×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Contact US

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!

*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

Hard-facing Overlay QW-216 -- Gap in ASME IX Variables?

Hard-facing Overlay QW-216 -- Gap in ASME IX Variables?

Hard-facing Overlay QW-216 -- Gap in ASME IX Variables?

(OP)
I am reviewing a WPS for hard-facing overlay made to ASME IX rules.

The PQR does not mention 'hot wire' but the WPS claims it. I duly researched QW-255.1 and found no mention of this. That surprised me, since this change has a significant bearing on the overlay composition. I think addition or deletion of hot-wire filler metal should be an essential variable. I rejected the WPS on this basis alone (although there were other deficiencies).

I am sure I'm not the first WE to notice this. Any experiences or opinions on what appears to be a gap in Section IX?


(Incidentally the PQR was qualified in GTAW - manual process mode, while the WPS claims both Manual and Machine modes. While this is 'legal' it does not pass 'engineering judgment' muster; it is a red line for me. I would change my mind only on the basis of a successful demonstration weld.)

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

RE: Hard-facing Overlay QW-216 -- Gap in ASME IX Variables?

IM,
Cannot find QW-255.1 - only Table QW 255.1 that is for GMAW / FCAW ????
Did you mean Table QW-256.1 ?
Form QW-482 notes " Hot-wire addition" but it is only in the comments section of the WPS so the committee does not seem concerned with it.
Maybe worth submitting a Request for Clarification (Interpretation)
Cheers,
Shane

RE: Hard-facing Overlay QW-216 -- Gap in ASME IX Variables?

Some people are loathe to add essential variables, but it is often advisable to do that.
Such as this case.
I often see this in high alloy SS and Ni grades, things that are critical are not part of the default list.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, consulting work welcomed

RE: Hard-facing Overlay QW-216 -- Gap in ASME IX Variables?

Quote (IM)

That surprised me, since this change has a significant bearing on the overlay composition.

One thing you may want to consider is that a chemical analysis is not required per QW-216.1 or QW-216.2(d)

What is required is hardness readings, and although I do understand your concern, me personally, the hardness results are what I would be more concerned with, and would bring that to my vendor's attention. Perhaps some additional hardness testing per your instructions would be in order, using their current set-up with the hot-wire.

The devil is in the details; she also wears prada.

RE: Hard-facing Overlay QW-216 -- Gap in ASME IX Variables?

(OP)
1) I should have clarified that the reference QW-255.1 is a table.
2) Chemical analysis is not required, but composition directly affects properties.
3) Addition of hot-wire has a greater impact on overlay composition than some other factors that are recognized in IX as variables.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

RE: Hard-facing Overlay QW-216 -- Gap in ASME IX Variables?

I would only be concerned with that if they are applying one layer. Sounds like that's the case?

Just have them also run a chemical analysis for you.

The devil is in the details; she also wears prada.

RE: Hard-facing Overlay QW-216 -- Gap in ASME IX Variables?

(OP)
Going by the qualified thickness of only 1/16" made by manual GTAW, we are definitely in the 1st layer.
Chemical analysis is there. I don't quite believe the numbers, but Code leaves composition and property requirements up to the user anyway.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

RE: Hard-facing Overlay QW-216 -- Gap in ASME IX Variables?

Quote (IM)

Going by the qualified thickness of only 1/16" made by manual GTAW, we are definitely in the 1st layer.
Chemical analysis is there. I don't quite believe the numbers, but Code leaves composition and property requirements up to the user anyway.

But, that was all done with conventional GTAW (not hot wire) and manually, based on your first post, yes?

In my limited experience with hot wire GTAW, and from what I've read, I believe the heat input is reduced compared to what it would be without it. Where the wire is typically held at a temperature of around 450-500F (230-260C) and with an increased travel speed, it makes sense to me that heat input is typically less, and therefore dilution will be less (and it's not a substantial reduction from what I understand).

Where code lists an increase of more than 10% of the heat input of which was qualified as an essential variable, I'm not certain there is enough there to reject a WPS/PQR based on code requirements alone.

What I haven't been able to find (without consultation from an unknowing salesman) is if the newer formulas from QW-409.1 can be used for hot wire GTAW. Specifically, QW-409.1(c)(1) or (2).

The devil is in the details; she also wears prada.

RE: Hard-facing Overlay QW-216 -- Gap in ASME IX Variables?

(OP)
'Engineering judgment' is mandatory, not optional, and I regularly employ it to reject WPSs for shenanigans like this. (I don't always reject WPSs, but when I do, it has usually been prepared by an amateur WE.)
When you consider the purpose of a procedure qualification, the vast difference between manual GTAW and machine GTAW with hot-wire makes it impossible for me to justify the latter on the basis of the former.
In short, prove to me your shop can do it.
But that was not my original question, it was incidental information.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

RE: Hard-facing Overlay QW-216 -- Gap in ASME IX Variables?

Quote (IM)

In short, prove to me your shop can do it.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that approach!

That’s why I don’t think you’re asking much to ask them to provide additional information like chemical analysis with the hot wire process, or hardness readings done with the same.

I always approach these situations with, “Before I approve this WPS, can you Mr Vendor provide me with the following?” It goes a lot further than a big old fat red capital R for rejected.

However, if code has been met, and you Mr Customer provided no additional requirements during bid stages about your restrictions on hot wire GTAW, you don’t have much of a leg to stand on. They can easily argue “Engineering judgment” based your “I don’t like” rather than hard data.

Just saying…

The devil is in the details; she also wears prada.

RE: Hard-facing Overlay QW-216 -- Gap in ASME IX Variables?

(OP)

Quote (DVWE)

They can easily argue “Engineering judgment” based your “I don’t like” rather than hard data.

They can and they do. Which is why I put much more time and effort into rejecting a bad WPS than I do in accepting a good one. I interrogate my own reasons for doing so to make sure they will hold up. But I am not hard line: if the only problems are inconsequential non-essential details (e.g., confusing string/weave with oscillation) I will tend to overlook it.

Firstly, I need to document the itemized Code reasons for rejecting. Then it has to make sense technically - if the parameters are unrealistic (for example) then the entire document loses credibility. It also can't visually look like a 10th generation fax copy.

Second, I am more likely to get pushback from an amateur preparer than from a professional WE, who will understand my reasons. I have had senior quality people go to the wall to defend their pieces of garbage. Some of their defenses can be quite ridiculous.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

RE: Hard-facing Overlay QW-216 -- Gap in ASME IX Variables?

Quote (IM)

Firstly, I need to document the itemized Code reasons for rejecting

Fair enough. What was your justification from a code standpoint for this:

Quote (IM)

I think addition or deletion of hot-wire filler metal should be an essential variable. I rejected the WPS on this basis alone

The devil is in the details; she also wears prada.

RE: Hard-facing Overlay QW-216 -- Gap in ASME IX Variables?

IM,
I ask these questions with upmost respect as you are obviously a very experienced Welding Engineer.
1 How can the "overlay composition" be altered by simply heating the wire (as noted by DVWE dilution should be slightly minimised) ?
2 Table QW 255.1 is Gas Metal Arc Welding (GMAW & FCAW) but we are talking about GTAW (QW 256 or 256.1) ?
3 As noted by DVWE how can you justify rejecting something that is code compliant ?
"Engineering judgement" is critical from a Client / Owners perspective but it is almost always documented via project specifications or contract documents.
If it is over and above code requirements it must be documented or the Contractors legal department will be licking their lips.

For what it is worth I agree 100% with you that a manual GTAW PQR is no basis for writing a WPS for automatic HW-GTAW.
But that is what the code currently allows.
That is why I suggested submitting an interpretation.
I have been a committee member of ASME B31.3 for the past 6 years and I have lost count of the amount of times I have bashed my head against the wall trying to get my point across.
Ballot decisions require a consensus and unless everyone is on the same page it can go round and round for years,
Cheers,
Shane

RE: Hard-facing Overlay QW-216 -- Gap in ASME IX Variables?

Quote (ironic)

Firstly, I need to document the itemized Code reasons for rejecting.
I see none.

Quote (ironic)

'Engineering judgment' is mandatory, not optional, and I regularly employ it to reject WPSs for shenanigans like this. (I don't always reject WPSs, but when I do, it has usually been prepared by an amateur WE.)
Sounds like you are more concerned with how important and knowledgeable you are, or appear to be, rather than the actual WPS itself....

RE: Hard-facing Overlay QW-216 -- Gap in ASME IX Variables?

(OP)

Quote (DVWE)

What was your justification from a code standpoint for this:

Engineering judgment. There are gaps and well-known loopholes available in ASME IX if you want to take advantage. As I said, it is mandatory, but I don't apply it arbitrarily.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

RE: Hard-facing Overlay QW-216 -- Gap in ASME IX Variables?

(OP)

Quote (david339933)

Firstly, I need to document the itemized Code reasons for rejecting.
I see none.

I was speaking in general terms about my process. If you wish to submit a WPS and are willing to pay me to review it I will do so.

Quote (avid339933)

Sounds like you are more concerned with how important and knowledgeable you are, or appear to be, rather than the actual WPS itself...

You are free to think whatever you like about me. A couple of points:

1) There are many people in this business with zero formal training, and it tends to show in their work. The quality of many vendor documents I review is shockingly poor - most of these folks couldn't pass QA 101. Just like there are many tyros who show up at Eng-Tips asking for full assistance for the task their new boss has assigned them. If that makes me arrogant then I plead guilty.

2) I am currently responsible for Pressure Boundary welding at a 2500 lb steam plant. That reality tends to focus the mind.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

RE: Hard-facing Overlay QW-216 -- Gap in ASME IX Variables?

(OP)

Quote (DekDee)

If it is over and above code requirements it must be documented or the Contractors legal department will be licking their lips.

Vendors with that kind of legalistic perspective (I get lots of them) tend to get found out by the quality of their work, hopefully sooner rather than later.

I take the point of view that I will have to live with the supplied product in my house for the next 30+ years, and it would be negligent on my part not to apply engineering judgment where necessary. I haven't seen any lawsuits because of it (but then I also do not work in the Litigious States of America).

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

RE: Hard-facing Overlay QW-216 -- Gap in ASME IX Variables?

(OP)
It is Table QW-256.1 of course. That's the kind of mistake I like to make.

How did this thread go from a legitimate Code inquiry to an interrogation of my personality and attitude?

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

RE: Hard-facing Overlay QW-216 -- Gap in ASME IX Variables?

IM,

A few more points, and I will bow-out, rather than continue the banter. It's your thread after all...

To answer your original question, no, I do not think there is a gap for addressing hot wire GTAW as an essential variable based on all the information presented in this thread.

Quote (IM)

That surprised me, since this change has a significant bearing on the overlay composition.

Quote (IM)

I think addition or deletion of hot-wire filler metal should be an essential variable.

Don't take this the wrong way, but you are not exercising sound engineering judgment just by virtue of the above two statements. Both of them are very much emotional (non-data driven) and therefore unsubstantiated, and that is not at all the basis of sound engineering judgment.

Hot wire does not have a significant bearing on the overlay composition. It can't. There will not be much of a change by simply preheating the overlay wire to 400-500F, after all, the wire still has to go molten. The most significant change will be an increased travel speed which I do not think I have to explain to you why that is beneficial for many reasons, especially considering an overlay done with the GTAW process. Without having all the details, it sounds to me like that is exactly what you are seeing in the chemical results that you are choosing not to believe. That's on you.

Anyway, I hope you can work through this non-issue with your vendor. I believe your mind is already made up, regardless of what we type here. You probably started this thread in hopes of receiving some "backup" and got just the opposite, but that doesn't mean we don't wish you the best.

The devil is in the details; she also wears prada.

RE: Hard-facing Overlay QW-216 -- Gap in ASME IX Variables?

(OP)
Emotional? To paraphrase, "I have not yet begun to be emotional..."

Please go back and reread the initial post. I described a situation, offered my opinion on it (based on 30+ years of doing and reviewing weld overlay), and asked for feedback from the community.
The Code isn't perfect, it is a work in progress, and this type of discussion is how revisions happen. And yes, hot-wire does make a difference, or users would not be achieving dilution rates as low as 5%.

p.s., could you define 'data-driven', other than something that sounds like a Big Tech marketing buzzword?

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

RE: Hard-facing Overlay QW-216 -- Gap in ASME IX Variables?

Quote (IM)

"I have not yet begun to be emotional..."

Good on ya, brother…lol

✌️

The devil is in the details; she also wears prada.

RE: Hard-facing Overlay QW-216 -- Gap in ASME IX Variables?

(OP)
The emoji (can't believe I am typing that word) suggests a fair amount of emotion.

Have a great w/e

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

RE: Hard-facing Overlay QW-216 -- Gap in ASME IX Variables?

Damn I missed the boat on a very interesting thread.
I know you're using ASME, so this probably isn't of much use, but ISO 15614-1 (standard pqr's) says that each degree of mechanization is to be qualified separately.
ISO 15614-7 (overlay welding) says that the qualification is restricted to the wire system used in the procedure test (with some caveats).

I woulnd't (just as you) blindly assume that a hotwire has no influence on the end result. I agree if they can show you correct results, I'd be happy to accept the WPS. Too bad this is practically only feasible by retesting (part of the) pqr.

RE: Hard-facing Overlay QW-216 -- Gap in ASME IX Variables?

(OP)
The effects of welding variables and technology for weld overlay have been thoroughly understood since before AWS handbooks came in brown covers. (Hint: that was during another millennium.)

kingnero - the ISOpeans have it right.

My colleagues at a major PV manufacturer (Nuclear & civilian) fully align with me both on the manual/auto point but on the application of engineering judgment in general. Preparing properly for a new welding task is a whole lot more than qualification, which is just the legal minimum. It is equipment procurement and installation, trial welding, training, pre-production qualifications, etc.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

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! Already a Member? Login



News


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