WPS Essential Variables

Date 08-07-2007 08:22

I'm relatively new to D1.1 (Scottish-Australian), but so far I've been impressed by the responses to my previous question on welding at altitude, so here goes with another one (forgive me if this is a silly question!).

I have a Contractor who has provided a qualified WPS with WPQR for a groove weld in the GMAW process, 3G position (uphill progression), allowable plate thickness range 5-50mm, all in accordance with ASME XI. He claims this WPS is applicable to GMAW fillet welding for all positions and all thicknesses. I know a welder qualified to 3G position is qualified for 1, 2, and 3F welds, but can a qualified groove weld procedure also cover a fillet weld (in any position)? I would have thought that the weld design is an essential variable. There are limits to the root and face sizes and also the angle in groove welds, not to mention groove shape, before requalification is necessary. Surely a change to a fillet weld would require a new WPS?

Thanks,

Hugh

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 08-07-2007 12:40

Hugh,

I think we need to ask a couple more questions before you can have a solid answer. But the folks here will deliver !

You mention D1.1 first off but continue with words about Section XI. So we will need to be clear about that.

We also need to be clear on your need for information. Are we asking if a PQR for Groove weld qualifies for fillets as well? If the process is the same it very well might.

Position... ASME is a bit different from AWS on positions when it comes to *Procedure* qualifications. ASME has a different approach as far as this goes, with material and position being rather loosely governed. Now welder perfromance qualification will be strictly governed as far as welding position and progression.

So we need to know if you are looking for guidence related to the need to requalify the procedure? Or if you need to requalify welders. And; Are you working to D1 or ASME

By Bill M

Date 08-07-2007 12:59

(and no silly question here)

If I read your question right you are asking an ASME Sect 9 question in the AWS D1.1 forum? Is he doing ASME or AWS code welding?

If ASME, I would say the contractor is correct. His PQR supports a welding procedure that covers fillet welding for all positions. Providing all the other essential variables of QW-255 are satisfied. Groove design is not an essential variable for requalification, nor is position. (Even if your code of construction requires impact testing, his 3G qual. satisfies 405.2 for all position).

By rickc

Date 08-07-2007 16:40

Sorry, someone borrowed my copy of AWS D1.1-2006 this morning so, I'm going from memory/notes but, Table 4.11 #d (P.147) qualifies a WPS for any Fillet weld size and thickness after qualifying a CJP weld. I usually limit my WPS positions to the welder's are qualified for by Table 4.10 (P.145) and leave it at that but, I know there's a table that shows the production welding positions qualified by the weld test but, I don't think a 3G CJP groove weld gets you all position for fillets.

...So, "yes" on fillets and "no" on all position by D1.1 if I recall correctly.

By CHGuilford (****)

Date 08-07-2007 17:07

Speaking from the D1.1 point of view- A groove weld PQR will cover fillets in the positions allowed per Table 4.1. To better explain this, a 3G groove on plate would qualify vertical grooves and vertical fillets only. In order to qualify all positions you would need tests done in the horizontal, vertical, and overhead positions. Fillet tests qualify only fillet welds, groove tests qualify grooves and fillets.

You cannot qualify D1.1 requirements with ASME IX tests unless the ASME IX testing meets or exceeds ALL the requirements of D1.1 - so unless there is more to the story (or I missed something) your contractor is not qualified for anything other than vertical fillets and grooves with GMAW.

By jarsanb (***)

Date 08-07-2007 22:08

Code aside for a second, which is a minimum on your acceptance, I would really want to see a PQR for those fillet welds. SMAW is pretty consistant within a parameter selection but GMAW-S is very sensitive to joint and position with regards to parameter selection and technique - which is where most people fail with this process, if they fail. It is not a big deal - couple of hours tops. And that's including a Macro-etch, which I would definately want to see I were you or someone in an approval position.

By Hugh Cunningham (*)

Date 08-08-2007 05:32

Thanks a lot - this is really helpful. To answer the questions posed, the construction is to AWS D1.1, but the Contractor has submittted his WPQR and WPS prepared in accordance with ASME XI. I appreciate there are differences in these two Codes, and at the end of the day it is the D1.1 requirements that need to be met. My question was intended to find out if this groove weld procedure also qualified fillet welds (same process) for all positions and thicknesses, as claimed by the Contractor, under D1.1 rules. incidentally, the welders are qualified to 3G.

The consensus of opinion seems to be that a groove WPS will also qualify a fillet in the same process and position so long as the welder is duly qualified, but other positions will need requalification.

Thanks again for your help.

Hugh

By 803056

Date 08-09-2007 00:58

Grooves qualify fillets in both AWS D1.1 and ASME SEcion IX, but the testing per ASME Section IX does not fullfil all the requirements of AWS D1.1. There are three major short falls meeting just ASME requirements:
1) The visual acceptnce criteria of Section IX falls "way" short of AWS
2) Acceptance criteria for the bend tests are less stringent in Section IX
3) ASME doe not require NDT of the test before performing destructive tests.

I have a similar problem on a current project. Qualification and fabrication per ASME, visual criteria per AWS. Things can become very murky very quickly.

Best regards - Al

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 09-05-2016 14:18

Well, at least your question is in the same vein as this old dredged up thread. You really should have just started your own thread.

As to your query: As long as you are comfortable that welding in any position can be accomplished within the welding parameters set on the WPS, it is permissible to include multiple positions in one WPS. Yes, position is, under most codes I believe, an essential variable. But, there are other considerations when determining if they can still be included in one WPS.

Wording such as 'ANY' or 'ALL' is not really a problem.

Now, having said that, most of the time many of us here prefer separate WPS's because if you are giving the welders true and accurate directions on how to accomplish a specific task then you would want to refine the welding parameters between say a flat groove weld which could be welded at considerably higher amps than a vertical weld which would often need lower amps. Especially where trying to keep heat input down.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent