ASME IX - Change of orbital welding unit, essential?

[XL83NL]

Process; GTAW orbital, no filler metal.
EN 1418 makes mention that when a welding operator qualified per EN 1418 changes to a new machine/unit (or e.g. orbital head), he/she is welding outside the qualified range.
Ive reviewed ASME IX (QW-305 and QW-360) and couldnt find such a requirement.
Can a qualified welding operator change from one orbital welding machine to another (without even knowing the machine's operatebility), and still be qualified to weld with on that machine
(of course, as long as he/she does this under a previously qualified WPQ with a given range of P-number, wall thickness, diameter, etc.)?

 

[Mr168]

The brand/model/etc. of an orbital machine has no bearing on operator qualification as it pertains to machine welding outside of QW-361.2 essential variables being met.

Short answer - yes, he or she can change machines. Whether or not that welder should be put on an unfamiliar piece of equipment is not a Code issue.

 

[XL83NL]

Okay, understood, thnx for the clarification.

Now, say we have a PQR as company X for orbital welding (GTAW), on material P8, 3 to 12 mm (and we use machine 123ABC).
Is company X's PQR bound to that specific machine?

Or can we, as company X, also hire mr Steven Smith from TIG Welding Specialties Ltd, let him bring his on WPQ and orbital welding machine from the brand 456DEF, and let him do some welding on our piping under our PQR (but he uses his machine and his WPQ)?

Maybe this has now become a Code problem (i.e. the above may not be prohibited by ASME IX but e.g. may be prohibited by B31.3?) .. some guidance would be appreciated.

 

[SJones]

thread178-238986

Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/8/83b/b04

 

[XL83NL]

Dear SJones,

Thanks again. FYI; the discussion here is for a B31.3 job.

I've read that thread you mentioned and I now seem to get a feeling for the whole picture;
1) PQR's qualified by other companies (say company Y) are allowed to be used by company X, where company X still has 'responsible operational control of production welding' as defined under QW-100.1 of ASME IX. This is allowed under certain circumstances as outlined in 328.2.2 of ASME B31.3 (e.g. assuming normal fluid service)
2) PQR's, nor WPQ's, are bound to a specific orbital welding machine or unit

Conclusion - we can;
i) hire a few ASME IX certified welders incl their own orbital welding units (which are different from those of company X), who are qualified for orbital welding for the selected essential variables, and have em weld under our PQR - because our PQR nor their WPQ is bound to a certain machine.
ii) also hire the guys as mentioned under i) and let them do the welding under their own PQR, provided the rules of 328.2.2 are met. This option is still valid even if we have 'responsible operational control of production welding' as defined in QW-100.1 of ASME IX.

Correct?
Reason Im getting so deep is that under EN/EN ISO, this is not allowed. Welders under EN/EN ISO are qualified acc. EN 1418 which qualifies a welder to a certain machine/unit/power source, and doesnt allow him/her to do the same exact welding (wrt material, wall thickness, diameter etc.) on a different orbital welding machine/unit/power source. This is in contrast to ASME IX ..


Now something slightly off topic; can we (company X) outsource a welding fabrication job to another (company Y), where they will do all the welding, on their WPQ's and PQR's, when it's high pressure piping (cat K fluid service)? If so, is that because we dont have ´responsible operational control of production welding´?

 

[racookpe1978]

Ah, but remember and note well the very big difference between "Can you" and "should you" ? Don't get caught in a bookkeeper's delight of "how can I set up the contract so it appears to be legal under the code".

That is, is it code-legal/lawyer-interpreted-legal for "Welder W to do X operating Y machine under Z regulation?"
rather than
"Should (can) Welder W to do X operating Y machine under Z regulation safely, properly, and does he actually create a good fusion under ABC conditions? "

Two very different questions. Only the results: good fusion under ABC conditions are morally right to release the job order. The original Codes and PQR and WPS system are setup for the manual stick welding and "personal qualification" common to manual stick and GTAW welding.

Machine welding, in reality, is totally under the weld prep and joint setup/joint design and machine setup by the operator and weld engineer. Properly, the words should be re-written to emphasize those variables, not the "person" who is watching the TV tube watching the light go "blink and feed and turn" and "blink and feed and turn" and "blink and feed and turn" and "blink and feed and turn" ....

 

[SJones]

1. You need a WPS. Where is that coming from?
2. Under ASME IX this is correct as has already been stated

i) Assuming that you mean 'weld under our WPS', yes provided that their performance qualification is valid

ii) That should work provided that 328.2.2 i) is fully satisfied which may be difficult if you are hiring in. You may have to run at least one performance qualification after you hire.

Why worry about other standards? It is the owner's responsibility to identify, and specify, further requirements over and above B31.3. A revision of ISO 14732 has just closed its second voting stage and could make publication next year, however, I'm not quite seeing where the restriction to a specific machine is coming from; it simply says 'type of welding unit' not 'brand of welding unit'. Orbital GTAW is orbital GTAW, the essential variables then become those of 4.2.5 - sensors, single/multi run etc etc.

Why not, if the contracting parties have agreed that subcontracting is allowed and the terms of its use?

Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/8/83b/b04

 

[XL83NL]

Hi racookpe, I totally agree with you.
But thats not the discussion Im having, or want to have, at least not with my supervisors - and yes I know the phrase should be 'Should we ...' rather then 'Can we ....' (that's why EN/EN ISO standards might be better at this point under certain conditions).
Second, I also mentioned to hire a guy who brings his own machine (thus has experience and knowledge of that machine), and let him do the welding under his companies PQR.
That way he knows how to weld prep and do the joint setup, etc, which is better to hire a guy doesnt know shit of the machine/process and just let him push the button.

I think we're on the same page here but might not fully understand eachother.

Now, let just assume I need to know if the Code allows it, rather then if I should want to do it.
In the end, I first need to understand the Code, and then apply Sound Engineering Practice within the allowed range; where would I otherwise base SEP on?

So summarizing your reply; the 2 conclusions I posted on 12 Jul 12 17:22 are correct, right?

 

[XL83NL]

Im sorry SJones, but I dont fully understand what you mean with "1. You need a WPS. Where is that coming from?"

Second for welder qualifications under EN we work EN 1418 (which is I think ISO 14732).
As we have checked many times with a NoBo, a new WPQ is required when the exact same welding process, orbtial GTAW, is done on a new machine.
This may arise from the last point of 4.2.5 (other essentail parameters which are .....)

I do agree with you that it might not be correct to say that the WPQ is bound to a certain brand, but in the end, it's apparently up to the NoBo's/AI decisison (or interpretation).

 

[SJones]

Welding is performed using a WPS that is supported by a PQR. You haven't once mentioned the use of a WPS. The ownership of the WPS is also important in this discussion.

Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/8/83b/b04

 

[XL83NL]

Agreed, but that's so straight forward I dont mention it.
Without a PQR no WPS of course.

 

[racookpe1978]

XL83NL: Concur with your summary. Thank you.

 

[XL83NL]

thanks for your contribution racookpe and SJones.

 

[XL83NL]

SJones, I need to come back to a post I made earlier. I now do agree with you the welder (in case of orbital welding for EN 1418/ASME IX) isnt qualified to a certain machine or brand. My apologies for previous misconceptions.

 

[XL83NL]

in view of all written above, would GTAW orbital welding under ASME IX fall under the definiton of 'automatic' or 'machine' welding, as defined in QW/QB-492?
as the operator (on the unit we use) cant adjust any parameter during the acutal welding process itself, but only prior to that, I believe the definiton 'automatic' would apply, however Im not 100% sure.

 

[stanweld]

Orbital, autogenous GTA welding systems can generally be considered automatic because all welding parameters can be programmed into the machine; the welder only sets the system over the weld. A machine, orbital system could also be used where the welder controls the tracking about the seam and the arc length (no AVC).