Aws D1 1 Visual Inspection Acceptance Criteria

INSPECTION AWS D111D1-M2015 Table 6.1 Visual Inspection Acceptance Criteria (see 6.9) Discontinaity Category and Inspection Criteria, ‘Staically Loaded Nontubalar Connections (Cyelicaliy Loaded Nonubalar Connections iO Crack Prohibition Ay crack shal be unaccepable, regardless of size or location, x x (@) WelaBase Metal Fusion ‘Complete fusion shall exit between adjacent layers.

AWSD1.1 RT Acceptance Criteria. Welds that are subject to RT in addition to visual inspection shall have no cracks and shall be unacceptable if the RT shows any discontinuities exceeding the following.
If AWS D1.1 is the code that covers the welding performed,then yes the welder and weld inspector should visually inspect all welds according to Table 6.1 (Visual Inspection Acceptance Criteria) By jon20013 Date 18:45 Agreed, with emphasis on the welding inspector being the one responsible for performing the final inspection.

5.26.1.3 says unacceptable slag inclusions shall be removed. As you pointed out, 5.30 says the slag is to be removed and the adjacent base metal cleaned (such as with a wire brush). I see nothing that says any slag is acceptable on the surface (only inside while doing RT or UT). I interpret that to say no slag is acceptable on the surface. I think the slag needs to be removed from a slag pocket to determine what the weld really looks like. It then should be compared with code acceptance criteria. If a particular welder is consistently having this problem, his supervisor should be notified so some sort of correction can be made.
Someone has to remove the slag. It is my opinion that it is really the welder's responsibility to remove slag. I 'fight' with welders and production about the amount of slag and spatter left on welds. Since I believe welder should be the first to VT their own welds, when I find significant amounts of slag, I ask them how they performed that VT. Blasting (depending upon cleanliness level such as brush blasting) does not always remove it. Galvanizing operations do not remove slag but sure highlight it when pieces get back. Loose spatter is a problem at the coating operation. When it gets bad, I don't inspect the pieces until the supervisor sends the welders back to clean them. But reality says I carry a flashlight and a chipping hammer to do my VT. I have never in my weld inspection career (at fabricators or during field erection) been blessed with welders that completely clean their welds so that I did not have to occasionally clean some slag or spatter while inspecting. Seems like a fact of life.

Liquid penetrant testing acceptance criteria depend on theconstruction code. For example, if a pressure vessel such as a reactor, heatexchanger, drum, process tower subjected to the test, then acceptance criteriacan be found in the ASME Code SectionVIII Div. 1 Appendix 8. If you are doing a penetrant test on steel structure,then you should look for acceptance criteria in the AWS D1.1

Liquid Penetrant Testing Acceptance Criteria Based on ASMEVIII Div 1 Appendix 8

The ASME Code Section VIII Div. 1 Mandatory Appendix 8covers the acceptance criteria for Penetrant testing on the weld. Please noteAPI codes for rotating equipment also refer to this code. For instance, if youare performing a liquid penetrant testing on pipe weld to pump casing and youfind an indication, then you need to refer to appendix 8 of the code mentioned above for evaluationsince the API 610 does not directly address the acceptance criteria issue.

As per appendix 8, any indication greater than 1/16 in (1.5mm) shall be considered a relevant indication. You may ignore any indicationthat might be less than this value. It divides the indication into two groupsas follows:

Rounded indications: any relevant indication (it means if itsmajor dimension is greater than 1/16 (1.5 mm) ) shall be considered rejected ifit is greater than 3/16 in (5 mm)

Linear or elongated indication: all elongated indication arerejected regardless of the size. An indication is elongated or linear when itslength is three times of its wide.

As you see, there is more leeway for rounded indication.However, if several rounded indications existed in line and separated by ashort distance, might be considered rejected indications.

Liquid Penetrant Testing Acceptance Criteria for ProcessPiping - ASME B31.3

The acceptance criteria exactly is as the same of ASMESection VIII Div. 1 Appendix 8. The criteria addressed in clause number 344.4.2- Acceptance Criteria

Aws D1.1 Weld Acceptance Criteria

Liquid Penetrant Testing Acceptance Criteria for Casting Usedfor Pressure Vessels and Rotating Equipment

The ASME Code Section VIII Div. 1 Appendix 7 addresses thisissue. The code requires all cracks and hot tears to be rejectedregardless of the size. The rounded indication can be considered rejected ifthe size is greater than 3/16 inch or 5 mm.

The linear indication depends on the thickness if the thickness is lessthan 0.75 inch then any linear indication greater than 1/4 inch will beconsidered unacceptable. If the thickness of the test object is between 0.75and 2.25 inch, then max allowed linear indication is the 1/3 of the thickness.

An indication mightbe rejected based on one code or standard and might be acceptable based anothercode and standard.

The test evaluation and interpretation shall be done byqualified ASNT Level II or Level III liquid penetrant test technicians.

D1.1 Visual Inspection Criteria

Return to Inspection 4 Industry Home

Did you find this article useful? Click on below Like and G+1 buttons!

Aws D1.1 Visual Inspection

New! Comments

Have your say about what you just read! Leave me a comment in the box below.