Change Proposal Topic List
MIL-STD 2035A(SH)
The following represents the latest change proposals and comments submitted as of Apr 2009.
1
Original Proposal
Discussion
The number one goal should be to delete all of the figures related
to the RT, MT, and PT evaluation criteria for welds. Maybe
even substituting the requirements currently detailed in
NAVSEA 250-1500-1. As an alternative, NAVSEA should
review the various “cheater” charts developed by the shipyards
and substitute the most easily understandable ones.
The overall issue of aligning the
acceptance criteria detailed in MILSTD-2035A with that required in
NAVSEA 250-1500-1 should be
considered.
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: “all” may not be applicable, but agree with deletion of figures 6 thru 23, and 31 thru 48.
EB concurs wholeheartedly
NGNN: Agree with changing figures to a format similar to 250-1500-1. DISAGREE with using 250-1500-1 RT,
MT and PT acceptance criteria across the board. This criteria would be too restrictive in many cases, and require
evaluation of indications that are currently not evaluated in the non-nuc realm.
PSNS & IMF: Agree only in part – Disagree with using 250-1500 acceptance criteria.
MARMC: Agrees with NNGN or with deleting figures entirely. If RT figures are deleted the requirement of the
last sentence of paragraph 5.2.1.6.2 has to be addressed elsewhere.
SWRMC: Agree with NGNN
NGUS: Agree with Norfolk and NGNN
Revised Proposal
Comments
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph #: 1.1 and 2.1.1, Delete references to MIL-STD-271
and replace with T9074-AS-GIB-010/271.
To be consistent with current
nomenclature.
2
Comments
Comments:
TRF concurs
Norfolk: Agree.
EB Concurs.
PSNS & IMF: Agree
SWRMC: concur!
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
1
Comments
3
Original Proposal
Discussion
Section 3. DEFINITIONS.
Recommend adding the following definitions:
1. Adjacent base material. The accessible area of base
metal that is within ½-inch of the toes of a weld, unless
otherwise specified.
2. Joint offset. The misalignment of abutting edges of base
materials for butt joints. If an offset condition exists in a
pipe joint, the condition will exist at a minimum of two
places 180° to each other. If the abutting edges of a pipe
joint are mismatched in only one area, then one or both
pieces are not concentric, such as the case with nonuniform chamfers or out-of-round pipe valves and fittings.
This condition is not offset.
3. Melt-through. A convex or concave irregularity on the
surface of a backing ring or strip, fused root, or adjacent
metal resulting from fusion completely through a localized
region, but without development of a void or open hole.
4. Shapes. Materials such as square tubing square bar, or flat
bar having a cross-section in the shape of a T, L (angle), Z,
channel, I, H, etc.
5. Weld Length. A continuous length of weld without a
change in direction. A change in the direction shall be
considered the start of a new weld length, except for
shapes. For the purpose of this document, attachment
welds of shapes shall be considered to be one continuous
weld. Plate end(s), seal lengths, or wrap-around welds
shall be considered part of the continuous weld length and
are not considered a separate weld.
To be consistent with current
nomenclature.
Comments
TRF Concurs
EB concurs wholeheartedly.
NGNN: Agree.
PSNS & IMF: Agree in part - see comment for revised proposal.
MARMC: Agrees
SWRMC: See Below
NGUS: Agree
2
Revised Proposal
Revised Discussion
Norfolk proposes the following definitions:
1. Adjacent base material. The ½” of metal that is
contiguous to the weld being inspected. For welds this
distance shall be measured from the weld toe, and
includes the surface on each side of the weld.
2. Joint offset. The misalignment of abutting edges of
base materials for butt joints. If an offset condition
exists in a pipe joint, the condition will exist at a
minimum of two places 180° to each other. If the
abutting edges of a pipe joint are mismatched in only
one area, then one or both pieces are not concentric,
such as the case with non-uniform chamfers or out-ofround pipe valves and fittings. This condition is not
offset.
3. Melt-through. A convex or concave irregularity on
the surface of a backing ring or strip, fused root, or on
adjacent material resulting from fusion completely
through a localized region, but without development of
a void or open hole.
4. Shapes. Materials such as square tubing, square
bar, or flat bar having a cross-section in the shape of a
T, L (angle), Z, channel, I, H, etc.
5. Weld length. A continuous length of weld surface
without interruption. An intersection of new welds does
not constitute an interruption. Plate end(s), seal
lengths, or wrap-around welds, including attachment
welds, shall be considered as one weld length. Full
penetration welds welded from two sides shall have
each weld face considered as an independent weld
length. Partial penetration welds, welded from multiple
sides, may have each side considered as a separate
weld length, regardless of their end condition.
Defining it this way will reinforce the use of accessible
adjacent base material (later on), as the internal surface
may not be accessible, as well as allows for those area
that are not accessible. See proposed change to topic
50. Norfolk’s desire is to use one term consistently
throughout document. Whether it is base metal or base
material does not matter, just want it to be consistent.
The term “other shapes” is used in Table 1. Is there
some other reason for adding this definition? If you
define a list of items here, then that limits other shapes
to that list. Norfolk does not think it wise to limit other
shapes to such a concrete list. But if you do add such a
list, then would we have to put a note under Table 1:
See definition of other shapes in paragraph 3.##.
The proposed “weld length” does not fit well with UT.
Consider a patch with 4 radius corners, by this
definition, there would be 4 separate weld lengths. If
one were to consider such a patch being made up of 4
welds, inconsistency would arise as to where each weld
starts and stops in relation to each radius. The same
problem exists for D-shaped patches. Suggest welds
containing corners with radiuses be considered one
weld.
Intersection of new welds such as a ”D” shaped hull
patch, should be considered one weld length on each
side of patch (if welded from both sides).
Allows for a fillet weld on a stiffener to hull frame to
be welded from both sides and the weld length to be
considered on each side. However, these words to
allow for a weld around a pad eye to be considered as
either one weld length or 4 weld lengths, but wouldn’t
it be advantageous to consider it one weld length.
SWMRC Proposes:
1. Adjacent base material. The ½” of metal that is
next to the weld being inspected. For welds this
distance includes the surface on each side of the weld
and shall be measured from the weld toes.
2. Porosity A discontinuity in metal resulting
from the creation or coalescence of gases. It is
generally considered a non-linear or rounded
indication.
If we add a definition of porosity then we can
include the fact that porosity is considered a nonlinear or rounded indication, thus tying it to the
MT and PT acceptance.
3. Clustered Porosity Indications A group of four
or more evaluated rounded indications concentrated in
a pattern as shown in figure 24, where each indication
is separated by less than 1/8 inch or 3D, (where D is
the diameter of the largest pore in that group)
whichever is greater. Acceptance of clustered porosity
indications is found in TABLE 5.
3
Comments
PSNS & IMF: Agree with Norfolk with exception of adjacent base material definition. Use the definition from
original proposal – it’s simpler and essentially says the same thing.
NGNN: Agree
4
Original Proposal
Discussion
Section 3. Move definition for Clustered porosity in the
definition section and properly title it as: "Clustered indications".
A group of four or more regardable rounded indications
concentrated in a pattern as shown in figure 24, where each
indication is separated by less than 1/8 inch of 3D, whichever is
greater. Where D is the diameter of the largest indication in the
group.
Provides one definition that can be used
for RT, MT, and PT as used in
5.2.1.6.5, Table VII note (5), and Table
IX note (5). Acceptance criteria will
remain in applicable location.
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: agree
EB does not agree that this is an improvement – OLD DOG doesn’t want to learn a NEW TRICK.
NGNN: Agree
PSNS & IMF: Agrees with EB – this is not an improvement.
MARMC: Agrees with EB. Disregarding MT, PT and RT compliment one another; in most cases a weld which
requires RT is also going to require PT. PT acceptance is based on % of square area and as such most “clusters”
that would be detrimental will be rejectable under the current criteria, ones that aren’t will likely be shallow
surface indications. RT acceptance is based on % of volume (thickness) and in my opinion the clustered porosity
requirement compensates for proximate indications which would otherwise be acceptable in thicker materials.
SWRMC: A cluster is a cluster weather it was discovered by RT or PT…
Revised Proposal
Clustered indications. A group of four or more regardable rounded indications concentrated in a pattern as shown
in figure 24, where each indication is separated by less than 1/8 inch of 3D, whichever is greater. Where D is the
diameter of the largest indication in the group. The cluster size shall be measured as the smallest circle which can
encompass all the indications in the cluster.
Comments
Norfolk- while we agree that the definition of what a porosity cluster is should be moved to the definition section,
one has to be careful to keep in line with the rest of the acceptance criteria. For RT the only types of indications
that this cluster includes is porosity and tungsten (5.2.1.3 acceptable tungsten shall be counted as porosity), Slag,
IF and IP need not to be included in a cluster as specified in paragraph 5.2.1.6.5, however the spacing of slag, IF
and IP is addressed in 5.2.1.5. This proposed definition has added the word “rounded” to compensate for those
types of indications. Some definition of a cluster is needed as the term cluster is used in Tables VII and IX.
This definition uses the RT definition in 5.2.1.6.5 as it basis. Both Note 5 to Table VII and Note 5 to Table IX
state the same thing: “scattered indications separted by 1/8 inch or more shall not be considered as part of the
cluster.” This separation distance is different than that which is stated in 5.2.1.6.5. Norfolk proposes to unify
these separation requirements and apply a consistent use of cluster throughout the document.
If this definition is accepted then Notes 5 to Table VII and IX must be modified.
4
5
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph 3.6 Change definition of design material thickness to
read as follows:
For clarification.
“The nominal thickness of the material, exclusive of
reinforcement or backing rings and straps, as provided by design
documents (e.g. drawings).”
Comments
TRF, Norfolk has some good comments, TRF would like their recommendation be used.
Norfolk: disagree, use proposal in topic 6
EB: This definition is in numerous specifications, so this one change may not be appropriate all by itself.
NGNN: Agree
PSNS & IMF: Disagree – see revised proposal below.
MARMC: See topic 6 below.
SWRMC: Number 6 below.
Revised Proposal
PSNS & IMF: Para. 3.6 Change definition of design material thickness to that from 250-1500-1.
Comments
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph 3.6 Design Material Thickness (T or DMT). The
nominal or average thickness of the material of the strength
member, exclusive of reinforcement or backing rings and strips.
When the actual measured thickness is greater than the nominal
thickness, the actual thickness should be used.
JUSTIFICATION: Clarify which
thickness is to be used when both the
nominal and measured thicknesses are
provided. Sets up a standard to be used
for all activities to be consisted.
Acceptance criteria was developed
based on the schedule thickness of the
component. Many times piping
material is manufactured to be thicker
than the scheduled thickness. Using
this thicker material allows for a more
accurate acceptance criteria in relation
to the material being inspected.
6
Comments
TRF: Norfolk has some good comments, TRF would like their recommendation be used.
It is Norfolk’s desire to have the inspector use the DMT for the evaluation of all attributes. In addition, there are
many cases when two thickness values are provided, makes no difference if the actual measured is a minimum or
an average. Norfolk would like to provide the inspector with the guidance to use the value that is most
advantageous to accepting the joint. By using word “should” allows the inspector to use either value and since
the requirement allows it that is an acceptable work practice, however the thicker thickness is the thickness that is
most beneficial to use. Propose delete the second sentence and replace with; "When both measurements are
provided the thicker of the two values should be used."
Norfolk proposes that 2035 use this same term throughout entire document for evaluation of all attributes in the
following paragraphs, in lieu of those presently listed: in 4.2 - minimum design thickness, in Table 1 Note 1 minimum thickness of adjacent base metal; in 4.2.12.1, 4.2.12.2, 4.2.13.1 - adjacent base metal thickness; in
4.2.16.1, 4.2.16.2 - minimum thickness; and in 4.2.17.1, 4.2.18.1 - adjacent base metal’s nominal thickness.
EB: begs the question “What do you do when the actual measured thickness is less than the nominal thickness??”
5
NGNN: Disagree with using “actual thickness”. This should always be based on Design Thickness. “Actual
thickness” may vary around the circumference of a pipe, and only complicates the matter. Also, how is “actual
thickness” determined? Delete: "When the actual measured thickness is greater than the nominal thickness, the
actual thickness should be used."
PSNS & IMF: Agrees with NGNN. See revised proposal below.
MARMC: Favors omitting the word “design” and using the definition of 271, paragraph 3.2.1, which along with
ASTM E 1316 definitions as they apply to MT and PT have to be considered here. Since a good portion of the
2035 is used for acceptance of fillet (socket) joints, I don’t think omission of “strength member” in topic 5 above
is an option. EB makes a good point especially considering that often repairs are made where new material and
existing/degraded material is joined.
SWRMC: This seems to be the better of the two.
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
PSNS & IMF: Alternatively: “The nominal thickness of the material of the strength member, exclusive of
reinforcement or backing rings and strips. When measured the actual minimum documented thickness may be
used”
Comments
Norfolk - To answer EB’s question- right now the standard allows either to be used, and even implies that the
design material thickness is the one to be used. Using the actual measured thickness, when it is less than the
nominal, is a more conservative selection. Most activities do not teach their people to compute an average
thickness, but rather record the minimum measured thickness on the weld record. If the minimum is greater than
the nominal, surely the average would be. Since the words allow either the nominal or average to be used, we
should be taking advantage of this allowance.
NGNN: Agree with the PSNS & IMF revised proposal.
7
Original Proposal
Discussion
Add definition for "Disregardable Indications", Indications that
are relevant but are not to be counted or considered in the
evaluation of the item due to the material thickness. When this
states that indications shall be disregarded they shall not be
considered regardless of their alignment or proximity.
Settle the matter concerning what
actions to take when these indications
are present. Attached is a 6 page
summary of discussion for supporting
this interpretation of disregarding these
indications.
Comments
TRF agrees with Norfolk’s recommendation.
Norfolk recommends: Indications that, according to the applicable acceptance criteria, are not to be counted or
considered in the evaluation of the item. When directed to disregard such indications, these indications shall not
be considered regardless of their alignment or proximity to other indications. Propose changing paragraph to
read: "Indications that, according to the applicable acceptance criteria, are not to be counted or considered in the
evaluation of the item. When directed to disregard such indications, these indications shall not be considered
regardless of their alignment or proximity to other indications."
EB asks, does this then change (not clarify) the evaluation criteria for certain inspections, such as Note (2) to
TABLE IX??”
NGNN: OK but unnecessary
PSNS & IMF: Disagree. As 2035 is written now, “Disregardable Indications” must still be considered when in
an aligned condition (See 6.2.2.1 and Note 2 to Table IX). To make this work, the definition must say this does
not apply to indications that are in an aligned condition and that aligned indications are to be evaluated per the
applicable section of this document.
MARMC: Agrees with NNGN, isn’t this the way it’s always been interpreted. Disregarded is disregarded, read
no further.
6
SWRMC: This is the way it was taught in the Navy’s School, but I suppose it would eliminate interpretation
issues if it were in black and white. We didn’t all go to the same school, or at the same time…
NGUS: Agrees with Norfolk
Revised Proposal
Indications that are relevant but are not to be counted or considered in the evaluation of the item due to the
material thickness. When the criteria states that indications are to be disregarded they shall not be considered
regardless of their alignment or proximity.
Comments
Norfolk – We agree that disregard means disregard as does MARMC, however these words remove the
possibility of anyone thinking any other way, since there was much debate whether these indications
should be disregarded when it came to aligned rounded indications addressed in 6.2.2.1.
NGNN: Agree.
Original Proposal
8
Discussion
Move definition of isolated pore to definition section. "Isolated
So conditions that are to be evaluated
Porosity Pore", An isolated porosity pore is defined as a pore that are defined in the definitions section
is separated from any other regardable porosity pore by at least 1 vice in the acceptance criteria.
inch.
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: agree, but one must remember that for RT tungsten is counted as porosity.
EB does not agree that this is an improvement, plus Sections 4 – 8 have numerous other conditions that are
defined therein and moving them all would too drastically change the document.
NGNN: Agree
PSNS & IMF: Agrees with EB.
MARMC: Disagrees, isolated pore is relevant to acceptance based on thickness only, where substantial effort
may be involved to remove the isolated pore. There’s no need to expand this to indications open to the surface.
SWRMC: Break it out to it’s own paragraph or sub-paragraph, but leave it in RT acceptance, because this is the
only place it would be applicable.
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Norfolk - An isolated porosity pore is defined as a pore that is separated from any other regardable porosity pore
or regardable tungsten inclusion by at least 1 inch.
Comments
NGNN: Upon further review, disagree that this proposal is needed. The definition of an isolated pore should
remain in the RT section and the tungsten criteria is fine as-is in 5.2.1.3.
9
Original Proposal
Discussion
Create definition for "minimum allowable thickness", The
minimum allowable thickness is the thickness which the material
shall not be reduced below based on the applicable fabrication
document, or material specification.
Paragraph 4.2 uses terms minimum
design thickness or minimum drawing
thickness. The term minimum design
thickness is too close to design material
thickness. If term was listed as
minimum allowable thickness it would
be more clear as to what exactly this
7
minimum is. In addition, it would be in
line with nuclear work. Once defined
term can be used in multiple locations.
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: agree
EB: If the accept/reject decisions being made in Sections 4-8 are based on DMT, where would this come into
play?
NGNN: Disagree. “Minimum allowable thickness” further complicates the matter. Propose that all acceptance
per this spec be based on “design thickness” that comes from nominal dimensions provided on drawings, etc.
Individual engineering groups at various facilities can seek specific approval of components based on “minimum
allowable thickness” on a case basis, but this should not be part of the spec for inspectors to follow on a routine
basis.
PSNS & IMF: Disagree this is an improvement. The intent of paragraph 4.2 is clear enough as is – the weld and
adjacent base metal cannot be ground down below the minimum thickness allowed per specification.
MARMC: Disagree; outside the scope of 2035, this is an engineering function and is adequately covered in the
fabrication document. You should be well aware of the minimum allowable thickness before any NDT is
performed.
SWRMC: Even if we define it, the inspector will still have to go somewhere else for acceptance, so would a
separate definition be value added?
NGUS: Agrees with NGNN
Revised Proposal
Comments
Norfolk - It is not the intent to apply the term minimum allowable thickness to any criteria other than
the material thickness must not be below this value. Many have a concern about the wall thickness
being below the nominal, as expressed in the topics about the DMT, this is where the criteria should be
captured. If this term is adopted then the design division can put together a table of all scheduled piping
and the inspectors can have a table with the nominal and minimum allowable thicknesses on it. This
would provide a consistent value that all will have, a value that when the material thickness gets below
this value the red flag should go up. Paragraph 4.2 states the adjacent base metal is not reduced below
the minimum design thickness or minimum drawing thickness, but we never provide the inspector with
those values.
10
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph 3.11 Add the following new definition, and
renumber all subsequent paragraphs of section 3:
“3.11 Indication. The response or evidence from a
nondestructive test. The term indication herein refers to one that
has been interpreted as relevant in accordance with applicable
inspection method requirements.”
To clarify that acceptance criteria
herein is applicable to relevant
indications.
Comments
TRF does not think this is needed.
8
Norfolk: Disagree, paragraph is not needed. Proposed second sentence conflicts with definition provided in
E1316. Since first sentence agrees with E1316 there is no need to add such a definition since paragraph 3 states
to use standard terminology provided in E1316. Propose the word "test" be changed to "examination."
EB does not agree that this is an improvement.
NGNN: Agree
PSNS & IMF: Disagree
MARMC: Disagree
SWRMC: Leave it out, the 271 already tells us what we will consider indications. At least for MT and PT…
NGUS: Agrees with EB, Norfolk, and TRF
Revised Proposal
3.11 Indication. In nondestructive inspection, a response, or evidence of a response, that requires interpretation
to determine its significance.
Comments
Straight from the American society for Metals
NGNN: The original proposal was submitted by NGNN, and we have no problem with removing the proposal if
the community feels it is not needed.
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph # 3.13, Make reference to non-linear indications as
rounded throughout document. No required change here, but
throughout rest of document use rounded in lieu of non-linear.
2035 uses both terms: rounded, or nonlinear, Using one terms would provide
consistency in production and multiple
activities. Presently the term rounded
indications is used throughout
document. Term non-linear is not used
in production, where as rounded is.
Corporate procedures will be using
rounded in lieu of non-linear.
11
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: agree
EB concurs.
NGNN: Agree
PSNS & IMF: Agree
MARMC: Agree
SWRMC: Agree, and thank you.
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Comments
9
Original Proposal
Discussion
Section 4; add a paragraph addressing the criteria for incomplete
penetration.
Currently incomplete penetration is
only addressed in the RT section.
12
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: agree, proposed words:
Incomplete Penetration. Welds shall be free of incomplete penetration.
EB concurs.
NGNN: Agree
PSNS & IMF: Agree
MARMC: Agree
SWRMC: Agree.
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Comments
Original Proposal
Discussion
Change paragraph # 4.1 to read: "When a visual inspection is
required it shall be performed prior to other required
nondestructive tests.
Believe this is more inline with intent.
This document should not include an
inspection requirement in it. As
worded activities are therefore
requiring a VT to be performed. Many
times the requirement specifies to
conduct only one method of NDT
without performing a VT, this would
provide an allowance for such
instances.
13
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: agree
EB concurs.
NGNN: Agree
PSNS & IMF: Agree
MARMC: Agree
SWRMC: Agree
NGUS: Disagree, feel that a VT should always occur prior to other NDT
Revised Proposal
10
Comments
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph 4.2.1.2, delete the word "nonpermanent" from in front
of "backing ring pipe welds".
Two points: 1) If the backing ring is
nonpermanent in the first place it will
be removed so there should not be any
convexity/concavity present.
2) Previous NAVSEA guidance has
directed melt-through on permanent
backing rings be evaluated to the
criteria contained in Table 1.
14
Comments
TRF, the root contour requires inspection for backing rings left in place as well as after removal.
Norfolk: agree
EB does not agree: Point 1) The overall root contour still requires evaluation. Point 2) The previous NAVSEA
guidance should be applied to para. 4.2.7.
NGNN: Agree
PSNS & IMF: Disagree – Leave as is. Agree with EB that the previous NAVSEA guidance should be applied to
paragraph 4.2.7.
MARMC: Disagree, leave as is. No meaningful inspection of root contour can be accomplished with a backing
ring in place.
SWRMC: This originated here originally, when looking at permanent backing rings, we would see melt through
which sends us to 4.2.1.2 and then table 1. Did the original Authors of the 2035 (or 8000) really intend to allow
melt through on a backing ring? Think flow restriction here…
NGUS: Agrees with EB
Revised Proposal
Comments
Original Proposal
Discussion
Change paragraph 4.2.1.2 to make the convexity limits the same
regardless of material composition or joint design.
250-1500-1 convexity limits are not
dependent on the use of the
consumable insert (i.e., joint design). It
makes little sense to repair a pipe joint,
even to the point of cutting it out, when
the convexity limits for a non-insert
type joint (welded from one side,
closed root say) are exceeded but an
adjacent joint with an insert, in the
same run of pipe, with the same
condition is satisfactory.
15
Comments
TRF recommends that the present wording is acceptable and should not be changed.
Norfolk: do not agree. Joint designs per 1500 are defined by system. Situation proposed could not exist. 1500
11
addresses pipe in 10.7.1.8.1 and other shapes in 10.7.1.4 No change necessary. CuNi and NiCu have a higher
yield strength, which enables them to withstand against the greater turbulence force created by an increase in the
convexity.
EB does not agree: NS 250-1500-1, para. 10.7.1.8.1 reads the same. On face value this does not make sense, but
my understanding is that the genesis of this requirement is that when CuNi/NiCu insert welds were being
developed, they were more prone to excessive convexity. NOTE: Huge cost impact without any technical need to
tighten up.
NGNN: Disagree. Deleting Note #2 for CU-NI requirements will make requirements too restrictive, and incur
unnecessary costs for repairs due to the welding parameters for CU-NI.
PSNS & IMF: Disagree with this proposal but agree with the discussion above that convexity limits
shouldn’t be different because of the joint design. If the greater convexity limits for CuNi are OK for an
EB joint they should also be OK for a CR joint.
MARMC: Disagree, no change necessary or desired.
SWRMC: No opinion.
NGUS: Agree with all the comments above
Revised Proposal
Comments
Original Proposal
Discussion
Proposed wording to Table 1, Note 3; In the event of joint offset,
the root surface contour shall be measured relative to the
undistorted base material surface which provides the least
amount of root surface contour.
Present wording provides directions to
take a measurement that is only
practical when reviewing film. For
most internal surfaces it is not possible
to evaluate the root surface contour in
the manner described, nor does the
inspector have a tool to make that
measurement. Proposed method uses a
standard wire reinforcement gage, to
make a direct visual evaluation. In
addition, this technique would be the
same as the nuclear evaluation.
16
Comments
TRF recommends applying EB’s comments from item 19.
Norfolk: based on topic 2 of attachments this proposal is not accurate. See comments in attachments regarding
adding new paragraph 4.2.1.2.1 with sketches
EB defers to its own proposal for this note in item 19 below.
NGNN: Agree
PSNS & IMF: Partially agree – see comment on item 19
MARMC: Disagree, feel note 3 addresses offset only, if it is desired to address distortion it should be addressed
separately.
SWRMC: I don’t see this enough to have usable input.
NGUS: Agree with EB and item 19 below
Revised Proposal
12
Comments
Norfolk:- see topic 17
Original Proposal
Discussion
Propose, for all tables, changing footnote designating superscript
to letters vice numerals.
Superscript numerals used to designate
footnotes are easily confused with
being exponents to numbers in the
tables.
17
Comments
DCMA (Paula George): Strongly suggest changing numerical superscripts to alpha superscripts
because the 1/162 and 3/322 look like 1/16 squared and 3/32 squared.
NGUS: Agree
Norfolk: Proposed changes to Table 1. Note 1, change "metal" to "material". Note 3, change note to
read. "Although this is possible to do by RT, this measuring method is not possible to do by visual
inspection." See topic 17 for new words. Note 4, change to read, "Concavity shall have a uniform
radius, except that centerline crease or centerline shrinkage is acceptable provided the depth limitations
are not violated and a visible "v-notch" condition is not evident. No concavity of contour is permitted
unless the resulting thickness of weld metal is as least as thick as the adjacent base material."
Comment, the term "centerline crease or shrinkage" is used in 3.17. Trying to compare weld thickness
with concavity to a minimum material thickness is very difficult to near impossible. But one can do
some simple math during a visual inspection or a density comparison during RT evaluation to make the
evaluation to the actual adjacent base material.
Revised Proposal
Comments
Norfolk: it appears this topic has changed from the original. In regards to this topic, it does not matter
to us if the notes are changed to letters from numbers, but it seems numbers are the standard. The rest
of our previous comments are addressed in their applicable topics.
Original Proposal
Paragraph 4.2.1.2 – Delete TABLE I and the associated notes and replace with the Table shown below
listed as Table 1, which was contractually authorized by NAVSEA letter Ser 450T2M/0004, dated 3 Feb.,
2006. (see proposed table below)
18
TABLE I. Root contour limits .1
Condition3
Convexity
Material size (nominal)
Pipe less than 2 inches in diameter and other shapes
less than 5/32 thick
13
Maximum (inch)
1/162
Convexity
Concavity4
Concavity4
Pipe 2 inches and over in diameter and other
shapes 5/32 inch and over in thickness
Pipe less than 2 inches in diameter and other shapes
less than 5/32 inch thick
Pipe 2 inches and over in diameter and other
shapes 5/32 inch and over in thickness
3/322
1/32
1/16
1
Weld surfaces shall blend smoothly into the base metal.
For copper-nickel and nickel-copper materials, the root convexity of consumable
insert fabricated welds may exceed this amount, provided that: for pipe nomimal
sizes less than 2 inches, the maximum height of convexity shall not exceed 3/32 inch
and the total length of all such areas shall not exceed 1 inch; for pipe nomimal sizes 2
inches and greater, the maximum height of convexity shall not exceed 1/8 inch and
the total length of all such areas shall not exceed 25 percent of the inside
circumference of the pipe.
3
In the event of joint offset, root surface concavity or convexity shall be measured from
a line connecting the two points at which the weld meets the base material.
4
For concavity, the contour of the root shall have a uniform radius. No concavity of
contour is permitted unless the resulting thickness of weld metal is not less than the
minimum thickness of the adjacent base metal. The condition known as centerline
shrink or crease can be an acceptable condition provided the depth limitations are
not violated and a visible “v-notched” condition is not evident.
2
Comments
Norfolk: After reviewing proposal and sketch in attachments the following is proposed:
4.2.1.2 Root Contour. Full penetration welds made from one side, or consumable insert, welds shall meet the
root contour requirements of Table I. Root surface convexity shall be measured from the point at which the root
surface meets the base metal (i.e., exclusive of any base metal distortion). Concavity shall be measured from the
reference line of the undistorted base material. However when that is not possible, due to base material
distortion, the amount of base material distortion must be included. For backing ring welds the amount of
convexity shall be measured from the inside surface of the backing ring, while concavity shall be measured from
the reference line of the inside surface of the pipe wall.
EB concurs wholeheartedly.
NGNN: Agree
PSNS & IMF: Agree
MARMC: Do not feel changes are necessary.
SWRMC: This reads better and more logical than the current..
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Note 1) Weld surfaces shall be free of sharp tansitions and blend smoothly into the base material, except for
acceptable undercut.
Note 2) For copper-nickel and nickel-copper materials, the root convexity of consumable insert fabricated welds
may exceed this amount, provided that: for pipe nomimal sizes less than 2 inches, the maximum height of
convexity shall not exceed 3/32 inch and the total length of all such areas, that exceed 1/16 inch but are less than
3/32 inch, shall not exceed 1 inch; for pipe nomimal sizes 2 inches and greater, the maximum height of convexity
shall not exceed 1/8 inch and the total length of all such areas, that exceed 3/32 inch but are less than 1/8 inch,
shall not exceed 25 percent of the inside circumference of the pipe.
Note 3) In the event of joint offset, root surface reinforcement shall be measured from the reference line as
shown in Figure X, using the side of the joint which provides the least amount of concavity or convexity.
Note 4) Concavity is permitted up to the allowed limits provided the resulting thickness of weld metal is at least
14
as thick as the adjacent base material.
Comments
Norfolk: Note 1 –many activities permit internal undercut when the words as written require the weld to blend in smoothly
to the adjacent base material.
Note 2) added for clarity
Note 3) The existing measuring technique in Note 3 is possible to perform by RT (when viewed in the side wall)
but I know of no one out there who has the tools or has trained their people to conduct this measuring technique
doing a VT. Therefore this proposal provides a measuring technique that is possible to do and is in harmony with
1500. which states (exclusive of fit-up mismatch or thickness variations between joining members).
Note 4 – The need to address centerline crease is covered by the proposed words above for Note 1.
But if words are necessary to address centerline crease, then it might be written as “Centerline shrinkage or
centerline crease can be accepted provided the depth limitations are not violated and a notch condition is not
evident.”
NGNN: Agree with Norfolk’s Revised Proposal.
Original Proposal
19
Discussion
Insert a new paragraph 4.2.1.2.1 to read as follows: “The
measurement of consumable insert pipe joint convexity and
concavity where base material distortion is evident on the inside
diameter of the pipe shall be in accordance with Figure X.”
Figure X is provided below and was approved by NAVSEA
Code 05ME per E-mail dated 13 Dec., 2000.
Comments
TRF agrees in part to Norfolk’s comments, a visual inspection with wires cannot validate the amount of
concavity with distortion. We would be requiring the Visual Inspector to be judgmental on the amount of
distortion, thus requiring a measurement/verification which is not absolute (or close to it).
Norfolk: Disagree, evaluation of concavity as portrayed in lower portion of Figure X is extremely difficult for
VT inspectors. See comments on figure X in attachments and proposal to topic 18.
EB concurs wholeheartedly.
NGNN: Agree
PSNS & IMF: Agree in part that this can only be applied to radiographic evaluation. It’s not practical to take
base metal distortion into consideration when evaluating visually with wire gages.
MARMC: No comment.
SWRMC: No opinion.
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Norfolk – Correct label in Figure X – the right dimension on the top sketch labeled “Measurement
relative to undistorted material” should be properly labeled “Measurement exclusive of base material
distortion”.
Comments
Norfolk - In the below Figure X for Topic 19, the top sketch, the dimension on the right, which shows the
measurement of convexity is not labeled correctly. The reference line is drawn to the point where the weld joins
the adjacent base material. The dimension on the sketch is labeled “Measurement relative to undistorted
material”. This dimension should be properly titled “Measurement exclusive of base material distortion”. What
that dimension actually measures is the convexity relative to distorted base material, since the figure also labels,
on the left side of the sketch, the undistorted base material as the internal surface of the pipe wall. Whereas the
dimensions on the bottom sketch are properly labeled, and does show the amount of concavity relative to the
15
undistorted material.
Norfolk can accept the measuring technique for concavity portrayed in the bottom sketch of Figure X. While it
makes it more conservative for the visual inspector, when the base material distortion is towards the fluid side of
the pipe, it is also possible to measure in this manner, and more accurately, during RT evaluation.
NGNN: Agree with Norfolk’s Revised Proposal.
16
Figure for Proposal 19
OD of butt weld
Undistorted
base material
Base material
distortion
convexity
ID OF PIPE
Measurement relative to undistorted
material
OD of butt weld
Undistorted
base material
Measurement relative to undistorted
material
Base material
distortion
concavity
ID OF PIPE
Measurement relative to undistorted material
Base material
distortion
Undistorted base material
concavity
OD of butt weld
FIGURE X. Measurement of Consumable Insert Pipe Joint Convexity/Concavity
17
20
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph 4.2.2.1, Modify fillet weld size for socket joints.
Proposed new wording; Socket weld fillet size. Socket weld
fillet size for piping shall have a short leg of at least T and a long
leg of at least 2T, where T is the design material thickness.
Figure 1 portrays a socket piping weld
and that is what this paragraph is
discussing. Requirement would be in
line with nuclear requirements and
simplify the criteria for the welder and
inspector.
Comments
Norfolk: Norfolk agrees that this change to T by 2T should be applied to the corporate procedures for the 4
yards. However, MIL-STD-22 may need to be in harmony and MIL-STD 2035 applies to other activities which
may create an undesired requirement on them.
EB: The problem with this recommendation is that you would have to also modify MIL-STD-22D.
NGNN: Disagree. Weld joint designs developed by the Navy and Design Engineering delineate what the socket
fillet weld size must be based on pressures and temperatures for that applicable system. Currently, in MIL-STD22D the weld joint design for a P-14 socket weld joint is T X 1-3/4T. Establishing T X 2T will add unnecessary
costs, time, distortion, etc. to the overall welding process.
PSNS & IMF: Disagree.
MARMC: Disagree. Recommend wording be changed to state that, “fillet weld size shall not be less than
specified by drawing”; delete figure 1.
SWRMC: T X 1-3/4T is past acceptable for Civilian specs. Leave it alone unless there was a failure directly
related to not enough fillet!
NGUS: Agree with NGNN
Revised Proposal
Comments
21
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph 4.2.2.4, Butt Welds
Butt weld surfaces shall not be below that adjacent base material
surfaces, except for weld surface areas and weld toes (unground
or corrected by grinding) that do not exceed the limitations for
undercut of 4.2.16. Unless otherwise specified in the fabrication
document, the final thickness of weld reinforcement on either
weld face shall be as shown in Table II.
There is no clear definition as to what a
“localized” weld surface area is or how
large an area it could cover. It appears
the intent was to allow small areas in
the butt weld face to be below flush so
long as they did not exceed the
undercut requirements, but without
defining a localized size it only brings
confusion to the inspector.
Comments
Norfolk – we can apply the standard either way, but it will accomplish the same thing.
PSNS & IMF: Disagree – no change needed. The intent of paragraph 4.2.2.4 is to only allow small areas of the
weld face and weld toes to be below flush so long as undercut requirements are still met. There also hasn’t been
a need to define a “localized area” and doing so would only complicate something that doesn’t need to be
complicated. A “localized weld surface area” is simply a “small local” area – leave it at that.
SWRMC: As is, is good enough.
NGUS: Agree, perhaps it could be defined as a % of material thickness and joint length
NGNN: Agree with PSNS & IMF that NO change is necessary. Keep "localized" in original wording.
18
Revised Proposal
Comments
Original Proposal
Discussion
Insert a new paragraph 4.2.2.5 to read as follows: “Boss welds.
Size of fillets shall be 1/2T or 3/16-inch, whichever is less.”
This is what is required by MIL-STD22, and should also be included in this
section as it is a more common weld
occurrence than seal welds.
22
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: agree with revised words to read: "Insert a new paragraph 4.2.2.5 to read as follows: “Boss welds.
Size of fillets shall be 1/2T or 3/16-inch, whichever is less. Boss welds include P-70 and P-71 joint designs.”
EB concurs wholeheartedly.
NGNN: Agree
PSNS & IMF: Agree
MARMC: Agree with paragraph, disagree with weld size being stated, should be per joint design or specification.
SWRMC: Agree with paragraph and listing size, after all we list size for fillets.
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Comments
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph 4.2.3; standardize the acceptance criteria to follow
250-1500-1 guidance with different offset criteria for pipe and
structural welds.
Joint offset requirements are
particularly difficult to meet when
welding thin wall pipe/tubing, piping
welds make in accordance with
established joint configuration
attributes should be considered
acceptable. Question: Is it the intent of
this joint offset to be applied to pipe
welds as well?
23
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: agree clarification could be better to unify two requirements.
EB concurs, but as noted in item 1, it should be all or none.
NGNN: Disagree. Do not change joint offset criteria in 4.2.3, since it is very difficult to obtain perfect alignment
(no offset allowed per 250-1500-1 at pipe fit-up) for welding soft materials such as CU-Ni. NGNN had to
develop specific requirements for CVN CU-Ni piping due to offset concerns. For thin wall piping, specific offset
19
requirements may need to be developed for future applications.
PSNS & IMF: Disagree
MARMC: Disagree
SWRMC: Leave it as is.
NGUS: Disagree, as a non-nuc contractor, we would not like to incur higher costs due to more stringent than
necessary requirements
Revised Proposal
Comments
Norfolk – What is the proposal?
24
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph 4.2.7; add the following sentence to the end of the
paragraph. When melt-through occurs in a backing ring or
socket joint, the melt-through shall be measured from the surface
of the backing ring or pipe wall, as applicable.
No direction is provided when these
situations occur.
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: 4.2.7 Melt-through. Melt through and repaired burn-through areas are acceptable provided the areas do
not contain cracks, crevices, rejectable oxidation, or globules, and provided the root convexity and concavity
limits are not exceeded. When melt through or a burn through condition exists in a backing ring joint the
convexity shall be measured from the internal backing ring surface, while concavity shall be measured from the
internal wall surface. Brought about due to discussion on measurement of concavity and convexity in
attachments.
EB does not disagree, but the technical acceptability for this recommendation will be interesting.
NGNN: Agree
PSNS & IMF: Agree with Norfolk and MARMC comments that convexity should be measured from the
BR surface but concavity should be acceptable for the depth of the BR.
MARMC: Disagree, the presence of melt through, convexity or concavity on a backing ring has no affect on joint
strength and by presence of the backing ring already has a negative effect on flow and turbulence. In reality melt
through areas should not extend below the surface of the backing ring and concavity should be allowed through
the thickness of the backing ring.
SWRMC: Serous Personnel Opinion here… Backing ring joint’s (Unless specifically designed to be Backing
rings) are already restricting the flow of the fluid, and add convexity to that, again, I wonder at what the Original
Authors intended here. If a welder can weld a P-73 with little or no melt through why can’t they pull it off on a
P-3?
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Comments
20
25
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph 4.2.8. - Recommend that the criteria for crater pits be
revised to read as follows: “Weld joints shall be free of crater
pits.”
Crater pits are indicative of poor
quality workmanship, usually caused
by the welder decaying out too quickly,
and can result in stress cracking. This
would be consistent with NAVSEA
250-1500-1.
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: agree
EB concurs wholeheartedly.
NGNN: Disagree. This may be a good idea for piping, but may be too restrictive for structure, machinery and
pressure vessels weld applications.
PSNS & IMF: Agree with NGNN.
MARMC: Disagree. Non nuclear should not be treated as nuclear just so things are uniform, to me that reads, “to
make it easy for the inspector”. The burden should be on us, if we want better welds then train the welders better.
Bear in mind that public and “big player” repair activities are not the only ones who will be bound by these
changes and from experience I can tell you who will bear the cost if and when these requirements are passed on
to contractors.
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Comments
26
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph 4.2.10. – Recommend adding an additional sentence
to read as follows: “If PT is required, the weld shall be free of
porosity.”
This makes the criteria consistent with
weld spatter, slag, and paint so that an
acceptable VT condition would not
simply be rejected by the subsequent
NDT.
Comments
TRF would like to see Norfolk’s recommendation used.
Norfolks: no need to make it so stringent on the inspector or welding, such that if a 1/64” porosity were present
and he missed it he would demonstrate a weakness. Propose changing to read: "Individual pores cannot exceed
3/32 inch in diameter or length. The sum of pore diameters, or lengths, shall not exceed 1/8 inch in any 2 inch
length of weld. Disregard pores that are 1/32 inch and less. If PT is required, the weld shall be free of porosity
greater than 1/32 inch."
EB concurs wholeheartedly.
NGNN: Agree
PSNS & IMF: Agree
MARMC: Disagree, this is essentially covered by 271 and fabrication documents and should be included in your
VT procedures.
SWRMC: Agree.
NGUS: Agrees with Norfolk’s position
21
Revised Proposal
Comments
27
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph 4.2.16.1 - Change wording to read: Class 1. The
maximum depth of undercut measured from the unground
adjacent base metal surface shall not exceed 1/64-inch or 10
percent of the minimum thickness (see 4.2), provided the
minimum allowable thickness is not violated.
Paragraph 4.2 addresses metal removal
by grinding or other mechanical
operation, but fails to provide criteria
for an as welded condition.
Comments
TRF concurs with EB’s comments. This ties in to paragraph 7.4 of the 1688 which sends you to 4.2 of the 2035
unless specified by specific requirements after 7.4 of the 1688. There has been confusion on which criteria to use
for grinding in the adjacent plate, the 2035 or table 7-1 of the 1688.
Norfolk proposes same change be made to para. 4.2.16.2 regarding using term design material thickness in
lieu of present term used minimum thickness. Propose changing the word 'metal" to "material" and change
'minimum thickness" to design material thickness".
EB does not agree; the subject has been addressed numerous times with our design guys. Hypothetically,
accumulated allowable undercut can potentially line up on both surfaces of a weld and therefore could reduce the
minimum allowable wall thickness. However, ID undercut is usually unmeasureable, so it is not even taken into
account. This proposal would require that whenever measurable undercut is encountered, UT thickness
measurements of the adjacent base material as well as an exact undercut measurement (rather than go/no-go) to
be submitted to Engineering to determine if the minimum allowable wall thickness has been violated.
NGNN: Agree if the above changes are made. See comment to item 9. Delete first "minimum" and "allowable".
PSNS & IMF: Agree with EB
MARMC: Agree with TRF and EB.
SWRMC: Agree with TRF and EB.
NGUS: Agrees with NGNN’s position
Revised Proposal
Norfolk – for clarification the whole proposed paragraph:
4.2.16 Undercut. Undercut, whether as welded or ground, shall be measured from the unground
adjacent base material’s surface.
4.2.16.1 Class 1. The maximum depth of undercut shall not exceed 1/64 inch or 10 percent of the
DMT, whichever is less.
4.2.16.2 Class 2 and 3. The maximum undercut shall be 1/32-inch or 10 percent of the DMT,
whichever is less. For base metal thickness 1/2-inch or greater, undercut up to 1/16-inch is allowed
if the accumulated length of undercut exceeding 1/32-inch does not exceed 15 percent of the joint
length or 12 inches in any 36 inch length of weld, whichever is less.
Comments
NGNN: Agree with Norfolk’s Revised Proposal.
22
28
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph 4.2.17.2, Add the following sentence to the end of the
paragraph:
“For base materials greater than 1/4 inch, apply undercut
requirements.”
For clarification, and to provide
direction for thicker materials.
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk suggests changing "apply undercut requirements" to "evaluate end melt to the applicable undercut
requirements."
EB concurs
NGNN: Agree
PSNS & IMF: Agree
MARMC; Agree
SWRMC: Sure
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Norfolk – for clarification the whole paragraphs of the end-melt and corner –melt are proposed to read
as follows:
4.2.17 End-melt. When undercut exists at the ends of attachment welds (see figure 3), the following
requirements apply. End-melt, whether as welded or ground, shall be measured from the unground
adjacent base material’s surface. Note that the plan requirement for weld size shall be maintained after
any grinding or machining.
4.2.17.1 Class 1. The maximum depth of end-melt shall not exceed 1/64-inch or 10 percent of the
adjacent base material’s DMT, whichever is less.
4.2.17.2 – Class 2 and 3. For base materials with a DMT of 1/4 inch thick or less, the maximum aswelded end-melt is 1/16 inch. If end-melt is greater than 1/16 inch and less than or equal to 3/32 inch, it
may be repaired by mechanical means to a maximum depth of 3/32 inch. For base materials with a
DMT of greater than ¼ inch thick, evaluate end-melt to the applicable undercut requirements apply.
4.2.18 Corner-melt. When undercut exists at the corner of attachment welds (see figure 4), the
following undercut requirements apply. Corner-melt, whether as welded or ground, shall be measured
from the unground adjacent base material’s surface. Note that the plan requirement for weld size shall
be maintained after any grinding or machining.
4.2.18.1 Class 1. The maximum depth shall not exceed 1/64-inch or 10 percent of the adjacent base
material’s DMT, whichever is less.
4.2.18.2 Class 2 and 3. For welds at the comer of attachment welds, the maximum as welded comermelt is 1/16-inch. If the corner-melt is greater than l/l6-inch and less than or equal to 3/32-inch, it may
be repaired by mechanical means to a maximum depth of 3/32-inch
23
Comments
NGNN: Agree
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph 4.2.20, change the wording to state “Welds, Including
the weld toes shall be free of paint”
Paint may cover rejectable conditions
in the Visual as well as the LPT
method. (TRFKB)
29
Comments
Norfolk – disagree, present wording in 2035 is acceptable.
SWRMC: Agree
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
PSNS & IMF: Why not say welds and adjacent ½” of base material?
Comments
Original Proposal
Discussion
Section 5 needs to be consistent on thicknesses on which
acceptance criteria is to be based.
Paragraph 5.1 refers plan or drawing
thickness, paragraph 5.2.1.3 bases
acceptance on design material
thickness while paragraph 5.2.1.6.2
refers simply to thicknesses and figures
6 through 23 all refer to "T" without
defining if it is referring to actual,
nominal or planned thickness.
30
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: Agree, Norfolk Proposes to define T in definition 3.6 (see topic 6) and use it throughout document.
EB reserves judgment until a proposal is made.
NGNN: Agree
PSNS & IMF: Agree with Norfolk
SWRMC: Agree
NGUS: Agrees with EB
Revised Proposal
Comments
24
31
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph 5.2.1.2 – The paragraph should be restructured to
delete reference to burn-through and crater pits. Recommend a
new paragraph be inserted to read as follows: “Burn-through
and crater pits. Burn-through and crater pits shall be rejected.”
This would make the criteria for burnthrough consistent with paragraph 4.2.5
and the criteria for crater pits consistent
with the proposal in paragraph 4 above.
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: agree Topic 25 adds new paragraph for crater pits in visual inspection in 4.2.8.
EB concurs wholeheartedly, provided the proposal in comment 25 is adopted.
NGNN: Agree; Burn-thru and Crater pits signify poor quality workmanship.
PSNS & IMF: Agree.
MARMC: Delete burn through and address separately as proposed, keep crater pit, while it may be an indicator of
poor workmanship it may be limited to a small area and does not necessarily indicate a rejectable condition.
SWRMC: Agree with EB and NGNN.
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Norfolk – for clarification the following paragraphs are restated:
Topic 25 proposes new paragraph
4.2.8 Crater Pits. Weld joints shall be free of crater pits.
5.2.1.2 Burn through and Melt Through. Burn through and melt through are acceptable provided the
areas do not contain cracks, crevices, oxidation, or globules and provided the weld size and contour
limits otherwise specified are not exceeded.
Comments
Norfolk – If one were to evaluate a radiograph to the present criteria in 2035, one could have a
rejectable porosity pore - call it a crater pit and accept it.
NGNN: Agree.
32
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph # 5.2.1.6.1, Modify wording related to porosity
indications. Proposed wording; Disregardable Indications. For
welds 1/8 inch thick and greater, porosity indications 1/64 inch
and less shall be disregarded.
States requirement clearly and in
support of term disregardable.
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: agree
EB: This would hinge on the outcome of comment 7.
NGNN: Disagree with using the term “disregardable”(?); consider using the NS 250-1500-1 words that clearly
state the requirements: “Porosity, including clustered and aligned 1/64 inch and less in diameter shall not be
considered in determining the acceptability of welds 1/8 inch thick and greater.”
PSNS & IMF: Agree with NGNN.
MARMC: Disagree, do not think a change is necessary.
SWRMC: Concur
NGUS: Agrees with NGNN
25
Revised Proposal
Disregardable Indications. For materials with a DMT of 1/8 inch thick and greater, porosity indications 1/64 inch
and less shall be disregarded.
Comments
Norfolk – If our intent is to use DMT throughout the document then it should be used here as well.
NGNN: Do not really feel that a change is necessary, however would agree with the revised proposal, without the
use of the term “disregardable”.
33
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph # 5.2.1.6.2 Delete Figures 6 through 23.
Proposed wording; Total Area of Porosity.
The total area of all porosity, including randomly distributed,
clustered and aligned, shall not exceed the allowable percentage
of surface area based on the weld class, the DMT, and the length
of weld being evaluated. However, for all class welds,
whenever the distribution of indications occurs in such a
concentrated pattern that the concentration in any 1 inch length
of weld, becomes twice the allowable amount, the porosity shall
be rejected. Figure 25 list the surface area of rounded
indications. For clustered porosity, the indication area shall be
calculated using the summation of the individual indications.
Back when this procedure was first
written, calculators were not available
to the inspector, thus the pictorial
representations were made for them to
make a visual comparison. Now the
inspector had a calculator and knows
how to do the required math to
determine the proper amount of
porosity allowed compared to the
actual weld surface area being
evaluated. Combines paragraph
5.2.1.6.2 and 5.2.1.6.6. Provides
direction for the summation of
clustered porosity.
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: agree
EB concurs that this is the most confusing section of the standard and should be clarified. However, first choice
would be to adopt the requirements of NS 250-1500-1, but anything is better than the present wording.
NGNN: Agree; the pictorials are unnecessary. Inspectors should know how to perform the applicable
calculations. (Pictorials are not used in NS 250-1500-1)
PSNS & IMF: See revised proposal below.
MARMC: Agree provided: The word “acceptable” is added before clustered and aligned; delete “surface area” as
weld width is not a consideration only length and thickness; clarify if the concentration in any 1-inch applies to
porosity allowed for 1-inch of weld or entire inspected length (not to exceed 6-inches).
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Norfolk –
5.2.1.6.2 Total Area of Porosity.
The total area of all porosity, including randomly distributed, and acceptable clustered and aligned porosity, shall
not exceed the allowable percentage of surface area based on the weld class, the DMT, and the length of weld
being evaluated. In addition, for all class welds, the weld shall be rejected for excessive porosity when the
concentration of porosity in any one inch length of weld exceeds twice what is allowed in one inch of weld
length. Figure 25 list the surface area of rounded indications. For clustered porosity, the indication area shall be
calculated using the summation of the individual indications.
PSNS & IMF Proposal:
Total Area of Porosity.
The total area of all porosity, including acceptable randomly distributed, acceptable clustered and acceptable
aligned, shall not exceed the allowable percentage of area based on the weld class, the DMT, and the length of
weld being evaluated up to 6” length or actual length whichever is less. However, for class 1 and 2 welds,
whenever the distribution of indications occurs in such a concentrated pattern that the concentration in any 1 inch
or more of weld length of weld, becomes twice the allowable amount for that weld length , the porosity shall be
26
rejected. For class 3 welds the concentration limit is three times. Figure 25 lists the surface area of rounded
indications. For clustered porosity, the indication area shall be calculated using the summation of the individual
porosity indications.
SWRMC: Paragraph # 5.2.1.6.2 Proposed wording; Total Area of Porosity.
The total area of all porosity, including acceptable clustered, aligned or randomly distributed, shall not exceed
the allowable percentage of area based on the weld class, the DMT (design material thickness), and the length of
weld being evaluated. For all class welds, whenever the distribution of indications occurs in such a concentrated
pattern that the concentration in any 1 inch length of weld becomes twice the allowable amount, the porosity shall
be rejected. Figure 25 (Area of Circles) lists the surface area of rounded indications. For clustered porosity, the
indication area shall be calculated using the sum of the individual indications. The total area of porosity allowed
in class one and two, as measured on the radiographic film, is based on one percent of the design material
thickness per inch of weld being inspected. For Class 3 the total area or porosity allowed is based on 1.5 percent
of the DMT. The maximum length of weld used in calculation shall be 6 inches. For calculation, the following
formulas apply:
Class 1 + 2: total area of porosity allowed = (0.01) * (DMT) * (weld length)
Class 3: total area of porosity allowed = (0.015) * (DMT) * (weld length)
Hence for any 6 inch length of weld, the total area of porosity allowed for class 1+2 will be 0.06(DMT) square
inches and for class 3 will be .0.09(DMT) square inches.
Comments
Norfolk – the surface area referred to in this paragraph does not relate to the weld width but rather the allowable
percentage of defect surface area. The formulas for the Total Area of Porosity are presented in paragraphs
5.2.2.4.1 (topic 41), and 5.2.4.4 (topic 48).
SWRMC: For this section (RT) consider that the format should be more like the Visual Inspection
section. For instance paragraph 4.2.12 “Arc Strikes” is presented and then class 1 and class 2 and 3
acceptance is given. If the Radiography section was arranged like the Visual section Porosity would
have all of its direction and acceptance given before moving on to other indication types or
requirements. For example Paragraph 5.2.1.6.2 speaks about randomly dispersed porosity then the
paragraphs continue with Aligned Porosity, Max Pore Diameter, Clustered Porosity, and Other
indications, then it moves on to Oxidation, Undercut, etc. until it gets back to paragraph 5.2.2.4
(Porosity) which has additional acceptance requirements (including Table V) for class one and class two
I.A.W. paragraph 5.2.3.4 and Paragraph 5.2.4.4 which handles class three. Class acceptance for porosity
could be arranged within paragraph 5.2.1.6. as well as a possible re-location of TABLE V to somewhere
earlier in the document. The revised proposal above also eliminates the need for paragraph 5.2.2.4.1.
NGNN: Agree with the PSNS & IMF Revised Proposal.
34
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph # 5.2.1.6.3, Proposed wording; Aligned Rounded
Porosity Indications. Aligned rounded porosity indications shall
be rejected. However, such aligned rounded indications may be
evaluated as a single indication, of either porosity or slag. When
evaluated as one indication the length shall be measured from
the extremities of the outermost indications.
Uses terms used in definitions, and
states criteria more clearly. Allows for
evaluation to be conducted in a manner
consistent with rest of RT evaluation.
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: recommends deleting: "When evaluated as one indication the length" with the remainder of the sentence
added to the previous sentence.
EB concurs (see comments to comment 33).
27
NGNN: Agree
PSNS & IMF: Agree
MARMC: Agree although think a change is unnecessary as I don’t think a single pore will ever be less restrictive
than a single slag indication. Also when you use single porosity indication does that include isolated pore?
SWRMC: Shorter version below..
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Norfolk – for clarification the whole paragraph:
5.2.1.6.3. Aligned Rounded Porosity Indications. Aligned rounded porosity indications shall be rejected.
However, such aligned rounded indications may be accepted if the total length of the aligned indications does not
exceed the length permitted of a single slag indication. Aligned porosity indications shall be sized by measuring
from the extremities of the outer indications, but shall not have their number reduced for evaluation.
SWRMC: 5.2.1.6.3 Aligned Rounded Porosity Indications. Aligned rounded porosity indications shall be
rejected. However, such aligned rounded indications may be evaluated as a single indication of either porosity or
slag and shall be measured from the outermost extremities of the indications.
Comments
Norfolk- after review of comments, copied words from aligned indications in 5.2.1.5.c.
NGNN: Agree
35
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph # 5.2.1.6.4, Proposed wording, Maximum Pore
Diameter Allowed. For materials with a DMT less than 1/8
inch, there shall be no more than six pores in any 6-inch length
of weld, and no pore shall have a diameter greater than 20
percent of the DMT. For materials with a DMT of 1/8 inch and
greater, the maximum pore size shall not exceed 20 % of the
DMT, except that there may be one isolated pore that does not
exceed 25% of the DMT or 3/16 inch, whichever is less,
provided that there is no more than one such pore in any 6 inch
length of weld. Other types of weld defects may be present in
acceptable amounts regardless of their proximity to the isolated
pore.
Since tables are deleted the words must
be written. Old figures use 20% as
max size allowed when not isolated.
Comments
EB concurs (see comments to comment 33).
NGNN: Agree
PSNS & IMF: Agree
MARMC: Agrees
SWRMC: Agrees
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
PSNS & IMF: Proposed wording, Maximum Pore Diameter Allowed. For materials with a DMT less than 1/8
inch, there shall be no more than six pores in any 6-inch length of weld, and no pore shall have a diameter greater
than 20 percent of the DMT. For materials with a DMT of 1/8 inch and greater, the maximum pore size shall not
exceed 20 % of the DMT, except that there may be one isolated pore that does not exceed 25% of the DMT or
3/16 inch, whichever is less, provided that there is no more than one such pore in any 6 inch length of weld and
there is no other pore greater than 1/64” within 1” of the isolated pore. Other types of weld defects may be
present in acceptable amounts regardless of their proximity to the isolated pore.
Comments
Norfolk – This was our proposal originally and it must be in harmony with the definition of isolated pore as
defined in topic 8, which includes the proximity of tungsten, since tungsten is to be counted as porosity.
28
NGNN: Agree with the Revised Proposal from PSNS & IMF, and recommend leaving the tungsten criteria as-is
in 5.2.1.3 (see topic 8 remarks).
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph # 5.2.1.6.5, Delete the paragraph.
Created new definition and placed it in
the definition section. This would be
consistent with other criteria such as
aligned porosity that is defined in 3.1
with the acceptance criteria at 5.2.1.6.3.
36
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: agree
EB concurs (see comments to comment 33).
NGNN: Agree
PSNS & IMF: Disagree. In item 4 most agreed we didn’t want to move this definition so discussion
above is incorrect. Definition is still needed for application in 5.2.2.4.3.
MARMC: Agree
SWRMC: Agree
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Comments
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph # 5.2.1.6.6, Delete the paragraph
Moved necessary text to 5.2.1.6.2
37
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: agree
EB concurs (see comments to comment 33).
NGNN: Agree
PSNS & IMF: Agree
MARMC: Agree
SWRMC: Agrees
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
29
Comments
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph #5.2.1.10, change the word "defect" to discontinuity
anywhere it appears in the paragraph.
Using the word defect implies the
acceptance criteria has already been
applied to the discontinuity and found
it to be rejectable, all defects are
rejectable, not all discontinuities are
defects.
38
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: agree, this complies with wording used in E1316
EB concurs, but would think the word “indication” would be more appropriate substitution.
NGNN: Agree
PSNS & IMF: Agree
MARMC: Agree
SWRMC: Agree with EB “indication” would be more appropriate.
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Comments
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph #5.2.1.10.a – Recommend that the words “or
ultrasonic” be inserted after the word “radiography” in the
second sentence.
This will provide clarification that an
indication that is revealed by
radiography in UT quality material,
like HY plate, can be evaluated and
accepted if the material successfully
passes a specification invoked UT
inspection without the need for an
Engineering evaluation
39
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: Proposed wording;
a. Base Material Any discontinuity revealed by inadvertent radiography shall be evaluated to the radiographic
acceptance criteria for that base material. Any discontinuity determined to be a crack shall be rejected. For
indications other than a crack, if radiographic criteria does not exists, the discontinutity may be evaluated by
alternate NDT methods and evaluated to that method’s applicable base material criteria. If no radiographic
criteria exists, or the discontinuity was not able to be evaluated by other NDT method’s an engineering evaluation
is required.
EB concurs wholeheartedly.
NGNN: Agree
PSNS & IMF: Agree with Norfolk.
30
MARMC: Agree
SWRMC: Sure
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Comments
40
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph #5.2.1.10.c – Recommend that the third sentence be
modified to read as follows: “Other discontinuities shall require
an Engineering evaluation if evaluated to the class 1 weld
criteria and determined to be unacceptable.”
If a non-RT quality weld has
indications that are not in excess of the
most strict weld criteria, a costly
Engineering evaluation should not be
required.
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: agree
EB concurs wholeheartedly.
NGNN: Agree; this is costly especially since engineering will typically require the indication to be repaired and
reinspected which is unnecessary when the strictest weld requirement for volumetric inspection can be applied
and met.
PSNS & IMF: Agree
MARMC: Agrees
SWRMC: Agrees
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
PSNS & IMF: “Other discontinuities shall be evaluated to class I weld criteria, if rejectable it shall require an
Engineering evaluation if evaluated to the class 1 weld criteria and determined to be unacceptable.”
Comments
NGNN: Agree.
41
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph # 5.2.2.4.1, Proposed wording; Total Area of Porosity
Allowed. The total area of porosity allowed, as measured on the
radiographic film, is based on one percent of the DMT per inch
of weld being inspected. The maximum length of weld used in
calculation shall be 6 inches. For calculation, the following
formula applies:
Total area of porosity allowed = (0.01) * (DMT) * (weld
length)
Hence for any 6 inch length of weld, the total area of porosity
allowed will be 0.06(DMT) square inch.
Clarifying that acceptance criteria is
based on design material thickness.
31
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: ok to leave as is in new definition of design material thickness includes reference to abbreviation as T
and there is no other use of T in document.
EB concurs.
NGNN: OK but unnecessary
PSNS & IMF: Disagree – leave as is.
MARMC: Agree with NNGN
SWRMC: Recommend moving this, See comments in Item 33.
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
SWRMC: Paragraph # 5.2.2.4.1, Delete the paragraph
Comments
SWRMC: The information given in paragraph 5.2.2.4.1 is covered in proposal for paragraph 5.2.1.6.2.
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph # 5.2.2.4.2, Delete the paragraph.
Delete pictorial representations that are
not representative of production welds.
Formula in 5.2.2.4.1 provides more
useful criteria.
42
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: agree
EB concurs.
NGNN: Agree
PSNS & IMF: Agree
MARMC: Agrees
SWRMC: Agrees
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Comments
43
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph # 5.2.2.4.3, Proposed wording; Clustered Porosity.
Clustered porosity shall not exceed the limits of Table V.
The definition was moved, just
wordsmithing.
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: agree
EB: No comment.
32
NGNN: Agree
PSNS & IMF: Agree
MARMC: Indifferent
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
SWRMC: Paragraph # 5.2.2.4.3, Proposed wording; “Clustered porosity as defined in paragraph (3-__ )
shall not exceed the limits of TABLE V.”
Comments
SWRMC: If paragraph 5.2.1.6.5 is being eliminated then we should be pointing to where the definition
is as well as the acceptance location.
NGNN: OK
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph # 5.2.2.5.2, Propose moving into section 5.2.1. Root
surface concavity.
The subject matter of 5.2.2.5.2 when
addressed for Visual Inspection is
applicable to all classes of weld but it is
only addressed under Class 1
acceptance for Radiographic
Inspection. Presently Class 2 or Class
3 piping does not have a root surface
concavity criteria applied for RT.
44
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: agree
EB doesn’t disagree with moving this section, but I think all pipe is evaluated to Class 1??
NGNN: OK
PSNS & IMF: Agree.
MARMC: Indifferent
SWRMC: sure
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Comments
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph # 5.2.2.5.3, Propose moving into section 5.2.1.
Presently Class 2 or Class 3 piping
does not have a root surface convexity
criteria.
45
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: agree
EB doesn’t disagree with moving this section, but I think all pipe is evaluated to Class 1??
NGNN: OK
PSNS & IMF: Agree
33
MARMC: Indifferent
SWRMC: sure
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Comments
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph # 5.2.2.5.3, Propose moving into section 5.2.1.
Presently Class 2 or Class 3 piping
does not have this criteria. Does this
paragraph override the Table 1 note #2
that limits the extent of maximum
height convexity to 25% of the inside
circumference?
46
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: agree
EB doesn’t disagree with moving this section, but I think all pipe is evaluated to Class 1??
NGNN: OK to move to sec. 5.2.1 but the sentence should be revised to state that : “Root concavity or convexity
may extend for the entire circumference of the weld except as noted in Table I, note 2.
PSNS & IMF: Paragraph # 5.2.2.5.4 3, Propose moving into section 5.2.1.
MARMC: Indifferent
SWRMC: Is this déjà vu or is the paragraph in question 5.2.2.5.4?
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Norfolk: Move words into section 5.2.1 “Root concavity or convexity may extend for the entire circumference of
the weld provided it does not exceed the limits of Table 1.”
Comments
NGNN: Agree.
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph # 5.2.2.5.5, Propose moving into section 5.2.1.
Believed to be the intent to apply this
criteria to Class 2 and Class 3
applications.
47
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: agree
EB doesn’t disagree with moving this section, but I think all pipe is evaluated to Class 1??
NGNN: Agree
PSNS & IMF: Agree
34
MARMC: Indifferent
SWRMC: sure
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Comments
Norfolk: This topic should be applied to all evaluations, not just class 1 piping.
48
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph # 5.2.4.4, Proposed wording; Porosity. The
requirements of 5.2.2.4 apply except that the total area of
porosity permitted is based on the following calculation:
(0.015) *(DMT) *(weld length)
The maximum length of weld used in calculation shall be 6
inches.
Remainder of text is not necessary to
provide, criteria for clustered, for now
new term concentrated porosity, is
already covered.
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: agree
EB concurs.
NGNN: Agree
PSNS & IMF: Agree
MARMC: Agree
SWRMC: Consider recommendation on block 33
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Norfolk: The requirements of 5.2.2.4 apply except that the total area of porosity allowed is based on the following
calculation:
(0.015) *(DMT) *(weld length)
The maximum length of weld used in calculation shall be 6 inches.
SWRMC: Paragraph # 5.2.4.4, Delete the paragraph
Comments
Norfolk – we can accept the use of either term used but topic 41 and this topic should use the same term
“total area of porosity allowed”, or the “total area of porosity permitted”. Our preference would be
allowed.
NGNN: Concurs with Norfolk’s Revised Proposal.
SWRMC: The information given in paragraph 5.2.4.4 is covered in proposal for paragraph 5.2.1.6.2.
49
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph # 5.2.5.3, Proposed wording; Repair weld sizedetermination and acceptance evaluation. The DMT used for
repair welds shall be the total material thickness at that repair
site, exclusive of reinforcement. The amount of indications
present shall be based on the weld length and the weld width,
with the maximum weld length being 6 inches. When the weld
repair surface area is less than 6 square inches (6 inches by 1
Deleted figures and now criteria must
be written out. Used incomplete fusion
in lieu of lack of fusion to standardize
terms used throughout document.
35
inch), the amount of indications allowed shall be proportionally
reduced based on what is allowed in 6 square inches or 6 inches
of weld length. For weld widths less than 1 inch wide, use a
weld width of 1 inch, or the applicable graph one time. For
welds that are 6 inches long and have a weld width greater than
1 inch wide, the amount of indications present (including slag,
incomplete fusion, and incomplete penetration) may be
proportionally increased for every additional inch of weld width,
provided the concentration of indications, in any 6 inch length
by one inch wide weld, is not greater than what is allowed for
one 6 inch length of weld.
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: agree, made corrections of two typos above.
EB concurs.
NGNN: OK
PSNS & IMF: Agree
MARMC: Disagree. The proposal does not adequately replace the present wording and has the potential to be
more restrictive. Since weld width is omitted from the porosity formula we assume a width of 1”, because
anything multiplied by 1 does not change. However the strip charts presently in 2035 depict width approximately
equal to the weld thickness up to a maximum of 1”. Therefore as presently written if performing a base metal
repair to a depth of ¼” with a width of ¾”, I could align 3 of the ¼” porosity charts and have 3 times the porosity
allowed by the proposal, provided the concentration does not exceed that permitted in an equivalent area of the
porosity charts. I have always assumed this is acceptable because base metal repairs are not through-thickness
welds. Welds for base metal repairs that require through-thickness repairs are evaluated as a welds and 5.2.5.3
does not apply.
SWRMC: Still thinking. I highlighted something that looks like it is in direct opposition to the current 5.2.1.6.2
which says “Increasing the allowable pores to compensate for weld widths greater than (that shown…) is not
permitted. Yes I know we are changing, but should we keep in mind the original intent?
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Norfolk - 5.2.5.3 Base material repair weld size-determination and acceptance-evaluation. For base
material repair welds the DMT used shall be the design material thickness of the member the repair is being made
to at the repair site, exclusive of reinforcement. The acceptance criteria for each type of radiographic indication
shall be proportionally decreased/increased by the ratio of the actual square inches of weld, to 6 square inches.
Porosity shall be evaluated to the same criteria specified in 5.2.1.6 except that the total area of porosity shall be
based on the formula (0.01)*(weld width)*(weld length). For weld repairs greater than 6 square inches,
evaluation shall ensure that the concentration of each type of radiographic indication does not exceed its
allowable limit for any contiguous 6 square inches of weld repair.
Comments
Norfolk – MARMC you are right, the proposed wording was not sufficient to all cases. It is the intent of
the present criteria to base the allowable limits on a weld that is 6 inches long by at maximum 1 inch
wide, or 6 square inches of weld surface. When the weld width becomes wider than 1 inch place a
second strip adjacent to it and allow more defect. Present strip charts are based on .01*T*6 with the
weld width being equal to T. Therefore the actual surface area of allowed defect is equivalent to (weld
width)*(weld length) *(.01). Since most weld repairs come in much different dimensions, the intent of
this proposal is to use the actual weld surface area and compare that to what is allowed in 6 square
inches. Following that no indication shall exceed 20 percent it matches the strip charts and other guide
lines.
NGNN: OK
36
50
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph 6.2.1, change to read: " All welds and at least ½" of
adjacent surfaces from weld toes shall be free of linear
indications ~~."
To clarify the NAVSEA position that
the current wording of "adjacent base
metal" means any adjacent metal plate, weld, casting, buttering, etc. and
an adjacent weld within ½ inch requires
inspecton/evaluation.
Comments
TRF recommends using Norfolk’s recommendation in item 52.
Norfolk desires this be addressed in item 52.
EB prefers the recommendation in item 52.
NGNN: Prefer the wording of item 52 below.
PSNS & IMF: Disagree – leave as is.
MARMC: Seems unnecessary.
SWRMC: prefer the wording in item 52.
NGUS: Agrees with using item 52
Revised Proposal
Comments
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph 6.2.1, delete "undercut indications within the
requirements of 4.2.16".
This portion of the paragraph implies
that MT indications caused by
acceptable undercut are OK without
investigating for non-relevancy, that
indication in the undercut area may be
caused by a legitimate discontinuity.
51
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: agree
EB prefers the recommendation in item 52
NGNN: Agree
PSNS & IMF: Agree
MARMC: Disagree, here’s another take: without the undercut wording, if it’s linear it’s relevant. Non-relevant is
a 271 term and I don’t think it is in 2035; so even if I prove non-relevancy by 271 I would technically have to
remove linear indications caused by VT accepted undercut without the reference to 4.2.16. Recommend adding a
definition for relevancy/non-relevancy prior to deleting the reference to 4.2.16.
SWRMC: concur with original proposal.
NGUS: Agrees with using item 52
Revised Proposal
Comments
37
52
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraphs #6.2, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, and 6.2.2.1; Propose to delete
paragraphs 6.2.1, 6.2.2, and 6.2.2.1, and add the following after
6.2 Welds:
For simplification, and consistency
with 250-1500-1. Experience shows
that there is no need for evaluation of
non-linear MT indications.
“All welds and at least 1/2 inch of the adjacent base material on
each side shall be free of indications greater than 1/16 inch in
length.”
Comments
TRF recommends using Norfolk’s recommendation.
Norfolk: Acceptance criteria for 6.2.1 is addresses in topic 50 Norfolk agrees that paragraphs 6.2.2 (topic 51),
and 6.2.2.1 (topic 52) can be deleted. Provided new criteria is added to 7.2.2 and 7.2.2.1. By applying this
criteria it removes the aligned rounded and greatly simplifies the overall criteria. Combines proposal of Topic 51
into here. Recommend: 6.2 All welds shall be free of indications greater than 1/16 inch in length. Rounded
indications in the adjacent base material shall be disregarded. Linear indications in the adjacent base material
shall be rejected.
EB concurs wholeheartedly, with the exception that the adjacent base material need only be evaluated for linear
indications (see comment 51). As a result of recent issues associated with VA Class, Russ Kok has indicated he
would endorse recommendations that simplified the acceptance criteria.
NGNN: Agree with original proposal.
PSNS & IMF: See revised proposal below
MARMC: Agree with deleting 6.2.2 and 6.2.2.1; still prefer wording presently in 6.2.1.
SWRMC: Looks good even if it DOES match the 250-1500
NGUS: Agree ….
Revised Proposal
Norfolk - 6.2 Welds. All welds shall be free of indications greater than 1/16 inch in length. Linear indications
in the adjacent base material shall be rejected. Rounded indications in the adjacent base material shall be
disregarded.
PSNS & IMF: “All welds and at least 1/2 inch of the adjacent base material on each side shall be free of linear
indications greater than 1/16 inch in length.”
Comments
Norfolk – there are comments related to MT does not find rounded indications, which is why the proposed
wording states free of indications greater than 1/16” rather than just free of linear indications. If this proposal is
adopted then paragraph 7.2.1 (topic 61) must be modified and paragraph 6.2.2.1 can be deleted.
NGNN: Agree with (and prefers) PSNS & IMF Revised Proposal.
53
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph 6.2.2, Proposed wording; Rounded Indications.
Rounded indications 1/64 inch and less shall be disregarded for
materials with a DMT of 3/16 inch and less. Rounded
indications 1/32 inch and less shall be disregarded for materials
with a DMT greater that 3/16 inch. The maximum size rounded
indication shall not exceed the limits of Figure 49. The total
area of indications shall not exceed the following calculation:
(weld width) * (weld length) * (Class Factor)
Where the Class Factor is:
Class 1 = .00375
Class 2 = .0050
Class 3 = .0075
Deletes tables and allows precise
determination of the indication area
allowed.
38
Comments
EB prefers the recommendation in item 52.
NGNN: Prefer the wording of item 52 above. There is no need for information on evaluation of rounded MT
indications.
Norfolk proposes:
Paragraph 7.2.2, Proposed wording; Rounded Indications. Rounded indications 1/64 inch and less shall be
disregarded for materials with a DMT of 3/16 inch and less. Rounded indications 1/32 inch and less shall be
disregarded for materials with a DMT greater that 3/16 inch. The maximum size rounded indication shall not
exceed the limits of Figure 49. The total area of indications shall not exceed the following calculation:
(weld width) * (weld length) * (Class Factor)
Where the Class Factor is:
Class 1 = .00375
Class 2 = .0050
Class 3 = .0075
Paragraph 7.2.2.1 Aligned Rounded Indications. Aligned regardable rounded indications shall be cause for
rejection if one or more of the aligned indications is greater than:
1/32 inch for Class 1
1/16 Inch for Class 2
3/32 inch for Class 3
PSNS & IMF: Agree with Norfolk.
MARMC: Prefers deletion of evaluation of rounded indications for MT.
SWRMC: Delete in accordance with proposal 52. 
NGUS: Agrees with EB and NGNN with using item 52
Revised Proposal
Comments
Norfolk proposes that 6.2.2 is no longer needed and the criteria for rounded indications should be placed in 7.2.2:
See topic 61.
PSNS & IMF: Agree with Norfolk.
NGNN: Agree with Norfolk
54
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph 6.2.2 – Recommend inserting a new third sentence to
read as follows: “Non-linear indications in the ½-inch of
adjacent base material shall be disregarded.”
As the result of a SUBSAFE Audit
Finding involving the interpretation of
this requirement, Norfolk Naval issued
a telecon with signed concurrence from
NAVSEA 05ME dated 15 Dec., 1998
as clarification.
Comments
TRF concurs with Norfolk’s suggestion
Norfolk: Not applicable if 6.2.2 is deleted, see item 52. If not deleted then it should be added. Propose changing
"non-linear" to "rounded".
EB concurs wholeheartedly.
NGNN: Prefer the wording of item 52 above. There is no need for information on evaluation of rounded MT
indications.
PSNS & IMF: Agree.
MARMC: Agree with NNGN
SWRMC: Agree with Norfolk, make it go away or word it rounded..
39
NGUS: Agrees with NGNN with using item 52
Revised Proposal
Comments
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph 6.2.2.1, This paragraph needs to be addressed with the
confusion present that 6.2.2 directed to disregard !/32"
indications then 6.2.2.1 indicates if there is a single 1/32"
indication in an aligned situation the condition is rejectable.
Recent guidance has suggested NAVSEA feels indications
should be evaluated by its proximity to other indications before
it is evaluated based on its size, and considered whether it should
be disregarded.
Table IX as well as Table VII, Note (2)
does not indicate that indications 1/16"
and less need to be random in order to
be disregardable. In Tables VI and
VIII, Note (2) it specifically requires
indications to be "randomly
distributed" to not be counted. When
you look at the acceptance for both the
MT and PT as addressed in 6.2.2 for
non-linear indications it again makes
no reference that would indicate that a
rounded indication needs to be
randomly located in order to be
disregarded, it simply states indications
shall be disregarded. We have always
taken this to mean that during the
evaluation process you disregard those
indications that were disregardable by
size first, and then proceed with the
further evaluations as to whether
indications are aligned or the remaining
indication area exceeds the area
allowed. This thought process is based
on the fact that the 6.2.2.1 "Aligned
round indications" paragraph is a
subordinate paragraph to 6.2.2 so the
requirements of 6.2.2 must be complied
with first. I'd suggest that if the intent
is to evaluate rounded indications based
on their proximity to other indications
first some changes need to be made.
The current paragraph 6.2.2.1 should
be placed before the general statements
contained in 6.2.2 about disregarding
indications and the Note (2) to Tables
VII and IX needs to be changed to
address aligned indications first and
then disregard the remaining
indications that are 1/16" or less.
55
40
Comments
TRF concurs with Norfolk’s suggestion
Norfolk: This paragraph should be renumbered to 7.2.2.1. Norfolk’s position is that once indications are
disregarded they are not counted in any way regardless of their proximity to other indications. See item 53.
EB concurs that this needs to be clarified.
NGNN: Prefer the wording of item 55 above. There is no need for information on evaluation of rounded MT
indications.
PSNS & IMF: Agree with Norfolk.
MARMC: Agree with NNGN
SWRMC: Agree with Norfolk.
NGUS: Agrees with Norfolk’s suggestion
Revised Proposal
Comments
See topic 52 for MT and 61 for PT.
56
Original Proposal
Discussion
Table VI Note (1), Proposed wording;
(1) Casting surfaces shall be free of tears or crack-like defects
longer than 1/16 inch. In addition, the measured length of any
PT indication shall not exceed 1/2 the total material thickness at
the location where the indication occurs. Any area containing a
linear indication greater than 1/16 inch shall have the penetrant
materials cleaned off and examined at 5X magnification or
ground and reinspected as necessary to ensure that it is not a tear
or crack.
Reorders tear and crack to stay in same
order in paragraph. Defines which
length to measure whether it be the
length of the PT indication or the
length of the indication measured by
5X after the penetrant materials have
been removed. By moving last
sentence to second sentence it allows
the inspector to measure the PT
indication prior to cleaning it off to
conduct a 5X.
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: agree with the addition of deleting "PT" in second sentence.
EB does not agree; this note is applicable to MT also??
NGNN: Agree if the following change is made, delete; "total" in front of material thickness. Suggest the
following change to the current Note (1), delete the last sentence, and replace with, "In addition, the length of any
indication (regardless of 5X verification) shall not exceed ½ the design material thickness at the location where
the indication occurs".
PSNS & IMF: Disagree – leave as is.
MARMC; Disagree prefer wording presently in 2035.
SWRMC: Agree with MARMC on this one.
NGUS: Agrees with EB
Revised Proposal
Norfolk – Table VI Note (1)
Casting surfaces shall be free of tears or crack-like defects longer than 1/16 inch. Any area containing a linear
indication greater than 1/16 inch shall have the penetrant materials cleaned off and examined at 5X magnification
or ground and reinspected as necessary to ensure that it is not a tear or crack. In addition, the measured length of
any indication, as measured after any NDT method, shall not exceed 1/2 the design material thickness at the
location where the indication occurs.
NGNN – Table VI Note (1)
41
Casting surfaces shall be free of tears or crack-like defects longer than 1/16 inch. Any area containing a linear
indication greater than 1/16 inch shall be cleaned (to remove magnetic particles or penetrant materials) and
examined at 5X magnification, or ground and reinspected as necessary to ensure that it is not a tear or crack. In
addition, the length of any indication, as measured by the original NDT method, shall not exceed 1/2 the design
material thickness at the location where the indication occurs.
Comments
NGNN: Table VI applies to both MT and PT (even if all proposed changes are agreed upon - see Item
98 comments). Also, the proposed change to the last sentence clarifies when to apply the 1/2 T criteria
so that it can’t be either VT or MT/PT.
57
Original Proposal
Discussion
Table VI Note (3), Proposed wording;
(3) The distance separating two longitudinally aligned linear
indications shall not be less than 4 times D, where D is the
length of the longer indication. However, these aligned
indications may be measured, from their extremities, and
evaluated as one indication.
Present wording could lead to
accepting aligned linear indications
simply because there were classified as
a single indication (and shall not be
cause for rejection), and not evaluated
to the applicable criteria.
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: agree with wording if that is the intent of the criteria. However, a second interpretation is available to
evaluate the indications as follows:
(3) The distance sepaarating two longitudinally aligned linear indications shall not be less than 4 times D, where
D is the length of the longer indication. However, the individual lengths of such aligned indications may be
summed together and evaluated as one single indication. Norfolk can go either way which ever is decided.
EB does not agree that this is an improvement.
NGNN: Agree. Suggest the following change to the current Note (3), in the first sentence, delete "… shall be not
less than 4 times D, where D is …" and replace with "… shall not be less than 4 times L, where L is …"
PSNS & IMF: Agree.
MARMC: Seems unnecessary.
SWRMC: OK with change as written.
NGUS: Agrees, but also likes NGNN’s suggestion of replacing “D” with “L”
Revised Proposal
Norfolk – Note (3) to Table VI : Casting surfaces shall be free of longitudinally aligned linear indications, whose
length exceeds the limits of this table.
Comments
Norfolk – propose new definition of longitudinally aligned linear indications be added (Topic 97) and then these
notes to Table VI and VIII can be modified. Definition explains when to classify them as longitudinally aligned
and how to evaluate them , Note (3) now provide criteria.
NGNN: Agree.
58
Original Proposal
Discussion
Table VI Note (4), delete "… shall be not less than 4 times D,
where D is …" and replace with "… shall not be less than 4
times L, where L is …"
For Notes (3) and (4), "L" is a better
designator for linear indications than
"D"
42
Comments
PSNS & IMF: Agree.
Norfolk – agrees that L should be used in lieu of D. Was used in definition in Topic 97.
SWRMC: Agree! And can we find any of those other “be not less than’s”??
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Comments
Original Proposal
59
Discussion
Table VI Note (5), Proposed wording;
(5) For inspection areas of less than 36 square inches, the
maximum number of indications shall be proportionally reduced.
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: agree
EB does not agree that this is an improvement.
NGNN: OK but unnecessary.
PSNS & IMF: agree
MARMC: Indifferent
SWRMC: Was this ever a problem?
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Comments
60
Original Proposal
Discussion
Table VII, Note (1), delete "design wall thickness" in the second
sentence, and replace with "design material thickness".
To be consistent with the rest of the
document.
Comments
NGNN: Agree.
Norfolk – agrees that DMT should be used in lieu of alternate term “minimum design wall thickness”
PSNS & IMF: Agree
SWRMC: Ok
NGUS: Agree
43
Revised Proposal
Comments
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraphs # 7.2.1, 7.2.2, and 7.2.2.1, Propose to delete
paragraphs 7.2.1, 7.2.2 and 7.2.2.1, and replace with the
following:
Changed for simplification, and format
similar to 250-1500-1. Disregarding
non-linear indications in adjacent base
material is based on a NAVSEA
7.2.1 Linear indications. All welds and at least 1/2 inch of the clarification provided to NNSY and
adjacent base material on each side shall be free of linear
documented in a Telephone
indications greater than 1/16 inch in length. Indications 1/16 and Conversation Record, dated 12/15/98.
less shall be considered non-linear.
7.2.2 Non-linear indications. Rounded indications 1/64 inch
and less in the weld shall be disregarded for material thickness
3/16 inch and less. Rounded indications 1/32 inch and less in
the weld shall be disregarded for material thickness greater than
3/16 inch. Non-linear indications in the 1/2 inch of adjacent
base material shall be disregarded. Welds shall be free of nonlinear indications in excess of the following limits:
Class
61
1
2
3
Design material
thickness
(inches)
Less than 1/8
1/8 to less than
3/16
3/16 to less than
1/4
1/4 to less than
5/16
5/16 to less than
3/8
3/8 and greater
Less than 3/16
3/16 to less than
1/4
1/4 to less than
5/16
5/16 and greater
Less than 3/16
3/16 to less than
1/4
1/4 and greater
Maximum
individual
indication
size
(inches) 
1/16
3/64
Maximum
allowable
percent
indication
area 
5/64
3/32
0.375
7/64
1/8
5/64
3/32
7/64
1/8
3/32
7/64
0.5
0.75
1/8
44
NOTES:

Only one indication of the indicated maximum size is
permitted for weld lengths of 6 inches or less.

Allowable percent indication area shall be calculated for
indications less than the applicable maximum size.
When necessary for evaluation, figure 25 may be used to
determine the total indication area.
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: in 7.2.1 change non-linear to rounded. Change 7.2.2 to: Rounded indications. Rounded indications
1/64 inch and less shall be disregarded in welds where the DMT is 3/16 inch and less. Rounded indications 1/32
inch and less shall be disregarded in welds where the DMT is greater than 3/16 inch. Rounded indications in the
1/2 inch of adjacent base material shall be disregarded. Welds shall be free of rounded indications in excess of
the following limits:. There is not need to have words greater than 1/16 inch since criteria states shall be free of
linear indications. Don't agree with the justification statement as a valid requirement. Delete footnote #1. Why
delete 7.2.2.1?
EB concurs that adopting the requirements of NS 250-1500-1 would be a good first step, but anything is better
than the present wording. Ultimately, they should both be simplified and made to look more like the MT criteria.
Just because PT picks up micro-porosity that MT does not see should not be cause for changing the technical
suitability of a ferrous versus nonferrous weld with the same level of criticality.
NGNN: Agree if the following changes are made. Para 7.2.1 delete " and at least 1/2 inch of the adjacent base
material on each side" and add "Linear indications in the ½ inch of adjacent base material on either side of the
weld shall be evaluated to the requirements of 6.3 or 6.4, as applicable." Para. 7.2.2 add to third sentence
between material and shall, "on either side of the weld". Delete "individual" and footnote 1 reference from third
column heading. Change footnote reference in fourth column from 2 to 1. Replace both notes with a single note,
"Maximum total allowable area of indications shall be calculated based on the surface area of the worst 6 inch
length of weld. When necessary for evaluation, figure 25 may be used to determine the total indication area."
MARMC: Disagree in part; still unclear, wordy and redundant; worst 6-inches has to be captured.
SWRMC: Combine the recommendations from Norfolk and NGNN.
NGUS: Agrees with EB
Revised Proposal
NGNN: In addition to the NGNN comments above – Change the last sentence of 7.2.2 to read, “Welds shall be
free of non-linear indications in excess of the following limits for the worst 6 inches of weld length.”
Change fourth column heading to “Maximum total allowable area of indications”.
Add 7.2.2.1 as follows: “Aligned rounded indications (see 3.1) shall be cause for rejection if one or more of the
aligned indications is greater than 1/32 inch for class 1, greater than 1/16 inch for class 2, or greater than 3/32
inch for class 3.”
Norfolk –
7.2.1 Linear indications. All welds and at least 1/2 inch of the adjacent base material on each side shall be free
of linear indications greater than 1/16 inch in length. Indications 1/16 and less shall be considered rounded.
7.2.2 Rounded indications. Rounded indications 1/64 inch and less shall be disregarded in welds where the
DMT is 3/16 inch and less. Rounded indications 1/32 inch and less shall be disregarded in welds where the DMT
is greater than 3/16 inch. Rounded indications in the 1/2 inch of adjacent base material shall be disregarded.
Welds shall be free of rounded indications in excess of the following limits :
7.2.2.1 Maximum Size Rounded Allowed . Rounded indications that exceed the limits of Table * shall
be rejected.
Table * MAXIMUM SIZE ROUNDED ALLOWED
45
DESIGN MATERIAL
THICKNESS (Tm) (Inches)
Less than or equal to .071
.072 to .186
.187 to .249
.250 to .311
.312 to .375
.376 and greater
INDICATION SIZE (Inches)
CLASS 1
CLASS 2
CLASS 3
1/64
1/64
1/64
1/16
5/64
3/32
5/64
3/32
7/64
3/32
7/64
1/8
7/64
1/8
1/8
1/8
1/8
1/8
7.2.2.2 - The surface area of indications shall not exceed the following formula, for the applicable class
weld. For welds greater than 6 inches in length, ensure that this criteria is not exceeded in any 6 inch
length of the weld.
Class 1: (Weld Length) * (Weld Width) * (0.00375)
Class 2: (Weld Length) * (Weld Width) * (0.0050)
Class 3: (Weld Length) * (Weld Width) * (0.0075)
7.2.2.3 Linear Aligned Rounded Indications. Linear aligned rounded indications in welds shall be
rejected if one or more of the aligned indications exceeds the following:
a) Class 1 - Greater than 1/32 inch.
b) Class 2 - Greater than 1/16 inch.
Class 3 - Greater than 3/32 inch.
Comments
Norfolk – after careful review of Figure 49, the graphs on the left side do not go all the way to a DMT
of zero thickness, but rather stop at a value of 0.071 inch.
The proposal of Note 1 above is not true.
Worst six inch increment is covered in proposed paragraph 7.2.2.2.
NGNN: Agree with Norfolk’s Revised Proposal paragraphs 7.2.1, 7.2.2., and 7.2.2.3. Disagree with
the newly proposed table of 7.2.2.1. Currently, MIL-STD-2035 does not call for evaluation of PT
indications less than 1/32 inch for any application (do not want to see a new requirement for evaluation
of 1/64 inch indications). Disagree that Figure 49 specifically stops at a DMT of 0.071 inch, since the
thickness increments along the bottom of the figure are not to scale. There is still potential conflict
between the proposed table and 7.2.2.2. All of the proposals for this item constitute a very important
change for this document and may require a concentrated committee effort to resolve.
62
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph # 7.3.1.1, Proposed wording; For the area within 1/8
of the contact line, the following criteria applies: The maximum
size rounded indication shall not exceed 1/32”. Rounded
indications less than 1/32 inch shall be disregarded. There shall
be no more than 7 rounded indications (at 1/32 inch) in any 6
inch length of weld. The weld length is to be measured along
the contact line. For weld lengths less than 6 inches in length,
the number of allowable indications must be proportionally
reduced.
Figures are deleted, words must be
provided.
46
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: agree
EB does not agree that this is an improvement.
NGNN: OK
PSNS & IMF: Agree.
SWRMC: Agree.
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Comments
63
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraphs 7.3.1.2, 7.3.2 & 7.3.3 all supply the acceptance
criteria based on the number of indications in each 6-inch length,
consider evaluating these surfaces based on square area similar
to castings and overlays.
Currently with no square area criteria
you are restricted to have the same
number of indications in a one inch
wide 6-inch length as you were allowed
in a ¼ inch wide 6-inch length.
Comments
TRF recommends leaving the wording as written
Norfolk: This should also include 7.3.1.1
Can not state for sure which way this would go but it would alter the acceptance of these types of welds.
Changing to use a square inch area would change the amount of indication area in most applications.
Example if you evaluated the area in 7.3.1.2 and had 6 @ 1/16” that would mean you had an indication area of
.0186 sq. inches. If you use the class 1 criteria of .00375 for a weld 6” long, it would take a weld .8266” wide to
allow such a sq in area.
One thing we have to be very careful here. In 7.3.1.1 and 7.3.3, they allow the inspector to measure an indication
as being less than 1/32” which could mean that it could be greater than 1/64” but not at 1/32”. As well as in
7.3.1.2 they allow do disregard indications less than 1/16”.
In addition there are some deletions of the word rounded that should be made:
a) In 7.3.1.1 second sentence delete “Rounded” at beginning of sentence
b) Note in 7.3.1.2 should read “Indications less than 1/16 inch shall be disregarded.” Delete word rounded since
document defines any indication less than 1/16” is classified as rounded.
c) In 7.3.2 delete “Rounded” in note
d) In 7.3.3 delete “Rounded” at beginning of sentence.
Bottom line is Norfolk can go either way.
EB does not agree that this is an improvement.
NGNN: OK
PSNS & IMF: Indifferent.
MARMC: Agrees with TRF
SWRMC: OK with what’s there now.
NGUS: Agrees that there should be some limit of area that the indications are applied against
Revised Proposal
47
Comments
Norfolk – for 7.3.1.1 the square inches of the surface is incorporated due to the fact that criteria
specifies within 1/8 inch of contact line, thereby making the area ¼ inch wide. It may not be in the best
interest to require the more complicated math for the inspector, as it is they have enough problems
measuring 6” on a circle.
7.3.1.1 see topic 62.
7.3.1.2 modify Note to read: Indications less than 1/16 inch shall be disregarded.
7.3.2 modify Note to read: Indications less than 1/64 inch shall be disregarded.
7.3.3 modify Note to read: Indications less than 1/32 inch shall be disregarded.
NGNN: Agree.
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph # 7.4, Proposed wording; Weld Overlay. Unless
otherwise approved, nondestructive testing of weld overlay shall
be performed by the liquid penetrant method. The weld overlay
surfaces and at least ½ inch of the adjacent base metal, to the
maximum extent possible, shall be free of cracks and incomplete
fusion larger than 1/16 inch. Rounded indications less than 3/32
inch in diameter shall be disregarded. Other indications meeting
the requirements of tables VIII and IX are acceptable. Buttering
and build-up of localized area shall be considered as welds and
inspected by magnetic particle or liquid penetrant test, as
applicable.
Moved text from end of paragraph to
middle.
It appears the author’s intent is to have
the weld and the adjacent ½ inch free
of cracks and incomplete fusion larger
than 1/16 inch. The problem occurs
when you go to table IX, which is titled
Non-linear indication acceptance
standards for liquid penetrant
inspection of weld overlay, and read
the notes:
Note (2) Indications 1/16 and less shall
be disregarded. Aligned indications, as
defined (see 3.1) shall be treated as a
linear indication in accordance with
table VIII if one or more of the aligned
indications is greater than 1/16 inch.
Note (6) All non-linear indications
greater than 1/16 inch shall be counted
to determine the maximum number.
And then try to discern why the author
wrote in the additional allowance for
larger indications. By definition, weld
overlay cladding is the deposition of
one or more layers of weld metal to the
surface of a base material in an effort to
improve the corrosion resistance
properties of the surface. This would
be applied at a level above the
minimum design material thickness as
a nonstructural component to the
overall wall thickness. With that in
mind it can be understood why the
author would allow for the larger size
rounded indication to be disregarded.
64
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: propose in 2nd sentence, delete "metal, to the maximum extent possible," insert "material".
48
EB agrees that the disparity between which size rounded indication is to be disregarded needs to be clarified.
NGNN: In the second sentence, add "on each side" after "…and at least ½ inch of the adjacent base metal"
PSNS & IMF: Disagree. Believe the 3/32” disregard size is intended to apply to buttering and buildup of
localized areas and not for weld overlay as Note 6 to Table IX clearly states that all rounded indications greater
than 1/16” shall be counted.
SWRMC: Concur with change as it is written.
NGUS: Agrees with all of the above comments
Revised Proposal
Norfolk - 7.4 Weld Overlay. Unless otherwise approved, nondestructive testing of weld overlay shall be
performed by the liquid penetrant method. The weld overlay surfaces and, to the maximum extent possible at
least ½ inch of the adjacent base material on each side, shall be free of cracks and incomplete fusion larger than
1/16 inch. Rounded indications less than 3/32 inch in diameter shall be disregarded. Other indications meeting
the requirements of Tables VIII and IX are acceptable. Buttering and build-up of localized areas shall be
considered as welds and inspected by magnetic particle or liquid penetrant test, as applicable
Comments
NGNN: Agree.
65
Original Proposal
Discussion
Table VIII Note (1), Proposed wording;
(1) The cladded surface shall be free crack-like defects or
incomplete fusion longer than 1/16 inch. In addition, the
measured length of any PT indication shall not exceed 1/2 the
total material thickness at the location where the indication
occurs. Any area containing a linear indication greater than 1/16
inch shall have the penetrant materials cleaned off and examined
at 5X magnification or ground and reinspected as necessary to
ensure that it is not a crack or incomplete fusion.
Same as Table VI Note (1).
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: agree, propose deleting "PT" from first sentence.
EB does not agree that this is an improvement.
NGNN: Agree if the following change is made, delete "total". Suggest the following change to the current Note
(1), delete the last sentence and replace with, "In addition, the length of any indication (regardless of 5X
verification) shall not exceed ½ the design material thickness at the location where the indication occurs."
PSNS & IMF: Agree with NGNN
SWRMC: Agree with change as written.
NGUS: Agrees with NGNN
Revised Proposal
Norfolk – Table VIII Note (1)
The cladded surface shall be free of incomplete fusion or crack-like defects longer than 1/16 inch. Any area
containing a linear indication greater than 1/16 inch shall have the penetrant materials cleaned off and examined
at 5X magnification or ground and reinspected as necessary to ensure that it is not incomplete fusion or a crack.
In addition, the measured length of any indication, as measured after any NDT method, shall not exceed 1/2 the
design material thickness at the location where the indication occurs.
NGNN – Table VIII Note (1)
The cladded surface shall be free of incomplete fusion or crack-like defects longer than 1/16 inch. Any area
containing a linear indication greater than 1/16 inch shall be cleaned of penetrant materials and examined at 5X
magnification, or ground and reinspected as necessary to ensure that it is not incomplete fusion or a crack. In
addition, the measured length of any indication, as measured by the liquid penetrant method, shall not exceed
49
1/2 the design material thickness at the location where the indication occurs.
Comments
Norfolk – words are now similar to Topic 56.
NGNN: Changed second sentence for grammatical reasons. Also, the proposed change to the last
sentence clarifies when to apply the 1/2 T criteria so that it can’t be either VT or PT. (This is all based
on the assumption that Table VIII will be made applicable to PT only as per Item 98)
66
Original Proposal
Discussion
Table VIII Note (3), Proposed wording;
(3) The distance separating two longitudinally aligned linear
indications shall not be less than 4 times D, where D is the
length of the longer indication. However, these aligned
indications may be measured, from their extremities, and
evaluated as one indication.
Same as TableVI Note
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: See response to item 57.
EB does not agree that this is an improvement.
NGNN: Agree. Suggest changing first sentence from "…shall be not less than 4 times D, where D is …" to "…
shall be not less than L, where L is …"
PSNS & IMF: Agree with NGNN comment.
SWRMC: Ok with change as written.
NGUS: Agrees, but also likes NGNN’s suggestion of replacing “D” with “L”
Revised Proposal
Norfolk – Note (3) to Table VI : Casting surfaces shall be free of longitudinally aligned linear indications, whose
length exceeds the limits of this table.
Comments
Norfolk – Same as topic 57.
NGNN: Agree with Norfolk’s Revised Proposal.
Original Proposal
Discussion
Table VIII Note (7), delete the entire note.
Note (7) deleted because it is redundant
with Notes (1) and (2).
67
Comments
PSNS & IMF: Agree
NGNN: Agree
Norfolk – Agree Note 7) is not necessary, as the procedure does not tell them to count linears in Table VI or
rounded indications in Table VII. If this Note 7) were deleted then Note 6 to Table IX should be deleted as well.
NGUS: Agree
50
Revised Proposal
Comments
68
Original Proposal
Discussion
Table VIII Note (5), Proposed wording;
(5) For inspection areas of less than 36 square inches, the
maximum number of indications shall be proportionally reduced.
Same as previous Table.
Comments
Norfolk: agree
EB does not agree that this is an improvement.
NGNN: Agree
PSNS & IMF: Agree
SWRMC: Agree
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Comments
Original Proposal
69
Discussion
Table IX should be moved out of the UT section and into the PT PT acceptance criteria should be
section
located in the PT section of the
document.
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: agree
NGNN: Agree
PSNS & IMF: Agree
SWRMC: Agree
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Comments
51
70
Original Proposal
Discussion
Table IX, Note (1) Delete "total material thickness" in the
second sentence, and replace with "design material thickness".
Note (6), delete entire note.
Note (1) changed to be consistent with
the rest of the document. Note (6)
deleted because it conflicts the
direction provided by the last sentence
of paragraph 7.4.
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: agree
NGNN: Agree
PSNS & IMF: Agree
SWRMC: Sure
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Comments
71
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph 8.1, change second sentence to read: "Unless
otherwise specified below any indication producing a response
greater than the calibration reflector shall be rejected."9
All the other sections of UT acceptance
require the indications to be greater
than the ARL to be reject, as opposed
to equal to or greater than.
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: This is based on how E 3010 defined the minimum recordable length as 1/8”. In essence, any
discontinuity less than 1/8” in length is disregardable for all classes. Since it apples to all classes it should be
move to general. Once moved to general then the following paragraphs can be deleted: 8.2.1.2, 8.2.2.2, 8.2.3.2,
8.3.2, and 8.4.2.
EB does not concur; this requirement is mostly intended for base materials where UT is required (probably by a
drawing note), but when no acceptance is given. The existing wording is consistent with most, if not all, base
material procurement specifications. Also see below counter proposal for paragraph 8.1, which also takes
Norfolk’s comment into account:
NGNN: OK
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
EB: Break paragraph 8.1 General, into subparagraphs, as follows:
8.1.1 For ultrasonic inspections governed by a fabrication document, material specification, or other
referencing document in which the acceptance criteria are specified, acceptance/rejection shall be as specified
therein.
8.1.2 For ultrasonic inspections where the acceptance criteria are not specified, and the weld criteria below are
not applicable, Unless otherwise specified below any indication producing a response equal to or greater than the
calibration reflector shall be rejected.
8.1.3 For ultrasonic inspections of welds, where the referencing document invokes this specification, the
52
acceptance criteria shall be as delineated below for the weld application, with the following general conditions:
8.1.3.1 Indications less than the DRL shall be disregarded.
8.1.3.2 The minimum recordable length of individual discontinuities shall be 1/8 inch.
8.1.3.3 Adjacent discontinuities are defined as two individual discontinuities that are separated by less than 2L of
sound metal. (L equals the length of the longer of the two adjacent discontinuities.) The evaluation length of
adjacent discontinuities shall be measured as the distance between their outer extremities or the sum of their
individual lengths, whichever is greater (figures 50 and 51). The evaluation amplitude of adjacent discontinuities
shall be the higher of the two individual peak amplitudes.
8.1.3.4 When discontinuity lengths are dependant on T, T equals the design material thickness of the thinner
member comprising the weld joint.
Norfolk: 8.1 Unless otherwise specified in a governing fabrication document, material specification, or other
referencing document the following UT criteria shall be applied:
8.1.1 Indications with a reflection of less than the DRL shall be disregarded.
8.1.2 Indications that are less than 1/8 inch in length shall be disregarded.
8.1.3 Proximate UT indications. When indications are separated by less than 2L of sound metal, they shall be
considered proximate indications, where L is the length of the longer of the two adjacent indications. Proximate
indications shall be evaluated as a single indication, whose length is measured by summing the length of each
individual indication plus the length of sound metal between them. When indications are stacked or parallel, that
is orientated such that one indication encompasses the same weld length of a second indication, use a value of
zero for the distance of sound metal between them. See Figures 51 and 54.
8.2 Volumetric inspection of full penetration butt, corner and tee welds.
8.2.1 Class 1.
8.2.1.1 Any indication whose reflection exceeds the ARL and is greater than 1/8 inch in length shall be rejected.
8.2.1.2 Indications whose reflection is greater than, or equal to, the DRL and less than, or equal to, the ARL shall
not exceed 1/2T or 1-1/2 inches whichever is less. In addition, in any 12 contiguous inches of weld or less, the
total accumulative length of individual indications shall not exceed T.
8.2.2 Class 2.
8.2.2.1 Any indications whose reflection exceeds the ARL and is greater than 1/4 inch in length shall be rejected.
8.2.2.2 Indications whose reflection is greater than, or equal to, the DRL and less than, or equal to, the ARL shall
not exceed T or 2 inches whichever is less. In addition, in any 12 contiguous inches of weld or less, the total
accumulative length of individual indications shall not exceed 2T.
8.2.3 Class 3.
8.2.3.1 Any indication whose reflection exceeds the ARL and is greater than 1/2 inch in length shall be rejected.
8.2.3.2 Indications whose reflection is greater than, or equal to, the DRL and less than the ARL shall not exceed
1 inch or T whichever is greater. In addition, in any 12 contiguous inches of weld or less, the total accumulative
length of individual indications shall not exceed 2T.
8.3 Full penetration tee welds for incomplete root penetration.
53
8.3.1 Any indication whose reflection exceeds the ARL, and is greater than 1/8 inch in length, shall be rejected.
8.3.2 Indications whose reflection is greater than, or equal to, the DRL and less than, or equal to, the ARL shall
not exceed 6 inches. In addition, in any 12 contiguous inches of weld or less, the total accumulative length of
individual indications shall not exceed 6 inches.
8.4 Tee weld indications into through member.
8.4.1 Any indication whose reflection exceeds the ARL, and is greater than 1/8 inch in length, shall be rejected.
8.4.2 Indications whose reflection is greater than, or equal to, the DRL and less than, or equal to, the ARL shall
be rejected if the difference between the reported minimum and maximum perpendicular distances from the
through member is greater than 1/16 inch.
Comments
EB: The above format clarifies that there are three separate situations that are being addressed in 8.1;
UT per a different spec.; UT per a document that does not have acceptance; and UT of welds per 2035.
The subparagraphs under 8.1.3 capture all of the common elements for weld acceptance criteria, so they are
not reiterated (inconsistently) in each sub-section. See “Discussion” under Item #75. Subsequently, all
words regarding indications < DRL, definitions of 2L, and T would be deleted in sections 8.2 – 8.4.
EB has written a marked up version of the entire Section 8, showing strikethrough fonts for words that would be
deleted, red fonts for the new words inserted, and comments in the margins that reference the Item # that is
reflected in the change.
NGNN totally agrees with EB
Norfolk – By defining what proximate UT indications are, and moving repetitive criteria into the general, the
proposed rewording avoids repeating the same critieria for each UT application.
The minimum recordable length of a discontinuity shall be 1/8 inch comes from NAVSHIPS 0900-006-3010.
Since the value of d can never be greater than the sum of L1 + L2 +s, the option of using one or the other was
removed.
72
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph # 8.2, Change to read “Volumetric inspection of full
penetration butt, corner and tee welds”.
To separate from the criteria of 8.3 and
8.4, and to reflect the addition of
volumetric UT for tee welds in T9074AS-GIB-010/271.
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: Agree. See Topic 71
EB concurs.
NGNN: Agree
PSNS & IMF: Agree
SWRMC: Sure
Revised Proposal
Comments
54
73
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph # 8.2.1, Change to read “Full penetration butt, corner
and tee welds (class 1)”.
To reflect the addition of volumetric
UT for tee welds in T9074-AS-GIB010/271.
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: Agree. See Topic 71
EB concurs.
NGNN: Agree
PSNS & IMF: Agree
SWRMC: Sure
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Comments
74
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph # 8.2.1.1, In the first sentence, delete the words “(see
3.2) with measurable length” and replace with the words “and
has a length which exceeds 1/8 inch”.
Delete “(see 3.2)” because the user is
not sent back to the definitions
elsewhere in this section.
Current wording “measurable length”
is not definitive.
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: Disagree propose new wording:
Paragraph 8.2.1.1
Any discontinuity whose reflection exceeds the ARL, and is greater than 1/8 inch, shall be rejected. Adjacent
discontinuities whose reflections exceed the ARL, and are separated by less than 2L of sound metal shall be
considered a single discontinuity. Where L is the length of the longest of adjacent discontinuities.
Defines what is a measurable length as stated in E 3010. Delete “(see 3.2)” because the user is not sent back to
the definitions elsewhere in this section. Current wording “measurable length” is not definitive.
EB agrees in concept, but proposes that the definition for measurable length being >1/8” be moved to a new
paragraph 8.1.3.2 under 8.1 General. See Item #71 above.
NGNN: Agree
PSNS & IMF: Agree
SWRMC: “Where L is the length of the longest of adjacent discontinuities.” Doesn’t look like a completed
sentence, but it isn’t getting red lined by spell check, so maybe it’s just me.
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Comments
Norfolk - See Topic 71
55
75
Original Proposal
Discussion
Proposed by Norfolk:
Paragraph 8.2..1.2; Delete paragraph
Criteria applies to all and proposal to
move into 8.1.1
Comments
EB: Concurs. Superseded by new proposed 8.1.3.1 which is applicable to all applications. See Item # 71.
NGNN: Agree
PSNS & IMF: Agree.
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Comments
Norfolk - See Topic 71
76
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraphs # 8.2.1.3.1, 8.2.2.3.1, and 8.2.3.3, In the first
sentence of each of these paragraphs, change “(T equals
thickness of the thinner member)” to “(T equals design material
thickness of the thinner member)”.
To be consistent with rest of document.
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: propose: 8.2.1.3.1 If the discontinuity length exceeds ½T it shall be rejected. Where T equals the DMT
of the thinner member. In no case shall any single discontinuity length exceed 1-1/2 inches.
EB agrees in concept, but proposes that the definition of T be moved to a new paragraph 8.1.3.4 under 8.1
General. See Item #71 above.
NGNN: Agree
PSNS & IMF: Agree
SWRMC: Agree
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Comments
Norfolk - See Topic 71
77
Original Proposal
Discussion
Norfolk proposal: Paragraph 8.2.1.3.2
Adjacent discontinuities separated by less than 2L of sound
metal shall be considered as a single discontinuity. Where L
equals the length of the longest of the two adjacent indications.
The length of such aligned discontinuities shall be measured as
the distance from their extremities or the sum of their individual
lengths, whichever is greater.
Deletes reference to figures 50 through
54.
56
Comments
PSNS & IMF: Agree
EB agrees in concept, but proposes that the definition for Adjacent Discontinuities be moved to a new paragraph
8.1.3.3 under 8.1 General. See Item #71 above.
NGNN: Prefer current wording, but agree with deleting reference to figures 50 through 54.
SWRMC: I know the goal was to get rid of the figures, but these figures help to clarify the point.
Would I be alone if I said to keep them? See recommendation number 93.
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Comments
Norfolk - See Topic 71
78
Original Proposal
Discussion
Norfolk proposal:
Paragraph 8.2.1.3.3 If in any 12 consecutive inches of weld or
less, the total accumulative length of individual discontinuities
exceeds the DMT, they shall be rejected.
Changes "one T" to "the DMT" to
clarify and standardize the thickness to
be used for evaluation.
Comments
PSNS & IMF: Agree
EB agrees in concept, but proposes that the definition of T be stated up front in a new paragraph 8.1.3.4 under 8.1
General. See Item #71 above.
NGNN: OK
SWRMC: agree
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Comments
Norfolk - See Topic 71
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph # 8.2.2, Change to read “Full penetration butt, corner
and tee welds (class 2)”.
To reflect the addition of volumetric
UT for tee welds in T9074-AS-GIB010/271
79
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: agree
EB concurs.
57
NGNN: Agree
PSNS & IMF: Agree
SWRMC: Agree
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Comments
Norfolk - See Topic 71
80
Original Proposal
Discussion
Norfolk proposal: Paragraph 8.2.2.1, Any discontinuity whose
reflection exceeds the ARL, and is greater than 1/4 inch, shall be
rejected. Adjacent discontinuities whose reflections exceed the
ARL, and are separated by less than 2L of sound metal shall be
considered a single discontinuity. Where L is the length of the
longest of adjacent discontinuities.
Uses same wording as 8.2.1.1
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: agree
EB agrees in concept. See Item #71 above.
NGNN: Prefer current wording
PSNS & IMF: Agree
SWRMC: Agree
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Comments
Norfolk - See Topic 71
81
Original Proposal
Discussion
Norfolk proposal: Paragraph 8.2.2.3.1, If the discontinuity
length exceeds T it shall be rejected. Where T equals the DMT
of the thinner member. In no case shall any single discontinuity
length exceed 2 inches.
Uses same wording as 8.2.1.3.1
Comments
PSNS & IMF: Agree
EB agrees in concept. See Item #71 above.
NGNN: Prefer wording of proposal 76.
SWRMC: agree
NGUS: Agrees, however possibly it should just be worded as “If the discontinuity length exceeds DMT of the
thinner member it shall be rejected.”
58
Revised Proposal
Comments
Norfolk - See Topic 71
82
Original Proposal
Discussion
Norfolk proposal: Paragraph 8.2.2.3.2
Adjacent discontinuities separated by less than 2L of sound
metal shall be considered as a single discontinuity. Where L
equals the length of the longest of the two adjacent indications.
The length of such aligned discontinuities shall be measured as
the distance from their extremities or the sum of their individual
lengths, whichever is greater.
Uses same wording as 8.2.1.1
Comments
PSNS & IMF: Agree
EB agrees in. See Item #71 above.
NGNN: Prefer current wording, but agree with deleting reference to figures 50 through 54.
SWRMC: Second sentence doesn’t look like a complete sentence (grammatically).
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Comments
Norfolk - See Topic 71
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph # 8.2.3, Change to read “Full penetration butt, corner
and tee welds (class 3)”.
To reflect the addition of volumetric
UT for tee welds in T9074-AS-GIB010/271.
83
Comments
Norfolk: agree
EB concurs.
NGNN: Agree
PSNS & IMF: Agree
SWRMC: Agree
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Comments
Norfolk - See Topic 71
59
84
Original Proposal
Discussion
Norfolk proposal: Paragraph 8.2.3.1
Any discontinuity whose reflection exceeds the ARL, and is
greater than 1/2 inch, shall be rejected. Adjacent discontinuities
whose reflections exceed the ARL, and are separated by less
than 2L of sound metal shall be considered a single
discontinuity. Where L is the length of the longest of adjacent
discontinuities.
Comments: Uses same words as
8.2.1.1
Comments
PSNS & IMF: Agree
EB agrees in concept. See Item #71 above.
NGNN: Prefer current wording.
SWRMC: I don’t like the last sentence, it looks incomplete. If we delete “Where” and start with; “L is
the length of the longest of the adjacent discontinuities.”
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Comments
Norfolk - See Topic 71
85
Original Proposal
Discussion
Norfolk proposal: Paragraph 8.2.3.3
Any discontinuity whose reflection equals or exceeds the DRL,
and whose length is greater than the larger of 1 inch or the DMT,
shall be rejected.
Comments: uses same words as 8.2.2.1
Comments
PSNS & IMF: Agree
EB agrees in concept. See Item #71 above.
NGNN: Prefer wording of proposal 76.
SWRMC: What’s in the current book looks better once we substitute DMT for T.
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Comments
Norfolk - See Topic 71
60
Original Proposal
86
Discussion
Norfolk proposal: Paragraph 8.2.3.4
Adjacent discontinuities which are separated by less than 2L of
sound metal shall be considered a single discontinuity. Where L
is the length of the longest of adjacent discontinuities. The
length of such aligned discontinuities shall be measured as the
distance from their extremities or the sum of their individual
lengths, whichever is greater.
Comments
EB agrees in concept. See Item #71 above.
NGNN: Prefer current wording, but agree with deleting reference to figures 50 through 54.
SWRMC: Don’t like the look of sentences that start with the word “Where” unless we are asking a
question, maybe that’s why grammar check isn’t catching it.. As it is written it doesn’t look like a
complete sentence.
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Comments
Norfolk - See Topic 71
87
Original Proposal
Discussion
Add new section 8.5 as follows:
8.5 Transverse discontinuities (special case – hydrogen
cracking)
8.5.1 Suspected transverse cracks greater than 0.125” in
vertical height shall be rejected.
8.5.2 Stacked suspected transverse cracks (2 or more in the
same vertical plane) shall be rejected.
To reflect the addition of inspection
requirements for transverse
discontinuities (special case) in T9074AS-GIB-010/271. The acceptance
criteria proposed was provided to
NGNN by NAVSEA during
development of this program.
Comments
TRF concurs with EB’s comments.
Norfolk: agree
EB concurs in concept that this new section should be included here, but this proposal does not appear to be
consistent with that approved by NAVSEA as part of the development of Appendix X to PPD 802-6335720B.
This inconsistency needs to be resolved first.
NGNN: Agree
SWRMC: OK
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Comments
61
Original Proposal
Discussion
Delete Figures 6 through 23
Math can be done now by every
inspector with a calculator.
88
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: agree
EB concurs.
NGNN: Agree
PSNS & IMF: Agree
SWRMC: Agree
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Comments
Original Proposal
Discussion
Amend Figure 25, to be consistent the area for 7/64" diameter
should be .0093 and for 7/32" diameter should be .0375.
For all the other square areas listed the
5th place decimal was simply dropped
with no rounding up, both the 7/64"
and 7/32" numbers had to be rounded
up to match the current areas listed.
89
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk Comments: 7/64” = .0093956 no big change to us, 7/32” = .037582 no big change to us.
Just consider it will change any test answer keys where those size indications are used.
EB concurs.
NGNN: Agree
PSNS & IMF: Agree
SWRMC: Agree
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Comments
62
Original Proposal
Discussion
Figures 27 through 30, Define the end points of each graph.
The difference in interpretation of the
allowable slag for a pipe joint caused
Portsmouth to reject a weld and
Norfolk to accept a weld. Norfolk long
ago enlarged the lower left box of those
figures and plotted out the values. The
equation of the slope was calculated
and the points were verified.
90
Comments
TRF concurs with Norfolk’s comments.
Norfolk: should include figure 26 also
EB concurs.
NGNN: OK
PSNS & IMF: Agree. Recommend insertion of the detailed slag, IF, and IP charts from Portsmouth’s RT
Interpretation procedures.
WRMC: Good idea, and yes include 26 also.
NGUS: Agrees with Norfolk
Revised Proposal
Comments
Original Proposal
Discussion
Delete Figures 31 through 48, and renumber subsequent figures.
Math can be done now by every
inspector with a calculator. Proposed
changes to MT and PT acceptance
criteria make these figures unnecessary.
91
Comments
TRF concurs
Norfolk: agree
EB concurs.
PSNS & IMF: Agree
NGNN: Agree
SWRMC: Agree
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Comments
63
92
Original Proposal
Discussion
Figure 49, Fix second vertical line (the one for material
thickness 3/16"). Title bottom of graph as Design Material
Thickness.
Vertical line is not drawn in proper
place. Procedure specifies that
acceptance criteria be based on the
DMT, therefore it should be used here
and not use a new term.
Comments
TRF recommends using a table, not a graph chart.
Norfolk: agree or put in table form as in item 61
EB concurs.
NGNN: Agree, but prefer implementing item 61 which would make this figure unnecessary.
PSNS & IMF: Agree
SWRMC: Agree with NGNN.
NGUS: Agrees, but also seconds NGNN’s item 61 implementation
Revised Proposal
Comments
64
Original Proposal
Delete Figures 52, 53 & 54 and revise Figure 50 as shown.
Discussion
Using measurements along the length of the weld from the top view only would simplify application of the
2L criteria without sacrificing weld quality. This method would also be consistent with separation
measurements used for RT inspection, where the actual depth discontinuities are not known.
d
L1
L2
s
93
TOP VIEW
CODE
DATA
L = LENGTH OF DISCONTINUITY
L1 = 3/4 INCH
s = MAXIMUM SPACING BETWEEN
ADJACENT DISCONTINUITIES
L2 = 1/2 INCH
s = 1-1/4 INCH (LESS THAN 2L1)
d = MAXIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN
OUTER EXTREMITIES
EVALUATION IS BASED ON d OR
L1 + L2 + s
FIGURE 50. Ultrasonic evaluation of adjacent discontinuities.
Comments
TRF would like to use Norfolk’s suggestion.
Norfolk: Eliminating the side (cross section) view to evaluate discontinuity proximity based on their depth would
greatly simplify things for the inspector and greatly reduce the possibility for error. In addition, Norfolk proposes
that only the A-dimension and length be used in this determination. In this way, there would be no need to
calculate the diagonal distance between discontinuities that have different B-dimensions. Granted, this could
result in two discontinuities to be determined to be within close proximity even if they had large differences in
their depth.
NGNN: Agree. Also agree with Norfolk’s comment which would allow for total deletion of figures 50 through
54.
EB concurs.
65
PSNS & IMF: Agree
NGUS: Agree
Revised Proposal
Comments
Original Proposal
Discussion
Paragraph 6.4 as it currently reads:
When material or fabrication
specifications specify that the
acceptance criterion for magnetic
particle inspection is to be per MILSTD-2035, 1/16th inch is the
acceptance criterion that is commonly
used. When the material or fabrication
specifications specify acceptance
criteria for magnetic particle inspection
that differs from MIL-STD-2035, the
acceptance criteria should be specified
in the local instruction and used for the
inspection. Acceptance criteria that in
not in accordance with MIL-STD-2035
does not belong in MIL-STD-2035.
Stating the obvious in MIL-STD-2035
causes confusion and possible
unnecessary work.
6.4 Forgings and wrought materials (pipes, bars, plates, and
extrusions). Acceptance criteria for forgings and wrought
materials shall be in accordance with the applicable material
specification. Unless otherwise specified in the material or
fabrication specification, there shall be no indication greater than
1/16th inch.
Propose changing paragraph 6.4 to:
6.4 Forgings and wrought materials (pipes, bars, plates, and
extrusions). “There shall be no indication greater than 1/16th
inch.”
Or Alternatively:
94
“There shall be no indication greater than 1/16th inch.
Acceptance criteria may be relaxed if the material or fabrication
standard has acceptance criteria.”.
Paragraph 6.4 currently requires
Engineering to research the material or
fabrication specification for magnetic
particle acceptance criteria. When the
acceptance criteria listed in the material
or fabrication specification is MILSTD-2035, the technical work
document lists it or the local procedure
written to implement acceptance
criteria of MIL-STD-2035. If the
acceptance criteria is something other
than MIL-STD-2035 the technical
work document should list it and not
reference MIL-STD-2035 or the local
document that implements it.
When Inspection is working to the
technical work document, in order to be
66
in verbatim compliance, they must also
research the material or fabrication
specification because of the myriad
ways in which acceptance criteria is
specified in procedures. The current
wording of step 6.4 requires Inspection
to ensure that the material or
fabrication specification contains no
other acceptance criteria for magnetic
particle inspection other than 1/16th
inch.
An alternate proposed change is
provide to ensure that if the current
wording is desireable for some, that the
acceptance criteria could be relaxed
when other material or fabrication
specifications warrant such a change.
Since 1/16th inch is the smallest
indication detectable for dry magnetic
particle inspection and a cursory review
of material or fabrication specifications
revealed no acceptance criteria more
stringent, the wording allows for the
1/16th criteria to be used and any
relaxation specified. In this way if
1/16th inch is used for magnetic particle
inspection acceptance criteria for
wrought material per MIL-STD-2035,
the activity may by more conservative,
but never wrong.
Comments
PSNS & IMF: Leave as is.
NGNN: Prefer current wording.
SWRMC: Would it be oversimplification to say “Unless otherwise specified, there shall be no
indications greater than 1/16”.
Revised Proposal
Comments
Original Proposal
95
Discussion
EB: Paragraphs 8.2.1.1; 8.2.1.3.1; 8.2.2.1; 8.2.2.3.1; 8.2.3.1;
8.2.3.3.1; these paragraphs need to refer to both individual
discontinuities and adjacent discontinuities, in keeping with the
recommended changes to section 8.1 per Item #71.
67
Comments
EB
See Item # 71, and marked up section 8.
NGNN totally agrees.
PSNS & IMF: Agree
Revised Proposal
Comments
Original Proposal
96
Discussion
EB: Paragraphs 8.2.1.1; 8.2.1.3; 8.2.2.1; 8.2.2.3; 8.2.3.1;
8.2.3.3; 8.3.1; 8.3.3; 8.4.1; 8.4.3; Recommend changing
“reflection” to “peak amplitude.”
Comments
EB: “Peak amplitude” is more descriptive, and also clarifies that when adjacent indications are combined, you
use the higher of the two amplitudes, in keeping with recommended added paragraph 8.1.3.3.
NGNN totally agrees.
PSNS & IMF: Agree
Revised Proposal
Comments
Original Proposal
Add new definition:
Longitudinally aligned linear indications. Linear indications
are considered longitudinally aligned when: a straight line
can be extended though the long axis of one indication and
projected into the long axis of another indication; and the
97 separation between such aligned indications is less than 4
times L, where L is the length of the longer of the two
adjacent indications. Longitudinally aligned linear
indications shall be evaluated as one linear indication
whose length is measured from the extremities of the
aligned linear indications.
Comments
NGNN: Agree.
68
Discussion
Norfolk proposes this be added to
define the term used in the
acceptance criteria. See topics 57
and 66.
Revised Proposal
Comments
Original Proposal
Modify title of table VII to read TABLE VII
98
Rounded indication acceptance standards for liquid
penetrant inspections of castings
Discussion
Change Non-Linear to rounded and
rounded indications are not
applicable to MT inspections.
Comments
Norfolk - Agrees with rest of proposed changes to document.
NGNN: Agree, but must also delete paragraph 6.3.2 in order for this to make sense (and renumber
6.3.3 to 6.3.2.)
Revised Proposal
Comments
69
Original Proposal
Modify table VII to use an allowable area instead of the
present number of indications allowed.
Table VII – Rounded indication acceptance
standards for liquid
penetrant inspection of
castings
(in 36 Sq. Inches Of Area)
99
Description
Class
Maximum
square inch
area of
defects
allowed
finished
machine
surface
1
0.0984
2
0.1476
3
0.4416
1
0.0984
2
0.1476
3
0.7856
1
0.0984
2
0.5892
3
1.2271
rough ground
surface
as-cast
surface
Discussion
The old standard was done to
simplify the inspector’s ability to
evaluate the number of defects
allowed. Present use of calculators
allows the inspector to use math and
determine the square inch area of
defects in the inspection zone much
easier. Rounded indications are not
applicable to MT inspections.
Comments
Norfolk – this would then require:
Note 3 to be modified to read For inspection area less than 36 square inches, the maximum allowed
defect area shall be prorated.
Note 4 to be deleted, or modified to increase the square inch area based on adding the square inch area
of each allowed liner indication (treating the area of a linear as if it were a rounded indication).
NGNN: Disagree with this approach, since it seems that we are trying to get away from having to do
more area calculations elsewhere in the PT criteria. Also, prorating will still have to be done even if this
approach is taken.
Revised Proposal
70
Comments
Original Proposal
Modify Table IX to use an allowable area instead of the
present number of indications allowed.
Table VII – Rounded indication acceptance
standards for liquid
penetrant inspection of weld
overlay
(in 36 Sq. Inches Of Area)
Description
Class
Maximum
square inch
area of
defects
allowed
finished
machine
surface
1
0.0984
2
0.3312
3
0.7856
1
0.0984
2
0.3312
3
1.7671
100
rough ground
surface
Discussion
The old standard was done to
simplify the inspector’s ability to
evaluate the number of defects
allowed. Present use of
calculators allows the inspector to
use math and determine the square
inch area of defects in the
inspection zone much easier.
Rounded indications are not
applicable to MT inspections.
Comments
Norfolk – this would then require:
Note 3 to be modified to read For inspection area less than 36 square inches, the maximum allowed
defect area shall be prorated..
Note 4 to be deleted, or modified to increase the square inch area based on adding the square inch area
of each allowed liner indication (treating the area of a linear as if it were a rounded indication).
NGNN: Disagree with this approach, since it seems that we are trying to get away from having to do
more area calculations elsewhere in the PT criteria. Also, prorating will still have to be done even if this
approach is taken. Should be “Table IX” not “VII”.
71
Revised Proposal
Comments
Original Proposal
Modify Note 2 to Table IX to read
Rounded indications less than 3/32 inch shall be
101 disregarded. Aligned indications as defined in 3.1) shall
be treated as a liner indication in accordance with Table
VII if one or more of the indications is equal to or greater
than 3/32 inch.
Comments
NGNN: Agree
Discussion
Paragraph 7.4 of 278 in the last
sentence states “Rounded
indications less than 3/32 diameter
shall be disregarded.
Revised Proposal
Comments
Original Proposal
102
1) Delete Figure 2.
2) Rename Figure 1 to "Socket weld fillet size/Pipe fitting
edge-melt".
3) Change paragraph 4.2.11 to read as follows: Edge-Melt.
Pipe fitting edge-melt is acceptable provided a suitably located
reference mark (e.g., a scribeline) is established as a
benchmark for verifying fillet size (see Figure 1).
Comments
PSNS & IMF: Agree
NGNN: Agree
Revised Proposal
Comments
72
Discussion
Change in order to be consistent
with verbiage in NSTP 278, Table
VII, Note 7, in that any suitable
reference mark may be established
as a benchmark for verifying fillet
size and not just a scribeline.