Materials & Welding

Lower critical temp for CS is 723 degree Celsius, how u can allow it to 740 THANKS & BEST REGARDS, KG.PANDITHAN, IWE,  AWS-CWI, CSWIP 3.1, CONSULTANT-WELDING & QUALITY On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Chandrakant Vaidya < clvaidya.2010@gmail.com > wrote: Greetings. In my view the CS temp.attachments can be welded with Gr 91 mtrl.but not job mtrl.as rightly stated by Pradip & Zakeria. Regards C.L.Vaidya On Saturday, October 20, 2012 at 3:59:03 PM UTC+5:30, Tunisian Quality Engineer wrote: Dear experts,   Need your support. We performed one PQR P91 grade ( P number 15E) to Carbon steel (P number 1) welded GTAW/SMAW ER90S-B9 / E9015-B9, 11mm thickness, PWHT @ 740°C - 40 minutes. PQR and related WPS already approved by our client. but the Owner consulting agency sent to us some comments : 1- No possible to weld P91 directly to CS shall add transition material P11 grade : We answer that it's design issue and i requested some explain / calculation from design. ...

As ur client said, Gr 91 cant be welded to carbon steel, u should introduce cs with gr 11, gr 11 with gr 22, gr 22 with gr 91 From: Chandrakant Vaidya Sent: ‎31-‎12-‎2015 01:07 PM To: Materials & Welding Subject: [MW:24018] Re: PQR - WPS - PWHT P91 to CS Greetings. In my view the CS temp.attachments can be welded with Gr 91 mtrl.but not job mtrl.as rightly stated by Pradip & Zakeria. Regards C.L.Vaidya On Saturday, October 20, 2012 at 3:59:03 PM UTC+5:30, Tunisian Quality Engineer wrote: Dear experts,   Need your support. We performed one PQR P91 grade ( P number 15E) to Carbon steel (P number 1) welded GTAW/SMAW ER90S-B9 / E9015-B9, 11mm thickness, PWHT @ 740°C - 40 minutes. PQR and related WPS already approved by our client. but the Owner consulting agency sent to us some comments : 1- No possible to weld P91 directly to CS shall add transition material P11 grade : We answer that it's design issue and i requested some explain / calculation from desig...

Dear Mr. Pradip Goswami'                                    Please shared the remaining avrbation of B1,B3,B9 IN TABLE. On Sunday, October 21, 2012 at 5:22:14 AM UTC+3, pgoswami wrote: Hi Zakaria,   Dissimilar welds between Grade-91 to other lower alloyed steels e.g  grade 11 and grade 22 are quite common. However a straight change from Grade-91 to Carbon steel is a Bad Design, unless the margins provided by the OEM takes care of the service induced damages.   A straight service induced damages could be a few as mentioned:- Grade-91 steel operates at very high operating temperature regime (550-560 Deg C), which is is not safe for P1 material. P1 materials in the vicinity of the weld is  likely to get exposed to spheroidization (on exposure to this temperature range) and may result in failures by creep Thus welding of a intermediate or  transition  spool piece such as Grade-22 steel  would be a better design. ...

Don't think that a successful PQR leads always to successful production welds. Do not forget that sound engineering judgement us the first consideration. Therefore I would suggest to use an intermediate low alloy in order to avoid PWHT temperatures which do not are in conflict with lower transformation temperatures Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. From: Chandrakant Vaidya Sent: Πέμπτη, 31 Δεκεμβρίου 2015 - 09:37 To: Materials ...

‎Check this link. For an new qualification you have to go with 9606 http://www.twi-global.com/technical-knowledge/job-knowledge/a-comparison-of-bs-en-287-part-12011-with-bs-en-iso-9606-part-1-130/ Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. From: udaya bhaskar Sent: Πέμπτη, 31 Δεκεμβρίου 2015 - 04:41 To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com Reply To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com Subject: [MW:24017] DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EN-287 OR EN-9606. D...

Hi, We need to follow BS EN 9606-1 which supersedes BS EN 287-1. In BS EN 9606-1, Clause 9.3 has been introduced regarding revalidation of a welder's qualification. Regards, Deepak Das. On Thursday, 31 December 2015 04:41:31 UTC+2, dusroni wrote: Dear sir, As per EN Stander we need to do WQT. kINDLY SUGGEST  WHICH STANDERS TO BE FOLLOW ON THESE TWO-EN-287 OR EN-9606. kINDLY LET US KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO -- uday -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Materials & Welding" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to materials-welding+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/materials-welding . To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/materials-welding/78ef7196-1e04-4b9c-9e0c-29a83ddcfdd8%40googlegroups....

Greetings. In my view the CS temp.attachments can be welded with Gr 91 mtrl.but not job mtrl.as rightly stated by Pradip & Zakeria. Regards C.L.Vaidya On Saturday, October 20, 2012 at 3:59:03 PM UTC+5:30, Tunisian Quality Engineer wrote: Dear experts,   Need your support. We performed one PQR P91 grade ( P number 15E) to Carbon steel (P number 1) welded GTAW/SMAW ER90S-B9 / E9015-B9, 11mm thickness, PWHT @ 740°C - 40 minutes. PQR and related WPS already approved by our client. but the Owner consulting agency sent to us some comments : 1- No possible to weld P91 directly to CS shall add transition material P11 grade : We answer that it's design issue and i requested some explain / calculation from design. 2- Should use filler metal compatible with lower grade material : i answer that can make choice of  filler metal between to material grades (included) so we can weld with lower, heigher or iontermediate filler metal when mechanical properties is ok and don't have ebject...

Dear Uday This British Standard is the UK implementation of EN ISO 9606-1:2013. It is identical to ISO 9606-1:2012. It supersedes BS EN 287-1:2011 which is withdrawn. On Thursday, 31 December 2015 8:11 AM, udaya bhaskar <dusroni@gmail.com> wrote: Dear sir, As per EN Stander we need to do WQT. kINDLY SUGGEST  WHICH STANDERS TO BE FOLLOW ON THESE TWO-EN-287 OR EN-9606. kINDLY LET US KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO -- uday -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Materials & Welding" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to materials-welding+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/materials-welding . To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/materials-welding/CANii3ROLaM9-TLnWAkwj4cyFczMKjJGq8hf9M6aBOjY7...

Sent from my ASUS -------- Original Message -------- From:udaya bhaskar Sent:Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:19:08 +0530 To:materials-welding@googlegroups.com Subject:[MW:24017] DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EN-287 OR EN-9606. Dear sir, As per EN Stander we need to do WQT. kINDLY SUGGEST  WHICH STANDERS TO BE FOLLOW ON THESE TWO-EN-287 OR EN-9606. kINDLY LET US KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO -- uday -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Materials & Welding" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to materials-welding+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/materials-welding . To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/materials-welding/CANii3ROLaM9-TLnWAkwj4cyFczMKjJGq8hf9M6aBOjY7Sq8MWA%40mail.gmail.com . For more options, visit https...

Dear sir, As per EN Stander we need to do WQT. kINDLY SUGGEST  WHICH STANDERS TO BE FOLLOW ON THESE TWO-EN-287 OR EN-9606. kINDLY LET US KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO -- uday -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Materials & Welding" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to materials-welding+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/materials-welding . To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/materials-welding/CANii3ROLaM9-TLnWAkwj4cyFczMKjJGq8hf9M6aBOjY7Sq8MWA%40mail.gmail.com . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout .

We are having U type exchanger with  Shell side MOC –SA 516 Gr 70  and Tube side MOC-Titanium2 Design code is ASME Sect VIII Div.2 Ed.2013 Girth flange Bolting for shell side specified as per FEED is SA 540  B24  Cl. 1  ( size is 3") MDMT of Tube side and Shell side is -46 °C     However, due to regret letter received from fasteners manufacturers,Vendor  proposed to use SA 540  B23  Cl.1   The proposed MOC may be acceptable by designer since : 1.         Due to NO change in allowable stress, design of Girth flange will not change. 2.         Since these fasteners are externally coated with robust painting system before installation, slightly low % of Mo content can be taken care of.      However, main concern is the Impact Testing requirement :   1.         B24 : Minimum energy values are shown in Note 3 of Table 2 of SA 540 2.         B23 :  Note 4 of Table 2 of SA 540 states that "No minimum values established and tests shall be run for information only". 3.         Ho...

Dear vish In UCS-66 the governing thickness is important factor cause we have combination of minimum design metal temperature  and governing thickness to the subject material.  but in UHA-51 impact test requirement is based on the material properties and material thickness is not an essential variable . (except where noted) UHA-51 IMPACT TESTS Impact tests, as prescribed in (a),shall be performed on materials listed in Table UHA-23 for all combinations of materials and minimum design metal temperatures (MDMTs) except as exempted in (d), (e), (f), (g), (h),or (i).  Best regards. ------------------------------- On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 10:59:30 AM UTC+3:30, Vish wrote: Thanks MW, But my question remains same that, what will be nominal thickness of duplex flanges to be consider ?   vish On Thursday, December 24, 2015 at 2:58:57 PM UTC+5:30, MW wrote: i guess you should use Appendix JJ,  UHA -51(g)? On 24 December 2015 at 13:11, VISHNU < vishnu...@gmail.com > wrote: Dear sir,...

Hello, No. Without Sand/Grit blast it is not possible to achieve Sa 2.5 cleanliness grade. This grade is only obtained by blasting with various abrasives. Thanks, Kiran On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 10:04:06 AM UTC+3, Jasim Ahmed wrote: Dear experts, I badly need to know - is it possible to create S.A. 2.5 surface profile for joint wrapping without sand blasting? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Materials & Welding" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to materials-welding+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/materials-welding . To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/materials-welding/fc28d76d-199d-4111-b1a9-0b4ed6704b6f%40googlegroups.com . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout .

Thanks MW, But my question remains same that, what will be nominal thickness of duplex flanges to be consider ?   vish On Thursday, December 24, 2015 at 2:58:57 PM UTC+5:30, MW wrote: i guess you should use Appendix JJ,  UHA -51(g)? On 24 December 2015 at 13:11, VISHNU < vishnu...@gmail.com > wrote: Dear sir, I have one query regarding to above subject, One of the definition of governing thk when using fig. UCS-66 - Governing thickness of flat non welded parts, such as bolted flanges, tubesheet and flat head is the flat component thickness divided by 4 But what about Duplex flanges ? UHA is not giving such clause, so what will be governing thickness to be consider for duplex flanges (SA 182 F51) ? Thanks in advance Regards vishnu  -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Materials & Welding" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to materials-welding+unsubscribe...

Dear Azam, Welder Qualification shall be performed by each Qualifying Organisation according to ASME Sec.IX. Yes the previous Qualification made by the X welder before leaving the organisation will be valid by qualifying a single test coupon for that process.   Thanks & Regards J.Gerald Jayakumar 0091-9344954677 From: Mohd Azam <azam1976@gmail.com> To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2015 5:48 PM Subject: [MW:24008] Welder Qualification as per ASME SEC IX Dear Expert, "X" welder working with company and left the organization. Again after Two or three year he is joining back same company. All earlier certificate is available with company with proper documentation.   Is it possible to renew his earlier certificate with one sample based on RT or visual inspection OR All new qualification is to be done New. Qualification code is ASME SEC IX.   Pls provide your valuable input with standard reference.   Thanks ...

Welder X should go for Re qualification because he left the company and he Re joined after 3 years and a welder qualification is required if he didn't welded any joint for 6 month in the same location or same company. Sent from my ASUS -------- Original Message -------- From:Mohd Azam Sent:Sun, 27 Dec 2015 17:48:23 +0530 To:materials-welding@googlegroups.com Subject:[MW:24008] Welder Qualification as per ASME SEC IX Dear Expert, "X" welder working with company and left the organization. Again after Two or three year he is joining back same company. All earlier certificate is available with company with proper documentation.   Is it possible to renew his earlier certificate with one sample based on RT or visual inspection OR All new qualification is to be done New. Qualification code is ASME SEC IX.   Pls provide your valuable input with standard reference.   Thanks & Regards, Mohd. Azam Doha-Qatar -- You received this ...

He has to be qualified again since he has stopped working for a period longer than 6 months Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. From: Mohd Azam Sent: Κυριακή, 27 Δεκεμβρίου 2015 - 16:32 To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com Reply To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com Subject: [MW:24008] Welder Qualification as per ASME SEC IX Dear Expert, "X" welder working with company and left the organization. Again after Two or three year he i...

Dear you can check his continue progress record of earlier based on that will able to test with RT or bend test. On Dec 27, 2015 8:01 PM, "Mohd Azam" < azam1976@gmail.com > wrote: Dear Expert, "X" welder working with company and left the organization. Again after Two or three year he is joining back same company. All earlier certificate is available with company with proper documentation.   Is it possible to renew his earlier certificate with one sample based on RT or visual inspection OR All new qualification is to be done New. Qualification code is ASME SEC IX.   Pls provide your valuable input with standard reference.   Thanks & Regards, Mohd. Azam Doha-Qatar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Materials & Welding" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to materials-welding+unsubscribe@googlegroups...

Dear Expert, "X" welder working with company and left the organization. Again after Two or three year he is joining back same company. All earlier certificate is available with company with proper documentation.   Is it possible to renew his earlier certificate with one sample based on RT or visual inspection OR All new qualification is to be done New. Qualification code is ASME SEC IX.   Pls provide your valuable input with standard reference.   Thanks & Regards, Mohd. Azam Doha-Qatar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Materials & Welding" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to materials-welding+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/materials-welding . To view this discussion on the web visi...

Dear Experts, Welding Process is GTAW- Manual. Barrier layer with 1.6 mm. Dia. ERNi-1 and subsequent two layers with 1.6 mm. Dia. ERCuNi. Preheat temp. is ambient temp. and maximum Interpass temp. is 96º C. HI for barrier layer is 1.543 KJ/ mm. Tungsten Electrode Dia. 2.5 mm. 2% thoriated, Technique String bead. I think it is very difficult  to achieve undiluted chemistry at 1 mm. from fusion. Now, my concern is client's DS are silent about undiluted chemistry. It has specified only 3 mm. 70-30 Cu-Ni W.D. and strength design of the components is done by client considering 3 mm. W.D. Client's spec. speaks that  Minimum thickness of undiluted finished weld overlay from top shall be 2 mm. or as specified in the drawing. What does it mean? In MDS 3 mm. W.D. is specified means at 3 mm. from fusion line, undiluted chemistry shall be achieved? Now, it is matter of an interpretation.     Thanks & regards, C. R. GANDHI From: Joseph <nithindsilva4u@gmail.co...

Hi Based on my previous experience I have replied. I suggest Mr Venkatesan shall approach Client/PMC for acceptance. With kind regards Govindan On 25 Dec 2015 09:52, "Joseph" < nithindsilva4u@gmail.com > wrote: Hi Govindan, Can you please clarify, where it is stated in code that each welding process need to be covered? As per my interpretation on ASME Div 1 &2, both speaks about weld impact specimens to be taken at 1.5mm from surface. It's nowhere specified, each welding process need to be covered. Sent from my iPad On 22-Dec-2015, at 20:48, Perumal Govindan < perumalgovindan@gmail.com > wrote: Hi All 3 welding process shall be covered for impact testing. Please confirm the joint is single vee or double vee. In case if double vee joint what will be the welding process on back side welding or after back chipping, in case after back chipping if smaw process was used, needed to select impact test specimens for smaw and saw process. Please no...