PWHT Essential Variable Added on production welding - Fraud?

[Eagle_Weld]

Hello folks,
Attention please as the subject is not about basic issue of supplementary essential variables of ASME Sect. IX).
My sub-contractor submitted two WPS/PQR: The first WPS/PQR is for GTAW process without PWHT and the second is similar (all essential and no essential variables are the same) but with PWHT. (Knowing that charpy impact test is required for the project) He announced to use the WPS without PWHT but when production charpy impact test failed, he announced that he's gonna proceed with PWHT and that is cmpliant with the second WPS (with PWHT).

Do this comply with ASME sect. IX? Any interpretation would cover that behaviour? I would consider that as a fraud! but I will wait for your opinions

Thanks,

 

[david339933]

Fraud is a stretch. Section IX would allow these two procedures to be combined into one. PQRs exist for both the heat treat and as welded condition, with all other essential and non-essential variables the same. If production impacts fail, your only options are reheat treatment or retest.

 

[Dhurjati Sen]

It seems there is a single PQR. Please calrify OP.

DHURJATI SEN

 

[weldstan]

Assuming both PQR's were impact test qualified, either could be used. Because of failure to meet production impacts in the as welded condition, the Manufacturer is absolutely able to make the item with PWHT and the WPS so qualified. Of course the production impacts must meet Contract/Code requirements.

The Manufacturer assumed tat he could meet production impact requirements without PWHT for cost reasons but his assumption, in this case, was wrong. One can purchase materials with high impact toughness for qualification of a WPS but the purchased materials for the equipment item may not exhibit such high impact values at the test temp.