I have a shop order for fabrication of an item made from Ph13-8Mo and the applicable specification is AWS D17.1; the drawing requirement is to heat treat the part to condition H1050 after welding is completed. We have an AWS B2.1 qualified procedure on file to GTAW weld 13-8 using an ER630 filler BUT it was qualified based on welding in annealed condition with no post weld treatment. The project engineer was told that we will have to qualify another procedure wherein we perform a post weld solution treat and aging to prove we can achieve the required H1050.
I was advised by my management that the engineer will allow us to deliver the equipment in as-welded condition and he (the engineer in charge) will make seperate arrangements to outsource the Q&T operation.
As long as we have permission by the engineer in charge to deliver the "as-welded" article, is this permissible from Code point of view?
Tom,
If the EOR puts it in writing and signs it, I would think you would be releived of it. IMHO
jrw159
In most AWS codes, the EOR can approve deviations from the code. However, as far as your deviation, having your costomer perform the PWTH just changes the "violation" of an essentail variable from your shop to his shop. The weld should be qualified for the condition in which it is put into service. I used to have to qualify welding procedures with extra PWHT time (when CVNs are required in Section IX work), so that when our customer would do PWHT, they would not invalidate our PQR. It is not uncommon to do that, but the customer has to be sharp enough to know that you need the information on what happens to your weld in their shop.
Tom
The D17.1:2001 Section 4.4 refers to the "Engineering Authority" several times and when it does it gives the EA the authority to make the calls.
In that Section, phrases like "the final decision...shall be at the discretion of the Engineering Authority." (4.4.1); "unless specified by the Engineering Authority." (4.4.2); "as deemed applicable by the Engineering Authority." (4.4.3); "The Engineering Authority shall provide...(4.4.4); "at the sole discretion of the Engineering Authority." (4.4.5).
Just curious, but was your shop order revised to reflect the "Engineering Authority's" current direction? It is rare that such directives from EORs do not come with some paperwork (an RFI, revised shop order, etc.) to reduce the fabricator's risk.
ziggy
Zig-
That engineer reviewed our WPS (the one qualified w/o pwht) and approved it for use (in writing) on the shop order. We will deliver it in the as-welded condition per direction.
I particularly favor the suggetion by GRoberts that " The weld should be qualified for the condition in which it is put into service" but the Codes don't specifically say that is necessary. To me that is the essence of why we qualify any procedure, but as was pointed out, the engineer has final authority.
Thanks
Topic American Welding Society Services / Technical Standards & Publications / Splitting Code Requirements
