Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / ASME Codes / Is overlap considered a defect in ASME Sec VIII Div 1?
- - By Kix (****) Date 02-29-2012 20:50
If so, can you reference a clause where it has criteria for overlap/coldlap.  I've got a vessel on my hands that's full of overlap, but I can't find the criteria to reject it. 

Thanks,
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 02-29-2012 22:01
You have a bit of problem since there isn't any visual inspection requirement in Section VIII at all.
You would have to reject based upon specification.
Parent - By Kix (****) Date 03-01-2012 12:17
I was hoping that wasn't going to be the case, but I figured as much.  I'm going to try and go after what the contractor may have in there qaulity manual or a welder workmanship process/procedure or something of the sort.  Thanks for confirming.

Kix
- - By iesca (**) Date 02-29-2012 23:06
Please see:

(Section VIII Div 1) UW-35: "(a) Butt welded joints shall have complete penetration and full fusion."

AWS A3.0M/A3.0:2010:
Overlap, fusion welding. The protrusion of weld metal beyond the weld toe or weld root.
Overlap. A nonstandard term when used for incomplete fusion.

Above references could be useful.

Hector
Parent - - By Kix (****) Date 03-01-2012 12:26
Iesca,

I was going to try and go after that clause, but the overlap is in the toes of a fillet weld over top of a groove weld.  It's a nozzle connection, v-grooved with a fillet for a finish.  For fillet welds it references UW-35 (b) only for the reduction of base material at the toes of the fillet weld, A.K.A. undercut.  If I could classify the cap on that nozzle weld as a groove weld, I'd say that I have a case.  Not sure what to do.  The vessel is going on a NAVY ship, but was bought and accepted as a COTS (commercial off the shelf) product. The NAVY is going to think this is crap because their code standard (NAVSEA) is very clear about overlap.  If my company makes the repairs on the vessel then it voids the warranty of it.
Parent - - By ozniek (***) Date 03-01-2012 13:36
Hi Kix

What are the NDT requirements for these particular welds? (Does the drawing specify anything?) If any surface flaw detection is called for, then the defect will show up as a linear indication, which will not be allowable.

Regards
Niekie
Parent - By Kix (****) Date 03-01-2012 15:21
That is an excellent approach.  We have no certified ASNT PT qualified inspectors in house, but I am totally capable of doing it and using that criteria.  The indication I have found would totally bleed to an unacceptable limit in my opinion.  Here are some pics. http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a189/vdubin474/100_1973.jpg
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a189/vdubin474/100_1978.jpg
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 03-01-2012 13:45
You can hang your hat on the fact that overlap is a special case of incomplete fusion at the toe of the weld. Location, location, location.

If there is a provision for penetrant testing, you will have no problems rejecting the condition based on the size of the resulting stains.

I don't have a copy of Section VIII handy, so you'll have to do the digging to find the clauses on which to base your assessment.

A close look at the fabricator's QC manual may provide a suitable basis, but most are written without going into great detail on acceptance criteria.

I had a similar problem when I was the fabrication manager with a manufacturer of pressure vessels. Our QC and our AI were our worst enemies. They were rejecting welds based on "I don't like it". They literally checked the vessels with cotton gloves to catch the most minute amount of spatter on what were "throw-away" housings.  I admit they were the prettiest damn vessels I've seen. I challenged the AI and our QC on several occasions because the welds they were rejecting were perfectly fine. Their response was they had to meet customer expectations. I responded that our vessels were used in the bowels of the greasiest, dirtiest, nastiest places known to man. No one could even find them after a few days of use.

The situation changed dramatically when we started to subcontract the fabrication based on the requirements of Section VIII alone. Then all I heard from our QC was, "We would never accept that." My response was, "And that's why we aren't building vessels here any longer. You put the fabrication shop out of business with your nit-picking that meant nothing to our customers!"

Life goes on.

Best regards - Al
Parent - By Kix (****) Date 03-01-2012 15:46
What do you do though?  We have BIW shipyard jumping down our throats because of the quality on the stuff we are sending them (this will be the third vessell) and all we can come back and say is "sorry, you bought product built to a commercial standard".  The likelyhood of them going and finding someone else to build this stuff is high.  I did see to it that we put some custom criteria in the next P.O. to put these issues to bed and hopefully make BIW happy.
     I explained to the contractor my code clauses out of sec VIII and that we could go the PT route and they agreed that we should fix the problems.  They are allowing us to make the repairs and backcharge them.  I posted some pics in an above post for whomever is interested in looking at them. 

Thanks for everyones help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 03-01-2012 13:47
Kix,
I would certainly take Hectors approach but keep in mind from a code basis you can't get from Section VIII to AWS for visual acceptance criteria unless some other document is making the connection for you. But if your the only one that knows,,,,,,,,,,,
Parent - - By vagabond (***) Date 03-01-2012 13:50
API 577 would be applicable IMHO.  Also a lot of AWS books that ID cold lap but I don't have them with me. . .it's the one about the discontinuities etc. you study for your CWI.  Hit em with the 577 section below its a good catch all about craftsmanship.  Hit em with C and E. etc.:

4.4.1 Appearance and Finish
Verify post-weld acceptance, appearance and finishing of
the welded joints.
4.4.1.1 Quality control items to assess:
a. Size, length and location of all welds conform to the drawings/
specifications/Code.
b. No welds added without approval.
c. Dimensional and visual checks of the weld don’t identify
welding discontinuities, excessive distortion and poor
workmanship.
d. Temporary attachments and attachment welds removed
and blended with base metal.
e. Discontinuities reviewed against acceptance criteria for
defect classification.
f. PMI of the weld, if required, and examiner’s findings indicate
they comply with the specification.
g. Welder stamping/marking of welds confirmed.
h. Perform field hardness check (see 9.10).
4.4.1.2 Potential inspector actions: rework existing welds,
remove welds and make weld repairs as required.
Parent - By vagabond (***) Date 03-01-2012 13:54
Also notices Section 9.1 of API 577 has all the exact same illustrations that AWS uses.  ID's all the defects etc.  should be plenty.
Parent - - By Kix (****) Date 03-01-2012 15:11
Can you explain how I could jump from sec VIII to API 577.  All I have to go on is a CoC that states that this vessel was built in accordance with ASME Sec VIII Div 1.
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 03-01-2012 16:02 Edited 03-01-2012 16:26
You need to have a thread that connects one code to the next. You can't arbitrarily cite a code or fabrication standard that isn't referenced by either the purchase order or contract documents, i.e., drawings, project specification, etc. That holds true for you, your subcontractors, as well as the Navy.

This is a case where everyone appears to have received what was specified, i.e., a fabricated vessel per ASME VIII. That being said, I still maintain the welds must have fusion to both the adjacent weld and the base metal. The presence of overlap is simply incomplete fusion at the toe of the weld, thus it is unacceptable.

As you mentioned, the next PO should (or will) include acceptance criteria that will supplement the MINIMUM ASME code requirements. Be sure the criteria is well thought out and clearly defined. If there is any question of intent, the points will go to the fabricator. Take your time to develop clear concise criteria. You may also think about referencing the alternate/supplemental criteria on the drawing to provide a clear connection between the drawings and the project specification/purchase order.

Be careful when doing any welding on the code stamped vessel. It is considered a repair once it leaves the loading dock of the original fabricator. You will need to have an R stamp and AI involvement if you perform any repairs on a pressure boundary if the vessel is to maintain registration and compliance with the original purchase requirements. This is a good case for the buyer to inspect the vessel before it leaves the fabricator's facility. Which is the least expensive alternative: shipping the vessel back to the manufactuxrer for repair, performing the repairs in-house (if you have the R stamp required to repair a code stamped vessel), or inspect the vessel at the manufacturer's facility before accepting it?

It sounds like this could easily turn into a bundle of worms if you don't step carefully.

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 03-01-2012 20:55
If I may make something a little more stringent here Al. Work on a code vessel is a repair/alteration as soon as you hit it with the Stamp.
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 03-01-2012 21:04
You mean our AI was cutting us some slack?

As long as the vessels did leave the loading dock, i.e., as long as it wasn't on the pallet truck, he would allow us to make "repairs". However, if it was lifted off the dock, even while on the pallet truck, he wanted the "R" stamp and all associated paperwork.

I can't believe the old bastard gave us any leeway. I'll have to take back half of all the nasty names I called him. :eek:

Best regards - Al
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 03-01-2012 21:13
LMAO!!!!!!!!
Parent - By Kix (****) Date 03-01-2012 21:15
"You need to have a thread that connects one code to the next. You can't arbitrarily cite a code or fabrication standard that isn't referenced by either the purchase order or contract documents, i.e., drawings, project specification, etc. That holds true for you, your subcontractors, as well as the Navy."

That's why I questioned him on jumping to API from sec VIII.  I wasn't sure about that.

"This is a case where everyone appears to have received what was specified, i.e., a fabricated vessel per ASME VIII. That being said, I still maintain the welds must have fusion to both the adjacent weld and the base metal. The presence of overlap is simply incomplete fusion at the toe of the weld, thus it is unacceptable." 

Al, I couldn't find anywhere in VIII where it states you must have complete fusion to both the adjacent weld and the base metal.  Can you reference a clause?

"Be careful when doing any welding on the code stamped vessel. It is considered a repair once it leaves the loading dock of the original fabricator. You will need to have an R stamp and AI involvement if you perform any repairs on a pressure boundary if the vessel is to maintain registration and compliance with the original purchase requirements. This is a good case for the buyer to inspect the vessel before it leaves the fabricator's facility. Which is the least expensive alternative: shipping the vessel back to the manufactuxrer for repair, performing the repairs in-house (if you have the R stamp required to repair a code stamped vessel), or inspect the vessel at the manufacturer's facility before accepting it?"

This isn't a stamped vessel thank goodness because we don't have an R-Stamp.
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 03-01-2012 21:12 Edited 03-01-2012 21:16
Kix,
You can't. And if you read the entirety of UW-35 (a) you will notice they are talking about radiographic interpretation.
However, the very last sentance says if there is any question regarding interpretation you can compare the film to the surface. But in order to use UW-35 (a) you need film. Did you shoot the area? And does the film reveal an image of possible overlap?

However, read UW-38. You have no real acceptance criteria but its something.
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 03-01-2012 21:49
I'm actually vacationing this week, so I don't have a copy of Section VIII to burrow through. You are on your own my friend.

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 03-01-2012 21:53
Hello Kix;
The Navy is accepting a non-code vessel? That's hard to believe. I know they will often accept an ASME code stamped vessel in lieu of a vessel built in accordance with NAVSEA TP278. This is a first for me, a non-code stamped vessel? What is the pressure rating and is it for a surface combatant, submarine, or for a land based installation?

Al
Parent - By Kix (****) Date 03-05-2012 13:54
Al,

Yes, it is a non stamped vessel.  It only says "built in accordance to ASME" on the strainer drawing.  The vessel is a cookie cutter strainer that goes on a watermist fire fighting system for the NAVY LPD and LHD class surface combatant ships.  Not sure what the pressure rating is, but I know it's up there.  This system puts some serious pressure on some nozzles that vaporize the water enough to saturate the air to the extent that nothing will burn.  The strainer falls into the COTS category, but you would think there should have been a U-stamp call out.  Trust me, there was some back and forth on this one because BIW was inspecting everything to NAVSEA when it initually showed up on there dock.  Everything on the system is built in accordance to NAVSEA TP278.  This includes the frame, and all the piping leading up to and from the strainer.  The strainer is the only COTS item on the unit.
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 03-01-2012 22:55
Vacation? Whats a vacation?
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 03-01-2012 23:20
Al solves all "our" problems for his vacation..

Don't poke the Bear!
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 03-02-2012 00:19 Edited 03-02-2012 00:21
It all comes to an end tonight. Back to the old grind stone in the morning. My wife said I had enough time off for a while.

Now I get to play with my new toy; a mini excavator. It looks like a shrunk down version of my Drott. Now if we could just get rid of this pesky frost I could get to work with it.

Al
Parent - - By vagabond (***) Date 03-02-2012 12:15 Edited 03-02-2012 12:21
Well in the case of api 577 it covers welding and metallurgy so I think the string theory wouldn't apply.  It's scope is for chemical/refinery operations but of course like any API document can be used for anything.  I still say it can be used.  Either this or the AWS book which covers defects would be the best thing to go by and I still fail to see why either would not apply.  But like I've said before. . . .that's just my .02.  Take it for what it's worth.  I hate to beat a dead horse but many ASME/AWS folks seem very reluctant to use API stuff in my experience.  I'm not sure why this is. . . . API 577 is rapidly becoming the go to for a lot of places in lieu of the CWI for a number of reasons. . . .I'm not saying I agree with that.  I'm just saying what is happening.  But that is probably a whole nother thread or two.  If we can't use AWS reference material for defects w/o a "link" and we can't use API 577 w/o a "link" than I guess my question is what can we use??  I'm really curious. . . . . I guess I don't go out of my way to justify my code use is all.  If we can call it incomplete fusion at the toe of the weld, great.  Is that in Section VIII somewhere??  I've always used seperate documents to justify welding/procedures etc.  That is what I always thought those other documents were for??  I'm usually dealing with a lot of people who think I am the so called authority.  I'll put it in front of them and then see what their reaction is.  I don't try an overthink it.  I find a way to get the quality that the job needs and I do it. . . . .maybe I'm doing it wrong??  Wouldn't be the first time. . . .LOL.
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 03-02-2012 13:28
Nobody is saying you can't use those. They just don't have any authority unless imposed by some specification. Using AWS or API is no more ligit than imposing aerospace, nuclear, ISO/EN, or Nigerian water works requirements arbitrarily. You can do that, but if I were a production manager you'd have a struggle on your hands. My job would be to get something out the door in compliance with specifications so the company can make money, and here you are pulling something out of your ass because you don't like what you see, and now in the future I have to guess at what you may or may not approve because I've seen your library and I have no idea what standard you're going to club me over the head with next time?
If you think they're important then make them part of your in house specifications then everyone knows the rules and when the estimator develops a quote he can accomodate the more stringent requirements. You don't want to price a volkswagon and build a ferrari. You'll impress the shyt outa your customers right up to the point you declare bankruptcy.
Parent - - By vagabond (***) Date 03-02-2012 13:51 Edited 03-02-2012 14:40
OK.  So my question still is if all you have is a print etc. that references Sec. VIII what do you use for welding appearance criteria etc.??  I'm not being argumentative,  I'm trying to learn something. . .I have seen tons of spec's, prints, contracts, etc. that do not specifically cite where we are to get our criteria for weld appearance.  Does that mean we should just not call out defects??  You have to go to something and I've always been of a mind that is what API 577 and whichever one the AWS puts out are there for.  Again I really would like to know for future reference if someone has an answer.  Thanks.
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 03-02-2012 20:46
You use UW-38. And thats all you have. You cannot arbitrarily impose something extraneous to the specification no matter how good it may be. However, if you establish an in house specification, problem solved. If you wish impose API 577, AWS D1.1 Table 6.1, or Zimbabwe's shytter code, as an in house spec do so. That way everybody knows the rules up front. And thats ligit.
Section VIII does not prohibit VT it just doesn't require you to do it.
If you are confronted with this problem once, you should not be confronted with it twice.
Parent - By ozniek (***) Date 03-05-2012 11:51
Hi Vagabond

You state: "I find a way to get the quality that the job needs and I do it." - The question I put to you is: How do you know what quality the job needs?

I know that it just goes against the grain of any right thinking QC person to allow "defects" on welds, but I have seen many vessels and pipelines with really significant defects still doing their job after 30 years or more. Why is this? Because the design is conservative enough to allow these significant defects without them resulting in failure. (This is especially the case for ASME VIII Div 1 vessels.) A QC person therefore needs to understand that the "quality that the job needs" is what is required to meet the design intent. If a nozzle weld has something like a 0.5 design factor built in over and above all the other safety factors, due to the difficulty in NDT, then as a general rule quite a lot of discontinuities can be allowed before anything bad happens. (As long as the designer did his job right!) If the vessel is subjected to cyclic loading, then the designer should ask for NDT that will detect any stress raisers that would be unacceptable. e.g. DPI or MPI. The ASME VIII acceptance  criteria for this will then be: "no relevant linear indications", which would immediately require removal of the lack of fusion defects.

Obviously other codes with less conservative designs require a lot more inspection, as the presence of defects are more critical.

In all the workshops in South Africa I was involved with, a surface crack detection method of all welds was a standard, although it was not necessarily required by code. For us it was "good engineering practice", but in the world of low cost, this needs to be specified at the tender stage I am afraid.

Regards
Niekie
Parent - - By Shane Feder (****) Date 03-03-2012 01:26
Hi Jeff,
With all due respect I have to query your reference to UW 35(a)

UW-35 FINISHED LONGITUDINAL AND
CIRCUMFERENTIAL JOINTS
(a) Butt welded joints shall have complete penetration
and full fusion. As-welded surfaces are permitted; however,
the surface of welds shall be sufficiently free
from coarse ripples, grooves, overlaps, and abrupt ridges
and valleys to permit proper interpretation of radiographic
and other required nondestructive examinations.

My interpretation of the clause is you must ensure you have no "coarse ripples, grooves, overlaps, and abrupt ridges and valleys " prior to RT or it may not permit proper interpretation.

I looked at UW 38 as well but cannot find a definitive link in ASME between incomplete fusion and cold lap / overlap (AWS 3.0 has it but as discussed that is mixing codes)

UW-38 REPAIR OF WELD DEFECTS
Defects, such as cracks, pinholes, and incomplete
fusion, detected visually or by the hydrostatic or pneumatic
test or by the examinations prescribed in UW-
11 shall be removed by mechanical means or by
thermal gouging processes, after which the joint shall
be rewelded [see UW-40(e)].

Regards,
Shane
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 03-04-2012 23:52 Edited 03-04-2012 23:57
Shane;

I believe you and I are on the same page regarding the limits permitted for the defects listed in UW-35 and UW-38. Since VT is recognized as a NDT method, the defects listed in UW-35 would require repair as required by UW-38. I like your line of thought.

However, you said you could not find a link in ASME for incomplete fusion, cold lap, or overlap. I do not have a copy of ASME Section VIII handy this evening (Grandpa has babysitting duty), but I believe the link between ASME Section VIII and AWS A3.0 is Section VIII's reference to AWS 3.0. That link is the thread that binds the two documents. The terms you listed are contained in A3.0 as either standard terms or nonstandard terms. Therefore, it is not a conflict to use AWS definitions for various defects included in A3.0 or the glossary ASME Section VIII.

Excerpt from AWS A3.0-2001 (it’s the version I have on my computer)

overlap, fusion welding. The protrusion of weld metal
beyond the weld toe or weld root. See Figures 32(C)
and 32(D).

overlap, resistance seam welding. The portion of the
preceding weld nugget remelted by the succeeding
weld.overlap. A nonstandard term when used for incomplete fusion.

I stated that it was possible to reject the overlap based on the fact that overlap is a “special” case of incomplete fusion at the toe of the weld. The excerpt from A3.0 listed above defines the term “overlap” as used by ASME Section VIII. The excerpt also lists incomplete fusion as being a nonstandard term for overlap which is what I referred to when the post stated overlap was not listed as a defect. Based on the excerpts both you and Jeff provided, criteria for overlap is clearly provided; none.

On the other hand, I don’t believe ASME Section VIII includes a reference to any API standards (exception: API 5L for line pipe listed by ASME Section IX which is referenced by Section VIII) for the purpose of providing acceptance criteria for NDT methods. As such, using an API standard as the basis of acceptance or rejection of a new vessel is not appropriate.

If this was a petrochemical processing plant or a refinery where API is used to inspect and evaluate in-service vessels, any referenced API standard listed in the project specification is fair game.

The bottom line is that it is the owner’s responsibility to understand the scope of each code to determine whether the particular code or standard is applicable to the work or product. The owner has no one to blame if the code referenced by the project specification or purchase order does not provide the quality level desired. The owner has the responsibility to specify the applicable code and if necessary, modify the requirements if the code is not stringent enough to meet his needs. It is not usually within the inspector's authority to deviate from the codes and standards identified in the project specifications unless a common thread can be identified to lead the user from one standard to another.

There are occasions when the code simply does not serve the purpose of the owner. It is then incumbent on the owner to modify the code requirements to meet their needs (assuming the code is not incorporated into a federal, state, or local statue) To cite an example, one of my clients designs and fabricates their product line in accordance with the requirements of ASME B31.1 Power Piping. The allowable undercut for circumferential weld joints was 1/32-inch. Considering the fact that the wall thickness of the tubing used is only 0.035-inch, 1/32-inch undercut is deemed too liberal. As a result, the project specification has modified the ASME acceptance criteria to meet my client’s expectations. Once the modified criteria are included in the project specification, there is no reason for anyone to cry foul when the more stringent criteria are applied by QC.

Best regards - Al

So much for clearing italics
Parent - - By vagabond (***) Date 03-05-2012 03:51
It's a slow day so I pulled up my .pdf of ASME VIII and did 3 seperate searches AWS, 3.0 and AWS 3.0.  I came up with nothing unfortunately.  I wish I had a copy of 3.0 with me, so I could look at it but I don't.
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 03-05-2012 04:27
The "Thread" rears its ugly head once more.

Refer to UW-27, it leads to Section IX for qualification of WPSs, welders. The reference to Section IX leads one to QW-490, a glossary, which references AWS A3.0.

The glossary included in Section VIII doesn't address welding terminology per se, so you are left with the glossary included in Section IX.

Best regards - Al
Parent - By vagabond (***) Date 03-05-2012 07:16
Thanks Al,  I would much rather use AWS 3.0 (or API 577) if I run into something like this in the future.  And I don't know if I've ever seen it included as reference material so this give me a way to connect it if I ever need it.
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 03-05-2012 13:44
Al,
There are two problems with your argument as I see it.
First, since Section VIII references Section IX in a context of qualification I do not think it ligit to argue that the full gamut of Section IX is now opened to Section VIII fabrication. If you were to utilize the definitions in IX you could ligitimately only use those that pertain to qualification.
Second, since Section IX is a qualification code and inapplicable to fabrication, you cannot use it as justification for imposing fabrication requirements.
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 03-06-2012 05:42
I admit the connection was weak.

I could have sworn that I saw a reference to AWS A3.0 regarding terms and definitions in Section VIII, but when I had access to the code to check, it wasn't there.

I know I have seen A3.0 referenced in other code sections such as B31.3, but Section VIII: not much in the way of definitions related to welding. That being the case, when there is a disagreement regarding a welding term that isn't defined by an ASME code section, where does one go?

In this post a question was asked about overlap. Where is overlap defined by Section VIII? If it isn't, where does one go to find a definition when a controversy arises between the fabricator and the owner?

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 03-06-2012 13:06
It appears that quite a few of us did the 3.0 search. Myself included. If its there I don't know where.

And I think the answer to your question is the same as the way I answered an earlier post.
You put it in your own program. If you think a code is inadequate you can always make your program more robust. So in essence the problem should only happen one time. If it happens twice then the oversite is the program managers. This is actually the way the codes are supposed to work. They can never cover everything.
Myself I do not use welding manuals (my opinion is they are too redundant of your procedures and quality manual - I don't care to write stuff twice) but many people do. Your welding manual, if you have one, would be the prefect place for a reference to decide definitions when none are available in the code.
Parent - By 803056 (*****) Date 03-06-2012 14:06
That does not go to the heart of my question. The term overlap is used by Section VIII, yet the term is not defined by Section VII. Many other ASME codes have a reference, i.e., a thread, leading to AWS A3.0 as a reference for welding terms and definitions when the included glossary  does not define a term or if their definitions differ from AWS A3.0. It is a dead end for a number of welding terms used by Section VIII.

Do they expect "common knowledge" to fill the void? That seems unlikely since other ASME codes do include the thread for welding terms, many of which are not included in a standard dictionary.

Best regards - Al
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 03-05-2012 13:28
Shane,
I agree with you 100%.
VT in Section VIII is thin to non existent.
And for overlap it takes a very liberal interpretation to apply.
Parent - By Kix (****) Date 03-05-2012 13:21 Edited 03-05-2012 14:23
I'm not sure if the contractor shot the joint, but I have no film.  I really like UW-38 though.  I think that would be all one would need to make an argument against overlap being that it is clearly lack of fusion, but is it lack of fusion?  What binds the overlap to lack of fusion in Sec VIII?   I like Al's argument, but I agree that one could argue back that AWS 3.0 only applies for Sec IX.  UW-27 I believe could be argued that the Sec IX definition and terms listed in that clause only pertain to welding processes.  This thread has been populated with a tremendous amount of information and I thank everyone who has particiapted in it!

Kix..
Up Topic Welding Industry / ASME Codes / Is overlap considered a defect in ASME Sec VIII Div 1?

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill