Is a pinhole considered a "rounded indication"?
As per ASME VIII Division 1 Mandatory Appendix 8:
"Rounded indications: any relevant indication (it means if its major dimension is greater than 1/16 (1.5 mm) ) shall be considered rejected if it is greater than 3/16 in (5 mm)"
As per ASME VIII Division 2 Part 7:
"(2) Relevant rounded indications greater than 5 mm (3/16 in.)"
Case: A tube-to-tubesheet weld failed during tubeside hydrotest and later discovered this failure was caused by a pinhole on the tube-to-tubesheet weldment. Fabricator argued that the pinhole was acceptable as per Code since the pinhole was very much less than 5 mm, which was why the NDT technician did not report this indications.
I argued that any surface openings has to be investigated and removed.
Appreciate your opinions on this.
As per ASME VIII Division 1 Mandatory Appendix 8:
"Rounded indications: any relevant indication (it means if its major dimension is greater than 1/16 (1.5 mm) ) shall be considered rejected if it is greater than 3/16 in (5 mm)"
As per ASME VIII Division 2 Part 7:
"(2) Relevant rounded indications greater than 5 mm (3/16 in.)"
Case: A tube-to-tubesheet weld failed during tubeside hydrotest and later discovered this failure was caused by a pinhole on the tube-to-tubesheet weldment. Fabricator argued that the pinhole was acceptable as per Code since the pinhole was very much less than 5 mm, which was why the NDT technician did not report this indications.
I argued that any surface openings has to be investigated and removed.
Appreciate your opinions on this.