Ref File 2-4 5May20 NDT Report FP BFV Unit 5.pdf

Technical Report: Fort Peck Butterfly Valve#5 Inspection Report

FT. PECK PH#2 BUTTERFLY VALVE NDT

Req. # W59XQG92289457 Date: 5/5/2020

Prepared for:

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS OMAHA DIST.

CONTRACTING OFFICE

1616 CAPITOL AVENUE

OMAHA NE 68102-4901

Inspected by:

Thomas R. Hay, P.E., ASNT Level 3#107162

TECHKNOWSERV CORP.

2134 Sandy Dr., Suite 14

State College PA, 16803

(814) 237-0144 i

Executive Summary

Butterfly valve #5 was inspected in accordance with the statement of work (SOW) using visual inspection (VT), magnetic particle testing (MT), and phased array ultrasonic testing

(PAUT).

In general, it was possible to prepare the surfaces of the of the upstream and downstream welds adequately to assess the condition of the welds with visual testing (VT), magnetic particle (MT) testing, and phased array ultrasonic testing (PAUT).

The exception was the circumferential weld that joined the two disc halves. The surface corrosion on this weld prevented VT, MT, and PAUT over almost the entire weld. In addition to the surface of the circumferential welds, the advanced corrosion and coating blistering was observed up to 6 inches into the shell surface. Upon conclusion of the

Butterfly Valve # 5 inspection, the condition of the circumferential weld is largely unknown and may pose the most risk to the continued safe operation of the valve due to this uncertainty. Only a total of 177” of the circumferential weld were scanned with PAUT.

Discontinuities over approximately 21” of this area that were not attributable to an inherent feature from the valve drawing. The discontinuities were approximately 1.25” deep from the skin surface. The indications were representative of a lamination or other planar defect parallel skin surface. The remainder of the circumferential weld was not inspected due to advanced corrosion and surface roughness.

The upstream and downstream valve welds were inspected visually for fabrication related cracks, weld/base metal fusion, craters, undercut and porosity. No observable fabrication related defects were noted. The upstream and downstream valve welds were inspected for in-service fatigue and corrosion related defects. No in-service related fatigue cracks were detected. One visual indication on the upstream weld had a linear indication that was followed up with MT to determine if it was a crack. The MT follow-up confirmed no crack was present.

The upstream and downstream valves were inspected with PAUT per the statement of work. Most areas that were scanned had tightly adhered coating that permitted adequate transfer of ultrasound into the valve shell. A fracture mechanics-based weld discontinuity evaluation was performed in accordance with ASME BPVC Mandatory Appendix VIII –

Ultrasonic Examination Requirements for Fracture-Mechanics-Based Acceptance Criteria.

All weld discontinuities sized using the 6 dB sizing technique in the length and height direction.

The upstream side contained 1 weld discontinuity longer than 1” and 3 weld discontinuities with a height greater than 0.375”. The most severe discontinuity was found in weld S6b with a length of 11.100” and a height of 0.603 In addition, a possible in-service crack was detected at the root of weld S3b 0.917” long and 0.284” high.

ii

The downstream side contained 6 weld discontinuities longer than 1” and 1 weld discontinuities with a height greater than 0.375”. The most severe discontinuity was found in H2 with a length of 5.963” and a height of 0.301”.

The following recommendations are presented for the next major valve maintenance event:

1. Circumferential weld: Remove lead paint with industry standard practices, blast to bare metal, and clean the circumferential weld and shell to at least 6 inches radially from the valve OD. Perform detailed VT, MT, and PAUT. Apply new coating system to these areas after inspection.

Particular attention should be dedicated to the two areas, C1 and C2, in which discontinuities were detected with PAUT. If the USACE elects to blast and clean the circumferential welds, the surface should be inspected for geometric features at

1.25” from the skin surface. C1 and C2 were located 30-45” and 60-66”, respectively, from Weld V2 in the clockwise direction looking at the downstream face.

2. Upstream Side Weld S3b: A possible in-service fatigue crack was detected in

Weld S3b at the weld root. It is recommended to remove lead paint with industry standard practices, blast to bare metal, and clean the weld area for follow-up inspection at the next maintenance event.

3. Welds and shell with corrosion and blistering: Remove lead paint with industry standard practices, blast to bare metal, and clean all welds on which coating breakdown and corrosion were observed and perform a detailed inspection in accordance with AWS D1.1. Additional welds may need to be considered at the time of the maintenance event. Apply new coating system to these areas after inspection.

4. Re-asses risk matrix color-coded red welds after abatement, blasting, and cleaning: Perform encoded PAUT to more accurately locate and size the weld discontinuities. Apply new coating system to these areas after inspection. Re-assess possible repair action after new sizing data is made available. Determine if discontinuity has grown and, if so, repair immediately.

5. For all welds with intermittent weld discontinuities: Remove lead paint with industry standard practices, blast to bare metal, and clean the weld surfaces 6” back from the toe. Perform encoded PAUT to determine if intermittent weld discontinuities detected are indeed intermittent or instead a longer continuous weld discontinuity.

iii

The objective of abatement, blasting to bare metal, cleaning, and applying the new coating system to the valve surfaces, where necessary, is to prolong the fatigue life of the valve components by reducing stress concentrations and the likelihood of slip by dislocation movements at the corroded surfaces. Fatigue related slip and dislocation movement are more likely to occur at corroded versus smooth surfaces.

The objective of PAUT scanning on abated, cleaned and blasted surface is fourfold.

1. It will eliminate and false positives that may occur due to surface conditions.

Rough and uneven surfaces may cause false indications that appear in the welds tested.

2. The size and location of the weld discontinuities will be more accurate for potential repair action.

3. It will determine if flaw is active and growing or inactive and stable.

4. Thirdly, it will determine it if many of the smaller intermittent weld discontinuities detected are indeed intermittent or indicative of longer continuous weld discontinuities that were not detected due to surface roughness and data loss.

Some comments on lessons learned:

- The USACE’s objective to evaluate the welds in accordance with the SOW was largely successful with the exception of the circumferential weld and limited horizontal splice welds, vertical welds joining disc plate to disc hub, horizontal welds joining disc plate to disc hub, diagonal welds, and O welds that exhibited blistering and surface corrosion that prevented inspection.

- In general, the coating on the butterfly valve tightly adhered to the shell surface and permitted ultrasound transfer into the test piece to produce weld discontinuity reflection at adequate signal-to-noise ratios. For future inspections, this demonstrated that PAUT inspection is possible on coated surfaces.

- The surface conditions had more of an impact on inspection sensitivity than originally expected. While the scan plan cited +6dB scanning gain it was determined that up to 20 dB was needed in some cases to scan at sensitivity level that was judged adequate by the inspector. For this reason, it would be advisable to have a PAUT contractor on-site prior to and during future repairs if deemed necessary.

- Does the value added by abatement and blasting on the PAUT results justify performing these steps before the non-destructive testing? The overall coverage and performance of all NDT processes would be enhanced if abatement and blasting were performed beforehand. The cost of the abatement and blasting, however, my be leveraged into a longer fatigue service life through minimization of corrosion related fatigue phenomena.

iv

- The butterfly valve was built in 1960 to neither ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code or AWS D1.1 code, but rather Williamette Iron and Steel Company Welding Procedure A-

3385. Stress relief was carried out to ASME VIII. The statement of work required inspection to ASME BPVC Sec. V. The welds inspected with PAUT were non-traditional in terms of the current ASME BPVC PAUT inspection market which are largely larger circumferential girth and seam welds compare to the T- and corner style welds on the valve.

Therefore, if it was the goal of the USACE to adopt a standard to which this valve should be inspected, it may be more advisable to adopt AWS D1.1 due to the style of welds.

However, a fracture mechanics approach may be more advisable so that analyses can focus on targeted flaw sizes and desired safety factors specific to the butterfly valve.

v

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. i

Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ v 1 Introduction 2 Visual Inspection

2.1 Weld Preparation

2.2 Weld Visual Inspection Results

2.3 Visual Inspection Summary

3 Magnetic Particle Testing Results

3.1 Magnetic Particle Testing Parameters

3.2 Magnetic Particle Testing Summary

4 Phased Array Testing Results

4.1 How to Interpret PAUT Results

4.2 PAUT Inspection Summary

5 PAUT Inspection Results

5.1 Valve 5 Upstream

5.2 Valve 5 Downstream

6 Equipment Calibrations

6.1 Magnetic Particle Testing Equipment

6.2 Phased Array Testing Equipment

7 Inspector Certifications

7.1 Visual and Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing

7.2 Visual and Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing

1 Introduction

Butterfly valve weld # 5 was inspected in accordance with the statement of work (SOW) using visual inspection (VT), magnetic particle testing (MT), and phased array ultrasonic testing

(PAUT). For reporting purposes, the upstream and downstream weld identification schemes shown in Figure 1.1 and 1.2 were used.

Figure 1.1 is the upstream view of the butterfly valve showing the location and IDs of the horizontal splice welds joining disc plates to the ribs (S1-S13), vertical welds joining disc plate to disc hub (V1-V8), and horizontal welds joining disc plate to disc hub (H1-H2).

Figure 1.2 is the downstream view of the butterfly valve showing the location and IDs of, vertical welds joining disc plate to disc hub (V1-V4), and horizontal welds joining disc plate to disc hub

(H1-H2), diagonal welds (X1-X4), and O welds (O1-O4).

Figure 1.1: Butterfly valve # 5 upstream view.

Upstream View

S1-S13: Horizontal splice welds joining disc plates to the ribs

V1-V8: Vertical welds joining disc plate to disc hub

H1-H2: Horizontal welds joining disc plate to disc hub

S5end, S6 end: Short welds w/smaller weld reinforcement approximately 14” long

Figure 1.2: Butterfly valve # 5 downstream view.

Upstream View

V1-V4: Vertical welds joining disc plate to disc hub

H1-H2: Horizontal welds joining disc plate to disc hub

X1-X4: Diagonal welds joining disc plate to disc plate

O1-O4: Diagonal welds joining disc plate to disc plate

2 Visual Inspection

A visual inspection of Butterfly Valve 5 was performed on 10/03/19 – 10/08/19 in accordance with

ASME BPVC Sec. V. AWS D1.1 Table 6.1 Visual Inspection Acceptance Criteria and ASME

BPVC VIII Table 7.6 Visual Examination Acceptance Criteria for fabrication related weld defects were considered during the inspection and reporting process. The AWS D1.1 and ASME BPVC acceptance criteria are presented in Figures 2.1 and 2.2. A summary of the inspection results relative to AWS D1.1 and ASME BPVC VII Table 7.6 are shown in Tables 2.1 and 2.2.

Table 2.1: Summary of AWS D1.1 Table 6.1 Visual Inspection Criteria

Weld Defect Type Status Comments

Crack Prohibition Pass

Weld/Base Metal

Fusion

Pass

Crater Cross-section

Pass

Weld profiles N/A Weld profiles not measured

Undersized welds N/A Fillet welds only

Undercut Pass

Porosity Pass

Table 2.2: Summary of ASME BPCV VIII Table 7.6 Visual Examination Acceptance Criteria

Weld Defect Type Status Comments

Gas

Cavity/Shrinkage

Cavity

Pass

Inclusions Pass

Incomplete fusion Pass

Lack if penetration Pass

Weld reinforcement

N/A Weld profiles not measured

Undercut Pass

Porosity Pass

Upstream weld S3a had a 1.5” linear indication along the bottom of the weld toe was followed up with MT to determine if it was a crack. The MT follow-up confirmed no crack was present.

Figure 2.1: AWS D1.1 Table 6.1 Visual Inspection Acceptance Criteria

Figure 2.2: ASME BPVC VIII Table 7.6 Visual Examination Acceptance Criteria

Weld Preparation

In accordance with the SOW, the welded region was cleaned for visual inspection and base metal inspection. The base metal was cleaned to approximately 6” from the weld toe. To remove the organic film and surface scale the following procedure was used:

- Scrub surface with an industrial grade plastic bristle scrub brush and water

- Scrub surface with steel wire brush surface to loosen organic film

- Rinse and clean surface with an industrial grade plastic bristle scrub brush and water

- Wipe down with rag and assess surface quality

- Repeat previous steps as required

Lead paint was not removed from the surface during this process.

Figure 2.3: Example cleaned surfaces on Valve 5 downstream weld V2.

Weld Visual Inspection Results

The locations of the notable coating breakdown and surface corrosion on the upstream and downstream sides are shown in Figures 2.4 and 2.5, respectively, via the yellow areas superimposed onto the valve welds. Details on each weld are presented in Table 2.3.

Figure 2.4: Locations of coating breakdown and surface corrosion on Valve 5 upstream side.

V

V

S1 S2

H

V

V

S9 S10

H

S5 S5 S5end S6 S6 S6end

S3 S4 S3 S4 S11

S12

S7 S8 S7 S8

S13

Butterfly Valve # 5 – Upstream View

V

V

V

Figure 2.5: Locations of coating breakdown and surface corrosion on Valve 5 downstream side.

V

2 H

V

V

H

Butterfly Valve # 5 – Downstream View

X

X

X

X

O

O

O

O

Table 2.3: Visual Inspection Summary of Valve #5

Valve 5 Upstream Side

Weld Comments

S1 Advanced blistering and surface corrosion over length of weld.

S2 Blistering and surface corrosion at 20”- 40” from left to right. Coating in good condition over remainder of weld.

S3 Blistering and surface corrosion at 0”- 10” from left to right. Coating in good condition over remainder of weld.

S4 Blistering and surface corrosion at 20”- 40” from left to right. Coating in good

S5 Blistering and surface corrosion at 0”- 20” from left to right. Coating in good condition

S6 Blistering and surface corrosion at 40” to end of weld from left to right. Coating in good condition over remainder of weld.

S7 No blistering or surface corrosion, coating in good condition over length of weld.

S8 No blistering or surface corrosion, coating in good condition over length of weld.

S9 Intermittent blistering and surface corrosion over length of weld.

S10 Intermittent blistering and surface corrosion over length of weld.

S11 Intermittent blistering and surface corrosion over length of weld.

S12 Intermittent blistering and surface corrosion 16”-24” from left to right.

S13 No blistering or surface corrosion, coating in good condition over length of weld.

V1 Blistering and surface corrosion at 21”- 41” from top of weld. Coating in good

V2 Intermittent blistering and surface corrosion 13”-25” from top of weld. Coating in good

V3 24” of blistering and surface corrosion at bottom of weld. Coating in good condition

V4 14” of blistering and surface corrosion at bottom of weld. Coating in good condition over remainder of weld.

V5 No blistering or surface corrosion, coating in good condition over length of weld.

V6 No blistering or surface corrosion, coating in good condition over length of weld.

V7 1.5” diameter surface corrosion, 0.040” depth, 12” from top of weld.

V8 No blistering or surface corrosion, coating in good condition over length of weld.

H1 Intermittent blistering and surface corrosion over length of weld.

H2 0.25” diameter pitting, 0.0625” depth on left side of weld, Coating in good condition

Valve 5 Downstream Side

V1 23” of blistering and surface corrosion from top of weld. Coating in good condition

V2 21” of blistering and surface corrosion from top of weld. Coating in good condition

V3 8” of blistering and surface corrosion at bottom of weld. Coating in good condition

V4 8” of blistering and surface corrosion at bottom of weld. Coating in good condition

X1 6” of blistering and surface corrosion at end of weld towards OD. Coating in good

See X2 picture for reference.

X2 5” of blistering and surface corrosion at end of weld towards OD. Coating in good

X3 6” of blistering and surface corrosion at end of weld towards OD. Coating in good

See X2 picture for reference.

X4 6”of blistering and surface corrosion at end of weld towards OD. Coating in good condition over remainder of weld.

See X2 picture for reference.

O1 No blistering or surface corrosion, coating in good condition over length of weld.

O2 No blistering or surface corrosion, coating in good condition over length of weld.

O3 No blistering or surface corrosion, coating in good condition over length of weld.

O4 No blistering or surface corrosion, coating in good condition over length of weld.

Circumferential Weld

Circ Weld showed advanced blistering and surface corrosion over entire circumference.

Visual Inspection Summary

The upstream and downstream valve welds were inspected for fabrication related cracks, weld/base metal fusion, craters, undercut and porosity. No observable fabrication related defects were noted.

The upstream and downstream valve welds were inspected for in-service fatigue and corrosion related defects. No in-service related fatigue cracks were detected. Numerous areas of coating breakdown and surface corrosion and/or on-set of surface corrosion were observed on upstream and downstream welds. The entire circumferential weld joining disc halves showed advanced corrosion and coating breakdown.

Magnetic particle testing (MT) was performed on the upstream and downstream sides of butterfly valve in accordance with the statement-of-work. There were no cracks detected with MT.

WFMT was not performed on the circumferential weld joining the disc halves due to the surface conditions described in the visual inspection report.

1. Remove lead paint with industry standard practices, blast to bare metal, and clean the circumferential weld and shell to at least 6 inches radially from the valve OD. Perform a detailed visual inspection in accordance with AWS D1.1 guideline. Magnetic particle test same areas. Apply new coating system to these areas after inspection.

2. Remove lead paint with industry standard practices, blast to bare metal, and clean all welds on which coating breakdown and corrosion were observed and perform a detailed inspection in accordance with AWS D1.1. Additional welds may need to be considered at the time of the maintenance event. Apply new coating system to these areas after inspection.

3. Remove lead paint with industry standard practices, blast to metal, and clean all shell areas that exhibit coating breakdown and corrosion. Apply new coating system to these areas after inspection.

The objective of abatement, blasting to bare metal, cleaning, and applying the new coating system to the valve surfaces, where necessary, is to prolong the fatigue life of the valve components by reducing stress concentrations and the likelihood of slip by dislocation movements at the corroded surfaces. Fatigue related slip and dislocation movement is more likely to occur at corroded versus smooth surfaces.

3 Magnetic Particle Testing Results

Magnetic particle testing (MT) was performed on the upstream and downstream sides of butterfly valve in accordance with the statement-of-work. There were no cracks detected with MT.

Wet fluorescent magnetic particle testing (WFMT) was performed on 100% of the tension side

(downstream side), and 25% of the upstream side, of the vertical and horizontal welds joining the disc plates to the disc hub “casting”. (Reference drawing H-4075, assembly side view, Detail J, and Section F-F).

WFMT was performed on at least 50% of all horizontal splice welds (plug and butt type) joining the disc plates to the ribs, on the upstream side and 100% of same welds on the downstream side.

WFMT was not performed on the circumferential weld joining the disc halves due to the surface conditions described in the visual inspection report.

WFMT was performed on approximately 95% of the he “X” and “O” splice welds located on the upstream side of the disc weldment. All X-welds exhibited blistering and surface corrosion towards the ends of the weld at the valve OD. These areas were not inspected.

The performance of the total WFMT system was confirmed on-site using a Quantitative Quality

Shim (QQI) shim with a 0.0006” deep EDM notch. The horizontal indication generated with the

MT yoke, wet bath, and UV light is shown in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1: WFMT indication on from QQI shim.

Figure 3.2: WFMT welds on upstream valve side.

Figure 3.3: WFMT welds on downstream valve side.

Magnetic Particle Testing Parameters

Surface preparation:

Plastic brush, steel wire brush, plastic brush, repeat as necessary. See visual inspection surface cleaning description.

MT Method Used: Wet Dry Black/White Contrast Fluorescent

Particle Suspension: Water

Magnetizing Current: AC DC HWDC

Applicable Method: Residual Continuous

Field Direction: Circular Longitudinal

Equipment Used: Coil Yoke Other

Coil Serial #: N/A Calibration Due Date: N/A

Yoke Coil Serial #: 26322 and 20702 Date Calibrated: 11/30/2018

Black Light Intensity: >1000 mW/cm2 Black Light Serial #: 2157677

Light Meter Serial #: N/A: Confirmed on-site using shim Calibration Due Date:

N/A:

Confirmed on-site using shim

Particle Concentration: 0.2-0.4 ml per 100 ml

Acceptance Criteria: No cracks allowed

MPI

Inspector: Seth Bonar TKS SNT-TC-1A Seth Bonar 10/21/19

Name Certification # Signature Date

Magnetic Particle Testing Summary

The follow-up magnetic particle inspection recommendations are consistent with those summarized in the Visual inspection Summary.

1. Remove lead paint with industry standard practices, blast to bare metal, and clean the circumferential weld and shell to at least 6 inches radially from the valve OD. Magnetic particle test same areas. Apply new coating system to these areas after inspection.

4 Phased Array Testing Results

The phased array testing was performed in accordance with the statement of work and the Final

Scan Plan which was approved 10/01/2019. The scan plan was part of the original submittals and is not included in the technical report.

A fracture mechanics-based weld discontinuity evaluation was performed in accordance with

ASME BPVC Mandatory Appendix VIII – Ultrasonic Examination Requirements for Fracture-

Mechanics-Based Acceptance Criteria.

All weld discontinuities were sized using the 6-dB sizing technique in the length and height direction. The dimensions of the flaw are determined by the rectangle that fully contains the area of the flaw.

The length of the flaw shall be the dimension of the rectangle that is parallel to the weld center line.

The height of the flaw shall be the dimension of the rectangle in the thickness direction of the shell thickness.

How to Interpret PAUT Results

V1 V2 S1 S2

H1

V3 V4

S9 S10

H2

S5 S6

S3 S4 S11

S12

S7 S8 S13

V5 V6

V7 V8

Butterfly Valve # 5 – Upstream View

The following reference system was used to locate weld indications on the valve. For horizontal welds, the flaws indications are located from left to right. The scan origin is the left most edge of the weld. Vertical welds on the top half of the valve are referenced from the bottom up. Vertical welds on the bottom half of the valve are referenced from the top down

- Scan Origin Index (X = 0)

- Scan Directional Indication

S6 End S5

End

Figure 4.1: PAUT scan origin (reference point) and scan direction for Valve 5 Upstream side.

V1 V2

H1

V3 V4

H2

Butterfly Valve # 5 – Downstream View

The following reference system was used to locate weld indications on the valve. For horizontal welds, the flaws indications are located from left to right. The scan origin is the left most edge of the weld. Vertical welds on the top half of the valve are referenced from the bottom up. Vertical welds on the bottom half of the valve are referenced from the top down.

X1 X2

X3 X4

O1

O2

O3

O4

Figure 4.2: PAUT scan origin (reference point) and scan direction for Valve 5 Downstream side.

Figure 4.3 identifies the coordinate system used to for weld indication length (X), location in weld (Y), and depth from exterior surface (Z).

Figure 4.3: X, Y, and Z coordinate system for weld reflector identification. Note that X-direction is into the page.

The size of each reflector are summarized for upstream and downstream welds in Tables 4.1 and

4.2, respectively. The sizes are color coded in a risk matrix based on the following weld flaw dimensions:

Flaw Length <0.200 0.200- 0.500

0.500- 1.000

>1.000

Flaw Height <0.125 0.125- 0.250

0.250- 0.375

>0.500

The PAUT encoder scan directions and associated data files, for upstream and downstream sides, are shown in Figures 4.6 and 4.8, respectively. The data files were identified by valve#, upstream/downstream, weld ID, and top/bottom or outside/inside. For example, “Valve5uss4a” is the data file name for the scan of Valve #5, up-stream weld s4, top weld. Valve5uss4b would be the bottom weld. The encoder scan directions are identified via the set of perpendicular arrows.

The longer arrow is the scan direction, or weld axis, and the short arrow is the direction of the ultrasonic beams as shown in Figure 4.4.

Figure 4.4: Explanation of encoder scan direction and ultrasonic beam directions.

The upstream side contained 1 weld discontinuity longer than 1” as shown in Table 4.1. The upstream side contained 3 weld discontinuities with a height greater than 0.375”. The most severe discontinuity was found in weld S6b with a length of 11.100” and a height of 0.603”. The PAUT inspection details for all welds inspected is presented in Section 5. The data for Weld S6b, for example, shows that the discontinuity was found mid-wall and was classified as lack of fusion

(LOF). In addition, a possible in-service crack was detected at the root of weld S3b 0.917” long and 0.284” high.

Table 4.1: Valve #5 upstream weld discontinuity dimensions.

Valve 5 US Welds

Length S(m-r)

Height U(m-r)

X1 (in)

X2 (in)

Y1 (in)

Y2 (in)

Z1 (in)

Z2 (in)

Thickness (in)

Discontinuity

S2b 0.917 0.195 0.0 1.0 -0.5 -0.4 1.3 1.5 2.75 LOF

S3a 0.439 0.248 54.8 55.2 -1.7 -1.5 2.5 2.7 2.75 LOP

S3b 0.917 0.284 27.2 27.6 0.3 0.5 2.5 2.7 2.75 LOP

S4a 0.266 0.245 1.7 1.9 -0.3 -0.2 2.1 2.4 2.75 ROOT REF.

S4b 0.229 0.142 27.6 27.8 0.7 0.9 2.4 2.7 2.75 ROOT REF.

S5a 0.459 0.337 40.7 41.1 0.0 0.1 2.3 2.6 2.75 ROOT REF.

S5a-End 0.358 0.390 7.5 7.9 -0.2 0.1 1.9 2.3 2.75 LOF

0.400 0.248 1.5 1.9 -0.3 -0.1 1.9 2.1 2.75 LOF

S6b 11.100 0.603 52.8 64.0 0.4 0.7 1.9 2.5 2.75 LOF

S7a 0.241 0.106 4.0 4.2 -0.6 -0.4 1.6 1.7 2.75 SLAG

S7b 0.344 0.195 13.5 13.8 0.7 0.9 1.4 1.6 2.75 LOF

S8b 0.378 0.195 58.3 58.6 0.4 0.5 1.4 1.6 2.75 LOF

0.310 0.195 39.6 40.0 0.7 0.9 1.3 1.5 2.75 LOF

0.241 0.071 45.2 45.4 -0.2 -0.1 1.9 2.0 2.75 LOF

0.378 0.124 38.1 38.5 0.4 0.5 2.4 2.5 2.75 LOF

S9a 0.454 0.135 18.7 19.2 -0.3 -0.1 1.1 1.2 2.75 POROSITY

S10a 0.206 0.106 2.5 2.7 0.0 0.2 2.0 2.1 2.75 LOF

0.172 0.071 11.8 12.0 -0.1 0.0 2.0 2.1 2.75 LOF

0.378 0.160 18.5 18.9 0.0 0.3 2.1 2.2 2.75 LOF

S10b 0.654 0.142 8.2 8.8 -0.2 0.0 1.9 2.1 2.75 LOF

0.206 0.195 4.9 5.1 -0.2 -0.1 1.3 1.5 2.75 LOF

0.378 0.177 2.0 2.4 -0.1 0.1 2.0 2.2 2.75 LOF

0.585 0.230 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.2 1.7 2.0 2.75 LOF

S11b 0.459 0.142 16.0 16.4 0.0 0.2 2.2 2.4 2.75 LOF

S12b 0.321 0.160 2.2 2.4 -0.1 0.1 2.0 2.2 2.75 LOF

S13b 0.138 0.142 8.4 8.7 0.5 0.6 1.6 1.8 2.75 ROOT

H1 0.265 0.550 2.8 3.1 -0.1 0.1 0.9 1.5 2.75 SLAG

V5b 0.596 0.213 36.5 37.2 0.0 0.2 2.1 2.3 2.75 LOP

0.413 0.177 36.8 37.2 -0.2 -0.1 0.9 1.1 2.75 LOP

Encoder direction

Ultrasonic beam direction

Table 4.2: Valve #5 downstream weld discontinuity dimensions.

Valve 5 DS Welds

Length S(m-r)

Height U(m-r)

X1 (in)

X2 (in)

Y1 (in)

Y2 (in)

Z1 (in)

Z2 (in)

Thickness (in)

Discontinuity

H1 0.459 0.142 32.4 32.8 0.2 0.4 2.5 2.7 2.75 LOP

3.807 0.355 35.2 39.0 0.0 0.4 2.4 2.7 2.75 LOF/LOP

H2 5.963 0.301 24.2 30.4 -0.6 -0.2 1.3 1.7 2.75 LOF

0.321 0.147 10.6 11.1 0.0 0.1 2.0 2.2 2.75 LOP

V2 0.229 0.142 22.8 23.1 -0.10 0.0 2.5 2.7 2.75 ROOT

V3 1.789 0.229 41.1 42.9 -0.4 -0.1 2.4 2.7 2.75 LOF

1.376 0.213 32.2 33.6 -0.3 0.0 2.5 2.7 2.75 LOF

0.929 0.142 26.8 27.8 -0.3 -0.2 2.2 2.3 2.75 LOF

0.447 0.213 15.5 15.9 -0.5 -0.3 1.7 1.9 2.75 LOF

0.551 0.319 9.5 10.1 -0.3 -0.1 1.2 1.6 2.75 LOF

0.619 0.142 7.8 8.5 -0.2 0.0 2.4 2.5 2.75 LOF

O1a 1.008 0.461 6.4 7.6 -0.7 -0.4 1.5 2.0 2.75 LOF

O1b 0.169 0.213 27.2 27.3 -0.8 -0.6 1.6 1.9 2.75 LOF

O3a 0.244 0.195 35.1 35.4 -0.5 -0.3 1.9 2.1 2.75 LOF

0.207 0.195 32.4 32.6 -0.1 0.1 1.5 1.7 2.75 LOF

0.432 0.195 27.9 28.3 0.1 0.3 1.5 1.7 2.75 LOF

O3b 0.200 0.213 19.3 19.5 -0.2 -0.1 1.5 1.7 2.75 LOF

0.275 0.195 34.0 34.3 -0.7 -0.6 1.3 1.5 2.75 LOF

O4a 1.616 0.230 18.3 20.0 -0.7 -0.5 1.5 1.7 2.75 LOF

0.333 0.213 11.2 11.5 -0.7 -0.5 1.4 1.7 2.75 LOP

X2b 0.472 0.213 3.7 4.2 -1.0 -0.8 2.1 2.3 2.75 LOF

C1 0.344 0.301 32.4 32.8 0.2 0.4 2.5 2.7 2.75 Planar

C2 3.762 0.34 35.2 39.0 0.0 0.4 2.4 2.7 2.75 Planar

The downstream side contained 6 weld discontinuities longer than 1” as shown in Table 4.2. The downstream side contained 1 weld discontinuities with a height greater than 0.375”. The most severe discontinuity was found in H2 with a length of 5.963” and a height of 0.301”. The PAUT inspection details for all welds inspected is presented in Section 5. The data for Weld H2 shows that the discontinuity was found mid-wall and was classified as lack of penetration. (LOF).

PAUT Inspection Summary

The upstream and downstream valves were inspected with PAUT per the statement of work. Most areas that were scanned had tightly adhered coating that permitted adequate transfer of ultrasound into the valve shell. The data acquired supports this observation as root and toe reflections were observed in many of the welds. However, data was lost over a small percentage of the scanned areas and many welds required rescanning of rough surface areas. In many cases, it was impossible to transfer ultrasound into the valve shell. This lack of data is depicted in the Section 5 PAUT data as black gaps in the C-scan. For Butterfly valve #5, all discontinuities detected were characterized as fabrication related flaws which included lack of penetration, lack of fusion, and inclusions.

Only a total of 177” of the circumferential weld were scanned with PAUT. Discontinuities over approximately 21” of this area that were not attributable to an inherent feature from the valve drawing. The discontinuities were approximately 1.25” deep from the skin surface. The estimated location is shown in Figure 4.2. The indications were representative of a lamination or other planar defect parallel skin surface. The remainder of the circumferential weld was not inspected due to advanced corrosion and surface roughness.

Figure 4.5: Estimated location of discontinuities detected with PAUT at C1 and C2 locations.

C1 and C2 were located 30-45” and 60-66”, respectively, from Weld V2 in the clockwise direction looking at the downstream face.

1. For all color-coded red welds in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. remove lead paint with industry standard practices, blast to bare metal, and clean the weld surfaces 6” back from the toe.

Perform encoded PAUT to more accurately locate and size the weld discontinuities. Apply new coating system to these areas after inspection. Re-assess possible repair action after new sizing data is made available.

2. Particular attention should be dedicated to the two areas, C1 and C2, in which discontinuities were detected with PAUT. If the USACE elects to blast and clean the circumferential welds, the surface should be inspected for geometric features at 1.25” from the skin surface. C1 and C2 were located 30-45” and 60-66”, respectively, from Weld V2 in the clockwise direction looking at the downstream face.

3. Upstream Side Weld S3b: A possible in-service fatigue crack was detected in Weld S3b at the weld root. It is recommended to remove lead paint with industry standard practices, blast to bare metal, and clean the weld area for follow-up inspection at the next maintenance event.

4. For all welds with intermittent weld discontinuities, remove lead paint with industry standard practices, blast to bare metal, and clean the weld surfaces 6” back from the toe.

Perform encoded PAUT to determine if intermittent weld discontinuities detected are indeed intermittent or instead a longer continuous weld discontinuity.

5. Remove lead paint with industry standard practices, blast to bare metal, and clean the circumferential weld and shell to at least 6 inches radially from the valve OD. Perform

PAUT inspection. Apply new coating system to these areas after inspection.

The objective of scanning on abated, cleaned and blasted surface is threefold. Firstly, it will eliminate and false positives that may occur due to surface conditions. Rough and uneven surfaces may cause false indications that appear in the weld tested.

Secondly, the size and location of the weld discontinuities will be more accurate for potential repair action.

Thirdly, it will determine it if many of the smaller intermittent weld discontinuities detected are indeed intermittent or indicative of longer continuous weld discontinuities that were not detected due to surface roughness.

Figure 4.6: PAUT scan directions and data file names for Valve #5 upstream welds.

V3 V4

S9 S10 H2

S5 S5 S5end S6 S6 S6end

S3 S4 S3 S4 S11

S12

S7 S8 S8

S13

Butterfly Valve # 5 – Upstream View

V5 V6

V7 V8

V alv e5 u sv alv e5 u

Valve5us10 b

Valve5sus1

0a

No scan on bottom

Valve5us9a

Valve5us7a

Valve5us7b

Valve5us8a

Valve5us8b

Valve4usS5aend

Valve5usS5bend

Valve4usS5a

Valve5usS5b

No scan

Valve5usS6b

Valve5usS6a

Valve5ush2

V al v e4 u sv a, al v e5 u sv

Valve5uss13a,b

10a

Valve5uss12a,b

10a

Valve5uss11a,b Valve5uss3a,b Valve5uss4a,b

Valve5uss2a,b

V al v e5 u v e5 u

Valve5ush1

No scan too rough

V al v e4 u sv

No scan too rough

Figure 4.7: Valve #5 upstream PAUT weld discontinuities longer than 0.20”.

H1

V3 V4 S9 S10

H2

S5 S5 S5end

S6 S6 S6end

S3 S4 S3 S4 S11

S12

S7 S8 S7 S8

S13

V5 V6

V7 V8

LOP

LO

LOP/Crack

LO

LOF

LO

LOF

LO

LOF

LO

LOF

LO

LOF

LO

LOF

LO

LOF

LO

Slag

Slag

LOP

Butterfly Valve # 5 – Upstream View

Figure 4.8: PAUT scan directions and data file names for Valve #5 downstream welds.

V3 V4

H2

Butterfly Valve # 5 – Downstream View

X1 X2

X3 X4

O1

O2

O3

O4

V al v e5 d v e5 d

Valve5dsh2 al v e5 d v e5 d

Valve5dsh1

Valve5dso1a,b Valve5dso2a,b Valve5dso3a,b Valve5dso4a,b

Figure 4.9: Valve #5 downstream PAUT weld discontinuities longer than 0.20” and areas over which the circumferential weld was manually scanned with PAUT (green). C1 is located at 30 to 45” in the clock-wise direction from V2. C2 is located at 60 to 66” in the clock-wise direction from V2.

V3 V4

H2

X1 X2

X3 X4

O1

O2

O3

O4

LOP

LOP

LOP LOP

LOP

LOF

LOP

C1

C2

C3

C5

C4

C6

Butterfly Valve # 5 – Downstream View

5 PAUT Inspection Results

Valve 5 Upstream

S1a,b No scanning possible due to rough surface

S2a 14” scanned from top weld – no indications observed other than from root.

S2b 14” scanned from top weld only – remainder of surface too rough.

Gain

(dB)

Indication

Scan

(in)

Index

(in) Group Channel

A%1

DA/1

(in)

PA/1

(in)

SA/1

(in)

U(m-r)

(in)

I(m-r)

(in)

I•U(m-

r) (in)

S(m-r)

(in)

Type

46.66 1 35.512 -6.500 PA 1 51.00º 75.3 1.370 4.474 6.562 0.195 0.148 0.245 0.917 LOF

S3a Lack of penetration at root.

Indication

Scan

(in)

Index

(in) Group Channel

A%1

DA/1

(in)

PA/1

(in)

SA/1

(in)

U(m-r)

(in)

I(m-r)

(in)

I•U(m-

r) (in)

S(m-r)

(in)

46.66 1 54.921 -6.500 PA 1 55.00º 120.3 2.731 3.380 4.828 0.248 0.202 0.320 0.439 LOP

S3b Lack of penetration / possible crack observed at bottom surface.

Indication

Scan

(in)

Index

(in) Group Channel

A%1

DA/1

(in)

PA/1

(in)

SA/1

(in)

U(m-r)

(in)

I(m-r)

(in)

I•U(m-

r) (in)

S(m-r)

(in)

Type

46.66 1 32.795 -6.500 PA 1 64.00º 19.6 2.745 5.186 6.286 0.284 0.148 0.320 0.917

LOP/

Crack

S4a Standard root reflection(s)

S4b Standard root reflection(s)

Gain

(dB)

Indication

Scan

(in)

Index

(in) Group Channel

A%1

DA/1

(in)

PA/1

(in)

SA/1

(in)

U(m-r)

(in)

I(m-r)

(in)

I•U(m-

r) (in)

S(m-r)

(in)

46.66 1 32.795 -6.500 PA 1 64.00º 27.4 2.651 5.378 6.500 0.142 0.148 0.205 0.229 Root

S5a-

End

2 LOF detected 0.5” in length each.

Gain

(dB)

Indication

Scan

(in)

Index

(in) Group Channel

A%1

DA/1

(in)

PA/1

(in)

SA/1

(in)

U(m-r)

(in)

I(m-r)

(in)

I•U(m-

r) (in)

S(m-r)

(in)

Type

40.66 1 7.685 -6.500 PA 1 64.00º 104.7 2.100 3.843 4.792 0.390 0.283 0.482 0.358 LOF

40.66 2 1.655 -6.500 PA 1 65.00º 98.8 1.985 3.805 4.697 0.248 0.216 0.329 0.400 LOF

S5b-

No reportable indications

S5a Standard root reflection(s)

Indication

Scan

(in)

Index

(in) Group Channel

A%1

DA/1

(in)

PA/1

(in)

SA/1

(in)

U(m-r)

(in)

I(m-r)

(in)

I•U(m-

r) (in)

S(m-r)

(in)

40.66 1 40.788 -6.500 PA 1 65.00º 36.2 2.519 4.950 5.960 0.337 0.121 0.358 0.459 Root

S5b No indications, yellow area due to surface roughness.

S6a No reportable indications.

S6b Lack of fusion 11” long

Gain

(dB)

Indication

Scan

(in)

Index

(in) Group Channel

A%1

DA/1

(in)

PA/1

(in)

SA/1

(in)

U(m-r)

(in)

I(m-r)

(in)

I•U(m-

r) (in)

S(m-r)

(in)

46.66 1 6.345 -6.500 PA 1 67.00º 22.5 2.062 4.427 5.276 0.603 0.337 0.691 11.100 LOF

S6a-

No scan surface too rough.

S6b-

No scan surface too rough.

S7a Slag.

Gain

(dB)

Indication

Scan

(in)

Index

(in) Group Channel

A%1

DA/1

(in)

PA/1

(in)

SA/1

(in)

U(m-r)

(in)

I(m-r)

(in)

I•U(m-

r) (in)

S(m-r)

(in)

40.66 1 4.100 -2.500 PA 1 56.00º 58.7 1.704 1.965 3.048 0.106 0.135 0.172 0.241 Slag

S7b Lack of fusion – 0.344” long.

Indication

Scan

(in)

Index

(in) Group Channel

A%1

DA/1

(in)

PA/1

(in)

SA/1

(in)

U(m-r)

(in)

I(m-r)

(in)

I•U(m-

r) (in)

S(m-r)

(in)

40.66 1 46.242 -2.000 PA 1 65.00º 61.6 1.504 2.774 3.560 0.195 0.162 0.253 0.344 LOF

S8a No reportable indications, yellow areas due to surface roughness and relating to root.

S8b Numerous LOF between 0.241 to 0.378” long.

Gain

(dB)

Indication

Scan

(in)

Index

(in) Group Channel

A%1

DA/1

(in)

PA/1

(in)

SA/1

(in)

U(m-r)

(in)

I(m-r)

(in)

I•U(m-

r) (in)

S(m-r)

(in)

Type

40.66 1 1.537 -6.500 PA 1 62.00º 62.2 1.507 2.347 3.211 0.195 0.121 0.230 0.378 LOF

40.66 2 20.066 -6.500 PA 1 66.00º 73.9 1.396 2.696 3.433 0.195 0.148 0.245 0.310 LOF

40.66 3 14.704 -6.500 PA 1 51.00º 60.1 1.974 1.812 3.137 0.071 0.081 0.108 0.241 LOF

40.66 4 21.721 -6.500 PA 1 51.00º 81.5 2.440 2.388 3.878 0.124 0.135 0.183 0.378 LOF

S9a Porosity 0.455” long

Gain

(dB)

Indication

Scan

(in)

Index

(in) Group Channel

A%1

DA/1

(in)

PA/1

(in)

SA/1

(in)

U(m-r)

(in)

I(m-r)

(in)

I•U(m-

r) (in)

S(m-r)

(in)

40.66 1 18.729 -6.500 PA 1 63.00º 55.0 1.121 1.725 2.470 0.142 0.135 0.196 0.454 PORO

S9b No scanning possible due to rough surface.

S10a

Gain

(dB)

Indication

Scan

(in)

Index

(in) Group Channel

A%1

DA/1

(in)

PA/1

(in)

SA/1

(in)

U(m-r)

(in)

I(m-r)

(in)

I•U(m-

r) (in)

S(m-r)

(in)

Type

40.66 1 2.523 -6.500 PA 1 56.00º 70.4 2.086 2.530 3.730 0.106 0.135 0.172 0.206 LOF

40.66 2 11.827 -6.500 PA 1 56.00º 72.6 2.044 2.469 3.656 0.071 0.094 0.118 0.172 LOF

40.66 3 18.686 -6.500 PA 1 56.00º 52.2 2.127 2.592 3.804 0.160 0.243 0.290 0.378 LOF

S10b Intermittent LOF over 8”.

Gain

(dB)

Indication

Scan

(in)

Index

(in) Group Channel

A%1

DA/1

(in)

PA/1

(in)

SA/1

(in)

U(m-r)

(in)

I(m-r)

(in)

I•U(m-

r) (in)

S(m-r)

(in)

Type

40.66 1 27.359 -6.500 PA 1 56.00º 59.9 1.941 2.315 3.470 0.142 0.108 0.178 0.654 LOF

40.66 2 30.986 -6.500 PA 1 63.00º 64.3 1.424 2.319 3.137 0.195 0.135 0.237 0.206 LOF

40.66 3 33.745 -6.500 PA 1 55.00º 99.0 2.118 2.450 3.693 0.177 0.162 0.240 0.378 LOF

40.66 4 35.480 -6.500 PA 1 58.00º 91.8 1.898 2.501 3.581 0.230 0.148 0.274 0.585 LOF

S11a No indications to report.

S11b

Gain

(dB)

Indication

Scan

(in)

Index

(in) Group Channel

A%1

DA/1

(in)

PA/1

(in)

SA/1

(in)

U(m-r)

(in)

I(m-r)

(in)

I•U(m-

r) (in)

S(m-r)

(in)

46.66 1 13.740 -6.500 PA 1 56.00º 63.6 2.349 4.109 5.634 0.142 0.121 0.187 0.459 LOF

S12a No reportable indications.

S12b

Gain

(dB)

Indication

Scan

(in)

Index

(in) Group Channel

A%1

DA/1

(in)

PA/1

(in)

SA/1

(in)

U(m-r)

(in)

I(m-r)

(in)

I•U(m-

r) (in)

S(m-r)

(in)

46.66 1 27.665 -6.500 PA 1 64.00º 62.6 2.162 3.969 4.932 0.160 0.121 0.200 0.321 LOF

S13a Standard root reflection(s)

S13b Standard root reflection(s)

H1 Inclusion / volumetric defect 0.550” height in vertical direction.

Indication

Scan

(in)

Index

(in) Group Channel

A%1

DA/1

(in)

PA/1

(in)

SA/1

(in)

U(m-r)

(in)

I(m-r)

(in)

I•U(m-

r) (in)

S(m-r)

(in)

46.66 1 27.047 -6.500 PA 1 61.00º 41.1 1.313 1.869 2.708 0.550 0.148 0.569 0.265 Slag

H2 Standard root reflection(s) and surface roughness related reflections

V1 No reportable indications.

V2 No reportable indications.

V3 Standard root reflection(s)

V4 Standard root reflection(s)

V5a No reportable indications.

V5b

Gain

(dB)

Indication

Scan

(in)

Index

(in) Group Channel

A%1

DA/1

(in)

PA/1

(in)

SA/1

(in)

U(m-r)

(in)

I(m-r)

(in)

I•U(m-

r) (in)

S(m-r)

(in)

Type

46.66 1 3.071 -6.500 PA 1 67.00º 60.7 2.290 4.966 5.862 0.213 0.135 0.252 0.596 LOP

46.66 2 3.071 -6.500 PA 1 51.00º 59.7 1.082 4.830 7.020 0.177 0.108 0.208 0.413 LOP

V6a No reportable indications.

V6b No reportable indications.

V7a No reportable indications.

V7b No reportable indications.

V8a No reportable indications.

V8b No scanning possible due to rough surface

Valve 5 Downstream

H1 Lack of fusion and lack of penetration.

Indication

Scan

(in)

Index

(in) Group Channel

A%1

DA/1

(in)

PA/1

(in)

SA/1

(in)

U(m-r)

(in)

I(m-r)

(in)

I•U(m-

r) (in)

S(m-r)

(in)

Type

46.66 1 32.598 -6.500 PA 1 55.00º 79.3 2.681 3.254 4.673 0.142 0.121 0.187 0.459 LOP

46.66 2 35.669 -6.500 PA 1 55.00º 141.9 2.653 3.214 4.625 0.355 0.351 0.499 3.807

LOF/

LOP

H2 Gain

(dB)

Indication

Scan

(in)

Index

(in) Group Channel

A%1

DA/1

(in)

PA/1

(in)

SA/1

(in)

U(m-r)

(in)

I(m-r)

(in)

I•U(m-

r) (in)

S(m-r)

(in)

Type

40.66 1 28.428 -6.500 PA 1 55.00º 98.9 1.480 1.540 2.581 0.301 0.216 0.371 5.963 LOF

40.66 2 10.764 -6.500 PA 1 51.00º 98.9 2.067 1.927 3.285 0.147 0.121 0.190 0.321 LOP

V1 Standard root reflection(s) no indication to report.

V2 Standard root reflection(s) no indication to report.

V3 Intermittent LOF from over most of weld. Flaw height ranging from 0.142” to 0.319”.

Indication

Scan

(in)

Index

(in) Group Channel

A%1

DA/1

(in)

PA/1

(in)

SA/1

(in)

U(m-r)

(in)

I(m-r)

(in)

I•U(m-

r) (in)

S(m-r)

(in)

Type

40.66 1 17.267 -6.500 PA 1 48.00º 68.9 2.545 2.163 3.804 0.230 0.256 0.345 1.789 LOF

40.66 2 27.398 -6.500 PA 1 48.00º 98.9 2.719 2.356 4.063 0.213 0.283 0.354 1.376 LOF

40.66 3 32.957 -6.500 PA 1 51.00º 98.9 2.277 2.187 3.619 0.142 0.121 0.187 0.929 LOF

40.66 4 44.074 -6.500 PA 1 50.00º 98.9 1.778 1.481 2.766 0.213 0.175 0.276 0.447 LOF

40.66 5 50.105 -6.500 PA 1 54.00º 98.9 1.343 1.261 2.284 0.319 0.216 0.385 0.551 LOF

40.66 6 51.682 -6.500 PA 1 47.00º 98.9 2.476 2.566 4.434 0.142 0.175 0.225 0.619 LOF

V4 No reportable indications.

O1a Gain

(dB)

Indication

Scan

(in)

Index

(in) Group Channel

A%1

DA/1

(in)

PA/1

(in)

SA/1

(in)

U(m-r)

(in)

I(m-r)

(in)

I•U(m-

r) (in)

S(m-r)

(in)

46.66 1 34.488 -6.500 PA 1 66.00º 42.1 1.738 3.464 4.273 0.461 0.270 0.534 1.008 LOF

O1b Gain

(dB)

Indication

Scan

(in)

Index

(in) Group Channel

A%1

DA/1

(in)

PA/1

(in)

SA/1

(in)

U(m-r)

(in)

I(m-r)

(in)

I•U(m-

r) (in)

S(m-r)

(in)

46.66 1 27.165 -4.000 PA 1 66.00º 40.1 1.668 3.306 4.100 0.213 0.148 0.259 0.169 LOF

O2a No reportable indications.

O2b No reportable indications.

O3a Gain

(dB)

Indication

Scan

(in)

Index

(in) Group Channel

A%1

DA/1

(in)

PA/1

(in)

SA/1

(in)

U(m-r)

(in)

I(m-r)

(in)

I•U(m-

r) (in)

S(m-r)

(in)

Type

40.66 1 6.741 -6.500 PA 1 57.00º 113.0 1.971 2.485 3.619 0.195 0.162 0.253 0.244 LOF

40.66 2 9.461 -6.500 PA 1 65.00º 57.2 1.576 2.929 3.730 0.195 0.175 0.262 0.207 LOF

40.66 3 13.876 -6.500 PA 1 67.00º 71.4 1.515 3.140 3.878 0.195 0.189 0.271 0.432 LOF

O3b

Indication

Scan

(in)

Index

(in) Group Channel

A%1

DA/1

(in)

PA/1

(in)

SA/1

(in)

U(m-r)

(in)

I(m-r)

(in)

I•U(m-

r) (in)

S(m-r)

(in)

Type

40.66 1 19.396 -6.500 PA 1 63.00º 34.0 1.676 2.815 3.693 0.213 0.108 0.239 0.200 LOF

40.66 2 34.179 -6.500 PA 1 63.00º 38.8 1.424 2.319 3.137 0.195 0.121 0.230 0.275 LOF

O4a

Indication

Scan

(in)

Index

(in) Group Channel

A%1

DA/1

(in)

PA/1

(in)

SA/1

(in)

U(m-r)

(in)

I(m-r)

(in)

I•U(m-

r) (in)

S(m-r)

(in)

Type

46.66 1 22.835 -6.500 PA 1 67.00º 55.0 1.631 3.413 4.174 0.230 0.162 0.282 1.616 LOF

46.66 2 30.472 -6.500 PA 1 46.00º 106.1 1.570 3.380 5.657 0.213 0.135 0.252 0.333 LOP

O4b No reportable indications

X1a No reportable indications.

X1b No reportable indications.

X2a No reportable indications.

X2b Ref.

Indication

Scan

(in)

Index

(in) Group Channel

A%1

DA/1

(in)

PA/1

(in)

SA/1

(in)

U(m-r)

(in)

I(m-r)

(in)

I•U(m-

r) (in)

S(m-r)

(in)

46.66 1 28.110 -6.500 PA 1 64.00º 69.5 2.220 4.088 5.064 0.213 0.162 0.267 0.472 LOF

X3a No reportable indications.

X3b No reportable indications.

X4a No reportable indications.

X4b No reportable indications.

C1 The C1 area shown in Figure 4.4 was inspected with manual PAUT. Approximately 15” of weld were inspected. No indications were detected.

C2 The C2 area shown in Figure 4.4 was inspected with manual PAUT. Approximately 5” of weld were inspected. No

C3 The C3 area shown in Figure 4.4 was inspected with manual PAUT. Approximately 40” of weld were inspected. No

C4 The C4 area shown in Figure 4.4 was inspected with manual PAUT. Approximately 25” of weld were inspected. No

C5 The C5 area shown in Figure 4.4 was inspected with manual PAUT. Approximately 4” of weld were inspected. No

C6 The C6 area shown in Figure 4.4 was inspected with manual PAUT. Approximately 110” of weld were inspected. No

6 Equipment Calibrations

Magnetic Particle Testing Equipment

Phased Array Testing Equipment

7 Inspector Certifications

Visual and Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing

Visual and Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing