ASME Presentation Charpy Impact Test PDF

ASME B31.
3 Process Piping Committee April 18-20, 2016 Supplemental Agenda (143)
ASME B31.3
Process Piping
Section Committee
Meeting No. 143 Supplemental Agenda
Renaissance Seattle Hotel

515 Madison Street
Seattle, WA 98104
Tel: 206-583-0300
Monday-Wednesday, April 18-20, 2016
1 of 118
ASME B31.3 Process Piping Committee April 18-20, 2016 Supplemental Agenda (143)
3 ANNOUNCEMENTS
Messrs. Fetzner, Kalnins, Rangus, Dr. Leishear and Dr. Tang advised that they would be unable to attend this
meeting.
Messrs. Engle and Moore will be serving as Chair Pro Tem for Messrs. Fetzner and Kalnins for SG-C and SG-F,
respectively.
7 PRESENTATIONS
Presentation on Low Fracture Toughness (40 minutes) Pages 6-44
Mr. Barry Messer will conduct a presentation on low fracture toughness.
8 PUBLICATION REPORT
Approved for B31.3-2016 Publication (Cutoff date: March 21, 2016. ANSI public review began April 8, 2016 and
ends May 23, 2016.):
9 REQUESTS FOR INTERPRETATION

9.7 16-843 B31.3-2014, Interpretation of Para. 341.3.4 Progressive Sampling Pages 45-56
(Robicheaux)
Subgroup: E
This inquiry was received from Eric Robicheaux on April 4, 2016. It was forwarded to SG-E for a
response.
9.8 16-892 B31.3-2014, Interpretation of Para. 321 Piping Supports (Swartz) Page 57
Subgroup: B
This inquiry was received from Ari Ben Swartz on March 28, 2016. It was forwarded to SG-B for a
response.
9.9 16-907 B31.3-2014, Interpretation of Para. 345.1 Testing Responsibility Pages 58-62
(Vanderwalt)
Subgroup: E
This inquiry was received from Izak Vanderwalt on April 13, 2016. It was forwarded to SG-E for a
response.
10 REVISIONS B31 STANDARDS COMMITTEE LEVEL
10.2 Subgroup B on Design D. Ianiro (Chair)
10.2.1 TN 10-1188 B31.3, Code Case Code Case for Heavy Walled Fittings (B-09-06) Pages 63-69
Subgroup: B Project Manager: R. Haupt
2 of 118
B31 Standards Committee Ballot #15-2902 closed on November 18, 2015. This item received 1 disapproval, 1
abstain, and no additional comments. The project manager prepared a response to the ballot comment and revised
the proposal accordingly.
This item will be submitted to the B31.3 SC for first consideration ballot.
11 REVISIONS B31.3 SECTION COMMITTEE LEVEL
11.1 Subgroup A on General Requirements D. Christian (Chair)
11.1.3 TN 13-1684 B31.3, Proposed Revision to Para. 300.1.3 Add References to Pages 70-71
BPV Code Sections (A-13-07)
Subgroup: A Project Manager: J. Welch
B31.3 SC Ballot #16-746 closed on April 5, 2016. This item received 2 disapprovals and 5 additional comments.
The project manager prepared responses to the ballot comments and has agreed to revise the proposal accordingly.
11.1.6 TN 16-893 B31.3, Proposed Revision to Para. 300.2 Definition of Manufacturer Pages 72-73
(A-13-03)
Subgroup: A Project Manager: C. Davila
11.2 Subgroup B on Design D. Ianiro (Chair)
11.2.2 TN 15-1031 B31.3, Proposed Revision to Add AWS D2.4 for Standard Welding Pages 74-75
Symbols (B-13-16)
Subgroup: B Project Manager: B. Swartz
The project manager is asked to prepare responses to the ballot comments and to advise the Secretary whether the
previously balloted proposal is being reaffirmed or revised based upon the ballot comments.
11.3 Subgroup C on Edit D. Fetzner (Chair)
TN 15-1304 B31.3, Proposed Revision to Scope (C-15-05) Pages 76-77

Subgroup: C Project Manager: W. Sperko
B31.3 SC Ballot #16-746 closed on April 5, 2016. This item received 1 disapproval and 6 additional comments. The
project manager prepared responses to some of the ballot comments and has agreed to revise the proposal
accordingly.
Mr. Sperko is asked to prepare a response to the outstanding ballot comment.
11.4 Subgroup D on Materials B. Agee (Chair)
11.4.2 TN 11-952 B31.3, Proposed Revision to Change CVN Thickness to be in Pages 78-80
Accordance with Section IX (D-04-07)
Subgroup: D Project Manager: W. Sperko
3 of 118
B31.3 SC Ballot #16-746 closed on April 5, 2016. This item received 1 disapproval and 7 additional comments. The
project manager prepared a response to one of the ballot comment.
Mr. Sperko is asked to prepare responses to the outstanding ballot comments and to advise the Secretary whether the
previously balloted proposal is being reaffirmed or revised based upon the ballot comments.
11.5 Subgroup E on Fabrication, Examination and Testing C. Eskridge (Chair)
11.5.2 TN 13-1712 B31.3, Proposed Revision to Para. 345.5.2 Pressure Relief Pages 81-84
Device (E-13-19)
Subgroup: E Project Manager: J. Swezy
The project manager prepared responses to the ballot comments and revised the proposal accordingly.
11.5.4 TN 14-628 B31.3 Revised Visual Examination Requirements for Normal Fluid Pages 85-90
Service Piping (E-14-06)
Subgroup: E Project Manager: R. Reamey
11.5.5 TN 15-2080 B31.3, Proposed Revision to Para. 328.4.3(b) Longitudinal Pages 91-94
Welds (E-15-11)
Subgroup: E Project Manager: J. Swezy
11.7 Subgroup G on High Pressure Piping F. Tatar (Chair)
TN 16-116 B31.3, Paragraph 300.1.4: Rounding (G-15-03) Page 95

Subgroup: G Project Manager: B. Bounds
B31.3 SC Ballot #16-746 closed on April 5, 2016. This item received no disapprovals but had 4 additional
comments. The project manager prepared responses to the ballot comments and reaffirmed the previously balloted
proposal.
This item will be submitted to the B31 Standards Committee for first consideration ballot.
12 REVISIONS B31.3 SUBGROUP LEVEL
12.1 Subgroup A on General Requirements D. Christian (Chair)
4 of 118
12.1.1 TN 04-435 B31.3, Add ANSI/FCI 79-1 as a reference to B31.3 (Fluid Controls Pages 96-98
Institute) (A-10-04)
Subgroup: A Project Manager: C. Davila
12.1.5 TN 14-1791 B31.3, Reference of ISO 10380, Corrugated Metal Hoses and Pages 99-103
Hose Assemblies in Table 326.1 and Appendix E (A-12-05)
Subgroup: A Project Manager: G. Evans
The project manager revised the proposal accordingly. This item will be submitted to the B31.3 SC for first
consideration ballot.
12.4 Subgroup D on Materials B. Agee (Chair)
12.4.34 TN 16-209 Add Quality Factors to Table A-1B for ASTM B517 Welded Pages 104-107
Nickel-Chromium-Iron-Alloy Pipe (D-12-29)
Subgroup: D Project Manager: R. Grichuk
12.7 Subgroup G on High Pressure Piping F. Tatar (Chair)
12.7.10 TN 16-847 B31.3, Table K-1 Nickel and Nickel Alloy Allowable Stresses (G-16-04)
Subgroup: G Project Manager: B. Bounds
14 SUBGROUP REPORT
SG India International Working Group (IWG) Mr. Christian - The B31.3 Pages 108-110
India IWG held a meeting on March 12, 2016 (10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.) in Gurgaon, India.
16 REPORTS FROM LIAISON ORGANIZATIONS

B31.1 Section Committee (R. Haupt): Pages 111-112
17 NEW BUSINESS
17.8 B31.3, Proposed Revision to Table 326.1 MSS SP-134 and BS 6364 (A-16-02) Page 113
Subgroup: A Project Manager: D. Christian
This item was submitted by Rex Engle on March 23, 2016. It was forwarded to SG-A for consideration.
17.9 B31.3, Proposed Revision to Para. 302.3.2 Bases for Design Stresses (D-16-01) Pages 114-118
Subgroup: D Project Manager: B. Agee
This item was forwarded by Don Frikken on March 28, 2016. It was forwarded to SG-D for consideration.
5 of 118
CarbonSteelLowToughnessIssues:
Carbon Steel Low Toughness Issues:
CSPipe,ForgedFlanges,andFittings
Barry Messer
Nov 2015
6 of 118
Outline
Toughnessconcerns,failures
FluorGlobalAlert
Brittlefractures,lessonslearned
European Directive
EuropeanDirective
Enduserconcerns
Metallurgicalfactors,impacttests
ll lf
Development:newUTMicroscopy
Correlation
Summary and Opinions
SummaryandOpinions
7 of 118
CSTEELowToughnessFailure
8 of 118
LowToughnessFailures
9 of 118
IndustryConcerns
CSmaterialmeetsASME/ASTMstandards
Materialtoughness,crackingsusceptibility
Material toughness, cracking susceptibility
inconsistentwithCSbaselinesatminus29C
Poortoughness,transgranular
Poor toughness transgranular cracking
nearnilshear,poorlateralexpansion
Somehydroandinservicefailures
S h d di i f il
Allfinegrainandgoodmetallurgicalstructure
Behavesnormallyaboveplus25C
10 of 118
FluorGlobalAlertProvides
Recommendations
QualityVerificationofCarbonSteelPipingandComponents
Recently,wehavebecomeawareofanincreaseinthe
numberofprojectsthathavereceiveddeficientsteelpipe,
pipe fittings and flanges
pipefittingsandflanges.
Theseitemsweredeterminedtobeunsuitableforuseeven
thoughtheycompliedwithapplicableASME Codesand
standards. Additionaltestingdemonstratedinsufficient
materialductilitytomeetdesigntemperature
t i l d tilit t td i t t
requirements.Pleasereviewthisalertandtake
pp p
appropriateactiontoeliminatefuturedeliveriesof
deficientsteelcomponentsonyourproject
11 of 118
OverviewBrittleFracture
Brittlefracture&impacttestingnotfully
understooduntilWWII
SeveralallweldedLibertyshipsfracture
y p
Ofapproximately3000ships,1200sufferedhull
fractures
19or20brokecompletely
intwo
12 of 118
LessonsLearnedfromLibertyShips
Ductiletobrittletransitiontemperature
Determinedbyimpacttesting
Determined by impact testing
Impact ennergy, J
Temperature, C
13 of 118
LessonsLearnedSinceLibertyShips
Tensiletest,cannotpredictbrittlefracture
Impacttestisusefulguidetoestablishresistance
Impact test is useful guide to establish resistance
tobrittlefracture
Mainprinciples,affectbrittlefracture
M i i i l ff t b ittl f t
ShoulduseatorabovecurveB(Fig323.2.2A)
SA105(forging)
Shoulduseattemperatures
notlowerthan29C
withoutimpacttesting
14 of 118
Contributingfailurefactors
Chemistry
Ch i
Microalloying
Hotforming
Heattreatment
Recycledsteel
Fabricationhistory
Inclusiontracechemicals
15 of 118
Mainprinciples,affectingbrittlefracture:
Improve Toughness Detrimental to toughness

Increase in Mn/C ratio Increase in Carbon content
Deoxidation, Al killed Increase in thickness
Low ferrite grain size
Normalizing heat treatment
16 of 118
SteelGrades
Steelgradeswhichhaverecentlyshownproblems:
Forgings/Fittings: ASTM/ASMEA234Gr.WPB
Flanges: ASTM/ASMEA105
Lesserextent,Pipe: ASTM/ASMEA106andA53
API5LGr.B
AllASMEB31.3, Figure323.2.2A
CurveBmaterialsconsideredtohavethisrisk
AcceptableSteelswithImpactTestingat45C(50F):
Forgings/Fittings: ASTM/ASMEA420Gr.WPL6
Pipe: ASTM/ASMEA333Gr.6
Flanges* ASTM/ASMEA350Gr.LF2,Cl.1
:*somefailures
17 of 118
B31.3Rules BasedonFracture
M h i
Mechanics
18 of 118
ASMEB31.3Rules Table323.3.5
19 of 118
EuropeanDirective97/23EConthe
approximationofthelawsoftheMemberStatesconcerningpressure
equipment
4.1Materialsforpressurizedpartsmust:
haveappropriateproperties.andinparticulartheyshouldbe
sufficiently ductile and tough characteristics must comply with 7 5
sufficientlyductileandtoughcharacteristicsmustcomplywith7.5.
Moreover,duecareshouldbeexercisedinparticularinselectingmaterials
inordertopreventbrittletypefracturewherenecessary;wherefor
specific reasons brittle material has to be used appropriate measures
specificreasonsbrittlematerialhastobeusedappropriatemeasures
mustbetaken;
7.5Unlessothervaluesarerequiredasteelisconsideredassufficiently
7 5 Unless other values are required a steel is considered as sufficiently
ductileif,inatensiletestcarriedoutbyastandardprocedure,its
elongationafterruptureisnolessthan14%anditsbendingrupture
energy measured on an ISO V test piece is no less than 27J at a
energymeasuredonanISOVtestpieceisnolessthan27J,ata
temperaturenotgreaterthan20Cbutnothigherthanthelowest
scheduledoperatingtemperature.
20 of 118
FluorAction Recommendations
Issuedmaterialguidelineforprocurement:
carbonsteelpipe,flangesandfittings
CSpipe,flangesandfittingstohaveaMn/C5
SA105FlangestobeNormalized
SA 105 Flanges to be Normalized
Impacttesting
(sampling per heat)
(samplingperheat)
SA106,SA105
SA234WPBat29Cor
SA 234 WPB 29C
MDMT,whicheverislower
21 of 118
FluorsRecommendation,Clients
MinimumImpactValueforFullSizeSpecimen
Specified Average impact Minimum

minimum value for three impact value for
t
tensile
il strength
t th specimen
i one specimen
i
MPA (Ksi) J (ft-lbf) J (ft-lbf)
448 ((65)) and lower 18 ((13)) 14 ((10))

(i.e. A/SA 106, A/SA 234 WPB)
>448 (65) to 517 (75) 20 (15) 16 (12)

(i e A/SA 105)
(i.e.
>517 (75) to 656 (95) 27 (20) 20 (15)
22 of 118
FluorsRecommendation,Clients
Microalloyingelements:
RReportCMTR
CMTR
ReportifelementsmeetASME/ASTM
requirement
i t
MicroalloyingLimitsforC>0.12%
Nb V Nb+(V/2.5) Ti B Mn/C
(max) (max) (max) (max) (max)
< 0.01 % < 0.030% < 0.015% < 0.020% < 0.0005% >5
(5 ppm)
23 of 118
Alert FirstResponse
Rootcausewasstillunclear
Implementationdifficultfromprocurement
perspective
Doesnotcatch100%ofsubstandardmaterial
Difficulttoimplementforsmallquantities
Diffi lt t i l tf ll titi
Similarreportedfailuresfromothers
24 of 118
FluorsToughnessInvestigation
MicrostructureAnalysis
Grain size determination
Grainsizedetermination
Testingofadditionalmaterialfrom2projects
Ch
Charpy I
Impacttesting(29Cand21C)
t t ti ( 29C d 21C)
Rootcauseanalysisinvestigation
Trytofindanycorrelation
betweenCharpy Impact
testingresults,grainsize,
l
chemistry
25 of 118
FluorImpactTesting
Commissioned3independentlabs
IncludingCharpy Impacttesting
(29C,10C,+21C)
Chemicalanalysis
Mechanicaltesting(TS,YS,Elongation)
CSpipingmaterialstested
pp g
A106B,A105,A234Gr WPB
Somelowtempmaterial
Some low temp material
Findings
Unexpectedlowimpactenergyonbasematerials
Unexpected low impact energy on base materials
Someaslowas3.4J,0sheerat29Cand10 C
26 of 118
InfluenceofMetallurgicalFactors
Unknown All Components
Silicon Killed;
Hot
deformation
S
Some with
ith Al
All Less Than 12 mm temperature
Also
Deoxidation
Part thickness
Practices
Notch
Toughness
All Hot Finished
or Normalized
Microstructure Heat treatment
Chemistry
All Fine Grain Ferrite and All Meet Low S
Pearlite & P Levels
27 of 118
Effectofgrainsize
400
Energyvs.GrainSize
350
300
250
Energy(J)
200
Ferritic grainsize Pipe
Fittings Ferritic grainsize
7 150
Flanges
7
100
50
0
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
GrainSize
28 of 118
Effectofferritic grainsize
Transitiontemperatureislowerforfinegrainsteel
Transition temperature is lower for fine grain steel
ASTM Grain size number
29 of 118
Mn/CPipe
400.0
Energyvs.Mn/CRatio Pipe
350.0
300.0
250.0
nergy(J)
200.0
En
150.0
100 0
100.0
50.0
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Mn/CRatio
30 of 118
Mn/CFittings
350
Energyvs.Mn/CRatio Fittings
300
250
200
nergy(J)
En
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Mn/CRatio
31 of 118
Mn/CFlanges
200.0
Energyvs.Mn/CRatio Flanges
180.0
160.0
140.0
120.0
nergy(J)
100.0
En
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Mn/CRatio
32 of 118
Charpy Curve
Effect of Mn content on Charpy Curve
33 of 118
Verification
Usedthirdpartycertifiedlabtoverifyresultsof
otherlabs
Objectives
VerifyCharpy
Verify Charpy Impacttests
Impact tests
29C,21C,10C
A106B,A105,A234Gr
, , WPB
VerifyMTRinformation
34 of 118
Results
Residualelementspresentinsteelalso
considered nosignificanteffectsdiscovered
Elementsconsidered:
B Cr
Cr
Ta Mo
SE P
P
Cu Nb (Cb)
Ni V
35 of 118
3rd PartyTestConclusions
Extensivelaboratorytesting,unabletofind
strong correlation
strongcorrelation
30%pipingsamplesimpacttested:failed
18%fittingstested:failed
18% fitti t t d f il d
38%flangestested:failed
LowCharpy energyalwaysexhibitslow
sheerandtransgranular cleavage
Mn/Cratioabove5seemstoimprove
impact properties for pipe
impactpropertiesforpipe
36 of 118
NewFactor
CrystalOrientation(100)
37 of 118
AnisotropicTexture
Physicalpropertiesdifferinvaluewhen
g ,
measuredfromdifferentangles,directions
Example:wood,strongeralongthegrainthanacross
Texture:tactilequalitywithin
Texture: tactile quality within
Charpy results
Ultransonic microscopy,advancedphasedarray,
microscopy advanced phased array
builds3Dlayers
Chemistryalonedidnotgivestrongcorrelationto
Chemistry alone did not give strong correlation to
toughness
AdvancedmicroscopicUT
Advanced microscopic UT
alonedidnotgivestrong
correlation
38 of 118
AnisotropicTexture
Combinationanisotropictexture,chemistry,
mathematical function:
Near100%correlationtotoughness
g
forpipefittings,flanges
39 of 118
NewUTMicroscopy
Built3Dimage1cubiccm
CombinedwithPMI
Combined with PMI
Mathematical
functions
Texture
UT algorithm
UTalgorithm
Composition
chemical
algorithm
40 of 118
Near100%CorrelationtoToughness
Anisotropictexture,chemistry,mathematical
formulae
Issuedpatent:No100325.0602PRO
NewUTmicroscopy,3Dimage,
N UT i 3 Di 1 3
1cm
MicroscopicUTcombinedwithPMIchemistry
Allowsfornondestructive
Insitu Examinations
Canevaluatefacilitieswhileoperating
Servesastemporarymitigation
Serves as temporary mitigation
41 of 118
SummaryandOpinion
Refineryhydroandstartupfailures630mmthk.
y y p
Chemistryplaysmajorrolefortoughnessinfine
grain carbon steel
graincarbonsteel,
Mn,C,V,Ti,Nb,Baremainplayers
No
Nostrongcorrelationtorecycledsteel
stron correlation to rec cled steel
Billetandingotforminghistoryprobablyseeding
grainorientationweakzones.Manufacturing
formingprocesscanfurtherinfluenceand
enhanceorientationweakzones
Combinationsproducebrittleprecrackzones
Flangesandfittingsaffectedmorethanpipedue
tometaldisplacementorientation
42 of 118
SummaryandOpinions
Charpy testinggivesgoodscreening
AdvancedUTmicroscopywithchemistryhelpsID
Ad d UT i ith h i t h l ID
susceptiblematerial
Codespecifiedchemistryisinsufficient
Fracturemechanicassumptionsareinsufficient:
materialnothomogenous,weak45degreeplane
Codeneedstoaddressissues
SimilartoEuropeanDirective
Oraddprecautionarynotes
43 of 118
ThankYou
44 of 118
Inquiry #16-843 (B31.3 SG-E)
45 of 118
Inquiry #16-843 (B31.3 SG-E)
46 of 118
Inquiry #16-843 (B31.3 SG-E)
47 of 118
Inquiry #16-843 (B31.3 SG-E)
48 of 118
Inquiry #16-843 (B31.3 SG-E)
49 of 118
Inquiry #16-843 (B31.3 SG-E)
50 of 118
Inquiry #16-843 (B31.3 SG-E)
51 of 118
Inquiry #16-843 (B31.3 SG-E)
52 of 118
Inquiry #16-843 (B31.3 SG-E)
53 of 118
Inquiry #16-843 (B31.3 SG-E)
54 of 118
Inquiry #16-843 (B31.3 SG-E)
55 of 118
Inquiry #16-843 (B31.3 SG-E)
56 of 118
Inquiry#16892(B31.3SGB)
March 28, 2016
ASME B31 Committee

B31.3
Three Park Avenue
New York, NY 10016-5990
Ari Ben Swartz

PO Box 717
Dona Ana, NM 88032-717
Cell phone: 575-640-3262
abswartz@lanl.gov
Subject: ASME B31.3-2014 paragraph 321 Piping Supports
Question 1:
Paragraph 321.3 Structural Attachments states External and internal attachments to piping shall be
designed; does this mean that piping support elements must be designed in accordance with 304.7.2 it
the items is not listed?
Answer 1:
Yes.
Comment 1:
ASME B31.3 2014 Table 326.1 lists MSS SP-58, and others must be designed in accordance with
304.7.2.
Question 2:
Table 326.1 contains a reference to MSS SP 58; are other pipe support elements required to be designed
in accordance with 304.7.2?
Answer 2:
Yes.
Comment 2:
ASME B31.3 2014 Table 326.1 lists MSS SP-58, and others must be designed in accordance with
304.7.2.
Sincerely,
__________________
Ari Ben Swartz
1of1
57 of 118
58 of 118
59 of 118
60 of 118
Perconversationon4/11/16:ASMEB31.32012ChapterVIoutlinesinspection,examinationandtesting
proceduresandrequirements.Theseportionsofthecodearerelatedbutseparate.Inspectionfallsunder
theresponsibilityoftheowner[1]whereasexaminationistheresponsibilityofthemanufacturer[2].Testing
isnotspecifiedtobetheresponsibilityofanyoneparty,however,itisafunctionwhichhastobedone
beforeanypipingcomponentcanbeoperated[3].Itdoesnotimplythatthisresponsibilitydefaultstothe
manufacturer, if the Extent of Required Examination is met, then hydrostatic testing required by
examinationisnotrequired[3].Hydrostatictesting,thatisdonetomeettherequirementsofexaminations,
isindependentfromtherequiredfortightnessofapipingsystem[4].Thisfactissupportedbythecodes
requirement to preform (tightness) hydrostatic leak test, after applicable examinations required by
paragraph341[3].HydrostaticleaktestingisanaddedservicewhichFluidicTechniquesprovidesandcan
be performed in accordance to ASME B31.3. However it must be specifically requested. Hydrostatic
testingmaybeusedtosupplementrequiredexaminationsstatedinparagraph341.4butisnotspecifically
required.
[1]ASMEB31.32012paragraph340.2
Itistheownersresponsibility,exercisedthroughtheownersInspector,toverifythatallrequired
examinationsandtestinghavebeencompletedandtoinspectthepipingtotheextentnecessarytobe
satisfiedthatitconformstoallapplicableexaminationrequirementsoftheCodeandoftheengineering
design.
[2]ASMEB31.32012paragraph341.1General
Examinationappliestoqualitycontrolfunctionsperformedbythemanufacturer(forcomponentsonly),
fabricator,orerector.ReferenceinthisCodetoanexamineristoapersonwhoperformsqualitycontrol
examinations.
[3]ASMEB31.32012paragraph345.1Requiredleaktest
Priortoinitialoperation,andaftercompletionoftheapplicableexaminationsrequiredbypara.341,
eachpipingsystemshallbetestedtoensuretightness.Thetestshallbeahydrostaticleaktestin
accordancewithpara.345.4exceptasprovidedherein.
(a)Attheownersoption,apipingsysteminCategoryDfluidservicemaybesubjectedtoan
initialserviceleaktestinaccordancewithpara.345.7,inlieuofthehydrostaticleaktest.
(b)Wheretheownerconsidersahydrostaticleaktestimpracticable,eitherapneumatictestin
accordancewithpara.345.5oracombinedhydrostaticpneumatictestinaccordancewithpara.
345.6maybesubstituted,recognizingthehazardofenergystoredincompressedgas.
(c)Wheretheownerconsidersbothhydrostaticandpneumaticleaktestingimpracticable,the
alternativespecifiedinpara.345.9maybeusedifbothofthefollowingconditionsapply:
(1)ahydrostatictestwould
(a)damageliningsorinternalinsulation
(b)contaminateaprocessthatwouldbehazardous,corrosive,orinoperativein
thepresenceofmoisture
(c)requiresignificantsupportmodificationsforthehydrostatictestloador
(d)presentthedangerofbrittlefracturedueto
lowmetaltemperatureduringthetest
(2)apneumatictestwould
61 of 118
(a)presentanunduehazardofpossiblereleaseofenergystoredinthesystem
or
(b)presentthedangerofbrittlefractureduetolowmetaltemperatureduring
thetest
(d)Unlessspecifiedintheengineeringdesign,linesopentotheatmosphere,suchasventsor
drainsdownstreamofthelastshutoffvalve,neednotbeleaktested.

[4]ASMEB31.32012Interpretation2518
Subject: B31.32012,InterpretationofParas.M341/341andM345/345Examination
andTesting:VT/PT/MT&RT/UTvsLeakTesting&PressureTesting
DateIssued: September25,2014File:141401
Question1: Are the leak tests required in para. 345.1 independent from the
examinationsrequiredinpara.341.4.1?
Reply1: Yes.
Question2: Inaccordancewithpara.345.1aretheapplicableexaminationsrequiredby
para.341tobeperformedpriortoleaktesting?
Reply2: Yes.
62 of 118
TN 10-1188 (B31.3 SG-B)
B31 CODE CASE XXX for B31.3 (5th ballot) (160413)

Page 1 of 7
Inquiry: What alternate calculation method for pressure design may be used to determine the
required reinforcement for a heavy wall branch connection (lateral, wye, or tee) in accordance with
ASME B31.3, Para. 304.7.2?
Reply: It is the opinion of the Committee that the pressure area method,1 as described herein,
is an acceptable alternate calculation method to determine the required metal reinforcement for a
heavy wall branch connection (lateral, wye, or tee) in accordance with ASME B31.3 Para. 304.7.2.
Nomenclature:
A = Metal areas (see Figures 1, 2, and 3), mm2 (in.2).
B = Metal areas (see Figures 1 and 2), mm2 (in.2).
D1 = Run pipe inside diameter, less corrosion allowance, mm (in.).
D2 = Branch pipe inside diameter, less corrosion allowance, mm (in.).
E = Pressure areas (see Figures 1, 2, and 3), mm2 (in.2).
F = Pressure areas (see Figures 1 and 2), mm2 (in.2).
G = The width of the lateral branch opening at the inside surface of the run pipe (see
Figure 1), mm (in.).
P = Design (gage) pressure, kPa (psi).
S = Material allowable stress from B31.3 Table A-1 for the design temperature, kPa (psi).
(If a casting is to be qualified for pressure, the material allowable stress shall be multiplied by
the appropriate B31.3 casting quality factor.)
t1 = Thickness in the fitting heel (see Figures 1 and 2) or run radial thickness in the fitting crotch
(see Figure 3), mm (in.).
t2 = Thickness in the fitting crotch (see Figures 1 and 2) or branch radial thickness in the fitting
crotch (see Figure 3), mm (in.).
t1 = Nominal thickness of the matching run pipe connected to the fitting (see Figures), mm (in.).
t2 = Nominal thickness of the matching branch pipe connected to the fitting (see Figures), mm
(in.).
= The angle between the branch pipe centerline and the fitting crotch centerline, deg (see
Figures 1 and 2).
= The angle between the fitting crotch centerline and the run pipe centerline, deg (see Figure 1).
1
The pressure area method was originally published in the 1956 revised 2nd edition of the MW Kellogg,
Design of Piping Systems. 63 of 118
TN 10-1188 (B31.3 SG-B)

Page 2 of 7
General Requirements
1. The fitting shall be manufactured from a single metal casting or forging.
2. The fitting ends shall not be within the envelope of the metal and pressure areas used to qualify
the fitting and there shall be sufficient material beyond the envelope to make an acceptable weld
end (see ASME B16.25).
3. The t1 and t2 dimensions of the fitting shall be equal to or greater in thickness than the nominal
dimensions of the matching piping. If the fitting is a weaker material than the matching piping,
transition pieces may be necessary for the connected piping to match t1 and t2 dimensions of
the fitting determined in accordance with the straight pipe requirements of B31.3, as appropriate.
4. All inside and outside corners of the fitting shall be radiused. It is recommended that inside radii
be t/4 and outside radii be t/2, where t is the lesser of t1 and t2, except that these radii shall not
be less than 6 mm (1/4 in.) and need not be greater than 25 mm (1 in.).
5. For internally and externally contoured fittings the metal and pressure areas may be represented
by quadrilaterals and/or triangles assembled such that they approximate the respective areas:
(A) for the metal areas: the areas of the largest non-overlapping quadrilaterals and/or triangles
may be summed provided all the areas lie within the areas defined by the fitting inside and
outside surfaces and side lengths defined in the appropriate figures; and
(B) for the pressure areas: the areas of the non-overlapping quadrilaterals and/or triangles shall
be summed that totally circumscribe and cover the areas defined by the fitting crotch and
pipe centerlines, the fitting inside surfaces, and the side lengths defined in the appropriate
figures.
6. For laterals (Figure 1) with an ( + ) angle greater than or equal to 85 degs, the requirements
for the tee (Figure 3) may be used. Otherwise the requirements for the lateral shall be used.
7. Consideration shall be made for required examination of the pipe to fitting joint. A short tangent
may improve the reading of a radiograph or facilitate the performance of ultrasonic examination,
especially if there is a significant transition from the pipe to the fitting.
8. The fittings manufacturing tolerance shall be considered.
64 of 118
TN 10-1188 (B31.3 SG-B)

Page 3 of 7
Calculated Dimensions
The side length dimensions for calculating metal and pressure areas for the various fittings are as
follows:
For the lateral (see Figure 1) where ( + ) $ 45 deg
G
Run crotch side length = t 2 Cos
2 2
G
Run heel side length = t 1Cos
2 2
D2
Branch crotch side length = t 2 Cos
2 2
D2
Branch heel side length = t 1Cos
2 2
For the wye (see Figure 2) where $ 45 deg
D1
Run heel side length = t 1 Cos
2 2
D2
Branch crotch side length = t 2 Cos
2
D2
Branch heel side length = t 1Cos
2 2
For the tee (see Figure 3)
D2
Run side length = t2
2
D2
Branch side length = t1
2
65 of 118
TN 10-1188 (B31.3 SG-B)

Page 4 of 7
Acceptance Criteria
The following equations shall be met for both the crotch and heel sides of the fitting. For the tee only
Equation (1) need be met because of symmetry.
A
P E
2
S 1
A
B
P F
2
S 2
B
66 of 118
TN 10-1188 (B31.3 SG-B)

Page 5 of 7
67 of 118
TN 10-1188 (B31.3 SG-B)

Page 6 of 7
68 of 118
TN 10-1188 (B31.3 SG-B)

Page 7 of 7
69 of 118
A. Record Information
1. Record# 2. Primary Committee Responsible 3. Record Level 4. Record Sub-Type *
13-1684 B31.3 Process Piping SC Proposal Revision
B. Record Description
1. Subject *
B31.3, Proposed Revision to Para. 300.1.3 Add References to BPV Code Sections (A-13-07)
2. Proposal
Proposed Revision to BPV Code References in para. 300.1.3 Footnote 2 and Appendix E.
3. Explanation *
Both para. 300.1.3 Footnote 2 and Appendix E are missing references BPV Code Sections that have been added
in previous Editions of the Code.
There are two proposals for changes to para. 300.1.3 Footnote 2. Proposal 1 is to update the references similar
to the current footnote in ASME B31.3. Proposed 2 is to update the footnote to match the wording used in ASME
B31.8, which does not reference any BPV Codes and will not need to be updated in the future if additional
Sections are referenced in the Code.
Comments & Negatives Posted for Ballot#: 16-746
BoundsB (Approved) Response:
Date Posted: 03/13/16
The title of Section IX has been changed to "Welding, WelchJ: 04/05/16
Brazing, and Fusing Qualifications" Thanks for the comment. Title will be updated.
EsmaeiliA (Comment) Response:

Agree, Thanks WelchJ: 04/05/16
Thanks for the comment.
FraserD (Disapproved) Response:

I concur with the comments of Mr. Tatar. WelchJ: 04/05/16
Thanks for the comment. See responses to Mr. Tatar.
IaniroD (Approved) Response:

Well done WelchJ: 04/05/16
Thanks.
JaouhariM (Comment) Response:

Thanks for bringing consistency to the code. Looks WelchJ: 04/05/16
good. Thanks.
Nisly-NageleK (Approved) Response:

Agree with Mr.Tatar recommendations and see them WelchJ: 04/05/16
as editorial. For Section III reference, the reference in Thanks for the comment. See responses to Mr. Tatar.
the proposal seems appropriate as the Subsections
70 of 118
are not normally referenced with other BPV Code
references.
TatarF (Disapproved) Response:

Sorry, but I dont agree with much of this. WelchJ: 04/05/16
Thanks for the comments.
Page 1: The addition of Section III, Division 1 makes
sense on its surface, but there really isnt a Section III, Page 1: Agree with your comments. Subsection NH for
Division 1. What actually exists is Section III, Division 302.3.5 and NB for 302.3.2 references will be
1, Subsections NB, NC, ND, NE, NF, NG, and NH, specifically listed in place of just Div. 1 listing.
each apparently comprising hundreds of pages. See
Table 302.3.5, Note (7) where Subsection NH is Page 2: See page 1. Agree that commas should be
referenced. added.
Page 2: See Page 1 comment. There also needs to be Pages 3 to 20: Agree with Mr. Nisly-Nagele comment
a comma between II and Part. Additionally, it would concerning the editorial nature of this comment. A
be of more use to the Code user if the standards in recirculation ballot will be prepared.
Appendix E were put in truly alphabetic order. ASTM
is not before AISC, API, ASCE, etc.
Pages 3 to 20: First, it should be the BPV Code,

Section II, Part D, for example, not BPV Code,
Section II, Part D. These bases are the same as
those for BPV Code, Section III, Class 1 materials
is correct, since the the is not appropriate here, but
the belongs in almost all instances. Secondly, I
strongly disagree with FIVE uses of BPV Code in
only four sentences. Do you really think that the Code
user is confused by the second use of Section and
thinks it may be an NFPA section? Walt Canham
would explode if he saw this. There needs to be some
common sense here. One use of the BPV Code on
each page should be more than adequate in most
cases.
71 of 118
1. Subject *
B31.3, Proposed Revision to Para. 300.2 Definition of Manufacturer (A-13-03)
2. Proposal
Incorporate the Definition of Manufacturer in ASME B31.3, Section 300.2.
3. Explanation *
Per B31.3 Subgroup D Inquiry #12-2057.
72 of 118
Tracking Number 16-893; ASME B31.3 Agenda Item A-13-03
Proposal:
Incorporate the Definition of Manufacturer in ASME B31.3, Section 300.2.
Rationale:
Per B31.3 Subgroup D Inquiry #12-2057.
Existing Code Proposed Revision
300.2 Definitions 300.2 Definitions
manual welding: a welding operation performed manual welding: a welding operation performed
and controlled completely by hand. and controlled completely by hand.
may: a term that indicates a provision is neither manufacturer: an organization responsible for
required nor prohibited. the design, fabrication, assembly, testing,
certification, and performance of components.
may: a term that indicates a provision is neither

required nor prohibited.
73 of 118
1. Subject *
B31.3, Proposed Revision to Add AWS D2.4 for Standard Welding Symbols (B-13-16)
2. Proposal
See Proposal File.
3. Explanation *
To revise Para 311.1 to add welding symbols per AWS A2.4. Add AWS A2.4 to App E.
BechtC (Disapproved)
i don't think we should mandate use of welding
symbols. It could be provided as recommended
guidance.
BoundsB (Disapproved)
Add the titles in a footnote and I'd rather see this in
Appendix F as well.
CampbellRi (Disapproved)
This is much improved. However, as I stated in my
previous disapproval, this should be an option, not a
requirement. I hardly ever see piping isometric
drawings with welding symbols on them and AWS
A2.4 does not require them. I don't think B31.3 should
require them either. But, I don't believe the new words
require them. I suggest changing to something like:
If welding symbols are utilized they shall be in
accordance with AWS A2.4 or ISO 2553,' Note that it
is ISO 22553 (not 22554) and not BS EN 22553. The
title is: ISO 2553, Welded, Brazed and Soldered Joints
Symbolic Representation on Drawings.
D'AvanzoJ (Disapproved)
Agree with others as an App. F recommendation. Also,
some background and context would help, e.g.,
reference to piping drawings.
EsmaeiliA (Comment)
Thanks for your proposal;
I think it is good to address AWS A 2.4. But not BS
Standard. Because, mixing of other organisations may
cause some inconsistency or additional changes.
74 of 118
FlennerP (Disapproved)
I agree with the other negative ballots that the use of
A2.4 or BS EN22553 or some other "established
welding standard" should not be required but I could
agree with a similar reference in Appendix F. I also
think that a reference to an operative standard should
maintain a edition reference in Appendix E.
FraserD (Disapproved)
Concur with the other disapprovals and believe this
belongs in App. F.
FrikkenD (Disapproved)
I don't think we should make drawing pratices a
requirement in the Code. I don't mind adding it as
recommended practice in Appendix F.
JaouhariM (Comment)
I don't support this be a requirement/mandate in the
code. Maybe just a reference/recommendation.
Nisly-NageleK (Disapproved)
Changing to disapproved because I see that the code
details do not use welding symbols and I think such
requirements are best stipulated in the engineering
design. Guidance in Appendix F would be fine.
SilviaR (Approved)
Should there be an edition listed?
TatarF (Disapproved) Response:

A similar ballot was overwhelmingly rejected by the SwartzB: 03/08/16
Section Committee in June 2015. The last revision had a incorrect reference. The
language was also changed to allow other documents
The issuance of this ballot is an insult to the Section than AWS. The engineer is required to specify the
Committee. welding and without defined symbols the
communication of the weld requirements to the welder
is in jeopardy.
TonkinsS (Disapproved)
We don't be mandate drafting standards in the Code.
This item should be closed and not pursued further,
not even as a recommendation.
WeeksW (Disapproved)
Agree with other disapprovals that the weld symbol
standards should be recommendations not
requirements
75 of 118
1. Subject *
B31.3, Proposed Revision to Scope (C-15-05)
2. Proposal
See attached Proposal File.
3. Explanation *
Over the years, the Committee has added examples of where B31.3 is appropriate. This is just one more
illustrative example of its common use.
EsmaeiliA (Comment)
Good proposal;
Agree.
FlennerP (Disapproved) Response:

I agree with the comments made by Messrs. Naughton SperkoW: 03/28/16
and Tatar. In addition, I believe this should not be The intent here is to get this document updated from
intended as a list of applications. Doing so would tend that which is currently posted on C&S. It needs to be
to limit the use of the Code to those applications rather consisent with what each Section has published.
than Operating Company's choice. This should only be When I get this in final form, I'll propose adjusting the
revised by the B31 Committee in order to limit the variaous scopes as needed, then loop back to this if
inconsistency between the B31 Code Sections. necessary.
GloverDO (Comment) Response:

Fix where the arrows point before sending to editors. SperkoW: 03/28/16
Noted
MeloC (Approved) Response:

Revise "on and off-shore" to "onshore and offshore" to SperkoW: 03/28/16
be consistent with industry standards like API (API RP Agreed
14E, API RP 14J, API RP 51, etc.), DIN, CEN, BS,
NORSOK, etc.
NaughtonT (Comment) Response:

Don't like how ASME Bxx approach the subject of SperkoW: 03/28/16
scope in general. All I'm trying to do here is update the current posting
on C&S and make it consistent with the scopes in the
Each code should be defined by its ultimate purpose present B31 sections. It's complicated since the
and then examples included; for example: scopes have changed slightly. If you want to take on
reformatting the approach, have at it, but you need to
B31.1: Power Piping get each Section to change what they have already
76 of 118
General Power generation pipework published.
Incorporating Electric power generating station,
Geothermal,......
B31.3: Process Piping

General industrial process pipework.
Incorporating petroleum, chemical, pharma,....
TatarF (Approved) Response:

The current words chemical, pharmaceutical, etc., SperkoW: 03/28/16
modify plants, i.e., chemical plants, pharmaceutical Thanks. I like the ore processing wording and will
plants, etc. What is a mining processing plant? adopt it.
I think that this should read ore processing instead of

mining processing.
WeeksW (Approved) Response:

Agree with the comments of Mr. Melo and Mr. Tatar. SperkoW: 03/28/16
Thanks, See my replies to them.
77 of 118
1. Subject *
Correct technical errors in the impact testing rules and make them consisteint with Section IX rules (D-04-07)
2. Proposal
Revise Tables 323.3.2 and 323.1
3. Explanation *
Attached you will find a proposed revision to the impact testing rules found in B31.3. Since there are both
materials and fabrication matters to coordinate, I have sent this proposal to both subcommittees and look forward
to your comments.
The biggest driver for this proposal is that the current rules in B31.3 table 323.3.1 are technically deficient as
explainte in the presentation attached to the initail proposal and also contained in the background information. As
a consequence of the rules being in error, thye conflict with those of Section IX and repeat supplementary
essential variables that are already covered by Section IX. .
What really needs to happen with these rules is that they need to be rewritten starting with the existing
exemptions then adding what is required when the minimum design temperature is below the exemption curves
or temperature If anybody would like to take that on, its yours. Meanwhile, we need the proposed changes
Another item for discussion is when impact testing is required for the base metal, should we require impact
testing of each heat/lot of weld metal.

ArmstrongK (Approved)
Thank you for proposing very appropriate changes that
bring B31.3 supplementary essential variables in line
with the BPV Code Section IX supplementary essential
variables.
However, please consider:
Insert A (Table 323.2.2), A-3 (b):

This proposed revision requires impact testing of
welding procedures for low and intermediate alloy filler
metals (higher temp. fillers such as E8018-B2, E9018-
B3 etc., etc.) typically used on line classes with design
minimum temperature -29C (-20F). Impact testing of
these filler materials is not an AWS requirement. Non-
impact tested weld procedures with these fillers have
been used successfully for decades.
Is there a toughness problem with low and
intermediate alloy fillers in applications greater than or
equal to -29C (-20F)?
BoundsB (Approved)
Column A(b) indicates that it is for weld metal and heat
affected zone. Insert A only says impact test are
78 of 118
required on the weld metal. Does this include the heat
affected zone?
Trying to simply Insert A, "... design minimum

temperature or when Notes (3) or (5) are met. In all
other cases, impact testing of the weld metal and heat
affected zone is required and the impact test
requirements in Table 323.3.1 shall be incorporated
into the welding procedure qualification."
Insert B, the first sentence can be combined with the

last sentence I think, "Each lot of base material shall
be impact tested, except when Notes (3) or (5) are
met, and the impact test requirements in Table 323.3.1
shall be incorporated into the welding procedure
qualification."
Insert C, change Section IX to "the BPV Code, Section

IX"
EsmaeiliA (Comment)
Thanks for your efforts;
However, I think the current statement of table,

technically is correct, So maybe no changes is
required.
Thanks;
FlennerP (Approved)
This is a big improvement, especially the better use of
Section IX (thus the approval). However I would
encourage the use of B31T since B31.3 rules are still
pretty hard to understand. B31.1 now has a simple
reference to require compliance with B31T (124.1.2).
There is no need to encourage inconsistency between
the Codes
FrikkenD (Approved)
For insert A, change and when Notes (3) and (5)
are met. To , when Note (3) applies, and when
Note (5) applies. The current wording implies that
both notes 3 and 5 have to apply for and exemption.
For insert B, change except when Notes (3) and (5)

are met. to except when Note (3) applies and
except when Note (5) applies.
MeloC (Disapproved)
Insert A - Reading the name of table 323.2.2, I would
expect A-3 (b) to explain when impact testing is
required and then provide the exceptions.
79 of 118
I struggle to follow the flow of wording in the attached. SperkoW: 03/09/16
It needs to be a bit more "User Friendly". Thanks for the observation; I'll look at it further when it
What is a WPS? gets published.. WPS is a Welding Procedure
Specification; that's what the welder follows when he
welds a test coupon.
TatarF (Approved)
Insert A:
Impact testing is not required when the AWS

classification for the welding consumables specified in
the WPS requires impact testing at or below the
design minimum temperature and when Notes (3) and
(5) are met. Dont you mean to say but either Note
(3) or Note (5) apply?
The welding procedure shall be qualified in

accordance with Table 323.3.1 suggests that the
table contains all qualification requirements. You dont
need to do tensile testing or bend testing, impact
testing tells you everything you need to know?
For these cases, only impact testing of the weld metal

is required. What does these refer to? Only to the
second sentence, or to both the first and sentences if
impact testing is indeed required in the first sentence?
Insert B:
There is no Table 333.1.1.
Insert C:
Table 323.2.2 Box B-3 should be Table 323.2.2,

item B-3
80 of 118
1. Subject *
B31.3, Revision to Para. 345.5.2 Pressure Relief Device for Pneumatic Testing (E-13-19)
2. Proposal
Revise paragraph 345.5.2 set pressure limits for pressure relief devices in pneumatic test applications as shown
in the revision file.
3/1/2016: Revised proposal uploaded
3. Explanation *
Updated 4/5/2016: For higher pneumatic test pressures, having a maximum pressure limit on the set pressure of
50 psi above test pressure can be too constricting. The pressure test relief valve will often "simmer" and leak if
too close to the actual test pressure, and a 50 psi upper limit is s too small to prevent this from occurring at higher
test pressures. The proposed revision changes the set pressure criteria from "the lesser" to "the greater" of, and
sets a reduced set pressure threshold value of 10 psi (70 kPa) above test pressure for lower test pressure
applications, making the 100% of test pressure operative for higher test pressure applications.
ArmstrongK (Disapproved) Response:
I agree with your response to Mr. Horn. SwezyJ: 04/01/16
Thank You.

What if 133% of the design pressure would yield the SwezyJ: 03/11/16
pipe or exceed 90% of yield on the pipe? Perhaps it This proposal is attempting to set an upper limit of a
should say, "the greater of the test pressure plus 70 pressure relief valve setting when performing the
kPa (10 psig) or the maximum test pressure permitted pneumatic leak test. Relief valves provide
by para. 345.5.4. overpressure protection from unanticipated
circumstances, and are not intended to act as a
Follow-Up Response: pressure control device. I think we all can reasonably
Date Posted: 03/13/16 agree that we are not anticipating the pressure relief
valve will open during testing. Yet, the current code
BoundsB: 03/13/16 words are problematic, because they create a situation
The record explanation says the set pressure where in some cases the pressure relief valve has a
observes the over-pressure limitations of 345.5.4, but required set pressure that is so close to the test
the proposal only observes half of 345.5.4. I wanted to pressure that the valve simmers a bit, making it difficult
make sure this is what you intended. to properly maintain test pressure. I believe the
provisions of 345.5.4 already provide a sufficient
backstop against excessive test pressures, and will
prevent the exact situation you have postulated from
taking place. Changing the requirements for the est
pressure of the pressure relief valve is not necessary
to avoid this scenario.
81 of 118
I think the proposal may cause conflict with the SwezyJ: 04/01/16
requirements of: 345.5.4. Please clarify. Please see my response to Mr. Horn.
FraserD (Disapproved) Response:

I disagree with the current proposal because it is SwezyJ: 03/29/16
inconsistent with 345.5.4, and join the consensus that That is the current intention once the ballot closes.
the appropriate maximum set pressure of the relief
device should 110% of the test pressure.
FrikkenD (Disapproved) Response:

This does not provide sufficient margin for pneumatic SwezyJ: 03/13/16
testing at 133% of the design pressure when the I disagree. The minimum test pressure for pneumatic
design pressures are high. For a design pressure of testing is 1.1 times the design pressure per 345.5.4. If
say 2000 psi, the test pressure might be set at 2660 following your example, the minimum test pressure
psi. This provision would require the relief valve to be would be 2200 psi. A test pressure relief device set for
set at 2670 psi or less. 133% of design pressure would be set at 2660. That
provides a set pressure margin which sounds perfectly
acceptable to me. I agree the fabricator could take the
test pressure up to the limits of 345.5.4(a), this is the
upper limit of test pressure, not the minimum. A
fabricator would be doing so at his own choice. I
cannot see why such a choice would be necessary or
even wise, considering the stored energy hazards
associated with pneumatic testing. I also see no
reason to revise the proposal to facilitate such an
option.
HodginsJ (Disapproved) Response:

Since a pneumatic test is allowed at 133% of design, SwezyJ: 03/23/16
the relief valve at 133% of design won't work. Please see my response to Mr. Horn.
HornJ (Comment) Response:

At test pressures approaching 1.33 X design pressure SwezyJ: 03/18/16
this proposal will not maintain the required difference It sounds like there is a developing consensus for
between test pressure and the PSV set pressure requiring the pressure relief device to be set for the
(10%) to ensure that the safety valves do not simmer. greater of 70 kPa (10 psi) or 110% of the test
pressure. This would allow any test pressure, whether
high or low, to be applied with a suitable margin for the
pressure relief set pressure. I can agree to that if this
is the consensus of the committee.
LangelandJ (Comment) Response:

I did not manage to open this record in a readable SwezyJ: 03/29/16
format. Please do not perform any action, as the Understood.
reason might be because I am using a 'replacement'
laptop for a short period.
Nisly-NageleK (Disapproved) Response:
82 of 118
Set pressure the greater of 10 psi or 110% of test SwezyJ: 03/29/16
pressure. That is the current intention once the ballot closes.
TokiH (Comment) Response:

It should be fine to keep maximum limit as 133% of the SwezyJ: 03/23/16
design pressure, as the whole piping system can Please see my response to Mr. Horn.
withstand 133% (According to allowances for pressure
and temperature paragraph 302.2.4).
TonkinsS (Approved) Response:

Thank you for applying a sane limit on pneumatic leak SwezyJ: 04/01/16
test pressures. I hope you still think so after we change the upper limit
on the relief set pressure to 110% of Test Pressure,
rather than Design Pressure. That is what the
consensus is requesting.
83 of 118
Proposed Revisions for 13-1712
Existing Code Text: Proposed Text Revisions:

345.5.2 Pressure Relief Device. A pressure
345.5.2 Pressure Relief Device. A pressure
relief device shall be provided, having a set
relief device shall be provided, having a set
pressure not higher than the test pressure
pressure not higher than the test pressure
plus the lesser greater of 345 kPa (50 psi)
plus the lesser of 345 kPa (50 psi) or 10% of
70 kPa (10 psig) or 10% of the test pressure.
the test pressure.
Note to Publisher:
The proposed text deletions are shown as
bold strikethroughs, and the proposed
text additions are shown in bold
underlined text. All unchanged text is
shown in subdued gray text for greater
clarity.
84 of 118
1. Subject *
B31.3 Revised Visual Examination Requirements for Normal Fluid Service Piping (E-14-06)
2. Proposal
See attached proposal under Proposal File.
3. Explanation *
Visual examination is often the most cost-effective method of weld examination, but it must take place prior to,
during and after welding. Many standards require its use before other NDE methods, because there is no point in
submitting an obviously bad weld to sophisticated examination techniques. Visual examination requires little
equipment. Aside from good eyesight and sufficient light, all it takes is a pocket rule, a weld size gauge, a
magnifying glass, and possibly a straight edge and square for checking straightness, alignment and
perpendicularity.
Before the first welding arc is struck, materials should be examined to see if they meet specifications for quality,
type, size, cleanliness and freedom from defects. Grease, paint, oil, oxide film or heavy scale should be removed.
The pieces to be joined should be checked for flatness, straightness and dimensional accuracy. Likewise,
alignment, fit-up and joint preparation should be examined. Finally, process and procedure variables should be
verified, including electrode size and type, equipment settings and provisions for preheat or postheat. All of these
precautions apply regardless of the examination method being used. Among the weld detects that can be
recognized visually are cracking, surface slag in inclusions, surface porosity and undercut.
On simple welds, inspecting at the beginning of each operation and periodically as work progresses may be
adequate. Where more than one layer of filler metal is being deposited, however, it may be desirable to inspect
each layer before depositing the next. The root pass of a multipass weld is the most critical to weld soundness. It
is especially susceptible to cracking, and because it solidifies quickly, it may trap gas and slag. On subsequent
passes, conditions caused by the shape of the weld bead or changes in the joint configuration can cause further
cracking, as well as undercut and slag trapping. Repair costs can be minimized if visual examination detects
these flaws before welding progresses. Visual examination at an early stage of production can also prevent
underwelding and overwelding. Welds that are smaller than called for in the specifications cannot be tolerated.
Beads that are too large increase costs unnecessarily and can cause distortion through added shrinkage stress.
After welding, visual examination can detect a variety of surface flaws, including cracks, porosity and unfilled
craters, regardless of subsequent examination procedures. Dimensional variances, warpage and appearance
flaws, as well as weld size characteristics, can also be evaluated.
Currently 95% of normal service welds may contain potential defects that could cause failures, unless
engineering design requires additional NDE examination. 100% visual examination of completed welds is an
inexpensive way to help eliminate a good percentage of these potential failures.
BechtC (Disapproved) Response:
I am fine with making it a requirement to visually ReameyR: 04/13/16
examine all welds. However, in the change you have Thank you for your comments. I will submit a revised
dropped the requirement for visual examination of ballot.
fabrication which includes more than the welds. And
that requires a decision as to whether to require 100%
or 5% of aspects of fabrication other than welds.
CampbellRi (Approved) Response:
ReameyR: 04/13/16
85 of 118
Date Posted: 04/05/16 Thank you for your comments. I will submit a revised
Approved as far as it goes, but it looks like ballot.
examination of other fabrication has been left out.

Thanks; ReameyR: 04/13/16
Agree Thank you for your comments.
FederS (Comment) Response:

Approved, ReameyR: 03/18/16
It is pointless and potentially costly conducting NDT on Thank you for your comment and I agree completely.
a weld that may be visually unacceptable.
If 5% random volumetric examination is to be
performed one would expect all of the welds to be
suitable for selection.
FraserD (Approved) Response:

I concur with this proposal. This is less onerous than ReameyR: 04/13/16
AWS requires of Certified Weld Inspectors (CWI) for Thank you for your comments.
all structural welds, and those don't release
pressurized contents if they fail. Even though ASME
BPV Section IX doesnt have a similar CWI
requirement, this intermediate approach makes sense
to me.

the proposal if fine as far as it goes. References to this ReameyR: 03/22/16
para. from 341.4.3 and 341.4.4 have to be corrected In the proposal for para. 341.4.1, 100% examination is
as part of this item. only required for completed welds while in para.
341.4.3 & 341.4.4, 100% visual examination is
required for all fabrication, including bolted, threaded
joints and supports.

I'm not against the 100% visual inspection but I do ReameyR: 04/13/16
believe this is an extra cost to the Owner from my There is ample evidence within the industry that
experience. Owner can make the call to do 100% if increased visual examination can decrease costs.
they choose to but I don't think it should be mandatory Visual examination is often the most cost-effective
as I have not seen this to be an issue in the industry. method of weld examination. Many standards require
its use before other NDE methods, because there is
no point in submitting an obviously bad weld to
sophisticated examination techniques. Visual
examination requires little equipment. Aside from good
eyesight and sufficient light, all it takes is a pocket rule,
a weld size gauge, a magnifying glass, and possibly a
straight edge and square for checking straightness,
alignment and perpendicularity. After welding, visual
examination can detect a variety of surface flaws,
including cracks, porosity and unfilled craters,
regardless of subsequent examination procedures.
Dimensional variances, warpage and appearance
86 of 118
flaws, as well as weld size characteristics, can also be
evaluated.
Currently 95% of normal service welds may contain
potential defects that could cause failures, unless
engineering design requires additional NDE
examination. 100% visual examination of completed
welds is an inexpensive way to help eliminate a good
percentage of these potential failures. In order to
comply with the volumetric examination requirements
of para. 341.4.1, the welds would need to be identified
and numbered anyway.

Wowsers. 100% visual inspection on ALL completed ReameyR: 03/18/16
welds? There is ample evidence within the industry that
That is going to bump up the inspection costs increased visual examination can decrease costs.
somewhat. (I assume the "Inspection" will require Visual examination is often the most cost-effective
identification, numbering and recording like others?) method of weld examination. Many standards require
This isn't an insignificant change.... its use before other NDE methods, because there is
no point in submitting an obviously bad weld to
sophisticated examination techniques. Visual
examination requires little equipment. Aside from good
eyesight and sufficient light, all it takes is a pocket rule,
evaluated.
SilviaR (Disapproved) Response:

The present code requires at least 5% of welds be ReameyR: 04/13/16
examined, if an Owner requires 100% visual There is ample evidence within the industry that
examination it then should be clearly indicated in the increased visual examination can decrease costs.
Engineering Design. Additional examination criteria Visual examination is often the most cost-effective
such as root pass checks etc. should also be detailed method of weld examination. Many standards require
in the Engineering Design. Workmanship tolerances its use before other NDE methods, because there is
should also be included by reference in the no point in submitting an obviously bad weld to
Engineering Design if tolerances that exceed the Code sophisticated examination techniques. Visual
are required. The Code is written to provide minimum examination requires little equipment. Aside from good
requirements to insure quality, etc. eyesight and sufficient light, all it takes is a pocket rule,
87 of 118
evaluated.

I think that (2) should read 100% of all completed ReameyR: 03/18/16
welds, except those in listed materials or listed Thanks Fred, I'll make the change as an editorial.
components. instead of 100% of all completed welds,
except those in components made in accordance with
a listed Standard.
TonkinsS (Disapproved) Response:

I know of a piping system built in the late 1960's that ReameyR: 04/13/16
operated at high pressures for many years without There is ample evidence within the industry that
weld failures, yet whenever new piping was added and increased visual examination can decrease costs.
the RT overlapped an original weld, flaws were Visual examination is often the most cost-effective
identified in just about all of those original welds that method of weld examination. Many standards require
required replacement of the original weld once its use before other NDE methods, because there is
identified. Visual examination would not have caught no point in submitting an obviously bad weld to
these weld flaws, yet the system operated without sophisticated examination techniques. Visual
failure of the welds for many years. Point is that the examination requires little equipment. Aside from good
minimum Code requirements produced a serviceable eyesight and sufficient light, all it takes is a pocket rule,
system that operated safely. a weld size gauge, a magnifying glass, and possibly a
The background describes a good practice, but the alignment and perpendicularity. After welding, visual
choice to exceed the current Code requirement of 5% examination can detect a variety of surface flaws,
visual exam of fabrication needs to remain with the including cracks, porosity and unfilled craters,
Owner or included in the Engineering Design. regardless of subsequent examination procedures.
Alternatively the fabricator could choose to increase Dimensional variances, warpage and appearance
the extent of visual exam if the fabricator feels it to be flaws, as well as weld size characteristics, can also be
prudent. evaluated.
88 of 118
TN 14-628 (B31.3 SG-E)
Item 14-628
Rev. 4
(E-14-06)
Revision to para. 341.4.1 Examination Normal Fluid Service
Background
Visual examination is often the most cost-effective method of weld examination, but it must take place prior to,
during and after welding. Many standards require its use before other NDE methods, because there is no point
in submitting an obviously bad weld to sophisticated examination techniques. Visual examination requires little
equipment. Aside from good eyesight and sufficient light, all it takes is a pocket rule, a weld size gauge, a
magnifying glass, and possibly a straight edge and square for checking straightness, alignment and
perpendicularity.
Before the first welding arc is struck, materials should be examined to see if they meet specifications for
quality, type, size, cleanliness and freedom from defects. Grease, paint, oil, oxide film or heavy scale should be
removed. The pieces to be joined should be checked for flatness, straightness and dimensional accuracy.
Likewise, alignment, fit-up and joint preparation should be examined. Finally, process and procedure variables
should be verified, including electrode size and type, equipment settings and provisions for preheat or
postheat. All of these precautions apply regardless of the examination method being used. Among the weld
detects that can be recognized visually are cracking, surface slag in inclusions, surface porosity and undercut.
On simple welds, inspecting at the beginning of each operation and periodically as work progresses may be
adequate. Where more than one layer of filler metal is being deposited, however, it may be desirable to inspect
each layer before depositing the next. The root pass of a multipass weld is the most critical to weld soundness.
It is especially susceptible to cracking, and because it solidifies quickly, it may trap gas and slag. On
subsequent passes, conditions caused by the shape of the weld bead or changes in the joint configuration can
cause further cracking, as well as undercut and slag trapping. Repair costs can be minimized if visual
examination detects these flaws before welding progresses. Visual examination at an early stage of production
can also prevent underwelding and overwelding. Welds that are smaller than called for in the specifications
cannot be tolerated. Beads that are too large increase costs unnecessarily and can cause distortion through
added shrinkage stress.
After welding, visual examination can detect a variety of surface flaws, including cracks, porosity and unfilled
craters, regardless of subsequent examination procedures. Dimensional variances, warpage and appearance
flaws, as well as weld size characteristics, can also be evaluated.
Currently 95% of normal service welds may contain potential defects that could cause failures, unless
engineering design requires additional NDE examination. 100% visual examination of completed welds is an
inexpensive way to help eliminate a good percentage of these potential failures.
89 of 118
TN 14-628 (B31.3 SG-E)
Proposal
Current wording in the 2014 Edition of Proposed Changes

B31.3
341.4.1 Examination Normal Fluid 341.4.1 Examination Normal Fluid
Service. Service.
Piping in Normal Fluid Service shall be Piping in Normal Fluid Service shall be
examined to the extent specified herein or to examined to the extent specified herein or to
any greater extent specified in the engineering any greater extent specified in the engineering
design. Acceptance criteria are as stated in design. Acceptance criteria are as stated in
para. 341.3.2 and in Table 341.3.2, for Normal para. 341.3.2 and in Table 341.3.2, for Normal
Fluid Service unless otherwise specified. Fluid Service unless otherwise specified.
(a) Visual Examination. At least the following (a) Visual Examination. At least the following
shall be examined in accordance with para. shall be examined in accordance with para.
344.2: 344.2:
(1) sufficient materials and components, (1) sufficient materials and components,
selected at random, to satisfy the examiner selected at random, to satisfy the examiner
that they conform to specifications and are that they conform to specifications and are
free from defects. free from defects.
(2) at least 5% of fabrication. For welds, each (2) at least 5% of fabrication, as defined in
welders and welding operators work shall be para. 300.2. For welds, each welders and
represented. welding operators work shall be represented.
(3) 100% of fabrication for longitudinal welds, (3) 100% of all completed welds, except those
except those in components made in in components made in accordance with a
accordance with a listed specification. See listed Standard. See para 341.5.1(a) for
para 341.5.1(a) for examination of longitudinal examination of longitudinal welds required to
welds required to have a joint factor, Ej, of have a joint factor, Ej, of 0.90.
0.90. (4) random examination of the assembly of
(4) random examination of the assembly of threaded, bolted, and other joints to satisfy the
threaded, bolted, and other joints to satisfy the examiner that they conform to the applicable
examiner that they conform to the applicable requirements of para. 335. When pneumatic
requirements of para. 335. When pneumatic testing is to be performed, all threaded, bolted,
testing is to be performed, all threaded, bolted, and other mechanical joints shall be
and other mechanical joints shall be examined.
examined. (5) random examination during erection of
(5) random examination during erection of piping, including checking of alignment,
piping, including checking of alignment, supports, and cold spring.
supports, and cold spring. (6) examination of erected piping for evidence
(6) examination of erected piping for evidence of defects that would require repair or
of defects that would require repair or replacement, and for other evident deviations
replacement, and for other evident deviations from the intent of the design.
from the intent of the design.
90 of 118
1. Subject *
B31.3 Proposed Revision to Address Offset of Longitudinal Welds (E-15-11)
2. Proposal
Revise para. 328.4.3(b) longitudinal welds to address offset requirements for adjoining longitudinal welds, or
mitigating examinations.
3. Explanation *
The proposed action clarifies the intent of 328.4.3(b) for surface alignment of longitudinal weld joints, and adds a
requirement for offsetting longitudinal groove butt welds at intersecting circumferential groove butt welds, in an
attempt to arrest crack propagation across a girth weld to the another longitudinal weld on the other side. This
proposal is similar, but not identical to, the requirements of Section VIII, Division 1, UW-9(d).
4/5/2016: reformatted and clarified previous proposal.

BechtC (Disapproved) Response:
i don't see why we are adding this requirement. Are we SwezyJ: 03/25/16
solving a non-problem? Don't shoot the messenger. See my response to Mr.
Tatar.

Suggest making the existing text into a numbered SwezyJ: 03/14/16
subsection (1) and then the two new sections could I like the idea of making subparagraph (b) look more
become (2) and (3). like subparagraph (a), and will use suggestion for a
The proposed "Table A-1 of Table 326.1" the "of" revised proposal. I also will change the "of" to "or" as
should be "or", but also I realize it is existing this way, suggested to correct that typographical error. No
but maybe it should be "Table 326.1, Table A-1, or problem adding Table A-1M to the proposal as well.
Table A-1M". Adding A-1M is important here to make
sure it doesn't get deleted from the change that will be
incorporated into the 2016 edition (15-1176).
D'AvanzoJ (Disapproved) Response:

Agree with others regarding is it a real safety issue. SwezyJ: 03/28/16
OK, I get it. So why are you voting negative?
Follow-Up Response:
D'AvanzoJ: 03/28/16
Negative was based on agreement with Mr. Frikken's
comments, and anticipation of a revised proposal.
91 of 118
Thanks; SwezyJ: 04/01/16
Thank You

Mr. Frikken's issues need to be resolved. Since the SwezyJ: 03/25/16
project manager and the gentleman from Mass. asked Nice photo that proves my point to Mr. Tatar. Did not
whether this was a real safety issue, attached is photo unzip over the entire length of the long seam, nor
of a longitudinal weld unzipping failure during cross over the circumferential seam.
hydrotest in late 2014. This happened to be a Div. 1
pressure vessel, but the same issues are involved.
View Additional Comments File

Some problems with the proposal: 1) it needs to be SwezyJ: 03/13/16
made clear that this applies to circumferential groove In response to your comments: 1. I think most people
welded joints, not to piping joined by socket welding would think of a circumferential weld joint as being a
couplings, for example. 2) it need to address the case butt weld instead of a socket weld, but I will agree to
where the length of one or both of the pipes is less clarifying the proposal to specify circumferential butt
than 75 mm. 3) the examination method and welds. 2. I will agree to revise the proposal to require
acceptance criteria need to be more clearly stated, the full length of the pipe to be examined when its
and 4) since we are adding examination requirements length is less than 75 mm. 3. Examination method is
to Chapter V, we need to at least reference this already stated as being either RT or UT, with the
provision from Chapter VI, but better yet move the supporting technical requirement paragraphs
examination requirements to Chapter VI. referenced, and the Table 341.3.2 acceptance criteria
also referenced. 4. We could consider adding these
requirements in a new paragraph 341.3.1(c).

You need to indicate that the new subparagraphs are SwezyJ: 03/13/16
in addition to the requirements of para. 328.4.3(b). You make some good points, but it has been
This is what I would suggest: suggested that we insert these requirements into Part
VI instead of Part V. I will keep this in mind as I work
Longitudinal Welds. Alignment of longitudinal groove through the revisions to the proposal. As to whether or
welds that are not made in accordance with a standard not I think it is OK to perfectly align ERW seams at an
listed in Table A-1 or Table 326.1 shall conform to the intersecting girth seam, I would say no. I was aware of
requirements of (a) above, along with the following that possibility, but was not given the option of
additional requirements. addressing it, since the current code words permit this.
A lot of folks keep saying they have a hard time finding
Note that this proposal would allow two ASTM A53 ERW seams in SA-53 carbon steel pipe. So, applying
electric-resistance welded steel pipes, for example, to this to ERW seams may be perceived as creating a
have their longitudinal weld seams perfectly aligned hardship for fabricators. I frankly don't understand the
and then be joined with a girth butt weld. There would need for this action in the first place, as I think a failure
be no additional examination required since ASTM causing a weld seam to "unzip" along a great distance
A53 pipe is listed in Table A-1. Is that OK with you? is highly unlikely. Once the seam splits, pressure and
stress are both relieved, so the driving mechanism for
Follow-Up Response: propagating such a failure dissipates quickly. Even of
Date Posted: 03/23/16 a weld failure does propagate or "unzip" somewhat, it
is still a failure, and all we are talking about controlling
TatarF: 03/23/16 is the extent of the damage, not necessarily the
I tend to agree with the fabricators who say that it can severity of the consequences. Is this really a safety
be difficult to find the weld seam in SA-53 ERW pipe. I issue?
also agree with your comment that a weld seam
"unzipping" a great distance would not seem very
likely.
92 of 118
Perhaps you might ask the person who proposed this
Code change to point to an actual incident where such
unzipping occurred. If no actual case is forthcoming,
maybe this is not a credible safety issue after all.
TonkinsS (Approved) Response:

It would help to exempt conjoined fittings from this SwezyJ: 04/01/16
requirement, and ensure this is focused on long That's how we intend to clarify this after the ballot
straight piping runs joined with circumferential groove closes.
welds.
93 of 118
Proposal for 15-2080 (4/5/2016)
Replace with the following:

(b) Longitudinal Welds.
(1) Alignment of groove butt welds that are not
made in accordance with a standard listed in Table A-1
or Table 326.1 shall conform to the requirements of
para. 328.4.3(a).
Add the following new subparagraphs to 328.4.3(b):
(2) The centers of the longitudinal groove butt welds

in connected pipe segments shall be offset from
one another at intersecting circumferential groove
butt welds by a distance not less than three times
the nominal thickness of the thicker pipe segment.
(3) In lieu of (2) above, the longitudinal groove butt
welds may be examined over a minimum length of
75 mm (3 in.) on each side of the intersecting
circumferential groove welds by radiography (see
para. 344.5 and Table 341.3.2) or ultrasonic
examination (see para. 344.6) in addition to the
examinations required by para. 341.4. If the length
of the longitudinal weld on either side of the
circumferential weld is less than 75 mm (3 in.),
examination of the full length is sufficient.
Add the following Note under 341.4 heading:

Note: Examination requirements for aligned
longitudinal groove welds in any fluid service
category are specified in para. 328.4.3(b).
Page 1 of 1
94 of 118
16-116 B31.3 Process Piping Stds Comm Proposal Revision
1. Subject *
B31.3, Add new para. K300.1.4: Rounding (G-15-03)
2. Proposal
Revise para. K300.1 to reflect the new base Code para. 300.1.4 Rounding that will be published in the 2016
Edition. Also, revise Fig. M300 and the Index accordingly.
3. Explanation *
It is proposed to update Chapter IXs para. K300.1 to harmonize it with the new base Code para. 300.1.4
Rounding that will be published in the 2016 Edition.
Agree; Thanks. BoundsB: 04/01/16
Thank you.

Nicely done, Mr. Bounds. BoundsB: 03/28/16
Thank you.

Agree, thanks for a good improvement. BoundsB: 04/04/16
Thank you.

Excellent addition. I would perhaps suggest a little BoundsB: 03/11/16
more emphasis on the importance of the significant Thank you. This proposal is only making reference to
values in the code, that is, the reader should be aware the base code. I will forward your recommendation to
that 6mm is NOT the same as 6.0mm SG-A for consideration in future ballots.
95 of 118
1. Subject *
B31.3, Add ANSI/FCI 79-1 as a reference to B31.3 (Fluid Controls Institute)(A-10-04)
2. Proposal
Add ANSI/FCI 79.1:2009, to Table 326.1 and Appendix E.
3. Explanation *
Standard describes the recommended proof testing of pressure regulators for operation at or below the
manufacturers rated pressure. Purpose is to create common guidelines for establishing pressure ratings for use
by manufacturers, users, specifiers and approval bodies for consistent pressure integrity.
96 of 118
B31.3 Add ANSI/FCI 79.1, Standard for Proof of Pressure Ratings for Pressure
Regulators, as a Listed standard
AI A-10-04 TN 04-435
March 23, 2016 Page 1 of 2
Proposal: Add ANSI/FCI 79.1:2009, to Table 326.1 and Appendix E.
Rationale: Standard describes the recommended proof testing of pressure regulators for operation at or
below the manufacturers rated pressure. Purpose is to create common guidelines for establishing
pressure ratings for use by manufacturers, users, specifiers and approval bodies for consistent pressure
integrity.
Standard for Proof of Pressure Ratings for Pressure Regulators..ANSI/FCI 79-1
97 of 118
B31.3 Add ANSI/FCI 79.1, Standard for Proof of Pressure Ratings for Pressure
Regulators, as a Listed standard
AI A-10-04 TN 04-435
March 23, 2016 Page 2 of 2
APPENDIX E
REFERENCE STANDARDS
ASNT Standards
ACCP-CP-1, Revision 7
CP-189-2011 ANSI/FCI Standards
FCI 79-1:2009
ASQ Standards
Q9000-1: 1994
Q9000-2: 1997
Q9000-3: 1997
Q9001: 2008
Q9002: 1994
Q9003: 1994
98 of 118
1. Subject *
B31.3, Reference of ISO 10380, Corrugated Metal Hoses and Hose Assemblies in Table 326.1 and Appendix E
(A-12-05)
2. Proposal
None
3. Explanation *
ASME B31.3 (2012) references BS6501-Part 1 (Metal hose assemblies - Part 1: Guidance on the construction
and use of corrugated hose assemblies) as a listed component in table 326.1. BS6501-1 was revised in 2004 to
compliment ISO 10380 (Pipework - Corrugated Flexible Metallic Hose and Hose Assemblies).
Neither BS6501-1 nor ISO 10380 are currently referenced in Appendix E.
BS is not a referenced organization in Appendix E
Proposal is to:
Add a reference to ISO 10380 in table 326.1.
Include both ISO 10380 and BS6501 in Appendix E.
Include BSI as a reference organization in Appendix E
AgeeB (Approved) Response:
In my opinion, B31.3 has a large gap by not properly EvansG: 09/14/15
addressing flexible metal hose. We require ISO-10380 Thank you for your approval. I can confirm that the
compliance to hose designs used in B31.3 systems ISO-10380 does require a 4 times burst pressure (para
and I support listing these standards. 5.5) as well as flexibility and fatigue testing.
As you know, the ISO-10380 does require Burst

testing a design a minimum of 4X as well as passing
flexure fatigue testing under pressure. I know of no
other standard that requires this level of rigor to
validate by test the complex design of a flexiblemetal
hose assembly.
Please keeo the keep up the push to get the old listed
BS standard updated and the companion ISO
standard listed as well.
BoundsB (Disapproved) Response:

I don't have access to review either standard, but since EvansG: 09/14/15
BS 6501-1 is now a guidance standard, I don't think it Thank you for your comments. You make a good
belongs in Table 326.1 anymore. In 1991, BS 6501-1 point. I will revise and resubmit the ballot. Adding
was "Specification for Corrugated Hose Assemblies", reference to Appendix F will mean that a paragraph
but now the specification part is ISO 10380 and the BS will have to be introduced into the base code.
6501 is for guidance. Recommendation is to move BS
6501-1 to Appendix F or to delete entirely.
If Notes 1, 7, and 8 applied to BS6501, then should
they now apply to ISO 10380?
99 of 118
The latest revision of BS 6501-1 is 2004R2014
For the organization reference, a phone number and
website appear for other organizations: +44 20 8996
9001 and www.bsigroup.com.
FlennerP (Approved) Response:

FlennerP withdrew this negative electronically on
09/27/15 EvansG: 09/14/15
Per response. Thank you for your comment. See comments above
Date Posted: 11/10/14 confirming that ISO 10380 meets the design criteria of
I agree with Mr. Frikken but I don't think approval B31.3.
without such assurance makes sense. I will withdraw
upon receiving such assurance, if available.
FrikkenD (Approved) Response:

I would like assurance that someone has reviewed EvansG: 09/14/15
these standards and concluded that the products meet Thank you for your comment. See comments above
the design criteria of B31.3, e.g., burst at no less than confirming that ISO 10380 meets the design criteria of
3 times the rated pressure. B31.3.
GordonB (Abstain) Response:

I do not feel that I am informed enough to weigh in on EvansG: 09/14/15
this proposal. Thank you for your comment.
Thank you.
StelmarS (Comment) Response:

I am not comfortable using these references as they EvansG: 09/14/15
don't actually offer a method to compute the pressure Thank you for your comment. For hoses designed to
capacity of the hose. ISO 10380, the pressure capacity is based on a burst
I am currently working with another committee pressure of 4 times.
member to develope a method based on bellows
design to calculate pressure and flexibility capacity.
100 of 118
TN 14-1791 (B31.3 SG-A)
ASME B31.3 TR
A-12-05
CHANGE, PROPOSAL, SUBJECT: ASME B31.3 Hose Component Standard
ASME B31.3 (2014) currently references BS6501-Part 1 (Metal hose assemblies - Part 1: Guidance on the
construction and use of corrugated hose assemblies) as a listed component in table 326.1. BS6501-1 was
revised in 2004 to compliment ISO 10380 (Pipework - Corrugated Flexible Metallic Hose and Hose
Assemblies).
The previous revision of BS 6501-1 (1991) was titled "Specification for Corrugated Hose Assemblies", but
now the specification part is BS EN ISO 10380 and the BS 6501 is a guidance standard (Guidance on the
construction and use of corrugated hose assemblies). As such it is considered that the BS EN ISO 10380
should be included in table 326.1 and BS 6501-1 should be included in the code as a reference for this
specification. To achieve this it is proposed to add new paragraph in Appendix F, F306.7 Metallic Hoses.
This means a new paragraph 306.7 Metallic Hoses also has to be added.
Neither BS6501-1 nor ISO 10380 are currently referenced in Appendix E. BS is not a referenced
organization in Appendix E.
Proposal is to:
Delete BS6501-1 from table 326.1 along with note 9 and 10
Add a reference to BS EN ISO 10380 in table 326.1.
Include a new paragraph 306.7 on metallic hoses
Include a new paragraph in Appendix F to reference BS6501-1 as a resource for BS EN ISO
10380
Include both BS EN ISO 10380 and BS6501 in Appendix E.
Include BSI as a reference organization in Appendix E
Existing Code Proposed Revision

Table 362.1 Delete reference to BS 6501-1
Delete note 9 & 10
Table 362.1 Add reference to ISO Table 326.1. :
Pipework - Corrugated metal hoses and hose

assemblies BS EN ISO 10380
Appendix E Add reference to ISO in Appendix E
101 of 118
TN 14-1791 (B31.3 SG-A)
BS EN ISO 10380: 2012
Appendix E Add reference to BS document in Appendix E
BSI Standards
BS 6501-1: 2004
Add contact details of BS organization in

Appendix E
British Standards Institution

BSI 389 Chiswick High Road
London
W4 4AL
United Kingdom
+44 20 8996 9001
www.bsigroup.com.
Add new paragraph 306.7
306.7 Metallic Hoses

Metallic Hoses shall comply with BS EN ISO
10380 where applicable. See also Appendix F,
paras. F306.7.
Add new paragraph F306
F306 FITTINGS, BENDS, MITERS, LAPS,

AND BRANCH CONNECTIONS
F306.7 Metallic Hoses
BS 6501-1 compliments BS EN ISO 10380. BS EN

ISO 10380 specifies requirements for the
design, manufacture and testing of
corrugated metal hose assemblies for general
purposes.
102 of 118
TN 14-1791 (B31.3 SG-A)
Explanation/Background:
Extract from BS 6501-1:2004 is shown below. This explains changes from BS6501-1:1991 and
requirement for reference to ISO 10380. Note that latest edition of BS 6501 is 2004, but this was reaffirmed
without revision in 2014.
103 of 118
1. Subject *
Add Quality Factors to Table A-1B for ASTM B517 Welded Nickel-Chromium-Iron-Alloy Pipe (D-12-29)
2. Proposal
1. Added Basic Quality Factors for Longitudinal Weld Joints in Pipes, Tubes, and Fittings, Ej for ASTM B517
Welded Nickel-Chromium-Iron-Alloy (UNS N06600, UNS N06603, UNS N06025, and UNS N06045) Pipe to Table
A1-B.
2. Appendix E revises ASTM B517-05 to ASTM B517-05 (R2014).
3. Explanation *
Originally the committee received this request for revision by a Code user at the Mtg. 136 (Ref. Agenda Pages
482-484.)
Specific request: Add ASTM B517 pipe longitudinal joint quality factors to Table A1-B for convenience and
consistency with other piping materials. Reviewed the specification and recommend an Appendix E update to the
latest revision.
104 of 118
B31.3 SG-D B31.3 record no. 16-209
ASME B31.3 Standards Action
B31.3SubGroupMaterialAgendaItemD1229
Proposal:
1. Added Basic Quality Factors for Longitudinal Weld Joints in Pipes, Tubes, and Fittings, Ej for ASTM B517 Welded
Nickel-Chromium-Iron-Alloy (UNS N06600, UNS N06603, UNS N06025, and UNS N06045) Pipe to Table A1-B.
2. Appendix E revises ASTM B517-05 to ASTM B517-05 (R2014).
ExplanationandBackground:
1. ASTM B517 quality factors are added to Table A1-B for convenience. The designer could assign quality factors
using Table 302.3.4, in order to be consistent with other product forms in Table A1-B, SG-D opted to include this
listing also.
2. ASTM B517 is issued the latest revision
Page 1 of 1
105 of 118
B31.3 record no. 16-209
SG-D AI D-12-29
%71) &
8EFPI %& &EWMG 5YEPMX] *EGXSVW JSV 0SRKMXYHMREP ;IPH .SMRXW MR 4MTIW 8YFIW ERH *MXXMRKW )N 'SRXtH
8LIWI UYEPMX] JEGXSVW EVI HIXIVQMRIH MR EGGSVHERGI [MXL TEVE E 7II EPWS TEVE F ERH
8EFPI JSV MRGVIEWIH UYEPMX] JEGXSVW ETTPMGEFPI MR WTIGMEP GEWIW 7TIGMJMGEXMSRW I\GITX %4- EVI %781
)N %TTIRHM\ %
7TIG 2S 'PEWW SV 8]TI (IWGVMTXMSR ?2SXI A 2SXIW
2MGOIP ERH 2MGOIP %PPS]

& *SVKMRKW ERH JMXXMRKW
& 7IEQPIWW TMTI ERH XYFI
& 7IEQPIWW ERH [IPHIH JMXXMRKW
B517 --- Electric Fusion Welded Pipe, 100% Radiographed 1.00 ---
0.85 ---

Electric Fusion Welded Pipe, Double Butt Seam
& Electric Fusion Welded Pipe, Single Butt Seam
;IPHIH TMTI 0.80
---

& ;IPHIH TMTI
& ;IPHIH TMTI
& 2MGOIP EPPS] JSVKMRKW
& )PIGXVMG VIWMWXERGI [IPHIH TMTI
)PIGXVMG JYWMSR [IPHIH TMTI HSYFPI FYXX WIEQ
)PIGXVMG JYWMSR [IPHIH TMTI WMRKPI FYXX WIEQ
& %PP )PIGXVMG VIWMWXERGI [IPHIH XYFI
)PIGXVMG JYWMSR [IPHIH XYFI HSYFPI FYXX WIEQ
)PIGXVMG JYWMSR [IPHIH XYFI WMRKPI FYXX WIEQ
& %PP 7IEQPIWW TMTI ERH XYFI
& %PP ;IPHIH TMTI
& 7IEQPIWW TMTI
& ;IPHIH TMTI
& )PIGXVMG JYWMSR [IPHIH TMTI HSYFPI FYXX WIEQ
)PIGXVMG JYWMSR [IPHIH TMTI WMRKPI FYXX WIEQ
& ;IPHIH TMTI VEHMSKVETLIH
;IPHIH TMTI HSYFPI JYWMSR [IPHIH
;IPHIH TMTI WMRKPI JYWMSR [IPHIH
8MXERMYQ ERH 8MXERMYQ %PPS]

& 7IEQPIWW TMTI
& ;IPHIH TMTI HSYFPI FYXX WIEQ
;IPHIH TMTI WMRKPI FYXX WIEQ
>MVGSRMYQ ERH >MVGSRMYQ %PPS]

& 7IEQPIWW XYFI
)PIGXVMG JYWMSR [IPHIH XYFI
& 7IEQPIWW TMTI
)PIGXVMG JYWMSR [IPHIH TMTI
%PYQMRYQ %PPS]
& 7IEQPIWW XYFI
& 7IEQPIWW JMXXMRKW
;IPHIH JMXXMRKW VEHMSKVETLIH
& ;IPHIH TMTI ERH XYFI VEHMSKVETLIH
;IPHIH TMTI HSYFPI FYXX WIEQ
;IPHIH TMTI WMRKPI FYXX WIEQ
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

'ST]VMKLX%71)-RXIVREXMSREP
4VSZMHIHF]-,7YRHIVPMGIRWI[MXL%71)
106 of0MGIRWII!*PYSV'SVTSVEXMSR9WIV!4LEQ/LE
118
2SVITVSHYGXMSRSVRIX[SVOMRKTIVQMXXIH[MXLSYXPMGIRWIJVSQ-,7 2SXJSV6IWEPI1(8
%71) &
6)*)6)2') 78%2(%6(7 '328(
%781 7TIGMJMGEXMSRW 'SRXtH %781 7TIGMJMGEXMSRW 'SRXtH %781 7TIGMJMGEXMSRW 'SRXtH
& &&1 (

& & 6 (
&&1 6 &&1 (
&&1 6 &&1 (
&&1 & (E
&&1 & (R2014)
&&1 &&1 (
&&1 (
& &&1 (
& 6 ( 6
&&1 &&1 (
& (E
&&1E & (E
& 6 & (E 6
& & (
& 6 & 6 (
& 6 &
& &E (
& ((1F
& & ( 6
& & 6 (
&&1 & 6 ( 6
&&1 & ( 6
&&1 & (E
&
& & (
& ( 6
& &&1 (
& & (E 6
&&1 & 6
&E & 6 (
& 6 (

&E (
& & ( 6
& &
& (
& 6 & ( 6
& 6 & 6
&F & (
& & (
&&1 &E ( 6
&E
& )
&E ' )
&E ' )
&&1 ' ) 6
& )
' )
&E ' 6 )
& )
& ( 6 )
& ( )
& 6 ( 6 )
& ( )
& 6 )
& (
& 6 ( * 6
( *

& ( *
& ( *
& ( **1

'ST]VMKLX%71)-RXIVREXMSREP
4VSZMHIHF]-,7YRHIVPMGIRWI[MXL%71)
107 of0MGIRWII!*PYSV'SVTSVEXMSR9WIV!4LEQ/LE
118
2SVITVSHYGXMSRSVRIX[SVOMRKTIVQMXXIH[MXLSYXPMGIRWIJVSQ-,7 2SXJSV6IWEPI1(8
Minutes of Meeting - ASME B31.3 IWG meeting
Meeting VIP Lounge, Country Inn & Suites By Carlson,

Meeting Date: March 12, 2016
Location: Gurgaon, Udyog Vihar
Participation :
Chairperson: R.P Bindra

Minuted by: Rohit Goel
Vice Chair: Ashvini Kumar
IWG :
Rajinder Pal Singh Bindra, Ashvini Kumar, Shyamal Biswas, Rohit Goel, Atul Jettley, Anil Meghani, Daniel D.
Christian, Madhukar Sharma, Ravi Kumar Srivastava
PMG :
Members* V.D.Bharani, Neeraj Khera, Sushil Kumar, Vipin Pahujani, Satyajit Palkar, V Pranjal, Harish Renukaradhya,
Ramkumar Gururajan, Prabal Sanyal, S Sathiyagreeswaran, Rajinder Singh, Harish Toki
Notes:
1. Meeting attendees are highlighted in bold
2. Ravi / Rajinder declined, (out of country)
3. Vipin and Mihir declined (not well)
Guests Sravan Kumar, Himanshu Bhatt, Pratap Singh Shriwal, Rohit Matto
Distribution All Members plus Mr. M. L. Nayyar, Riad Mohamed
1. Agenda
Attachments 2. Attendance Sheet
Minutes
S. No. Description Action by Date Remarks
IWG B31.3 group called for a meeting on 12th March 2016 at Country Inn &
1 Suites by Carlson in Gurgaon, India
Info
The meeting began with Safety message, followed by introduction round of

2 all the participants.
Info
RP presented the detail presentations which highlighted the activities

3 performed by IWG and also some of the key points from the the Mintues of Info
Section Committee meeting (Sept 2015).
This meeting had active participation from the PMG members, who were
4 earlier regularly attending previous meetings as volunteers or guest.
Info
5 Membership of some non-active members has been withdrawn. Info
Proposal was discussed about conducting meetings via video conferencing

6 so that the members, who are outside Delhi-NCR, can also join.
Rohit
Members expressed interest in participating in the ASME B31 Standards

7 Comittee activities.
Info
Following nominations were recieved for the Activities of the ASME B31
Standards Committee likely to be of interest to ASME B31.3 members :
Topic : TN 15-1694 (B31.3 SG-B), AI B-14-04, Stress Intensification Factor
(refer page 1101-1107, MOM section committee meeting no 142)
8 Riad
Nominations : Harish Toki, Sushil Kumar, V D Bharani, Himanshu Bhatt,
Anindya Chatterjee
Riad to advise way forward.
Following nominations were recieved for the Activities of the ASME B31
Standards Committee likely to be of interest to ASME B31.3 members :
Topic : B31P Preheat and Heat Treatment Requirements Proposed new
standard to be developed by the B31 F&E (refer page 1329, 1333 MOM
9 section committee meeting no 142)
Riad / Rohit
Nominations : V Pranjal / Bhartendu Mihir
Following nominations were received for the Activities of the ASME B31.12
Section Committee likely to be of interest to ASME B31.3 members:
Topic : Low Temperature Impact Testing (refer page 1341, MOM section
10 committee meeting no 142) Riad / Rohit
Nominations : V Pranjal / Bhartendu Mihir
Following nominations were received for

Topic : ASME B16.10-2009 -Face to Face and End to End Dimensions of
Valves (refer page 1336-1337, MOM section committee meeting no 142)
11 Nominations : Neeraj Khera, Atual Jettley, Raju, V Pranjal, Rohit Matoo, Riad / Rohit
Raju Sravan Kumar
R. P. Bindra and Ashvini Kumar terms as Chair and Vice Chair are set to
expire June 30, 2016. Since both have completed two terms, there will be a
need to nominate a new Chair and Vice Chair. New nominations were
discussed and agreed by all who were present in the meeting as per below.
12 Info
Chair : Rohit Goel
Vice Chair : Atul Jettley
Secretary : TBD
13 Next meeting of B31.3 IWG is scheduled for 9th July 2016. Info
Status of Action items from IWG, India B31.3 (previous meetings)

Discussed about the interested volunteers who are interested to in Closed. PMG
IWG team. We agreed to include all new names (as proposed) as group formed and
1 Riad
PMG mebers. They all shall be provided access to C&S connect and C&S access
alongwith balots review rights etc. provided.
IWG management & ASME section committee shall monitor the

2 RP / RG On-going
participation of nominated PMG member for nest 2 years.
ASME section committee shall provide more projects to IWG team in
3 near term. Additionally, IWG team shall look for the more code Riad On-going
related queries from India industries.
Members requested to circulate ASME technical training calender for

4 Madhukar On-going
companies to plan there employee trainings
Future meetings will have more detailed Technical discussions and

6 suggestion was tabled that seleted topics will be circulated before Rohit On-going
hand to participants.
108 of 118
109 of 118
110 of 118
COMMITTEE CORRESPONDENCE
-Keep ASME Codes and Standards Department Informed-
COMMITTEE: ADDRESS WRITERS CARE OF:

ASME B31.3 Process Piping Committee (B31.3) See addresses below
SUBJECT: REFERENCE (FILE NAME):

B31.1 Liaison Report 0616-16 (B31.1 liaison report)
DATE: COPY TO:

16 April 2016 B31.3 Secretary (for inclusion in the B31.3 minutes)
TO:
B31.3 Members
The B31.1 committee met in Myrtle Beach, SC on 25 through 27 January 2016. The next
meeting is in Safety Harbor, FL (near Clearwater, FL) on 16 through 18 May 2016.
B31.1 Subgroup Design (SGD) agenda items of interest to B31.3 are:
1. SGD is discussing revising their sustained stress and displacement stress-range

equations to be consistent with the B31.3 equations, including axial stress and in-plane,
out-plane, torsional, and axial stress intensification factors.
2. SGD is proposing to ballot a separate stress-range equation for non-cyclic displacement

stress-ranges (e.g., building settlement) with an allowable stress-range of 3.0Sc.
3. SGD is still working on developing/updating the requirements for small piping joints
(flare, flareless, compression joint and clamps) because there have been recent inquiries
regarding the current requirements which have not been updated for more than 30
years.
4. SGD is proposing to ballot an allowable stress for occasional loads when operating in
the creep regime. The initial ballot will use comparable words to those in the second
paragraph in B31.3 para. 302.3.6(a).
5. SGD is discussing whether to apply joint efficiency factors or creep weld strength
reduction factors for fittings (elbows and tees) with longitudinal welds.
6. SGD continues to discuss adding proscriptive requirements for dissimilar metal welds.
7. SGD continues to discuss how to require a minimum attachment weld thickness for
weld-ed on (O-let type) branch connections.
8. B31.1 has added a reference to B31J in the 2016 edition. Discussion was initiated on
how to incorporate the new revised B31J stress intensification factors in the B31J to be
111 of 118
published this year.
9. SGD has balloted incorporating B31.3 para. 300(c)(5) (the requirement that states failure
mechanisms not addressed in the Code still must be addressed in the engineering
design). Negatives must be resolved.
Ron Haupt,
Pressure Piping Engineering
291 Puffin Court, Foster City, CA 94404
[Bus] (650) 574-8195/[E-mail] ron@PPEA.net
B31.1 Subgroup Fabrication & Examination (SGF&E) agenda items of interest to B31.3 are:
1. B31.1 has processed multiple preheat and PWHT items to maintain consistency with
B31.3. A change to the lower allowed PWHT temperature (1300F) for P-No.15E welds
missed the 2016 edition deadline for B31.1 but has been approved for B31.3-2016. It is
approved in B31.1 for the 2018 edition.
Phil Flenner
Flenner Engineering Services
6537 Wyndham Drive, Kalamazoo, MI 49009
[Bus] (269] 353-1166/[E-mail] Flnr@AOL.com
B31.1 Subgroup Materials (SGMatl) agenda items of interest to B31.3 are:
1.
Dennis Rahoi
CCM 2000
1500 South Grant Street, Iron Mountain, MI 49801
[Bus] (906) 779-5080/[E-mail] drahoi@chartermi.net
112 of 118
Riad Mohamed
From: Rex Engle <Rex.Engle@ihi-ec.com>

Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 2:50 PM
To: DChristian@victaulic.com
Cc: Riad Mohamed; jmeyer@louisperry.com; Diehl, David W (david.diehl@intergraph.com);
jdavanzo@comcast.net
Subject: Request for Revision - ASME B31.3
Dan,
NowthatIveworkedintheLNGfieldabit,ithascometolightthatB31.3ismissingacoupleofvalverelatedstandards
fromitsTable326.1.Pleaseconsiderlistingthefollowingcoupleofcommonstandards:
MSSSP134entitledValvesforCryogenicService,includingRequirementsforBody/BonnetExtensions(2012is
currentedition)

BS6364entitledSpecificationforValvesforCryogenicService(1984iscurrenteditionbutReaffirmed2015)
Best Regards,
Rex Engle
Sr. Principal Piping Engineer
IHI E&C International Corporation

1080 Eldridge Parkway, Suite 1300, Houston, Texas 77077
Tel: 713-270-3100
Direct: 832-770-2568
Web:www.ihi-ec.com
This e-mail transmission and any attachments that accompany it may contain information that is privileged,
confidential or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law and is intended solely for the use of the
individual(s) to whom it was intended to be addressed. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, or you are
not the intended recipient, any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use or retention of this
communication or its substance is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
immediately reply to the author via e-mail that you received this message by mistake and also permanently
delete the original and all copies of this e-mail and any attachments from your computer.
1
113 of 118
From: Don Frikken
To: "Barry Agee"
Cc: "Park, Chan-seo"; Riad Mohamed
Subject: RE: Bases for Bolt Design Stresses(Annealing Value)
Date: Sunday, March 27, 2016 5:03:34 PM
Attachments: image008.png
image009.png
Barry,
Mr. C.S. Park has a suggestion for making the explanation of the bases for allowable stresses clearer in B31.3. I recommend that you consider his suggestion.
Further, it seems to me that the tabular form in Section II Part D may be a better way to show the B31.3 bases. You may wish to consider making that change as well.
Have fun!
Don Frikken
Senior Engineering Advisor II
Becht Engineering Co., Inc.
5515 Highway 50
Gerald, Missouri 63037 USA
Office: +1-573-764-6744
Cell: +1-314-608-1985
Website: becht.com
Follow us on
From: Park, Chan-seo [mailto:cspark@gsconst.co.kr]

Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2016 12:46 AM
To: Donald Frikken <frikkend@fidmail.com>
Subject: Bases for Bolt Design Stresses(Anealing Value)
Dear Don,
Regarding to B31.3, 302.3.2 (a) Bolting Materials,
the design stress of annealing values means the criteria of Para. (1), (2).
Tomake Code user more easy understanding of that paragraph, it seems to be better to include
"annealing" in Para. (1),(2).
For example, BPV Code is as follows,
114 of 118

Thanks.
115 of 118
From: Don Frikken
To: "Barry Agee"
Cc: "Park, Chan-seo"; Riad Mohamed
Subject: RE: Bases for Bolt Design Stresses
Date: Monday, March 28, 2016 11:00:00 AM
Attachments: image003.png
image005.png
Bolt Design Stress.pdf
Barry,
Here is another problem encountered by Mr. Park that seems to need fixing.
Have fun!
Don Frikken
Senior Engineering Advisor II
Becht Engineering Co., Inc.
5515 Highway 50
Gerald, Missouri 63037 USA
Office: +1-573-764-6744
Cell: +1-314-608-1985
Website: becht.com
Follow us on

Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2016 11:13 PM
To: Don Frikken <frikkend@fidmail.com>
Dear Don,
My question is that,
The basis for bolt design stress below creep range seems not to be same between B31.3 and BPV Sec II Part D Table 3 . Please refer to attached sheet.
I summarized the basis for bolt design stress of B31.3 Table A-2 and BPV Sec II Part D Table 3. And also allowable stress of A193 B8T Class 1 and Class 2.
As I know, Class I is annealed bolt and Class 2 is annealed and strain-hardening bolt.
Although I do not know the tensile and yield strength for two kind of bolts above room temperature, they have different basis in two Code but same allowable stress.
Thanks.
From: Don Frikken [mailto:frikkend@fidmail.com]

Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 5:55 AM
To: (Park, Chan-seo) / (cspark@gsconst.co.kr)
Mr. Park,
Im not sure what is troubling you. The allowable stresses for bolting in B31.3 are intended to be the same as the allowable stresses for bolting in Table 3 of Section II Part D. The
text you have referenced seems to say that.
I suggested to the B31.3 Subgroup on Materials that because of this fact they should just delete the bolt allowable stresses from B31.3. They decided to retain them.
Have fun!
Don

Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2016 12:43 AM
To: Donald Frikken <frikkend@fidmail.com>
Subject: Bases for Bolt Design Stresses
Dear Don,
Regarding B31.3 Para 302.3.2 "Bases for Design Stresses"
1) The Title of Table 3 in BVP Code isSection III Classes 2 and 3, and Table 4 is for Class 1.
116 of 118
2) In BPV Section II Part D Appendix 2 Table 3, the criteria seems to be not same as B31.3.
I am misunderstandong something?
Thanks.
117 of 118
F -X C h a n ge F -X C h a n ge
PD PD
!
W
W
O
O
N
N
y
y
bu
bu
to
to
ww
ww
om
om
k
k
lic
lic
C
C
.c
.c
w
w
tr re tr re
.
.
ac ac
k e r- s o ft w a k e r- s o ft w a
B31.3(2014) Para. 302.3.2
Product Room Temperature and Below Above Room Temperaure

Tensile Strength Yield Strength Tensile Strength Yield Strength
Bolting ST/4 2/3 SY ST/4 2/3 SY
Bolt, with strength enhanced ST/5 SY/4 ST/4 2/3 SY

by heat treatment
B31.3 Appendix A, Table A-2M
Spec. Grade Class Thick. Min. Tensile Strength Min. Yield Strength Allowable Stress, S , (Mpa)
(mm) (Mpa) (Mpa) Min. to 49 65 100 125 150 175 200 225
56 A193 B8T Class 1 517 207 129 129 121 118 114 110 106 103
41 A193 B8T Class 2 >32, 38 689 345 129 129 121 118 114 110 106 103
54 A193 B8T Class 2 >25, 32 724 448 129 129 121 118 114 112 112 112
66 A193 B8T Class 2 >19, 25 793 552 138 138 138 138 138 138 138 138
78 A193 B8T Class 2 19 862 689 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 172
BPV Sec. II Part D(2013/2015) Table 2-100(b)
Product Room Temperature and Below Above Room Temperaure

Tensile Strength Yield Strength Tensile Strength Yield Strength
Bolting, annealed ferrous ST/4 2/3 SY ST/4 2/3 SY
and nonferrous
Bolt, with strength enhanced ST/5 SY/4 ST/5 SY/4
by heat treatment
BPV Section II -Part D Table 3
Spec. Grade Class Thick. Min. Tensile Strength Min. Yield Strength Maximum Allowable Stress (Mpa)
(mm) (Mpa) (Mpa) Min. to 49 65 100 125 150 175 200 225
9 A193 B8T Class 1 515 205 130 126 122 118 114 110 106 103
12 A193 B8T Class 2 32< t 38 690 345 130 126 122 118 114 110 106 103
14 A193 B8T Class 2 25< t 32 725 450 130 127 122 117 114 113 112 112
16 A193 B8T Class 2 19< t 25 795 550 138 138 138 138 138 138 138 138
18 A193 B8T Class 2 19 860 690 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 172
118 of 118

ASME Presentation Charpy Impact Test PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

ASME Presentation Charpy Impact Test PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

ASME B31.

3 Process Piping Committee April 18-20, 2016 Supplemental Agenda (143)

Renaissance Seattle Hotel

Monday-Wednesday, April 18-20, 2016

Mr. Barry Messer will conduct a presentation on low fracture toughness.

9 REQUESTS FOR INTERPRETATION

10 REVISIONS B31 STANDARDS COMMITTEE LEVEL

10.2 Subgroup B on Design D. Ianiro (Chair)

11 REVISIONS B31.3 SECTION COMMITTEE LEVEL

11.1 Subgroup A on General Requirements D. Christian (Chair)

11.2 Subgroup B on Design D. Ianiro (Chair)

11.3 Subgroup C on Edit D. Fetzner (Chair)

TN 15-1304 B31.3, Proposed Revision to Scope (C-15-05) Pages 76-77

Mr. Sperko is asked to prepare a response to the outstanding ballot comment.

11.4 Subgroup D on Materials B. Agee (Chair)

11.5 Subgroup E on Fabrication, Examination and Testing C. Eskridge (Chair)

11.7 Subgroup G on High Pressure Piping F. Tatar (Chair)

TN 16-116 B31.3, Paragraph 300.1.4: Rounding (G-15-03) Page 95

12 REVISIONS B31.3 SUBGROUP LEVEL

12.1 Subgroup A on General Requirements D. Christian (Chair)

12.4 Subgroup D on Materials B. Agee (Chair)

12.7 Subgroup G on High Pressure Piping F. Tatar (Chair)

16 REPORTS FROM LIAISON ORGANIZATIONS

Improve Toughness Detrimental to toughness

Specified Average impact Minimum

448 ((65)) and lower 18 ((13)) 14 ((10))

>448 (65) to 517 (75) 20 (15) 16 (12)

>517 (75) to 656 (95) 27 (20) 20 (15)

March 28, 2016

ASME B31 Committee

Ari Ben Swartz

Subject: ASME B31.3-2014 paragraph 321 Piping Supports

B31 CODE CASE XXX for B31.3 (5th ballot) (160413)

A = Metal areas (see Figures 1, 2, and 3), mm2 (in.2).

B = Metal areas (see Figures 1 and 2), mm2 (in.2).

D1 = Run pipe inside diameter, less corrosion allowance, mm (in.).

D2 = Branch pipe inside diameter, less corrosion allowance, mm (in.).

E = Pressure areas (see Figures 1, 2, and 3), mm2 (in.2).

F = Pressure areas (see Figures 1 and 2), mm2 (in.2).

P = Design (gage) pressure, kPa (psi).

B31 CODE CASE XXX for B31.3 (5th ballot) (160413)

1. The fitting shall be manufactured from a single metal casting or forging.

8. The fittings manufacturing tolerance shall be considered.

B31 CODE CASE XXX for B31.3 (5th ballot) (160413)

For the lateral (see Figure 1) where ( + ) $ 45 deg

B31 CODE CASE XXX for B31.3 (5th ballot) (160413)

B31 CODE CASE XXX for B31.3 (5th ballot) (160413)

B31 CODE CASE XXX for B31.3 (5th ballot) (160413)

B31 CODE CASE XXX for B31.3 (5th ballot) (160413)

EsmaeiliA (Comment) Response:

FraserD (Disapproved) Response:

IaniroD (Approved) Response:

JaouhariM (Comment) Response:

Nisly-NageleK (Approved) Response:

TatarF (Disapproved) Response:

Pages 3 to 20: First, it should be the BPV Code,

Incorporate the Definition of Manufacturer in ASME B31.3, Section 300.2.

Per B31.3 Subgroup D Inquiry #12-2057.

Existing Code Proposed Revision

300.2 Definitions 300.2 Definitions

may: a term that indicates a provision is neither

TatarF (Disapproved) Response:

FlennerP (Disapproved) Response: