Groove design and bevel
1,112 views
Skip to first unread message
Ahmed Husain
Feb 13, 2011, 5:40:30 AM2/13/11
to material...@googlegroups.com
Dear All,
I have a query, kindly share your valuable knowledge on this subject.
1-As per ASME IX, Table QW-253 and QW-256, groove design is non-essential variable for SMAW and GTAW welding.
2-As per ASME B31.3, Fig 328.4.2 and ASME B16.25 Fig 3 and 5 (also Para 3.1C), components having thickness above 22 mm shall have compound bevel.
I would like to know that if the requirements of ASME B31.3 and 16.25 as stated above are mandatory? Because as per SEC IX, it is non-essential variable.
What I have observed at site, all pipes and fitting above 22 mm thickness have compound bevel from manufacturer, but all bevel prepared at side are single bevel. Is this acceptable?
Mob-0547170325
manpreet
Feb 14, 2011, 1:28:05 AM2/14/11
to materials-welding
Dear Husain,
I guess your design code is ASME B31.3, ASME Sec ix do not go into process details (bevel preparation etc.)
With reference to the butt end preperation shown in Fig 328.4.2 , Manufacturer has provided pipes with compound bevel as required by code, now you need to confirm whether bevel preperation done at site is in accordance with Fig 328.4.2.
Regards
Manpreet Singh
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 21:42:00 , Ahmed Husain <ahm...@yahoo.com> wrote--
To post to this group, send email to material...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-weld...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.
I guess your design code is ASME B31.3, ASME Sec ix do not go into process details (bevel preparation etc.)
With reference to the butt end preperation shown in Fig 328.4.2 , Manufacturer has provided pipes with compound bevel as required by code, now you need to confirm whether bevel preperation done at site is in accordance with Fig 328.4.2.
Regards
Manpreet Singh
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 21:42:00 , Ahmed Husain <ahm...@yahoo.com> wrote
To post to this group, send email to material...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-weld...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.
BHARAT GOLE
Feb 14, 2011, 2:23:40 AM2/14/11
to Material Welding
Dear Manpreet,
I would like to share my experience realted to same issue which is raised by Mr. Husain.
In our previous project we received fittings thickness greater than 22 mm with compound bevel .However pipes received with single bevel.Then contractor propose to do compound bevel for pipes with additional work and of course with extra cost.
Construction code ASME 31.3 & approved WPS was without Impact, with PWHT as per ASME IX .
WPS/PQR was qualified by Ludwing (one of reputed TPI ) showing various combination of joint configurations.Based on that we told contractor to go ahead with welding as it is - i.e.one side compound bevel & other side single bevel
So there was big noise between contractor & us....contractor was not ready to weld joint like that
Please let me know then my interpretation was correct or not ?
Warm regards
Bharat
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 06:28:05 +0000
To: material...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [MW:9866] Groove design and bevel
From: manpre...@rediffmail.com
I would like to share my experience realted to same issue which is raised by Mr. Husain.
In our previous project we received fittings thickness greater than 22 mm with compound bevel .However pipes received with single bevel.Then contractor propose to do compound bevel for pipes with additional work and of course with extra cost.
Construction code ASME 31.3 & approved WPS was without Impact, with PWHT as per ASME IX .
WPS/PQR was qualified by Ludwing (one of reputed TPI ) showing various combination of joint configurations.Based on that we told contractor to go ahead with welding as it is - i.e.one side compound bevel & other side single bevel
So there was big noise between contractor & us....contractor was not ready to weld joint like that
Please let me know then my interpretation was correct or not ?
Warm regards
Bharat
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 06:28:05 +0000
To: material...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [MW:9866] Groove design and bevel
From: manpre...@rediffmail.com
Ahmed Husain
Feb 14, 2011, 3:24:34 AM2/14/11
to material...@googlegroups.com
Dear Bharat/Manpreet,
At our project, what ever fiiting and pipe were received, it have compound bevels, but bevel prepared at site are single bevel. So it is quite common to see joint fit-up where one component with compound bevel and joining component with single bevel.Is this a acceptable? Contractor says since groove design is non-essential variable in WPS, so such fit-up are acceptable.
My concern is that since compound bevel is mandatory as per ASME B16.25, Contracor should follow the requirement of this code.
What is your opinion in this regard.
Ahmed HusainMob-0547170325
From: BHARAT GOLE <bhara...@hotmail.com>
To: Material Welding <material...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Mon, February 14, 2011 10:23:40 AM
Subject: RE: [MW:9867] Groove design and bevel
Kathalingam Babu
Feb 14, 2011, 3:47:11 AM2/14/11
to material...@googlegroups.com
Dear Ahmed,
Is the ASME 16.25 would cover bevel preparation
for the pipe or fittings ?
As per my understanding that, Fig 328.4.2 is the typical
examples only. Not an mandatory.
Regards,
K.Babu
Thanks & Regards,
K. Babu
----- Original Message -----
----- Original Message -----
Ahmed Husain
Feb 14, 2011, 5:19:33 AM2/14/11
to material...@googlegroups.com
Dear Mr. Babu,
As per ASME B16.25, Para 3.1C, I think this requirement of compound bevel is mandatory.
Please let me know if my interpretation is correct or not ?
Regards,
Mob-0547170325
From: Kathalingam Babu <kathalin...@ppl.com.sg>
To: material...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, February 14, 2011 11:47:11 AM
Subject: Re: [MW:9872] Groove design and bevel
manpreet
Feb 14, 2011, 9:40:54 PM2/14/11
to materials-welding
Dear Bharat,
If I were you, i would have followed the groove design shown in ASME B31.3 and also in your case Contractor was also not agreed which means at later stage, Contractor would raise this issue if something goes wrong.
but again, other groove design are also available and has been used successfully,
Regards
Manpreet Singh
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 17:16:19 +0530 BHARAT GOLE <bhara...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Dear Manpreet,
>I would like to share my experience realted to same issue which is raised by Mr. Husain.
>In our previous project we received fittings thickness greater than 22 mm with compound bevel .However pipes received with single bevel.Then contractor propose to do compound bevel for pipes with additional work and of course with extra cost.
>Construction code ASME 31.3 & approved WPS was without Impact, with PWHT as per ASME IX .
>WPS/PQR was qualified by Ludwing (one of reputed TPI ) showing various combination of joint configurations.Based on that we told contractor to go ahead with welding as it is - i.e.one side compound bevel & other side single bevel
>So there was big noise between contractor & us....contractor was not ready to weld joint like that
>Please let me know then my interpretation was correct or not ?
>Warm regards
>
>Bharat
>
>
>
>
>
>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 06:28:05 +0000
>To: material...@googlegroups.com
>Subject: Re: [MW:9866] Groove design and bevel
>From: manpre...@rediffmail.com
>
>Dear Husain,
>
>I guess your design code is ASME B31.3, ASME Sec ix do not go into process details (bevel preparation etc.)
>
>With reference to the butt end preperation shown in Fig 328.4.2 , Manufacturer has provided pipes withcompound bevel as required by code, now you need to confirm whether bevel preperation done at site is in accordance with Fig 328.4.2.
If I were you, i would have followed the groove design shown in ASME B31.3 and also in your case Contractor was also not agreed which means at later stage, Contractor would raise this issue if something goes wrong.
but again, other groove design are also available and has been used successfully,
Regards
Manpreet Singh
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 17:16:19 +0530 BHARAT GOLE <bhara...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Dear Manpreet,
>I would like to share my experience realted to same issue which is raised by Mr. Husain.
>In our previous project we received fittings thickness greater than 22 mm with compound bevel .However pipes received with single bevel.Then contractor propose to do compound bevel for pipes with additional work and of course with extra cost.
>Construction code ASME 31.3 & approved WPS was without Impact, with PWHT as per ASME IX .
>WPS/PQR was qualified by Ludwing (one of reputed TPI ) showing various combination of joint configurations.Based on that we told contractor to go ahead with welding as it is - i.e.one side compound bevel & other side single bevel
>So there was big noise between contractor & us....contractor was not ready to weld joint like that
>Please let me know then my interpretation was correct or not ?
>Warm regards
>
>Bharat
>
>
>
>
>
>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 06:28:05 +0000
>To: material...@googlegroups.com
>Subject: Re: [MW:9866] Groove design and bevel
>From: manpre...@rediffmail.com
>
>Dear Husain,
>
>I guess your design code is ASME B31.3, ASME Sec ix do not go into process details (bevel preparation etc.)
>
manpreet
Feb 14, 2011, 9:33:35 PM2/14/11
to material...@googlegroups.com
Dear All,
The proposed Groove design shown in ASME B31.3 is commonly used with successfull results (ofcourse if other things are in the way it should be), It's not mandatory but the recommended one since ASME team do lots of practical and theoratical analysis to provide the best practice one could follow, If your Contractor is confident enough and has successfully welded heavy thickness like this before, then you could allow him to do so.
Regards
Manpreet Singh
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 16:03:53 +0530 Ahmed Husain <ahm...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>Dear Mr.Babu,
>Mob-0547170325
>
>
From: Kathalingam Babu <kathalin...@ppl.com.sg>
>To: material...@googlegroups.com
>Sent: Mon, February 14, 2011 11:47:11 AM
>Subject: Re: [MW:9872] Groove design and bevel
>
>
The proposed Groove design shown in ASME B31.3 is commonly used with successfull results (ofcourse if other things are in the way it should be), It's not mandatory but the recommended one since ASME team do lots of practical and theoratical analysis to provide the best practice one could follow, If your Contractor is confident enough and has successfully welded heavy thickness like this before, then you could allow him to do so.
Regards
Manpreet Singh
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 16:03:53 +0530 Ahmed Husain <ahm...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>Dear Mr.Babu,
As per ASME B16.25, Para 3.1C, I think this requirement of compound bevel is mandatory.
Please let me knowif my interpretationis correct or not ?
>
>
Regards,
Ahmed Husain>Mob-0547170325
>
>
From: Kathalingam Babu <kathalin...@ppl.com.sg>
>To: material...@googlegroups.com
>Sent: Mon, February 14, 2011 11:47:11 AM
>Subject: Re: [MW:9872] Groove design and bevel
>
>
Dear Ahmed,
Is the ASME 16.25 would coverbevel preparation forthe pipe orfittings ?
As per my understanding that, Fig 328.4.2 is the typical examples only. Not an mandatory.
Regards,
K.Babu
Thanks & Regards,
K. Babu
>----- Original Message -----
>----- Original Message -----
From: Ahmed HusainTo: material...@googlegroups.com" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:material...@googlegroups.com" target=_new>material...@googlegroups.comSent: Monday, February 14, 2011 4:24 PMSubject: Re: [MW:9871] Groove design and bevel
>
Dear Bharat/Manpreet,At our project, what ever fiiting and pipewere received, it have compound bevels, but bevel prepared at site are single bevel. So it is quite common to see joint fit-upwhere onecomponent with compound bevel and joining component with single bevel.Is this a acceptable? Contractor says since groove design is non-essential variablein WPS, sosuch fit-up are acceptable.My concern is that sincecompound bevel is mandatory as per ASME B16.25, Contracor should follow the requirement of this code.
What is your opinion in this regard.Ahmed Husain
>
>Mob-0547170325
>
>
From: BHARAT GOLE <bhara...@hotmail.com>
>To: Material Welding <material...@googlegroups.com>
>Sent: Mon, February 14, 2011 10:23:40 AM
>Subject: RE: [MW:9867] Groove design and bevel
>
Kathalingam Babu
Feb 14, 2011, 10:32:23 PM2/14/11
to material...@googlegroups.com
Dear Ahmed,
As per my understanding, B16.25 (As in the scope of
16.25) would applicable to fittings only not for the pipes.
It is common practice that, pipe to fitting joint consist of
one side (Fitting) compound bevel and pipe side single Bevel
I agree with the Para3.1C, requires the compound bevel for the
fittings not on the pipe side.
Ahmed Husain
Feb 15, 2011, 5:30:29 AM2/15/11
to material...@googlegroups.com
Dear Mr. Babu,
ASME B31.3, Para 328.4.2 again refers to ASME B16.25. Also in fig 328.4, bevel above 22mm thickness are shown as compound bevel. But this figure states as typical end preparation.
I guess that your and Mr Manpreet interpretation is correct. Recommended, but not mandatory.
Thanks and regards,
Ahmed HusainMob-0547170325
Sent: Tue, February 15, 2011 6:32:23 AM
Subject: Re: [MW:9884] Groove design and bevel
Subject: Re: [MW:9884] Groove design and bevel
kshitish tripathy
Feb 15, 2011, 6:21:07 AM2/15/11
to material...@googlegroups.com
DEAR SIR GROOVE DESIGN IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL VARIABLE, BUT YOU SHOULD FOLLOW ASME B 31.3.
REGARDS
K.C.TRIPATHY
UHDE INDIA LIMITED
IOCL PARADIP REFINERY, PARADIP-ORISSA
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 10:35:01 +0530 wrote
>Dear Bharat,
>
>If I were you, i would have followed the groove design shown in ASME B31.3 and also in your case Contractor was also not agreed which means at later stage, Contractor would raise this issue if something goes wrong.
>
>but again, other groove design are also available and has been used successfully,
>
>Regards
>Manpreet Singh
>
>
>
>On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 17:16:19 +0530 BHARAT GOLE wrote
>>
Dear Manpreet,
>>I would like to share my experience realted to same issue which is raised by Mr. Husain.
>>In our previous project we received fittings thickness greater than 22 mm with compound bevel .However pipes received with single bevel.Then contractor propose to do compound bevel for pipes with additional work and of course with extra cost.
>>Construction code ASME 31.3 & approved WPS was without Impact, with PWHT as per ASME IX .
>>WPS/PQR was qualified by Ludwing (one of reputed TPI ) showing various combination of joint configurations.Based on that we told contractor to go ahead with welding as it is - i.e.one side compound bevel & other side single bevel
>>So there was big noise between contractor & us....contractor was not ready to weld joint like that
>>Please let me know then my interpretation was correct or not ?
>>Warm regards
>>
>>Bharat
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
.ExternalClass DIV{;}
Dear All,
I have a query, kindly share your valuable knowledge on this subject.
1-As per ASME IX, Table QW-253 and QW-256, groove design is non-essential variable for SMAW and GTAW welding.
2-As per ASME B31.3, Fig 328.4.2 and ASME B16.25 Fig 3 and 5 (also Para 3.1C), components having thickness above 22 mm shall have compound bevel.
I would like to know that if the requirements of ASME B31.3 and 16.25 as stated above are mandatory? Because as per SEC IX, it is non-essential variable.
What I have observed at site, all pipes and fitting above 22 mm thickness have compound bevel from manufacturer, but all bevel prepared at side are single bevel. Is this acceptable?
>>Ahmed Husain
>>Mob-0547170325
>>
>>--
>>To post to this group, send email to material...@googlegroups.com
>>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-weld...@googlegroups.com
>>For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
>>The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.
>>
>>
REGARDS
K.C.TRIPATHY
UHDE INDIA LIMITED
IOCL PARADIP REFINERY, PARADIP-ORISSA
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 10:35:01 +0530 wrote
>Dear Bharat,
>
>If I were you, i would have followed the groove design shown in ASME B31.3 and also in your case Contractor was also not agreed which means at later stage, Contractor would raise this issue if something goes wrong.
>
>but again, other groove design are also available and has been used successfully,
>
>Regards
>Manpreet Singh
>
>
>
>>
Dear Manpreet,
>>I would like to share my experience realted to same issue which is raised by Mr. Husain.
>>In our previous project we received fittings thickness greater than 22 mm with compound bevel .However pipes received with single bevel.Then contractor propose to do compound bevel for pipes with additional work and of course with extra cost.
>>Construction code ASME 31.3 & approved WPS was without Impact, with PWHT as per ASME IX .
>>WPS/PQR was qualified by Ludwing (one of reputed TPI ) showing various combination of joint configurations.Based on that we told contractor to go ahead with welding as it is - i.e.one side compound bevel & other side single bevel
>>So there was big noise between contractor & us....contractor was not ready to weld joint like that
>>Please let me know then my interpretation was correct or not ?
>>Warm regards
>>
>>Bharat
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 06:28:05 +0000
>>To: material...@googlegroups.com
>>Subject: Re: [MW:9866] Groove design and bevel
>>From: manpre...@rediffmail.com
>>
>>Dear Husain,
>>
>>I guess your design code is ASME B31.3, ASME Sec ix do not go into process details (bevel preparation etc.)
>>
>>With reference to the butt end preperation shown in Fig 328.4.2 , Manufacturer has provided pipes withcompound bevel as required by code, now you need to confirm whether bevel preperation done at site is in accordance with Fig 328.4.2.
>>
>>Regards
>>Manpreet Singh
>>
>>
>>
>>On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 21:42:00 , Ahmed Husain wrote>>To: material...@googlegroups.com
>>Subject: Re: [MW:9866] Groove design and bevel
>>From: manpre...@rediffmail.com
>>
>>Dear Husain,
>>
>>I guess your design code is ASME B31.3, ASME Sec ix do not go into process details (bevel preparation etc.)
>>
>>With reference to the butt end preperation shown in Fig 328.4.2 , Manufacturer has provided pipes withcompound bevel as required by code, now you need to confirm whether bevel preperation done at site is in accordance with Fig 328.4.2.
>>
>>Regards
>>Manpreet Singh
>>
>>
>>
>>
.ExternalClass DIV{;}
Dear All,
I have a query, kindly share your valuable knowledge on this subject.
1-As per ASME IX, Table QW-253 and QW-256, groove design is non-essential variable for SMAW and GTAW welding.
2-As per ASME B31.3, Fig 328.4.2 and ASME B16.25 Fig 3 and 5 (also Para 3.1C), components having thickness above 22 mm shall have compound bevel.
I would like to know that if the requirements of ASME B31.3 and 16.25 as stated above are mandatory? Because as per SEC IX, it is non-essential variable.
What I have observed at site, all pipes and fitting above 22 mm thickness have compound bevel from manufacturer, but all bevel prepared at side are single bevel. Is this acceptable?
>>Ahmed Husain
>>Mob-0547170325
>>
>>--
>>To post to this group, send email to material...@googlegroups.com
>>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-weld...@googlegroups.com
>>For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
>>The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.
>>
>>
Kathalingam Babu
Feb 15, 2011, 7:49:19 PM2/15/11
to material...@googlegroups.com
Dear Ahmed,
On worst case , we can go for an Mock Up , to prove the joint
design will serve for the intended purpose.
Since the statement per 31.3 "End
preparation for groove welds specified in ASME B16.25, or any other which
meets the WPS, is acceptable." allows to give your own spec, we
can go for an Mock up to prove the joint design.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages