Yes. However, many individuals that represent the owner and review test records and WPS forms will expect to see a reference to the applicable code. It is usually a matter of what they are used to seeing. To get by that phase you may have to prove that your (ASME IX) WPS does in fact overlap all the requirements contained in AWS D1.1.
Charles
fineorl, ASME Sec. IX 2002 edition pg. 1 QW-100.3 : Welding Procedure Specifications (WPS) written and qualified in accordance with the rules of this Section, and welders and welding operators of automatic and machine equipment also qualified in accordance with these rules may be used in any constuction built to the requirements of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code or the ASME B31 Code for Pressure Piping...........This statement seems to strickly prohibit use other than the above stated codes. There could be a statement somewhere in sec. IX that will allow this but I doubt it, if there is I would like to know where it is....... Hope this helps, have a good one!
A weld test is a weld test. As long as the essential variables are followed, a weld test can be used for most codes. (Exceptions are ones requiring witnesses, such as the European Pressure Equipment Directive, or ones requiring information that was not recorded and no longer available). Some tests might not be practical for use under other codes either, but that is up to the contractor to evaluate. If you have someone who might frown upon the practice for some mysterious reason of their own, just write a new, clean copy of the PQR/WPS that only refers to the code of construction and don't give anyone a chance to raise the questions.
Mr. Roberts,
Good point. I often see wasted effort in situations where the only additional work required to be certified in accordance with two codes is the paperwork. ASME is fairly lenient on test assembly dimensions etc. AWS does require RT for PQR's ASME doesn't. Look for the range of variables that can be used in both codes and write up the paperwork after testing within those ranges.
have a good day
Gerald Austin
NO, However
If a ONE test is given in accordance with ASME Sec IX AND AWS D1.1 papers can be prepared for both. Just understand that the ranges of qualification may be different and therefore separate documentation would be required indicating what code and its applicable ranges. In all cases I have been involved in the applicable document would have to contain the data required by the applicable code and refer to same.
Have a nice day
Gerald
Gerald and GROBERTS, the question was about precedures and qualifications previously performed, not can you qualify two procedures and welder qualifications at the same time. You cannot take a hand full of procedures and qualification written to sec. IX and simply change them to AWS D1.1 legally. If the clients contract states a requirement to be qualified to AWS D1.1 then you must requalify. Sec. IX qualifications are only to be used for ASME fabrication per QW- 100.3 as stated above in my previous post......Have agood one!
What if I have recorded data for an ASME test such as a PQR that lists all of the data required for an AWS D1.1 PQR and all of the testing required by both AWS and ASME was performed. I could then write a WPS using the PQR as a supporting document for each WPS. The PQR could state that the requirements of each code were met or a seperate PQR could be prepared.
If a wpq is performed in accordance with the requirements of AWS D1.1 which is tested and documented to meet the requirements of both ASME Sec IX and AWS D1.1 then one only needs to take one test. Seperate records may be required however ONLY one test could be used.
I agree that you cannot use the procedures prepared to another code however I do not see anything that prohibits the use of one test whether it be WPQ or PQR to qualifiy in accordance with two codes provided the requirements of each are met.
If the supporting data exists even if it is in the past, what keeps the preparation of new documentation based on data contained in "certified" records.
Thanks
G Austin
insp76,
I respectfully dissagree with your interpretation of the code paragraph you quoted. The paragraph states that the procedures "May be used in any construction built to the requirements of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, or the ASME B31 Code for Pressure Piping" This statement specifies the jurusdiction of Section IX with regards to ASME codes. It only states that the ASME B&PV code and ASME B31 code considers qualification in accordance with Section IX as acceptable. It does not prohibit using the procedures or qualification anywhere else. Even if it did prohibit use of procedure qualifications originally qualified to ASME Section IX for any other purpose, the ASME Section IX committee would not have the jurusdiction to mandate that anyway. That would be like the Sierra Club telling me that I can't drive a 4x4 truck on a highway, only offroad. Well, they don't write the traffic laws, so I wouldn't have to pay attention to them. Likewise, the ASME Committees don't have any jurusdition on structural steel work welded to AWS D1.1. If qualification in accordance with AWS D1.1 is required, and procedure qualifications that meet the specifications have been done, it does not matter what they have previously been used for.
Qualification of welding procedures and personnel under ASME Section IX rules does not automatically allow the usage of either for AWS works. At least that's my read on D1.1. However, the Engineer may accept previous WPS and Performance Qualifications as properly documented evidence of qualification for both ~ see D1.1-2002; paras. 4.1.1.2 and 4.1.2.1. I know in my shop we have a standing policy that welding procedures and personnel qualified under ASME IX rules may be used for our D1.1 fabrications but the responsibility for taking those actions are mine (the Engineer). Okay, so much for one more opinion!
Strictly speaking, qualification under one standard (either AWS DS.1, ASME IX, API 1004) DOES NOT qualify automatically for any other.
Now, as in many other instances, here also the good engineering judgment (or the "horse sense", as you Americans say) apply.
It's up to the client to decide whether a contractor's welder who qualified under AWS D.1, for example, is able to weld piping or vessels with no need to re-qualify under ASME IX.
In my personal opinion and experience, if the client has the "good engineering judgement", he will agree with that. We (and the client) can safely assume that a welder who has approved a test under a reputable standard, is sufficiently competent to pass any other one.
I've never been a client, always a contractor, but the clients I've worked for back in my days of erector engineer were quite open minded on this matter.
I erected two power plants and an oil refinery, in which the welders had to be qualified under ASME IX, but when it came to weld structural steel nobody required them to pass the AWS D.1 test.
I also erected two natural gas compressing stations, in which the welders had to be qualified under API 1104, but when it came to weld vessels nobody required them to pass the ASME IX test.
More than thirty years have passed since then and the plants never blew up.
Giovanni S. Crisi
Sao Paulo - Brazil
I agree that nothing is cross-qualified automatically, all the essential variables must be reviewed, and must conform for the new type of welding to take place.
I agree too. My point is that one "test" could provide records for more than one code at a time. Whether it be PQR or WPQ provided the requirements of each code are met it would be fine.
G Austin
Thanks to all who have responded. Like Gerald, I feel safe using previously performed coupons and supporting test data to qualify procedures for several specifications (ASME IX, D17, D1.1 etc.) given essential variable limitations for each. "A good weld procedure is like a good recipe and a good welder is like a good chief". Thanks again for the responses.
Forum
