Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / ASME Codes / Welding Procedure and Performance qualification
- - By kamal_welding Date 12-14-2011 07:39 Edited 01-09-2012 10:44
Thanks
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 12-14-2011 12:19
Welcome to the forum Kamal

My opinion is that for the quality of your work and the safety of your plant that you should qualify your own procedures in order to prove that you can make the welds competently with your new staff.  This you should do whether or not you *can* get around it via the code.
Parent - - By Shane Feder (****) Date 12-14-2011 12:43
Kamal,
Lawrence has given you a good response based on ethics / sound judgement but the baseline is no, you cannot comply with the code based on your request.

QW-100.1 A Welding Procedure Specification (WPS)
is a written document that provides direction to the welder
or welding operator for making production welds in accordance
with Code requirements. Any WPSs used by a manufacturer
or contractor that will have responsible operational
control of production welding shall be a WPS that has
been qualified by that manufacturer or contractor in accordance
with Article II
, or it shall be an AWS Standard
Welding Procedure Specification (SWPS) listed in Appendix
E and adopted by that manufacturer or contractor in
accordance with Article V.

There are a lot more clauses explaining why you can't but I have just copied and pasted the first one.

Unfortunately, you are going to have to qualify your own PQR/WPS's if you require welding to be done on your plant.
Regards,
Shane
Parent - - By nantong (**) Date 12-21-2011 13:10
Shane, I just cannot see any technical justification in this. If a client gets his plant built. which will be built under his technical and quality requirements and at the end of the day pays for procedure qualifications why cannot he use these procedures for repair and maintenance where applicable.

This to me is akin to the ludicrous situation that we have in the EU where pressure equipment must comply with the European Deirective which came into law in the UK as Statutory Instrument SI 1999 2001 if my memory is correct. Up until that date we used ASME in the offshore industry with no problems. 80356 says what happens if something goes boom! Well in Europe if the vessels for example low-alloyed had been made in the US to ASME and were welded by welders qualified on P1 material then this would have been found to be illegal in the EU as it does not comply with EU harmonised standards. Note, not a code contravention but a legal contravention od the EU 27 member states.
What a load of nonsense. Is ASME's idea a form of protectionism?
Parent - By Shane Feder (****) Date 12-22-2011 03:01
Nantong,
No, it is not ASME protectionism.
This is an excerpt from "your" code.

EN ISO 15614-1:2004(E)
8.2 Related to the manufacturer
A qualification of a pWPS by a welding procedure test according to this standard obtained by a manufacturer is
valid for welding in workshops or sites under the same technical and quality control of the manufacturer.

Welding is under the same technical and quality control when the manufacturer who performed the welding
procedure test retains complete responsibility for all welding carried out to it.

How is that different to ASMEs requirements ?

What is ludicrous is the Australian codes allowing transfer of WPS's (both pressure and structural) between different companies with no control of anything - you can buy an AS 3992 (pressure piping) WPS over the internet.
I audited a small company in North West Australia for a cross country water pipeline and Company A in Adelaide (thousands of miles away) had qualified a piping PQR - they wrote a WPS for Company B and e-mailed it to Company B and voila ! Company B has a code compliant WPS.
I discussed the WPS with Company B (there were errors on the WPS) and they didn't have a clue.
Basically the Water Corporation Specification said welding must be in accordance with AS 3992 so Company B went out and bought a WPS.
How do they ensure their welders conform to the WPS when they don't even understand it - it is just an expensive piece of paper ???
Regards,
Shane
Parent - - By Leandro Sabino Date 12-15-2011 02:16 Edited 12-19-2011 17:00
.
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 12-15-2011 03:04
Leandro, you have made nice contributions so far, however I think bringing the issue of Operational Control will lead to confusion by the original poster.

The short answer is "NO" the Client may NOT use the Contractors WPS' or PQRs.

Now, to make this a bit less clear... if working under SOME ASME Codes (for example B31.3) the Code may permit using WPS "qualified by others" PROVIDED some rules are followed that are prescribed in that Code.

Having said that, the short answer is usually "NO."

SWPS, as described in ASME IX and other ASME Sections are useful but have many limitations.
Parent - - By kamal_welding Date 12-16-2011 09:07 Edited 01-09-2012 10:45
Thanks
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 12-16-2011 16:52 Edited 12-16-2011 17:02
There should be no problem with using another contractor's WPSs until something goes BOOM! Then everyone pays; some with their life, some with money, and some with disfiguring injuries.

When it comes to money/time, all means of saving money/time can be justified when corporate gang intellect kicks in. I've seen it many times and in a few cases it was grievous enough to cause me to step back and hand in my resignation.

Of course when something does go BOOM, all those involved in making the money/time saving decision suddenly are stricken with amnesia. It was always someone else's stupid decision, after all, anyone reading the code would see that "XXX" isn't permitted.

Using the code isn't like the class in interpritive reading you took while in school. The code says what it says for a reason.

Before making a decision, ask yourself if your decision is defensible based on what the code actually says rather than what you wished it said. If you have to stretch to make the code "fit" your reasoning, your decision isn't a good one.

Good luck with your new job. You'll be looking for one as soon as the crap hits the fan (and it will) while you are the one holding the bag.

Al
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 12-19-2011 04:43
Agree, however also throwing in the wild card that "the Code(s)" as we know them are often not jurisdictional and sometimes not even design requirements so there are occassions when a little slip and slide happens.
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 12-19-2011 15:19
You are absolutely correct Jon, when a code isn't required by law or contract, all bets are off.

It reminds me of a project where I was hired to examine some welds that didn't look too good. The project specification simple stated "all welds are to meet first class workmanship standards."

I told my client that "first class workmanship was in the eyes of the beholder. There was no code I was aware of that defines what first class workmanship was." I further explained that as a CWI I was not in a position to impose a code or workmanship requirements. I further told the client that it wasn't something he could unilaterally impose after the fact. A code or welding standard or the project specification should have defined the workmanship requirements. As the inspector, I needed to judge the welds against the owner defined requirements.

The client was somewhat dismayed and said that as an inspector I should know what a good weld looks like and the contractor certainly should know what a good weld looks like.

I pulled out a couple of codes and showed him how the acceptance criterion for each was different.

He looked bewildered.

This was not a mom and pop project. It was a large multi-million dollar federally funded public works project where you would expect the engineers and architects to know how to develop a project specification.

Life as an inspector is always interesting.

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By fschweighardt (***) Date 12-19-2011 19:22
I never expect the engineers and architects to know anything about project specification development. 

I was just helping a new guy with a very simple piping project.  I asked him what kind of pipe did he want to use.  All he knew based on the info given to him was 1" Stainless S40. 

He started to cry a little bit when I intoduced him to ASTM A312, ANSI/ASME B36.19, B16.5, B16.9, B16.11, B31.3,...

Then the internal specifications, for cleaning threading lubricants, lateral expansion requirements for cryogenic service, county of origin,...   Some specific editions called out by year, some by "most current". 

Oh, yeah, don't forget documentation of products acquired to any and all of the above.

Then I told him, you have about 40% of purchasing the stuff done, where are you on design and inspection?

He was crying quite a lot at this point, and I didn't even talk about welding paperwork.

Ahh well, live and learn, that's what I had to do
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 12-20-2011 04:19
Ouch!

Al
Parent - - By fschweighardt (***) Date 12-20-2011 13:22
Sometimes it is kinda nice working to somebody else's specs, because they have done all of the grim detail work.  We had a job for a major oil company that was a piece of pipe about 7 feet long with 3 or 4 welds and the project spec came to 2 2" binders fairly full (printed on 1 side)  It took about a week to go through it and a detailed e-mail and a conference call every day for 3 days, but there were no surprises when we were done.  Funniest thing about it was at the end of the week the EOR (an engineering company) said "Wow, you guys really read that thing."  We said: "We thought that's why you sent it to us."
Parent - - By Joey (***) Date 12-23-2011 06:14
Hi All

The answer to OP can also be "YES". Considering that this case is a maintenance work, you may refer to API 577 RP.

API 577 says "ASME B31.3 allows welding procedure qualification by others, provided it is acceptable to the inspector and meets certain conditions.

Please refer to B31.3 "Clause 328.2.2 Procedure Qualification by Others"

"Merry Christmas"

~Joey~
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 12-27-2011 14:38 Edited 12-27-2011 14:46
Unless I am missing something, we do not know what type of "Plant" this is.

How do we know whether API 577 RP has any bearing on this project?

There are a lot of details that have not been provided by the individual posting the question.

While API 577 RP may reference B31.3, there is no reference to API in B31.3. It isn't a two way street.

As a matter of fact, we do not know what construction code is applicable, i.e., API 1104, Section 1, Section VIII, B31.1, B31.3, etc. All we know is the question was posted under the heading of ASME. If our assumption is that the plant was built to ASME requirements, all we can assume is that ASME Section IX applies. We don't know how or what or if the requirements of Section IX have been modified until we know what construction code(s) is applicable.

The supposition that API 577 RP has any relevance is a reach. I could just as well make reference to FC2002 with the same validity. From reading the initial post I would recommend FC2002 as being the most reasonable alternative to ASME for this project now that it is in operation.

I believe FC2002 is still in print. It can be purchased for a nominal fee that is a fraction of the cost of any of the API or ASME standards.

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By Joey (***) Date 12-29-2011 10:28
Not familiar with FC2002. Is this applicable to all type of plant?

If let say the construction codes used in petroleum / chemical plant were B31.3, ASME VIII, will you recommend the use of FC2002 for welding repair activities of piping or vessel that have been placed in service? In-service inspection, repair or alteration during maintenance work are covered by API 510 & 570. And welding procedure during maintenance work is covered by Section IX but API 577 provides guidance on how to review of weld procedures, welding performance qualifications and how to respond to welding non-conformances.

~Joey~
Parent - By Lawrence (*****) Date 12-29-2011 17:00
Joey

You are like a fat trout in a clear river...

FC2002 = Farm Code 2002

It's an expression of how things are done at the farm, when nobody is looking..

There is an actual copy of this thing linked in the forum somewhere..  Maybe one of the other fellows will share it and you can share in the joke.
Parent - - By Joey (***) Date 12-30-2011 06:48
Interesting :lol: thanks

Happy New Year

~Joey~
Parent - - By jrw159 (*****) Date 12-30-2011 10:45
Same to you Joey. :wink:

jrw159
Parent - - By welderbrent (*****) Date 12-30-2011 13:00
Hey John,

Happy New Year and best wishes to you and the family.

Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - - By jrw159 (*****) Date 12-30-2011 16:28
Brent,
  Same to you and yours!! Pictures soon to come of the brand new Grand Baby born last night!!

jrw159
Parent - - By welderbrent (*****) Date 12-30-2011 19:34
Man, if she could have held on for two days she might have had the first baby of 2012!!!  LOL!!  Like any pregnant woman wants to wait any longer than absolutely necessary.

Congrats Grandpa.

Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - By kamal_welding Date 01-01-2012 05:43
Friends,

WISH YOU ALL A VERY HAPPY NEW YEAR.
- - By DannyAgudelo (*) Date 04-08-2018 21:57
Hello,

im trying to understand the correct use of WPS and PQR and have a couple of questions.

1. Can a WPS with a PQR differ from a code or standard. For example AWS D1.1, up to my understanding doesnt approve of the use of e6010 on structural welds. If a WPS were to be written and the PQR used to back it up tested on a specimen that was welded going against the AWS D1.1 and it met the mechanical requirements, could it then be used. Can a WPS backed by a PQR that contradict a code be used? Is it allowed?

2. How is the range of thickness qualified by  PQR obtained. For example if a PQR was made using 3/4 inch plate, how is the range of thickness that will be qualified by this PQR determined?

Thank you
Parent - - By Steelslinger (**) Date 04-09-2018 11:57
Please post once.

Responded to your other post.
Parent - - By Maggs47 (**) Date 04-09-2018 14:25
Once

:wink:
Parent - By Steelslinger (**) Date 04-09-2018 17:45
:lol:
- By Marinel Date 04-27-2018 10:22
Could someone tell me if SAW welding equipment brand and model is an essential variable for a PQR?
And if we use the machine in a different configuration, but keeping the same torch orientation, the same control panel, the same welding torch, the same welding equipment, same brand and model, can we use the same PQR?
- By Kanan Date 07-31-2018 13:52
Dear Engineers how I know flange to flange welding it is not correct. For welding two flanges we must use a piece of a pipe. But could you say me, from which standards I can take information about a minimum distance between to flanges?
Up Topic Welding Industry / ASME Codes / Welding Procedure and Performance qualification

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill