Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Technical Standards & Publications / D1.1 Essential Variables
- - By John P Sullivan Date 01-23-2007 12:35
Could someone help me understand what is meant by
PQR Essential Variable Changes  AWS D1.1:2006    FCAW
Items 12),  16), & 17) in relation to Item 10)
My question is if we go to a smaller diameter filler  per Item 10)
Can we change Amps, and/or Volts per manufacturers recommended
Parameters or are we held to the Min/Max per the original PQR?
I am not sure what "for each diameter means" in item 12,16,17.
Thanks for your help.
Parent - By pax23 (**) Date 01-23-2007 14:00
Good question.
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 01-23-2007 16:11
If you go by Table 4.5(10)...this allows FCAW to decrease electrode diameter but not increase without requalification.
I think that you understand this.... but items 12,16 and 17 in that Table are tripping you up. Well, it has me confused also as what to do with the electrical parameters for the smaller diameter wire. Obviously they will be much different than what was used on the original PQR that was tested using the larger dimeter wire.

Do you try to stay within the +/- tolerances given in the Table for FCAW for the parameters? I don't think that is correct.

I'm hoping someone who has written WPSs with muliple diameter electrodes off of one PQR, will chime in and help us with this interpetation.
Parent - By jwright650 (*****) Date 01-23-2007 20:17
Bump....TTT
Parent - - By GRoberts (***) Date 01-27-2007 04:44
I've read this to mean +/-10% on amperage for each diameter used for the test.  So for instance if you used .045" FCAW for the root pass, and 1/16" FCAW for fill passes during qualification, then you can consider each diameter seperately on the WPS using the the amperage values used on the PQR for that diameter.  So if you only used 1/16" on the PQR, and want to go to .052" on the WPS, I would interpret it that you have to use the same amperage range as qualified with 1/16" diameter wire.
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 01-27-2007 12:00 Edited 01-27-2007 12:04
GRoberts,
Thanks for keeping this thread alive :-) I would really like to figure this out.....

I'm still not sure about how to handle a PQR where they only tested one diameter wire...say a .063", but want to write a WPS for .035" wire, or some other smaller diameter....the amperage/voltage/travel speed/etc will most likely be out of the original ranges of the PQR that was tested with .063" wire. Even if you could stay within those ranges....it probably wouldn't be optimal/productive for the smaller sizes.

I'm thinking you will end up needing additional PQRs to write the WPSs for the smaller diameters anyway to stay within a productive set of parameters that would be optimal for those smaller sizes.
Do you agree with this thinking?

EDIT:    Wait...I re-read your reply....are you thinking the code is saying that if you used muliple sized wires from the root out to the cap, then you would have to stay within the ranges as tested in the PQR? That makes sense.
But ......, I was thinking the original poster was asking about testing with one diameter from the root out to the cap, but wanting to write WPSs from that PQR to weld with smaller diameter wires.....
Parent - - By GRoberts (***) Date 01-30-2007 04:04
This is what I'm thinking D1.1 means when it says "for each diameter".

For instance, if you do a FCAW PQR with 200 amps using 1/16" wire from root to cap, you would be qualified for:
1/16" 180-220A
.052" 180-220A
.045 180-220A

If you do a FCAW PQR with 200 amps using .045" wire for the root and hot pass  at 150A and 1/16" wire for fill and cap at 200A, then I think you woud be qualified for:
.045" wire 135-165A
.052" wire anywhere in the range between 135A and 220A as long as you list +/-10%
1/16" wire 180-220A

I think that is the gist of it anyway.  I don't think it is cut and dried, but that is how I would interpret it based on my current knowledge.
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 01-30-2007 11:12
GRoberts,
OK,.....We ARE thinking on the same page...thanks for the clarification. I agree with your interpetation.
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 01-31-2007 17:20
Perhaps D1.1 could take a lesson from ASME IX on these types of issues.
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Technical Standards & Publications / D1.1 Essential Variables

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill