Search results for query: *

We are a fabrication shop that works to D1.1 (large part of our product/process is Submerged Arc Welding). All of our PQRs, Welders and Operators have been qualified to D1.1. Our PQR's have been qualified with VT, MT, UT, RT, Tensiles, Side Bends, and Charpy impacts (at -40 and -50c). A...

Mr168, This PQR is for a CVN impact required test. I am working to AWS D1.1, 2010 edition.

Bernoullies123, Sorry for the incorrect grammar, I meant to say: Thank you for your very valid points, your input is appreciated.

Mr168, Thank you for your input, it is appreciated and valued. Can you reference the up-to-date AWS D1.1, 2010 edition? I was not able to find 4.9.2.2 under Clause 6, section C in the 2010 version.

bernoullies123, Thank you for your very valid points, you input is appreciated.

Duwe6, Thank you for the response. Our customer does specify a very exact preheat, I think at this point it is best to ask our customer if they would accept out PQR and add preheat.

Duwe6, I appreciate your input and you raise two decent points. However, I do not think this is a legal issue (I am not a lawyer so I could be incorrect but at worse it would be an AWS D1.1 violation). There are two factors I look at, the first being both contractor documents and AWS D1.1...

This is for CVN test requirements.

To clarify the above the, I have reviewed AWS D1.1 and have not found any specific verbage that states the RT test results cannot be used when the test shows passing compared to UT results that show failing on the same exact plate.

When trying to qualify a PQR using UT inspection the plate/weldment failed, but when using RT the plate passed. Per D1.1 can the PQR still be used as a passing procedure with RT inspection passing but UT failing, all other visual, and mechanical testing passed.

Can a PQR that has been qualified but was not done with pre-heat be used (exact same plate material, joint, welding process, etc...) when customer documents require pre heat on production product. In other words: can a PQR that didn't have preheat be used for production when pre-heat is required?

metengr, Thank you for the list of activities that will need to be performed. We are fully aware of all of the above items that need to be performed, hence we are looking for a Level III to do all of the above then a Level II to work under him/her.

metengr, as always you are quick with a response, thank you. Due to our volume of product and the need to test 100% of every weld, we need a full time Level II and III UT inspectors

Does any one know of a good resource for finding full time Level II and Level III NDT, UT. Our company would like to hire UT inspectors but cannot find any potential teamm members.

I am trying to qualify Welding Procedures to AWS D1.1. My base metal has a CVN impact toughness of 430j @-50c, testing labs are not willing to test fill size CVN samples at this strength, they will only test subsized samples. AWS D1.1, clause 4, paragraph 4.36.5 stats that no subsized CVN...

Thank you both for your input and knowledge, both were a great help. And yes I was confused on the standard size.

We have customer requirements that state we need to achieve CVN values of 27j @ -50 on weldments. Upon testing our weldments a testing lab used subsized samples (5mm x 5mm x 20mm), is there a mathmatic way to correlate the subsized CVN results back to a standard size sammple (10mm x 10mm x 20mm).

Thank you Metengr, once again I do appreciate your help/knowledge.

Gentlemen, Thank you both for your input, I am learning alot. If this helps, the exact Specification on the material cert is: ASTM A572 Grade 50-07/A709 Grade 50-10, Normalized Rolled, .10max C. I know what the ASTM 572, ASTM A709 and the grade 50's mean but I do not know what the -07 and -10...

Metengr, thank you for your comments. Per the material certification the direction was H-L. Also per the material cert, the carbon content is only .07, with an overall carbon equivalence of .34.