PT inspection criteria

Date 10-18-2007 23:25 Edited 10-19-2007 02:50

Apply the underfill criteria. If, it is below the surface of the adjacent base metal, it is simply underfilled (IMO).

Charles

By hogan

Date 10-19-2007 00:05

if you look in astm e165 8.9.4 (02) it states that evaluation should be based on size of indication.

By CWI555

Date 10-19-2007 15:21

If the visual inspection missed it, and it's went to PT, then you apply the PT acceptance criteria. If it's 1/8" PT indication, thats what gets evaluated per acceptance criteria for PT.

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 10-19-2007 15:26

To the best of my knowledge, PT uses same dimensional criteria for acceptance as visual.

By CWI555

Date 10-19-2007 23:25

I believe you are correct, but the difference is with PT the size of the bleed out is what counts. Which is why (one of many reasons why) maintaining specific dwell times is so important.

By 803056

Date 10-20-2007 16:39 Edited 10-20-2007 16:42

This is a common problem with folks working to multiple codes. Not all of the codes utilize the "size" of the stain as the basis of rejections.

AWS D1.1 uses the size of the actual discontinuity as the basis of acceptance or rejection. PT is used to find the discontinuity, but it is accepted or rejected on the basis of the actual size of the offending discontinuity after removing the developer. Refer to AWS D1.1 Commentary for additional discussion of MT and PT.

ASME utilizes the size of the "stain" or bleed out as the basis of acceptance or rejection. As can be imagined, the size of the stain is a function of temperature, volume of the penetrant reservoir, the size of the discontinuity open to the test surface, and time. The stain will continue to "grow" with time as long as penetrant remaining in the discontinuity continues to feed the stain. Thus as has been noted, the time element for evaluation is controlled in ASME PT procedures.

Best regards - Al

By CWI555

Date 10-21-2007 02:02

Where the discontinuity
cannot be seen (with magnification if required) after
removal of the indicating medium, evaluation shall be
based on the size and nature of the PT indication.

Your correct in that, except in the cases where visual cannot detect it. PT is also required to have a procedure. The designated methodology is ASTM E-165.
Therefore the first step should have been to follow procedure. The time element is also controlled per ASTM E165

By 803056

Date 10-21-2007 16:31 Edited 10-21-2007 16:52

The passage you cite; "Where the discontinuity cannot be seen (with magnification if required) after removal of the indicating medium, evaluation shall be based on the size and nature of the PT indication." is located in the same paragraph of the commentary in AWS D1.1 I cited. As you pointed out these "fine points of procedure" should be included in the written penetrant procedures. If that was the case, I would not encounter Level II penetrant inspectors that routinely reject structural welds on the basis of the size of the indication alone without first attempting to visually evaluate the discontinuities identified by the penetrant test. Then again, if the procedures were well written and followed, I would lose part of my practice!

I'm very happy to say that luckily for me, you are among the very few that take the time to read every sentence and practice what is written. Stay the hell out of my turf! I need all the work I can get! You know I'm kidding, I would be happy to work beside a talented individual such as you any day of the week!

Best regards - Al

By CWI555

Date 10-22-2007 03:27

I appreciate the vote of confidence, which carrys some weight coming from someone such as yourself.
My initial post carried in it an assumption that the flaw was not readily visible until pointed out by PT.

The D1.1 procedures I write always include consideration for the commentary notes. Sometimes I forget myself
and "assume" others do.

There is no room for assumptions these days. thanks for drawing my attention to that.

As for your turf.. well I could say the same LOL. However; there is more than enough work for all qualified persons in the oil and gas field, particularly the gas part. Which is why I ditched the nuclear/aerospace/structural realms for the time being. Even in that, via RP2X and the growing use of tky tubular structural work I still end up working with some structural. Especially when specs call out D1.1. Be glad to work with you any time Al.

Regards,
Gerald

By Bill M

Date 10-22-2007 13:03

Thanks for the note on the D1.1 commentary Mr. Moore. The commentary states that there is no accept / reject criteria for PT based on bleedout of dye. Evaluation shall be based on the size and nature of the PT indication.

So say I PT a machined butt weld. I wipe the developer away and find a slag inclusion of 1/16" exposed by machining. Where is the evaluation and the accept / reject criteria for this discontinuity...Table 6.1 Visual Inspection doesn't address slag inclusions. Should I use table 6.5?

By CWI555

Date 10-23-2007 01:47 Edited 10-23-2007 01:51

Table 6.5 is for RT which is a volumetric test and a whole different animal

5.30.2 Cleaning of Completed Welds. Slag shall be removed
from all completed welds, and the weld and adjacent
base metal shall be cleaned by brushing or other
suitable means. Tightly adherent spatter remaining after
the cleaning operation is acceptable, unless its removal
is required for the purpose of NDT. Welded joints shall
not be painted until after welding has been completed
and the weld accepted.

The acceptance criteria for slag is "shall be removed from all completed welds" therefore zero allowance.
This paragraph is why no acceptance criteria shows up in table 6.1.

By 803056

Date 10-23-2007 02:39

I believe I would use a multifaceted approach to your quandary and hang my hat on the following: paragraph 5.26.1.3. (Granted I'm looking at D1.1-2002 because that's the one that was closest, 2004 is in the computer bag, 2006 is in the van, but they all contain the same information); "Incomplete Fusion, Excessive Welds Porosity, or Slag Inclusions. Unacceptable portions shall be removed." As stated by CWI555; 5.30.2 Slag shall be removed from all completed welds........ and you did include mentioned Table 6.1 which states in (2) "Thorough fusion shall exist between adjacent layers of weld metal and between weld metal and base metal." Thorough fusion does not exist if there is a slag inclusion present

There is some "bouncing around" involved to find the necessary information, but the three references listed above should be sufficient to address slag inclusions, be it due to inadequate cleaning, entrapped slag along the toe of a weld and the adjacent base metal or between the toes of adjacent weld beads. The acceptance or rejection is based on Table 6.1 (2), , and the repair is based on 5.26.1.3.

Should the slag inclusion be exposed to the surface immediately after welding, after machining or after some other operation, visual examination as well as penetrant testing should suffice to detect its presence.

Best regards - Al

By Bill M

Date 10-24-2007 21:00

Fig 6.3- If I have a 1-1/8" w.t. tubular joint an internal elongated discontinuity can be 3/4" long. Is that thorough fusion?

ref. fig 6.2 D1.1

I can have a 3/4" plate weld RT...with an internal 1/2" long elongated discontinuity, (evidentally that has "Thorough Fusion too"?)...I can also have a 1/4" diameter sphere of porosity ...thats ok too.....but what I don't get is if I have a 1/16" dot of something that makes a PT indication after machining a weld flush...now thats gotta be rejectable!

By 803056

Date 10-24-2007 21:03

Ain't it a bitch?

Al

By CWI555

Date 10-25-2007 02:09

LOL

By js55

Date 11-07-2007 21:47

I want to pursue this 'size of discontinuity' issue a bit further. And garner comments on experiences of the forum.

ASTM E 165 8.6.4 states that "Unless otherwise agreed, it is normal practice to interpret and evaluate the discontinuity based upon the size of the indication."

AWS D1.1 C-6.10 states "based upon visual evaluation of the discontinuity after the removal of the indicating medium."

Yet, the AWS D1.1 Commentary Forward states, "none of its provisions are binding."

So, the question is, how often have ya'll run into obstinacy that says skroo the Commentary I'm goin with the the bleed?

By CWI555

Date 11-07-2007 22:32

I've ran into that several times. The specific case of this thread in which a chunck of slag was the source, You have to revert back to the intent of "5.30.2 Cleaning of Completed Welds." which takes it out of commentary, and is why it's not listed in table 6.1 as if D1.1 had been adhered to, it would never be there to start with.

The bit about "none of its provisions are binding" leaves the door wide open to interpretation. For me, if I write their procedure for them, it will take into account the intent as put forth in the commentary, but, if I am third party to a shop with an established procedure, and contract docs have already been agreed to by all parties, and that procedure says size of bleed out, well thats what it is. To do anything else is to invite trouble, even though I think they are making more work for themselves.

Where I find the most trouble in all this is in new to semi new PT techs/NDE shops. They will very often say screw the commentary.

Regards,
Gerald

By js55

Date 11-08-2007 14:42

If the size of the bleed is the determinative then development time would have to be precisely limited wouldn't it? I certainly assume this is the case in the procedures you're involved in but I am not confident that industry wide this is the case.
And I am not comfortable with a go or no go being based upon something so arbitrary as tyo whethe ror not th tech has finsished his cigarette.
If you remove the penetrant then you are left with a real discontinuity with real dimensions, not something that relies on the stringency with which a PT tech enforces development time.
You are exaclty right, experience would make all the difference.

By js55

Date 11-08-2007 15:46

Also,
What of undercut?
What is the experience of ya'll when it comes to undercut judged acceptable by visual (<1/32"-1/16" as applicable) then discover a 'bleed' under PT?

By CWI555

Date 11-08-2007 16:16

If it's undercut, then it's not a bleed out, it's a case of improper processing and false indications.

By js55

Date 11-08-2007 16:51

Gerald,
Thank you.

By CWI555

Date 11-08-2007 16:42

There are those who don't pay attention to dwell times or proper processing. There are those who don't pay attention to shot times and processing in RT, or calibration in UT, or a lift test/slurry test for suspended wet mt etc, All in all, proper processing and procedural adherence is necessary for any NDE test. The whole idea is to have a control value from which to judge the results of test in the field.

Any NDE/NDI/NDT test is only as good as the professionalism and knowledge of the tech performing the test, and the same for the level III who prepared the procedure.

If a welder doesn't follow the WPS, doesn't pay attention to what filler they are using, and doesn't have the base knowledge to understand the same, do you have assurance's that the weld meets the metallurgical values of the PQR?

Using SCC for instance would a 1/32" hole at the surface represent an indication that extended 1/2" into the material be representative of the indication as a whole?
Or the Same for a hot crack, worm hole porosity, or any other cross section where the surface break is small and the internal structure is deep? Are these not "real discontinuities"?

The whole idea behind PT is to find such as these. They are in fact real, improper processing and lack of professionalism / knowledge and proper care by the PT tech doesn't make them go away.

The procedure is there for a reason, I suggest firing someones A%& if they have a habitual problem with following it.

By js55

Date 11-09-2007 15:57

Even if development time for the PT test is rigidly controlled, is it not the case that a variance in absorbancy of the developing medium (or even viscosity of the penetrant, etc, as well as other variables) can cause a variance in the dimension of the bleed out causing a variance in the evaluation even though the discontinuity and development time may be the exact same?
My point of course is a supporting argument for the wisdom of C-6.10, but still wondering why this has not been made mandatory.
Removing the PT media and reperforming a visual eliminates all these variables.

By hogan

Date 11-09-2007 16:17

i don't know that i have ever seen these issues as a problem more than maybe 1-2% of the time. there are specific requirements covering all of these issues. if someone can't follow the requirements they are out of a job. the codes and procedures tell the tech what to do and how to do it. a lot of the topics brought up are basic knowledge for the tech. i see no issues of concern

By js55

Date 11-09-2007 16:29

hogan,
I think its messier than that. 1% or 2%, though small percentages indeed, is really 1% or 2% that could be eliminated by making C-6.10 mandatory. And the fact that C-6.10 even exists indicates some history of concern.
Then nobody needs to worry about an acceptable 1/64" indication of porosity turning into a rejectable 1/4" red spot.
Incompetence? Inexperience? Irresponsibility? Maybe. Not unheard of. But the fix seems so easy.

By hogan

Date 11-09-2007 16:43

But the fix seems so easy.

you know what it takes to change a code

By js55

Date 11-09-2007 16:56

LMAO!!!!!!
OK. I stand corrected.

By js55

Date 11-09-2007 17:04

And uh,,,,,,yes actually I do.
To put it diplomatically,,,,it requires that a specific intransigent majority of committee members depart for a higher plane of existence.
Or at least decide that digging ones toes in the sand on some remote beach in the Carribean, and sipping Pina Coladas til the sunset gets fuzzy is more rewarding than protecting ones turf of minutia in code requirements.

By CWI555

Date 11-09-2007 18:15 Edited 11-09-2007 18:17

If Visual could find all the problems, including depth of a discontinuity in dimensions not open to the surface, there would be no need for PT, or for that matter any other NDE method.
Viscosity btw has no bearing on the penetrating ability of a given material. The only bearing it has is in time (velocity of transfer) required to penetrate and time to be drawn back out via the capilliary action.
Wetting ability and surface tension would have more of an effect than viscosity, with surface tension being more so the case.

The capilliary action is normally measured in a capillary tube, and if one factor is called out as critical for a PT test, that would be it.

Where H equals heigth of a liquid column

Y is liquid-air surface tension (j/m2)
0 is contact angle
p is density (kg/m3)
g is gravitational acceleration (m/s2)
r is radius of the tube (m)

H = 2Y cos0 /pgr
(reference Einstein: Conclusions from the capillarity phenomena 1901)

You will note that viscosity doesn't come into direct consideration.

Wetting ability is given by
Ssl = Ysg-(Yl+Ysl)
Where
Ssl = wetting ability
Yl = surface energy of the liquid-gas interface
Ysl = surface energy of the solid-liquid interface
Ysg = surface energy of trhe solid-gas interface
(reference ASNT Nondestructive testing handbook third edition volume 2 1999)

As for the developer
It's action is a combination of solvency, absorbtion and adsorption. absorbancy alone is not the only variance to be concerned with.
There is a reason specific temperature, and materials are limited in a procedure. Any procedure should be proofed via a comparator block at both ends of the temperature range it is validated for, and for the specific chems involved.
One of the more common mistakes I've seen is the procedure being qualified with chems from one manufacture, and the actual production test being performed later without requalification with another manufactures chems because manufacture 2 had a cheaper price.
Whatever it's proofed with is what you should use as the differences in chemistry between the two usually give slight to medium different results. (in some rarer cases drastic changes).

All in all, removing the pt media is a bad idea in most of the cases. I believe that is why it remains in the realm of commentary, as it doesn't apply in all cases.

By js55

Date 11-09-2007 19:01

"If Visual could find all the problems, including depth of a discontinuity in dimensions not open to the surface, there would be no need for PT."

Ah, but here is the problem with that, though in general I would agree with your logic. It only works if those that are controlling the PT are the same as those controlling the original VT. We have assemblies that have been VT'd as acceptable under Table 6.1 by the original fabricator. Now, the Engineer has requested PT over and above the VT for the same welds.
So we now have PT bleeds being declared as failures for the exact same indications that were acceptable under VT. If the removal of the PT media were mandatory with a visual reference back to Table 6.1 (essentially rendering the exact same criteria) this would not be allowed.

By hogan

Date 11-09-2007 19:25

i would speak to the tech and/or the tech's manager about the proper interpretation of code requirements. this is not a problem with the testing method, only interpretation.

By js55

Date 11-09-2007 19:37

thanks Hogan,
That makes sense. But my difficulty is that i am not, as is by now clear I'm sure, not a PT expert.
So, for proper interpretation, if faced with this difficulty (implicit in this difficulty is the possibility of an inspection firm standing by the interpretation of their tech) , how would you argue it?

By js55

Date 11-09-2007 19:40

And I suppose implicit in all this as well is my lack of an exact definition of how to 'read the bleed".

By CWI555

Date 11-09-2007 21:25

"PT bleeds being declared as failures for the exact same indications that were acceptable under VT"

Lets use an acceptable indication per D1.1 06 for VT. 1/32" pore visible to the surface. If that 1/32" pore on the surface extends down into the weld to a 1/4".
This will bleed out more than a sperical 1/32" pore. The area of this flaw would obviously be larger than the 1/32 sperical.

Then there is the case of planar flaws open to the surface. There are times when they are not visible to the naked eye. Do they get accepted because it can't be seen visually?

"So we now have PT bleeds being declared as failures for the exact same indications that were acceptable under VT."

This is comparing apples to oranges. So again, I say making the pt media removal mandatory would be a bad idea. Simply put, there are some flaws that cannot be detected visually alone. If Engineering deems those as a concern, then PT is a viable option.

By hogan

Date 11-09-2007 22:02

like a tight crack you can not see visually but it jumps out when you mag it

By js55

Date 11-09-2007 22:27

Fellas,
I'm not arguing that PT is not a viable method. I firmly believe it is. I'm just opposing the idea of the PT media staying on the weld and then using Table 6.1. And I believe this is the intent of C-6.10. There would be no other reason that I can think of to have it included.
The depth and area issues for porosity, though a valid consideration, is not a part of Table 6.1.
That to me sounds like an effort to buttress a rejection when your Table 6.1 criteria is being questioned with C-6.10.
If your going to use area or depth in your PT procedures thats fine, I would actually support such thinking, but it has nothing to do with Table 6.1. And if Table 6.1 is the standard then I do not believe an inspector has the authority to unilaterally switch criteria without prior agreement. And I do not think an inspector should take it upon himself to ignore the explicitly stated 'clarification and interpretation' intent of the Commentary.
What else is a Commentary for? It is, as stated in the Commentary Forward for 'clarification and interpretation'. Which above all else should be the first referred authority in case of dispute. Such as this.
And lets not forget that C-6.10 also includes a statement about using magnification if necessary to visually inspect after PT has revealed the location. This, even more so, emphasizes the Commentary's intent to NOT use Table 6.1 as PT criteria, and also addresses the idea of non visible planar discontinuities.
In other words, the AWS D1.1 committee is telling us in their own words, in their own interpretation and clarification that the PT media should be removed and then, and only then, Table 6.1 invoked usning a VT.

By CWI555

Date 11-09-2007 23:08

The first thing that comes to mind is this, Table 6.1 should never come into the picture for this. It is visual criteria. Not PT.
If that was your argument, then I agree. The way I read your post earlier, I understood you to mean wiping off the media, then judging surface flaws by table 6.1 when a PT bleed out had it rejected. It doesn't work that way.

The second thing would be, Where is his or her procedure in all this? Why is the inspector going to table 6.1 rather than their procedure?

Keep in mind, the commentary is just that, commentary. It's not intended to be a mandated part of the code, and for that matter, the PT technician should not be trying interpret the commentary, they should be going from a pre-established PT procedure unless that inspector is the cognizant Level III, and even then they better have a procedure. Last time I checked only a level III was allowed to write procedures per most certification schemes and writing one on the fly to suit doesn't work either.

By hogan

Date 11-09-2007 23:19

do you have access to astm e165

By RANDER

Date 11-10-2007 03:06 Edited 11-10-2007 03:08

AWS D1.1 - 2006

Part D
NDT Procedures
6.14.5 PT. For detecting discontinuities that are open to
the surface, PT may be used. The standard methods set
forth in ASTM E 165 shall be used for PT inspection, and
the standards of acceptance shall be in conformance with
Section 6, Part C, of this code, whichever is applicable.

Part C
Acceptance Criteria

6.10 PT and MT
Welds that are subject to MT and PT, in addition to
visual inspection, shall be evaluated on the basis of the
applicable requirements for visual inspection. The testing
shall be performed in conformance with 6.14.4 or 6.14.5,
whichever is applicable.

(This takes you to table 6.1 for evaluation)

C-6.10 PT and MT
The code does not include acceptance criteria for liquid
penetrant testing based on bleedout of the dye. When
PT is used, the acceptance of any discontinuity shall be
based on a visual evaluation of the discontinuity after the
removal of the indicating medium. Where the discontinuity
cannot be seen (with magnification if required) after
removal of the indicating medium, evaluation shall be
based on the size and nature of the PT indication. Observation
of the penetrant as it bleeds out will provide useful
information concerning the nature of the discontinuity.

(This commentary does allow for using the size of the indication for evaluation when the discontinuity cannot be seen even with magnification.)

ASTM E165-02
Standard Test Method for
Liquid Penetrant Examination

Section 8 -procedure
8.9.4 Evaluation--Unless otherwise agreed, it is normal
practice to interpret and evaluate the discontinuity based on the
size of the indication

(Well, calling out AWS d1.1 in contract specs. seems to be an agreeance to use their criteria)

ASME Section 8
ASME B31.3
call for using the size of the indication not the discontinuity for the basis of acceptance/rejection however the code in question is D1.1 so FWIW I agree with JS55 on this one.
Porosity in a pressure retaining weld seems to be a greater concern than in a structural weld as it presents a potential leak path and perhaps that is the logic in the differences of evaluation between these codes.

Now in the time it took to write all this even with cut and paste help, A guy could have filed/ground out that little pore and everyone would be happy!

As is often stated that is my 2 cents and you got it for free

By CWI555

Date 11-10-2007 08:31 Edited 11-10-2007 09:05

I think I would still have to disagree. There are some important details left out of your post.

Part C
Acceptance Criteria
6.7 Scope
"The extent
of examination and the acceptance criteria shall be
specified in the contract documents on information furnished
to the bidder."

6.8 Engineer's Approval for
Alternate Acceptance Criteria
The fundamental premise of the code is to provide
general stipulations applicable to most situations. Acceptance
criteria for production welds different from those
described in the code may be used for a particular application,
provided they are suitably documented by the
proposer and approved by the Engineer. These alternate
acceptance criteria may be based upon evaluation of suitability
for service using past experience, experimental
evidence or engineering analysis considering material
type, service load effects, and environmental factors.

6.14 Procedures
"The NDT procedures as described in this code have
been in use for many years and provide reasonable assurance
of weld integrity; however, it appears that some
users of the code incorrectly consider each method capable
of detecting all unacceptable discontinuities."

6.14.5 PT. For detecting discontinuities that are open to
the surface, PT may be used. The standard methods set
forth in ASTM E 165 shall be used for PT inspection, and
the standards of acceptance shall be in conformance with
Section 6, Part C, of this code, whichever is applicable.

IN 10.2 of E165 it states Procedure Qualification - Qualification of procedures using
times or conditions differing from those specified, or for new materials may be performed
by any of several methods and should be agreed by the contracting parties.

E165 10.4 re-qualification may be required when a change or substitution is made in the type of penetrant materials or in the procedure.

In your post you stated "(This takes you to table 6.1 for evaluation)"
It does not send you back to table 6.1, it sends you to contract documents.

As per paragraph 6.8 in regards to alternate acceptance criteria
The owner engineer can make the acceptance criteria whatever they wish as long as they document it.

Therefore in summary;

When it was stated by the owner engineer to use PT, that engineer takes responsibility.
The contract docs that gave the engineer the authority to do so, again means he or she sets the acceptance criteria.
The PT tech should be working to a procedure, that is required per D1.1.
It is an incorrect assumption that all relevant indications can be found with Visual. In para 6.14 it makes that crystal clear.
No where in the normative code (in regards to PT) does it say use table 6.1 for acceptance criteria, rather it clearly refers you back to contract docs in paragraph 6.7 which is referred to in paragraph 6.14.5.
Regardless of what the commentary says, It all comes back to contract documents. If the acceptance criteria is agreed upon in contract docs, or for any reason the owner engineer deemed it necessary to use alternate acceptance criteria, then that's what your stuck with.

Now if this PT test and the acceptance criteria was not submitted to the bidder, then the owner is out on their own, and unless they have a contract stipulation to the effect of being able to call out further testing, they are subject to charges for the additional testing.

When I am contracted to write procedures, or evaluate an a set of procedure prepared by others for the owner, I try to steer them in the direction of the commentary.
But again, the commentary is just that commentary, The owner / engineer does not have to use it.

Regards,
Gerald

By RANDER

Date 11-10-2007 09:53

The quotes are correct and D1.1 is not my world so maybe I am misinterpreting this but,

AWS D1.1 - 2006
6.10 PT and MT
Welds that are subject to MT and PT, in addition to
visual inspection, shall be evaluated on the basis of the
applicable requirements for visual inspection

6.9 Visual Inspection
All welds shall be visually inspected and shall be
acceptable if the criteria of Table 6.1 are satisfied

By CWI555

Date 11-10-2007 17:18

In that I believe the code contradicts itself, in 6.7 it clearly states to go to contract docs.

In 6.14.5 it states "ASTM E 165 shall be used for PT inspection, and the standards of acceptance shall be in conformance with Section 6, Part C, of this code, whichever is applicable."

In 6.7 "The extent and the acceptance criteria shall be specified in the contract documents on information furnished to the bidder."
Note the specific statement "extent and the acceptance criteria"

That kicks you back to section 1. in para 1.4 Engineer's responsibilities, D1.1 definitions of contractor, owner, engineer etc.

The only required surface method is "VT". anything else is clearly stated as required the "extent and the acceptance criteria" on information furnished to the bidder.
If you need further clarification, I suggest you read Part B 6.6 in it's entirety.
For that matter, the only other "required" NDE is for tubular connections welded from one side without backing per paragraph 6.11.1 Which mandates UT or RT.

It should also be noted that there is more than one interpretation of the paragraph in 6.10.

The commentary is full of good information, information that should be evaluated by the purchasing agent and engineer of the owner or their representative.
A lot of organizations UT CJP welds, but for instance in the commentary it states "should be UT's or RT'd. It's not a requirement. (except as noted in para 6.11.1)

AWS puts a trump statement in iii in the front of the book:
"Statement on the Use of American Welding Society Standards"
"In issuing and making this standard available, AWS is not undertaking to render professional or other services for or on
behalf of any person or entity. Nor is AWS undertaking to perform any duty owed by any person or entity to someone
else. Anyone using these documents should rely on his or her own independent judgment or, as appropriate, seek the
advice of a competent professional in determining the exercise of reasonable care in any given circumstances."

Except as required by law in some instances, AWS specifically puts the monkey on the engineers back.
They would be stupid not to do so as they would otherwise be open to lawsuits a plenty if even a bolt were to fall on someones head.

Bottom Line: VT is the only required surface method. All others have to specifically be called out by the contract documents, including their acceptance criteria. Owner Engineer trumps contractor as the engineer is clearly designated as the responsible party. As an inspector, trying to step into the engineers shoes with one interpretation or another is a big mistake. Now who pays for surface inspections past visual, and associated rework cost thats another story. Since all welds are susposed to meet the visual requirements before any further NDE (6.11) and if the indication is not visible to the naked eye, that indication and work required to fix it are subject to charges per para 6.6.5 if the inspections are not specified in contract docs. If they are spec'd per 6.6.4 then the contractor has signed on to doing the test as is in which case there is no recourse other than to get it done as is.

By js55

Date 11-12-2007 14:25

Before I take a closer look at the responses I want to thank Gerald, hogan, and rander for their responses to my question. I did do a quick peruse of Geralds response and an answer to one question is: I have not been able to acquire as yet the procedures, the acceptance criteria or anything else, so I'm still shootin blind.
I am leaving later on today to go to Fl to do battle with the forces of evil (just kiddin), and I needed as much info as I cold recieve in preparation.
thanks.
As soon as I get a chance this morning I will take a closer look and respond. Above anything else I wish for these assemblies to be viable and able to do what they are intended to do, but I also am in no mood to allow my company to get a toolin. Your help has been invaluable.

By js55

Date 11-12-2007 15:01

Gerald,
I agree that contract docs shall govern.
I also agree that whatever the Engineer wants the Engineer should get.
But this for us is also a Section 6.6.5 issue. The original contract docs were for VT only. Standard AWS D1.1 stuff. Then, when the parts are 60 feet in the air the Engineer, getting a little nervous with certification hangin in the balance, decides to add PT, and expects us to pay for whatever he finds. If its cracks, fusion, etc we have no problem fixing them(though I have as yet seen no reports to that effect), since there should be none there in the first place, and have even made this known to them already without our being present on the site as yet. Even porosity for that matter if VT missed it and it is in non compliance with Table 6.1.
But not undercut or porosity that complies with table 6.1, but is determined as rejected becasue the inspection service they brought in says so.
I also agree with Rander that in many instances the repairs would not take a lot of time and in the interest of customer relations doing the repairs is not that big of deal. But there is a limit. My thought is that if the Engineer wanted PT then he should have spec't PT in the original contract docs, and we would have gladly performed them. And the job would have been priced accordingly. If the engineer comes back after the fact to impose PT thats OK too. But Section 6.6.5 is imposed.
Does anybody have similar experiences they would wish to share?

By CWI555

Date 11-12-2007 16:44

"The original contract docs were for VT only"
"with certification hangin in the balance, decides to add PT, and expects us to pay for whatever he finds"
That engineer apparently is unfamilar with para 6.6.5. Based on your description, They owe some money for the extra work.
And yes, I've experienced this more than one time.

By js55

Date 11-12-2007 17:12

"And yes, I've experienced this more than one time."

Kinda figured that.
If all inspection firms and/or inspectors were as thorough as you, my life would be much easier.

By js55

Date 11-12-2007 17:10

Thank you Gerald,
Very helpful.

By js55

Date 11-14-2007 15:07

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Gerald, hogan, and Rander for their posts in this thread. The information made available was very helpful in the meetings I had with the inspection firm and the customer on the project in question.

By hogan

Date 11-14-2007 15:27

so what was decided about undercut that bleedes out? imo it should not be cause for rejection