A108 Solid Rounds

Date 04-15-2011 03:24

A108 isn't a list prequalified material, so as you noted, the procedure must be qualified by testing.

You can always qualify the procedure in accordance with Clause 4 provided you can get the material in the appropriate form. In your case, A108 is bar stock, so getting it in the form of plate is out of the question.

If the parts you are welding are not required to comply with AWS D1.1 you can use D1.1 as the basis of qualification, but don't include a statement that it meets D1.1 in your certification statement. You may be able to find a plate material that has the same mechanical properties and similar chemistry that would be a satisfactory substitute for qualification purposes.

That being said, I would suggest you use AWS B2.1 as the basis of qualification since it does include ASTM A108. It is listed as a M1 base metal. That allows you to use any M1 base metal (including ASTM A36) to qualify your procedure. You can expand the list of welding variables to include those included in D1.1 (arc voltage, amperage, etc.) if you wish to. Then, if you have a customer that wants the procedures to be qualified per D1.1, you can submit them as an alternate to D1.1 as allowed (with the Owner's approval) per clause 4.1.1.2 (D1.1-2006 as an example).

Best regards - Al

By js55

Date 04-15-2011 12:01

Thats a really good post Al. In all the years I have been involved in structural stuff I have never really been exposed to what I would call some of the more exotic structural applications some of these guys are exposed to and consequently have underestimated the virtues of B2.1.
I still remember a conversation between yourself, Walt, and myself in Houston and never forgot it but also just have not had the time to take a closer look.
I've followed some of your previous 2.1 posts and have taken note but just never needed to apply them. Yet.

By 803056

Date 04-15-2011 15:27 Edited 04-15-2011 15:31

Hello JS;

I interpret it as a good sign when you can't shoot my responses full of holes.

I do have to say B2.1 was more useful to the "non-welding engineer" in the editions prior to 1984. Now it is too heavily influenced by the ASME Section IX way of thinking relative to the essential variables. You and I understand the minimalist approach of Section IX, but most people using these standards are not welding engineers. They are looking for some direction which is now lacking. However, it is still "better than a sharp stick in the eye."

I usually use B2.1 fortified with the essential variable listed in D1.1 and apply the ranges used by D1.1 to maintain a little sanity when writing the WPS. I use the essential variables established by the PQR as the starting point for the ranges listed in the WPS. The approach provides a "rational" basis of establishing usable ranges for voltage, amperage, etc. that the client can mentally justify.

I haven't been to Houston since last fall. I don't have anything planned for that end of the world unless the phone rings and I have to pack my bags and computer. I spent 10-days there last fall qualifying four procedures for B31.3 high pressure piping. I worked with one of the best welders I've encountered. It was a nice change from the norm.

Best regards - Al

By js55

Date 04-15-2011 19:27

LOL!!
Don't know about shooting holes. I may shoot at it but mostly just to stimulate a good discussion.
Now, my wife says I'm just argumentative, but I dispute that claim.
Seldom does one learn much by agreeing. :smile:

By 803056

Date 04-15-2011 20:28

I can't disagree with that logic.

Best regards - Al :cool: