Material, PQR/WPS 1

[Amakaba]

Please I need your professional advice.

1) I reviewed a material certificate and I observed the carbon content and the CE is higher than Specified. (material grade: S355J2, material thickness 130mm round bar )

- specified: C = 0.16 & CE = 0.43
- on material certificate: C = 0.18 & CE = 0.44

Will it have much effect on the weld? Please advise.

2) A PQR was qualified using SMAW (3G position) for the root and hot pass while SAW (1G position) for filling and capping. Range qualify on WPS; SAW=1G and SMAW=all positions. Please note, impact and harness test was performed. During review, I stated that SMAW on WPS was only qualified for 3G position and not all positions, please advise.

3) can a WPS qualified to AWS D1. 1 be reviewed to ISO 15614-1 (the adopted code for the project is ISO 15614-1 but the PQR was formally qualified to AWS D1. 1) please advise.

Many thanks.

Samson

 

[kingnero]

1) There will be no practical difference between CE 0.43 and CE 0.44.

2) I'll pass

3) If you have all testing done that is required by EN ISO 15614-1; and you have applied the correct acceptance criteria (there is a difference between AWS and EN/ISO standards), I see no reason to not write a qualification according to EN ISO 15614-1. Then, you can review the WPS. However, both above conditions need to be fulfilled in order to do this. Dual-process WPQR's have some peculiarities under EN ISO, especially regarding to the testing (location of specimen, ...). I don't have enough experience with AWS standards to be able to easily compare the two.


EDIT: typo, see "not" in bold above. Meaning: if both conditions (regarding testing) are fulfilled, write a WPQR according to EN ISO 15614-1 and check the WPS against this document.