Thread: Weld overlay for Sec. VIII Div. 1 vessels.

Where in the code dose give an acceptable or rejectable amount of disboundment for corrosion resistant weld overlay? We are applying a 625 overlay to a SA516 Gr. 70 vessel constructed to ASME Sec. VIII Div. 1. I have read over UCL in Div. 1 but nothing is stated for disbounding...

Originally Posted by 90harley

Where in the code dose give an acceptable or rejectable amount of disboundment for corrosion resistant weld overlay? We are applying a 625 overlay to a SA516 Gr. 70 vessel constructed to ASME Sec. VIII Div. 1. I have read over UCL in Div. 1 but nothing is stated for disbounding...

This is a new overlay installation that exhibits disbondment at installation?? If so, how was the C/S prepped / pickled prior to overlaying? If not a new installation, how much disbonding and what service, temp and pressure is the vessel operated at? Is this hydrogen induced during cooldown? If so, you really need to examine the interface area at the overlay to base metal for micro embrittlement cracking also.

UCL-51 TIGHTNESS OF APPLIED LINING

A test for tightness of the applied lining that will beappropriate for the intended service is recommended, but

the details of the test shall be a matter for agreement
between the user and the manufacturer.

Terms & Definitions:
Tightness- sealed against gas or liquid leaks

Yes, new overlay applied by semi auto GMAW. C/S prep was lite grinding to clean bright metal, no pickling. We are only seeing a small amount in the 4G welded areas (inspected by TOF). I don't think this is hydrogen induced during cool down. We performed a mock-up and took macros for inspection at 5x and 10x. as well as bends with no indications. The vessel will run at a max temp. of 45c and a max psi of 120bar. The established UT procedure states that 1mm in 1m sq. is acceptable. I'm just trying to come up with a explanation for this number.

Please forgive my typing. This is a bitch on the BB... LOL

Originally Posted by JimmyKing

UCL-51 TIGHTNESS OF APPLIED LINING

A test for tightness of the applied lining that will beappropriate for the intended service is recommended, but

the details of the test shall be a matter for agreement
between the user and the manufacturer.

Terms & Definitions:
Tightness- sealed against gas or liquid leaks

I think UCL-51 is in reference to actual applied lining, like explosion bonded clad or strip lining. Tony your thoughts??

Originally Posted by 90harley

Yes, new overlay applied by semi auto GMAW. C/S prep was lite grinding to clean bright metal, no pickling. We are only seeing a small amount in the 4G welded areas (inspected by TOF). I don't think this is hydrogen induced during cool down. We performed a mock-up and took macros for inspection at 5x and 10x. as well as bends with no indications. The vessel will run at a max temp. of 45c and a max psi of 120bar. The established UT procedure states that 1mm in 1m sq. is acceptable. I'm just trying to come up with a explanation for this number.

Please forgive my typing. This is a bitch on the BB... LOL

When I worked in Peru I was faced with the whole BB scene trying to run my life remotely from a 2.5" screen, LOL

Since this is a new overlay installation, I would not call this disbondment. I would call it lack of fusion in the semi auto GMAW process or contaminated base metal (such as out gassing during welding). I would tend to lean towards a review of the welding procedure or refer to the welding engineer to come up with a surface prep method for the base metal to eliminate any contaminates. Since you all performed a mock up and did macros, the procedure is most likely proven. Next question is, is the welding operator welding within the WPS/PQR parameters?

*** Jimmy King! You know I rely heavily on you to help with the tough ones! Please jump in at any time buddy!***

Yes, the WPS was followed we apply a PAMS recording device at times to insure this. Since my last response the TOF inspection has been completed with minimum ares found. I think like Tony noted this was probably isolated areas of LOF, never the less I still cant for the life of me find were they come up with an acceptable amount of 10mm per sqr. 1m.. Well it's all most over now. I'm looking forward to getting back home and eating something other than camel..

Originally Posted by 90harley

Yes, the WPS was followed we apply a PAMS recording device at times to insure this. Since my last response the TOF inspection has been completed with minimum ares found. I think like Tony noted this was probably isolated areas of LOF, never the less I still cant for the life of me find were they come up with an acceptable amount of 10mm per sqr. 1m.. Well it's all most over now. I'm looking forward to getting back home and eating something other than camel..

Since you are quoting metrics, I can only wonder if they are using EU standards instead of US. I remember when I was working in Western Australia (where I had to eat Kangaroo LOL) We did not use ASME, API, AWS etc., we used EN-14777 and such. I was lost as hell until I learned to associate the EU version to the matching US version. The British, European and Australian Standards are far stricter in my opinion. I am happy you are near complete now.

Originally Posted by 90harley

I think UCL-51 is in reference to actual applied lining, like explosion bonded clad or strip lining. Tony your thoughts??

Actually, if you read thru UCL, it references intregal cladding and weld metal overlay cladding. So, it seems that it is classified the same. Explosion bonded cladding is not even mentioned at all which is weird. "Explosive welding" is only mentioned in UW-27 as a welding process??? Go figure....But, this is the problem with Sec VIII, it is written by engineers with PHDs and have a diffent thinking capicity and leaves to many gray areas. Nothing is black or white. It's all based on interpretation.
As far as your original question, get together with your client and AI to estiblish a grading criteria your all your NDE on the overlay.

Originally Posted by JimmyKing

Actually, if you read thru UCL, it references intregal cladding and weld metal overlay cladding. So, it seems that it is classified the same. Explosion bonded cladding is not even mentioned at all which is weird. "Explosive welding" is only mentioned in UW-27 as a welding process??? Go figure....But, this is the problem with Sec VIII, it is written by engineers with PHDs and have a diffent thinking capicity and leaves to many gray areas. Nothing is black or white. It's all based on interpretation. As far as your original question, get together with your client and AI to estiblish a grading criteria your all your NDE on the overlay.

Thanks for the reply JimmyKing!! After reading UCL 51 an additional 2-3 times I see your point, and do agree these guys writing this are from the moon. LOL. We were able to accept the few isolated areas as LOF by TOF scanning. At this time the customer is sat. and we are in the process of weld overlaying the vessels 2", 3" and 4" nozzles. Thanks again to you and Tony for the help.