Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / A-333 / A-350 PQR
- - By welderette (**) Date 10-03-2005 15:27
In order to prepare a PQR including CVN to -50 deg. F on plate for this P1 Group1 TO P1 Group 2 combination, what would be appropriate Plate Materials that could be used? ASME B.31.3 prohibits the use of A36, A 283 and A570. Any information or insights would be greatly Appreciated.
Impacts are required in weld and Haz. Thanks
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 10-03-2005 16:09
Welderette; A / SA-516, Gr. 70 is fairly common material and is a P1, Gr. 2 and A516, Gr. 60 is a P1, Gr. 1... this might be one combination. As an alternate, try A515, Gr. 65 to A-515, Gr. 70.

Have you got a copy of ASME IX showing all of the Supplimentary Essential Variables for both your processes? Be sure to use that format I sent you for recording each rod/electrode as it may be required to show QW-409.1 values when recording onto the WPS. Let me know if you need one that has been completed for reference and I'll send one to you!

Give me a call or e-mail me if you need more suggestions.

Jon
Parent - - By welderette (**) Date 10-03-2005 17:05
Jon my friend!
You must be a mind reader. I had picked out that same combination, A516 Gr. 60 & A516 Gr. 70, and I am glad to get some re-inforcement that I am thinking correctly. Thanks, Deb.
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 10-03-2005 17:10
Very cool, see? Great minds do think alike, lolo!!!

Also, consider running the PQR in 3G so to take advantage of QW-405.2 (another supplimental essential variable).
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 10-03-2005 18:27
Welderette; here is some CRITICAL information for you!!!

You'll probably want to run 2 test coupons, one to give you maximum thickness but another to get you down below the MINIMUM BASE METAL THICKNESS of 5/8" ~ this is critical, otherwise you will be limited to materials 5/8" and greater!!!

If you have an ASME IX, read QW-403.6.
Parent - - By welderette (**) Date 10-03-2005 20:06
Jon, I have checked out QW-403.6 . I have located some material that is 1/2" thick, but can now see that 1/4" will be required also. Apparently A 516 is readily available so this should be no problem. AND thanks for heads up about 3G . I have talked to Lab this morning and they tell me they will pull 5 specimens for Weld and 5 for HAZ . This plan is beginning to come together. If you have a completed Impact Test Qualification Data Sheet please fax or email. Thanks again, and again. Deb
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 10-03-2005 20:13
Deb;

A completed WPS, PQR will all qualification data is in your e-mail inbox for you to review. Glad things are coming together but I am still somewhat doubtful of the need for new PQR after reading the spec sheets you sent... still, better safe than sorry, you can always use impact tested WPS' for non-impact jobs!

My bestadvice is get a copy of QW-253 (SMAW) and QW-256 (GTAW) and highlite each essential and Supplimental Essential Variable. Notch toughness PQR's are really no trickier than oridinary ones but theres loads and loads of landmines and plenty of people who will be more than happy to point them out after you've already stepped on one!

Good luck and feel free to contact me again if you need anything further!
Parent - By jon20013 (*****) Date 10-03-2005 20:15
By the way, if you already had a good WPS without notch toughness, you could simply run another and do ONLY the impacts provided you followed exactly the parameters of an existing non-impact tested WPS but in your case you will also need a Group 2 material as well ~ if impacts are really required.
Parent - - By GRoberts (***) Date 10-04-2005 02:28
If you can get some material from your supplier that is certified to BOTH SA516 Gr. 70, and SA516 Gr. 60, then you will be qualified for P1 G1 to P1 G1, P1 G2 to P1 G1, and P1 G2 to P1 G2. Also make sure that the material is certified to ASME SA516, not ASTM A516 because ASME SA516 is P1 material, but ASTM A516 is S1. If you use S1 material for qualification, you would not be qualified to weld P1 material.
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 10-04-2005 11:38
Both good points. See how easy it is to fall into little traps?
Parent - - By welderette (**) Date 10-04-2005 14:07
Thanks for the input gentlemen. Although I am a bit confused by the difference between ASTM and ASME 516 Spec. Section II states that SA-516/SA-516M are Identical with ASTM Specification ASTM 516/A 516M-90. Is there some pitfall I am missing here? I'm trying to get some input from our engineer, but mostly he relies on me for welding applications. I find an exemption in the Notes for Table 323.2.2 note 3 indicates that" impact testing is not required if the design minimum temperature is below -29 degC (-20 deg. F) but at or above -104 degC
(-155 deg.F) and the Stress Ratio defined in FIG. 323.2.2B does not exceed .03. I am not sure if this applies to Materials only, or if by falling within the parameters of this allowance for materials, then also the weld metal would be exempt. Any thoughts on this ?
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 10-04-2005 14:27
Deb; The exemption you found is what my friend Walt pointed out (Which I sent you via e-mail) and why I keeping harping on the issue of "whether impacts are really required, or not." I was convinced as of our discussion last Friday, after reviewing your site specs that impacts were NOT required and remain convinced they are not in this instance.

Now then, as to ASTM vs. ASME; while the materials may, for all intent and purpose be virtually identical, those listed as "SA" materials have been approved for work under the Boiler and Pressure Vessel Codes, and MOST have been assigned P-Numbers in ASME IX. Those listed as "A" materials are ASTM's that may, or may not be used under ASME B31 series and if the are "similar" to those "SA" materials, are assigned an "S-Number" by ASME IX; see QW-420.2.

This is very similar to filler metals; for example A-5.18 vs. SFA-5.18. Did you know that ASME purchases the rights from AWS to use the filler metal specs we find in ASME Section II, Part C? It's true, that's why you will read at the top of almost every one of the SFA specs that the spec is similar to or identical with AWS A-X.XX. Naturally, if adopted for use under Section II, Part C, ASME may put their own twist on things; additional testing, marking requirements, etc.

To close the loop here, I do not believe impacts are required for your project, just as we decided last Friday. Good luck!
Parent - - By welderette (**) Date 10-04-2005 15:48
Jon, I am about to corner our engineer, ask him to do the calc's in re Note 3 and make the call. If we are not required to do the impacts, then I will get that in writting for my records and simply make the switch to 7018-1. If we do not fall under the exemption then we will proceed with the PQR. I'll keep you update as to the outcome. Thank for All, Deb
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 10-04-2005 16:50
[deleted]
Parent - By jon20013 (*****) Date 10-05-2005 15:21
Okay.......... so, what was the engineer's response?
Parent - - By Dagwood (*) Date 10-12-2005 22:08
I'm not sure if it will help or hinder, but check my post about A/SA333 pipe welding procedure.
Let me know if I can be of assistance.
~D~
Parent - - By welderette (**) Date 10-12-2005 23:53
Thanks for the heads up on your post. We have not gotten our material in yet to do the CVNs. We are planning to use A-516 plate with a dual cert Grade 60 and grade 70 to address the P1 Gr.1 to P1 Gr.2 issue. The A-350 LF2 fittings are group 2 material. E-7018-1 will pass the charpy at 20 ft lbs @ -50 deg F. We will run two tests one on .250 material and the other on .500 to get our min max thickness range. This is new territory for me, so if I am thinking in error let me know. Thanks
Parent - - By Dagwood (*) Date 10-13-2005 17:55
No, I think that everything looks cool (from my limited experience...) will you qualify in the 3G position? (QW405.2)
Parent - - By welderette (**) Date 10-13-2005 19:56
Yes 3G Thanks to the kind experts in the Forum who thought to point that out to me. Still waiting for material.
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 10-13-2005 22:48
Hi Deb, just checking in from Western Australia seeing if you'd made any progress?
Parent - - By welderette (**) Date 10-14-2005 14:30
Jon. We are still waiting for material and my boss has tapped the resources of our NDE Inspection group of record (R-Stamp etc) to determine the values for acceptance. A good call on his part. Meanwhile, while I'm resting, I have begun research to put together a WPS & PQR for welding Buss Bar. I have D1.2 heading this way. If I run into confusion well, you know I'll be addressing the Forum again. Hows things Down Under? Lucky Dog. Deb
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 10-26-2005 06:33
Hey Deb; how'd that PQR come out? I'm still in Western Australia but leaving for Sydney tomorrow (Thursday) and should be back in the office on Monday with a mountain of paperwork to wade through! How about an update?
Parent - - By welderette (**) Date 10-26-2005 23:24
Jon, The coupons are held up in Customs! We sent them to British Columbia, promised overnight service from the lab; What I didn't bargain for was Customs. Hoping for delivery tomorrow... will keep you posted. Deb
Parent - - By Dagwood (*) Date 10-31-2005 20:52
Just curious...where are you? Did you send them to Can-Spec/Acuren? I have had a lot of great luck in dealing with them in the past. All my procedures go to them. You can e-mail me direct if you like. dcombs@geotechindustries.com.
Parent - - By welderette (**) Date 11-05-2005 00:13
Many thanks to all who helped! Our tests were successful and I learned a great deal.
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 11-05-2005 03:59
Good for you Welderette! Glad things worked out in spite of the border fiascal! Now, what are you going to do about the nitrogen vs. argon??? Seems there's no rest for the wicked!
Parent - By welderette (**) Date 11-05-2005 18:36
Jon, Weighing all variables,we are proceeding with argon. Problem is that the lines in question are for Instrument Air, and Nitrogen. They had not planned to flush these lines so soluable paper is out. I'm recommending that they consider flush as a more cost effective solution than purging with no dams. The jury is still out, and in the meantime we are purging all, trying to keep the purge contained in the pipe as much as possible, and topping off, for each fit. In the future though I would like to try the nitrogen purge.
Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / A-333 / A-350 PQR

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill