Filtern
Erscheinungsjahr
- 2019 (4) (entfernen)
Dokumenttyp
Sprache
- Englisch (4)
Referierte Publikation
- nein (4)
Schlagworte
- Validation (4) (entfernen)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
The process of ensuring reliability of NDT applications contains various aspects, such as determining the performance and probability of success, the uncertainty in measurement, the provision of clear and functional procedures and ensuring the correct application accordingly. Test specimens have become powerful elements in supporting many of these aspects. Within the committee for NDT in Civil Engineering (NDT-CE) of the German Society for Nondestructive Testing (DGZfP), the subcommittee on Quality Assurance (UA-QS) therefore addresses the design and the integration of test specimens in the quality assurance process. Depending on the specific purpose, the requirements on test specimens can vary significantly based on the defined simulated scenario. The most prominent purposes of test specimens might be seen in providing references for inspection systems in regard to function control, calibration and validation. Further aspects can be parametric studies, basic investigation of physical principles related to NDT or a simplified and therefore comprehensive demonstration of inspection concepts (e.g. for teaching purposes). The specific purpose of a test specimen dictates the requirements regarding its conception, including the exact design, the material or the fabrication accuracy and the conditioning. In the development of a general guideline by the UA-QS for application-specific procedures and their validation, the use of test specimens is addressed and specific concepts for the design of test specimens are made. This includes the analysis of the measurement process regarding any given application, deriving an adequate calibration approach for it and designing test specimens (calibration specimens) accordingly. Furthermore, it includes the validation of the procedure taking into account all conditions related to the specific application in the field. The validation requires a statistically sufficient number of trials. Thorough evaluation of each trial can only be established if the ground-truth is known. Therefore, test specimens providing a realistic but controlled simulation of the inspection problem are valuable and indispensable elements in the validation process. The requirement of being fully realistic will often not be possible to fulfill due to practical restrictions. Any aspect that cannot be included in the simulation realistically needs to be simulated conservatively. This again, requires a sufficient understanding of the inspection principle and technique to ensure conservativeness. Among other quality-assurance-related aspects, the UA-QS establishes concepts and guidelines regarding sound and efficient approaches for the specific purposes of test specimens. This subcommittee brings together representatives of different Groups along the entire value chain of NDT-CE, including researchers, practitioners, manufacturers and clients. They all work together in establishing a common understanding and level of quality assurance in the industry.
The field of non-destructive testing of civil structures (NDT-CE) has been continuously growing. Due to the complexity and diversity of civil constructions as well as the heterogeneity of concrete, specific standards or guidelines for the application of modern NDT-CE are still missing. The development of individual solutions is the current approach, which is just as challenging as it is common for NDT-CE.
With the increasing development and commercialization of NDT-CE technology, the group of practitioners is growing. To ensure a good level of quality in the industry, it appears necessary to establish adequate means.
Naturally, the performance of NDT-CE methods regarding a specific application is strongly dependent on choosing the most suitable inspection technique and applying it correctly, generally referred to as the inspection procedure in the field of NDT. There are well-defined guidelines regarding procedure documentation and handling in many fields of NDT (e.g. nuclear, aerospace or automotive) according to the high importance of procedures in assuring a successful and reliable application. For a long time, this has not always been the case with NDT-CE, which is still considered a unique discipline of NDT. Part of the reason for that might be the young development state of NDTCE, the heterogeneity of building materials like concrete, timber or masonry as a material and the diversity of civil structures. In consequence, NDT-CE procedure development is considered challenging.
Among other aspects, addressed in the subcommittee on Quality Assurance (UA-QS) within the committee for NDT-CE of the German Society for Nondestructive Testing (DGZfP), part of its work aims at establishing an adequate basis for NDT-CE procedure development. While some of the highly developed approaches from other industries are taken into consideration, they need to be analyzed regarding their suitability for NDT-CE and adapted accordingly. For a procedure to be as defined as possible, it needs to contain sufficient information, such as the scope and limitations regarding material, geometry and condition of the test object, inspection parameters, calibration, data acquisition, analysis criteria as well as requirements regarding the inspection personnel.
For a successful implementation in the field, it is important to define the specific procedure as precisely as possible. Despite the necessity of a great amount of information to be included, the procedure needs to be suitable for efficient field application.
The UA-QS is developing a guideline for NDT-CE procedures suitable for application in this field of NDT to ensure correct and reproducible application. To demonstrate and evaluate this concept, specific examples of procedures are also produced. In particular, the UA-QS has developed a procedure for the detection and positioning of tendon ducts using Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR). This procedure is tested regarding the practical applicability in a roundrobin on a defined type of reference test block.
CEQAT-DGHS Interlaboratory tests for method validation and measurement uncertainty determination
(2019)
An explosion in a chemical plant or a fire on a dangerous goods vessel - the reason for such accidents can be numerous. Prevention starts in the laboratory where chemicals are tested for their hazardous properties in order to be able to assess the risks involved in their handling. For this purpose, test methods have been developed and published. They are applied globally nowadays. Safety experts, manufacturers, suppliers, importers, employers or consumers must be able to rely on the validity of safety-related test methods and on correct test results and assessments in the laboratory.
Interlaboratory tests play a decisive role in assessing the reliability of test results. Participation in interlaboratory tests is not only a crucial element of the quality assurance of laboratories; as such it is explicitly recommended in DIN EN ISO/IEC 17025. In addition, interlaboratory tests are also used to develop and validate test methods and can be used for the determination of the measurement uncertainty.
Interlaboratory tests on different test methods have been performed by Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und –prüfung (BAM) and Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) in collaboration with the QuoData GmbH during the last 10 years. Significant differences between the results of the participating laboratories were observed in all interlaboratory tests. The deviations of the test results were not caused only by laboratory faults but also by deficiencies of the test method (see interlaboratory test reports of the CEQAT-DGHS Centre for quality assurance for testing of dangerous goods and hazardous substances: www.ceqat-dghs.bam.de).
In view of the interlaboratory test results the following conclusions can be drawn:
• To avoid any discrepancy on classification and labelling of chemicals it should become state of the art to use validated test methods and the results accompanied by the measurement uncertainty.
• A need for improvement is demonstrated for all examined test methods. Thus, interlaboratory tests shall initially aim at the development, improvement and validation of the test methods (including the determination of the measurement uncertainty) and not on proficiency tests.
• The laboratory management and the practical execution of the tests need to be improved in many laboratories.
• The term "experience of the examiner" must be seen critically: A "long experience with many tests" is not necessarily a guarantee for correct results.
CEQAT-DGHS Interlaboratory Test Programme for Chemical Safety - Need of Test Methods Validation
(2019)
Safety experts, manufacturers, suppliers, importers, employers or consumers must be able to rely on the validity of safety-related test methods and on correct test results and assessments in the laboratory. Via the eChemPortal lots of data from the REACH registration dossiers are available. However, the quality and correctness of the information remains in the responsibility of the data submitter. Unfortunately, we found more or less appropriate information on physicochemical properties and concluded that more quality or adequacy of any data submitted will be needed.
Interlaboratory tests play a decisive role in assessing the reliability of test results. Interlaboratory tests on different test methods have been performed by Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und –prüfung (BAM) and Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) in collaboration with the QuoData GmbH during the last 10 years. Significant differences between the results of the participating laboratories were observed in all interlaboratory tests. The deviations of the test results were not caused only by laboratory faults but also by deficiencies of the test method.
In view of the interlaboratory test results the following conclusions can be drawn:
• To avoid any discrepancy on classification and labelling of chemicals it should become state of the art to use validated test methods and the results accompanied by the measurement uncertainty.
• A need for improvement is demonstrated for all examined test methods. Thus, interlaboratory tests shall initially aim at the development, improvement and validation of the test methods and not on proficiency tests.
• The laboratory management and the practical execution of the tests need to be improved in many laboratories.
• The term "experience of the examiner" must be seen critically: A "long experience with many tests" is not necessarily a guarantee for correct results.