Problems with ultrasonic testing of steel plates
Thread Content
If no inspection requirements for flaw detection are specified for the delivery of the container plates, and ultrasonic testing reveals issues during use, who is responsible? Are there any standards to rely on? The plate is Q345R steel per GB/T713-2014, with a thickness of 18 mm
This post was last edited by wanlirn on 2022-11-15 08:46. Failing to meet the agreed terms constitutes a breach of contract; of course, the party at fault shall bear the responsibility
Ultra-testing was not required, but during subsequent TOFD inspections of the welds in the production process, issues were found within the base material
GB713 specifies UT testing for plates as part of the protocol; since you didn’t require this, you’ll have to find a solution on your own. A thickness of 18 mm represents considerable pressure, and if it’s in the vicinity of welds, it’s better to remake the part. I think we shouldn’t risk losing more by focusing on minor issues
Place the order in accordance with GB713 standards; don’t forget that there are many additional requirements included.
This post was last edited by wanlirn on 2022-11-17 at 14:25. Please check which standard is to be adopted for GB713 UT according to the agreement between the two parties; the acceptable quality level also needs to be specified. The container plates we usually use come out of the factory meeting the Grade II requirements as defined in NB47013. And if you need a Level I qualification or some other standard, then that definitely won’t work.
So you still need to note the requirements
Generally, container panels come out of the factory with three inspections, right?
Ultrasound is not required, but it does not exempt the manufacturer from quality issues. . .
If there is a problem with the board, it is of course the responsibility of the distributor or the manufacturer, regardless of whether you asked them to conduct UT tests or not. After all, the manufacturer or distributor must provide qualified boards.