AWS D1.1 - CPJ to PPJ

[hsemus]

I would like to use a AWSD1.1 qualified full penetration joint , where the root is done by TIG and fill/cap with FCAW , to perform a partial penetration weld using a FCAW GS only. Is this is allowed under the AWS D1.1 noms. If so please also advise ether section in AWS which support this .

 

[racookpe1978]

That makes little sense.

Why do you feel a weld procedure qualified and intended for full penetration joint can be used "as-is" for a partial penetration weld?

Different processes can be used as you indicate for root and cover passes. But the basic requirements for using a standard, pre-approved welding procedure is that you do in fact follow the entire procedure!

 

[DekDee]

hsemus,
Unlike ASME IX a CJP doesn't automatically qualify a PJP or Fillet.
Additional tests are required as noted below.

4.10.3 Verification of CJP Groove WPS by Macroetch.
When a WPS has been qualified for a CJP groove
weld and is applied to the welding conditions of a PJP
groove weld, three macroetch cross-section tests specimens
shall be required to demonstrate that the specified
weld size shall be equalled or exceeded.

Cheers,
DD

 

[CWEng]

See the essential variable Table 4.5, and you can figure out what your WPS is qualified for. You can weld any prequalified PJP joint with a WPS qualified by welding a CJP joint.

 

[Mr168]

CWEng - Not without a macroetch for weld size, as indicated by DekDee, even for a prequalified joint detail.

As for "eliminating" a process from a dual-process qualified WPS, the answer is no. See AWS interp I-9/91-10-03.

 

[CWEng]

MR168- I would agree with you if the question was about qualifying a WPS using a PJP joint detail. Based on the title, I assumed the original qualification was CJP, in which case Table 4.5 variable 31 (in the 2006 edition I'm looking at right now) should govern, which says "qualification of any CJP groove weld qualifies for any groove detail conforming to the requirements of 3.12 or 3.13" 3.12 is for PJP joint details. That would be my opinion anyway, but I'll give you that AWS D1.1 is not definitive in many areas for requirements that seem to conflict, including deletion of one process from the qualified CJP weld, as the original poster inquired about. It seems to be entirely silent on that matter, so would probably need referred to the engineer of record.