Procedure Qualification with P-No. 43 + P-No. 43<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nLet us consider the question 1 first. There are two aspects that need to be considered: one is thickness of the base metal, another is P number.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Regarding the thickness, the thinner member of the production joint clearly meets the qualified thickness range for the PQR, as per QW 451.1. The thicker member is 171 mm thick, and does not ordinarily fall in the qualified thickness range of the PQR.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, since the procedure qualification has been done on a 10 mm thick base metal (which is more than the 6 mm specified in QW 202.4(b)(1)), the PQR is eligible to avail the exemption given in QW 202.4(b)(1). (There is no restriction on the thickness of the thicker member, if the PQR has been done on a base metal of thickness 6 mm or more, for P No. 43 metals). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Hence, the PQR is good enough to support the groove weld in question, regarding the thickness aspect.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\nLet us see about the P number now. One side of the production joint is P-No. 43, which is same as the one used in PQR. The second side is a weld metal that nominally matches the chemical composition of a P-No 43 base metal. Hence, the PQR is good enough to support the joint, in accordance with QW 283.4(b)<\/strong>, regarding the P number aspect too<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\nIn conclusion, the PQR is good enough to support the groove weld in question.<\/strong> The ASME\u2019s response to the question affirms this.<\/p>\n\n\n\nLet us now consider question 2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The back ground given by the inquirer in the question mainly focuses on the groove weld between the P-No. 43 plate and the 6 mm thick overlay. The P-No. 1 plate is not under focus here. It is not clear why the inquirer would ask whether QW 202.4(b)(2) (which deals with P-No. 1 metals) is applicable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Perhaps the inquirer wants to ask whether the P-No. 1 metal below can be of unlimited thickness while depositing the overlay<\/em>. Well, the question provides PQR details only for the groove joint. We do not know what PQR has been used to support the overlay itself. Some information about the PQR being used for supporting the overlay is required. Hence, it is not possible to answer this question.<\/p>\n\n\n\nPerhaps the inquirer wants to ask whether P-No.1 metal beneath the overlay can be of unlimited thickness, while considering the groove joint\u2019s<\/em> (between overlay and P-No. 43 metal) eligibility to be welded with the PQR in question. <\/p>\n\n\n\nTo this, as we already discussed, since the joint is being made between the overlay and P-No. 43 metal \u2013 the weld has to be considered under QW 202.4 (b)(1) [and not under QW 202.4 (b)(2)]. Moreover, the P-No. 1 metal below the overlay can be of any thickness. The committee\u2019s reply says \u2018no\u2019 to the question 2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So this was about WPS for welds having dissimilar base metal thickness. Do let know your thoughts in the comments section below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
See More:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Supplementary Essential Variables As Per ASME Section IX<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"This article discusses a few examples when the production weld comprises of dissimilar base metal thickness. What should the WPS for such production welds be like? How must the PQR for such welds look like? Consider the following problem asked in Interpretation IX-13-09. A WPS is qualified for a base metal thickness range of 13 … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":true,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[117],"tags":[119],"yoast_head":"\nPractice Case 3 \u2013 WPS For Dissimilar Base Metal Thickness<\/title>\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n