Phased array UT vs RT for code compliance

We recently ran a head-to-head between phased array UT and conventional film RT on 1 in. SA-516 butt welds in the shop at 10 p.m. Two identical girth welds (12 in. OD): PAUT with a 64‑element, 5 MHz probe took 18 minutes including TCG and scanning; RT with Class A IQIs, 80 kV, and two shots took about 1.5 hours including exclusion setup and film processing. Both met ASME Section V technique requirements. With PAUT we gained speed, immediate sizing, and no radiation controls, plus better characterization of a 3 mm LOF at 45°. We gave up universal familiarity and, in some client specs, blanket acceptance — documentation had to be airtight (cal block traceability, encoded scans, operator quals). RT still wins when specs mandate film per Section VIII or AWS D1.1 project notes, geometry limits UT coupling, or you need a simple, widely accepted record for third‑party review.

‍‌‌⁠‍‌​‍‍⁠​​​‍‌‍‍‍‍⁠⁠‍‍‌‌‍‍⁠​⁠‍‌​⁠​‌​‍‌‍‍‌⁠‌⁠‍‍‌‍​‌⁠‍‌​‍‌⁠‌‍​‍‌‍⁠‌⁠‌‌‍⁠​‍‌​⁠​‌⁠‍‌⁠​​‍​‍⁠​⁠​​‍⁠​​‌‍‌⁠‍‌​‍‌⁠​⁠​‍‌‍⁠‌‍⁠​‍‍⁠​‍‌‍‍‍‍⁠⁠‍‍‌‍​‍‍⁠‌‌‌‍⁠​⁠​‍‌‍‍‌⁠‌⁠‍‍‌‌‍‍​​⁠​‍‌⁠‌‍​‍‌‍‍‍​‍‌⁠‌⁠​⁠‌‍‍‍‌‌‌⁠‌⁠​⁠⁠‌‌​​​‌⁠​‍​‍‌‍‍‌⁠‌⁠‍‍‌‍​‌​​⁠​‍‌⁠‌‍​‍‌‍⁠‍‌‌‍‌​​‌‍‌‍⁠‌⁠​​​​⁠‍‌‌‍⁠‌‌‍‍⁠‌‌‌‍‍⁠​​⁠‍‌⁠‌‌‍​‍‍‍‍​⁠‌⁠​⁠​⁠‌​‌⁠​‍‌‍‍‌‍‌‍‌​‌