AWS D1.6:1999 Macroetch testing

Date 11-04-2003 18:49

See paragraph 4.3.2.4. "When a WPS has been qualified for a groove weld and is applied to the welding conditions of a PJP groove weld, three (3) macroetch cross section test specimens are required. As an option extra length can be added to the first production weld to provide at least two (2) macroetch specimens.

Is this the info you are asking for? If not, I'll try again.
Hope this helps,
John Wright

By SFIENG

Date 11-04-2003 19:16

Thanks for the response. I have reviewed that paragraph and I still have the question of whether or not that covers the requirements for fillet welds. Will the three macroetched cross-sections per 4.3.2.4 satisfy the requirements for CJP, PJP and Fillets?

Steve

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 11-04-2003 20:20

See paragraph 4.4.1.1, now I'm sorta unsure of my original thoughts. I'm in question of how many additional macro etches for Fillets.

For PJP, Paragraph 4.3.2.2 states pretty plain that three (3) additional macroetch specimens are required "in addition" to what is required by Table 4.2.

Any Comments?
John Wright

By SFIENG

Date 11-04-2003 20:52

Well John, I think that you have arrived at the same place that I am at. The code does not make it clear enough for me on the requirements. Do you have another reference for this or does anyone else have experience in this instance?

Steve

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 11-04-2003 20:57

I'm wondering if they want another test for fillets (a T joint), but then that would contradict the paragraph you referenced first about a CJP test qualifying PJP and Fillets, plug and slot welds.
John Wright

By SFIENG

Date 11-04-2003 21:51

Here is why I am having so much trouble with the code. I have performed a CJP groove weld qualification test coupon and have had the tests performed per paragraph 4.3.1 which references Table 4.2. In Table 4.2 (A) Groove Welds, note 1 states “Partial joint penetration groove welds only” for macroetch testing. Therefore there is not a requirement for CJP groove welds to be macroetched.

In paragraph 4.1.7 it states “Qualification of a CJP groove weld qualifies for all PJP groove welds, plug and slot, and fillet welds.” Therefore the PQR without macroetch testing can be used to develop a single WPS for the joint designs of CJP, PJP, Fillets and etc.

I do not understand why the code would specify macroetch testing to determine the extent of fusion if it has already been proven through the bends and tensile testing required in Table 4.2 for CJP. If it has been proven that the variables can achieve a complete joint penetration, why is partial joint penetration in question?

By - Date 11-05-2003 01:28

Though D1.6 does not have a commentary section, as does D1.1, both codes are for structural welding. I think that some insight can be gained by looking at the D1.1 Commentary for the same situation (i.e. PJP qualification). Regarding the macroetch requirement for PJP qualification, D1.1 paragraph C4.10.1 states that "the intent is to establish the weld size that will be produced using the joint design and welding procedure proposed for construction. Certain joint designs in combination with a specific welding process and position may show that the groove preparation planned will not give the desired weld size (E)."
This is related to the Z-loss discussed elsewhere in the code.
Mankenberg