Cladding thickness vs backing thickness
Cladding thickness vs backing thickness
(OP)
Hello,
I'm staring at a U-1 that reads:
Shell: SA-264 20% Type 316 S/S on SA-285-C Backing, Nominal thickness 3/8 in.
My question, is it:
a) 20% of the 3/8 is clad, with an overall thickness of 3/8
or
b) 3/8" CS plus 20% clad, so an overall of 0.450", 0.075" of which is stainless clad?
Edit: after speaking with a few colleagues I feel pretty confident that option a is correct, but I'd still like to get others' opinions.
Thanks
I'm staring at a U-1 that reads:
Shell: SA-264 20% Type 316 S/S on SA-285-C Backing, Nominal thickness 3/8 in.
My question, is it:
a) 20% of the 3/8 is clad, with an overall thickness of 3/8
or
b) 3/8" CS plus 20% clad, so an overall of 0.450", 0.075" of which is stainless clad?
Edit: after speaking with a few colleagues I feel pretty confident that option a is correct, but I'd still like to get others' opinions.
Thanks





RE: Cladding thickness vs backing thickness
RE: Cladding thickness vs backing thickness
The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand
RE: Cladding thickness vs backing thickness
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, Plymouth Tube
RE: Cladding thickness vs backing thickness
However, 80% of 3/8" is 0.300", which is not a standard plate thickness. You would have to pay a premium to get plate that's 0.300" thick, but for what purpose?
I think option (b) is more likely.
-Christine