Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2



Approval Date: December 23, 1996

See Numeric Index for expiration
and any reaffirmation dates.

Case 2235 TABLE 1

Use of Ultrasonic Examination in Lieu of ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
Radiography Acceptable Length of Indication, , in.
Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2 Surface
Range of Indication Indications Subsurface
Inquiry: Under what conditions and limitations may Aspect Ratio a / [Note (1)] Indications
an ultrasonic examination be used in lieu of radiography, 0.1 or less 0.20t 0.24t
when radiography is required in accordance with Section >0.1 to 0.3 0.10t 0.12t
VIII, Division 1, para. UW-11(a) and Section VIII, >0.3 to 0.5 0.06t 0.12t
Division 2, Table AF-241.1? NOTE:
(1) A subsurface indication shall be considered as a surface flaw if
Reply: It is the opinion of the Committee that all the separation (s in Fig. 1) of the indication from the nearest
surface of the component is equal to or less than half the through-
welds in material 4 in. or greater in thickness in pressure thickness dimension (2a in Fig. 1) of the subsurface indication.
vessels may be examined using the ultrasonic (UT)
method in lieu of the radiography (RT) method, provided
that all of the following requirements are met:
(a) The ultrasonic examination area shall include the
volume of the weld, plus 2 in. on each side of the weld. shall be used as a guideline. Only Level II or III
(b) The ultrasonic examination shall be performed personnel shall analyze the data or interpret the results.
using a device employing automatic computer enhanced (g) Contractor qualification records of certified per-
data acquisition. sonnel shall be approved by the Certificate Holder and
(c) A documented examination strategy or scan plan maintained by their employer.
shall be provided showing transducer placement, move- (h) In addition, personnel who acquire and analyze
ment, and component coverage which provides a stan- UT data shall be trained using the equipment in (b)
dardized and repeatable methodology for weld accept- above, and participate in the demonstration of (e) above.
ance. The scan plan shall also include ultrasonic beam (i) Evaluation and acceptance criteria shall be as
angle used, beam directions with respect to weld center-
(1) Recording Criteria. Reflectors that produce a
line, and vessel volume examined for each weld. The
response greater than 20% of the reference level shall
documentation shall be made available to the Owner
be investigated. Any reflector considered to be a flaw
upon his request.
shall be recorded regardless of amplitude. The maximum
(d) Data is recorded in unprocessed form. A complete
amplitude, location, and extent of these reflectors shall
data set with no gating, filtering, or thresholding shall
be recorded. The operator shall determine whether the
be included in the data record. indication originates from a flaw or is a geometric
(e) The ultrasonic examination shall be performed indication in accordance with (2) below. When the
in accordance with Section V, Article 4, using a written reflector is determined to be a flaw the acceptance
procedure. The procedure shall have been demonstrated criteria of Table 1 shall apply.
to perform acceptably on a qualification block with (2) Geometric. Ultrasonic indications of geometric
imbedded flaws including a flaw no larger than the and metallurgical origin shall be classified as follows:
0.06t flaw in Table 1 criteria representing the thickness (a) Indications that are determined to originate
to be examined. Acceptable performance is defined as from the surface configurations (such as weld reinforce-
response from the 0.06t and other flaws of interest ment or root geometry) or variations in metallurgical
demonstrated to exceed the reference level. structure of materials (such as cladding to base metal
(f) Personnel performing and evaluating UT exami- interface) may be classified as geometric indications, and
nations shall be qualified and certified in accordance (1) need not be characterized or sized in
with their employers written practice. SNT-TC-1A accordance with (i)(3) below;


This is Electrontic File Page # 359

Asme BPVC Code Cases 1998 Edition CCASE12235 06-15-98 14:13:18

CASE (continued)


(2) need not be compared to allowable flaw (c) Alternatively, other NDE methods or tech-
acceptance criteria of Table 1; niques may be applied to classify an indication as
(3) the maximum indication amplitude and geometric (e.g., alternative UT beam angles, radiogra-
location shall be recorded, for example: internal attach- phy, ID and/or OD profiling).
ments, 200% DAC maximum amplitude, one (1) in. (3) Flaw Sizing. Flaws shall be sized in accordance
above the weld centerline, on the inside surface, from with a procedure qualified by demonstration on similar
90 deg. to 95 deg. reflectors and material depths (refer to Fig. 1).
(b) The following steps shall be taken to classify (4) Flaw Evaluation. Flaws characterized as sur-
an indication as geometric: face flaws shall be evaluated for acceptance in accord-
(1) Interpret the area containing the reflector ance with the following:
in accordance with the applicable examination pro- (a) Acceptance criteria in Table 1; and
cedure; (b) A supplemental surface examination.
(2) Plot and verify the reflector coordinates, (1) Indications characterized as cracks, lack
provide a cross-sectional display showing the reflector of fusion, or incomplete penetration are unacceptable
position and surface discontinuity such as root or coun- regardless of lengths.
terbore; and (j) This Case number shall be shown on the Manufac-
(3) Review fabrication or weld prep drawings. turers Data Report.


This is Electrontic File Page # 360

Asme BPVC Code Cases 1998 Edition CCASE12235 06-15-98 14:13:18