Hi everybody,

I did not find an answer to my question so I will try with my first post.

I have a nozzle with a Reinf. Pad. Tshell = 22mm and TPad=18mm.
My opinion is that PWHT according to UCS-56 is not required as the nominal thickness is not 40mm but the greatest thickness according UW-40 d.
In my case that is Tshell=22mm.
This is also applicable if UW 16.1 (q) with tw=1*t is used.
Furthermore the Pad weld and the nozzle to shell weld is not welded in one sequenze.
The customer says T=40mm and PWHT has to be carried out.

What is your opinion?

Thanks a lot.

Markus

Read all of UW-40(f)(1) thru (6) to determine the governing thickness for your particular joint design.

Because you stated reference to UW-16.1 in your question, read UW-40(f)(5)(d) which says the following:

The term nominal thickness as used in Tables UCS-56 for welded joints connecting parts of unequal thicknesses (such as that found in Figs. UW-16.1 and UW-16.2), shall be the greater of the thickness of the weld across the nozzle neck or shell or head or reinforcing pad or attachment fillet weld.

Not that the word "OR" is used, (exclusive) and not the term "AND" (inclusive)

_________________
A question properly stated is a question half solved.

Thank you,

Of course I read all UW-40 and this is exactly what's my opinon as I wrote above.
The Problem is that my customer does not accept it.


Regards

As an added note: a customer specification may override Code rules if specified in a reference document governing/overriding these specified rules.

FYI (not applicable in your case, but interesting nonetheless)Table 132 of ASME B31.1 (piping) which is similar to Table UCS-56 uses the term "nominal material thickness". Paragraph 132.4.3 of B31.1 states "The term nominal material thickness as used in Table 132 is the thicker of the materials being joined at the weld."
ASME Section VIII-1 uses the term "nominal thickness" and I have to remind myself of this requirement.

_________________
A question properly stated is a question half solved.

Hi Jackal,

There is no additional Spec. so it's only code. My boss and I agreed to make a 16mm Pad instead od an 18mm Pad (which has to be sligtly wider but thats ok), and "forget" about it as somes customers have slightly differnt "ideas" of the code.

But that note from ASME B31.1 is really interesting, Thank you for that one.