If I want to be able to have a welder follow a WPS(s) and production weld in all positions as an option is the following correct? I understand the welder must be qualified to weld in a position but the WPS has to allow/prove that the parts can be welded in those positions too??
ASME
QW-200.2 f - write one PQR but need 4 WPS's - one for each position ?????
Position is non essential
AWS
Table 4.5 #27 - Position is essential variable
Table 4.1 - Plate 2G, 3G and 4G required to use all positions.
3 PQR's to support 1 WPS ?????
You can write 4 ASME procedures if you want but you don't have to.
The essential variables for each code are different. You can have as many or as few WPS's as you like with either code. But regardless of your choice, the code you use should be based upon the requirements for the product being welded on.
Is this a question related to something in production or just the many code differences ? If its the latter I think there is a previous post addressing many of the Sec IX/D1.1 differences.
Have a good day
Gerald Austin
weldingclassroom.org
AWS for example: Don't I need to test each position that I intend to be able to weld my part in? Since position is an essential variable for procedure qualification don't I have to qualify and write a separate PQR for each position but combine the data to write just one WPS?
Yes.
Yes Kinda On the Kinda, you could perform the PQR Welding and subsequent testing on each position and document it on one document as far as I can see. You have the option of "Any Convenient Format" so there is nothing prohibiting you from using one document provided that one document properly documents all of the variables for each position.
Have a good one. Hope this helps. It looks like you know what you need to do.
Gerald
Topic American Welding Society Services / Technical Standards & Publications / AWS vs ASME Procedure Qualification
