Guidance for your inspection task.From method selection to production use.

NDT means non-destructive testing; ZfP is the German term. These methods examine materials and components without destroying them for their intended use. What an inspection can establish depends on the selected method and the specific task.

Ideally before component design, production sequence and equipment requirements are finalised. This allows access, suitable inspection stages and required evidence to be considered early. For existing projects, a structured review provides a useful starting point.

Start with the industry, component group, material, required inspection statement, existing equipment and timeframe. Variants and known difficulties are also useful. We agree a suitable exchange route before receiving confidential drawings or technical documents.

Material, geometry, target discontinuities, access and the required inspection statement guide the choice. Customer requirements and production conditions also matter. A feasibility assessment using representative components helps establish the suitability and limitations of the proposed method.

It connects the task, component condition, method, inspection regions and evaluation basis. It also covers references, invalid inspections, documentation and responsibilities. Each requirement should be linked to its proposed implementation and traceable evidence.

UT may suit examination of internal regions, welded joints and wall thickness. Its capability depends on factors including material, geometry, coupling and discontinuity orientation. Suitability therefore needs assessment for the individual inspection task.

ET requires electrically conductive materials and may suit defined near-surface tasks and recurring manufacturing inspections. Probe distance and geometry influence the signal. Selection therefore starts with a specific description of the task.

VT examines visible surfaces and accessible areas. PT reveals surface-breaking discontinuities; MT is suitable for ferromagnetic materials. RT and CT use radiographic imaging or computed tomographic reconstruction to examine internal structures. The right method depends on the material, geometry, target discontinuities and operating constraints.

Manufacturing condition, material structure, geometry and relevant discontinuities can differ substantially. The inspection stage and evaluation basis also need component-specific definition. One blanket requirement for all three groups is therefore usually an insufficient planning basis.

Accessibility and component shape influence inspectability and coverage. Identify restricted regions early and show them clearly in the concept. Then assess whether a different inspection direction, a supplementary method or a different production stage is appropriate.

Automation is worth considering when inspection tasks repeat and components, test conditions and material flow can be controlled. The assessment should include setup, product changes, follow-up inspection, maintenance and staffing. This overall view helps identify a technically and economically appropriate level of automation.

The difference is which steps people or equipment perform: handling, probe movement, data acquisition, evaluation and sorting. Automated movement does not necessarily mean automated evaluation. The appropriate approach depends on which tasks can be automated reliably and where expert decisions are still needed.

Positioning, probe movement, inspection programs and relevant process conditions need to remain stable. For ultrasonic testing, suitable acoustic coupling is also essential. Monitoring, traceable settings and agreed system checks help identify deviations; automation alone does not establish that an inspection is valid.

Planning covers the complete sequence: feeding, positioning, inspection, evaluation, documentation and routing of parts. Reference checks, changeovers and interruptions also take time. The measurement time alone is therefore insufficient to assess the throughput an inspection system can achieve.

Each variant needs clearly assigned settings, programs and acceptance criteria suited to its inspection task. Changes to material, geometry or manufacturing should be assessed for their effects. Version control, approvals and a verifiable link between component and inspection program help prevent unnoticed mix-ups.

A factory acceptance test typically takes place at the supplier; a site acceptance test checks the installed system at its operating location. The functions, inspection capabilities and interfaces to be demonstrated must be agreed for the project. A successful FAT does not automatically prove performance under actual production conditions.

Requirements should be linked to specific test steps, expected results and responsible people. Evidence should cover representative variants, agreed references, data identification, documentation and responses to faults. Open issues need a traceable assessment, an owner and an agreed approach to resolution.

A retrofit can make sense when the existing system remains a sound foundation but controls, data acquisition, software or individual components need renewal. An assessment should cover mechanics, sensors, documentation and support. It then establishes whether upgrading or replacement better meets future inspection needs.

This can be useful during ramp-up, modifications or temporary capacity constraints. The alternative must still meet the agreed inspection task, with appropriate personnel, instructions, evaluation and records. A temporary arrangement does not justify silently reducing the required inspection capability.

First establish the system state, the cause and which components may be affected. Restarting requires defined responsibilities and the checks specified in the inspection instructions. Parts without a clearly valid inspection must remain identifiable and be reviewed or reinspected under the agreed procedure.

No. It can mean that every component is inspected, but says nothing by itself about coverage or the discontinuities that can be detected. Every inspection has defined conditions and limitations. Statements about component quality therefore need to consider the method, coverage, detection capability and acceptance criteria together.

Scope describes, for example, which components or batches are inspected. Coverage identifies the regions of a component actually examined. Detection capability describes which discontinuities can be found under the specified conditions. An inspection concept should state these three aspects separately and clearly.

No. An indication may arise from geometry, material properties, inspection conditions or a discontinuity. It must be interpreted under the intended procedure and evaluated against the applicable criteria. An indication is therefore not the same as an unacceptable defect.

No. Instrument verification, task-specific setup and checks of the complete inspection system serve different purposes. Suitable reference specimens and documented system checks may be required for the task. Applicable requirements and the inspection instructions determine the necessary evidence and intervals.

Missing identification, inadequate coupling or an interrupted sequence must not silently produce a pass result. Affected parts need clear identification and review under the agreed procedure. Whether reinspection is required depends on the cause and the applicable inspection instructions.

Key elements include a unique component or batch identity, inspection time, the inspection program and its version, and the result and validity status. Equipment, personnel, setup and reference data may also be needed. Raw-data requirements should be agreed in advance according to future evidence and analysis needs.

There is no single retention period suitable for every inspection task. Applicable requirements, customer agreements and contractual or legal obligations determine the period. File formats, readability, access rights, backups and responsibilities also need to be defined so the data remain usable throughout that period.

Component identity, order data, result status and responsibilities need clear definitions first. The meaning of transferred values matters as much as their format. Missing messages, connection failures, duplicate records and restarts should also be addressed during coordination and subsequent functional testing.

AI can help review and prioritise large volumes of inspection data. Its value depends on suitable, representative data and robust validation for the specific task. Evaluation limits, changes, human oversight and responsibility for release decisions must remain clearly defined when AI is used.

It concerns an individual's qualification and certification for specified test methods, sectors and levels. The actual scope of the certificate is therefore important. Deployment also needs to consider the assigned tasks, organisational responsibilities and any required familiarisation or authorisation.

No. Personnel certification applies to the individual and the stated scope of their certificate. Company certifications and accreditations concern different subjects and requirements. Before commissioning work, establish which evidence the service actually requires and which party will provide it.

These roles must be defined before work starts, in line with the task and applicable requirements. Equipment operation, technical evaluation, deviation handling and product release may belong to different people. Responsibility for changing inspection programs, reviewing changes, documenting them and approving them also needs to be clear.

No. Familiarisation explains how to use a particular system, its programs and operating procedures. It complements the qualification required for the task. NPB can support project-specific familiarisation and process understanding, with the scope agreed according to tasks, existing knowledge and organisational responsibilities.

The consultancy is aimed at machinery manufacturers, suppliers and design, production and quality teams. Typical topics include inspection concepts for cast, forged or welded components, product variants and production integration. Support requirements can also be defined for selecting or modernising inspection equipment.

NPB's published industry experience includes defence. Support focuses on clarifying inspection requirements, automated inspection processes, documentation and coordination between parties. The scope is agreed for each project; confidential component data, customer names and sensitive inspection parameters do not belong in public project descriptions.

The scope can range from technical assessment and inspection planning to support during implementation, acceptance and ramp-up. It can also focus on a clearly defined technical question. Objectives, deliverables, interfaces and responsibilities are agreed before the work is commissioned.

This depends on the task. Document reviews and technical discussions can often be handled remotely, while equipment assessments, trials or ramp-up support may require site visits. Locations, availability and the preferred working language are agreed when defining the project.

Start with a short description of the inspection task, the current situation and your objective. Open questions, required documents and a suitable scope can then be clarified. This provides the basis for agreeing the approach, deliverables, responsibilities and a quotation. Contact: Sebastian.Kisters@npb-ndt.de.

A general, non-confidential description is sufficient for the initial enquiry. Handling of sensitive documents and appropriate transfer channels should be agreed in advance. The public contact form is not intended for classified or export-controlled content; do not use it to submit such drawings or technical details.

Effort depends on the task, scope, duration, location and available documentation. Once these are clarified, an appropriate service model and fee can be proposed, for example for a defined work package or time-based support. Additional services and expenses should be agreed transparently in advance.