Group Number conflict B2.1 VS D1.1

Date 02-21-2011 17:10 Edited 02-21-2011 17:15

Two different welding standards, two different groupings. Not that surprising when you consider how closely aligned B2.1 is with ASME Section IX.

Table 3.1 taken from AWS D1.1 matches the mechanical properties of the base metal with filler metals that produce matching mechanical properties. The table taken from B2.1 is simply a grouping of base metals for the purpose of qualifying the welding procedures.

Best regards - Al

By Scamperator Date 02-21-2011 22:51

Thanks,
That is what I am trying to do, qualify a welding procedure for a group III to group II, (A572-65 to A572-50). Since I am qualifying to the D1.1 it shouldnt be questioned, but I still have some concerns for the two publications differing in such a manner!

By 803056

Date 02-22-2011 04:03

Why are you concerning yourself about two different welding standards that have little to nothing in common?

Work with the one standard you need and forget the other.

Best regards - Al

By Scamperator Date 02-28-2011 13:26

The D1.1 does not cover some of the material we are welding so we reference the B.2 for qualifying procedures. The B.2 is widely used for this purpose therefore it should pretty much match the grades as other publications from AWS.

By 803056

Date 02-28-2011 14:56

If you are working to D1.1 and the engineer/designer specifies a base metal that isn't listed in Table 3.1, you qualify the procedure in accordance with Clause 4. There is no need or reason to go to AWS B2.1. Qualifying an unlisted base metal (Table 3.1 of D1.1) to B2.1 does not qualify that base metal and those of the same M1 group for applications involving D1.1.

It appears you are mixing apples and oranges to produce pears.

Al

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 06-12-2012 04:32

Hi Al,
Sent a PM to jon20013 but thought I would post here as well.
AWS B2.1 recognised Australian steels in the 2009 edition.
AWS D1.1 does not recognise Australian steels in the 2010 edition.
I realise they are two separate committees but cannot understand why they both fall under the AWS umbrella but one accepts and the other doesn't ?
Any thoughts,
Cheers,
Shane

By 803056

Date 06-13-2012 03:46

Whether it is a sane policy or not, the prequalified base metals listed in D1.1 are those with a history of successful use for steel construction in this country, and for the most part, manufactured to an ASTM specification or an API or ABS specification. It does not include base metals that meet foreign steel specifications.

Under the auspices of D1.1, the Engineer has the latitude to use any material they like if they are willing to qualify the WPS. That being the case, if someone wants to make a case and would like to propose the inclusion of a foreign steel in the listing of prequalified base metals, there is nothing the prevents them from doing so.

Now my question; "What incentive is there for D1.1 (or any American welding standard) to list all (or any) of the steels manufactured to the multitude of various foreign steel specification?"

Best regards - Al

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 06-13-2012 04:00

Hi Al,
Thanks for your response.
I think you missed the point of my question.
The American Welding Society - Committee B2.1 recognises Australian steels and has listed them in the 2009 edition.
The American Welding Society - Committee D1.1 does not recognise Australian steels and has not listed them in the 2010 edition.
Trying to get my head around why one thinks they are OK and one thinks they are not ?
Cheers,
Shane

By 803056

Date 06-14-2012 02:40

If you look at B2.1 it lists many different steels that are not listed in D1.1. Many of those listed in B2.1 are not commonly used for steel construction or do not have published mechanical properties or are available in different states of heat treatment, etc. Essentially, B2.1 lists the materials (restricting the discussion to steels) based on carbon equivalencies.

If US fabricators were dependent on subcontracting for Australian customers that demanded the use of steels meeting Australian material specification, the D1 committee might consider including those materials.

The bottom line is the two standards serve two different communities. Since I do not serve on either committee, my comments are strictly conjecture and worth squat in the real world.

Best regards - Al

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 06-14-2012 03:14

Hi Al,
Thanks again for your response.
Australia at the moment has approx AUD$50 billion (equivalent to $US) of projects either underway now or underway in the very near future.
Of this I would estimate approx AUD$10 billion would be for structural works (new coal mines, new iron ore mines, infrastructure for new LNG plants etc).
Of this I would estimate approx 80% of the modularisation works will be performed in Asia.
Currently I know of 7 modularisation projects in China, 3 in Thailand and I have just started on a project in Malaysia for an Australian coal mine.
Australian companies are requesting Australian steels (or on my last project Japanese JIS materials) but virtually all the Asian countries work to AWS D1.1.
To qualify Australian steels to AWS D1.1 PQRS it requires expensive mechanical testing which takes up time and money.
If instead they change all procedures to AS/NZS 1554 they use prequalified WPS's and away they go.
I personally would much rather use AWS D1.1 and all the contractors I have encountered feel exactly the same way but it comes down to time and money.
However, once they change all their quality systems to be in line with AS/NZS and they have 10 years of orders for Australia I cannot imagine them ever returning to AWS D1.1
I would have thought it was in AWS D1.1s best interest to get Australian steels listed ASAP if purely from a financial perspective.
More companies buying codebooks, more companies qualifying CWIs,more purchasing of AWS literature, more members etc, etc
Regards,
Shane

By 803056

Date 06-15-2012 01:41

The Owner, through his Engineer, always has the prerogative of "modifying" the requirements of D1.1. In this case, the owner can include the desired unlisted steel as prequalified and exempt from testing.

Al

By nantong (**)

Date 06-15-2012 13:53

Shane why are Australian company's specifying Australian grades of steel when they are placing orders outside of Australia? Nobody supplies it outside Australia unless you place a sufficiently large order with a steel mill. You would really have to buy it in Australia then ship it overseas (problem with temporary import duties!) then send the finished product back to Australia. Kind of defeats the purpose of getting jobs built in China, Thailand etc.
In my experience the Australian standards are always concessed to use American standards for materials and for welding procedure acceptance.
Seems pointless for a country such as Australia to develop their own standards.
In Europe in the Oil and Gas industry we have always used American standards and where necessary added additional requirements when required for speciific project requirements.
Why try and reinvent the wheel.
You sent me an email that said the Americans have adopted ISO 9606-1 an 15614 which are radical shifts (away from AWS/ASME?) towards a financial benefit from globalization of standards.

You need to group steels by their chemistry, heat treatment and strength with regard to welding procedure variables not just by a number it may (or may not be assigned).

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 06-15-2012 23:18

Hi Nantong,
As to why they are doing it I have no idea but the project I have just strated in Malaysia is importing all the steel from Australia (about 7000 tons) and I know of two projects in Thailand at the moment that are doing the same.
A project I was on recently in Thailand for the worlds biggest miner (BHP Billiton) stipulated Australian grades of steel. We got a concession to use locally produced JIS SS400 instead.
The stipulation allowing the concession was that every heat number on primary steel (16 mm and above) had to have verification tests - tensile, yield, elongation, bend test and chemical analysis and they all must comply with the Australian grades.
Well, we got up to 250 of these tests (at a huge cost) without a single failure before they finally relented and ceased testing (methinks more money than brains).

The crazy thing was I heard (from a reliable source) that one of the largest mills in Australia imports JIS SS400 material to supplement its production and then recertifies it to AS/NZS 3678 for sale in Australia.
So, in reality, we may actually have an SS400 plate produced in Thailand, shipped to Australia, re-certified as AS/NZS 3678, purchased by an Australian company and sent back to Thailand, fabricated into a module and then shipped back to Australia ???
Regards,
Shane

By nantong (**)

Date 06-16-2012 09:15

Shane, you must be pulling my leg!

Re-certifying somebody else's steel as your own surely is fraud.

AS3678 requires the manufacturer must demonstrate effective quality planning to control production.

How do they do that from Australia if somebody else has made it?