Welding of unlisted base metal materials

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 06-26-2024 11:34

You would need a PQR of one welded to the other.

The two separate unlisted PQRs could not be used to weld one to the other.

And if you had a PQR for welding one to the other, you could not use it to weld same to same.

That's how I read it.

By TimGary (****)

Date 06-27-2024 12:26

Here's my opinion...

S355 Steel cross references to ASTM A572 Gr 50, which is an AWS D1.1 listed Group II steel.
S275jr Steel cross references to ASTM A1011 Grade 40, which is an AWS D1.1 listed Group I steel.
If you have a PQR for S355 to S355 (Gr II to Gr II), D1.1:2020 Table 6.8 says this PQR is good for any Gr II to Gr II, Gr I to Gr II, and any Gr I to Gr I listed material.

Tim

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 06-28-2024 18:49

I like this Tim

So long as an MTR can be produced that specifies the dual compliance.

By 803056

Date 07-06-2024 19:28

When you say it cross references to ASTM A572 Gr 50, what are you using as your source? If you are using the UNS as your reference, it only compares chemistry, not the mechanical properties.

If the CMTR lists both the S355 and A572 Gr 50, I'm with Lawrence's position. Likewise, if the CMTR lists both S275jr and A1011. If both are listed, no problem. If not, I would hold judgement until I see what you are using as your source indicating they are equivalent.

Just saying - Al

By TimGary (****)

Date 07-08-2024 11:31

Hello Al, here's my reference -

https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=6022

Tim

By 803056

Date 07-14-2024 18:18 Edited 07-14-2024 18:24

Tim;

I would pass this by the EOR for a determination whether or not the WPS qualified to D1.1 can apply to the unlisted material. I would take the position that the material listed as meeting a European material specification is not and cannot be accepted as equal or equivalent to an ASTM, ABS, or API listed by AWS D1.1 as prequalified without the Engineer's approval.

Per AWS D1.1, the Engineer (Owner's representative) has the authority to make that call. The code doesn't extend the same authority to the fabricator's engineer, to the inspector (whether the inspector is a PE or not), nor to the welder.

Just saying - Al

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 07-15-2024 13:46

That's an interesting question/statement we have here. There is a similar thread on the other AWS forum about the extent of engineering authority to prequalification.

Until someone corrects me, I would opine that no engineer, even with a Captial "E" can with the stroke of a pen turn a non-listed base metal into a prequalified base metal. I just don't see authority extending that far.

If the MTR does not specify a prequalified base metal via a listing in the D1.1 table. It's not prequalified.

By TimGary (****)

Date 07-16-2024 12:00

I stand by my previous statement, with the caveat that acceptance of the material is dependent on an MTR that reflects matching chemical and physical properties.
After all, it's the steel and it's properties that are critical here, not the name it's referred to as.

On a side note, this is one of the reasons that AWS is pushing to incorporate ISO standards into AWS documents, such as included in the new AWS D14.0 - Machinery and Equipment Welding Specification.

Tim

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 07-16-2024 18:57

I would embrace the direction D14 is moving for D1.1.

I don't know that I've ever disagreed with you before Tim. So one for the record books.

Maybe it's my auditor PTSD that gives me trepidation that an Engineer can with the stroke of a pen make a base metal prequalified. (no matter what goes into the sausage)

By 803056

Date 07-20-2024 18:33

I would hang my hat on my synopsis of clause 1.5.1 that authorizes the Engineer (Owner's representative) to add to, modify, or delete requirements of D1.1 for specific structures as long as the changes are noted by the contract documents.

I don't sit on the committee so don't shoot the messenger.

Al