Welding of ASTM 572 Gr 50 plates

Date 01-16-2014 16:38

WELCOME TO THE AWS WELDING FORUM!!

Well, 572 G50 is easy. Do you have a recent copy of D1.1? Are you working to that code? Even if not working to that code, or any code, the Table at D1.1, Clause 3, Table 3.1 gives you the filler metals compatible with the various steel grades.

Now, 6" thick? Good sized stuff. Pre-heat is going to be critical. Minimum pre-heat is set in Table 3.2.

I hesitate to do your work for you beyond this point. Most of us like to see effort on the part of researchers, not someone just looking for a gimme.

We don't even know what code, if any, you are working to. We don't know if you have WPS's to work from.

514 is a different story. I didn't see it right off hand which means you would need a PQR and then establish your WPS.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By aevald

Date 01-16-2014 17:15

Hello Brent, the A514 is essentially what a lot of folks refer to by it's "non standard" name T-1., likely you already know that too. Acelor Mittal, I believe, is the current producer of this type of plate. It is fairly high in tensile strength(somewhere around 105,000 PSI Tensile or above), when I worked with it a considerable amount a lot of years ago we used a 70 series flux-cored gas-shielded wire as we were doing an under-match on the filler. Depending upon application, 70 series up to 110 series fillers were the choice, here again, dependent upon application and use. Definitely pay close attention to pre-heat, inter-pass, and post-weld treatment. As you also said Brent, the OP needs to do some more homework or include additional information to receive more constructive comment. Best regards, Allan

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 01-16-2014 17:31 Edited 01-16-2014 17:34

Hello Allan, Hope you are having a great New Year thus far.

Yes, we used it a lot on the LeTourneau Logging equipment when I was there. Between tensile strength, carbon contents, and thickness generally used, Pre-heats and procedures are critical. As you mentioned, 70 & 80 series seemed to work great though they are under-matched for strength. We ran TriMark 71-T1 I believe for FCAW-G and 7018 for SMAW. I believe the 7018 usually had another designator with it but I don't remember which one. Possibly B-1? Don't hold me to that.

There were many of the guys who welded without pre-heat...well, no need to go there. Always the 10% that didn't get the word.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By aevald

Date 01-16-2014 17:46

Interesting to hear Brent, my response to your post was more for an informational sharing with others than an attempt to educate you(I hope you didn't take it that way!).

I was around it(T-1) when I worked for a heavy equipment attachment manufacturer in Portland, Ore., built buckets, dozer blades, rippers, and other auxiliary heavy equipment, also performed a lot of repairs on this type of equipment. This company built a 16 yard bucket to fit a DeMag trackhoe for digging coral over in Hawaii, they built a bunch of 7 yard 4 in 1 buckets for Peter Kiewitt, they also built some large log grapples for logging in Alaska, and a number of other odd and somewhat special pieces of machinery/equipment for a host of other folks. Best regards, Allan

p.s. CONGRATULATIONS! on that new grandchild, I've got three now myself, 2 girls and 1 boy.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 01-16-2014 18:57

No problems with the interpretation of your post Allan. I just added more info from my own experiences after you stated the correlation of numbers for the OP.

Looks like my family is starting on the second string of the football team now. A couple of the boys are going to be pretty big.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By kcd616

Date 01-16-2014 20:01

E-11018M
hope this helps
sincerely,
Kent

By SCOTTN

Date 01-16-2014 21:15

Brent mentioned that a code hadn't been referenced. As Al and Brent probably know, D1.1 is limited to steels having a MINIMUM specified yield strength of 100 ksi or less. I stress "minimum" and will attempt to explain myself in the next paragraph. The ASTM A514 spec indicates the minimum yield strength for 3/4" thick to 2 1/2" thick inclusive is 100 ksi, and the minimum yield strength for over 2 1/2 thick to 6" inclusive is 90 ksi, so the A514 is within the parameters of D1.1 in that regard. However Table 3.1 doesn't show A514 as a prequalified base metal-filler metal combination, and Table 3.2 doesn't show A514 for a prequalified minimum preheat and interpass temperature. 5.3.2.5 does address electrode restrictions for A514, requiring A514 electrodes of any classification lower than E100XX-X, except for E7018M and E70XXHR4 to be baked at least one hour at temperatures between 700 and 800 degrees F before being used, whether furnished in hermetically sealed containers or otherwise.
I've never worked with A514, so I looked through D1.1 to see if it was covered. All I could find in D1.1 was the 5.3.2.5 paragraph addressing electrode restrictions for A514. I'm not sure why A514 is not shown in Table 3.1 and 3.2, since it's minimum yield strength is 100 ksi because again, D1.1 states that it is limited to steels having a MINIMUM specified yield strength of 100 ksi or less, meaning that it can exceed 100 ksi. It has always been my understanding that D1.1 covers anything 100 ksi or less. I've always thought that the maximum was 100 ksi, but now I question that. I've either confused myself or I'm missing something. Maybe it should state "with a specified yield strength of 100 ksi or less".

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 01-17-2014 00:52 Edited 01-17-2014 00:57

Scott,

I think you are mixing up your sentence structure and putting your clarifier adjective with the wrong topic pronoun so that you have the imphasis (intentional spelling) on the wrong sylable (intentional).

When dealing with strengths of steels you have the ultimate yield, tensile, and 'minimum' yield. Look at Table 3.1 for example. In Group I (or II) for A36 we find a 'MINIMUM' Yield Strength of 36 ksi. But, continue over and we have a Tensile Range of 58-80 ksi.

Now, D1.1 utilizes Minimum Specified Yield Strength when stating the General Requirements limitations of the code. And, they state that it will be a 'Minimum Yield Strength' of 100 ksi or less. (emphasis mine) Thus, it is not that it is a minimum of 100 ksi and can be higher. No, No, No. It is that the recorded 'Minimum Yield Strength' of the steel is 100 ksi (maximum, at the top of the scale) and can be less (as is the norm for the majority of steels in use and on the list). Not all steels that qualify to be worked on in D1.1 are Pre-Approved for work within D1.1. There are other steels with Minimum Yield Strengths of 100 ksi or lower which are not on these lists in Clause 3.

So, basically, it does state: "with a specified yield strength of 100 ksi or less". You just have to get your sentence order straight in your mind.

Now, it is interesting to note the wording on most sites describing A514. It says it will have a minimum yield of 100 ksi and higher. (emphasis mine) It's Ultimate is 110-130 ksi. Now, if you want to be really technical, yes, it would qualify to be welded to D1.1. But, D1.1 leaves it off of it's lists of Pre-Approved steels. If you research it's strengths, carbon content, alloys, hardness, properties as a quenched and tempered steel you will find it has very special properties and is used in very specific applications. It requires a PQR for any code related work for very good reasons.

It can be easily welded with 70 & 8018. And they are the only electrodes not required to be baked prior to welding (as long as all other electrode storage conditions have been met). But, that all depends upon the application of the work and the strength requirements of the weld itself. There are plenty of applications where it will need 90, 100, or 110 ksi electrodes. What types of forces are involved? Stress is a critical factor in calculating the correct electrode to use in any job.

With a practical application to the log stackers I mentioned earlier, we usually used 7018 to allow a reasonable amount of flex. If it had been welded to it's matching strength it would make the whole component to rigid and even 'brittle' under the stress and strain of a 40 ton load of logs going over a log yard at 10 mph 20 feet in the air. It would just snap especially at the least discontinuity and/or stress raiser.

Hope I helped clear it up and didn't just muddy it up more. Just my two tin pennies worth.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 01-17-2014 03:31

Hey Brent,

Have you been taking some technical writing classes on your free time? :eek:

Respectfully,
Henry

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 01-17-2014 03:37 Edited 01-17-2014 03:41

Not me, I'm still a hick with no skills in written communication. Just a casual observation that comes from an opinion that is as common to all who have armpits and...well, you get the idea.

But, since I am here, check also in D1.1 Clause 4.8.3, last paragraph then go to Table 4.9 Code-Approved Base Metals and Filler Metals Requiring Qualification per Clause 4. Yep, A514 is there plain as day.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 01-17-2014 04:22

Those words certainly do not paint an interesting picture at all in my mind! :eek:

By SCOTTN

Date 01-17-2014 12:33 Edited 01-17-2014 12:42

Ok. Thanks Brent. I was busy yesterday and rather than taking time to thumb through my 2010 D1.1, I have an electronic copy of D.1.1 and I opened a full reader search of A514. The only place it occurred at was 5.3.2.5, so I didn't bother looking any further. I see it now also at 4.8.3 and Table 4.9. Everything is clear to me now, and I've learned not to completely rely on a full reader search of the document.
As I mentioned, I've never used A514 and I really wanted to learn more about it. Being in the structural field, I guess there's not much use for it, at least in my neck of the woods and in my experience. I researched it online during my lunch break yesterday, I found a good article in The Fabricator magazine regarding welding A514.

http://www.thefabricator.com/article/arcwelding/welding-astm-a514-or-a514m-05-steelr

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 01-17-2014 14:18

Bridges are a very common usage when this was developed. I know there are many new steels being used for bridges now but this is still a major contender.

Heavy equipment sees it a lot because they can actually cut the weight of the machine since the strength will let them go with thinner/lighter material. That is it's primary purpose in the log stackers, strength while cutting weight.

Have a Great Day, Brent