Hi,
Ideally the weld configuration should look as what's earmarked in the attachment. You may need to check the requirements of piping design code(presume B31.3) also. Use of such reinforced design, similar weldolets would always involve larger welding volume, which may be detrimental to an 1", sch 10 pipe.
Why such configuration is needed?
Alternative (better) design would be to change the design to Sweep lets.
This my opinion from the aspects of better welding design. For SDSS, good welding design is essential.
Thanks
Pradip Goswami.P.Eng, IWE.
Independent Welding & Metallurgical Engineering Specialist
Saudi Aramco Approved Designated Project Welding Engineer (DPWR)
Qatar Petroleum Approved, SME-Materials & Corrosion Engineering.
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/pradip-goswami-2999855/
Email:pgoswami@rogers.com,pradip.goswami@gmail.com
Cell/Whasapp:1-905-9793232
From: materials-welding@googlegroups.com <materials-welding@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of NDD
Sent: January 9, 2023 12:30 AM
To: Materials & Welding <materials-welding@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [MW:33905] Min Weld throat thickness for Nippolet
Hi,
In ongoing project one of our fabricator proposed below
" Welding of 6''x3.4mm SDSS Run Pipe to 6X1''NB Sch 10S Reinforced Nippoflange, filling of full pre beveled groove will lead to run pipe deformation, contractor propose to fill the weld metal with main pipe wall thick plus 1/3, so the weld throat will be 6mm to 8mm instead of filling the full pre groove."
My query is how can we govern the min weld thickness requirement?.
Or any other way to ensure integrity.
--
https://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/122787
---
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-welding+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/materials-welding/6daa52b3-a3b7-4024-9cde-22ce55564950n%40googlegroups.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment