WPQR

Date 03-22-2007 16:35

Someone might expand upon this a little better but my opinion would be that you wouldn't actually write a D1.1 WPQR from an ASME WPS in any case.
What you would do is write your WPQR based upon the data that you have recorded and certified in your ASME qualification. If you have recorded all data necessary for all D1.1 variables involved and completed all required D1.1 tests then you can complete your WPQR.
You have to look at whats required and what you have available as data.

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 03-22-2007 17:22

js55, you said it right. I have a blanket statement in my welding manual that simply says "Unless otherwise specified by customer or contract, all WPS shall be ASME Section IX." I've had a rare instance once or twice where my customer spedifically required an AWS WPS and would not accept an ASME IX WPS or Performance Qual. I contacted an Officer of the D1 Committee about that and was told if I could review my ASME document (either performance or procedure) and all of the D1 variables were met I could then use it as a basis to write the AWS document.

I still maintain my policy with regard to WPS/PQR's but have since begun adding AWS D1.1 to all of my performance quals (where the tests are identical).

Review, compare, if everything matches, go for it! If not, requalify or write a new pre-qualified.

By js55

Date 03-22-2007 17:33

I always do a similar thing, and record everything possible. You never know when some future contingency might require it.

By castle

Date 03-22-2007 17:58 Edited 03-22-2007 18:00

js55,

My thoughts exactly on your first comments; I'm in the process of reviewing WPQRs from a test lab that has recorded the actual essiential values used in testing and nonessiential data that was taken right off the WPS. The labs WPQR had included information on PWHT, Wire &/or Flux Tradename, Amps & Volts range (copied off the WPS), etc.. I understand that they can have this data on the WPQR (this data being nonessiential), but they did not have the qualification range for the essiential variables involved, that puts me in a bind with witnessing surveyors checking welder WPQR's.

As far as using a ASME IX WPS to test the welder and filling it out in a D1.1 WPQR form, I agree with you, as long as the necessary variables have been recorded, just had to double check.

By the way, I worded the question wrong, should have been "Can a D1.1 WPQR be filled out even though the welder tested in accordace with an ASME IX WPS". But it worked out all right; the issue with the WPQR written off a WPS just happened today.

By 803056

Date 03-22-2007 20:52

OK fellas, I'm confused as hell. Are we talking about a PQR, procedure qualification record, or WPQR, welder performance qualification record? The acronyms are confusing me.

I maintain that any welder or procedure qualified per ASME Section IX does not meet AWS D1.1 because the visual acceptance criteria of Section IX is not as stringent as AWS D1.1 for the weld and the acceptance criteria for the bend test per ASME Section IX are not as stringent as D1.1. Another point to consider is AWS D1.1 procedure qualification requires NDT, either RT or UT, before the mechanical tests are performed. NDT is not a requirement for procedures qualified per Section IX.

As for using the PQR that was qualified per ASME as the basis of accepting the data in lieu of a WPS per AWS and using it to "qualify" the welder using an AWS welder performance qualification record, again I say that unless the ASME documentation includes the visual acceptance criteria of AWS D1.1 paragraph 4.8.1, and the bend test results meet paragraph 4.8.3.3, the tests do not meet AWS and the welder can not be qualified to AWS based on the ASME documentation. There is little likelyhood that anyone qualifying to ASME would impose AWS acceptance criteria.

Can an ASME WPS be used to qualify the welder per AWS? Only if the WPS addresses all the essential variables of a prequalified or qualified WPS per AWS D1.1. Again, as a purist, there are few instances I have encountered where the ASME documents meet the criteria of AWS D1.1. Once again, were the bend tests for welder performance qualification performed to ASME Section IX or AWS D1.1? They are different.

Best regards - Al

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 03-22-2007 22:43

Al; while you bring good points, I will add that while ASME does have less stringent criteria than ASME IX, but all criteria set forth in Codes are minimum standards, there is no reason more restrictive criteria can't be invoked; i.e., the visual criteria of D1. Additionally, ASME IX permits RT as part of or in addition to mechanicals, again, no reason one cannot go more restrictive and get the double bang for his testing bucks. Again, same thing on performance quals., just evaluate to both criteria, easy enough. Finally, D1 permits the acceptance of WPS' qualified to "other" standards, it simply takes approval by the Engineer. That's one reason I make the statement in the Qualification section of my welding manual because these are always (in my business) required to be submitted for review / approval by our Customers.

By castle

Date 03-23-2007 03:03

803056,

I understand what your saying about the acceptance criteria after bending has been performed, if it is acceptable to D1.1 standards then IX is covered, if not acceptable to D1.1 then it might be acceptable to IX ( if it did not totally Bomb). I always try to prepare for both of these Codes when every thing goes right, but you know how that is. There are also some instances were IX & D1.1 are the same when it comes to the test jig dimensions. Look at the material closely, some materials will be able to cross over between both Codes. A36 is a good example, our welders are tested on 1" A36 material (we fabricate mainly using carbon and low alloy steels), this material allows a cross over between both Codes as far as test jig dimensions are concerned. As we know, performance bend testing is to be conducted using the WPS bend test criteria.

A36: 36,000 yield min. & 20 to 23% elongation min. per ASTM (specifed)

Test jig dimension
D1.1: =\< 50,000 yield (A=1-1/2", B=3/4", C=2-3/8", D=1-3/16")

XI: All others (A36 in this instance) with =/> 20% elongation (A=1-1/2", B=3/4", C=2-3/8", D=1-3/16")

The bend test specimens are both the same thickness, 3/8".

As far as the visual acceptance criteria for both Codes is concerned, that will be my first indication if the WPQR or PQR can cross over IX to D1.1 or vise versa, taking into consideration that all the other variables for both Codes are covered.

By 803056

Date 03-23-2007 03:54 Edited 03-23-2007 04:02

Gentlemen;

There's the rub, the requirements of the code are the minimum requirements. Unless you know in advance that you will be using the test to satisfy the requirements for more than one code and invoke the code requirements that are most stringent, the testing lab is going to evaluate the samples based on the code requirements cited.

I have a project starting up in the next couple of weeks where the contractor qualified the welders and procedures to ASME Section IX. Now they want to use the same welders for structural work involving AWS D1.1 requirements. I asked them if they retained the bend samples. Their reply was they never do. How can I say the bend test results meet AWS D1.1 if there is no record of them being evaluated to D1.1 and there are no samples to re-evaluate?

As noted by Castle, the materials used for the testing must also be considered. A material that meets AWS may not be included by ASME as a standard P or S numbered material or vice versa.

I usually ask the client what type of work and code requirements are they trying to meet. I also ask what other codes they work with occasionally or if they anticipate they might work with in the future. When possible, I try to document the data and perform all the testing that may be required by the codes they mentioned. However, it isn't always possible to convince the client that the added cost of the X-ray and the delay involved is worth the effort or cost.

I guess what I'm saying is this, careful planning is essential to get the most benefit from the time and money spent. You also have to be very careful when attempting to utilize the welding documentation intended to be used for one code for applications involving a different code. You have to be able to show that all the requirements of both codes were met and that's difficult to do after the fact. The difficulty is compounded when you consider how many PQRs and WPSs are not correct to begin with. I hate to go on a rant and talk about the number of bend tests that are performed using the wrong bend radius or the wrong material was used, and the list goes on............

A quick question for you Castle, are you using SA36 or A36 plate for the testing? And are they really the same? Is A36 listed in QW/QB-422? Check your answer with www.pnumbers.com.

Codes are what keeps us employed and food on our family's table. You gotta love em!

Best regards - Al

By js55

Date 03-23-2007 13:57

Gentlemen,
There is no debate here. It was stated quite clearly up front that it would only be valid as long as the criteria for AWS was satisfied. What Al did was detail the difficulty of complying with this requirement. And this is true. Mos to ften the data wll probably notbe available.
But the point is, the qual don't know if its D1.1 or Section IX. If you have the data you have the data. If you don't you don't.
And the lesson here is that it wouldn't hurt to make your data more comprehensive when testing in the future. There is no reason why one qual can't be used for both as long as you are attentive to the requirements of each code. Or any other code for that matter.

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 03-23-2007 14:18

I agree wholeheartedly, and with all respect to Al, if I record that I've tested (and accepted) to both Codes on my document (whether they are performance or procedure) I do not expect to have to deliver my mechanical specimens to an auditor, nor can I readily think of any requirement to do so. Naturally, the NDE and mechanical test records would be available for review (where retention is required).

By 803056

Date 03-23-2007 14:38

Amen, well stated.

Al

By castle

Date 03-23-2007 17:17 Edited 03-23-2007 17:33

803056,

I use both at the same time during testing (both plates halves having the same heat number); yes I believe they are the same. Most MTRs state ASTM A-36/ASME SA-36 in product description or specification. The plate that is ordered for our PQR & WPQR testing show this.

ASTM A36 is listed in QW/QB-422 as ASME SA-36 . SA-36 is a P1 (G1) material,where as A-36 would be considered a S1 (G1). I understand that it does not actually show A-36 in QW/QB-422, but in QW-420.2 anything designated a certian P# plus G# automaticlly covers corresponding S# G#, but not vise versa.
P# indicating SA-XX(X) (ASME), where as S# indicates A-XX(X) (ASTM). The example of SA-240 Type 304 in QW-420.2 is a good example of what we're are talking about.

By 803056

Date 03-23-2007 17:53

It sounds like you have a good handle on matters.

Now consider how it would play out if you did not have the MTR, only the PQR, and if the PQR listed the material as A36 which is listed as S1, you would not be qualified for SA36 listed as a P1. S1 does not qualify for P1, whereas P1 does qualify S1. A procedure qualified to AWS using the A36 would not qualify for SA36 due to the differences in S and P numbers.

As others have noted, document, document, and throw in the raw data for good measure. I have my clients keep the CMTR, lab reports, and I record both the visual acceptance criteria applied to bend samples as well as the thickness and the bend radius on the PQR just in case there is an audit or if there are questions from a customer. That's why I do not use the sample PQRs provided by ASME or AWS. I record much more data than the standard formats require.

You just have to love these nuances.

I included the URL for www.pnumbers.com because it is a good resource for those of us that work with both ASME and AWS. Typically ASME SA or SB XXX materials are assigned P numbers, whereas ASTM A or B XXX materials are assigned S numbers.

Best regards - Al

By castle

Date 03-23-2007 19:29 Edited 03-23-2007 19:32

803056,

I see your point concerning the A36 material crossover from a PQR with D1.1 to IX. Thank you very much for helping me see a possible pitfall that may occur on my side if I did not value the usefulness of the MTRs.

Welder Qualification would not matter though.

-Rick

By GRoberts (***)

Date 03-25-2007 03:53

I can see you've been through this hoop before Al. In addition to what you brought up as valid concerns, are variables in the testing requriements. For instance, if you compare the bend radius for materials in ASME, the requriement is based on the materials requried elongation, while AWS D1.1 bases it on the materials strength. In ASME, you can also use round transverse tensile test specimens, but not so for AWS. Currently I'm trying to qualify some aluminum procedures. Our customer is specifying qualification according to Bureau Veritas Rules. We also do work to ASME and AWS D1.2. It would be nice to get qualifications good for all of them, but it is hard, if not impossible to comply with all of them. For instance, different widths of the transverse tensile tests are requried. Different bend test radii, macros vs no-macros, NTD tests and acceptance criteria, etc. It gets quite complicated. Not to mention the different qualificaition ranges. Different thicknesses, positions, parameter ranges, heat input requirements, number of passes, filler metal requirements.

I often find the bottom line to be that you can often comply with several specifications if you know before hand and test to the most stringent requriement. Sometimes it would even involve multiple specimnens for the same types of tests. If I am trying to cross over a previously qualified procedure, I will get lucky sometimes if documentation was adequate, but as often as not, there is something that wasn't quite up to snuff. That is one reason I always save tested specimens and test plate remnant. You never know when a customer will want something different.

By 803056

Date 03-25-2007 17:25

Well GR, I couldn't agree more. Well said.

I reject about 85% of the PQRs and WPSs qualified to Section IX that I review because the contractor didn't review the requirements of the applicable construction code. How can they meet the requirements of other welding standards if they don't even meet all of the requirements of code they were supposed to meet?

I'm not saying it can't be done, but, as you stated, you need to know all of the codes and standards up front before striking the inital arc if you expect to meet all the requirements, and again as you stated, there may be some additionals tests necessary to be fully compliant. A good argument for keeping the bend samples and the remants of the test coupon. Well done.

Al