×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Related Articles

Jobs

Consumable tradename change (rebranding)

Consumable tradename change (rebranding)

Consumable tradename change (rebranding)

(OP)
Hello All,

I have received an interesting question re filler metal tradenames under ASME Section IX, which I thought had been asked before, but I cannot find it in the ASME interpretations database. I will submit a request for intepretation, but in the meantime, I was wondering if this had already been asked or if this were addressed by the Code, but I missed it.

The scenario is: 'consumable manufacturer A' buys 'consumable manufacturer B'. Organization B ceases to exist and the two organizations now trade as A. All consumables previously manufactured by B are rebranded according to A's system. There are no other changes, so consumables previously manufactured by B are still produced in the same plants, using the same manufacturing methods, raw materials, etc. Organization A issues affidavits confirming the above.

A PQR was qualified according to ASME section IX, using consumables manufactured by B. The organization that qualified the PQR holds a copy of the affidavit described above. Is requalification required if the manufacturer's trade name changes due to the rebranding described above, if toughness requirements apply?

The obvious reply seems to be 'Yes', but it would be useful to see this stated in the Code or in an official interpretation.

RE: Consumable tradename change (rebranding)

There is no concern if AWS/ASME Classification does not change.

RE: Consumable tradename change (rebranding)

(OP)
Thanks Weldstan, what you stated is correct in most cases. What if the I rephrased my question and rebranding applied to filler metal with a G-suffix (see extract from Section IX QW-404.12 below) or SAW filler metal not classified to an SFA specification (see QW-404.35)? I am trying to cover all the possible scenarios.

QW-404.12 A change in the filler metal classification
within an SFA specification, or for a filler metal not covered
by an SFA specification or a filler metal with a “G”
suffix within an SFA specification, a change in the trade
designation of the filler metal
.

QW-404.35 A change in the flux-wire classification or
a change in either the electrode or flux trade name when
the flux-wire combination is not classified to an SFA specification
.

RE: Consumable tradename change (rebranding)

If the weld filler metal keeps the "Trade Name" as was used under "Organization A" then requalification would NOT be required, however if the filler metal was re-named then I would lean towards re-qualification is required.

RE: Consumable tradename change (rebranding)

Electrode classification is a nonessential variable per ASME Section IX, unless CVN is required, then classification is a supplemental essential variable.

Tradename isn't an essential variable, nor is it a supplement variable unless it is not or does not meet an established classification. If for example it is classified as ER70S-G, the WPS would only be qualified for the "brand name". Should the brand name of ER70S-G change or be discontinued, a new WPS would have to be qualified.

The reason any electrode meeting ER70S-G is not permitted is because the letter G indicates the specific chemistry is by agreement by the manufacturer and the purchaser. Two electrodes, both classified as ER70S-G, manufactured by by two different customers may have different chemistries and thus different mechanical properties.

At least that is my recollection of how Section IX handles the situation.

Best regards - Al

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close