Is the WPS worthy?
Is the WPS worthy?
(OP)
Hello all. I have a question concerning a section 9 WPS. The WPS lists the parameters of the GTAW from P-8 group ALL to P-8 group ALL. The PQR supporting the WPS was tested using 304 base with 308 filler. The actual welding was done using 304L with 308L filler. The welding engineer is saying that the procedure can not be used for this welding. I am lost without section 9 code book. He says there is a change is essential variables, but both base and fillers appear to be in the same groups. Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks
Larry
Thanks
Larry





RE: Is the WPS worthy?
Get yourself a legal copy of sec IX. If you work to sec IX, it is absolutely important to master the code AND have it at hand.
Furthermore, ask the welding engineer for a reference where he bases his remarks on.
RE: Is the WPS worthy?
Larry
RE: Is the WPS worthy?
RE: Is the WPS worthy?
this is watt Section 9 said about metal.
QW-403.1 A change from a base metal listed under
one P‐Number in Table QW/QB-422 to a metal listed under
another P‐Number or to any other base metal. When
joints are made between two base metals that have different
P‐Numbers, a procedure qualification shall be made
for the applicable combination of P‐Numbers, even though
qualification tests have beenmade for each of the two base
metals welded to itself.
RE: Is the WPS worthy?
Thanks
Larry
RE: Is the WPS worthy?
I think I would restrict the procedure to Groups 1 & 2 since there is a change in A No.'s involved with Groups 3 & 4. That may actually be his complaint.
RE: Is the WPS worthy?
RE: Is the WPS worthy?
RE: Is the WPS worthy?
It is pretty easy to write a WPS that "meets ASME Section IX" that are nearly useless for production or worse yet, can not be used for production.
ASME takes the position that the person writing the WPS knows what he/she is doing. Unfortunately, in some instances it is not the case. It is unfortunate that many engineers write the WPS for other engineers and forget the welder is the person that has to use it.
I usually develop a matrix of base metal combinations and the recommended filler metal to provide matching mechanical properties and mitigate the potential for corrosion. AWS D1.6 provides a table with just such information that can serve as a starting point.
Best regards - Al
RE: Is the WPS worthy?
Weldstan wouldn't the PQR have to be re-qualified using the 308L? Impact test were actually performed with the PQR on the 308 filler.
Thank
Larry
RE: Is the WPS worthy?
Best regards - Al
RE: Is the WPS worthy?
In regards to impact testing, it isn't unusual for us to see an impact test requirement, primarily for CF3M/8M castings (316/316L) with testing at anything from room temp. (utterly ridiculous) to -320F. Many years ago, I did some impacts at -400F. Needless to say, I qualify my P8 procedures at -320F and include a notation stating that impacts only apply to the specifically qualified materials, ferrite controls for the filler metals are also included as part of the procedure. Some applications require ferrite of <5FN others are 6-12, while other times 5-20FN is required.
RE: Is the WPS worthy?
My understanding was the PQR was developed for a NGL facility job in WY and due to the colder working temperature and the air temperature that the impacts had to be performed. From the meeting I also learned that the impacts were necessary on the current job that I am working. I'm a CWI, but far from a expert in metallurgy.
Corrosion is not a factor, so using 308 electrode instead of 308L sounds like a good solution if the welds had not already been made.
This is a great learning experience.
Thanks
Larry
RE: Is the WPS worthy?
I haven't written a procedure, but will consider many of these factors when the time comes or if this one gets re-written.
Thanks
Larry
RE: Is the WPS worthy?
RE: Is the WPS worthy?
Larry, don't feel too bad about not understanding how variables work. I've learned a lot of hard lessons because of lack of expert guidance and having the task thrown at me with a "you figure it out". It isn't an easy row to hoe. To make it even worse in my case, I end up having to justify every issue that comes up in regards to procedures to people who have never looked at a code book and have decided the rule doesn't apply to us anyway.
RE: Is the WPS worthy?
RE: Is the WPS worthy?
I realized now the problem is this, quite a number, if not most, of so-called "welding engineer" or "welding specialist" or welding inspector (CSWIP 3.1 or 3.2) do not have a formal training in ASME Section IX.
CSWIP 3.1 does not teach ASME Code.
When I took my CSWIP 3.1 in 1999 and 3.2 in 2000, we used API 1104 as base code.
Therein lies this confusion.
Had these so-called experts in welding go to a reputable class in ASME, they would have been taught properly the correct understanding of QW-423.