ASME B31.3-nde 2

[KFABRICATION]

Hi, I have an odd situation that I cannot find an appropriate answer to.
A closure weld has been performed, and subsequently RT was also performed. The rt passed and was acceptable but today this joint became internally accessible. The root could now be visually inspected (there was no plan for this prior) and upon inspection of the root pass it was found unacceptable. Excessive pen, burn through, and a portion of a tack had fallen onto the root and fused at one end. We have repaired the root by means of grinding. Does this joint need to be radiographed again now that it has been "worked" after the initial RT. Remember that somehow it passed the first time.

 

[metengr]

My question is how did this pass when the root was found in this condition? After weld repair, I would require another RT as final acceptance, period.

 

[KFABRICATION]

Not sure, the film did not show an area more dense or rejectable by code. I would also agree that rt SHOULD BE PERFORMED , but I am wondering from a code/legal standpoint. By code, is it or is it not required to rt this joint a second time

 

[metengr]

Weld repairs were performed, original NDT was RT, so a final acceptable RT is required.

 

[DekDee]

My initial response was the same as metengr - NDT is usually required on completed weld so any additional welding or grinding would need RT again but this is all I can find and it states the opposite.

341.3.3 Defective Components and Workmanship.
Examination shall be as follows:
(a) When the defective item or work is repaired, the
repaired portion of the item or work shall be examined.
The examination shall use the same methods and acceptance
criteria employed for the original examination

Cheers,
Shane

 

[mk3223]

I agreed. The bad weld was identified and repaired, And then, a test is needed to be performed to verify the repair is proper. RT may be a quick and proper test for it.

 

[XL83NL]

Hi DekDee, where is this

341.3.3 Defective Components and Workmanship.
Examination shall be as follows:
(a) When the defective item or work is repaired, the
repaired portion of the item or work shall be examined.
The examination shall use the same methods and acceptance
criteria employed for the original examination

opposite to this?

Weld repairs were performed, original NDT was RT, so a final acceptable RT is required.

 

[metengr]

Maybe I was unclear in my response. The original weld was subjected to RT. It passed, which I question. Subsequent examination found defects at the root from poor workmanship. Defects removed, weld repairs performed and NDT is required to satisfy the NDT requirement. The original exam was RT, so final must be RT.

 

[gtaw]

The initial post said grind was involved, but I didn't see any mention of additional welding.

I don't see how some touch up grinding to smooth or blend in portions of the weld root would require additional RT.

I would agree RT would be necessary if a portion of the weld was excavated and rewelded. Depending on the extent of rewelding, PWHT may be required in addition to the RT if PWHT was a requirement for the initial weld.

I guess it comes down to terminology. A repair involving welding - RT needed.
A rework to blend in excessive reinforcement, improve weld profiles, etc. where no welding is necessary - requiring RT doesn't sound reasonable.

Best regards - Al

 

[metengr]

I would agree with gtaw. I read too much into defects thinking they required weld repair. I still go back and question the quality of the RT if you could not see these root defects. Something is wrong.

 

[DekDee]

XL83NL,
metengrs second post had not shown when I posted (maybe my stating "opposite" was incorrect).

I personally agree it should have RT but one thing has me unsure.
How do you identify any additional RT ?
It cannot be an R1 because the original film was deemed acceptable.

 

[DekDee]

Tried searching interpretations for clarification on 341.3.3 but no luck.
What I did find was "The examination shall use the same methods and acceptance
criteria employed for the original examination" is actually based on RT v UT or MT v PT.

I agree with Al's post but would like to pose a hypothetical question.
A weld on P1 piping is visually inspected by the contractor and passes.
It is then subsequently radiographed and passes.
The clients inspector then finds unacceptable undercut.
It is ground and rewelded.
Does it require additional RT ?
I would say no,volumetric integrity has been confirmed by initial RT and the repair was surface only - VT/MT only required.
Any thoughts ?

Cheers,
Shane

 

[gtaw]

In this case a welded repair was performed. Not knowing the base metal, not knowing whether preheat was necessary, not knowing whether preheat was omitted, not knowing whether the act of rewelding the region that was excavated may have introduced additional weld related discontinuities or defects, I would postulate RT is required to ensure no unacceptable conditions resulted from the welding operation.

Best regards - Al

 

[metengr]

RT required because of weld repair.

 

[DekDee]

Guys,
Not trying to argue - more trying to generate a bit of debate / discussion.
If the code allows minor repairs to be done after leak testing without subsequently retesting then why not allow minor surface repairs after RT or UT ?

Al,
I noted P1 material (eg. 106 Gr B) in my earlier post.
Agree with you 100% if the materials are P-Nos. 3, 4, 5A, 5B, 5C, and 15E due to PWHT requirements but unsure on why P1 would require it ?

As noted previously, how do you identify a repair weld if the original RT passed ?
Cheers,
Shane

 

[XL83NL]

how do you identify a repair weld if the original RT passed ?

I would do this using a LISL, Line Inspection Summary Sheet, a document which keeps track of all data to be registered (per weld), like date of weld, applied WPS, date of NDE, date of hydro etc. make a revision of the LISL and use this to identify a weld repair, and subsequnetly, a new NDE (RT) report number on you LISL.

I concur with DekDee in that if a weld has been rejected (visually or per RT), and can be repaired using minor surface grinding (e.gf. excess root weld penetration), then that should be OK. However, that should then be verified (if Im not mistaken) with a NDE method that also highlighted the defect.

 

[gtaw]

The NDE that detected the issue was VT after the initial RT had been completed. Clearly, if the initial RT missed the discontinuity, there would be little gained by repeating RT after the discontinuity has been removed by grinding.

I will concede there are several questions that are unanswered, information not provided by the initial question, so we can only respond based on the information offered.

Best regards - Al

 

[metengr]

The OP is sounding more like a contractual rather than a technical matter to be resolved by the parties. Go lawyer up as they say if you can't resolve it.