ASME Section V Article 1 — General Requirements for NDE
General requirements governing all NDE methods under ASME BPVC Section V — covers procedure qualification, personnel certification, and applicable referencing codes.
Scope
Article 1 of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC) Section V establishes the general requirements that apply across every nondestructive examination (NDE) method addressed by Section V. It is the "umbrella" article — Articles 2 through 32 add method-specific detail, but Article 1 governs how procedures are written, how personnel are qualified, how examinations interact with the referencing Code Section (e.g., ASME I, III, VIII Div 1/2, XI, or B31), and how Sections V requirements are mandatorily, alternatively, or optionally invoked. Article 1 is intentionally short — typically less than 10 pages — but it controls the legal framework for every UT, RT, MT, PT, ET, VT, AE, and leak test performed under ASME jurisdiction. Scope coverage: written procedure mandates, demonstration requirements, the SE-Standard hierarchy (Subsection A vs Subsection B Standards), examination of welds in pressure-retaining components, examination of base materials, and the "may," "shall," and "should" language conventions used throughout the Code.
NDT methods it governs
{"label":"ASME Section V Overview","href":"/blog/asme-section-v-ndt-requirements-guide"}
Code compliance is only demonstrable if the evidence behind it is: the procedure revision in force, the inspector's certification state and the instrument's calibration status at the time of test. Atlantis NDT provides ASNT Level III consulting for procedure and written-practice work against this code, training toward the certifications that reference it, and inspection management software that keeps that evidence recoverable years later. Request a consultation.
How a standard like this is applied in an inspection programme
A standard is only half of the requirement. It defines how an examination is performed and, in some cases, how results are classified — but the acceptance criteria that decide whether a component stays in service normally come from the construction or in-service code governing the item, not from the examination standard itself. Confusing the two is one of the more common findings in a procedure review: a procedure that correctly cites the examination standard but applies acceptance criteria from the wrong code or the wrong edition.
What has to be in place for compliance to be demonstrable
A written procedure qualified against this standard for the specific materials, thickness ranges and geometries in scope — not a generic procedure covering everything
Personnel certified for the method and level under ASNT SNT-TC-1A, ANSI/ASNT CP-189, NAS 410 or ISO 9712, current on the date the examination was performed
Equipment, probes and reference standards in calibration on that date, with traceability to a national standard under ISO 17025
The applicable edition of the standard recorded against the examination, so historical work stays assessed under the edition then in force
Technique sheets under the same revision control as the procedure above them — the most frequently uncontrolled document in an otherwise compliant quality system
Edition changes
When a new edition is issued, new work moves to it from a defined effective date that you set and record; work already performed stays assessed under the edition in force at the time. Retrospectively applying a new edition to historical dispositions invalidates the original acceptance decision and creates a substantially larger problem than the one being solved.
Where this usually goes wrong
Not in the technical content, but in reconstruction. An auditor picks an issued report and asks which procedure revision applied, who performed the work and whether they were qualified on that date, and whether the instrument and reference blocks were in calibration. Programmes that hold only current state can answer none of those. Binding the document revision, the qualification state and the calibration state to each inspection record as it is created turns that from an investigation into a lookup.
ASME Section V Article 1 is the general-requirements article applied to every NDE method in Section V. It requires a written procedure for each examination, personnel qualified as the referencing Code Section directs, calibrated equipment, evaluation against criteria Section V does not itself contain, and retained records. Acceptance criteria always come from the referencing Code Section, never from Section V.
Article 1 is short, and inspection teams skim it because it looks like preamble. It is not. It is the clause that decides whether the rest of your NDE file holds together. T-110 fixes the relationship between Section V and the referencing Code Section: Section V tells you how to examine, the referencing Code tells you what is acceptable, and the two must be read together. T-150 puts every examination under a written procedure. T-160 puts the equipment under calibration. T-170 separates the Manufacturer, who examines, from the Authorized Inspector, who inspects. T-180 sends evaluation back out to the referencing Code. T-190 demands records that reconstruct the examination years later. Almost every Section V audit finding traces to one of those six sentences being assumed rather than implemented, usually because a procedure was written once and never touched again.
Source: ASME BPVC Section V, Article 1, General Requirements (T-110 through T-190) and its Mandatory Appendices; ASME BPVC Section VIII Division 1, UW-51 and UW-52 and Mandatory Appendices 4, 6, 8 and 12; ASME BPVC Section I, PW-51 and PW-52; ASME B31.3 Table 341.3.2; ASNT SNT-TC-1A and ANSI/ASNT CP-189; ISO 9712.
Article 1 requirements, who supplies the detail, and the evidence an auditor samples
Article 1 paragraph
What it requires
Who supplies the detail
Evidence sampled in an audit
T-110 Scope
Section V applies as invoked by the referencing Code Section; the two are read together
The referencing Code Section (VIII-1, I, XI, B31.3)
Procedure header naming both the Section V article and the referencing code clause
T-120 General
General provisions across all methods, including the personnel qualification route
Referencing Code Section plus the employer written practice
Written practice, certification records, annual near vision records
T-150 Procedure
Every examination performed to a written procedure, demonstrated where required
Report stating the acceptance clause applied, not merely accept or reject
T-190 Records
Records prepared and retained so the examination can be reconstructed later
Referencing Code Section and the quality system
Report package, certification valid on the examination date, equipment identity
Paragraph numbering follows ASME BPVC Section V Article 1. Acceptance criteria are never located in Section V.
Section V tells you how to examine, never what is acceptable
The most consequential sentence in Article 1 is the one that limits Section V. Section V supplies methods, equipment requirements and the procedural framework for nondestructive examination. It does not contain acceptance criteria for the component being examined. Those live in the referencing Code Section: UW-51 and UW-52 in Section VIII Division 1 for radiography of butt welds, Mandatory Appendix 12 for ultrasonic examination of welds, Mandatory Appendix 6 for magnetic particle and Mandatory Appendix 8 for liquid penetrant, PW-51 and PW-52 in Section I, and Table 341.3.2 in ASME B31.3 for process piping.
This is why a procedure that cites only Section V is incomplete. A radiographic procedure written to Article 2 tells the technician the source, the geometry, the image quality indicator and the density range. It does not tell him whether a cluster of rounded indications is rejectable. If neither the procedure nor the technique sheet names the acceptance clause of the referencing Code, the technician is making a judgement he has no authority to make, and the reviewer downstream has nothing to check the call against.
The corollary catches teams importing procedures between projects. An AWS D1.1 acceptance table is not an ASME acceptance table. A shop that runs structural steel and pressure work out of one procedure library will eventually apply the wrong one to the wrong weld. Printing the governing acceptance clause on the examination report, not only in the procedure, is the cheapest defence available and it survives staff turnover.
What Article 1 actually contains, paragraph by paragraph
Article 1 runs from T-110 to T-190 and it is deliberately compact. T-110 sets scope and the relationship with the referencing Code Section. T-120 carries the general provisions applying across every method, including the routes by which examination personnel are qualified. T-150 imposes the written procedure. T-160 imposes calibration. T-170 draws the line between examination and inspection. T-180 sends evaluation of results back to the referencing Code. T-190 requires records.
The mandatory appendices to Article 1 do real work and are routinely overlooked. The glossary appendix fixes the meaning of terms used throughout Section V, including the distinction between an indication, a discontinuity and a defect, which is the vocabulary an auditor will hold you to when reading your reports. The supplemental personnel qualification appendix tightens what an employer written practice must demonstrate when the referencing Code invokes it, and it is the appendix most often missing from a certification file.
Read as a set, those paragraphs are a specification for a quality system, not merely for a technique. If your NDE file cannot answer, for one named weld, which procedure at which revision, examined by whom holding which certification on that date, with which instrument and calibration block, evaluated against which acceptance clause, then Article 1 is not being met however good the ultrasonics were. Designing that chain rather than assembling it after the fact is the substance of ASNT Level III consulting.
The essential variable is where procedures quietly go out of date
Every method article in Section V carries a table dividing procedure variables into essential and nonessential: Table T-221 for radiography, Table T-421 for ultrasonic examination of welds, Table T-621 for liquid penetrant and Table T-721 for magnetic particle. The rule is simple and it is where most findings originate. A change to an essential variable requires the procedure to be revised and requalified. A change to a nonessential variable requires the procedure to be revised, but no requalification.
The failure is almost never deliberate. A penetrant procedure is qualified with one manufacturer family, the store runs out, a different brand arrives and gets used for eight months. A shear wave procedure is written for a 2.25 MHz search unit on a 45 degree wedge and the crew starts using 60 degree on a thicker run because it images better. Surface temperature drifts outside the qualified band on a winter night shift. None of those is bad inspection. All of them are procedure violations on paper, and all of them are visible to an auditor who compares the report header against the procedure.
The control is a short essential variable checklist on the technique sheet, filled in on the job, so drift is caught by the technician rather than by an auditor two years later. Where a company runs dozens of procedures across several methods, that control is far easier to hold inside inspection management software than in a shared drive, because the system can refuse a report whose stated parameters fall outside the qualified range of the procedure revision it cites.
Personnel qualification: Article 1 defers, your written practice does not
Article 1 does not itself pick a certification scheme. It points at the referencing Code Section, which names the acceptable routes, most commonly an employer written practice based on ASNT SNT-TC-1A, or ANSI/ASNT CP-189, and in some jurisdictions and codes ISO 9712. That deference confuses people into thinking personnel qualification is loosely governed. The opposite is true: because the Code hands the obligation to the employer, the employer written practice becomes the audited document, and it must say exactly what it does.
A written practice that copies SNT-TC-1A verbatim and changes nothing is a red flag, because SNT-TC-1A is a recommended practice offering choices the employer is supposed to make: training hours per method and level, experience hours, examination content, the identity and qualification of the certifying Level III, the recertification interval and the annual near vision requirement. If your document leaves those open, you have not written a practice, you have photocopied one.
The second recurring gap is subcontracted personnel. A technician supplied by an agency carries a certificate issued under someone else's written practice, to requirements you have never reviewed, sometimes by a Level III who has never seen your equipment. If that technician signs a report in your data book, his qualification is now your exposure. Reviewing agency written practices before mobilisation, and running your own certification pipeline through structured NDT training to ASNT SNT-TC-1A, removes the most common single-line finding in Section V compliance.
Examination and inspection are not synonyms in T-170
In ordinary speech, examination and inspection are interchangeable. In ASME they are not, and T-170 is where the distinction is set. Examination is the activity performed by the Manufacturer, including work performed for the Manufacturer by a subcontracted NDE house. Inspection is the verification activity of the Authorized Inspector. The Manufacturer examines. The Inspector inspects. The two words carry different duties and different signatures.
This matters commercially as well as technically. When a Code paragraph says something is to be done to the satisfaction of the Inspector, it means the Authorized Inspector, not the client quality representative and not the third-party surveyor placed at the shop by the purchaser. Teams that read Inspector loosely end up with demonstration records signed by the wrong person, hold points released by someone with no Code standing, and a data book that fails at the point of certification rather than during fabrication.
The practical output is that the hold point log must record which role cleared each point. An audit that finds a Code hold point cleared by a purchaser representative rather than the Authorized Inspector is not a paperwork observation, it is a challenge to the validity of the certification. Keeping the roles separate on the form is trivial at the start of a job and expensive to repair at the end of one.
Demonstration: when a procedure has to be proved, not just written
Writing a procedure and qualifying a procedure are different acts. Where the referencing Code Section requires demonstration, the procedure is proved on a specimen representative of the production item, containing reflectors of known type, size and location, and the result is witnessed and recorded. The output of a demonstration is a document, not a memory: specimen identity, reflector map, personnel, instrument, procedure revision, date and outcome.
The specimen is where teams cut corners. A shear wave procedure demonstrated on a flat plate does not prove capability on a nozzle-to-shell weld with restricted scanning access. A technique demonstrated on a machined notch does not prove detection of a tight, branched, service-induced crack. If the geometry, surface condition or material of the demonstration piece differs materially from the production item, the demonstration proves less than it appears to, and a competent auditor will say so in writing.
Where demonstration is not required by the referencing Code, it remains the fastest way to discover that a procedure does not work before a client discovers it for you. Running a controlled demonstration on representative geometry, then having the data reviewed by someone outside the crew that acquired it, is the same discipline as independent review of inspection reports applied one step earlier in the process.
Records that let a stranger rebuild the examination in five years
T-190 asks for records, and the test of a record is not whether it exists but whether a stranger can reconstruct the examination from it. That means procedure number and revision, technique sheet, part and weld identification mapped to the drawing, the instrument and its serial number, the calibration block and its traceability, the calibration and verification checks with the times they were performed, the technician name with method, level and certification expiry, the indications with location and dimension, the acceptance clause applied, and the disposition.
The weak links are almost always calibration traceability and certification validity on the date of examination. An audit does not ask whether the technician is certified today. It asks whether he was certified for that method and level on the day of that report, and whether the instrument held a valid calibration on that day. Both are trivial to prove from a properly indexed record and impossible to prove from a folder of scanned files named by client and month.
Retention is set by the referencing Code Section and the jurisdiction rather than by Article 1 alone. New construction packages follow the manufacturer data report requirements; in-service examinations under Section XI are commonly retained for the operating life of the component, because the entire value of a baseline is that somebody compares against it decades later. If a record cannot be located on demand, its retention period is academic.
Five Article 1 findings that recur, and what causes each
First, the procedure cites Section V only, with no acceptance clause from the referencing Code. Cause: it was written by a method specialist rather than by someone reading both books. Second, essential variable drift, where report parameters sit outside the qualified range of the procedure revision cited. Cause: no essential variable check on the technique sheet. Third, a written practice left uncustomised, with employer choices still sitting as SNT-TC-1A options. Cause: the document was copied at company formation and never revisited.
Fourth, certification valid today but not on the examination date, or an agency technician whose certifying written practice was never reviewed. Cause: certification records held by human resources rather than by the Level III of record. Fifth, hold points released by the wrong role, so the Code demonstration or witness has no standing. Cause: a hold point log that captures a date and a signature but never a role.
None of the five is an inspection failure. Every one of them is a system failure that makes good inspection unprovable, which in Code terms amounts to the same thing as not having done it. That is why remediation is usually documentation architecture rather than retraining, and why the fix survives longer when the evidence chain is designed once and then enforced by whatever system issues the reports.
New construction, in-service, and reading Article 1 in the right context
Article 1 reads differently depending on which referencing Code Section sits above it. Under Section VIII Division 1 or Section I the context is new construction with an Authorized Inspector present, a manufacturer data report at the end and a shop quality system carrying the whole thing. Under Section XI it is in-service inspection, where the questions become baseline comparability, examination volume coverage, personnel performance demonstration and the traceability of data across multiple outage cycles.
Under B31.3 the context changes again: the Inspector role is filled differently, examiner qualification requirements are stated in the piping code itself, and acceptance criteria sit in Table 341.3.2 keyed to fluid service category. A technician who has spent a career in a vessel shop will read a piping job through Section VIII habits and get the extent of examination wrong, because normal fluid service, severe cyclic conditions and Category M fluid service demand different coverage.
The discipline is to open the referencing Code first and Section V second, every time, and to record on the procedure exactly which pairing applies. Where a company works across new construction, piping and in-service scopes at once, that pairing belongs in a controlled register rather than in fifty individual procedures, so a code edition change becomes one controlled update instead of a hunt. If a review of that register is overdue, book a consultation.
Does ASME Section V contain acceptance criteria?
No. Section V describes how to perform an examination and what the procedure, equipment and personnel must satisfy. Whether an indication is acceptable is decided by the referencing Code Section: UW-51 and UW-52 for radiography in Section VIII Division 1, Mandatory Appendix 12 for ultrasonic examination of welds, PW-51 and PW-52 in Section I, and Table 341.3.2 in ASME B31.3. A procedure citing only Section V is incomplete and will be written up.
What is the difference between an essential and a nonessential variable?
Each method article carries a table splitting procedure variables into essential and nonessential. Changing an essential variable, such as search unit frequency, wedge angle, surface condition or the penetrant family, requires the procedure to be revised and requalified. Changing a nonessential variable requires the procedure to be revised only. The recurring finding is a shop that changed couplant, temperature range or scanning surface in practice and never touched the document.
Does Article 1 require certification to SNT-TC-1A?
Article 1 does not choose the qualification scheme by itself. It defers to the referencing Code Section, which names the acceptable route, commonly an employer written practice based on SNT-TC-1A, or ANSI/ASNT CP-189, or a national scheme such as ISO 9712 where the referencing code permits it. What Article 1 does insist on is that the route is documented, that the employer written practice exists, and that certification records match the people who signed.
Who has to demonstrate the procedure, and to whom?
Where the referencing Code Section calls for it, the procedure is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Inspector, meaning the Authorized Inspector, not the client representative and not the technician supervisor. Demonstration is normally performed on a qualification specimen containing known reflectors representative of the production geometry. The output is a record: who demonstrated, on what specimen, on what date, at what procedure revision. Without that record the procedure is unqualified however well written it is.
How long do Section V examination records have to be kept?
Article 1 requires records; the retention period comes from the referencing Code Section, the jurisdiction and the quality system. New construction under Section VIII Division 1 follows the manufacturer data report requirements, while in-service examinations under Section XI are frequently retained for the operating life of the plant. The practical rule is to keep the whole package, because a report without its procedure revision and certification records cannot be defended later.
Can one procedure cover both ASME and AWS D1.1 work?
Only if it names both acceptance routes explicitly and the technician is told which applies to the job in front of him. The acceptance tables differ, the reject thresholds differ, and a shop running structural and pressure work from one procedure library will eventually apply the wrong table to the wrong weld. The safer arrangement is separate procedures with the governing code in the title, and the acceptance clause reprinted on the examination report itself.
Frequently asked
Is ASME Section V Article 1 mandatory if the referencing code only calls out Article 2?
In practice yes. Article 1 carries the general requirements applied across the methods, so invoking a method article brings the general requirements with it unless the referencing Code Section says otherwise. The safest reading, and the one auditors apply, is that a radiographic examination performed to Article 2 must still satisfy the written procedure, calibration, evaluation and record requirements of Article 1, and must still take its acceptance criteria from the referencing Code Section.
Does a change of NDT technician require the procedure to be requalified?
No. Personnel are not a procedure variable. A change of technician requires that the new technician is certified for the method and level required, has been trained on the specific procedure where the written practice requires it, and where the referencing Code requires a performance demonstration, that he has passed it. The procedure itself is untouched. What must change is the record: the report must name the person who actually performed the examination, not the crew lead.
Can an ISO 9712 certificate be used on ASME Code work?
It depends on the referencing Code Section and the jurisdiction. Some referencing codes accept a national or international certification scheme; others require an employer written practice based on SNT-TC-1A or CP-189. An ISO 9712 certificate proves third-party examination of the individual, which is strong evidence, but it does not by itself satisfy an employer-based scheme. The usual arrangement is to hold the ISO 9712 certificate and to certify the individual within the employer written practice as well.
What is the difference between an indication, a discontinuity and a defect?
An indication is the response observed by the method. A discontinuity is an interruption in the normal structure of the material, which may or may not matter. A defect is a discontinuity of sufficient size or type to be rejectable under the applicable acceptance criteria. The words are not interchangeable, and reports should use them precisely, because calling a discontinuity a defect on paper commits the owner to a repair decision the acceptance criteria may not actually require.
Who is allowed to sign an ASME Section V examination report?
The report is signed by the person who performed the examination, at the certification level the procedure and referencing Code require, and where the written practice or contract requires review, countersigned by a Level III or an authorised reviewer. A signature from someone who was not present is a serious finding and undermines the whole data package. Where independent review is needed for a client or certifying body, that review belongs in a separate dated document rather than as a second signature on the original report.
How often should Section V procedures be reviewed?
At every code edition change affecting the method article, whenever an essential variable moves in practice, and on a fixed interval, commonly annual, as a backstop. The interval matters less than the trigger discipline: most out-of-date procedures are not old, they are simply out of step with what the crew actually does. A short annual review comparing recent report parameters against the qualified ranges finds that drift far faster than a full rewrite.