We have qualified procedures for CJP groove welds in various types of aluminum, I'm not sure I understand the extra if any requirements for partial penetration groove welds and fillets when applying the developed WPS to these types of welds. The spec seems to indicate that for every variation of joint other than square grooves and full penetration welds macro etch tests are required. In my experience with Mil-specs full penetration groove welds also qualify for partial penetration grooves and fillets. Can you clear this up for me?
Aluminum has it's own little world. You really want to check each groove type to insure you have your parameters right.
By 826222
Date 09-12-2013 11:22
I appreiciate your opinion but that doesn't answer my question.
I don't have my code book on hand today.. Sorry.
But the first thing I would look at if I did have my code book would be.
1. Essencial variables for procedure qualification
2. Essencial variables for performance qualification.
3. Table for Welder and Welding operator Qualification-- Production Welding Positions Qualified by Plate, Pipe, Box Tube Tests.
4. Table for WPS Qualification-- Production Welding Positions Qualified by Plate, Pipe and Box Tube Tests.
I see your question has been sitting here for a couple of days... Really sorry you haven't got an answer with authority yet :(
See AWS D1.2 :2008 - Commentary - Section C-3.15.5.2(2).
I interpret this as meaning that you may use parameters established as valid during a full pen PQR for PJP grooves, but you have to run an additional PQR plate with visual and macro-etch inspections only, in order to verify the parameters capability of producing the required PJP weld size.
Tim
Hey 82622,
Welcome to the Forum.
I assume the spec you are refering to is TACOM's Ground Combat Code - Aluminum
It doesn't appear to have a clause that CJP qualifies PJP for gooves and fillets.
The Ground Combat Code - Steel has the clause (4.4.3)
Tyrone
First and foremost, a cautionary note: don't attempt to mix military requirements with any other standard or try to rationalize why they require what they do.
Committees tasked with developing welding standards are composed of a collection of humans, each with their personal experiences and personal bias. Each committee, i.e., military, ASME, AWS, or API, develop requirements that the committee feels ensures the welds meet their intended purpose.
In this case, aluminum (referred to by some as "Almost a Metal") does not weld like other metals with lower thermal coefficients of thermal conductivity and those that resist oxide formation. Joint details conducive to austenitic stainless steel are not ideal for aluminum and vice versa. Some people are advocate of qualifying a WPS for every joint type because of the factors that influence the ability to deposit sound welds in aluminum.
Even AWS D1.1 recognizes some joints are preferable to others for certain applications. Consider the provisions of clause 2.18.2 where bevel grooves and J-grooves butt joints are prohibited in the flat position when V-grooves or U-grooves can be used. The problems associated with these details are more severe when welding aluminum.
Best regards - Al
