Friday, February 29, 2008

[MW:636] Re: Etch structure acceptance in IGC test per ASTM A262

yes but ditch and Interdendritic ditch both are different and it
didn't state anything about Interdendritic ditch structure


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[MW:635] Re: Etch structure acceptance in IGC test per ASTM A262


The practice E table 5 specifies that for all grades Ditch structure as non acceptable. step, dual, end grain I and II as acceptable structure.

This is as per A262-02a e3 edition.

With regards,
Kannan Sundaram.




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

29/02/2008 12:27

Please respond to
materials-welding@googlegroups.com

To
"Materials & Welding" <materials-welding@googlegroups.com>
cc
Subject
[MW:634] Etch structure acceptance in IGC test per ASTM A262





ASTM A 262 Practice E does not specify anything about the acceptance of Interdendritic ditch structure (refer Table 5)
 
Where as in others (like in practice C it is specified in non acceptance category)
 
When a report specifies for weld IGC as Interdendritic ditch structure, is it acceptable?



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[MW:634] Etch structure acceptance in IGC test per ASTM A262

ASTM A 262 Practice E does not specify anything about the acceptance of Interdendritic ditch structure (refer Table 5)

 

Where as in others (like in practice C it is specified in non acceptance category)

 

When a report specifies for weld IGC as Interdendritic ditch structure, is it acceptable?


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[MW:633] [piping_valves] Criticality of Pneumatic pressure test vs Hydrostatic on piping system


Just to add, apart from the material brittleness issue, this is also the fundamental reason why we find all heavy equipment's and construction machinery's are having hydraulically operated arms. And  low power equipment's in the range of around 10barg, are pneumatically operated. The author's equations are different interpretation of Bernoulli's theorem known to every body, does say the same of the incompressability...and not zero.

But the site situations are different and as what happens in the engg. office lacks the visualisation of the site difficulties. So sometimes the project manager has to override certain technical theories to avoid 'over safety' requirements. There has been a situation in one of the LNG project where engg. office wanted hydraulic test in most of the lines and the site went ahead with pneumatic with client's concurrence violating the code. The plant is functioning without any problems for the past 5 years. The client was Shell.

It depends on the engg. as well as the construction team, not just alone by the engg. team.

With regards,
Kannan Sundaram.




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

29/02/2008 08:47

Please respond to
piping_valves@yahoogroups.com

To
"Materials & Welding" <materials-welding@googlegroups.com>
cc
Subject
[piping_valves] Criticality of Pneumatic pressure test vs Hydrostatic on piping         system





FYI!

Hereto attached the criteria for evaluating the potential dangerous of
pneumatic test vs hydrostatic test from safety point of view.

In this concern, we should always remember that is necessary to evaluate
the design aspects of material selection for piping lines to be
submitted to pneumatic test due to Process requirements: in these cases
ASME B 31.3 require that the materials be guaranteed against their
brittleness at the ambient temperature during pneumatic test.
Typical cases are the plants where the ambient temperature could reach
even minus 50^C (in particular to places like Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan or
Chinese plants on Mongolian border).

__._,_.___
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
Recent Activity
 1
New Members
Visit Your Group
Y! Messenger

Send pics quick

Share photos while

you IM friends.

Yahoo! Groups

Women of Curves

Discuss food, fitness

and weight loss.

Best of Y! Groups

Check it out

and nominate your

group to be featured.

.

__,_._,___
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[MW:632] Re: Criticality of Pneumatic pressure test vs Hydrostatic onpiping system


Thank you Sir.

This is a very good "on paper proof" of good engineering practice / belief followed world wide.
I am quite interested in knowing similar about what are the other advantages of Hydrotesting over pneumatic testing?

Thanks in advance,

Thanks & Regards,
Dhwani Desai.
TOYO - PLANNING & PIPING DEPT.
91-22-2573 7213.



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

02/29/2008 01:17 PM

Please respond to
materials-welding@googlegroups.com

To
"Materials & Welding" <materials-welding@googlegroups.com>
cc
Subject
[MW:630] Criticality of Pneumatic pressure test vs Hydrostatic         onpiping  system





FYI!

Hereto attached the criteria for evaluating the potential dangerous of
pneumatic test vs hydrostatic test from safety point of view.

In this concern, we should always remember that is necessary to evaluate
the design aspects of material selection for piping lines to be
submitted to pneumatic test due to Process requirements: in these cases
ASME B 31.3 require that the materials be guaranteed against their
brittleness at the ambient temperature during pneumatic test.
Typical cases are the plants where the ambient temperature could reach
even minus 50^C (in particular to places like Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan or
Chinese plants on Mongolian border).


[attachment "Scanned_.pdf" deleted by Desai Dhwani 01752/TEIL]
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[MW:631] Re: Impact test thickness limits per B31.3 for PQR

I want add more to this debate
 
For LTCS material PQR qualification we have to satisfy both Sec IX and B31.3 Requirements.
 
1.As per sec ix requirements QW 403.6

The minimum base metal thickness qualified

is the thickness of the test coupon

T or 58 in. (16 mm),

whichever is less. However, where

T is less than 14 in.

(6 mm), the minimum thickness qualified is T/2.

Here T is less than 6mm.i.e 6mmTest coupon thickess is also not accepted.Only 5.9 mm thickness is accepted if we want lower range qualified to be T/2.Otherwise lower range is T only.

2.For PQR upper limit as per B31.3 T+6mm

On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 8:52 AM, Bathula Raghuram (Mumbai - PIPING) <R.Bathula@ticb.com> wrote:

It's a good point to debate Mr Mahuri!

 

Probably your are referring to A-5(a) in the said table, where the range is given T/2 to T+6.4mm (in place of 2T against QW403.6 for the max thickness qualified)

In my opinion if mix both these you land up in qualifying more procedures.

 

I think it similar to PTC (production test coupon) in Table 323.3.1, where you can weld PTC for each thickness range and just do Impact only, other wise if you consider this for PQR qualification range you might have do even bend and tensile or any other test required for PQR as per contract. Think

 

Please share your views members.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: snehkumar [mailto:mahuri18@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:48 PM
To: Materials & Welding
Cc: Mahuri Snehkumar (TIPO - QA/QC)
Subject: query

 

 

Dear friends,

 

Can some one suggest me,

 

 

 

For Low Temperature Carbon Steel, Procedure Qualification is it

necessary to satisfy ASME B31.3, Table 323.3.1 along with all

parameters of ASME IX.

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Snehkumar L. Mahuri

 

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[MW:630] Criticality of Pneumatic pressure test vs Hydrostatic on piping system

FYI!

Hereto attached the criteria for evaluating the potential dangerous of
pneumatic test vs hydrostatic test from safety point of view.

In this concern, we should always remember that is necessary to evaluate
the design aspects of material selection for piping lines to be
submitted to pneumatic test due to Process requirements: in these cases
ASME B 31.3 require that the materials be guaranteed against their
brittleness at the ambient temperature during pneumatic test.
Typical cases are the plants where the ambient temperature could reach
even minus 50^C (in particular to places like Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan or
Chinese plants on Mongolian border).

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[MW:629] Impact test thickness limits per B31.3 for PQR

It’s a good point to debate Mr Mahuri!

 

Probably your are referring to A-5(a) in the said table, where the range is given T/2 to T+6.4mm (in place of 2T against QW403.6 for the max thickness qualified)

In my opinion if mix both these you land up in qualifying more procedures.

 

I think it similar to PTC (production test coupon) in Table 323.3.1, where you can weld PTC for each thickness range and just do Impact only, other wise if you consider this for PQR qualification range you might have do even bend and tensile or any other test required for PQR as per contract. Think

 

Please share your views members.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: snehkumar [mailto:mahuri18@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:48 PM
To: Materials & Welding
Cc: Mahuri Snehkumar (TIPO - QA/QC)
Subject: query

 

 

Dear friends,

 

Can some one suggest me,

 

 

 

For Low Temperature Carbon Steel, Procedure Qualification is it

necessary to satisfy ASME B31.3, Table 323.3.1 along with all

parameters of ASME IX.

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Snehkumar L. Mahuri

 


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Thursday, February 28, 2008

[MW:628] Re: member ship

you are a member of this group since July 2007, surprising are you not
receiving the mails from group?

On Feb 28, 6:53 pm, Nishit Kumar <nishit1...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I would like to become a member of your group
>
> thanks in advance
>
> Regards
>
> Nishit Kumar
> Piping Engineer
> Benzene Xylene Toluene Unit (BTX) Project, Philippine
> Daelim Industrial Co., Ltd.(S. Korea)
>
> Please don't print this Email unless you really need to - this will preserve trees on planet earth.
>
> ---------------------------------
> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[MW:627] Fasteners/Bolting reference links.


A new site launched on bolting...very exhaustive information. But still not enough information on special coatings..

http://www.boltscience.com/index.htm

Also look at http://www.fera.org.uk/

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/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[MW:626] member ship

Dear All,

I would like to become a member of your group

thanks in advance

Regards



Nishit Kumar
Piping Engineer
Benzene Xylene Toluene Unit (BTX) Project, Philippine
Daelim Industrial Co., Ltd.(S. Korea)
 
Please don't print this Email unless you really need to - this will preserve trees on planet earth.


Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[MW:625] RE: ESTABLISHING WPS/PQR FOR DINWB36 WITH ASTM A182 F5a

Refer the following topic  [MW:49] RE: 43] Welding Procedure for DIN wb 36(1.6368)   to  16mo3(1.5415) in the group

 

 

WB36, which is a German low alloy steel (LAS). It differs from typical LAS's primarily by the presence of Cu, which causes precipitation hardening, thereby increasing the strength by about 15-20KSI (103-138MPa) compared to a typical ASME/ASTM LAS, without decreasing the ductility.

 

Main composition:

0.15%C, 1.15%Ni, 0.65%Cu, 0.35%Mo, 0.02%Nb

 

F5a is of another LAS type with 4-6%Cr and 0.5Mo

 

You could establish the procedure referring manufacturer catalogues for suitable consumable and the heat treatment w.r.t to your construction code

 

Please note that it is prohibited to post any document (like WPS in your case) which is of a company’s property in the group to public, please do not raise such queries, also not to distribute in the group

 


From: shailesh dave [mailto:snd2988@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 5:26 PM
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Subject: ESTABLISHING WPS/PQR FOR DINWB36 WITH ASTM A182 F5a

 

DEAR MEMBERS,

 

CAN U HELP ME IN ESTABLISHING THE WPS FOR THIS MATERIAL HAVING 26mm THK.

 

IF SOFT COPY OF ESTABLISHED WPS CAN BE FORWARDED TO ME I WILL BE GREATFUL.

 

REGARDS,

 

S.N.DAVE

 

QA/QC MANAGER, TATA PROJECTS

IWPP-III, SHUIABAH

KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA

 

  


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[MW:624] selection of Production test coupons (PTC)

Good point highlighted by Mr Rao, but E8016-C1 the values are with PWHT condition and not as welded condition with 80 and 67 Ksi as UTS/YS respectively against 80 and 60 of base material for the mentioned thickness.

-----Original Message-----
From: materials-welding@googlegroups.com [mailto:materials-welding@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of UR Rao
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 6:06 PM
To: Materials & Welding
Subject: [MW:623] Re: 596] Re: selection of Production test coupons (PTC)


Mr. Jivan, i would like to throw some light on this topic. (my
explanation is not code requirement however it is part of engineering
which will help you is understanding you surveyors requirement).

your BV surveyors intention in asking you to do the mechanical test
for PTC#1 and PTC#2 was right, however he could not put the request
properly.

you are purely looking in to the code requirement and arguing the case
however what you forgot was the metallurgy and mechanical properties
of materials.

the material you were using to build your sphere was SA 537 Cl 2 whose
tensile strength is 80 - 100 ksi.

you are intended to subject the bottom part of sphere to two PWHT
Cycles.

when you compile your data, the base material you are using is 80 -
100 ksi and electrode you are using is 80ksi.

please carefully read the manufacturers data supplied of your welding
electrode manufacturer, you will see that the results posted were as
welded not after one PWHT or 2 PWHT Cycles.

the reason why manufacturer publishes only as welded results was,
because you will get higher mechanical properties in as welded
condition than what you will get after one PWHT cycle.

when you do second PWHT cycle you will end-up with further low
mechanical values than 80 ksi.

please check with your electrode manufacturer and ask him to conform
the strength of electrodes will meet SA 537 Cl 2 tensile requirements
(he will definitely will not do that).

in my opinion, so as a guarantier of sphere manufacturing, you have a
reconcilability to supply agreed product to your end user, hence you
shall subject your weld procedure to both one cycle and two cycles and
then test the coupon for its mechanical and impact properties.


On Feb 28, 6:50 am, "Bathula Raghuram \(Mumbai - PIPING\)"
<R.Bath...@ticb.com> wrote:
> What is your welding position of PTC #1? Assuming you are using Same WPS
> for all joints (category A, assuming all your welds fall under this
> category) and you have done your PTC#1 in Vertical position, In my
> opinion PTC#2 is not required {refer UG-84(i)(3)(a)(2)}.
>
> However it could be the reason your Surveyor is asking for PTC#2, since
> some portion weld seam is subjected to PWHT two times, in that case even
> your PTC#2 should undergo PWHT twice, is n't it? I am not clear on this;
> members please share your views?
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:materials-welding@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jivan Dhamane
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 4:13 PM
> To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [MW:596] Re: selction of Production test coupons (PTC)
>
> Dear Friend
>
> Design code is ASME Section Div.-1. MOC is SA 537 Cl.2,  Thickness is
> 57.5mm to 59.9mm, MDMT is -46 (Minus) Degree Celcius, Welding Process is
> SMAW, Filler metal AWS clasification E8016-C1, PTC thickness is 59.1mm,
> PWHT Cycle is Heating rate above 426 Degree celcius -94 Degree per hour
> max., Soaking Temp.-586-606 Degree, Soaking Period 2 hours 30 Minutes,
> Cooling rate above 426 Degree celcius -117 Degree per hour max.
>
> Hope I clearify ur queries.
>
> Regards
>
> Jivan Dhamane
>
> Raghuram Bathula <raghurambath...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>         can please explain more about your problem, Design code, MOC,
> Thickness involved, MDMT , Welding process used...
>
>         On Feb 19, 2008 5:57 PM, Jivan Dhamane
>
> <jivanadham...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>
>         Dear Friends
>
>         I have two queries that are as follows please advice me.
>
>         1.      We are constructing Horton Sphere, at the initial stage
> our subcontractor had submitted PWHT procedure for whole sphere, but due
> to some accessories to inserted in the sphere for PWHT purpose they
> revised PWHT procedure in two parts. That is by Internal Firing Method
> for whole sphere except (Bottom Centre Crown plate weld) and after
> welding of Bottom Centre Crown plate weld PWHT is to carry out by Local
> Electrical Heating Method.
>
>         By doing so, BVIS Surveyor is asking for 02 Nos. Production Test
> Coupons (PTC). One for PWHT by Internal Firing Method and another for
> PWHT by Local Electrical Heating Method. We tried to convince BVIS
> Surveyor for only one no. PTC as Welding Procedure Specification (WPS),
> PWHT cycle and other all construction activities are same for both the
> part but BVIS Surveyor is no satisfied and asking for 02 Nos. PTC.
>
>         Waiting for your reply, till then take care and good bye
>
>         Regards
>
>         Jivan Dhamane
>
> ________________________________
>
> ________________________________
>
>         Why delete messages? Unlimited storage is just a click away.</a
>
> <http://in.rd.yahoo.com/tagline_mail_1/*http:/help.yahoo.com/l/in/yahoo/
> mail/yahoomail/tools/tools-08.html/>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[MW:623] Re: 596] Re: selection of Production test coupons (PTC)

Mr. Jivan, i would like to throw some light on this topic. (my
explanation is not code requirement however it is part of engineering
which will help you is understanding you surveyors requirement).

your BV surveyors intention in asking you to do the mechanical test
for PTC#1 and PTC#2 was right, however he could not put the request
properly.

you are purely looking in to the code requirement and arguing the case
however what you forgot was the metallurgy and mechanical properties
of materials.

the material you were using to build your sphere was SA 537 Cl 2 whose
tensile strength is 80 - 100 ksi.

you are intended to subject the bottom part of sphere to two PWHT
Cycles.

when you compile your data, the base material you are using is 80 -
100 ksi and electrode you are using is 80ksi.

please carefully read the manufacturers data supplied of your welding
electrode manufacturer, you will see that the results posted were as
welded not after one PWHT or 2 PWHT Cycles.

the reason why manufacturer publishes only as welded results was,
because you will get higher mechanical properties in as welded
condition than what you will get after one PWHT cycle.

when you do second PWHT cycle you will end-up with further low
mechanical values than 80 ksi.

please check with your electrode manufacturer and ask him to conform
the strength of electrodes will meet SA 537 Cl 2 tensile requirements
(he will definitely will not do that).

in my opinion, so as a guarantier of sphere manufacturing, you have a
reconcilability to supply agreed product to your end user, hence you
shall subject your weld procedure to both one cycle and two cycles and
then test the coupon for its mechanical and impact properties.


On Feb 28, 6:50 am, "Bathula Raghuram \(Mumbai - PIPING\)"
<R.Bath...@ticb.com> wrote:
> What is your welding position of PTC #1? Assuming you are using Same WPS
> for all joints (category A, assuming all your welds fall under this
> category) and you have done your PTC#1 in Vertical position, In my
> opinion PTC#2 is not required {refer UG-84(i)(3)(a)(2)}.
>
> However it could be the reason your Surveyor is asking for PTC#2, since
> some portion weld seam is subjected to PWHT two times, in that case even
> your PTC#2 should undergo PWHT twice, is n't it? I am not clear on this;
> members please share your views?
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:materials-welding@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jivan Dhamane
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 4:13 PM
> To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [MW:596] Re: selction of Production test coupons (PTC)
>
> Dear Friend
>
> Design code is ASME Section Div.-1. MOC is SA 537 Cl.2,  Thickness is
> 57.5mm to 59.9mm, MDMT is -46 (Minus) Degree Celcius, Welding Process is
> SMAW, Filler metal AWS clasification E8016-C1, PTC thickness is 59.1mm,
> PWHT Cycle is Heating rate above 426 Degree celcius -94 Degree per hour
> max., Soaking Temp.-586-606 Degree, Soaking Period 2 hours 30 Minutes,
> Cooling rate above 426 Degree celcius -117 Degree per hour max.
>
> Hope I clearify ur queries.
>
> Regards
>
> Jivan Dhamane
>
> Raghuram Bathula <raghurambath...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>         can please explain more about your problem, Design code, MOC,
> Thickness involved, MDMT , Welding process used...
>
>         On Feb 19, 2008 5:57 PM, Jivan Dhamane
>
> <jivanadham...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>
>         Dear Friends
>
>         I have two queries that are as follows please advice me.
>
>         1.      We are constructing Horton Sphere, at the initial stage
> our subcontractor had submitted PWHT procedure for whole sphere, but due
> to some accessories to inserted in the sphere for PWHT purpose they
> revised PWHT procedure in two parts. That is by Internal Firing Method
> for whole sphere except (Bottom Centre Crown plate weld) and after
> welding of Bottom Centre Crown plate weld PWHT is to carry out by Local
> Electrical Heating Method.
>
>         By doing so, BVIS Surveyor is asking for 02 Nos. Production Test
> Coupons (PTC). One for PWHT by Internal Firing Method and another for
> PWHT by Local Electrical Heating Method. We tried to convince BVIS
> Surveyor for only one no. PTC as Welding Procedure Specification (WPS),
> PWHT cycle and other all construction activities are same for both the
> part but BVIS Surveyor is no satisfied and asking for 02 Nos. PTC.
>
>         Waiting for your reply, till then take care and good bye
>
>         Regards
>
>         Jivan Dhamane
>
> ________________________________
>
> ________________________________
>
>         Why delete messages? Unlimited storage is just a click away.</a
>
> <http://in.rd.yahoo.com/tagline_mail_1/*http:/help.yahoo.com/l/in/yahoo/
> mail/yahoomail/tools/tools-08.html/>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[MW:622] RE: ESTABLISHMENT OF WPS FOR P22 TO P91

I assume you are using ASME Sec IX for qualifications, since P no (P5A and 5B not P22/P91) are different for both these materials you need perform new PQR for welding P22 (falls under 5A) to P91(falls under 5B) refer QW403.1


From: shailesh dave [mailto:snd2988@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 1:25 PM
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Subject: ESTABLISHMENT OF WPS FOR P22 TO P91

 

DEAR MEMBERS.

 

I HAVE FOLLOWING QUARIES:-

 

I ALREADY HAVE ESTABLISHED WPS/PQR FOR ASTM A335P91 TO P91 FOR 57 mm THK.

 

NOW I HAVE COME ACROSS DISSIMILAR METAL WELDING OF ASTM A335P22 TO P91 58 mm THK.

 

MY QUESTION IS  DO I NEED TO ESTABLISH NEW WPS/PQR OR THE EARLIER ONE CAN SUPPORT THIS.

 

REGARDS,

 

S.N.DAVE

 

QA/QC MANAGER, TATA PROJECTS LIMITED

 

IWPP -III - SHUAIBAH POWER PROJECT

KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA

 

 

 


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[MW:621] RE: 607] 1'' Line Tapping

TDW claims they can tap (hot/wet/cold) from 0.5” to 1.5”, visit at www.tdwilliamson.com

Please post here if u get any positive feed back

 

Best regards

Raghuram Bathula


From: materials-welding@googlegroups.com [mailto:materials-welding@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Zameer Mohammed
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:42 AM
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Subject: [MW:607] 1'' Line Tapping

 

Gents…..

 

I guess someone can help me on this.

 

We have a 1'' line which carry HC gas

            Material - Carbon Steel

            Pressure - < 1 bar

 

We want to take a tapping point from this line. We cut the line using cold cutting. There is no immediate isolation point available near the tapping point.

 

I heard about some balloon type plug that can be fitted inside the pipe to get a positive isolation

 

My question is

1.      Is it possible to do this on a 1'' line

2.      What is the product name and the procedure to do this

3.      Vendor details, if any.

 

Thank you in advance,

 

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/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[MW:620] RE: 596] Re: selection of Production test coupons (PTC)

What is your welding position of PTC #1? Assuming you are using Same WPS for all joints (category A, assuming all your welds fall under this category) and you have done your PTC#1 in Vertical position, In my opinion PTC#2 is not required {refer UG-84(i)(3)(a)(2)}.

 

However it could be the reason your Surveyor is asking for PTC#2, since some portion weld seam is subjected to PWHT two times, in that case even your PTC#2 should undergo PWHT twice, is n’t it? I am not clear on this; members please share your views?


From: materials-welding@googlegroups.com [mailto:materials-welding@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jivan Dhamane
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 4:13 PM
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Subject: [MW:596] Re: selction of Production test coupons (PTC)

 

Dear Friend

 

Design code is ASME Section Div.-1. MOC is SA 537 Cl.2,  Thickness is 57.5mm to 59.9mm, MDMT is -46 (Minus) Degree Celcius, Welding Process is SMAW, Filler metal AWS clasification E8016-C1, PTC thickness is 59.1mm, PWHT Cycle is Heating rate above 426 Degree celcius -94 Degree per hour max., Soaking Temp.-586-606 Degree, Soaking Period 2 hours 30 Minutes, Cooling rate above 426 Degree celcius -117 Degree per hour max.

 

Hope I clearify ur queries.

 

Regards

 

Jivan Dhamane

Raghuram Bathula <raghurambathula@gmail.com> wrote:

can please explain more about your problem, Design code, MOC, Thickness involved, MDMT , Welding process used...

On Feb 19, 2008 5:57 PM, Jivan Dhamane <jivanadhamane@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

Dear Friends

 

I have two queries that are as follows please advice me.

 

  1. We are constructing Horton Sphere, at the initial stage our subcontractor had submitted PWHT procedure for whole sphere, but due to some accessories to inserted in the sphere for PWHT purpose they revised PWHT procedure in two parts. That is by Internal Firing Method for whole sphere except (Bottom Centre Crown plate weld) and after welding of Bottom Centre Crown plate weld PWHT is to carry out by Local Electrical Heating Method.

 

By doing so, BVIS Surveyor is asking for 02 Nos. Production Test Coupons (PTC). One for PWHT by Internal Firing Method and another for PWHT by Local Electrical Heating Method. We tried to convince BVIS Surveyor for only one no. PTC as Welding Procedure Specification (WPS), PWHT cycle and other all construction activities are same for both the part but BVIS Surveyor is no satisfied and asking for 02 Nos. PTC.

 

Waiting for your reply, till then take care and good bye

 

Regards

 

 

Jivan Dhamane





Why delete messages? Unlimited storage is just a click away.</a


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

[MW:619] RT after PWHT

Request to all members: Please use appropriate subject line!

 

What is your design code, Sec VIII div 1 is mandatory RT after PWHT only for Ferritic SS grades. But if I am the inspector may insist for NDT after PWHT since thick is high in your case, alternately you may propose UT after PWHT instead of RT.

 

 


From: Vijay Singh [mailto:vijays@tpc.ae]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 10:34 AM
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: 611] Re: ELEMENT WHICH GIVE LOW TEMP TOUGHNESS TO SA333 Gr.6

 

I need your inputs

 

SS 321 Pipe , 42 mm thickness , welded . radiography was performed after welding and report  cleared by TPI was OK with not a single repair advice on 224 mtrs…... ASTM allows radiography before PWHT , but client is insisting on radiography after PWHT . Is there any change in results if radiography is done after PWHT as compared to the radiography results before PWHT.

 

What is the logic for asking for radiography after PWHT if ASTM allow it.

 

rgds

 

Vijay

 

 


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[MW:618] Online Engineering Calculators (Mechanical/ Civil/ Mettalurgy/ Unit Conversion, etc.) & other Technical sites

Online Engineering Calculators (Mechanical/ Civil/ Mettalurgy/ Unit Conversion, etc.) & other Technical sites

 

 

Please visit www.calculatoredge.com & www.mycalculations.com an online tool for Electrical, Electronics, Mechanical, Civil, Chemical Engineers, it has hundreds of equations and formula, its all FREE.

 

Following are the good technical sites:

 

Description

SITE

ENG NET

http://www.engnetglobal.com/

ESB Consultancy

http://www.esbconsult.com/

International protective coating

http://www.international-pc.com/pc/

ENGINEERING POWER TOOLS

www.pwr-tools.com

SHELL E-SPIR

www.e-spir.shell.com

Web-based Engineering Calculations & Graphics

www.mycalculationS.com

 Steel Guide

www.key-to-steel.com

 

www.techstreet.com

My calculators

www.mycalculations.com

 

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/

Cambridge university

http://www.msm.cam.ac.uk/phase-trans/index.html

Fabrication technology

http://www.fabtech.in/FabPortal/

A CORROSION AND MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY SITE
THE HENDRIX GROUP

http://hghouston.com/index.html

Browse Lots of Engineering Books, Free for Download

www.artikel-software.com

Online tool for Electrical, Electronics, Mechanical, Civil, Chemical Engineers, it has hundreds of equations and formula, its all FREE.

www.calculatoredge.com

Engineering Tips Forums

www.eng-tips.com

 

Materials & Metallurgy (Mills)

 

arcelormittal

www.arcelormittal.com/

Avesta

 

Corus

www.corusgroup.com/en/

dillinger

www.dillinger.de/dh/index.shtml.en

JFE Steel - Japan

www.jfe-steel.co.jp/en/

Mannesmann

www.mannesmann.com

Otokumpu

www.outokumpu.com

Posco

http://www.posco.co.kr/homepage/docs/en/s91a0010001i.jsp

sandvik

www.smt.sandvik.com

Industeel

www.industeel.info/

 

 

Note:

If any members have some more useful technical sites, may please share…

 

Best regards,

 

Sunil S. Agrawal

Engineering & Design Tecnimont ICB


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[MW:34820] RE: 34813] Clarification in Rate of heating and cooling.

Hello,   Please see the response below.   Regards.   P. Goswami, P. Eng, IWE.   From: materials-welding@googlegroups.com <materials-weld...