Is a seat hardfacing applied by welding (or spraying) on a NOT pressure containing part of the body stub considered to be a pressure containing weld in terms of the ASME code AND is for that hardfacing a procedure qualification in accordance with ASME IX essentiayl required by ASME VIII?

Jörg, can you clarify? Where exactly do you want to spray your hardfacing? What is "NOT pressure containing part of the body stub"?

_________________
Konrad Anikiel

Hi Konrad,
please imagine 2 Tubes which are insertet into a matchbox from each side.
The tubes form the body stubs (inlet & outlet stub), the matchbox forms a valve body.
Both tube ends extend into the body by - lets say - 20mm. The front face of the extending tube ends are to be hardfaced as seats.
The tubes thereself are welded into the body by a full pen weld - 20mm away from the seats.
If this is not clear to you, please provide me with an e-mail adress where I can send a sketch to.

Bye Jörg

Jörg,
You can always state, what parts are excluded from the scope of U1 certificate. Problem becomes to be fundamental, when you use this internal stubs to satisfy some requirement. Like area replacement to satisfy opening reinforcement condition. I would also cut it off for a bursting test if it is performed, just to demonstrate that the strength of your matchbox does not come from these stubs.

_________________
Konrad Anikiel

Hi Konrad,
Thank you for the immediate reply. However, to me it seems as you would not get my point.

There is no question about the full-pen weld of the body stubs into the body (matchbox). The stubs re-inforce the body, they are integral part of the body, they are pressure containing and those welds are required to be qualified by PQR acc. to ASME.

My question is targeting the hardfacing, applied on the tube's end face, approx. 3mm thick and about 20-25mm away from above full-pen weld. Does the ASME code require anywhere that such hardfacing MUST be qualified in acc. with ASME code?

Background as follows:
We hold PQR's, WPS & test records for such hardfacing, but - since the procedures are companies know-how - we want to avoid technologie transfer to our customers by providing them with any detail information.
So - just based on the regulations of the ASME code and not considering any other additional customer specifications - is the customer entiteled to demand this information by code?

Thanks, Jörg

Hi Jörg,
I think I did understand, maybe I wasn't too clear with reply.
1. ASME does not require to submit PQR/WPSes to the client. This is your contractual issue.
2. You can do anything you want with a part of your device, provided you will exclude it from scope of certification (like when you attach a nameplate with a pop-up rivet- do you hold a MTR of the rivet material?)
3. Consequence of exclusion of something from scope of your code job is that you can't demonstrate fulfilment of any code requirement by means of using this excluded part. I was thinking about situation, when you are using section area of this inner portion of your pipe to satisfy requirements of UG-36 for instance (A3 in Fig UG-37.1). There can be other traps like this. This is not written anywhere black on white, this is only my logic.
4. Why don't you sketch, scan and insert here your device- it would shed more light.
5. Last, but not least- read UW-28(b). You are not required to qualify this procedure. And UW-29(a) does not require you to qualify the welder/welding operator. I think, this alone answers your question

_________________
Konrad Anikiel

Hi Konrad,
now it is clear to me. Very good, Thank You.

Jörg