© 2020 Baverstock Welding Engineering Consultancy Ltd 1

© 2020 Baverstock Welding Engineering Consultancy Ltd 2

 Welding Processes Investigation
Investigating the acceptance, rejection, and distortion after welding a set on
nozzles used in the manufacture of pressure vessels

© 2020 Baverstock Welding Engineering Consultancy Ltd 3

 Contents
1. Introduction
2. Branch welding overview
3. The joint and the processes used for the investigation
4. Computer Measuring Machine (CMM) details
5. Codes and standards acceptance criteria
6. Results – Visual inspection
7. Results – Penetrant inspection
8. Results – Macroscopic inspection
9. Results – Codes and standards assessment
10. Results – Graphs & Plots
11. Simulated welding costs
12. Summary of results
13. Conclusion

© 2020 Baverstock Welding Engineering Consultancy Ltd 4

 Introduction
Pressure vessels are not just welded with butt and fillet ASME 2015 VIII
UW-3 p113
welds; there are lots of different types of joints that can
be used

Pressure vessel nozzles are for the

of the or . These joints need to
be welded to an
Welding the nozzle joints in a vessel will impact

(due to distortion)

This investigation looks at these key

areas by welding seven parts using
different welding processes and
process combinations

© 2020 Baverstock Welding Engineering Consultancy Ltd 5

 Branch or Nozzle Types

Set on
Standard pipe weld test piece

Set through Set in

© 2020 Baverstock Welding Engineering Consultancy Ltd 6

 Branch Welding - Clarification
ASME Code - 2019
The only note about Set on or Set in welds are made
in QW-403.16.
This relates to the welder variables defined on tables
QW-354, QW-355, QW-356 and QW-357. It is also
shown as an overview on Table QW-416

BS EN ISO 15614-1:2017
This standard shows details of a branch weld in Figure 4

This also applies to other pressure vessel standards for

example EN 13445, PD5500 and RCC-M (French Nuclear
code) as they all use BS EN ISO 15614-1 as the welding
qualification standard.

© 2020 Baverstock Welding Engineering Consultancy Ltd 7

 The welding assembly
The assembly consists of made of 316L, 1.4404 or X2CrNiMo17-12-2
1. A pipe 114.3 x 8.56mm (4” Sch 80), machined (faced off) at one end and the machined curved shape at the
other with a ground 45°weld prep.
2. A plate was rolled with a radius of 203mm (16” NB) and cut into quarters.

© 2020 Baverstock Welding Engineering Consultancy Ltd 8

 The Welded Assembly Restraint
The assembly was welded to a base to ensure for the nozzle to shell

© 2020 Baverstock Welding Engineering Consultancy Ltd 9

 The welding assembly and processes
The machines used for the welding Tests The Seven Welding Tests

Kemppi Master MLS

2500

Process Numbers reference BS EN ISO 4063

111 = Manual Metal Arc with covered electrode
135 = Metal Active Gas with solid wire electrode
Fronius
TPS320i
136 = Metal Active Gas Flux Cored electrode
141 = Tungsten Inert Gas with solid wire/rod
© 2020 Baverstock Welding Engineering Consultancy Ltd 10
 Other Process Variables

Each test part had this information recorded

1. Amps, volts and travel speed for each run

2. Heat input measured – KJ/mm for each run
3. Welding time
4. Weighed – before testing
5. Weighed – after testing
6. Consumables were weighed - discarded and used
7. Welding costs

© 2020 Baverstock Welding Engineering Consultancy Ltd 11

 CMM Measuring machine
After tacking all parts were and welding by a Computer Measuring Machine

The drawing shows all the points measured

© 2020 Baverstock Welding Engineering Consultancy Ltd 12

 Acceptance criteria from the codes
and standards
Each joint was inspected against the for
and inspection detailed in
these standards.

 BS EN 13445:2014 Unfired pressure vessel sections 1-5

Assumed production weld
 PD5500:2012+A3:2014 Specification for unfired fusion welded pressure
vessels – Assumed production weld
 RCC-M:2012 Design and construction rules for mechanical components of
nuclear islands – Assumed production weld
 RCC-M:2012 Design and construction rules for mechanical components
of nuclear islands - Assumed qualification weld
 BS EN ISO 15614-1:2004 +A2:2012 Specification qualification of welding
procedures for metallic materials. Part 1 Arc and gas welding. – Assumed
qualification weld
 ASME BPVC XIII:2015 Rules for construction of pressure vessels – Assumed
production weld
 ASME BPVC IX:2015 Rules for construction of pressure vessels – Assumed
qualification weld
 ASME B31.3:2012 Process Piping (ASME code for
pressure piping) – Assumed production weld

© 2020 Baverstock Welding Engineering Consultancy Ltd 13

 Codes acceptance criteria

© 2020 Baverstock Welding Engineering Consultancy Ltd 14

 Visual Inspection

T1 T2 Spatter/undercut

T3 Spatter/undercut T4 Spatter

T5 Spatter/undercut T6 Start/stop & Spatter

All inspections were

carried out by a qualified
CSWIP 3.1 inspector
T7
Start/stop, undercut & Spatter

© 2020 Baverstock Welding Engineering Consultancy Ltd 15

 Dye Penetrant Inspection

T1 T2 Cold lap

T3 Start/stop T4 Indications in cap and root

T5 Start/stop & failed root T6 Start/stop & failed root

All inspections were

carried out by a qualified T7 failed root only
PCN Level 2 inspector
© 2020 Baverstock Welding Engineering Consultancy Ltd 16
 Macro Inspection

T1 Two Sections were taken at

T2 these approximate positions

T3

T4

T5

T6

T7

© 2020 Baverstock Welding Engineering Consultancy Ltd 17

 Code and Standards Results

Note: all parts were inspected in the “as welded” condition without and repairs

© 2020 Baverstock Welding Engineering Consultancy Ltd 18

 Code and Standards Results
• T1 Simply passed against all codes
• T2 Failed on the depth of undercut in 4 of the 8 standards.
• All the defects could have been repaired according to the relevant standards.
• T3 Failed on the depth of undercut in some of the standards. It also failed in the start/stop area and
convexity.
• These defects and the splatter could have been repaired according to all the standards but the lack of
fusion would have been a major repair with removal of material and re-welding.
• T4 Only had some surface and root pores
• These could easily be repaired and in some standards they were acceptable. But the lack of fusion
would have been a major repair with removal of material and re-welding.
• T5 The undercut and surface pore failed in some standards
• The splatter can be cleaned up but the root run failed against all standards and would need a major
repair with removal of material and re-welding.
• T6 Failed in the start/stop area and convexity.
• The splatter can be cleaned up but the root run failed against all standards and would need a major
repair with removal of material and re-welding.
• T7 Had undercut convexity and bad toe profile but passed the surface dye pen.
• The root run failed against all standards and would need a major repair with removal of material and re-
welding.
There seems to be a big difference in the acceptance criteria for the different standards for the same weld

It should be possible to state that a defined defect within defined criteria should be rejected whatever the specification but
that does not seem to be the case.
© 2020 Baverstock Welding Engineering Consultancy Ltd 19
 CMM Results

© 2020 Baverstock Welding Engineering Consultancy Ltd 20

 CMM – Z Axis along the base

All lines show uneven movement of the vertical pipe due to

distortion. Consequently the measurements for each

© 2020 Baverstock Welding Engineering Consultancy Ltd 21

 CMM - Z Axis along the base

T1 TIG (GTAW)
highest distortion

T7 MAG-P only T4 TIG/MAG-P second

lowest distortion lowest distortion

© 2020 Baverstock Welding Engineering Consultancy Ltd 22

 CMM - Y Axis along the base

Movement inwards to the hole

© 2020 Baverstock Welding Engineering Consultancy Ltd 23

 CMM – Z Axis from the top down

Shrinkage into the shell

© 2020 Baverstock Welding Engineering Consultancy Ltd 24
 CMM Overall results

7.15mm 5.04mm 2.08mm

T1 T4 T7

Nozzle

Nozzle

Nozzle
-0.83mm -0.33mm
(1.66mm overall) -0.40mm
(0.67mm overall) (0.80mm overall)

Shell
Shell Shell

9.06mm 4.86mm 3.95mm

drop drop drop

© 2020 Baverstock Welding Engineering Consultancy Ltd 25

 Total Heat Input Calculated in accordance
with BS EN 1011-1

TIG/MAG and MAG only process

showing the lowest

T4 = 72.30%
reduction T7 = 80.03%
reduction

© 2020 Baverstock Welding Engineering Consultancy Ltd 26

 CMM results with Heat Input

7.15mm 5.04mm 2.08mm

T1 T4 T7

Nozzle

Nozzle

Nozzle
-0.83mm -0.33mm
(1.66mm overall) -0.40mm
(0.67mm overall) (0.80mm overall)

Shell
Shell Shell

9.06mm 4.86mm 3.95mm

drop drop drop

© 2020 Baverstock Welding Engineering Consultancy Ltd 27

 Total Welding Time

(56 min 51 sec)

74.79% reduction in 87.13% reduction in

time from T1 time from T1

(22 min 41 sec)

(14 min 32 sec)
(11 min 48 sec)
(18 min 1 sec)
(14 min 20 sec)

(7 min 19 sec)

These times do not include any flux removal or cleaning time. If this was included it would make T2, T3, T5 and T6 considerably longer

© 2020 Baverstock Welding Engineering Consultancy Ltd 28

 Average Travel Speed

328.50% increase in
travel speed from T1
244.72% increase in
travel speed from T1

© 2020 Baverstock Welding Engineering Consultancy Ltd 29

 Consumables used

© 2020 Baverstock Welding Engineering Consultancy Ltd 30

 Consumables used

TIG/MAG-P higher deposited rate with

better quality

Very inefficient deposit

rate

© 2020 Baverstock Welding Engineering Consultancy Ltd 31

 Welding Costs
The costs were calculated by using
(arc time only, in seconds)
(market price per Kg)
of wire or rods to (measured in mm)
of consumables used for each test (Kg)
(£30 per hour)

77.30% reduction in
costs from T1

59.93% reduction in
costs from T1

© 2020 Baverstock Welding Engineering Consultancy Ltd 32

 Consumables Costs

© 2020 Baverstock Welding Engineering Consultancy Ltd 33

 Summary of results

© 2020 Baverstock Welding Engineering Consultancy Ltd 34

 Conclusions
T1 (TIG) was the only process acceptable to the standards but it had
 The highest heat input
 The slowest welding process
 It had the greatest distortion in all directions
The TIG/FCAW and TIG/MAG for this one off test should not be used for a set on joint type as the
results showed lack of inter-run fusion, around this tight diameter.
 The diameter is the key as these processes have to manipulate around a diameter. If welding
around a Ø168.3mm (6” NB) or possibly Ø141.3mm (5” NB) this should be the minimum to
ensure no lack of fusion.
The TIG in the root run causes more distortion than the other processes
 But this produces a high quality weld run so is the compromise option (depending upon
diameter and skills available).
The MAG-P process had
 The lowest heat input
 Lowest distortion
 Quickest travel speed
 Cheapest welding.
When welding a set on nozzle the welders need to have adequate training and manipulating
equipment (weight of the MAG/FCAW torch)

© 2020 Baverstock Welding Engineering Consultancy Ltd 35

 Thank you

Contact details of BWEC Contact details of TWI

Baverstock Welding Engineering Consultancy Ltd www.theweldinginstitute.com
Welding engineering solutions for your business
EUR ING Mike Baverstock MSc CEng FWeldI
theweldinginstitute@twi.co.uK
Consultant Welding Engineer
Certified International & European Welding Engineer
01223 899000
Tel: 07941 368 894
Email: mike@weldingconsultancy.co.uk
Web: www.weldingconsultancy.co.uk @WeldingInst
Services: www.weldingconsultancy.co.uk/services
EN 1090: wwww.weldingconsultancy.co.uk/en-1090-accreditation The Welding Institute
RWC info: www.weldingconsultancy.co.uk/rwc-info
WPS Shop www.weldingconsultancy.co.uk/wps-shop
Welding Engineering: www.weldingconsultancy.co.uk/welding-engineering @TheWeldingInstitute
© 2020 Baverstock Welding Engineering Consultancy Ltd 36