D1.5 Bridge WPS Essential Variable Question

Date 05-04-2010 14:23

I have searched the forum for where D1.5 has the filler wire manufacturer as an essential variable, but I can't find it in the code.

I went through Table 5.3 PQR Essential Varaibles, and also section 5.13 and I don't see where if I change from Lincoln E71T-1 to Hobart E71T-1 that I have to re-qualify the procedure.

Am I missing this somewhere or is it from an older version of the code? I'm using 2008.

Thanks Chris

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 05-04-2010 14:37

Chris,
Take a look at Table 5.1 second item in the table.

By waccobird (****)

Date 05-04-2010 14:45

eekpod
I always saw it hazy.
Clause 5.5 Welding Consumables
Talks of Filler Metals tests of conformance
So there has to be a way of showing this test of conformance per wire mfg.
Clause 5.5.1 WPS Requirements for Consumables. See Table 5.1
And to maybe point it out better Comment C5.5.1
Hope this Helps more than Hurts
Marshall

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 05-04-2010 15:15

Yeah, the Commentary spells it out better than the actual written code or table.

In a nut shell, solid wire (requalification because of switching mfg's) is not required, but for cored wires it is, because the operating characteristics between mfgs can vary for the same AWS classification.

By eekpod

Date 05-04-2010 18:05

oh ok, now I see it, but I don't like how I had to get to it.

I tried to follow the code through step by step starting at 5.13 and going through the Tables, but that path never took me to Table 5.1. That's how I missed it.

Table 5.1 WPS Qual. Requirements and Table 5.3 PQR Essential Variables; basically these two are inter-related right? Couldn't they just take the info in Table 5.1 and add it to Table 5.3? You would think if it's that important, it would be listed in Table 5.3.
And yes the commentary does make it nice and clear.

Anyway, thanks guys I really apreciate the help.
Chris

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 05-04-2010 18:37

They lumped it in with the consumables verifications......

By HgTX

Date 05-04-2010 18:59

Right. It's pretty straightforward to get to Table 5.1 from clause 5.5.

However, it doesn't seem unreasonable to combine it with table 5.3, either.

Hg