Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Technical Standards & Publications / D 1.1 PQR and WPS
- - By cwi1jr (*) Date 08-13-2009 23:02
Fellas,

I have a contractor that is to supply WPS and PQR for approval. They gave me some today, need your experience here. The WPS is titled aws D 1.1 on a Sec IX form. The PQR's (4) that were submitted for support were all Sec IX.   Can Sec IX support D 1.1? I do not know of cross code support for this. There may be , but I have not found it through my reading or ever seen it before.  Any help is appreciated.

Jason
Parent - By Mikeqc1 (****) Date 08-14-2009 02:07
http://www.aws.org/cgi-bin/mwf/topic_show.pl?pid=140929;hl=use%20asme%20for%20d1.1

check this tread
MDK
Parent - - By motgar (**) Date 08-14-2009 12:31
Jason,

If I can remember right; an AWS PQR needs to be NDT, (UT or RT), before mechanical test.  ASME does not require the same for a PQR.

Double check the position of the PQRs.  ASME PQRs in the 1G, flat, position will usually qualify an ASME WPS for all positions.  AWS PQRs do not.  If the PQR is done in the 1G, then the WPS is qualified for Flat only.

The acceptability of qualifications to other standards are the Engineer's responibility, to be exercised based upon the specific structure, or service conditions, or both.  AWS D1.1:2006 Paragraph 4.1.1.2

Hope that helps.

 
Parent - - By cwi1jr (*) Date 08-14-2009 12:36
PQR's are Sec IX and were in the 6G postion on pipe on P-1 materials.

Jason
Parent - - By motgar (**) Date 08-14-2009 12:51
With 6G PQRs then the qualified positions are good to go.

Still need to verify the NDT prior to mechanical testing, on the PQRs.

Do the PQRs state what the P1 materials are?
Parent - - By cwi1jr (*) Date 08-14-2009 12:56
Motgar,

No the PQR's and WPS read P1 to P1 which covers a wide range.

Jason
Parent - By motgar (**) Date 08-14-2009 13:41
Jason,

I am aware of that.  P1 is not noted that way, in D1.1.  It is Group I, II, III, IV, Table 4.9 steels, and Unlisted.  From those one can determine what materials the PQR covers.

If all the PQR states is P1, then it is difficult to say where it fits.

I know what a P1 means in ASME terms but, unfortunately in AWS world P1 does not mean a whole lot.  A P1 might get you an unlisted which converts into a restriction but, even that is stretching it.  Without a definite material listed on the PQRs then, I would say unacceptable.
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 08-14-2009 14:01
I agree with motgar, have them re-submit a PQR/WPS with an ASTM# listed for the materials, then there is no question as to what materials you are dealing with and where they fit into the scheme of things.
Parent - - By cwi1jr (*) Date 08-14-2009 14:20
Yes, I agree with you on this. I find this to be unacceptable as well.  I don't understand why they don't get a prequalified from AWS and be done with it.

Thanks

Jason
Parent - - By motgar (**) Date 08-14-2009 14:29
Jason,

Excellent point you make about the prequalified route.  Suggest such an option.  Maybe the contractor is more versed in ASME submissions than AWS, and is unaware of such an option.
Parent - By cwi1jr (*) Date 08-14-2009 14:35
I have a prequalified from a previous project which will cover them. Their response was they have their own procedures in place and thats what they will use period.  It's amazing to me.

Jason
Parent - - By Shane Feder (****) Date 08-14-2009 14:35
cwi1jr,
Motgar has given you good advice.
I do not agree with having an AWS D1.1 WPS based on an ASME IX PQR, but the as noted the ultimate decision on acceptibility rests with your Engineer.
Over the years I have seen a lot of different scenarios like this but as long as you have a CYA document from the Engineer then all is good,
Regards,
Shane
Parent - - By cwi1jr (*) Date 08-14-2009 21:13
Gentlemen,

Thank you all for your experience and comments.

Respectfully,

Jason
Parent - By 803056 (*****) Date 08-16-2009 14:34
As a CWI you are required to compared the documents submitted to the requirements of the applicable welding code or standard.

There are significant differences between ASME and AWS. Number one being ASME requires no NDT (RT or UT) of the test coupon before performing the destructive tests. That in itself is sufficient grounds to reject any PQRs qualified to Section IX. Next, the VT criteria of Section IX is all but nonexistant. The weld only needs to have complete fusion, whatever that means. Nothing on workmanship issues such as undercut, face reinforcement, porosity, overlap, etc. are included in ASME Section IX. Again, the absence of adequate visual acceptance criteria is sufficient to establish ASME qualifications don't comply with AWS D1.1. Then comes the bend tests. Section IX simply requires no open discontinuity greater than 1/8 inch. There is no limit on how many open defects are present. AWS D1.1 places a limit on the sum of all open discontinuities. That too is significant.

We haven't begun to compare the essential variable of ASME Section IX to those of AWS D1.1. That is another area where ASME does not comply with the requirements of D1.1. AWS D1.1 requires the WPS to list the voltage, amperage, wire feed speed, travel speed, etc. They are based on the values of the parameters used when the test plates were welded. ASME doesn't require these varibles to be recorded. If they are not on the PQR, how do you write the WPS?

Best regards - Al
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Technical Standards & Publications / D 1.1 PQR and WPS

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill