×
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

UW 11(a)(5)(b)
2

UW 11(a)(5)(b)

UW 11(a)(5)(b)

(OP)
I'm interested in any comments you may have as to the interpretation of this paragraph.  
Some folks I've talked with, say that in the case of a small pipe vessel where seamless pipe is used and both head seams total < 50 ft and were welded by the same welder,  one spot is sufficient.  I'm having difficulty in reconciling that practice with UW 52(4).

RE: UW 11(a)(5)(b)

TomBarsh: you are correct in the above case 1 spot is all that is required. Some manufactuers don't understand UW-11(a)(5)(b).You would not belive some of the answers I get when preforming a Joint Review.

RE: UW 11(a)(5)(b)

aclark (Mechanical)

Allen are you still using COMPRESS?

RE: UW 11(a)(5)(b)

aclark,
A star for the understatement of the year about the dreaded UW-11(a)5(b)... so far.  

Steve Braune
Tank Industry Consultants
www.tankindustry.com

RE: UW 11(a)(5)(b)

Yes I still use compress mainly when checking calculations and whe teaching class.

RE: UW 11(a)(5)(b)

(OP)
TomBarsh,
I went through a file I've kept of info pertaining to Code questions and came across the issue of Pressure Points I believe you referred to.
As always this question generates some interesting dialogue.
Let me bounce this off you guys,
It seems to me that the issue boils down to the selection of joint efficiency from Table UW 12, for a given joint.  What I'm getting at is, if I say I need a E of 1 for head to shell seams but .85 for long seams, and apply UW 11(a)(5)(b) to those head to shell seams, then the head to shell seams are treated as their own increment(s) and I have to radiograph that increment(s) per UW 52.  The rest of the vessel is comprised of a seperate increment(s) and is radiographed per UW 52.
Am I thinking about this correctly?

RE: UW 11(a)(5)(b)

Quote:

What I'm getting at is, if I say I need a E of 1 for head to shell seams but .85 for long seams, and apply UW 11(a)(5)(b) to those head to shell seams, then the head to shell seams are treated as their own increment(s) and I have to radiograph that increment(s) per UW 52.  The rest of the vessel is comprised of a seperate increment(s) and is radiographed per UW 52.
Am I thinking about this correctly?

Yes

RE: UW 11(a)(5)(b)

As I remember this used to be call "Partial Radiography". One addition spot RT then you could apply E=1.

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! Already a Member? Login


Resources


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close