Page Component Commentor Item Number Date Ballot # Assign To: S/C Apvl Com Apvl. 1 Document Tit D J Tillack 50 3/16/2000 DS-256 No No

Transcription

1 1 Document Tit D J Tillack 50 3/16/2000 DS-256 No No Comment Including Proposed Resolution Tech Yes Neg Yes Committee Resolution The title of the document, as written, is misleading. The words "wrought alloys" should be in the title, since there is little mention of cast materials in the document. There are many castings used in airframe and engines applications, and this document does not address these materials. Many of these cast alloys cannot be welded without cracking. Negative withdrawn. Change the docuemnt title to "Specification for Fusion Welding of Wrought Alloys for Aerospace Applications" Delete the references to cast carbon steels and low alloy steels in Table Abstract D J Kotecki 14 3/2/2000 DS-256 No No Lines 1 and 2 - "nickle-based" in line 3 is redundant with "nickle-based" in line 2 Agree - delete "nickle-based" Delete the "nickle-based" in line Jun-00 Page 1 of 24

2 Scope D J Tillack 51 3/16/2000 DS-256 No No Comment Including Proposed Resolution Tech Yes Neg Yes Committee Resolution There should be wording in the Scope to the effect that this document does not cover the welding of castings. Negative withdrawn. Add "This document does not cover the welding of cast materials" to the first paragraph D J Kotecki 15 3/2/2000 DS-256 No No The address given for ASTM is out-dated. Changed to - " West Conshohocken, PA" Correct the ASTM address to their current address in West Conshohocken, PA D J Kotecki 16 3/2/2000 DS-256 No No The titles given for AWS A5.1, A5.12, and A5.30 are out-dated. Use the current titles. Agree on A5.1- change title to "Carbon Steel Electrodes to Shielded Metal Arc Welding, Specification for" Agree on A change title to "Tungsten and Tungsten Alloy Electrodes for Arc Welding and Cutting, Specification for" Disagree on A5.30 because current title is the current title.

3 28-Jun-00 Page 2 of 24

4 D J Kotecki 17 3/2/2000 DS-256 No No The address given for AWS is outdated. Agree Change to current address: 550 N W LeJeune Road, Miami, FL D J Kotecki 18 3/2/2000 DS-256 No No The address given for ASME is out-dated. Agree - changed to "3 Park Avenue" Change to: 3 Park Avenue, etc W J Sperko 1 3/1/2000 DS-256 No No Comment Including Proposed Resolution Tech Yes Neg Yes Committee Resolution This document is a specification and ought to require conformance to B2.1 for procedure and performance qualification with escape clause to allow the reigning engineer to accept alternates. Reject proposed resolution non-persuasive. Mr. Sperko was contacted and negative was withdrawn. Revise 4.4 per Bosworth's suggestion Revise to: Welders and welding operators with AWS B2.1 (Replaces first two sentences).

5 28-Jun-00 Page 3 of 24

6 M J Lucas 4 2/29/2000 DS-256 No No Last sentence, "The fabricator may establish other reasonable and appropriate physical requirements for welders and welding operators". Could be taken to mean requirements other than those already specified. The intent is that the other requirements are in addition to what has already been specified. Therefore, say so. Accept proposed resolution as written. In front of last sentence insert - In addition, the fabricator may establish other reasonable...operators D J Tillack 52 3/16/2000 DS-256 No No Comment Including Proposed Resolution Tech No Neg Yes Committee Resolution This paragraph allows a welder to be tested on 304 and therefore be qualified to weld 440C. Do we really want this? The martensitic stainless steels can have hydrogen-related cracking problems, something that is not a problem with the austenitics. And will the welder who has been qualified on 304 know that a 440 needs to have a pre-heat? He won't find that out by looking at Table 5.3, because there is no mention of stainless steels in this table. Contacted D. Tillack at AWS exhibit and negative was withdrawn. Table 4.2, as currently written in Draft 10, maximizes compatibility to Mil-Std-1595 and the committee recommends that we publish D17-1 as currently written and consider changes in the later revisions. Require qualification for each of the classes of stainless steels. 28-Jun-00 Page 4 of 24

7

8 H R Castner 5 3/1/2000 DS-256 No No "Groove weld test..." unclear Accept - as proposed. "A groove weld test..." A W Sindel 3 2/28/2000 DS-256 No No Comment Including Proposed Resolution Tech Yes Neg Yes Committee Resolution I believe Mr. Bosworth's suggestion is better wording. Reject, non-persuasive. use his wording. Mr. Sindel was contacted by E. Helder and T. Trapp. E. Helder and T. Trapp explained that these issues have been discussed numerous times in subcommittee and full committee and that the committees voted to present the document as written in Draft 10. Mr. Sindel expressed his concerns with the wording and that he would not withdraw his Negative and thanked E. Helder and T. Trap for the call. Voted 12-0 in subcommittee to overide negative D J Kotecki 20 3/2/2000 DS-256 No No Line 4 - A5.5 belongs in the list, and A5.22 does not. A5.22 applies to stainless, Agree - and does not consider hydrogen content. Add A5.5 Delete A5.22 Add AWS A5.5, and delete A Jun-00 Page 5 of 24

9 D J Kotecki 19 3/2/2000 DS-256 No No Line 3 - "the chemical name" is an odd term here. If we are talking about base metals, I would think the correct term should be ASTM or AMS classification". Do not agree, however clarified as follows: This requirement is for the particular chemical name of the gas. However, for clarification added (such as argon) after chemical name. This is how WPS list name of a gas and not by a specification number. Replace "chemical name" with some form of classification D J Kotecki 21 3/2/2000 DS-256 No No Line 3 "crack" is incomplete, because it does not distinguish between cold cracking and hot cracking. Preheat and interpass temperature control are only effective against cold cracking. Do not agree. No change made. Reason: If the temperature of a crack sensitive material is below a certain temperature, hot cracking can occur as the welder is welding. This is especially true when the temperature is freezing. Change "cracking" to "cold cracking". 28-Jun-00 Page 6 of 24

10 D J Kotecki 22 3/2/2000 DS-256 No No Last line - "apply" does not match with its subject, "requirement". Agree - Change as proposed. Change "apply" to "applies" H R Castner 6 3/1/2000 DS-256 No No "The repaired part..." unclear "The part to be repaired..." Partially agree. Change made for clarification. Reason: This requirement does apply to the part after completion of the repair. The action is required only with the knowledge that the part after repair will not meet one or more engineering drawing requirement and a fact that the failure to meet the requirement will not result in the parts inability to perform the form, fit, or function at the assembly level. That is the reason for the engineering authority to get involved and determine if such a repair is possible. If it is possible to meet all requirements, the weld should be reworked per requirement of Jun-00 Page 7 of 24

11 D J Kotecki 23 3/2/2000 DS-256 No No Line 2 - I would expect that there are more than one instructions for a repair weld. Editorial - change. Change "instruction" to "instructions" and "is" to "are" D J Kotecki 24 3/2/2000 DS-256 No No Line 5 - "for the developing" can do nicely without "the". Accept Delete "the" D J Kotecki 25 3/2/2000 DS-256 No No Line 4 Since "inspection" is the subject of this sentence, "are" is the wrong verb. Accept Change "are" to "is". 28-Jun-00 Page 8 of 24

12 35 General A W Sindel 2 2/28/2000 DS-256 No No Comment Including Proposed Resolution Tech Yes Neg Yes Committee Resolution Mr. Bosworth's comments of D17.1, Ed 1 Draft: CD-9, 10/1/98 was technical and negative. The remarks states, non-persuasive, but no "vote" taken. Under TAC Rules, if a comment is technical, negative, rules as non-persuasive then a vote by the committee is required. Now, if the records of the committee are corrected to show the action for "page 19, Component 4.4.0" includeed page 166, and the committee took action to combine these, then it would be acceptable. Mr. Sindel will witdraw his negative when Comment Review Report shows two subcommittee ballots and two committee ballots voting Tom Bosworth's comments as non-persuasive. Ed Mitchell provided information and negative was withdrawn D J Kotecki 26 3/2/2000 DS-256 No No Line 1 - "consumable" is not quite right. Accept Change to "consumables". 28-Jun-00 Page 9 of 24

13 D J Kotecki 27 3/2/2000 DS-256 No No Last line - From "0.2 inch (5mm) of weld metal", one can't determine if weld width or weld thickness is meant. Accept Change to "0.2 inch (5mm) of weld metal thickness". 41 "(Mandatory D J Kotecki 28 3/2/2000 DS-256 No No First line after - The title of D17.1 given here does not agree exactly with the title on the cover. Agree - change to "for" Change "of" to "for" 73 Definition D J Kotecki 29 3/2/2000 DS-256 No No Definition of safety critical item - "probably" is the wrong word. Editorial - change. Change to "probable". 28-Jun-00 Page 10 of 24

14 74 Annex A D J Kotecki 30 3/2/2000 DS-256 No No Lines 2 and 3 below the title and parenthetical remarks - There are no Sections B1, B6, B7 or B8 in this document. Agree - change to A1, A6, A7, and A8. Change to "A1", A6", "A7", and "A8". 79 A7.4 D J Kotecki 31 3/2/2000 DS-256 No No Line 2 - "increased" is the wrong word. Agree - change to "increases". Change to "increases". 84 Table 4.2 D J Tillack 58 3/16/2000 DS-256 No No Delete Inconel 601 from the Group IIIB Materials list. It is not precipitation hardening. Delete Inconel 601 from the list of alloys in the Group IIIB alloys. Reject, editorial. Table 4.2, as currently written in Draft 10, maximizes compatibility to Mil-Std-1595 and the committee recommends that we publish D17 as currently written and consider changes in the later revisions. 28-Jun-00 Page 11 of 24

15

16 87 Table 4.2 D J Kotecki 32 3/2/2000 DS-256 No No Line IB "D^AC" is wrong. Accept - proposed resolution, Editorial. Change to "D6AC". 87 Table 4.2 D J Kotecki 33 3/2/2000 DS-256 No No Line IIA - I don't understand why type 303 stainless would be included in a welding Reject, non-persuasive. specification, since it is considered unweldable. We recognize that 303 material is free machining and is difficult to weld. However, if the welds are made to a qualified procedure that is accepted by the Engineering Authority, then 303 material should remain on the 87 Delete 303. list. Table 4.2 D J Kotecki 34 3/2/2000 DS-256 No No Line IIB - "Custom 450 and 455" are trade names. Replace with generic names. Accept as an editorial comment. At the end of the title of Table 4.2, add flag note 4. Flag note 4 to read, "These are sample alloys. Wherever alloy trade names are suggested those alloy trade names are the property of their owners." Where trade mark names are used, the trademark will be identified by a trademark symbol. 28-Jun-00 Page 12 of 24

17 87 Table 4.2 D J Kotecki 35 3/2/2000 DS-256 No No Line IIIA - "Hastelloy B" is a trade name. "Inconel 600 and 625" are trade names. "Carpenter Cb3" is a trade name. "Haynes 20" is a trade name. Accept as an editorial comment. At the end of the title of Table 4.2, add flag note 4. Flag note 4 to read, "These are sample alloys. Wherever alloy trade names are suggested those alloy trade names are property of their owners." Where trade mark names are used, the trademark will be identified with a trademark symbol. Replace with "Alloy B". Replace with "Alloy 600 and Alloy 625". Replace with "320". Replace with "Alloy 20". 87 Table 4.2 D J Tillack 53 3/16/2000 DS-256 No No In "Materials" in Group IB, "D^AC" is a typo. Accept proposed resolution. Change to "D6AC"? 28-Jun-00 Page 13 of 24

18 87 Table 4.2 D J Tillack 54 3/16/2000 DS-256 No No In Group IIA, alloy 330 (35Ni, 19Cr) is listed with the austenitic stainless steels. It should be listed under IIIA, along with alloy 800 (33Ni, 21Cr) Delete alloy 330 from Group IIA Reject, editorial. Table 4.2, as currently written in Draft 10, maximizes compatibility to Mil-Std-1595 and the committee recommends that we publish D17-1 as currently written and consider changes in the later revisions. 87 Table 4.2 D J Tillack 55 3/16/2000 DS-256 No No Comment Including Proposed Resolution Tech Yes Neg No Committee Resolution In Group IIIA, the title of the "Materials" column should really read "Solid Solution Nickel and Nickel Base Alloys", since the heading of column IIIB is titled "Precipitation Hardening Nickel Base Alloys" Re-title heading "Solid Solution Nickel and Nickel Base Alloys" Reject Mr. Tillack was contacted by E. Helder and Tim Trapp and told that material group titles were based on those listed in Mil-Std. 1595A. Suggestions for a new title will be considered during in 1st revision of D Jun-00 Page 14 of 24

19 87 Table 4.2 D J Tillack 56 3/16/2000 DS-256 No No The alloys listed in Group IIIA should be divided into two classes: "Solid Solution Nickel and Nickel Copper Alloys" and "Solid Solution Nickel-Chromium-Iron and Nickel-Iron-Chromium Alloys". Nickel 200 and Monel 400 are much more sensitive to porosity than the chromium-containing alloys; the chromium-containing alloys are more sensitive to cracking than the Ni and NiCu alloys. Therefore, qualifying a Nickel 200 weld by using Inconel 625 test material may be the cause of problems with porosity during production welding. Reject, editorial. Table 4.2, as currently written in Draft 10, maximizes compatibility to Mil-Std-1595 and the committee recommends that we publish D17-1 as currently written and consider changes in the later revisions. Regroup the alloys in this section as follows: Nickel and Nickel-Copper alloys: Nickel 200 2/, 201, Monel 400 Nickel-Chromium-Iron and Nickel-Iron-Chromium alloys: List the alloys, with 625 indicated as the test material 87 Table 4.2 D J Tillack 57 3/16/2000 DS-256 No No In Group IIIA, delete Hastelloy C. It has not been produced for many years. Delete "C" from the group of alloys listed Reject, editorial. Table 4.2, as currently written in Draft 10, maximizes compatibility to Mil-Std-1595 and the committee recommends that we publish D17-1 as currently written and consider changes in the later revisions. 28-Jun-00 Page 15 of 24

20

21 87 Table 4.2 D J Tillack 59 3/16/2000 DS-256 No No Why aren't there "recommended alloys" for each of the stainless steel materials groupings, as there are in the other alloy groupings? Flag out alloys 304, 430, and 410 as recommended for qualification of this alloy group. Reject, editorial. Table 4.2, as currently written in Draft 10, maximizes compatibility to Mil-std-1595 and the committee recommends that we publish D17-1 as currently written and consider changes in the later revisions. 91 Table 5.1 R A LaFave 61 3/17/2000 DS-256 No No Comment Including Proposed Resolution Tech Yes Neg No Committee Resolution Listing the commodity specs without any indication of type (liquid or gas?) of grade is very loose. Also listing Fed Specs or the one Mil Std is rather an overkill. Committee should consider testing AWS A5.32 classes since they are very specific on delivery requirements and are specified for welding. Leave as is. Chart used is out of Mil-Std Will consider change in next revision. Replace alternate specifications with AWS A5.32 classes. 28-Jun-00 Page 16 of 24

22 91 Table 5.2 H R Castner 7 3/1/2000 DS-256 No No Comment Including Proposed Resolution Tech Yes Neg No Committee Resolution I think shielding gas recommendation are process specific AR-O mixes are probably only GMAW CO2 for carbon steel are only GMAW A-CO2 mixes are only GMAW Others are probably suitable for GTAW, PAW, GMAW - refer to AWS C recommended practices Chart used in industry recommendation only. We do not want to restrict it to welding process. Will consider change in next revision. 91 Table 5.2 R A LaFave 62 3/17/2000 DS-256 No No Comment Including Proposed Resolution Tech Yes Neg No Committee Resolution Nitrogen is only suitable with CRES alloys if it does not adversely affect it. Argon-hydrogen mixtures (SG-AH-4) are excellent as purging gas for CRES alloys. This backing gas produces a very clean interior surface. I can't think of anytime I would use SG-He or SG-HeA-X on CRES alloys, plain C-steels or low alloy steels. Chart used is industry recommendation only. Will consider change in next revision. This table should be reviewed by someone who is an expert on shielding gases. There are too many soft spots. Need sound recommendations. 28-Jun-00 Page 17 of 24

23 91 Table 5.2 D J Tillack 60 3/16/2000 DS-256 No No What does "CRES" mean - "corrosion- resistant stainless"? I could find no definition of CRES in the document. Why not just say "Stainless Steels" Agree, editorial. Will spell out corrosion resisting steel. Replace "CRES" with "Stainless Steels" 94 Arc Strikes H R Castner 8 3/1/2000 DS-256 No No Typo - "nostate requirement" Accept. "No stated requirement 95 General H R Castner 10 3/1/2000 DS-256 No No I think the color sequence for titanium welds and the acceptability of "yellow" and "brown" Change yellow to light straw. Change straw to dark straw. Table 6.1 page 95 I suggest the correct color sequence is: silver, light straw, oaric Table 6.1 page 98 and 99 straw, purple, dark blue, light blue, second order yellow, dull gray, white. Refer to the lastest draft of D10.6 Refer to figure 5.4 of AWS C5.5 Refer to color chart developed by ENI for NAVSEA 28-Jun-00 Page 18 of 24

24 95 Melt-Through H R Castner 9 3/1/2000 DS-256 No No Figures 3.2, not found This remark refers to pages 95 and 99. Add figures Change to see figures 1.2, 1.3(a), 1.3(b). 102 Figure 4.2 H R Castner 11 3/1/2000 DS-256 No No Comment Including Proposed Resolution Tech Yes Neg No Committee Resolution The right-hand sketch for "36" looks wrong - it's the same as "26" Reject - leave as is. See attached 102 Figure 4.2 D J Kotecki 36 3/2/2000 DS-256 No No Comment Including Proposed Resolution Tech Yes Neg No Committee Resolution 3G position - I fail to understand what the right-hand sketch has to do with the vertical position. Reject - leave as is. Delete the right-hand sketch. 28-Jun-00 Page 19 of 24

25

26 119 Commentary, D J Kotecki 37 3/2/2000 DS-256 No No Comment Including Proposed Resolution Tech Yes Neg No Committee Resolution Line 1 - There seems to be significant words missing between these two lines. They make no sense as written. Disagree - text reads clearly. I can't figure out what is missing. Figure out what is missing and put it in. 119 Last Paragra H R Castner 12 3/1/2000 DS-256 No No The sentence "the committee recommends..." is incomplete Agree - after...be guided by...add the text" this commentary in application of the specification to the welded 122 Revise to clarify structure. The commentary is " and the...not intended to...follows. C3.3.3 D J Kotecki 38 3/2/2000 DS-256 No No First line on this page - "additional of" is the wrong sequence of words. Agree - change to "of additional". Change to "of additional". 28-Jun-00 Page 20 of 24

27

28 122 C4.4 D J Kotecki 39 3/2/2000 DS-256 No No "voltages meter" reads oddly. Accept, editorial change. Change to "voltage meter". 123 C5.6 D J Kotecki 40 3/2/2000 DS-256 No No Line 1 - "provide" is the wrong word. Agree, editorial - change. Change to "provides". 123 C5.6 D J Kotecki 41 3/2/2000 DS-256 No No Penultimate line on this page - "chemistry" is an inappropriate word here. Chemistry is a course I took in school. Materials don't have chemistry. They have chemical composition. Editorial - change. Change "chemistry" to "chemical composition". 28-Jun-00 Page 21 of 24

29

30 124 C5.13 D J Kotecki 42 3/2/2000 DS-256 No No Line 5 - "Certain" seems like the wrong way to start the sentence. Disagree. Change to "With certain". 124 C5.13 D J Kotecki 43 3/2/2000 DS-256 No No Line 10 - "attempt" is the wrong word here. Editorial - change. Change to "attempts". 124 C5.13 D J Kotecki 44 3/2/2000 DS-256 No No Line 13 - "Weld" is the wrong word here. And "process or without use of filler material" doesn't make sense. Editorial - change. Remove first "or" in sentence. Change to "Welds". Change to "process, without use of filler material,".

31 28-Jun-00 Page 22 of 24

32 125 C5.16 D J Kotecki 45 3/2/2000 DS-256 No No Line 2 "Structurally critical weld" is not the right way to start this sentence. Agree, editorial - change. Change to "A structurally critical weld". 125 C5.18 D J Kotecki 46 3/2/2000 DS-256 No No Last sentence - There is no good reason to have a comma after "as well as". Agree, editorial - change. Delete the comma. 127 Table C5.3 D J Kotecki 47 3/2/2000 DS-256 No No After INCONEL 600, "ERNICRFE-5" is an incorrect AWS classification. After INCONEL X750, "ERNICRFE-7" is an incorrect AWS classification. Change to "ERNiCrFe-5" and "ERNiCrFe-7", respectively. Agree. Change case of chemical composition callouts. 28-Jun-00 Page 23 of 24

33

34 128 C7.1 D J Kotecki 48 3/2/2000 DS-256 No No "to repair welding" is inappropriate wording. Agree - change to "of repair welding". Change to "of repair welding". 128 C7.3 H R Castner 13 3/1/2000 DS-256 No No First sentence - "Originally, most weld procedures..." unclear Agree - change "orginally, most welds may not have a qualified or adequately documented weld procedure". This sentence is unclear - Reword and clarify. 128 C7.3 D J Kotecki 49 3/2/2000 DS-256 No No 2nd sentence - Not only does this sentence make no sense, but I can't figure out what is is supposed to mean. Agree - change to "Engineering Authority may authorize alternative inspection methods if the current method is not sufficient". Figure it out and fix it. 28-Jun-00 Page 24 of 24