×
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

Question about RT-1 VS RT-2 for thickness not reaches UW-11 a(2)

Question about RT-1 VS RT-2 for thickness not reaches UW-11 a(2)

Question about RT-1 VS RT-2 for thickness not reaches UW-11 a(2)

(OP)
I am reviewing an air receiver documents.

As the vessle thickness is less than what stated in UW-11 (a). And it is not for leather service or a boiler.

If the vendor specify that the vessel RT is per UW-11 (a), it is supposed to be same as RT per UW-11 (a )(5), right?

Because I think for this vessel, if it is per UW-11 (a), it means:
To check every clause of UW-11 (a), and it will be
UW-11 (a )(1), Not applicatable
UW-11 (a )(2), Not applicatable
UW-11 (a )(3), Not applicatable
UW-11 (a )(4), Not applicatable
UW-11 (a )(5), applicatable
UW-11 (a )(6), Not applicatable
....



For that reason, should it be marked as RT-1 or RT-2?

Thanks

3 years industry experience;
Oil & Gas industry in Canada.

RE: Question about RT-1 VS RT-2 for thickness not reaches UW-11 a(2)

billbusy, see also UG-116(e). For the vessel to be marked "RT-1" all main long and round seams shall be RT'd full length, with excepted components per last sentence of UG-116(e)(1). If a Cat B weld is only spotted, it would have to be marked "RT-2".

The foregoing is maybe a little imprecise, but I don't intend to type out the whole Code book here:)

Study the relevant sections, you'll get the idea.

Regards,

Mike

RE: Question about RT-1 VS RT-2 for thickness not reaches UW-11 a(2)

(OP)
thanks MIKE.

Currently I think the idea is it is mandatory for full RT if the thickness>ie. 38. But if it is thinner, you still can do full RT and mark it RT-1.

3 years industry experience;
Oil & Gas industry in Canada.

RE: Question about RT-1 VS RT-2 for thickness not reaches UW-11 a(2)

billbusy, yeah that's about right. Full RT mandatory for certain services and above a certain thickness, otherwise at the option of the fabricator.

And you can, say, shoot long seams, spot round seams, use E = 1 and stamp RT-2.

Regards,

Mike

RE: Question about RT-1 VS RT-2 for thickness not reaches UW-11 a(2)

billbusy/SNTMan
OR the requirements of the User/Purchaser.

RE: Question about RT-1 VS RT-2 for thickness not reaches UW-11 a(2)

Stanweld, yes always :)

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