1. Table 2 – Process Control Checks
ASTM E 1417 Changes
1. ASTM E 1417-05, Para. 6.6.1.1 - Addresses the use of alternate UV devices, i.e., pencil lights, light guides, remote visual inspection equipment and borescopes. The light intensity is to be measured at the expected working distance.
2. Para. 7.8 - States - "Penetrant materials that are provided ready-for-use and do not require mixing to a concentration, and are not recovered, or reused, or both, such as materials packaged in aerosol containers, closed drums or materials poured into containers for use and are not reused are not subject to the in-use penetrant requirements of Para. 7.8.2 - Material Checks (In-Use)".
These checks consist of:
1. Penetrant Contamination
2. Penetrant Brightness
3. Water Content of Water-Based, Water-Washable Penetrants.
4. Water Content of Non-Water Based Water-Washable Penetrants
5. Lipophilic Emulsifier Water Content
6. Hydrophilic Emulsifier Concentration
7. Dry Developer Condition
8. Aqueous Developer Contamination
9. Aqueous Developer Concentration
Too bad this was not also referenced in Table 1 under Penetrant System Performance.
3. Penetrant System Performance. ASTM E 1417-05, Para. 7.8.3 - States that the penetrant sensitivity (now known as "Comparative", which it always has been - see Item 5.), penetrant removability, and emulsifier removability are not required unless there is a penetrant system performance failure.
4. Para. 7.8.3.2 Water-Washable (Method A) Penetrant Removability - When required in accordance with 7.8.3, the removability of water-washable (Method A) penetrants shall be tested using a MIL-I-25135 or AMS 2644-specified test panel or any other commercially available grit blasted panel. The test shall be performed using a sample of unused penetrant serving as a reference. Place a streak of the unused reference sample on one portion of a panel and a separate streak of the in-use penetrant on a separate area of the panel. Allow the panel to drain for five minutes and then wash the panel using the temperature, pressure and wash times in use on the inspection line. Dry the panel, coat with developer, and examine under UV light. If the background of the in-use sample is visibly greater than that of the reference, then the in-use penetrant shall be discarded or otherwise corrected, as appropriate.
5. Penetrant Sensitivity is now referenced as "Comparative Penetrant Sensitivity", and the standard provides a note which states that this test is not for determining the absolute sensitivity of the penetrant or the sensitivity level, neither of which can be performed using a starburst-type panel.
6. Para. 7.8.3.4 Comparative Penetrant Sensitivity - When required in accordance with 7.8.3, the comparative sensitivity of in-use penetrant shall be checked using the procedures in 7.8.3 (Penetrant System Performance) except that the check shall be performed by comparing the in-use penetrant to the reference (hold-out) unused penetrant by processing both with unused emulsifier, if applicable, and unused developer. If the comparative sensitivity of the in-use penetrant is noticeably less than the reference penetrant, the in-use penetrant is unsatisfactory for use.
7. Dry developer checks for fluorescent contamination (see Para. 7.8.2.7) shall be conducted in the same manner in which developer is applied to production parts. Some facilities actually dip the 4-inch (10cm) apparatus into the developer despite using an air chamber for the application of a thin coating to the production parts. This statement should prevent this practice.
8. Guess what? Timers used to measure or monitor processing (dwell) times and dark adaptation times need not be calibrated. About time. Pardon the pun. See Para. 7.8.4.8.
9. Para. 7.6.3.2 Discontinuity Removal - When allowed by the specific examination procedure, discontinuity(ies) may be removed by an approved procedure such as sanding, either powered or manual, or grinding to determine the depth and extent of the discontinuity(ies). After the mechanical operation, the area shall be cleaned, etched (if permitted), and re-examined. The process used for re-examination shall be at least as sensitive as the original process.
Note: The standard now addresses the measurement of either the indications or the discontinuities.
Para. 7.6.4 Sizing - If the acceptance criteria are written in terms of indication sizes, the indication size shall be measured. If the acceptance criteria is written in terms of discontinuity or flaw sizes, the discontinuity shall be measured.
Para. 7.6.4.1 Indication Sizing - When sizing indications for judgment against appropriate acceptance criteria, the penetrant indication (whether visible or fluorescent) shall be carefully evaluated under appropriate lighting, after the required development or redevelopment time as applicable. Measure the indication size at its largest dimension with a measuring device and the appropriate light that meets the requirements of Para. 6.6.1.
Para. 7.6.4.2 Discontinuity Sizing - When sizing discontinuities for judgment against appropriate acceptance criteria, the area may be carefully wiped with a solvent-dampened cotton swab or brush, ensuring rapid evaporation so that the area for examination is not flooded with solvent. Immediately measure the discontinuity using a measuring device and the appropriate light that meets the requirements of 6.6.1.
10. ASTM E 1417-05 Table 1 - Required Test and Frequency
A. Now states that the Penetrant System Performance test is NOT required for Method C (Solvent removable)examinations,
B. The checks of hydrophilic emulsifier concentration may be extended when substantiated by technical data and approved by the Cognizant Engineering Organization (CEO),
C. Black light filter integrity check is now required on a weekly basis.
D. A weekly visible light intensity (100 fc¡¦s / 1076 lux) check is now required.
E. The ambient white light (<2 fc¡¦s) is now a quarterly check.
F. Calibration of water pressure and water temperature gauges are now required semi-annually.
1. ASTM E-1444-05, Para. 4.2 – Significance and Use has been
amended so that it is more in-line with the same statement referenced in ASTM E 1417-05 and ASTM E 1742-05. That is; it now states that the document is NOT a detailed how-to procedure to be used by the inspector and therefore, must be supplemented by a detailed written procedure that conforms to the ASTM.
Please Note: This addition hopefully will clarify an issue misunderstood by many NDT facilities. That is – several NDT facilities require that when a purchase order specifies the ASTM as the process specification, the NDT Inspector is to have the document with them in order to conduct the inspection. Unfortunately, they may not be fully aware that the ASTM standard is a contractual document specified on the drawing, or contract, specifying the minimum requirements for meeting the requirements. The standard is required to be reviewed for incorporation by qualified individuals (i.e. NDT Level 3’s) during Contract Review. At this point the inspection facility should develop a detailed procedure, which as a minimum meets the ASTM standard, and should also include the NDT facility’s specific requirements, i.e., equipment, materials, and personnel requirements.
Note: This procedure will also most likely be utilized as the basis for the employer’s Specific examination in accordance with NAS 410-2.
2. New requirement - ASTM E-1444-05, Para. 5.8.4.1 Water Vehicle Conditioning Agents added to the MPI bath for any purpose shall now conform to the particle manufacturer’s requirements.
3. ASTM E-1444-05, Para. 6.1.4.2 – 6.1.4.3 Magnetic Particle Inspection of electroplated parts has changed. Please review this section, and incorporate the relevant passages. Unfortunately, I still see the plating thickness requirements of ASTM 1444-94a revision in many MPI procedures despite the change in ASTM E 1444-01.
4. Pie gauges / pie field indicators may only be used as a tool to demonstrate the direction of the external magnetic field, NOT the field strength in the part.
5. Parallel Current Induced Magnetization – Placing a part alongside a current-carrying conductor for magnetization is not allowed unless approved by the CEO. This will be a problem for several NDT facilities utilizing this technique for the magnetization of very small parts.
This may include the use of V-Bars, and other devices (modified central conductors) used for inducing circular magnetic field in small parts. If you wish to continue this practice, you should seek a Waiver or a Deviation from your customer.
6. Magnetization of Aerospace Lifting Hardware by the use of permanent magnets, electromagnetic yokes, coil wraps or prods must be approved by the CEO. In addition, Para. 6.4.6 states that the CEO must also approve the use of dry powder or non-fluorescent wet particles on such hardware.
7. One of the biggest changes in the document is that there is no longer a maximum value when using a Hall Effect probe gaussmeter. ASTM E-1444-05, Para. 6.3.2 states that tangential fields shall have a minimum value of 30 gauss (30 X 10-4 Tesla [T]). This is more in-line with global standards which have a much higher value that the previous 60 gauss maximum.
8. Determination of Particle Sensitivity - And lastly, the document now provides instructions in the use of Flexible Laminated Strips (See Annex A2) and several other different types of devices for the determination of the magnetic particle’s performance (Appendix X7) when the verification of such is required.
1. Table 2 – Process Control Checks
A. Densitometer calibration is required on a quarterly basis.
B. Light meter calibration is required on a semi-annual basis.
C. Ambient Visible light is required on a semi-annual basis.
2. Film Viewer Requirements
Para. 6.27.4.1 - The maximum light intensity for each viewing port shall be determined using a light meter that measures luminance in candelas/m2 and controlled in accordance with Fig. 2.
Para. 6.27.4.3 – “The maximum readable film density shall be determined in accordance with Fig. 2 and posted on each viewer for each viewer port”.
Para. 6.27.4.4 “Maximum readable film density values shall be established when the viewer is procured, and shall be re-established when the viewer is repaired, moved, altered, or a different bulb, bulb designation or manufacturer is used”.
3. Para. A42.1.2 Changed “Caution” to “Warning” - Newly changed solutions should be seasoned in accordance with Guide E 999 prior to exposing the control standard test piece film.
The following items are NOT hidden in NAS 410-2, but for some unforeseen reason are still missed by many NDT facilities. Missing and not implementing these items incur unnecessary noncompliance during audits. See the section included in this newsletter titled - How to Review Revised Standards
1. Para. 4.3 – “Specific techniques within each method shall be as defined by the cognizant NDT organization or NANDTB and documented in the employer's written practice”.
For some reason, several Level 3’s still don’t understand the difference between an NDT Method and an NDT Technique. An example of a Method for instance is Liquid Penetrant Inspection (LPI) which may encompass the Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection (FPI) or the Visible Penetrant Inspection (VPI) Techniques. In addition, each facility’s Level 3 may subdivide the Techniques. Some facilities may subdivide FPI into Water-Washable, Post Emulsifiable, or Solvent Removable Techniques. Therefore, during administration of the Practical exam, the Examiner is required to administer one (1) part for each Technique or two (2) parts per Method. If an Inspector is to be certified as a Level 2 LPI Inspector using the Techniques referenced above, then a minimum of three parts will be required for the Practical. NAS 410-2 Para 4.3 requires Techniques to be documented in the written practice. I have included a table of Methods vs. Techniques in this newsletter as examples, but please note - it is not totally all-encompassing.
2. Under Definitions, NAS 410-2, Para. 3.24 references: “Responsible Level 3: A Level 3 designated by the employer with the responsibility and authority to ensure that the requirements of this standard are met and to certify qualified individuals”.
In addition, Para 4.5.2 Responsible Level 3: States “The employer shall identify in writing an individual responsible for the implementation of this standard and the overall administration of the qualification and certification program”. “This individual will be certified as a Level 3 and be known as the "responsible Level 3".
On most occasions, during an NDT Audit, when I ask for this documentation, I am given a letter which basically states that the individual is certified as the Level 3. “Responsible” Level 3 is not even referenced. What part of “Be known as the Responsible Level 3” are we missing?
Please note: The standard does not require a “Principle” or a “Primary” Level 3. “Principle” or “Primary” Level 3’s may be responsible for the technical aspects of the NDT method and on occasion may be the liaison between the employer and a specific customer.
This is not the same as the Responsible Level 3. The Responsible Level 3 is responsible for the employer’s NDT Training, Qualification and Certification program. Also, the Responsible Level 3 has many other requirements referenced in the NAS 410-2 standard. A word search of the standard will disclose all other Responsible Level 3 functions. If the employer’s Written Practice defines the “Principle” or “Primary” Level 3 as being the same as the Responsible Level 3, in my estimate, then that may be acceptable.
3. Para. 4.5.3 Outside Agency: “The employer shall document the suitability of any outside source selected to perform any function to meet the requirements of this standard. This documentation shall be of sufficient detail to justify the outside agency's ability to perform the required Level 3 function(s)”.
The employer is required to document the suitability of the outside agency. I don’t believe that by just having the outside agency’s credentials on file meets this requirement.
4. Practicals - 7.1.4.2 Level 1: The candidate shall demonstrate proficiency by using a written instruction to process at least one test sample for each technique for which certification is sought. At least two test samples shall be processed for each method.
Note: Level 1’s are now required to process a minimum of two (2) test samples – same as a Level 2. Also, don’t forget the Technique vs. Method relevance.
The standard states “Practical checklists shall include proficiency in the use and standardization of equipment and materials, adherence to procedural details, the accuracy and completeness of interpretation and evaluations of indications and, when applicable, the ability to develop written instructions”.
Note: On several occasions, I have seen documentation of practical examinations for which the test samples did not contain any discontinuities (conforming or non-conforming). What’s the point of administering the Practical, if the candidate does not demonstrate their ability to detect, interpret, and evaluate discontinues?
Para. 7.1.4.4 Level 3: States “The candidate shall demonstrate proficiency by preparing an NDT procedure appropriate to their employer’s requirements”.
First, I don’t think Technique Sheets (Work Instructions) fulfills this requirement, unless they are fully detailed, and are above the requirements normally delegated to Level 2 personnel, and second, a Procedure needs to be written for every practical examination, even during re-certification.
Note: The previous revision of NAS 410 provided a statement to the effect that stated “In the event that the candidate has already developed satisfactory procedures, then it is not necessary to develop another one for the practical examination”. “Procedures developed for a previous employer may be used to satisfy this requirement if their adequacy can be verified and document”.
Guess what? These statements are NOT in NAS 410-2, therefore, it is my judgment that a procedure needs to be written every time for certification or re-certification.
Vastek Consulting will be providing another Seminar in the Cleveland, Ohio area during the week of April 17th, 2006 titled "NDT Best Practices". The Intended Audience for this seminar are NDT Technicians, Quality Managers, NDT supervisors and Level 3’s. I will provide more information pertaining to this subjuct in the very near future.
For more information on this course or for a Registration form, please contact Vastek Consulting by e-mail, phone or fax.
Disclaimer: These are some of the items, which most auditors and auditees may not be aware of and are to some extent buried within specifications. This information should not to be used by auditors for the sole purpose of zeroing in on these items during audits. The auditor’s function is to verify conformance to predetermined requirements (documented criteria) as flowed-down from the customer, not just to be looking for nonconformances. This information will be up-dated periodically. Please check back occasionally for the latest trends in the Aerospace NDT Industry.
Note: Vastek Consulting's Subscribers will receive a copy of this newsletter via e-mail each time it is revised.
To find out more about the use of known defect standards used for Penetrant Inspection (i.e. System Performance Monitoring panels, NiCr Twin Panels, etc) see the following articles published by The American Society for Nondestructive Testing (ASNT) in the Material Evaluation magazine.
Note: Copy and paste these links into your browser window.
Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection System Performance Test Using Known Defect Standards by Israel Vasquez:
http://www.asnt.org/publications/materialseval/basics/dec97basics/dec97basics.htm
The Use of Known Discontinuity Standards By Israel Vasquez:
http://www.asnt.org/publications/materialseval/basics/feb02basics/feb02basics.htm
A UK Perspective on Known Discontinuity Standards by Peter Stephens:
http://www.asnt.org/publications/materialseval/basics/jun02basics/jun02basics.htm