NDT Method Comparisons
When the choice comes down to two methods, these head-to-heads put them side by side on sensitivity, speed, cost, access and code coverage — so you can defend the selection in a procedure review.
Magnetic particle vs liquid penetrant testing on welds, castings, and forgings. Sensitivity, surface prep, cost, ASME V Articles 6 and 7 coverage.
ComparePAUT vs radiographic testing on butt welds and vessels. ASME VIII §7.5.5 substitution, API 1104 Annex A, cost per weld, throughput, and exclusion zones.
ComparePAUT vs conventional ultrasonic testing on welds, vessels, and corrosion mapping. Throughput, cost per weld, ASME V Article 4 mandatory appendices.
CompareFilm RT vs Computed Radiography on welds and castings. Image quality, IQI sensitivity, ASME V Article 2, cost per shot, archive and DICONDE workflow.
CompareFilm RT vs DR flat-panel detectors on welds and castings. Real-time imaging, IQI sensitivity, ASME V Mand. App. VIII, cost per shot, and ROI math.
CompareTOFD vs PAUT for vessel and pipeline welds. Sensitivity, sizing accuracy, dead zones, ASME V Art. 4 Mand. App. III vs IV, and why they pair up.
CompareConventional UT vs PAUT decision matrix. Setup overhead, defect sizing, cost per weld, ASME V Article 4 coverage, and when single-angle manual UT wins.
CompareUT vs RT for butt welds, castings, and corrosion mapping. Cost per linear foot, throughput, code coverage under ASME V/VIII and API 1104. Inspector-written.
CompareVisual Testing vs Liquid Penetrant on welds, castings, and aerospace parts. AWS D1.1, ASME V Articles 6 and 9, defect resolution limits, and inspector vision standards.
Compare