There is a level 3 interperting the film on board the lay barge and he brought it to my attention, I contacted the engineering firm that I work for and (is the design firm for the pipeline) about this and he said it was my call. As for me interperting film, I don't. The company pays a level 3 to do that. I just was looking for some feed back.
Where in API 1104 more than 1" IP is allowed in any weld ( with the exception of IPD)
"oh Lord, I've been up 36 hours and have been imbiding, please forgive the rant that will now ensue"
"You are not going to be able to tell the depth of the defect using radiography, sorry"
I've been nuking silver halides off an on over 22 years as a level II and III, loading it, shooting it, running it, interpreting it, writing procedures, and take a little offense to that "sorry" at the end of that sentence.
I am fully aware that you cannot determine depth with accuracy via standard RT methods, and I don't recall ever stating that you could.
As for Engineering Critical Assessment (ECA) AKA(also known as) Fracture Mechanics Analysis (FMA) you are correct, if done properly it will reduce the number of rejects as it's typically a fitness for service method which is according to Appendix A1 typically requires additional PQR's (procedure qualification records) (for CTOD crack tip opening displacement; fracture toughness test among other things), stress analyses, and testing. That NDE testing typically (these days) utilizes Automated Ultrasound (AUT) which can be comprised of many elements such as Time of Flight Diffraction (TOFD) Refracted Longitudinal waves (RL's) Head waves via RTT (round trip tandem), creep waves, secondary creep, and a whole host of other acronyms for UT methods, all balanced within the FDUM's (flaw detection uncertainty models). With modern systems, if you can't plot the flaw out with a high degree of accuracy with the mentioned elements, you need to go back to making donuts. (only used for girth welds between sections of equal thickness at that per A1.)
Which leads me to a pet peeve of mine. People who use acronyms without explanation as to what they are. Every industry has reams of them and the military has a 2 for 1 perpetual sale on them. As an example : The CRDM's experienced a fault in the VAM initiating the SCRAM, which caused the RCP2 to spin up, with a subsequent initiation of ECCS systems, and notification to the NRC that a ENR is forthcoming.
Translated: the control rod drive mechanisms experienced a fault in the vibration alarm motor initiating the 'safety control rod axe man' (official NRC definition as was coined at the first Chicago pile) which caused the reactor cooling pump 2 to spin up with subsequent initiation of the emergency core cooling systems, and notification of the nuclear regulatory commission that a event notification report is forthcoming.
A reader reading the the first sentence who has not worked in the nuclear industry or been in the military with the same, probably wouldn't have a clue what I just said, but the second sentence will give them an idea as to what the hell I was talking about, and thus allow them to glen some useful information from it even if they are uninitiated. Since the idea of the forum is the dissemination of useful information to those with a question and a need, I think the use of these acronyms such as ECA or IIDD (inertial impact delivery device "hammer") and others should be explained so as the people who don't know what the hell it means can learn rather than be kept in the dark.
Bottom line, the man came in looking for help and answers which was a smart move on his part as has been noted he could be getting himself in trouble.
The idea is to help, not to make them feel stupid. Lord knows I've been guilty of it but I do try to reign myself in from time to time. Something to consider.
Regards,
Gerald
Gerald
Am I reading API 1104 Section 9.2 wrong? The depth of the imperfection means how deep it is or the extent of the imperfection within boundries of the code? I think that the commitee that wrote this section knew good and well that you could not see how DEEP the imperfection with RT methods. the tech can only determine where in the welded V groove the imperfection is and judging by that, determine how deep the imperfection is inside the welded groove.
I wasn't trying to make anyone feel stupid and I didn't mean to offend you.
I was trying to help out. The last thing someone needs is to be doing is holding up production on a pipelay barge, getting welders that passed radiography run off or even worse making the barge back up for no reason. I have seen it and would not like to be on the wrong end of that stick. You are timed by supervisors with stop watches to determine how much down time is involved and they will try to blame anyone in order to back charge for the lost production time. One hour of down time on a barge that costs a quarter of a million dollars a day to operate is a lot of money.
The offshore pipeline welders are some of the best or they wouldn't be out there. They know what they need to do in order to pass radiography even if they try to hide something by adding extra reinforcement (which in my opinion is a shady thing to do).
"Which leads me to a pet peeve of mine. People who use acronyms without explanation as to what they are."
The original poster is using API 1104 and is a CWI. I should not have to explain what the acronym ECA, or IP stand for. Are you upset because I did not put the words Certified Welding Inspector in parenthesis after I typed CWI? You seem to be cherry picking in your post. It'll be my spelling or grammar next won't it?
Complain to the moderators and ask them to put up a sticky post with a list of all of the acronyms used in every welding code.
Sorry for the rant.
I forgive you for yours by the way.
Gerald,
I think you must have imbibed a bit too freely tonight.
I was just reading a post on radiographing socket weld gaps and one of our esteemed members mentions MIC which he then kindly explains in a later post is Microbe Induced Corrosion.Just as well because I didn't have a clue what MIC was/is.
Regards,
Shane
Why is the second welder starting his bead so far from where the first started? That's just shoddy welding practices in my opinion. Are they getting paid a production premium? Does it take too long to knock down a start with a grinder, or aren't they allowed to grind? Whatever the code, I would never just leave a void in a root on purpose, maybe I'm too anal.
On another note, I've been studying the 1104 for my CWI exam in a couple of weeks, I'm wondering if I should have picked a different code. That Appendix A Imperfection Interaction stuff is way over my head. Wouldn't that be a radiographer's call?
ZCat
"Its the new OIL FIELD" (LEAD in A--) I welded pipeline on lay barges before and it never would have occured to me to not grind the start of the other bead. A pipeline welder in mid 70s would have been run off for doing that. (No matter what the code said.) With that said, I tested on API 1104 because that was the direction I was heading and passed all 3 test in the high 80s. I was a little more familier with AWS D1.1. It depends the direction your heading, I use both codes on a regular basis and also B31.3 on hook ups. I don't know about the test for D1.1 but people I have talked to say that its easier. Don't let me change your mind on which code to test on, everybody is different, if you decided to test to 1104 then study that code.
Forum
