I have a friend who is working on a project in which they are welding some water pipe that has been specified on the Dwgs to be in accordance with D1.1. Has anybody run into this before ? This is 24" pipe.
Seems like a flag to me but I have not been in the water pipe industry. It leaves some questions regarding root contour/concavity acceptance criteria.
Anyway, is this typical for a water line ? I suggested contacting the engineer to get clarification on acceptance criteria before signing a bunch of inspection reports certifying that the welds were acceptable to D1.1. Perfectly acceptable (B31.x) pipe roots may not be acceptable to D1.1.
What are your thoughts ?
Just wondering as to why it would not fall under AWWA code???
Is the 24" pipe holding up a corner of the Sewer Treatment Plant?? lol
Scrutinizing your post and the given information... The EOR could have performed the calcs and finds this criteria (D1.1) is sufficient and possibly superior to what AWWA would require.
Back 30 years ago, when I was a "Tankie", water storage tanks were just X-rayed at the "T" intersections and "Diesel tested" at the floor to wall fillets. This was a tank for the Women's Pennitentiary in Colorado...just glad I never had to drink from that spiggot!
Definately curious to hear further comments and posts concerning this "crossing of codes" and jurisdictions.
Thats what I had thought also regarding AWWA. I suggested questioning the engineer or reviewing any additional specs . He had already reviewed the spec but hasn't contacted anyone. The guy is pretty sharp but this was his 1st venture into water pipe.
The acceptance criteria may very well have been fine but one area of concern for me would be that there is no reference to root contour and in some cases these are concave. This is acceptable by many piping codes however is NOT addressed by D1.1 . For him to accept a root pass with internal concavity of 1/32" would be outside of what is allowed by D1.1.
Maybe the AWWA codes don't address this either. But I would have some concerns and request some clarification.
Could he possibly be referring to the welders qualification, where a plate test will qualify welding on pipe over 24" od?
Back in my days working at a testing lab I ran into this on occasion. Tanks and/or lines were often called out to be built to AWWA and inspected to AWS. It appeared to me to be more common with engineering firms that designed to AISC vs ASME.
Here is something to think about on water tanks. Everybody see those Golf Ball water tanks?
Think they send a port-a-pottie to the top while they are building them?
Ever wonder where the tankies relieve themselves?
Oh yea, they climb down.
BABRt's
That's known as the "Tankies LEAK Test!"
AWWA C200 requires 100% visual inspection per AWS D1.1 Table 6.1 for statically loaded nontubular connections.
Is any reference made to internal root surfaces ? If not, nearly any concavity would be rejectable.
Is amount of inspection indicated ? He may just need to stop going inside :)
Having worked in the water Industry for 18 years I can give some insight -
The agency that I work for basicly uses ASME Section IX as a qualification guideline
and we have had excelent results (fingers crossed ) on ~ 350 MILES of large diameter transmission lines
We do have some of the supplementary impact addenda built in -
The " push " for AWS started when people who didn't know very much started saying "Wow , these ASME standards are loose "
and some people very marginally educated in AWS D 1.1 said , " lets use the prequalified procedures as they have
reasonable limits on the amps, volts , and travel speed and AWS D 1.1 requires qualification for every position used. "
This is how AWS D 1.1 got to be used in AWWA & other water work when in the very preface to AWS D 1.1 it is
EMPHATICALLY (my emphasis ) stated " that this document is not applicable to pressure vessels and pressure piping ".
So as you can see through ignorance something is being used because it is " easy " -
Yeah, I have seen some of this phenomenon. I call it the Lazy Draftsman Syndrome. I have seen drawings from a very respected aerospace giant for an aluminum weldment which specifies the welding to D1.1. Try going over that with a government QAR.
I too am an aerospace industry refugee and they didn't care what they put down as long as it was a recognized standard -
We had the same issue come up on some coal piping on a coal fired plant. It was 24" and 30". When we asked why D1.1, we were told that was the code the design engineers used. So I guess it was specified on your Dwgs to be in accordance with D1.1 because that is the code they designed the pipe to and did all of their design calcs to. It was very interesting to see my inspectors go to the field with their Table 6.1 to inspect piping.
Jim
But the preface to D 1.1 says it IS NOT APPLICABLE TO PIPING ! !
I think the hang up is with the terms "pressure piping" that term is generaly used to describe code boundry. It's not meant to mean all piping under pressure. I don't believe D1.1 1.1.1 is ment to mean any piping. Just my opinion. I could be wrong. In our case with the coal piping it is gravity fead.
Jim
Forum
