- This topic has 3 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Regards to my project specification indicated that
"All plates or sections thicker than 23 mm restrained at a tee junction by a butt weld shall be tested for lamination using UT testing."
Then now we have a lot of problem due to my main contractor who interpreted that the Tee-joint is Tee-Junction and their required to check lamination to all my Tee-joint !!!
How about your decision?
Hi Flash,
K.Nakarin is a Thai Welding Engineer working on fabrication of modules for shipment to Australia. (AS/NZS 1554.1)
The specifications require UT testing on any CJP Tee junction (Tee joint) greater than 23 mm. That seems very thin (most specs state greater than 30 or 36 mm) but if it is in the spec it must be complied with.
Unfortunately it is too late now – should have been picked up prior to fabrication starting and a TQ issued to the client.
Cheers,
BBHi Nak and BB
I was a bit confused, Tee Joint and Junction I would suggest is intended to mean the same thing, just different terminology, hence the request for picturesI tend to agree with BB it is usually 32mm plate and greater (32mm being the next standard size after 25mm)
This 32mm rule is usually a blanket statement that cover fillets as well, the extract below specifically lists Full Pen T Butt, it seems a bit excessive, but it would be justified if it was a cruciform configuration
Has Z grade plate been specified?
Is It being UTed to AS1710, if so does it say what class is it Class 1 or 1E, really it should 1 before cutting the plate and be 1E after cutting of the plate, with E being edge scan (lower allowable discontinuities), I have seen 1E specified for the entire plate not just edges
There has been a tendency to ‘spec up’ the criteria for imported fabrication due to some of the issues experienced, particularly with materials.
Let us know (if possible) if the client swallows the TQ
R
FlashPS great to see you back BB
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.