Search results for query: *

Dhurjati, I must strongly disagree. That is a ridiculous way to interpret what is very clear. It clearly says "For tubes of specified wall thickness greater than 0.100 in. (2.5 mm), only one qualification test is required." There isn't even ambiguity in this. OP should not even need to ask.

Erdyne, Not sure who you work for, if full plant, but generally, just contact Chemetics for the acid preheater. That is their thing. https://www.worley.com/what-we-do/our-technology/chemetics

Tony, it depends on your use. What industry, and what product are you making? If you buy from a quality distributor for normal ASME, say a 2'x2' plates from 100 (40' x 8') heat, it will almost all be tested for impact - they just don't report it on the MTR. Ask for it. If you are buying lower...

Thanks guys. Sad to not have advanced alternatives. Axxair we didn't look deeply into, appears to be exact copy of Liburdi/Orbitalium P16. p.s. the French company is Polysoude.

Hello, What is everyone using for their TTS orbital joints? We've tested Polysoude, AMI(ESAB), Liburdi, and Orbitalium. My findings: AMI easiest to use, but since ESAB purchase, they are unserviceable. Polysoude, the equipment was not easy to use. Liburdi, the equipment didn't even work...

97Harley, you smaw weld austenitic in field for nuclear? With 100% RT for hot zones?

KingNero, Check out Precision Ceramics USA. https://precision-ceramics.com/ I've used them to make special ceramics of the size you are talking. They made us pieces much much bigger than you are mentioning. Be aware ceramics of this size are sensitive to thermal shocking.

Hello, The production team has purchased a machine from "TIP TIG". It's a semi-auto GTAW, with hot wire, and that process I am highly interested in since we already have automatics. It also has linear actuation for the wire to "agitate the weld pool", but I've turned it off, it's garbage. Our...

I agree, that's my current course. With 100 texts returning, a bit hard to pick. We've got a short list to purchase today. Always nice to have recommendations though.

Ironic, thank you for acknowledging there is in fact a difference in nuclear service welding, appreciate you dropping in, hoped you would. I agree with your comments as usual. But as you alluded to, we don't have those challenges of field welding, so no in-situ robotics/human risk, just shop...

Hello, What's the current authoritative and modern references for nuclear welding and fillers, best practices etc? I do not mean applicable codes. Thanks

A tragedy for our industry.

In case 1, 10mm to 10mm, you could weld also 1.5 mm sheet + 300 mm sheets. Reread QW-202.4. First sentence very important. For stainless and the other alloys listed it is inconsequential to weld against a thicker piece per theory, and the code reflects this. The weld size is the critical value...

I think probably the issue is they used Lincoln consumable for something important. They make good for SAW and fence building. Also WeldStan's answer from that thread I agree with: "With the very low heat input, LOF may be the actual flaw"

Is you machine calibrated to analyse these materials? We have welders in our shop try to PMI stuff and ask me constantly, but our machines aren't calibrated for it. Anyway, I think most likely you have a fancy new part that has a plating. 70Zn-30Fe. Sand it off?

david339933, Impact, Corrosion, Hardness. Inappropriate to be added in late. Also all good points everyone, and in my review of historical/prior versions code, I found no point at which doing this sort of thing is acceptable.

Hello, QW-200.2 (c) discusses adding additional information to PQRS as being acceptable, but follows with "All changes to a PQR require re-certification". Has this always been the case? I'm looking through historical procedures and finding lots of data just tossed in. Added 1-5 years post PQR...

Codes which list "variables" are generally describing the minimum requirement. ASME has a clause which says, and I'm paraphrasing "if it caused a failure in your PQR or known to affect fusion, it is now an essential variable".

16-2262 does not provide any relevant information on this part of the change.

Hello, The new 2019 code has removed the previous comment about complete penetration to within 1/64" (0.4mm). So ASME no longer wishes to comment on penetration to the root, or no longer want to enforce a tolerance? Or do they wish us to interpret c) as including complete penetration? It seems...