The act of welder performance qualification is simply a demonstration that the welder can deposit sound weld. What is permitted when qualifying the welder may not be the way the production weld is made. For instance, ASME Section IX allows the contractor to substitute one base metal for another when qualifying welders. It is permitted to substitute carbon steel in place of austenitic stainless steel coupons, or even nickel based alloys as long as the F-number is not affected. This provision can save money and time for the contractor. The welding arc isn't all that intelligent; rarely does the arc perceive the differences between low carbon steel and low alloy steel or austenitic stainless steel for that matter. The real difference is the cost of test coupons. The difference from a welder's skill perspective is negligible (at least in the eyes of the Section IX committee).
As for the WPS; the WPS used for performance qualification need not be the same as that used for the production weld. If the welder qualifies using one WPS the ranges of the welder's qualifications can be very broad. QW-424 allows the contractor to substitute a base metal with a different P-number from that listed by the WPS used to qualify the welder. In short, even if the WPS specifies the use of a P8 base metal, QW-424 allows the welder to use P1 coupons. Qualifying with one P-numbered base metal qualifies the welder for a range of P-numbered base metals. In a similar manner a welder that passes the performance test with a F4 filler metal is also qualified to weld with F3, F2, and F1 within the limitations imposed by Table QW-433. ASME does not include the tensile strength of the filler metal as an essential variable, so a welder qualified using E7018 is permitted to weld with any SMAW electrode having minimum specified tensile strength of 60 ksi, 70 ksi, 80, ksi, 90 ksi, etc.
Regarding the evaluation of the test coupon by RT; it is permitted to use either RT or guided bend tests to evaluate the welder's test coupon. The scenario may change if the welder is being qualified for work performed in accordance with ASME B31.3 and the piping is categorized as "High Pressure Fluid Service" and bend testing is required. Bend testing is more difficult when the substitution of one base metal for another may affect the properties of elongation.
The bottom line is that your friend probably did not violate ASME Section IX assuming the welder followed a WPS. Let's say the WPS was for P1 to P1 using a F4 filler metal with no preheat and no PWHT. The contractor made a decision to use SA335 P22 which is a P5A listed material because that is what was handy. There is no violation per Section IX. The contractor, recognized there may be some difficulties bending the test coupon in light of the absence of PH and PWHT, so he decided to evaluate the test coupon using RT. Again, no harm, no foul based on Section IX requirements. However, when all is said and done, the applicable construction code may have been violated depending on the specifics of the production requirements.
In addition to the requirements of Section IX, the individual testing the welder and the person employing the welder must consider whether there are additional requirements in the applicable construction code. Never forget what the letters "A", "S", "M", and "E" stand for. Let's not fall into the traps that trips up many novices, i.e., failing to differentiate between the qualification of a WPS and qualifying a welder. One has little to do with the other.
Best regards - Al
So, just because he used that particular material does not necessarily mean he was testing to ASME.... If someone is not real familiar with what he is doing he could have grabbed it to run a structural test to D1.1. Since the OP did not give us a code are we not grasping at straws a little?
Just a question. Material does not necessarily mandate which code was tested to. At least in my mind. Too many new guys around that are not familiar with variations and would grab any old piece of material and say 'Here, run your test on this'.
Have a Great Day, Brent
The materials is specified as SA335 rather than A335, so it is an ASME approved material with a P-number of 5A. Based on the specification it's product form is seamless pipe and the chemistry is 2.25% Chrome and 1% molybdenum. It doesn't sound like structural material to me, but you are correct that I am operating on an assumption that the inquiry was in regards to ASME. Just to CMA, I made sure I referenced ASME Section IX as the basis of my response.
I agree with Bent's position that we have very little to base a decision on, thus my opinion is worth exactly what the person asking the question paid.
Just because Brent and I are in tune with each other, i.e., pretty much know what the other is thinking, I thought about going off in a completely different direction and base my response on D17.1, but that would have really mucked up the works. I'm sure someone reading my response would have suffered mightily as their head spun around until it fell off into the dust. Then I would have felt terrible and I probably would have stayed up half the night wondering if the poor chap ever found it again.
Perhaps Brent has a thought that should be explored. Maybe our responses should be as cryptic as the inquiry. No, that would be just mean spirited, but it would be fun. Maybe our responses should continue make certain assumptions that we define in our response and maybe, just maybe push the fellow in the right direction or at least cause him/her to post more information.
Best regards -Al
Well, I'm certainly confused all the time anyway.
I know why your first response was what it was I just happened to wonder if the OP could enlighten us as to the actual code in question.
I know several shops that do both structural and pressure codes. I could just see some new inspector assigned to qualify welders grab some material and put the poor testee to work trying to pass a test that wasn't even the right one.
Have a Great Day, Brent
As usual you make a good point.
The question should have provided much more back ground information, but maybe that was his intention all along. Maybe he was setting the trap to see who would tumble in. The question is, did we fall for the trap?
Then again, you and I have been working with clients long enough to know they never tell you the whole story up front. You have to pull the information out of them as if it was a long tape worm that isn't going to come out without a tussle.
Best regards - Al
In short you are saying a welder who had qualified according to a weld process (eg SMAW) in a WPS is qualified for the SMAW process of other WPSs even when the base metals are not the same as stated in the first WPS?
Is this also similar for AWS code?
BR
Boon
UUHHMMM!? AWS? Now I wonder where that came from?
So, simply put...Yes, and Yes.
But now, you are changing some other things. Al's comment about filler material strength not being an essential variable to ASME, well...it is for the 'PQR' according to Table 4.5 of D1.1. But, according to Table 4.12 it is not a consideration for Welding Personnel Performance. So, again per Al's comments, you must distinguish always between the application: Welder Performance
OR Procedure Qualification to establish the record for your WPS.
Have a Great Day, Brent
True if you are working to ASME Section IX, if not to ASME, all bets are off. ASME Section IX allows the contractor to use a qualified WPS for stainless steel, but substitute carbon steel test coupons without modifying or revising the original WPS. Once again, this allowance is for welder qualification only. You have to be very careful to read the fine print.
Al
