Effect of Less Percentage of Titanium in ASTM312 TP321

What's the application: pharmaceuticals? Sewage?

Referred std. is (ASME Sec. II, Part A (SA312 TP321M), by mistake wrote TP312 in my previous forum

Service is HYDROGEN in refinery

Please describe the acceptance protocol.

ASME Sec. II, Part A (SA312 TP321M), table 1 (page no.492), Addition 2010

Which party is doing the acceptance?

Please describe, with appropriate discretion protecting the identities of the parties, the business environment within which this acceptance is taking place.

Independent third party doing the acceptance and client is asking query about this

Then the third party advises the Client of the consequences of non-acceptance. The Client makes the decision based upon the third party's advice.

What is the technical effect of a lower-than-standard titanium percentage in this particular application? The Client will expect the company to know that and advise accordingly.

CR4 Admin - Removed Company Name

OP mistakenly posted company name which should have been kept confidential.

Could the result be a typo, like in #2?

You are in a very weak position here. How did it ever get accepted for use in the first place???? Your incoming inspection department missed this???

You have no one on staff that can understand the effect of the reduced ratio of Ti to C.

You have no way of justifying the use of non-compliant material in this project.

You will need to hire a consultant recognized by your customer as an expert, with proper qualifications to justify the use, or at least speak intelligently for you.

As PW Slack has stated, it's up the the customer's quality and process engineers if they will accept the non-complaint material, by issuing a waiver of non-compliance, or whatever it is called in your country.

You'll probably have to demonstrate what changes you have initiated to see that the acceptance of non-compliant material can't happen again.

Hire a metallurgist, now.

Let me explain it in details, I am a contractor inspector, chemical analysis carried out by independent third party who was hiring by sub-contractor. I cannot blame to incoming inspection department or any individuals because they tested 10% as spec says and that analysis was within the acceptable limit & matching with MTCs of manufacturer,

After fabrication 100% PMI (Positive Material Identification) require by project specification, during 100% testing only we obtain this 0.026% TI against one pipe

We offer this report to get sign by client and client ask 'whether it is accepted or not and if it will be rejected then what will be the consequences'

I am fully satisfied with comments given by Mr PMoon & Mr. Milo and we are going to re-conduct all relevant tests for that particular pipe except hydro test because hydro test will be done after erection at site. In case of reading of re-tests violating again the code requirements, of course we will have to hi-light this violation by issuing a non-conformance report and let engineering of sub contractor clarify it with bring up the corrective action.

Thanks to all

Yes. That is the proper approach. Milo

Thanks alot Mr.Milo to work seriously on this issue

Good Luck, Ti found within the acceptable limit in re-testing of that particular pipe and accepted by all parties

Thanks

That is great news. Thanks for reporting back. Milo

Yep. Get the #10↑ idea?

Milo and PMoon covered it well. I was composing a response from a former refinery weldor's perspective, guessing that without PWHT, uncommon for 300 series SS, the Ti deficient would be prone to cracking, the very last thing you want for hydrogen service. Milo explained why.

Abel, your contributions ALWAYS add value to the discussion. Thanks for clarifying the agency scope issues. Hope that all is well with you. Milo

You definitely know the Code. I am curious which Year Edition that began. Having been primarily concerned with Sect. XI for the better part of the past 25 years (Inspection not Repair/Replacement), my experience with Sect. II is prior 1985. At that time what I stated in my post; I believe, was correct.

Thank you for the straight forward way in which you clarified my error.

ASME XI "Rules for inservice inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components"????

Make it to the specifications and standards or don't make it.