Liquid penetrant test report expectations
Liquid penetrant test report expectations
(OP)
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."
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?
Talk To Other Members
RE: Liquid penetrant test report expectations
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
RE: Liquid penetrant test report expectations
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.
Regards,
Shane
RE: Liquid penetrant test report expectations
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