Visual Inspection Pipe Report
Name [Block capitals]_STEVE HUGHES___Signature SE Hughes______Pipe Ident__E9___
Code/Specification used YOUR CODE Welding Process____MMA__Joint type Single V
Welding position_____5G___________Outside Ø and Thickness_mm Date__12 March 03
Weld face
Cap height 6 max Cap height 5 max
Cap width 17-20 Cap width 16-20
Toe blend poor Toe blend poor
Stray Hi/lo 1mm
flash
A B C
70 3
27
5 1
10 48 138
3
25 Poor Undercut
0.5 sharp
Stray flash
Light spatter both
B sides C
Smooth mechanical markings and pitting < 0.5mm deep is evident throughout parent materials over whole pipe
Cap height 4 max Cap height 3.5 max
Cap width 17-20 Cap width 19-24
Toe blend poor Toe blend smooth
Grinding
Poor 0.5 smooth
restart +
C overlap D A
15
72
132 48
Hammer 12
mark 118 10
1 deep 104 34
Arc
smooth strike
15 65 6
14 Grinding
3 20 0.5 smooth
16 Grinding
0.5 deep
Arc strike smooth
pto [for root]
Pipe Ident__E9___
Pipe root face
Spatter Penetration height 4
Penetration width 6-8
8 Toe blend poor
2 Hi/lo 1 mm
8
A Root undercut B Very poor root C
0.5 deep sharp formation
56 4 55 31
62 1 10 5 5
20 81 90 54 86
Poor pickup
Root undercut Root undercut Root undercut Root undercut
1 deep sharp 0.5 deep 0.5 deep 0.5 deep
sharp sharp sharp
Penetration height 3.5
Penetration width 7-8
Toe blend poor
Hi/lo 1.5mm
108 4
Root undercut Root undercut 93 2 Spatter
0.5 deep 0.5 deep
sharp sharp
C D A
Spatter
23 2 109 3
9 5 28
19 72 69
Root undercut Root undercut Root undercut
<1 deep sharp <1 deep sharp 0.5 deep smooth
Penetration height 4 Penetration height 2
Penetration width 6-8 Penetration width 6-8
WELD INSPECTION REPORT/SENTENCE SHEET
Toe blend poor Toe blend smooth
Sheet 3 of 3
Print full name STEVEN HUGHES
Specimen Number E9
External defects Defects noted Code or Specification Reference
Pipe/plate Accumulative Maximum Section/ Accept/reject
section total allowance Table No
Defect type 1 2 3 4 5
Reinforcement (height) A-A 6 max 1min 5max Table 9 REJECT
Reinforcement (appearance) A-A Non Uniform Smooth 40.2 REJECT
Incomplete filling A-D None ------------ ---------- ACCEPT
Inadequate weld width A-A None ------------ ---------- ACCEPT
Slag Inclusions A-A None ------------ ---------- ACCEPT
Undercut A-A 0.5 sharp 0.5 Table 9 REJECT*
Surface porosity A-A None ------------ ---------- ACCEPT
Cracks/cracklike defects A-A None ------------ ----------- ACCEPT
Lack of fusion A-A None ------------ ----------- ACCEPT
Arc strikes D-C x4 Total 80mm None 15 REJECT **
Mechanical damage C-B 1 deep smooth Not referenced REJECT ***
Laps/laminations A-A None ------------ ----------- ACCEPT
Misalignment A-A 1 max 1.5 26.1 ACCEPT
Longitudinal seams A-A None ------------ ----------- ACCEPT
Root defects
Misalignment A-A 1.5 mm max 1.5 Table 7 ACCEPT****
Excessive root penetration A-A 4 mm max 3 Table 8 REJECT
Lack of root penetration A-A None ------------- ---------- ACCEPT
Lack of root fusion A-A None ------------- ----------- ACCEPT
Root concavity D-A None ------------- ----------- ACCEPT
Root undercut A-A 1 deep sharp 0.5 Table 9 REJECT
Cracks/crack-like defects A-A None ------------- ----------- ACCEPT
Slag inclusions A-B None ------------- ----------- ACCEPT
Porosity A-A None ------------- ----------- ACCEPT
Laps/laminations A-A None ------------- ----------- ACCEPT
This *pipe/plate has been examined to the requirements of [code/specification]…BS 2633:1987…
.and is accepted/rejected accordingly.
Signature.......SE Hughes.............................. Date...........12 March 2003..........................................
*Delete which is not applicable
Use the other side for any comments
E233-97
* Rejected on sharpness but only 1mm long. Blend smooth and then accept.
** Arc strikes to be ground off and MPI/crack detected.
*** Mechanical damage not referenced but 3mm area exceeds undercut limit-company to confirm rejection.
****No actual limit given for external misalignment so internal limit used – refer to company
Spatter in root to be referred to higher authority for acceptance/rejection.
