1 only requires volumetric examination when the connection is loaded in tension and

subject to fatigue. Even then, the fatigue category must be of a specific type. In
short, the project specification is stringent to say the least.

There is no reason not to UT the connections, but as mentioned, the procedure must
be acceptable to the Engineer.

If I were involved, I would suggest the UT be conducted in accordance with JIS

standards. I've used the JIS for examining rail car frames. It is different than
AWS, but AWS isn't the answer in every case. JIS is based on a DAC curve that is
constructed using a standard calibration block consisting of a plate with drilled
hole. Easy, quick, but not exactly like AWS.
Best regards - Al
OSUCivlEng (Civil/Environmental)(OP)15 Apr 14 20:44
I confess I wrote the specifications. However the only planned CJP weld was on a
moment connection on a canopy that is subject to fatigue due to reverse wind
loading.

Perhaps the ultrasonic testing is overkill for this splice. I will have to see how
much tension would actually occur at the splice location.

I don't think introducing Japanese Industrial Standards would be a wise idea at

this point.

Thanks for your help.

DekDee (Petroleum)16 Apr 14 08:29
OSU,
Firstly, a piece of advice - never write UT, RT or MT in a specification as you are
only going to get one thing from the contractor - MT.
UT & RT are volumetric whilst MT is a surface method examination - big difference
in costs and more importantly the chances of finding internal defects in the weld.
It should be UT or RT and MT or PT (if stainless steel)
I have been involved with structural fabrication (in the Southern Hemisphere) for
over 30 years and every time a contractor wants to splice something not shown on
the drawings it must be examined by UT or RT and MT or PT.