• Posted by jackson on 14/10/2021 at 11:31 pm

    Despite the range of applications in which PAUT shines, it is not the preferred testing method for detecting surface cracks, metal fatigue or bolt hole and tubing inspections. In these instances eddy current testing is generally preferred, while PAUT is effective for corrosion detection and the inspection of composite materials and thicker welds. In addition, the angle of incidence is not always optimal when using S-scan.
    PAUT equipment is more advanced than conventional ultrasonic testing equipment, with multiple data optimisation features, the equipment should be used by a trained professional to remove the risk of inaccurate testing and gain the full benefits of PAUT.
    PAUT equipment also tends to cost more than conventional ultrasonic testing systems. This is due to the advanced features offered by PAUT systems, although these can result in faster, more accurate and more efficient inspections, which can ultimately lead to a lower total cost of ownership.

    jackson replied 1 year, 1 month ago 1 Member · 0 Replies
  • 0 Replies

Sorry, there were no replies found.

Reply to: jackson
Your information:

Start of Discussion
0 of 0 replies June 2018