where expertise comes together - since 1996 -

The Largest Open Access Portal of Nondestructive Testing (NDT)

Conference Proceedings, Articles, News, Exhibition, Forum, Network and more

where expertise comes together
- since 1996 -

GB Inspection Systems Ltd.
A leading UK manufacturer of Ultrasonic Probes, Accessories, Supplier of NDT Equipment and more.
44728 views
Technical Discussions
Csaba Hollo
,
Retired, Canada, Joined Feb 2010, 301

Csaba Hollo

,
Retired,
Canada,
Joined Feb 2010
301
19:32 Mar-08-2012
RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection

I am calling upon my colleagues with experience in Radiography to the ASME code, specifically B31.3 Normal/severe service.

Question: What is the maximum allowable weld reinforcement that can be applied to the base metal thickness for the purpose of penetrameter selection?

ASME B31.3 - 2010 Table 341.3.2 shows condition L under visual inspection for weld reinforcement or internal protrusion. (Normal and Cyclic service). Following through the criterion value notes, condition L states -'Height of reinforcement or internal protrusion (note 8) in any plane through the weld shall be within the limits of the applicable height in the tabulation at right...'

We will take 0.280" wall thickness of pipe (6" STD wall), for example, which shows a maximum reinforcement of 3 mm or 1/8" (0.0125"). Note 8 states: 'For groove welds, height is the lesser of the measurements made from the surfaces of the adjacent components; both reinforcement and internal protrusion are permitted in a weld...'

There was an interpretation 9-04 stating:

Subject: ANSI/ASME B31.3 - 1987 Edition, Table 341.3.2A; Reinforcement and Internal Protrusion Limits
Date Issued: Nov. 28, 1990
File: B31-90-028

Question: In accordance with ASME B31.3, Table 341.3.2A, may heights of reinforcement and internal protrusion be added together in determining penetrameter requirements for radiographing girth welds?

Reply: Yes.

So, taking the above example of 0.280" single wall, provided I have internal protrusion and external reinforcement in the weld, I can effectively double the reinforcement number and add it to the parent metal thickness for penetrameter selection - 0.280" + 0.125" +0.125" = 0.580". So for a contact exposure single wall viewing, I can use a 17P film side.

Some folks are stating that you are only allowed to add the maximum single side, and this would mean a 15P film side would be used.

There is an IPhone app out there called code 313 that, when given the same parameters, calculates 17P film side for both internal and external reinforcement. I think the writer of that software agrees with me.


Any thoughts?

 
 Reply 
 
Stan
Stan
19:52 Mar-09-2012
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Csaba Hollo at 19:32 Mar-08-2012 (Opening).

Hi Csaba:
I have always used this ASME interpretation the way you described using it, however, the question that I have is can this interpretation be applied to any other ASME codes.
It would be nice if it could be.

 
 Reply 
 
Csaba Hollo
,
Retired, Canada, Joined Feb 2010, 301

Csaba Hollo

,
Retired,
Canada,
Joined Feb 2010
301
23:23 Mar-09-2012
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Stan at 19:52 Mar-09-2012 .

Hey Stan,

ASME VIII Div 1 allows doubling reinforcement in accordance with UW 35(c) and (d), except where any backing is used.

ASME B31.1 limits it to a single reinforcement value outlined in Table 127.4.2

Interpretation: 24-4

Subject: B31.1, Table 127.4.2, Reinforcement of Butt Welds
Date Issued: October 27, 1993
File: B31-92-070

Question: Is it permissible to apply the maximum reinforcement limit of Table 127.4.2 to the inside surface of single welded butt joints for the purpose of penetrameter selection in accordance with ASME Section V, T-276.1?

Reply: No.

So, there is more information for you.

I am still hoping there will be more experts speaking up besides yourself, on the B31.3 code interpretation.

 
 Reply 
 
Ed T.
Ed T.
11:10 Mar-11-2012
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Csaba Hollo at 23:23 Mar-09-2012 .

Yes, you can add the cap and internal protrusion together when determing penetrameter requirements. You are correct in your assumption.

If I'm not mistaken, I am the one who wrote that Inquiry to the Code Committee. It's been a long time.

ASME Section VIII reinforcement is for both faces of the weld.

The intent is to base the IQI on the thickness of the weld.

That statement is what gave me the idea to write it.
Wish I still had it in my files.

Can you send me a copy of that interpretation?

 
 Reply 
 
Csaba Hollo
,
Retired, Canada, Joined Feb 2010, 301

Csaba Hollo

,
Retired,
Canada,
Joined Feb 2010
301
17:12 Mar-12-2012
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Ed T. at 11:10 Mar-11-2012 .

It is on page 105 here:

http://cstools.asme.org/csconnect/pdf/CommitteeFiles/17913.pdf

 
 Reply 
 
Csaba Hollo
,
Retired, Canada, Joined Feb 2010, 301

Csaba Hollo

,
Retired,
Canada,
Joined Feb 2010
301
17:33 Mar-20-2012
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Csaba Hollo at 17:12 Mar-12-2012 .

I am trying to keep this discussion alive, so I am posting in order to put it to the top.

 
 Reply 
 
collin maloney
NDT Inspector, - Plant Inspector
Applus RTD, Australia, Joined Nov 2000, 147

collin maloney

NDT Inspector, - Plant Inspector
Applus RTD,
Australia,
Joined Nov 2000
147
06:28 Mar-21-2012
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Csaba Hollo at 17:33 Mar-20-2012 .

Hi Csaba
As you put "In the interests of keeping discussion alive" I though to put another slant on your question!
ASME IX and B31.3 state the limits of weld reinforcement. This is what dictates your IQI selection. Typically an IQI should cover a range of thicknesses so conversly the required wire number for the weld thickness derives the IQI selected. And because I have an evil mind, if you cant achieve this, there must be a problem with your technique!!!!

 
 Reply 
 
Csaba Hollo
,
Retired, Canada, Joined Feb 2010, 301

Csaba Hollo

,
Retired,
Canada,
Joined Feb 2010
301
16:53 Mar-21-2012
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to collin maloney at 06:28 Mar-21-2012 .

Collin

Thank you for your input.

The question I am putting out there is regarding the interpretation of the limits of weld reinforcement in accordance to B31.3. There is no issues with the technique, as in the examples given, there is no problem with showing 2-2t sensitivity with either the 15 or 17 plaque penetrameter. In my opinion wire sets are preferable, due to their use over a wide range of thicknesses. but in some limited cases, plaque style penetrameters are preferable. Some radiographers are more comfortable using plaque penetrameters than wires - for what possible reason, I don't know.

The issue comes with interpretation to the code. Several of our radiographers have interpreted the code, and the code interpretations, as allowing the use of double the maximum allowable reinforcement for penetrameter selection when internal protrusion, and external reinforcement exists. This condition exists in most of the process piping that we radiograph.

One of our internal auditors disagrees, and feels that only a single reinforcement is allowed under all conditions. Since he is a tough one to convince, I am looking for outside opinions, hence this post.

I will put your vote as neutral, unless you have something further to add.

 
 Reply 
 
Stan
Stan
00:07 Mar-22-2012
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Csaba Hollo at 16:53 Mar-21-2012 .

Hi Csaba:
I believe that it is reasonable to argue that if the weld reinforcement covers the full width of the weld then you should be allowed to be counted. When welding on ASME VIII, ASME I, CSA W59, AWS D1.1 and AWS D1.5, both sides of the weld are fully covered by the reinforcement, so it should be counted twice, since this will represent the full thickness of the weld. For welds made to ASME B31.1, ASME B31.3, and CSA Z662, where the root is generally very narrow, I believe that it is reasonable to count only the reinforcement that covers the full width of the weld, that is the weld cap only. However, if ASME has ruled that for B31.3 the reinforcement may be counted twice, then you cannot argue with the interpretation. ASME makes the rules.
Stan

 
 Reply 
 
Ed T.
Ed T.
05:04 Mar-22-2012
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Stan at 00:07 Mar-22-2012 .

As I stated before, IQI selection is based on the thickness of the weld. Internal protrusion counts as part of the weld.

When I went through the AWS RI course I asked that specific question and was told yes, you can add them together.

 
 Reply 
 
LK
NDT Inspector,
Norway, Joined May 2008, 104

LK

NDT Inspector,
Norway,
Joined May 2008
104
18:51 Mar-22-2012
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Csaba Hollo at 16:53 Mar-21-2012 .

A little bit off-topic, however
What is the advantage of using step/hole & others than wire penetrameters?
Have never used ones, we always stick to wire IQIs. Or is it just a requirement of the standard?

 
 Reply 
 
Csaba Hollo
,
Retired, Canada, Joined Feb 2010, 301

Csaba Hollo

,
Retired,
Canada,
Joined Feb 2010
301
19:19 Mar-22-2012
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to LK at 18:51 Mar-22-2012 .

ASME code allows you to use penetrameters made in accordance with ASTM E1025 (plaque) or E747 (wire).

The plaque penetrameters are favored when shooting small diameter piping with iridium, 6mm thick and under using the single wall technique. This is mainly due to the poor subject contrast and resolution in thinner steel when using iridium.

It is seen as easier to see the image of the 2-2T sensitivity (2T hole) and 3 sides of the penetrameter edge, than the corresponding wire.

The best technique would be to x-ray, or use selenium, and then the sensitivity issue between penetrameter types would be moot.

That is the only benefit. In my opinion, wire type penetrameters are far better, more convenient, and make a lot more sense to use.

 
 Reply 
 
Dick Birkby
Dick Birkby
19:04 Apr-02-2012
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Csaba Hollo at 19:32 Mar-08-2012 (Opening).

I am the colleague of Csaba's who has been having difficulty being convinced that his interpretation of B31.3 is correct.

Let me first of all clarify my two problems with his interpretation that it is allowable to add 2x the allowable weld reinforcement when selecting an IQI.

My first problem with his interpretation is that the IQI selection is based on the thickness of the weld plus the height of reinforcement AND internal protrusion. The note beside symbol L in table 341.3.2 clearly says: "Height of reinforcement OR internal protrusion...". This indicates that only one of the two may be used when selecting an IQI; however, I agree with the masses that Csaba's interpretation could be (im)properly applied so long as my second problem was answered to my satisfaction.

My second problem is that nobody has accounted for the words "... in any plane through the weld ..." that appear immediately after "Height of reinforcement or internal protrusion..."

My interpretation of this is that the IQI may be selected based on either the nominal or actual wall thickness plus 3 mm or 1/8" (from Csaba's example) - total. If Csaba's interpretation is used for IQI selection, the IQI would be selected based on either the nominal or actual wall thickness plus 6 mm or 1/4".

My view is that any way you cut it (pun intended), the longest plane you are allowed through the weld, and this includes reinforcement and protrusion, is weld thickness plus 3 mm or 1/8". Any more than that and you are extended the plane.

 
 Reply 
 
Roger D. Duwe
NDT Inspector, API-510, 570, 653
MISTRAS, USA, Joined Jan 2009, 148

Roger D. Duwe

NDT Inspector, API-510, 570, 653
MISTRAS,
USA,
Joined Jan 2009
148
20:33 Apr-02-2012
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Dick Birkby at 19:04 Apr-02-2012 .

With a plack-style pennetrameter you select the penne by wall thickness NOT cap, and then you put shims under the plack to compensate for the cap. It is 'illegal' to pick the plack penne based on the two weld caps.

Additionally, a 1987 Intreperetation is probably not valid in the 2010 Edition of B31.3. The Code Committee will have either incorporated the interpretation in the Code, or decided that that Interp was wrong. Look in the Interpretations in the back of your 2010 B31.3. If you cannot find that Interp in your B31.3, it is indeed no longer valid. Stop using it.

Just lay a package of wire penne's across the weld like the rest of us do. Now you can throw away your shims.

 
 Reply 
 
Dick Birkby
Dick Birkby
21:59 Apr-02-2012
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Roger D. Duwe at 20:33 Apr-02-2012 .

Sorry to disagree Roger, but ASME B31.3 specifically references ASME Section V in respect to acceptable procedures for radiographing welds.

In Section V, Article 2 paragraph T-276.2 (a) says "Welds With Reinforcements. The thickness on which the IQI is based is the nominal single-wall thickness plus the estimated weld reinforcement not to exceed the maximum permitted by the referencing Code Section. Backing rings or strips shall not be considered as part of the thickness in IQI selection. The actual measurement of the weld reinforcement is not required."

I believe that you are looking at Article 2 paragraph T-276.2 (b) which says "Welds Without Reinforcements. The thickness on which the IQI is based is the nominal single-wall thickness. Backing rings or strips shall not be considered as part of the weld thickness in IQI selection."

The selection of an IQI does not depend on whether it is a plaque (hole)-type or wire-type; only on the thickness of the material (as allowed by code) being radiographed and the source side or film side placement of the IQI.

Legality of choosing an IQI based on two weld caps is a point that I agree with you on.

And I agree with you that a 1987 code interpretation holds little validity with a 2010 edition of the same code. I am not the one using the old interpretation.

Laying a set of wire-type IQIs across the weld still does not get away fromthre requirement that the essential wire be visible. In fact, there are three different sets of wire IQIs. In the example put before us, a #5 (film side) or #6 (source side) wire would be the essential wire if the wall thickness (0.280") was the only parameter used for choice.

When adding the allowable height of reinforcement (0.125") the choice increases to a #6 (film side) or a #7 (source side) wire. That is the point where my interpretation of the code tells us to stop.

Others will have you add an additional 0.125" with the result that the choice changes to a #7 (film side) or #8 (source side). And that's where I believe their error is.

And as far as throwing away all of your shims, I personally have found that the essential hole in a hole-type IQI is easier to see on thinner specimens than the essential wire in a wire-type IQI. So I wouldn't go so far as to throw them away.

 
 Reply 
 
Abeer
Abeer
10:15 Jun-15-2012
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Csaba Hollo at 19:32 Mar-08-2012 (Opening).

Dear Sir,

Normally RT Is Applicable For B31.3 Process Pipe lining

Kindly Clear Me

If Applicable Then Justify From What Pressure

Thanks

 
 Reply 
 
George
George
19:53 Oct-18-2012
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Csaba Hollo at 19:32 Mar-08-2012 (Opening).

In accordance to your question in regards to IQI selection if using both reinforcement is required,
It does says reinforcement or protrusion, what is the best interpretation of this discussion, or most accurate to use( use both or just one)?

Regards
George

 
 Reply 
 
Csaba Hollo
,
Retired, Canada, Joined Feb 2010, 301

Csaba Hollo

,
Retired,
Canada,
Joined Feb 2010
301
21:48 Oct-23-2012
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to George at 19:53 Oct-18-2012 .

George, that is the very root of the argument.

If you would have read through the thread, you would have seen that I was looking for opinions for or against the doubling of the reinforcement value.

There are a few people that interpret things differently than I do, and this is why there are code cases and interpretations.

The intent of starting this thread was to illicit as many responses as possible from those more knowledgeable. And I think it was a success in that regard.

Even though there seem to be more respondents that interpret things the way I do, it is by no means clear.

Therefore, this issue remains unresolved in my opinion, and I will be making an application for interpretation to the B31.3 committee.

 
 Reply 
 
Vishal Gupta
Vishal Gupta
09:54 Jul-08-2013
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Csaba Hollo at 21:48 Oct-23-2012 .

According to me, when I interpret Radiograph penetrameter selection shall be done as per Wall thickness of pipe plus reinforcement only for single side groove weld and wall thickness plus 2 x reinforcement for double side groove weld. Internal protrusion shall not be included for Single side groove weld because protrusion is only in the root area (2-3mm wide) and the groove face is much bigger. If selection of penetrameter is done including protrusion then rest of the thickness of weld have less actual thickness then the center of weld which will result in wrong selection of penetrameter for that less thickness section.

Double sided groove weld have faces on both side so thickness is also same in all over weld so both side reinforcement should be added for penetrameter selection.

 
 Reply 
 
Ed T.
Other, ASNT Level III, UT, RT, MT, PT, VT
NDT Level III, Saudi Arabia, Joined Sep 2011, 169

Ed T.

Other, ASNT Level III, UT, RT, MT, PT, VT
NDT Level III,
Saudi Arabia,
Joined Sep 2011
169
12:02 Jul-08-2013
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Vishal Gupta at 09:54 Jul-08-2013 .

Penetramer selection according to ASME is based on the single wall tickness plus the maximum reinforcement permited by the referencing code section.
Regardless of the technique used.

Even for an elliptical shot it is single wall thickness plus the maximum reinforcement.
Internal protrusion is reinforcement. In my opinion and based on an old interpretation I had from the ASME Code Committee and the AWS/CSWIP RI course I atended, sensitivity is based on the thickness of the area of interest, i.e., the weld.

 
 Reply 
 
Ed T.
Other, ASNT Level III, UT, RT, MT, PT, VT
NDT Level III, Saudi Arabia, Joined Sep 2011, 169

Ed T.

Other, ASNT Level III, UT, RT, MT, PT, VT
NDT Level III,
Saudi Arabia,
Joined Sep 2011
169
12:09 Jul-08-2013
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Ed T. at 12:02 Jul-08-2013 .

Csaba,

File: B31-90-028
I am the person who wrote that inquiry back in 1990.
I've one a lot of research o this subject and when I attended the Radiographic Interpretation course in 1990, I was told yes you can.
I makes sense too.

 
 Reply 
 
Csaba Hollo
,
Retired, Canada, Joined Feb 2010, 301

Csaba Hollo

,
Retired,
Canada,
Joined Feb 2010
301
18:42 Jul-08-2013
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Ed T. at 12:09 Jul-08-2013 .

Thanks for resurrecting the thread!

I have had more opinions so far, from this site and elsewhere supporting mine, as well as your interpretation of the reinforcement calculation.

From a semantics perspective, Dick Birkby makes a strong case for the reinforcement and internal protrusion to be represented by a single amount.

Roger Duwe also mentions that the latest codes may have taken this into account. The difficulty I have with this, is that it would have detracted from the interpretation that you petitioned for in 1990. I see no significant change over the course of the code revisions, other than the change in wording that has created the discrepancy in interpretation.

I have used your interpretation, several other individual radiographer's, and the author of the code 313 apps interpretation to justify my position.

I guess It would be best to go back to the committee to see if, under the current code, that your interpretation still stands.

 
 Reply 
 
Amir Malik
Amir Malik
19:29 Jul-08-2013
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Csaba Hollo at 18:42 Jul-08-2013 .

reference to the conversation on selection of pentameter and ASME section V, pentameter will be selected according to nominal single wall thickness + allowable reinforcement.

I have to confirm one doubt regarding radiography technique that superimpose comes under double wall double image or double wall single image. because both wall merge in each shot.

 
 Reply 
 
Ed T.
Other, ASNT Level III, UT, RT, MT, PT, VT
NDT Level III, Saudi Arabia, Joined Sep 2011, 169

Ed T.

Other, ASNT Level III, UT, RT, MT, PT, VT
NDT Level III,
Saudi Arabia,
Joined Sep 2011
169
03:32 Jul-09-2013
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Amir Malik at 19:29 Jul-08-2013 .

The only thing I can suggest is someone prepares another Code Committee Enquiry and see what they say.

As far as superimposed goes, its still single wall thickness regardless of technique used. Unless you know something I don't.

If there is a statement in the code that permits more please share your reference with us. I'm always willing to learn new things.

 
 Reply 
 
Csaba Hollo
,
Retired, Canada, Joined Feb 2010, 301

Csaba Hollo

,
Retired,
Canada,
Joined Feb 2010
301
19:40 Jul-09-2013
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Amir Malik at 19:29 Jul-08-2013 .

Double image or double wall has nothing at all to do with the discussion.

It is simply how you calculate your maximum allowable reinforcement for the purpose of penetrameter selection, nothing more.

 
 Reply 
 
JP
JP
02:39 Jul-21-2013
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Csaba Hollo at 19:40 Jul-09-2013 .

According to the interpretation disseminated through various courses, procedures from all of the NDT companies I have worked for, and through all of the training I've gone through as a technician, the pene choice is based on thickness + allowable weld reinforcement from both the cap and root, BUT if you CAN measure said root and cap reinforcement it is generally better to do so, so as not to choose a pene of the wrong order simply by utilizing the "accepted" numbers, but rather the actual numbers at the weld. With that said, I have found that the root is very rarely near .125" reinforcement, more likely to be .060" or sometimes less, while the caps will likely be at or near .125". I currently use a pene of a single step upwards (the earlier reference of Dick Birkby's choices going from #5 film to #6 film would fit this) when shooting to B31.3.

As for the second, slightly off-subject, topic about wire vs. hole-type IQI, I find B-pack wires preferential at the thicknesses where they are utilized, but hole-type penetrameters preferential for smaller piping shots. I am unsure at this time if it is because I was trained to do so, but I do have a remark to make about wires. I dislike putting anything across the weld or into the weld view, since we as NDT technicians are trained that anything in the view is an obstruction to view the weld itself. That said, wire type IQI's are laying directly across the area of interest and, plausibly, could effect the ability to interpret the weld quality. This is not nearly as much of a factor when dealing with the larger wires, since any smaller wire will inherently be smaller (theoretically) than an unacceptable indication. But when utilizing an A-pack wire type with Ir192, I find that the wires interfere with my ability to see indications clearly, sometimes even almost masking indications in one view that I can clearly see (outside of the area of interest, but generally in the side view of the same area) in another view. For that reason, I use hole penes more often than not, reserving wires for 8" SCH40 and larger piping. This is merely my own observations as B31.3 clearly allows either type.

 
 Reply 
 
junpher i. leja
junpher i. leja
05:40 Jul-23-2013
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Csaba Hollo at 19:32 Mar-08-2012 (Opening).

sir, how many wires in penetrameter that will appear to get your sensitvity

 
 Reply 
 
Ed T.
Other, ASNT Level III, UT, RT, MT, PT, VT
NDT Level III, Saudi Arabia, Joined Sep 2011, 169

Ed T.

Other, ASNT Level III, UT, RT, MT, PT, VT
NDT Level III,
Saudi Arabia,
Joined Sep 2011
169
07:27 Jul-23-2013
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to junpher i. leja at 05:40 Jul-23-2013 .

Only 1 wire. The requied wire.

 
 Reply 
 
junpher i. leja
junpher i. leja
10:13 Jul-23-2013
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Ed T. at 07:27 Jul-23-2013 .

sir ED T. in what referencing code i might see that only 1 wire, the required wire is enough to appear? thanks

 
 Reply 
 
Ed T.
Other, ASNT Level III, UT, RT, MT, PT, VT
NDT Level III, Saudi Arabia, Joined Sep 2011, 169

Ed T.

Other, ASNT Level III, UT, RT, MT, PT, VT
NDT Level III,
Saudi Arabia,
Joined Sep 2011
169
12:21 Jul-23-2013
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to junpher i. leja at 10:13 Jul-23-2013 .

Any code tells you that you must see the required wire, not wires. It is based in the weld thickness. ASME Sec. V is normally where you get the penetrameter requirements.

Look iin ASME Sec. V, Art. 2, T-276.2

 
 Reply 
 
Csaba Hollo
,
Retired, Canada, Joined Feb 2010, 301

Csaba Hollo

,
Retired,
Canada,
Joined Feb 2010
301
18:06 Jul-23-2013
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Ed T. at 12:21 Jul-23-2013 .

To clarify, you will see all the larger wires than the one you must see. And, possibly the smaller ones as well.

 
 Reply 
 
LHen
LHen
00:04 Mar-04-2015
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Csaba Hollo at 19:32 Mar-08-2012 (Opening).

I am the author of the Code 313 app. I personally agree with Csaba's interpretation even if my reasons may be different. In the app it calculates either way by choosing 1 wall or 2. This interpretation debate is one reason why.

One reason I went with the reinforcement only and not protrusion is that internal protrusion is not mentioned in other ASME codes. Reinforcement is defined in other codes as additional weld metal added to the FACE of the weld. This would seem to mean in all other ASME codes you can only add the reinforcement which is added from the side welding is performed from. Section V only mentions reinforcement being added to the weld thickness, not protrusion.

I know there is an older interpretation saying it can be added for B31.3 but I don't know if that is still valid. I did the math once in the past and for standard pipe sizes it didn't make a difference except in a few cases.

I also went with my interpretation since it is the most conservative. We have never had any issue showing this rare extra sensitivity and using a smaller than possibly allowed IQI is allowable so why bother adding protrusion and possible having a non-compliant weld.

 
 Reply 
 
Csaba Hollo
,
Retired, Canada, Joined Feb 2010, 301

Csaba Hollo

,
Retired,
Canada,
Joined Feb 2010
301
09:56 Mar-04-2015
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to LHen at 00:04 Mar-04-2015 .

Thanks for your reply Lance, and for the great phone apps!

Further to the discussions held here, I am now inclined to agree with the more conservative practice in allowing only one reinforcement value for the purpose of calculating the allowable IQI value in ASME B31.3.

There is a good argument for using the ACTUAL reinforcement values as measure versus the stated maximum allowable in the referencing code section, however, few radiographers (that i am aware of) have or use the proper gauges to measure this. Also, there is the variability of reinforcement height from one location to the other in a single weldment...can you imagine having to explain why you used a different IQI, or had to use a different wire from one exposure to the next? Rare, I admit, but possible nonetheless. I will stick to the maximum allowable reinforcement for that reason alone.

Good discussion, folks. I appreciate everyone weighing in.

 
 Reply 
 
Shannon Theriot
Shannon Theriot
01:29 Mar-19-2015
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Csaba Hollo at 09:56 Mar-04-2015 .

I don't understand how someone justifies their opinion regarding IQI selection (using only one wall) based off of the single word "OR" (under the note beside symbol L of Table 341.3.2). To me, this section of the table was not written with the intention of IQI selection. This section of the table was written for the acceptance of weld reinforcement OR internal protrusion.

Now with that being said, it would actually be more convincing if the maximum allowable thickness was described using the words "weld reinforcement AND internal protrusion". Then, you would be able to make the argument the (using your .280" reference) .125" value is the maximum between the two and can only be added once.

And as far as the interpretation of "any plane of the weld". This was specifically asked in another interpretation (17-03) from ASME. It states:

"Question: In accordance with ASME B31.3b-1997, Table 341.3.2. is the maximum allowable height of
reinforcement or internal protrusion in any plane through the weld listed in "L" for each face of the weld?

Reply: Yes. See also Interpretation 9-04."

So this was CONFIRMED 8 years later. No need to keep beating a dead horse. Until B31.3 specifically says "only one face shall be used in regards to IQI selection", it will be safe to say any technician adding both Maximum allowable thicknesses for each weld face shouldn't be criticized for doing so.

Just wanted to give another person's perspective regarding this discussion.

It was very nice to read the opinions of what seems to be very intelligent professionals in this industry.

Regards

 
 Reply 
 
Csaba Hollo
,
Retired, Canada, Joined Feb 2010, 301

Csaba Hollo

,
Retired,
Canada,
Joined Feb 2010
301
16:59 Mar-19-2015
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Shannon Theriot at 01:29 Mar-19-2015 .

Thanks for your input Shannon.

Your argument is essentially how I felt about this issue when I started this discussion over two years ago. I sought the opinion of several of my colleagues and got differing opinions, but for various reasons.

The primary reason was to be able to use the next larger wire or plaque penetrameter under certain conditions.

I wasn't convinced by anyone at that point, that I was wrong in making that interpretation.

What has driven me to back away from the argument is that this is being used inconsistently by those 'experts' that are in the business of auditing radiographic images.

After several arguments with auditors, I just felt that it would be prudent to default to the more stringent requirement.

Which is unfortunate, because until the code does clarify this, the narrative will be driven by those less willing to see it any other way than their own.

 
 Reply 
 
LHen
LHen
17:47 Mar-20-2015
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Shannon Theriot at 01:29 Mar-19-2015 .

Shannon, this thread is the first time I ever heard anyone make the argument that "OR" limited the amounts like this. I agree with you in that argument doesn't add up and in the notes it says this is allowed. I'm glad you mentioned it as I was aware that was a common position.

I just wanted to clarify my statements and many other persons position. BUT before I say that I want to clarify that if I were a 3-rd party auditor I would not reject film using reinforcement and protrusion due to Interpretation 9-04. As a radiography company however, I do not allow my personnel to use both. This is the more conservative position I agree, but it is the safest as a radiographer. As an auditor it is not really the safest position. I will mention that more later.

The part below is just to explain the reasons why other interpretations have been made by "experts"

I have been around since before either interpretation 9-04 or 17-03 and it was common in Louisiana to only use the reinforcement and no protrusion since then.

The logic for this was/is that section 5 allows adding reinforcement. Internal protrusion is not reinforcement. They have different names because they are different. Internal protrusion is only named as such and have these criteria in B31.3, not in Section VIII, B31.1, or Section I. These codes have limits on reinforcement as additional weld metal added to the "FACE" of the weld.

The face of the weld is the side the welding is performed from.

This makes since Section V allows the "estimated reinforcement not to exceed the maximum allowed by the referencing code section". Since reinforcement and protrusion were named differently it was common practice to only add the amount for reinforcement to the IQI while all the while understanding the weld can have an equal amount of protrusion. It doesn't seem logical that if reinforcement and protrusion are the same thing they are named differently. Interpretation 9-04 seems to state otherwise which is why as an auditor I would accept it.

A complaint I have about the code is I don't understand why in the past 25 years that hasn't been clarified in the footnotes if that is the intent. It would be much better than relying on people tediously searching very old interpretations. But there are other similar issues with this table. The 2014 edition started to change it by removing MT and PT but there are still other issues.

Where i disagree with the terminology you used "for each weld face", this is the issue I have with interpretation 17-03 also that used "each face of the weld". If the weld was welded from the exterior side only, there is only one weld face. In B31.3 "face of weld" is defined as "the exposed surface of a weld on the side from which welding is done".

I think your argument is better stated as "technicians adding allowable reinforcement and protrusion should not be criticized".

Another argument people use about the intent of Section V (not B31.3 specifically) is the it says the "estimated reinforcement". You can see reinforcement added to the face of the weld but it is rare to be able to see the protrusion, so you can't "estimate" it. I don't think this is conclusive but it does speak to the mindset. Csaba even wished it were practical to actually meausre this more often, which would only be logical if the reinforcement only interpretation is held. It also shows that people who read it differently are not all fake "experts" but some have well reasoned arguments. Although the ones Shannon mentioned above are, I believe, just plain wrong.

The reasons I do not let my radiographers use protrusion for IQI selection are;
It is the safest way - everyone can agree that the film is acceptable
It isn't needed or important - decades of experience has show it is simple to show the IQI without this
Prevents arguments with clients or film being rejected or potental lawsuits
I always like to think in terms of trying to convince a judge, which I wouldn't want to do in this case.

I would call for the code committee to clarify this in Note 8 of the table. They do have this spelled out that both protrusion and reinforcement are allowed to exist in a weld. I don't know if that was added after Interpretation 17-03 or if it was preexisting. A statement such as "Both Internal Protrusion and Reinforcement may be considered as reinforcement for purposes of IQI selection" if that is their intent.




 
 Reply 
 
Shane Feder
, Quality Co-ordinator (SubSea)
Thailand, Joined Dec 2014, 89

Shane Feder

, Quality Co-ordinator (SubSea)
Thailand,
Joined Dec 2014
89
03:41 Mar-30-2015
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to LHen at 17:47 Mar-20-2015 .

Guys,
Very interesting subject.
I spent 4 years as a radiographer (predominantly B31.3 work) and my mentors (two very experienced British Level 3's) always instructed me to include both - the WT was calculated using 2 mm as an average for both reinforcement and internal protusion.
However, whilst checking the applicable codes I noted ASME V Fig C-210-1 (b) which shows a picture of "Single-Wall, Weld Reinforcement, No backing strip".
"T" (weld thickness on which the IQI is based) includes only the weld reinforcement (capping run) and does not include the internal protusion (root run).
Although this is a Non-Mandatory Appendix it does appear to show the ASME V committees intent,
Regards,
Shane

 
 Reply 
 
Shane Feder
, Quality Co-ordinator (SubSea)
Thailand, Joined Dec 2014, 89

Shane Feder

, Quality Co-ordinator (SubSea)
Thailand,
Joined Dec 2014
89
04:18 May-08-2015
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Shane Feder at 03:41 Mar-30-2015 .

Hope this helps,


Interpretation: V-10-06


Subject: Article 2, T-276.2(a) (2010 edition)
Date issued: June 20, 2012
File: 10-1445
Question: Paragraph T-276.2 (a) of Article 2 indicates that, for welds with reinforcement, the IQI is based on the nominal single-wall thickness plus the estimated weld reinforcement not to exceed the maximum permitted by the referencing Code Section. Does the term “weld reinforcement,” as used in T-276.2 (a), include both external and internal reinforcement when both are present?
Reply: Yes

Cheers,
Shane

 
 Reply 
 
Thomas Levey
Thomas Levey
23:54 Jul-20-2015
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Dick Birkby at 19:04 Apr-02-2012 .

Yes I agree with Dick.

The word "OR" means you can only select and add only the reinforcement, not internal protrusion when selecting the applicable IQI.

Internal protrusion and reinforcement are separate terms.

 
 Reply 
 
Shane Feder
, Quality Co-ordinator (SubSea)
Thailand, Joined Dec 2014, 89

Shane Feder

, Quality Co-ordinator (SubSea)
Thailand,
Joined Dec 2014
89
15:25 Jul-21-2015
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Thomas Levey at 23:54 Jul-20-2015 .

Sorry Thomas,
Totally disagree.
In your wisdom can you please explain the difference in assessing the relevant IQI wall thickness for a joint welded both sides (reinforcement x 2) and a joint welded single sided (reinforcement x 1 / internal protusion x 1).
They are exactly the same when it comes to thickness of weld metal !

This is from B31.3
300.2 Definitions
Some of the terms relating to piping are defined below.
For welding, brazing, and soldering terms not shown
here, definitions in accordance with AWS Standard A3.0
apply.

Now if you go to AWS 3.0 you will see there is "face" reinforcement and "root" reinforcement - no mention of internal protusion.
That would certainly seem to be in line with the ASME V interpretation I posted that mentions internal and external reinforcement,
Cheers,
Shane

 
 Reply 
 
Thomas Levey
Thomas Levey
16:45 Jul-21-2015
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Shane Feder at 15:25 Jul-21-2015 .

But we are not dealing with other codes.

I could also reference ASME B31.1, Table 127.4.2 that states in the general notes (a and b) that reinforcement for single welded butt joints shall apply to the outside surface of the joint only. And that for double welded butt joints the reinforcement shall apply separately to both the inside and outside surfaces of the joint.

Reinforcement in this case is the weld crown.

 
 Reply 
 
Gerald Reams
Engineering,
Industry, USA, Joined Aug 2012, 181

Gerald Reams

Engineering,
Industry,
USA,
Joined Aug 2012
181
17:53 Jul-21-2015
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Thomas Levey at 16:45 Jul-21-2015 .

CAREFUL.....

Different Codes, different requirements because they govern specific applications (i.e. pressure vessels, pressure piping, structural welds, etc.).

 
 Reply 
 
Shane Feder
, Quality Co-ordinator (SubSea)
Thailand, Joined Dec 2014, 89

Shane Feder

, Quality Co-ordinator (SubSea)
Thailand,
Joined Dec 2014
89
02:22 Jul-23-2015
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Gerald Reams at 17:53 Jul-21-2015 .

Thomas,
B31.3 Clause 344.5.1 requires radiography of welds to be in accordance with ASME V Article 2.
The interpretation I posted above from ASME V clearly notes "external" and "internal" reinforcement.
If "external" reinforcement is the "weld crown" as you have noted can you please explain what is "internal" reinforcement ?
Regards,
Shane

 
 Reply 
 
suhaad
suhaad
16:05 Sep-29-2015
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Ed T. at 12:02 Jul-08-2013 .

Can you please tell me what is the criteria for finding iqi selection for cswip 3.2 as per en standard whether backing strip and reinforcement to be added or not

 
 Reply 
 
SIVAKUMAR
SIVAKUMAR
16:39 Mar-27-2016
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Ed T. at 11:10 Mar-11-2012 .

If added the reinforcement Section V also need to give guidelines for selection of IQI with Reinforcement stating external reinforcement & internal protrusion can be added with nominal wall thickness for selection of IQI.
and also the Section VIII Acceptance Criteria need to define "t" i.e nominal wall thickness plus external reinforcement & internal protrusion

 
 Reply 
 
Shane Feder
, Quality Co-ordinator (SubSea)
Thailand, Joined Dec 2014, 89

Shane Feder

, Quality Co-ordinator (SubSea)
Thailand,
Joined Dec 2014
89
03:54 Oct-20-2016
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to SIVAKUMAR at 16:39 Mar-27-2016 .

Just an update on the IQI issue.

TN 14-603 (E14-02)

For the purpose of image quality
indicator (IQI) selection, for welds with
reinforcement, the thickness used shall be the
nominal wall thickness, ₸w, plus the allowable
external reinforcement and internal
reinforcement (protrusion) combined.

This has been approved by the B31.3 committee and will appear in the next edition of B31.3,
Cheers,
Shane

 
 Reply 
 
Csaba Hollo
,
Retired, Canada, Joined Feb 2010, 301

Csaba Hollo

,
Retired,
Canada,
Joined Feb 2010
301
22:39 Oct-21-2016
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Shane Feder at 03:54 Oct-20-2016 .

Where did you find this Shane? Is there an interpretation?

 
 Reply 
 
Shane Feder
, Quality Co-ordinator (SubSea)
Thailand, Joined Dec 2014, 89

Shane Feder

, Quality Co-ordinator (SubSea)
Thailand,
Joined Dec 2014
89
04:56 Oct-22-2016
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Csaba Hollo at 22:39 Oct-21-2016 .

No interpretation Csaba.
Ballot approved for entry in the 2016 edition

 
 Reply 
 
christopher
USA, Joined Jul 2017, 1

christopher

USA,
Joined Jul 2017
1
05:36 Jul-25-2017
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Csaba Hollo at 19:32 Mar-08-2012 (Opening).

today i ran across a problem as a new tech...i was doing RT on small pipe and my shim wouldn't fit on the pipe so i had to lace iqi on film... when building shim i added a a few shims together to make a base shim...(.250 2x ) total of .500 shim with a 12 penny.... placing it on the film... 1st question was i suppose to have an F for film side and 2nd question is...
when placing shim on film do i add up both walls to make my shim the same thickness..
as in 1"sch 80 .179
.179+.179=.358 plus .0625=.420

do i build shim to match piping (shim .250+.125+.0625=.4375

or how would i do that.... once again i'm new to the field

 
 Reply 
 
Tom Burke
Tom Burke
07:43 Feb-22-2018
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Csaba Hollo at 16:59 Mar-19-2015 .

A little bit of history for y’all from Texas. As far as I know there has been no change:

B31.3 Interpretation No.9

Subject: ASMASME/ANSI B31.3_1987 Edition,Table 341.3.2A; Reinforcement and Internal Protrusion Limits.


Date Issued: November 28, 1990

File: B31-90-028

Question: In Accordance with ASME/ANSI B31.3, Table 341.3.2A; May heights of Internal Reinforcement and Internal Protrusion be added together in determining penetrameter requirements for radiographing girth welds?

Reply: Yes.

 
 Reply 
 
Randy seniuk
Randy seniuk
21:09 Jul-08-2018
Re: RT to ASME B31.3 NS Penetrameter selection
In Reply to Csaba Hollo at 16:53 Mar-21-2012 .

regarding the IQI selection as commented in convincing an auditor with a small a,
if we are dealing with Interpretations from RT Techs as well as ASME Interpretations for back up, why would anyone in your right frame of mind call him or her who is objecting to the reality of written Codes and Interpretations of trying to bring their own opinion into an already Engineered process and interpretations by the appropriate authorities
If you ever get involved up to your eyeballs in a situation that goes from some smart person thinking they have something using the Reinforcement Allowances,,,,,, and there are now several thousands of welds sprinkled from Calgary to FT Mac,
your now so far into this discussion that there are coordinators calculating scaffolding and re-inspections costs,,,,,,,,,,
All this caused by a so called auditor pushing their stubbornness and inability to recognizes the Engineering Authorities' that wrote the code,,,,,,
just calling a spade a spade

 
 Reply 
 

Product Spotlight

NEOS III

NEOS III is Logos Imagings lightest DR system. With a built-in battery and internal wireless commu
...
nication, the NEOS III is perfect for users that want to quickly assess an item.
>

TESTD-PT SYSTEM

Pulse thermography is a non-contact test method that is ideal for the characterization of thin fil
...
ms and coatings or the detection of defects. With a remarquable short test time and a high detection sensitivity, the Telops TESTD-PT is the perfect tool for non- destructive testing. With such high frame rates, it is even possible to investigate highly conductive or diffusive materials.
>

FAAST-PA! OEM Patented phased Array for high speed UT inspection

Multiangle, Multifocus, Multifrequency, Multibeam. Instead of stacking UT electronics and having m
...
any PA probes, FAAST-PA is able to transmit all delay laws within ONE single shot in Real time.
>

Compact NDT inspection-heads for measurements with active thermography

The compact inspection head is suitable for thermographic ndt tasks. The uncooled infrared camera
...
is specially developed for NDI-tasks and offers a thermal sensitivity until now known only from thermal imagers with cooled detector. All required components and functions are integrated into the inspection-head. You will only need an ethernet cable to connect the sensor with the evaluation system.
>

Share...
We use technical and analytics cookies to ensure that we will give you the best experience of our website - More Info
Accept
top
this is debug window