Codes & Confidence: Mapping PAUT to AWS, ASME, and ISO 13588, Without the Headache

Working Under Codes Without the Pain

Working under regulated inspection codes doesn’t have to be painful.
In practice, most difficulties come from the same place: translating code requirements into PAUT techniques and reports that are clear, repeatable, and easy to justify during an audit.

Every project still requires checking the applicable code edition and project-specific specifications. That said, a well-aligned approach to procedures, calibration, and documentation can greatly reduce friction with QA teams and auditors.

Turning code requirements into practical PAUT techniques

Across most standards, the expectations are consistent. Procedures must be qualified, essential variables controlled, equipment properly calibrated, and inspection data fully traceable. Written techniques, qualified personnel, and documented setups are not optional, they are the foundation.

Any modification to critical parameters such as probe selection, wedge type, angle range, index step, sensitivity settings, or scan method may require requalification. Calibration checks, whether based on DAC or TCG, must be verified using representative reference blocks. Each inspection should result in clear records that include scan plans, images, essential variables, and acceptance decisions.

How major standards approach phased array inspection

ISO 13588 treats phased array weld inspection as a procedure-based method. It requires documented coverage, defined sensitivity levels, and a clear scanning strategy. Traceable data and operator qualification, typically aligned with ISO 9712 or equivalent schemes, are central to compliance.

AWS D1.1, while originally written for conventional ultrasonic testing, increasingly accepts PAUT when it demonstrates equal or improved coverage and sensitivity. In real-world audits, providing straightforward comparisons between conventional UT and PAUT often helps align expectations and avoid unnecessary questions.

ASME Section V governs NDE method qualification, while Sections VIII, IX, and the B31 series define application and acceptance criteria. Under ASME, audits often focus on calibration practices, essential variables, coverage justification, and data retention. Clearly explaining scan plans, focal laws, and index rationale and supporting them with demonstration scans on representative geometries, can prevent delays and rework.

Keeping compliance manageable in daily work

A simple, consistent internal structure goes a long way. Knowing exactly which equipment was used, how sensitivity was established, how calibration was verified, and how results were evaluated makes inspections easier to defend.

Change control is equally important. When essential variables change, the need for requalification should be identified and documented early. This avoids surprises during audits and keeps inspection work predictable.

Repeatability matters more than presentation

Auditor relationships improve when procedures are transparent and reproducible. Coverage sketches, clearly stated sensitivity levels, and repeatable scan techniques help build confidence.

If another technician cannot reproduce the results using the same procedure, the issue is not code compliance, t is repeatability.