Thank you for such a reply which I would like to appreciate highly.
Not only concerning with this case in particular but also in general we are reluctant to think beyond the codes, but such approach to any problem will certainly help us improve our mindset which is stubborn at times, and also it will create possibilities/ opportunities for improvements in the reference codes and standards we follow.
"If life throws you a lemon - make lemonade"- Joan Collins
Thanks & Regards
Sachin Tagare
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 1:27 PM, prashant pansare <prashant.pan17@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sir,
This is what we experience (thinking beyond the CODE) form materials
-welding group experts.
Thanks,
Prashant Pansare
(IRS-Mumbai)
On 7/24/12, Chetan Kapadia <cbkapadia@yahoo.co.in> wrote:> as per code then thereis not much of a change in mechanical properties of
> Dear All,
>
> I have been a CONSULTANT FOR such problem & my personal opinion is expressed
> as follow.
>
>
> I fully agree with views expressed so far.
>
> But bag to differ that "Code is a law, with engineering judgments.
> Hence the inspector has the rights to declare that the original HT was
> inadequate."
>
> Inspectors & total industry must resist the"REJECTION". We as intellectual &
> having seniority must become practical.
>
> How the code will revise???.
>
>
> ANS.: One is experiments (Pure research) & second is such chances that gives
> opportunity to experiment !!!
> _______________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> My understanding is that it is P1 material.
>
>
> In that case every pass normalizes the immediate bottom pass.
>
> Hence code requirement for P1 FOR MANDATORY SR is 32 mm & above thickness.
>
> SOLUTION:
>
> In any case
>
>
> 0. After SR=PWHT no PTC testing is required as per code--Unless for low
> temp. vessels. That means code is assuming that if every care is taken
> WELD & HAZ. Hence this minor time difference can not resultin tremendous
> non agreeable metallurgical & OR mechanical OR process guarantee> type defect. Depending up onfinal use the best decision can be arrived at.
>
>
> 1.if sufficient length is available ON PRODUCT then carry out all DT.
>
> 2.if sufficient length is not available on product carry out HARDNESS survey
> on PP, HAZ & WELD.
> THIS WILL GIVE FAIR IDEA OF TT & WELD TENSILE VALUES. If + then proceed
> for all test on PTC.
>
> 3. Prepare additional Test piece & let it undergo simulated SR with less by
> 5 minutes. Test for all test required by
>
> product designed use.Prove with guts.Nothing goes wrong.
>
> Even if all above proves wrong accept the defeat with guts on
> experimenting.
>
> Please do it even for your self satisfaction. Who knows It might become a
> code case.
>
> How can we have code without negative tolerance on time: Whatsoever--???.
>
> All this is without any prejudice to the contribution by other experts in
> the group. Further comments welcome for better understanding on the issue.
>
>
> Best Regards,
> C.B.KAPADIA
> Free-Lance Fabrication Technology & API Monogram Certification consultant
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: pgoswami <pgoswami@quickclic.net>
> To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 24 July 2012 5:42 PM
> Subject: RE: [MW:14949] RE: 14919] Stress relieving Rejected for 5 min less
> soaking time.
>
>
> Harish/Mohd,
>
> I am not trying to act as moderator.
>
> Looking at the problem, a separate simulation may be as
> time consuming as the original HT. Code is a law, with engineering
> judgments.
> Hence the inspector has the rights to declare that the original HT was
> inadequate. The simplest solution what looks to me is to perform additional
> SR
> for 15-20 mins and satisfy code requirements.
>
> PWHT time is all cumulative , and there no restriction
> form ASME code.
>
> Thanks.
>
> PradipGoswami,P.Eng.IWE
> Welding
> & Metallurgical Specialist
> Ontario, Canada.
--> Email-pgoswami@sympatico.ca,
> pgoswami@quickclic.net
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:materials-welding@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Harish
> Kannepalli
> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 11:58 AM
> To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MW:14942] RE: 14919]
> Stress relieving Rejected for 5 min less soaking time.
>
>
> You can propose the following to your client:
> Perform Simulation on separate
> coupon, check the mechanical & metallurgical properties. If they meet the
> code requirements, it may be acceptable. After all, code is made by humans
> for
> humans.
>
>
> 2012/7/23 John Henning <jhenning@deltak.com>
>
> Most common materials require 1 hour/25mm or 60minutes/25mm and I assume
> you are working with one of these materials. Then, for a 40mm thick
> material the required minimum soak time is (40mm)*(60min.)/(25mm) = 96
> minutes
>>
>>You don't meet Code required minimum soak time. Your soak time must
>> exceed the minimum time. Therefore, your pipe weld is unacceptable. No
>> discussion – it is clearly unacceptable in its present condition.
>>
>>John A. Henning
>>Welding & Materials
>>
>>From:materials-welding@googlegroups.com
>> [mailto:materials-welding@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of mohd
>>Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 1:52 AM
>>To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
>>Subject: [MW:14919] Stress relieving Rejected for 5 min less soaking
>> time.
>>
>>Dear expert,
>>
>>As per ASME 8-1-UCS-56
>>
>>We have done SR for our 40mm thk-30" pipe joint.
>>
>>but unfortunetly, soaking time was just short by 5min.Now our client/PMC
>> both are not agree to release.
>>
>>Required time : 1hr.15min
>>Actual Time : 1hr.10min
>>
>>It is acceptable OR could you share any technical view
>> to convince client?
>>
>>regards,
>>mohd.--
>>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.
>>
>
>
> --
>
> regards,
> Harish.
> --
> 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.
>
*Prashant Pansare*
*(IRS - Mumbai)*
--
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment