ASME IX F number issues....

[nde3rich]

Could anybody please clear this up for me. I have a PQR that was made with a 6010 (F3) root and a 7018 (F4) fill. The WPS was revised to show making the weld with only 7016 (F4). My stance is that this PQR does not support the production 7016 only weld.

Richard S.
ASNT NDT Level III
API 510,570,653, AWS-CWI

 

[stanweld]

It is perfectly acceptable provided the thickness range qualified on the WPS is adjusted to 2x the deposited weld metal thickness of the E7018 filler.

 

[nde3rich]

What is the basis? QW-404.4 States that a change in F# is considered an essential variable. I know that for welder's performance, the F# is not relevant. So how can you change the F# of the weld root and not re-qualify the joint?

Richard S.
ASNT NDT Level III
API 510,570,653, AWS-CWI

 

[metengr]

Basically, the WPS that was revised can be technically acceptable under ASME Section IX provided F-No 4 filler metal can meet the weld deposit thickness limits to support a complete weld joint (root and fill). Remember, a WPS can be supported by either a single PQR or multiple PQR's. Weld root and fill can be done by either all F-No 4 or by combination F-No 3/4 as per the PQR. Trying to generate a WPS with all F-No 3 filler metal would probably not satisfy weld deposit thickness requirements for the root and fill.

In your specific case, a new WPS should be written using the original PQR that supports a F-No 3 weld root and F-No 4 fill in accordance with the weld production requirements.

 

[Duwe6]

{b]nde3rich[/b] you are getting the 'polarity' wrong. Changing F's is an essential variable in WPQ's - Welder Quals. In F1 through F4, the number is based on the 'degree of difficulty' of making an acceptable weld using a SMAW weld rod. /So for welder performance, F# is essential.

Back to the WPS in question. stanweld is exactly correct. The F4 portion of the PQR can be used by itself to support a new WPS.