Welding coefficient for non-ferrous metal end caps
Thread Content
May I ask: if the head and cylinder are made of the non-ferrous metal titanium, the head is formed as a single piece, and both the cylinder and the head undergo 100% inspection with a grade of 2, then should the joint coefficient for the cylinder be set at 0.95 and the same value for the head? Also, should a coefficient of 1.0 be used for reinforcement openings in the head? Is this understanding correct?
This post was last edited by 754210465 on 2017-6-10 12:34. Reinforcing the hole is the right approach, especially if there are no welds near the pipe connection
Thank you. Should the value of 1.0 be used since there is no joint at the head, or should it be determined based on the cylinder?
I just checked GB 150 and GB 151 – I didn’t find a welding coefficient of 0.95 there; it is only specified in Appendix D of GB 151, where it states that for fully penetrated butt joints, 100% (radiographic) non-destructive testing is required, and the coefficient for titanium alloys is 0.9. Where did the original poster get this value from? Does whether the head has joints also relate to the welding coefficient of the joints between the head and the shell? Where can I find information on the standards? Could you point out a general location?
Titanium welded containers per Section 3.7 of JBT4745-2002 and aluminum ones per JBT4734 – it seems they are the same
Thank you, I took a look and it’s indeed correct; I just didn’t check carefully enough.
Haha, it’s normal. I’m not familiar with it either; otherwise I wouldn’t have asked
If the head is formed as a single plate with no welds, the welding joint factor is taken as 1.0.