50 likes | 205 Views
SURFACE SYSTEMS. Recommendation of Informal work group for changes to Weld Overlay requirements in API Spec 6A. Chairman - Mike Briggs (Cameron) Members – Tim Haeberle (GE), Rodger Lawson (ExxonMobil), Kris Ohman (Shell), Joel Russo (FMC), David Zollo (FMC).
E N D
SURFACE SYSTEMS Recommendation of Informal work group for changes to Weld Overlay requirements in API Spec 6A Chairman - Mike Briggs (Cameron) Members – Tim Haeberle(GE), Rodger Lawson (ExxonMobil), Kris Ohman (Shell), Joel Russo (FMC), David Zollo (FMC) RAISING PERFORMANCE. TOGETHERTM
Background • Current structure separates clad requirements by product type (Ring grooves, stems, VBSM and choke trims) and CRA overlay for BBEOC • Acceptance criteria refers to BBEOC general NDE and is not tailored to overlays • There is a great deal of confusion throughout the industry on what is required on overlay and when one requirement applies or doesn’t
Current questions and controversial issues • What surfaces do I inspect using UT? - 100% for part of Design Criteria; FBH Cal, .125” FBH Dia, • When I do the UT what size FBH do I use what MTD do I use on the cal block? MTD Max Clad +.100” • If I have a fully clad body do the ring groove get inspected to Weld overlay or CRA overlay? Should do the ring grooves the same as other cladding • On UT do I have to re-inspect base material after cladding (1/2”, 100% or none)? Area of examination shall include cladding plus a minimum of 0.100”of surrounding base material • Can I perform the UT on Ring Grooves prior to finish machining?
Summary of WG’s proposed changes • Separate cladding in to two groups for BBEOC – partial clad and full clad • Procedure qualification requirements to be consolidated for ring grooves and CRA overlay • Add section specifically addressing weld overlay inspection requirements to section 7.4.2.1. This would address Visual Examination, Liquid Penetrant and Other testing. • Address the overlay requirements for each component type (Tables17, 22, 23 and 37) instead of in a general table as is done in table 18 now.
Conclusions • Additional review is required to allow seamless blending of the requirements • There are several discrepancies in the current standard that have raised additional questions by the workgroup. • Will require API support to ensure any reference changes are accurately captured throughout the document