D1.2 WPS Qualification

Date 02-28-2015 16:21

The lab screwed the duck.

More than likely they used the wrong bend mandrel for the guided bend test and just as likely they used a plunger and die type machine rather than the wrap-around machine. Find a lab that knows what they are doing. Clearly, you are dealing with hacks that are clueless.

Your first hint - they didn't machine the samples as per D1.2.

Now for the really fun part, what did you instruct them to do? Did you reference the applicable welding standard? Did you tell them what the base metal and filler metal were? did you tell them what bend diameter to use? Did you ask them if they had both a plunger and die as well as a wrap-around bending machine? Did you tell them you had a preference of one over the other?

Best regards - Al

By weldr61 (*)

Date 02-28-2015 17:54

Hi Al. And yes to all. This is the second time for this testing. I send a form in with my PO listing the conditions of the test such as applicable code, base material, filler material, welder name and ID#. After the first failure which failed the tension (tensile) test. I read through the report and questioned why they did side bends on a wps qual. when it clearly called for transverse face and root tests. Then I asked about the test thickness and why the M23 material was bent at the plate thickness. Lab response was that was a typo. that they were bent at .125" thick. So I asked for pics of the tested coupons. Clearly .375" thick. And the mandrel that I told them to use was 2.0625" dia. and was told they use a wrap around. Prior to the pic's being sent I thought they had experience in this are this lab is a reputable lab statewide. Apparently they are limited in their experience with the application of D1.2. When I told them I didn't agree with the way the testing was carried out he suggested that my interpretation of the code could be wrong and went on to say that sub sizing of the transverse test would only apply to cases where base metal was a M23 and the filler metal was F23. Hence, my post just checking to be clear of my interpretation.

Thank you kindly.

Regards,
Charlie

By 803056

Date 02-28-2015 18:02

I don't know what lab you are using, but there is a lab in PA that I stopped using because it got to the point where I had no trust in them. I used them for nearly 15 years until they changed ownership two or three times. After that, nothing but problems.

I always ask that the tested samples be returned so I can look them over to make sure the testing was done properly. It is a method of checking that everything was done as per the PO. If not, I don't use that lab any more. The kicker is, if the lab does something wrong, another test coupon must be welded and tested. That is no minor expense!

You already know the answer, you need a different lab.

Al

By TimGary (****)

Date 03-01-2015 17:00

Al's right of course. Always proof read Lab reports and re-gain tested specimens. You don't have to keep them, but it's good to know when a specimen failure may be attributed to improper machining & treatment.

I've been having similar struggles, both with labs and aluminum GMAW PQRs.

On the aluminum side, I'm finding that MAXAL 4349, filler is a great product that delivers good wettability and 35K tensile.
This is a new filler to AWS 5.10, with an ASME F#23.
It hasn't made it into D1.2 or B2.1 yet, but B2.1 recognizes ASME material specs, so it's partially listed.
MAXAL is working with the D1.2 Committee to get it listed.
Moot point as you're doing PQR's anyway.
5032 and 4340 fillers have been giving me fits.
Been working with 6160 and 5032 base metals 3/32" - 3/8" thick, GMAW pulse and spray.
I might have my numbers mixed up... might be 5356, but it's Sunday morning, I'm in my pajamas and off the clock, so it doesn't count.

I 've been sorting through Labs lately, as I'm tired of having to correct their work, and have found that, so far, Element Technologies in North Carolina is doing well at a fair price.

Tim

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 03-01-2015 19:45 Edited 03-01-2015 21:38

Tim,

Yeah, NASA thinks so too regarding the 4349 from MAXAL as they have used it to build a part of the James Webb Space Telescope which will replace the duties currently being performed by the Hubble... A few months ago I posted an article regarding the use of 4349 to weld a large frame that's to be one of the major components of the new telescope for NASA... And that grade of Aluminium filler metal will give the user so much better tensile #'s than any of the other filler metals after proper PWHT... Thanks for posting your experience with this relatively new filler metal... Hopefully it won't be too long before AWS D1.2 committee recognizes it also.

Respectfully,
Henry