PQR Support

Date 05-19-2013 16:13

Khodabandeh,
It's a little hard to follow your post and you have left out some vital info such as code of construction and what code your PQR/WPS's were qualified to. Are you talking about full pen welds or fillet welds? But yes, in the broad sense you will have to qualify a new PQR/WPS for the thickness variance unless you have another WPS that has that 6.35mm or 1/4" thickness range in it. And then there is the last sentence "not available any record of welded pass with each process because of provided of PQR by another company" I don't know what you are trying to say here?

Hope that helps a little
Jim

By Ehsan

Date 05-20-2013 12:54

Jim,
It means that because the PQR test has been held by another company, so there is no evidence about the thickness of individual passes SMAW and GTAW in order to establish the range of qualification for each of them.
Regards,
Ehsan

By Ehsan

Date 05-20-2013 12:57

Dear Mr.Khodabandeh,
According to ASME Sec.IX para. QW-451 (if your docs are qualified according to it) you have to submit another PQR.
Regards,
Ehsan

By 803056

Date 05-20-2013 16:41

I agree with Jim, it is difficult to follow exactly what the situation is. To work around the potential problems associated with language I submit the following:

a) The inspector is a Third Party Inspector representing the Owner.
b) The contractor that is performing the welding is also the contractor that qualified the procedure and wrote the WPS.
c) The WPS states that the thickness range qualified is 7.11 mm to 14.22 mm.
d) The welders are weld materials with a thickness of 6.35 mm.
e) The PQR lists both GTA and SMAW as the weldng processes used to weld the test coupon, but the thickness of each deposited (by each process) was not recorded on the PQR.

If my assessment is correct, the WPS is not properly qualified because the contractor did not record the thickness deposited with each welding process. The F number of the GTAW filler metal is different than that used for the weld deposited with SMAW. The F numbers are essential variables, so the contractor should have recorded the deposited thickness for each of the F numbers (filler metal and welding process) used as well as for each welding process used (in case the F number didn't change as in the case of GMAW-S for the root and GMAW for the fill).

The bottom line is that the WPS is not properly qualified, so the welds do not meet ASME Section IX or the applicable construction code.

The thickness qualified has me baffled because the range does not fall into typical thicknesses for either SI units (mm) or customary units (inches). What was the thickness of the test plates used to qualify the WPS?

Best regards - Al

By Ehsan

Date 05-20-2013 16:56

Al,
I agree with you, the thicknesses should have been recorded in the WPS. That's why I said a new PQR was needed.
regards,

By ozniek

Date 05-25-2013 02:15

Hi khodabandeh

I am also having difficulties understanding the question totally, and the answer is obviously highly dependent on the welding code being used, so like the other people that have answered, I will also make some assumptions.

Given that the thickness range qualified (listed on the WPS) is 7.11 - 14.22mm, I am assuming that the code is ASME IX, and that the test coupon was 7.11mm thick, and that the qualified range is that associated with impact test requirements. Given that you are welding A106 and A105 materials, (which generally are not used where impact properties are called for) I would suggest that you find out if impact testing is a requirement. If impact properties are not required, then the PQR would support a minimum thickness of 1.6mm. If this is the case, then the WPS should be updated to reflect the increased thickness range for non-impact applications, but a new PQR would not be required for welding materials 6.35mm thick.

Just as a matter of interest, in what country will the piping / vessels be used? Also, you say that the PQR was supplied by another company. Strictly speaking this would not be allowed according to ASME IX (If this is an ASME job.) unless the original company supplying the PQR was retaining "technical control" of the work. Is this the case, or is the practice different in whatever country this installation is to be used?

Regards
Niekie

By Ehsan

Date 05-25-2013 06:35 Edited 05-25-2013 13:51

Hi Niekie,
I think the main goal of the question was this:
First: There is a WPS for GTAW followed by SMAW which has been approved for a 7.11-mm thick sample . But there is no evidence of the individual processess (thickness of each of them). In fact nobody knows about the thicknesses welded by each of them.
Secondly: Someone has welded a pipe by using the paramaters of the above mentioned WPS for a pipe with 6.35-mm wall thickness.
So is there a chance to be exempted from submitting another PQR? [Considering the fact that it has to be used in middle east countries (maybe) according to ASME Sec.IX]
But I have to say that all are just based on my assumptions.
Best regards,
Ehsan

By ozniek

Date 05-27-2013 04:42

Hi Ehsan

I believe my interpretation was similar to yours, but as you stated, we are all making some assumptions. Let's hope the original poster gets back to us to clarify.

I am particularly interested in how the ASME IX restrictions for "sharing" WPS's / PQR's between different companies are implemented in the middle east. Maybe you can comment?

Regards
Niekie

By Ehsan

Date 05-27-2013 05:12 Edited 05-28-2013 10:06

Hi Niekie,
Maybe the word "sharing" is not be suitable for WPSs but it' s for PQRs . I mean that there's been lots of occasions that a "manufacturer" has used it's particular PQRs (which has issued for previous projects) for new WPSs in other projects (although the clients/owners are different). The main thing is [that] neither WPSs nor PQRs are not shared between different companies, but approved PQRs of individual manufacturers/contractors are being used only by themselves for different projects unless otherwise not permitted by the Specs.

EDIT: The question that I had asked was also based on this fact that the previous PQRs were issued by the "poster" (I assumed) so he was looking for a loophole (!) to feel free and not to be required to submit another one.

Regards,
Ehsan