Product welding test plate
Thread Content
As indicated by the two clauses in the figure, if they are in a subordinate relationship, there is no issue with implementing them; however, since these two clauses are in a parallel relationship, could there be a contradiction between them?
If two provisions are parallel but contain contradictory content, it indeed causes difficulties in implementation. The terms need to be reviewed and adjusted to ensure that there are no ambiguities in terms of guidance and enforceability. .
Regarding the current national standards, there’s no need to set such high requirements; when looking at ASME standards, it becomes even clearer that some of those standards are terrible!
It can also be considered the same (thickest) thickness. For the same type of equipment, if one does not want to increase costs but still wants to encounter the most complex welding conditions, it is reasonable to use the thickest specimen as a representative. Everyone understands the meaning; the words used didn’t convey it well
I agree with you. ASME’s provisions are said to be clearer, easier to understand, and more practical to apply.
I thought that test plates had to be prepared separately for different thicknesses; so, with the same welding process conditions but varying thicknesses of the cylinder material, it’s sufficient to prepare them on the thicker sections?
What contradiction is there between these two? One is about which thickness section should be chosen as the test specimen for different thicknesses, and the other is the specification for the material of the test specimen.
Just make it thick and strict； There are obvious signs of using English phrases: lol