Materials & Welding: May 2012

Thursday, May 31, 2012

Re: [MW:14436] WPS on Forged Steel

Dear Maganth,

I assume person from the TPI is good in technical.

Assume the product may be in the Jack case applications in Shipbuilding or similar applications.

In order to reduce the fabrication time , they will go for the forged rather than the 2 pcs then weld again.

In that cases, the best way to do welding simulation by welding the actual test pcs by approved WPS.

Majority of the cases, the forged company will supply small test pcs from the production heat for the verification to the customer approval

If the plate thickness is more than 100 mm , it is suggested to do verification of WPS in actual forged steel materials

Since the forged materials , may be less in CVN and elongation , it is better to verify the mechanical properties in the actual pcs after welding by approved WPS.

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Lab <lab@cochinshipyard.com> wrote:

Dear Friends,

In our production unit, we would like to make butt weld between forged steel grade of S355J2G3, a round shaped object. The Third part Inspection (TPI) agency which clears the joint, insists us to perform WPS on similar material before production welding. This particular material was imported from other country long back and we could not thick about WPS when we purchased. It is not possible for us to get the similar material (same grade & same condition) suitable for WPS as well as WPQ and no response from the suppliers when contacted for supply of small quantity.

At last one supplier came forward and ready to supply S355J2G3 of rolled and normalized plate.

When we went to TPI with the proposal of making WPS with rolled plate, they are not convinced as the properties of forged and rolled steel even after Normalizing, are different and insisting us to do WPS test on forged steel of same grade.

Request the forum to provide guidelines to get rid of this situation or from where I get small quantity of material of similar grade, condition in India to arrange for WPS.

Regards,

Megnath
The information contained in this message are Cochin Shipyard Limited confidential and proprietary information and is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, he/she is hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication or any of the content is strictly prohibited. In such case, please advise the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Further acknowledges that any views expressed in the message are those of the individual sender and no binding nature of the message shall be implied or assumed unless the sender does so expressly with due authority of Cochin Shipyard Limited.      ----------------------------------  Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Cochin, India      !-- Virus-Free Mail Using AntiVirus for PostMaster Enterprise & QuickHeal Engine --!
--
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.

Thanks & regards,

K.Babu

Singapore

--
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.

Re: [MW:14435] Uncertainity calculation in Tensile test

Dear Megnath,

Just follow ISO guide on Uncertainty Measurement. In simple steps:

1. Take atleast five readings for the required parameters (n=5)

2. Calculate, Mean & Standard Deviation

3. Take machine uncertainty given in calibration certificate

4. Combine and calculate Combined Uncertainty.

2012/5/31 Lab <lab@cochinshipyard.com>

Dear friends,

Can any one spare the Uncertainty Measurement of tensile test (Tensile strength, % Elongation etc) using UTM. This is just to understand before NABL Accreditation.

Regards,

A Megnath
The information contained in this message are Cochin Shipyard Limited confidential and proprietary information and is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, he/she is hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication or any of the content is strictly prohibited. In such case, please advise the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Further acknowledges that any views expressed in the message are those of the individual sender and no binding nature of the message shall be implied or assumed unless the sender does so expressly with due authority of Cochin Shipyard Limited.      ----------------------------------  Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Cochin, India      !-- Virus-Free Mail Using AntiVirus for PostMaster Enterprise & QuickHeal Engine --!
--
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.

regards,

Harish.

[MW:14433] Uncertainity calculation in Tensile test

Dear friends,

Can any one spare the Uncertainty Measurement of tensile test (Tensile strength, % Elongation etc) using UTM. This is just to understand before NABL Accreditation.

Regards,

A Megnath

Re: [MW:14432] WPS on Forged Steel

Dear Sir,

My problem is not with grade of the steel (S355J2G3). The TPI insists on WPS using forged steel of the above grade. There are some agencies to supply the rolled steel of the same grade, but no one responding for forged steel of S355J2G3.

Your comment on the above, please.

Regards,

A Megnath

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

From: pgoswami

To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com

Cc: lab@cochinshipyards.com

Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 4:01 PM

Subject: FW: [MW:14427] WPS on Forged Steel

Hi Megnath,

Please see two attachments for your reference. My feel is this grade of steel could be supplied in both shapes, either as bar or plate. You need to confirm the same from supplier. The other choice is perform a comprehensive PMI of the forged bar, and calculate the carbon equivalence (CE) and match the same with the composition and calculate CE of the proposed plate to be supplied. If both the values are close it would give confidence to the TPI.

Hope this would be of help.

Thanks.

Pradip Goswami,P.Eng.IWE

Welding & Metallurgical Specialist

Ontario, Canada.

Email-pgoswami@sympatico.ca,

pgoswami@quickclic.net
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Lab <lab@cochinshipyard.com> wrote:
Dear Friends,

In our production unit, we would like to make butt weld between forged steel grade of S355J2G3, a round shaped object. The Third part Inspection (TPI) agency which clears the joint, insists us to perform WPS on similar material before production welding. This particular material was imported from other country long back and we could not thick about WPS when we purchased. It is not possible for us to get the similar material (same grade & same condition) suitable for WPS as well as WPQ and no response from the suppliers when contacted for supply of small quantity.

At last one supplier came forward and ready to supply S355J2G3 of rolled and normalized plate.

When we went to TPI with the proposal of making WPS with rolled plate, they are not convinced as the properties of forged and rolled steel even after Normalizing, are different and insisting us to do WPS test on forged steel of same grade.

Request the forum to provide guidelines to get rid of this situation or from where I get small quantity of material of similar grade, condition in India to arrange for WPS.

Regards,

Megnath
The information contained in this message are Cochin Shipyard Limited confidential and proprietary information and is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, he/she is hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication or any of the content is strictly prohibited. In such case, please advise the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Further acknowledges that any views expressed in the message are those of the individual sender and no binding nature of the message shall be implied or assumed unless the sender does so expressly with due authority of Cochin Shipyard Limited.      ----------------------------------  Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Cochin, India      !-- Virus-Free Mail Using AntiVirus for PostMaster Enterprise & QuickHeal Engine --!
--
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.
--
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.

--
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.
  !-- Virus-Free Mail Using AntiVirus for PostMaster Enterprise & QuickHeal Engine --!

[MW:14431] RE: Filler metal with lower strength thsn base metal

I forgot to attach the file, sorry

From: alexis_viteri@hotmail.com
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Subject: Filler metal with lower strength thsn base metal
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 08:10:26 -0500

Dear Experts,

Could you please share your criteria/experiencie regarding procedures that are qualified (API 1104 or ASME IX) with filler metals with lower strength than base metal, for instance, e6010 (SY 48 KSI / SUT 60 KSI) used to weld API X52 (SY 52 KSI / SUT 66KSI).
According to the document attached it could be a choice, but i don't understand very well why the tensile test was cleared and how this fact could impact in a gubernamental audit.

Thanks and regards
Alexis

[MW:14430] RE: 14414] Instrument to measure flange face serration

Hi,

Flange Face Surface Finish

The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) code for flanges and flanged fittings (ANSI B16.5) requires that the flange face has a specific roughness to ensure that this surface be compatible with the gasket and provide a high quality seal. A serrated finish, either concentric or spiral, is required with 30 to 55 grooves per inch and a resultant roughness between 125 and 500 microinches.

This allows for various grades of surface finish to be made available by flange manufactures for the gasket contact surface of metal flanges. These grades are often referred to by name e.g. stock finish. The exact definition of each grade may differ between manufacturers, but can be generalised as follows;

Stock Finish

The gasket contact surface is typically formed by a continuous (sometimes called phonographic) spiral groove generated by a 1.6mm radius round-nosed tool at a feed rate of 0.8mm per revolution with a depth of 0.15mm. This will result in a roughness between Ra 3.2 and 12.5 micrometers (125 - 500 microinch).

Smooth Finish

No definite tool marking should be apparent to the naked eye. This is typically achieved by having the gasket contact surface formed by a continuous (sometimes called phonographic) spiral groove generated by a 0.8mm radius round-nosed tool at a feed rate of 0.3mm per revolution with a depth of 0.05mm. This will result in a roughness between Ra 3.2 and 6.3 micrometers (125 - 250 microinch).

Hydrogen Service Finish

The finish for flanges in hydrogen service is very smooth, typically between Ra 2 and 3.2 micrometers (79 - 125 microinch).

Cold Water Finish

The flange face appears as mirror like. This flange finish is usually expected to be used with metal to metal contact, i.e. without a gasket. It is seldom used in the oil, petrochem and related industries.

Measuring Surface Roughness

Flange finish is generally measured by visual and tactile means. Comparing the feel of the machined face with that of a surface finish comparator gauge, occasionally referred to as a Rupert gauge, is considered adequate.
There are two common methods of expressing roughness. They are the Arithmetic Average Roughness Height (AARH) and the Root Mean Square (RMS) Average.
Arithmetic Average Roughness Height- Calculation of the Arithmetic Average Roughness Height involves measuring the distance of the peaks and valleys and performing an arithmetic average of the measurements.
Root Mean Square Average - Calculation of the Root Mean Square Average involves measuring the distance of peaks and valleys, adding the square of these measurements and calculating the square root of the total.

The RMS value is approximately 11% higher than the AARH value.

Thanks

Mohamed elsayed

From: materials-welding@googlegroups.com [mailto:materials-welding@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of K.M Hrishikesan
Sent: 30 May 2012 14:00
To: materials-welding
Subject: [MW:14414] Instrument to measure flange face serration

I need following precise information urgently..

Which instrument/comparator can I use to check the serration of flange face (ideally for 125 to 250 AARH)

Kindly mention the make, brand etc

Thanks

Hrishi

Re: [MW:14428] Instrument to measure flange face serration

dear Rishi,

frankly speaking , as per my knowledge for shop use no instrument is there . but you can buy ready comparator in which different steel surfaces are available for different AARH values. you have to compare your product surface with that standerd prepared surface by hand and visual inspection and decide whether your product meet the required range or not. i am waiting for other experts view on this.

thanks

ansari.

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:29 PM, K.M Hrishikesan <hrishikm07@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi

I need following precise information urgently..

Which instrument/comparator can I use to check the serration of flange face (ideally for 125 to 250 AARH)

Kindly mention the make, brand etc

Thanks
Hrishi

--
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.

--
Regards
Ansari Intekhab Alam

FW: [MW:14427] WPS on Forged Steel

Hi Megnath,

Please see two attachments for your reference. My feel is this grade of steel could be supplied in both shapes, either as bar or plate. You need to confirm the same from supplier. The other choice is perform a comprehensive PMI of the forged bar, and calculate the carbon equivalence (CE) and match the same with the composition and calculate CE of the proposed plate to be supplied. If both the values are close it would give confidence to the TPI.

Hope this would be of help.

Thanks.

Pradip Goswami,P.Eng.IWE

Welding & Metallurgical Specialist

Ontario, Canada.

Email-pgoswami@sympatico.ca,

pgoswami@quickclic.net

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Lab <lab@cochinshipyard.com> wrote:

Dear Friends,

In our production unit, we would like to make butt weld between forged steel grade of S355J2G3, a round shaped object. The Third part Inspection (TPI) agency which clears the joint, insists us to perform WPS on similar material before production welding. This particular material was imported from other country long back and we could not thick about WPS when we purchased. It is not possible for us to get the similar material (same grade & same condition) suitable for WPS as well as WPQ and no response from the suppliers when contacted for supply of small quantity.

At last one supplier came forward and ready to supply S355J2G3 of rolled and normalized plate.

When we went to TPI with the proposal of making WPS with rolled plate, they are not convinced as the properties of forged and rolled steel even after Normalizing, are different and insisting us to do WPS test on forged steel of same grade.

Request the forum to provide guidelines to get rid of this situation or from where I get small quantity of material of similar grade, condition in India to arrange for WPS.

Regards,

Megnath
The information contained in this message are Cochin Shipyard Limited confidential and proprietary information and is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, he/she is hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication or any of the content is strictly prohibited. In such case, please advise the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Further acknowledges that any views expressed in the message are those of the individual sender and no binding nature of the message shall be implied or assumed unless the sender does so expressly with due authority of Cochin Shipyard Limited.      ----------------------------------  Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Cochin, India      !-- Virus-Free Mail Using AntiVirus for PostMaster Enterprise & QuickHeal Engine --!
--
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.

Re: [MW:14429] IQI Selection in DWSI Technique

See T-276.2 (a). Thickness based on nominal single wall thickness plus estimated reinforcement as per reference code.

Regards
Doni Afrizal

[MW:14426] Tank Clean out door PWHT

Hi, Can any one tell whether I can carry out PWHT of clean out door
welding after erection of first shell course?
We have erected the clean out door section of the shell plate and
completed vertical welding without performing the PWHT. As per API
650, it needs to be completed PWHT regardless of thickness before
assembly(erection).
if that is the case, I have to cut the joint and do the PWHT and
reweld again.Can I do PWHT at site after erection?
If not, any one explain me what is the reason behind it. Why API is
insisting to have PWHT before erection.
Cheers,
Thomas

--
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.

Re: [MW:14424] SS347 overlay but FN is too low

Lower the Amperage, Higher the velocity.

Roy
Bohler Welding Group

-----原始邮件-----
From: bo gyi
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 8:40 AM
To: Materials & Welding
Subject: [MW:14422] SS347 overlay but FN is too low

Dear all,

I have encountered that Ferrite No is too low for SS347 overlay to P1
(SAW).

I used ESAB ER309L & ER347 together with OK flux 10.93 and heat input
is about 0.9 - 1 kJ/mm.

My Ferrite no is as bellow . (check by Ferrite scope)

1st layer 309L (2mm thk from BM) , FN no. < 0.5

2nd layer 347 ( 4 mm thk from BM) , FN no < 2

3rd layer 347 ( 6 mm thk from BM) , FN no < 3.5

Required FN is 5 to 11 FN,

My welding parameters are as follow.

For 309L , 280 � 330 A, 30 � 32 V , travel speed 720 � 800 mm/min

For 347 , 330 � 350 A, 32 � 34 V , travel speed 720 � 800 mm/min

Please advice.

Regards,

Bogyi

--
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.

--
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.

Re: [MW:14425] Acceptance criteria for root oxidation

Such welds will be rejected for having failed to meet WPS requirements, to say the least.

--- On Wed, 30/5/12, pradip kumar sil <pradipsil@gmail.com> wrote:

From: pradip kumar sil <pradipsil@gmail.com>
Subject: [MW:14419] Acceptance criteria for root oxidation
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Date: Wednesday, 30 May, 2012, 11:59 PM

Dear experts,
As per ASME B 31.3 what is the acceptance criteria for the root
oxidation in M catagory fluid.
Thanks in advance.
Regards
Pradip

--
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.

[MW:14423] IQI Selection in DWSI Technique

Dear experts,

Can any one answer the following: one inches butt weld is radiograped
double wall single image technique. The wall thickness is 2.91 mm and
weld reinforcemnt is 1.6mm. In accordance with ASME-V article-2 T-276
what will be the thickness that the penetrameter based on. In another
way the thickness that the penetrameter based on will be
(2.91mm+1.6mm=4.51mm) or (2.91 mm+2.91mm+1.6mm +1.6 mm=9.02mm) ?

The "interpretation" of ASME Section V clearly defines the "Material
thickness" in question.
The height of weld reinforcement at both sides of pipe is applicable
in this case &
which wire is be visible
Looking forward to have your answer with appreciation.
Many Thanks in advance

Regards
Pradip

--
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.

[MW:14422] SS347 overlay but FN is too low

Dear all,

I have encountered that Ferrite No is too low for SS347 overlay to P1
(SAW).

I used ESAB ER309L & ER347 together with OK flux 10.93 and heat input
is about 0.9 - 1 kJ/mm.

My Ferrite no is as bellow . (check by Ferrite scope)

1st layer 309L (2mm thk from BM) , FN no. < 0.5

2nd layer 347 ( 4 mm thk from BM) , FN no < 2

3rd layer 347 ( 6 mm thk from BM) , FN no < 3.5

Required FN is 5 to 11 FN,

My welding parameters are as follow.

For 309L , 280 – 330 A, 30 – 32 V , travel speed 720 – 800 mm/min

For 347 , 330 – 350 A, 32 – 34 V , travel speed 720 – 800 mm/min

Please advice.

Regards,

Bogyi

--
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.

Re: [MW:14421] range of welding parameter (CURRENT,VOLTAGE,TRAVEL SPEED,ETC.) for WPS from PQR.

Hi,

If Ur code of test is ASME-IX, then for an Example, refer QW-255 for FCAW Process , heat input is a Supplementary variable if U have Impact test, hence limit Ur parameters as per the variable table.

Then Current , Volt, travel speed are non Essential variable , if there is no Impact Test for Ur PQR.

In PQR U should right, what U observed the actual parameters and should weld as per the welding paramaters recommended for a partiuclar brand from the consumable manufacturer. And in WPS, it is purely based on Impact or Non Impact test conditions, U should refer Essential variable table .

If there is no impact test and also heat input is not an essential varaible, then U can refer to the consumable manufacturer's recommendation for welding parameters, for each size of electrodes or Fillers.

I think this is enough.......

Cheers,

Sarav

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 9:17 PM, senins welo <senins054@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear experts,
what is the range of welding parameter (CURRENT,VOLTAGE,TRAVEL SPEED,ETC.) for WPS from PQR.? OR how based parameter in WPS.I want ur clarification.

thanks,

--
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.

Re: [MW:14420] RE: 14374] Range of approval for WELDER qualified to weld grove welds according to API 1104

Hi,

This is the beauy of this forum that we as an individual don't have enough time to read all the codes and keep tracking of the changes happening with new editions, then forums like this keep updating everybody associated with idustry.

Now coming back to original question regarding fillet weld qualification (WPQ) in accordance with API 1104, It is generally accepted that welder qualification on groove weld qualifies fillet weld as well, however for procedure qualification (PQR), API 1104 does ask for a separate qualification (Refer 5.7 & 5.8) and procedure is qualified by visual examination, NDT and mechanical testing.

Your query seems to be more contractual than technical, if Welder qualification specifically on fillet welds is clearly mentioned in the Client spec then it would not be wise to even discuss with Client, if there is no clear description in the spec or spec only dictate to follow API 1104 then you have all the rights to claim for extra expenditure for qualifying welders specifically for fillet welds as it's a universal practice for people following API 1104 to weld fillet welds in production welding using welder qualification on groove welds.

Approval of claim will entirely depend on how well do you protray this to Client.

We remain available for further guidance upon request.

Regards,
Manpreet Singh
Cell:- +61 0434674601

On Wed, 30 May 2012 20:46:29 +0530 wrote
> You don't specify the Code or standard you are working to. The case for specific fillet weld qualification is becoming more contentious, particularly with the change in the latest edition (-11) of BS EN 287 which now requires separate fillet weld performance qualification. Note that ASME Section IX does not. To be honest, it is not unusual for a customer to impose their own set of personal peculiarities on top of the applicable Code or make recommended practices (applicable or not) mandatory. This application of singular proclivities has become common practice and unfortunately it is often more productive to simply try and comply than to apply reason. One tack you might try is that if this is the inspection agency acting alone, you can inform your customer that you will be happy to comply with the inspection agencies request but that it will add X hours to the scope and result in an additional charge of Y dollars/euros/pounds/pesos/ dracmas . . . as it is not a part of the contract.Good luck – you have my sympathy.John A. HenningWelding & MaterialsFrom: materials-welding@googlegroups.com [mailto:materials-welding@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sam Malemela
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 1:20 AM
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Subject: [MW:14374] Range of approval for WELDER qualified to weld grove welds according to API 1104Hi Colleagues,I am working on a pipeline construction project in Mpumalanga –South Africa. The client is a reputable water utility company in South Africa who has appointed a contractor to construct 37 km of 610mm Diameter pipeline. The joint design is Partial Joint Penetration ( by means of fillet weld). The pipe fit up is spigot and socket joint.The appointed inspection authority is refusing to accept welder qualification for 'v' grove joint design allegedly because the client specification has asked for fillet weld and NOT butt weld. Requalification of welders is not an issue apart from the time it will take to set up and get the qualification test done. I also know from training that range of approval for grove includes fillet welds as well.Should I simply re-qualify the welders although their qualification covers fillet welds if range of approval is considered or should I insist on the inspection authority consulting for proper information on this matter?The integrity of the profession is under threat if people without proper knowledge are allowed to rewrite the specifications for the industry and go unchallenged.Your urgent response will be greatly appreciated. MALEMELA N. S.SITE MANAGERSOUTHERN PIPELINE CONTRACTORS6 Main Reef Road DUNSWART1508TEL:0119148519FAX:0119144524CELL:0823892592www.spc.co.za--
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.
______________________________________________________________________
>
The information in this email is confidential, and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this email please let us know by reply and then delete it from your system; you should not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. The internet can not guarantee the integrity of this message. HAMON (and its subsidiaries) shall (will) not therefore be liable for the message if modified.
>
______________________________________________________________________
>

--
>
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.
>

Follow Rediff Deal ho jaye! to get exciting offers in your city everyday.

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

[MW:14419] Acceptance criteria for root oxidation

Dear experts,
As per ASME B 31.3 what is the acceptance criteria for the root
oxidation in M catagory fluid.
Thanks in advance.
Regards
Pradip

--
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.

RE: [MW:14418] Code & Standard for Tubing

Remember you can't judge depth with a radiograph.

-----Original Message-----
From: materials-welding@googlegroups.com [mailto:materials-welding@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Vu Duc Thuan
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 1:38 AM
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [MW:14413] Code & Standard for Tubing

Dear All,

Thanks for your supporting,
that mean, we will check RT films and the densities of RT film to be measured at both weld metal and base metal location, it should compared the densities result as per B31.3 table 341.3.2

Regards,

Vu Duc Thuan
Email: dthuan117@gmail.com
Mobile: +84 983 017 936
Sky: vdthuan_vtau

-----Original Message-----
From: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
[mailto:materials-welding@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of sankar bombay
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 11:40 AM
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [MW:14408] Code & Standard for Tubing

Dear friend,
B31.3 there have given teh acceptance for the root concavity check
table:341.3.2
check the density of the root and parrent material.. its should not
more than parent materialn at concavity side ( lenght is not given we dont
want to considered )
API 510 we have accpetance its should not be more 6mm lengh of
concavity
depth same

Regards
sankar.k

On 5/30/12, Vu Duc Thuan <dthuan117@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Expert,
>
>
>
> In my project, we have some tubing line ( ½" SS316L and Duplex) need
> to weld with reducer same material, we have WPS for both of material.
> The problem is the RT report show internal concavity but we do not
> have accept criteria for those weld joints as per drawing, Spec..etc..
>
>
>
> Kindly please advise which code & standard are using for the tubing. (
> tubing fix on the hydraulic control panel )
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Thuan
>
> --
> 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.
>

--
shankar

--
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.

--
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.

DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this e-mail may be confidential and is intended solely for the use of the named addressee. Access, copying or re-use of the e-mail or any information contained therein by any other person is not authorized. If you are not the intended recipient please notify us immediately by returning the e-mail to the originator.

--
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.

[MW:14417] range of welding parameter (CURRENT,VOLTAGE,TRAVEL SPEED,ETC.) for WPS from PQR.

Dear experts,

what is the range of welding parameter (CURRENT,VOLTAGE,TRAVEL SPEED,ETC.) for WPS from PQR.? OR how based parameter in WPS.I want ur clarification.

thanks,

[MW:14416] Thermal Stabilization

Dear Friends,

Need clarification regarding Supplementary Requirement of Thermal Stabilization of A213 TP321 tube materials used for heater jobs.

As per the requirements of the Licensor, thermal stabilization was carried out for tube materials used for coils in heater.

After welding with ER347 and E347 filler metals, thermal stabilization was carried out for the weld and HAZ.

I went through the earlier posts that is available in our group. I would like to have clarification regarding the following:

Skin Thermocouples are to be welded with the coils. The material of thermocouple is SS310.

1. What is the consumable that has to be used for welding the thermocouple SS310 with the A231TP321 tube. Joint would be Fillet.

2. Do we need to perform the same Thermal Stabilization for this weld also? If yes what would be the reason?

Please advice.

Thanks and regards,
Sivakumar.M.R.

[MW:14414] Instrument to measure flange face serration

I need following precise information urgently..

Which instrument/comparator can I use to check the serration of flange face (ideally for 125 to 250 AARH)

Kindly mention the make, brand etc

Thanks

Hrishi

[MW:14412] RE: 14411] WPS on Forged Steel

Dear Sir,

I don’t know what your welding specification is but when you speak about S355J2G3 material it seems to me that it will be according to EN-ISO 15614-1 because it’s an European material. For this specification both forged and rolled materials are group 1.2 materials and no difference is made between forged or rolled condition as long as both materials are in the normalized condition. Furthermore Table 3 of this EN-ISO 15614-1 also mentions with note “a” that a qualification made with a specific material in group 1 also qualifies for materials in the same group with similar or lower specified minimum yield strength.

I know from my experience that forged materials in general have lower yield strength than rolled materials (mostly caused by thicker wall thicknesses) so therefore the TPI is asking things outside the specification and in my opinion they have no right to ask for exactly the same material. Only problem could be when your project specification asks for similar Carbon Equivalent and PCm value for your welding procedure qualification, but this depends on the actual chemical composition of your forged part so you have to check the materials certificate for that.

Hope this will help you a little.

Best Regards,

J.H.H. Pieper

QA-QC Inspector / IWI-C / IWT / Materials expert

Job van der Havestraat 6

8384 DB, Wilhelminaoord

Tel: 06-51691215

Van: materials-welding@googlegroups.com [mailto:materials-welding@googlegroups.com] Namens Lab
Verzonden: woensdag 30 mei 2012 7:00
Aan: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Onderwerp: [MW:14411] WPS on Forged Steel

Dear Friends,

In our production unit, we would like to make butt weld between forged steel grade of S355J2G3, a round shaped object. The Third part Inspection (TPI) agency which clears the joint, insists us to perform WPS on similar material before production welding. This particular material was imported from other country long back and we could not thick about WPS when we purchased. It is not possible for us to get the similar material (same grade & same condition) suitable for WPS as well as WPQ and no response from the suppliers when contacted for supply of small quantity.

At last one supplier came forward and ready to supply S355J2G3 of rolled and normalized plate.

When we went to TPI with the proposal of making WPS with rolled plate, they are not convinced as the properties of forged and rolled steel even after Normalizing, are different and insisting us to do WPS test on forged steel of same grade.

Request the forum to provide guidelines to get rid of this situation or from where I get small quantity of material of similar grade, condition in India to arrange for WPS.

Regards,

Megnath

The information contained in this message are Cochin Shipyard Limited confidential and proprietary information and is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, he/she is hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication or any of the content is strictly prohibited. In such case, please advise the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Further acknowledges that any views expressed in the message are those of the individual sender and no binding nature of the message shall be implied or assumed unless the sender does so expressly with due authority of Cochin Shipyard Limited.

----------------------------------

Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Cochin, India

!-- Virus-Free Mail Using AntiVirus for PostMaster Enterprise & QuickHeal Engine --!

Re: [MW:14415] WPS on Forged Steel

Hi,

You can see this Equivalent Grades in this website Steel - Equivalent Grades.mht
and convince them, if all the properties are same as per S355J2G3 material.

Also, refer the attached data for BS Material equivalent to S355J2G3 material.

Just try this.

Cheers,

Sarav

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Lab <lab@cochinshipyard.com> wrote:

Dear Friends,

In our production unit, we would like to make butt weld between forged steel grade of S355J2G3, a round shaped object. The Third part Inspection (TPI) agency which clears the joint, insists us to perform WPS on similar material before production welding. This particular material was imported from other country long back and we could not thick about WPS when we purchased. It is not possible for us to get the similar material (same grade & same condition) suitable for WPS as well as WPQ and no response from the suppliers when contacted for supply of small quantity.

At last one supplier came forward and ready to supply S355J2G3 of rolled and normalized plate.

When we went to TPI with the proposal of making WPS with rolled plate, they are not convinced as the properties of forged and rolled steel even after Normalizing, are different and insisting us to do WPS test on forged steel of same grade.

Request the forum to provide guidelines to get rid of this situation or from where I get small quantity of material of similar grade, condition in India to arrange for WPS.

Regards,

Megnath
The information contained in this message are Cochin Shipyard Limited confidential and proprietary information and is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, he/she is hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication or any of the content is strictly prohibited. In such case, please advise the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Further acknowledges that any views expressed in the message are those of the individual sender and no binding nature of the message shall be implied or assumed unless the sender does so expressly with due authority of Cochin Shipyard Limited.      ----------------------------------  Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Cochin, India      !-- Virus-Free Mail Using AntiVirus for PostMaster Enterprise & QuickHeal Engine --!
--
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.

RE: [MW:14413] Code & Standard for Tubing

Dear All,

Thanks for your supporting,
that mean, we will check RT films and the densities of RT film to be
measured at both weld metal and base metal location, it should compared the
densities result as per B31.3 table 341.3.2

Regards,

Vu Duc Thuan
Email: dthuan117@gmail.com
Mobile: +84 983 017 936
Sky: vdthuan_vtau

-----Original Message-----
From: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
[mailto:materials-welding@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of sankar bombay
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 11:40 AM
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [MW:14408] Code & Standard for Tubing

Dear friend,
B31.3 there have given teh acceptance for the root concavity check
table:341.3.2
check the density of the root and parrent material.. its should not
more than parent materialn at concavity side ( lenght is not given we dont
want to considered )
API 510 we have accpetance its should not be more 6mm lengh of
concavity
depth same

Regards
sankar.k

On 5/30/12, Vu Duc Thuan <dthuan117@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Expert,
>
>
>
> In my project, we have some tubing line ( ½" SS316L and Duplex) need
> to weld with reducer same material, we have WPS for both of material.
> The problem is the RT report show internal concavity but we do not
> have accept criteria for those weld joints as per drawing, Spec..etc..
>
>
>
> Kindly please advise which code & standard are using for the tubing. (
> tubing fix on the hydraulic control panel )
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Thuan
>
> --
> 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.
>

--
shankar

--
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.

--
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.

RE: [MW:14407] RE: 14374] Range of approval for WELDER qualified to weld grove welds according to API 1104

Hello Southern Pipelines,

Unfortunately the AIA is correct in this case. API 1104 requires a separate WPS for fillet welds (Clause 5.4.2.3) “Joint Design” being an essential variable. Your welders then have to qualify for that specific WPS (See clause 6.2 and 6.3).

Sorry

Graham Adams

Pipetech

From: materials-welding@googlegroups.com [mailto:materials-welding@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Clubb, Archie
Sent: 29 May 2012 09:10 PM
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [MW:14400] RE: 14374] Range of approval for WELDER qualified to weld grove welds according to API 1104

John/others
The grouping system is open to abuse and ASME need to recognise this soon - their statement re the grouping must not be taken unilaterally is small print!
Always guys are hiding behind ASME and this is wrong! More in particular with corrosion resistant requirements which ASME does not cover apart from overay.
My opinion.
Archie

From: John Henning [mailto:jhenning@deltak.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 07:53 PM
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com <materials-welding@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [MW:14397] RE: 14374] Range of approval for WELDER qualified to weld grove welds according to API 1104

You don’t specify the Code or standard you are working to. The case for specific fillet weld qualification is becoming more contentious, particularly with the change in the latest edition (-11) of BS EN 287 which now requires separate fillet weld performance qualification. Note that ASME Section IX does not.

To be honest, it is not unusual for a customer to impose their own set of personal peculiarities on top of the applicable Code or make recommended practices (applicable or not) mandatory. This application of singular proclivities has become common practice and unfortunately it is often more productive to simply try and comply than to apply reason. One tack you might try is that if this is the inspection agency acting alone, you can inform your customer that you will be happy to comply with the inspection agencies request but that it will add X hours to the scope and result in an additional charge of Y dollars/euros/pounds/pesos/ dracmas . . . as it is not a part of the contract.

Good luck – you have my sympathy.

John A. Henning

Welding & Materials

From: materials-welding@googlegroups.com [mailto:materials-welding@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sam Malemela
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 1:20 AM
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Subject: [MW:14374] Range of approval for WELDER qualified to weld grove welds according to API 1104

Hi Colleagues,

I am working on a pipeline construction project in Mpumalanga –South Africa. The client is a reputable water utility company in South Africa who has appointed a contractor to construct 37 km of 610mm Diameter pipeline. The joint design is Partial Joint Penetration ( by means of fillet weld). The pipe fit up is spigot and socket joint.

The appointed inspection authority is refusing to accept welder qualification for ‘v’ grove joint design allegedly because the client specification has asked for fillet weld and NOT butt weld.

Requalification of welders is not an issue apart from the time it will take to set up and get the qualification test done. I also know from training that range of approval for grove includes fillet welds as well.

Should I simply re-qualify the welders although their qualification covers fillet welds if range of approval is considered or should I insist on the inspection authority consulting for proper information on this matter?

The integrity of the profession is under threat if people without proper knowledge are allowed to rewrite the specifications for the industry and go unchallenged.

Your urgent response will be greatly appreciated.

MALEMELA N. S.

SITE MANAGER

SOUTHERN PIPELINE CONTRACTORS

6 Main Reef Road

DUNSWART

1508

TEL:0119148519

FAX:0119144524

CELL:0823892592

www.spc.co.za

______________________________________________________________________
The information in this email is confidential, and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this email please let us know by reply and then delete it from your system; you should not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. The internet can not guarantee the integrity of this message. HAMON (and its subsidiaries) shall (will) not therefore be liable for the message if modified.
______________________________________________________________________

*************************************************************************

This e-mail message and any attachments to it are intended only for the

named recipients and may contain confidential information. If you are not

one of the intended recipients, please do not duplicate or forward this

e-mail message and immediately delete it from your computer. If you

received this email in error, please notify postmaster@veoliawater.com

*************************************************************************

Materials & Welding

Thursday, May 31, 2012

Re: [MW:14436] WPS on Forged Steel

Re: [MW:14435] Uncertainity calculation in Tensile test

[MW:14433] Uncertainity calculation in Tensile test

Re: [MW:14432] WPS on Forged Steel

[MW:14431] RE: Filler metal with lower strength thsn base metal

[MW:14430] RE: 14414] Instrument to measure flange face serration

Re: [MW:14428] Instrument to measure flange face serration

FW: [MW:14427] WPS on Forged Steel

Re: [MW:14429] IQI Selection in DWSI Technique

[MW:14426] Tank Clean out door PWHT

Re: [MW:14424] SS347 overlay but FN is too low

Re: [MW:14425] Acceptance criteria for root oxidation

[MW:14423] IQI Selection in DWSI Technique

[MW:14422] SS347 overlay but FN is too low

Re: [MW:14421] range of welding parameter (CURRENT,VOLTAGE,TRAVEL SPEED,ETC.) for WPS from PQR.

Re: [MW:14420] RE: 14374] Range of approval for WELDER qualified to weld grove welds according to API 1104

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

[MW:14419] Acceptance criteria for root oxidation

RE: [MW:14418] Code & Standard for Tubing

[MW:14417] range of welding parameter (CURRENT,VOLTAGE,TRAVEL SPEED,ETC.) for WPS from PQR.

[MW:14416] Thermal Stabilization

[MW:14414] Instrument to measure flange face serration

[MW:14412] RE: 14411] WPS on Forged Steel

Re: [MW:14415] WPS on Forged Steel

RE: [MW:14413] Code & Standard for Tubing

RE: [MW:14407] RE: 14374] Range of approval for WELDER qualified to weld grove welds according to API 1104

[MW:35346] Cast-iron welding

Search This Blog

Wikipedia

Followers