6.11.1 just gives a couple of examples of weld all round, single weld and double weld. These types of documents are never going to be comprehensive enough to cover examples of every possible detail.
I agree with you and Christine74, that for the vast majority of cases a single fillet welded all...
Because they are two separate fillet welds, which weld all round their respective side of the part/weldment, each individual fillet still starts and stops at the same location, so weld all round is applicable. Please refer to AWS A2.4, 6.11.1 and Annex D6.11.1
Regarding the fillet weld without...
If the fillet weld size is not shown, you should refer to the general notes for the size of the fillet weld. It is pretty standard practice to have a note specifying 'all fillet welds shall be 6mm CFW unless noted otherwise' or similar. If a note is not included, or a different size is required...
No, refer to UG-16(a). However, I believe it excludes the use of DBA, where rules exist in Div.2 (since this is also the case for Div.2). But, it isn't quite clear whether design rules of Appendix 46 means 46-3 Design by Rule, or the full scope of Appendix 46 which would include 46-4 Design by...
You are correct about the design life. It is essentially the same, 1/L = 0.02 (for 50 years) multiplied by the lifetime risk, r, to give the annual probability of exceedance. Refer to AS 1170.0 Table F2, Note 2, for the risk values based on Importance Level.
It is a bit misleading regarding the terminology since the 50 year return period in the Eurocode is the design life, as opposed to the average recurrence interval, which is the time between exceedance of the wind speeds given, e.g. a 1 in 500 year storm event.
Regarding the gust wind speeds, I...
I don't believe it is just a matter of structural robustness, rather linked to the maximum permitted stiffness discontinuity between levels.
Unlike a lot of the other commentaries, the AS1170.4 commentary was updated in 2021 and can be downloaded for free at the following link...
A105 produced to fine grain practice and normalized is curve B, not curve C. Since specification A105 doesn't include fine grain practice, A105N will fall under curve A. I believe this was the intent of the VIII-1 update, assuming this is the appropriate design and construction code.
Rather than...
@r6155, UCS-66(e) applies to all material assignment notes. It simply provides a reference to fine austenitic grain size, as required under note (2)(a), to use curve B for A105N material. It doesn't matter if it is a plate specification or not.
Could be worth posting on the 'Metal and Metallurgy engineering' forum regarding the FG processing practice, assuming grain refining elements are not used. Control of the Mn/C ratio with normalization might be sufficient.
There is no requirement for fine grain practice in SA-105, 2023. You would have to specify in the PO for testing to determine the grain size. Figure UCS-66(e)(2) refers to SA-20, whereby SA-20 8.3.1 should give you the relevant information. Elsewhere in the world ISO 643 may also used. It may be...
If there is a pressure vessel involved then that would change things. I was under the impression it was a piping system routing through a ventilated heater enclosure, like reformer piping systems. In my experience these have always been to B31.3 supplemented with API 530.
One issue in...
In my experience they have always been designed to B31.3 and API 530. If you follow API 560, it will refer you to B31.3 and API 530 as appropriate. I would consider the thickness design to API 530 suitable to cover the B31.3 exclusions.
