Smart questions
Smart answers
Smart people
Join Eng-Tips Forums
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Member Login




Remember Me
Forgot Password?
Join Us!

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips now!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

Join Eng-Tips
*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.
Jobs from Indeed

Link To This Forum!

Partner Button
Add Stickiness To Your Site By Linking To This Professionally Managed Technical Forum.
Just copy and paste the
code below into your site.

Hush (Mechanical) (OP)
25 Jun 02 13:50
I already know the answer to this but I have to ask anyways.

I have a procedure for an unassigned metal (4130) with Mn .40 to .60 & Mo .15 to .25. If my supplier provides material with Mn .60 to .80 and Mo .22 to .35 do I have to requalify the procedure?
GRoberts (Materials)
25 Jun 02 15:14
This is an issue of debate in some welding circles.  The applicable section of the code is QW-424.1, which states that the unassigned base metal shall be identified "by specification type and grade, or by chemical analysis and mechanical properties."  If an  base metal is defined by chemical analysis and mechanical properties, the code does not say who is defining these.  Some people will not recognize definitions that are not an industry standard, while others say it is up to the writer of the PQR/WPS, (and acceptance of the customer if required).  I have thought about sending an inquiry in on this subject, but haven't yet.  I am also interested to know what others think on this subject.
Hush (Mechanical) (OP)
25 Jun 02 15:39
Okay, I guess I didn't know the answer, maybe there is a possible out.

But, if there are no limits defined for the chemical analysis, one could conceivably design the weld procedure with chemical limits so broad as to encompass every known material. Or, is the intent to be able to define an unknown material by analysis and therefore be able to generate a WPS and PQR good for only that specific heat lot.
GRoberts (Materials)
25 Jun 02 17:27
As heard from a ASME Section IX committe member, Section IX is intended to be used with sound engineering judgment.  Obviously, as you know the incoperation of every known metal would be irresponsible and dangerous.  On the other hand, a PQR/WPS that would only be good for one heat of material would be rather restrictive.  What I try to do is find relavent industry standards and see how a material not listed in Section IX is handled by other codes, such as D1.1, ASTM A488, MIL-STD-248, or other ones relavent to your industry.  Just remember that Section IX is based on leak before break train of mind, so many materials that could be grouped together for qualification are not included because they aren't suitable for pressure vessels, (or piping for S No.s)

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close