Phased Array for filet welds

Date 11-12-2013 15:26

Duke,

I am going to pm you a guys name who does all kinds of training in that venue. There may be some guys here who can help as well, but just in case they don't respond, He will make a great contact.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By CWI555

Date 11-12-2013 18:09

I don't know what code your working too, but this proposal is asking for trouble. I am unaware of any code case or code that allows UT in lieu of hydro.
Then there is the idea of performing UT on fillet welds. Maybe I am getting long in the tooth and missed something somewhere, but I am also unaware of any code that allows that for a code report. Phased array is decent ut method in the right hands, but it is a poor champion of the uninformed.

That proposal has bad idea written all over it.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 11-12-2013 21:16

I could see using UT in addition to hydro, but not replacing it altogether.

By Jim Hughes (***)

Date 11-14-2013 15:18

Gerald,
I agree with you. They are asking for trouble. Knowing code of construction would help. The poster did mention AWWA. Typically when we have run this type of pipe (depending on what it is, concrete lined or steel) the code of construction was either AWWA C301, C206 (field welding of steel pipe) or C200 if my memory serves me correctly. In either case, there are hydro requirements. AWWA C206 will allow for NDE in lieu of hydro but does not allow UT of fillet welds. Full pen welds if MT'd will be graded to AWS D1.1 and UT will be graded to ASME Sec .VIII div 1. ASME codes have some wiggle room in them, in that they give the contractor an option to work out with the client some type of other leak test other than hydro. But the client has to sign off on it through some means like an RFI or NCR. At least that is how we have done it. The only other code that I know of that will allow NDE is lieu of hydro is NBIC for repairs of a routine nature or R-1's.

Thanks
Jim

By DAYANARA (**)

Date 11-12-2013 20:51

Dear Duke.
What is your code?.
Accordance with ASME code, NOT is acceptable replace AUT to HT.
UT only is acceptable for thickness 1/2in or more, but shall be approved by AI
See you

By 46.00

Date 11-12-2013 21:30

I'm going to agree with Gerald, this is a bad idea but not one I haven't come across before.
You do not mention which standard you are working to? This is most important.
There are many times when a pneumatic test is allowed to replace a hydro test with several standards. That is not an issue as long as relevant precautions are taken.
ASME B31.3 allows 'in service testing' in some situations. I would also be looking toward DP and MPI, NDT techniques more than UT, all allowed and indeed specified in some standards.
I sort of guess you are not working to B31.3 but I might be wrong. But you get the picture? If we know the standard, chances are someone will be able to give a definitive answer.
UT on fillet welds, even phased array is an area fraught with issues, I'm sure!

By JTMcC

Date 11-12-2013 23:01

108" B&S welded in and out = a water line, to me. It's done thousands of times each day.

Putting UT on a B&S water line sounds like (as was mentioned) numerous lawsuits falling down.

Bottom line is what was spec'd in contract doc's. nothing more, nothing less as they say.

If contract doc's aren't out yet, you're looking at a major, major increase in finished price by going to a UT inspect. There's not a (in my opinion) big bore water line in the country that'll make a UT inspection.

I really hope it catches on : )

Harsh inspection = $$$, mo harsh inspection = Mo $$$. Water lines have been built with next to nothing inspection for decades.

JT

By Duke

Date 11-13-2013 00:00

Yes... water line. Contract docs say hydro... contractor is crying, there are many scheduling issues. Construction management team (to whom I am consultant) has a tendency to roll over... The CM thinks he's god, and when it comes to welding, well, let's just say 'not so much'. We are working with a mashup of standards... D1.1, Section IX, AWWA, I think the spec was written by monkeys on crack; working pressure on this thing is no more than 150psi. I would be doing 'over the shoulder' monitoring of UT. I alerted the design team today (they have to sign off too) about issues with UT of small fillet welds (dumb as I am, even I know that)

By CWI555

Date 11-13-2013 18:12

Sounds like those monkeys on crack were taking something else into consideration other than just working pressure. It could be that the line is considered critical infrastructure. I.E. if it fails during an emergency, say an earthquake, that things like fire services, hospitals, etc could be put in a bind. For that matter, is this thing around a refinery or other such facility? That would change the mix as well.

Those crack monkeys you speak of may in fact know what they are doing. It is unwise to downplay or disparage the design based on an assumption. "Well judge, it only had a design pressure of 150psi" is a piss pour defense.

As for looking over the shoulder for UT, the UT idea should be summarily stopped in it's tracks for a host of reasons, the least of which being that you would not be the certified individual, nor under the written practice, etc of the company and Level III that would have to defend it. Consulting is great and wondermous, but don't fall into the trap of claiming subject matter expertise as that consultant. The only safe bet in your position is to write it up as inadvisable. If you are playing consultant/TPI, both the owner and contractor could and likely would put you under the proverbial legal bus over that one.

Word to the wise, you wouldn't be the first would be 'consultant' to experience bus grade diesel fumes after being summarily thrown under that bus to cover the owners, and the contractors collective arses.

My two cents worth.

By Duke

Date 11-13-2013 00:05

Yeah, next to no inspection for decades... this particular one has had issues, (before I got there, halfway through the project... they fired the whole damned inspection team, QC AND QA, and got new bodies... me) and there is now full time QA on EVERYTHING. I'm not kidding. i spent a week at the lab watching em machine coupons... every move the contractor made, we were right there. You would think it's a nuke plant or something.

By JTMcC

Date 11-13-2013 00:17

That's a lota drama. Wether it matters or not isn't up to me.

You said the "contract doc's", that gives the impression that contracts are signed. Changing specs after signatures are made can be a very bad legal mess.

Otherwise, not enough information to make any type of call. But changing inspection after doc's are signed shows that the docs were way to lax in the first place, surprize! surprize!, and good luck changing them in the middle of the creek.

Everbody loses in these type of missdeals, in my opinion. Mobetter to know what you want from the getgo and spec the same.

JT

By Duke

Date 11-13-2013 00:44

So, what I'm getting here, (and this lines up with my initial gut feeling) is that I should stay completely out of it... if asked for comments,my comment will probably be "stick with what was specified... if they can't perform, they shouldn't have signed the contract".

By 803056

Date 11-13-2013 01:54

They can always meet the original specification, but it may cost more in terms of time and money than they expected. In other words, the contractor bid the job low hoping to side step the testing requirements altogether.

When you say bell and spigot, I am thinking of the cement lined ductile iron pipe used for municipal water supply. Is this simply a lap joint welded inside and out? I am not familiar with the system you are using.

Al

By Duke

Date 11-13-2013 02:55

Lap joint welded inside and out, you are correct. AWWA C206 is our field welding code.

By 99205

Date 11-13-2013 19:43

"In other words, the contractor bid the job low hoping to side step the testing requirements altogether."

All to common. Dealing with that type of situation at the moment.

By JTMcC

Date 11-14-2013 19:43

"stick with what was specified" is a very good response in my opinion. Trying to impose a harsher spec AFTER the ink on the signatures has dried is a very disputable action. And probably a big win for the contractor after major headaches for all involved.

I see a lot of what we call "junk pipe" spec'd way too lax. Then, when the owner gets a product that's either unaccepatable or borderline, they have already made their bed. Spec the work properly from the get go using "My Patented Goldilocks Principle (not too hard, not too soft, just right)" (that requires some engineering with real world experience with the specific type of project, not "OK, we can handle this" local civil engineering, up front cost = less cost downstream) and the owner actually gets what he/she expected (required) in the first place.
Write little or too soft specs and you just opened the door for a poor end product done by fly-by-night "sure, we can weld that pipe" hungry contractors. Same thing the opposite direction, write specs befitting a 42" 2500 psi gas trans line and the owner will overpay to a large extent for a 150 psi water line.

I do know that if I bid the work, got the work, then the specs changed in the middle of the job my attorney would be a busy, busy man.

If the owner is unhappy with the weld quality they can only fall back on the original documents, imo. Those can be enforced to the last molecule, but stepping beyond those specs is just dumb, poor planning and a long process involving either an arbitrator or a court.

Sounds to me more like a situation where the required amount of water, and the cost of handling that water pre and post test, has turned out to be a shock to the owners. If the welds are making visual, and the 100 psi annular space test then chances are they will happily pass the hydro.
Some utilities go in without a real understanding of the logistics involved in big bore hydro. Specially the discharge end of things.

With the limited information here, I may be way, way off so take it or leave it.

JT

By Jim Hughes (***)

Date 11-16-2013 18:19