ASTM E1571-21

This document is not an ASTM standard and is intended only to provide the user of an ASTM standard an indication of what changes have been made to the previous version. Because
it may not be technically possible to adequately depict all changes accurately, ASTM recommends that users consult prior editions as appropriate. In all cases only the current version
of the standard as published by ASTM is to be considered the official document.
´1
Designation: E1571 − 11 (Reapproved 2016) E1571 − 21
Standard Practice for
Electromagnetic Examination of Ferromagnetic Steel Wire
Rope
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E1571; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
ε NOTE—Section 6.2 updated editorially in June 2016.
1. Scope Scope*
1.1 This practice covers the application and standardization of instruments that use the electromagnetic, the magnetic flux, and the
magnetic flux leakage examination method to detect flaws and changes in metallic cross-sectional areas in ferromagnetic wire rope
products.
1.1.1 This practice includes rope diameters up to 2.5 in. (63.5 mm). Larger diameters may be included, subject to agreement by
the users of this practice.
1.2 Units—The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical
conversions to SI units are provided for information only and are not considered standard.
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility
of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety safety, health, and healthenvironmental practices and determine the
applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization
established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued
by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
2. Referenced Documents
2.1 ASTM Standards:
E543 Specification for Agencies Performing Nondestructive Testing
E1316 Terminology for Nondestructive Examinations
2.2 Other Documents:
ANSI/ASNT-CP-189 ASNT Standard for Qualification and Certification of Nondestructive Testing Personnel
SNT-TC-1A Recommended Practice for Personnel Qualification and Certification in Nondestructive Testing
NAS-410 Certification and Qualification of Nondestructive Personnel (Quality Assurance Committee)
This practice is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E07 on Nondestructive Testing and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E07.07 on Electromagnetic
Method.
Current edition approved June 1, 2016Nov. 1, 2021. Published June 2016November 2021. Originally approved in 1993. Last previous edition approved in 20112016 as
ε1
E1571 – 11.11(2016) . DOI: 10.1520/E1571-11R16E01.10.1520/E1571-21.
For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or contact ASTM Customer Service at service@astm.org. For Annual Book of ASTM Standards
volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on the ASTM website.
Available from American Society for Nondestructive Testing (ASNT), P.O. Box 28518, 1711 Arlingate Ln., Columbus, OH 43228-0518, http://www.asnt.org.
Available from Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc. (AIA), 1000 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1700, Arlington, VA 22209-3928, http://www.aia-aerospace.org.
*A Summary of Changes section appears at the end of this standard
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States
E1571 − 21
ISO 9712 Nondestructive Testing—Qualification and Certification of NDT Personnel
3. Terminology
3.1 Definitions—For definitions of terms used in this practice, refer to Terminology E1316.
3.2 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard:
3.2.1 dual-function instrument—instrument, n—a wire rope NDT instrument designed to simultaneously detect and display
changes of metallic cross-sectional area on one channel and local flaws on another channel of a dual-channel strip chart recorder
or another appropriate device.
3.2.2 local flaw (LF)—(LF), n—a discontinuity in a rope, such as a broken or damaged wire, a corrosion pit on a wire, a groove
worn into a wire, or any other physical condition that degrades the integrity of the rope in a localized manner.
3.2.3 loss of metallic cross-sectional area (LMA)—(LMA), n—a relative measure of the amount of material (mass) missing from
a location along the wire rope and is measured by comparing a point with a reference point on the rope that represents maximum
metallic cross-sectional area, as measured with an instrument.
3.2.4 single-function instrument—instrument, n—a wire rope NDT instrument designed to detect and display either changes in
metallic cross-sectional area or local flaws, but not both, on a strip chart recorder or another appropriate device.
4. Summary of Practice
4.1 The principle of operation of a wire rope nondestructive examination instrument is as follows:
4.1.1 Direct Current and Permanent Magnet (Magnetic Flux) Instruments—Direct current (dc) and permanent magnet instruments
(Figs. 1 and 2) supply a constant flux that magnetizes a length of rope as it passes through the sensor head (magnetizing circuit).
The total axial magnetic flux in the rope can be measured either by Hall effect sensors, an encircling (sense) coil, or by any other
appropriate device that can measure absolute magnetic fields or variations in a steady magnetic field. The signal from the sensors
is electronically processed, and the output voltage is proportional to the volume of steel or the change in metallic cross-sectional
area, within the region of influence of the magnetizing circuit. This type of instrument measures changes in metallic cross-sectional
area.
4.1.2 Magnetic Flux Leakage Instrument—A direct current or permanent magnet instrument (Fig. 3) is used to supply a constant
flux that magnetizes a length of rope as it passes through the sensor head (magnetizing circuit). The magnetic flux leakage created
by a discontinuity in the rope, such as a broken wire, can be detected with a differential sensor, such as a Hall effect sensor, sensor
coils, or by any other appropriate device. The signal from the sensor is electronically processed and recorded. This type of
FIG. 1 Schematic Representation of a Permanent Magnet Equipped Sensor-Head Using a Sense Coil to Measure the Loss of Metallic
Cross-Sectional Area
Available from International Organization for Standardization (ISO), ISO Central Secretariat, BIBC II, Chemin de Blandonnet 8, CP 401, 1214 Vernier, Geneva,
Switzerland, http://www.iso.org.
E1571 − 21
FIG. 2 Schematic Representation of a Permanent Magnet Equipped Sensor-Head Using Hall Devices to Measure the Loss of Metallic
Cross-Sectional Area
FIG. 3 Illustration of the Leakage Flux Produced by a Broken Wire
instrument measures LFs. While the information is not quantitative as to the exact nature and magnitude of the causal flaws,
valuable conclusions can be drawn as to the presence of broken wires, internal corrosion, and fretting of wires in the rope.”rope.
4.2 The examination is conducted using one or more techniques discussed in 4.1. Loss of metallic cross-sectional area can be
determined by using an instrument operating according to the principle discussed in 4.1.1. Broken wires and internal (or external)
corrosion can be detected by using a magnetic flux leakage instrument as described in 4.1.2. The examination procedure must
conform to Section 9. One instrument may incorporate both magnetic flux and magnetic flux leakage principles.
5. Significance and Use
5.1 This practice outlines a procedure to standardize an instrument and to use the instrument to examine ferromagnetic wire rope
products in which the magnetic flux and magnetic flux leakage methods are used. If properly applied, the magnetic flux method
is capable of detecting the presence, location, and magnitude of metal loss from wear, broken wires, and corrosion, and the
magnetic flux leakage method is capable of detecting the presence and location of flaws such as broken wires and corrosion pits.
5.2 The instrument’s response to the rope’s fabrication, installation, and in-service-induced flaws can be significantly different
from the instrument’s response to artificial flaws such as wire gaps or added wires. For this reason, it is preferable to detect and
mark (using set-up standards that represent) real in-service-induced flaws whose characteristics will adversely affect the
serviceability of the wire rope.
6. Basis of Application
6.1 The following items require agreement by the users of this practice and should be included in the rope examination contract:
6.1.1 Acceptance criteria.
6.1.2 Determination of LMA, or the display of LFs, or both.
E1571 − 21
6.1.3 Extent of rope examination (that is, full length that may require several setups or partial length with one setup).
6.1.4 Standardization method to be used: wire rope reference standard, rod reference standards, or a combination thereof.
6.1.5 Maximum time interval between equipment standardizations.
6.2 Personnel Qualification—If specified in the contractual agreement, personnel performing examinations in accordance with this
test method shall be qualified in accordance with a nationally or internationally recognized NDT personnel qualification practice
or standard such as ANSI/ASNT CP-189, SNT-TC-1A, NAS-410, ISO 9712, or a similar document and certified by the employer
or certifying agency as applicable. The practice or standard used and its applicable revision shall be specified in the contractual
agreement between the using parties.
6.3 Qualification of Nondestructive Agencies—If specified in the contractual agreement, NDT agencies shall be qualified and
evaluated as described in Specification E543. The applicable edition of Specification E543 shall be specified in the contractual
agreement.
6.4 Wire Rope Reference Standard (Fig. 4):
6.4.1 Type, dimension, location, and number of artificial anomalies to be placed on a wire rope reference standard.
6.4.2 Methods of verifying dimensions of artificial anomalies placed on a wire rope reference standard and allowable tolerances.
6.4.3 Diameter and construction of wire rope(s) used for a wire rope reference standard.
6.5 Rod Reference Standards (Fig. 5):
6.5.1 Rod reference standard use, whether in the laboratory or in the field, or both.
6.5.2 Quantity, lengths, and diameters of rod reference standards.
7. Limitations
7.1 General Limitations:
7.1.1 This practice is limited to the examination of ferromagnetic steel ropes.
7.1.2 It is difficult, if not impossible, to detect flaws at or near rope terminations and ferromagnetic steel connections.
7.1.3 Deterioration of a purely metallurgical nature (brittleness, fatigue, etc.) may not be easily distinguishable.
FIG. 4 Example of a Wire Rope Reference Standard
E1571 − 21
FIG. 5 Example of a Rod Reference Standard
7.1.4 A given size sensor head accommodates a limited range of rope diameters, the combination (between rope outside diameter
and sensor head inside diameter) of which provides an acceptable minimum air gap to assure a reliable examination.
7.2 Limitations Inherent in the Use of Magnetic Flux Methods:
7.2.1 Instruments designed to measure changes in metallic cross-sectional area are capable of showing changes relative to that
point on the rope where the instrument was standardized.
7.2.2 The sensitivity of these methods may decrease with the depth of the flaw from the surface of the rope and with decreasing
gaps between the ends of the broken wires.
7.3 Limitations Inherent in the Use of the Magnetic Flux Leakage Method:
7.3.1 It may be impossible to discern relatively small-diameter broken wires, broken wires with small gaps, or individual broken
wires within closely-spaced multiple breaks. It may be impossible to discern broken wires from wires with corrosion pits.
7.3.2 Because deterioration of a purely metallurgical nature may not be easily distinguishable, more frequent examinations may
be necessary after broken wires are detected to determine when the rope should be retired, based on percent rate of increase of
broken wires.the increase in the number of broken wires detected. For example, retirement of a wire rope may be based on a
percentage
...