fitness-for-purpose assessment?
Thread Content
(E---C) For units that are to remain in one location for more than 5 years, PWHT shall be applied to joints in C-Mn steels in special areas when the material thickness at the welds exceeds 50 mm. However, if satisfactory performance in the welded condition can be demonstrated through a fitness-for-purpose assessment using methods such as fracture mechanics testing and analysis, PWHT may be omitted. I’m wondering what a fitness-for-purpose assessment is. Actually, omitting this term from the translation doesn’t have much impact on the overall text, but I still would like to know: call:
(E---C) For units that are to remain in one location for more than 5 years, post-weld heat treatment shall be applied to the joints made of C-Mn steel in specific areas when the thickness of the weld material exceeds 50 mm. However, if satisfactory performance of the welded joints can be demonstrated through a suitability assessment using methods such as fracture mechanics testing and analysis, post-weld heat treatment may be omitted. For devices that are to stay in one place for over 5 years, post-weld heat treatment is required for C-Mn steel joints in certain areas when the wall thickness of the welded material is greater than 50 mm. However, if documents resulting from purpose-specific evaluations demonstrate good weld performance, such as crack mechanical testing and analysis, post-weld heat treatment may not be necessary.
Yes, it’s because my points are too low and I haven’t accumulated enough
fitness-for-purpose assessment suitability assessment
I’ve only heard of the fitness for service assessment, also known as the usability assessment, API 579/ASME FFS. I’ve never heard of what the original poster mentioned.
1. Just because one has not heard of something does not mean it does not exist in the world; hence Zhuangzi said, “My life is finite, but knowledge is infinite.” ” 2. Fitness for purpose: The ability of a product, process, or service to be suitable for its specified purpose under specific conditions. 3. The translation of “fitness-for-purpose assessment” in China is often “applicability evaluation,” but I think it’s more appropriate to translate “assessment” as “evaluation.” 4. When I was young, I often thought that one should “do things to the best of one’s ability, and strive for the best results” – do the best, for the best. These days, I prefer the idea of \"not seeking the best, but rather something suitable.\" That’s why I fell in love with the English phrase \"fitness for purpose\" as soon as I saw it many years ago.
Why not use a dictionary? http://www.chinafanyi.com/all/1/1/Fitness-for-purpose-.htm Applicability! ! !
Answering the OP’s question on floor 6: What is the difference between fitness-for-purpose and fitness for service? My general observations: 1) Fitness-for-purpose and fitness for service (some also say fitness for use) broadly refer to the same thing: the ability of a product, process, or service to be suitable for its intended purpose under specific conditions. 2) Americans prefer to use \"fitness for service/use\", while the British first used \"fitness-for-purpose\"; later, people in Europe and other regions also preferred \"fitness-for-purpose\". This is also why those who often study the API standards understand it as fitness for service. But if the person on the 5th floor also often reads ISO standards, they will realize that in similar contexts, the term used in those standards is \"fitness-for-purpose\". 3) Strictly speaking, there are slight differences in the usage of the terms \"fitness-for-purpose\" and \"fitness for service\" in English. When we emphasize the specific practical performance parameters of a product, we often ask whether those parameters meet the requirement of being fitness-for-purpose, and professional Americans are also gradually starting to use this term. But when emphasizing the suitability of the product itself, we often use \"fitness for service/use\".