Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / Inspection & Qualification / PWHT per B31.3
- - By bert lee (**) Date 07-25-2011 15:38
hi, when do you need to perform PWHT for P1 material? is it a must if the thickness is above 19mm?

thanks
bert
Parent - - By qcrobert (***) Date 07-28-2011 15:51 Edited 07-28-2011 16:37
Bert, I was hoping those more familiar with B31.3 would have commented by now.  I deal more with Sec I and VIII Div 1.

Yes, ASME B31.3 is the same as ASME Section 1.  For P1 materials, PWHT is a requirement for base metals greater than 0.75".

Please refer ASME B31.3 Para 331.2.2, where exceptions to the basic requirements (par 331.1/ table 331.1.1) are given.

Thickness and alloy chemistry determine if PWHT is required in Codes and Standards.
Parent - - By Shane Feder (****) Date 07-29-2011 04:19
Robert,
I live in B31.3 but I did not respond as I have a problem with people not even bothering to look in the code book, just taking the easy way out and posting the question on here - let someone else do the work.
Nobody will ever learn to navigate a codebook if they do not look themselves.

As you can see by my posts over the years I love helping people but those people must have at least tried to discover the answer before posting on here,
Regards,
Shane
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 07-29-2011 12:20
Shane,
You put that more diplomatically than I usually do. Though some would say I'm an azzhole. Mostly my friends. :lol:
But its an important point. I myself will not ask a question in here unless I've spent considerable time digging for the answer. The effort goes along way towards reinforcing the memory.
Parent - - By Nandesh Kumar (*) Date 07-29-2011 12:51
Bert Lee,

As per the latest edition of 31.3, the PWHT is mandatory , if the thickness is above 20 mm

Regards.
Parent - - By bert lee (**) Date 07-29-2011 16:16
thanks nandesh kumar

shane, just imagine if all the members in this forum are very clever then there is nothing to post & discuss..a lot of novice questions have been posted here which received responses...just because you are too clever with b31.3...you find my question ridiculous, if i dont have a copy of b31.3...can you blame me:cry: be considerate my friend:neutral:
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 07-29-2011 19:12
bert,
I believe shane was being considerate.
And we ALL ask novice questions. ALL of us. Simply because the world is too big.
Its not the question, though I do not presume to speak for shane, only myself, it is the seeming lack of due research and preparation.
Also, not having a code when one clearly needs one is a difficult defense to sustain.
Parent - - By bert lee (**) Date 07-30-2011 14:10
js with due respect may i ask you….did you get a 100% correct answers on your open code book exam? i guess you took time reading the code book and get familiar with the contents before you took the exam…..when i took mine, i used 1104, not so many pages compared to 31.3…i read this 1104 few times prior to exam but i never get a perfect score….do you think that there’s something wrong with me by not getting a perfect score?

let say i was given a new task where i need to use an australian code / or std which is new to me…is it alright to seek your friend’s opinion who might be familiar with AS std? is it harmful to ask an australian friend's opinion so as to confirm your interpretation ? will it be inconsiderate if your request was turn down by a friend who knew the answer?
Parent - - By Shane Feder (****) Date 07-31-2011 02:14
Bert,
I took ASME IX for my CWI exam (326 pages compared to API 1104 / 82 pages) and scored 93%.
Does that mean I am more knowledgable than you - definitely not.
It means I can navigate my nominated code faster and that only comes from reading that code over and over and becoming more and more familiar with that code.

By posting the question you did (which appeared very basic) you are learning nothing. If your engineer asks you where you found it in the code what do you say "I don't know, I got the answer off an internet forum".

I will willingly help you with any question you have if you can show me you have actually looked at the code yourself first.

Regards,
Shane

PS. I am a New Zealander - definitely not Australian. LOL !!
Parent - - By nantong (**) Date 07-31-2011 10:45
Sean, I got 94%!

See you on your birthday in Chonburi.
Parent - - By Shane Feder (****) Date 07-31-2011 23:18
You call me Sean one more time Mr B ...........:mad: :mad: :mad: LOL !!!
See you in October.
Parent - - By nantong (**) Date 08-01-2011 10:39
Shawn, how come you got 4 stars?
Parent - By Shane Feder (****) Date 08-01-2011 10:46
If you didn't keep having administrator enforced "holidays" you would have 4 stars too ! LOL !
Parent - - By nantong (**) Date 07-30-2011 03:53
Not mandatory I think. Refer 331.2.2
Parent - - By bert lee (**) Date 07-30-2011 14:14
nantong thanks, you’re my hero...i got an idea..to get an experienced designer to support the waiver of pwht...very good:smile:
Parent - - By nantong (**) Date 07-31-2011 11:01
No problem Bert Lee, glad I could help (make sure the waiver is technically justified and documented). PWHT is not cheap so obviously if you can justify its deletion then it it is a benefit to all.

Mr Shane Feder, how remiss of you to forget how I (we, us Fred?) dispensed with PWHT on temporary A106 steam blowing lines on Goro Nickel Project in New Caledonia.

BTW Bert Lee Henry is my hero, lots of great links, no one can beat him for that.

regards

NKG
Parent - - By Shane Feder (****) Date 07-31-2011 23:22
Mr Nantong,
Please advise where in my posts I have stated PWHT is mandatory for P1 greater than 19 mm ?
Regards,
Shane
Parent - By nantong (**) Date 08-01-2011 10:42
Shane, you should have been a lawyer.I rest my case m'lord.
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 08-01-2011 12:52
bert,
Now we have a discussion.
Read 331.2.2 again.
Is does not say a waiver. And thinking of it as such is irresponsible and IMO a violation of the code. Its says essentially 'modification to suit service conditions'. This does not imply that you can waive PWHT just because you think its inconvenient or too expensive by getting an engineer to go along with you. If the design engineer wishes to approach it as such then he better be prepared to bring friends with him to court if something goes wrong.
How does inconvienience or cost argue for 'suit service conditions'?
You also must demonstrate adequacy by comparable service experience. Do you have comparable service experience?
For temperature? For thermal cycling? For stress levels? For probability of brittle failure?
You must also conduct tests. Who's going to engineer the necessary tests?
By the time you achieve all of these it may be more convenient or cheaper to cook. And this isn't by accident.
Para 331.2.2 is not an 'out' for PWHT.
Parent - - By bert lee (**) Date 08-02-2011 16:05
sorry js55.. i’m not a design engineer and its too complex for me to understand your point.... i quote what nantong mentioned which is clear and simple i.e. “(make sure the waiver is technically justified and documented). PWHT is not cheap so obviously if you can justify its deletion then it is a benefit to all.”

why don’t you clarify with nantong about the waiver issue? i will be happy to read your discussions with him and to learn more things? will you dare?
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 08-02-2011 20:23
bert,
Most of the words I used are right out of the code. The question you have to ask is, how do you go about justifying the elimination of PWHT. Nantong's "technically justified". It cannot be an "In My Opinion" and stamp it with PE. And you better do better than just a procedure qual. I've done many procedure quals in the as welded condition in excess of any given code because not all codes have the same thickness requirements. I would not even think of using that qual alone as a justification for eliminating PWHT.
If it was that easy everybody would be doing it.
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 08-02-2011 20:28
PS: You're not doing any P91 are you?
Parent - - By bert lee (**) Date 08-03-2011 15:13
js55, the material just arrived is A106 24" sch 60.
i don't have a wps with pwht. the initial information i got is to use 31.3
the purchasing specifications for material, fabrication, inspection, and installation
have not been given to me yet...i'm a person who wants to prepare in advance.
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 08-03-2011 16:14
bert,
Lop off a piece. Do a weld. Send it off to the lab. You can even let the lab cook it. Many of them have small furnaces. And you can get results long before you can put together any bullit proof justification.
- - By jbndt (**) Date 07-30-2011 23:57
Bert,

qcrobert gave you that very same info TWO days ago ...

Now, had you typed, “PWHT per B31.3”  into the “search box”,  you would have found that your question was answered in 2005.

Topic PWHT By - Date 06-01-2005 04:12
You are correct Charles. I am assuming Mohammed is working to ASME B31.3, where it states in paragraph 331.2 Where warranted by experience or knowledge of service conditions, alternative methods of heat treatment or exceptions may be adopted as provided in para. 331.2.1 and 331.2.2.
However, para 331.2.2 (a) states where provisions less stringent than those in para. 331 are specified, the designer must demonstrate to the
owner's satisfaction the adequacy of those provisions by comparable service experience, considering service temperature and its effects, frequency and intensity of thermal cycling, etc.
In addition, appropriate tests shall be conducted, including WPS qualification tests.
So if you intend to delete the PWHT requirements, you must have the appropriate WPS and a PQR to support it.
It would be easier, faster and probably cheaper to perform localized PWHT.

Then, you might have asked if anything has changed since then …

(I’m STILL learning to navigate this forum … And not getting too butt-hurt with some 'apparently' sharp replys ... I appreciate ALL the help I get!) :eek:

Cheers,
jb
Parent - - By Shane Feder (****) Date 07-31-2011 01:46
Bert,
As I stated previously I have been helping people on this forum for years - I actually really enjoy the challenge of finding answers or interpretations that other people have searched for and haven't been able to find.
Then there are times when I search and search and can't find an answer so I post on here and generally one of the guys will assist. (look at Henry's extremely informative response to the question on cobalt alloys)

My complaint - and I stand by it, is people who have not done any research prior to posting questions.

Open your copy of B31.3 (if you do not have a copy you shouldn't be fabricating anything to B31.3)
Look in the index - Heat Treatment is on Page 65

Chapter V Fabrication, Assembly, and Erection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
327 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
328 Welding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
330 Preheating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
331 Heat Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
332 Bending and Forming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
333 Brazing and Soldering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
335 Assembly and Erection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Go to Page 65

331.1 General
331.1.1 Heat Treatment Requirements
(a) Heat treatment shall be in accordance with the
material groupings and thickness ranges in Table 331.1.1
except as provided in paras. 331.2.1 and 331.2.2.

Go to Table 331.1.1 and it will show you that P1 greater than 20 mm requires PWHT except as provided in paras.........

Now go to the two paragraphs noted ( as mentioned by nantong 331.2.2 may be applicable)
All this would have taken 5 minutes maximum.

Now if still not sure of the requirements do exactly as noted by Jimmy - use the search engine which has years of answers.

If still unsure of requirements then post your question on the forum - explain which paragraph or table you do not understand and you will find people more than willing to help.

If English is not your first language and I have misinterpreted your original question then I apologise for my rant.

Regards,
Shane
Parent - - By ssbn727 (*****) Date 07-31-2011 05:43 Edited 07-31-2011 05:46
Bert,

I believe that everyone who has answered your OP in here has led you in the right direction, and both Jimmy as well as Shane (Especially Shane) have good reason to criticize you for not applying yourself to perform the basic research which is required of you first before asking such a query.

We all would like to help anyone in true need of direction, or in answering a legitimate question, yet we also recognize when someone is trying to take advantage of this forum by crudely tricking us into doing most, if not all of the necessary research leg work for them.

In other words, from now on, if you have access to the material which can answer your own question, then at the very least try to do so!!! If unsuccessful, then you can post it in here, and most of us will literally trip over each other in attempting to give you the very best possible answer, or at the very least - point you in the right direction.:lol::wink::cool:

This is just my observation, but I believe that many other folks in here share a very similar one.:roll::smile::wink::cool:

Respectfully,
Henry
Parent - - By bert lee (**) Date 07-31-2011 15:42
there were replies saying pwht is mandatory and another one is non-mandatory…to who should i believe? it’s good that i raised this topic and caught the attentions of other members who may able to assist…i believe that readers who are like me not familiar with 31.3 have benefited from this pwht discussion...i like nantong’s direct and sharp answers…what do you think? should i believe nantong or nandesh kumar?

i don’t have the code with me now, the nearest copy of 31.3 is 400km away from my working place...the information i gathered from this forum is not my final basis for making a decision…you’ll definitely need to read the code to convince yourself before you can make a final decision.

i respect your advised but I have no regrets to my OP and will not hesitate to repeat the same approach in the future.

bert

ps. 31.3 will deliver to worksite tomorrow and our actual piping work will only start in late sept, 2011.
Parent - - By bert lee (**) Date 07-31-2011 15:50
Henry

by the way nantong mentioned you have lots of great links, could you please share to me some?

thanks
bert
Parent - By ssbn727 (*****) Date 07-31-2011 19:02
Hi Bert,

Now if you would have explained your situation as you have now after the fact, I'm sure that there would have been more willingness to assist you because of your "handicap' with respect to not having the documents available for you to review. Look everybody in here has been in similar situations before and yet, they all have explained to us that for some reason or another, they did not have the documents available for them to review.

There are many links that I have posted over the years in here... If you perform a search by going up top row of options of this page and click "search" then, type in "SSBN727" in the user box... And then, you need to fill in the Min Age with the number 1 and then the Max Age with 9999, then make the choice if you want to view my Newest post first or the Oldest post first and then click search to look up all of my posts...

You will then get a page #1 0f 10 which will have all of my posts that will include certain posts with links to various web sites associated with welding in some form or another.

There are more older posts with links but, they are no longer accessible due to a lack of server space, so you can only have access to the links I posted since 04/10/2010.

That's the best I can do for you presently.:wink::cool:

Respectfully,
Henry
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 08-01-2011 13:06
bert,
I would suspect that if you are away from code access, and it happens of course, you are not in a position to develop the exceptions to PWHT. Again, 331.2.2 is not intended as a waiver. It is intended as an engineering option. And so the option must be engineered not pencil whipped by a sympathetic engineer.
- - By jbndt (**) Date 07-31-2011 18:31
Bert,

Just click on the blue "ssbn727".
That will take you to his profile.

Then while there, click on posts.

Caution, ALL of them will appear!  :lol:

Cheers,
jb
Parent - - By Shane Feder (****) Date 08-01-2011 10:59
Bert,
My apologies.
As Henry stated if you had mentioned you didn't have access to your copy of the code in your OP this whole post would have been totally different.
I would not have posted my initial response if I knew there was a reason you hadn't checked the code yourself.

And, please, please do not make nantong your hero. We will never hear the end of it !!!

Regards,
Shane
Parent - By bert lee (**) Date 08-02-2011 15:57
your apology is accepted! it’s good to read more than 20 replies to my post than no reply at all. i think the forum will be very boring if there is nothing to discuss because there are people who afraid to post thinking that they may get rebuke...so maybe it will be good to encourage more posting so that the forum will remain lively.

btw i’m not a designer, my task is to ensure that there is available welding procedure specification if pwht is required. i like nantong’s reply because there is an option to waive pwht if the contractor is able to comply with para 331.2.2…without pwht my job will be easy. lastly, my true hero is russel crowe who acted in gladiator:lol:
Parent - By bert lee (**) Date 08-02-2011 15:59
thanks jb
Up Topic Welding Industry / Inspection & Qualification / PWHT per B31.3

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill