Consumable tradename change (rebranding)

[afocuf]

Hello All,

I have received an interesting question re filler metal tradenames under ASME Section IX, which I thought had been asked before, but I cannot find it in the ASME interpretations database. I will submit a request for intepretation, but in the meantime, I was wondering if this had already been asked or if this were addressed by the Code, but I missed it.

The scenario is: 'consumable manufacturer A' buys 'consumable manufacturer B'. Organization B ceases to exist and the two organizations now trade as A. All consumables previously manufactured by B are rebranded according to A's system. There are no other changes, so consumables previously manufactured by B are still produced in the same plants, using the same manufacturing methods, raw materials, etc. Organization A issues affidavits confirming the above.

A PQR was qualified according to ASME section IX, using consumables manufactured by B. The organization that qualified the PQR holds a copy of the affidavit described above. Is requalification required if the manufacturer's trade name changes due to the rebranding described above, if toughness requirements apply?

The obvious reply seems to be 'Yes', but it would be useful to see this stated in the Code or in an official interpretation.

 

[weldstan]

There is no concern if AWS/ASME Classification does not change.

 

[afocuf]

Thanks Weldstan, what you stated is correct in most cases. What if the I rephrased my question and rebranding applied to filler metal with a G-suffix (see extract from Section IX QW-404.12 below) or SAW filler metal not classified to an SFA specification (see QW-404.35)? I am trying to cover all the possible scenarios.

QW-404.12 A change in the filler metal classification
within an SFA specification, or for a filler metal not covered
by an SFA specification or a filler metal with a “G”
suffix within an SFA specification, a change in the trade
designation of the filler metal.

QW-404.35 A change in the flux-wire classification or
a change in either the electrode or flux trade name when
the flux-wire combination is not classified to an SFA specification.

 

[moseley]

If the weld filler metal keeps the "Trade Name" as was used under "Organization A" then requalification would NOT be required, however if the filler metal was re-named then I would lean towards re-qualification is required.

 

[gtaw]

Electrode classification is a nonessential variable per ASME Section IX, unless CVN is required, then classification is a supplemental essential variable.

Tradename isn't an essential variable, nor is it a supplement variable unless it is not or does not meet an established classification. If for example it is classified as ER70S-G, the WPS would only be qualified for the "brand name". Should the brand name of ER70S-G change or be discontinued, a new WPS would have to be qualified.

The reason any electrode meeting ER70S-G is not permitted is because the letter G indicates the specific chemistry is by agreement by the manufacturer and the purchaser. Two electrodes, both classified as ER70S-G, manufactured by by two different customers may have different chemistries and thus different mechanical properties.

At least that is my recollection of how Section IX handles the situation.

Best regards - Al