AWS is set up to qualify one process using one filler metal.

Best regards - Al

gtaw, thanks for your answer; the question is that we have not presently E6010 electrodes but we do have a PQR qualified 2 years ago with this E6010+E7018, thanks

Greetings Al,
I hate to query you on D1.1 as I know you live in the book (and you usually shoot me down in flames. LOL !!)but I am struggling to understand why you cannot take a 6010 / 7018 PQR and write a 7018 with backing/backgouging WPS.

If you had a 1" plate PQR (1/4" x 6010 - 3/4" x 7018) why could you not write a WPS using the 3/4" 7018 with backing or backgouging ?

If AWS D1.1 allows you to combine WPS's (eg. a 6010 WPS with a 7018 WPS) why would you not be able to subtract a WPS (as long as all essential variables are complied with) ?

Cheers,
DD

Al is correct you can use two Different pre qualified PQR one of 6010 and one for 7018 , providing that you stay within the essential variables of the PQR for example if the thickness max that you can weld with the 6010 is say 6mm that is the maximum thickness you can weld using a 6010 and the same of a 7018 depending what the max thickness range is for the 7010 within the PQR, if you have one PQR qualified with for example the root was done with a 6010 and the filler and cap were done with 7018 you can for example weld the weld that you need to be done with only the 7018 providing root is back ground and re welded as your original PQR call for a root to be welded as an open root and the filler to be done against a backing run it is the 6010 root . What I am trying to say is you can not use the 7018 for the root as an open root.

ASME has provisions where the PQR coupon weld deposited with different filler metal F numbers or different welding processes can be recorded. The WPS thickness range is then qualified based on the thickness of the weld deposited with each welding process or F number.

That isn't the case with AWS. There are no provisions to record the deposited thickness for each F number or welding process. The thickness range of the WPS is based on the thickness of the base metal used for the PQR coupon. Therefore, it stands to reason, forgetting the philosophy of other welding standards, that only one filler metal F number or one welding process can be used to qualify the WPS.

There are provisions for the production WPS to include supporting PQRs and a prequalified WPS to expand the applications. For instance, I can qualify a WPS to weld an open root joint with GTAW. I can then write a WPS that includes a supporting PQR to permit welding the open root joint with GTAW and fill the remaining groove with SMAW using E7024 as long as the production welding is performed in the flat position. If I need to perform the production weld the overhead, I can revise the WPS to include E7018 for overhead and vertical, but I am still locked into using GTAW for the open root portion provided the PQR was welding in the required positions.

In the case cited above, the question was whether the WPS that included welding the root (assumed) with 6010 could permit the use of 7018 (I assume the post is looking to use 7018 for the open root). That would not be permitted because 6010 and 7018 have different F numbers. Thus the PQR using 6010 is fine, but it doesn't permit the use of 7018 in its stead.

Granted, I am reading between the lines because the post leave a lot of details out and I am making a number of assumptions that may or may not be correct. For instance, the PQR could included alternate weld beads deposited with 6010 and 7018. The PQR could have been welded with a wide root and backing such that both 6010 and 7018 could have been deposited in the root layer. While that practice is feasible following ASME Section IX, it is unlikely following AWS D1.1 Structural Welding Code / Steel. Another assumption is that the post actually is asking a question about a AWS welding standard since it is posted under AWS, but we know from experience that is far from how things really work around here.

By the way, how is life treating you these days. I have some snow I would love to share with you. Your wife would love it. I remember years ago I drove from New England to Mississippi right after a New England snow storm. I drove straight through. I checked into a hotel, showered, shaved, and headed out to get a bite to eat. Low and behold, there where two housekeepers in the bed of my pickup truck throwing snow at each other and having a ball. I didn't know whether to ask them to get out of the truck or leave them to their fun and games!

Best regards - Al

DekDee; in case I failed to clarify my point, the AWS structural code would not permit the contractor to use two filler metals with different F numbers on the same test coupon (PQR). A PQR qualified using two different F numbers would not be permitted or acceptable per AWS Structural Welding Code /Steel, thus, it could not be used to support a WPS intended to meet AWS D1.1.

Best regards - Al

Hi Al,
Thanks for the clarification.
All great at home - recently took all the staff and families to the coast (5 hrs away) and most had never seen the ocean before.
I think snow would be a major surprise.
Bought the wife a new Ford SUV (automatic) as she was struggling to drive the Chevy (manual) with an increasing baby bump.
Trying to get her to slow down is nigh on impossible. LOL !!
All the best,
DD

Gracias a todos, desde España

Congratulations my friend.

My children are grown and married. There is nothing like having children running through the house. They will be more entertaining than anything playing on the television or the movie theater!

While your own children are great, the grandchildren are even better! Fortunately, my children married and settled close to my wife and I. Both live within 4 km of my home, so we get plenty of time with the 6 grandchildren. I enjoy "babysitting" with them, even if the youngest is 8 years old.

They claim grandpa is a great story teller. One of my grandsons decided to emulate grandpa, so when he was asked what he did over the summer break he told the class that he and his grandpa explored the Amazon in South America. We climbed the Andes, trekked the rain forest, and he was lucky to escape alive. The sad part was grandpa didn't make it home. His teacher asked what happened? He said, "Grandpa was killed when the volcano erupted and he wasn't able to out run the lava flow."

He's going to be a story teller for sure.

Give your wife a hug for me!

Best regards - Al

Al "Indiana Jones" Moore. Ha Ha Ha !!!

I though you would enjoy that little story.

Best regards - Al

Interesting subject...aside from the snowball fights.! lol I'm pretty much done with winter...in the oil sands its just too damned long and cold. The novelty wears off around mid October.

So here is my question on this: How Does D1.1 workaround the joining of HSS materials. if only 1 F number is allowed.? I would argue that if I had to do this type of welding (obviously one sided - bevel prep), and not having the capability to utilize GMAW or GTAW, then the logical "prodedure" to use would be in fact be E6010 for root and 7018-1 fort the fill/cap.? I have yet to see a procedure with 7018 for root pass in such a situation....successfully that is.

Stk

It all depends on your back ground. I qualified on pipe, open root, with SMAW using 7018. It is done on a daily basis for both ASME and AWS applications.

AWS utilizes the T, K, and Y test using either pipe or HSS for qualifying both the WPS and the welder for hollow sections.

The test coupon for AWS is welded with one process, one filler metal, and the information and test results are recorded on the PQR. Several PQRs can be used to support one WPS. That WPS can specify one welding process for the root and a different process for the fill and a third for the cover if that is what the contractor needs to meet production needs.

The skill of the individual writing the WPS is what makes or breaks the system regardless of the construction code used.

Best regards - Al

In addition to GTAW's comments, AWS D1.1 does not prohibit stacking multiple WPS's in a given joint. Consequently, I could use a GTAW WPS to put in my root pass, and follow up with a GMAW WPS for fill and cap.

In regards to DekDee's comments, reference AWS interp I-9/91-10-03, which states:

(1) Can one or more welding processes be deleted from a qualified welding procedure in
accordance with AWS D1.1, subsection 5.5, if each of the essential variables for each of the
remaining processes is maintained?

Response: (1) No.


Keep in mind, the AWS TG2 task group is looking into addressing deposit thicknesses in lieu of base metal thicknesses for both procedure and performance qualification, not only for situations as described above, but also to address ambiguities in regards to the term "nominal" when it comes to dissimilar thickness welds, or welds fared at a slope where the thickness at the joint is different than the nominal material thickness.

Mr168.
Thanks for the response.
Just to take that interpretation a bit further.
E6010 and E7018 are same welding process so you are not deleting a welding process.
My initial query was why you couldn't use just the E7018 and delete the E6010 ? (obviously with backing or backgouged).
Cheers,
DD

You have to follow the WPS.

If the WPS calls for 6010 open root, 7018 fill and cover, that's what you do. Such a WPS must be backed by PQRs for the 6010 (F3) open root, fill, and cover and a PQR using 7018 (F4) qualified with backing or 7018 open root, fill, and cover.

If the WPS offers the welder the option of using 6010 for the open root or 7018 for the open root, then the two PQRs have to be qualified using the respective electrodes using open root.

Because the conversation is limited to AWS D1.1, one must also consider the positions qualified by the positions of the test coupons when qualifying the WPSs and recorded on the PQR.

Writing the WPS and supporting it with PQRs that are appropriate is the trick when writing WPSs for any code. In some instances the WPS can offer the welder so many options, the WPS loses it usefulness. The WPS is intended to provide work instruction to the welder. It should be specific enough that the welder understands what is required to produce a code compliant weld. Too much latitude can be confusing, too little latitude can be too restrictive. The individual tasked with developing the WPS has to understand what the application is and what welding standard is to be met. In my humble opinion, that's where the AWS Standard Welding Procedures (SWPS) totally miss the mark. The SWPSs are so general that few welders can use them as written/as purchased. I guess I would say there intentions were good, another revenue stream for AWS, but the execution was poor. They left the customer's needs out of the equation.

Best regards - Al