D1.1 Sec.IX

By Kix

Date 02-06-2008 18:10

Good question! I'm interested to hear some feedback on this as well for future reference.

By 803056

Date 02-07-2008 04:46

A couple of questions comes to mind:
Did the welder follow a qualified WPS (not prequalified) when he tested to AWS?
Was the base metal specification included as an approved base metal per ASME?

If the answer to either question is "no", there is a problem.

Best regards - Al

By Jim Hughes (***)

Date 02-07-2008 17:55

Al,
so are you saying that if the welder qualified to a qualified AWS procedure (not prequalified) that he/she is qualified to weld on ASME attachments? Would you be able to elaborate?

Jim

By 803056

Date 02-07-2008 23:27

The testing regiment for qualifying the welding procedure to AWS D1.1 is more stringent than ASME Section IX. So if it is documented correctly and the proper materials were used for the base metal, it could easily be applied to ASME.

Likewise, if the welders followed the properly documented (and supported by the PQR) WPS to take their welder performance tests, again assuming the proper materials were used, they could meet ASME Section IX requirements as well.

This is not the case if the company utilized a "prequalified WPS" as permitted by AWS D1.1. If the welder followed a prequalified WPS, he is not qualified to weld to ASME Section IX regardless of the test results.

This is a house of cards. The foundation is the WPS that is qualified by testing. On the foundation sits the first story, i.e., the WPS, and on top of it all is the roof, the welder performance test. If the foundation fails, everything tumbles down. If the WPS fails, the welder qualification is invalid.

Best regards - Al

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 02-08-2008 03:16

I don't see any reason why not provided

1) The welding test was performed within the variable ranges of an ASME WPS
2) The test welds were visually inspected and acceptable within the requirements of ASME Sec IX
3) the applicable mechanical tests or Radiography were performed in accordance with the requirements of ASME Sec IX a
4) and all of that was documented and accepted by the manufacturer and the applicable ranges of qualification reflected the ranges of ASME Sec IX.

If the persons test was performed without the above, there is no provision in ASME Sec IX that allows a welder qualified under another code to weld.

Have a nice day

Gerald Austin
http://weldingdata.com/

By GRoberts (***)

Date 02-08-2008 20:44

Are you talking about groove welder qualifications, or fillet welder qualifications? Fillet welder qualifications present a problem since AWS requires the fillet weld test plate to be 1/2" thick, and ASME requires the fillet weld test plate to be 3/8" thick or thinner (QW-452.5)

By Jim Hughes (***)

Date 02-11-2008 12:59

Yes groove. I have had AI's tell me in the past that a AWS welder cert was not acceptable for ASME boiler work. I always thought it was due to the positions qualified. 2 position verses 3 position. Is that the only reason?

By waynekoe (**)

Date 02-11-2008 16:31

I believe the answer you may be looking for is in section 4 of D1.1, and it may be stated in ASME, I don't know. But, 4.3.2.1 Previous Performance Qualification that welder qualifications to other standards may be accepted with the Engineers approval. I'm not familiar with the different pipe standards, since I mainly work to AWS, but, all the specs and general notes that I deal with specify the welders to be qualified specificly to D1.1. If the specs were to say "to be qualified to section IX", then everyone would have to be retested to that standard, regardless of the project type, unless you submitted the certs to the engineer and he/she says they don't mind.

By 803056

Date 02-12-2008 05:02

As I said Jim, qualification to ASME is a house of cards. Everything depends on the original PQR.

AWS allows for prequalified welding procedures, i.e., no PQR, thus a welder qualified to a prequalified WPS (per AWS D1.1) falls short.

Best regards - Al

By ctacker (****)

Date 02-12-2008 05:22

thats how i see it too, we did the testing on a prequalified strictly for testing welders to ASME and D1.1. and our performance quals state they are certified to ASME and D1.1.
but the testing we do only certifies them for F & V under ASME and F,H &V under D1.1.
once a welder gets in the door and shows he can weld we give them more tests as the need arises!

By 803056

Date 02-12-2008 15:25 Edited 02-12-2008 15:28

Ctacker, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by a prequalified for welder qualification. "Prequalified" what?

You can not use just any "prequalified" WPS (per AWS D1.1) to qualifiy welders for ASME work. Unless it is an AWS Standard WPS qualified to B2.1 and listed as an approved SWPS by ASME, your welders are not qualified to ASME Section IX.

However, if the WPS was qualified by testing, i.e., you have a PQR to back up the WPS used to qualify your welders, your welders may be qualified per ASME provided the base metals used were also included as either ASME P or S numbered base metal specifications. If they were not listed base metals, you may still have "limited" qualifications.

You have to be very careful when you try to qualify welding procedures or welders to multiple welding standards.

Best regards - Al

By ctacker (****)

Date 02-12-2008 15:43

Al,
what i meant was I have the PQR tested,(tensiles and bends) for ASME and it falls under "prequalified" status under D1.1
and yes, because it was tested to ASME IX it lists the P numbers for base metals. so when my welders test to that WPS they are testing under ASME IX and D1.1 as it states on the WQTR!

By 803056

Date 02-12-2008 16:00

That's what I wanted to hear. Now I can go back to work with a clear conscience.

Best regards - Al

By Jim Hughes (***)

Date 02-12-2008 19:08

Thanks for everyone replies. I believe I'm right where I started. You might save a little money by giving a D 1.1 test but then it is a managment issue of making sure that person or persons only welds in the positions qualified. It's better to give the Sec. IX test and be done with it.

Thanks
Jim Hughes