The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) and the American Welding Society (AWS), as well as the American Petroleum Institute (API) have issued, among many other standards, rules to qualify either welding procedures and welders.
In the case of ASME, those rules are contained in Section IX of the Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, and are intended PRIMARILY for boilers, pressure and atmospheric vessels and pressure piping.
AWS has issued the Standard D1.1 "AWS Structural Welding Code. Steel", which is intended PRIMARILY, as the name says, for structural steel.
API, in turn, has published the Standard 1104 "Standard for Welding Pipelines and Related Facilities", which is intended PRIMARILY for oil and gas pipelines and related installations such as compressing stations.
Unlike some European countries (I'm nor sure about Japan), where the users are obliged by Government to follow the applicable national standard (as AD Merkblaetter in Germany for pressure vessels), the American Federal Government doesn't demand anybody to follow one of the mentioned three standards. They are followed by the users because of their inmense prestige.
So, it's up to the user (or buyer, or client), to specify which one of them is to be followed in his interest. The word PRIMARILY which I have used means that each standard is directed MAINLY to a particular field of application, but it is up to the user to adopt it or not. For example, a particular user may decide that the welders of his piping system be qualified by API 1104 instead of ASME IX. Or another user may decide, under his own responsibility of course, that the welders qualified by ASME IX are good enough to weld structural steel.
Once the particular standard has been selected by the user (or client, or purchaser), the welding inspector will check that it is followed interely by the supplier of equipment or services.
So, it's up to you (or the Engineering Dept. of your Company) to decide, using your GOOD ENGINEERING JUDGEMENT (pretty nice phrase, isn't it) whether or not to accept ASME instead of AWS. Neither ASME recognizes AWS nor the contrary is true, because both (and API as well) are independent companies one from the other.
I personally would definetely accept ASME IX instead of AWS because I've worked for many years and in many jobs in various parts of the world using ASME alone.
Giovanni S. Crisi
Sao Paulo - Brazil
Sao Paulo - Brazil

YES It is very common to accept welders certified to ASME for AWS. The main difference for welding procedures is that AWS has prequalified joint welding procedures and ASME does not. For welder qualification testing you will see them as being the same.

Regards Dominic

Remember " The Best Weld is No Weld at all"

I'll add my two cents worth on this, and see if it helps. I attended a seminar on this very topic. There was a very simple definition provided, by both ASME/AWS representatives:

If a Client/Owner requires a welder to be qualified to weld pipe, and this is the gray area (Define Pipe), then the definitive phrase is this:
If the pipe carries a product, then industry standard recognizes this as pipe/pipeline and usually qualifies welders under, ASME Section IX, or API 1104 or other applicable Codes.
If the pipe does carry a product and is used for support, then industry standard recognizes this as structural tubing/pipe and qualifies welders to AWS D1.1.
In both Petro-Chem and Civil-Industrial work it has always been acceptable that a pipe welder be allowed to weld structural because of the qualification procedure, usually an ("Arkansas Bell-Hole, or 6G at 45 degree) he/she was tested to, along with the CJP requirement. However, it was not-acceptable for a structural welder to weld pipe (That used to carry a product) because he/she had not truly welded in an orbital (All Positions) position, and the Inspection/NDT requirements were usually less stringent.
The final conclusion was this, the Owner/Engineer must clarify what they are wanting in Weld/Welder Qualification, and what the intent of the Weld Procedure is. The problem is, very few Engineers, excluding Welding Engineers are familiar with what the requirements of these Codes are. Don't take this wrong, they are very qualified in their area of expertise, however they usually look to the Welding Dept. or QA/QC to write these for them. It seems complicated, but it is not. The No.1 issue is what was the design, built around? once this is determined, the rest is elementary.
There is a cliche, AWWA C206 also has a section on welding water pipe (Which does Carry a Product), but references AWS welding procedures. I hope this helped, and didn't add to your confusion. If you have any additional questions feel free to contact me at:

Jack "Big" Neal / Senior Construction Manager-QA/QC
CH2M HILL
(208) 939-5355

If all of the essential variables for Sec IX and D1.1 are documented on the original procedure qualification record and the testing requirements for D1.1 and ASME Sec IX are met then you can prepare another set of PQR's and WPS's.

I believe AWS has some additional testing requirements such as RT for procedure testing.

1998 ASME SEC IX does not care (retesting is not required for non-essential variables) if a welding procedure qualification is tested on plate or pipe. They also do not care if you welded a test plate with backing or without. The procedure could still be written as a single welded joint. The applicable code of construction may differ on this.

In my opinion AWS procedures are more difficult to qualify by testing. But AWS has allowed the use of prequlified procedures which can be written by an organization within the requirements of D1.1.

ASME has allowed the use of Standard WPS's. These are already prepared and you can purchase them from AWS. These are not the same as prequalified wps's as mentioned in AWS D1.1.

LIkewise with the welder qualifications, nothing restricts you from certifying a welder under both codes provided all of the variables for qualification are met, the testing is allowed by both codes, and the acceptance criteria is the same or taken into consideration during testing.

Any clarification or correction to my statements are welcomed.


Have a nice day,
Gerald Austin

http://www.geocities.com/pipewelder_1999/