1

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 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.

Discussion The overall issue of aligning the

acceptance criteria detailed in MIL-

STD-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

2

Original Proposal Paragraph #: 1.1 and 2.1.1, Delete references to MIL-STD-271

and replace with T9074-AS-GIB-010/271.

Discussion To be consistent with current

nomenclature.

Comments Comments:

TRF concurs

Norfolk: Agree.

EB Concurs.

PSNS & IMF: Agree

SWRMC: concur!

NGUS: Agree

Revised Proposal

2

Comments

3

Original Proposal 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 non-

uniform 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.

Discussion 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

3

Revised Proposal 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-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 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.

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.

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.

Revised Discussion 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.

If we add a definition of porosity then we can

include the fact that porosity is considered a non-

linear or rounded indication, thus tying it to the

MT and PT acceptance.

4

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 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.

Discussion 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.

5

5

Original Proposal Paragraph 3.6 Change definition of design material thickness to

read as follows:

“The nominal thickness of the material, exclusive of

reinforcement or backing rings and straps, as provided by design

documents (e.g. drawings).”

Discussion For clarification.

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

6

Original Proposal 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.

Discussion 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.

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??”

6

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 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.

Discussion 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.

7

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.

8

Original Proposal Move definition of isolated pore to definition section. "Isolated

Porosity Pore", An isolated porosity pore is defined as a pore that

is separated from any other regardable porosity pore by at least 1

inch.

Discussion So conditions that are to be evaluated

are defined in the definitions section

vice in the acceptance criteria.

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 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.

Discussion 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

8

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 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.”

Discussion To clarify that acceptance criteria

herein is applicable to relevant

indications.

Comments TRF does not think this is needed.

9

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.

11

Original Proposal 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.

Discussion 2035 uses both terms: rounded, or non-

linear, 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.

Comments TRF concurs

Norfolk: agree

EB concurs.

NGNN: Agree

PSNS & IMF: Agree

MARMC: Agree

SWRMC: Agree, and thank you.

NGUS: Agree

Revised Proposal

Comments

10

12

Original Proposal Section 4; add a paragraph addressing the criteria for incomplete

penetration.

Discussion Currently incomplete penetration is

only addressed in the RT section.

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

13

Original Proposal Change paragraph # 4.1 to read: "When a visual inspection is

required it shall be performed prior to other required

nondestructive tests.

Discussion 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.

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

11

Comments

14

Original Proposal Paragraph 4.2.1.2, delete the word "nonpermanent" from in front

of "backing ring pipe welds".

Discussion 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.

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

15

Original Proposal Change paragraph 4.2.1.2 to make the convexity limits the same

regardless of material composition or joint design.

Discussion 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.

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

12

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

16

Original Proposal 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.

Discussion 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.

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

13

Comments Norfolk:- see topic 17

17

Original Proposal Propose, for all tables, changing footnote designating superscript

to letters vice numerals.

Discussion Superscript numerals used to designate

footnotes are easily confused with

being exponents to numbers in the

tables.

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.

18

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)

TABLE I. Root contour limits .1

Condition3 Material size (nominal) Maximum (inch)

Convexity Pipe less than 2 inches in diameter and other shapes

less than 5/32 thick

1/162

14

Convexity Pipe 2 inches and over in diameter and other

shapes 5/32 inch and over in thickness

3/322

Concavity4

Pipe less than 2 inches in diameter and other shapes

less than 5/32 inch thick

1/32

Concavity4 Pipe 2 inches and over in diameter and other

shapes 5/32 inch and over in thickness

1/16

1

Weld surfaces shall blend smoothly into the base metal. 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 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.

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

15

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.

19

Original Proposal 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.

Discussion

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

16

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.

17

Figure for Proposal 19

concavity

concavity

Base material

distortion

Measurement relative to undistorted material

Measurement relative to undistorted

material Base material

distortion

ID OF PIPE

Undistorted base material

Undistorted

base material

OD of butt weld

OD of butt weld

convexity

Base material

distortion

ID OF PIPE

Undistorted

base material

Measurement relative to undistorted

material

FIGURE X. Measurement of Consumable Insert Pipe Joint Convexity/Concavity

OD of butt weld

18

20

Original Proposal 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.

Discussion 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-STD-

22D 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 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.

Discussion 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.

19

Revised Proposal

Comments

22

Original Proposal 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.”

Discussion This is what is required by MIL-STD-

22, and should also be included in this

section as it is a more common weld

occurrence than seal welds.

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

23

Original Proposal Paragraph 4.2.3; standardize the acceptance criteria to follow

250-1500-1 guidance with different offset criteria for pipe and

structural welds.

Discussion 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?

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

20

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 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.

Discussion 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

21

25

Original Proposal 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.”

Discussion 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 Paragraph 4.2.10. – Recommend adding an additional sentence

to read as follows: “If PT is required, the weld shall be free of

porosity.”

Discussion 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

22

Revised Proposal

Comments

27

Original Proposal 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.

Discussion 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.

23

28

Original Proposal 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.”

Discussion 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 as-

welded 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 comer-

melt 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

24

Comments NGNN: Agree

29

Original Proposal Paragraph 4.2.20, change the wording to state “Welds, Including

the weld toes shall be free of paint”

Discussion Paint may cover rejectable conditions

in the Visual as well as the LPT

method. (TRFKB)

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

30

Original Proposal Section 5 needs to be consistent on thicknesses on which

acceptance criteria is to be based.

Discussion 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.

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

25

31

Original Proposal 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.”

Discussion This would make the criteria for burn-

through 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 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.

Discussion 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

26

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 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.

Discussion 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

27

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 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.

Discussion 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).

28

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 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.

Discussion 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.

29

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).

36

Original Proposal Paragraph # 5.2.1.6.5, Delete the paragraph.

Discussion 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.

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

37

Original Proposal Paragraph # 5.2.1.6.6, Delete the paragraph

Discussion Moved necessary text to 5.2.1.6.2

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

30

Comments

38

Original Proposal Paragraph #5.2.1.10, change the word "defect" to discontinuity

anywhere it appears in the paragraph.

Discussion 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.

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

39

Original Proposal Paragraph #5.2.1.10.a – Recommend that the words “or

ultrasonic” be inserted after the word “radiography” in the

second sentence.

Discussion 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

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.

31

MARMC: Agree

SWRMC: Sure

NGUS: Agree

Revised Proposal

Comments

40

Original Proposal 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.”

Discussion 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 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.

Discussion Clarifying that acceptance criteria is

based on design material thickness.

32

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.

42

Original Proposal Paragraph # 5.2.2.4.2, Delete the paragraph.

Discussion Delete pictorial representations that are

not representative of production welds.

Formula in 5.2.2.4.1 provides more

useful criteria.

Comments TRF concurs

Norfolk: agree

EB concurs.

NGNN: Agree

PSNS & IMF: Agree

MARMC: Agrees

SWRMC: Agrees

NGUS: Agree

Revised Proposal

Comments

43

Original Proposal Paragraph # 5.2.2.4.3, Proposed wording; Clustered Porosity.

Clustered porosity shall not exceed the limits of Table V.

Discussion The definition was moved, just

wordsmithing.

Comments TRF concurs

Norfolk: agree

EB: No comment.

33

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

44

Original Proposal Paragraph # 5.2.2.5.2, Propose moving into section 5.2.1. Root

surface concavity.

Discussion 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.

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

45

Original Proposal Paragraph # 5.2.2.5.3, Propose moving into section 5.2.1.

Discussion Presently Class 2 or Class 3 piping

does not have a root surface convexity

criteria.

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

34

MARMC: Indifferent

SWRMC: sure

NGUS: Agree

Revised Proposal

Comments

46

Original Proposal Paragraph # 5.2.2.5.3, Propose moving into section 5.2.1.

Discussion 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?

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.

47

Original Proposal Paragraph # 5.2.2.5.5, Propose moving into section 5.2.1.

Discussion Believed to be the intent to apply this

criteria to Class 2 and Class 3

applications.

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

35

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 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.

Discussion 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 Paragraph # 5.2.5.3, Proposed wording; Repair weld size-

determination 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

Discussion Deleted figures and now criteria must

be written out. Used incomplete fusion

in lieu of lack of fusion to standardize

terms used throughout document.

36

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

37

50

Original Proposal 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 ~~."

Discussion 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

51

Original Proposal Paragraph 6.2.1, delete "undercut indications within the

requirements of 4.2.16".

Discussion 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.

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

38

52

Original Proposal 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:

“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.”

Discussion For simplification, and consistency

with 250-1500-1. Experience shows

that there is no need for evaluation of

non-linear MT indications.

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 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

Discussion Deletes tables and allows precise

determination of the indication area

allowed.

39

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 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.”

Discussion 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..

40

NGUS: Agrees with NGNN with using item 52

Revised Proposal

Comments

55

Original Proposal 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.

Discussion 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.

41

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 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.

Discussion 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)

42

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 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.

Discussion 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 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 …"

Discussion For Notes (3) and (4), "L" is a better

designator for linear indications than

"D"

43

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

59

Original Proposal 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.

Discussion

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 Table VII, Note (1), delete "design wall thickness" in the second

sentence, and replace with "design material thickness".

Discussion 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

44

Revised Proposal

Comments

61

Original Proposal 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:

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 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 non-

linear indications in excess of the following limits:

Class

Design material

thickness

(inches)

Maximum

individual

indication

size

(inches)

Maximum

allowable

percent

indication

area

1

Less than 1/8 1/16

0.375

1/8 to less than

3/16

3/64

3/16 to less than

1/4

5/64

1/4 to less than

5/16

3/32

5/16 to less than

3/8

7/64

3/8 and greater 1/8

2

Less than 3/16 5/64

0.5

3/16 to less than

1/4

3/32

1/4 to less than

5/16

7/64

5/16 and greater 1/8

3

Less than 3/16 3/32

0.75 3/16 to less than

1/4

7/64

1/4 and greater 1/8

Discussion Changed for simplification, and format

similar to 250-1500-1. Disregarding

non-linear indications in adjacent base

material is based on a NAVSEA

clarification provided to NNSY and

documented in a Telephone

Conversation Record, dated 12/15/98.

45

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

46

DESIGN MATERIAL

THICKNESS (Tm) (Inches)

INDICATION SIZE (Inches)

CLASS 1 CLASS 2 CLASS 3

Less than or equal to .071 1/64 1/64 1/64

.072 to .186 1/16 5/64 3/32

.187 to .249 5/64 3/32 7/64

.250 to .311 3/32 7/64 1/8

.312 to .375 7/64 1/8 1/8

.376 and greater 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 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.

Discussion Figures are deleted, words must be

provided.

47

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 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.

Discussion 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

48

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.

64

Original Proposal 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.

Discussion 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.

Comments TRF concurs

Norfolk: propose in 2nd sentence, delete "metal, to the maximum extent possible," insert "material".

49

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 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.

Discussion 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

50

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 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.

Discussion 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.

67

Original Proposal Table VIII Note (7), delete the entire note.

Discussion Note (7) deleted because it is redundant

with Notes (1) and (2).

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

51

Revised Proposal

Comments

68

Original Proposal 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.

Discussion 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

69

Original Proposal Table IX should be moved out of the UT section and into the PT

section

Discussion PT acceptance criteria should be

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

52

70

Original Proposal Table IX, Note (1) Delete "total material thickness" in the

second sentence, and replace with "design material thickness".

Note (6), delete entire note.

Discussion 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 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

Discussion 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

53

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.

54

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 Paragraph # 8.2, Change to read “Volumetric inspection of full

penetration butt, corner and tee welds”.

Discussion To separate from the criteria of 8.3 and

8.4, and to reflect the addition of

volumetric UT for tee welds in T9074-

AS-GIB-010/271.

Comments TRF concurs

Norfolk: Agree. See Topic 71

EB concurs.

NGNN: Agree

PSNS & IMF: Agree

SWRMC: Sure

Revised Proposal

Comments

55

73

Original Proposal Paragraph # 8.2.1, Change to read “Full penetration butt, corner

and tee welds (class 1)”.

Discussion To reflect the addition of volumetric

UT for tee welds in T9074-AS-GIB-

010/271.

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 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”.

Discussion 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

56

75 Original Proposal Proposed by Norfolk:

Paragraph 8.2..1.2; Delete paragraph

Discussion 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 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)”.

Discussion 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 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.

Discussion Deletes reference to figures 50 through

54.

57

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 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.

Discussion 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

79

Original Proposal Paragraph # 8.2.2, Change to read “Full penetration butt, corner

and tee welds (class 2)”.

Discussion To reflect the addition of volumetric

UT for tee welds in T9074-AS-GIB-

010/271

Comments TRF concurs

Norfolk: agree

EB concurs.

58

NGNN: Agree

PSNS & IMF: Agree

SWRMC: Agree

NGUS: Agree

Revised Proposal

Comments Norfolk - See Topic 71

80

Original Proposal 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.

Discussion 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 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.

Discussion 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.”

59

Revised Proposal

Comments Norfolk - See Topic 71

82

Original Proposal 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.

Discussion 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

83

Original Proposal Paragraph # 8.2.3, Change to read “Full penetration butt, corner

and tee welds (class 3)”.

Discussion To reflect the addition of volumetric

UT for tee welds in T9074-AS-GIB-

010/271.

Comments Norfolk: agree

EB concurs.

NGNN: Agree

PSNS & IMF: Agree

SWRMC: Agree

NGUS: Agree

Revised Proposal

Comments Norfolk - See Topic 71

60

84

Original Proposal 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.

Discussion 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 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.

Discussion 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

61

86

Original Proposal 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.

Discussion

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 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.

Discussion To reflect the addition of inspection

requirements for transverse

discontinuities (special case) in T9074-

AS-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

62

88

Original Proposal Delete Figures 6 through 23

Discussion Math can be done now by every

inspector with a calculator.

Comments TRF concurs

Norfolk: agree

EB concurs.

NGNN: Agree

PSNS & IMF: Agree

SWRMC: Agree

NGUS: Agree

Revised Proposal

Comments

89

Original Proposal Amend Figure 25, to be consistent the area for 7/64" diameter

should be .0093 and for 7/32" diameter should be .0375.

Discussion 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.

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

63

90

Original Proposal Figures 27 through 30, Define the end points of each graph.

Discussion 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.

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

91

Original Proposal Delete Figures 31 through 48, and renumber subsequent figures.

Discussion Math can be done now by every

inspector with a calculator. Proposed

changes to MT and PT acceptance

criteria make these figures unnecessary.

Comments TRF concurs

Norfolk: agree

EB concurs.

PSNS & IMF: Agree

NGNN: Agree

SWRMC: Agree

NGUS: Agree

Revised Proposal

Comments

64

92

Original Proposal Figure 49, Fix second vertical line (the one for material

thickness 3/16"). Title bottom of graph as Design Material

Thickness.

Discussion 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

65

93

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.

TOP VIEW

CODE DATA L = LENGTH OF DISCONTINUITY L1 = 3/4 INCH s = MAXIMUM SPACING BETWEEN L2 = 1/2 INCH ADJACENT DISCONTINUITIES 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.

d L1

L2

s

66

PSNS & IMF: Agree

NGUS: Agree

Revised Proposal

Comments

94

Original Proposal Paragraph 6.4 as it currently reads:

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:

“There shall be no indication greater than 1/16th inch.

Acceptance criteria may be relaxed if the material or fabrication

standard has acceptance criteria.”.

Discussion When material or fabrication

specifications specify that the

acceptance criterion for magnetic

particle inspection is to be per MIL-

STD-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.

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 MIL-

STD-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

67

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

95

Original Proposal 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.

Discussion

68

Comments EB See Item # 71, and marked up section 8.

NGNN totally agrees.

PSNS & IMF: Agree

Revised Proposal

Comments

96

Original Proposal 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.”

Discussion

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

97

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

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.

Discussion

Norfolk proposes this be added to

define the term used in the

acceptance criteria. See topics 57

and 66.

Comments

NGNN: Agree.

69

Revised Proposal

Comments

98

Original Proposal

Modify title of table VII to read TABLE VII

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

70

99

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)

Description Class

Maximum square inch

area of defects allowed

finished machine surface

1

2

3

0.0984

0.1476

0.4416

rough ground surface

1

2

3

0.0984

0.1476

0.7856

as-cast surface

1

2

3

0.0984

0.5892

1.2271

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

71

Comments

100

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

2

3

0.0984

0.3312

0.7856

rough ground surface

1

2

3

0.0984

0.3312

1.7671

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”.

72

Revised Proposal

Comments

101

Original Proposal

Modify Note 2 to Table IX to read

Rounded indications less than 3/32 inch shall be

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.

Discussion

Paragraph 7.4 of 278 in the last

sentence states “Rounded

indications less than 3/32 diameter

shall be disregarded.

Comments

NGNN: Agree

Revised Proposal

Comments

102

Original Proposal 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).

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.

Comments

PSNS & IMF: Agree

NGNN: Agree

Revised Proposal

Comments