ASME IX-PQR

[Shane Kavanagh]

Hi i am currently running a procedure to ASME IX and would like to know if anyone else has done a similar procedure in a similar way and is there anything i should look out for.

We have some work fabricating an LPG line in Low Temp Carbon Steel and going through the code this is what i have come up with.

Background:
Material A333 pipe A350 LF2 flanges
Butt and socket welds on 20nb (26.7) Sch XS(3.91)

Proposal:
As the material is both Group 1 and Group 2 i have machined some A350 LF2 flanges down to use as one half of the test piece and added another 100mm of pipe to get my 150mm for the mechanical tests. The other side has 150mm of A333 pipe.

Process will be GTAW using ER70S-2 wire 2.4mm, position 6G

I have estimated i will need 7 coupons as i wish to get 2 separate WPS produces for both ASME IX and AS/NZS 3992 also the client has extra testing in their welding specifications.

I have been told by the Mechanical testing house that 3.91 wall is too small for them and i have suggested we use XXS (7.82) but i can not change the diameter because according to my understanding of the code, the procedure will only qualify the OD of the test piece to unlimited, where the thickness under 10mm will cover 1.5 thick to 2 x thickness.

Am i on the right track here?

Any comments greatly appreciated.

Regards
Kav

Kav

[Flash]

Hi Kav
the difference between A333Gr 6 and LF2 with regards to impacts results is significant isnt it
It is interesting to note that LF to ASME 16.5 only require 18J yet AS3992 requires 30J depending on material
I wonder if piping designers have ever picked up this miss match

out of interest what sort of impact numbers did you get and what size sample
R

[Shane Kavanagh]

Hi Thanks for the info, the material grade for the pipe was grade 6.
In the end i proceeded with the procedure using 50nb XS A333 Grade 6 one side and A350 LF2 the other side. Did 3 coupons.
This covers me for A1 and A2 material according to AS3992 -1998 and Group 1 and 2 in ASME IX
Construction Codes are as you stated B31.3 and AS4041.
For the mechanicals i had 2 x tensile, 2 macro, 2 x hardness, 2 x root bend, 2 x face bend and 1 x charpy v Notch@ -65.5C
Only had a slight tear on 1 of the bend test, 0.89mm but it still complied.
Hardness survey on the Macro was also done.
Overall the mechanicals and RT came back as complied. Now i need to get my client to approve the PQR and WPS.

Currently writing the PQR followed by the WPS for AS3992, i will keep in mind the impact testing restrictions.

Thanks for your help, if you have any further comments i would appreciate them.

Regards
Kav

Kav

[Shane Kavanagh]

I’m sure they don’t along with many other things.

Test info
Test temp was -65.5, Size was 2.5×10, location was WMCL

Readings were 1(18J), 2(20J), 3(24J) average 20.7J

Assessment result was a comply for AS/NZS 3992 and ASME IX, although i picked up on the report for ASME IX that they used the 2007 edition. I have asked them to recheck against the 2010 edition and resubmit.

My client advised this morning that the PQR and WPS have been approved without changes and are being submitted to there client for approval.

Those late nights at central TAFE and long drives from sunny Rockingham to get there are paying off  🙂

Regards
Kav

Kav

[Flash]

why didn’t you do haz impacts in pipe and flange
in my opinion the mech report should Ref B31.3 as this is where the impacts requirements for asme ix come from

R
Flash

[Shane Kavanagh]

Yes i did do HAZ also.

I will look into the b31.3 option. I’ll give them a call and talk to them about it. Thanks for the info.

Regards
Kav

Kav

[Flash]

so don’t keep me in suspense
what did the flange come up at
R
GF

[Shane Kavanagh]

Please see attached

Regards
Kav
WHS.jpg

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

Kav

[Flash]

Thats the hardness report
– neat trick adding the image file –

[Shane Kavanagh]

Sorry i miss understood you, The only impacts i had done was the weld metal center line.

I did however do a 4th coupon at the same time as the 3 used for the procedure and collected all my coupons back and mechanical tested parts so further testing could be carried out in the future.

Regards
Kav

Kav

[Flash]

Smart move getting coupons for later testing
some specs call for wmcl, fl, fl+2, fl+5 and it is painful to run them all again for that

I would have done the haz impacts done as well, one set in the pipe and one set in the flange
it really depends on your design temp and consumable classification, but without going into detail and looking at your test temp you might want to check into it a little further

R
Flash

[Flash]

Check this out Kav
this is not the only one I have done and most have similar results
R
F
impact example.pdf

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Shane Kavanagh]

Wow, big difference between the pipe and the flange material….!

I will defiantly look into getting some more testing done.

Regards
Kav

Kav

[Flash]

to be perfectly honest instead of testing the welding procedure you end up doing a random batch test on the flange material, if it does fail in my opinion it is because the quality of the forging is suspect
because the flange values will vary depending on when and where they are made
I have seen some good some not so good
Let us know how ya go

R
Flash

[Ballbearing]

Kav,
As Flash has stated forget about diameter when you are qualifying welding procedures. Only comes into play for Welder Qualifications.
What grade of SA 333 are you using ? (there are 8 grades)
What fabrication code are you working to ? (I’m presuming B31.3 for ASME and AS 4041 for Australian)
Are impacts required ? If so the goal posts change significantly.
A bit more info and we can probably assist more,
Regards,
BB

[Author]

Posts