I just finished reading this thread and find it interesting to say the least.
No mention of the nature of the base metals being welded has been offered or I may be simply missing it.
The application doesn't have to be for a pressure retaining system to require qualification per ASME Section IX. It may be a case where the purchaser is using Section IX as a means of obtaining a comfort level that the welders are qualified in a systematic manner. I'm not sure that I would have elected ASME Section IX if that is the sole purpose, but it is what it is.
I would simply categorize the base metals generically as carbon steel, high strength low alloy, nickel, copper, nickel copper, copper nickel, heat treatable aluminum, non-heat treatable aluminum, etc. I would not try to group them into P-numbers for the purpose of welder qualification.
Again, without a PQR, none was mentioned in the post, there is no way this application can be for pressure retaining systems. ASME Section IX would only be used as the mechanism or approach used to qualify the welders with regards to the number of bends, radiographic requirements, positions, etc.
Again, limited information offered, limited replies given.
It's good to see that we have our best minds working on this. I mean it as a complement gentlemen. I view you as our ASME experts as I'm sure everyone else does as well. Hope you are going to the welding show. If you are interested in getting together, drop me an e-mail.
Best regards - Al
803056, with all due respect, these are heat-resisting steels and nickel based alloys, as mentioned. I appreciate that using ASME IX does not necessarily have to pertain to a pressurised system, but as you quite rightly point out, in my world of pressurised systems, I failed to specify that we are in fact talking about one (and a PQR of course). But despite this, I have to say; I think the replies are far from limited; this has been a good brainstorming session to say the least!
Getting back to the original question (with pressurised system addressed), I fear it would be very risky to assume that generic categorisation is OK. We have a grey area here for those (albeit few) producers of proprietary materials and fabricators alike. In our company, qualifying the welder performance on every proprietary combination is how it has always been done and things are it seems unnecessarily complicated. As fresh blood, we are just looking for ways to simplify things a little.
Many thanks to you guys. I will have more questions to air shortly.
Best Regards
Sim
I completely agree. If you are designing or fabricating a pressurized system that has to be compliant with the ASME B&PV codes, you are bound by their requirements. Any WPS utilizing an unlisted base metal would have to be qualified and the welders qualified with the base metal listed by the WPS/PQR.
As I stated in my reply, some companies reference ASME Section IX as a rational basis of qualifying their welders. They are not fabricating vessels or systems that have to meet any specific codes, so they are not constrained by code requirements and have considerable latitude in design and fabrication. However, using ASME Section IX as a basis of welder qualification provides their customers with a certain level of comfort to know the welders are qualified by standardized tests and methods of evaluation.
Life does get complicated when the contractor elects to use an unlisted base metal or filler metal in a code compliant environment. The combinations of several unlisted base metals and unlisted filler metals could keep a welding engineer busy just managing the paperwork.
Best regards - Al