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 -

1663 views
Technical Discussions
Elizabeth Holden
Elizabeth Holden
01:22 Jan-18-2005
Non destructive testing advice

I was wanting some advice on the most appropriate method of non destructive testing for forged aluminium tubular sections of a racing car suspension. The tubes are 0.3m long, 0.04m diameter with a 2mm wall thickness. If anyone could offer some advice I would be very grateful.


    
 
 
Steve greenall
Steve greenall
08:25 Jan-18-2005
Re: Non destructive testing advice
----------- Start Original Message -----------
: I was wanting some advice on the most appropriate method of non destructive testing for forged aluminium tubular sections of a racing car suspension. The tubes are 0.3m long, 0.04m diameter with a 2mm wall thickness. If anyone could offer some advice I would be very grateful.
------------ End Original Message ------------


I'm sure we could help you out, we have systems that cover your requirement. Please have a look at our website and get in touch if you have any questions.

Thanks

Steve



    
 
 
Godfrey Hands
Engineering,
PRI Nadcap, United Kingdom, Joined Nov 1998, 289

Godfrey Hands

Engineering,
PRI Nadcap,
United Kingdom,
Joined Nov 1998
289
08:11 Jan-19-2005
Re: Non destructive testing advice
----------- Start Original Message -----------
: I was wanting some advice on the most appropriate method of non destructive testing for forged aluminium tubular sections of a racing car suspension. The tubes are 0.3m long, 0.04m diameter with a 2mm wall thickness. If anyone could offer some advice I would be very grateful.
------------ End Original Message ------------


Hi Elizabeth,
If these parts are truly purely cylindrical on the outside, then an eddy current test would probably be the most appropriate, as they can be rotated easily and scanned.
However, if they are forged, this suggests that they are nominally cylindrical, but with some "attachments" or external shapes on the outside, which makes it difficult to test with eddy current.

Alternative techniques would be Liquid Penetrant which will detect surface defects (with suitable viewing equipoment will also detect inside surface defects) and Radiography, which will detect Internal defects in the thicker forged sections.
For optimum defect detection, Digital Radiography will further improve the defect resolution and detection.

NDT Consultants Ltd. can help you with these applications should you wish.



    
 
 
J. Mark Davis
Teacher, And Consultant
University of Ultrasonics, Birmingham, Alabama, USA, Joined Mar 2000, 85

J. Mark Davis

Teacher, And Consultant
University of Ultrasonics, Birmingham, Alabama,
USA,
Joined Mar 2000
85
01:01 Jan-21-2005
Re: Non destructive testing advice
Elizabeth,

What type of defect are you looking for?

Cracks?

Is this an examination after fabrication or after service.

Thanks,

J. Mark Davis


----------- Start Original Message -----------
: : I was wanting some advice on the most appropriate method of non destructive testing for forged aluminium tubular sections of a racing car suspension. The tubes are 0.3m long, 0.04m diameter with a 2mm wall thickness. If anyone could offer some advice I would be very grateful.
:
: Hi Elizabeth,
: If these parts are truly purely cylindrical on the outside, then an eddy current test would probably be the most appropriate, as they can be rotated easily and scanned.
: However, if they are forged, this suggests that they are nominally cylindrical, but with some "attachments" or external shapes on the outside, which makes it difficult to test with eddy current.
: Alternative techniques would be Liquid Penetrant which will detect surface defects (with suitable viewing equipoment will also detect inside surface defects) and Radiography, which will detect Internal defects in the thicker forged sections.
: For optimum defect detection, Digital Radiography will further improve the defect resolution and detection.
: NDT Consultants Ltd. can help you with these applications should you wish.
------------ End Original Message ------------




    
 
 
Dr. Ross Couper
Dr. Ross Couper
03:24 Jan-26-2005
Re: Non destructive testing advice
This was a question in a student assignment thanks for those of you who answered it.





    
 
 
Terry Oldberg
Engineering, Mechanical Electrical Nuclear Software
Consultant, USA, Joined Oct 1999, 42

Terry Oldberg

Engineering, Mechanical Electrical Nuclear Software
Consultant,
USA,
Joined Oct 1999
42
02:54 Jan-30-2005
Re: Non destructive testing advice
Previous posters on this topic have recommended defect detection tests. Generally speaking, however, these tests have a property that prevents one from giving you a well-founded answer to your question.

If one were to know the probabilities of false positive, true positive, false negative and true negative errors of all of the alternatives plus the utility of a false positive, the utility of a true positive, the utility of a false negative and the utility of a true negative (as the word "utility" is used in economics), then one could answer your question: that test would be best which possessed the greatest expected utility. Unfortunately, however, it is generally true that defect detection tests violate an axiom of probability theory. It follows that one cannot know the probabilties or compute the expected utility.

----------- Start Original Message -----------
: I was wanting some advice on the most appropriate method of non destructive testing for forged aluminium tubular sections of a racing car suspension. The tubes are 0.3m long, 0.04m diameter with a 2mm wall thickness. If anyone could offer some advice I would be very grateful.
------------ End Original Message ------------




    
 
 
Russ Fessenden
NDT Inspector, Manager
USA, Joined Jun 2000, 9

Russ Fessenden

NDT Inspector, Manager
USA,
Joined Jun 2000
9
00:57 Feb-09-2005
Re: Non destructive testing advice
While it might be fun or amusing to spend endless hours discussing probability theory, in the real world we have to actually inspect materials and to the best of our abilities determine whether or not they are defective. The reason that NDT technicians are required to have so much experience is because we have to make judgement calls on a daily basis. People who cannot or will not make such calls effectively should stay out of NDT.


----------- Start Original Message -----------
: Previous posters on this topic have recommended defect detection tests. Generally speaking, however, these tests have a property that prevents one from giving you a well-founded answer to your question.
: If one were to know the probabilities of false positive, true positive, false negative and true negative errors of all of the alternatives plus the utility of a false positive, the utility of a true positive, the utility of a false negative and the utility of a true negative (as the word "utility" is used in economics), then one could answer your question: that test would be best which possessed the greatest expected utility. Unfortunately, however, it is generally true that defect detection tests violate an axiom of probability theory. It follows that one cannot know the probabilties or compute the expected utility.
:
: : I was wanting some advice on the most appropriate method of non destructive testing for forged aluminium tubular sections of a racing car suspension. The tubes are 0.3m long, 0.04m diameter with a 2mm wall thickness. If anyone could offer some advice I would be very grateful.
------------ End Original Message ------------




    
 
 
Terry Oldberg
Engineering, Mechanical Electrical Nuclear Software
Consultant, USA, Joined Oct 1999, 42

Terry Oldberg

Engineering, Mechanical Electrical Nuclear Software
Consultant,
USA,
Joined Oct 1999
42
09:51 Jun-09-2005
Re: Non destructive testing advice
The value in discussing probability theory, in the context of testing reliability, lies in the fact that it is the universally accepted measure of a test's reliability. When probability theory is violated, as it is in the cases of many if not all defect detection tests, we lack an effective measure of this reliability. One result is that, regardless of an inspector's experience level, our ability to determine his/her ability to make calls effectively is degraded if not eliminated.

The NDT community has not come to grips with this situation despite the fact that it was identified more than a decade ago. Hence there is the need to broach the topic repetitiously.

: While it might be fun or amusing to spend endless hours discussing probability theory, in the real world we have to actually inspect materials and to the best of our abilities determine whether or not they are defective. The reason that NDT technicians are required to have so much experience is because we have to make judgement calls on a daily basis. People who cannot or will not make such calls effectively should stay out of NDT.

----------- Start Original Message -----------
: While it might be fun or amusing to spend endless hours discussing probability theory, in the real world we have to actually inspect materials and to the best of our abilities determine whether or not they are defective. The reason that NDT technicians are required to have so much experience is because we have to make judgement calls on a daily basis. People who cannot or will not make such calls effectively should stay out of NDT.
:
: : Previous posters on this topic have recommended defect detection tests. Generally speaking, however, these tests have a property that prevents one from giving you a well-founded answer to your question.
: : If one were to know the probabilities of false positive, true positive, false negative and true negative errors of all of the alternatives plus the utility of a false positive, the utility of a true positive, the utility of a false negative and the utility of a true negative (as the word "utility" is used in economics), then one could answer your question: that test would be best which possessed the greatest expected utility. Unfortunately, however, it is generally true that defect detection tests violate an axiom of probability theory. It follows that one cannot know the probabilties or compute the expected utility.
: :
: : : I was wanting some advice on the most appropriate method of non destructive testing for forged aluminium tubular sections of a racing car suspension. The tubes are 0.3m long, 0.04m diameter with a 2mm wall thickness. If anyone could offer some advice I would be very grateful.
------------ End Original Message ------------




    
 
 

Product Spotlight

Teletest Focus+

Teletest Focus+ electronics have superior capabilities than rivals on the market. Beyond the usual
...
test features, Focus+ has 24 transmit channels and 24 receive channels, with an additional on-board switching capabilities. The instrument's frequency range is 10–300 kHz.
>

NEW Wheel Type Phased Array Probe

DOPPLER NEW Wheel Type Phased Array Probe, more stable, new tyre makes lesser acoustic attenuation
...
, much lighter makes easier to handle, more slim size, magnetic and mechanical encoder optional etc...more
>

ISONIC 3510

Very Powerful Superior Performance Extremely Portable Smart Phased Array Ultrasonic Flaw Detector an
...
d Recorder with 2 Conventional UT and TOFD Channels uniquely combines PA, single- and multi-channel conventional UT, and TOFD modalities providing 100% raw data recording and imaging. Suitable for all kinds of every-day ultrasonic inspections
>

FAAST-PA! OEM Patented phased Array for high speed UT inspection

Multiangle, Multifocus, Multifrequency, Multibeam. Instead of stacking UT electronics and having m
...
any PA probes, FAAST-PA is able to transmit all delay laws within ONE single shot in Real time.
>

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