×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

100% RT Vs. Full RT
3

100% RT Vs. Full RT

100% RT Vs. Full RT

(OP)
Folks,
I need to get some information on 100% RT Vs. Full RT with respect to ASME Section VIII Div. 1 Para. UW-11.
Some take 100% same as Full RT, some not.

Below is the detail I got from one the discussion forums. Is this interpretation correct or any further addition/revision to it.
"Let us consider a cylinder on a vessel for a certain length and it has 4 Cir. Seams and 4 Long. seams.
If the vessel calls for FULL radiography, then a spot (I repeat a spot, means not Spot radiography, it is a portion, say 100 to 200mm) on all the 4 cir seams, 4 long. seams have to be radiographed and all the T joints have to be radiographed.
If the vessel calls for 100% radiography, then the entire length of the Butt joint welds have to be radiographed (thro full length)".

Would appreciate your help.

Meck91
 

RE: 100% RT Vs. Full RT

As a long time fabricator we take the code at it's word

full radiography is spelled out in uw-11(a)
all cat a & b welds and nozzle welds over 10" (?)  maybe 12

if you do partial at T joints per uw-11(a)(5)(b) well that is under full but generally that is consider partial

what we consider 100% radiography is every stinking pressure containing butt weld on the job with no size exclusions

RE: 100% RT Vs. Full RT

fogot to add

if the client has not specified the amount of radiography and we wish to have 1.0 joint efficiency, we use the partial at T joints per UE-11(a)(5)(b) and 100% longitudinal and stamp the vessel rt-2

RE: 100% RT Vs. Full RT

If you review UW-11 (a) there is no mention of the term 100% RT only Full. So, since 100% RT is undefined in Section VIII, Div 1 Part UW-11, it cannot be used to mean anything with reference to the current Code. A 100% of what a spot or long seam???

If I have an engineering specification that requires 100% RT, this could mean the entire vessel, outside of Code minimum requirements, and would be the owner's decision to do.
 

RE: 100% RT Vs. Full RT

Just to reinforce what is already stated...

Full is NOT 100%, and 100% is NOT Full.

Full is RT-1 as per UW-11(a)- full longs, full circs, nozzles greater than 10" NPS or >1.125" wall thickness

100% is not a code term and is therefore ambiguos, but has come to be understood as radiograph all long and circ seams on the vessel regardless of diameter or thickness.

RE: 100% RT Vs. Full RT

While I agree that code doesn't define 100% RT, I don't consider 100% to be ambiguous--it means all; no code exemptions for small nozzles (it's okay to go above and beyond code minimums).  I agree with vesselfab.  

Whether code recognizes the term, or not, doesn't matter.  As long as you are correctly assigning joint efficiencies to the component being designed and properly listing it on the data report, you are in perfect compliance with ASME code.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources