid for that 'outside' area.
: : : E.g., one has to inspect circumferental site welds of a pipeline, and he detects a flaw in the longitudinal shop weld of the pipe. This case, or similar cases, where one detects something in the base metal near the weld, are very common. And from the view points of quality, safety and NDT ethics, you can't then close your eyes. If necessary, the flaws have to be repaired or the object has to be rejected.
: : : The argument, that the flaw can be tolerated or that the object can be accepted, because the flaw was outside of the intended inspection area or above the intended sample rate,
: : : due to my opinion is not legitimate.
: : : Regards
: : : Uli Mletzko
: : : NDT Group, Materials Testing Institute,
: : : University of Stuttgart, Germany
: : Such an indication should definitely be reported - described, located, and detailed as much as possible - but if it is outside of the required evaluation area, reporting is as far as the inspector can go. The responsible engineers must have the final word, but they must first have the detailed report from the inspector to be able to make a decision. One certainly cannot ignore possible defects just because they happened to be seen on the "wrong" side of the location marker.
: Most codes/specs require that the fabricator is responsible for doing work in accordance with the requirements of the code/spec. Therefore, if a defect (i.e. a discontinuity that would be rejectable based on the applicable acceptance criteria - RT for instance in your example) is noted outside of the area of interest, it is generally very easy to argue that the area or work in question does not meet the requirements of the code/spec and needs to be repaired/reworked in accordance with the requirements of the code/spec.
: Mankenberg
------------ End Original Message ------------

Gentlemen, I am pleased that everyone so far has taken what I believe to be the correct and ethical view. The question was prompted when discussing a film, and the interpreter claimed that a previous supervisor (different company) would not reject defects outside the shot markers when doing spot RT since the customer would go elsewhere.
Nick



 


© NDT.net - The Web's Largest Portal of Nondestructive Testing (NDT) ISSN 1435-4934

Open Access Database, |Conference Proceedings| |Articles| |News| |Exhibition| |Forum| |Professional Network|