wontweldcantweld
Mechanical
- Feb 1, 2015
- 12
Hi all,
I'm looking for guidance to whether a Welder Performance Qualification (WPQ) can be repaired?
I've had a look through AWS D1.1 and ASME IX, and I can't see anywhere this is strictly prohibited.
We have had a welder fail RT on a full penetration BW, due to a single enlarged gas pore - looking at the graphs, the pore is near the surface due its proximity to the bevel, so would be a rather simple excavation, which our WPS permits.
I've had mixed reactions, with some saying this 'goes against the intent' of doing a WPQ, but others also arguing that the ability to demonstrate repair would be just as, if not more challenging, than performing the original WPQ itself.
My interpretation is that I would expect the welder to repair the weld in-situ if they came across the defect, so how is this any different? Alternatively, rather than going down the volumetric NDE method permitted by QW-143, I could revert back and just perform mechanical testing per QW-141, so x 2 bends instead.
Please let me know your thoughts!
I'm looking for guidance to whether a Welder Performance Qualification (WPQ) can be repaired?
I've had a look through AWS D1.1 and ASME IX, and I can't see anywhere this is strictly prohibited.
We have had a welder fail RT on a full penetration BW, due to a single enlarged gas pore - looking at the graphs, the pore is near the surface due its proximity to the bevel, so would be a rather simple excavation, which our WPS permits.
I've had mixed reactions, with some saying this 'goes against the intent' of doing a WPQ, but others also arguing that the ability to demonstrate repair would be just as, if not more challenging, than performing the original WPQ itself.
My interpretation is that I would expect the welder to repair the weld in-situ if they came across the defect, so how is this any different? Alternatively, rather than going down the volumetric NDE method permitted by QW-143, I could revert back and just perform mechanical testing per QW-141, so x 2 bends instead.
Please let me know your thoughts!
