INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • 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!

*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

P355NL1 - grouping

P355NL1 - grouping

(OP)
Hello.

I've made a WPQR acc. to EN ISO 15614-1 with the base material P355NL1. According to the certificate the chemical composition, mechanical properties and it's delivery status (normalization) I put the material in subgroup 1.3 according to ISO 15608.

The inspector follow CEN ISO/TR 20172 and he said that is subgroup 1.2.

Which is the primary standard that should be followed?

From my point of view the characteristics are the most important because they are influencing the weldability of the material.

Thank you!


RE: P355NL1 - grouping

The standard to be followed is either by client specification or the design/construction standard.

RE: P355NL1 - grouping

The primary standard is ISO 15608.
See Clause 8.3.1 of EN ISO 15614-1
Cheers,
DD

RE: P355NL1 - grouping

(OP)
Is the material specification relevant (if it's supplied in accordance with EN or ASME)? Does this affect the grouping of the material?

Thank you for your time and answers!

RE: P355NL1 - grouping

For ASME B&PV Code, the base metal grouping or classification of the material for welding is usually designated by the code committee based on chemical composition and weldability characteristics. In other words, one cannot indiscriminately assign a grouping or classification in a standard.

RE: P355NL1 - grouping

Every metal can be assigned into a certain group or subgroup according to EN 15608, doesn't matter whether it is an american, japanese or european steel.

the ISO TR 20172, 20173 and 20174 are merely aids to determine the group or subgroup.

P355NL1 (werkstoffnr. 1.0566) is indeed 1.2 according to ISO TR 20172

P355NL1 (EN 10028-3) chemistry puts it in group 1.2, not 1.3. Why would you say 1.3 ? Yield is less than 360 MPa.
Only S and Mo may fall out of range, but you would have to check this on the mill test certificate.

RE: P355NL1 - grouping

(OP)
The analyze of the mechanical properties showed a value of the yield strength = 372 MPa (this is for a pipe with dimensions 60.3x8.74)

It could be a mistake from the producer.

RE: P355NL1 - grouping

15608 does say "specified" minimum yield strength of 360 MPa, but to be honest, I haven't encountered this situation before.
Specified could refer to either the product standard or the mill test certificate, so you could argue both ways.

RE: P355NL1 - grouping

Discussion with collegues and a question on a LinkedIn forum all yielded the same result (values to be taken from the material standard), but nobody could say where this is written in ink.
I concur, but I would not back off to easily unless the inspector would show me on what grounds he imposes group 1.2
The ISO/TR 20172 is a guideline, but has its flaws as well.

http://www.fusionpoint.be
http://be.linkedin.com/in/fusionpoint

RE: P355NL1 - grouping

Two points to consider:
1 There is no reference to ISO TR 20172 in ISO 15614.1 so the inspector cannot quote that standard.
2 A PQR qualified with sub-group 1.3 qualifies materials in sub-group 1.2 so again the inspector is showing his ignorance.

The sub-group is always taken from the material specification and P355NL1 is sub-group 1.2
Regards,
DD

RE: P355NL1 - grouping

Quote (DekDee)

A PQR qualified with sub-group 1.3 qualifies materials in sub-group 1.2 so again the inspector is showing his ignorance.
If the OP were to perform a WPQR with a 1.3 base material, he would have a much larger approval field (all 1.3 materials), which is probably what the inspector does not want. I wouldn't link this to ignorance.

Quote (DekDee)

The sub-group is always taken from the material specification and P355NL1 is sub-group 1.2
ISO/TR 15608 explicitly states that the chemical analysis from the material standard is to be taken in consideration when determining the group and subgroup, but does not state where the yield strength needs to come from.

As I said above, this is with a very large probability the specified mech values from the material standard as well, but there is room for interpretation. Why does the 15608 state where the chemical analysis needs to come from, but gives no guidelines or directives which mechanical values you need to use?

http://www.fusionpoint.be
http://be.linkedin.com/in/fusionpoint

RE: P355NL1 - grouping

kingnero,
In the first instance you are correct, I misunderstood the comments made. (refer reference to CEN ISO/TR 20172)
In the second instance - ISO 15608 states "specified minimum yield strengths" which can only come from the material specification.
This whole post has come because the OP mistakenly thought the Sub-group is based on the mill certificate (1.3) and not the material specification (1.2),
Cheers,
DD

RE: P355NL1 - grouping

Quote (DekDee)

This whole post has come because the OP mistakenly thought the Sub-group is based on the mill certificate (1.3) and not the material specification (1.2)

Why would the 15608 explicitly state that the chemical analysis needs to be taken from the material standard, but does not demand the same about the mechanical values?



to specify has basically two meanings:
(1) to set forth as a specification
(2) to state as a condition

And here, the actual condition of the steel appears to be higher than the minimum requirements.

I do agree with you and the rest of the world though, that's why I said

Quote (kingnero)

this is with a very large probability the specified mech values from the material standard as well, but there is room for interpretation.


http://www.fusionpoint.be
http://be.linkedin.com/in/fusionpoint

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

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!


Resources


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