welding procedure qualification 1

[sw008]

Guys, please offer your suggestion.

Base metal in PQR: P1-Group 1 TO P1-Group 2
Base metal in WPS: P1-Group 2 TO P1-Group 2

Welding process: SMAW

Impact test is required.

Can I use the above mentionen PQR to support this WPS, if I use ASME IX?

For my understanding, in ASME IX, PQR base metal should have the same P number and Group Number as the WPS base metal, if impact test required.

Please advice. thanks.

 

[SJones]

What it clearly states is clear! What it also does would appear to go against the grouping system.

Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer

http://www.pdo.co.om/pdoweb/

 

[weldtek]

SJones,
My only suggestion is that you acquire a copy of the entire interpretation, sit in a quiet area and carefully read it.

 

[SJones]

No problem Weldtek - plenty of other reading to keep me occupied. Interpretation, or no interpretation, still appears to undermine the fundamental basis of groups and design. I'll just close my side by saying that if a PQR with this approach lands on my desk - it will get rejected (interpretation or not, as the end user I call the shots!)

Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer

http://www.pdo.co.om/pdoweb/

 

[CodeRef]

Here is my two cents....
Rather than the interpretation going against the concept of grouping, it is clear that "multiple certifications" of a material goes against the concept of grouping.

What was not indicated in the quoted interpretation weldtek offered was this; The interpretation came out initially on September 23, 1993 and was revised on June 4th 2001 to add the following note.
Note: The term "multiple certifications" as used means any material for which a material test report indicates that the material meets all the requirements of two or more specifications, grades, types, or classes.
It is either classified as one material spec or the other. When you base your design on a material, or document a material on a Procedure Qualification Record, you can only choose one. Design and Qualification records can not be based on two materials. A separate document for each is required. I would never accept a document that references two material specs either in design or on a PQR.

 

[CodeRef]

It is either classified as one material spec or the other. When you base your design on a material, or document a material on a Procedure Qualification Record, you can only choose one. Design and Qualification records can not be based on two materials. A separate document for each is required. I would never accept a document that references two material specs either in design or on a PQR.

Maybe a little clarification is on order after re-reading the last statement.
There can be only "one" material specified in a design. If utilizing material in a design that is dual certified, additional notes need to be readily apparent to the user. For a PQR, the same would apply.

 

[weldtek]

As a fabricator we often have customers that want certain conditions met, which are over and above Code requirements, and / or additional specifications followed, and, we have no problem with complying with these requests provided that those requests have been included with the request for bid. If not, we're happy to comply but there will be a cost adder.

 

[GRoberts]

Sjones, Codejackal,
I'm having a hard time understanding your position that the ASME interpretation is going against "grouping", & I'm trying to figure out your reasoning, so please bear with me.

Given the situation that a weld procedure qualification test plate was welded where the mill that produced the plate certifies the materail as ASME SA516 Gr. 70 (P1 Group 2), AND ASME SA516 Gr. 65 (P1 Group 1), which of the following would be acceptable:

1. If "grouping" is not allowed, would it be required to weld a second test, completely seperate from the first test with materail cut from the exact same plate and have 2 PQRs from two weld tests?

2. Is it just a paperwork issue (i.e "I would never accept a document that references two material specs either in design or on a PQR."), and you could generate two PQRs from the same weld test as long as one PQR was for P1 Group 1 and the other PQR was for P1 Group 2?

3. You could never use the same plate for qualifying procedures for two groups regardless of what the plate is certified to or how many tests are run.

 

[CodeRef]

In my opinion, it is scenario number 2 because it is only a paperwork issue. My position is that additional notes need to be readily apparent to the user.

 

[SJones]

If I order Gr60 and get Gr70 properties was it by luck or by design?

Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer

http://www.pdo.co.om/pdoweb/

 

[GRoberts]

In this case, I am assuming that the weld test plate material was intentionally ordered with certs for both grades.

 

[SJones]

Then is the 'design intent' not to have the higher grade with the higher material grouping with a fortuitous bonus of covering a lower grade simultaneously?

Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer

http://www.pdo.co.om/pdoweb/

 

[GRoberts]

Steve,
I'm not sure quite what you mean by 'design intent' as it relates to the PQR. The intent of the questions (i.e. the imaginary PQR) would be to do one welding test that qualified for P1 group 1 and P1 group 2 since the plate was certified to both group numbers. I don't think the 'higher' and 'lower' grade matter, only group numbers for PQR purposes.

 

[SJones]

Yes - but what determines group numbers?

Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer

http://www.pdo.co.om/pdoweb/

 

[GRoberts]

ASME Section IX table QW-422. I'm not trying to patronize, as I know you know that, but I'm not sure what your question is after.

 

[stanweld]

There was a time when you ordered low strength Group 1 steels, you actually got what you ordered. Now when you order those same materials you get Group 2 materials. Blame the steel mills for the one size fits all carbon steels.

As a steel maker 35 to 40 years ago, we controlled the chemistry to meet the mechanical requirements and did not employ today's thermal/mechanical processing methods. By the late '70s the one size fits all steel making menatllity began to take hold and by the mid '80s fully established. Unfortunately, ASME IX is stuck in the past in this regard. The need to differentiate between Group 1 and Group 2 carbon steel materials is believed somewhat dubious at best.