Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
Porosity size limit
- Thread starter moe27
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #3
- Thread starter
- #5
Table 6.1
the sum of the visible piping porosity 1/32 in [1 mm] or greater in diameter shall not exceed
3/8 in [10 mm] in any linear inch of weld and shall not exceed 3/4 in [20 mm] in any
12 in [300 mm] length of weld.
NOT CLEAR ON WHAT THE FOLLOWING MEANS = "1/32 in [1 mm] or greater in diameter"
What is greater, what is the maximum diameter. I know what the total sum for 1" and 12" but not clear on a single size limit.
Regards
the sum of the visible piping porosity 1/32 in [1 mm] or greater in diameter shall not exceed
3/8 in [10 mm] in any linear inch of weld and shall not exceed 3/4 in [20 mm] in any
12 in [300 mm] length of weld.
NOT CLEAR ON WHAT THE FOLLOWING MEANS = "1/32 in [1 mm] or greater in diameter"
What is greater, what is the maximum diameter. I know what the total sum for 1" and 12" but not clear on a single size limit.
Regards
There are criteria for statically loaded nontubular, cyclically loaded nontubular, and now in the 2015 edition; tubular connections. You must specify the type of connection and the nature of the loading before an answer can be provided.
Best regards - Al
Best regards - Al
- Thread starter
- #7
moe27,
You will continue to chase your tail until you provide sufficient information.
You have posted only part of Table 6.1 (8) (A)
This is what Al wrote
"You must specify the type of connection and the nature of the loading before an answer can be provided."
If your weld is a CJP Groove Weld Butt Joint and is transverse to the computed tensile stress then the maximum size of any porosity is nil, zero, nadir, nothing.
All other groove welds and fillet welds (statically loaded) use the formula you have posted.
So, if you do not identify the joint type or loading type / direction how can anyone answer your question ?
If it is for all other groove welds and fillet welds (statically loaded) - there is no maximum diameter.
You add up the individual sizes of pores (if over 1 mm in diameter) and the sum must be less than that stated.
Regards,
DD
You will continue to chase your tail until you provide sufficient information.
You have posted only part of Table 6.1 (8) (A)
This is what Al wrote
"You must specify the type of connection and the nature of the loading before an answer can be provided."
If your weld is a CJP Groove Weld Butt Joint and is transverse to the computed tensile stress then the maximum size of any porosity is nil, zero, nadir, nothing.
All other groove welds and fillet welds (statically loaded) use the formula you have posted.
So, if you do not identify the joint type or loading type / direction how can anyone answer your question ?
If it is for all other groove welds and fillet welds (statically loaded) - there is no maximum diameter.
You add up the individual sizes of pores (if over 1 mm in diameter) and the sum must be less than that stated.
Regards,
DD
- Thread starter
- #9
- Thread starter
- #11
DekDee
If you are not too busy please justify your statement that is noted in quotes below.
If you are anybody, Engineer, Professional or Other than please justify your statement below.
This is not a taunt I only want to know your reasoning.
"there is no maximum diameter"
If you are not too busy please justify your statement that is noted in quotes below.
If you are anybody, Engineer, Professional or Other than please justify your statement below.
This is not a taunt I only want to know your reasoning.
"there is no maximum diameter"
I am on the road so do not have the code in front of me but pretty sure i can recall.
Table 6.1 (8) C is for Cyclically loaded and Tubular connections and it lists a maximum pore diameter (2.5 mm if i remember correctly).
Statically loaded applications are not as critical as Cyclic / Tubular so there is a different acceptance criteria and "There is no maximum diameter noted".
What is noted is the maximum sum total may not exceed 10 mm in a 25 mm length.
So you could have 2 x 5 mm pores, 1 x 2 mm and 1 x 8 mm pores or just a single 10 mm pore.
Although there is no maximum diameter noted it becomes 10 mm by default if only a single pore is evident.
2 x 10 mm pores in 300 mm length is still acceptable as the sum total has not exceeded 20 mm.
Table 6.1 (8) C is for Cyclically loaded and Tubular connections and it lists a maximum pore diameter (2.5 mm if i remember correctly).
Statically loaded applications are not as critical as Cyclic / Tubular so there is a different acceptance criteria and "There is no maximum diameter noted".
What is noted is the maximum sum total may not exceed 10 mm in a 25 mm length.
So you could have 2 x 5 mm pores, 1 x 2 mm and 1 x 8 mm pores or just a single 10 mm pore.
Although there is no maximum diameter noted it becomes 10 mm by default if only a single pore is evident.
2 x 10 mm pores in 300 mm length is still acceptable as the sum total has not exceeded 20 mm.
racookpe1978
Nuclear
moe27
you seem to have a rather fixed opinion about the kind of answers you think you should be given by the courtesy of the other, more experienced readers on this free web site. Fine.
1. What do YOU think the answer should be and why?
2. What is the up-close, detailed, with dimensions and a scale, photograph of the entire weld in question that YOU need an answer to from the other readers here? WE are still guessing at the scope of YOUR problem or YOUR issue with somebody else's weld porosity. (Please remember, it is not OUR problem.)
you seem to have a rather fixed opinion about the kind of answers you think you should be given by the courtesy of the other, more experienced readers on this free web site. Fine.
1. What do YOU think the answer should be and why?
2. What is the up-close, detailed, with dimensions and a scale, photograph of the entire weld in question that YOU need an answer to from the other readers here? WE are still guessing at the scope of YOUR problem or YOUR issue with somebody else's weld porosity. (Please remember, it is not OUR problem.)
- Thread starter
- #14
jimstructures
Structural
moe27
You have insulted Three people who were trying to get a clear question out of you so they could provide a reasonable answer. Lighten up. You probably have a relatively clear idea of what you need but seem to be unable to clearly explain your problem. Three volunteer and unpaid people have tried to answer your question and all you seem to be able to do is insult them. The quality of the answer you get is directly proportional to the clarity of question you ask. It is rare that the very first exposition of a problem has everything needed to answer it so there is usually some give and take before all the facts are out and the complete answer is given. Good luck on ever getting answer in the future.
Jim.
You have insulted Three people who were trying to get a clear question out of you so they could provide a reasonable answer. Lighten up. You probably have a relatively clear idea of what you need but seem to be unable to clearly explain your problem. Three volunteer and unpaid people have tried to answer your question and all you seem to be able to do is insult them. The quality of the answer you get is directly proportional to the clarity of question you ask. It is rare that the very first exposition of a problem has everything needed to answer it so there is usually some give and take before all the facts are out and the complete answer is given. Good luck on ever getting answer in the future.
Jim.
Al,
What is going on ? I thought you would have charged in throwing hand grenades at this guy.
I have mellowed substantially since my early days ( as age and parenthood have slowed me down) but I thought you still had a bit of bite left in you. LOL !!!
Hope you enjoyed your Xmas / New Year celebrations,
Cheers,
DD
What is going on ? I thought you would have charged in throwing hand grenades at this guy.
I have mellowed substantially since my early days ( as age and parenthood have slowed me down) but I thought you still had a bit of bite left in you. LOL !!!
Hope you enjoyed your Xmas / New Year celebrations,
Cheers,
DD
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question