Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / AWS D1.1 AND AWS D1.5
- - By Gary Mathison 2 Date 10-12-2009 23:17
Welding ASTM A709-GR 50 SAW AC/DC with single and tandem wire. Range of AMPS run from 400 up to 1200. This is within the manufactures recomendation. The bevel is a non standard joint.
We have previously ran tested and past PQR's using D1.5  5.12.2.1 Maximum-Minimum Heat Imput.
We have ran a PQR single wire, all passes, Minimum heat test plate per AWS figure 5.1 (staying within the 10%/7%/15% and KJ range).
Next we ran a PQR single wire Maximum same as above.
Next we ran a PQR tandem wire Minimum same as above.
Next we ran a PQR tandem wire Maximum same as above.
Next we ran a PQR joint design test plate using a test plate per AWS 5.3. It is ran using the combination as in production.

My customer (Cal-Trans) has rejected the above for D1.1 or D1.5 work.

How do I qualify for for a non standard saw joint, for both D1.1 and D1.5. and cover the full range of AMPS?
Parent - - By HgTX (***) Date 10-13-2009 14:55
On what grounds did they reject it?

Hg
Parent - - By Gary Mathison 2 Date 10-13-2009 15:37
On the D1.5 review it was rejected, saying a you cannot run a non standard joint, SAW using D1.5  5.12 2.1 Max/Min.
Were they came up with this is in AWS D1.5 Commentary C-Table 5.3 (1-3) Filler Metal Type. " High strength SAW in Non standard joints are qualified using 5.13, and these applicationsare subject to the limitations of table 5.3".

On the D1.1 review they would not allow a test ran to D1.5 to be used on a D1.1 job.
Parent - - By HgTX (***) Date 10-13-2009 16:05
Oh yeah.  Hmm.  I've always agreed with that, and taken 5.7.7 to mean that only 5.13 is to be used to qualify WPSs for non-standard joints.  (And I've gotten away with it, too, because all the non-standard joints I've encountered have been used by fabricators who qualified to 5.13.)  However, now that I look at it more closely, the last sentence of 5.7.7 pretty clearly says that the PQR (which is not joint-specific) can be 5.12 or 5.13; it's the Fig. 5.3 test of the joint detail that has to be held to the variable restrictions of 5.13.

The things I learn...

I see what they're saying about C-Table 5.3, but the code has to trump the commentary, and paragraph 5.7.7 says, "The mechanical properties of the weld metal shall be determined by the WPS testing described in 5.12 or 5.13, using Figure 5.1."   Which sounds pretty unambiguous to me.  The only mention of 5.13 in that paragraph is in the context of Fig. 5.3, which is the joint test, not the metallurgical test of the Fig. 5.1 PQR.  ("...the WPS using these details may be qualified by test as described in 5.13 using Figure 5.3.")

For D1.1, I would ask them to explain what D1.1 requirements are not met by the D1.5 test.  A test is a test is a test, and if it's a matter of reporting the same results on a different form that says "D1.1" on the top instead of "D1.5", then do that and make them happy.  Tensiles are tensiles, regardless of how one might have intended the results to be used later on.  I don't know D1.1 well enough to know if they ask for anything extra beyond D1.5.  For that matter, there's no reason you couldn't use the same test for 5.12 and 5.13 qualification.  It's just a test.  All the other stuff just defines the relationship between your production WPS and that test.

Hg
Parent - - By HgTX (***) Date 10-13-2009 16:10
Something else, though.  It's odd that the code would have you mix 5.12 qualification for the Fig. 5.1 plate and 5.13 qualification for the Fig. 5.3 plate.  That gives you different ranges of parameters.  The only way I can make sense of this is for it to work the same way as fillet weld soundness tests (5.10.2.2, Fig. 5.8)--the Fig. 5.1 PQR is for a whole range of values from which you can write various WPSs, but the FWST (and also the Fig. 5.3 test) is on a per-WPS basis (hence the wording "the WPS using these details" in 5.7.7).  So you'll potentially need more of those tests than just one per PQR.

Hg
Parent - - By Gary Mathison 2 Date 10-13-2009 17:43
Per section 5.7.7 states "The mechanical properties of the weld metal shall be determined by the WPS tested described in 5.12 or 5.13 using Figure 5.1. To meet this we run 4 PQR's Min/Max.for (all weld metal test)per 5.12. We run one combined joint PQR (per our non standard joint)test per 5.13 Figure 5.3. From all of this we write one WPS.
Do you think the D1.5 code would make me run the non standard joint 5.13 PQR test plate 5.3 for each incremental increase of 10% amps (that would be maybe 10 more test plates to cover our range?) This seems ridiculous but I would do it if need be.

The reason the will not allow the D1.5 test for D1.1 work is there is no where in the code book that says D1.5 testing should be acceptable for D1.1 work (common sense would say its ok, but the code is silent).
Unless the code says it's ok. they will not accept it. Has this been address by AWS in the past? If not maybe AWS could address this in the future.
So now if I run 10 additional PQR test plates per D1.1 Figure 4.10 staying within 10%. Is this what the code wants?

The final result would be that I would have 24 PQR's to cover both D1.1 and D1.5 WPS requirements for 1 type of weld.
Parent - - By HgTX (***) Date 10-13-2009 22:10
I'm not sure what to tell you about the multiple joint tests.  Hopefully someone with experience in this area will be able to weigh in.  But your interpretation sounds about right, that the range restrictions in 5.13 would be used to "slice" the range you qualified in 5.12 for the purpose of joint qualification.   A min-max method for joint qualification might be sensible, but I can't read it into the code no matter how hard I squint.

On the D1.1 vs. D1.5 testing question, I repeat that it's just a tensile test, a Charpy test, a bend test, etc.  Neither the plate nor the testing equipment "knows" it's a D1.5 or a D1.1 test.  If D1.1 prescribes a certain test specimen and a certain test protocol, and you have fulfilled that, it doesn't matter that the test also satisfies a D1.5 requirement.  For all I know it could also satisfy an ASME requirement, and perhaps a requirement of the Republic of Outer Slabovia Welding Bureau.  None of that matters.  Test results don't get "used up" by being reported to satisfy more than one code.

Now, if D1.1 requires a different specimen than what you welded for D1.5, that's a different story.  But if D1.1 says "take a plate of these dimensions and put in a weld like so and then perform the following tests," and you've done that, then there is nothing about those tests that makes them inherently "D1.5 testing".  Put your test results on a clean form that says "D1.1" at the top, and ask them what D1.1 requirements are left unmet.

I couldn't justify taking the trouble to address this in the code.  As I said, tests don't get "used up" by reporting them for one purpose vs. another.  That would be like rejecting an MTR that says both ASTM A 709 Gr. 50W and ASTM A 588 because there's nothing in A 709 that says that "A 588 testing" can be used.  (Then again, there were engineers who used to reject the dual-certified steel, so maybe that's a  bad example.)

The closest I've seen to something like this is where different DOTs want PQRs rerun just for them, not wanting you to reuse someone else's PQRs, but that's generally because they wanted to witness it for themselves.  That much I can understand; there is a particular requirement (witnessing) that your old test didn't satisfy.  But in your current situation I don't think they can point to any unmet requirements.  If they can, then there you have it.

Hg
Parent - By Gary Mathison 2 Date 10-14-2009 15:11
Hq
Thanks for the input.
Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / AWS D1.1 AND AWS D1.5

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill