AWS D1.1 PQR 2

[Bamboo1234]

Hello!

I would like to ask if AWS D1.1 have a provisions to produce a WPS with single welding process from a PQR with combination process?

For example, I will make a SMAW WPS from GTAW-SMAW PQR.

Is there any provision? What clause number in AWS D1.1 specifically?


THANKS!!

 

[DVWE]

I don't believe that practice is allowed per AWS D1.1, although it is quite common practice for ASME Section IX.

1 Welding Process for 1 PQR for 1 WPS in AWS codes.

 

[gtaw]

AWS D1.1 has no provisions to qualify more than one welding process using a single PQR.

In the case of AWS D1.1, the thickness range listed by the WPS is based on the thickness of the test coupon recorded by the PQR. This differs from ASME Section IX where the thickness ranges listed by the WPS is based on the thickness of deposited weld metal deposited by each welding process and recorded by the PQR.

Best regards - Al

 

[Bamboo1234]

Thank you DVWE and Al for the very clear answer. It helps a lot!

 

[Bamboo1234]

For the follow-up question.

Since it is not possible to me to use the GTAW-SMAW PQR to produce a SMAW Process WPS, therefore I have to conduct a PQR.

I have an actual situational problem here.

The 40mm stuctural base plate carbon steel was already welded at site with purely SMAW. The welding operation did the welding without following the backgouging+backwelding combo as stated in AWS WPS for complete joint penetration,since they said its not possible due to actual site condition of the base plate. The client told me to produce a WPS for that purely SMAW on 40mm base plate.

Since I cant use GTAW-SMAW PQR, my only one choice is to conduct PQR. I have 25mm base plate in our fabshop, is it okay for me to use it to cover 40mm thick base plate at site? AWS D1.1 says it needs to be preaheated up to 65 derees Celcius but ASME says it must ba 95 degrees Celcius..what code shall I follow for the preheating temp.


THANKS!!

 

[DekDee]

If I was the client I would be asking for a PQR with the same preheating as used (or not used) on the site weld.
And after re-reading your post I would be also asking for the joint details to be replicated as well.
Regards,
Shane

 

[gtaw]

Don't mix apples and oranges and don't mix the requirements of one code with another.

Based on the information you provided this appears to be a D1.1 application. As such, ASME simple does not apply in any form or way.

We don't know your responsibilities on this project, whether you represent the contractor or the Owner. Assuming you represent the contractor, I would approach the Engineer (representing the Owner) and ask if the loads acting on the connection actually require a CJP weld. The question is worth asking because there are circumstances where the detailer specifies CJP because it is easier and faster than actually analyzing the loads to determine if a PJP weld is sufficient.

Should the Engineer agree that a PJP weld is adequate, he will no doubt ask for some objective evidence of what the size of the PJP welds are. If the joint preparations can be verified, i.e., the shop drawings specify the groove details, and if there was reasonable shop oversight, the Engineer may simply request a mock-up be welded replicating the groove details shown by the drawing.

If however, CJP is required due to the nature of the loads acting on the connection, the Engineer may simply request the grooves be back gouged and rewelded properly, and perhaps require ultrasonic testing to verify the welds are CJP and meet the requirements of AWS D1.1. The contractor and the inspection agency should request clarification with regards to the appropriate acceptance criteria, i.e., static or cyclic nontubular criteria.

If there is no opportunity to perform the required back gouge, the connection may have to be redesigned. The Engineer is entitled to be compensated for the redesign.


Best regards - Al

 

[Bamboo1234]

Okay thanks for very informative responses here, maybe for the future I'll share also my learnings based from experience from actual situation.

This is what happen yesterday.

I am a subtractor, an engineer. I just went to clients office bringing a GTAW-SMAW PQR with generated SMAW WPS.
This document is a proposal for them since AWS D1.1 WPS for structural isn't possible anymore due to actual site condition ( a base plate is already welded with purely SMAW without backgouge, backweld, backing plate..). The client and I , pullout the PQR, review it against AWS D1.1 Table 4.2..the number of tension and bend test specimen used in my PQR follows the reqmts of AWS D1.1 .. and so on and so forth..and finally we came back to AWS D1.1 Clause 4.2.1.2 WPS Qualification to other standards, highlighting the phrase.." its engineer's responsibility blah, blah, blah..

Finally the client says, go to your main contractor's Engineering Office, instruct them to email your welding procedure to the engineering firm who design's the plan.

..and now I am awaiting for their responses.


THANKS!!