The attached brochure from Lincoln Electric may be of some help. They don't have a WPS but they do identify filler materials. The thing with Grade 80 is that it's fairly new, at least in the bridge business.

• https://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=6e75edc1-4a09-476e-a852-0

Thanks. I had found that previously but if you look at the yield strength for the 706 on the brochure, it is grade 60 bar. They have nothing for grade 80. I actually contacted Lincoln Electric a few weeks ago and they did end up recommending some filler metals based on a matching strength condition. I am wary of this without further guidance from AWS. If welding vertical steel for a drilled shaft I want to ensure that you get as much ductility out of that weld as you do from the base metal. I guess that's why the only conclusion I can come up with is that I would only accept a PQR for this weld from the Contractor. In my opinion this is not prequalified in any way.

When using an unlisted material, you fall into 1.1 of D1.4, i.e., the Engineer/contract documents must stipulate what the acceptance criteria and qualification requirements are. This will likely be driven, at a minimum, by the intended design usage per Table 4.1, with the caveat that the fabricator will have to provide a PQR that meets 125% of the bars specified minimum yield strength anyways.

Unlike several other AWS Codes, D1.4 does not currently include provisions for any prequalified welding outside of fillet welds for the materials listed, so odds are prequalification would not be an option regardless of specified grade.

The materials in D1.4 are largely driven by ACI 318. ACI 318 has commentary noting that there is insufficient data to confirm applicability of existing code provisions for Grade 80 bars, and consequently, it's permitted only in conjunction with additional testing and analytical studies to support its use. Even if the material were acceptable as commonplace, the corresponding rules for welding need to be proposed to the appropriate AWS committee, undergo an extensive discussion/comment resolution period, and then be voted at multiple committee levels for incorporation. Often, those proposals must be approved a year before the next publication cycle for incorporation, so it's not uncommon for the codes to lag behind several years in that regard.

Mr168, excellent information and explanation. Thank you for clarifying!