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?

 

[metengr]

Material traceability yes, weld maps no. All of this should be addressed in the Quality Manual for the organization that has Code stamps.

 

[Kiwi2671]

1 No
2 If the project specification requires it
3 No
Regards,
Kiwi

 

[stanweld]

reezadaman
Agreeing with the above responses, how would you propose to assure traceability without some type of recorded paper or electronic data base?

 

[Duwe6]

The use of proper WPS's, filler material, and appropriatly qualified weldors SHOULD be handled by continous In-Process Inspx; performed by a roving QC inspector. That Inspector(s) files reports verifying that these essential items have been checked and found to be acceptable. The In-Process Inspector(s) is also the only way to verify that proper fitups are being performed [unless you want to go to 100% RT]

These welds have to be traceable to the weldor. As an Owner's Inspector, I like "Weld Maps", usually consisting of marked-up iso's. Makes my work very easy.

As the Contractor's Inspector, weld mapping is a royal pain in the hindquarters. I ensure that ALL wleds are stamped with the weldor(s) symbol before the weld gets cold.

Final thought: it is impossible to have an adequate ASME B31.3 job without In-Process Inspx by a person that knows welds & welding, and can recognize appropriate and inappropriate pipe grades & specs, flange and other fittings, bolting and bolt-ups, and gaskets. When the welds are 'old & cold' it is waaay too late to try to 'inspect quality into the pipe system'.

 

[moltenmetal]

Unless I'm mistaken, traceability of material is not a requirement of B31.3, but it can be a contractual requirement. I'm not sure why metengr answers "yes" to this question- I guess it's a matter of degree, because of course it is impossible to meet the intent of this code without some process to determine that only materials meeting the correct ASTM specifcations are used in construction of the piping. But "traceability" to me indicates a means to identify, after the fact, the heat number or other similar identification of each individual component in a line after the fact. THAT is NOT a requirement of B31.3, though many owners and their reps would have you believe that it is.

How you satisfactorally meet a contractual requirement is a matter of negotiation between you and the owner or their representative.

In regard to weld maps: it's tough (but not impossible) to ensure that the code-required NDE, welder qualifications etc. are in place without some means of mapping who did what- unless of course the entire job is undertaken only by one person. Some companies rely on welder's ID stamps etc., while others rely on a paper mapping process.

 

[metengr]

One has to be realistic in what is being done in industry. Traceability as I referenced above means that I can confirm that any pipe spool installed during construction under B31.3 met a known material specification. This is a requirement of B31.1 under 323 Materials, General Requirements.

The Code does not describe the means or process to verify the material received and installed met a material specification, this is left up to the Inspector, Owner or installation contractor. Piping that is ordered to a known material specification requires it to be marked and material test reports are provided. This is considered traceability for construction purposes.

Once the line is placed into service, B31.3 may not be applicable because this is a construction code. There are other in-service Codes which may be used. I will tell you this one better be able to show through Piping Design tables or some other form of paperwork/records that the pipe material has met a known material specification.

 

[Duwe6]

moltenmetal appears to interpret "Traceability" as Spec + Grade + Heat No.

What metenge and I are calling the required "Traceability" required by ASME B31.3 is Spec + Grade [no requirement for Heat/Batch No.] If you can get to the pipe prior to painting, you can *usually* verify proper Spec & Grade after the Fitter & Weldor have walked away. Fittings & Flanges are steel-stamped [mostly] and can even be verified after paint.

But once the Weldor has walked away from the weld, and there was no Fitup or In-Process inspection, it is now impossible to know what filler metal(s) he/she welded with. You now have a total lack of traceability. Oops!

Yes, with an XRF 'gun' - x-ray fluoroescence analyzer - you can pretty well tell what the cap was welded with, but the root and the fill layers are the important ones.

"Houston, we have a problem . . . . "

 

[moltenmetal]

Good: we agree that the requirement of B31.3 is spec + grade, and there is no requirement to trace back to heat/batch number (i.e. back to the MTR).

Many owners expect you to be able to trace everything used in the line, including individual pieces of pipe or butt-welding fittings which do not come with durable markings, back to heat/batch (i.e. to the MTR) after the fact. This is not a code requirement- but if they're paying for it per their contract, you need to have a means to ensure it gets done. Doing that consistently is not easy, especially when you're talking about small lines.

The in-process welding issues Duwe6 mentions are important and emphasize the need for care in control of welding consumables as well as all the other variables in a welding procedure.

 

[XL83NL]

B31.3:
- Interpretations 5-10, 8-02, 8-19 and 19-28 may provide some assistance on traceability/re-identification, etc.
- Note that traceability of welders (e.g. by means of identification symbols) is required per 328.5.1(b) [2010 edt.].
- metengr: which para states the requirement of material traceability? (not that I dont believe you)

 

[Duwe6]

"metengr: which para states the requirement of material traceability?"

You would be looking for a 'negative', XL86NL. The language in B31.3 addresses maintaining material such that all presslure-boundary items are built using Code Compliant materials. Period.

The 'gotcha' part is when you actually try to build something and prove that you have never incorporated a substandard item in your piping system. Pipe has its spec, grade, and Heat Number stenciled down the length of the piece. Mr. Freddie Fitter needs an 8-inch long piece to go between an Ell and a Flange. He cut around the spec stencil, and the Heat Number was where the weld was going, so he buffed all that paint off while prepping for the welding. Without some form of traceability, how do you prove to the Owner's Inspector that that 8-inch slice of pipe actually meets SA-106 Gr.B?

Granted, if there is no other spec & grade of pipe in the entire fabrication area, the pipe storage yard, and the crew's gang-box, you will be able to 'sell' that piece to an Inspector. But if that Inspector finds some SA-53 Grade A [soft] pipe of the same size and schedule, somebody had better have maintained traceability of your 8-inch slice by color-coding, transfering the spec & grade and/or the Heat Number to that 8-inch piece during the cutting process, or some other reasonably foolproof ID method.

Otherwise, that piece is of indetermanent origin. It will have to be cut out and replaced with a piece that you can prove is the correct spec & grade. Thus, in the 'Real World' traceability becomes a necessity, unless you can have the Owner's Inspector stay with the fabrication process from the first cut of a stick of pipe, to the last weld on a pipe, on every shift that pipefitting and welding occur.

ASME flanges and other fittings are 'hard-stamped' with the Spec & Grade, so unless the painters get crazy prior to the Owner's Inspex, correct material on these can be verified after fabrication.

 

[Kiwi2671]

I have always been taught to transfer heat numbers after cutting and it is usually addressed in project specifications but if I am reading the interpretation below correctly it is not a code requirement

Interpretation: 8-19
8-19,8-20,8-21
Subject: ASME/ANSI B31.3-1987 Edition, Paras. 323.1.1 and 323.1.2; Material Reidentification
Date Issued: May 7, 1990
File: B31-89:'043
Question (1): Does ASME/ANSI B31.3 require that materials conforming to para. 323.1.1 or
323.1.2 be reidentified after cutting for fabrication?
Reply (1): No.
Question (2): Does ASME/ANSI B31.3 have qualification requirements for an individual who
reidentifies material?
Reply (2): No.

Regards,
Kiwi

 

[moltenmetal]

Duwe6: as long as your job specifications and contract address your specific traceability needs, as owner you can have anything you pay for.

What you cannot do is claim that this traceability practice is a code requirement, and hence must be done at the fabricator's cost regardless of whether or not it is addressed in the specs. Some owners try to play that game with us as fabricator.

Maintaining traceability on each piece of pipe in the cut condition is not a trivial exercise. It gets harder still when you're building small lines. Doing this properly requires great care during the fitting process on the QA's part to make sure that the fitters transfer the heat numbers to every single piece. It also requires the maintenance of permanent records so that when all the temporary marks are removed by surface finishing operations, the fabricator will still be able to prove that the correct materials were used. All of that costs money and time. Only the owner can assess in the context of their project whether or not that money and time is well spent relative to minimizing future risks.

 

[reezadaman]

It's easy to hard stamp id numbers into large bore piping and fittings. What happens when you get to 1/2" pipes, and especially 1/2" 45 degree elbows? It becomes near impossible. Then, certain paints seem to clog up the id numbers anyway? It seems that this material id requirement is just put in place to satisfy the client that the right material has been used. Inspectors who not present 100% on site will not be able to confirm this beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, in South Africa, we have a national standard that outlines AIA functions which includes the verification of material traceability. But is also not so clear whether the intention is to verify it to a certificate or to verify that every piece of pipe has been traced.

 

[XL83NL]

reezadaman, are you referring to SANS 347? It bears (a lot) similarity with PED 97/23/EC (European directive to pressure equipment), which is mandatory here in the EU.
Working with PED 97/23/EC and B31.3 takes away a lot of discussion on traceability (but probably costs more money and time as moltenmetal indicated),
since traceability (regardless of how 'vague' it's defined in the PED) is a mandatory requirement for piping that has to conform to the essential sfatey requirement of the PED.

What we often see is that behind every isometric in the manufacturer data book (or even on the iso itself), the MFR tends to use an additional weld map sheet to put down all heat numbers of single components in a piping system,
write down which welder welded which part(s), and which heat numbers where used for filler materials (when required by the hazard category of a piping system).

The 2012 edt of B31.3 will have an additional appendix (app N) that outlines how a piping system can conform to both B31.3 and PED 97/23/EC. This appendix is I think most probably based on CEN-TR EN 14549,
a technical guideline on the differences in B31.3 vs PED 97/23/EC. That directive outlines addresses how to comply with these differences in a B31.3 job for the EU market.

In view al these interpretations, Im not sure of there's any real advantage of not having the PED 97/23/EC traceability requirement in the B31.3 code, looking at all discussions above.

 

[Guest102023]

Duwe6 @ 'Final thought: it is impossible to have an adequate ASME B31.3 job without In-Process Inspx by a person that knows welds & welding, and can recognize appropriate and inappropriate pipe grades & specs, flange and other fittings, bolting and bolt-ups, and gaskets.'
__________________________________

Several major EPCs in my country are oblivious to that necessity, and see QC/vendor surveillance as an ideal place to cut costs. Even though you and I know they are not cutting costs, they are multiplying and postponing them after transferring them to the Owner.

 

[Duwe6]

Amen brimstoner Pay me now, or pay me [or somebody else] a LOT, later.

 

[moltenmetal]

Inspection and traceability effort need to be proportional to the size, scale, design life and risk associated with the piping, whereas the code has no means to distinguish these important factors beyond a couple service categories. The owner must make these judgments and respond accordingly with additional requirements in their specifications and contract. I am not on the B31.3 committee, but suspect that this is the good reason that traceability is not hard-spec'd into the code rules.

 

[Duwe6]

At the ned of the day on ASMEW B31.3 work, you have to be able to prove to the satisfaction of the Owner's Inspector that the installed pipe meets or excedes the requirements that the Design Engineer set forth.

How detailed or careless the Owner's Inspector is, is up to the Owner.

 

[reezadaman]

Thank You everyone for your input, it was really helpful. Where can I get further guidance on these types of queries? SANS 347 and PED are not that clear. Is there an ISO document?