Reliability of Dye Penetrant Inspection Method to Detect Weld Discontinuities
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract The dye penetrant inspection method used to reveal surface weld discontinuities is an important factor for quality verification in the manufacture of structural components; however, it is probable that certain size-dependent discontinuities may or may not be detected. Then, how reliable can it be? In this sense, the objective of the research has been to estimate the reliability of dye penetrant inspection to detect discontinuities in relation to their size. Six experimental tests were performed by three inspectors, with visible and fluorescent dye penetrants, on twenty welded joints of similar surface characteristics, containing 63 typical weld discontinuities arranged according to shape and size, whereas POD reliability quantitative estimates were developed by the hit-or-miss statistical method. For the test system, the fluorescent penetrants, due to their greater sensitivity compared to the visible ones, registered greater reliability in revealing smaller discontinuities. The POD estimators were a50 (1.469 mm < 1.978 mm), a90 (6.348 mm < 7.474 mm), a90/95 (14.58 mm < 15.77 mm). Fluorescent dyes allowed a higher rate and probability of detection; both factors showed a tendency to increase as the discontinuities size increased.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Diverse Scientific and Engineering Research · Advanced Measurement and Detection Methods · Welding Techniques and Residual Stresses
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (36)
Show source-provided references
1. Cawley, P., Non-destructive testing—current capabilities and future directions, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part L, 2001, vol. 215, pp. 213–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/14644207012150040310.1177/146442070121500403 ↗
2. Meola, C. and Raj, B., Nondestructive testing and evaluation: Overview, in Reference Module in Materials Science and Materials Engineering, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803581-8.03481-010.1016/B978-0-12-803581-8.03481-0 ↗
3. Smith, R., Non-destructive testing (NDT)—Guidance document: An introduction to NDT common methods, The British Institute of Non-Destructive Testing. https://www.bindt.org/admin/Downloads/Apprenticeship-Guidance-Document.pdf. Accessed January 30, 2023.
4. Nondestructive Testing Handbook: Vol. 1, Liquid Penetrant Testing, Columbus: ASNT, 2016, 4th ed.
5. ASNT Level III Study Guide: Liquid Penetrant Testing Method, Columbus: ASNT, 2003, 2nd ed.
6. Larson, B., Study of the Factors Affecting the Sensitivity of Liquid Penetrant Inspections: Review of Literature Published from 1970 to 1998, Tech. Rep. no. DOT/FAA/AR-01/95, Washington, 2002.
7. Caturano, G., Cavaccini, G., Ciliberto, A., Pianese, V. and Fazio, R., Probability of detection for penetrant testing in industrial environment, in Applied and Industrial Mathematics in Italy III, De Bernardis, R., Spigler, R., and Valente, V., Eds., Singapore: World Scientific, 2008, pp. 186–195. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814280303_001710.1142/9789814280303_0017 ↗
8. Ashok, K., Nondestructive testing, evaluation of stainless-steel materials, Mater. Today: Proc., 2017, vol. 4, pp. 7302–7312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2017.07.06010.1016/j.matpr.2017.07.060 ↗
9. Deepak, J., Bupesh, V., Srikanth, D., Surendran, H., and Nickolas, M., Nondestructive testing (NDT) techniques for low carbon steel welded joints: A review and experimental study, Mater. Today: Proc., 2021, vol. 44, pp. 3732–3737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.11.57810.1016/j.matpr.2020.11.578 ↗
10. Rummel, W., A path forward for NDE reliability, in 5th Eur. Am. Workshop Reliab. NDE (Berlin, 2013).
11. Keprate, A., Probability of detection: History, development and future, Pipeline Technol. J., 2016, vol. 8, pp. 41–45.
12. U.S. Department of Defense, MIL-HDBK-1823A: Nondestructive evaluation system reliability assessment, Department of Defense Handbook, USA, 2009.
13. Berens, A., NDE reliability data analysis, in ASM Metals Handbook: Nondestructive Evaluation and Quality Control, Ohio: ASM Int., 1989, vol. 17, 9th ed., pp. 689–701.
14. Georgiou, G., Probability of Detection (POD) Curves, Derivation, Application and Limitations, Res. Rep. 454, London: Jacobi Consulting, 2006.
15. Yee, B., Chang, F., Couchman, J., Lemon, G., and Packman, P., Assessment of NDE Reliability Data, Rep. NASA CR-134991, Natl. Aeronaut. Space Admin., USA, 1976.
16. Rummel, W., Probability of detection as a quantitative measure of nondestructive testing end-to-end process capabilities, Mater. Eval., 1998, vol. 56, pp. 29–35.
17. Rummel, W. and Matzkanin, G., Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE) Capabilities Data Book, San Antonio: Nondestr. Test. Inf. Anal. Center (NTIAC), 1997, 3rd ed.
18. Harding, C. and Hugo, G., Review of literature on probability of detection for liquid penetrant nondestructive testing, Tech. Rep. no. DSTO-TR-2623, Australia, 2011.
19. Pavlovic, M., Müller, C., Ewert, U., Ronneteg, U., Pitkänen, J., and Boller, C., Safe product design – The role of the NDT reliability analysis, Mater. Test., 2013, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 270–275. https://doi.org/10.3139/120.11043410.3139/120.110434 ↗
20. Holstein, R., Bertovic, M., Kanzler, D., and Müller C., NDT reliability in the organizational context of service inspection companies, Mater. Test., 2014, vol. 56, no. 7, pp. 607–610. https://doi.org/10.3139/120.11060110.3139/120.110601 ↗
21. Chapuis, B., Calmon, P. and Jenson, F., Basics of Statistics for POD, in Best Practices for the Use of Simulation in POD Curves Estimation, IIW Collection, Cham: Springer, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62659-8_810.1007/978-3-319-62659-8_8 ↗
22. Silva, R. and Padua, G., Nondestructive inspection reliability: State of the art, in Nondestructive Testing Methods and New Applications, Mohammad, O., Ed., London: IntechOpen, 2012. https://doi.org/10.5772/3711210.5772/37112 ↗
23. Kurz, J., Juengert, A., Dugan, S., and Dobmann, G., Probability of detection (POD) determination using ultrasound phased array for considering NDT in probabilistic damage assessments, in 18th World Conf. Nondestr. Test. (Durban, 2012).10.1016/j.engfailanal.2013.06.008 ↗
24. Zolfaghari, A., and Kolahan, F., Reliability and sensitivity of visible liquid penetrant NDT for inspection of welded components, Mater. Test., 2017, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 290–294. https://doi.org/10.3139/120.11100010.3139/120.111000 ↗
25. Fonseca, R., Costa, R., Silva, L., Ogawa, M., Peripolli, S., Badaro, A., and Carneval, R. Study of probability of the detection of defects in welded joints of the techniques of magnetic particle and penetrant testing, in 13th Int. Symp. Nondestr. Charact. Mater. (Le Mans, 2013).
26. Parker, B., A comparison of the capability of sensitivity level 3 and sensitivity level 4 fluorescent penetrants to detect fatigue cracks in various metals, Rep. NASA TM-2011-215869, Natl. Aeronaut. Space Admin., USA, 2011.
27. Guo, Y. and Ruhge, F., Comparison of detection capability for acoustic thermography, visual inspection and fluorescent penetrant inspection on gas turbine components, Rev. Prog. Quant. Nondestr. Eval., 2009, vol. 1096, pp. 1848–1854. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.311418310.1063/1.3114183 ↗
28. Rentala, V., Mylavarapu, P., Gautam, J., and Kumar, V., NDE reliability using laboratory induced natural fatigue cracks, in: 7th Eur. Am. Workshop Reliab. NDE (Potsdam, 2017).
29. Virkkunen, I., Koskinen, T., Papula, S., and Sarikka, T., Comparison of â versus a and hit/miss POD-Estimation Methods: A European viewpoint, J. Nondestr. Eval., 2019, vol. 38, no. 89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10921-019-0628-z10.1007/s10921-019-0628-z ↗
30. Charles, A., Statistical best-practices for building probability of detection (POD) models. R package mh1823 POD, version 5.4.5. https://statistical-engineering.com/. Accessed May 18, 2023.
31. Reseco, M., Hor, A., Rautureau, A., and Bes, C., Implementation of a robust methodology to obtain the probability of detection (POD) curves in NDT: Integration of human and ergonomic factors, COFREND Days 2017 (Strasbourg, 2017).
32. American Welding Society, AWS D1.1/D1.1M: Structural Welding Code – Steel, AWS, 2020.
33. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, ASME B46.1: Surface Texture (Surface Roughness, Waviness, and Lay), ASME, 2019.
34. American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM E165: Standard Practice for Liquid Penetrant Testing for General Industry, ASTM, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1520/E0165_E0165M1810.1520/E0165_E0165M18 ↗
35. American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM E1417: Standard Practice for Liquid Penetrant Testing, ASTM, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1520/E1417_E1417M-21E0110.1520/E1417_E1417M-21E01 ↗
36. Singh, R., Penetrant testing, in Applied Welding Engineering, Singh, R., Ed., Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-821348-3.00026-410.1016/B978-0-12-821348-3.00026-4 ↗