Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
I have a question on some WPS's I am looking through, (ASME IX)
For (Pass) in the WPS they have "All" there is a FCAW root finished off with
SAW for the remainder but they have "All" for each entry. Is this proper?
Another useless one-fits-all WPS. It's not very specific guidance for the welder but with Section IX it wouldn't take many PQR's to back it up. It's one of the many things I don't "like", if you get my drift.
When you say ALL for each entry, are you saying that they have All listed multiple times or All listed just once? If they have All listed once, I'd say that if you were auditing them you could go over and see that the variables for the SAW passes are running in the same range as the FCAW pass. Like, volts, amps, travel speed, etc etc then tell them they need to revise the WPS. ;-) If they have ALL listed for a FCAW root pass and below that they have ALL listed for SAW passes, then I'd say it meets the requirements of section IX. I would have liked to see it written as 1st pass - FCAW , 2nd Thru XX Pass - SAW with variables. Make them revise the WPS to notate not to exceed x amount (qualified weld thickness for FCAW from PQR) of deposited weld thickness for the FCAW process if they want to write it like that.
"All" for the pass category. To me this implies they can use FCAW for every pass or SAW for every pass as the
operator sees fit. I also prefer to see FCAW pass 1-3, SAW pass 4 through whatever , or remainder. Where they
have a GTAW root, they use the same format. To me this is being too generic and lazy.
Yes, but I'd say you can make them revise per what was mentioned above because it sounds like they have no variable of weld thickness limitation for the FCAW process. That is an essential element of the WPS and to your point, you can't have anyone misinterpret that and go hog wild with the FCAW process because the SAW machine is broke down for a few hours if that were to ever happen. You know how those damn welders are.
I would think the PQR should be specific to what was actually done originally, pass 1 and 2 GTAW, pass 3,4,5 FCAW, Remainder SAW or pass 6,7,8, SAW. Then multiple WPS's can be build from this combination. Using "All" in the PQR to me is WRONG. This is how I see it and welcome any corrections or advice.
Oh... it says "ALL" on the PQR instead of recording variables for each pass? Is it a multiple-process PQR? I thought we were talking about the WPS.
Yes to multi process, so far every PQR I looked at is written that way. I have never done that and it seemed wrong, that's why I questioned it. I see in my original post I only mentioned WPS, the WPS and PQR are identical.
Original Post says All in the WPS. I'm confused now also.
A welding procedure specification (WPS) that is qualified with a base material SA 106 Gr B (P-No. 1 Group 1) can be used with a base material ASTM A 350 Gr LF2 Class 1 (P-No. 1 Group 2)? The WPS does not have a PQR qualified with impact testing. The WPS was qualified to Section IX - 2013 using SMAW and filler metal 7018 G.
I've been reading and biting my tongue since this thread was started.
The first post did not provide sufficient information to even understand the nature of the problem. It appeared there was little attempt of clarify the problem.
It would be seem to me that it would much easier if the initial post included a scan of the document (WPS or PQR) with the entry in question highlighted or even a written quote. We would then know for certain what the nature of the issue is.
I hate to guess what the real problem is because the individual asking the question will not take the time to state the problem clearly.
Sorry, I was afraid of posting documents. I cleaned up all identification on the documents and will try to paste them in.
The PQR does not include the actual weld parameters used. The WPS built from it, seems too generic. Opinions?
Now we have something to work with.
This PQR and WPS are meant to meet ASME Section IX. There are several issue I would take. The first is that it is not tied to any construction code. As such, where it to be used by a contractor to weld a piping system intended to meet one of the ASME B31.X construction codes the welder would find the WPS deficient. Where are the details of the weld joints, i.e., root opening, root face, groove angles, etc. The construction code says the welder is suppose to find said information in the WPS.
The WPS does not meet the requirements of most ASME construction codes with regards to the PWHT. The parameters listed are appropriate for P1 materials, but not P8.
There are several other deficiencies, but these listed are sufficient to reject the WPS.
The PQR doesn't indicate the direction of vertical progression. Did they really subject the P8 base metal to the regiment that is listed? What was the preheat temperature? Again, perfect grounds to reject the PQR.
The documentation is unacceptable in the current state.
Best regards - Al
Thank you. They are building to ASME VIII Div 1.
Shouldn't the actual (historic ) weld data and parameters used be listed on the PQR?
What about the use of "ALL" on passes?
Believe it or not, ASME Section IX only requires the contractor record essential variables on the PQR. However, any variable recorded must be actual data collected while the test assembly is welded. In short, it is not permitted to go back and fill in the blanks after the fact. Entries not recorded during the test should be listed as NR (not recorded) rather than NA (not applicable).
In your case, the entry "manual" for travel speed listed by the PQR is not valid data. If data is collected during the test, i.e., the travel speed, it should be listed as XY ipm or NR if data is not collected. The word "manual" has no relevance.
They also failed to record the actual preheat temperature or interpass temperature. They are essential variables if I remember correctly.
The WPS is a different matter. Both essential and nonessential variables must be addressed. This includes fitup requirements, the use of backing, groove details, fillet details, etc. My argument that one should record the welding parameters (listed as nonessential variables by Section IX) in the PQR. They serve as the basis of the parameters that will be listed by the WPS. If one does not record the voltage, current, electrode extension, travel speed, etc., what is the basis of the parameters that must be listed by the WPS? There is definitely a disconnect between real world welding and ASME's philosophy.
Do I think this is a good WPS? No, I think it sucks to put it bluntly. My personal philosophy is that the WPSs should list only one welding process if only one welding process is used for the production weld. If two welding processes are listed by the WPS, then both welding processes should be used to weld the joint. The WPS as written is difficult to follow and will most likely be ignored by the welder. The parameters listed (in the format used) will not aid the welder in setting up the welding equipment. I prefer the format I included in a recent Inspection Trend article. When using FCAW, the welding parameters must be coordinated if acceptable results are expected. That is, low voltage, high wire feed speed, with a short electrode extension will not produce satisfactory results if the manufacturer says median voltage, median wire feed speed, and a median electrode extension is required. The parameters recommended by one manufacturer may not be appropriate for FCAW electrode produced by an different manufacturer even if they both meet the same electrode classification. The point being, while the codes may allow substituting FCAW electrode produced by one manufacturer for that made by a different manufacturer, most welders realize it is pure unaltered BS.
As always, thank you for the sage advice.
Can you take an approved PQR from D1.1 and used on ASME whit the essentials variables based under the section IX?
There are no approved PQRs in D1.1.
Good nights, everyone.
I am new on this forum, I have a question, I would like to know how to make a WPS and PQR for a process of welding of two pipes that are made from astm a 178 gr c steel , these are part of a boiler bank of tubes.
Hire an engineer. Are you trying to satisfy a Code?
In that position I qualify a WPS with ASME IX to qualify in all positions ?
I discussed this in the ASME IX.
QW-405.2 A change from any position to the vertical
position uphill progression. Vertical-uphill progression
(e.g., 3G, SG, or 6G position) qualifies for all positions.
In uphill progression, a change from stringer bead to weave
bead. This variable does not apply when a WPS is qualified
with a PWHT above the upper transformation temperature
or when an austenitic material is solution annealed after
If I have a wps : Tig( Max 8mm) and Smaw( Max 12 mm), i can use the wps for the thickness 6mm( butt joint) with Full TIG precess
pls help me,
Noted: ASME code apply.
Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill