G'day,
can anyone shed some light on the following or tell me if there are any code cases that cover this and where to find them. We have a SA516-70 base material welded with a qualified PQR.An additional production test plate has been welded and when tested has come up with UTS of 480MPa and 477 MPa. Because this falls under the material specified UTS of 485 our client has deemed this weld as noncompliant and is rejecting this item. QW-153.1(d) allows for a 5% reduction in UTS for PQR tensile tests but because this is a production test plate our client is not allowing reference of this clause. The base material thickness is 36mm and minimum design thickness is 24mm, you would think that this extra thickness would be taken into consideration but it is not.
Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

If I understand well it is a Sect. VIII (Div.1 or Div.2) item. If it is so why did you make tensile test on production test plate? Only impact (weld metal and HAZ) are required.
If your client sticks to the material specification why should you not stick to the code of construction?
You could also argue that the requirement of 480 MPa is for the material tested as material not after welding, where a certain drop of mechanical characteristics might happen in the HAZ.
Your client has the right to argue a tensile test fully in accordance with material spec. i.e. using test pieces in transverse direction as per and from the same plate before welding. I am afraid your client does not need the pressure vessel.
Mauro

Thanks Mauro,
this item is a cold formed head and was welded and formed by a sub-contractor to us, I reviewed the PQR which included a 7hr hold time for the PWHT and tensile properties of 485MPa where the project only requires 1hr 45mins, although the code allows a shorter hold time I asked for the additional tests to ensure that there was not going to be any high hardness issues and this was the first time we had used this contractor. With this said I've shot myself in the foot.
Thanks again,
Jason.

Jason,
Can't find anything in ASME VIII but this excerpt from AS 1210 (Australian Pressure Vessel Code may explain the drop in tensile strength (excessive hold time)

"Steels of Groups A to E, inclusive (see Table 1.7B), used in the manufacture of welded
pressure vessels that will be subjected to prolonged holding at temperature during postweld heat treatment(s) (e.g. exceeding 6 h total holding time) shall have representative test pieces subjected to the total simulated postweld heat treatment cycle(s). Such test pieces shall be subjected to mechanical testing requirements of the parent metal specification to ensure that any degradation in material properties from such heat treatment has not resulted in the material not meeting specification requirements."

The other question is why are you performing PWHT on 36 mm thick - is it a project requirement ?
Reagrds,
BB

G'day BB,
I'm well aware of the AS1210 regulations, AS4458 goes into more depth with PWHT and is based on ASME and ISO recommendations. This particular vessel is to meet ASME "U" stamp requirements, the main shell is 38mm in thickness (max thickness without PWHT) with cold spun S.E. heads with minimum thickness of 36mm so a plate thickness of 44mm was utilised to achieve this requirement hence the PWHT on the heads. The original PQR was subjected to the longer hold time and the heads have been subjected to a shorter hold with the production test plate subjected to a simulated PWHT the same as the heads, I,m thinking that the production test plate has been exposed to an excessive interpass temp during welding which has lowered the tensile strength.
Thanks,
Jason.

"QW-153.1(d) allows for a 5% reduction in UTS for PQR tensile tests but because this is a production test plate our client is not allowing reference of this clause."

jking: Just curious, is the production test plate a project specification requirement? While I respect your Client's opinion, I would ask them to cite a requirement to exceed ASME IX for qualification purposes, which in fact they are requiring.

If they can cite none such requirementm, then I would ask my management to prepare a change order to the contract. That "usually" backs overzealous reviewers off.