Code Case 181-2 Section 7 & 8 Flaw Evaluation Worksheet (Short)

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)
Use of Alternative Ultrasonic Examination Acceptance Criteria in ASME B31.3
CC 181-2, Section 8 Flaw Evaluation

Worksheets
Sridhar Samiyaiah/ Charlie Chong

Sridhar Samiyaiah/ Charlie Chong Use of Alternative Ultrasonic Examination Acceptance Criteria in ASME B31.3
PAUT Interpretation to ANSI B31.3before re-testing and before shipment.

Phased Array Flaw Sizing Using the OmniScan MX2
Phased array flaw depth and height sizing requires both a knowledge of the application and use of the tools in the software. This Webinar is intended to take
the participant through the basics of phased array depth and height flaw sizing with real world examples by expanding on traditional conventional techniques
with advanced phased array probes and software. Shear wave tip diffraction, -6dB sizing, high angle longitudinal L-wave, ID Creeping wave, and other
advanced techniques will be on display.
. Additionally, use of the OmniSscan

measurement cursors, defect table and
report are explained and demonstrated.
Also on display will be Olympus' new
software "OmniPC" for computer based
offline analysis of OmniScan data files
Sridhar Samiyaiah/ Charlie Chong https://www.youtube.com/embed/hRm6K3ryrFY

OmniScan MX2 Training Program Part 1 /2/3/4
Sridhar Samiyaiah/ Charlie Chong https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-z7ue6i6FQ&t=835s

Foreword;
The purpose of performing RT/UT or PAUT is to evaluate the entire volume of a weld for the
detection of potentially detrimental discontinuities in a weld in accordance with written
procedures, guidelines, standards and codes. ASME B31.3 contains code requirements for piping
typically found in petroleum refineries, as well as chemical, pharmaceutical and other related
processing plants and terminals.
Successful applications of NDT methods including PAUT can help the project to achieve
operational, cost and safety benefits by implementing the best industry practices.
Sridhar Samiyaiah

What is Code Case
181-2?
Rosafendi/ Charlie Chong

Original Inquiry: Under what conditions and limitations may alternative UT
acceptance criteria apply in lieu of those described in para. 344.6.2 of ASME
B31.3?
Keywords:
may alternative UT acceptance criteria
Comments: CC 181-2, it was

meant for alternative to UT
not RT
What is the
Alternative?

Original Inquiry: Under what conditions and limitations may alternative UT acceptance criteria apply in
lieu of those described in para. 344.6.2 of ASME B31.3?

Para. 344.6.2 of ASME B31.3

Alternative to Para. 344.6.2 of ASME B31.3

What is ASME ANSI
B31.3 para 344.6.2, the
“original”?

344.6 Ultrasonic Examination
344.6.2 Acceptance Criteria. A linear-type discontinuity is unacceptable if the
amplitude of the indication exceeds the reference level and its length exceeds
(a) 6 mm (1⁄4 in.) for Tw ≤ 19 mm (3⁄4 in.)

(b) Tw/3 for 19 mm < Tw ≤ 57 mm (21⁄4 in.)
(c) 19 mm for Tw > 57 mm

Why there is a need for
alternative to the
ASME ANSI B31.3
para 344.6.2, the
“original”?

Hipressure (Mechanical) (OP)
7 Jun 07 19:05 B31 CC 181
I am trying to understand this case; is it one of alternative acceptance criteria or is it alternative technique?
We are trying to employ PAUT on 31.3 piping using the given acceptance criteria for UT in 31.3. However this code case was brought up in
discussions and it was determined that if PAUT was to be used, this CC (including acceptance criteria) had to be followed in its entirety.
Greatly appreciate any and all comments and/or interpretations on this CC.
Regards
RE: B31 CC 181

ndeguy (Industrial) 7 Jun 07 23:43 Its definitely about both!
The preeamble states that the Committee is of the opinion that alternative acceptance criteria can be applied in lieu 0f 344.6.2. of B31.3. This
is a switch from acceptance criteria based on comparison with the amplitude from known reflectors to the measured defect height (versus its
length and material thickness).
Plus (d) of the Code Case calls for use of a device employing "automatic computer-based data acquisition".
Interesting if unusual point about using phased array with the standard acceptance criteria. Without doing the math comparison for various
material thicknesses it is generally accepted that the alternative acceptance criteria, which are based on materials and stress data rather than
traditional "workmanship" values, are more lenient, especially in the case of low defect height versus material thickness ratios, e.g. inter-run
cold lap. Exceptions to this can be in cases of several separate defects where interaction rules are invoked - think of automatic MIG pipe-
welding systems such as Phoenix or Serimer where the sequential fire-up positions are not staggered and a small length of LOF (10 mm say)
is in each successive vertical position. These are interactive and such fire-up defects in 3 or 4 successive runs would give an unacceptable
interactive defect height.
Which welding process(es) will you be utilising? If all manual (TIG root/SMAW fill and cap) I dont know why you could not set your PAUT
sensitivity using the standard ASME calibration block assessing defect length for reference-curve breaking indications.
Nigel Armstrong
Karachaganak Petroleum
Kazakhstan
Sridhar Samiyaiah/ Charlie Chong http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=189121

Hipressure (Mechanical) (OP)
7 Jun 07 19:05 B31 CC 181
I am trying to understand this case; is it one of alternative acceptance criteria or is it alternative technique?
We are trying to employ PAUT on 31.3 piping using the given acceptance criteria for UT in 31.3. However this code case was brought up in
discussions and it was determined that if PAUT was to be used, this CC (including acceptance criteria) had to be followed in its entirety.
Greatly appreciate any and all comments and/or interpretations on this CC.
Regards
RE: B31 CC 181

ndeguy (Industrial) 7 Jun 07 23:43 Its definitely about both!
The preeamble states that the Committee is of the opinion that alternative acceptance criteria can be applied in lieu 0f 344.6.2. of B31.3. This
is a switch from acceptance criteria based on comparison with the amplitude from known reflectors to the measured defect height (versus its
length and material thickness).
Plus (d) of the Code Case calls for use of a device employing "automatic computer-based data acquisition".
Interesting if unusual point about using phased array with the standard acceptance criteria. Without doing the math comparison for various
material thicknesses it is generally accepted that the alternative acceptance criteria, which are based on materials and stress data rather than
traditional "workmanship" values, are more lenient , especially in the case of low defect height
versus material thickness ratios, e.g. inter-run cold lap. Exceptions to this can be in cases of several separate defects where interaction rules
are invoked - think of automatic MIG pipe-welding systems such as Phoenix or Serimer where the sequential fire-up positions are not
staggered and a small length of LOF (10 mm say) is in each successive vertical position. These are interactive and such fire-up defects in 3 or
4 successive runs would give an unacceptable interactive defect height.
Which welding process(es) will you be utilising? If all manual (TIG root/SMAW fill and cap) I dont know why you could not set your PAUT
sensitivity using the standard ASME calibration block assessing defect length for reference-curve breaking indications.
Nigel Armstrong
Karachaganak Petroleum
Kazakhstan
Sridhar Samiyaiah/ Charlie Chong http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=189121

Why PAUT is more
lenient than
conventional UT or RT

1. The Procedure Qualification (PQ)
The PQ Program is designed to qualify a Phased Array or TOFD Procedure to meet
ASME Code Case 2235 for Vessels, ASME Code Case 181 for B31.3 Piping, and API
standards. In addition, the program is designed to meet the new requirements of
Article 4 of Section V, 2010 Edition for Fracture Mechanics based evaluation or
Workmanship Standard evaluations. The PQ qualification is based upon the design
and manufacture of testing samples to meet the acceptance criteria of the code cases
with very specific flaw aspect ratios for height and length.
Davis NDE designed and manufactured an inventory of PQ Qualification Pipe and
Vessels samples with Code Case dimensioned flaws which meet the criteria of tables
in CC 2235 and 181. The qualification is based upon minimum diameter and maximum
diameter, as well as minimum thickness and maximum thickness. Currently, Davis
NDE has inventory of qualification samples from 1.5 inch diameter and .145 thickness
to 36 inch diameter and 2.75 inch thicknesses.
http://universityofultrasonics.com/services/performance-demonstration-qualification-pdq/

Piping construction codes include:
ASME B31.3 code case 181, which permits the use of PAUT on all wall thicknesses.
The sentencing for this code case is based on a fracture mechanics module and
requires qualification.
B31.1 and code case 179, which together permits the use of PAUT on all thicknesses.
The sentencing for this code is based on workmanship criteria and does not
specifically require qualification.
EN 1714 Non-destructive examination of welded joints - Ultrasonic examination of

welded joints, British Standard, 1997
BS4515: 1-2004 Specification for welding of steel pipelines on land and offshore.
Carbon and carbon manganese steel pipelines. PAUT allowable with client
dispensation.
http://sievert.in/Replacement.html

Other, less obvious benefits include:
i. The data forms a fingerprint for comparison with future in‐service inspection data.
ii. The acceptance criteria of the code cases are in many cases more forgiving in
terms of acceptable flaw size. This also reduces the repair frequency, and is
especially the case for volumetric welding flaws.
https://www.sonomatic.com/images/attachments_managed/577/experience_with_code_cases.pdf

The acceptance criteria of the
code cases are in many cases
more forgiving in terms of
acceptable flaw size.

CC181-2
ANSI
B31.1
Original Inquiry: Under what
conditions and limitations may
alternative UT acceptance
criteria apply in lieu of those
described in para.
344.6.2 of ASME B31.3?
Just
4 Pages
Of requirements

Refresher:
344.6 Ultrasonic Examination
344.6.2 Acceptance Criteria. A linear-type
discontinuity is unacceptable if the amplitude
of the indication exceeds the reference level
and its length exceeds
(a) 6 mm (1⁄4 in.) for Tw ≤ 19 mm (3⁄4 in.)

(b) Tw/3 for 19 mm < Tw ≤ 57 mm (21⁄4 in.)
(c) 19 mm for Tw > 57 mm

Flaw Assessment:
CC181-2
7) Flaw Evaluation
8) Flaw Acceptance Criteria

7) Flaw Evaluation

7) Flaw Evaluation
a) The dimension of the flaw(s) shall be determined by the rectangle that fully
contains the area of the flaw(s). (Refer to Fig. 1)
i) The length, ℓ, of the flaw shall be drawn parallel to the inside pressure retaining
surface of the component.
ii) The height, h, of the flaw shall be drawn normal to the inside pressure retaining
iii) The flaw shall be characterized as a surface or subsurface flaw, as shown in
Figure 1.
iv) A subsurface indication shall be considered as a surface flaw if the separation (S
in Figure 1) of the indication from the nearest surface of the component is equal to
or less than half the through wall dimension (h in Figure 1, sketch [b]) of the
subsurface indication.

Flaw Evaluation :
 Flaw dimensions
 Surface or subsurface
 Single or multiple flaws

How to define an
indication dimension?

i) The length, ℓ, of the flaw shall be drawn parallel to the inside pressure retaining

ii. The height, h, of the flaw shall be drawn normal to the inside pressure retaining
h
h

How to ascertain an
indication is surface or
subsurface?

iii. The flaw shall be characterized as a surface or subsurface flaw, as shown in
Figure 1.

iv. A subsurface indication shall be considered as a surface flaw if the separation (S
in Figure 1) of the indication from the nearest surface of the component is equal to
or less than half the through wall dimension (h in Figure 1, sketch [b]) of the
subsurface indication.

Exercise: Surface or Subsurface?
S>0.5h or ≤ 0.5h ?
ℓ = 30mm t = 40mm
h = 10mm
S = 7mm
ℓ = 30mm
Exercise: Surface or Subsurface?
S>0.5h or ≤ 0.5h ?
ℓ = 30mm 60mm
h = 10mm
S = 7mm
ℓ = 30mm
How to define two or
more adjacent
indications to be a
single flaw or separate
flaws?

b) Multiple Flaws
i) Discontinuous flaws that are oriented primarily in parallel planes shall be
considered to lie in a single plane if the distance between the adjacent planes is
equal to or less than 13mm (0.50 in.) or 0.5t, whichever is less.
ii) If the space between two flaws aligned along the axis of weld is less than the
height of the flaw of greater height, the two flaws shall be considered a single flaw.
iii) If the space between two flaws aligned in the through-thickness dimension is less
than the height of the flaw of greater height, the two flaws shall be considered a
single flaw.

i) Discontinuous flaws that are oriented primarily in parallel planes shall be
considered to lie in a single plane if the distance between the adjacent planes is
equal to or less than 13mm (0.50 in.) or 0.5t, whichever is less.
distance between
the adjacent
planes

ii) If the space between two flaws aligned along the axis of weld is less than the
height of the flaw of greater height, the two flaws shall be considered a single flaw.
d
x x
d =space between two flaws aligned along the axis of weld
h1
h3
h2 t
Cross Section X-X

single flaw.
h1
h3
h2 t
through-thickness dimension

single flaw.
h1
h3
t
h2
through-thickness dimension

8) Flaw Acceptance
Criteria

8) Flaw Acceptance Criteria
Flaws shall be evaluated against the applicable acceptance criteria of Table 1
or 2, except that flaw length (l) shall not exceed 4t, regardless of flaw height (h)
or the calculated aspect ratio.

Comments:
flaw length (l) shall not
exceed 4t

Comments:
flaw length (l) shall not
exceed 4t

flaw length
(l) shall not
exceed 4t
t = thickness of the weld excluding any allowable reinforcement. For
a butt joint joining two members having different thickness at the
joint, t is the thinner of the two thicknesses joined. If a full
penetration weld includes a fillet weld, the effective throat
dimension of the fillet weld shall be included in t.

What is “t” ?

t= thickness of the weld excluding any allowable reinforcement. For a butt joint joining
two members having different thickness at the joint, t is the thinner of the two
thicknesses joined. If a full penetration weld includes a fillet weld, the effective throat
dimension of the fillet weld shall be included in t.

thickness of the weld excluding any allowable reinforcement. For a butt joint
t= joining two members having different thickness at the joint, t is the thinner of the
two thicknesses joined. If a full penetration weld includes a fillet weld, the
effective throat dimension of the fillet weld shall be included in t.







The CC181-2
Acceptance Criteria
Table.

TABLE 1 Acceptance Criteria for Surface Flaws

General Notes:
(a) t = thickness of the weld excluding any allowable reinforcement. For a butt joint
joining two members having different thickness at the joint, t is the thinner of the
two thicknesses joined. If a full penetration weld includes a fillet weld, the effective
throat dimension of the fillet weld shall be included in t.
(b) Aspect Ratio (h/ℓ) used may be determined by rounding the calculated h/ℓ down to
the nearest 0.05 increment value within the column, or by linear interpolation.
(c) For intermediate thickness t (weld thicknesses between 64mm and 100mm [2.5 in.
and 3.9 in.]) linear interpolation is required to obtain h/t values.

TABLE 2
Acceptance Criteria for Subsurface Flaws

General Notes:
(a) t = thickness of the weld excluding any allowable reinforcement. For a butt joint
joining two members having different thickness at the joint, t is the thinner of the
two thicknesses joined. If a full penetration weld includes a fillet weld, the effective
throat dimension of the fillet weld shall be included in t.
(b) Aspect Ratio (h/ℓ) used may be determined by rounding the calculated h/ℓ down to
the nearest 0.05 increment value within the column, or by linear interpolation.
(c) For intermediate thickness t (weld thicknesses between 64mm and 100mm [2.5 in.
and 3.9 in.]) linear interpolation is required to obtain h/t values.

Of
Use of Alternative Ultrasonic Examination Acceptance Criteria in
ASME B31.3

Time for Practice.

CC 181-2 Table1 & Table 2
Aspect Surface h/t Sub-Surface h/t
Ratio
h/ℓ 25~64mm 100~300mm 25~64mm 100~300mm
0.0 0.031 0.019 0.068 0.04
0.05 0.033 0.02
0.1 0.036 0.022 0.076 0.044
0.15 0.041 0.025
0.2 0.047 0.028 0.086 0.05
0.25 0.055 0.033
0.3 0.064 0.038 0.098 0.058
0.35 0.074 0.044
0.4 0.083 0.05 0.114 0.066
0.45 0.085 0.051
0.5 0.087 0.052 0.132 0.066
0.6 0.156 0.088
0.7 0.18 0.102
0.8 0.21 0.116
0.9 0.246 0.134
1.0 0.286 0.152

Aspect
CASE STUDY #1 Ratio
Sub-Surface h/t
h/ℓ
ℓ = 30mm 25~64mm 100~300mm
0.3 0.098 0.058
h= 10mm 0.333 0.10328
note1
S = 7mm 0.4 0.114 0.066

t = 40mm note1: Calculated value; 0.098 + (0.114-0.098)/(0.1) x (0.333-0.3) = 0.10328
#
S>0.5h or ≤ 0.5h ?
ℓ = 30mm t = 40mm
h = 10mm
S = 7mm
Worksheet:
This is a subsurface defect for S>0.5h
h/ℓ = 10/30 = 0.333, h/t = 10/40 = 0.25
actual
h/t = 0.10328
allowable
Conclusion: The discontinuity is “Reject”

Aspect Sub-Surface h/t
CASE STUDY #2 Ratio
h/ℓ 25~64mm 100~300mm
ℓ = 30mm 0.3 0.098 0.058
h= 10mm 0.333 0.06064
note1
0.35
S = 7mm 0.4 0.114 0.066
t = 300mm Note1: Calculated value; 0.058 + (0.066-0.058)/(0.1) x (0.333-0.3) = 0.06064
#
S>0.5h or ≤ 0.5h ?
ℓ = 30mm t = 300mm
h = 10mm
S = 7mm
Worksheet:
This is a subsurface defect for S>0.5h
h/ℓ = 10/30 = 0.333, h/t = 10/300 = 0.0333
actual
h/t = 0.06064
allowable
Conclusion: The discontinuity is “Accept”

CASE STUDY #3 Aspect
Ratio
Surface h/t
ℓ = 30mm h/ℓ 25~64mm 100~300mm

0.3 0.064 0.038
h= 10mm 0.333 0.04196
note1
S = 3mm 0.35 0.074 0.044

#
S>0.5h or ≤ 0.5h ?
ℓ = 30mm t = 300mm
h = 10mm
S = 3mm
Worksheet:
This is a surface defect for S<0.5h
h/ℓ = 10/30 = 0.333, h/t = 10/300 = 0.0333
actual
h/t = 0.04196
allowable

CASE STUDY #4 Aspect Surface h/t
ℓ = 30mm Ratio
h/ℓ 25~64mm 100~300mm
h= 15mm 0.5 0.087 0.052
S = 3mm
#
S>0.5h or ≤ 0.5h ?
ℓ = 30mm t = 300mm
h = 15mm
S = 3mm
Worksheet:
h/ℓ = 15/30 = 0.5, h/t = 15/300 = 0.05
actual
h/t = 0.04196
allowable

ℓ = 30mm Ratio
h/ℓ 25~64mm 100~300mm
h= 15mm 0.5 0.087 0.052
S = 3mm
t = 300mm
S>0.5h or ≤ 0.5h ?
ℓ = 30mm t = 300mm
h = 20mm
S = 3mm
Worksheet:
h/ℓ = 20/30 = 0.667, h/t = 20/300 = 0.0667
actual
h/t = ?? (no value given)

allowable
Conclusion: The discontinuity is “???”

ℓ = 50mm Ratio
h/ℓ 25~64mm 100~300mm
h= 15mm 0.3 0.064 0.038
S = 3mm
t = 300mm
S>0.5h or ≤ 0.5h ?
ℓ = 50mm t = 300mm
h = 15mm
S = 3mm
Worksheet:
h/ℓ = 15/50 = 0.3, h/t = 15/300 = 0.05
actual
h/t = 0.038
allowable
Conclusion: The discontinuity is “Reject”

What happen when the aspect
ratio >0.5 for surface flaw?
Aspect Surface
Ratio
25~64mm 100~300mm
h/l h1/t h2/t
0 0.031 0.019
0.05 0.033 0.02
0.1 0.036 0.022
0.15 0.041 0.025
0.2 0.047 0.028
0.25 0.055 0.033
0.3 0.064 0.038
0.35 0.074 0.044
0.4 0.083 0.05
0.45 0.085 0.051
0.5 0.087 0.052
0.6 ? ?
0.7 ? ?
0.8 ? ?
0.9 ? ?
1 ? ?

Ratio
ℓ = 30mm h/ℓ 25~64mm 100~300mm
0.5 0.087 0.052
h= 15mm
S = 3mm
t = 300mm
S>0.5h or ≤ 0.5h ?
ℓ = 30mm t = 300mm
h = 20mm
S = 3mm
Worksheet:
h/ℓ = 20/30 = 0.667, h/t = 20/300 = 0.0667
actual
h/t = ?? (no value given)

allowable
Conclusion: The discontinuity is “???”

Surface Sub-Surface
Aspect
Ratio
25~64mm 100~300mm 25~64mm 100~300mm
h/l h1/t h2/t h3/t h4/t
0 0.031 0.019 0.068 0.04
0.05 0.033 0.02
0.1 0.036 0.022 0.076 0.044
0.15 0.041 0.025
0.2 0.047 0.028 0.086 0.05
0.25 0.055 0.033
0.3 0.064 0.038 0.098 0.058
0.35 0.074 0.044
0.4 0.083 0.05 0.114 0.066
0.45 0.085 0.051
0.5 0.087 0.052 0.132 0.066
0.6 0.156 0.088
0.7 0.18 0.102
0.8 0.21 0.116
0.9 0.246 0.134
1 0.286 0.152

Surface Sub-Surface
Aspect
Ratio
25~64mm 100~300mm 25~64mm 100~300mm
h/l h1/t h2/t h3/t h4/t
0 0.031 0.019 0.068 0.04
0.05 0.033 0.02
0.1 0.036 0.022 0.076 0.044
0.15 0.041 0.025
0.2 0.047 0.028 0.086 0.05
0.25 0.055 0.033
0.3 0.064 0.038 0.098 0.058
0.35 0.074 0.044
0.4 0.083 0.05 0.114 0.066
0.45 0.085 0.051
0.5 0.087 0.052 0.132 0.066
0.6 0.156 0.088
0.7 0.18 0.102
0.8 0.21 0.116
0.9 0.246 0.134
1 0.286 0.152

Aspect Ratio h/l vs Acceptance Criteria for
Surface & Sub-Surface Indications
h1/t h2/t h3/t h4/t
1, 0.286
0.9, 0.246
0.8, 0.21
0.7, 0.18
0.6, 0.156 1, 0.152
0.5, 0.132 0.9, 0.134
0.4, 0.114 0.8, 0.116
0.3, 0.098 0.7, 0.102

0.2, 0.086 0.5, 0.087
0.45, 0.085 0.6, 0.088
0.4, 0.083
0.1, 0.076 0.35, 0.074
0, 0.068 0.3, 0.064 0.4, 0.066 0.5, 0.066
0.3, 0.058
0.25, 0.055
0.2, 0.047
0.05 0.4, 0.05 0.5, 0.052
0.45, 0.051
0.1, 0.044 0.2, 0.35, 0.044
0, 0.04 0.15, 0.041 0.3, 0.038
0.1, 0.036
0.05, 0.033 0.25, 0.033
0, 0.031 0.2, 0.028
0.15, 0.025
0.1, 0.022
0.05, 0.02
0, 0.019
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

More Reading
http://cstools.asme.org/csconnect/FileUpload.cfm?View=yes&ID=15243


Code Case 181-2 Section 7 &amp; 8 Flaw Evaluation Worksheet (Short)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Code Case 181-2 Section 7 &amp; 8 Flaw Evaluation Worksheet (Short)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

Use of Alternative Ultrasonic Examination Acceptance Criteria in ASME B31.3

CC 181-2, Section 8 Flaw Evaluation

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

. Additionally, use of the OmniSscan

Sridhar Samiyaiah/ Charlie Chong https://www.youtube.com/embed/hRm6K3ryrFY

Sridhar Samiyaiah/ Charlie Chong https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-z7ue6i6FQ&t=835s

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

Rosafendi/ Charlie Chong

Comments: CC 181-2, it was

Rosafendi/ Charlie Chong

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

Rosafendi/ Charlie Chong

(a) 6 mm (1⁄4 in.) for Tw ≤ 19 mm (3⁄4 in.)

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

Rosafendi/ Charlie Chong

RE: B31 CC 181

Sridhar Samiyaiah/ Charlie Chong http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=189121

RE: B31 CC 181

Sridhar Samiyaiah/ Charlie Chong http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=189121

Rosafendi/ Charlie Chong

Sridhar Samiyaiah/ Charlie Chong

EN 1714 Non-destructive examination of welded joints - Ultrasonic examination of

Sridhar Samiyaiah/ Charlie Chong

Sridhar Samiyaiah/ Charlie Chong

Sridhar Samiyaiah/ Charlie Chong

Rosafendi/ Charlie Chong

(a) 6 mm (1⁄4 in.) for Tw ≤ 19 mm (3⁄4 in.)

Rosafendi/ Charlie Chong

Rosafendi/ Charlie Chong

Rosafendi/ Charlie Chong

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

Rosafendi/ Charlie Chong

Rosafendi/ Charlie Chong

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

Rosafendi/ Charlie Chong

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

Rosafendi/ Charlie Chong

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

d =space between two flaws aligned along the axis of weld

Cross Section X-X

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

Rosafendi/ Charlie Chong

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

Rosafendi/ Charlie Chong

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

Rosafendi/ Charlie Chong

Code Case 181-2 Section 7 & 8 Flaw Evaluation Worksheet (Short)

Code Case 181-2 Section 7 & 8 Flaw Evaluation Worksheet (Short)