×
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

Performing NDT in lieu of hydrotest

Performing NDT in lieu of hydrotest

Performing NDT in lieu of hydrotest

(OP)
We have a waste heat boiler for new sulfur recovery unit. This equipment is in 3 sections. Boiler, reaction furnace and burner section. Boiler and reaction furnace are manufactured by one manufacturer and welded together and hydrotest at shop. Burner section is manufactured separately and hydrotested. At site first 2 sections are already erected on foundation and now the burner section is being erected. After erection both section need to be welded together so there will be one circumferential joint joining the burner section and boiler + reaction furnace section.

Now my question is that is it mandatory to perform hydrotest of this field weld joint. If we do so then the other parts will be rehydrotested , would this be a problem. Is there any way we can waive off hydrotest and perform other NDT testing only.

RE: Performing NDT in lieu of hydrotest

I believe you could also Xray the weld instead of doing a full hydrostatic test on it. I'm not sure how practical that would be for your application.

I have not seen this done before, but I have heard it brought up as an option a few times. I imagine someone here will have a direct reference for you.

RE: Performing NDT in lieu of hydrotest

macmet is right that is may be able to be done. Talk to the Jurisdiction/AI.

Do NOT perform that final closure weld until you have agreement from the appropriate parties. In addition to post-weld NDE, there will likely be some additional in-process inspection that may need to be witnessed.

RE: Performing NDT in lieu of hydrotest

Since you are welding pressure parts based on your statement that the two separate components are , I for one, would sure want to hydrotest the final product.

RE: Performing NDT in lieu of hydrotest

You need to review the contract documents and determine what was required as part of completion of the project. If the burner section is considered part of the waste heat boiler code boundary, the waste heat boiler cannot be considered completed until all components have been field assembled/fabricated and a final hydrostatic test is performed to consider the unit complete for code requirements. If the burner section is considered a separate part outside of the waste heat boiler, your contract documents or specification should outline what is required for final acceptance.

RE: Performing NDT in lieu of hydrotest

I have personally witnessed welds that have passed UT and RT that later failed during hydrotesting. Though the code or specification may allow it, being conservative I would recommend hydrotest. for example, if the wrong filler was used (lower strength) a sound (passing RT or UT) weld may be produced but would fail at pressure.

Richard

RE: Performing NDT in lieu of hydrotest

May sound stupid, but can you not flange the joining part? Pipelines often have this issue and it is generally accepted to have "golden" welds whereby at least two and sometimes 3 means or NDT are used, along with very close supervision and checking of the welding by the Welding inspector for correct materials, procedure, visual during the weld, then UT, X ray and MPI if possible. If you can do a leak test to design presusre before commissioning, that helpos as well.

I appreciate vessels are different, but that's my experience of these things.

My motto: Learn something new every day

Also: There's usually a good reason why everyone does it that way

RE: Performing NDT in lieu of hydrotest

(OP)
Thank you everyone for your response. I also personally feel that hydrotest should be done and this what I proposed to the client but now the contractor has raised 2 more concerns.

1) The equipment does not have drain nozzles, so how the hydrotest water will be drained?
2) The foundation design was on operating weight only, so if we fill the equipment with water the foundations will fail.

For 1st point I checked the drawings and visited the site also and found 4 No, 2" nozzles at the bottom of equipment, which I think can be used for draining the water.

For 2nd point I doubt the foundation is only designed for operating load, so I have requested the contractor to provide the design calculations for the foundation to verify the same. If this comes out to be correct then I think there is no way to do the hydrotest. So is this case can we go for pneumatic test instead of going for NDT.

Also a good point is mentioned above to contact the authorized inspector in this regards.

Thankyou.

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