Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / Inspection & Qualification / AUSTENITIC SOCKET WELD UT INSPECTION
- - By carlos_correia (*) Date 12-16-2009 03:27
Hello guys:
A company who I give NDT & welding consulting services, responsibly of fabrication of a gas pipeline, is asking me the possibility to perform UT in lieu of RT for a weld volumetric inspection. The joints are Socket Weld as shown ASME B31.8 Fig. 1-6(e).
The Socket Weld Joint is very similar to a lap joint, but in this case, we are dealing with pipes instead plates. The pipe thickness is ź inch (6.35 mm), and the socket coupling is about 3/8 inch (9.5 mm) in the portion that seems proper to place the transducer.
An additional challenge is the pipe material an AUTENITIC 304 Stainless Steel. So, we also understand that low frequency transducers are strong recommended.
I deeply appreciate if anyone has recommendations about this not common application of UT. This is valid to perform UT in lieu of RT for laps welds configurations?, what provisions should be considered?
Thank you all NDT&WELDING brothers!!!
Parent - - By CWI555 (*****) Date 12-16-2009 11:09
To my knowledge, UT is not allowed in lieu of RT for the referenced code. Aside from the code prohibition, socket welds are not not normally RT'd.
With all due respect, if your are 'providing' consulting services, you really should know the subject matter in which your consulting.

Regards,
Gerald
Parent - - By Superflux (****) Date 12-16-2009 17:39
[deleted]
Parent - By CWI555 (*****) Date 12-16-2009 18:26
Had you read the post, you will have seen the code reference
"Weld as shown ASME B31.8 Fig. 1-6(e)."

Therefore, the code he's refering to is B31.8
In that code you have two levels of examination inspection:
<20% hoop stress
=> 20% hoop stress

Quote:
"The following minimum number of field butt welds
shall be selected on a random basis by the operating
company from each day’s construction for examination.
Each weld so selected shall be examined over its entire
circumference or else the equivalent length of welds
shall be examined if the operating company chooses to
examine only a part of the circumference of each. The
same minimum percentages shall be examined for double
ending at railhead or yard:
(1) 10% of welds in Location Class 1
(2) 15% of welds in Location Class 2
(3) 40% of welds in Location Class 3
(4) 75% of welds in Location Class 4
(5) 100% of the welds in compressor stations, and
at major or navigable river crossings, major highway
crossings, and railroad crossings, if practical, but in no
case less than 90%."

For volumetric examinations it refers back to API-1104

Maybe in your infinite consulting knowledge you can show me the requirement for RT on socket welds?
Speaking of socket welds, He mentioned a 3/8" socket coupling.
Another quote from 31.8
(e) When pipe size is less than NPS 6, or when the
construction project involves such a limited number of
welds that nondestructive inspection would be impractical,
and the pipe is intended to operate at hoop stress
levels of 40% or less of the specified minimum yield
strength, then provisions (b) and (c) above are not mandatory,
provided the welds are inspected visually and
approved by a qualified welding inspector."

He's no where near NPS 6 at a 3/8" socket. I seriously doubt a socket weld will be designed for greater than 40% or greater hoop stress.
Therefore the provisions for NDE don't apply to start with, and all it needs is a visual inspection.

Getting back to the RT of sockets, why someone does that is beyond me. Even at 100 percent inspection levels they still refer to "butt" welds.
Unless something has changed radically, Butt weld does not = socket weld.

I'll send you the bill.
Parent - - By Jim Hughes (***) Date 12-16-2009 20:07
Superflux,
the guy was very curtious, I think you need to back it down a little. It's not realy what you wrote (said) but how you wrote it (said). There seems to be a pretty strong bite to your words. I don't believe he is fishing for someone to write his report or do his job he is asking for info.
In the spirit of Christmas think about it. :)

Jim
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 12-16-2009 20:19
Guys, I took it that the OP has given the NTD to an inspection group and they are wanting to substitute the NDT method for another. I think it may have been translated, and the context of the message was lost in translation to English....or I could be totally wrong....I dunno.
Parent - - By scrappywelds (***) Date 12-16-2009 23:04 Edited 12-16-2009 23:06
I am not a CWI, but if the company / client wants RT to make sure the min. gap is there thats fine. If they want the weld RT, I was under the understanding that RT of socket welds misses alot of defect that could be present. If it is not code required and the company / client wants some kind of weld NDT, I would push for PT since MT is impossible on S.S. If I am wrong please someone enlighten me, I like learning correct information.

Bryan
Parent - - By ssbn727 (*****) Date 12-17-2009 00:27
It's not impossible Scrappy because it all depends on the grade of Stainless steel (Ferritic & martensitic, or even dual-phase martensitic/ferritic grades of SS) being used as the base metal, but most SS socket welds are done with austenitic grades so in that circumstance, i would agree that it is not recommended to perform unless that is -one wants to waste a whole bunch of time and money for no logical reason at all!!! However, I've seen and heard a whole bunch of that going on all over the place recently as well!!! :) :) :)

So, MERRY CHRISTMAS BROTHER BOILERMAKER AND MAY I WISH YOU AND YOUR FAMILY AND EVERYONE ELSE'S FAMILY IN HERE NOT ONLY A MERRY CHRISTMAS, BUT ALSO A SAFE AND WONDERFUL HAPPY NEW YEAR AS WELL!!! :) :) :)

Respectfully,
Henry
Parent - - By Superflux (****) Date 12-17-2009 03:50
carlos_correia,

Carlos, I certainly hope your questioned was answered. References provided in this thread indicate RT is not a code requirement for socket welds.
If your client is wishing to volumetrically document the socket weld integrity, then Ut is indeed THE way to achieve this. For RT to be truly volumetric, multiple exposures would be required and most likely cost prohibitive.

I appologize if my previous posts were offensive....

Let me be the first to Welcome you to the forum.
Parent - By ssbn727 (*****) Date 12-17-2009 03:58
Nice Comeback Superflux! I would also like to "WELDCOME CARLOS TO THE WORLD'S GREATEST WELDING FORUM ALSO!!! :) :) :)" Mucho Gusto Caballero!

Respectfully,
Henry
Parent - - By Superflux (****) Date 12-17-2009 03:57
Jim Hughes,

Point taken, lesson learned...
Thank you for pointing out the error of my ways.
Crown Royal power lunch ... AWS forum postings...bad combination......
Parent - By carlos_correia (*) Date 12-17-2009 13:59
Hello everyone, I deeply appreciate your comments and your helpfully knowledge. Thank you Jim for your consideration, and don’t worry Superflux, I understand this is a forum and all opinions are the start point for a reflexive matter.
Muchas Gracias !
Parent - - By carlos_correia (*) Date 12-17-2009 13:59
Hello everyone, I deeply appreciate your comments and your helpfully knowledge. Thank you Jim for your consideration, and don’t worry Superflux, I understand this is a forum and all opinions are the start point for a reflexive matter.
Muchas Gracias !
Parent - By CWI555 (*****) Date 12-17-2009 22:13
Carlos,

While it's not required, the question of UT was not answered.

To answer that aspect.

Wavelength = velocity / frequency
Wavelength is therefore tied directly to both velocity and frequency.
The larger the wavelength, the larger the material grain that can be penetrated.

This is why you hear low frequency being better suited for 304.
To give you a scale, mild steel:
MHZ      Compressional wave      Shear wave
1                  5.96mm                   3.24mm
2                  2.98mm                   1.62mm
5                  1.19mm                     .65mm

As frequency goes up, wavelength goes down.
This becomes a problem when examining castings, S.Steels etc as they typically have larger grain structures, dendritic coring, and other factors that create higher sound attenuation levels, and or preferential propagation.
This translates to excessive signal to noise ratio's if not 100 percent attenuated depending on the grade of material.

Refracted longitudinals can do it, low frequency shear waves most of the times can get there and back, but when you add the casting or forging factor to the joint (socket joint), often the sound reaches 100 percent attenuation.

What it boils down to is a very difficult and unreliable means of examining S.S. socket joints.

Regards,
Gerald
Parent - - By Jim Hughes (***) Date 12-17-2009 16:27
Thanks superflux,
very classy reply. I appreciate what you bring to this forum.

Jim
Merry Christmas :)
Parent - By welderbrent (*****) Date 12-18-2009 14:31
AMEN,  that's the type of cooperation that makes this forum so special.  Sometimes we also still have to agree to disagree.  We all have different perspectives on many issues.  The codes and combinations of them are not as black and white as we could wish they were.  Much great info in here for me.  I learned some things.  Thank you all.  Each of you is much appreciated by me through the years for your many greatly informative posts.

Merry Chistmas to all and PEACE on the Forum!!  Have a Great Day,  Brent
Up Topic Welding Industry / Inspection & Qualification / AUSTENITIC SOCKET WELD UT INSPECTION

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill