Home » Forums » Engineering Codes, Standards & Certifications » Engineering Codes, Standards & Certifications » ASME (mechanical) Code Issues Forum ASME PQR to AWS D1.1 WPS 3 thread292-260179 VDA 6.3 Auditor book, Implementation, Series VDA 6.3 manual New VDA 6.3 book Production en-standard.eu Can an ASME IX PQR be use to write AWS OPEN D1.1 WPS? Or can an ASME IX WPS qualifies to AWS D1.1? Process used are GMAW and FCAW. Replies continue below Recommended for you Precision PTFE manufacturing Industrial Valves NDT Calibration blocks Plastic Laser Welding Coatings - Spray Clearweld Materials Ad Plasmatech Co Ad The Valve Network Ad Uddcomb International AB Ad sono-tek.com Typically, an ASME WPS can be used on AWS D1 .1 applications, but not vice versa. You should check the essential, supplementary essential, and non essential variables from both codes . It depends on the jurisdiction requirements. As per DVWE, in general the a Section IX PQR may be used to support a D1.1 WPS. AWS D1.1 is more restrictive with regard to making full penetration groove welds from one side without backing. In terms of the FCAW process, welding with a Constant Current Power Supply requires qualification (CC or CV power supplies are not essential variable under ASME IX). Whereas prequalified welding procedures PQR? may be used with both processes, except short circuiting transfer mode, why do you need to support the WPS with a Stanweld: I am continuing to see instances where the prequalified WPS's do not cover the project scope increasing amount of JIS/overseas steels making their way stateside. in structural applications, particularly due to an Hi Stanweld. We have submitted our ASME IX WPS for approval, to use it for welding flange to pipe and handle to manhole cover, and they require a AWS D1.1 on the handle, that's all. Thanks for being so helpful... AWS D1.1 requires a visual examination and volumetric NDT prior to performing the mechanical tests. The AWS D1.1 acceptance criteria for VT, bend tests, and NDT are more stringent than ASME Section IX. The essential variables that must be recorded for AWS D1.1 are more extensive and restrictive than ASME Section IX. In other words, a PQR per ASME Section IX does not meet the requirements of AWS D1.1. ADVERTISEMENT Top 50 Amazing Beaches in the World 7 Travel Tips You Need to Know Before Your Great Trip The World’s Leading Aircraft Are Painted in an Incredible Way Ad by AmazeWorld Ad by TravelTip Ad by 369Rocks The Engineer of Record can accept a PQR done in accordance with a different welding standard in support of a WPS for AWS work, but I find most of those engineers that do accept ASME documentation are unfamiliar with the differences between the two welding standards, i.e., ASME and AWS. Best regards - Al iwib, For the involved handle to manhole cover weld, the ASME IX WPS/PQR is more than acceptable from an engineering standpoint assuming that the manhole cover is weldable low carbon steel. Few manhole covers are low carbon steel. Most that I know of are cast iron. Best regards - Al Quote: Few manhole covers are low carbon steel. Most that I know of are cast iron. If that's the case, then D1.1 isn't the right code. gtaw, you make some good points in your previous post, but this is an old issue. And I believe the example we have here is exactly that. There is a pressure vessel shop (or a shop that does most of its welding per ASME) and there are a few instances where they need to weld on something "structural" or non-pressure containing or outside of ASME scope. They have a perfectly good WPS, which, although doesn't meet the full AWS requirements, should be able to be used for production. Based on the minute and few diffences even you have pointed out, it doesn't make any sense to re-qualify a procedure from a manufacturing or cost sense - depending on the scope of work. Regardless of what you may think, most engineers do know the differences between the two codes. So it is up to them to decide if it is worth the cost and the effort. Now granted, if the shop gets more and more involved with work outside of the ASME scope, then yes, obviously, it does make sense. In this scenario, it makes absolutely no sense, and based on the OP's given information, they don't get into much structural work anyway. When it is all said and done, it is up to the end user to accept or reject the proposal of doing so, but, if someone told me that my ASME WPS wasn't acceptable to weld a handle on to a manhole cover, I would tell them to go pound sand. That would tell me right there that THEY are the ones without any welding or code knowledge. Thanks for more clarification DVWE, the cover of the manhole/manway is of low carbon steel. Cheers... If this were a manway cover on an ASME VIII pressure vessel, the weld would be required to be qualified per ASME IX. iwib, I believe this shouldn't be an issue for you. If your customer does give you grief about it, I would suggest an AWS pre-qualified WPS as mentioned above (no PQR required). Your low carbon steel manhole cover will probably be listed in the materials approved in D1.1 for the use of such a procedures. en-standard.eu New Automotive Process Audit standard VDA 6.3 manual Volume 6 part3 3,2023 Vda 6 Volume OPEN Join | Advertise Copyright © 1998-2023 engineering.com, Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction or linking forbidden without expressed written permission. Registration on or use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Privacy Policy.
