In most respects NAVSEA TP248 is more stringent than ASME Section IX. For instance; volumetric NDT is required before any mechanical testing is performed, as is either MT or PT, the bend test results are more stringent, the tensile test results are the similar, but the samples are smaller for ASME. The visual criteria for NAVSEA TP248 references MIL-STD-2035A, which is much more stringent that anything found in ASME Section IX (I always figured the section on VT included in Section IX to be inserted by a jokester like Bob Hope maybe).
The one thing that can get you into a fix is the base metal P numbers and the groupings if toughness is an issue. There are not that many ASTM materials listed in NAVSEA TP248 or TP278. So, a WPS qualified to NAVSEA TP248 may not have been qualified using a listed P-numbered material included in ASME Section IX. You also have to consider additional restrictions or requirements that may be imposed by the construction code, i.e., Section VIII, B31.X, etc. They can have serious implications on how the WPS is qualified and what the WPS is qualified for under the construction code. Another thing to keep in mind; the filler metal used to qualify the NAVSEA WPS was most likely procured to a NAVSEA FM specification, whereas the filler metal for the ASME must be to ASME/AWS unless you are restricting the FM to the one used for qualification.
It can get pretty messy very quickly unless you know both NAVSEA and ASME very well and you are very careful in selecting the materials and how the procedures are qualified. I definitely would not try to combine both ASME and NAVSEA into a single WPS.
Best regards - Al
I would have expected your final advice. It is the case with AWS and API as well. I keep my ASME, AWS, and API procedures seperate. I suppose there is a way to blend them, but I do not have the time nor inclination to discover it. API would be most difficult. Though it would most definately be a two tiered learning experience. And even if you could, those evaluating your procedures would see things they are not used to and you would be dealing with constant questions, challenges, and Job Specific clarifications/addenda. The pain would not end.
Every time we make a decision, or not, to expand into a new market we undego this very same thought process. What can we use that we already have and what can we not use. The inevitable choice is that if you wish to play you have to pay.
As always, I really appreciate the wealth of wisdom you guys bring to the table. Our shop builds in accordance to NAVSEA and ASME. Some of the welders are qualified to NAVSEA and some of the guys to ASME. I got to thinking, "I wonder if the men with the NAVSEA qualification could work on some of these ASME jobs that are getting ready to kick off here soon?" I know the guys with ASME qualification can work on NAVSEA weldments with the proper approval, but what about vice versa. So I went digging in ASME Sec IX and could only really find what was said in QW-100.3 and it didn't really talk about different governing codes. Now I'm here asking the heavy hitters. ;-) Again, I really appreciate the help. This deffineltly cleared things up for me.
Regards,
Ray C.
Forum
