Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here


Liquid penetrant test report expectations

Liquid penetrant test report expectations

Liquid penetrant test report expectations

We received this report from a local test lab. The lab did LPT. Mag particle, and UT on the part.
Attached is a copy of the LPT page. It is one page of 5 or 6.
A couple of images of the part are embedded in the attached report LPT page .
The part is made of ASTM High chrome abrasion resistant cast iron.
It weighs About 30 lbs, 18 inch long X 8.5 inch wide X nominally 1/2 " thick.

Unfortunately I can not speak for what we asked our senior metallurgist to ask the lab for. That won't happen again.

The material is incorrectly identified as either cast steel or carbon steel.
The surface finish would identify the part is unmistakably a casting.

My biggest beef is the one line "results."
No pictures or sketches identifying what regions of the parts were tested, where these "cracks" are located on the blades, and the length of the cracks.
Also the reports I'm used to seeing would call them relevant indications or some such.
I guess a level II tech is considered qualified to process parts, interpret and evaluate for acceptance or rejection, and document results.

I don't feel the report does an acceptable job providing results for any level of " customer info."

  • Am I being unfair?

RE: Liquid penetrant test report expectations

No, you are not being unfair.....not sure what Code you are working to, but ASME Sec. V is clear on documentation requirements.

T691.2 Rejectable Indications:
"Rejectable indications shall be recorded. As a minimum, the type of indication (linear or rounded), location and extent (length or diameter or aligned) shall be recorded.

I have never received a PT report without pics showing where the indications were.

RE: Liquid penetrant test report expectations

Unless you have specified a particular NDT standard to follow, reporting of results can be all over the map. Buyer beware.

RE: Liquid penetrant test report expectations

thanks all

Dan T

RE: Liquid penetrant test report expectations

Agree with David and metengr but you appear to have done yourself no favours in your request to the lab.
" Customer info" as the specification and acceptance criteria will basically get you what you have been given.
How can they give you a report with "relevant indications" - what is relevant ?
How can they give you a report with accept / reject ?
How do they know the specific material unless noted on the request ?

Were the crack locations marked on the parts with permanent marker ?

I spent 4 years in an NDT laboratory and the majority of testing that was classed as "Customer info" didn't even require a report.

RE: Liquid penetrant test report expectations

I tell people to be specific about what they expect in the way of a report.

I would ask the question, "What information was provided to the laboratory?"

Next, I would ask, "Did the lab ask for additional information?"

I'm not a mind reader and I don't expect other people to be mind readers either. I'm sure there is plenty of "blame" to go around in this case. The lab may have been directed to reject any linear indications over X-inches in length. They did what was asked of them.

I remember a project where I was asked to perform UT on some new welded rail car frames. I was told to UT the joints in accordance with AWS D1.1. I asked whether the joints were considered to be statically loaded or cyclically loaded. Then I asked if the welded connections were identified as loaded in compression or tension. The client was dumb-struck.

The client said the other UT technician had been performing UT for over a year and never asked that question. The client couldn't give me an answer, so I proceeded with the assumption they were cyclically loaded. If it turned out the connections were statically loaded, they could have been reevaluated based on the UT "rating". As it turned out, the connections were cyclically loaded. The other technician assumed they were statically loaded. He only reported the "rejected welds." Ouch.

The questions have to be asked and answered.

Best regards - Al

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close