As stated in the essential variables of the AWS D1.1 Table 4.5, "A change in groove type (eg, single-V to double groove), except qualification of any CJP groove weld qualified for any groove detail conforming with the requirements of 3.12 or 3.13" Our understanding is that if our WPS with a supporting PQR of a single bevel design of a CJP weld shall qualifies the production weld of any groove design as per AWS Code. However, our client says otherwise that a new qualification is required as his understanding that a single bevel PQR does not qualifies to weld any other joint design (eg. single vee or double bevel) Can someone helps us to clarify this issue ? Thank you
I just started working with D1.1 so my interpretation could be way off. It is my understanding that table 4.5 which limits a change in the groove is for pre-qualified procedures as stated in 3.6. The statement in table 5.4 30 that says "A change in groove type (e.g.., single-V to Double-V), except qualification of any CJP groove weld qualifies for any groove detail conforming with the requirements of 3.12 or 3.13. The except qualification of any CJP groove weld qualifies for any groove detail is what leads me to believe that when you actually qualify vs pre-qualified, you can use any groove detail in 3.12 or 3.13.
I am in agreement with your opinion but the client always have the final word until i am able to get an official interpretation form the revelant AWS Committee
Appreciate your input on the subject
D1.1 Table 4.5 [30] is saying any change in type of joint must be qualified. Then it says if your qualification joint complies with 3.12 or 3.13, then any other joint detail that also complies with 3.12 or 3.13 may be used.
So if your qualification was with a joint in Figure 3.3 or Figure 3.4 then you can use another Fig.3.3 or 3.4 joint without re-qualifying (assuming all other variables are also in compliance).
Of course, if your WPS is in full compliance with Section 3, it is considered pre-qualified without testing, so a PQR would not be needed anyway.
Possibly the word "qualification" is the problem here? If a WPS is "pre-qualified" it is still considered to have been qualified.
You might also want to read through the commentary section of D1.1. I think that will be helpful.
Chet
Hello Chester,
Thanks for the input but unable to find anything revelant to convince the client on the groove joint design.
I have written to the AWS Committee but have yet to receive a response on the same subject
Thanks for the input
Based on the PQR data you have, do you want to develop WPSs for joints that do not conform with Figures 3.3 and 3.4?
Hello Henri,
We do not need to develop new WPS or PQRs
Thank you
I have a Question: What essential variable(s) did you make that exceeds pre-qualified status in the first place?
Hello Bill,
Our understanding is that our WPS is supported with a qualified (CJP) PQR with the mechanical tests carried out with satisfactorily results does not require re-qualification for another WPS with a different groove detail from the above PQR. Our WPS is not a prequalified WPS but by qualification (testing).
Therefore there is no issue but the customer interprets otherwise.
If you intend to use it on joints which do not conform to D1.1 Figure 3.4 amongst other factors, then IMO, the customer is correct..and further qualification testing will be required.
Forum
