ML20087N797

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Affidavit of HR Arnold,Fc Breismeister & Rk Rhodes Re Allegations That Procedures May Be Unreliable Due to Manipulation of Procedure Qualification Tests
ML20087N797
Person / Time
Site: Diablo Canyon  Pacific Gas & Electric icon.png
Issue date: 03/16/1984
From: Arnold H, Breismeister F, Rhodes R
BECHTEL GROUP, INC., HOWARD P. FOLEY CO., PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML16340E243 List:
References
NUDOCS 8404040414
Download: ML20087N797 (16)
v • d • e


Text

. - - . . . - .-.

i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD , _

-~

1 )

In the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-275 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC ) 50-323 COWANY )

) Construction Quality Assurance (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power )

Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

) .

t AFFIDAVIT OF H. R. ARNOLD, F. C. BREISEISTER AND R. K. RHODES .__ _,_

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

) ss.

COUNTY OF SAN LUIS )
OBISPO )

The above, being duly sworn, depose and say:

I, Howard Arnold, am Instrumentation Engineer for the H.P. Foley Company.

I, Fred C. Breismeister, am Manager of the Research and -

Engineering / Materials and Quality Services Department, San Francisco Office for the Bechtel Group.

I, R. Keith Rhodes, as Technical Services Supervisor for Pacific Gas and

" "I*

g404040414 840319

~) PDR ADOCK 05000275 O PDR ,~ - - - - - - - _ - - - - - -

j OFFICIAL SEAL q

4 M DUTRA j  ; NOTARY P1'EUC - CAUFCRNIA q f,/4 l'.'1108l$P0 CD';MTY Q*dyrf "# My comrt. etrires JAN 2, IC

. . _ _ J,

_ __; , n ~. : ~2 = w w . y r~._ .*.s

JI #112, Motion at 32.

It is alleged that:

The procedures themselves may not be reliable, due to j manipulation of procedure qualification tests. The same l

procedure to install copper and stainless steel tubing for the instrument systems flunked at least twice at an independent laboratory before it produced minimally acceptable work. The results are unlikely to be any better in the plant, since the test sample was produced under ideal conditions. A 33% pass rate, or worse, could be disastrous during an accident. (citing 1/16/84 Anon.

Aff at 7-8.)

1. This allegation is completely false. The procedures in question were qualified prior to their use. Results from qualification tests of these procedures demonstrate their acceptability. The braze procedure

! qualification tests assure that the braze procedure will produce a joint with sufficient tensile strength to perform its design function. The allegation in the JI Motion is incorrect in stating that the same brazing procedure is used for copper and stainless steel; separate procedures for each material are used. The procedure did not " flunk" at i least twice and where the "33% pass rate" reference came from is totally nondiscernable. -

2. Brazing is used to join small diameter stainless steel tubing used for "

sensing instrument lines, sampling lines, instrument air lines and other applications. The brazing process for stainless steel consists of a ring of preplaced filler metal alloy (largely silver) inserted into a braze sleeve followed by fit up of the tube. A ring torch is used to melt the preplaced filler ring and capillary action causes the filler i

i material to flow through the sleeve.

I is

. . . -__m --4.s i

C' ._-is. OFFICi5L SEAL - {

-T IM DUTRA

~2~ t$ E, *C* d 4*/

notar M i;c - c,wcRNf A f.'.N l'"3 0313PO COU1TY '

(

[] '\.M My comrs. espires JAN 2,1987 (,

-. .. -g -ww.w-r..nwywa y.-  :.e - - n ~- c: .s - - =..: ,,

3. The brazing process used at Diablo Canyon is the optimum technique since it requires the use of a preplaced filler metal and the use of a ring torch to achieve uniform heating. This procedure assures a high quality l

braze joint since visual observation of filler metal at the tube / sleeve l

~

joint is possible, allowing verification of adequate flow'and fusion of the preplaced filler ring.

4. In August 1977, H. P. Foley Co. (Foley) assumed responsibility for tiie mechanical portion of PGandE Contract 8802 from a' previous subcontractor, S and Q Construction. Upon assuming this responsibility, Foley was required to have qualified braze procedures.
5. Since the braze procedure specifications (BPS) for both copper and stainless steel tubing had been previously qualified by the subcontractor, Foley decided to continue to use these procedures.

However, Foley was required to conduct new procedure qualification tests for both copper and stainless steel tubing. The test of braze specimens were parformed by an independent laboratory, Central Coast Labs (new Pacific Geoscience Inc.), in late August and September 1977. Records of these brazing procedures and qualification tests are attached as Exhibit-1.

6. During a planned review of existing brazing procedures for copper and stainless steel by Foley QA personnel in September,1981, it could not be verified that stainless steel tubing BPS number 110045 had been qualified in all braze flow positions (vertical-up, vertical-down, horizontal and f OFFICIAL SEAL l

i T l'A DUTRA N.j;. . NOTArf P'Ol3C - CAU?ORNtA l ) 7Yh/2 SMi l'!!3 CDISPO COUNTY g i l j #

My amm. upim MN 2. It*Lf I

yy u p& mu . c p w _ . . _ . r. .. . _ . ..

flat), since the procedure qualification tests performed in 1977 did not include the vertical-up flow position. This variation was properly documented on Foley Non-Confonnance Report (NCR) #8802-675 in accordance i

with approved procedures.

7. Even though it was not necessary to resolve the' NCR for other than the vertical-up position, a decision was made to requalify all the existing copper and stainless steel braze procedures for all positions, rather than simply qualifying the stainless steel braze procedure for the vertical-up position.

i

8. A total of twenty-four test specimens were prepared by a qualified Foley brazer (See Affidavit of Mr. D. Backes, Jr. attached as Exhibit 2) and i submitted to Central Coast Labs fer procedure qualification testing to ASME,Section IX requirements; twelve copper braze specimens for tensile

'- and metallographic testing and twelve stainless steel specimens for tensile and metallographic testing. For each material, two tensile and two metallographic specimens were required for each of the three positions included in qualification tests. The tensile test determines the joint's ultimate strength by pulling a sample te failure. The metallographic test detemines the area of fusion or degree of filler- -

metal flow by peeling or sectioning the sample and perfoming microscopic examination.

I

9. Procedure qualification reports show that all copper and all stainless

( steel tensile test specimens submitted passed with acceptable results.

Records obtained from Central Coast Labs indicate that there was one O , - v-

^^^ .... .. ~

OFFICIAL SEAL

-<.- 14 .

m. n.

w~.w' . ,,,,,n u - ~~~ .

l- $' [fo 2. I 1

I 1___ .. .

. n -:. q. & ~ . . . .. .;. . . .

_ ._ , . . . 3 . . _ . . }

r

-o i failure in the twelve specimens initially submitted for metallographic testing. This failure, identified by a section tesc, occurred in a stainless steel test specimen due to lack of sufficient flow (73 percent) in the braze joint to meet ASME,Section IX requirements (80 percent).

10. The records also indicate that one additional stainless steel braze specimen was received by the testing lab for metallographic retest..

This additional specimen passed the metallographic sectioning test. -

l

11. Test records indicate the one metallographic failure that occurred was in a test specimen brazed in the flat flow position. The reduced flow in this specimen was obviously an anomalous result for several reasons:

First, this position, flat flow, is the easiest position for brazing; second, the same procedure had been qualified at least three times for this position (as discussed in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 above, and paragraph 1 below in response to JI # 113); third, all tensile specimens and the other metallographic specimen tested in 1981 passed, and finally,. the test for the one additional specimen passed. Therefore, there was no reason to consider revising the Brazing Procedure .

Specification.

12. It should also be noted that the current version of ASME,Section IX, requires only 70% flow for braze specimens examined by Peel Tests instead of Sectioning Test.

0 5 .

r OFFICIAL SEAL

~

4 'q Fi% TNITRA .

[. dg.', f1OT?S'/ " d ' - CAL'?MMA ',

l' 8- *

  • .1 : i *:'isPO CollflIY -

1

} \'*[).4 ra

--- . f emr.

a H es #_'t 2, 1"**

___w

" .---=---- -- ..... _ ...,_.. ... ,. . .

JI #113, Motion at 32-33.

t It is alleged that:

l l

The circumstances for resubmitting the test procedure I were not controlled, which raises questions whether the procedure that finally passed was identical to the procedure on paper. The laboratory had no way to know if the same procedure was used for the second and third test samples. Having failed the first time, Foley had a strong motive to improve the procedure in a way that would help insure approval --

such as a hotter temperature. The lack of controls for resubmission is another reason why a procedure should not be accepted for--

retesting after failing the first time. (citing 1/16/84,.

Anon. Aff. at 8. )

1. This allegation is completely false. The same stainless steel braze

! procedure specification had been previously qualified by two other companies (S and Q Construction and Imperial-Eastman, the- manufacturer of the braze fittings) prior to Foley's initial qualification in

! September, 1977. Therefore, there was no need for Foley to change any '

of the essential brazing variables in order to qualify the procedure and none were changed..

2. Mr. D. Backes, Jr., the Foley pipefitter/ welder who brazed all the test specimens sent to Central Coast Labs in 1981 stated that all test specimens were brazed in accordance with the braze procedure and that no brazing variables were manipulated in order to pass metallographic testing. (See Affidavit of Mr. D. Backes, Jr. attached as Exhibit 2).
3. The brazing of the initial test specimens as well as the specimen for retest were witnessed by a Foley QC inspector involved with the qualification program in 1981. Neither the ASME Code nor Foley procedures require documentation of these inspections. Therefore none r..s

! I) ,,_________ _ - - --

l~ _ - OFFICIAL SEAL 2 in% rUTRA d hPM[9" ,5tjotAmy N L C . CAtJFCANtA 4 0.M*/;

. sju c::s ccero coum .

My coma. etoires JAN 2,1987

] _NDh

. " o, * %-* C %*M%*"tM t.*Q '"' ** 1 4 f **.***.ia : W ' ' [. . * ,e.m f] **2 s ee d: r; , i*, , n .e .,~e

~

were documented. ASE Section IX recognizes the function of independent

~

mechanical test contractors such as Central Coast Lab, and does not require them to witness the actual brazing, i

4. In sumary, contrary to the allecation, the test specimens were prepared according to the existing brazing procedure and the brazing process was witnessed by a QC Inspector. The performance of these qualification tests was in complete compliance with ASME Section IX requirements.

JI #114, Motion at 33.

It is alleged that:

The circumstances for the tubing procedure intensifies concern about all the welding and NDE procedures qualified after the fact of their use. Resubmitting the procedure was necessary because it already had been used;

! the tubing was installed. If the procedure failed at that point, the tubing would have to ba ripped out and reinstalled at severe cost in tenas of time and money - -

t both at a premium in 1982 when the procedure was .

, C " qualified." If the procedure had properly been 3 submitted before its use, the kinks could have been ironed out without severe economic impact. This allegation raises two significant additional questions:

! (1) Were the multiple tests and initial failures disclosed on the procedure qualification test records?

(2) How many of the welding and NDE procedures that were i

qualified flunked initially and passed only after . .

multiple tests? (citing 1/16/84 Anon. Aff. at 8.) -

1. As previously stated in response to JI # 112, the braze procedures were properly qualified in 1977 with the possible exception of vertical j

up-flow in stainless steel. The procedures were submitted for 4 qualification in the ve-tical up-flow position and all other positions as stated in the approved disposition of Foley NCR #8802-675. Had the test specimens failed to qualify in the vertical up-flow' position, this O .... .

OFFICIAL SEAL 7 I M NJTRA l l

r[f'7*h o 447 7 h'y' r:0TAs"r F.*UCCOU'UY V.'l t';;3 C3t!PO

  • CAUr0RritA (3 -

-hi.a My ecmn. expires JAN 2,1987 $

l . _ _

would have been documented in the subject NCR and processed as a reportable incident under established procedures. In actuality, all four test specimens associated with the vertical up-flow position passed the qualification requirements.

2. Acceptable test results were documented on procedure qualification- test reports. The single test failure noted in Central Coast Lab's Meta 11ographic Test Record Log was for the flat flow position which had been qualified in 1977.
3. It is obvious from a review of the true facts surrounding J.I.

allegations 112,113 and 114 above, that the brazing activities at Diablo Canyon were conducted under a fully functioning QA program. A minor deficiency in brazing qualification for the up-flow position was .

identified during a QA review. This deficiency was properly resolved

(

D and there was no indication of any breakdown in construction QA for brazing activities. Copper and stainle.is steel braze joints installed in the various plant systems at Diablo Canyon are installed in accordance with all requirements of the Foley Specification and Contract 8802 as well as applicable ASME Codes. The facts demonstrate that the QA program was properly functioning.

s A

l 1

3 '

l

' I

- OFFICIAL SEAL

~ g~ ' - in's NMA

[ N7 [h s. fJOT*."Y ? " :O

  • CAUTODNfA $

p -

. -! c.,. - apq rp g rf

.. -, .;;,.. p == a **

_---v,;.

, . - -s Dated: March 16,1984

~ ~

/. '

H.*K. ARNULU

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2L&c_Mb8CG

. G. BREI5MEldiLR Subscribed and sworn to .

before me this 16th day

_ofM _ arch , 1984. -

0 R. K. RHODE5

& $K&td) '~~

Ida Dutra OFFICIAL SEAL Notary Public in and for the . . ;" ' ' IM. DUT9A County of San Luis Obispo, '

'I NOTARY Pt.0180

  • CAU70RNIA 85 t 8'SMCW "

State of California.

1 3- u, c.omm. exons an "2.127 My comunisson expires _ __

January 2,1987

(

s i

i l

J g 9-l l

.-~~_-~~~T_Ti~__'__

" ^ ' ' ' ' '~ *'" -'*I* ' ' ' ' ' ' "

- LIST OF EXHIBITS 5_.

1. H. P. Foley Company Procedure Specifications for Brazing Stainless Steel and Copper Tubing.
2. Affidavit of D. Backes. Jr.

w 3

i y

l l

l l

l i

f I

( ..-

i 4

__.3-_._--_; - - . - - - - -

EXHIBIT NO. 1 l

. THE HOWARD P. FOLEY COMPANY PROCEDURE SPECIFICATION FOR BRAZING STAINLESS STEEL FITTINGS Specification No. 8802 Date . 8/22/77 Achangeinanyoftheessentialvariableswhich.aredescth.bedin

  • succeeding paragraphs will require a new procedure specification.

BASE METAL: The base metals shall conform to-theIspecifications - ---

for ASTM A-403 (A-182 or A-276) and A-213 which are found in materials group P-number 102. - -.

~

BRAZING FILLER METAL: The brazing filler metal-5halI~ conform to -

ASME specifice. tion number B Ag 3 and Classification number F-102.

FLUXES: The flux shall be Handy Flux, AWS' ' type 3A or' -

equivalent.

POSITION: The brazing can be done in all positions. - - -

BRAZING TEMPERATURE: A ring torch will be used-to 'he'at- the materials -

to be joined until the brazing alloy appears evenly ~

at both ends of the braze fitting. This will be

(. 12700-15000F. *

~

BASE HETAL THICKNESS- This procedure is proposed to allow for brazin of material thicknesses between .0325 and

.130 i ches.

PRE-CLEANING OF BASE METAL: The base metal shall-be prepared for -- -

brazing by use of emery cloth, distilled water,- -or -

acetone as necessary to ensure cleanliness. Cut ~~ ~

ands are to be deburred. -

PLACEMENT OF BRAZING FILLER METAL: The brazing filler metal-shall" -'

be applied by preplaced insert ring with equal flow around the surfaces joined.

TOLERANCES OR CLEARANCE OF JOINTS: The clearance shall be the nominal clearance for materials used.

l --

POST BRAZE CLEANING: After brazing, the joint shall be cooled and cleaned with distilled water to assure adequar.)- -

remov of possible flux residue Prepared by: So L./ Date B43~77 _ ._

l Approved by: ' Date 8,8 N V

~ '

l

. . : e r- c..- e.a n: m .v.:.v . .v.- .

ar.s::nr.,:. msonme-wmw.m w=n *' <~ . - --

- THE HOWARD P. F0 LEY COMPAtlY BRAZING PROCEDURE OUALIFICATION TESTS seesitient.on No. 8802 o,t, 8/24/77 . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _

.. BreAng Peseeas MN N ST M Manual or P.tachineMANUAL-RING TORCH

.,, MaeorM Specification _t2 M to A 71_ i of P No.107 to P Ns. 107 -. - ----

Thachases Range this test ovat.fies . 022 m 120 4 _ ..

staaine Fil6er h*etal Grovo No. F.. _102 nag.3,, FLUX AND/OR ATMOSPHERE -- -

~~

Brasing Filler Metal analysis if not covered by Flus Trade Name or Compositic.n .

FWo.M/A -- Shte'dits ge, fi/ A _ _ _

Staaing Temposeture range 17700-1 MonOF ' Character of furnace attnosonere M/A - - - --

wm PoeHoon of Joint wm' Postheat treatr9ent M/t -- - -- -

.~

08 462 geo -' ' ;

INFORMATION ONLY Braaing alloy type (whether insert, rod, pre ened, shim, etc). Joint dernensions accord with Sketch No. _

, REDUCED SECTION TEN'StLE TEST (08 A63.1.024512.and 0846331 Demontons Ultimate

  • & Totes Ultimate Unit Charactw of Failure No. Width Thickness Aree Load.Lb Stress. Psi and Location l

2-1~ 3/8" .065" .068 5820 85590 PM '

2-2 0. D. .068 5820 85590 METAL C '

GulDEC SEND TESTS (Q8463.5 and 08463.63 Typeand Type and Figure No. Result Figure No. Result N/A, _

PEEL OR SECTIONING TEST (054632.08463.9.and 08464.1) -]

'~ '

Typtand Type and Figure No. Result Fiyare No. Result 2-3 ACCEPT 2-3 ACCEPT VERT. DOWN VERT. DOWN . -. _ . _ .

Braate's Name U- II*"* Clock No. 2I10 Seamo No-Who by wr:6e of these tests tr cess brarer performance reau rements.

{ Tess Conducted lay ~ - **=a

    • "" EFT'1'. TY Laboratory Test No. CC03077
  • " i

='"""===""'*"QXL*%#* - --

We certify that the statements in this record are correct ard that the test besse! were prepared.

twaaed.and tested in accordance weeth the reoverements of Section IX of the ASt.tE Corse.

go,, THE liOWARD P. FOLEY COMPANY o,,f/31/77 By . . - - - - - -- -

g - Thes form may be otesawwd itom the Order Dapt ASME. 345 E. 47th St New Yos k. N.Y.100t 7 ,

s

.~

~. __ _ ... .

THE HOWARD P. FOLEY COMPAtlY BRAZING PROCEDURE QUAllFICATION TE3T3 g,dne FtS STrrr- ~

um O, ,, MANU5E RfN,G T6 E F.'~- -

MeeerealSeeenfiession A9% . to 191 't o _ in P No. IO2 *

~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~' '

".__ Theeksene Range this tem eval.fies 032 .1 .

Ju In.i P No.107

' Seesing FileseMetaf GesuoNo.F dkO.A3".h FLUX AND/ Oft A1MOSPHEftE Staaeng Filler Metal eno6ysis it not covered by Flus Trade Name o Coms,osition UdND[fl.W F 880 5f ". Sh eMeas ges U.. A

_.Breeine Temeereewe range 1270,-1500"F~ ..

cwa,ui.,.:su,one,,,no.,,s,,,,,N,[A ,

P]oes pg WMNM1'17 Poepiese seearment J/A ___

e .

INFORMATION ONLY Braaime elley type (whethee insert. rod, pre 8hrned, shwn, etc). Joint dimens.ons accord [vich Gk etch No.

RSOUCED SECTION TENSILE TEST (08463.1.0e463.2. and 0848t 9' 01___

Ulawnese Secolanuun Toeas useimoes Unit see, widih Thienness Character of Failure Area Load Lb seress.Fw :e t - - --

1 3/8" .065" .069 5820 84,350 PARE.Yr 0.D.

1-2 5820 84,350 H::T!.'. - --

GUIDED set 40 TESTS (05.C83.5 and 08463.63

(' il I

. Typeand Figese No.

Type and

. Result F9.se No. R. *=l'

- - . . . _ l f

l PEEL OR SICTIONING TEST (08-883J.08-163.9. and Og 464.0 L

Typeand o

  • Tvs,e and Figise fee. Result Fignere No.

13 14 BORIZ. ACCEPT HORIZ. ACCEPT -

-- -- Baust's Neue W. LOCUE i Clock No. 260 s,,,,,,, ns.-

who**rby Test - viesse ^

_ anw -

et gig.gice res .swem us. 1.

f.aeseratory Test No. I'f'O'IO2.7 - l .

    • ' ASME--SECTv-H- -

breasef.andl testedin assen$ence with the Epequesen Code.

ents of Secteon IX of tim Signed Titt HOWARD P. FOLEY Q)MAPNY Deee II31/77 w M. ~~ ~ ~ ~ -

) ,

(a,; me wme, no so a e trom o.e 0,d , n o.., AsnE. so E. 4nh si..N,. voor. M.wtoon --- --

. ~.. . .; H-C.T.~~ ^

....,_w.s

. n.m;.u::_ ~ ;.-_ - - ,.,._,,.,....n,.

. .. - r .:= ..,-..z.. -c~ -- ^"'

_. ---- . ;_f i __, . _ _.

THE HOWARD P. FOLEY COMPANY PROCEDURE SPECIFICATION FOR SILVER BRAZING O. .

COPPER TUBE WROT SOCKET TYPE FITTINGS ,

_ . _ _ Specification No. 8802 Date 8/22/77 i

.._-.-l A change in any of the essential variables which are described in the succeeding paragraphs will require a new procedure specification.

BASE METAL: The base me::als shall conform to the: specifications for ASTM B-88 and ASTM B-62 which are found in .

materials group P-number 107. .

BRAZING FILLER NETAL: The brazing filler metal shall-'. conform to -

ASME specification number B cup-5 and classification number F-102. .:.. '

l FLUXES: None required.

  • POSITION: The brazing can be done in all posttions. .

BRAZING TEMPERATURE: .The brazing temperature shall be 13000-15000F.

BASE NETAL THICKNESS- This procedure is proposed to allow for brazing of material thicknesses between .0175 .. .

and .070 inches. ~

PRE-CLEANING OF BASE ' METAL: The base metal shall.be prepared for . : .

. brazing by ensuring the absence of foreign material

. by utilizing emery cloth as required. Cut ends are -

to be deburred. .

^

PLACEMENT OF. BRAZING FILLER METAL: The brazing fiIler metal shall . _ _

be applied by face feeding with major flow involved.

TOLERANCES OR CLEARANCE OF JOINTS: The clearance.shEll be .the.. . .

. nominal clearance for the materials used. __._  ::c.

POST BRAZE CLEANING: After brazing, the joint shall..b~e wateri .

quenched and polished with emery cloth.

A/? 'A Prepabed by: t /fA AupE/df Date h Y )'77 "

_Appro ed by: M Date [ 28 ) 7 i

h ?"* 6 .*0C.i:"1.*T.% v41Jr. .; . .

! g' --A--.... .

THE HOWARD P. FOLEY COMPAflY BRAZING PROCEDURE OUAllFICATION TE3TS So.eiricaiion No. 8802 . . _ o,,. 8/26/77 __.,. __

areAng P.t.se3 fn P P ER S IL.V.E.R_.3.8 A ZE. maavas or f.taen.ne MAM A.L ._.._ __ . __ .

f. tater;st Specification .3,3.33_. .. to . 3 6.2 o P No. 107 __ _

Thickness Range this tese qualif.es . 017 5 ._ " T0of.07 P Nh' 10 7 Staring Fil.or hlstal Gropo No. F.. ._.bh.)_B C u P 5 Flux At:o'OR ATr.tos= Hens Erating Filler Metai analvs:s if n.at coscred by F fum Trac,ie Neme or Compos tic.n ~ 1.ON 1l* ,

F No. 58 A _- . Shiel1.e3 gas _.R A ..

Brae.ng Temperature range 13 00 0 - 15 00 0 F , ch.,,e,,, og ruence atmoirnere E A ._ .-

Poe.teo.. of Joint 18 o n T ~7 AMT A T- Posinest treatment _ N A . _ . . _ _ _ . . _ _ . .

(see OB 462 .

INFORMATION ONLY Staases alloy type (whetr.er laser t. rod, preformcd. them. t te.). Joen demensions accord wetn Ske:ch No. _

~

I FULL MMotB SECTION TENSILE TESTEbERMMUdb1ND Q B- 4 6 3

  • 4- -

Dememions ultimate g Sascimen Total Ultimste Unit Character of Failure --

p No. 1*Foth Thickness Area Load. Lb Stress, Psi ar.d Locateon PARENT METAL 1-1 ----- ------ .037 1130 30540 '

------ .038 1130 29740 & BRAZED JOINT -

1-2 PARENT _ METAL _

l i___._..

CutDED SEND TESTS (084G3.5 and C8463.63

.-. - l Type and Typsand Figiere M s.

'I

__f..

Result Figure No. R c suit NOT REQUIRED .

i

~

l PEEL OR SECTIONING TEST (OS.4G3.8.08.103 9.and 084G4.0 F' '

Typeand 7yua and Figure No. Result Figure No. Result '

1-3 1-4 SATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY HORIZONTAL HORIZONTAL I i

stas,r's Name R. PERSON cioeg u,, 343 -~~~

g,,,r p u# m Who by virst.e of ttiese tests meets braser perforrrunce requirements. >

Test Condessted try(* F'8T # A T- f'o A ** T T  !

p ,., __ AS ME T A R S LaborstD est No. c c 0 "IO 7 7 SggTION  !

We certify that the statements in th.s record are r- rect ard shat the test ts*JI*8 We'8 ftrepaMd.

brassd.and tested en accordance with the reou.re rnants of Section IX of the ASME Co-re.

Signed THE HOWARD P. FOLEY CO.

o,te e 11 't / 7 7 gy '.2. I.

( 'y This foem may t,e ca ea.ned fer.m ahe Oro.r 0 ps.. ASME 315 E. 47:n St.,New Y.4.N.Y.10017

.. .-.-.w..s.%....

~. -

.. '. . .~

~&

.r m ........<

~

  • ?..r. w'21:cWc.G.L.MP:.< = * . . a "

l l

THE HOWARD P. FOLEY COMPANY CRAZING PROCEDunE b'UALIFICATION TE3T ,

seeEficassen No. 8802 cat, 8/2.4/77 _ _ _ . . _

Btaling Process @ E R R T f.VF W R R A 7- E Manust o* f.tactione M & M II A L .

Meterse SoesificationR A A * . to . R 6 2 , or P No. __ to e N3.1.9.J.

-__w--

l.----

Thickness Range this test ouah!.es i.017 5 " .TQ ,,0.J.S[0 7 __

Staaing Fite 4:etal Group No. F.. 101 R C.u2._5 FLUX Ar:Dl Cit Al?.*C5f'e4C RE '

Braamg Fillee Metal analysis of not covered by Flux Trde N:me or Comteosis on _ NO..qE 1 F.No. NA _, sn,%m., NA ._._

1 Brasing Tempereewre eanse i 1000- 6 Character of furnace atmososiese ..N A. _. - ._ .-

Position of Joine VE R*f I C A L U posinea,i,caimen .3 A . . ._

cse. O B 462 _; ._._._ . _ _ . . .

l INFORM ATION Or4LY Braaing alley type (whetP.er i.isert. eod. prcthtr.t d. shem, etc.). Joint d mensons acco*rl mth Sketch No. . _.

FULL Rintr%K2sscTioN Teds'LE TEST WXiKWXXQcrNm(MWNKKMMX QB 463.4 _

i -

Dimenenas Ultim se j Specimen Totaa Uttemate Umt CI:ar:,cier of Faside- - -

No. Widsh Thir.tness Aree Load.Lb Stress, Psi arJ Location l 2-1 ---- ------ .037 1110 30000 PARENT METAL 2-2 ---- ------ .037 1070 28920 PARENT METAL . _ , _ . . _ . ..

CutDED BEND TESTS (Q8463.5 and 08463.63 j 4 Type and Typsand Figure No.

l Resuit Figure No. ReLult j l

NOT RRQU. IRED-1 PEEL OR SECTIONING TEST (OS4G3.8,08-*G3.9.and 08464. )

{

j . _ .

Typeand Tyi.,e at:d F33 vre No. Result Figure No. Reivit 2-3 S ATIS FACTORY 2-3  !

VERTICAL UP VERTICAL UP SATISFACTORY

, Craser's Name R . PER10N Ciocw No. 343 St=ma no Who by weti.e e,f thetar tests meets brarc'r e fo. m.in ettueremains, i Test Conducted by ctMTRAL C O A T I. A . ,,,,at l per .A S ME SECTION I3[ Test No._cc 0 30 7 7 l Wa certify that the sta:cmenes in enes reced see correct ard that the test trJter v.- #wep> td, breasd.and tessed in accordance with the requerernants of Sect.on IX of the ASt.tE Code.

i Sign ed . TH E H OWA RD P . .FOLEY CO.

oote 9/13/77 oc 2.// '?" 'l 1

{} j This term mov de om. a rec, te.e Oroar omt., ASvE,34s E. uth :t.. Nee, yo,t, rf.y. ico 7 l <

. ..- . ; **-y %.%ed;* %* Q* *i. ~~ ' * :.*h. W* *  ; ? .*. **.*n**Q A*f *.*.L',' ~; * * ^.i'?D f 3*.L:.*= % * * ~ ?.'*=*3 *s"*3 !.W I = -

_ _ _

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20087N797&oldid=2729444"