Customers can ask for anything. Sometimes they need educating, in meekness and humility, about why something can't be done.
Other times, they need to be mildly and politely questioned about why they want something done.
In the end, many are starting to ask for UT in areas where it normally hasn't been and, for the most part, still isn't done.
They don't understand the limitations of any of the processes and ask for things because they feel they need it.
In this case, often all they want, if they know at all how it works, is a check for depth of weld. Making sure, even after VT on bevels, joints openings, etc, that the weld actually penetrated as deep as they wanted for design strength purposes.
He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent
thanks; brent, lawrence, I suggest to them to use other methods if they want to inspect their weld. PT and MT for first pass and cap respectively. I am not sure if the project consultant will accept this or not.
Performing UT on a PJP groove weld will provide limited information especially if angle beam is used. Of course, the larger the groove weld, the more information such as IF, porosity, etc.
If the weld face is ground smooth, the joint penetration/weld size can be determined using a straight beam transducer.
My recommendation would be to MT each layer if there is a concern with weld soundness.
The allowable stress for a PJP groove weld is the same as a fillet weld, .
0.3 times the tensile strength of the filler metal, not to exceed the allowable of the base metal for tension and shear. The limits for the allowable stress is due to the presence of a crack starter by virtue of the presence of the unfused root. If the weld is a critical component of the connection, it would be preferred that the joint be a CJP groove weld.
Forum