WPS for weldolets API 1104

By 803056

Date 09-17-2014 12:27

When in doubt, try one.

Al

By jarsanb (***)

Date 09-17-2014 13:31

How do you plan on following the procedure if it's written for butt joints when welding olets? Root opening, pass sequence, minimum number of passes to name a few variables. A single bevel to a single V isn't a major change? A procedure has to be followed as written, regardless of whether those variables are essential or non-essential. You can only deviate from non-essential variables after a written revision. You also have two different and separate issues, one being quality of the system and one being compliance. It is possible to have welds which meet the structural integrity of the design yet still are not compliant.

By daniel.earp Date 09-17-2014 21:53 Edited 09-17-2014 21:55

s is an argument of semantics and 1104 interpretation. What I know to be common practice is the application of a separate procedure for joint weld designs for olets. By reading the code, I believe it is misleading as to whether or not that is an essential variable. I have a difficult time operating in gray areas.

I am requiring that a separate procedure be provided, but I don't feel 1104 gives me enough ammo to state this with certainty.

By js55

Date 09-17-2014 19:44

I would argue that you do not have to re-qualify for O-lets. They are after all, a groove weld. However, your procedure does need to cover what you are doing.

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 09-17-2014 19:57 Edited 09-17-2014 20:00

I tend to agree with js55... Also, the correct welding symbol has to represent what you're doing and a detailed drawing is a very good idea to have included as well...
Btw, I'm glad to see you posting again j! welcome back! :smile:

I mean if you qualify to a 6G joint configuration then you should be covered for fillets also... I'm not sure if this applies to API 1104 because it's been so long since the last time I ventured into that standard...

In other words, let's say one qualifies on a 6G position pipe joint within the thicknesses concerned... Isn't the welder also qualified in welding fillet welds also? That's how I remember it... Then again I'm retired so there could be some early dementia forming inside my brain. :eek:

Respectfully,
Henry

By jarsanb (***)

Date 09-18-2014 12:56

Again, this is API 1104 and should try to forget everything you know with regards to everything else welding related. It helps to have a copy of their official interpretations, which I should have reviewed prior to responding but will do so now. Official interpretations 1104-1-1022-01 and 1104-1-1023-01 specifically address this issue. Remember, in APi 1104 branch connections are considered in the fillet family and require qualification using specimens listed in figure 11. When I hear things like "up to interpretation", that may work if it hasn't been specifically addressed by API 1104.

By daniel.earp Date 09-18-2014 17:34

Thank you for this reply. This just validates what I told the contractor. Now I just need to get my hands on the official interpretations you cite here.

By js55

Date 09-19-2014 14:09

Henry,
Fracing has me jumping these days.

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 09-19-2014 21:42

Did you mean "Fracking" or was it "Fracing"which could mean any number of definitions...

Well, it's good to see you posting here again! I always look forward to reading your posts... Especially the ones regarding the ASME which shows me how astute, knowledgeable and experienced you are regarding ASME welding related topics as well as your wonderful debates and discussions with Al over ASME and AWS standards and codes... :smile:

And that API 1104 standard if one wants to call it that is FUBAR! :eek:

Respectfully,
Henry

By js55

Date 09-22-2014 20:51

Yeah, when I get real busy I miss the debates with Al. I may walk away bruised and battered but I always learn something.
You and I have had a few.

And actually, it was fracking I intended.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 09-17-2014 22:57

"It is the only welding "document" that calls a groove weld a fillet weld."

So what happened to the optional fillet weld test in D1.1 that is just a wide groove weld with fillets welded along the edges first??? :lol:

I just had to. :roll:

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

By 803056

Date 09-18-2014 01:01

Take your damn finger out of my eye, will ya!

Going to FabTech?

Best regards - Al

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 09-18-2014 01:20

Wish I could but don't think so. I missed last year in Chicago because of elk hunting (2 for 3 in the freezer). Just got back from helping my folks on the farm in OR and think I need to go back over the Thanksgiving weekend. So much to be done that my 84 year old dad just can't do anymore. Thankfully, they sold the farm. Neighbor young man we have known all his life and told my folks they can stay in the old farm house until they die. They still feel like they need to clean the place up. We took several tons of scrap to the scrap yard and a couple of loads of trash to the dump over Labor Day.

Anyway, probably not. Have to catch you somewhere later. Thanks for asking.

Sorry for the hijack guys.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

By 803056

Date 09-18-2014 02:06

I was looking forward to seeing you at the show again.

I understand, you have to look out for the old timers. That's what we do, take care of our folks and hope our children look out for us when we get on in years.

Best regards - Al

By js55

Date 09-19-2014 14:05

Al,
IMO API 1104 is the most ridiculous piece of over applied claptrap imaginable. Its a good thing that it is NOT a Code. I once evaluated what it would take to qualify procedures involving CVN's to what would be considered the most robust interpretation of the words in the standard in application of a single projects scope.
The result. Over 1/4 of a million dollars in shop and lab costs.
Were the owner to hold us to such an interpretation I would have simply had two words for them.
The 1104 standards people need to get it through their thick skulls that their standard is being applied, by default, to applications well beyond its original intent.
Now, one might argue that is not their problem. But on the other hand I doubt they would hesitate to sell their standard to such folks applying those applications.
So, either adapt or specifically limit.
And by the time you apply 1104, B31.4/8 and DOT. It is a chocolate mess beyond comprehension.

By 803056

Date 09-19-2014 14:21

Makes one wonder how many contractors actually do what is called for on their projects.

Not that many pipelines blow up and not that many people are killed as a result of those explosions. It is probably the same mind set of the good folks at General Motors when assessing the risk of installing faulty ignition switches in their cars. We can afford the risk. Too bad for the unfortunate few, but it is a risk we can afford. All those settlements with the nondisclosure clauses that make it very difficult to actual hold those companies accountable for their actions.

Al

By js55

Date 09-22-2014 20:49

Al,
Yeah, my shops think I'm crazy when I impose so much crap. All I'm doing is taking what I see as the most conservative interpretation and applying it.

By jarsanb (***)

Date 09-19-2014 19:36

I don't disagree with you. I've been conditioned by regulators to live/sleep/breath API working for a systems owner. We just qualified four procedures last fall with CVN's to the tune of 100K. And although not a code, sections are stipulated within THE code of federal regulations, such as inspection requirements to appicable systems. Maybe you have had success being allowed to deviate from Subpart E. I, however, have not witnessed any success stories.

By js55

Date 09-22-2014 20:46

jars,
I've been lucky so far. The CVN's we've had under 1104 have been very limited. I was just shocked when I saw the requirements and did some calculating. If I had to guess I'd say there is some protectionist shenanigans going on. There is simply no metallurgical reason for the restrictions in application ranges imposed.

By js55

Date 09-22-2014 20:48

jars,
Well, like you indicated, if DOT is imposed they won't/can't deviate.

By js55

Date 09-22-2014 20:53

I have also been lucky in that I have had CVN applications that were non transmission so I could move them away from API to ASME.
Especially when I talk about what the cost will be.

By dbigkahunna (****)

Date 09-30-2014 18:38

If you discount the failures of Pre 70 ERW pipe the pipeline industry seems to have a pretty good record. Once a pipeline is put in service the two main causes of pipeline failure are #1 Third party hitting the pipeline, and if a leak does not result the #2 cause, Corrosion.
The thick skulls you indicate are restricted by the limits and rules of changing the standard. You may have the best idea in the world but you have to get it out of the committee then approved by the members. There are a lot of things which come into platy at these meetings. I encourage you to get involved with it. Find out who the committee chair is, introduce yourself and ask to be on the committee. Be ready for committing time and money for a very thankless job.
Essential, but thankless.
Does the committee know the standard is applied outside its intended scope?
Sure
But for the US API 1104 is the governing standard. It is written into B31.4/8. If the pipeline company can come up with something themselves, they can go to PHMSA and ask for approval. Note it is the pipeline company, not the contractors who has to go to PHMSA. And does anybody think they can come up with a better standard, then prove it to the satisfaction of the regulators?