--
To post to this group, send email to material...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-weld...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/MaterialsWelding-122787?home=&gid=122787&trk=anet_ug_hm
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Materials & Welding" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to materials-weld...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Hai
Noted the responses from all and thanks..but still if project spec. Is silent and sec.ix doesnt have any ruling on other defects (porosity, sla g , under cuts, uf,etc..then a welder on test making 2mm u/c in test but then he passed and send to asme b 31.3 project where 1mm is the maximum u/c...that itself is contradicting...I feel sec.ix criterias must be strong where in most cases we rely on welders (random ndt)...please share ur opinions
Thanks in advance,
Kumar
--
Agree mr. Joseph...but at the time of test the governing code is only sec.ix..then if the other party argue like this (sec.ix only want complete fusion and penetration),...then how to resolve ?..this is the issue..just for info...
Step back for a minute from the wording of QW-194. Look at paragraph QW-144; “Visual examination as described in QW-194 is used to determine that the final weld surfaces meet specified quality standards.” Note that this paragraph does not state “as per Section IX” or “as per QW-XXX”. It refers to “specified quality standards.” In my opinion this statement is the result of Section IX being applied to/specified by numerous design Codes or other standards which modify requirements of Section IX. Ultimately, the manufacturer (ref. QW-103.1) is responsible for the quality of welding, as noted by Mr. Pieper. Why an employer would accept welding of lessor quality of welding during the test phase than required for work to be performed is beyond my comprehension. This is an invitation to disaster during production welding. (Unless the guy is your cousin or brother-in-law.)
Further, looking at the wording of QW-194, what exactly do you interpret “complete fusion” to mean? Excessive undercut, as defined in the applicable Code or your quality system, is in effect, incomplete fusion.
I also think you need to consider that if one Code/Standard, referencing Sc IX, is more lenient than another is some regard, why would you tie a manufacturer producing equipment to the former, to comply with the more restrictive standard? This lunacy has permeated the petro-chem industry and made fabrication of ordinary equipment (minimal service requirements) inordinately expensive and difficult.
John A. Henning
Welding & Materials
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/materials-welding/166414337.467202.1589163862831%40mail.yahoo.com.
Ing. José Juan Jiménez Alejandro
Independent Consultant in Parts
and Pressure Equipment
SSI-TPI
Móvil +52 1 812 352 4606
Skype: jjjimeneza