607_618_12:607_618_12 3/1/13 1:30 PM Page 607

Back to Basics
From Materials Evaluation, Vol. 60, No. 5, pp: 607-609.

Copyright 2002 The American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Inc.

How Did This Come Up?

by William E. Mooz*

I am glad that there are people

out in our NDT world who like to
make sure that things work the
way they should. Communication
is one area that always needs improving, it seems. When I write
something, the meaning is clear as
a bell to me. When someone
reads what I wrote, the interpretation may be very different. Here is
a clarication of penetrant standard use that I think is important.
It is better written than I could ever
do. Hope it works for you.

Frank A. Iddings
Tutorial Projects Editor

INTRODUCTION
ecently, there have been problems
with the interpretation of specications used by various companies regarding the use of PSM-5 panels. The problem seems to be twofold. Part of the
problem concerns the use and purpose of
the panel itself; the other part of the problem concerns the specications that are
written concerning the use of these panels.

THE PURPOSE OF PSM-5 PANELS

ASTM E 1417: Standard Practice for Liquid Penetrant Examination is the document
which most facilities use (ASTM International, 1999). Paragraph 7.8.3 is titled System Performance and reads, in part, The
penetrant system shall be checked daily for
performance. The check shall be made with

* Met-L-Chek Company, 1639 Euclid St., Santa

Monica, CA 90404; (310) 450-1111; fax (310)
452-4046; e-mail <info@met-l-chek.com>.

known defect standards. Then, paragraph

7.8.3.1, titled Known Defect Standards,
reads, The selection and procedures for
the maintenance of known defect standards shall be approved by the contracting
agency. The defects in the standard shall be
capable of demonstrating unsatisfactory
system performance.

The creators of the

panel do not imply
anywhere that the PSM-5
panel can be used to
measure sensitivity.

This is pretty clear. The objective is to

have a discontinuity standard that contains
discontinuities which are of such size that if
the penetrant testing system is not performing properly, the discontinuities will
not be found or that it will be obvious that
something is wrong with the system performance. This discontinuity standard,
used for this purpose (whatever it may be),
must be approved by the customer, as
pointed out in paragraph 7.8.3.1 which
makes very good sense.
Enter the PSM-5 Panel
Pratt & Whitney, which deals with hundreds of contractors and subcontractors,
decided years ago to develop a known discontinuity standard which they could
require to be used by all those folks who
did work for them. Uniformity was the objective and the result was the PSM-5 panel.

While they developed the panel for use

in work related to their company, it also became an easy tool for others to use and, as a
result, is found in many penetrant testing
installations today where no work for that
particular company is done.

HOW IT IS USED
First, lets talk about the company
which developed the panel. When a panel
is originally received by them, it is tested
with level four penetrant and the crack indications must meet certain minimum and
maximum size requirements. If the panel
passes this test, the panel is then serialized
and calibrated to all of the sensitivity levels
in use at the facility where the panel is to be
used. In the calibration, the panel must
show three indications for level one, four
indications for levels two and three and
ve indications for level four. Following
this, the panel is processed through the system in which it is to be used and it must detect no fewer indications than required in
the calibration process. If the panel passes
this test, it is retained as a production tool
for use on that particular penetrant line.
The creators of the panel do not imply
anywhere that the PSM-5 panel can be
used to measure sensitivity. However, the
fact that they calibrate the panels with different sensitivity penetrants probably has
mistakenly led some NDT personnel to believe that the panels are a tool which can
measure sensitivity. This is not at all true.
Other companies use the panel differently. For example, Bombardiers specications (1997) state that The penetrant test
shall reveal all 5 cracks of PSM-5 panel.
This requirement is made without reference to the sensitivity level of the penetrant
in use. There are still other examples,
where the specication states that the panel
shall nd one crack for level one, two for
level two and so forth. Uniformity among
specications is notably absent and this
must confuse auditors, making it very difcult for a testing laboratory that does work
for several different companies, each of
which has a different specication or procedure for the use of the panel.
Materials Evaluation/May 2002 607

607_618_12:607_618_12 3/1/13 1:30 PM Page 609

To What End?
It is instructive to go back to ASTM E
1417. What is important is that the known
discontinuity standard is capable of showing that the testing line either is or is not
working as desired. It just has to be able to
give an indication of how the system is performing.
Panel Calibration
Will a PSM-5 panel which is out of calibration work? The answer to this depends
on whether it meets the important criteria
of ASTM E 1417. This specication does
not specify what kind of discontinuity
standard must be used to demonstrate
this. It simply says that it must be approved by the customer. There is no requirement for a specic type of discontinuity standard. The answer comes in two
parts. The rst part is that if you are working to the specications set up by the inventing company, it will not be allowed.
But will it work? If it can discriminate between a properly functioning system and
one that is not functioning properly, it will
do the job. An inspector simply tests a new
panel and notes what indications are
found on the panel and what they look
like. Then the inspector uses this panel
regularly, as specied. If the results differ
from the initial test, one can suspect and investigate a possible problem. Does it make
any difference that the cracks are not as
specied on the PSM drawing? PSM-5
panels are each different. Our recommendations are always the same. The user
processes a new panel through a system
that is known to be operating correctly. The
user then notes and records how many indications show on the panel. This is then
used as a guide when testing the system
periodically. Does it make a difference if the
cracks on the panel are not as specied on
the drawing? Only if the user is working
for the original company does it make a
difference; otherwise, probably not.

SPECIFICATIONS
Our advice to specication writers is to
understand what is to be accomplished by
the use of a known discontinuity standard,
whatever kind is to be used. Then, understand that a testing facility may be doing
work for several companies. Differing specications about the use of a known discontinuity standard can only cause confusion
and complicate audits. Try to understand
this and to keep sight of the initial purpose
to be able to tell when things are not
under control and the testing line is not performing as desired. There is little need to
make a simple objective more complicated.

REFERENCES
ASTM International, ASTM E 1417: Standard
Practice for Liquid Penetrant Examination, West
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, ASTM International, 1999.
Bombardier, Inc., Materials and Processes
Specication, No. MPS 176-2, November
1997, p. 23.

Materials Evaluation/May 2002 609