Search results for query: *

racookpe1978, Thanks for your reply. I would not refute anything you stated and I think we both understand the intent of preheating related to thickness and that the industry standard is nominal thickness in D1.1 preheat tables. Again, though, with your analogy of 1.560" thickness requiring a...

I would appreciate any help in determining what the thickness definition of AWS D1.1 is regarding preheating. If I may further explain: A customer is stating that they want 1 1/2" thicknesses preheated to 150 F which was not included in previous pricing for fabrication. The push-back from our...

Yes. If I understand you correctly, that is the 2nd scenario that I mentioned.

If you performed the weld with a backing weld, then the face (grooved side) obviously had backing. If you performed the weld with a back weld, then the face side provided the backing. For AWS D1.1, a CJP weld without backing is a single sided CJP weld.

I found through a search where #31 was addressed and the summary was that any CJP groove qualifies for any other groove with details meeting 3.12 and 3.13. But then there was no addressing of #32 which seems contradictory to #31. My question is then if a prepared CJP groove is qualified per...

For you to have a thickness range of 1/8-3/4, you would have had to test on 2" sch 80. Your numbers indicate 0.125 - 0.308 thickness range and should be corrected on the documents and show the revision change provided the PQR displays a 2" sch 40 for test size.

I didn't refer to the figures you cited but can tell you that D1.1 has no prequalified joints welded from one side. Also, if the prequalified joint has the backgouge note then you must backgouge when welding from both sides. Only select joints for SAW allow two sided welds with no backgouge.

We have B-L1a-F joints on a 304L hopper. There is a concern that the root openings may be excessive. I am trying to understand the fit-up tolerances in figure 3.5 of D1.6 (2007). 1/4" plate should have 1/4" root opening if detailed as such, plus 1/16" based on the equation? I question it...

We are in the middle of galvanizing CS material that will have 304L material welded to it. To prevent grinding the zinc we masked the areas for welding. Our testing demonstrated that duct tape, secured with not only its adhesive backing but also with a spray on adhesive (we used Loctite and...

DekDee, Figure 4.13. It is noted on the detail of the top specimen. 4.12 is face and root specimens.

D1.1 dictates that it is permissible provided you leave no less than 1/8" for machining.

Could someone point out where in D1.1 or D1.6 that it says you shall use the documents provided in the appendix of D1.1? I would also be curious of required statements or signatures such as "We certify that . . . in accordance with AWS D1.X". I am only aware of necessary requirements that AWS...

DekDee, This is a door to a vessel. The re-pad going around the neck, left side and right side with FW in center, calls for 1/16" gap with a 3/8" fillet FW. Basically, the ID of the re-pad is 1/8 larger than the OD of the door neck. Rolling and breaking 1-1/4" 317L and 3/4" 317L made hitting...

Based on what 9.2.1.1 says, our 3/16" gap for the fillet weld (not attached to the tank) is acceptable per D1.6. API 650 and ASME sect. IX seem a little foggy when tolerances of joint design are questioned. Surprisingly, I noticed that sect. IX allows for no range in root opening for the...

I have specifications that require welder testing to ASME sect.IX and welding by API 650. On this job, a 1/16" root opening for a fillet weld is called out but our trial fit is showing an average of 3/16" root opening. Not being as familiar with API 650 as AWS D1.6, I am questioning where...

Thank you gentlemen for the comments. I checked again with sales to be certain that 2205 was called out and it appears that the customer may be reversing their decision.

I debated on what forum to use for this so I hope I have chosen correctly. We have had success with overlaying T200x on A36 but have a scrubber job calling out 2205 whereas the customer wants the T200x overlay performed. In talking with the TX distributor of the overlay material, we were...

Based on your 2nd entry on this topic, the welder is qualified to weld up to 26mm because you tested on 13mm, but he cannot weld on a thickness for which you do not have a WPS. Therefore, your WPS is limited to 13mm and in effect the welder is also until you produce a WPS that is supported for...

You don't normally see UT, RT, or MT. Commonly it is MT, and then UT or RT. When given the choice, we UT in order to not lose production time by shutting down an area. If an inspector has ever requested NDT procedures from whomever is performing the work, then I would say yes, he would be...

Assuming you are fabricating to D1.1, UT testing can be done per Annex S which gives guidelines for less than 5/16" and more than 8". It will be a separate procedure that can be requested from the NDT contractor. I would be curious how he is making a CJP weld. Is he using backing bars at the...