Al,
Did I miss something? Why are we talking about a PQR when using a Group II steel for D1.1 testing?
Note, info I see also eliminates 'Certified MTR's' for many normal operations. Some jobs may still require them but according to AISC and papers on specifying your steels when ordering state that MTR's (non-certified) meet all requirements for the construction of buildings. Other sectors may still require certified test reports. Certified will often cost more because of the above normal documentation and testing that may apply.
OP,
I concur with Al on material grades. I am seeing many of our structural jobs specifying A572-50 instead of A36 for flat bar, plate, and angle iron. But, when the material comes in, especially from USA mills, it is normally multi-grade and lists A572, A709, A36, A529 and/or other designations that may apply.
The overlapping is getting less variation as A36 is weeded out of stocks of steel. Bridge code, structural steel, are all wanting tighter controls over tensile, yield, and other properties than what A36 specs were providing making some engineering very difficult. Just like the change and it is almost impossible to now find A36 W-shapes. They first went to A572-50 and are getting everything now to the final goal of A992 for W-shapes because of the mechanical property values.
And I would submit that stating 'Group II' steels would suffice for your application to produce a WPS for the materials in use.
Have a Great Day, Brent
"I'm writing a WPS for a 2G test. I'm trying to decide if I want to use the plate steel that we get from our local mill, or if I need to buy specific steel just for the tests."
The inference I get from the sentence is there is a test being performed. I take that as meaning there is a reason it doesn't comply with prequalification, thus a test is required, i.e., a PQR."
I didn't see anything in the post that stated this is for a building, a bridge, etc. It could be that the project involves a piece of equipment that is being built using D1.1 as the governing code. I inspect railcars on a regular basis that are welded using D1.1 as the governing document.
Another example of limited input = limited output.
Al
Got it Al. I understand your reasoning and the limited input issue.