John,
You have made it so clear, thanks. No offense meant, none taken. You see, on blogs like these, many times, the questioner is confused lacking full info to make up a proper question or not on par with the methods of asking correctly. What I do is try to decipher the question, it helps. Do not worry too much about the correct English or such matters or the mannerism of asking, for may a time, as we see, the questioner is from a different part of the globe, not necessarily conversant with queen's English. As for me, I do not at present have much access to the current Codes or whatever reference materials from where I am, but always do your best. That's all. It happens to me when I am contributing to the political blogs - but I guess, it is understandable.
I am sure you will keep the good work up.
Your post on WPS qualification status was superb.
Best regards as ever,
Shashank Vagal
--- On Tue, 7/7/09, John Henning <jhenning@deltak.com> wrote:
From: John Henning <jhenning@deltak.com>
Subject: [MW:2640] RE: 2638] Re: 2623] Fw: [MW:2622] Re: Fw: [MW:2566] Re: lifetime of a qualified WPS
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Date: Tuesday, 7 July, 2009, 6:57 PM
Shashank, Yes it was a bit sarcastic. But I believe that the information given in the thread was erroneous and would have led the questioner to doing unnecessary qualification. If the respondents had simply quoted the respective code and not relied on memory or intuition or perhaps "common knowledge" this would have been a one reply issue. When asked a question regarding Code my first response is always, "Lets go see what the Code says exactly. If not clear then I read all the interpretations related to that section. Then - and only then - if still unresolved I may rely on engineering judgment or a consensus of "experts".. I think it is the responsibility of the respondents to questions posed to the group to give the correct answer. Part of that answer should identify the source of the information given. I have no objection to group or experiential information if it is stated as such by something like: "our practice" or "to the best of my knowledge". It puts the questioner on notice that the information should be verified. Lastly, I am sorry for the sarcasm but I am often frustrated that answers seem to be "shot from the hip" and just as often are at least partially wrong. Also please note I have been dealing with Section IX for over 25 years and am often pleasantly surprised to find sections with which I have had to renew my knowledge before I could properly respond to specific questions. John John,
I do not know why you say " Enough Already". Sounds sarcastic, sorry to say. Knowledge is never enough, or please correct me, always ready to be corrected.
Thanks again for the input.
Shashank Vagal
--- On Mon, 6/7/09, John Henning <jhenning@deltak.com> wrote:
From: John Henning <jhenning@deltak.com>
Subject: [MW:2632] RE: 2623] Fw: [MW:2622] Re: Fw: [MW:2566] Re: lifetime of a qualified WPS
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Date: Monday, 6 July, 2009, 8:20 PM
Enough already - read the Code. Each Code has specific terminology regarding the longevity of WPS's. As far as ASME Section IX is concerned, it is addressed in QW-100.3, the third paragraph onward; "Welding Procedure Specifications, Procedure Qualification Records, and Welder/Welding Operator Performance Qualification made in accordance with the requirements of the 1962 Edition or any later Edition of the Section IX may be used in any construction built to the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code or the ASME B31 Code for pressure Piping. Welding Procedure Specifications, Procedure Qualification Records, and Welder/Welding Operator Performance Qualification made in accordance with the requirements of Editions of Section IX prior to 1962, in which all of the requirements of the 1962 Edition or later Editions are met, may also be used. Welding Procedure Specifications, Procedure Qualification Records, and Welder/Welding Operator Performance Qualification meeting the above requirements do not need to be amended to include any variables required by later Editions and Addenda. Qualification of new Welding Procedure Specifications and Welders/Welding Operators and requalification of existing Welding Procedure Specifications or Welders/Welding Operators shall be in accordance with the current Edition (See Foreword) and Addenda of Section IX" Please note that a new weldor (or welding operator) may be qualified to an "old" WPS - but the rules for performance qualification (i.e. Article 3) will apply. John
From: materials-welding@googlegroups.com [mailto:materials-welding@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of kataiah@bilfal.com
Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 7:30 AM
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Subject: [MW:2623] Fw: [MW:2622] Re: Fw: [MW:2566] Re: lifetime of a qualified WPS
Dear Mr. Shashank I think my is question is not very clear. let me elaborate my question. As per below attached mail from members , WPS is valid forever as long as it represent the production weld. Suppose Sec.IX changes after some years ( Exaple : Thickness limits for base metal qualified in table QW 451 is changed from 2004 Edition to 2007 Edition), the WPS conforming to sec.IX 2004 edition or earlier editions is valid for 2007 code jobs?. Suppose there may be some changes in essential variables from old editions to new editions, the old WPS not confirming to latest Sec. IX requirement is valid document for new jobs? I feel WPS is valid document only when it meets the latest Sec.IX requirement (no changes in essential & supplementry essential variables). PQR may be valid forever. regards P.K
| "Shashank Vagal" <nach_sam@yahoo.com>
Sent by: materials-welding@googlegroups.com 04/07/2009 12:31 م
Please respond to materials-welding |
To: <materials-welding@googlegroups.com>
cc:
Subject: [MW:2622] Re: Fw: [MW:2566] Re: lifetime of a qualified WPS | Mr Kataiah,
Is something not correct here?
Shashank Vagal
--- On Mon, 29/6/09, kataiah@bilfal.com <kataiah@bilfal.com> wrote:
From: kataiah@bilfal.com <kataiah@bilfal.com>
Subject: [MW:2569] Fw: [MW:2566] Re: lifetime of a qualified WPS
To: "Materials & Welding" <materials-welding@googlegroups.com>
Date: Monday, 29 June, 2009, 10:33 AM
Dear Mr.Raghuram
If code changes after some years & there is a change in essential/supplementary essential variables, the wps will be valid.
regards
P.Kataiah
----- Forwarded by Kataiah/BelleliSA on 29/06/2009 07:44 ص -----
| "BR" <raghurambathula@gmail.com>
Sent by: materials-welding@googlegroups.com 29/06/2009 07:37 ص
Please respond to materials-welding |
To: "Materials & Welding" <materials-welding@googlegroups.com>
cc:
Subject: [MW:2566] Re: lifetime of a qualified WPS |
None, yes its forever as long as it represents your production weld.
However changes may be made in the nonessential variables of a WPS to
suit production requirements without requalification provided such
changes are documented with respect to the essential, nonessential,
and, when required, supplementary essential variables for each
process. This may be by amendment to the WPS or by use of a new WPS.
Changes in essential or supplementary essential (when required)
variables require requalification of the WPS (new or additional PQRs
to support the change in essential or
supplementary essential variables).
On Jun 29, 8:28 am, sandy kumar <sandy001...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can anyone tell whats is the validity period of a qualified WPS?
|
Looking for local information? Find it on Yahoo! Local
|
Looking for local information? Find it on Yahoo! Local
|
No comments:
Post a Comment