100% RT inspection problem of welds between flush cleaning holes of storage tanks and adjacent wall panels
Thread Content
Recently, during the construction process, the flush cleaning holes of two storage tanks were different from the ordinary ones. There was a large reinforcement plate that I marked in red in the picture. The reinforcement plate was directly butt welded to the tank wall plate. Now I have some questions about this situation. 1. According to GB50128, the butt welds between the tank wall plate where the flush cleaning hole assembly is located and the adjacent tank wall plate should be 100% radiometrically inspected. Can the butt weld mentioned here mean the weld I marked in red? 2. Why do the butt welds between the tank wall plate where the flush cleaning hole assembly is located and the adjacent tank wall plate need to be 100% radiometrically inspected?
1. Correct. 2. There is a large hole in the bottom of the tank and the local stress is large, so 100%-RT inspection is required.
However, the position of the reinforcing plate that I marked in red in the picture is also welded after cutting off a piece of the original tank wall plate, which is equivalent to opening a hole. Then don’t the welds between the entire piece of tank wall panel that was cut off and the adjacent tank wall panel be inspected 100%? ?
1. No (that is the fitting fillet weld between the reinforcing plate and the wall plate) 2. Same as above
The landlord’s condition is: The reinforcing plate is directly butt welded to the tank wall plate.
Normally, the height of the enhanced version of the cleaning hole is the same as that of the underlying siding. Why does yours feel shorter than the siding? Look at the picture, it’s 3 digits! The reason for the detection is the same as the 2nd floor!
The reason for the weld inspection is the same as the second floor's opinion. The height of the reinforcement plate in the screenshot does not meet the requirements.
What does it mean to have 100% radiographic inspection of tank siding and tank siding?