“Ultrasonic tested” is incomplete unless the report identifies the method, examined regions and evaluation criteria. Composite geometry and direction-dependent acoustic behaviour can affect the inspection. The useful question is what the proposed technique can assess on this particular component.
Thickness changes, curvature, fittings and access to the relevant faces belong in an inspection review. TWI describes ultrasonic methods as using sound propagation and reflected or transmitted signals. Its composites guidance also explains why laminate behaviour requires method-specific attention. An ordinary metal inspection setup should not be assumed suitable for an unfamiliar composite construction.
Show coverage rather than implying completeness
Identify the regions to be examined and any restricted or unassessed areas. The agreed procedure should address reference standards, equipment configuration and interpretation. A coverage drawing is useful when a short written statement would hide a corner, interface or attachment region that could not be examined as intended.
Make the report traceable to the requirement
Keep the component revision, part identity, inspection date, applicable procedure and acceptance reference together. Record indications and disposition in the agreed format. This article describes information to request; it does not state that every carbon fiber product needs ultrasonic inspection or that Litian Yunde supplies a particular qualified inspection capability. Confirm project-specific arrangements before quoting or releasing work.
For the project review: component geometry and face access; procedure and reference standard; coverage and unassessed regions; report identity and acceptance reference.
Further reading: TWI: ultrasonic testing.