You are on page 1of 1

Evaluation of Magnetic Particle Indications by Gilbert Torres The topic of interpretation and evaluation of Magnetic Particle indications is one

which seems to cause many disputes in the field of NDT Inspection. The simple fact is that correct interpretation of indications must take place before a proper evaluation can be determined. First the author will discuss the definition of indications in terms of Magnetic Particle testing. In this case, an indication is simply an accumulation of magnetic particles. There can be various reasons for this collection of particles, therefore indications are further classified into categories of: Relevant, Non-relevant, and False. This classification of indications is called Interpretation. Relevant indications are indications which are formed as the result of flaws (or discontinuities) due to magnetic flux leakage that these flaws create. Magnetic Flux Leakage or MFL is a phenomenon by which magnetic lines of flux are forced outside the inspection material. The amount of flux leakage depends greatly upon the orientation of the discontinuity, the depth of the flaw, the size of the flaw, and the strength of the magnetic field within the material. If conditions are suitable, the flaw creates opposite poles (North and South) which have an attraction to each other and form an indication over a flawed specimen. Relevant indications are then subject to evaluation, which is discussed further below. Non-Relevant indications are indications which are also formed as a result of Magnetic Flux Leakage but this Magnetic Flux Leakage is not due to a flaw in the material. There can be many reasons for the formation of non-relevant indications such as: magnetic writing (sometimes the result of parts with a residual field rubbing together), changes in section thickness, changes in permeability (sometimes due to changes in hardness or improper cooling of material), changes in part geometry (or shape), or even the result of over-magnetization of material. Non-relevant indications are true indications from actual MFL. With non-relevant indications the source of the MFL is known, even at times anticipated, and does not affect the usefulness of the part and therefore is deemed acceptable. It is important to re-process the part to confirm that the indication is indeed non-relevant. False indications are indications which are not the result of Magnetic Flux Leakage. False indications are usually created by physical attributes of the part, positioning of the part, foreign material, or uneven surfaces (such as raised metal or burrs). False indications would form even if the part was not magnetized, this cannot be said of relevant and nonrelevant indications. False indications cannot be determined at first glance. If an indication is believed to be a false indication it must first be re-processed and re-inspected. If the indication does not reappear it can be concluded that this was a false indication. Once the inspector has classified indications (this is referred to as interpretation), an evaluation must be performed. An evaluation is accomplished by applying the acceptance criteria given in the Code, Standard, Procedure, or other governing document and deeming the material acceptable or unacceptable (often called reject). This is usually the job of an SNT-TC-1A Level II or Level III. There have been many disputes due to improper terminology used to describe indications. These disputes are often resolved once misnomers (misnaming) of indications are corrected.

Regards,

Gilbert Torres ASNT NDT Level III Cert# 170865 337-255-6157 Gilbert@ApexNDTtraining.com

You might also like