The LinkedIn UT/ET Experts Have Spoken!

Choosing the Best NDT Technique: A Multifaceted Approach

Selecting the most effective Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) technique for weld inspection is no simple task. As responses to our recent LinkedIn question reveal, there’s no one-size-fits-all answer, and each expert brought a unique perspective to the table, sharing insights shaped by years of experience. Below, we dive into the comments from several accomplished NDT professionals, each offering valuable advice that reinforces just how nuanced this decision-making process truly is.

Paul Holloway: The “Marvel Universe” of NDT Techniques

Paul Holloway kicked things off with a memorable analogy, likening the array of NDT methods to the Marvel universe, with each technique wielding its own “super power.” He suggests combining methods like PAUT, TOFD, and even CT X-ray to get the most comprehensive view, particularly in complex inspections. His perspective reminds us that each technique brings something unique to the table, and sometimes, the best approach is a combination of “heroes” working together to achieve the best results.

Anthony Thomas: Tailoring Techniques to the Application

Anthony Thomas emphasized that the best technique is ultimately application-dependent, noting that material properties, potential defects, and specific conditions all influence which methods are appropriate. His in-depth response serves as a reminder to not only follow standards but also stay informed on evolving technology that could enhance detection capabilities and reduce human error. This insight underscores the importance of a thoughtful, best-practice approach tailored to each job.

John Pitcher: Demystifying TOFD’s Abilities

John Pitcher brought a bit of humor to the discussion with his remark, “I thought TOFD found everything!”—a playful nod to the sometimes overestimated capabilities of Time of Flight Diffraction. His comment serves as a reminder that no single technique is foolproof and reinforces the importance of combining methods to cover each other’s limitations.

Pat McGoldrick: No “Magic Bullet” in NDT

With years of welding experience, Pat McGoldrick pointed out that there’s no “magic bullet” in NDT. His “gamekeeper turned poacher” analogy highlights how a practitioner’s background can shape their approach, understanding the intricacies of both the welding process and the inspection requirements. Pat’s insight resonates with any NDT professional who has navigated the fine line between inspection and production, emphasizing the need for a balanced view.

Ed Korkowski: The Efficiency of Eddy Current Testing for Surface Cracking

Ed Korkowski highlighted eddy current testing’s effectiveness in quickly and easily identifying surface-breaking cracks in ferromagnetic materials, showing its practicality in applications for inspection of thin conductive materials. He also noted that eddy current array (ECA) technology has enhanced detection capabilities over traditional scanning methods, making it a strong choice for weld inspections. His points emphasize that advancements in eddy current technology continue to expand its role in weld inspection.

Daniel Koburu: The Value of Material and Weld Analysis

Daniel Koburu offered a structured approach, advocating for an initial analysis of the weld and material configuration. His preference for PAUT, with ACFM as an option for conductive materials, shows a thoughtful selection process that considers how different methods perform on various surfaces. Dankel’s comment highlights the need for situational awareness and adapting method choices based on the material and potential defect types.

John Hansen: ACFM for Depth Sizing in Welds

John Hansen pointed out the value of ACFM (Alternating Current Field Measurement), which he praised as a reliable technique for depth sizing cracks in welds. His contribution highlights the importance of sizing defects accurately—a critical aspect in many applications, where the depth and severity of a crack impact decision-making around repairs or replacements.

Damien Pain: A Step-by-Step Evaluation

Damien Pain proposed a series of guiding questions: What defects are expected? What are the acceptance criteria? And, which methods align best with these criteria? By breaking down the selection process, Damien shows how to evaluate methods based on physical properties, resolution, and cost-effectiveness. His structured approach is a model for any NDT professional faced with a complex decision.

Pedro Serutto: Challenges of Data Interpretation in New Methods

Pedro Serutto acknowledged that as new NDT methods emerge, so do challenges in interpreting the data. His point that even well-established techniques like PT (Penetrant Testing) come with their own learning curves is a reminder that each technique requires a commitment to mastery, regardless of how long it has been in practice.

Neil Burleigh: Practical Guidance for Surface vs. Internal Defects

Neil Burleigh shared a practical rule of thumb, emphasizing that eddy current testing excels at detecting surface-breaking defects in ferromagnetic materials, while ultrasonic testing (UT) is generally better suited for internal flaws. His straightforward guidance provides a quick reference for anyone deciding between surface and internal inspection techniques, reminding us that sometimes simple rules can be highly effective in the field.

Craig Popplewell: Training and Certification in Emerging Tech

Craig Popplewell added a crucial point about training, noting that formal courses and certifications often lag behind technological advancements. His insight highlights a challenge faced by many in the NDT field: keeping pace with innovation while waiting for the industry to establish standards and qualifications for new methods.

Andrew Bloy: If There Was One Method to Find It All…

Andrew Bloy’s observation—“If there was one method that could find everything, it would be the only one we’d use”—succinctly captures the reality that each NDT technique has its place. His remark reinforces the need for a diverse toolkit and a comprehensive approach, which is essential in ensuring accuracy.

Karissa Pouncy: The Influence of Operational Constraints

Karissa Pouncy emphasized that material, environment, budget, and operational constraints all impact NDT method selection. Her comments resonate with the reality that each job site has unique variables, requiring flexibility and adaptability. Her perspective highlights why NDT remains an ever-changing field, challenging professionals to think on their feet and adjust their approach based on situational needs.

Ben Brouwer: A Nod to the “Marvel Universe” Analogy

Ben Brouwer echoed Paul Holloway’s “Marvel universe” analogy, calling it a fitting description for the variety in NDT techniques. Ben’s reaction reminds us that analogies can often bring complex ideas to life, making it easier to grasp the unique strengths and limitations of each method.

The Collective Wisdom of the NDT Community

Each comment shared in response to our LinkedIn question underscores the depth of experience and thoughtfulness of NDT Level III professionals. From practical advice on specific methods to insights into how evolving technology impacts our field, these responses showcase the adaptability and expertise required in NDT. The conversation not only highlighted the strengths of individual methods but also reminded us of the collaborative effort involved in achieving the highest inspection standards.

Thank you to everyone who contributed their insights. Your expertise enriches the NDT community, helping all of us grow and refine our practices. Whether it’s UT, TOFD, PAUT, ACFM, eddy current array, or a combination of approaches, it’s clear that every method has its own “super power.” Together, these techniques allow us to tackle complex inspections and ensure the integrity of the structures we examine.