Sunteți pe pagina 1din 3

http://www.ndt-ed.org/index_flash.

htm Answer to Question 1:

We are assuming that there are no defects in the 5mm Pewter sheet and the 50mm mild steel and no debonding has occurred (considering FIGURE 2). Sound has a different speed in each type of material medium. The speed of sound varies in accordance with the elastic properties and density of a material, which explains why peaks are obtained on a screen as ultrasonic waves travel from one medium to another, some of it reflecting back to the receiver of the apparatus during the transition. First Peak: An initial peak will be seen on the screen at 0mm as the ultrasonic waves coming out of the transducer goes into the couplant. That first peak records the energy of the initial pulse. Second Peak: Therefore the second peak that will be obtained as the ultrasonic waves changed medium, from Pewter to the mild steel, has been obtained as follows: As the twin crystal compression probe has been calibrated using a IIW V1 Block made of mild steel, therefore the peaks that will appear on the screen will not display a peak at the exact thickness for the 5mm sheet of Pewter. Using the following velocity correction:

The true thickness of the material under test is equal to

True thickness of Pewter = 5mm Sound velocity in tin (as Pewter is made up of 90% tin) = 3100m/s Sound velocity in mild steel = 5960m/s Therefore, the distance on the screen at which a peak will be obtained for the sheet of Pewter will be:

This imply that the peak on the screen obtained by the receiver of the twin crystal compression probe will be at a distance 9.61mm on the screen instead of 5mm. Third Peak: The fourth peak will be due the reflection from waves changing medium between the bottom of the 50mm thick mild steel and the next medium, which may be air as seen from FIGURE 2 in the question. The peak will be at a distance of (50+9.61)mm on the screen, as the twin crystal compression probe has been calibrated with a mild steel medium; the 9.61mm addition being the thickness of the Pewter sheet.

Answer to Question 2: Different methods of non-destructive testing need to be applied in this particular case. One method for the testing of surface cracks for the Pewter sheet and another method(s) for the mild steel 50mm sheet. NDT testing method to be used for surface cracks for the Pewter sheet: liquid penetrant. NDT testing methods to be used for the surface cracks for the mild steel sheet: magnetic particle testing.

Liquid penetrant can be used for the Pewter sheet as it is very efficient and reliable for the non-porous surface of Pewter. For large surface area as the Pewter sheet, the method of liquid penetrant will prove to be rapid and low cost. The equipment investment also is minimal. The magnetic particle testing is inappropriate for the sole reason that the Pewter is made of 90% tin, which is not a magnetic material. Ultrasonic testing would be a too lengthy process as it is more efficient for a pinpoint test. And well trained and skilled personnel are needed. The Pewter is too thin also, which will be difficult for ultrasonic testing.

Radiographic testing will take too much time and the film that is necessary for result will have to be placed on the other side of the Pewter sheet, which means its debonding from the mild steel material. Extensive operator training and skill is required as well. And there are healthy hazards involved as well.

As for the mild steel part of the plain bearing, the best method that could be used is magnetic testing. This is because mild steel is a ferromagnetic material and, being a large surface area, the process will prove to be quick and reliable. Surface and subsurface flaws will be detected easily by simple visual inspection. The equipment for such a method is relatively low as well. Liquid penetrant is not advisable because of the epoxy paint which has to be removed to test for surface cracks on the mild steel surface, which will be a loss of time and a disadvantage in terms of cost. Ultrasonic testing will be a too lengthy process. Too much time will be spent and skilled personnel are required. As for eddy current testing, it will be a lengthy process as well as ferromagnetic materials require special treatment to address magnetic permeability. Also skilled and trained personnel, costing more than other techniques, are required. For the same reasons as mentioned above for Pewter, radiographic testing is undesirable.