corner crack question

Date 05-27-2009 03:14

My understanding is that only the convex surface is evaluated. Cracks extending down the side or on the concave surface are not part of the evaluation.

Best regards - Al

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 05-27-2009 05:26

Hello guys,
There is a small statement regarding corner cracks in the D1.1 commentary C4.8.3.3.
My interpretation is a little bit different to yours Al.
If you have visible slag inclusions or other fusion type discontinuities in the side of a bend sample that measure more than 3 mm (1/8") then it should fail, even if there are no defects on the convex surface. It is a test of the soundness of a weld, not a test of one surface of the weld.
Therefore, IMHO if a corner crack extends either on the convex surface or the side of the sample and it is associated with a slag inclusion or fusion type discontinuity it can be no more than 3 mm (1/8"). If it is not associated with a slag inclusion or fusion type discontinuity then 4.8.3.3 (3) should apply (6 mm / 1/8" or a new sample).
Your thoughts,
Regards,
Shane

By 803056

Date 05-27-2009 11:57

Good morning Shane (or is it evening where you are?);

I based my short answer on the opening clause of 4.8.3.3 contained in AWS D1.1-2008, "The convex surface of the bend specimen shall visually examined for surface discontinuities." and the subordinate clause (3) for acceptance, "1/4 in. - the maximum corner crack, except where that corner crack results from visible slag inclusion or other fusion type discontinuity, then the 1/8 in. maximum shall apply."

From the Commentary, paragraph C-4.8.3.3, I read, "A maximum limit on tears originating at the corners was added to prevent the case where the corner cracks might extend halfway across the specimen, and under the previous criteria, would be judged acceptable."

I do not see where it says the open discontinuity extended down the side of the bend specimen is included in the sum of the length, i.e., I see no relaxation or deviation for the first sentence of clause 4.8.3.3. Again, the first sentence limits the evaluation to the convex surface, i.e., the face of the bent sample if you will, and the sentence from the commentary, "originating at the corners" would indicate as it states "at the corner", nothing being said about the side of the bent sample.

Once again from the commentary, "The statement regarding to total quantity of indications was added to restrict the accumulative amount of discontinuities." I believe that is in reference to clause 4.8.3.3 (2) regarding the 3/8 in sum of all discontinuities which is different from ASME which does not sum all the discontinuities.

I do not see any wording that would indicate anything other than the convex surface being part of the evaluation. Help me out Shane. I would not oppose being more critical than I am if I can find verbiage in the code to support doing so.

English, being what it is, would support many different interpretations if read in a literary class. Lets see, what was the author thinking when he wrote "the convex surface of the bend specimen", perhaps he was thinking of the soft curvature of the horse's buttock. Yea, I had a couple of those English Literature courses. I always though the professors were more than a little perverted.

Best regards - Al

By jab96b Date 05-27-2009 12:37

I have to agree with Al on this one. I haven't seen anything that states any surface other than the convex surface should be looked at and measured.

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 05-27-2009 12:52

Hi Al,
It is evening here at the moment (It must be, I have a beer in my hand).
I have to be careful with my answer as I am biased towards radiography and I have made my opinions of the limitations of bend testing known before on the forum.
I am not sure if the D1.1 committee have explained the acceptance criteria for bend testing very well.
If RT is used in lieu of bend tests as per 4.19.1.1 then cracks are not allowed and elongated indication limitations are governed by Figure 6.4.
I am not sure if Table 6.1 (Visual Inspection) is even applicable but if RT is looking at 100% of the weld, why would bend testing be limited to looking at 1 surface out of 4 ?
Visual inspection states no cracks and no lack of fusion.
If you see a crack in the side of your specimen (that has definitely propogated from a discontinuity and has not been caused by the bend process) would you accept it when it does not comply with either visual or RT acceptance criteria ?
If you see lack of side wall fusion or slag inclusion ( greater than the allowances of Figure 6.4) in the side of your specimen would you accept it when it doesn't comply with the visual or RT requirements ?
I think I have posted more questions than answers but hopefully someone will provide some clarification.
Have a great day Al,
Regards,
Shane

By 803056

Date 05-27-2009 13:07

I'm on my way out the door for a meeting, but I might look to see if there have been any interpretations issued on this question when I return.

As for the criteria, there are different criteria for different tests, each with their own particulars.

Our task is to avoid mixing the apples with the oranges.

Best regards - Al

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 05-27-2009 13:27

Al,
That is what I am trying to ascertain.
If the apple or orange is rotten in the middle does it really matter how you found it out ???
Regards,
Shane

By jab96b Date 05-27-2009 15:48

The ones I bend seldom ever crack down the root so I think that part of the problem is how the specimens are being prepared. I clean both sides of each side bend specimen and radius all corners at least 1/16". I also bend the side with the most discontinuities towards the opening of the jig. The test that I am questioning are only being cleaned on one side with little if any radius and the side that is cleaned looks bad to me. I can't allow myself to risk a weld test failure due to a bad prep job. Wording and figures in D1.1 tell me that both sides should be preped, but that is my interpratation.
When I do have a root crack on a side bend test, the crack is not clearly visible until the specimen is bent.
As for the difference in RT criteria vs. bend test criteria, my understanding is that RT and UT are more theory so the criteria is more strict because ductillity is not tested like it would be with a bend test.

John

By CHGuilford (****)

Date 05-27-2009 16:15

I don't have my D1.1 handy so I won't quote from it until it's back but the way I do it is this:

If a void, or slag, or fusion type discontinuities, are found in the saw cut I regard that as part of the evaluation.

If a corner crack is found on the bend, and it does not have an obvious initiator but is just a crack, I evaluate the outside surface only. I don't count where the crack runs down the side as part of the 1/4" allowance.

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 05-27-2009 17:33

Here is my take on the question;

I say that by definition a "corner" implies two sides. Since the acceptance criteria specifies the convex side is to be inspected,and then goes on to mention the "corner" cracking, and there is usually a radius (Max 1/8"), the side would have to be included, (if the crack proceeded from the convex face side of the coupon).

If we were to interpret the wording of the acceptance criteria to mean the convex "face" only, then we would have to exclude the face of the radius as well. The wording should then mention defects starting at the left or right "edge", or "limit" of the convex face, instead of from a "corner".

By 803056

Date 05-27-2009 20:28 Edited 05-28-2009 12:18

Hello Shane;

The bend test causes the base metal yield and elongate as the sample is stressed. The normal elongation for A36, A572, etc. is 20%. Any surface or subsurface linear discontinuity acts as a stress riser and can produce a crack. Even porosity can initiate a crack when the elongations gets up toward the 20% mark.

Radiography does not stress the test piece. The indication that may cause the sample to crack when bent may easily be small enough to be acceptable when evaluated by RT.

It has been noted that the corners of the test pieces are to be radiused before bending. The radius is necessary because a sharp corner (with no discontinuities present) can initiate a tear when subjected to the tensile forces that occur at the convex surface (something to do with triaxial stress at the corner of the sample).

Not all standards are the same. I am currently qualifying a procedure for HY-80. Based on the requirements of NAVSEA TP248 the sample must undergo 20% elongation, where as if I was qualifying the same material to AWS B2.1 the elongation would only be 13% and 16% for AWS D1.1. Considering the elongation of the HY-80 is only 19 to 20% to start with, it will not take much of a discontinuity to initiate a crack when testing to TP248.

I also compared the text of AWS B4.0 with AWS D1.1. B4.0 "Standard Methods for Mechanical Testing of Welds" states that the surface placed in tension is the surface to be examined for tears and other open defects. Nothing is mentioned about examining the sides of the sample.

The welding standard, be it AWS D1.1, ASME Section IX, or something else, lists the minimum requirements. That allows the inspector some latitude, i.e., he can apply more rigid "requirements" than the standard if it is his signature on the certifying statement. In other words, if the inspector insists on "no open defects", so be it. That's his understanding of the standard, his requirements, the test as he administers it, and his signature. However, I can't throw stones at someone that abides by the welding standard as long as his requirements are not more relax than what is permitted by the applicable standard.

I don't know that it helps with your questions.

Best regards - Al

By jab96b Date 05-27-2009 21:52 Edited 05-27-2009 22:27

If the "left" and "right" edge is used instead of "corner" , the specimens would have to be oriented one way all the time. Double V groove test would be hard to verify that "side 1" is the left side and "side 2" is the right side.
AWS B4.0 2007 6.5 is the significance of a bend test. 6.5.1 states "The ductility of the welded joint, as evidenced by its ability to resist tearing and the presence of defects on the tension surface, is determined in a guided bend test."
The sides of the test specimens are not going to be in uniform tension and the area near the concave side will be in compression. Does anyone agree with that or am I wrong here?
John

By 803056

Date 05-28-2009 03:19

I'm not sure that I understand your point.

Best regards -Al

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 05-28-2009 12:21

Good evening (or morning) Gents,
I am utterly confused.
Based on the general consensus (apart from Chet) it seems that a defect that is noted on the side of a bend sample and that would be unacceptable to VT, RT and UT is actually deemed acceptable on a bend test as long as it does not break the convex surface.
The welder qualification test is supposed to look at the whole of the test coupon to see if it is acceptable. The bend test seems to only expose the surface and slightly subsurface defects exposed to the convex surface.
If you have lack of fusion between the root and the hotpass measuring 1" long on a face bend there is virtually no chance it will show up on the convex surface of the bend sample but it would clearly fail radiography.
IMHO it does not seem that bend testing and RT are equivalent inspection techniques for welder qualification based on AWS D1.1.
It seems bend testing is much more lenient than RT.
Am I missing something here guys ?
Regards,
Shane

By 803056

Date 05-28-2009 13:26 Edited 05-28-2009 14:00

Back to you Shane;

I think we all have to agree that there is one basic premise that applies to all welds; there is no such thing as a perfect weld. There will be discontinuities present, it is a matter of determining if the discontinuity is going to adversely affect the usefulness of the part. That is why different welding standards, intended for different applications, have different acceptance criteria. The AWS bridge code is more stringent than ASME B&PV Code for unfired pressure vessels, which is more stringent than API 1104 for cross country pipelines. Each evaluated the welder's ability to produce a sound weld differently, i.e., different bend diameters and different acceptance criteria apply.

You ask if it matters how the rotten apple is discovered. As a third party inspector, I believe each test performed has its own acceptance criteria and you don't apply the criteria of one test method to another.

Each test piece has to pass visual examination before it is radiographed or subjected to bend tests. You can't perform RT and use that test method to either identify good areas or bad areas for the purpose of performing the bend tests. If the test piece is examined by RT, the acceptance criteria for RT is applied. That doesn't mean every potential discontinuity will be detected. Incomplete fusion between weld layers can easily be missed if the IF is perpendicular to the beam. The code doesn't require us supplement the RT with UT to check for that type of defect. To some extent, the welder qualification or procedure qualification testing regiment is statistical. The assumption is that if the bend test is acceptable, the entire test piece was probably acceptable. If the tensile tests were acceptable, then the tensile properties of the entire test piece were probably acceptable. Deep in our hearts we know that isn't necessarily true, we simply "lucked out" that we took our samples from a "good spot". We would have to test large numbers of welded samples to establish valid statistical data, but the cost is too high and the limited testing performed is "good enough" to provide a level of comfort we can live with.

As mentioned in a previous post, the prepared bend specimens are visually examined once they are removed from the welded piece. Many inspectors simply reject any specimen that has obvious defects such as slag inclusions, incomplete fusion, etc. The welding standards (the requirement may or may not be included in every welding standard) typically instructs the reader to orient the piece so that the worst looking surface (that with the most visible discontinuities) is subject to the tensile stress when bent. I believe the intention is to cause any severe discontinuity subjected to the tensile stress and the prescribed elongation to initiate a crack. As I mentioned, not all welding standards require the same degree of elongation (which translates into tensile stress). Compare the requirements of API 1104 to D1.1 or ASME Section VIII. API is not as stringent as AWS or ASME. API uses the same diameter bending mandrel for all materials and all thicknesses. The result is that thin materials are not stressed as high as thicker materials and the elongation of the thinner materials is not the same as the thicker materials. However, the criteria has proven to be adequate for the intended service. We may find out that the testing requirements are not adequate as higher strength line pipe materials are introduced, but that is a different story.

As a purist, I try not to intermingle the acceptance criteria, i.e., I do not apply visual criteria to a radiographic test unless the indication is on the surface, e.g. undercut. Likewise, I don't supplement the RT with UT just because I suspect incomplete fusion between layers. The qualification sample is accepted or rejected on the basis of the visual and radiographic test results or visual and bend test results. In my mind the code is clear as to it's intent. It does not state that the test piece has to be free of all discontinuities, only that it has to pass the tests as prescribed with the acceptance criteria provided for that specific test.

Again, the welding standard delineates the minimum requirements that must be met. The manufacturer or testing agency can impose criteria that is more stringent than that prescribed by the applicable standard. If you, as the testing agency or manufacturer, determine it is in your best interest to perform a visual examination, followed by PT or MT, followed by UT, followed by RT, followed by bend testing 6 samples instead of two samples, so be it. You have gone above and beyond what the welding standard requires. I would hope all the test results are reported so that everyone knows how the sample was evaluated.

Back to the original question, "do you include the cracks in the vertical edge of the bent piece in the evaluation?" I stand by my original response, as per AWS D1.1, I would say no. That is my understanding of the words as they are written. If you as an individual responsible for qualifying and certifying welders elect to impose more stringent criteria, it is your prerogative to do so. However, I also believe the welder and your client or employer should be provided with a written procedure that delineates how samples are processed and evaluated so they understand that your criteria (or mine) is the same or different from what is required by code. As a third party inspector I can not arbitrarily apply criteria that is more stringent than that required by the welding standard. I might not like it, but I am bound by contract to abide by what was agreed to by the owner and the fabricator/manufacturer.

The individual with the final say in matters pertaining to AWS D1.1, the EOR, is the individual that can arbitrate disagreements and he can accept welder qualifications and procedures qualified to alternative standards or those that may deviate from the requirements of the standard if he is comfortable in doing so. Most building codes and AWS D1.1 give the EOR that authority. We, the inspectors are simple the EOR's eyes and ears on the job site.

Recap: Not only are bend tests and radiography different, they reveal different types of weld abnomalities. As stated earlier, a bend test will typically fail if there is a small discontinuity present near the convex surface that may be accepted by RT (discontinuities representing less than 2% of the material thickness). The reason of doing multiple bend tests such as the root and face bends is to evaluate a portion of both the root and the face of the weld. Not only do the two tests methods reveal different types of discontinuities, but each code has established different acceptance criteria for each of the tests. No one test method will reveal all possible conditions. RT will reveal nothing of the mechanical properties of the deposited weld. Bend tests will reveal little about defects present on the concave surface that were not observe during the visual examination. The nick break test used by API is a whole different story. None of the codes require the test piece to be free of all discontinuities, only that it be "good enough" to meet their criteria.

As for the bend test being easier than RT, I strongly disagree. Every test plate used to qualify the procedure for both AWS D1.1 and NAVSEA TP248 require volumetric NDT before performing mechanical testing. I've had many cases where the weldment passed RT and failed either the tensile tests or the bend tests. I usually perform the bend tests before the tensile tests so I don't invest time and money machining and testing the tensiles if the bends fail. I just finished two procedures with different materials that passed RT with no visiable indications on the film, both failed the bend test! RT is easier than bends in my experience. ;)

And "jab96b" though he posted a simple questions.

Best regards - Al

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 05-28-2009 23:38

Al,
Thank you for a very thorough explanation.
Can I do a complete 180 degree backflip and ask a question from the opposite direction.
B31.3 Section K prohibits the use of RT in lieu of bend testing for welder qualification so one would assume that the B31.3 committee considers bend testing to be more stringent than RT.
Why would some codes allow two (or three if you include UT) ways of testing a qualification coupon if they are not equivalent in stringency.
Surely that opens the door to unscrupulous contractors to choose the easiest method to qualify their welders.
In 30 years in the welding game in Australia / New Zealand I have never heard of welders being qualified by bend testing, it is always by RT.
And yet it seems bend testing is the norm in the US for welder qualification.
Any thoughts on why this might be ?
Cheers,
Shane

By CWI555

Date 05-29-2009 01:32 Edited 05-29-2009 01:34

I've been rattling my two cents around in my head for a couple of days debating if I wanted to throw them in the ring. As they say nothing ventured, nothing gained.

It is my opinion there will come a time in my lifetime when both bend test and RT go out the door.
http://www.olympus-ims.com/en/ndt-application/183-id.209715270.html
http://www.olympus-ims.com/en/ndt-application/183-id.209715263.html
That is just the beginning. EFIT, P scans, EMAT, SAFT and other methods currently developed, and in development will provide not only flaw detection, but mechanical properties testing. The theory is actually very simple. Every UT ever performed imparts mechanical vibrations into the weld. What is received are the gross return either by reflection, refraction, etc. What is missing is instrumentation sensitive enough to pick up and map exactly where it is returning from, in what mode, in what angle, etc. Consider how weather doppler radar picks up on air density, reflectivity, etc. Consider how modern Ultrasonic medical scans work.
The only thing holding this back is current processing speeds, and the correct alogrithms.
In theory, a system could map the entire spread of a weld and base material simply by a high decibel ring of the part in conjuction with an array of transducers to pick up and map through processing the mechanical properties of the weld etc. With known standards, a weld that does not match the elastic modulus, and other mechanical properties both gross and intergranular being markedly different from one that was welded correctly and clean.
Throw in EMAT or an advanced variation of it, you will end up with a frankensystem that can do nearly anything. For that matter, there are many attempting to create an AE/UT system capable of listening to the weld as it solidifys, matching it against known values, and determining if the weld is good nearly real time. There are a lot of technical challenges to that, but from all of my research, the theory of it is sound.

Don't think it possible? The same thought was held about cell phones, color tv, computers, and for that matter, the earth being round at one time or another.
"640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates, 1981

Enough about the future of it for now.
Without regards to the specific code, I don't see either bend or RT as superior to one another, just as I don't view an apple any better than an orange.
It's two different animals.
As for Shanes question about the rest of the world using RT to qualify a welder, it depends on where in the rest of the world you are.
However; a weld engineer in Argentina once told me 'Paraphrased':We watch the welders during qualification, if they follow a Qualified WPS witnessed by a weld inspector, why waste more money on bends?
I thought about that for a while and came to the conclusion that in theory he was correct, in reality he was wrong. There are many variables that can change the mechanical properties of a given peice without showing up on an RT, and will not be noticable if the weld was not being witnessed as it were made I.E. with a hood on. If you have a hood on, how are you going to be keeping an eye on the voltage/amp readouts etc. Put simply, there are to many variables to keep a direct eye on for any given singular welder/inspector combination. That is the proverbial hole in the theory of RT is better.

The converse can be said about mechanical testing. If the strap is cut in the same place everytime as most codes decree, there is no promise that the welder actually made a sound weld reasonably free of flaws for the full length of the weld. (within the inherent limitations of RT flaw orientation POD, which can be mitigated by CR radiography)

"Again, the welding standard delineates the minimum requirements that must be met. The manufacturer or testing agency can impose criteria that is more stringent than that prescribed by the applicable standard. If you, as the testing agency or manufacturer, determine it is in your best interest to perform a visual examination, followed by PT or MT, followed by UT, followed by RT, followed by bend testing 6 samples instead of two samples, so be it."

I've worked a project that required just that with the exception of two bends, two macros etc, and PT/UT/RT combination. (for the nature of the service, I could understand the paranoia that drove that)

However, no matter who it is, what their opinion is, however educated that opinion may be, the codes are the code. Unless directly and clearly altered by a project specification, it is a mistake to stray from the documented requirements. It is not fair or right to any of the concerned parties to make up the rules as you go. Not to mention it can be a career killer to put on the "field expert at everything hat". My imagination and assumption capability takes a drastic dive during times of inspections during that time.

Therein is my two cents for what it's worth.
Regards,
Gerald

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 05-29-2009 01:42

Thanks for the excellent 2 cents worth Gerald,
On my current project (LNG) we are doing 2 bends + RT for welder qualification.
Regards,
Shane

By CWI555

Date 05-29-2009 12:57

2 bends and RT is the standard for LNG in my experience. Are you on a liquification or regasification LNG?

Regards,
Gerald

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 05-29-2009 13:22

Jeez Gerald,
I am just a dumb ol" welding inspector.
It is a US$12.5 billion LNG project taking the gas from the rigs offshore and making it real cold and then putting it in big ships. LOL !!!
I honestly never bother to learn too much about the ins and outs of the process, I work in so many industries and it generally doesn't interest me.
I help build a project and then move on to the next one.
May sound sad but the welding process used to build something interests me more than what the end product actually does.
Regards,
Shane

By CWI555

Date 05-29-2009 14:18

That would be a liquification plant. As for "I am just a dumb ol welding inspector", I was born at night, but not last night. :-)

I asked the question as for the liquification process, there has been a design shift away from 316L to super duplex in respect to the processing portion of the facility.
I was curious if they have done that in your particular location? I try to keep up with shifts in the LNG business. When all else fails I can usually land an LNG or related project.
It would also interest me what the storage capacity is, as I've heard there is a move to reduce storage capacity as the LNG tankers get more proliferated.

Regards,
Gerald

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 05-30-2009 01:40

Hi Gerald,
Sorry for my response last night, I was guilty of TUI (Typing Under the Influence).
I will try and attach two info sheets on the Northwest Shelf LNG Project and the Pluto LNG Project. They are right next to each other in North West Australia. I worked on Train 4 of the NWS project and am currently on the new construction of the Pluto project.
Regards,
Shane

Attachment: NWSFactsheet1.pdf (340k)

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 05-30-2009 01:45 Edited 05-30-2009 01:52

Got 1 attachment on but wouldn't allow the other so will try it on this posting.
No luck, too big I think.
Try this:
www.woodside.com.au/NR/rdonlyres/C59406C5-7349-4C01-B2D1-D31BF62E506A/0/PlutoFactSheet_Apr2009.pdf
Cheers,
Shane

By CWI555

Date 05-30-2009 01:54

TUI is it? LOL

I've read sheet you've posted. It's good to have the LNG experience under your belt. The only reason more of them aren't going up is they can't get the materials fast enough.
I try to keep up with the trends, but if all planned construction cut off today, we'd be in work for the next 25 years. It is really hard to break into it, but once there no more problems if you don't mind traveling to the corners of the world.

Regards,
Gerald

By 803056

Date 05-29-2009 04:21 Edited 05-29-2009 04:41

Hello Gerald;

I believe you and I are essentially of the same mind on this subject.

I hope my response was clear on the point that any deviation from the code should be clearly spelled out to all parties involved by way of the written procedures and the test reports issued. I believe I have responded in a similar fashion to inquiries similar to this one with regards to the conditions under which the welder qualification test is administered and evaluated, i.e., the procedures should delineate what the welder can and can not do, the applicable acceptance criteria, means of evaluation, etc. There should be no surprises or unknowns for the welder or the the "owner".

I think some people believe the welder qualification is more than it really is. The welder qualification is no guarantee the welder is never going to make a bad production weld. It is simply a demonstration the welder has the minimum skills required to deposit a weld that meets the "soundness" requirements of the applicable standard. On the particular day the test was taken, the stars and planets were in proper alignment and the welder passed.

There are times when it is reasonable for the owner to apply requirements that are more stringent than the minimums required by the applicable welding standard. When that is the case, the new or supplemental requirements are (or should be) invoked by the project specifications. The inspector does not work in a vacuum. It is not the inspector's prerogative to unilaterally invoke requirements more stringent than those of the applicable standard . Whether he is working for a laboratory testing welders or in the field monitoring the work on a project, the inspector answers to other people having higher authority. The inspector does not typically dictate policy or practices. That is the responsibility of the owner/engineer/or client and it is usually based on the requirements of the appropriate standards or codes. On the point that an inspector that believes he is autonomous, or believes he has the authority to make unilateral decisions, or invoke his own acceptance criteria is usually destined for a short career is something that you and I most definately agree on.

The decision to radiograph the test piece or perform bend tests is usually a matter of timeliness, economics, and availability of the necessary equipment when the welding standard permits either. As pointed out (and many contractor fail to note) by Shane, B31.3 requires qualification by bend testing for piping systems defined as high pressure by the owner. In a similar manner, there are standards that require welders using GMAW-S to be qualified by bends only. A point to consider.

One point to remember is that per most codes the contractor performing the work is responsible to meet the requirements of the code or project specifications. It is the owners prerogative or responsibility (depending on the particulars of the code) to ensure the design and code requirements have been met. It is in the contractor's best interest (or so the theory says) to employ only qualified people. Some contractors are very serious in their approach to welder qualification and others are gamblers at heart and try to cut every corner in the belief no one will ever know. As a welder, I've worked for both types of contractors and from a personal prospective, I would rather work for the quality conscious employer.

I had an interesting inquiry this afternoon. A prospective client asked if I was NADCAP approved for administering welder qualifications. It seems a NADCAP auditor told him the welder qualification tests had to be administered by a NADCAP approved laboratory. That's the first I've heard of this. I've been testing welders for military contractors, FAA, aerospace, etc. for the last twenty years with no problems. Has anyone else encountered this or is an attempt by one NADCAP auditor's to self promote?

Best regards - Al

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 05-29-2009 14:37

Al

If NADCAP is imposing this requirement, it is time for the AWS Board of Directors to get a lawsuit in play. NADCAP did not used to require this. If it is even one NADCAP auditor mistakenly imposing this requirement, the AWS had better get a lawsuit and maybe even a class action lawsuit going on behalf of it's 20000 or so CWIs and SCWIs.

Can you get any particulars?

Joe Kane

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 05-29-2009 14:56

Why would a lawsuit be needed. Can NADCAP not impose its own restrictions if needed ?

Please explain this in more depth. Can't ANYONE require whatever they want. Does AWS have a monopoly on all things welding or is there actually some other reason this would be an issue.

By CWI555

Date 05-29-2009 15:19

This has been replayed many times between IACS, ASNT, EFNDT, AWS, JSNDI, ASME etc. One or the other trying to exclude a specific group.
It ammounts to a power grab. That is never a good thing.

By CWI555

Date 05-29-2009 15:17

http://www.pri-network.org/Welding.id.872.htm

New Revision to Weld Checklists

On 4th December 2006, AC7110 and AC7110/1-/9 were revised to Rev D. Two new checklists, AC7110/12 (Criteria for welder / welding operator qualification) and AC7110/13 (Criteria for metallographic evaluation of welds) were also introduced on this date.

Subsequently, on 1st March 2007, AC7110/3,/4,/5,/6 were revised to Rev E and AC7110/12 was revised to Rev A.

The new checklists have had major revisions in-line with Nadcap Management Council’s mandate to ‘baseline’ them. It is therefore extremely important that you download the latest revisions from eAuditNet and perform a thorough internal audit at your earliest opportunity. This will avoid unnecessary non-conformances being raised at your next audit. In addition to the new checklists, the Task Group have revised their audit handbooks. These provide further information on both question intent and acceptable objective evidence. The handbooks can be downloaded from eAuditNet via the public document menu. You are advised to review these in combination with the new checklists.

All the Nadcap subscribing primes have agreed to the requirements in the baseline checklists. These requirements may be in addition to those currently flowed down by your contracting prime(s). In order to receive Nadcap accreditation, you will need to meet all the requirements of the Nadcap baseline checklists. Where the Weld Task group did not desire to incorporate the requirements for some specific material types or processes in the baseline, the requirements have been added as supplements to the relevant checklist. This also applies to prime specific requirements that the Task Group do not want to impose on all suppliers. You need to review each process for which you are seeking accreditation and ensure the scope of the audit is correct. Any changes to scope need to be communicated to your PRI Scheduling contact as soon as possible.

It is important to note that the checklists no longer have N/A options available and as such any question that is answered “No” will result in a NCR being issued.

The new checklists will require procedural control for items that you may not have been required to address in the previous checklist revision. This may include items that you do not currently use. For these, you will need a provision in the applicable quality or engineering document that would invoke the required condition should it become required by a Prime.

AC7110/12 (criteria for welder / welding operator qualification) has been developed to more clearly define the requirements. This checklist has essentially taken the requirements previously listed in AC7110 Rev C and expanded on them to incorporate the industry specification requirements

AC7110/13 (criteria for metallographic evaluation of welds) has been developed based on prime knowledge that several escapes have occurred due to inadequate control in this area. It is designed to be used by either captive (internal) or independent (external) labs. Those weld suppliers who evaluate welds shall be audited to AC7110/13 in addition to the requirements specified in the appropriate process checklist.

Where you use an independent Laboratory for weld evaluation, you should flow the requirement for AC7110/13 accreditation to them, to ensure they have the necessary approvals in place. The laboratory performing the evaluation, whether internal or external, shall be audited to the new requirements at the first audit occurring after 1st December 2006. Note that due to the existing audit schedule of some Material Test Laboratories, full implementation may not be achieved until 1st December 2008. External laboratories not currently holding Nadcap Material Test accreditation shall be compliant by 1st December 2008.

PRI will periodically offer Welding specific Nadcap Customer Support Initiatives (NCSI) training events to support the introduction of these checklists.

Four of these training events have already taken place. Additional sessions will be planned and suppliers will receive an email invitation. Click here to access a copy of the training presentation.

From the ppt www.pri-network.org/resource/attach/62/NCSIWeldingJan07.ppt
AC 7110/12 Nadcap Audit Criteria for Welder / Welding
Operator Qualification.
Includes supplemental requirements specific to welder / operator qualification.

I believe there may be some fire to this smoke.

By CWI555

Date 05-29-2009 14:57

I've heard grumblings in regards to the NADCAP requirements. I've not seen anything concrete as of yet. I would be very much interesting in seeing some documentation on that one.

By cremx

Date 06-02-2009 13:59

Look at this http://weldingmag.com/blodgett/wdf_13719/index.html and get your own conclusions

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 06-02-2009 15:21

This article does not address the main question about corner crack measurement.