Is code case 2235-9 applicable to B31.1?
Is code case 2235-9 applicable to B31.1?
(OP)
Can Code Case 2235-9 - Use of Ultrasonic Examination in Lieu of Radiography Section I; Section VIII‚ Divisions 1 and 2; and Section XII be used for B31.1 pressure piping? My first answer is obviously no based on the criteria called out in the title of the code case, however, a contracted NDE firm has claimed they have used this code case for B31.3 and was curious if and where a loophole exists to extend this NDE to other code sections.
Thank you,
MetalHoo
Thank you,
MetalHoo





RE: Is code case 2235-9 applicable to B31.1?
Is this for new construction or a repair?????
RE: Is code case 2235-9 applicable to B31.1?
This is for a repair.
Metalhoo
RE: Is code case 2235-9 applicable to B31.1?
RE: Is code case 2235-9 applicable to B31.1?
You find a LOT more using manual UT or Phased Array UT. Find even more [many more 'false positives'] using TOFD. On the other hand, good welders like UT because their random, scattered porosity is almost never rejectable using UT [can see the porosity in 3 dimensions, and see the actual separation of the pores]. RT 'compresses' the porosity onto a single 2-D sheet of film, and the interpretor must assume that the pores are really as close togather as the film shows.
Because of the above, I have accepted a weld using RT, and firmly rejected the same weld for multiple, stacked ares of Lack-of-Fusion. I have accepted a weld using UT, and rejected the same weld when I read the RT film due to "exessive porosity". RT is old, customary, and no longer the best choice for evaluating the quality of weld joints. But it is traditional.
RE: Is code case 2235-9 applicable to B31.1?
RE: Is code case 2235-9 applicable to B31.1?
RE: Is code case 2235-9 applicable to B31.1?
I am curious as to why your contracting NDE firm used code case 2235-9 for B31.3 construction which has its own such code case 181-1.
The code cases are similar but 2235-9 has a mimimum wall thickness of 1/2" whereas 181-1 states no minimum.
RE: Is code case 2235-9 applicable to B31.1?
Article 4 specifies the technique which includes ToFD and/or PA with data acquisition. Interpretation of indications shall be as per B31.1 § 136.4.6.
You have all things in the B31.1
You do not need to deal with CC2235-9
RE: Is code case 2235-9 applicable to B31.1?
RE: Is code case 2235-9 applicable to B31.1?
"2235-9 allows manual UT...". Not so, viz:
2235-9 (d) "The ultrasonic examination shall be performed using a device employing automatic computer based data acquisition."
Code cases 2541 and 2557 allow manual Phased Array fixed beam and sectorial raster scans respectively.
RE: Is code case 2235-9 applicable to B31.1?
NOTE: if the weld has been previously rejected using RT, UT is not an option [and the reverse is true]. ASME requires that repairs be reexamined using the original method. There is an 'out' to this clause: if the weld is cut and the weldmetal entirely removed, then it is a "C/1", not an "R/1" and is a new weld as far as NDT is concerned.
RE: Is code case 2235-9 applicable to B31.1?
ANSI B31.1 adopted the code case (don't remember the number) as written. The ASME Code committee turned it into an ASME Section XI style nightmare with all the ridiculous flaw evaluation criteria and is now up to rev. 9. If it is replacing a two dimensional flaw sizing technique (a.k.a., RT) that has worked for decades then why add the through wall criteria to it?
The use of a code case is dependent on the customer or regulatory authority and is not to be applied at will.
Jack Varner
ASNT NDT Level III
RE: Is code case 2235-9 applicable to B31.1?
RE: Is code case 2235-9 applicable to B31.1?
2010 issues of ASME Code were a missed opportunity to get this right to allow logical introduction of advanced UT. Instead of which NDT practitioners are still burdened with cobbling together procedures with the right to perform UT based on half-baked fracture mechanics but utilising workmanship criteria of Appendix 12 for acceptance. I will NOT write in a procedure that which is beyond our current capablility.
T,K,Y joints in the past have been passed off by manual UT with no data record. Why do end users and others make it so difficult to approve the use of encoded PA scans where the completeness of the data and accuracy of interpretation and evaluation can be subsequently reviewed. It makes no sense to me.