SS WPS REJECTED

[Lahane]

I have a qualified SS PQR as follows with impact test
Material: SA 312 TP 316L to SA 312 TP 316L(P8G1 TO P8G1)
Process: GTAW with ARGON gas purging
Consumable:ER 316L Filler wire
position : 6G
Thickness: 8.2 mm

By using above PQR, I have developed new WPS with impact test to weld 12.7 mm thick A 312 TP 321 pipe to A182 F 321 flange by using ER347 filler wire.
The WPS was submitted to customer & it was got rejected.Can any body highlight what could be the cause of rejection???

 

[vesselfab]

i think the correct filler material and base metal should be used for PQR when impacts are required.

 

[weldtek]

QW 404.12 is a supplementary essential variable for filler metal classification.
In other words, an impact qualified PQR will not support an impact qualifed WPS using a classification of filler metal different from that used on the PQR.

 

[metengr]

Previous replies are correct for impact qualification.

 

[Lahane]

can you distinguish these filler classification by example so that I can understand the supplementary essential variabe para QW 404.12.

 

[weldtek]

ER316 vs. ER347

 

[weldtek]

lahane,
Do you have a copy of ASME Sec IX?

 

[Lahane]

yes. I have the copy of it.

 

[JStephen]

Whoever rejected it should be able (and willing) to tell you why it was rejected.

 

[vesselfab]

NOT ALWAYS

some welding engineers just stamp rejected, and make you figure out whats wrong.

 

[weldtek]

lahane,
I suggest you review the WPS with the PQR, using QW 256 as your guide. Go through each of the essential and supplementary essential variables, looking at the referenced paragraphs for the detailed explanation of each.
It's not too difficult, but, if you have questions you can post them in the applicable forum.

 

[Duwe6]

Seems to be predjuice, not Code, at first glance. The pertinent references off QW-256 [welding variables WPS for GTAW] are 403.11 & 404.12. Your proposed WPS meets Sect IX *IF* the new basemetals and new filler have the same [or better] impact values, at the same [or lower] Charpy test temperature.

 

[weldtek]

Duwe6,
If I understand your approach correctly, you're assuming the consumables are exempt from impact testing. If memory serves me, for ASME Sec VIII, using the consumables above, ( C < 0.1) that would mean that the intended application would have to be rated at -155 F or warmer. If that's the case, I agree that the existing PQR will support a WPS with this change in consumables.
If, by Code rules, the intended application requires impact testing, then a new PQR using the new consumables will have to be qualified.