American Petroleum Institute Task Group Line Pipe

Transcription

1 American Petroleum Institute Task Group Line Pipe Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe Work Item Charge To consider if changes to the API Spec 5L acceptance criteria are needed to address differences in uniformity and fairness in the evaluation of linear imperfections in the weld line when using radiological techniques compared to ultrasonic techniques. January 14, 2016, TGLP - WG Chairman Original Work Group Members:

2 Table of Contents Executive Summary Background Introduction General Work Item 4185 Details Results Conclusion Table 1 Results Overall Table 2 Results Detailed Macrographs Defect Details Recommendations API Work Group Reporting to Task Group Line Pipe and Resource Group NDT (History of Work Item 4185) Appendix A - Description of Test Specimens, Inspection Results and Photographs Appendix B - Ultrasonic Examination Specimen Procedure Appendix C - Metallurgical Examination Invoices API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 2 of 60

3 Executive Summary This report for Work Item 4185 contains the introduction, results, conclusion and recommendations for consideration of changes to the API Spec 5L acceptance criteria to address differences in uniformity and fairness in the evaluation of linear imperfections in the weld line when using radiological techniques compared to ultrasonic techniques. Occasionally during mill inspection of large diameter line pipe linear imperfections, such as inadequate penetration (IP), are detected by radiographic testing (RT) methodology and deemed to be unacceptable, but the same imperfections are not always found to be unacceptable by ultrasonic testing (UT) methodology. Nineteen (19) samples with linear indications were donated by a pipeline operator to the Work Group to be used for this work item. The selected samples were from line pipe having a 36 inch outside diameter with two different specified wall thicknesses of.429 and.618. All samples were X-rayed with drawings created to assist with the ultrasonic evaluations. The Work Group solicited and obtained multiple interested parties to perform ultrasonic evaluations on the 19 samples. All indications found in the 19 samples were to be given a disposition as per API 5L Specification. RT results determined that all of the samples were deemed to be unacceptable per API 5L Specification. However the UT results determined that 8 samples (45%) were deemed to be unacceptable, 4 samples (22%) were deemed acceptable, and 6 samples (33%) were determined to be a split decision (accept/reject). The conclusions reached by the study were that RT technology utilizes a rigid acceptance presentation format (length and width measurement only), whereby UT technology provides a quantitative depth comparison method (area measurement). Therefore, additional studies should be considered in an effort to more closely align the acceptance criteria for these two NDT methods. Overall recommendations derived from this work item study to have API consider adopting similar CSA language or wording for mills to require periodical sectioning of defects to verify NDT system capability of detectability and weld acceptance, and for API to consider adopting new RT technology with a quantitative depth determination capability. These actions should aid in the effort to more closely aligning the acceptance criteria for these two NDT methods. API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 3 of 60

4 Background This Work Item was created at the Summer Standards Conference in June 2000 to compare the differences in the acceptance criteria per API Spec 5L between UT and RT inspection. During a mill inspection of the pipe ends of large diameter line pipe linear imperfections, such as inadequate penetration (IP), were detected by RT and were deemed to be unacceptable according to the specification. However, when the defective portion of the pipe had been removed and the pipe sent back through the mill for reinspection of the entire length of the longitudinal seam weld with UT and subsequent pipe end inspection with RT, occasionally another linear imperfection would be detected by the RT on the new pipe end and the weld would again be deemed to be unacceptable. This raised the question why had UT not rejected imperfections that RT had found to be unacceptable. Since June 2000 the Work Group has completed many tasks to address the differences in uniformity and fairness in the evaluation of linear imperfections in the weldline of Double Submerged Arc Welded (DSAW) Line Pipe when using radiographic techniques compared to ultrasonic techniques. The Work Group developed an Ultrasonic evaluation procedure modeled from a UT process that used in the field for prove-up of the weld. The intent was to control and trace the variables of each evaluation on items such as instrument gain settings, transducer frequency, transducer size, transducer angle and coupling used. It was recommended for all examiners to employ this procedure as well as using API RP 5UE document as a reference guide. Introduction Nineteen (19) samples with linear indications were donated by a pipeline operator to the Work Group to be used for this work item. The selected samples were from line pipe having a 36 inch outside diameter with two different specified wall thicknesses of.429 and.618. All samples were X-rayed with drawings created to assist with the ultrasonic evaluations. The samples were sorted by wall thickness and photographed. All external FBE (fusion bond epoxy) was removed by sandblasting prior to ultrasonic testing with each sample rephotographed for traceability. The Work Group solicited and obtained multiple interested parties to perform ultrasonic evaluations on the 19 samples. All indications found in the 19 samples were to be given a disposition as per API 5L Specification. A special shipping container was created for transporting the samples to and from the various participants. API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 4 of 60

5 General Work Item 4185 Details The following is a culmination of all interested parties and the ultrasonic scanning results with several samples processed by laboratory with results photograph and included. Results GRADING CATAGORIES Rejected = all ultrasonic inspectors found to be defective Accepted = all ultrasonic inspectors found to be good Split Results = mixed some ultrasonic inspectors rejected sample and some accepted sample Uninspectable = sample too small to inspect Number of Samples Tested 7 Rejected Grading Wall Thickness and Sample ID No. Wall Thickness and Sample ID No Samples: 0112, 0349, Samples: 2508, 5029, 9031, Accepted Sample: Sample: Split Results Samples: 0174, 0209, , 0582, Samples: 2575, 7497, 7861, Uninspectable Sample: (none) Sample: 1312 Table 1 API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 5 of 60

6 Details of Inspection Results Radiograph Ultrasonic Scans Lab Results Sample # All samples Rejected 8 samples Rejected (45%) 4 samples Accepted (22%) 6 samples Split (33%) 0.618" wall thickness 5% = Reject Reject 4 of 4 inspectors 0174 Reject Reject 4 of 4 inspectors 0209 Reject Split 2 of 4 inspectors 0349 Reject Reject 4 of 4 inspectors Reject Split 2 of 4 inspectors * 0499 Reject Accept 4 of 4 inspectors No Defect * 0582 Reject Accept 3 of 4 inspectors Reject Split 2 of 4 inspectors 1312 Reject Untested 4 of 4 inspectors * 1989 Reject Split 2 of 4 inspectors " wall thickness 5% = Reject Reject 4 of 4 inspectors 2575 Reject Reject 2 of 2 inspectors 4928 Reject Accept 2 of 2 inspectors 5029 Reject Reject 4 of 4 inspectors 7497 Reject Reject 3 of 4 inspectors 7861 Reject Accept 2 of 2 inspectors * 9031 Reject Reject 4 of 4 inspectors.098 * Reject Split 2 of 4 inspectors No Defect Reject Reject 4 of 4 inspectors.0281 Table 2 * Indicates these samples were metallography sectioned All photographs and details of samples are found in Appendix A Ultrasonic Examination Procedure used is found in Appendix B API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 6 of 60

7 PHOTO MICROGRAPHS OF SECTIONED WELDS 0499 UT Accepted 0582 UT Rejected 1989 UT Rejected UT Accepted UT Accepted API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 7 of 60

8 9031 UT Rejected UT Accepted UT Rejected API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 8 of 60

9 Defect Details 0582 Defect.022 height 1989 Defect.024 height 9031 Defect.098 height Defect.028 height API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 9 of 60

10 Conclusion 1 RT technology utilizes a rigid acceptance presentation format (length and width measurement only) 2 UT technology provides a quantitative depth comparison method (area measurement) 3 Therefore, additional studies should be considered in an effort to more closely align the acceptance criteria for these two methods Recommendations 1 API to consider adopting similar CSA language or wording for mills to require periodical sectioning of defects to verify capability of detectability and weld acceptance. 2 API to consider adopting new RT technology with quantitative depth determination capability. API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 10 of 60

11 API Work Group Reporting to Task Group Line Pipe and Resource Group NDT (History of Work Item 4185) At the January 24, 2001 TGLP meeting, a status report was given. This item will be discussed and action taken by the TGLP at the June meeting. At the January 2002 TGLP meeting, explained the purpose of the WG. He explained the problem with pipe passing UT inspection at the mill and failing RT in the field. The WG is to address the differences in uniformity and fairness in the evaluation of linear imperfections in the weld line (DSAW) when using radiographic techniques compared to ultrasonic techniques. The Chair requested volunteers for this WG. At the January 2003 TGLP meeting, the TGLP heard the following report. The work group held its first meeting in Houston on April 17, 2002 to discuss its charge and to propose its scope of work. A second meeting of the Work Group was held on June 25, 2002 to review proposed ultrasonic procedures that can be used to evaluate multiple DSAW weld line pipe samples being supplied by and possibly others. The Committee has not met since then awaiting results of radiographic examination of pipe samples. This should occur during the 1st quarter of 2003 and the WG will review the recommended changes that have been developed from Item 4153 for their applicability to this work item. At the January 2004 RGNDT, reviewed the activities on this work item to the present point. In April of last year, two members of the work group met to determine which samples would be used in this evaluation and approximately 35 samples were located. The next phase of this work item is to have these samples radiographed. This phase of the work is occurring during January Once the radiographs have been received the Work Group will meet to review the results and will make necessary recommendations on how to proceed with the next phase involving the ultrasonic evaluation of these samples. It is anticipated that the next meeting of the Work Group will occur in Houston, sometime during the 1 st quarter of At the 2005 winter meetings, reported that he has 19 samples with linear indications for use in this project. They have been X-rayed and samples have been selected for the project. These samples are being cleaned and actual ultrasonic evaluation should begin shortly. At the June 2005 RGNDT meeting, reported the fusion bond epoxy coating has been removed from the 19 samples. The Work Group reviewed the draft copy of the ultrasonic testing to be used during the evaluation of these samples, it was recommended that several items be edited in the procedure to allow for experimental variance such as increase in frequency - up to 10 MHz, transducer inspection angles, increase in reference amplitude and for API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 11 of 60

12 transducer sizes up to 1 inch in diameter. The WG will be meeting in the near future to finalize the draft procedure. Once the procedure has been approved, six individuals have been identified to assist in performing evaluation and documentation of the results of their evaluations. A special shipping container for the weld samples has been built to allow easy transport of the samples to the various participants in the project. It is expected that the 1st set of UT examination of the samples should occur sometime during the 3rd quarter of 2005 (see attachment # 4 of 2005 RGNDT minutes). At the January 2006 TGLP meeting, gave a report which is contained in Appendix 4185, January 2006 TGLP minutes. At the January 2006 RGNDT meeting, reported that the fusion bond epoxy coating, on the 19 samples to be used for this project, has been removed and a shipping container has been built to help when shipping the samples around for evaluation. The Work Group has made some minor editorial changes to the draft copy of the ultrasonic testing prove-up procedures to be used during the evaluation of these samples. Additionally, photos of the samples along with sketches illustrating where the imperfections appeared in the radiographic images were attached to the revised procedure. This should help aid those performing the ultrasonic evaluations. It is expected that the 1st set of UT examinations of the samples should take place sometime in the 1st quarter of Four companies have volunteered to run evaluations. Hope to have results by June 2006 At the June 2006 TGLP Meeting, gave a report on the status of this item, which is in Appendix The WG plans to have a recommendation for the action by the TGLP in January At the June 2006 RGNDT meeting, reported only the.618 body wall samples had been scanned and documented. The next action item is to have a reference sample made for the body wall samples then to scan and document the results. The sample has been sent to a machine shop and is waiting to be processed. The work group does have a container built for shipping the pipe samples to individuals who have volunteered to perform evaluations. A procedure document will be sent with the container. At this time no work group meetings are scheduled. At the January 2007 TGLP meeting, the TGLP heard a report from WG Chairman,. Activity of the WG is continuing. WG presently has 19 samples of DSAW pipe containing linear indications. These samples have been radiographed. The full report of the WG is attached as Appendix At the January 2007 RGNDT meeting, reported that nineteen (19) weld samples in two (2) wall thicknesses (0.428 & ) have been scanned using UT and documented by two volunteers. The next action for this Work Item will be to identify the next participant/volunteer to evaluate the API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 12 of 60

13 samples and to ship the samples to them. asked if these samples were Quenched and Tempered? confirmed these samples were not Q&T. At the June 2007 TGLP meeting, reported on the activities of the WG. The WG has examined and tested 19 samples. Two different groups received the samples and the review is still underway. The WG should have a completed report by the January meeting. Also, at the June 2007 RGNDT meeting, reported that nineteen (19) weld samples in two (2) wall thicknesses (0.428 & ) have been scanned using UT and documented by two volunteers. The Work Item samples will be sent to the next inspection volunteer for evaluation. At the January 2008 TGLP meeting, gave a report on progress of the WG. His report listed 7 different issues that the WG have addressed and completed. A hard copy of the report was given to the Vice-Chair. A copy of the report also is contained in Annex There were no questions or comments from the TGLP. Also, at the January 2008 RGNDT meeting, reported that nineteen (19) weld samples in two (2) wall thicknesses (0.428 & ) have been shipped to the next volunteer ( who is in the process of performing the evaluation. At the 2008 June TGLP meeting, a report was given by Completion of work on the item has been delayed due to incomplete destructive testing of samples. A progress report will be given at the next meeting. Also, at the 2008 June RGNDT meeting, reported that nineteen (19) weld samples in two (2) wall thicknesses (0.428 & ) have been shipped to the next volunteer who is in the process of performing the evaluation. The delay is due to a few volunteers who passed on the samples without performing the ultrasonic testing mainly due to excessive workloads. At the 2009 January TGLP meeting, gave a report. X-rays of samples are complete and are in the documents. It was intended to include ppt into the minutes however it is considered too large for electronic transmission. If a copy is desired please contact This work needs to be tracked by the JT-WG on Also, at the January 2009 RGNDT meeting, reported that nineteen (19) weld samples in two (2) wall thicknesses (0.429 & ) was received by the next volunteer who was able to perform ultrasonic scans providing raw data to the Work Group. A PowerPoint presentation was presented to the RGNDT by showing the Work Item s chronological progress including preliminary results by three volunteers. (See attachment #.5) Preliminary results on the 19 samples were 10 samples of.429 wall thickness API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 13 of 60

14 contained 5 rejects with consensus, 2 accepted by consensus, 2 had split decisions (Reject/Accept) and 1 sample (#1312) was too small to UT scan. The preliminary results for the 9 samples of.618 wall thickness contained 3 rejects with consensus, 1 accepted by consensus, 5 had split decisions (Reject/Accept) and 0 was too small to UT scan. The next action of the Work Group will be to have the samples move onto the last two volunteers ( for scanning. Simultaneously the raw data just received from will be placed into the master data spreadsheet. The results provided from also included additional scanning from the Phased Array technique. A PowerPoint presentation on the Phased Array technique was presented by a technical expert with on how the 19 samples were scanned and the data electronically recorded. (See attachment # 6) stated that the RGNDT should consider only sectioning a few samples when that time comes until a conclusion has been determined. At the June 2009 TGLP meeting, a report was given by The task of reviewing results on the round robin testing samples was completed by three volunteers. Two more volunteers were added to the WG. Work is on-going for manual prove-up. will expedite remaining work. At the January 2010 TGLP meeting, a report was given by. Four companies have inspected 19 samples. Many were not conclusive i.e. inconsistent results. Some indications not acceptable per RT were not rejected by UT. The WG will analyze the data and return a statement at the next TGLP meeting. Two additional companies may participate by inspecting the samples. The destructive testing will follow a presentation and resolutions from the next TGLP meeting. A report on the results of comparisons of test results from RT and UT was made. A summary is attached (Attachment 5).- Next meeting of WG to finalize formal report not determined yet.- Final report will be presented at June meeting. At the 2010 June TGLP meeting, reported that the WG did not meet. Results achieved during inspection of different samples were presented. WG plans to meet August/September 2010 to select the samples for cross sectioning to investigate depth of defects. At the 2011 June TGLP meeting, it was reported that a work group meeting was held in Houston June 7, 2011; the summary report for the 19 samples was reviewed. Four samples were identified (#0499, 0582, 1989, 10943) as best choices with an additional two samples (#2575, 7497) as next best also identified in case they are required for further testing. The summary reports contain test sample pictures, radiograph sketches, each inspector s results for all 19 samples (See Attachment 3). The next WG tasks will be 1) to mark highest UT amplitudes on the identified samples so micrographs will be cut API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 14 of 60

15 at the worst area of flaw and 2) to create a work instruction for a lab to perform the destructive testing of four samples. Next work group meeting to be determined. Also, at the 2011 June RGNDT meeting, it was reported that the charge of this WG is to consider if changes to API 5L acceptance criteria are needed to address differences in uniformity and fairness in the evaluation of linear imperfections in the weld line when using radiological techniques compared to ultrasonic techniques. reported a work group meeting was held in Houston June 7, 2011; the summary report for the 19 samples was reviewed. Four samples were identified (#0499, 0582, 1989, 10943) as best choices with an additional two samples (#2575, 7497) as next best were identified in case further testing is required. The summary reports contain test sample pictures, radiograph sketches and each inspector s results for all 19 samples. The next WG tasks will be 1) to mark highest UT amplitudes on the identified samples so micrographs will be cut near the worst area of flaw. 2) to create a work instruction for a lab to perform the destructive testing of four samples. Next work group meeting to be determined. At the 2012 January TGLP meeting, reported the work group has completed all scanning and reporting. There were four samples identified as being appropriate samples to be sectioned to determine the indication depths. A request was made to the TGLP for support for API to fund the sectioning and metallurgical examinations of 4 representative samples. The quote received from a Houston Metallurgical Lab was for less than $5, Motion: The TGLP supports allocating up to $5000 US of the API R&D budget to Section and analyze these samples. Passed: 27, 0, 0. At the 2012 June TGLP meeting, it was reported that the WG met o review and address comments to ballot 2660 on 5L 45th Edition. There were around 150 comments, all from affirmative votes, no negative votes and the ballot passed. Comments were mainly editorial; only 10 to 15 technical comments were received. These were deemed non-persuasive for being out of the scope of the ballot. Addressing these comments in the future will require the initiation of new work items. The recommendation of the WG is to move forward with the draft for publication and to maintain harmonization with ISO 3183 as far as possible. ISO has not submitted the FDIS draft for inquiry. It should be sent next week with two months inquiry period. The WG recommended that API should delay publication to align with any editorial changes made to ISO 3183 based on comments received during the FDIS ballot. This afternoon the WG address a few loose ends and talk about the schedule for publication. stated that the ballot passed with a 100% affirmative vote and that there were not comment resolutions that required re-ballot. API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 15 of 60

16 At the 2013 January TGLP meeting, a report on the results of comparisons of test results from RT and UT was made. The next WG meeting to finalize a formal report has not been determined yet. The final report will be presented at the June meeting. Also, at the 2013 January MAG meeting, reported that the WG identified three samples and these where sent to lab to be processed. The samples were processed and received from the lab during the holidays. Results will be reviewed at the next WG meeting to be held in February or March with a formal report to be delivered to API June meeting. At the 2013 June TGLP meeting, a report on the results of comparisons between RT and UT was made. The group met in January and already has 4 samples and decided to cut two additional samples. Hope to have a final report on comparison RT vs UT for the January meeting. Also, at the 2013 June RGNDT meeting, it was reported that the charge of this WG is to consider if changes to API 5L acceptance criteria are needed to address differences in uniformity and fairness in the evaluation of linear imperfections in the weld line when using radiological techniques compared to ultrasonic techniques. reported the work group received samples 0499, 0582, 1989 and from the lab, reviewed defect type at February 2013 WG meeting when it was decided additional samples should be processed. Two samples were identified (9031/12292) and sent to lab. presented all samples showing lab results compared to original RT findings of lack of penetration (see attachment 3). A WG meeting is to be held in Houston for work item final report targeted to be delivered at API Winter meeting in January The report, if required, will contain recommendations of specification changes in API 5L to address differences in uniformity between RT and UT inspections for acceptance criteria by method. Also, at the 2013 June MAG meeting, reported on the current UT inspection and identification of imperfections/defects in SAW welds. A WG meeting will be scheduled in Houston later in the year to review all findings and complete a written report with recommendations which will be presented at the January 2014 API Work Week At the 2014 January TGLP meeting, it was reported that the work item is continuing with 6 of 19 samples lab processed. All the data collected from the beginning of the work item in Summer Standards June 2000 have been compiled and placed into a word document for the work group to present a final report at Summer Standards meeting June API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 16 of 60

17 Also, at the 2014 January MAG meeting, reported the work item is continuing with 6 of 19 samples lab processed. All the data collected from the beginning of the work item in Summer Standards June 2000 have been compiled and placed into a word document for the work group to present a final report at Summer Standards meeting June At the 2014 June TGLP meeting, it was reported that the information obtained from the samples is not clear. Additional work must be done in order to have a better understanding. The goal of the WG is to have a draft report by January Also, at the 2014 June MAG meeting, reported that the work item is continuing. All the data collected from the beginning of the work item has been compiled. The work group will be meeting to complete the final report. Also, at the 2014 June RGNDT meeting, it was stated that the charge of this WG is to consider if changes to API 5L acceptance criteria are needed to address differences in uniformity and fairness in the evaluation of linear imperfections in the weld line when using radiological techniques compared to ultrasonic techniques. reported the work item is continuing. All the data collected from the beginning of the work item and has been compiled. The work group will be meeting to compile the final report. At the 2015 January TGLP meeting, reported there was no work group meeting held. The final task of a compiling the final report for TGLP is to be done. All the data collected for the work item continues to be stored with at in Houston, Texas. At the 2015 January MAG meeting, reported there was no work group meeting held. The final task of a compiling the final report for TGLP is to be done. All the data collected for the work item continues to be stored with at in Houston, Texas. At the 2015 January RGNDT meeting, reported there was no work group meeting held. The final task of a compiling the final report for TGLP is to be done. All the data collected for the work item continues to be stored with at in Houston, Texas. At the 2015 June TGLP meeting, reported there was no work group meeting held. The final task of a compiling the final report for TGLP is to be done. All the data collected for the work item continues to be stored with at in Houston, Texas. Next Work Group meeting is scheduled for July 30 th API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 17 of 60

18 At the 2015 July Work Group meeting, the work group decided to macro another area of sample The accumulation of data was reviewed with drafts of the executive summary and the recommendation was created. At the 2016 January Work Group meeting, the work group reviewed the macro of sample labeled -3 with no defect found. The executive summary and the recommendation are complete. Final edits to the report were made. At the January 2016 Winter Standards meeting this 4185 will be presented to the MAG, RGNDT and TGLP with recommendations. Work Item 4185 charge has been completed. API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 18 of 60

19 Material - Weld Specimens General Work Item 4185 Details Original Coated Samples / Processed Blasted Samples As is Condition Blasted Condition Original X-Ray Drawings from jobsite Actual Radiographs API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 19 of 60

20 Example Sketch of Radiograph Photos of Shipping Container API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 20 of 60

21 APPENDIX A Description of Test Specimens, Inspection Results and Photographs Inadequate Penetration.618" Inspector # 1 Inspector # 2 Inspector # 3 Inspector # Reject Reject Reject Reject All Inspectors classified this sample # 112 as an API reject. API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 21 of 60

22 Inadequate Penetration.618" Inspector # 1 Inspector # 2 Inspector # 3 Inspector # Reject Reject Reject Reject All Inspectors classified this sample # 0174 as an API reject. API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 22 of 60

23 Intermittent Inadequate Penetration.618" Inspector # 1 Inspector # 2 Inspector # 3 Inspector # Untested Untested Reject Reject Only two UT Inspectors were able to test sample # 0174 and both classified as an API reject. API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 23 of 60

24 Intermittent Inadequate Penetration.618" Inspector # 1 Inspector # 2 Inspector # 3 Inspector # Reject Reject Reject Reject All Inspectors classified this sample # 0349 as an API reject. API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 24 of 60

25 Intermittent Inadequate Penetration.618" Inspector # 1 Inspector # 2 Inspector # 3 Inspector # Accept Accept Reject Reject Inspectors were split in classifying this sample # as an API accept/reject. API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 25 of 60

26 Inadequate Penetration.618" Inspector # 1 Inspector # 2 Inspector # 3 Inspector # Accept Accept Accept Accept All UT Inspectors classified this sample # 0499 as an API accept. API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 26 of 60

27 Sample # 0499 found to contain no defect API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 27 of 60

28 Intermittent Inadequate Penetration.618" Inspector # 1 Inspector # 2 Inspector # 3 Inspector # Accept Reject Accept Accept Majority of inspectors classified this sample # 0582 as an API accept. API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 28 of 60

29 Radiograph of sample # 0582 showing linear imperfection in center of longitudinal seam weld API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 29 of 60

30 Photo micrograph of Sample # 0582 found to contain a defect.0218 in height API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 30 of 60

31 Intermittent Inadequate Penetration.618" Inspector # 1 Inspector # 2 Inspector # 3 Inspector # Accept Reject Accept Reject Inspectors were split in classifying this sample # 0610 as an API accept/reject. API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 31 of 60

32 Intermittent Inadequate Penetration.618" Inspector # 1 Inspector # 2 Inspector # 3 Inspector # Untested Untested Untested Untested None of the inspectors tested sample # API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 32 of 60

33 Inadequate Penetration.618" Inspector # 1 Inspector # 2 Inspector # 3 Inspector # Accept Accept Reject Reject Inspectors were split in classifying this sample # 1989 as an API accept/reject. API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 33 of 60

34 Radiograph of sample # 1989 showing linear imperfection in center of longitudinal seam weld API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 34 of 60

35 Photo micrograph of Sample # 1989 found to contain a defect.0237 in height API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 35 of 60

36 Inadequate Penetration.429" Inspector # 1 Inspector # 2 Inspector # 3 Inspector # Reject Reject Reject Reject All Inspectors classified this sample # 2508 as an API reject. API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 36 of 60

37 Inadequate Penetration.429" Inspector # 1 Inspector # 2 Inspector # 3 Inspector # ?? Reject Reject Only two Inspectors inspect and they classified this sample # 2575 as an API reject. API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 37 of 60

38 Intermittent Inadequate Penetration.429" Inspector # 1 Inspector # 2 Inspector # 3 Inspector # Accept Accept?? Only two inspectors inspected classified this sample # 4928 as an API accept. API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 38 of 60

39 Intermittent Inadequate Penetration.429" Inspector # 1 Inspector # 2 Inspector # 3 Inspector # Reject Reject Reject Reject All Inspectors classified this sample # 5029 as an API reject. API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 39 of 60

40 Intermittent Inadequate Penetration.429" Inspector # 1 Inspector # 2 Inspector # 3 Inspector # Reject Accept Reject Reject Majority of inspectors classified this sample # 7497 as an API reject. API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 40 of 60

41 Radiograph of sample # 7497 showing linear imperfection in center of longitudinal seam weld and girth weld API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 41 of 60

42 Inadequate Penetration.429" Inspector # 1 Inspector # 2 Inspector # 3 Inspector # Accept Accept?? Only two inspectors inspected classified this sample # 4928 as an API accept. API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 42 of 60

43 Intermittent Inadequate Penetration.429" Inspector # 1 Inspector # 2 Inspector # 3 Inspector # Reject Reject Reject Reject All Inspectors classified this sample # 9031 as an API reject. API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 43 of 60

44 Photo micrograph of Sample # 9031 found to contain a defect.0976 in height API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 44 of 60

45 Inadequate Penetration and Porosity.429" Inspector # 1 Inspector # 2 Inspector # 3 Inspector # Accept Reject Accept Reject Inspectors were split in classifying this sample # as an API accept/reject. API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 45 of 60

46 Four radiographic images of sample # showing linear imperfection and porosity imperfection in center of longitudinal seam weld and girth weld???? Sample # was found to contain no rejectable defect???? Need to double check this statement API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 46 of 60

47 Photo micrograph of Sample # that found no defects API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 47 of 60

48 Sample cutting pic API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 48 of 60

49 Intermittent Inadequate Penetration.429" Inspector # 1 Inspector # 2 Inspector # 3 Inspector # Reject Reject Reject Reject All Inspectors classified this sample # as an API reject. API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 49 of 60

50 Photo micrograph of Sample # was found to contain defect.0281 in height API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 50 of 60

51 APPENDIX B Ultrasonic Examination Procedure Table of Contents Paragraph 1.0 Purpose and Scope 2.0 References 3.0 Personnel Qualification 4.0 Equipment and Materials 5.0 NDT Reference Standard 6.0 Standardization Requirements 7.0 Primary Standardization for Testing from the Outside Diameter (O.D.) 8.0 Secondary Standardization for Testing from the Outside Diameter (O.D.) 9.0 Primary Standardization for Testing from the Inside Diameter (I.D.) 10.0 Secondary Standardization for Testing from the Inside Diameter (I.D.) 11.0 Straight Beam Standardization (Evaluation Assistance use Only) 12.0 Ultrasonic Testing of Welds for Flaw Verification 13.0 Inspection Variables 14.0 Inspection Details API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 51 of 60

52 1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE This procedure sets forth the proposed operational practices and acceptance requirements for the ultrasonic testing of longitudinal welds for verification of indications detected by radiography and the comparison of weld imperfections. 2.0 REFERENCES 2.1 API Specification 5L (SPEC 5L), Specification for Line Pipe. 2.2 ASNT, recommended practice, number SNT-TC-1A, NDT Personnel Qualification and Certification. 2.3 ASTM E-317 Practice for Evaluating Performance Characteristics of Ultrasonic Pulse- Echo Testing Systems without the Use of Electronic Measurement Instruments. 3.0 PERSONNEL QUALIFICATION 3.1 Personnel performing radiographic and/or ultrasonic testing in accordance with this procedure shall be qualified and certified as RT and/or UT Level II or Level III. 3.2 Personnel performing visual testing in accordance with this procedure shall demonstrate adequate knowledge of the portions of the API 5L specification that relate to visual inspection and certified as American Welding Society Certified Welding Inspectors, or; As an alternative to certification as an American Welding Society Certified Welding Inspector, the personnel performing visual testing shall be qualified by experience and demonstrated knowledge and appropriate training. The Pipe manufacturer shall document the following qualification information: Education and experience. Qualification examinations. 4.0 EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS 4.1 The ultrasonic instrument shall be a pulse-echo type with a SCREEN display and shall be such that the required sensitivity from the NDT reference standard can be properly displayed The ultrasonic instrument vertical and horizontal linearity shall be calibrated after any repairs to related circuitry or at least every six months for conformance to ASTM 317 by a qualified equipment lab. 4.2 The straight beam transducers may be either single or dual elements The transducer shall have a nominal frequency of 5 MHz, unless attenuation or a need for greater resolution makes another frequency more suitable. 4.3 The angle beam search units (wedge and transducer combination} may be either single or dual elements The search units shall have a nominal frequency of 5 MHz unless attenuation or a need for greater resolution makes another frequency more suitable. API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 52 of 60

53 4.3.2 The selection of the angle of the search unit will be the angle determined to be the most appropriate for the pipe wall, pipe diameter and/or type of discontinuity suspected The search units shall be contoured to match the curvature of the inside or outside diameter of the pipe. 4.4 Couplants may be water, glycerin, cellulose gel (gum}, oil grease; or specially formulated commercially available materials. 5.0 NDT REFERENCE STANDARD The NDT Reference Standard shall be the hand held design shown in Figure 5.1. o Figure 5.1 Hand Held UT Reference Standard (Note: Modified with a 1/16 dia. vertical Thru Drill Hole - located between Flat Bottoms Holes) 5.2 The hand held NDT Reference Standard provided shall be used to assure that the same acoustic velocity, diameter and thickness of the weld sample being tested and shall contain the following reference reflectors (do not modify provided reference standard): An 5% (N5) notch, at least one inch long, machined approximately 1/16" from the toe of the weld, parallel to the weld, on the I.D and O.D. of the pipe. The notches are for primary reference level standardization for weld testing A 1/16" side drilled, at least 1.5" deep, will be drilled at the weld centerline midwall of the pipe for a mid-wall indication reference A 1/8" and 1/4" flat bottom hole shall be drilled to mid-wall as aids for evaluating planar type indications A 1/16" vertical drilled, thru wall deep, will be drilled in the area between the flat bottom holes for an amplitude reference same as API 5L indication acceptance level. API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 53 of 60

54 6.0 STANDARDIZATION REQUIREMENTS 6.1 The ultrasonic equipment shall be standardized at the beginning and end of the inspection of each weld. 6.2 If, during a standardization, it is determined that the testing equipment is not functioning properly or the signal amplitude established as a primary reference level has decreased by 20%, then all of the pipe tested since the last valid equipment standardization shall be re-tested with re-standardized equipment. 6.3 If the signal amplitude determined during the standardization check increases by 20% of primary reference level, then all unacceptable indications recorded since the last valid standardization shall be re-tested with re-standardize equipment. 6.4 Standardization shall include the complete ultrasonic testing system and shall be accomplished using the same transducer and couplant as that to be used for testing. 6.5 Standardizations shall be performed on a standardization standard with the same or similar surface conditions (bare pipe, paints, or coatings) that exist on the pipe being ultrasonically tested. 7.0 PRIMARY STANDARDIZATION FOR TESTING FROM THE OUTSIDE DIAMETER (OD) 7.1 With the transducer on the O.D. of the selected NDT Reference Standard, maximize the signal from the I.D. notch in the first leg Locate the signal (PIP) at approximately the second horizontal screen division Set the primary reference level signal amplitude at 80% FSH and mark the peak of this signal on the screen display. 7.2 Move the search unit and maximize the signal from the O.D. notch in the second leg Locate the signal (PIP) at approximately the forth horizontal screen division Mark the peak of this signal on the screen display with the instrument gain set at primary reference level as established in above. 7.3 Maximize the signal from the I.D. notch in the third leg Locate the signal (PIP) at approximately the sixth horizontal screen division Mark the peak of this signal on the screen display with the instrument gain set at primary reference level as established in above. 7.4 Maximize the signal from the O.D. notch in the forth leg Locate the signal (PIP) at approximately the eighth horizontal screen division Mark the peak of this signal on the screen display with the instrument gain set at primary reference level as established in above. 7.5 Connect the peaks of the 1 st to 3 rd legs and then connect the 2 nd and 4 th legs which were marked on the screen display. This will develop a distance amplitude correction (DAC) curve for the ID notch and one for the OD notch. API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 54 of 60

55 8.0 SECONDARY STANDARDIZATION FOR TESTING FROM THE OUTSIDE DIAMETER (OD) 8.1 With the transducer on the O.D. of the selected NDT Reference Standard, maximize the signal from the side drilled hole in the first leg Locate the signal (PIP) at approximately the first horizontal screen division Set the primary reference level signal amplitude at 80% FSH and mark the peak of this signal on the screen display. 8.2 Move the search unit and maximize the signal from the side drilled hole in the second leg Locate the signal (PIP) at approximately the third horizontal screen division Mark the peak of this signal on the screen display with the instrument gain set at primary reference level as established in above. 8.3 Maximize the signal from the side drilled hole in the third leg Locate the signal (PIP) at approximately the fifth horizontal screen division Mark the peak of this signal on the screen display with the instrument gain set at primary reference level as established in above. 8.4 Maximize the signal from the side drilled hole in the forth leg Locate the signal (PIP) at approximately the seventh horizontal screen division Mark the peak of this signal on the screen display with the instrument gain set at primary reference level as established in above. 8.5 Connect the peaks of the 1 st to 3 rd legs and then connect the 2 nd and 4 th legs which where marked on the screen display. This will develop a distance amplitude correction (DAC) curve for the side drilled hole. 9.0 PRIMARY STANDARDIZATION FOR TESTING FROM THE INSIDE DIAMETER (I.D.) 9.1 With the transducer on the I.D. of the selected NDT Reference Standard, maximize the signal from the O.D. notch in the first leg Locate the signal (PIP) at approximately the second horizontal screen division Set the primary reference level signal amplitude at 80% FSH and mark the peak of this signal on the Screen display. 9.2 Move the search unit and maximize the signal from the I.D. notch in the second leg Locate the signal (PIP) at approximately the forth horizontal screen division Mark the peak of this signal on the screen display with the instrument gain set at primary reference level as established in above. 9.3 Maximize the signal from the O.D. notch in the third leg. API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 55 of 60

56 9.3.1 Locate the signal (PIP) at approximately the sixth horizontal screen division Mark the peak of this signal on the Screen display with the instrument gain set at primary reference level as established in above. 9.4 Maximize the signal from the O.D. notch in the forth leg Locate the signal (PIP) at approximately the eighth horizontal screen division Mark the peak of this signal on the Screen display with the instrument gain set at primary reference level as established in above. 9.5 Connect the peaks of the 1 st to 3 rd legs and then connect the 2 nd and 4 th legs which where marked on the Screen display. This will develop a distance amplitude correction (DAC) curve for the OD notch and one for the ID notch SECONDARY STANDARDIZATION FOR TESTING FROM THE INSIDE DIAMETER (I.D.) 10.1 With the transducer on the I.D. of the selected NDT Reference Standard, maximize the signal from the side drilled hole in the first leg Locate the signal (PIP) at approximately the first horizontal screen division Set the primary reference level signal amplitude at 80% FSH and mark the peak of this signal on the Screen display Move the search unit and maximize the signal from the side drilled hole in the second leg Locate the signal (PIP) at approximately the third horizontal screen division Mark the peak of this signal on the Screen display with the instrument gain set at primary reference level as established in above Maximize the signal from the side drilled hole in the third leg Locate the signal (PIP) at approximately the fifth horizontal screen division Mark the peak of this signal on the Screen display with the instrument gain set at primary reference level as established in above Maximize the signal from the side drilled hole in the forth leg Locate the signal (PIP) at approximately the seventh horizontal screen division Mark the peak of this signal on the Screen display with the instrument gain set at primary reference level as established in above Connect the peaks of the 1 st to 3 rd legs and then connect the 2 nd and 4 th legs which where marked on the Screen display. This will develop a distance amplitude correction (DAC) curve for the side drilled hole. API Work Item 4185 Evaluate the Differences in Acceptance Criteria for Linear Indications in SAW Pipe 56 of 60