Saturday, May 31, 2008

[MW:816] Re: Clarification requirements for NDT methods

 The product is hardwares,forged shafts, ( at raw material & after machined ). 
 
Can I put ASME SEC V at above stages ???
 
CCH 70-3 - Standard Specification for Inspection of steel casting for Hydrulic Machine.
Normaly this std applicable for hydulic turbines cast components such as runner balde,crown,band,guidevanes etc. That include inspection procedure & acceptance class.
 
Regards,
 
Vikas Rana 
 
On 5/29/08, Bathula Raghuram (Mumbai - PIPING) <R.Bathula@ticb.com> wrote:

What is your product? If your product specification refers you must use these standards, of course you can use always Section V in addition to these, but not instead of as these are product specific applications.

 

Like E165 for PT, A275 for MT and A388 for UT, no idea about CCH70

From: Rana Vikas [mailto:vhrana@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 3:29 PM
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Subject: Clarification requirments for NDT methods

 

Dear All,

 

Hi, I am Vikas Rana working with MNC.

 

I have query during preparation of QAP by selecting method of NDT

 

Can you please clarify differance between below NDT methods

 

ASTM E 165

ASTM A 275 

ASTM A 388

CCH 70

 

Can I put ASME SEC V instead of above methods in QAP ???

If answer no please explain deifferance between them..

 

Early reply most appriable.

 

Regards,

 

Vikas Rana

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

By - No comments:

Friday, May 30, 2008

[MW:815] Re: Arc Generation

Dear S.Mahuri,
For arc generation in arc welding two electrodes are necessary. Now take example of SMAW welding. Normally electrode is  +ve electrode and the work piece is -ve electode.
When high ampere current is applied through electrode and when welder brings welding electrode very near to work piece the current try to flow from negative to positve. But there is gap of air. When the electorde is in close proximity of the work piece the air gap is minimised. Currnet try to flow  & air making resistance to current flow and great amount of heat is generated at welding spot by making the air ionisation and ionised air gases now become conductive and passes the current from / to work piece to electorde. With generation of high temparature the electrode starts melting and welding progresses.
 
Nilesh Pathare,
TCR Engineering Services, Inspection Engineer.


 
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 4:37 AM, Mahuri Snehkumar (TIPO - QA/QC) <S.Mahuri@panipat.ticb.com> wrote:

Dear all,

 

Can any one tell me in welding how arc is generated.

 

Regards,

 

Snehkumar L. Mahuri

QA/QC

EPCC 2A, PANIPAT

9215989508

 





--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

By - No comments:

Thursday, May 29, 2008

[MW:814] Re: Clarification requirements for NDT methods

To : Mr Rana

Hi,

ASME V does refer to these methods as acceptable to it. So when you put one the others are taken care of.

And what is CCH70?

Shashank Vagal

--- On Thu, 5/29/08, Bathula Raghuram (Mumbai - PIPING) <R.Bathula@ticb.com> wrote:

From: Bathula Raghuram (Mumbai - PIPING) <R.Bathula@ticb.com>
Subject: [MW:812] RE: Clarification requirements for NDT methods
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Date: Thursday, May 29, 2008, 3:40 PM

What is your product? If your product specification refers you must use these standards, of course you can use always Section V in addition to these, but not instead of as these are product specific applications.

 

Like E165 for PT, A275 for MT and A388 for UT, no idea about CCH70

From: Rana Vikas [mailto:vhrana@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 3:29 PM
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Subject: Clarification requirments for NDT methods

 

Dear All,

 

Hi, I am Vikas Rana working with MNC.

 

I have query during preparation of QAP by selecting method of NDT

 

Can you please clarify differance between below NDT methods

 

ASTM E 165

ASTM A 275 

ASTM A 388

CCH 70

 

Can I put ASME SEC V instead of above methods in QAP ???

If answer no please explain deifferance between them..

 

Early reply most appriable.

 

Regards,

 

Vikas Rana



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

By - No comments:

[MW:813] Moloy Dhar is out of the office.

I will be out of the office starting 05/29/2008 and will not return until 06/01/2008.

I will have no access to my e-mail. I will respond to your message when I return.For any urgent matter pl. contact Mr. Maneesh Chandra / Sudhir K Singh.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

By - No comments:

[MW:812] RE: Clarification requirements for NDT methods

What is your product? If your product specification refers you must use these standards, of course you can use always Section V in addition to these, but not instead of as these are product specific applications.

 

Like E165 for PT, A275 for MT and A388 for UT, no idea about CCH70

From: Rana Vikas [mailto:vhrana@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 3:29 PM
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Subject: Clarification requirments for NDT methods

 

Dear All,

 

Hi, I am Vikas Rana working with MNC.

 

I have query during preparation of QAP by selecting method of NDT

 

Can you please clarify differance between below NDT methods

 

ASTM E 165

ASTM A 275 

ASTM A 388

CCH 70

 

Can I put ASME SEC V instead of above methods in QAP ???

If answer no please explain deifferance between them..

 

Early reply most appriable.

 

Regards,

 

Vikas Rana


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
By - No comments:

[MW:811] [MW:810]] Bolt coating.


In addition to Raghu's email, sorry that I forgot to mention that the multilayer polymer coated bolts are being recommended for service temperatures of less than 200 deg.c and for all material bolting assemblies in highly corrosive atmospheric seashore site locations.

Just to pointout, additionally the zinc reacting with SS being refered as the LME-Liquid Metal Embrittlement effect. Which is true for metal coated SS bolting and painting material having zinc as an ingredient which can possible spill over during site painting acitivity and during fabrication or erection welds crossing the melting temp. of zinc which will lead to LME. Accidents of failure of massive pressure equipments have occured due to this minor mistake of paint spray on SS vessels before going for heat treatment in shops. Moreover this embrittlement move across the thickness.

With regards,
Kannan.



"Bathula Raghuram \(Mumbai - PIPING\)" <R.Bathula@ticb.com>
Sent by: materials-welding@googlegroups.com

29/05/2008 05:37

Please respond to
materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To
<materials-welding@googlegroups.com>, <piping_valves@yahoogroups.com>
cc
Subject
[MW:810] RE: 809] Bolt coating.





Zinc- or cadmium-coated steel fasteners shall not be used for applications above 400°F: these coatings may cause hydrogen embrittlement. Especially avoid mixing zinc- and cadmium-coated nuts, bolts, or washers at temperatures above 300°F: the zinc and cadmium will melt and mix. The resulting mixture is known to cause intergranular cracking, with subsequent failure of the fasteners in a short time. Failure of fasteners as described above can result in serious injury to personnel and damage to equipment. Cadmium or zinc is not permitted where it would be in contact with fuel oil, lubricating oil, grease, or petroleum-based hydraulic fluid. This restriction does not prohibit the use of cadmium or zinc plated fasteners in locations that are external to these systems if there is no danger of contaminating the working fluid. For example, cadmium or zinc plated fasteners could be safely used as hold down or mounting bolts for a hydraulic control valve since there is no danger of contact between the external fasteners and the fluid inside the valve. Personnel should wash their hands after handling cadmium plated fasteners to avoid ingesting cadmium.


From: materials-welding@googlegroups.com [mailto:materials-welding@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kannan.Sundaram@Linde-LE.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 9:41 PM
To: piping_valves@yahoogroups.com
Cc: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Subject: [MW:809] Bolt coating.
 

Felt to caution people who prescribe the bolt coating.

In an inhouse test of Polymer coated bolt of of a reputed Japanese vendor, which was to perform 4000 hours of salt spray test as per B 117, did not meet the requirement though the vendor's test certificates prooved so. The inhouse test was performed as in one of the plant it was used and has peeled off while normal wrenching and never stood even 1/4 of the life period gauranteed by the supplier. Literally all bolting of the plant had to be replaced by the client.

The final recommendation is that it is ideal to have a phosphating coat and a galvanizing or zinc coat and the final coat to be fluorocarbon polymer coat which really stood well in acc. with B117 in the inhouse test and has been proven in few operational plants.

So as a caution note, it would be a good practice to go for multiple coat rather than single coat for the general call for such coating requirements.

I do not want to name the companies explicity in this list for obvious reason.

Readers' experienced views are welcome.

With regards,
Kannan. <br



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

By - No comments:

[MW:810] RE: 809] Bolt coating.

Zinc- or cadmium-coated steel fasteners shall not be used for applications above 400°F: these coatings may cause hydrogen embrittlement. Especially avoid mixing zinc- and cadmium-coated nuts, bolts, or washers at temperatures above 300°F: the zinc and cadmium will melt and mix. The resulting mixture is known to cause intergranular cracking, with subsequent failure of the fasteners in a short time. Failure of fasteners as described above can result in serious injury to personnel and damage to equipment. Cadmium or zinc is not permitted where it would be in contact with fuel oil, lubricating oil, grease, or petroleum-based hydraulic fluid. This restriction does not prohibit the use of cadmium or zinc plated fasteners in locations that are external to these systems if there is no danger of contaminating the working fluid. For example, cadmium or zinc plated fasteners could be safely used as hold down or mounting bolts for a hydraulic control valve since there is no danger of contact between the external fasteners and the fluid inside the valve. Personnel should wash their hands after handling cadmium plated fasteners to avoid ingesting cadmium.

From: materials-welding@googlegroups.com [mailto:materials-welding@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kannan.Sundaram@Linde-LE.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 9:41 PM
To: piping_valves@yahoogroups.com
Cc: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Subject: [MW:809] Bolt coating.

 


Felt to caution people who prescribe the bolt coating.

In an inhouse test of Polymer coated bolt of of a reputed Japanese vendor, which was to perform 4000 hours of salt spray test as per B 117, did not meet the requirement though the vendor's test certificates prooved so. The inhouse test was performed as in one of the plant it was used and has peeled off while normal wrenching and never stood even 1/4 of the life period gauranteed by the supplier. Literally all bolting of the plant had to be replaced by the client.

The final recommendation is that it is ideal to have a phosphating coat and a galvanizing or zinc coat and the final coat to be fluorocarbon polymer coat which really stood well in acc. with B117 in the inhouse test and has been proven in few operational plants.

So as a caution note, it would be a good practice to go for multiple coat rather than single coat for the general call for such coating requirements.

I do not want to name the companies explicity in this list for obvious reason.

Readers' experienced views are welcome.

With regards,
Kannan. <br


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
By - No comments:

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

[MW:809] Bolt coating.


Felt to caution people who prescribe the bolt coating.

In an inhouse test of Polymer coated bolt of of a reputed Japanese vendor, which was to perform 4000 hours of salt spray test as per B 117, did not meet the requirement though the vendor's test certificates prooved so. The inhouse test was performed as in one of the plant it was used and has peeled off while normal wrenching and never stood even 1/4 of the life period gauranteed by the supplier. Literally all bolting of the plant had to be replaced by the client.

The final recommendation is that it is ideal to have a phosphating coat and a galvanizing or zinc coat and the final coat to be fluorocarbon polymer coat which really stood well in acc. with B117 in the inhouse test and has been proven in few operational plants.

So as a caution note, it would be a good practice to go for multiple coat rather than single coat for the general call for such coating requirements.

I do not want to name the companies explicity in this list for obvious reason.

Readers' experienced views are welcome.

With regards,
Kannan. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

By - No comments:

[MW:808] Engineering Alert- Deffective bolting

By - No comments:

[MW:807] Fillet weld thickness thumbrule

Normally code references are not required for these types of welds, however for fillets size, you can specify thickness of thinner member to be joined or 6mm which ever is less, which is a GEP.

And intermittent fillets can be specified as 50-100 or 50-150 (50mm weld length and 100/150mm gap between two welds)

 

If you need you may use AWS D1.1 (refer table 2.4 under description 3.4)

From: piping_valves@yahoogroups.com [mailto:piping_valves@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of kannan.sundaram@linde-le.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 12:35 PM
To: piping_valves@yahoogroups.com; materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Subject: [piping_valves] Weld thickness thumbrule, if any.

 


Friends, I am not an expert in welding.

I would like to know if any rules are existing to define a fillet weld height(contineous or stitch) and pitch (If stitch) of a non pressure part like a plate or U beam or standpost or sign post welded on a structural beam which likewise components which does not pose any stress on the beam.

With regards,
Kannan.

__._,_.___


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
By - No comments:

[MW:806] Weld thickness thumbrule, if any.


Friends, I am not an expert in welding.

I would like to know if any rules are existing to define a fillet weld height(contineous or stitch) and pitch (If stitch) of a non pressure part like a plate or U beam or standpost or sign post welded on a structural beam which likewise components which does not pose any stress on the beam.

With regards,
Kannan. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

By - No comments:

[MW:805] UT as NDT for Welded Joints

It is designer's choice (what is end use, is it for skirt base or any part of the item which is subjected to stress due to pressure?); AD has a choice of choosing between D or US for butt welds under stress (LN)

In ASME Design “E” is selected based on RT; other wise it is quite normal to use UT for skirt base flange made of segments from plate, otherwise I have not come across any body flange made from plate in segment, instead of forging.

 

However TOFD can be and is used as a substitution of RT.  It is superior in that it can fully characterize and size defects that are found.  It is permitted as a substitute for RT in the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code via Code Case 2235.However, the use of TOFD requires substantial skill and experience.

Note: RT is superior for what it does.  TOFD is a new toy to play!

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: PED2000@googlegroups.com [mailto:PED2000@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Singh Rishi Raj (Tasnee Site)
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 6:54 PM
To: PED2000@googlegroups.com
Subject: [PED:87] Re: UT as NDT for Welded Joints

 

 

Intresting !!!

Please let us know more details.

 

In AD , NDT requirements are based on metal.

Specific details will help us .

 

Best Regards,

 

Rishi Raj Singh

 

-----Original Message-----

From: PED2000@googlegroups.com [mailto:PED2000@googlegroups.com] On

Behalf Of Rajesh

Sent: 27 May 2008 16:09

To: Process Equipment Design

Subject: [PED:86] UT as NDT for Welded Joints

 

 

Dear All,

 

May I know if what is the preffered practice of NDT for Welded joints,

particularly when flanges are made in segments & then welded.

 

As I understand ASME does not allow UT

But AD- Merckblatt recommeds UT.

 

Please comment.

 

Regards

 

 

Rajesh Bhavsar

 

 


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
By - No comments:

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

[MW:804] Re: [piping_valves] Selection of Gasket/Stud for SS#CS Flanges


Gasket selection which is quit a big subject is in addition to what Raghu has pointed out, also linked eitherway with flange selection and the type of facing etc. which does not have any fool proof solution and near perfect guidelines. Based on practical experience from the plants in operation the plant owners have defined thier own practice after experimenting with different rational options and in addition by the closing reports of various pilot plants. Which has been adapted by major engineering companies and is being passed on to other companies. Also everyone may be knowing that the weakest connection is a flange connection in a pipeline.

Coming to the situation of Zameer, is a default situation in any process plant. The BEP (Best engg. practice) would be to follow the worst case / stringent side of the piping class. In this case the SS flange side piping class definitions shall be applied. Also the contract docs. never define these common scenarios. The same applies to a piping of 300# is connected with a 150# rating piping. The 150# rating piping shall be welded with a 300# flange and bolted with the 300# rating piping on the other side.

I cannot envisage a situation where a equipment nozzle is SS and the connected piping is of CS material. If so pl. review with your process dept.

With regards,
Kannan



"Bathula Raghuram \(Mumbai - PIPING\)" <r.bathula@ticb.com>
Sent by: piping_valves@yahoogroups.com

27/05/2008 08:04

Please respond to
piping_valves@yahoogroups.com
To
<materials-welding@googlegroups.com>
cc
<piping_valves@yahoogroups.com>
Subject
[piping_valves] Selection of Gasket/Stud for  SS#CS Flanges





Gasket selection mainly depend on Temperature and Pressure of the media, Corrosive nature and Criticality of the application

Since you are using 316 in place of A105, u may use the similar combination of gasket, studs used for a CS#CS joint in the same process stream (since design conditions are same), unless you have contractual requirements if any.

From: Zameer Mohammed [mailto:dreamthinkwork@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 10:47 AM
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Subject: SS & CS Flanges

 

Dear Friends,

We have 2 mating flanges, one is SS316 and another is A105. Can I connect SS Flange with CS Flange? In this case, what type of Gaskets, Stud Bolts & Nuts we can use?

For all other CS flanges we are using spiral wound gaskets.

Thank you,

Regards,

 

Sabir

__._,_.___
Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic
Messages

Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Visit Your Group
Yahoo! Groups

Familyographer Zone

Join a group and

share your pictures.

Cat Zone

on Yahoo! Groups

Join a Group

all about cats.

Special K Group

on Yahoo! Groups

Join the challenge

and lose weight.

.

__,_._,___
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

By - No comments:

[MW:802] RE: [PED:84] Pressure-Temperature rating of DI and Al-bronze

Check AWWA A21.10 for DI, and probably BS1400 for Al-bronze (C95800)

 

ANSI B16.42 give rating for DI (SA395, which refers A536 for the service other than mentioned in this std) however method for establishing pr-temp rating also given in this std (annexure A).

 

 

Typical application of Sa395/A536 can be found from the above table (reference ASM handbook)

-----Original Message-----
From: PED2000@googlegroups.com [mailto:PED2000@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bathula Raghuram (Mumbai - PIPING)
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 1:41 PM
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Cc: piping_valves@yahoogroups.com; PED2000@googlegroups.com
Subject: [PED:84] Pressure-Temperature rating of DI and Al-bronze

 

 

Some how this posting is not appearing in the group, hence reposting,

please share if any body information on this.

----- Forwarded by Prasad Joshi/TPGAUH on 27/05/08 10:54 AM -----

 

 

             Prasad

 

             Joshi/TPGAUH

 

 

To

             27/05/08 10:41 AM

materials-welding@googlegroups.com 

 

cc

                                       PED2000@googlegroups.com

 

 

Subject

                                       Pressure-Temperature rating of DI

 

                                       and Al-bronze(Document link:

Prasad

                                       Joshi)

 

 

Dear Group memebers,

 

We are using the following material for valves/flanges in our project:

 

1) DI: ASTM A536 Gr. 65-45-12

 

2) Al-bronze: ASTM B148-C95800

 

The above materials are not covered in ASME B16.1 and B16.24. Can any

one

from the group guide me which standard will gude us for the exact

rating?

 

Best regards,

 

Prasad Joshi

e-mail: pjoshi@technip.com

Phone: +971-(0)2-611-6643

 

Save a tree...please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

 

 

 


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
By - No comments:

[MW:801] Re: [piping_valves] Pressure-Temperature rating of DI and Al-bronze


The B148 is covered by MSS SP 80 and PT under B16.24 which covers copper alloy and for the ductile iron casting A 536 refer B16.42 and may be replaced with A 395 or can apply the PT method defined in that standard. As I do not have the latest version of the standard in my hand, you may verfiy the same.

With regards,
Kannan



"Bathula Raghuram \(Mumbai - PIPING\)" <r.bathula@ticb.com>
Sent by: piping_valves@yahoogroups.com

27/05/2008 10:10

Please respond to
piping_valves@yahoogroups.com
To
<materials-welding@googlegroups.com>
cc
<piping_valves@yahoogroups.com>, <PED2000@googlegroups.com>
Subject
[piping_valves] Pressure-Temperature rating of DI and Al-bronze





Some how this posting is not appearing in the group, hence reposting,
please share if any body information on this.
----- Forwarded by Prasad Joshi/TPGAUH on 27/05/08 10:54 AM -----

Prasad

Joshi/TPGAUH

To
27/05/08 10:41 AM
materials-welding@googlegroups.com

cc
PED2000@googlegroups.com

Subject
Pressure-Temperature rating of DI

and Al-bronze(Document link:
Prasad
Joshi)

Dear Group memebers,

We are using the following material for valves/flanges in our project:

1) DI: ASTM A536 Gr. 65-45-12

2) Al-bronze: ASTM B148-C95800

The above materials are not covered in ASME B16.1 and B16.24. Can any
one
from the group guide me which standard will gude us for the exact
rating?

Best regards,

Prasad Joshi
e-mail: pjoshi@technip.com
Phone: +971-(0)2-611-6643

Save a tree...please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

__._,_.___
Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic
Messages

Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Visit Your Group
Y! Messenger

Instant smiles

Share photos while

you IM friends.

All-Bran

10 Day Challenge

Join the club and

feel the benefits.

Find Balance

on Yahoo! Groups

manage nutrition,

activity & well-being.

.

__,_._,___ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

By - No comments:

[MW:800] Pressure-Temperature rating of DI and Al-bronze

Some how this posting is not appearing in the group, hence reposting,
please share if any body information on this.
----- Forwarded by Prasad Joshi/TPGAUH on 27/05/08 10:54 AM -----

Prasad

Joshi/TPGAUH


To
27/05/08 10:41 AM
materials-welding@googlegroups.com

cc
PED2000@googlegroups.com


Subject
Pressure-Temperature rating of DI

and Al-bronze(Document link:
Prasad
Joshi)


Dear Group memebers,

We are using the following material for valves/flanges in our project:

1) DI: ASTM A536 Gr. 65-45-12

2) Al-bronze: ASTM B148-C95800

The above materials are not covered in ASME B16.1 and B16.24. Can any
one
from the group guide me which standard will gude us for the exact
rating?

Best regards,

Prasad Joshi
e-mail: pjoshi@technip.com
Phone: +971-(0)2-611-6643

Save a tree...please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

By - No comments:

[MW:803] Re: Dissimilar Group number/Thickness combination PQR as per QW403.5/QW403.6

 
QW 202.4 allows you weld dissimilar thickness material in Production with a qualified PQR(s). Not for the qualification of dissimilar thickness. The thickness Qualification range is to be taken from QW 451or QW 403.6 (if impact test is required) from the thickness used for qualification.
For qualification you need similar thickness (for full penetration groove welds). You can use dissimilar thickness but you will not get the benefit from thicker material (thickness) as the thickness T considered is based upon the tensile specimen thickness used.
Please refer Section IX Interpretation No. IX 86-43 which is nearly similar to this query.
Thanks & Regards,
Sanjeevan
 
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bathula Raghuram (Mumbai - PIPING)" <R.Bathula@ticb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 9:06 AM
Subject: [MW:798] Re: Dissimilar Group number/Thickness combination PQR as per QW403.5/QW403.6


Min qualified thickness can't be 1.5mm, when impact testing required.
Qualified thk range for P1G1 will be 6-12mm and P1G2 would be 12-24mm,
please refer the question again.

Dissimilar thickness combinations are quite common to qualify (in
particular for SR nozzle welds on equipment) per QW202.4

-----Original Message-----
From: Quality [mailto:quality@gpsoman.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 10:28 AM
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [MW:797] Re: Dissimilar Group number/Thickness combination
PQR as per QW403.5/QW403.6


The qualified thickness range is 1.5mm to 12mm (2T) for P1G1to them
selves,
P1G2 to themselves & P1G1 to P1G2 combinations.

The maximum qualified weld deposit is 2t (to is deposited weld thickness

during the qualification).

If you qualify a procedure with different parent material thickness
(groove
weld), the thickness T can be considered based upon the tensile specimen

thickness (T) used for the destructive testing of the groove weld PQR.
In
short, qualification of different thickness of relatively less use in
ASME
Sec IX.

Normally none of the construction/ fabrication codes does not allow
difference in thickness more than 1.5T (of the thinnest). Any Thickness
welded above 1.5 will not be accounted in design.

Regards,
Sanjeevan
GPS

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

By - No comments:

[MW:799] Selection of Gasket/Stud for SS#CS Flanges

Gasket selection mainly depend on Temperature and Pressure of the media, Corrosive nature and Criticality of the application

Since you are using 316 in place of A105, u may use the similar combination of gasket, studs used for a CS#CS joint in the same process stream (since design conditions are same), unless you have contractual requirements if any.

From: Zameer Mohammed [mailto:dreamthinkwork@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 10:47 AM
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Subject: SS & CS Flanges

 

Dear Friends,

We have 2 mating flanges, one is SS316 and another is A105. Can I connect SS Flange with CS Flange? In this case, what type of Gaskets, Stud Bolts & Nuts we can use?

For all other CS flanges we are using spiral wound gaskets.

Thank you,

Regards,

 

Sabir


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
By - No comments:

[MW:798] Re: Dissimilar Group number/Thickness combination PQR as per QW403.5/QW403.6

Min qualified thickness can't be 1.5mm, when impact testing required.
Qualified thk range for P1G1 will be 6-12mm and P1G2 would be 12-24mm,
please refer the question again.

Dissimilar thickness combinations are quite common to qualify (in
particular for SR nozzle welds on equipment) per QW202.4

-----Original Message-----
From: Quality [mailto:quality@gpsoman.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 10:28 AM
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [MW:797] Re: Dissimilar Group number/Thickness combination
PQR as per QW403.5/QW403.6


The qualified thickness range is 1.5mm to 12mm (2T) for P1G1to them
selves,
P1G2 to themselves & P1G1 to P1G2 combinations.

The maximum qualified weld deposit is 2t (to is deposited weld thickness

during the qualification).

If you qualify a procedure with different parent material thickness
(groove
weld), the thickness T can be considered based upon the tensile specimen

thickness (T) used for the destructive testing of the groove weld PQR.
In
short, qualification of different thickness of relatively less use in
ASME
Sec IX.

Normally none of the construction/ fabrication codes does not allow
difference in thickness more than 1.5T (of the thinnest). Any Thickness
welded above 1.5 will not be accounted in design.

Regards,
Sanjeevan
GPS


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

By - No comments:

Monday, May 26, 2008

[MW:797] Re: Dissimilar Group number/Thickness combination PQR as per QW403.5/QW403.6

From where u got 18.34mm? sounds interesting

for the time being we just concentrate on ASME IX for this problem,
not on any construction codes like B31.3, or ASME SecVIII, which in
addition have own variables to follow.

On May 26, 8:12 pm, babu raghavan <babuprm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As per the above PQR P1 Gr1 QUALIFIED&nbsp; 1.5mm to 12mm and PQR P1 Gr 2 QUALIFIED 5 TO 18.34mm (&nbsp;ASME B&nbsp;31.3 ) , SO Y ou can not weld P1 Gr 2 below 5 mm.You can &nbsp;weld P1 Gr1 up to 19 mm ( because of above 19 mm PWHT REQUERED ,it is not clear.)
> &nbsp;&nbsp;
> &nbsp;
> BABU.P.R&nbsp;
>
> --- On Mon, 5/26/08, Bathula Raghuram (Mumbai - PIPING) &lt;R.Bath...@ticb.com&gt; wrote:
>
> From: Bathula Raghuram (Mumbai - PIPING) &lt;R.Bath...@ticb.com&gt;
> Subject: [MW:795] Dissimilar Group number/Thickness combination PQR as per QW403.5/QW403.6
> To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
> Date: Monday, May 26, 2008, 11:19 AM
>
> When Impact testing of HAZ is required by design, welding as per ASME SecIX
> &nbsp;
> One of PQR qualified with a combination of group number and thickness welded together as 516 Gr60- 6mm thk and 516 Gr 70- 12mm thk
> WPS prepared for the range of 6-24mm for both group numbers. (QW403.6)
> &nbsp;
> In my opinion it virtually qualifies for nothing (except for 12mm thick) for a combination of group numbers
> &nbsp;
> For E.g. I have nozzle SA333 Gr6 and WNRF flange SA350LF2 with thickness of 7.11mm
> &nbsp;
> Where as in the above PQR, P#1, Gr#1 qualification range is 6-12mm and P#1, Gr#2 qualification range is 12-24mm and (QW403.5 and 403.6)
> &nbsp;
> Please share your views, do my views justified by the correct interpretation of QW403.5 and 403.6?
> &nbsp;
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

By - No comments:

[MW:796] Re: Dissimilar Group number/Thickness combination PQR as per QW403.5/QW403.6

As per the above PQR P1 Gr1 QUALIFIED  1.5mm to 12mm and PQR P1 Gr 2 QUALIFIED 5 TO 18.34mm ( ASME B 31.3 ) , SO Y ou can not weld P1 Gr 2 below 5 mm.You can  weld P1 Gr1 up to 19 mm ( because of above 19 mm PWHT REQUERED ,it is not clear.)

  

 

BABU.P.R 

--- On Mon, 5/26/08, Bathula Raghuram (Mumbai - PIPING) <R.Bathula@ticb.com> wrote:

From: Bathula Raghuram (Mumbai - PIPING) <R.Bathula@ticb.com>
Subject: [MW:795] Dissimilar Group number/Thickness combination PQR as per QW403.5/QW403.6
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Date: Monday, May 26, 2008, 11:19 AM

When Impact testing of HAZ is required by design, welding as per ASME SecIX

 

One of PQR qualified with a combination of group number and thickness welded together as 516 Gr60- 6mm thk and 516 Gr 70- 12mm thk

WPS prepared for the range of 6-24mm for both group numbers. (QW403.6)

 

In my opinion it virtually qualifies for nothing (except for 12mm thick) for a combination of group numbers

 

For E.g. I have nozzle SA333 Gr6 and WNRF flange SA350LF2 with thickness of 7.11mm

 

Where as in the above PQR, P#1, Gr#1 qualification range is 6-12mm and P#1, Gr#2 qualification range is 12-24mm and (QW403.5 and 403.6)

 

Please share your views, do my views justified by the correct interpretation of QW403.5 and 403.6?

 



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

By - No comments:

[MW:795] Dissimilar Group number/Thickness combination PQR as per QW403.5/QW403.6

When Impact testing of HAZ is required by design, welding as per ASME SecIX

 

One of PQR qualified with a combination of group number and thickness welded together as 516 Gr60- 6mm thk and 516 Gr 70- 12mm thk

WPS prepared for the range of 6-24mm for both group numbers. (QW403.6)

 

In my opinion it virtually qualifies for nothing (except for 12mm thick) for a combination of group numbers

 

For E.g. I have nozzle SA333 Gr6 and WNRF flange SA350LF2 with thickness of 7.11mm

 

Where as in the above PQR, P#1, Gr#1 qualification range is 6-12mm and P#1, Gr#2 qualification range is 12-24mm and (QW403.5 and 403.6)

 

Please share your views, do my views justified by the correct interpretation of QW403.5 and 403.6?

 


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
By - No comments:

Friday, May 23, 2008

[MW:794] RE: 729] Gray scale test in NDT as per SNT-TC-1A

The attachment can be used for evaluation

BR

-----Original Message-----
From: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
[mailto:materials-welding@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bathula
Raghuram (Mumbai - PIPING)
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:03 PM
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Subject: [MW:729] Gray scale test in NDT as per SNT-TC-1A

From: RAGHAVENDRA PEMMARAJU [mailto:rpe@hzw.ltindia.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:23 AM
To: Bathula Raghuram (Mumbai - PIPING)
Subject: Gray scale test in NDT as per SNT-TC-1A

Can you let me know the supplier of Pelli-Robinson test kit which is
useful as mentioned in subject matter?

Now days I am not receiving the mails from MW group. pl.put this in the
same and include my e mail ID again.

Regards


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

By - No comments:

Thursday, May 22, 2008

[MW:793] toughness in welding and welded metals

dear all members and friends.

i`ve a seminar about " toughness in weling " and now i need to help me
to gathering information and data and details about toughness in
welding an toughness of weld metals and HAZ and effetcs of welding
parameters on it.

Plaese help me as soon as possible you can.

Thanks for creating this blog.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

By - No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

[MW:35346] Cast-iron welding

Any advice for cast iron welding Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

  • Materails FAQs
    Q: What are equivalents for standard Q 235 B (and Q 235 A) for U-channels? ...
  • RE: [MW:5585] Buttering of weld joints
    Definition of buttering from ASME Section IX, QW/QB-492 Definitions:   Buttering:  the addition of material, by welding, on one or bot...
  • WELD AND WELDING SYMBOLS
    Section I. PRINT READING 3-1. GENERAL a. Drawings . Drawing or sketching is a universal language used to convey all necessary information to...