Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / ASME Codes / ASME sec IX pro's, I have a question.
- - By Kix (****) Date 02-18-2010 17:01
Here's the low down,  Had a nuc job come into the plant the other day and an AI inspecter along with it to witness the fitup and root pass. These headers were 1.5'' sched 40 carbon steel pipes.  Our procedure for some reason calls for a purge and it's the only carbon tig open root procedure we have.   The AI inspector told me that backing gas on carbon steel pipe was not an essential variable for procedure qual on carbon pipe so we could go ahead and put the root in without a purge.  Here's where it gets tricky.  Well, I guess he figured my welder had a qualification test without a purge and would then be qualified to weld on the headers.  Me not thinking backing gas was a performance qualification ess variable for ASME didn't think twice about it because I know it's not as ess variable in D1.1.  In the end the AI inspector is gigging us on the fact our welder is not qualified to put a root in without backing gas.
     Now why in the hell is backing gas a welder performace ess variable on carbon steel open roots?  I don't believe it aids in any way to the ability of the welder to pass a carbon steel open root qualification test.  I know my beliefs don't mean sh!t in the way of the code, but come on. lol  The AI inspector is being cool and letting us get our man qualified without backing gas and is not fully gigging us yet because he told us we'd be ok to do it that way.  I looked in the 2004 ASME sec IX code and in paragraph 408.8 it sure enough states that the omittion of backing gas is a performance qual ess variable.  Can you say bull honky or am I reading this wrong and my welder is actually good to go with the cert he already has?

Thanks in advance!!

Kix
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 02-18-2010 21:04
A nuke and no ANI?
No ANI review of WPS's?
No ANI review of WPQ's?
Were the PQR's tested at an accredited lab?
No traveler with the WPS on it?
No NCR?
No welder matrix?
Who's gonna do the NDE?
Does it say 10CFR50 on the PO?
Your welder has to requalify but unless you left alot out you have far bigger problems than backing gas.
Now, you may have all these things in place, but if so this confusion shouldn't have happened.
This is the very type of confusion these systems are design to prevent.
Parent - - By Kix (****) Date 02-19-2010 04:37
They didn't call him an ANI, it was just AI.  Yes, we had all those reviews and I said we had procedures in my post. Yes, they're all qualified by a qualified lab.  Yes, we had a welder matrix that had to be signed off at all the different hold points.  I don't look at the P.O.'s.  The only NDE that I know the AI is going to do is VT.  We have all that stuff in place, but like I said in my post, the AI said don't worry about purging it because it was carbon.  We said that the procedure says to and he said it's not an essential variable for a WPQR on carbon steel.  He failed to tell us that it is an essential variable for welder performance.  My guy will be tested first thing monday with no backing gas on a 6" plate.

Thanks for the confirmation!!

Kix
Parent - - By CWI555 (*****) Date 02-21-2010 13:14
I was cringing when I read your initial post, and more so now.

First step is to get a copy of the correct version of Section IX. The last edition/addenda we are using is 2008, and moving towards 2009.

"The only NDE that I know the AI is going to do is VT"
That one can get you into all kinds of trouble. The ANI doesn't designate the NDE. You have to answer a few questions first on that one.
Is it repair and or replacement? For a Section XI plant, they can use the code of record (which on my current project is summer 73 section III)
Or they can use something from the most recently accepted Section XI which I believe is 2004 edition.

If this is for a new plant, then your into 2007 Section III.

Then you have to answer what class of system it is for. Class 1, 2, or 3 or other?
Is it safety related, quality related, both, neither?
You won't have any of those above if your not an ASME stamp holder, which you have said you are, so what is the nature of your stamp, and what does your quality manual say?

Remember that all the above are influenced and in many cases altered by the various reg guides, and CFR's. The NRC takes exceptions on a case by case basis to various code cases and year edition of codes. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part050/part050-0055a.html

Answering to the NRC, that the ANI performed the visual 'inspection' is tremendous mistake, much less saying the ANI designated the NDE.

I strongly advise you step back from the brink of disaster and dig out your Quality manual, the PO, and every other piece of paper you can find and get to reading.
What you've posted already is a clear sign to me that your QA department has failed already in the orientation of it's employee's to the QA program for ASME stamped items.
For CYA, dig in and read read read.
Parent - By Kix (****) Date 02-21-2010 22:47
No need to worry brotha.  The ai didn't designate the nde method he was just supposed to come in and witness fit up, look at the root and the cover pass and then it ships.  So I don't think this coil is for anything serious at the nuke. Sorry for the confusion.
Parent - - By Mikeqc1 (****) Date 02-18-2010 21:29
Wow, so many Questions.
I can only say, cover your a**.
Are you a Stamp holder?
Parent - - By Kix (****) Date 02-19-2010 04:28
Yes
Parent - - By ssbn727 (*****) Date 02-19-2010 04:42
If it's a Nuclear job, the first thing that sticks out in my mind is why are you referring to an older version of ASME Section IX??? And are you working to the ASME Nuclear construction code as well??? I would think that on a Nuclear job, one would qualify the welders to the most current version of Section IX at the very least and  also be working to the appropriate construction code with respect to nuclear components. I believe Jeff's got it right in asking those questions and so does Mike IMHO. ;)

Respectfully,
Henry
Parent - - By Shane Feder (****) Date 02-19-2010 05:35
Kix,

"My guy will be tested first thing monday with no backing gas on a 6" plate."

How can you qualify a guy for pipe welding with a plate test ?
Regards,
Shane
Parent - By 3.2 Inspector (***) Date 02-19-2010 08:33
Maybe the pipe has grown bigger.

3.2
Parent - - By Kix (****) Date 02-19-2010 15:20 Edited 02-19-2010 15:33
That's ASME for ya, plate qualifys pipe.  Ya I know, go figure, but only down to a certain dia and I think it's like just over 2".  I need to check on that.  The AI said to have him run a 6'' plate coupon, but again, we're working on 1.5" sched 40 pipe and I'm wondering if a plate coupon will get him that.
Parent - - By Shane Feder (****) Date 02-20-2010 02:06
Kix,
Plate does qualify pipe in certain circumstances but not yours.
Have a look at QW461.9
In the position and weld type qualified you are restricted to Horizontal or Flat (1G rotated) and even then the minimum diameter qualified is 2 7/8".
Regards,
Shane
Parent - By Kix (****) Date 02-21-2010 00:57
Thanks Shane! I thought it was something like that and you have confirmed my thoughts.  I'm going to get the code out on Monday morn and do some research to get him qualified right.
Parent - - By tighand430 (***) Date 02-21-2010 02:35 Edited 02-21-2010 03:12
To get your welder certified to do 1.5" pipe, the easiest way to go would be to give him a 2" sch 80 6G test, tig all the way out. It should certify him down to 1" OD and to a thickness of .436" (going by UA certs). I'm saying that because almost every job I go to be it a nuke, coal burner, or refinery, they all give some sort of 2" test to get us down to 1". The UA certs should be in accordance to the Section IX code but aint 100% positive.  I'm with you on the purge/no purge deal. Me and the welding instructor at my hall, also a CWI, had a discussion about it a couple weeks ago. Apparently, ASME says that it's harder to weld without a purge so that's how a carbon test will certify you for doing stainless, since they are the same F numbers....or some crap like that. The same holds true with doing alloy tests on carbon coupons. I don't see how they come out saying that it is just as good because some stainless and all the nickel alloys weld different than plain carbon, specially when putting in the root. But, I can't tell you all the specifics since I don't have any ASME endorsements yet. But, I've done enough 2" coupons to be pretty sure that it will give you the qualifications you're looking for. Hope this helps some Kix!
Parent - - By Kix (****) Date 02-21-2010 05:33
Thanks for the tips man.  I always thought that was weird to how a 2'' sched 160 carbon pipe gets you qualified for stainless when I was pipefittin.
Parent - By tighand430 (***) Date 02-21-2010 09:06
Exactly! Me and the instructor was wondering how doing a 2" super coupon would certify a welder to do 9% chrome with unlimited thickness and diameter because it welds different than 7018. It's just one of those things that I can't quite grasp being a welder. I am happy that the super coupons will do the unlimited thickness and diameter though. It makes things so much easier to get just one cert to cover it than having to do 3 or 4 different ones to get the same quals.
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 02-19-2010 13:33
Henry,
Just guessing here but when you do repair/replacement/refurbishment work for nukes you operate to the Edition/Addenda the plant was licensed for, or that which was used in the origianl Design Specification. This is the real nighmare of nukes.

Also, To Kix,
Its important to know what the PO says because if 10CFR50 is imposed you have additional requirements imposed by the NRC. One I can think of offhand is related to IN 86-21 wherein a material suppliers QSC is meaningless since you have to verify and document the implimentation of their 3800 program.
Parent - - By ssbn727 (*****) Date 02-19-2010 19:40
True, but he didn't mention that and I'm not going to ASSUME for anyone's sake especially in here!!! :) :) :)

Respectfully,
Henry
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 02-19-2010 20:57
Henry,
LOL!!!!
I suppose that the best approach.
Parent - By ssbn727 (*****) Date 02-20-2010 02:16
I knew you would get a chuckle out of that one!!! :) :) :)

Respectfully,
Henry
Parent - - By Kix (****) Date 02-19-2010 15:30
I have no problem with anyone asking me questions because there are always new things being brought to light by others and questions. This project is a cooling coil that goes somewhere in a nuke. For all I know it is for cooling a confrence room or for some kind of electronic equipment.  QA takes care of all the nitty gritty and by all the questions that you asked me, I really hope that they have their crap together.  I just wanted to know about the welder quals because I thought it odd that one would have to requalify when backing gas is omitted on carbon steel just like I think it's odd that plate qualifys you for pipe per ASME.  I really aprreciate all the help guys!!

Thanks again!
Kix
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 02-19-2010 15:40
Kix,
I do think it is ligitimate that with purge/non-purge that puddle characteristics are changed more than mechanicals with carbon steel (or at least changed in that there is no evidence procedurally that purge/nonpurge causes an inability to fail mechnically under Section IX min tensile or bend requirements).
This is perhaps the reasoning you are looking for.
Parent - - By Kix (****) Date 02-21-2010 05:23
I don't because if I'm correct which I might not be, silicon content in carbon wire is not an essential variable for performance qual and omittion of back gas is.  Silicon content in the wire will fluctuate the performance of a welder just as much as a purge.  Let me know if I'm wrong on that.  I just think its crap that they think purge will aid in the performance of a welder on carbon steel.  I just haven't seen it and I've done it both ways trying for any kind of edge in competition welding.  If given the choice go purge carbon or not, I'd go not everytime because it doesn't  do crap but give you a less scally bead on the inside.  I know everyone has there opinions and you must go by the code.  Its just nice to vent amongst welders.  Maybe this will spark up some educational controversy. ;-)
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 02-22-2010 13:40
Kix,
I think your point about silicon is ligit, but how exaclty would you control it Section IX wise. You wouldn't be able to establish an all or nothing criteria like with purging, and wherever you established chemistry limits would not make much sense and would probably cause more issues than resolves. I can understand a reluctance to open such a can of worms.
On the other hand I do not see a lack of easy solution for silicon as a logical necessity to throw the purge baby out with the bath water.
Parent - - By Kix (****) Date 02-22-2010 17:47
Well if the only reason they're are using the omission of purge as an essential variable is because the puddle runs different, then they really have a lot of things they need to change in that code.  As for now, I must learn the code and do what it says.  So now I'm off to see if a pipe coupon will cover single bevel end disc's in a header. I think my guy might be taking more then just a pipe test.. Fun fun.. ;-)  Thanks again for your help and concerns!!!

Kix
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 02-22-2010 20:38
Kix,
I don't know their reason. I can see a logic to it however.
And we've had the F6 CS/SS arguments in here as well.
But yes, there is a lot of work to do.
Parent - - By Kix (****) Date 02-19-2010 15:38
I need to change my job title in my profile because as of now I'm a welding supv at a new company.  I let the welding eng and QA take care of all the code stuff now.  When this was brought up, the only copy of ASME that was laying around was the 2004 edition. I'm sure we're working to a newer one, but the AI just wanted to point out paragraph 408.8 and i'm only guessing that it is the same in a newer edition.  That's why I came to you guys because I knew I could count on ya's.

Thanks again!!

Kix
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 02-19-2010 15:48
"I let the welding eng and QA take care of all the code stuff now."

Speaking as a QA/QC guy and welding engineer I discourage this kind of thinking, simply because I ain't perfect.
There is no better QA/QC system than to have built in systemic redundancies.
I always welcome production guys learning as much about the codes as possible to help cover my azz, the company's, and to make sure it is done right.
I know some QA/QC types look at it as turf war or interference and guard the code books like the medieval church and the Latin Bible. They are idiots. Its called Performance Base Quality Control. A QA/QC guys best friend is a production guy that knows his stuff.
Parent - - By Kix (****) Date 02-19-2010 16:24
I couldn't agree with you more and I do expell what knowledge I know to qa/qc, it's just that I don't have time to reference a code anymore.  I will be referencing the code on monday for the proper test to give my guy because I know our QC guy won't know and our welding eng is to busy to come out on the floor and address any issues.  So basically I have to make time and I'm glad I will get to because I'm always trying to better myself.  Navsea and ASME are 2 new codes to me and I want to learn them like I learned all the AWS codes.  It's just hard now that it's not really my job to know them, but as you pointed out it only makes our company better if I do know them.  It will just come slowly.
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 02-19-2010 17:26
Make sure your Manual allows you to supervise welder qualification or your ANI might snag you on that one too.
If it doesn't I would argue your welding engineer or QC guys need to get up off their spotty fat asses and do their job.
If you have a Nuke Manual it should have the Presidents signature on it, he should enforce its requirments. If he is reluctant, or not available, the ANI can make it happen. Utilize the ANI. He can be your friend. Because if it ain't done per Code and Manual he won't sign off. And he don't give a hoot about anybody's excuses.
Up Topic Welding Industry / ASME Codes / ASME sec IX pro's, I have a question.

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill