Interview Questions for Welding Nondestructive Testing

Ultrasonic testing (UT) leverages high-frequency sound waves to detect internal flaws in welds. A transducer emits ultrasonic waves that travel through the material. When these waves encounter a discontinuity like a crack or porosity, they are reflected back to the transducer. The time it takes for the waves to return, along with the amplitude of the reflected signal, helps determine the size, location, and nature of the defect. Think of it like sonar used by ships – it uses sound waves to ‘see’ underwater objects. In welding, we use UT to ‘see’ inside the weld without destroying it.

The process involves applying a couplant (like gel) to ensure good acoustic contact between the transducer and the weld. Different scanning techniques are used depending on the weld geometry, including straight beam, angle beam, and phased array techniques. The data is then displayed on a screen, usually as an A-scan (amplitude vs. time) or a B-scan (cross-sectional view) which allows the technician to interpret the results and determine the severity of any flaws present.

Radiographic testing (RT) and ultrasonic testing (UT) are both valuable NDT methods, but they have distinct differences. RT uses penetrating radiation (X-rays or gamma rays) to create an image of the internal structure. Think of it like a medical X-ray – it shows the density variations within the material. UT uses sound waves. While RT excels at detecting planar defects like cracks oriented perpendicular to the radiation beam, it struggles to detect small, closely spaced flaws. UT, conversely, is exceptionally sensitive to smaller defects and is better at detecting flaws oriented parallel to the surface, but has challenges in visualizing the exact shape of a defect as it depends on the sound wave reflection. Also, RT requires access to both sides of the weld whereas UT can inspect welds from only one side in most cases.

In summary: RT is excellent for revealing porosity and inclusions and is good for overall weld assessment. UT provides better sensitivity for detecting cracks and other discontinuities and can be more versatile. Often, both techniques are used together for complete weld inspection.

Magnetic particle testing (MT) is limited to ferromagnetic materials (iron, nickel, cobalt, and their alloys). It can’t be used on non-ferromagnetic materials like aluminum or stainless steel. The method also struggles with surface cracks that are very shallow or oriented parallel to the magnetic field. Additionally, MT is primarily a surface inspection method; it won’t detect subsurface flaws effectively. The presence of coatings or other surface irregularities can also interfere with the test results. Lastly, it depends on creating a magnetic field with sufficient strength to reveal the defects; complex geometries can pose a challenge.

For example, if you are inspecting a weld on an aluminum component, MT wouldn’t be an appropriate method. Similarly, very fine subsurface cracks might not be revealed even if the material is ferromagnetic.

Interpreting radiographic images requires training and experience. Welders and inspectors look for indications of discontinuities that deviate from the expected radiographic density of a sound weld. These indications appear as variations in the grayscale of the image. Porosity appears as small, dark spots; lack of fusion looks like a lack of penetration between weld layers; and cracks show up as linear, dark lines. The size, shape, location, and distribution of these indications are critical in determining the severity of the flaw. We use standards and acceptance criteria (like ASME Section IX) to quantify what is acceptable and what needs repair or rejection.

The process involves carefully comparing the radiograph to reference standards and considering the weld’s geometry, application, and relevant codes and standards. Experience is essential to accurately judge the significance of imperfections and to distinguish between relevant defects and artifacts.

Liquid penetrant testing (PT) is a simple, yet effective method for detecting surface-breaking flaws. The process involves several steps. First, the surface of the weld is thoroughly cleaned to remove any dirt, oil, or other contaminants that might block the penetrant from entering the flaw. Second, a liquid penetrant, which is usually dyed red or fluorescent, is applied to the surface and allowed to dwell for a specific time, allowing it to seep into any surface-breaking cracks or other defects. Third, excess penetrant is removed from the surface using a cleaning agent. Fourth, a developer is applied, which draws the trapped penetrant out of the flaw, making it easily visible. Finally, the part is inspected visually under normal or UV light depending on the type of penetrant. The presence of indications on the surface shows the existence of surface-breaking flaws.

Think of it like finding a leak in a pipe – the penetrant acts like water that seeps into the crack, and the developer acts like a paper towel that brings the water to the surface, making the leak readily apparent.

ASME Section IX provides detailed acceptance criteria for weld flaws based on several factors, including the type of weld, the welding process used, the material being welded, and the intended service of the component. It outlines allowable flaw sizes and types for different weld categories. These criteria are typically expressed as maximum allowable flaw size (length, depth, and sometimes area) and the number and distribution of these flaws. The criteria are often given in terms of the flaw’s size relative to the weld thickness or other dimensions. Exceeding these limits usually requires repair or rejection of the weld. It is important to note that specific acceptance standards may vary according to the applicable code and the requirements set by the client.

The complexity of ASME Section IX necessitates that inspectors be thoroughly familiar with its contents and the specific requirements of each job. It’s not just about numbers; understanding the context is vital for safe and reliable weld acceptance.

Identifying weld defects relies on a combination of NDT methods and visual inspection. Each defect has a characteristic appearance that experienced inspectors can readily identify.

• Porosity: Appears as small, gas-filled holes within the weld metal. In radiography, they appear as dark spots; in UT, they create scattered reflections.
• Cracks: These are linear discontinuities, often sharp and well-defined. They show up as distinct lines in RT and sharp, high-amplitude reflections in UT.
• Lack of Fusion: This occurs when the weld metal doesn’t completely fuse with the base metal, creating a weak zone. It appears as a dark line or lack of penetration on a radiograph and may show a lack of reflection of sound in UT.
• Undercut: A groove melted into the base metal at the edge of the weld. It is easily seen during visual inspection.
• Inclusions: These are foreign materials trapped within the weld metal, such as slag or tungsten from the welding process. They appear as dark spots in RT and irregular sound reflections in UT.

The combination of different NDT techniques allows for a comprehensive assessment, often overcoming the limitations of individual methods. For instance, RT is better at visualizing porosity distribution, while UT excels at detecting cracks. Visual inspection complements NDT methods in spotting surface irregularities.

Safety is paramount in NDT. Weld inspection often involves hazardous environments and equipment. Before starting any NDT procedure, a thorough risk assessment should be conducted, considering specific hazards like radiation (for radiography), high voltage (for some ultrasonic techniques), and potential exposure to harmful fumes or gases from weld cleaning processes. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is crucial. This includes safety glasses or face shields, gloves (appropriate for the NDT method and chemicals used), hearing protection (for techniques producing loud noises), respiratory protection (if working in confined spaces or with fumes), and steel-toe boots. The work area should be properly cordoned off, with appropriate warning signs clearly indicating the ongoing NDT operations. Furthermore, familiarization with emergency procedures and access to first aid equipment is essential. A qualified supervisor should oversee operations to ensure compliance with all relevant safety regulations and standards.

For example, during radiographic testing (RT), we must follow strict protocols regarding radiation safety, including time, distance, and shielding principles. Similarly, when using ultrasonic testing (UT) equipment with high-powered probes, it’s critical to avoid direct contact with live electrical components and ensure proper grounding.

Calibration in NDT is the process of verifying the accuracy and reliability of the equipment used for testing. It ensures the equipment is functioning correctly and providing consistent and trustworthy results. Calibration involves comparing the instrument’s readings against known standards or references. Without proper calibration, NDT results are unreliable and potentially unsafe. Different methods require different calibration procedures. For example, in ultrasonic testing, we calibrate the equipment using standard calibration blocks with known flaw sizes and locations. This ensures that the instrument accurately displays the size and location of defects within a weld. Similarly, in magnetic particle testing, we’d use a calibrated magnetizing unit and standardized indicators to ensure the field strength is adequate and consistent. The frequency of calibration depends on factors such as equipment usage, environment, and specific standards. Detailed calibration logs must be maintained for traceability and compliance. Think of it like calibrating a kitchen scale: before baking, you need to ensure it accurately measures ingredients to get the correct results. In NDT, inaccurate measurements could lead to faulty welds and potential safety risks.

Weld joints come in various configurations, and the suitability of an NDT method depends largely on the joint geometry and accessibility. Common types include butt welds (edges butted together), lap welds (overlapping plates), tee welds (plates joined at a T-shape), and corner welds (plates joined at an angle).

• Butt welds are often inspected using radiography (RT) or ultrasonic testing (UT) due to their relatively simple geometry.
• Lap welds might be more suitable for magnetic particle inspection (MPI) or dye penetrant testing (PT) if surface flaws are a concern, especially if UT access is difficult.
• Tee welds can be complex and might require a combination of methods—for example, UT for volumetric defects and MPI for surface cracks.
• Corner welds often lend themselves to PT or MPI, as they can be challenging for volumetric techniques like UT.

The choice of method also depends on the material of the weld, its thickness, and the type of flaws expected (surface vs. internal).

Choosing the appropriate NDT method requires careful consideration of several factors. First, we need to know the weld’s material, geometry, and the potential types of defects expected (surface cracks, porosity, inclusions). Then, we consider the required level of sensitivity and the accessibility of the weld. For example, radiography provides excellent visualization of internal flaws but may be impractical for complex geometries or large structures. Ultrasonic testing offers good depth penetration and can be used on a variety of materials, but requires skilled technicians to interpret the results. Magnetic particle testing is excellent for surface and near-surface defects in ferromagnetic materials but can’t detect internal flaws. Dye penetrant testing excels at detecting surface-breaking flaws but only shows surface indications. Ultimately, the most suitable method will often be dictated by relevant codes, standards, and engineering specifications for the particular application.

Often, a combination of methods (multi-method approach) provides the most complete picture of weld integrity. For example, UT might be used to detect internal flaws, while MPI would examine the surface for cracks not visible to UT. A thorough understanding of the limitations and capabilities of each NDT method is critical for making informed decisions.

My experience in data acquisition and reporting in NDT spans numerous projects involving various techniques. I’m proficient in using specialized software for data acquisition, analysis, and reporting. This includes software specifically designed for ultrasonic testing, where I capture A-scans, B-scans, and C-scans (amplitude, cross-sectional, and plan views), and then process and analyze them using advanced features like signal filtering and defect sizing algorithms. In radiography, I’m experienced in using digital imaging systems and software for image processing, enhancement, and interpretation. For data reporting, I adhere to strict documentation standards and produce detailed reports that include calibrated readings, images, defect locations, sizes, and assessments. My reports include visual representations of defects, along with clear descriptions that conform to industry standards and client requirements. Accurate and thorough documentation is essential in NDT as it provides an audit trail and supports any decisions made about the inspected weld. We use dedicated NDT reporting software to standardize and improve report generation efficiency, ensuring consistent quality and traceability.

Proper surface preparation is crucial for accurate and reliable NDT results. Surface imperfections can mask defects or create false indications. The level of surface preparation depends on the NDT method employed. For example, in dye penetrant testing, the surface must be absolutely clean, free from grease, oil, or loose scale, to allow the penetrant to enter any cracks or flaws. In magnetic particle testing, surface cleanliness is vital to prevent interference from surface contaminants. For ultrasonic testing, a smooth surface can improve the quality of the signals by minimizing signal scattering. The specific preparation methods might include cleaning (e.g., solvent cleaning, abrasive blasting), grinding, machining, or other surface treatments. Each NDT method has specific requirements, and deviations from the prescribed procedures can seriously compromise the accuracy of the results. Think of it like preparing a canvas before painting—a rough, dirty canvas won’t allow the paint to adhere properly or show a true representation of the artwork. Similarly, poorly prepared surfaces in NDT could conceal defects or lead to misinterpretations.

Environmental factors significantly influence the accuracy of NDT results. Temperature, humidity, and wind can all impact the performance of NDT equipment and the interpretation of results. For example, high temperatures can affect the properties of the test materials, while extreme humidity can interfere with electrical conductivity or affect the proper function of some instruments. In radiography, weather conditions can affect the quality of the radiographic images. In ultrasonic testing, environmental factors can influence the transmission of ultrasonic waves, especially in outdoor inspections. Proper control of environmental conditions, such as temperature and humidity, or the use of environmental shields is essential for mitigating these effects. In certain situations, specialized environmental protection techniques might be necessary to achieve optimal NDT accuracy. It’s important to record environmental conditions during inspection to provide context for the test results and ensure consistent quality.

False indications in Nondestructive Testing (NDT) are readings that suggest a defect is present when, in reality, none exists. These can be frustrating and costly, leading to unnecessary repairs or rejection of perfectly sound components. Common causes stem from both the testing technique and the material itself.

• Geometric effects: Surface irregularities like weld reinforcement, sharp corners, or changes in material thickness can scatter or reflect test signals, mimicking flaws. For example, a strong reflection from the weld crown in ultrasonic testing might be misinterpreted as a crack.
• Material variations: Inclusions, variations in grain size, or changes in material properties (like heat treatment variations) can produce signals that look like defects. Think of it like looking through a window with imperfections – the distortions might resemble cracks.
• Equipment limitations: Calibration errors, probe wear, or improper signal processing can create false indications. An improperly calibrated ultrasonic instrument might show false echoes.
• Operator error: Incorrect technique, misinterpretation of signals, or inadequate training can all contribute to false calls. For instance, a lack of understanding of typical weld profiles can lead to misinterpreting normal weld features.
• Environmental factors: Temperature fluctuations or moisture can affect test results, producing false signals. For example, excessive surface rust can interfere with magnetic particle testing.

Addressing false indications often involves careful signal analysis, using multiple NDT techniques for confirmation, and a thorough understanding of the material’s characteristics and the limitations of the chosen NDT method.

Discrepancies between NDT results and other inspection methods (like visual inspection, destructive testing, or other NDT techniques) require a systematic investigation. This is crucial to avoid costly mistakes and ensure the integrity of the inspected component. My approach involves:

1. Reviewing the data: Carefully examine the results from each inspection method, noting the location, size, and characteristics of any reported defects. Compare the methods’ sensitivities and limitations.
2. Investigating potential causes: Consider possible reasons for the discrepancy. This could include errors in the NDT procedure, limitations of the chosen technique, or an actual defect that wasn’t detected by one method but was by another.
3. Re-inspection: If possible, re-inspect the area of concern using the same or different NDT techniques. This helps to confirm or refute the initial findings and reduce uncertainty.
4. Expert consultation: If the discrepancy remains unresolved, consult with experienced NDT specialists or engineers to obtain a second opinion and determine the best course of action.
5. Destructive testing (when necessary): In some cases, destructive testing (e.g., sectioning and microscopic examination) might be necessary to resolve the discrepancy and definitively determine the condition of the component. This is usually a last resort, especially for critical components.

Throughout the process, detailed documentation is crucial, outlining all inspection methods, results, and the reasoning behind the final conclusion. A thorough, documented investigation builds confidence and provides valuable lessons learned for future inspections.

My experience encompasses a broad range of NDT equipment, including:

• Ultrasonic Testing (UT): I am proficient in operating various ultrasonic flaw detectors, including both conventional and phased array systems. I have experience with different probes (straight beam, angle beam, shear wave) and techniques (pulse-echo, through-transmission).
• Radiographic Testing (RT): I have hands-on experience with film radiography and real-time radiography (RT), including setting up the equipment, selecting appropriate parameters (kVp, mA, exposure time), and interpreting radiographic images.
• Magnetic Particle Testing (MT): I have worked with various MT equipment, including portable yokes, electromagnetic coils, and wet and dry particle applicators. This includes conducting both surface and subsurface inspections.
• Liquid Penetrant Testing (PT): I am experienced in performing PT inspections using various penetrants, developers, and cleaning agents. I understand the importance of proper cleaning and drying to obtain accurate results.

My experience extends beyond basic operation; I understand the principles behind each technique, its limitations, and how to select the most appropriate method for a given application. I regularly participate in equipment calibration and maintenance to ensure accurate and reliable results.

My understanding of NDT codes and standards is thorough. I am familiar with:

• ASME Section V: This covers the various NDT methods, including their procedures and acceptance criteria. I use this standard for many pressure vessel inspections.
• AWS D1.1: This standard provides guidance on the welding requirements and NDT for structural steel. It’s essential for many construction projects.
• ASTM standards: Several ASTM standards are relevant to various aspects of NDT, such as specific test methods and calibration procedures (e.g., ASTM E1105 for UT).

I understand the importance of adhering to these standards to ensure consistent, reliable, and acceptable inspection results. These codes provide essential guidelines for personnel qualification, equipment calibration, and procedure development, leading to robust and dependable NDT processes.

Maintaining the integrity and traceability of NDT results is paramount. This involves a multifaceted approach that encompasses several key elements:

• Calibration and verification: Regular calibration of all NDT equipment is essential to ensure accuracy. Calibration records are meticulously maintained and readily available.
• Documented procedures: All NDT procedures are documented, including equipment settings, inspection techniques, and acceptance criteria. These procedures are reviewed and updated regularly.
• Qualified personnel: All personnel involved in NDT activities are appropriately qualified and certified according to relevant codes and standards (e.g., ASNT Level II certification). Their certifications are regularly reviewed.
• Data management system: A robust data management system is in place to record, store, and manage all inspection data. This system ensures easy retrieval of past inspection results and supports traceability.
• Non-conformance reporting: Any deviations from procedures, equipment issues, or non-conforming results are carefully documented and investigated, forming a valuable record for continuous improvement.

By implementing these practices, we ensure that our NDT results are reliable, verifiable, and consistently meet the highest quality standards. It also strengthens the confidence in our findings and provides auditable evidence of the inspection process.

Each NDT technique has advantages and disadvantages depending on the application and the type of defect being sought. A comparison:

Selecting the appropriate technique is crucial and depends on factors like the material type, the expected defect type, accessibility of the component, and the required sensitivity. Often, multiple techniques are used to confirm findings and minimize the chance of false calls or missed defects.

Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing (PAUT) is an advanced UT technique that uses multiple piezoelectric elements arranged in an array to generate and receive ultrasonic beams. This allows for electronic beam steering, focusing, and sector scanning, providing significant advantages over conventional UT.

My experience with PAUT includes:

• Data acquisition and analysis: I’m proficient in using PAUT equipment to acquire high-quality data, selecting appropriate parameters (frequency, pulse repetition rate, etc.) and interpreting the resulting images (C-scans, B-scans).
• Probe selection and manipulation: I understand the principles of selecting the right probe for a specific application and am adept at manipulating probes to optimize signal quality and access difficult geometries.
• Defect characterization: PAUT excels at characterizing defects, providing detailed information on their size, shape, orientation, and location. I can use this information to assess the significance of a defect and its impact on the structural integrity.
• Automated scanning: I’m familiar with automated scanning systems and their use in increasing efficiency and reducing human error in PAUT inspections.

In practice, PAUT allows for faster and more efficient inspections, especially for complex geometries or when a large area needs to be covered. For instance, I’ve used PAUT to inspect complex weldments in pressure vessels, where the technique’s ability to quickly and accurately assess multiple planes significantly reduces inspection time and enhances accuracy compared to conventional UT.

Time-of-Flight Diffraction (TOFD) is an advanced ultrasonic testing technique used extensively in the inspection of welds. It utilizes two transducers – a transmitter and a receiver – positioned on the surface of the material. The transmitter sends ultrasonic waves into the material, and these waves are reflected by any flaws or discontinuities. The key principle is measuring the time it takes for these waves to reach the receiver, hence the ‘time-of-flight’.

TOFD is particularly powerful because it allows for the precise determination of both the location and size of defects. The technique is based on the diffraction of the ultrasonic waves around the tip of a crack or flaw. This diffraction creates signals that are analyzed to give a precise characterization of the flaw.

Imagine a stone thrown into a pond; the ripples are analogous to the ultrasonic waves. A crack in the weld acts like an obstacle disrupting these ripples. TOFD precisely measures the time it takes for these disrupted waves to reach the receiver, allowing us to locate and size the ‘obstacle’ (the crack).

Unlike other ultrasonic techniques that often provide limited information about defect depth, TOFD produces a detailed representation of the flaw, including its depth, length, and orientation. This is particularly crucial for detecting planar flaws like cracks, which are critical in welded joints. The data is typically displayed as a time-versus-distance plot, providing a visual representation of any defects.

During an inspection of a pressure vessel weld using ultrasonic testing, I encountered a situation where the signals were unusually attenuated. This meant the ultrasonic waves were not penetrating the material as expected, leading to a lack of clear data about the weld integrity. The initial assumption was a possible material mismatch or a significant variation in the weld’s microstructure.

My troubleshooting process involved a systematic approach:

• Verification of Equipment Calibration: I first meticulously checked the calibration of the ultrasonic equipment to ensure accuracy and eliminate the possibility of faulty equipment.
• Material Property Review: I reviewed the material specifications to verify the expected ultrasonic properties of the steel, checking for any discrepancies in the material data that could explain the attenuation.
• Couplant Assessment: I examined the couplant (gel used to transmit sound waves), ensuring sufficient and consistent application. Inadequate couplant could significantly hinder signal transmission.
• Inspection Technique Review: I systematically reviewed my inspection technique, including transducer placement and scanning procedures, to rule out any errors on my part.
• Alternate Testing Method: To confirm my findings, I employed a different testing technique, namely radiographic testing (RT), which provided independent evidence to supplement my ultrasonic findings.

Through this methodical approach, we identified the issue as a combination of higher than expected grain size in the weld area and improper couplant application in certain areas. Adjusting the inspection parameters and using a suitable couplant improved signal strength and allowed for accurate evaluation of the weld.

Maintaining and calibrating NDT equipment is crucial for ensuring the accuracy and reliability of inspection results. This involves a multi-faceted approach:

• Regular Cleaning: Equipment should be cleaned regularly to remove dirt, debris, and corrosion that can affect performance. This includes careful cleaning of transducer faces and cable connections.
• Calibration: Calibration involves using known standards or blocks with pre-defined flaws to verify the equipment’s accuracy. This is done using reference standards that are traceable to national or international standards organizations. Calibration frequency depends on the type of equipment and the frequency of use, but generally should be done before every use and according to a set schedule.
• Preventative Maintenance: Regular preventative maintenance is crucial. This may involve checks on the functioning of all components, including cables, batteries, and any other moving parts. This helps identify potential issues before they become major problems and ensures the lifespan of the equipment.
• Documentation: Thorough documentation of all calibration activities, maintenance procedures, and any repairs is vital. This includes documenting the equipment’s serial number, the date of calibration, the reference standards used, and any corrective actions taken.
• Operator Training: Regular operator training is essential to ensure proper use and maintenance of the equipment. This includes understanding the operation, calibration procedures, and safety precautions.

For instance, ultrasonic testing equipment requires regular calibration using blocks containing artificial defects of known sizes and orientations. Similarly, radiographic equipment requires regular checks of the film processing parameters and the X-ray tube’s output.

My familiarity with weld metals encompasses a broad range, including various steels (low-carbon, high-strength, stainless), aluminum alloys, nickel-based alloys, and titanium alloys. I understand the differences in their mechanical properties, such as tensile strength, ductility, and hardness, and how these properties influence the choice of welding processes and the types of potential defects.

For example, stainless steels are susceptible to sensitization and intergranular corrosion, requiring specialized welding techniques and NDT to detect potential defects. Aluminum alloys, on the other hand, have a tendency to porosity, demanding meticulous control over the welding process. Understanding these metallurgical nuances helps in anticipating potential defects and choosing the appropriate NDT method for accurate inspection. I am also aware of the different filler metals used for each base material type and how these choices can impact the overall integrity of the weld.

The welding process significantly impacts the potential for defects in the final weld. Different welding processes have distinct characteristics that contribute to specific defect types.

• Gas Metal Arc Welding (GMAW): Improper shielding gas coverage can lead to porosity (gas bubbles in the weld), while incorrect wire feed speed can result in lack of fusion (incomplete joining of weld metal and base metal).
• Shielded Metal Arc Welding (SMAW): Excessive arc energy can cause excessive heat input leading to cracking in certain alloys, and poor electrode manipulation can result in incomplete penetration.
• Tungsten Inert Gas Welding (TIG): Improper tungsten electrode manipulation can cause tungsten inclusions (tungsten particles embedded in the weld), and insufficient heat input could lead to incomplete fusion.
• Resistance Welding (spot, seam): This method can lead to insufficient heat input, causing poor weld strength, or excessive heat, leading to burn-through.

Understanding the relationship between the welding process and potential defects is paramount in selecting the correct NDT technique and establishing the appropriate inspection criteria. For instance, radiographic testing (RT) is effective in detecting porosity, while ultrasonic testing (UT) is well-suited for detecting lack of fusion or cracks.

I have extensive experience in creating and interpreting NDT reports. My reports are meticulously prepared, adhering to industry standards and client-specific requirements. They always include:

• Clear Identification of the inspected component, weld details and material specifications.
• Detailed description of the NDT techniques used including equipment employed and its calibration status.
• Precise location and quantification of any detected flaws. This typically includes the size, orientation, and type of defect, which are described using appropriate terminology and supported by visual aids like images and diagrams.
• Interpretation of the findings and assessment of the weld’s integrity, including recommendations for repairs if necessary.
• Conclusion that clearly states the acceptability or rejectability of the weld per the applicable standards and codes.
• Full signature and professional credentials of the inspector.

For interpreting the reports, I use a combination of my technical knowledge and experience to effectively communicate the results in a clear and concise manner, tailored to the technical understanding of the client. I believe in transparent and detailed reporting to ensure the client has all the information they need to make informed decisions.

My salary expectations for this position are in the range of $85,000 to $105,000 per year, depending on the benefits package, and the specific responsibilities of the role. This range reflects my extensive experience, proven expertise in NDT techniques, and strong problem-solving skills. I am confident that my contributions to your organization will exceed this investment.