wps and PQRs

By js55

Date 03-03-2009 21:48

Yes. As long as it is done within the limitations and requirements of the qualifying code.

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 03-04-2009 15:41

I think there are some slight differences between codes. I am guessing ASME

ASME See QW 200.4

By MBSims

Date 03-04-2009 18:27

If this is ASME IX, then the maximum qualified GTAW deposit thickness is only 2 times the GTAW deposit thickness recorded on the PQR. For example, if the PQR base metal thickness was 3/4" and only 1/8" of GTAW thickness was used, then the WPS may only be used for depositing 1/4" of GTAW in a groove weld on base metal thickness up to 1.5". The remainder of the weld would need to be made using a WPS qualified for the remaining weld deposit thickness and base metal thickness. Weld deposit thickness qualified must be treated separately for each welding process recorded in the PQR.

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 03-04-2009 20:22

Hi Marty,
Had a bit of a disagreement with the contractor the other day and hopefully someone on here can clarify please.
PQR submitted for GTAW/SMAW 316 s/s 10.97 mm thick.
GTAW 3.0 mm / SMAW 8.0 mm
Contractor wrote a WPS based on this PQR with only the GTAW portion used and listed base metal thickness as 1.5 to 6 mm as the GTAW portion of the coupon was less than 10 mm (3/8")
However, it is my interpretation that as the test coupon was greater than 10 mm (3/8") the minimum base metal thickness would be 5 mm (3/16") and not 1.5 mm (1/16")
As they were wanting to use it for numerous Sch 10 welds (3.05, 3.40,3.76 mm etc) I felt the WPS was not qualified for those thicknesses.
Am I correct in my interpretation ?
Regards,
Shane

By MBSims

Date 03-05-2009 01:22

My interpretation would be the same based on QW-451. The test coupon thickness falls in the range of "Over 3/8 (10) but less than 3/4 (19)" in QW-451.1, so the minimum thickness of base metal qualified for groove welds would be 3/16 in. (5 mm).

By Nanjing Date 03-05-2009 14:16

Make an engineer out of you yet Shane!

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 03-05-2009 19:39

Then I can move up to a gold bar a week like you and not a bloody bag of rice !!!!

By Nanjing Date 03-06-2009 13:39

Too dangerous paying you a gold bar a week. You might end up in Le Cabaret strip club in Noumea getting led around the stage on a dog's leash then gambling big time at the casino, or maybe even swimming out to the Bodega night club in your underwear because the bouncers won't let you in! Safer on a bag of rice, at least it helps you keep your figure!

By Nanjing Date 03-06-2009 15:48

On a less frivolous note Shane, there appears to be a direct conflict between AWS and ASME on this (please correct me if I am wrong). ASME indicates this is acceptable however AWS does not accept this philosophy to split processes from a PQR and write seperate WPS's (refer to AWS interpretation AWS log I-9/91-10-03). In my opinion this should not be done especially when toughness and hardness requirements are specified. Does not make sense to me.

By Alex Bowman Date 03-08-2009 21:08

having started this thread, I think the summation of opinon is
1) A 2 part WPS can be used which is made up of two processes which each have had a WPS written which has a qualified PQR provided the first part of the two part WPS does not exceed the 2t limit for the original WPS
2) A WPS which was run as a two processes which has a PQR which tested the two process weld does not qualify the first part of the two part WPS in its own right.

I have not been able to find a location in ASE IX where it comes right out and says this

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 03-09-2009 01:11

Its my opinion that the statement

"2) A WPS which was run as a two processes which has a PQR which tested the two process weld does not qualify the first part of the two part WPS in its own right. "

Is not in conjunction with the code. I may be reading it wrong. But thats my opinion. Take a look at interp IX-95-10 also IX-81-03 refers to a single process from multiprocess pqr.

QW200.2(f) may also shed some light on it.

Have a nice day.

Gerald Austin

By Nanjing Date 03-09-2009 13:01

So it is OK to do it on ASME pipework but not on AWS structural work?

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 03-09-2009 13:29

D1.1 does not appear to address it as clearly as ASME Sec IX. I can find no allowance for splitting a multiprocess PQR howver if you take the list of essential variables from each code and keep in mind that those are the rules that govern when requalification is needed. I cannot find anything in eather code that prohibits this.

Para 3.6.1 in D1.1 specifically refers to combining WPS. Thus it would seem that adding a process is not a concern. Note that this is NOT allowed for EGW or ESW process.

It is my opinion that it is allowed by both codes. There just seems to be more data supporting it in ASME Sec IX and D1.1 does provide stipulations regarding EGW and ESW as far as Combining goes.

For some reason I cannot see in my head how EGW or ESW could be combined with another process. But that is another discussion I guess.

I hope this helps. And again, these are only my opinions beased on my experience. An official interpretation would be the most "sure" answer.

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 03-09-2009 20:47

Hi Gerald,
The interpretation that Nanjing noted above (I-9/91-10-03) appears to address the issue quite clearly.
Inquiry: (1) Can one or more welding processes be deleted from a qualified welding procedure in accordance with AWS D1.1, subsection 5.5, if each of the essential variables for each of the remaining processes is maintained ?
Response: (1) No

Inquiry: (2) Based on a qualified welding procedure involving a GMAW root pass, SMAW backweld, and SAW fill and cap passes; (can this WPS) be separated into a component parts to qualify other WPSs, as shown in the Inquiry letter ?
Response: (2) No, the acceptance or rejection of specific WPSs is beyond the authority of the D1 committee

Hope that helps clarify,
Regards,
Shane

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 03-09-2009 20:53

I do agree. I had looked without finding the supporting documentation in the code. I do remember that interpretation and am corrected. However does this question answer this.

Can a pqr that is qualified using more than one process support individual WPS's for each of the processes used provided that each process/wps is used within the range of the variables allowed by the PQR.

Hope that helps clarify my inability to find it in the code. What do you think about the above question ? Do you feel the interpretation answers the question ?

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 03-09-2009 22:21

Hi Gerald,
I don't know if this clarifies or confuses the issue.

Interpretation D1-85-019
Inquiry: Does 5.1.3 permit a welding procedure to be used that combines a welding procedure qualified in accordance with 5.2 for the root of the weld and a prequalified procedure for the remainder of the weld ?

Response: Yes. A combination of qualified or prequalified joint welding procedures may be used without qualification provided the limitation of essential variables applicable to each process is observed.

Based on the two interpretations it appears it is OK to combine WPSs but it is not OK to separate them ???????
Regards,
Shane

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 03-10-2009 04:37

I see what the interpretations say. I guess I am a little slow right now. I just don't see what code paragraphs support the interpretation. I am even having a hard time seeing where D1.1 allows for a PQR to be made up of more than one process.

Can someone point me to either the paragraphs that ALLOW a PQR to be a combination of processes or where splitting of the processes in a PQR is prohibited.

The difficult thing with the D1.1 interpretations is that paragraph numbers have change over the year. Entire SECTIONs have changed. The context of t he interpretation is lost unless one has that year codebook.

Anyone is welcome to straighten me out. Is there are cross reference of the older code interpretations to what current code paragraph they apply to ?

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 03-10-2009 05:15

Gerald,
I only have D1.1 2004 and the statement allowing combination of processes is 3.6.1.
I cannot find any reference to the deletion of processes.
Regards,
Shane

By express21 Date 03-10-2009 22:09

When using prequalified WPS's, write a WPS for SAW the one for FCAW, then combine the processes and write one for FCAW and SAW (Commentary C3.2.1) One of the assumptions of the code is that the only time your going to need to qualify WPS's is for materials not listed in Section 3, joints not listed in Section 3 and Impact Properties, everything else is prequalifed and is a mix and match situation. That's the way I handle these situations, cover all the bases.

With ASME, everything needs to be qualified anyway and they allow WPS's to be developed for asingle process using multiple process PQR's.

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 03-11-2009 01:08

Hello guys,

express21,
You forgot to mention qualification is required for processes ESW, EGW, GTAW and GMAW (S),

We seem to all be in agreement with regards to ASME IX but there is uncertainty over AWS D1.1.
I wonder if we are not seeing the forest for the trees.
Let's try some hypothetical PQRs.
1 GMAW (S) / SMAW
2 GMAW (S) / FCAW
3 GTAW / SMAW
4 GTAW / FCAW
5 GTAW / GMAW
6 SMAW / FCAW
7 SMAW / SAW
8 FCAW / SAW

THE GMAW / SMAW / FCAW / SAW are all prequalified processes so a new WPS can be written up for any of these single processes without qualification.
That leaves us with only GTAW and GMAW (S).

4.15.1 Welding Processes Requiring Qualification states "ESW, EGW, GTAW and GMAW (S) may be used, provided the WPSs are qualified in conformance with the requirements of Section 4."
4.16 WPS Requirement (GTAW) states "Prior to use, the Contractor shall prepare a WPS and qualify each WPS in conformance with the requirements of Section 4."
It is my interpretation that if you have a GTAW / SMAW WPS and you want to use it to write a GTAW WPS it is a new WPS and as such would require qualification testing.

Therefore, my opinion regarding the original posting is if it is ASME IX it is acceptable and if it is D1.1 it is not acceptable.
Regards,
Shane

By Nanjing Date 03-11-2009 13:30 Edited 03-11-2009 13:33

So getting back to my last post on this subject and if we cut out all the pedantic b*ll **** about quoting chapter and verse from various codes, why is it OK in one code and not in another? A piece of steel and a weld is still a piece of steel and weld regardless of the code so the bottom line is why do these codes have radically different philosophy's on this subject? Codes are only used for guidance, sound engineering practice must surely prevail.

By hogan

Date 03-11-2009 14:09

I'm guessing it is service related.

By Nanjing Date 03-11-2009 15:18 Edited 03-11-2009 15:20

Codes that are referenced do not address specific service conditions.

By hogan

Date 03-11-2009 15:44

I thought we were talking about AWS vs ASME?

By Nanjing Date 03-11-2009 15:48

How does a weld know if is is an ASME weld or an AWS weld?

By hogan

Date 03-11-2009 15:54

The engineer tells it.

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 03-11-2009 19:29

Nanjing,
I strongly suggest you take a happy pill or get off the Tsingtao, one or the other.
Regards,
Shane

By Nanjing Date 03-12-2009 13:43

Shane, I am disapointed in you. Tsing Tao never clouds my judgement, only my eyesight. My point is, if you cannot see this is, how can one code condone a simple concept of splitting a PQR and allow the development of separate WPS's for each process whilst another code clearly states it is unacceptable. I have stated I do not agree with this from an engineering perspective and I do agree, with reservations, on the combination of PQR's to produce a WPS. Hogan says the engineer "tells it", what is that supposed to mean? do you understand his explanation? I do not. Please clarify if you do.
I reiterate these codes are only for guidance. Sound engineering for the specific design requirements will always take prescedence over general code requirements.

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 03-12-2009 17:43 Edited 03-12-2009 17:50

Is there a difference between "Stuctural Engineers", "Piping Engineers", "Mechanical Engineers", and "Welding Engineers" ? I don't know. I'm not one. But shouldn't they all have an indepth understanding of the process used to build the products they "Engineer". Is a 1/32" deep undercut in a .375 wall pipe with 1000 PSI in it more or less likely to fail than a bridge component with the same amount ? Thats what engineers do I reckon.

I don't know that the codes are "guidance" as they are silent on many things that may be needed to be addressed for some products and may be overkill on other. They do howver provide a standardized set of requirements to be followed when they are referred to by contract, local, state or federal laws.

I do agree that there are some things that could be standardized. I would think that each "industry sector" has things a certain way for a reason and change is unlikely.

By the way. I would appreciate it if you would refer me to the Clause and Para of D1.1 that "clearly states it is unacceptable".

What would be the engineering reasons that removing one process from a joint could be a problem if the remaining process were also qualified? This is only with the process being qualifed within a range as indicated in the code. It appears you have some engineering background. I am a welder and inspector and would very muchlike an explanation or examples of a situation in which a welding process becomes unsuitable when not mixied with another process. I do know of some that can be a problem when combined though not addressed by most codes.

Thanks in advance for any engineering info you may have or can point me to.

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 03-12-2009 22:49

Nanjing,
Isn't this where you and I started 2 1/2 years ago, firing bullets at each other on an internet welding forum.

I am frankly quite surprised with your stance on this subject, the difference between a Structural Steel Code and a Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code is immense - Chalk and Cheese is probably an understatement.

As far as I am aware there are not many people who sit on both the AWS and the ASME committees and they are all human beings with opinions so that is what codes are based on. The concensus of that committee based on their collective knowledge and experience.

Let's take a slightly different tack and I will try not to quote any "pedantic bulls..t."
ASME IX and BS/EN 288 Pt 3 are the American and British / European codes for the qualification of Welding Procedures. If you qualify to piping the diameter of the coupon is an essential variable to BS/EN and a non essential variable to ASME. Does the BS/EN committee know something that the ASME committee doesn't ?

ASME IX and BS/EN 287 Pt 1 are the American and British / European codes for Welder Qualification. If you qualify to ASME IX on carbon steel it qualifies you from P1 to P11 inclusive. If you qualify to BS/EN 287 on carbon it does not qualify you for austenitic stainless or duplex, they must be separate qualifications. Does the BS/EN committee know something that the ASME committee doesn't ?

A weld is a weld - depends what country it is welded in ? Apparently the mechanical / metallurgical properties of a weld change dependant on where the weld is being performed.
A welder is a welder - depends what country he is welding in ? Apparently the welders ability changes dependant on where he is conducting the weld.

As you are well aware there are huge differences between similar piping, tank, vessel and structural codes around the world so why should it be surprising at all that there are major differences between a Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and a Structural Code.

On another subject, quite a few of the guys are looking to head to a major Mobil Refinery Project (approx 4 years) in Singapore. Sound interesting to you or are you still having a ball in China ?
Cheers,
Shane

By Nanjing Date 03-13-2009 14:46

Shane, Shane Shane, O me miserum! EN 288-3 allows you to qualify a welding procedure on plate in one position to cover all positions on plate or pipe, refer section 8.4.2 first paragraph however if there is hardness or impact requirements then the difference in heat input must be acommodated by qualifying in the lowest and highest heat input positions, common sense. ASME does not consider a change in diameter a major consideration however it does recognise that if impact testing is required then a change in welding position becomes a supplementary essential variable (QW 405.2). ASME does no address hardness requirements (or I have missed it). From this you can see that both EN and ASME that, when impact testing is not required then it is not essential to qualify on pipe. Regarding qualification of welders to ASME you state the range of materials is P1 thru P1 if you qualify on carbon steel. This is however a bit misleading. The code also requires that the welder tests to a qualified WPS therefore the consumable will further restrict the welders qualification. I think what you mean here is in the European principle, in particular GTAW, a welder qualified using F6 filler can weld a wide range of materials and that the American standard is more restrictive. Really, is there such a radical difference, remember I said radical difference, for example when welding a carbon steel material with a stainless GTAW wire in a test compared to welding a stainless material with a stainless consumable in production? General philosophy on essential variables for the welding consumables for the welders test is pretty much the same so no big difference.
Getting back to my original statement, a piece of steel and a weld is still a piece of steel, the only thing that changes is the use it is put to. The basic mechanical requirements are the same in codes from different countries, a couple of tensiles and some bends. My question was how can two codes differ so much in a basic concept, that is one allows splitting procedures and allowing separate WPS's to be drafted for each process whilst the other does not? It seems such a fundamental difference. If I qualify a welding procedure using GTAW on say a 10mm wt pipe and fill/cap with 4mm SMAW electrodes and the deposited weld metal thickness is 5mm for the GTAW does that mean I can weld this pipe fully only with GTAW and drop the SMAW? If there is a NACE hardness requirement how do I know the hardness is acceptable when I use GTAW on it's own?

On the last subject FWEL has been in touch about Singapore but I think tax will be a killer there. Want to go?

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 03-16-2009 02:45

Nanjing,
Adversus solem ne loquitor.

I feel ridiculous disagreeing with you over the BS/EN codes because you have probably forgotten more than I will ever know.
However, you leave me no choice but resort to pedantic bulls#*t.
In my first statement, I made no mention of WPSs and plate, the statement was regarding diameters.
EN 288-3 Table 6 shows a test coupon of under 6" qualifies you from 0.5D to 2 x D / 6" and above qualifies you for 0.5D and above.
So a 2" (60.3 mm OD) coupon will only qualify you for 30 to 120 mm. That means you cannot weld 15 (1/2'), 20 (3/4") or 125 (5") nb pipe with that WPS.
Go down in size to cover the 15 and 20 pipes and you now are too low for the 80 nb (3") and 100 nb (4").
32 nb (1 1/4") will only cover you from 15 nb (1/2") to 65 nb (2 1/2")
There appears to be no way to get full coverage between 1/2" and 6" with one WPS as with ASME IX.
ASME IX has no requirements for diameter so it appears the BS/EN committee is much more stringent.

On the second point you have got my statement on Welder Quals @ss about face, the European code is much more restrictive.
If I weld a P1 coupon GTAW to ASME IX it covers me for Carbon, Chromolly, S/S and Duplex.
If I weld a Group 1,2 or 3 Carbon Steel GTAW to EN 287 Part 1 I am not qualified for Chromolly, S/S or Duplex. Additional tests are required to qualify to these materials.
Again the BS/EN committee appears much more stringent.

The list of differences between the countries / codes are numerous, I just picked a couple to try and clarify my statement.

I cannot give an answer as to why the two American codes differ other than my original statement that it is probably based on past experience / knowledge from the various committee members.

Third point - both the portable magnets with the 12 volt batteries have died, did you purchase them and if so do you remember where you get them from ?

And finally, yes Singapore sounds good, are you thinking of going ?
Cheers,
Shane

By Nanjing Date 03-16-2009 15:36

Shane, 4th paragraph of your post on the 12th states:

"ASME IX and BS/EN 288 Pt 3 are the American and British / European codes for the qualification of Welding Procedures. If you qualify to piping the diameter of the coupon is an essential variable to BS/EN and a non essential variable to ASME. Does the BS/EN committee know something that the ASME committee doesn't ?"

I replied this is not the case if there is no impact tests or hardness requirements so under EN specifications you can qualify on plate same as ASME.

On welders qualifications you stated:

"ASME IX and BS/EN 287 Pt 1 are the American and British / European codes for Welder Qualification. If you qualify to ASME IX on carbon steel it qualifies you from P1 to P11 inclusive...". I agree but I think the point I was making was there was further restrictions with welding consumables in the American codes eg change from F4 to F5 electrodes or deletion of backing gas for the GTAW process which tightens things up further.
I do understand there are major differences and I do know America and Europe have looked at a way forward in harmonisation of welding standards for obvious mutual benefit and clearly, as you mentioned, differences in welder qualification and procedures are a major problem. We have both arrived at arbitrary figures over the years through experience and it is clear that it would be very difficult for any one of us to give up there way of working and adopt someone else's. However I am sure that everything is based, in the majority, on sound engineering practice.

I think I oredered the magnets from somewhere in the States but I cannot remember where, perhaps purchasing can help.

I got another e-mail from FW today looks like they are desperate for people for Singapore (must be if they are in touch with me!) Not interested at the moment, how about you? Still working on an opportunity to get you out to (Shanghai) Director is an Aussie, can you pass yourself off as one? (you all sound the same to me!).

Anyway, remember well, "Aquila non captat muscas".

NKG