×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

B31 CC 181

B31 CC 181

B31 CC 181

(OP)
B31 CC 181

I am trying to understand this case;  is it one of  alternative acceptance criteria or is it alternative technique?

We are trying to employ PAUT on 31.3 piping using the given acceptance criteria for UT in 31.3.  However this code case was brought up in discussions and it was determined that if PAUT was to be used, this CC (including acceptance criteria) had to be followed in its entirety.

Greatly appreciate any and all comments and/or interpretations on this CC.

Regards

RE: B31 CC 181

Its definitely about both!

The preeamble states that the Committee is of the opinion that alternative acceptance criteria can be applied in lieu 0f 344.6.2. of B31.3. This is a switch from acceptance criteria based on comparison with the amplitude from known reflectors to the measured defect height (versus its length and material thickness).

Plus (d) of the Code Case calls for use of a device employing "automatic computer-based data acquisition".

Interesting if unusual point about using phased array with the standard acceptance criteria. Without doing the  math comparison for various material thicknesses it is generally accepted that the alternative acceptance criteria, which are based on materials and stress data rather than traditional "workmanship" values, are more lenient, especially in the case of low defect height versus material thickness ratios, e.g. inter-run cold lap. Exceptions to this can be in cases of several separate defects where interaction rules are invoked - think of automatic MIG pipe-welding systems such as Phoenix or Serimer where the sequential fire-up positions are not staggered and a small length of LOF (10 mm say) is in each successive vertical position. These are interactive and such fire-up defects in 3 or 4 successive runs would give an unacceptable interactive defect height.

Which welding process(es) will you be utilising? If all manual (TIG root/SMAW fill and cap) I dont know why you could not set your PAUT sensitivity using the standard ASME calibration block assessing defect length for reference-curve breaking indications.

Nigel Armstrong
Karachaganak Petroleum
Kazakhstan

RE: B31 CC 181

(OP)
All welding processes will be manual, no GMAW.  We intend on using a calibration blocks developed from the same material, diameter and thickness as the weld.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources