Issues regarding the re-evaluation of welding processes
Thread Content
The last edit to this post was made by zhao7517 on 2015-6-29 at 15:22. The process evaluation conducted for welding Fe-1-1 and Fe-1-2 cannot be applied to the welding process between Fe-1-2 and itself; however, it can be used for the welding process of Fe-1-1 and Fe-1-1, right? Also, can the evaluation for welding 16Mn be applied to both 16Mn and A350LF? Personally, I think it cannot. . . What does Dàshénmén think?
This post was last edited by niat8888 on 2015-6-29 20:00. The process evaluation conducted using the welding of Fe-1-1 and Fe-1-2 cannot be applied to the welding of Fe-1-2 with itself. As for Fe-1-1 and Fe-1-1, this is also questionable from a standard perspective. . After all, no words can describe this exception. It was just said that, except for those exceptions, changing the group number requires re-evaluation. . In terms of actual performance, this welding process is fine. . To avoid these different interpretations. . . The most practical consideration is to conduct evaluations for Fe-1-2 and Fe-1-2 intermetallic welds. . The evaluation for 16Mn phase welding cannot cover both 16Mn and A350LF. Because: 1. The A350 LF is made of ASME-standard material. Materials not referenced in NB/T47014 need to be classified as category 2. In accordance with the codes for fixed pressure vessels or pressure pipeline standards, when using materials based on foreign standards, a process evaluation should be conducted upon their first use. . Therefore, the A350 LF is evaluated and then classified according to NB/T47014. . .
Once it’s classified, it can be used, right? The A350LF can be classified as Fe-1-2, and then the welding evaluation for welding it with 16Mn can cover group 1.2
The A350 LF comes in different grades and different classes. . . It cannot all be classified as Fe-1-2..