WPS/PQR 1

[mulz]

Dear All,

I'm not expert in welding, Our submitted WPS/PQR got rejected by the client the reason is that the P-Number in WPS is not same with the PQR. WPS is P5A to P1 and the supporting PQR is P5A to P4.
From ASME SEC IX 2017: Qw-424.1 ''base metal used for Qualification: One metal from P-No. 5A to P no. 4 or P No. 3 or P No. 1 will qualify any P No. 5A to any metal assigned with P No. 4 or-3 or 1".
For what I have understand on that statement, our WPS is acceptable. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Thank in advance.

 

[weldstan]

True, provided all other essential variable remain the same.
Does your client's specification require P-Nos of qualification to be the same as that used in production welding?

 

[mulz]

Dear Mr. Weldstan,
Yes client requirements states that PQR shall be made on base metal having the same P-numbers or group number as the base metal use in production welding. So it means that the PQR is not acceptable base on that statement?

 

[viper3982]

Clients reject weld procedures all the time. I doubt I have a pass rate as high as 20% with our WPS'. They meet ASME, CRN, and PED; yet customers continue to ask for specifications beyond standard/outside norms.

Charge them 300% mark up of what it would cost you to re-qualify a new procedure including base material, weld material, welder shop rate, PWHT, lab testing, and admin time for writing the new procedures.
Either they take it (in which case...more GM for your plant) or they take exception to their own stupid and superfluous requirements.

90% of the time it's an expediter or a purchaser who just throws engineering specs on a project without knowing the implications. Other times it's engineers sticking to an end-user spec that they have no clue where it originated from.

 

[gtaw]

What we don't know is the construction that applies, whether CVN testing is required, etc. There are cases, such as B31.1 piping categorized as high pressure fluid service, that requires the same material specifications be used to qualify the WPS when CVN is required. What I'm saying is we don't know all the particulars of this case.

I too, reject many WPSs qualified to Section IX. The reason for rejecting the WPSs is the contractors don't take the time to review the requirements of the construction code to determine whether CVN or PWHT is required.

Best regards - Al

 

[weldstan]

Client's requirements often are stiffer than the Code's. You will need to requalify the procedure in accordance with your Client's mandate. Always read and understand the Contract requirements and/or take exception during the bid process, preferably including some cost benefits for the Client.

 

If this demand was not specifically incorporated into the contract (buyer, or in this case, estimator, beware), then any requalification demand should be on the client's dime.
Sometimes it's a case of an organization building in all past operating experiences into their tech specs without understanding the root causes, thinking that makes better engineering and quality.
Sometimes it's a case of a CPWE (Certified Pretend Welding Engineer) practicing his (your) craft.
Sometimes I wonder how and if organizations think at all...


"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[gtaw]

The less they know, the more we make. Their pain is our profit.

Best regards - Al

 

[mulz]

Dear All,

Thank you for all your answer/advice on my query, we qualify our procedure base on the project requirements.

Regards,
Mulz

 

I should add though that when I review a WPS (never without its supporting PQR(s)), I don't just review it against ASME IX and the applicable construction code and the technical specification. It must be applicable to the situation to which it will be applied, meaning I will also examine drawings. So I might reject perfectly acceptable WPSs if they are not appropriate for the work at hand.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."