PROCEDURE QUALIFICATION TO AWS D14.6

By ROBINSONWELDMAN Date 11-26-2002 18:03

I CANNOT FIND A CLEAR ANSWER IN THE CODE BOOK TO THIS QUESTION. IF YOU QUALIFY A WELD PROCEDURE IN THE 2G POSITION DOES THIS ALSO QUALIFY THE PROCEDURE FOR THE 1G POSITION? THE OTHER CODES THAT I HAVE LOOKED AT ARE CLEAR THAT A 2G PROCEDURE ALSO QUALIFIES FOR THE 1G( AWS D1.1, AWS 1.2, & ASME IX).

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 11-26-2002 20:30

From what I read

"5.18.4 Welding Positions When listed in Table 6 as
an essential variable for the welding process used, the
following changes require requalification:
(1) The addition of welding positions other than
those already qualified (see 5.4).
(2) A change from any position to the vertical position
with uphill progression (see 5.4). Vertical-up qualifies
for all positions."

5.4 doesn't seem to indicate any "range" for positions. I interpret this to mean each position. I haven't done much fan work in a few years but I recall this being an issue.

Maybe someone else can shed some light on this D14.6 seems to be an accident from leaving D1.1 and ASME Sec IX alone unsupervised. I would think metal and welding respond to stress in similar manners regardless of the application.

Gerald Austin

By bmaas1

Date 11-30-2002 13:26

As far as I can tell you should be all right. D14.6 states with the addition of positions you should requalify the procedure, example: going from flat to vertical.
What are you welding? process, etc.
I use D14.6 daily and sometimes it leaves a bit to be desired.

Hope this helps.

Brian Maas

By ROBINSONWELDMAN Date 12-06-2002 14:58

I use gmaw, fcaw, gtaw, saw, and some smaw. It would be very helpful if the 14.6 code book had a chart like 1.1, 1.2, etc. to make things clearer. I feel that if a welder can pass a 2g test, then 1g should be no problem. I wish 14.6 thought as clear as I do this issue.