Guidance for the Development of

Ultrasonic Examiner Qualification

Programs

API PUBLICATION XX FIRST EDITION DRAFT 1

1.0 Scope The availability of high quality and accurate ultrasonic testing (UT) data is often the cornerstone for weld and base metal flaw detection and sizing for equipment integrity assessments, including fitness-for-service (FFS) or risk-based inspection (RBI) decisions. As a result, API has implemented several certification programs to assist in defining the minimum criteria for assessing the performance of UT technicians. Examinations for these programs are administered differently than other Individual Certification Programs (ICP) certifications in that they are based on hands-on performance demonstration tests. It should be noted that UT certifications are governed by accredited NDE certification authorities such as ASNT and these API UT ICP certifications are considered performance demonstration qualifications by such NDE certification schemes.

This publication outlines the general requirements for the development of owner/user ultrasonic examiner qualification programs which are consistent with the American Petroleum Institute (API) performance demonstration programs for both detection and characterization, and crack height sizing of weld discontinuities. The performance demonstration programs covered in this publication includes include:

a) Qualification of Ultrasonic Testing Examiners (Detection and Characterization) b) Qualification of Ultrasonic Testing Examiners (Crack Sizing) c) Qualification of Ultrasonic Testing Examiners (Detection and Characterization/Phased

Array) The owner-user may elect to combine the detection and sizing examinations or may elect to conduct them separately. The purpose of this publication is to provide owner/users with guidelines for developing basic in-house programs to identify qualified ultrasonic examiners for inspection of pressure equipment and piping that are consistent with equivalent to existing API qualification programs.

2.0 Normative References

The following referenced documents are indispensable for the application of this document. For dated references, only the edition cited applies. For undated references, the latest edition of the referenced document (including any amendments) applies.

API API 510, Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: In-service Inspection, Rating, Repair, and

Alteration API 570, Piping Inspection Code API RP 577. Welding Processes, Inspection, and Metallurgy

ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code - Section V, Article 4

3.0 Terms, Definitions, Acronyms and Abbreviations 3.1 Terms and Definitions

For the purposes of this document, the following definitions apply.

3.1.1 grading unit This is a 2-inch to 3-inch length of a weld which may contain a weld discontinuity on either side of the weld in the QUTE/DC and QUTE/DC-PA performance demonstration specimens.

3.1.2 owner/user

An owner or user of pressure vessels or piping who exercises control over the operation, engineering, inspection, repair, alteration, maintenance, pressure testing, and rerating of those pressure vessels and piping systems.

3.1.3 program administrator

An employee of the owner-user who is responsible for all aspects of the ultrasonic examiner qualification program(s).

3.1.33.1.4 test administrator The individual designated by the owner/user to directly responsible for the performance

demonstration test administration. (Note: The owner/user may also designate this individual to be responsible for overall security of the performance demonstration program.)

3.1.5 test proctor

An employee of the owner-user or an individual contracted by the owner-user who is directly responsible for conducting the ultrasonic examiner qualification tes(s). (Note: The test administrator may serve as the test proctor if designated by the owner-user.)

3.1.6 incomplete root fusion

A weld defect where the root of the weld is unfused. 3.1.7 incomplete root penetration

A weld defect where the depth of fusion is incomplete. Slides 19-21. 3.1.8 centerline crack

A crack that occurs longitudinally in the center of a weld bead during solidification. 4.0 Specimens for Performance Demonstration Tests

The specimens utilized for owner-user ultrasonic examiner qualification programs should represent simplified weld geometries that are commonly encountered in pressure vessels and piping throughout the refining, production and chemical process industries. That is, samples for detection and characterization should include both carbon steel plate with single ‘V’ and/or double ‘V’ weld geometries, and carbon steel piping with single ‘V’ welds. Photographs of each type of test set is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Typical sample geometries Photograph of performance demonstration test sets for detection and characterization (left) and crack sizing (right) samples.

4.1 Sample Identification

Every specimen used in any owner-user performance demonstration program should be given a permanent unique serial or identification number which should be vibro-etched marked on the back surface of the specimen. These markings should be covered with masking tape prior to any performance demonstration test to prevent personnel taking any test from observing the true identity of any test sample. A new random identification number should be placed on the face of each sample using a marker pen prior to each performance demonstration test. These random identification numbers should be changed each time a performance demonstration test is conducted.

4.2 In order to maintain the security of the defect discontinuity types and locations present in each sample set, an owner/user developing a performance demonstration test should initially have a minimum of three complete sample sets for both detection/characterization and crack sizing tests. Periodically, the owner-user should consider manufacturing additional samples or complete test sets. The owner/user should periodically rotate individual test samples from one test to another test set to maintain the security of the defect discontinuity types and locations present in each sample set. Sample sets should be occasionally retired and replaced by new sample sets at regular intervals.

The owner-user should ensure the integrity of the test samples by:

a) Having multiple sets of test samples for testing, b) Using random alias identification markings on test samples, c) Periodically reorganizing tests sets by redistributing the individual test samples

between the various test sets, and d) Manufacturing additional test sets.

4.3 Detection and Characterization Samples

Each test set for detection and characterization testing should contain, at a minimum, one thin and one thick plate sample and one small and one large diameter piping sample. Plate samples should be between ½-to 2 inches (12.3-50 mm) thick. Plate samples should be 10-12 inches (250-300 mm) long and 6-8 inches 150-200 mm) wide. Piping samples should be manufactured from pipe 8-14 NPS pipe with a Schedule 80 pipe wall. To facilitate ease-of-handling, the large diameter piping sample need only be a half-pipe section.

4.3.1 Specimen weld crowns and root geometry's shall should be in the "as- welded" condition

and may be offset from specimen centerline. 4.3.2 Specimens may contain ID or OD mismatch. 4.3.3 Specimens shall should not contain backing rings or counter bore geometry. 4.3.4 Each specimen shall should have sufficient volume to minimize spurious reflections that may

interfere with the interpretation process. 4.3.5 Detection and Characterization Defect Discontinuity Types

The types of weld defects discontinuities that should be are included in these detection and characterization performance demonstration test programs programs. These defect discontinuities should be real flaws (i.e. not machined) that are typical of those that can be are typically encountered during inspections of new and/or post construction piping or vessels. Table 1 identifies the potential weld discontinuities that may be included in each test specimen specimens. The number of flaws in each test specimen may vary for each test set, or the each test set. Some test specimen specimens may be unflawed along the their entire length.

Defect Type

Single ‘V’ Welded Plate

Double ‘V’ Welded Plate

Welded Pipe

Inside surface connected crack (ID Crack) X X X

Outside surface connected crack (OD Crack) X X X

Incomplete penetration/centerline cracking in a Double ‘V’ weld (IP)

- X -

Lack of root penetration (LOP) X - X

Lack of side wall fusion (LOF) X X X

Porosity X X X

Slag inclusion X X X

Table 1 Defect Discontinuity Types for Detection and Characterization Test Specimens

4.4 Crack Sizing Samples

Each test set for crack sizing testing should contain both thin and thick plate samples, and can contain either a single ‘V’ or double ‘V’ weld. Each sample should have at least 4 inches of base material on either side of the weld, perpendicular to the weld axis, to allow adequate room for UT scanning perpendicular to the weld and be at least 2 inches wide parallel to the weld axis to allow adequate room for lateral UT scanning. Samples may be any length or width so long as there is adequate base material on either size of the weld to allow room for perpendicular and lateral scanning of the weld. A sample set should contain a minimum of 16 cracks between 16 10 to 20 samples, and which should be evenly divided between thin and thick samples.

4.4.1 Specimens may be may be ground flush or may be in the should be a mix of as-welded

condition and flush ground weld caps. 4.4.2 All cracks should be ID connected cracks at or near the weld root.

4.4.3 Crack height sizing of any embedded cracks (if present due to sample fabrication) are not

required. 4.4.4 Each specimen should have sufficient volume to minimize spurious reflections that may

interfere with the interpretation process. 4.4.5 The crack test sample will be Single bevel crack samples should have an actual weld with

root geometry. 4.4.6 Specimens should not contain backing rings or counter bore geometry. 4.4.7 The weld joint be a 30 degree weld prep bevel. Single ‘V’ weld samples should have a 37.5°

weld bevel, while double ‘V’ weld samples should have a 30° weld bevel. 4.4.8 The ID of the crack sizing specimen should be masked to avoid other means of crack

measurement. 4.4 4.5 Alternate Specimen Designs

Exams designed to the requirements of this document test general skills of ultrasonic angle beam examiners. In order to address specific site applications, the The owner/user may choose to conduct performance demonstration tests on specimen designs different than those shown in Figure 1. This includes samples that are thinner or thinner thicker, or with smaller or larger diameters than discussed in Section 4.3. These samples should be in addition to the samples discussed in Section 4.3. The owner/user should consider developing similar develop protocols to that meet the requirements of their specific application needs.

4.5.1 When an owner-user chooses to include alternate specimen designs in a performance

demonstration test, the samples can be manufactured using non-carbon steel base materials.

4.5 4.6 Test Set Validation

Whether purchased or manufactured by the owner/user, each specimen in a test set should be given a validation assessment to determine the types of defects discontinuities present and their locations prior to utilization in a performance demonstration test program. The purposes of this validation assessment are:

a) To test and validate that each flaw can be correctly assessed by ultrasonic shear wave examination.

b) To disqualify flaws which have not been properly manufactured to produce an unambiguous test signal, and

c) To establish the ultrasonic ground truth for the performance demonstration specimens. 4.6.1 These validation assessments should be conducted by a minimum of three experienced UT

personnel using equipment and procedures that are representative of the best achievable flaw detection, characterization, and sizing results typical and available for use during candidate testing. The results from these examinations should be averaged, and serve as the ground truth which candidates will be graded against.

4.6.1.1 In addition to UT examination, the owner-user may choose to have samples also examined using

high sensitivity radiography such as computed radiography (CR), digital radiography (DR), or computer tomography (CT) to help assess the ground truth for each sample.

4.6.1.1 Radiography may also be used to help define defect discontinuity location and length. 4.6.2 Results from these validation assessments should be documented and should be stored in a

secure location by the owner/user in order to maintain the integrity of each performance demonstration testing program.

4.6.3 To the degree practicable, care should be taken to ensure that no single test is significantly more

difficult to examine that any other test set. The determination of the difficulty of the test sets should be assessed by the owner/user during the test set validation activities and averaging examiner performance on individual test samples and test sets.

5.0 Security

A key ingredient factor for an effective owner-user performance demonstration test program is the ability of the owner-user to maintain the security of test specimens, test specimen ground truth results, and candidate results. In this regard, the owner/user should designate an individual to be responsible for maintaining the security of the ultrasonic examiner qualification programs at the site where performance demonstration tests will be conducted. The owner/user should also designate an a single individual to be responsible for test administration at the test site. The individual responsible for security of the ultrasonic examiner qualification programs may also serve as the test administrator. The owner-user should have any third-party contractor performing ultrasonic flaw characterizations on test sets to verify truth data sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) to insure the integrity of the test sets. Care should be taken when selecting a third party contractor for this purpose, use of contractors who are also service providers is not recommended.

5.1 Pre- and Post-Test In order to limit access to the performance demonstration specimens, the owner/user should

store all performance demonstration specimens in a secured location before and after any performance demonstration test. In addition, the owner/user should also establish detailed security procedures for use when specimens are shipped from one site to an alternate site.

5.1.1 All performance demonstration specimens shall should be secured in their designated

storage/shipping container while the specimens are not in use. Theses storage/shipping containers shall should be under lock and key prior to and after performance demonstration tests. Test sets that are not in use during a performance demonstration test shall should remain in a secure environment until they are required for use by a candidate. The individual responsible for the ultrasonic examiner qualification programs at the test site shall should maintain control of the key for all locked storage containers.

5.1.2 When specimens are shipped from one location to an alternate site, the individual designated

by the owner/user owner-user as being responsible for the ultrasonic examiner qualification programs at the originating test site shall should prepare shipping instructions which identifies a specific individual at the alternate site to receive the shipment, and to be responsible for maintaining the security of the test specimens. The owner/user owner-user shall should verify that the shipment has been received by the individual identified in the shipping instructions.

5.1.2.1 When specimens are shipped from one site to an alternate site, the owner-user should

document in sufficient detail the type of test specimens being shipped, authorization, and means of shipment and date.

5.1.2.2 Upon arrival at the alternate site, all performance demonstration specimens should be secured

in their designated storage/shipping container while the specimens are not in use. 5.2 During the Test

The test administrator should consider instituting the following guidelines during any performance demonstration test:

Cell phones should be turned off and turned in to the test administrator.

One candidate per table with sufficient space between tables for the candidates and proctors to move between tables.

Steel samples should remain on their tables.

Any marks on specimens should be removed when a candidate has finished examination of the sample set.

If a sample set is shared between two (2) candidates, any marks on the specimens should be removed before transferring to another candidate.

There should be No no talking between test candidates.

Taped ID numbers on specimens are should not be disturbed by the candidate.

All exam forms, plotting graphs and scratch paper used in the exam are to be

reproduced onto yellow colored paper. Only yellow paper will be allowed during the

exam.

Only one person is should be allowed to leave the room at a time.

Upon completing the exams, give the folder with completed paperwork to the proctor.

The proctor should verify all information is complete prior to your leaving the room at

the end of the exam.

Proctor should ensure no documentation with notes referring to the exam are taken

from the test site by the candidates

6.0 Test Administration

The owner/user has a number of tasks to perform prior to, during, and after the performance demonstration.

6.1 Pre-Test Preparation

Prior to any performance test, the owner/user should contact test candidates and inform them of the test date/test location, the equipment/supplies permitted at the test location, and the procedures that will be enforced at the test site. The owner/user also needs to prepare the test sets that will be used during a performance demonstration test. The owner/user shall should also inform all candidates that they are required to bring either a valid license or other government-issued identification. Test candidates without proper identification should not be permitted to take any owner-user sponsored performance demonstration test.

6.1.1 Prior to the test, the owner/user or the test administrator should inform the candidates that they shall should bring to the test such as:

Ultrasonic instruments

UT cables

Transducers/search units

Calibration Standards (IIW, Rompas, and DSC blocks) unless provided by owner/operator

Ultrasonic couplant 6.1.1.1 The owner/user or the test administrator should inform the candidates that they may bring the

following items to the performance test:

Plotting Devices (protractors, rulers, etc.)

A calculator

Ultrasonic procedures for detection, characterization, and sizing of defects discontinuities and cracks.

(Note: API has posted general ultrasonic procedures for use during their QUTE and QUSE exams. When an owner/user decides to perform their own qualification test program, the

owner/user should decide whether candidates may use their own procedures or should use those shown on the API Inspector Certification Program website. API does not provide any general procedures for their phased array qualification testing program.)

6.1.2 Prior to conducting the test, the test administrator should make sure that undertake the

following steps are completed:

a) The identification/serial number on the specimen should be covered by opaque tape with a random number ID written on it.

b) No other markings should be visible on the sample other than the random number written on the opaque tape.

c) Specimens used in crack sizing performance demonstration tests should have the bottom of the specimen covered with opaque tape or equivalent to obscure the weld root area.

d) An Equipment Inventory Form (see Annex A) equipment inventory form should be completed and submitted to the test administrator.

e) The test administrator should verify that only equipment listed on a candidate’s Equipment Inventory Form equipment inventoryform is brought into the test site.

f) The test administrator should store all non-inventoried equipment in an area outside of the test site.

g) The test administrator should dedicate an area for candidate’s personal items (i.e. briefcases, purses, backpacks, etc.). These items should not be available to candidates during testing.

h) The test administer administrator should have a folder for each candidate which contains the following: appropriate equipment inventory form, the appropriate calibration form, and the appropriate weld indication report or crack height sizing forms.

i) The test administrator should verify that all UT instruments do not have any stored set-ups or other data resident in the UT instrument, and that the memory of all UT instruments does not have stored any pre-installed ultrasonic set up files or data.

j) The test administrator should verify that all UT instruments display valid and up to date calibration stickers.

k) No other paperwork should be permitted in the test location. 6.1.3 Prior to conducting the test, the test administrator should discuss the following with the test

candidates:

Name and background of the test administrator

Lab safety and sample handling precautions

Evacuation routes

Location of bathrooms

Schedule for the performance demonstration test

Expectation for candidate conduct during the performance demonstration test 6.1.4 Prior to the test, the owner/user or the test administrator should inform the candidates

whether they need to provide their own lunch and beverages during the test, or whether these will be provided by the owner/user.

6.2 During the Test All performance demonstration tests s should be scheduled to be completed during a single

workday. An in-place lunch break should be considered for the candidate’s during performance demonstration tests. The owner/user should have a security plan in place during testing which covers both lunch and bathroom breaks.

6.2.1 The owner/user should develop a written schedule for conducting performance demonstration

tests. This schedule should indicate the amount of time devoted to candidate orientation, equipment inventory and calibration checks, sample testing, lunch, and post-demonstration paperwork/reporting.

6.2.2 There should be no time limit for a single specimen. When sample sets are shared between two candidates, the test administrator should establish an equitable time limit each candidate has for a given specimen.

6.2.3 All paperwork needs to be completed and turned into the monitor by end of day. 6.2.3.1 The candidate should be allowed to reexamine any specimen they have already finished,

provided they are within the time limits of the test and sample security requirements are not compromised.

6.2.3.2 The proctor should verify that the UT instrument set ups and data have been deleted from the

instrument at the end of the exam. 6.3 Post-Test Administration – Grading

The grading of detection and characterization qualification test tests shall should be performed in accordance with the grading guidelines set forth in this section. A Weld Indication Report Sheet (i.e. either such as shown in Fig. A.5 or Fig. A.6) Fig. A.6, or a Crack Height Sizing Report Form (i.e. such as shown in Fig. A.7) Fig. A.7 shall should be completed for each specimen. The owner-user should design appropriate forms for candidates to document the results of their examinations including:

Equipment inventory forms for angle beam and phased array examinations,

Calibration forms for angle beam and phased array examinations,

Single ‘V’ and double ‘V’ weld indication report forms with areas for flaw position sketchs, and

Crack heightsizing reports forms. Appendix A shows the minimum information which the owner/user should consider including on forms developed for his qualification test programs. These forms should be designed to properly identify indications, characterize flaws within those provided in the procedure table, their start and stop locations, flaw lengths and flaw positions, or crack height size. The candidate is should be responsible to ensure that all required fields on the appropriate Report Form are legibly filled out in their entirety including:

Detection/Characterization Tests Crack Sizing Tests

Name and Social Security number Company Name

Name and Social Security number Company Name

Scheduled Test Date Scheduled Test Date

Specimen ID Specimen ID

Flaw table Nominal Thickness

Plan view sketch Crack Height Estimate

Cross-sectional view sketch

6.3.1 Detection and Characterization Specimens

Each of the detection and characterization test specimens should be divided into grading units with each grading unit being at 2 in. to 3 in. (75 mm) of weld length. Each grading unit should be assessed as being flawed or unflawed. The segment of weld length used in one grading unit should not be used in another grading unit.

6.3.1.1 The owner/user should consider evaluating candidate performance in the following four areas

listed below. 6.3.1.2 Flaw Detection:

The detection portion of the test should initially evaluate a candidate's data report. If the candidate does not detect an intended flaw, no further evaluation is required. The indication report form identifies flaw start and stop positions with statistical information and a plan view drawing. Sufficient flaw length and/or start and stop information should be provided in order for the monitor to determine if the candidate actually detected the flaw. Specifically:

• The reported flaw should provide overlap with the actual flaw position. • The reported flaw end-points should be reported within 1.0" of the actual flaw end-

points. • Reported flaw lengths should be a minimum of 50% of the truth length for surface

connected flaws and 25% of the truth length for volumetric flaws. • Gross over sizing of flaws should be penalized in accordance with the false call criteria.

6.3.1.3 Flaw Characterization:

Reported flaws should be identified named by flaw type on the indication report form. The owner-operator may consider grouping defects into the same flaw characterization grading category. For example inside surface breaking cracks and lack of root penetration, embedded volumetric flaws or planar volumetric flaws. Credit should be given for flaw characterization if the flaw type reported is in the same group as the flaw truth. Candidates should identify each flaw as planar or volumetric in nature

Flaw Characterization Groups

Group 1 Inside Surface Connected Flaws

Group 2 Outside Surface Connected Flaws

Group 3 Volumetric Flaws

Inside Surface Connected Crack Lack of Root Penetration

Outside Surface Connected Crack Lack Of Fusion Slag Porosity Embedded Centerline Crack

6.3.1.4 Flaw Positioning: Reported flaws should be positioned correctly with respect to the weld centerline (i.e.

upstream/downstream). Indication positioning with respect to the weld centerline is provided on the indication report form as a cross sectional drawing. Flaws should be positioned correctly with respect to OD connected, ID connected, or mid-wall embedded.

The following tolerances should be applied to the reported flaw positioning:

• Volumetric flaws should be reported within or near to, the weld volume on the cross sectional plot.

• Inside surface connected flaws need only be reported on the correct side of weld centerline for the 1.0" thick plate. For all other components, credit should be given if the flaw is reported as connected to the inside surface.

• Outside surface connected flaws should be reported on the correct side of weld centerline and connected to outside surface for all components.

• Credit should be given for mid-wall embedded flaws when reported as ‘embedded’ and not connected to ID or OD.

6.3.1.5 Flaw Discrimination (False Calls): A false call is defined as a flaw being reported in an unflawed grading unit. The owner-operator should establish a maximum number of false calls that a may be reported on an individual specimen. No false call errors should be given for flaws reported in an unflawed grading that is adjacent to a flawed grading unit where the reported end point of the flaw is within < 1.0 inch of its true position. A single false call that is reported across multiple grading units may be recorded as a false call for each grading unit. The maximum number of false called grading units allowed per test set should be 2. For flaws, which have an end-point(s) ≤ 1.0" from an adjacent unflawed grading unit, no false call should be given if the reported end-point is ≤ 1.0" from the actual flaw end-point. Single reported flaws that cross multiple unflawed grading units should be considered as multiple false calls (1 for each grading unit entered) with the following exceptions:

a) The reported flaw length is ≤ 3.0", and/or b) The condition that caused the false call (excessive root, ID mismatch, etc.) has

been identified as a highly probable false call area during sample fingerprinting and documented in the grading book and database. Additionally, the candidate’s Weld Indication Report Form should properly position this indication in the same location (start/stop) and volumetric position (inside or outside surface connected, mid-wall, etc.) as noted in the grading book and database.

This situation is isolated to a single reported instance during the evaluation of a test set.

6.3.1.6 The owner-user should establish a maximum limit for the total number of allowable errors

(eTOT) in the test based on the total number of discontinuities in the test set. For example, sample sets less than six (6) discontinuities should have a lower number of allowable errors than test sets with twelve (12) or more discontinuities. The owner-user should use a UT SME to establish the total number of allowable errors for each test and to ensure the test sets are of relatively equal in difficulty. Each flaw category should also have a maximum number of errors that serve as a separate pass/fail criteria. The owner-operator should also reduce the maximum number of allowable errors for each error in a particular category. For example, a missed detection may reduce the total maximum number of total errors or errors in other error categories.

6.3.1.6.1 A candidates score for a given test set is the sum of flaw detection errors (edet), flaw

characterization errors (ech), flaw positioning errors (epos) and false call errors (efc) as shown below.

6.3.2 Crack Height Sizing Specimens

Special care must be taken when grading, due to the various grading criteria that shall should be applied to determine a candidate’s success or failure of the qualification.

6.3.2.1 It is the responsibility of the test administrator to ensure that the techniques prescribed in the

examination procedure are being utilized. Adequate surveillance must be provided in order to ensure procedure compliance and candidate capabilities. Where the candidate has obviously not followed the procedure, it should be noted on their grading records.

6.3.2.2 Grading criteria shall should be established by the owner/user based on their expectations of competency standards to be achieved. One typical approach is to use a statistical root mean square (RMS) approach. Typical crack sizing grading schemes include absolute +/- measurement error bands for a given percentage of the bars tested in each thickness category (i.e.80%) or and/or an overall statistical root mean square (RMS) error score for each thickness category. Failure to achieve the pass criteria in for either specimen thickness category may result in a failed exam.

Bibliography

[1] M. Consonni, C. F. Wee and C. Scheider, Manufacturing of Welded Joints with Realistic Defects, 50th Annual Conference of the British Institute of Non-Destructive Testing, Sept. 13-15, 2011, Telford, UK.

[2] A. Birring, Standard Guide for Ultrasonic Crack Sizing, April, 1992. [3] R. Edwards, G. Gruber and P. Watson, Fabrication of Performance Demonstration Initiative

Specimens with Controlled Flaws, 13th International Conference on NDE in the Nuclear and Pressure Vessel Industries, Kyoto, Japan, May 22-25, 1995.

[4] A. Birring, Sizing Discontinuities by Ultrasonics, Materials Evaluation, Vol. 68, November, 2010.

[5] A. Birring, Selection of Phased Array Parameters for Weld Testing, Materials Evaluation, Vol. 66,

September, 2008. [6] J. Mark Davis, Advanced Ultrasonic Flaw Sizing Handbook, ASNT, 2001.

DRAFT

APPENDIX A

Examples of Ultrasonic Examiner Qualification Test Information 1) INFORMATION ON TEST CANDIDATE:

Name

Date of Birth

Soc. Sec. No.

Qualification Test

□ Angle Beam Detection and Characterization □ Angle Beam Crack Sizing □ Phased Array Detection and Characterization

□ Angle Beam Detection, Characterization and Crack Sizing

2) INFORMATION ON EQUIPMENT USED DURING TESTING:

Angle Beam Detection, Characterization and Crack Sizing Qualification Tests

Phased Array Qualification Tests

Search Unit Parameters

Search Unit #

Phased Array Probe

Parameters

Phased Array Probe

Mfg./Model Mfg./Model

Freq. Freq.

Size Pitch

Angle (s) Angle(s)

S/N S/N

Instruments Manufacturer

Phased Array Unit

Manufacturer

Model Model

Software Version

Pulsers

Elements

DRAFT

APPENDIX A (cont.)

3) INFORMATION ON EQUIPMENT CALIBRATION:

Angle Beam Calibration Information

Phased Array Calibration Information

Instruments Manufacturer

Instruments Manufacturer

Model Model

Angle Beam Search Unit Information

Mfg./Model

Phased Array Search Unit Information

Mfg./Model

Freq. Freq.

Size Elements

Freq. Pitch

Shape Exit Point Verification

Exit Point

Angle Meas./Nom.

Ph. Array Angles Min./Max.

Configuration (Check One)

□ Single □ D-SBS □ Tandem Configuration (Check One)

□ S-Scan □ E-Scan

Mode (Check One)

□ Shear □ RL □ Bi-Modal Mode

(Check One) □ Shear □ Longitudinal

Wedge (Check One)

□ Integral □ Non-Integral Wedge Model No.

Instrument Setting

Range

Instrument Setting

Range

Delay

Delay Velocity

Focus Depth

Velocity Wedge Delay

Sensitivity

DRAFT

APPENDIX A (cont.)

4) INFORMATION ON DAC/TCG CALIBRATION:

Angle Beam

Calibration

Ref. Sensitivity (dB) Phased Array

Calibration

Ref. Sensitivity (dB)

Exam Sensitivity (dB) Exam Sensitivity (dB)

Cal. Type (Check One) □ MP □ Depth Cal. Type (Check One) □ MP □ Depth

DRAFT

APPENDIX A (cont.)

5) INFORMATION ON WELD INDICATIONS:

WELD INDICATION REPORT FORM(Note 1)

Candidate Name Test Date

Company Sample ID

Weld Type (check one)

□ Single V weld

□ Double V weld

Indication # Flaw Start (in.) Flaw Stop (in.) Tot. Length (in.) Flaw Type(Note 2)

Note: (1) Use only one Weld Report Form per sample

(2) Flaw Types should be reported as either: a) ID crack, b) OD crack, c) embedded center line crack, d) lack of fusion, e) porosity, or f) slag

DRAFT

APPENDIX A (cont.)

6) INFORMATION ON WELD FLAW LOCATIONS:

WELD FLAW LOCATION REPORT FORM

Candidate Name Test Date

Company Sample ID

Weld Type (check one)

□ Single V weld

□ Double V weld

Indication #

Sketch in Flaw Location Indication # Sketch in Flaw Location

7) INFORMATION ON CRACK HEIGHTS:

CRACK HEIGHT REPORT FORM

Candidate Name Test Date

Company Weld Type (check one)

□ Single V weld

□ Double V weld

Sample ID Nominal

Thickness (in.) Crack Height (in.)

Technique Used(Note 1)

Note: (1) Technique Used should be listed as either: a) ID Creeping Wave (IDCR), b) Tip diffraction method (TD) , c) Bi-modal method(B-M), d) Focused refracted longitudinal (HALT) wave, e) Focused shear wave (HAST) method, or OTHER (list method used)