ASME Section 9 Certification 1

[bulldog2002]

We are a fabrication shop that works to D1.1 (large part of our product/process is Submerged Arc Welding). All of our PQRs, Welders and Operators have been qualified to D1.1. Our PQR's have been qualified with VT, MT, UT, RT, Tensiles, Side Bends, and Charpy impacts (at -40 and -50c).

A potential customer has asked that we are qualified to ASME Section 9, what would this involve?

 

[Mr168]

Requalifying your procedures in accordance with the requirements of ASME Section IX, as well as requalification of your welders. The two are not interchangeable, with the exception that the Engineer can opt to accept qualification to other codes in D1.1, but not vice versa.

 

[gtaw]

While I'm not in total disagreement with the previous response, I would not be so quick to say the existing PQRs would not support a WPS for ASME Section IX. A thorough review of the existing PQR as well as the base metals used and the filler metals is in order first.

Assuming the base metal met both ASME and ASTM requirements, e.g. A36 versus SA36, and if the filler metal used met both AWS and ASME requirements, e.g., AWS A5.1 versus SFA 5.1 (most do), the essential variables of D1.1 are more inclusive than ASME Section IX. It is possible to rewrite the PQR to include ASME nomenclature and Section IX as well as the additional restrictions imposed by the appropriate construction code.


If the question was whether a procedure qualified to ASME Section IX could be adapted to AWS D1.1, I would say no, because the essential variable commonly omitted by Section IX are required by AWS D1.1, the test plate must be examined by either RT or UT for AWS (not required by ASME), and the bend test results are more stringent for AWS than for ASME Section IX.


Best regards - Al

 

[Kiwi2671]

Al,
Are all the mechanical and NDT requirements the same for ASME IX / D 1.1 ?
Would you not need to have the NDT and mechanical test reports amended (if acceptance criteria was met)to show compliance with a second code ?

In New Zealand we regularly had testing done to two or three codes (AS 3992 - Australian/ BS/EN 287 & 288 - British / European and ASME IX) but I have never heard of a new WPS (to a different code) being written after the fact.
Cheers,
Kiwi

 

[gtaw]

ASME doesn't require RT or UT. AWS D1.1 does.

AWS D1.1 acceptance criteria for bend tests as well as visual acceptance criteria are more stringent than ASME.

AWS D1.1's essential variable includes all the essential variables that are required by ASME plus a number of essential variables not required by ASME Section IX.

If the base metal used to qualify the WPS per D1.1 is dual certified (material test reports listing both ASMT and ASME), the PQR can be corrected to include both the ASTM and ASME listed material specification.

Likewise for the filler metal. The PQR can be corrected to include both AWS and ASME. For example: the container of filler metal usually lists both AWS as well as ASME, and in many cases, CWB.


In every case I can think of the acceptance criteria for AWS is more stringent than ASME Section IX, so once again, a PQR that meets AWS D1.1 should be good enough for ASME Section IX.

Once the PQR is corrected, there is no reason why it cannot be used to support a WPS for ASME. Things get a little more complicated if notch toughness is required, but still not all is lost.

The writer better know his way around both D1.1 and Section IX and the applicable ASME construction to put it off. A new WPS can be written on an existing PQR as long as the existing PQR supports the new WPS.






Best regards - Al

 

[Duwe6]

what GTAW said. A good PQR is a good PQR. Get an ASME pro to turn yours into Sect. IX WPS's.