We work with several manufacturers / vendors that offer that service. Be sure to clearly state the requirements on your PO for the consumables and review the MTR to determine that the reported test results are actual, not typical. Some will state their cert is in accordance with EN 10204 3.1...
Is this a Sec VIII-1 application?
If so and you have a copy of ASME Sec VIII-1, review Non Mandatory APP L. In particular look at Fig L-1.4-2.
If other specify.
Agree with the above comment. Aluminum is also used in killing steel and we often see Si & Al both reported on an MTR. Of course it's much easier to satisfy a customer that the requirement has been met when the MTR states 'fully killed' or words to that effect. If necessary, your steel...
However, be aware that the interpretation above is no longer valid as written due to a Code change pertaining to the requirements for impact tests in the HAZ. See Table UG 84.6 and CC 2835. Bottom line is that PQR impact tests on a thin plate as described in the interpretation no longer...
For P1 materials RT requirements are a function of design. One can determine RT requirements per Code by reviewing the vessel calculations. Review UW 11, Table UW 12 and the calcs.
I guess I'll be the odd man out here but we've had good success using FCAW on 2205 Duplex. I'm basing that on achieving % Ferrite in the range of 35 - 65. Some procedures run a little tighter. I ran a procedure last fall with ferrite running 49.9 to 59.1, but in my experience most customers...
We typically weld the trunnion to the shell with whatever weld size is required. Normally it's full pen thru the trunnion wall and a fillet. When that's complete drop the repad over the trunnion and weld that joint. The repad opening needs to be sized to accommodate the previously applied fillet.
Are there any concerns over using threaded connections between austenitic stainless and aluminum fittings for cryogenic service with a simple thread sealant such as Teflon tape?
Thanks for any input.
Review UG 84 ( i ). It'll refer you to several other paragraphs but with some careful reading it should be clear. If you have additional specific questions come back here but, I'd also suggest you consult with your AI.
I found two interpretations in the latest volume ( 63 ) that pertain to normalizing P1 material, interesting. The interpretations are VIII-1-15-06 and 08.
06 Q- If a plate is normalized once at the mill and then is subsequently normalized again during manufacturing, does UCS 85 (c) require...
As many are likely aware the requirement for impact testing HAZ's in thicker materials changed with the 2013 Ed. UG 84 (g)(2)
Some of you may have seen Code Case 2235 but if not it may be helpful to know that it allows for the use of PQR's qualified by the old rules ( prior to 2013) thru 2017...
Or when no impact testing is required. So, if your intended application does not require impact testing by Code rules, the welding variable does not apply.
When this requirement has been applied we've simply sent a sample of the plate to a local lab and had them perform an examination and provide a report.
A comment & q's;
with true spray transfer it does not seem that low heat input would be an issue unless you are traveling at a very high rate.
Have you seen much difference in weld hardness between 70S-2 and 3. I ask because in my experience using the GTAW process, we get much softer welds...
I'm not familiar with the spec MIL you reference but the approach I recommend, and that I take for every job is that any NDE required after PWHT must be done prior to that heat cycle, and, I make every effort to ensure it is done, as it will be done later.
Any new variable introduced in the...
