D1.1 WPS clarification

[PA2KS]

One WPS with GTAW for root deposits and SMAW for fill welding and PJP fillet welds when applicable?

WPS to AWS D1.1 2010
Base metal thickness range is .25" - 375" for fillet welds, .3125" - .375" for CJP open root welds w/o backing or gouging.
CVN applies

Qualify two tabs both single v-grooves on .3125" plate.
First tab will be GTAW permanent root and complete fill.
The other will be GTAW root with back gouging (or single v with no gap, avoiding table 4.5 - 33, welding only SMAW with back gouge and grind for CJP) to remove and fill both sides with SMAW.

Generate two PQR's and write one WPS with both processes covering the thickness ranges stated?

It seems very difficult to qualify permanent stringer type processes to D1.1.

 

[gtaw]

Qualify one test assembly using GTAW open root (no backing) and without back gouging or back welding.

Qualify one assembly using SMAW consisting of the largest single pass fillet weld and one smallest multiple pass fillet weld. You can divide this into two separate assemblies if you wish to do so.

Use the parameters established when welding the fillet weld assemblies to qualify a CJP plate assembly with backing using SMAW to demonstrate the required mechanical properties are met.

As an alternative, weld one CJP assembly, without backing or back gouging and back welding using GTAW. The SMAW weld may be prequalified if the GTAW weld deposit is considered backing.

The GTAW procedure, qualified in accordance with clause 4 of AWS D1.1 can be combined with the prequalified SMAW WPS to meet production requirements.

Best regards - Al

 

[PA2KS]

It is my interpretation that pre-qualified WPS's (SMAW parameters) can not be used if CVN applies to the job. Is this correct?

To clarify the alternative, I will make a single v groove test tab, back weld it with GTAW and fill it with SMAW.

I am not held to writing only one WPS it is just preferred. I will then make two WPS's, a full thickness GTAW and a SMAW with backing using the GTAW WPS on production for backing if needed.

Thank you.

 

[gtaw]

Missed that piece of the puzzle.

Best regards - Al

 

[PA2KS]

No worries, ASME guy here being held to D1.1. My understanding of D1.1 is becoming decent, it never hurts to run it pass another set of eyes. Now if I can only convince them to design the skid to D1.1 as joint design is more of a variable than it is in ASME.. Thank you for the input.