Friday, May 26, 2017

The Impact Testing Enigma A Review of ASME Section VIII, Division 1, Subsection C, Part UCS, Impact Testing Requirements

 

1.0       INTRODUCTION

 

Manufacturers continuously face the challenge of complying with the impact testing provisions of ASME Section VIII, Division 1.

 

As Code impact testing rules are quite complex, instances of misconception and/or oversight are not unusual, hence the 1enigma. The material provided in this document is not intended to replace the Code rules. The intent of this review of impact testing rules and the decision charts provided is to help manufacturers meet Code requirements.

 

The presentation material consists of a series of impact testing decision charts, and a selection of the most common problems, misconceptions and oversights with regard to impact testing as it applies to pressure vessel construction to the ASME Code, Section VIII, Division 1, CSA B51 Part 1, and the Alberta Safety Codes Act and Pressure Equipment Safety Regulation. The primary focus of the document is on Subsection C, Part UCS impact testing requirements.

2.0       IMPACT TESTING DECISION CHARTS

 

2.1        Impact Testing Requirements (Materials)

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

2.2        Impact Testing Requirements of Welding Procedures with Filler Metal

 

 

 

2.3        Impact Testing Requirements of Welding Procedures without Filler Metal

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

2.4        Impact Testing Requirements Vessel [Production] Impact Tests

 

  

 

 

 

2.5        Impact Testing Requirements Vessel [Production] Impact Tests

 

  

 

 

 

3.0       MATERIALS & DESIGN

 

 

3.1        CSA B51-14, Part 1, Clause 7.1.3

 

 

Carbon and low alloy steel used for the construction of pressure vessels at a minimum design metal temperature below –50 °F shall be impact tested at the MDMT or lower temperature with the test results meeting UG-84 of ASME Section VIII Division 1.

 

3.2        UG-20(f)(1)

 

 

To qualify for exemption under UG-20(f) the material shall be limited to P Number 1, Group Number 1 or 2, and the thickness as defined in UCS-66(a) [see also, Note(1) in Fig.UCS-66.2] is limited to ½ inch for curve A materials and 1 inch for curve B, C, or D materials of Figure UCS-66.

 

3.3        UCS-67(a)(3)

 

Under the provisions of UCS-67(a)(3), for MDMTs that are colder than –20 °F but not colder than –55 °F, for materials exempt from impact testing by UCS-66(g) or Figure UCS-66, Curves C or D from Figure UCS-66 must be made with welding procedures qualified by impact testing. Qualification of welding procedures with impact testing is not required when no individual weld pass in the production weld exceeds ¼” in thickness and the welding consumables, for each heat and/or lot of filler metal or combination of heat/or lot of filler metal and batch of flux used to join these base metals has been classified by the consumable manufacturer through impact tests per the applicable SFA specification at a temperature not warmer than the MDMT. The welding procedure qualification shall include impact tests of welds and heat affected zones, as specified by the first paragraph of UCS-67.

 

3.4      UCS-68(b)

 

This paragraph requires that welded joints be postweld heat treated when

required by other rules of Section VIII-1 or when the MDMT is colder than –55

°F, and the coincident ratio as defined in Fig. UCS-66.1 is 0.35 or greater, except

for P-No. 1 materials that are impact tested per UG-84 with energy values

specified in UCS-68(b), and Category A & B joints plus fillet weld requirements

as per UCS-68(b)(1) & (2) are met.

 

 

 

3.5     Exemption Combinations

 

3.5.1    Interpretation VIII-1-89-138R

 

 

If a vessel is constructed of a combination of P-No. 1 Group No. 1 or 2 materials and other materials listed in Subsection C, the rules of UG-20(f) may be applied to the portion constructed of P-No. 1 Group No. 1 or 2.

 

3.5.2    Interpretation VIII-1-95-15

 

 

The allowable temperature reduction determined from Fig. UCS-66.1 (coincident ratio less than 1) and the temperature reduction permitted by UCS-68(c) (postweld heat treatment when not otherwise a requirement per Code) may be combined.

 

3.5.3    Interpretation VIII-1-95-160

 

 

The additional temperature reduction provided by UCS-68(c) may be applied to the provision of UCS-66(c), which allows ANSI B16.5 and B16.47 flanges and split loose flanges as specified within the Code paragraph, exemption from impact testing when the MDMT is no colder than –20 °F.

 

3.5.4    UG-20(f) + UCS-66(b)

 

 

A temperature reduction determined from Fig. UCS-66.1(coincident ratio less than 1) may not be applied in addition to an exemption from impact testing under UG-20(f).

 

3.5.5    UG-20(f) + UCS-68(c)

 

 

A temperature reduction permitted by UCS-68(c) may not be applied in addition to an exemption from impact testing under UG-20(f).

 

3.5.6    Table UCS-56-1 Note (b)(2) + UCS-68(c)

 

 

A temperature reduction permitted by UCS-68(c) may not be applied when the provisions of table UCS-56-1, General Note (b)(2) is used to avoid the requirement to postweld heat treat (200 °F preheat for P-No. 1 materials over 1¼ in. nominal thickness through 1½ in. nominal thickness).

 

 

 

 

4.0    WELDING PROCEDURES

 

 

4.1        QW-407.2

 

 

This Supplementary Essential Variable requires that the procedure qualification test be subjected to PWHT essentially equivalent to that encountered in the fabrication of production welds, including at least 80% of the aggregate time(s) at temperature(s). For example, to remain within the WPS requirements, the maximum post weld heat treatment time(s) at temperature(s) for the production weld or production test coupons is 1.25 times the time(s) at temperature(s) qualified by the PQR coupon.

 

4.2        QW-403.6

 

 

This Supplementary Essential Variable specifies that the minimum base metal thickness qualified is the thickness of the test coupon T or 5/8” inch, whichever is less. However where T is less than ¼ inch, the minimum thickness qualified is ½T.

 

4.3        UG-84(h)(2)(-c) and UG-84(g)(5)

 

 

Paragraph UG-84(h)(2)(-c) requires that the base material for the weld test coupon meet the minimum notch toughness requirement for the thickest material of the range of base material to be qualified by the procedure. Paragraph UG-84(g)(5) then requires that the weld metal impact test values shall be at least as high as those for the base material. This paragraph may place an additional limit on the qualification thickness of a WPS, for instance when QW-403.7 allows the WPS to qualify to 8 inches. For example, assume a WPS is qualified on a P-No. 1 Group No. 1 base material which has a minimum specified yield strength of 55 ksi. If the test is made on a 1½ inch thick plate and the provisions of QW-403.7 are utilized, the test specimen would normally qualify the WPS for thicknesses up to 8 inches. Fig. UG-84.1 requires that the impact test results must average 30 ft-lbs. or more to qualify for a thickness of 3 inches or more.

 

 

 

 

5.0       FABRICATION

 

 

5.1        UCS-67(a)

 

 


 

 

5.5        UG-84(f)(2) Impact Testing of Welds

 

 

All test plates (PQR and Production, when not exempted) shall be subjected to heat treatment, including cooling rates and aggregate time(s) at temperature(s) as established by the Manufacturer for use in actual manufacture.

 

This paragraph can have significant consequences when an exemption under the referenced paragraphs is not available, for instance P-No. 3, Gr. Numbers 1 and 2 materials, reheat treatment of the vessel could lead to unacceptable WPS and production impact tests. Material impact test results may also be unacceptable under reheat treatment as provided for in Subsection C. Particular attention should be paid to this paragraph when dealing with UHT materials.

 

One must remember that irrespective of the Subsection C exemptions to UG-84(f)(2), the WPS(s) may become unacceptable if the vessel itself, or production impact test coupons are subjected to heat treatments that are outside of QW-407.2 requirements for the welding procedure [at least 80% of aggregate time(s) at temperature(s)].

 

5.6        Location, Orientation, Temperature, and values of Weld Impact tests UG-84(g).

 

 

5.7        The 2013 Edition of ASME Section VIII, Division 1, has included requirements for additional HAZ coupons which is dependent on the base metal thickness and joint type.

 

 

UG-84(g)(2) illustrates through Figure UG-84.5 and Table UG-84.6 the location of where impact specimens must be taken. The significant change is depending on the type of joint (either a single or two sided welded joint), additional heat affected zone (HAZ) specimens are required. Prior to the change, material under 1 ½” only required one set of impacts in the material and one set in the HAZ, and for materials over 1 ½” two sets were required in the material and one in the HAZ. The table below illustrates the total number of impact test sets and specimens required.

 


 

 

6.0    TESTING

 

 

6.1        UG-84(j) Rejection

 

 

If the vessel test plate fails to meet the impact requirements, the welds represented by the plate shall be unacceptable. Reheat treatment and retesting or retesting only are permitted.

 

Under the provision for reheat treatment it is necessary to consider the applicability of the welding procedure under QW-407.2, as well as UG-84(f)(2) implications.

 

 

Note: This document has been revised to include changes to ASME Section VIII, Division 1, Subsection C, Part UCS up until and including the 2015 Edition and CSA-B51, 2014 Edition.

1   In the Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, Enigma is defined as “something hard to understand or explain”.

 

 

Source: http://www.absa.ca/

Thursday, May 25, 2017

Seeking Clarity: NDE Procedure Demonstration Versus NDE Qualification

BY WALTER BEACH, NATIONAL BOARD CONSULTANT, AND JIM WORMAN, NATIONAL BOARD SENIOR STAFF ENGINEER

 

The demonstration of written nondestructive examination (NDE) procedures has been accepted and ex­ecuted for many years in accordance with the ASME Boiler &Pressure Vessel Code. However, in the 2013 Edition, revisions were made to Section V, Article 1, General Requirements, paragraphs T-150 (a) through (c) in an effort to clarify the intent of demonstrating examination procedures. In addition, a new subparagraph (d) was added, which caused general confusion in the industry regarding when procedural qualifications for NDE are required. This article attempts to explain why there is confusion with T-150 paragraph (d) and what might be done in the future to address these concerns.

 

Background

The various Articles of Section V have been revised in the last few years to include a table of essential and nonessential variables (and other details needed for each examination method) in an effort to prepare for the possibility of a referencing code Section invoking a requirement to “qualify” written examination procedures. Though the Articles provide the detailed technical requirements for performing the examinations, there are no guidelines for how the process of procedure qualification should be carried out within the specific Articles. It may have been presumed that the referencing code Section would provide the necessary details whenever making it a requirement to qualify the written examination procedure before its application in code construction.

 

In the 2003 Addenda, Section V added Article 14, Examination System Qualification, for qualifying NDE systems with Manda­tory Appendix 1 of Article 14 being used for the purpose of establishing standard terms and definitions of terms, which appear in Article 14. Article 14 was written to accommodate the ASME Post Construction Standards Committee but it hasn’t been required. It is currently available as API 579-1/ASME FFS-1, which is a fitness for service and evaluation code.

 

The 2013 Edition of Section V provides the qualification model. The minimum technical requirements believed necessary for the qualification of a written NDE procedure are in a new subparagraph (d) under Article 1, T-150.

 

Section V, Article 6, Liquid Penetrant Examination

As an example, in Section V, Article 6, Liquid Penetrant Examination, paragraph T-621.2 begins, “When procedure qualification is specified by the referencing code Section. . .” So, where in the ASME construction code Section is an NDE procedure qualifica­tion specified? To the best of the authors' knowledge, it is not there. Therefore, the requirement for qualifying an NDE procedure must be invoked by the referencing ASME construction code Section. This means that unless the construction code specifically requires NDE procedure qualification, the procedure qualification is not required. If the referencing code Section were to solicit this requirement, perhaps the referencing code Section would provide criteria for qualification of the procedure as well, such as what is expected for a test object, flaw types, sizes, etc.

 

The current 2013 Edition states in paragraph T-150 (d)(2)(a) that “The maximum acceptable flaw size, required flaw orientation, and minimum number of flaws shall be as specified by the referencing code Section.” This further supports that the current ASME codes of construction only require procedure demonstration of T-150(a) and not procedure qualification since the requirements are not specified in T-150(d)(2)(a).

Qualification vs Demonstration

Procedure qualification is not the procedure demonstration as specified in T-150(a). The two terms are not the same as defined by ASME Section V. Mandatory Appendix 1 of Article 1, paragraph I-130, lists terms used in conjunction with Article 1. Following are terms for procedure demonstration and procedure qualification:

 

Procedure demonstration: when a written procedure is demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Inspector, by applying the examination method using the employer’s written nondestructive examination procedure to display compliance with the requirements of this Section, under

(a) normal examination conditions per T-150(a), or

(b) special conditions as described in T-150(b).

 

Procedure qualification: when a written nondestructive examination procedure is qualified in accordance with the detailed requirements of the referencing code Section.

 

Remember, Section V is not a construction code, but a code that construction codes reference for NDE compliance. At this point in time, no ASME construction code references any NDE procedures to be qualified.

 

Here is an example of how ASME Section VIII, Division 1, Mandatory Appendix 6, Methods for Magnetic Particle Examination, makes reference to T-150 of Section V:

6-1 Scope

(c) Magnetic particle examination shall be performed in accordance with a written procedure, certified by the Manufacturer to be in accordance with the requirements of T-150 of Section V.

It is clear that the current ASME non-nuclear construction codes do not contain a specific reference to procedure qualifica­tion with the required specified details of T-150 (d)(2)(a). At the surface, it appears all of T-150 has been imposed, but without the specific details (such as test object, flaw type, size, etc.), procedure qualification is not possible.

 

Qualifying Personnel

If one reads Article 1, paragraph T-120 (g), in order to get a better understanding, he or she would come to the conclusion that personnel demonstration is required.

T-120 General

(g) When the referencing Code Section does not specify qualifications or does not reference directly Article 1 of this Section, qualification may simply involve a personnel  demonstration to show that the personnel performing the nondestructive examinations are competent to do so in accordance with the Manufacturer’s established procedures.

 

Article 1, paragraph I-130, defines personnel demonstration as:

Personnel demonstration: when an individual displays an understanding of the examination method and proficiency in conducting the examination, by performing a demonstration examination using the employer’s written non destructive examination procedure.

The construction codes are requiring personnel demonstration, but require that the manufacturer (certificate holder) certify that the written procedure (not personnel) be in accordance with T-150 of Section V regarding procedure demonstration.

The Section V committee has made the changes as indicated above, but the construction code committees have yet to respond to the impact of these changes, which has caused this general confusion in the industry. Until there is further clarification from the Section V Committee through interpretations or rewrites, it appears that T-150, paragraph (d) is not applicable to the current construction codes.

 

 

Source: FALL 2014 NATIONAL BOARD BULLETIN

MDMT for the Inservice Inspector

BY JOHN HOH, SENIOR STAFF ENGINEER

Minimum de­sign metal tem­perature (MDMT) of a pressure vessel is dependent on material toughness in regards to brittle fracture considerations. What does that mean? Some materials, including some common carbon steels, do not behave well at cold temperatures and may expe­rience brittle fracture while under stress. That is an over-simplified explanation but it helps summarize what we want to avoid – a catastrophic failure.

 

In addition to the general material specification, material thickness plays a large part in establishing MDMT dur­ing the vessel design process. Thicker material has a higher MDMT value. A typical pressure vessel has many com­ponents of different thicknesses and, sometimes, different materials. A vessel designer must evaluate the individual components and determine the MDMT for each. The highest MDMT becomes the governing MDMT for the completed vessel. If the MDMT determined through the evaluation is higher than required for the specified operating conditions, the designer can select a different mate­rial, perform post-weld heat treatment (when not required for other reasons), or perform impact testing on material and weld specimens. The process is de­tailed in American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME B&PVC), Section VIII. This ar­ticle is not intended to explain all of the design considerations involving MDMT, but rather, highlight the conditions inspectors find in the field. Inservice inspectors, after all, stand in front of an operating vessel and must deal with what is in front of them, not what could have been.

 

Looking at the value for MDMT on the vessel nameplate is just as important as the maximum allowable working pressure (MAWP) or maximum tem­perature. How many vessel owners pay attention to the MDMT value on the nameplate? We would like to believe vessels are designed with the operat­ing environment in mind, but there are many “stock” vessels (a common design for a common use – an air receiver is an example) operating in a wide range of environmental conditions. Consider the typical air receiver: the MDMT is usu­ally -20°F. Some owners may locate the air receiver and its attached compressor outside under a shed roof to keep the noise out of the enclosed shop. During the winter, some regions can easily dip below -20°F ambient temperature. If the metal temperature of the air receiver measures below that -20°F stamped on the nameplate, it must not be pressur­ized. Granted, the air receiver can benefit from the heat generated through the compression of the air, but that can never be used as justification to operate with a metal temperature lower than rated on the nameplate.

 

Some might say ASME B&PVC Section VIII, Division 1, UG-20(f)(3), al­lows lower operating temperatures due to lower atmospheric temperatures, but UG-20(f) begins by stating that impact testing is not mandatory for materials satisfying all of the listed conditions. That includes the material P-number and Group number, thickness, pres­sure testing, thermal or mechanical shock loadings, cyclical loading, and a maximum and minimum design tem­perature. UG-20(f)(3) states, “Occasional operating temperatures colder than -20°F are acceptable when due to lower seasonal atmospheric temperature.” That only ap­plies when taken with the other stated restrictions. What does “occasional” mean and how much colder than -20°F is ac­ceptable? Not seeing a definitive answer, it is this author’s opinion to never accept operation below the stated MDMT.

 

Consider this situation: the in service inspector is performing an inspection in the heat of summer. It’s 95°F in the shade. That -20°F on the nameplate is the furthest thing from the inspector’s mind at that point. The inspector has to consider where the vessel is located (heated or unheated) and the coldest winter temperature ex­pected for that area.

 

The idea for this article began sev­eral months ago as an offshoot from an investigation. The vessels investigated were relatively thick carbon steel mate­rial intended for use at pressures ranging from 5,000 to 10,000 psi at oil and gas well sites. I noticed the MDMT (which was not part of the investigation) for most of the vessels was 20°F and a few were 40°F. That’s above zero, not below. These ves­sels would be operating outside, subject to whatever temperatures winter would cast upon them. Last winter it got very cold, even in the southern part of the United States. Were some of those vessels still operating last winter? Probably.

As inspectors we owe it to the general public to keep all operating conditions in mind while performing in service inspec­tions. If you notice an MDMT value that could be exceeded (negatively) based upon environmental operating condi­tions, notify the vessel owner of those con­cerns and ensure the vessel is protected from cold temperatures or that it is not used during those situations.

 

 

Source: FALL 2014 NATIONAL BOARD BULLETIN

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Fig UCS-66 // UCS-66(b) // MDMT // Impact testing determination ASME BPV Sec VIII div 1

Q: My shop is constructing a Section VIII Division 1 vessel using a Curve D plate material for the shell. The unadjusted MDMT of the plate material per Fig UCS-66 [or Table UCS-66] is −20oF (−29oC). The nominal thickness of the plate exceeds the required thickness for the shell and the unadjusted MDMT of the plate can be further reduced from −20oF (−29oC) by 10oF (−12oC) as permitted in UCS-66(b). Assuming that the shell adjusted MDMT [−20oF−10oF = −30oF (−35oC)] is the warmest of all components used in this vessel, and the one that gets stamped on to the name plate, do I need to qualify the WPS used for welding the longitudinal weld seam in the shell plate material with impact testing?

 

A: It is hard to answer this question with a straight Yes or No because it depends on "Which MDMT" is used to decipher the requirements of UCS-67.

 

The key is, the MDMT used in UCS-67 for determining the impact test requirements of the WPS can either be:

 1. The MDMT of the welded component before applying the temperature reduction permitted by UCS-66(b) or UCS-68(c), which is −20°F (−29oC) in this case, or

 2. The MDMT to be stamped on the nameplate, which is −30°F (−35oC).

 

Also note the words in UCS-67(a) "Welds made with filler metal shall be deposited using welding procedures qualified with impact testing in accordance with UG-84 when ANY of the following apply". This means ALL of the subparagraphs [UCS-67(a)(1) through (4)] of UCS-67 shall be reviewed/checked off to see which one [or ones] apply to the situation in hand.

 

·       UCS-67(a)(1) is not applicable since the material does not have to be impact tested by the rules of Section VIII Division 1.

·       Assuming that the WPS doesn't call for any individual weld pass in excess of ½" in thickness, UCS-67(a)(2) is not applicable.

·       UCS-67(a)(4) is not applicable since the material is not covered by UCS-66(g).

·       UCS-67(a)(3) seems to be applicable in this situation since we have a Curve D material and the MDMT stamped on the vessel is −30oF (−35oC) which is colder than −20°F (−29oC) but not colder than −55°F (−48oC).

 

However as mentioned above, it is possible to use either −20°F (−29oC) or −30°F (−35oC) as the MDMT in UCS-67(a)(3). It is interesting to note that if −20°F (−29oC) is used, impact testing is not required for the WPS and if −30°F (−35oC) is used, impact testing is required for the WPS unless each individual weld pass in the production weld doesn't exceed ¼" in thickness; and each heat and/or lot of filler metal or combination of heat and or lot of filler metal and batch of flux is classified by their manufacturer through impact testing per the applicable SFA specification at a temperature not warmer than the MDMT.

 

It is perfectly acceptable to use −20°F (−29oC) as the MDMT for the paragraph UCS-67 in this example to arrive at the conclusion that the WPS used for welding the shell plate material doesn't need to be qualified with impact testing.

 

One could interpret this to be a conundrum or a loophole in the Code, but in reality, it is not. The materials addressed in UCS-67(a)(3) [Curve C or D or UCS-66(g) materials] are engineered to be tougher [which means more crack resistant for a given crack size and applied stress] and UCS-67(a)(3) requires that the filler metal to be proven equally tough when the MDMT is between −20°F(−29oC) and −55°F (−48oC).

 

On the other hand, Curve A or B materials [less tough compared to Curve C or D materials] can only get colder exemptions through UCS-66(b) or UCS- 68(c), both of which reduce the applied and residual stress respectively. When the applied and/or residual stress is reduced, both the base metal and the weld metal would see the benefit, with the weld metal assumed to be of about the same toughness as the base metal.

 

In this example, due to the excess thickness in the plate, it was possible to use UCS-66(b) to reduce the applied stress in the shell. Therefore, both the base and the weld metal [though not specifically proven or classified as required in UCS-67(a)(3)] were able to receive the benefit of being "less stressed" and get rated up to a MDMT of −30oF (−35oC) without impact testing. If, in fact the Curve D material used for the shell had an unadjusted MDMT of −30oF (−35oC) from Fig UCS-66 or Table UCS-66 [as opposed to −20oF (−29oC) used in this example] with no excess thickness, UCS-66(b) option would not have worked and WPS would have required qualification with impact testing unless each individual weld pass in the production weld doesn't exceed ¼" in thickness; and each heat and/or lot of filler metal or combination of heat and/or lot of filler metal and batch of flux is classified by their manufacturer through impact testing per the applicable SFA      

specification at a temperature not warmer than the MDMT.

 

This example clarifies why the provision exists in UCS-67 that allows the designer to select the MDMT to be used in that paragraph.

 

Source: http://www.hsbglobalstandards.com/

RE: [MW:26537] P number grouping for IS 2062 material

Dear Experts, Please share reference in ASME Section IX for p & g numbers for IS 2062 E350 gr. A, B, C materials if UNS no. is unknown

--
https://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/122787
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Materials & Welding" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to materials-welding+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/materials-welding.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

The history of NACE MR-0175, ISO 15156, and the 1% nickel limit - Timeline

Studying complex phenomena such as sulfide stress cracking (SSC) of carbon and low alloy steels (LAS) requires a holistic historical perspective. For example, understanding the influence of microstructure on SSC resistance was made possible thanks, in part, to advances in electron and transmission electron microscopy. Since the early SSC failures that affected oil and gas equipment short after World War II,[1]-[2] much of our understanding of the underlying failure mechanisms as well as industry regulations matured in parallel with improvements in characterization techniques and new discoveries in the realm of physical metallurgy and corrosion. Nevertheless, the fundamental assumptions that led to the development of international standards such as NACE MR-0175 and ISO 15156 have more or less remained unchanged since their introduction more than 40 years ago. The persistence of the restriction in the allowable nickel content, the sole focus on hardness and strength limits rather than controlling causative factors such as the presence of untempered martensite illustrate this disjunctive quite well.

A historical perspective

I have recently started to compile a timeline describing the key events that catalyze the development of the NACE MR–0715 specification as well as the fundamental research that exploded as a consequence of recurrent failures and global standardization activities. I hope to gain a better understanding not only on SSC of LAS but also on the reasons that led to certain controversial decisions in standardization committees. 

Although it is a still a work in progress, I like to share the timeline with the community. I would very much like to get feedback from anyone working in this area, in particular from people that might have been involved in early research and NACE committee discussions. 

The timeline is embedded below and, thanks to the magic of the cloud, it will always be up-to-date. The entries can be expanded or collapsed for better viewing. There are a basic search function as well as zoom and panning tools. The full-screen version can be accessed HERE

References

1.     D.E. Milliams, R.N. Tuttle, “ISO 15156/NACE MR0175 - A New International Standard for Metallic Materials for Use in Oil and Gas Production in Sour Environments,” CORROSION 2003,  paper no. 03090 (16–20 March, San Diego, CA: NACE International, 2003).

2.     Patrick, D. H.,“MR0175 - A History and Development Study,” CORROSION 99, paper no. 418 (25–30 April, San Antonio, TX: NACE International, 1999).

Source: https://www.aboutcorrosion.com/

[MW:26536] Weld Consumables for welding of dillidur 400 material

Dear Experts,

Kindly suggest weld consumables for following material.


1. Dillidur 400 to Dillidur 400
2. Dillidur 400 to SA 516 GR.70


PRASHANT 
(09967324773)




--
https://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/122787
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Materials & Welding" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to materials-welding+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/materials-welding.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[MW:26535] Re: Multi Process Qualification (MAG+SAW)

the root wire on PQR1. 

but I don't want to make complete test. 

On the PQR1 i used root wire1; and i want to make a new test with only root wire2 with same thickness range on PQR1 root thickness.

can i use these two PQR tests to create new WPS described on the sketch.

Regards. 

--
https://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/122787
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Materials & Welding" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to materials-welding+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/materials-welding.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Monday, May 22, 2017

[MW:26532] Re: Welder qualification for sockolet joints

Sockolet is a fillet weld. See QW-451,3 or QW-451.4 for the WPS qualification.
If the welder was qualified by means of a groove weld, practically for fillet he can weld any thickness (see QW-452.6)
However beware of the diameter qualification range

--
https://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/122787
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Materials & Welding" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to materials-welding+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/materials-welding.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[MW:26532] Re: duplex contamination

It will not if the ss is not already contaminated. You should pick both of them and avoid any contact with cs tools

--
https://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/122787
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Materials & Welding" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to materials-welding+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/materials-welding.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

The Impact Testing Enigma A Review of ASME Section VIII, Division 1, Subsection C, Part UCS, Impact Testing Requirements

  1.0        INTRODUCTION   Manufacturers continuously face the challenge of complying with the impact testing provisions ...