Steve,
It's been a few years since I've witnessed this, but as I recall, one of the northern nuclear plants got a similar situation approved by the NRC for piping. It required the full battery of test, cvn, bend, tensile, microhardness (10kg load vickers). Granted it was not a primary system, but that they approved it at all was enough. What I recall was different was in that the cvn was required to be performed as per normal, but with additional zones to cover the built up, as well as the piping/weld interface. The pipe to weld build up interface was also called the root area for purposes of testing, and the build up area itself had the additional charpys. As I recall the end of the pipe could not be used as bend and tensiles could not be drawn from it, so they made the build up area in the center of a pipe piece and used the cross section for the testing area. I don't know what your application is, but if you do the full battery you've done everything that can be reasonably expected by the code. BTW your thought process is spot on, the initial app to the ANI tried to call it hardfacing, then corrosion resistant. The ANI did not buy into either, but did buy into the build up scheme. If this material is SS, I suggest keeping a close eye on interpass temps and keeping them as low as can be reasonably achieved.
Bear in mind all that is coming from a long distant memory so I may have screwed up some of the details.
My two cents worth
regards,
Gerald
Let's keep in mind what it is we are actually trying to measure here. The viability of the weldment itself. As ASME codifies the joint design is non essential. So what you want is fusion, bonding, tensile strength , ductility, etc. A flat plate test can certainly demonstrate in a manner that can be extrapolated to the configuration being used.
We used to do something very similar in power on a daily basis. The ID would be C-bored at the ends in order to match bore. This would reduce the thickness below spec min wall, so we would have to build back up a circumferential 'knob' on the OD at the end of the pipe to maintain min wall. Sometimes these knobs were quite thick.
We qualed through standard ASME IX tensiles and bends.
I do not think impacts are necessary for two reasons. First this is not a nuke as suggested by Gerald. Secondly, even Section III does not require impacts for austentics, which we are discussing here. And even when other codes require impacts on austenitics the temps are really low.
Now, if you wish to do impacts to buttress your procedure thats up to you, but unless you are testing for low temps at low temps the data will most likely be useless. You may not even get the hammmer to provide a full fracture. Without fracture you have no viable recoil, or comprehensive lateral expansion.
All I reported was the fix I had noted in the past. I did not say it directly applied as I did not know the specifics. When I replied, without knowing specifics I went to the more stringent.
"edit" After re-reading the post, I don't see anywhere where it was specified what it was for.
Gerald,
I understood what you meant. I just used your post as an example for clarifying the idea that Steve needs to first grasp what it is he is actually asking of his weldment (in your case the idea of impacts), and with a consideration for the material and its service, tailor a testing regime for that. My thought is that even though Section IX does not explicitly address his application it is not really that unusual. The material properties he desires are all there. This is what engineering is really all about.
Fair enough, your are correct in in the idea of tailoring a regime for it.
Topic American Welding Society Services / Certifications / WPS & PQR for weld metal build up (or overlay?) per ASME IX
