Puneet,
Acceptance criteria for UT is as laid down between the purchaser and supplier, Usually a purchaser's design engineer looks in to it. A UT proc is avlbl in ASTM E 388 for heavy forgings.. But I doubt of acc criteria. It is application specific.
Shashank
--- On Wed, 27/5/09, puneet takiar <puneet1takiar@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: puneet takiar <puneet1takiar@yahoo.com>
Subject: [MW:2253] Query
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Date: Wednesday, 27 May, 2009, 8:29 PM
dear shank i read a type for releasing residual stress is mechanical methods such as hydrotest and also in API RP 579,hydro test is used for increasing brittle resistance. rgd adv
From: Shank Vagal <nach_sam@yahoo.com>
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 3:05:43 PM
Subject: [MW:2286] Re: hydro test
Ali.
This is a very unusual query; hydrotest is an integrity test. All other things - where did you get them from?
Rgds
Shank
--- On Sun, 31/5/09, Ali Asghari <asghariali@rocketmail.com> wrote:
From: Ali Asghari <asghariali@rocketmail.com>
Subject: [MW:2285] hydro test
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Date: Sunday, 31 May, 2009, 9:07 AM
hi can every body answer two follwing questions? how hydro test increase the resistance to brittle fracture or failure by crack like flaw?do hydro test decrease residual stress? regard advance.
|
Cricket on your mind? Visit the ultimate cricket website. Enter now!
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
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.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Ali.
This is a very unusual query; hydrotest is an integrity test. All other things - where did you get them from?
Rgds
Shank
--- On Sun, 31/5/09, Ali Asghari <asghariali@rocketmail.com> wrote:
From: Ali Asghari <asghariali@rocketmail.com>
Subject: [MW:2285] hydro test
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Date: Sunday, 31 May, 2009, 9:07 AM
hi can every body answer two follwing questions? how hydro test increase the resistance to brittle fracture or failure by crack like flaw?do hydro test decrease residual stress? regard advance.
|
Cricket on your mind? Visit the ultimate cricket website. Enter now! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
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.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
hi can every body answer two follwing questions? how hydro test increase the resistance to brittle fracture or failure by crack like flaw?do hydro test decrease residual stress? regard advance. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Dear Kevin, AWS -CWI certificate is valuable and really counts for overseas job as a welding Inspector in Middle east. In India its an advantage but as you know its not mandatory in India. As you are working with ABS, after passing AWS -CWI they can send you for offshore welding inspection jobs. In gulf, no doubt its valuable and the salary ranging from - 60K - 150K INR PM depending on your experience. After all getting yourself equipped with certifications and qualifications never be on loosing side. So go for it! best Luck. Regards, Nilesh On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Kevin Sanchala <ksanchala@gmail.com> wrote: Dear All, Please let me know, i am gonna have AWS-CWI cerificate in August, i just wanna know whether AWS-CWI is valuable or not?
--
Regards,
Kevin Sanchala
ABS industrial Verification India Pvt. Ltd.
Mob: +91-9725467645
+91-9979112969
-- Best Regards, Nilesh Pathare --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Hi You can braze in Furnace but it should be in Vaccume Furnace or Inert atmosphere Hegde From: materials-welding@googlegroups.com [mailto:materials-welding@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of PREM SHANKARDUTT NAUTIYAL
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 9:32 PM
To: mquiggs@gmail.com
Cc: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Subject: [MW:2277] Re: Tungsten Carbide to Stainless Steel
Hi
Can you try Furnace brazing with a silver alloyed or copper Shim.
In the past we had successfully brazed a white cast iron to carbon steel by silver alloyed or copper shim by furnace brazing in inert atmosphere.
Regards
Prem Nautiyal
Godrej, Mumbai
On Thu, 28 May 2009 09:15:35 +0530 wrote
>
>I am trying to resistance weld Tungsten Carbide to 420 Stainless
>Steel. Are there any coatings that can enhance the weldabilty of the
>carbide to the stainless steel? Any heat treatings to the steel that
>may help? Currently, it is about 48-52 HRc. We have tried electroless
>nickel on the carbide but would like to be stronger. Any thoughts
>please, Thank you..
>
>>
>
PREM S NAUTIYAL
CELL : 9820313278
|  </Table
| --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Dear All, Please let me know, i am gonna have AWS-CWI cerificate in August, i just wanna know whether AWS-CWI is valuable or not?
-- Regards, Kevin Sanchala ABS industrial Verification India Pvt. Ltd. Mob: +91-9725467645 +91-9979112969 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Dear Sandeep Kumar, We can supply this grade of MIG wire. Please let us know the dia required. Shriniwas Deshpande
Senior Sales Manager Bohler Welding Group India Pvt. Ltd.
B-201 Universal Business Park,
Chandivili Farm Road,
Off Saki Vihar Road,
Saki Naka,
Mumbai 400 072. India
Ph: +91-22-2857 4448, 2857 4458
Fax: +91-22-28574445
Mob: +91 9422331958
Email: shriniwas.deshpande@bwgindia.com
Websites: www.bohlerweldinggroupindia.com A Böhler Welding Group Company
--- On Thu, 5/28/09, sandy <sandy001987@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: sandy <sandy001987@gmail.com>
> Subject: [MW:2273] ER80S-B2 MIG wire supplir in INDIA
> To: "Materials & Welding" <materials-welding@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Thursday, May 28, 2009, 5:04 PM
>
> Hi everbody
>
> I want to buy ER80S-B2 MIG wire.
> Can any body tell me about any supplier who can provide
> this .
>
> Best Regards
> Sandeep Kumar
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
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.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Dear Sir, D&H, Esab all having this filler wire. please go to their website and
search for regional offices. Contact them for these electrodes Hareesh K V On 5/28/09, sandy <sandy001987@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi everbody
>
> I want to buy ER80S-B2 MIG wire.
> Can any body tell me about any supplier who can provide this .
>
> Best Regards
> Sandeep Kumar
>
> >
> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
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.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Yes, The welders can be qualfied using P1 materail unless other essential variables are not Changed. SB
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Shank Vagal <nach_sam@yahoo.com> wrote: WQT aims at judging welder's ability to deposit sound weld using a given electrode/filler and the qualified process per the WPS. The material on which to deposit does not matter.
--- On Thu, 28/5/09, Sukamal Naskar <sukamalbecmet@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Sukamal Naskar <sukamalbecmet@gmail.com>
Subject: [MW:2265] Re: about WQT Date: Thursday, 28 May, 2009, 10:44 AM
According to QW-423.1 & QW-433, you can qualify the welder for P No. 1 material using F No.43 consumable. As long as your are not changing the process GTAW, the welder can be qualified , provided other essential variables of the GTAW process for the welder qualification doesn't change. Regards, SUKAMAL NASKAR WELDING ENGINEER On 5/28/09, Muhammed Ibrahim < ibratech@gmail.com> wrote: > You have to follow a WPS to qualify a welder.. Your WPS with P45 material > will not allow you to weld on P1 material. You have to qualify a Procedure > with P1 material with F43 consumable. With that procedure you can qualify > the welder. > > Regards, > Muhammed Ibrahim > > 2009/5/27 tamizazagan nagappan < tamizazagann@gmail.com> > >> >> >> I have wps for P45 material incoloy 825 UNS -08825, ASTM SB 462/464 UNS >> (N08020) NACE with filler metal F43 SFA 5.14 AWS Er-Ni-Cr-Mo-3... >> >> Is it possible to qualify the welder with A333 Gr 6 base metal with >> filler >> metal F43 SFA 5.14 AWS Er-Ni-Cr-Mo-3... >> >> >> >> -- >> TAMIL >> phone: +77023210394 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> TAMIL >> phone: +77023210394 >> >> Save a tree...please don't print this e-mail unless you really need >> toRegards >> >> >> >> > >> > > > -- > Thanks & Regards > Muhammed Ibrahim PK > > > > -- Sukamal Naskar Malaysia
Cricket on your mind? Visit the ultimate cricket website. Enter now!
| --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Dear Sandeep Are you interested only indian manufactured or Any make would do ? Regards Suneel gore
--- On Thu, 28/5/09, sandy <sandy001987@gmail.com> wrote:
From: sandy <sandy001987@gmail.com>
Subject: [MW:2273] ER80S-B2 MIG wire supplir in INDIA
To: "Materials & Welding" <materials-welding@googlegroups.com>
Date: Thursday, 28 May, 2009, 6:04 PM
Hi Can you try Furnace brazing with a silver alloyed or copper Shim. In the past we had successfully brazed a white cast iron to carbon steel by silver alloyed or copper shim by furnace brazing in inert atmosphere. Regards Prem Nautiyal Godrej, Mumbai On Thu, 28 May 2009 09:15:35 +0530 wrote > >I am trying to resistance weld Tungsten Carbide to 420 Stainless >Steel. Are there any coatings that can enhance the weldabilty of the >carbide to the stainless steel? Any heat treatings to the steel that >may help? Currently, it is about 48-52 HRc. We have tried electroless >nickel on the carbide but would like to be stronger. Any thoughts >please, Thank you.. > >> > PREM S NAUTIYAL CELL : 9820313278 | --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
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.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Dear Mr. H. Malekan,
I think you could use the electrode OK 73.68
Massimo Gherardi
QAManager - ESAB Saldatura SPA - Italy
Da: sandy <sandy001987@gmail.com>
A: Materials & Welding <materials-welding@googlegroups.com>
Inviato: Giovedì 28 maggio 2009, 14:37:46
Oggetto: [MW:2274] Re: ESAB
Dear Mr, H.Malekan Please give chemical composition, strength, CVN of the material On May 27, 5:10 pm, Hamed Malekan < ham_male...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Can some body tell me which electrode in Esab brand suitable for welding EN10028-4 13MnNi6-3 ? Is that already used anywhere in the world or not ? > > H.Malekan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Hi, Regarding the foot note, Metallurgically, 0.01% of C equivalent to 0.06 % Mn ; that is why in all specification you could find this general comment. So, if Mn increases to 1.36 % , there will be a definite reduction in Carbon percentage. For, CE = 0.47 , preheat 95 deg Cel is enough to get the good results, As CE increases your weldability decreases, but you cannot directly relate the Mn to weldability. Thanks & Regards, K.Babu
Singapore
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:29 PM, PREM SHANKARDUTT NAUTIYAL <prem_nautiyal@rediffmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sir
Thanks for your valuable advice. However we have landed up in one more hurdle in same job discussed below.
The SA105 forging is having Mn content on higher side i.e 1.19%.
as against specification of 1.05% max.
There is a footnote stating that as per --- Mn=1.36% max is also allowed.
The Carbon content is 0.22%.
Due to high Mn content the CE is 0.47.
Now with such high CE should we preheat the joint to the same temp. of 75DegreesC adviced by you ??
Will this high CE of 0.47 and high Mn content affect the weldability of CS#SS joint?
Also as per ASME Sec VIII Div 1, Non-mandatory appendix R (R1 & R7), preheating is not required for this P1#P8 joint.
But client is adamant and says that Non-Mandatory appendix should never be followed. Is this approach true.
Client is telling that only Mandatory appendix should be followed !!
Please advice !
Regards
Prem Nautiyal
Godrej, Mumbai.
On Sat, 23 May 2009 12:42:19 +0530 wrote >My opinion is given below against each query > > > >Hegde P.B. > > > > > >From: materials-welding@googlegroups.com >[mailto: materials-welding@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of PREM SHANKARDUTT >NAUTIYAL >Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 8:41 PM >To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com >Subject: [MW:2224] WPS/PQR for dissimilar joint > > > >Hi friends > >I want the advice of senior members to help me out in qualifying a typical >welding procedure as per ASME Sec IX. > >We want to weld a 800mm dia. SA105 Gr.B (Carbon steel)forging to a 20mm >thick SS304L shell (circumferential seam). >Length of both members is @ 2metres. > >The solid forging is tapered and is welded to the 20mm thick SS304L with a >full penetration joint where the depth of bevel is 18mm and thickness of >both members at the joint is 20mm. >The joint is single V. Only final weld LPT required. > >Now logically this 800mm dia. forging will have to be preheated to @150 >degrees celcius i believe, but what about SS304L. >Our client has strictly told us that SS304L shell shall not be preheated. >The reason being distortion and a wider HAZ, however i believe that >preheating to 100/150 degrees celcius will not change the structure of >SS304L and hamper mechanical properties - UTS and bend. > >Now i have 2 queries: > >1)Should we only preheat the CS forging and mention the same on the WPS ? > >a)Option 1-You can preheat only CS side to say 75C and weld the joint with >E309L with interpass restriction of 175C > >b) Option 2 - If client requirement is very stringent- Butter the weld edge >of CS forging by E309L with preheating of 75C , (Separately) and later join >the SS to CS forging by E309L / or 308L weld w/o preheating > > > >2)What should be the appropriate preheat temperature and on what location to >preheat? > >As Joint thickness is 20mm ,You can keep pre heat temp. of 75C on CS side >about 50 mm band width > > > >3)On what plate thickness should i qualify the Welding procedure inorder to >qualify the base metal thickness range i.e for 800mm dia. forging? > >Min 10mm thickness of plate of CS and SS(For dissimilar metallurgy) The >effective thickness of joint joint is 18mm ( you are not joining directly >to 18mm shell to 20 mm forging) > > > >4)Should i qualify the joint on a dissimilar thickness with weld deposition >of only 20mm, so what thickness of plates should i select? > >Please advice ! > >Regards > >Prem S Nautiyal >Godrej, Mumbai. > >PREM S NAUTIYAL > >CELL : 9820313278 > > > > >atureline.htm@Middle?> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>
PREM S NAUTIYAL
CELL : 9820313278
![]() |
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
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.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Dear Mr, H.Malekan Please give chemical composition, strength, CVN of the material On May 27, 5:10 pm, Hamed Malekan <ham_male...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Can some body tell me which electrode in Esab brand suitable for welding EN10028-4 13MnNi6-3 ? Is that already used anywhere in the world or not ?
>
> H.Malekan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
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.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Hi everbody I want to buy ER80S-B2 MIG wire.
Can any body tell me about any supplier who can provide this . Best Regards
Sandeep Kumar --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
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.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Abhijit , Thanks for u r responce,it gives me lots of moral support & if u find any supporting stds.pl. mail me. Thanks & Regards, Prashant
--- On Thu, 28/5/09, abbey kangale <abhianu12@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: abbey kangale <abhianu12@yahoo.com>
Subject: [MW:2269] Re: Pl.Help.
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Date: Thursday, 28 May, 2009, 3:48 PM
|
Prashant
I am sorry to say ;their is no such ref standards available in Market which specify Quantum of Inspection Levels At this stage you can issue Inspection reports for all valves mentioneing subject to Acceptance of selected Inspection Levels from your End User/Engineering Consultancey You can issue Inspection report with all your observation and your Inspection Level assumptions but mention clearlycceptance by Client due to unavailbility of QAP/Inspection levels I know this is regularly happens in India with TPI companies and they have to take thier own judgement for their Inspection and isuue Inspection reports with conditional approval.and for that your management has to agree for same . Abhijit
--- On Thu, 5/28/09, prashant pansare <prashantpan_99@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
From: prashant pansare <prashantpan_99@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: [MW:2267] Pl.Help.
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Date: Thursday, May 28, 2009, 1:11 PM
Dear Prasanth, Eaht you have done is correct and in general most of the clients are asking for the same extent of testing. Try to take out the extent of inspection from the P.O given to vendor or ask the vendor take a letter a letter from the purchser. Infuture try to avoid such inspection with out approved QAP. Regards N.Nageswararao
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 1:11 PM, prashant pansare <prashantpan_99@yahoo.co.in> wrote: | Dear all, I' ve inspected ball & NRV ( API 6D) valves for xyz company.QAP was not available & client also not provided extent of check,but i inspected Hydro test 100% for body & 10% foe seat & released all the valves after satisfactory results. My firm wants clarification for Why i not done 100% testing for seat also? I' ve been warned,badly as i' ve carried out inspection without QAP & taken my own decision. Is there any specs. or std. to rsolve this matter? & if available pl.forward me,so that i can responce immediately to avoid further action. Pl. help. Regards to all ...PRASHANT |
Explore and discover exciting holidays and getaways with Yahoo! India Travel Click here!
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
It depends of the agreement at the contract stage. Usually inspector witness is 10% but must guarantee that 100% valves were tested before witness. Fernando Gameiro
From: materials-welding@googlegroups.com [mailto:materials-welding@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of prashant pansare
Sent: quinta-feira, 28 de Maio de 2009 8:41
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Subject: [MW:2267] Pl.Help. I' ve inspected ball & NRV ( API 6D) valves for xyz company.QAP was not available & client also not provided extent of check,but i inspected Hydro test 100% for body & 10% foe seat & released all the valves after satisfactory results. My firm wants clarification for Why i not done 100% testing for seat also? I' ve been warned,badly as i' ve carried out inspection without QAP & taken my own decision. Is there any specs. or std. to rsolve this matter? & if available pl.forward me,so that i can responce immediately to avoid further action. Regards to all ...PRASHANT |
Explore and discover exciting holidays and getaways with Yahoo! India Travel Click here!</a
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Prashant
I am sorry to say ;their is no such ref standards available in Market which specify Quantum of Inspection Levels At this stage you can issue Inspection reports for all valves mentioneing subject to Acceptance of selected Inspection Levels from your End User/Engineering Consultancey You can issue Inspection report with all your observation and your Inspection Level assumptions but mention clearlycceptance by Client due to unavailbility of QAP/Inspection levels I know this is regularly happens in India with TPI companies and they have to take thier own judgement for their Inspection and isuue Inspection reports with conditional approval.and for that your management has to agree for same . Abhijit
--- On Thu, 5/28/09, prashant pansare <prashantpan_99@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
From: prashant pansare <prashantpan_99@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: [MW:2267] Pl.Help.
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Date: Thursday, May 28, 2009, 1:11 PM
Test should be 100% Body and seat but you can witness the test randomly it mean number of valve wise for example out of 100 valve you can witness the test 15 valves Body as well as Seat test.
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:41 PM, prashant pansare <prashantpan_99@yahoo.co.in> wrote: | Dear all, I' ve inspected ball & NRV ( API 6D) valves for xyz company.QAP was not available & client also not provided extent of check,but i inspected Hydro test 100% for body & 10% foe seat & released all the valves after satisfactory results. My firm wants clarification for Why i not done 100% testing for seat also? I' ve been warned,badly as i' ve carried out inspection without QAP & taken my own decision. Is there any specs. or std. to rsolve this matter? & if available pl.forward me,so that i can responce immediately to avoid further action. Pl. help. Regards to all ...PRASHANT |
Explore and discover exciting holidays and getaways with Yahoo! India Travel Click here!
-- TAMIL phone: +77023210394 Save a tree...please don't print this e-mail unless you really need toRegards --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Dear all, I' ve inspected ball & NRV ( API 6D) valves for xyz company.QAP was not available & client also not provided extent of check,but i inspected Hydro test 100% for body & 10% foe seat & released all the valves after satisfactory results. My firm wants clarification for Why i not done 100% testing for seat also? I' ve been warned,badly as i' ve carried out inspection without QAP & taken my own decision. Is there any specs. or std. to rsolve this matter? & if available pl.forward me,so that i can responce immediately to avoid further action. Pl. help. Regards to all ...PRASHANT |
Explore and discover exciting holidays and getaways with Yahoo! India Travel Click here! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
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.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
WQT aims at judging welder's ability to deposit sound weld using a given electrode/filler and the qualified process per the WPS. The material on which to deposit does not matter.
--- On Thu, 28/5/09, Sukamal Naskar <sukamalbecmet@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Sukamal Naskar <sukamalbecmet@gmail.com>
Subject: [MW:2265] Re: about WQT
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Date: Thursday, 28 May, 2009, 10:44 AM
According to QW-423.1 & QW-433, you can qualify the welder for P No. 1 material using F No.43 consumable. As long as your are not changing the process GTAW, the welder can be qualified , provided other essential variables of the GTAW process for the welder qualification doesn't change. Regards, SUKAMAL NASKAR WELDING ENGINEER On 5/28/09, Muhammed Ibrahim < ibratech@gmail.com> wrote: > You have to follow a WPS to qualify a welder.. Your WPS with P45 material > will not allow you to weld on P1 material. You have to qualify a Procedure > with P1 material with F43 consumable. With that procedure you can qualify > the welder. > > Regards, > Muhammed Ibrahim > > 2009/5/27 tamizazagan nagappan < tamizazagann@gmail.com> > >> >> >> I have wps for P45 material incoloy 825 UNS -08825, ASTM SB 462/464 UNS >> (N08020) NACE with filler metal F43 SFA 5.14 AWS Er-Ni-Cr-Mo-3... >> >> Is it possible to qualify the welder with A333 Gr 6 base metal with >> filler >> metal F43 SFA 5.14 AWS Er-Ni-Cr-Mo-3... >> >> >> >> -- >> TAMIL >> phone: +77023210394 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> TAMIL >> phone: +77023210394 >> >> Save a tree...please don't print this e-mail unless you really need >> toRegards >> >> >> >> > >> > > > -- > Thanks & Regards > Muhammed Ibrahim PK > > > > -- Sukamal Naskar Malaysia
Cricket on your mind? Visit the ultimate cricket website. Enter now! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
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.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
According to QW-423.1 & QW-433, you can qualify the welder for P No. 1 material using F No.43 consumable. As long as your are not changing the process GTAW, the welder can be qualified , provided other essential variables of the GTAW process for the welder qualification doesn't change. Regards,
SUKAMAL NASKAR
WELDING ENGINEER On 5/28/09, Muhammed Ibrahim <ibratech@gmail.com> wrote:
> You have to follow a WPS to qualify a welder. Your WPS with P45 material
> will not allow you to weld on P1 material. You have to qualify a Procedure
> with P1 material with F43 consumable. With that procedure you can qualify
> the welder.
>
> Regards,
> Muhammed Ibrahim
>
> 2009/5/27 tamizazagan nagappan <tamizazagann@gmail.com>
>
>>
>>
>> I have wps for P45 material incoloy 825 UNS -08825, ASTM SB 462/464 UNS
>> (N08020) NACE with filler metal F43 SFA 5.14 AWS Er-Ni-Cr-Mo-3...
>>
>> Is it possible to qualify the welder with A333 Gr 6 base metal with
>> filler
>> metal F43 SFA 5.14 AWS Er-Ni-Cr-Mo-3...
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> TAMIL
>> phone: +77023210394
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> TAMIL
>> phone: +77023210394
>>
>> Save a tree...please don't print this e-mail unless you really need
>> toRegards
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>>
>
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards
> Muhammed Ibrahim PK
>
> >
>
--
Sukamal Naskar
Malaysia
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
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.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Definitely NOT POSSIBLE, Tamil! You should use the same material (P45) only for welder qualification
also. The range can be applied from P41 through P49 (not P1) with F Number
fixed Thanks
Senthil
On May 27, 5:30 pm, tamizazagan nagappan <tamizazag...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I have wps for P45 material incoloy 825 UNS -08825, ASTM SB 462/464 UNS
> (N08020) NACE with filler metal F43 SFA 5.14 AWS Er-Ni-Cr-Mo-3...
>
> Is it possible to qualify the welder with A333 Gr 6 base metal with filler
> metal F43 SFA 5.14 AWS Er-Ni-Cr-Mo-3...
>
> --
> TAMIL
> phone: +77023210394
>
> --
> TAMIL
> phone: +77023210394
>
> Save a tree...please don't print this e-mail unless you really need
> toRegards
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
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.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Thank for your promptly respone and highly appreciated. Unfortunately i don't have B31 code case (181 and 2235). Any one can share with me?
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 11:21 AM, BR <raghurambathula@gmail.com> wrote:
assuming your design code is ASME B31.3 (else pl specify?) you can
refer old postings on the group, we have lot of dicussion in the past
on this subject.
refer code case 181
"ASME B31 committee has developed B31 Case 181 to permit the use of
UT, particularly TOFD in lieu of RT for B31.3 applications. ASME B31
case 181 was apparently taken from ASME Code Case 2235, which
addresses the UT examination in lieu of RT for vessels and not piping.
The major difference from what I can see between B31 case 181 and ASME
Code Case 2235 is the minimum wall thickness requirements and maybe
the acceptance criteria.
As we all know ASME B&PV codes looks at flaws by aspect ratios. a/l or
vertical height divided by length. That gives you the aspect ratio
which is then used to determine the maximum flaw size permitted. You
can actually accept cracks per the ASME B&PV code as long as they are
within the acceptable limits, but not with ASME B31.3.
After looking at the acceptance criteria for B31 Case 181, I see that
they are using the same philosophy.
Where ASME B31.3, Table 341.3.2 does not allow any cracks for RT and
in most cases no IF. Why would cracks be permitted with UT and not RT?
I believe the B31 Case 181 was taken from ASME Code Case 2235 and the
reference to cracks was inadvertently missed. When using TOFD you can
differentiate between linear indications and cracks. Does anyone know
of any reference by ASME B31 committee regarding this issue?"
Source: ndt.net
On May 28, 6:37 am, tong tong < tong...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All members, > I really need you expertise opinion on the above mentioned subject. > Basically our project(new piping installation) requirement is RT but we > having a lot of problems to do it. One of the major problem is the window > which is very limited. To avoid any backlog i purpose to my boss to go for > UT instead of RT. It is permissible by the code and standards to do UT > instead of RT. Which code and standard we should refer?. Thank in advance > for your kind cooperation
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Hi! For qualification ,you can qualify on 38mm thk plate. And weld metal thk should be min 19mm for qualifying max thk for the particular process . This PQR will qualify to weld partial penetration joint. Regards Hegde From: materials-welding@googlegroups.com [mailto:materials-welding@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of PREM SHANKARDUTT NAUTIYAL
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 9:10 PM
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Subject: [MW:2255] Partial Penetration Joints Hi friends
I need some advice from seniors.
I need to qualify a procedure for a partial penetration joint as per ASME SecIX.
The joint thickness is 56mm, single bevel butt joint. The depth of bevel is only 16mm and thus it is a partial penetration joint.
Now to qualify the WPS/PQR, should i select a 38mm or more thick plate as per QW202.2(b) ??
The statements in QW202.2 are a bit confusing!
Regards
Prem Nautiyal
Godrej, Mumbai.
PREM S NAUTIYAL
CELL : 9820313278 | </Table
| --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
since it is a grrove weld (doesn't matter partial or full penetration), to qualify basemetal (T) you should select 28mm atleast and weld only 8mm to qualify weld metal thickness (t) or full On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 7:40 PM, PREM SHANKARDUTT NAUTIYAL <prem_nautiyal@rediffmail.com> wrote: Hi friends
I need some advice from seniors.
I need to qualify a procedure for a partial penetration joint as per ASME SecIX.
The joint thickness is 56mm, single bevel butt joint. The depth of bevel is only 16mm and thus it is a partial penetration joint.
Now to qualify the WPS/PQR, should i select a 38mm or more thick plate as per QW202.2(b) ??
The statements in QW202.2 are a bit confusing!
Regards
Prem Nautiyal
Godrej, Mumbai.
PREM S NAUTIYAL
CELL : 9820313278
![]() | --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
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.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
assuming your design code is ASME B31.3 (else pl specify?) you can refer old postings on the group, we have lot of dicussion in the past on this subject. refer code case 181 "ASME B31 committee has developed B31 Case 181 to permit the use of UT, particularly TOFD in lieu of RT for B31.3 applications. ASME B31 case 181 was apparently taken from ASME Code Case 2235, which addresses the UT examination in lieu of RT for vessels and not piping. The major difference from what I can see between B31 case 181 and ASME
Code Case 2235 is the minimum wall thickness requirements and maybe
the acceptance criteria. As we all know ASME B&PV codes looks at flaws by aspect ratios. a/l or
vertical height divided by length. That gives you the aspect ratio
which is then used to determine the maximum flaw size permitted. You
can actually accept cracks per the ASME B&PV code as long as they are
within the acceptable limits, but not with ASME B31.3. After looking at the acceptance criteria for B31 Case 181, I see that
they are using the same philosophy. Where ASME B31.3, Table 341.3.2 does not allow any cracks for RT and
in most cases no IF. Why would cracks be permitted with UT and not RT?
I believe the B31 Case 181 was taken from ASME Code Case 2235 and the
reference to cracks was inadvertently missed. When using TOFD you can
differentiate between linear indications and cracks. Does anyone know
of any reference by ASME B31 committee regarding this issue?"
Source: ndt.net On May 28, 6:37 am, tong tong <tong...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear All members,
> I really need you expertise opinion on the above mentioned subject.
> Basically our project(new piping installation) requirement is RT but we
> having a lot of problems to do it. One of the major problem is the window
> which is very limited. To avoid any backlog i purpose to my boss to go for
> UT instead of RT. It is permissible by the code and standards to do UT
> instead of RT. Which code and standard we should refer?. Thank in advance
> for your kind cooperation
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
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.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Dear All members,
I really need you expertise opinion on the above mentioned subject. Basically our project(new piping installation) requirement is RT but we having a lot of problems to do it. One of the major problem is the window which is very limited. To avoid any backlog i purpose to my boss to go for UT instead of RT. It is permissible by the code and standards to do UT instead of RT. Which code and standard we should refer?. Thank in advance for your kind cooperation --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
I am trying to resistance weld Tungsten Carbide to 420 Stainless Steel. Are there any coatings that can enhance the weldabilty of the carbide to the stainless steel? Any heat treatings to the steel that may help? Currently, it is about 48-52 HRc. We have tried electroless nickel on the carbide but would like to be stronger. Any thoughts please, Thank you.. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
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 have to follow a WPS to qualify a welder. Your WPS with P45 material will not allow you to weld on P1 material. You have to qualify a Procedure with P1 material with F43 consumable. With that procedure you can qualify the welder. Regards, Muhammed Ibrahim
2009/5/27 tamizazagan nagappan <tamizazagann@gmail.com>
I have wps for P45 material incoloy 825 UNS -08825, ASTM SB 462/464 UNS (N08020) NACE with filler metal F43 SFA 5.14 AWS Er-Ni-Cr-Mo-3... Is it possible to qualify the welder with A333 Gr 6 base metal with filler metal F43 SFA 5.14 AWS Er-Ni-Cr-Mo-3...
--
TAMIL
phone: +77023210394
--
TAMIL
phone: +77023210394
Save a tree...please don't print this e-mail unless you really need toRegards
-- Thanks & Regards Muhammed Ibrahim PK --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
OK 73.68 should be usable. Claes Gillenius
Development Engineer, MMA. (Spec. stainless and non Fe-alloys)
Direct tel: +46 (0)31 509315
Mobile +46 (0)707532012
Company ESAB AB
Address Box 8004, 402 77 Gothenburg, Sweden
Lindholmsallén 9
Company reg number 556005-7738
Hamed Malekan <ham_malekan@yahoo.com>
Sent by: materials-welding@googlegroups.com 2009-05-27 14:29 | Please respond to
materials-welding@googlegroups.com |
| | To | materials-welding@googlegroups.com | | cc | | | Subject | [MW:2249] ESAB |
| Can some body tell me which electrode in Esab brand suitable for welding EN10028-4 13MnNi6-3 ? Is that already used anywhere in the world or not ?
H.Malekan |
This communication and any files transmitted with it contain information which is confidential and which may also be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s), please note that any disclosure, copying, printing or use whatsoever of this communication or the information contained in it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by e-mail or by telephone as above and then delete the e-mail together with any copies of it. ESAB does not accept liability for the integrity of this message or for any changes, which may occur in transmission due to network, machine or software failure or manufacture or operator error. Although this communication and any files transmitted with it are believed to be free of any virus or any other defect which might affect any computer or IT system into which they are received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that they are virus free and no responsibility will be accepted by ESAB for any loss or damage arising in any way from receipt or use thereof. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Hi friends I need some advice from seniors. I need to qualify a procedure for a partial penetration joint as per ASME SecIX. The joint thickness is 56mm, single bevel butt joint. The depth of bevel is only 16mm and thus it is a partial penetration joint. Now to qualify the WPS/PQR, should i select a 38mm or more thick plate as per QW202.2(b) ?? The statements in QW202.2 are a bit confusing! Regards Prem Nautiyal Godrej, Mumbai. PREM S NAUTIYAL CELL : 9820313278 | --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
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.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Dear Sir Thanks for your valuable advice. However we have landed up in one more hurdle in same job discussed below. The SA105 forging is having Mn content on higher side i.e 1.19%. as against specification of 1.05% max. There is a footnote stating that as per --- Mn=1.36% max is also allowed. The Carbon content is 0.22%. Due to high Mn content the CE is 0.47. Now with such high CE should we preheat the joint to the same temp. of 75DegreesC adviced by you ?? Will this high CE of 0.47 and high Mn content affect the weldability of CS#SS joint? Also as per ASME Sec VIII Div 1, Non-mandatory appendix R (R1 & R7), preheating is not required for this P1#P8 joint. But client is adamant and says that Non-Mandatory appendix should never be followed. Is this approach true. Client is telling that only Mandatory appendix should be followed !! Please advice ! Regards Prem Nautiyal Godrej, Mumbai. On Sat, 23 May 2009 12:42:19 +0530 wrote >My opinion is given below against each query > > > >Hegde P.B. > > > > > >From: materials-welding@googlegroups.com >[mailto:materials-welding@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of PREM SHANKARDUTT >NAUTIYAL >Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 8:41 PM >To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com >Subject: [MW:2224] WPS/PQR for dissimilar joint > > > >Hi friends > >I want the advice of senior members to help me out in qualifying a typical >welding procedure as per ASME Sec IX. > >We want to weld a 800mm dia. SA105 Gr.B (Carbon steel)forging to a 20mm >thick SS304L shell (circumferential seam). >Length of both members is @ 2metres. > >The solid forging is tapered and is welded to the 20mm thick SS304L with a >full penetration joint where the depth of bevel is 18mm and thickness of >both members at the joint is 20mm. >The joint is single V. Only final weld LPT required. > >Now logically this 800mm dia. forging will have to be preheated to @150 >degrees celcius i believe, but what about SS304L. >Our client has strictly told us that SS304L shell shall not be preheated. >The reason being distortion and a wider HAZ, however i believe that >preheating to 100/150 degrees celcius will not change the structure of >SS304L and hamper mechanical properties - UTS and bend. > >Now i have 2 queries: > >1)Should we only preheat the CS forging and mention the same on the WPS ? > >a)Option 1-You can preheat only CS side to say 75C and weld the joint with >E309L with interpass restriction of 175C > >b) Option 2 - If client requirement is very stringent- Butter the weld edge >of CS forging by E309L with preheating of 75C , (Separately) and later join >the SS to CS forging by E309L / or 308L weld w/o preheating > > > >2)What should be the appropriate preheat temperature and on what location to >preheat? > >As Joint thickness is 20mm ,You can keep pre heat temp. of 75C on CS side >about 50 mm band width > > > >3)On what plate thickness should i qualify the Welding procedure inorder to >qualify the base metal thickness range i.e for 800mm dia. forging? > >Min 10mm thickness of plate of CS and SS(For dissimilar metallurgy) The >effective thickness of joint joint is 18mm ( you are not joining directly >to 18mm shell to 20 mm forging) > > > >4)Should i qualify the joint on a dissimilar thickness with weld deposition >of only 20mm, so what thickness of plates should i select? > >Please advice ! > >Regards > >Prem S Nautiyal >Godrej, Mumbai. > >PREM S NAUTIYAL > >CELL : 9820313278 > > > > >atureline.htm@Middle?> > > > > > > > >> > PREM S NAUTIYAL CELL : 9820313278 | --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
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.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Dear Sir, please suggest the ASME section VIIIclause for the acceptance criteria of UT of forgings of dia. 200 to 800mm?. Material is En/Steel and alloy steel. What is ASME Level-II acceptance criteria?. Regards,
Puneet Cricket on your mind? Visit the ultimate cricket website. Enter http://beta.cricket.yahoo.com
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
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.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Dear Experts. If anyone having presentation of WPS,PQR and WPQ as per ASME SEC.IX in power point then please share . Regards Sanja...
-
Q: What are equivalents for standard Q 235 B (and Q 235 A) for U-channels? ...
-
Definition of buttering from ASME Section IX, QW/QB-492 Definitions: Buttering: the addition of material, by welding, on one or bot...
-
Section I. PRINT READING 3-1. GENERAL a. Drawings . Drawing or sketching is a universal language used to convey all necessary information to...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
