About Number and Type of Test Specimens according to D1.1

Date 12-08-2008 11:46 Edited 12-08-2008 11:48

Viet.eq,

You're correct. Fillet welds are tested by macro etching, because, if you didn't cut, sand, and polish the cross-section, you wouldn't know how deep your weld penetrates.

CJP groove welds speak for themselves, as far as penetration is concerned, which is what Table 4.2, 2008 covers.

Thanks,

Keith

By Kix

Date 12-08-2008 15:40

Macroetch can be for PJP groove welds and Fillet welds.

By viettq

Date 12-09-2008 01:05

Dear Keith, Kix

My Authority Certifying required Type of Test Specimens for WPS: Tensile, Bend, Macroetch, Hardness. When I show him Table 4.2, he said that Macroetch for cover PJP and Fillet weld. If WPS for CJP doesn't perform Macroetch, that WPS can not cover for PJP and Fillet weld. I said nothing because I don't want to tread on his toes. But you know note d, Table 4.2: CJP groove weld qualification on any thickness or diameter shall qualify any size of fillet or PJP groove weld for any thickness or diameter. This note does not mention about add Macroetch Test. Besides, I just worked with welding operation about 1 year, so I don't know exactly I am right or wrong. Please advise me if something's wrong.

Thanks & Best Regards
viet.tq

By Ke1thk

Date 12-09-2008 14:20 Edited 12-09-2008 15:35

Veit.tq,

This is a classic example of the importance of reading the footnotes, completely.

I thought you were qualifying a CJP weld. In a groove weld, the way I'm reading Table 4.2, you don't need any macro samples.

However, if using an exhisting PQR of a CJP weld, and you're using it for a new job that has a PJP or a fillet weld, you need to prove it with three macro tests. I never knew that. Your customer is correct.

You were also correct in "not stepping on your customer's toes."

Keith

I have an issue with footnote d. "CJP groove weld qualification on any thickness or diameter shall qualify any size of fillet or PJP groove weld for any thickness or diameter (see 4.10.3)".

4.10.3, "Verification of CJP Groove WPS by Macroetch. When a WPS has been qualified for a CJP groove weld and is applied to the welding conditions of a PJP groove weld, three macroetch cross section tests specimens shall be required..."

The first part of the sentence says yes while the bracketed section says no. It's just doesn't seem fair. If were writing the code, I would have added a separate footnote.

By HgTX

Date 12-30-2008 19:39

The confusion there is the distinction AWS D1.1 and D1.5 both make between "properties" and "soundess" testing (I don't think that's the terminology D1.1 uses, but the distinction is still there). "Properties" are the tensiles, etc. "Soundess" is the macroetch. They make these definitive statements about the CJP qualification test with regard to PJP or fillet welds, when all they really mean by that is "this is all the stretchy-bendy testing that you need", not "this is all the testing you need, period".

I like how someone else put it--you can't verify that your PJP or fillet procedure gets the right penetration without a macroetch, regardless of how the tensile testing on a corresponding CJP went. That's how you can use common sense to figure out what testing you need.

Hg

By kipman

Date 12-09-2008 14:47

Viettq,
It sounds like the "Certifying Authority" is asking for mechanical testing that is in addition to what the Code requires. This is very common, at least in my industry. In actual practice it is not that big a deal to provide a macro and a hardness traverse (they can actually be the same specimen, depending on how your customer - or in this case Certifying Authority - wants it).
Mankenberg