Manhole and UW-14

[Guber Guerrero]

hi everyone!
i have a question regarding the inspection of shell welds intercepted by nozzles, Asme VIII div 1 UW-14. If a nozzle with reinforcement element is close to the shell weld but the reinforcement ring is who intercepts the weld, does the shell weld need to be x-rayed? 3x diameter of nozzle? the nozzle (manhole) has 24" and the intercepted weld is the circumferential thanks for your comments and sorry for my bad english...

 

[Some Curious Guy]

Opening is the hole you have drilled on the vessel element.
RF pad is reinforcement of the opening and not the opening itself.
Here is what I understand from your question. You have an opening which is reinforced according to UG-37. The opening is not placed directly on the circ seam weld. However the RF pad of the opening is overlapping the circ seam weld.
From what I understand from UW-14, you should carry out RT per UW-51 of the circ seam only when an UNreinforced opening is directly placed on the circ seam. RT of circ seam is not required for a properly reinforced opening ( With correct E1 value) even if it placed on a circ seam.
Since your actual opening is not on a seam and it is properly reinforced ( check that ) you are not required to do that additional RT per UW-14. This is what the code says in my opinion.

However there are many client specs that will ask you to carry out RT of the circ seam/long seam weld even if the the RF pad weld is not intersecting but very close to opening. The criteria " How close " varies depending on client spec from 1 inch to 2 inch or 2xplate thickness etc. Hence I advice you to also read the client spec before deciding your case.

 

[david339933]

You must grind the circ seam flush under the pad, per UG-82.

 

[r6155]

How do you plan to repair a defect under the reinforcement?

Regards

 

[david339933]

IF RT is required for the circ seam, it is done prior to placing the pad. Also, a good chance no RT required for Cat. B seam.

 

[r6155]

I insist.
How do you plan to repair a defect of weld under pad during pressure test?- RT is not required by the code, E=0,7

Regards

 

[SnTMan]

Guber Guerrero, you are not required to RT when the opening is located on a circ seam, see UG-37, definition of E1. Neither are required to RT a seam covered by a pad.

However as others have pointed out, this is an extremely poor practice.

BTW, I found your attached image useless.

EDIT to read: "...not required by Sec VIII, Div 1..."

Regards,

Mike

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

 

[r6155]

I do not know (during my 45 years in this business) any manufacturer that has not done RT or UT on a weld under a reinforcing pad. Only some of them, due to extreme circumstances, had to place a r. pad on a circumf / longitudinal weld.
All of them try to avoid reinforcing pad.

Regards

 

[r6155]

See PROCESS INDUSTRY PRACTICE

PIP VESV1002 January 2019
Design and Fabrication Specification for Vessels ASME Code Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2

"If overlap of pad type structural attachments and weld seams is unavoidable, the portion of the seam to be covered shall be ground flush and 100 percent radiographically examined before the attachment is welded on"

Regards

 

[r6155]

I revised my old specification with the new text, and added the leak test.

“If overlap of pad type structural attachments and weld seams is unavoidable, the portion of the seam to be covered shall be ground flush and LEAK TEST WITH VACUUM BOX TECHNIQUE (ASME V). After this, 100 percent radiographically examined before the attachment is welded on”.

Regards