Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Dear all,
If I have a WPS qualifying GTAW , SMAW and SAW, with supporting PQR GTAW, SMAW and SAW, can I use that WPS for production weld with GTAW and SMAW?? Do i need to release another WPS for process GTAW and SMAW from that PQR?
It would be nice to know what welding standard is being used.
If the applicable standard is the Far Code, go for it.
Al
There is a bit in the QW-200's regarding "combination of procedures"( sorry, I don't have it in front of me now) where you will find that the processes used in a single PQR may be used independently or combined in part as you mention. Be mindful that your essential variables still apply for each process (in particular 't'= weld metal thickness). The combined weld metal thickness (t)on your new WPS may not be as thick as your maximum base metal thickness(T) on your new WPS - so you may not be able to perform full-penetration welds to the same thickness accommodated in your first WPS.
Suppose i hi have PQR of 50 mm thickness.. Which means 5-200 qualified... And gtaw 5mm, smaw 20mm, saw 25mm..so in 1st wps I mentioned 2pass with gtaw 2-3pass with smaw and rest saw...now I have a situation where i cant use SAW, so can I use this WPS for welding 20mm thick joint with gtaw and smaw where i already mentioned that 2pass gtaw 2-3 pass smaw and rerest saw. I know i can make a new wps easily from this pqr but it is for knowledge
If you take one sample for qualification of 3 process it shall be consider that GTAW layer is a backing of SMAW layers. if you want to use SMAW separately, welding without backing dose not supported.
Backing is not an essential variable....my question was do I need to make seperate WPS for SMAW process or this WPS with combination of these process can be used for welding a joint with only SMAW process.??
Good Day!
We are going to proceed for the welding of the Above ground Storage Tanks (Service Water, Raw Water, Potable water, fire water),,
Please, What's the required Qualifications for this type of welding? WPS & PQR
Thanks
First, you need to know which specification(s) apply to the product, and for the location it is to be installed.
i.e. - BS EN 14015, or UL-142, or API-650, etc., etc.
Then follow the appropriate welding requirements.
Tim
Dear,
Thank you for answering my question...
We will use the API650...
Hi JMAZIYAR
Backing is not an essential variable....my question was do I need to make seperate WPS for SMAW process or this WPS with combination of these process can be used for welding a joint with only SMAW process.??
Look in the applicable code of construction for the project. It should either have requirements for qualification or refer to the code that does apply.
pay attention in QW bellow that have the answer you need.....
you can weld with each process individually but of course respecting welding variables of original PQR for each process and in this case SMAW need a backing, ceramic or metal.
"When following a WPS that has more than one welding
process, filler metal, or set of variables, each process, filler
metal, or set of variables may be used individually or in
different combinations, provided
(1) the essential, nonessential, and required supplementary
essential variables associated with the process,
filler metal, or set of variables are applied
(2) the base metal and deposited weld metal thickness
limits of QW-451 for each process, filler metal, or
set of variables are applied"
I have a question, im currently inspecting on a project using the D9.1 sheet metal 2000 addition- and the D1.3 1998. im trying to figure out a way to not have a full pin weld on the (figure GA11 fillet weld in open offset corner joint ) mind you we are welding 18ga metal so full pin is just about acheived all the time. but for QC and production i think removing this from the process would benefit production .. any ideas on a submittal or corective WPS?
come on somebody has got to have some insight to my question?
Hey Doug, Welcome to the Forum
Please consider asking your question again, but make your own individual thread for it. It's likely you will get some better responses if you do.
Are you trying to comply with D1.9 or D1.3? There are differences. It's also difficult because you are using outdated standards.
I have a copy of D1.9 2012 and believe you are describing the weld in Fig GA.12 in Annex G.
Fig. GA.12 describes a Fillet Weld in Open (Offset) Corner Joint.
Who is saying you need to have CJP (full pen) and how are they validating that expectation via the code?
The first thing that comes to mind is that "fillet" welds are not required to be CJP (full-pen). So I don't see a compliance issue off the top as far as the "melt-thru" you are seeing on the back side, unless your contract documents prohibit it.
Figure GA.13 describes the same joint with backing... If you are trying to eliminate melt-thru, this is the first thing I would do to accomplish it... However this requires fixturing that will consume time. But it's hard to give any guidance beyond that for reducing melt-thru as you have not told us what base metal you are using, what process is being used to join or any of a dozen other factors that bear on weld penetration.
sorry new to the forum. the client IE the weld engineer .. i see it as not needing it. i can RMD the 2000 with the 2012 if needed to express my point. im new to the WPS and PQR game . so id like an input on how to purpose the new WPS ... in my construction documents it refers to full continuous penetration. but in 6.1 refering back to 4.1 its validated via welding engineer .. not actually specified ... any input would be much appreciated ..
gmaw 70s-6 wire filler metal f, DCEP - short circuiting transfer, 75%-25%-argon-CO2 1/16 joint max gap..
as soon as i figure out how to up load documents to the forum. ill include them...
So i knew i wasnt crazy. in D9.1 full pin isnt required .. its my qa/qc manager he was led to believe it, and wont budge. no mind you he has no welding background or a cwi .. so im going to submit to the weld engineer and go from threre.. thanks for the help Lawrence
Lawrence question? how do you measure full throat of the corner fillet without CJP? all my construction documents say is i need full throat on this weld
You don't unless you want to do destructive testing. That is the main basis for the system as it is set up using known/proven/successful welding procedures with procedures proven for quality of millions of welds with welders qualified by testing to be able to achieve the required weld with the above procedures. When all is in place and the paper train affirms that all aspects are good to go then the odds are that the weld will be successfully completed without proving it by destructive testing.
The welder certs for these welds would prove full throat penetration with penetration and fusion to the root proven by clause 4 testing. It is 'assumed' welding produced under these criteria will meet the qualifications for strength, penetration/fusion, and quality.
He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent
thanks brent... and yes he is in control...lol
Okay, going back through these posts and the pm you sent me we have an ignorance issue combined with a clear lack of understanding when it comes to defining of terms within the AWS code community. The mentioned outside CWI's as well as management haven't got a clue.
There is a clear difference between fillet welds being welded to the root of the joint and CJP's regardless of the configuration being complete penetration.
The throat of the fillet weld extends from the Theoretical face, not including the convex weld reinforcement, to the toe of the joint. Any extra in the reinforcement plus penetration beyond is the 'Actual' weld dimension but is pure bonus and not required. If you recall fillet welds divide into Theoretical, Effective and Actual. Partly in regards to design calculations as well as the finished product.
Materials as thin as you are using cannot be UT inspected plus a fillet weld isn't subject to that anyway. And, it doesn't matter if it is on the corner or a T-joint design fillet weld, full throat has nothing to do with penetration all the way to the other side.
Now, having said that, D1.3, I'm not totally familiar with D9.1 and don't have it here in reach, has some pre-qualified joints but many are restricted to PQR testing to show your process, procedures, and personnel have the ability to produce code compliant fillet welds. Once they have a successful PQR you test the balance of your welders to the WPS drawn up from that incorporating all the code guidelines on limits from the parameters of the PQR. This proves the ability to complete the 'full throat' dimension welds being required by the customer.
Again, it has NOTHING to do with penetration through the member(s). Only that the weld throat is of the requested dimension which can be established by measuring the legs of the fillet weld after using the conversion calculations to get leg dimension as opposed to throat dimension.
Your only other choice is as previously mentioned, cut some samples of the exact joint type welded as written in the existing procedure by the welders involved and then have them tested, probably micro etched would be sufficient to prove that the welds are to the root of the joint if not even beyond.
He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent
Great thorough answer Brent.
I said the other day that D1.3 has the least complex PQR's out there... That's not really true... D1.9 are even more simple.
A PQR could be easily performed on the joint the OP has here in a matter of minutes, with multiple samples.
The sheet metal will fold over on itself (the fillet won't break) and a section and quick etch will prove fusion at the root.
The whole argument about visual inspection criteria will be tough... Because you are dealing with uninformed opinions. Brent's hit the important point that "visual melt-thru" is not an inspection requirement for fillets in outside corner joints. At least not how I read any AWS inspection criteria, Not D1.1, Not D1.3, Not D1.9, not even D17 Aerospace code. They are wrong to demand visual melt-thru on the "other side" of the fillet.... However convincing them is going to be your biggest battle... The PQR is literally a 30 minute project.
My alien buddy, the fillet weld. The sketch shows the body parts.
Al
Oh yeah, I was meaning to attach that to my verbose post but forgot. Thanks Al.
well now, that blew my mind brent. thanks it covers my question fully.
Thanks to all who assisted me in my question about fillet welds. im a 30 year veteran to pipe welding industry. and racked my brain trying to figure this out. so being a humble man , and knowing i wasnt to familiar with sheetmetal or structural code, i read and i read and dammit i read some more. and still couldnt figure out why. lol im a forum advocate now for sure.. thanks again yall ,,,,
Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill
Forum
