A513 qualification

Date 01-11-2024 22:35

I have a part that needs to be CJP welded per D1.1 that is made out of A513 DOM to a flange that is machined out of a solid piece of 1018 steel with a backer for the CJP machined into the flange. The A513 DOM is roughly 2" OD with a .25" wall thickness. Since A513 is not on the list of materials in D1.1 it requires a PQR.

From what I am finding it appears to be impossible to make a PQR that covers all of the necessary requirements due to material availability. The two viable options are to do a plate to plate PQR or a pipe to pipe PQR but A513 does not come in a plate form and finding 1018 in a pipe size that is in this range I am being told is not possible (a quick google search as I was typing this sentence may have found that my sources were incorrect).

We proposed to utilize B2.1 specifically for the material equivalency system with M#s, but the customer will not allow it.

Further discussions lead to performing the PQR with the A513 DOM to a piece of 1018 solid round bar that is machined into a pipe size that will match the A513. This sounds technically correct but I don't like the idea of removing so much material in something like that as I fear it would potentially compromise the material, or at least not being a true test for the situation.

I cannot imagine that we are the first ones to run into such a situation. Does anyone have any suggestions for something like this?

By 803056

Date 01-16-2024 12:15

It sounds like a good job to take a pass on. The 1018 sounds like an AISI material designation for carbon steel with 0.18 carbon content. The problem with using AISI material specifications is that they don't publish minimum mechanical properties because the method of manufacture and heat treatment isn't specified. Thus, the mechanical properties can change as the chemistry is held "constant" but the method of manufacture and heat treatment changes. The bottom line is you never know if you passed or failed the tensile tests without knowing the mechanical properties.

A good engineer with a working knowledge of welding and welding standards would be aware of the complications. I would say this engineer is someone that will get you in to trouble fast.

Just my thoughts - Al

By twistedmetal208 (*)

Date 01-23-2024 20:40

Thanks for the info Al. I agree at this point. I would suggest passing on things like this in the future.

Regrettably we are committed at this point but we did end up finding a way forward. After a phone conference and describing how performing a test per D1.1 is not possible our customer gave us specific direction on how they wanted it performed.

I was a little disappointed that our suggested course with B2.1 as an actual established specification was summarily dismissed due to it not conforming to D1.1 and then we were directed to perform a test that does not conform to D1.1 or any other established specification in the end either due to some of the differences.

I do not disagree with the details that were decided on specifically but more disappointed in how conclusions were reached when there are specifications in place that cover their concerns. I suppose everyone has to answer to someone and getting everyone to be on the same page is difficult sometimes.

By twistedmetal208 (*)

Date 01-12-2024 16:44

I should have taken a moment and looked at the more recent post history... I just saw that Seymor86 had almost this exact same situation (A36 instead of 1018) and asked this same question on 10/08/2023 in his post "PQR for D1.1 A513 unlisted to A36 but not using A36 in PQR". I searched before posting to see if there were any relevant posts but the search results did not avail me.

Two posts below mine in the forum and I missed it somehow...

I think that post contained the same kind of answers I was expecting to see and hear so I believe my questions have been answered for the most part.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 01-15-2024 12:07

ah, good...glad that you found something you could use.

By 803056

Date 01-23-2024 21:06

Actually, D1.1 does recognize AWS B2.1 with the approval of the Engineer. Were that not the case, AWS SWPSs would not be accepted by AWS D1.1.

Al

By twistedmetal208 (*)

Date 01-25-2024 15:42

Correct, regrettably the customer would not accept that avenue. We got approval to utilize B2.1 on a previous project with this customer for an almost identical (if not exactly identical) part a little more than a year ago so we did not anticipate it being an issue this time around. I am not 100% certain but I think it came down to our customer's customer may have been different this time around and that is where the problem ended up being.