B31.3 RT

Date 08-18-2008 15:38

the only rt i have ever done on sock-o-lets it for corrosion, you could rt them to see how far the spacing is, but you need to pt them

By bert lee (**)

Date 09-08-2008 16:23

I have worked with specification stating "A minimum of five percent of all socket welds shall be radiographed to inspect for: the presence of a gap after welding and for weld defects such as lack of penetration". the document mentioned global practice of their oil & chemical plant.

By 3.2 Inspector (***)

Date 09-08-2008 16:27

bert,

I am a little lost here!
How do you get lack of penetration in a socket weld?

3.2

By bert lee (**)

Date 09-08-2008 16:35

you can get some really goos shots, clearly showing LOF, LOP and the preperation prior to welding.

By 3.2 Inspector (***)

Date 09-08-2008 16:41

I agree about the LOF, but I dont see how you can get LOP - or just penetration for that matter.

3.2

By bert lee (**)

Date 09-08-2008 16:54 Edited 09-08-2008 17:00

sorry, I only shared what is written in the specification. If I will interpret the radiograph and will look for LOP....I will look at the root of weld "the point or points at which the bottom of the weld intersects the base metal surface or surfaces.........to see any penetration.

By 3.2 Inspector (***)

Date 09-08-2008 17:00

No need to be sorry :)
I am not trying to be ignorant, but in my mind that would be lack of fusion....

We better leave it here.

3.2

By bert lee (**)

Date 09-08-2008 17:09

please allow me, i do respect all people.

I don't have AWS CWI or CSWIP 3.1, please correct me if I'm wrong......lack of fussion (LOF) on fillet or socket weld should be found on Bond Line "the junction of the weld and the base metal" whereas LOP is on the root of weld.

By 3.2 Inspector (***)

Date 09-08-2008 17:23

AWS CWI or CSWIP is by no means guarantee of wisdom :)

3.2

I cant resist......in this case the root of the weld is not in a groove to be filled by weld metal (penetrate?) which is why LOP cant be found.
As I said above: AWS CWI or CSWIP is by no means guarantee of wisdom :)

3.2

By Mikeqc1 (****)

Date 09-08-2008 18:02

Incomplete fusion and incomplete penetration have IMO been used by many the wrong way some have even said they are one and the same, it would not surprise me to see it used wrong in some inspection reports.
Incomplete fusion is described as a weld discontinuity where fusion did not occur between weld beads or base metal.
Incomplete joint Penetration or inadequate joint Penetration or lack of joint Penetration is associated mostly with groove welds, where the weld metal stops short of the joint thickness, but is also described as the failure of the weld metal to reach the root of a FILLET weld.
YES or NO

By hogan

Date 09-08-2008 18:10

Mikeqc1,
The first thing that comes to mind is a fcaw fillet, where the welder has left a slag line in the "root" of the weld.

By Mikeqc1 (****)

Date 09-08-2008 18:39

True, but in terms of defining LOP , Fillets are included do you agree?

By bert lee (**)

Date 09-09-2008 00:53

I agree Sir, thanks=)

By michael kniolek (***)

Date 09-09-2008 01:23

I have look into this more and found that there is still some contradicting infomation about lack of penetration on fillet welds but if i were to write a report on a rejected weld groove or fillet and the discontinuity was a void at the root of the weld where the two joining members meet , and if a macro was done and this shows proper fusion of filler metal and base metal i would call this LOP.
MDK

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 09-09-2008 05:31

Michael,
I agree totally with your statement that it is sometimes contradictory.
Not only contradictory/confusing between different codes/standards but also sometimes confusing in the same standard.
AWS A3.0 shows a diagram of a fillet weld -Figure 24 (p) Fillet Weld with Joint Penetration and it shows with arrows the actual "joint penetration".Then you go to Figure 30 (b) and it shows a fillet weld with an almost identical marked up joint and it details the "Depth of fusion".

Figure 25(c) clearly shows a defect as you have described (void at the root) as Incomplete Fusion but based on the joints noted above I feel you could probably justify calling it LOP or LOF. (One allowed and one not.)
When it gets even more confusing for me is on socket welds where the pipe protudes into the socket.
If you have a void of say 1 mm depth at the root of a fillet weld, will that decrease the strength of the weld significantly relative to a weld that had 2 mm more depth of penetration/fusion and therefore had no void ?
It surely can't be a notch or "stress raiser" factor as in the root of a butt weld because the whole of the pipe protuding into the socket is unfused.
An old inspector told me years ago that as long as the actual throat dimension was at least the minimum required size you couldn't reject it.
I don't know whether I agree with him or not but it has definitely provided some lively discussions over the years,
Regards,
Shane

By 3.2 Inspector (***)

Date 09-08-2008 18:38 Edited 09-08-2008 18:56

Mikeqc1,

but is also described as the failure of the weld metal to reach the root of a FILLET weld.....first time I hear that, but I think you are right.
However, I would call it something with insufficiant throat or something like that...

3.2

By 3.1 Inspector Date 08-18-2008 18:28

You can do RT, but its not required by code - if I recall correct.
However, you can get some really goos shots, clearly showing LOF, LOP and the preperation prior to welding.
Somewhere in B31.3 you will find some illustrations of which kind of branch connections is considered suiteble for RT.

PT? do you mean penetrant test?
Surface testing of CS is to be done by MT, Magnetic particle Test.

By CWI555

Date 08-18-2008 20:35

[deleted]

By 3.1 Inspector Date 08-18-2008 20:41

So....you think doing a surface test of CS with PT is fine?
Because if you do - yes you can learn something here.....

By CWI555

Date 08-19-2008 11:18

[deleted]

By NDTIII

Date 08-19-2008 11:41 Edited 08-19-2008 11:45

MT and PT are considered surface examinations by ASME. It doesn't matter which you use as long as the surface readily lends itself to PT. That means it can me cleaned off easyily enough without overcleaning. Also bear in mind that on some small joints you may not be abke to get your minimum leg spacing for your yoke so you would have to use PT.
The code does not restrict. If anything would restrict it, it would be the project specs.
B31.3 requires RT or UT on Girth welds and Longituduna welds. Not Sock-o-lets. So either PT or MT would be used.

By 3.1 Inspector Date 08-19-2008 12:03

But you can get good results with RT on sockolets/weldolets.

By 3.1 Inspector Date 08-19-2008 12:13

I was waiting for that answer from you :)
I rest my case.....
I have been confirmed that most of you guys dont have a clue about what you are doing!
You read the code and thats it - no in depth knowledge IMO, or just common sense.
(I have worked with several inspectors from the USA - most failed and got send home again)

By CWI555

Date 08-19-2008 12:31

[deleted]

By 3.1 Inspector Date 08-19-2008 12:36

can you tell the differense between none and most?

By CWI555

Date 08-19-2008 12:50

[deleted]

By 3.1 Inspector Date 08-19-2008 13:00

k thx bye....
To be honest, I really dont have the time OR the written ability to write that kind of thing for you.
You just go ahead a continue to do PT on magnetic materials such as CS.

Now that I think of it, I remember your fellow CWI's wanted to do PT of a stick welded joint which had been grinded on the surface (rather roughly)
They called me all kind of things, when I told them to go back to the farm where they came from (this was in europe)

:)

OUT

By js55

Date 08-19-2008 14:02

I'm still waiting myself to see what the problem with PT on carbon steel.
Hold on. Let me get my case of Snickers.
OK. I'm ready.

By jrw159

Date 08-19-2008 15:07

Well it appears their are three of us lined up for this "education" he speaks of.

I might be putting my foot in my mouth here, but I don't think it is going to happen. :-)

jrw159

By 3.1 Inspector Date 08-19-2008 19:18

You are right, it wont happen.
I cant change the way you guys are educated and the way you deal with things in united bluff.
But I can educate you on how things are done outside the US....

Your ASME and API codes are good - but a bit conservative - and with alot of outdated theory.

Which is the reason you have a very very hard time when you leave the US and try to build something elsewhere, particular in europe!

:)

By jrw159

Date 08-19-2008 19:56

Bingo! 3.1

"Surface testing of CS is to be done by MT, Magnetic particle Test."

"So....you think doing a surface test of CS with PT is fine?
Because if you do - yes you can learn something here..... "

I have requested that you back these statements up with documentation and you obviously can NOT.

I beleive the point has been made quite clearly. BY YOU! LOL

If you put your head in the noose and start talking crap, I will kick the stool right out from under you, anytime. :-)

Of course if you do happen to come up with something to back it up, I will listen with an open mind, but I will not hold my breath waiting for this documentation, as I will most surely turn several differant shades of blue and purple before you can provide it.

Your statements are laughable to say the least.

jrw159

By 3.1 Inspector Date 08-19-2008 20:05

I guess you dont mind that I call you stupid AND laughable?

By RANDER

Date 08-19-2008 14:34

The least you can do for us Ignorant Americans is educate us. Please expand on your theory that liquid dye penetrant test methods are not adequate for detection of surface indications in carbon steel welds.

By jrw159

Date 08-19-2008 15:04

3.1,
OK Big Boy!

Explain to ME, WHY you make the statement-

"So....you think doing a surface test of CS with PT is fine?
Because if you do - yes you can learn something here....."

I have dealt with PT once or twice.

What about CS makes it not OK to PT????

SO why don't you EDUCATE ME and inform me WITH BACKUP that consists of more than just opinion, as to the ins and outs of PT on carbon steel.

I am ready to learn something here, and you seem to indicate that you can do the schoolin' so come on, out with it.

Waiting patiently for documentation, NOT opinion.

jrw159

By js55

Date 08-19-2008 15:42

I'm gonna need another case of Snickers.

By NDTIII

Date 08-19-2008 15:57 Edited 08-19-2008 16:10

3.1 Read my post. I said as long as the surface readily lends itself to PT. Yes technically you can use PT for carbon Steel.. Why not? I've been doing NDT for over 30 years. Trust me I do have a clue. Maybe only a clue but a clue nonetheless and if you think it is impossible to do PT on C/S then you better read up again.

Explain to me how you would do MT on a 1/2" c/s socket weld and get full coverage in 2 directions and still meet the minimum leg spacing reqirements? You made the statement "continue using PT on magnetic material." Carbon Steel is not magnetic. A magnet is magnetic. Carbon Steel is Ferromagnetic, which means it has the ability to accept magnetism. That doesn't mean you have to use magnetism to examine it. The reason you can't provide a technical justification as CSI555 asked you for is because there is no technical justifcation.

Didn't they cover DPI & MPI in your 3.2 course? I know they covered diplomacy. Were you sleeping that day? How can you say MOST Americans get sent home. I have worked overseas for over 20 years side by side with techs from all nationalities and never met ayone who speaks like you. You may know welding but NDT is definitely not your cup of tea. You're a Senior Welding Inspector. Act like one. Do your research and then get back to us.

I wouldn't recommend RT on sockolets or weldolets. I've heard of people doing it and they claim to get good results but I wouldn't.

One more thing. Pleae specify which branch connection illustrations in B31,3 are suitable for RT.

By hogan

Date 08-19-2008 17:48

3.1,
You seem a bit eager. Nothing wrong with that. Let me try and convey what it is I see happening here. You have stated some things that are "typically the best option". But the way that you stated it gave CWI155 (way sharper than me) more than enough info to bait up a nice hook for you. The hook was bitten firmly and this is the result. It's been while since I've worked to ASME and I don't have a reference. First, MT is typically the best option for CS surface but, as NDT III has mentioned, there are limitations. You stated it as an absolute. Secondly, I don't remember if there is a code reference for RT of this type of connection and acceptance. These appear to be the two issues you are being questioned on. PT and MT are typically interchangeable.

By 3.1 Inspector Date 08-19-2008 19:08

I am fully aware of the limitations....
I know there was bait for me, put by CWI666 - and yes I took it(on purpose)

I hold on to my statement that PT is not the right option for CS (and other magnetic materials for that matter)
I dont know why you guys wont admit that, yes I know that each methos has its limitations - also MT.

I know I stated it as an absolute, part of it is because of me being not english speaking and therefore not always make myself clear, not that I want to use that as an excuse, I still hold on to my initial post's stating that PT is the wrong method for CS (in particular in this case)

In this particular thread it was a PQR test that were in question - not a small bore pipe somewhere in a circuit and a hard to reach place - in that case a PT test is the WRONG method.....
MT does go slightly sub-surface, which makes it a much better test, beside if you grind on the surface and then do a PT, the grinding might cover some small defects....And that gentlemen IS NOT OPEN TO DEBATE.....its a well proven fact!!!!

Your comment about RT on sockolets just prove my point.....
As the Inspector I can test anyway I choose, and if I see LOF, LOP, etc.... I dont need a code reference, I need my common sense and I need to interpret what I see on the image.....

:)

I am to lazy to reply to all of you!

By CWI555

Date 08-19-2008 20:05

[deleted]

By 3.1 Inspector Date 08-19-2008 20:09

You are right, I was wrong on the PQR matter.....

By jrw159

Date 08-19-2008 20:24

CWI555,
Talk about hitting the nail on the head.

"It is obvious the Bias and hatred towards America overrides knowledge and integrity in his particular case."

He has an underlying agenda. Too bad, so sad. Life goes on. Let him woller in his own pile of ignorance, because as they say, "Ignorance is bliss" LOL

jrw159

By 3.1 Inspector Date 08-20-2008 05:27

I dont say its impossible to do PT on a CS joint, I just say that MT is superior.

I wouldn't recommend RT on sockolets or weldolets. I've heard of people doing it and they claim to get good results but I wouldn't.....So what? does that makes it wrong?

One more thing. Pleae specify which branch connection illustrations in B31,3 are suitable for RT.....328.5.4E

How can you say MOST Americans get sent home.....because they did - which part is hard to understand?

I know they covered diplomacy. Were you sleeping that day?.....I passed the examination, and you dont do that by sleeping :)

Didn't they cover DPI & MPI in your 3.2 course?....They did, and I passed the examination.

I work for a company that also does NDT - we have several level III - and they are laughing right now.

You may know welding but NDT is definitely not your cup of tea.......that makes two of us.

By NDTIII

Date 08-20-2008 06:05

[deleted]

By 3.1 Inspector Date 08-20-2008 06:48

They are laughing at you in particular, claiming to be Level III :) (its only ASNT)

By CWI555

Date 08-20-2008 11:00

[deleted]

By 3.1 Inspector Date 08-20-2008 11:16

Really?

By NDTIII

Date 08-20-2008 13:45

I think you're right. If we ignore him, maybe he will go away.

By 3.1 Inspector Date 08-20-2008 13:48

Can you say: PLEASE?

By 522029

Date 08-21-2008 01:46

Conversation with 3.1 is like having a parrot. He can only repeat what he hears from others.

To all: A wise old gentleman once told me "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and win with experience!"

Griff