Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Asme B31.3 PDF
Asme B31.3 PDF
ASME B31.3
Process Piping
Section Committee
Meeting No. 143 Supplemental Agenda
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
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.):
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.
10.2.1 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
ASME B31.3 Process Piping Committee April 18-20, 2016 Supplemental Agenda (143)
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.
11.1.3 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
This item will be submitted to the B31.3 SC for first consideration ballot.
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
B31.3 SC Ballot #16-746 closed on April 5, 2016. This item received 11 disapprovals and 3 additional comments.
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.
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.
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
ASME B31.3 Process Piping Committee April 18-20, 2016 Supplemental Agenda (143)
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.
11.5.2 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
B31.3 SC Ballot #16-746 closed on April 5, 2016. This item received 5 disapprovals and 6 additional comments.
The project manager prepared responses to the ballot comments and revised the proposal accordingly.
This item will be submitted to the B31.3 SC for first consideration ballot.
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
B31.3 SC Ballot #16-746 closed on April 5, 2016. This item received 4 disapprovals and 7 additional comments.
The project manager prepared responses to the ballot comments and revised the proposal accordingly.
This item will be submitted to the B31.3 SC for first consideration ballot.
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
B31.3 SC Ballot #16-746 closed on April 5, 2016. This item received 3 disapprovals and 5 additional comments.
The project manager prepared responses to the ballot comments and revised the proposal accordingly.
This item will be submitted to the B31.3 SC for first consideration ballot.
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.
4 of 118
ASME B31.3 Process Piping Committee April 18-20, 2016 Supplemental Agenda (143)
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
This item will be submitted to the B31.3 SC for first consideration ballot.
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.
12.4.34 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
This item will be submitted to the B31.3 SC for first consideration ballot.
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.
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
Carbon Steel Low Toughness Issues:
Carbon Steel Low Toughness Issues:
CS Pipe, Forged Flanges, and Fittings
Barry Messer
Nov 2015
6 of 118
Outline
• Toughness concerns, failures
• Fluor Global Alert
• Brittle fractures, lessons learned
• European Directive
European Directive
• End user concerns
• Metallurgical factors, impact tests
ll lf
• Development: new UT Microscopy
• Correlation
• Summary and Opinions
Summary and Opinions
7 of 118
CS TEE Low Toughness Failure
8 of 118
Low Toughness Failures
9 of 118
Industry Concerns
• CS material meets ASME/ASTM standards
• Material toughness, cracking susceptibility
Material toughness, cracking susceptibility
inconsistent with CS baselines at minus 29C
• Poor toughness, transgranular
Poor toughness transgranular cracking
near nil shear, poor lateral expansion
• Some hydro and in‐service failures
S h d di i f il
• All fine grain and good metallurgical structure
• Behaves normally above plus 25C
10 of 118
Fluor Global Alert Provides
Recommendations
Quality Verification of Carbon Steel Piping and Components
Recently, we have become aware of an increase in the
number of projects that have received deficient steel pipe,
pipe fittings and flanges
pipe fittings and flanges.
These items were determined to be unsuitable for use even
though they complied with applicable ASME Codes and
standards. Additional testing demonstrated insufficient
material ductility to meet design temperature
t i l d tilit t td i t t
requirements. Please review this alert and take
pp p
appropriate action to eliminate future deliveries of
deficient steel components on your project
11 of 118
Overview Brittle Fracture
• Brittle fracture & impact testing not fully
understood until WW II
– Several all‐welded Liberty ships fracture
y p
– Of approximately 3000 ships, 1200 suffered hull
fractures
– 19 or 20 broke completely
in two
12 of 118
Lessons Learned from Liberty Ships
• Ductile to brittle transition temperature
– Determined by impact testing
Determined by impact testing
Impact ennergy, J
Temperature, C
13 of 118
Lessons Learned Since Liberty Ships
• Tensile test, cannot predict brittle fracture
• Impact test is useful guide to establish resistance
Impact test is useful guide to establish resistance
to brittle fracture
• Main principles, affect brittle fracture
M i i i l ff t b ittl f t
– Should use at or above curve B (Fig 323.2.2A)
• SA 105 (forging)
– Should use at temperatures
not lower than ‐29C
without impact testing
14 of 118
Lessons Learned Since Liberty Ships
• Contributing failure factors
– Chemistry
Ch i
– Micro‐alloying
– Hot forming
– Heat treatment
– Recycled steel
– Fabrication history
– Inclusion trace chemicals
15 of 118
Lessons Learned Since Liberty Ships
• Main principles, affecting brittle fracture:
16 of 118
Steel Grades
• Steel grades which have recently shown problems:
– Forgings/Fittings: ASTM/ASME A234 Gr. WPB
– Flanges: ASTM/ASME A105
– Lesser extent, Pipe: ASTM/ASME A106 and A53
API 5L Gr. B
– All ASME B31.3, Figure 323.2.2A
Curve B materials considered to have this risk
• Acceptable Steels with Impact Testing at ‐45C (‐50F):
– Forgings/Fittings: ASTM/ASME A420 Gr. WPL6
– Pipe: ASTM/ASME A333 Gr. 6
– Flanges* ASTM/ASME A350 Gr.LF2,Cl.1
:* some failures
17 of 118
B31.3 Rules – Based on Fracture
M h i
Mechanics
18 of 118
ASME B31.3 Rules – Table 323.3.5
19 of 118
European Directive 97/23 EC on the …
• “approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning pressure
equipment”
4.1 Materials for pressurized parts must:
have appropriate properties….and in particular they should be
sufficiently ductile and tough characteristics must comply with 7 5
sufficiently ductile and tough…characteristics…must comply with …7.5.
Moreover, due care should be exercised in particular in selecting materials
in order to prevent brittle‐type fracture where necessary; where for
specific reasons brittle material has to be used appropriate measures
specific reasons brittle material has to be used appropriate measures
must be taken;
7.5 Unless other values are required…a steel is considered as sufficiently
7 5 Unless other values are required a steel is considered as sufficiently
ductile…if, in a tensile test carried out by a standard procedure, its
elongation after rupture is no less than 14% and its bending rupture
energy measured on an ISO V test piece is no less than 27J at a
energy measured on an ISO V test‐piece is no less than 27J, at a
temperature not greater than 20 °C but not higher than the lowest
scheduled operating temperature.”
20 of 118
Fluor Action ‐ Recommendations
• Issued material guideline for procurement :
carbon steel pipe, flanges and fittings
• CS pipe, flanges and fittings to have a Mn/C ≥ 5
• SA 105 Flanges to be Normalized
SA 105 Flanges to be Normalized
• Impact testing
(sampling per heat)
(sampling per heat)
– SA 106, SA 105
– SA 234 WPB at ‐29C or
SA 234 WPB 29C
MDMT, whichever is lower
21 of 118
Fluor’s Recommendation, Clients
• Minimum Impact Value for Full Size Specimen
22 of 118
Fluor’s Recommendation, Clients
• Micro‐alloying elements:
–RReport CMTR
CMTR
– Report if elements meet ASME/ASTM
requirement
i t
• Micro‐alloying Limits for C>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 – First Response
• Root cause was still unclear
• Implementation difficult from procurement
perspective
• Does not catch 100% of substandard material
• Difficult to implement for small quantities
Diffi lt t i l tf ll titi
• Similar reported failures from others
24 of 118
Fluor’s Toughness Investigation
• Microstructure Analysis
• Grain size determination
Grain size determination
• Testing of additional material from 2 projects
• Ch
Charpy I
Impact testing (‐29C and ‐21C)
t t ti ( 29C d 21C)
• Root cause analysis investigation
– Try to find any correlation
between Charpy Impact
testing results, grain size,
l
chemistry
25 of 118
Fluor Impact Testing
• Commissioned 3 independent labs
– Including Charpy Impact testing
( ‐29°°C, ‐10°°C, +21°°C)
– Chemical analysis
– Mechanical testing (TS, YS, Elongation)
• CS piping materials tested
pp g
– A106‐B, A105, A234 Gr WPB
– Some low temp material
Some low temp material
• Findings
– Unexpected low impact energy on base materials
Unexpected low impact energy on base materials
– Some as low as 3.4 J, 0 sheer at ‐29°°C and ‐10 °C
26 of 118
Influence of Metallurgical Factors
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
Influence of Metallurgical Factors
• Effect of grain size
400
Energy vs. Grain Size
350
300
250
Energy (J)
200
Ferritic grain size Pipe
Fittings Ferritic grain size
7 150
Flanges
7
100
50
0
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Grain Size
28 of 118
Influence of Metallurgical Factors
• Effect of ferritic grain size
• Transition temperature is lower for fine grain steel
Transition temperature is lower for fine grain steel
ASTM Grain size number
29 of 118
Mn/C Pipe
400.0
Energy vs. Mn/C Ratio ‐ 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/C Ratio
30 of 118
Mn/C Fittings
350
Energy vs. Mn/C Ratio ‐ Fittings
300
250
200
nergy (J)
En
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Mn/C Ratio
31 of 118
Mn/C Flanges
200.0
Energy vs. Mn/C Ratio ‐ 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/C Ratio
32 of 118
Influence of Metallurgical Factors
• Charpy Curve
Effect of Mn content on Charpy Curve
33 of 118
Verification
• Used third party certified lab to verify results of
other labs
• Objectives
– Verify Charpy
Verify Charpy Impact tests
Impact tests
• ‐29C, ‐21C, ‐10C
• A106‐B, A105, A234 Gr
, , WPB
• Verify MTR information
34 of 118
Results
• Residual elements present in steel also
considered – no significant effects discovered
• Elements considered:
– B —Cr
Cr
– Ta —Mo
– SE —P
P
– Cu —Nb (Cb)
– Ni —V
35 of 118
3rd Party Test Conclusions
• Extensive laboratory testing, unable to find
strong correlation
strong correlation
• 30% piping samples impact tested: failed
• 18% fittings tested: failed
18% fitti t t d f il d
• 38% flanges tested: failed
• Low Charpy energy always exhibits low
sheer and transgranular cleavage
• Mn/C ratio above 5 seems to improve
impact properties for pipe
impact properties for pipe
36 of 118
New Factor
• Crystal Orientation (100 )
37 of 118
Anisotropic Texture
• Physical properties differ in value when
g ,
measured from different angles, directions
– Example: wood, stronger along the grain than across
– Texture: tactile quality within
Texture: tactile quality within
• Charpy results
– Ultransonic microscopy, advanced phased array,
microscopy advanced phased array
builds 3‐D layers
– Chemistry alone did not give strong correlation to
Chemistry alone did not give strong correlation to
toughness
– Advanced microscopic UT
Advanced microscopic UT
alone did not give strong
correlation
38 of 118
Anisotropic Texture
• Combination anisotropic texture, chemistry,
mathematical function:
Near 100% correlation to toughness
g
for pipe fittings, flanges
39 of 118
New UT Microscopy
• Built 3‐D image 1 cubic cm
• Combined with PMI
Combined with PMI
• Mathematical
functions
– Texture
UT algorithm
UT algorithm
– Composition
chemical
algorithm
40 of 118
Near 100% Correlation to Toughness
• Anisotropic texture, chemistry, mathematical
formulae
• Issued patent: No 100325.0602PRO
• New UT microscopy, 3‐D image,
N UT i 3 Di 1 3
1 cm
• Microscopic UT combined with PMI chemistry
• Allows for nondestructive
Insitu Examinations
• Can evaluate facilities while operating
• Serves as temporary mitigation
Serves as temporary mitigation
41 of 118
Summary and Opinion
• Refinery hydro and start‐up failures 6‐30mm thk.
y y p
• Chemistry plays major role for toughness in fine‐
grain carbon steel
grain carbon steel,
– Mn, C, V, Ti, Nb, B are main players
• No
No strong correlation to recycled steel
stron correlation to rec cled steel
• Billet and ingot forming history probably seeding
grain orientation weak zones.Manufacturing
forming process can further influence and
enhance orientation weak zones
• Combinations produce brittle pre‐crack zones
• Flanges and fittings affected more than pipe due
to metal displacement orientation
42 of 118
Summary and Opinions
• Charpy testing gives good screening
• Advanced UT microscopy with chemistry helps ID
Ad d UT i ith h i t h l ID
susceptible material
• Code specified chemistry is insufficient
• Fracture mechanic assumptions are insufficient:
– material not homogenous, weak 45 degree plane
– Code needs to address issues
• Similar to European Directive
• Or add precautionary notes
43 of 118
Thank You
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 #16‐892 (B31.3 SG‐B)
March 28, 2016
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
1 of 1
57 of 118
58 of 118
59 of 118
60 of 118
Per conversation on 4/11/16: ASME B31.3‐2012 Chapter VI outlines inspection, examination and testing
procedures and requirements. These portions of the code are related but separate. Inspection falls under
the responsibility of the owner[1] whereas examination is the responsibility of the manufacturer [2]. Testing
is not specified to be the responsibility of any one party, however, it is a function which has to be done
before any piping component can be operated [3]. It does not imply that this responsibility defaults to the
manufacturer, if the “Extent of Required Examination” is met, then hydrostatic testing required by
examination is not required[3]. Hydrostatic testing, that is done to meet the requirements of examinations,
is independent from the required for tightness of a piping system[4]. This fact is supported by the codes
requirement to preform (“tightness”) hydrostatic leak test, after applicable examinations required by
paragraph 341[3]. Hydrostatic leak testing is an added service which Fluidic Techniques provides and can
be performed in accordance to ASME B31.3. However it must be specifically requested. Hydrostatic
testing may be used to supplement required examinations stated in paragraph 341.4 but is not specifically
required.
[1] ASME B31.3‐2012 paragraph 340.2
It is the owner’s responsibility, exercised through the owner’s Inspector, to verify that all required
examinations and testing have been completed and to inspect the piping to the extent necessary to be
satisfied that it conforms to all applicable examination requirements of the Code and of the engineering
design.
[2] ASME B31.3‐2012 paragraph 341.1 General
Examination applies to quality control functions performed by the manufacturer (for components only),
fabricator, or erector. Reference in this Code to an examiner is to a person who performs quality control
examinations.
[3] ASME B31.3‐2012 paragraph 345.1 Required leak test
Prior to initial operation, and after completion of the applicable examinations required by para. 341,
each piping system shall be tested to ensure tightness. The test shall be a hydrostatic leak test in
accordance with para. 345.4 except as provided herein.
(a) At the owner’s option, a piping system in Category D fluid service may be subjected to an
initial service leak test in accordance with para. 345.7, in lieu of the hydrostatic leak test.
(b) Where the owner considers a hydrostatic leak test impracticable, either a pneumatic test in
accordance with para. 345.5 or a combined hydrostatic‐pneumatic test in accordance with para.
345.6 may be substituted, recognizing the hazard of energy stored in compressed gas.
(c) Where the owner considers both hydrostatic and pneumatic leak testing impracticable, the
alternative specified in para. 345.9 may be used if both of the following conditions apply:
(1) a hydrostatic test would
(a) damage linings or internal insulation
(b) contaminate a process that would be hazardous, corrosive, or inoperative in
the presence of moisture
(c) require significant support modifications for the hydrostatic test load or
(d) present the danger of brittle fracture due to
low metal temperature during the test
(2) a pneumatic test would
61 of 118
(a) present an undue hazard of possible release of energy stored in the system
or
(b) present the danger of brittle fracture due to low metal temperature during
the test
(d) Unless specified in the engineering design, lines open to the atmosphere, such as vents or
drains downstream of the last shutoff valve, need not be leak tested.
[4] ASME B31.3‐2012 Interpretation 25‐18
Subject: B31.3‐2012, Interpretation of Paras. M341/341 and M345/345 Examination
and Testing: VT/PT/MT & RT/UT vs Leak Testing & Pressure Testing
Date Issued: September 25, 2014 File: 14‐1401
Question 1: Are the leak tests required in para. 345.1 independent from the
examinations required in para. 341.4.1?
Reply 1: Yes.
Question 2: In accordance with para. 345.1 are the applicable examinations required by
para. 341 to be performed prior to leak testing?
Reply 2: Yes.
62 of 118
TN 10-1188 (B31.3 SG-B)
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:
G = The width of the lateral branch opening at the inside surface of the run pipe (see
Figure 1), mm (in.).
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.).
t’1 = Nominal thickness of the matching run pipe connected to the fitting (see Figures), mm (in.).
t’2 = Nominal thickness of the matching branch pipe connected to the fitting (see Figures), mm
(in.).
α = The angle between the branch pipe centerline and the fitting crotch centerline, deg (see
Figures 1 and 2).
β = 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)
General Requirements
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 t’1 and t’2 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 t’1 and t’2 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 t’1 and t’2, 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 (α + β) 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.
64 of 118
TN 10-1188 (B31.3 SG-B)
Calculated Dimensions
The side length dimensions for calculating metal and pressure areas for the various fittings are as
follows:
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 α $ 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)
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)
67 of 118
TN 10-1188 (B31.3 SG-B)
68 of 118
TN 10-1188 (B31.3 SG-B)
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.
70 of 118
are not normally referenced with other BPV Code
references.
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.
71 of 118
A. Record Information
1. Record# 2. Primary Committee Responsible 3. Record Level 4. Record Sub-Type *
16-893 B31.3 Process Piping SC Proposal Revision
B. Record Description
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:
Rationale:
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.
73 of 118
A. Record Information
1. Record# 2. Primary Committee Responsible 3. Record Level 4. Record Sub-Type *
15-1031 B31.3 Process Piping SC Proposal Revision
B. Record Description
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.
Comments & Negatives Posted for Ballot#: 16-746
BechtC (Disapproved)
Date Posted: 03/25/16
i don't think we should mandate use of welding
symbols. It could be provided as recommended
guidance.
BoundsB (Disapproved)
Date Posted: 03/13/16
Add the titles in a footnote and I'd rather see this in
Appendix F as well.
CampbellRi (Disapproved)
Date Posted: 04/05/16
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)
Date Posted: 03/28/16
Agree with others as an App. F recommendation. Also,
some background and context would help, e.g.,
reference to piping drawings.
EsmaeiliA (Comment)
Date Posted: 04/01/16
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)
Date Posted: 03/17/16
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)
Date Posted: 03/25/16
Concur with the other disapprovals and believe this
belongs in App. F.
FrikkenD (Disapproved)
Date Posted: 03/11/16
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)
Date Posted: 04/04/16
I don't support this be a requirement/mandate in the
code. Maybe just a reference/recommendation.
Nisly-NageleK (Disapproved)
Date Posted: 03/29/16
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)
Date Posted: 03/28/16
Should there be an edition listed?
TonkinsS (Disapproved)
Date Posted: 04/01/16
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)
Date Posted: 03/28/16
Agree with other disapprovals that the weld symbol
standards should be recommendations not
requirements
75 of 118
A. Record Information
1. Record# 2. Primary Committee Responsible 3. Record Level 4. Record Sub-Type *
15-1304 B31.3 Process Piping SC Proposal Revision
B. Record Description
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.
Comments & Negatives Posted for Ballot#: 16-746
EsmaeiliA (Comment)
Date Posted: 04/01/16
Good proposal;
Agree.
76 of 118
General Power generation pipework published.
Incorporating Electric power generating station,
Geothermal,......
77 of 118
A. Record Information
1. Record# 2. Primary Committee Responsible 3. Record Level 4. Record Sub-Type *
11-952 B31.3 Process Piping SC Proposal Revision
B. Record Description
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.
BoundsB (Approved)
Date Posted: 03/13/16
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?
EsmaeiliA (Comment)
Date Posted: 04/01/16
Thanks for your efforts;
FlennerP (Approved)
Date Posted: 03/17/16
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)
Date Posted: 03/11/16
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.
MeloC (Disapproved)
Date Posted: 03/18/16
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
NaughtonT (Comment) Response:
Date Posted: 03/08/16
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)
Date Posted: 03/26/16
Insert A:
Insert B:
Insert C:
80 of 118
A. Record Information
1. Record# 2. Primary Committee Responsible 3. Record Level 4. Record Sub-Type *
13-1712 B31.3 Process Piping SC Proposal Revision
B. Record Description
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. 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.
Comments & Negatives Posted for Ballot#: 16-746
ArmstrongK (Disapproved) Response:
Date Posted: 03/31/16
I agree with your response to Mr. Horn. SwezyJ: 04/01/16
Thank You.
81 of 118
Date Posted: 04/01/16
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.
82 of 118
Date Posted: 03/29/16
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.
83 of 118
Proposed Revisions for 13-1712
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
A. Record Information
1. Record# 2. Primary Committee Responsible 3. Record Level 4. Record Sub-Type *
14-628 B31.3 Process Piping SC Proposal Revision
B. Record Description
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.
Comments & Negatives Posted for Ballot#: 16-746
BechtC (Disapproved) Response:
Date Posted: 03/25/16
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.
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.
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.
87 of 118
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. In order to
comply with the volumetric examination requirements
of para. 341.4.1, the welds would need to be identified
and numbered anyway.
88 of 118
TN 14-628 (B31.3 SG-E)
Item 14-628
Rev. 4
(E-14-06)
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
90 of 118
A. Record Information
1. Record# 2. Primary Committee Responsible 3. Record Level 4. Record Sub-Type *
15-2080 B31.3 Process Piping SC Proposal Revision
B. Record Description
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).
D'AvanzoJ: 03/28/16
Negative was based on agreement with Mr. Frikken's
comments, and anticipation of a revised proposal.
91 of 118
Date Posted: 04/01/16
Thanks; SwezyJ: 04/01/16
Thank You
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.
93 of 118
Proposal for 15-2080 (4/5/2016)
Page 1 of 1
94 of 118
A. Record Information
1. Record# 2. Primary Committee Responsible 3. Record Level 4. Record Sub-Type *
16-116 B31.3 Process Piping Stds Comm Proposal Revision
B. Record Description
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 IX’s para. K300.1 to harmonize it with the new base Code para. 300.1.4
Rounding that will be published in the 2016 Edition.
Comments & Negatives Posted for Ballot#: 16-746
EsmaeiliA (Comment) Response:
Date Posted: 04/01/16
Agree; Thanks. BoundsB: 04/01/16
Thank you.
95 of 118
A. Record Information
1. Record# 2. Primary Committee Responsible 3. Record Level 4. Record Sub-Type *
04-435 B31.3 Process Piping SC Proposal Revision
B. Record Description
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
manufacturer’s rated pressure. Purpose is to create common guidelines for establishing pressure ratings for use
by manufacturer’s, 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
Rationale: Standard describes the recommended proof testing of pressure regulators for operation at or
below the manufacturer’s rated pressure. Purpose is to create common guidelines for establishing
pressure ratings for use by manufacturer’s, users, specifiers and approval bodies for consistent pressure
integrity.
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
A. Record Information
1. Record# 2. Primary Committee Responsible 3. Record Level 4. Record Sub-Type *
14-1791 B31.3 Process Piping SC Proposal Revision
B. Record Description
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).
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
Comments & Negatives Posted for Ballot#: 14-2558
AgeeB (Approved) Response:
Date Posted: 11/11/14
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.
Please keeo the keep up the push to get the old listed
BS standard updated and the companion ISO
standard listed as well.
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.
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
101 of 118
TN 14-1791 (B31.3 SG-A)
BSI Standards
BS 6501-1: 2004
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
A. Record Information
1. Record# 2. Primary Committee Responsible 3. Record Level 4. Record Sub-Type *
16-209 B31.3 Process Piping SC Proposal Revision
B. Record Description
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
B31.3 Sub‐Group Material ‐ Agenda Item D‐12‐29
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).
Explanation and Background:
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
%PYQMRYQ %PPS]
& 7IEQPIWW XYFI
& 7IEQPIWW TMTI ERH XYFI
& *SVKMRKW ERH JMXXMRKW
& 7IEQPIWW TMTI ERH 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) &
'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
Participation :
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
1. Agenda
Attachments 2. Attendance Sheet
Minutes
IWG B31.3 group called for a meeting on 12th March 2016 at Country Inn &
1 Suites by Carlson in Gurgaon, India
Info
This meeting had active participation from the PMG members, who were
4 earlier regularly attending previous meetings as volunteers or guest.
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
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
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
108 of 118
109 of 118
110 of 118
COMMITTEE CORRESPONDENCE
-Keep ASME Codes and Standards Department Informed-
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.
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
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
Dan,
Now that I’ve worked in the LNG field a bit, it has come to light that B31.3 is missing a couple of valve related standards
from its Table 326.1. Please consider listing the following couple of common standards:
MSS SP‐134 entitled Valves for Cryogenic Service, including Requirements for Body/Bonnet Extensions (2012 is
current edition)
BS6364 entitled Specification for Valves for Cryogenic Service (1984 is current edition but Reaffirmed 2015)
Best Regards,
Rex Engle
Sr. Principal Piping Engineer
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).
To make 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
From: Park, Chan-seo [mailto:cspark@gsconst.co.kr]
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2016 11:13 PM
To: Don Frikken <frikkend@fidmail.com>
Subject: RE: Bases for Bolt Design Stresses
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: 박찬서(Park, Chan-seo) 부장/플랜트배관설계팀 (cspark@gsconst.co.kr)
Subject: RE: Bases for Bolt Design Stresses
Mr. Park,
I’m 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
From: Park, Chan-seo [mailto:cspark@gsconst.co.kr]
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 is Section 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
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
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