American Welding Society Forum
I need to know if I am correct qualyfing my WPS in plate (16 mm thicknes) in all position to weld production 30" pipe ? What is the range thickness qualify?
sorry for my english
Mauricio Ibarra E. CHILE
You need to supply more information. Specifically code(s) you are trying to meet and process(es). Generally codes allow you to claim 2 times the deposit.
I am trying to meet the AWS D1.1 code and the process are :
root pass: SMAW, E 6010
cover and finish pass: FCAW, E71T-1/CO2
As you can see in the table 4.1 of AWS D1.1-98, the qualification test on plate using complete penetration joints in grooves also qualifies production pipe welding for circunferential welds in nominal outer diameters equal to or greater than 24" (you have 30"), as you can write in the note 2; however you must to do qualification tests in 2G, 3G and 4G for make welds on pipes without rotate it. The qualification thickness on plate, pipe or tube, as Mr Neal says, is 2T where T is the thickness of your qualification coupon, I mean T=16mm for you, then you may weld thicknesses up to 32mm (Table 4.2 of the code).
I hope this help you.
I used an incorrect word, please, replace "as you can READ in the note 2" instead WRITE.
Thanks for your answer:
What happened with the two process? How can I qualify them? Is the same as ASME IX?
You need to read the discussion posted by JNAP about "process essential variable" and the response by JFALK. It was posted on July 5th. AWS D1.1 seems to be very silent about multiple welding processes in the same welding procedure. I agree with the conclusions of JFALK and would suggest that you follow ASME Section IX for the limitations for each of the weld metal layers for each welding process. With ASME it is the weld metal thickness that controls instead of the base metal thickness.
Thanks for the reply:
About ASME IX, is it enough to qualify one position, either plate or pipe, to qualify the procedure in all position? Why this code allow this? Why is very different in comparison to AWS D1.1?
That is a good question. The code committee membership and philosophy is probably the reason.
The ASME approach is sound as they rely on welder qualification to address the influence of position on the weld. Case in point is a GMAW Spray procedure may claim overhead but I seriously doubt if you will find a welder qualification to support it.
The AWS approach is slightly more costly is some regards but it will lead the Welding Engineer to address performance issues in the development stage.
Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill