I may be off base, but I believe the intent of D1.6 is for the engineer to specify which type of joints are to be tested. For example: all CJP moment connections, or all CJP butt joints subject to tension, all CJP joints subject to tensile loads, etc.
I would rather the EOR be specific and identify the joints to be subjected to additional NDT so there is no question of which joints get tested by MT, UT, etc., but that would entail more work on the EOR's part and that might be more than they will provide unless they are backed into a corner.
My experience is that most inspectors can not identify which members in a structure are subject to compression or tension loads by simply looking at the connection. That being the case, I would submit a written request that the engineer be explicit in detailing which welded connections are to be subjected to NDT in addition to VT. Then sit back and watch the fireworks between the fabricator/erector and the owner deciding who pays for what. After all, AWS D1.X states that any NDT requested after the bids are awarded are at the expense of the owner, including preparation for NDT, the cost of NDT, and the repairs required to conform with the acceptance criteria.
Best regards - Al
LAT1CWI,
Table H.1, H.2, and H.3 of Annex H covers weld Classification. Another D1.6 fork in the road is whether your part is Cyclically loaded or Statically loaded.
My understanding of D1.6 is that besides creating a new PQR, NDT, other than visual testing, must be listed on the print or other contract documents. They're not required.
I agree with Al. Let your customer decide how critical the welds are.
Good Luck,
Keith
The EOR has to decide. If NDE in addition to VT is required it makes sense they have to tell you what welds will be tested and what the acceptance criteria will be. The language is essentially the same in D1.1. How they organize the required welds it seems to me IS the categories.
Forum
