Weld & Material Traceability 2

[reezadaman]

Do any of the ASME Codes discuss material traceability and weld maps as a requirement for Code Data Books? In other words, do contractors have to supply weld history and material maps on their AS BUILT isometrics? Is this required by ASME B31.3?

 

[XL83NL]

What type of quesries?

NB:
- SANS 347 is a South African standard that refers to e.g. B31.3.
- PED 97/23/EC is a European directive for pressure and equipment.

Both docs dont really deal with design, but more with design requirements and conformity assessments and when NoBo's have to verify design etc.
NPR-CEN/TR 14549:2004 en may be of use when dealing with a B31.3 job and PED 97/23/EC.
Furthermore ISO 15649 may be of some use, although Im not sure where ever that standard has been used.

 

[WBH]

How does an unmarked piece of 'silver' colored pipe comply with the requirements of B31.3 that code material was used??

There is NO markings or color code on the 'silver' pipe. No job#, sketch, etc.....

 

[reezadaman]

Well you will have to do Positive Material Identification to find out what it is?

 

[moltenmetal]

WBH: is it the only piece of code pipe being done in that shop? Is there only one piece of "silver pipe" of that size and schedule in the whole shop, still sitting on the saw where it was cut? Then it's relatively easy to know! You might still be wrong, of course.

Let's think a little further: how do you know that a short piece of pipe marked with a colour code, job number, and/or heat number and grade, had these marks transferred faithfully from the source piece of material, prior to the welding rather than after the fact?

How do you mark a pup piece of 1/2" pipe used between two socket welding fittings, in any meaningful way?

Even if the pipe and fittings are of the right material, how do you know that the right filler metal was used on the root pass?

How do you know that the marks the mill put on the pipe, and the matching mill cert, weren't fraudulent in the first place?

Let's say that despite doing the best that you could during fabrication, there's still a failure that might have been caused by bad or incorrect material. Sure, you do forensic work on the failed component. But what do you refer to when you're doing your investigation, to see where things went wrong in the fabrication process? The mill marks and temporary marks are both long gone by that point.

A fabricator needs a designed process to procure and inspect incoming material, assign it to jobs per the specifications, store it properly until it is used, and ensure that properly trained and qualified staff carry the rest of the fabrication through to completion in accordance with the required procedures. A fabricator also needs a quality program which inspects the work in process and verifies that those steps are being followed, which carries out NDE and other examinations in accordance with the code and the client's specs, and which records the results.

The owner or their engineer needs to review the fabricator's quality program and decide whether or not those systems are likely to be followed, are adequate to the task at hand, and to what extent they need to be augmented with additional inspections by the owner's engineer or inspector. There's no one single right answer to this: the right answer depends on the size, scale, design life and risk profile of the work at hand.

I know everybody wants their work reduced to an algorithm so that no engineering judgment or thought is required to deliver a safe piping system, or more properly so that if they followed the algorithm and something still goes wrong, they can't be blamed because they followed all the rules. Thank goodness the people on the B31.3 committee haven't obliged them.

 

[WBH]

Moltenmetal,

You answered my question, the material can not be identified and is not acceptable to B31.3 for fabrication.

It is the fabricators responsibility to ensure that the materials used meet the requirement of the code.