ASME IX QW-200.2 Additional PQR 1

[meltedEng]

Hello,

QW-200.2 (c) discusses adding additional information to PQRS as being acceptable, but follows with "All changes to a PQR require re-certification".

Has this always been the case? I'm looking through historical procedures and finding lots of data just tossed in. Added 1-5 years post PQR signing.

I understand why, and they refer to the PQR name in the test reports, but there is no other documentation to follow. Good solid information, but does it strictly meet code?

 

[gtaw]

It isn't common to revise a PQR. There are exceptions, for instance, if there is a change in the filler metal specification as there has been in the recent past. AWS published A5.36 which combines AWS A5.20 and A5.29. Cored electrodes typically considered to be a GMAW electrode was moved from A5.18 to A5.36. The existing PQR could be revised to note the new filler metal specification, A5.18 for instance, to make it current with the new specifications. As a recommendation, I would retain the original filler metal specification and add the note that the current F.M. specification is the A5.36.

Information pertaining to the welding parameters used, that isn't or shouldn't be subject to change. That would be "pencil whipping" the document.

Best regards - Al

 

[david339933]

I'm looking through historical procedures and finding lots of data just tossed in.

What type of data? You are very limited on what you can do to a PQR. Only editorial corrections or info substantiated by lab records as being part of the original qualification will suffice. Otherwise you need an entire new PQR.

 

[gtaw]

I audited a vendor once. I was reviewing their welding documentation and commented to the "Welding Engineer" there was no test witness listed by the PQR. He replied that the code didn't require a test witness. I agreed, but noted that the PQR listed the arc voltage, amperage, travel speed, etc. and asked who recorded those values?

"The welder records that information while he welds the test assembly." was his reply.

"That's got to be one hell of a welder. I'ld like to meet him." I said.

"That's no problems. He's probably in his booth welding something right now." said the engineer.

We went out into the shop area, located the welder and once the introductions were out of the way, I said to the young man, "I understand you welded the test plates for this aluminum procedure."

"Yea, I did all the aluminum tests. That stuff is a pain in the behind. If I never welded any more of it, it would be fine by me!" he responded.

"I see here that you recorded the welding parameters when you welded the test assembly." I said.

"You don't know jack about welding do you." was his retort.

Baffled I responded, "What ever do you mean?"

"If you ever welded in your life, you would know I couldn't concentrate on welding and be looking at the meters on the machine at the same time, never mind trying to play with a stop watch!" was his response.

"My point exactly." I said looking at the "welding engineer".

The validity of the PQRs has now evaporated, the WPSs based on the PQRs are now void. The welders qualified to the WPSs are now invalidated. All the welding that had been completed up to that point; rejected.

If the welding parameters are recorded on the PQR, it has to be actual data recorded during the test, not made up by the "engineer" back at the desk a day or two later.

The pedigree of the base metal should be verified before any welding is performed. More than once I've had vendors provide material test reports for material other than what was being used. One time I checked the CMTR provided by the supplier. The CMTR was for 1/2-inch plate. The material was 3/8-inch thick. Oops, screwed again.

In my opinion, there needs someone to witness the qualification process to verify the correct materials are used, the joint is prepared properly, the parameters recorded while the assembly is being welded, etc. I've even had a case or two where the welder decided he wanted to use a different filler metal than what was suppose to be used. Who would know the difference if there was no witness to object to making the substitution?


Best regards - Al

 

[XL83NL]

Excellent point gtaw!

Huub

 

[LJthien]

That is reason why Code classifies essential and non-essential parameters. Obviously, any modification of PQR written contents which are of essential parameters shall result in re-qualification.

 

[meltedEng]

david339933, Impact, Corrosion, Hardness. Inappropriate to be added in late.

Also all good points everyone, and in my review of historical/prior versions code, I found no point at which doing this sort of thing is acceptable.