X-ray examination when not requiered by spec.

[juancito]

If somebody has a conceptual idea of the following situation, please let me know:
1)
A vessel is designed, fabricated and tested under the concept of X-ray exam. exemption in flanges to nozzle neck weldments for less than NPS10 nozzles (although the specified X-ray by customer was 100%).
I understand that unless the customer clearly states that all nozzles has to be x-rayed, you can use the above mentioned exemption.
2)
Suddenly the customer, by his own, decides to x-ray the nozzles, finding in some of them some defects he considers not acceptable. And of course wants to repair them.
Should this repair be consider as an additional under $$ concept because the vessel was designed without X-ray exam.?
3)If he decides to UT nozzle to shell weldments, although this NDT was neither specified nor required, should the defects -if any- be repaired with no cost?
This is happennig to us, so I would like to know if some of you have ever faced this situation and how solved it.

Thanks in advance

Juancito

 

[pipewelder1999]

Your text "Suddenly the customer, by his own, decides to x-ray the nozzles, finding in some of them some defects he considers not acceptable" indicates the customer is using some acceptance criteria other than the original code of construction. That could be something in addition to the original contract.

However, In my opinion. If my customer requires a product built to a specific code that requires all welds are to be complete penetration, exhibit no cracks or areas of incomplete fusion and upon visual examination I feel that additional testing is required. At my cost I would have the additional testing done. If said testing revealed "defects", I would want the defects fixed and I would expect the stampholder/manufacturer to do the same. As far as who pays for the fixing. Thats a commercial issue.

IF known defects exist regardless of the method of discovery, they should be evaluated by a competent engineering authority and the code.

If I show up to a shop to perform an inspection and due to lack of access I use a digital camera taped to a stick to view the backside of a weld that is suspect and it reveals incomplete penetration the fabricator thinks that that is "unfair" but that still doesn't change the fact that the incomplete penetration exists.

If you are working on ASME vessels why don't you get the AI's opinion. I'm not sure what the code says but as an inspector I use whatever means needed to verify the integrity of the product if any doubt exists.

All of the above is my opinion based on my experience as a quality control inspector and not an AI. Many times the PO or project specifications will allow the customer to perform additional testing/inspection at their cost with any defects/repairs at the cost of the manufacturer.

Gerald Austin
Iuka, Mississippi

http://www.weldinginspectionsvcs.com

 

[prex]

My suggestion is that you ask money to your customer not because of the cost of repair (that is of course due, as pipewelder correctly stated), but in exchange of the higher quality he requires for the vessel by asking for more extended NDT's. prex

http://www.xcalcs.com

Online tools for structural design

 

[juancito]

Pipewelder & prex,

Thanks a lot for your comments!

 

[austim]

juancito,

There appears to be a possible conflict in what you have said in your paragraph 1). Perhaps I have failed to understand your meaning.

Firstly you say "although the specified X-ray by customer was 100%".

Then you go on to say "unless the customer clearly says that all nozzles has to be x-rayed, you can use the above exemption".

If I were the customer and had specified "100% X-ray", I would expect nothing less than 100%, without any exemption. To my way of thinking 100% means all of every weld. I would be demanding that you repair the under-specification welds at your own cost.