It is a confusing matter to calculate the welder performance. Some people says that the repair percentage should be calculated as per the number of films taken, but some says it should be based on the actual repair made by the welder. Which one is correct?
Regards
Manoj

Where is the problem? % of repairs is not a Code issue. A manufacturer shall establish its target for weld repairs. Those I know consider % of films showing repairs to be done. Target depends on the type of product, mainly.
MG

ASME differs from ANSI B31.3 in this regard...

It is recommended that the extent of examination be not less than one shot on one in each 20 welds for each welder or welding operator.

Not less than 5% of circumferential butt and miter groove welds shall be examined fully by random radiography in accordance with para. 344.5 or by random ultrasonic examination in accordance with para. 344.6. The welds to be examined shall be selected to ensure that the work product of each welder or welding operator doing the productionwelding is included. They
shall also be selected to maximize coverage of intersections with longitudinal joints. When a circumferential weld with an intersecting longitudinal weld(s) is examined, at least the adjacent 38 mm (11⁄2 in.) of each intersecting weld shall be examined. In-process examination
in accordance with para. 344.7 may be substituted for all or part of the radiographic or ultrasonic examination on a weld-for-weld basis if specified in the engineering design or specifically authorized by the Inspector.

When required spot or random examination reveals a defect, then
(a) two additional samples of the same kind (if welded or bonded joints, by the same welder, bonder, or operator) shall be given the same type of examination
(b) if the items examined as required by (a) above are acceptable, the defective item shall be repaired or replaced and reexamined as specified in para. 341.3.3, and all items represented by these two additional samples shall be accepted, but
(c) if any of the items examined as required by (a) above reveals a defect, two further samples of the same kind shall be examined for each defective item found by that sampling
(d) if all the items examined as required by (c) above are acceptable, the defective item(s) shall be repaired or replaced and reexamined as specified in para. 341.3.3, and all items represented by the additional sampling shall be accepted, but
(e) if any of the items examined as required by (c) above reveals a defect, all items represented by the progressive sampling shall be either
(1) repaired or replaced and reexamined as required, or
(2) fully examined and repaired or replaced as necessary, and reexamined as necessary to meet the requirements of this Code
(f ) If any of the defective items are repaired or replaced, reexamined, and a defect is again detected in the repaired or replaced item, continued progressive sampling in accordance with (a), (c), and (e) is not required based on the defects found in the repair. The defective item(s) shall be repaired or replaced and reexamined until acceptance as specified in para. 341.3.3. Spot or random examination (whichever is applicable) is then performed on the remaining unexamined joints

llpcode,

Old issue, why revisited?

leem