D1.1 Code question?

Date 09-01-2010 15:43

Yes, you need a seperate WPS(welding procedure specification) for every joint configuration that your welders will see....fillet welds included.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 09-01-2010 15:44

The welders are qualified to place the fillet welds in the positions that they qualified for with the groove weld test(B-U4a). Still need the WPS for fillets though.

By MBSims

Date 09-01-2010 17:00

You need a WPS that addresses fillet welds. It may be separate or it may be a single WPS that addresses several joint details. Just be sure to address all of the variables in Table 3.7 and 4.5 that apply to each joint type and process.

By 803056

Date 09-02-2010 04:12 Edited 09-02-2010 17:19

AWS D1.1 - 2010
"4.19 General
The performance qualification tests required by this code
are specifically devised tests to determine a welder’s,
welding operator’s, or tack welder’s ability to produce
sound welds."

Similar if not identical text is found in previous editions of AWS D1.1, same as clause 4.19 in 2008, very similar to clause 5.15 in AWS D1.1-79. The preamble to welder performance qualification has not been changed for as long as I can remember and that is going back to my 1979 edition of D1.1.

My question is, "Why are you qualifying your welders using a prequalified joint detail, i.e., B-U4a?"

The standard groove joint details to be used to qualify welders per AWS D1.1 are shown in figures 4.27, 4.48. and 4.29 for T-,Y-, and K- connections, figures 4.30 and 4.32 for horizontal grooves (options), and figures 4.21 and 4.31 for groove welds. Refer to clauses 4.23 and 4.26. Notice there is no reference to using the prequalified groove joint details included in figures 3.3 and 3.4. The joint details depicted by the figures cited are specific to welder qualification. While the figures may resemble prequalified joint details, (which B-U4a is just one example), they are specifically designed for the purpose of qualifying welders. Notice that unlike a prequalified joint details, there are no tolerances assigned to the figures I have listed above.

A welder qualified using one of the joints details in the figures I listed above is then qualified to weld any of the multitude of prequalified joint details listed in figures 3.3 and 3.4 provided the other essential variables have been met. It has been argued that a welder qualified to a prequalified joint, i.e., B-U4a as an example, has not met the requirements of D1.1 with regards to qualifying for all prequalified joint details. Therefore the welder that has produced an acceptable weld using a prequalified joint detail is only qualified for the specific joint detail used for qualification.

Just as the "tolerances" for the various positions defined by figures 4.1 and 4.2 have nothing to do with the actual position of the welder qualification test plates when setting up for the welder's performance test, the tolerances for groove angle, root opening, etc. listed in figures 3.3 and 3.4 have nothing to do with the setup of the test plates used for performance qualification.

The logic that serves as the basis of the requirements for welder performance qualification per AWS D1.1 probably baffles those individuals that work exclusively with ASME Section IX, but then again, we are not addressing the requirements of Section IX.

Best regards - Al

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 09-02-2010 14:56

Al,
I am sorry, with all due respect I have to disagree with your statement above.
The welder qualifications listed above - Fig 4.27, 4.28 etc are single sided welds with backing strip.
These may have been deemed by the D1.1 committee as adequate tests to determine a welders ability but they miss something I would consider as major issue.
The qualification they obtain for single sided with backing allows them to weld double sided with backgouging. What if they have never back gouged before ?
You would be well aware how much damage a person who is not competent in arc gouging can do to a weld - do you want that person let loose on your production welds ?
Most of the work I do in Australasia (and now Asia) to AWS D1.1 has the use of backing strips banned (or severely restricted) by the clients specifications so what is the use of following the weld tests prescribed in AWS D1.1 when 99% of the welding is going to be double sided with back gouging ?
Regards,
Shane

By 803056

Date 09-02-2010 17:18 Edited 09-03-2010 03:24

AWS D1.X, ASME, military welding standards, etc. do not include qualification requirements for the individuals that perform arc-gouging operations. CAC-A is just one of many ways a joint can be back gouged to sound metal before welding the second side.

The welder performance tests used by the various welding standards are intended to demonstrate the welder’s ability to deposit sound weld, not whether they can remove the metal.

I do agree with your observation that an unskilled tradesman with CAC-A equipment in hand can do serious damage to the components being joined by welding. It is the contractor's responsibility to ensure the tradesman wielding the CAC-A knows how to use it properly. If not, the repairs required can be extensive and expensive indeed.

Is this an oversight on the part of the code writing bodies? I don't know, but as a responsible employer I would find it prudent to devise some type of test that would demonstrate the tradesman's ability to use the CAC-A equipment. Whereas I work in the USA, OSHA plays an important part in day to day operations. As such, I would most likely make such a performance test a part of the OSHA required training the worker receives before being assigned to use the CAC-A for tasks such as back gouging. There is nothing in the welding standards that requires a welder to perform the back gouge operation and in many instances it is a different person doing that work. After all, not all back gouging operations are performed by CAC-A. The alternatives to CAC-A include the use of a rotary file (burrs), grinding, machining, oxy-fuel gouging, etc.

All the welding standards I've worked with require the welder to pass a performance test with an open root (no backing) when open root single sided CJP welds are required. This would require the welder to follow a WPS that has been qualified by testing, i.e., a WPS that is supported by a PQR. Different welding standards have different requirements for how the test specimens are prepared and evaluated. For instance, prior to performing the guided bend tests per AWS, the samples are ground smooth to remove face and root reinforcement. In the case of NAVSEA TP248, performance tests welded without backing are bent with the root reinforcement intact, i.e., it is not ground smooth before performing the bend test and evaluating the sample.

Most welding standards are in agreement that a welder that qualifies on a groove joint with backing is qualified to weld groove joints made with backing, back gouged grooved joints, partial penetration groove welds, and fillet welds. The major kicker is when the welder is qualified on an open root groove joint, the qualifications cover all groove joints, with or without backing, partial penetration groove joints, and fillets, but the use of prequalified WPSs for the purpose of performance qualification is not an option for open root joints. A major expense is incurred when the WPS used to qualify the welder has to be qualified by testing (when welding to AWS D1.1) for the luxory of welding open root groove joints.

None of the standard AWS performance tests or other performance tests I've encounterd while working with other welding standards utilize a CJP groove that is welded from both sides and includes a back gouge operation. I do not recollect where a welding standard prohibits the contractor from utilizing such a test, but it would not be considered a standardized test and it may limit the types of joints the welder's qualifications would cover. For instance, AWS D1.1 table 4.12 does not include any mention of qualifiaction testing with back gouging, only those welds made with or without backing are addressed. Clause 4.23 does state that a welder qualified with backing is also qualified to weld joints that are back gouged and welded from the second side.

AWS D1.1-2008 Clause 4.23, or elsewhere, does not state that welders qualified on joints that are back gouged and welded from the second side are qualified for weld joints that utilize backing. Thus, my understanding of the text is that a welder that qualifies using a CJP groove that is welded from both sides and utilizes a back gouge operation before welding the second side is not qualifed to weld CJP joints that are open root, i.e., no backing, or those that employ a backing bar. Therefore, a performance test performed with a back gouge operation would not qualify the welder for any prequalified CJP joint detail that employs a backing bar.

The easiest means of getting the biggest bang for the buck when welding to AWS is to simply administer the standard tests listed and depicted by the figures rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.

Back to your observation that the welder may not be familiar with or proficient with the equipment used to perform back gouge operations, in which case my response is "Don't assign him to the task." Back gouging with CAC-A has little to do with welding just as having the ability to drive a motor vehicle has little relationship to being able to weld. It would be nice if the welder could use CAC-A to back gouge his own welds. It would be nice if the welder could drive to work. In either case there are alternatives that can be employed because neither has any relationship to the ability of the welder to deposit sound weld.

The nature of the loading conditions often dictates whether a backing bar is to be used. In the case of cyclic loads where fatigue is a concern, a double-sided weld, with back gouging, is often preferred to welding the joint with backing. This is the case when the engineer requires the backing to be removed because of the notched stress risers associated with the backing bar at the weld root.

This is my opinion, but opinions are like ....., well I'm sure you know what I was about to say. ;)

Best regards - Al

By d_paul71 (**)

Date 09-09-2010 13:08

Al,

If you have established a WPS for a prequalified joint, and you look at D1.1 2006 Table 4.1 You are saying that if you certify in the.... oh lets say the 1G position, that your not certifed to weld fillets in plate, pipe or box type tubing?

Thanks,
De

By 803056

Date 09-09-2010 15:33 Edited 09-09-2010 17:20

I am using the 2010 edition of D1.1 for this discussion.

Clause 4.19 addresses how welders, tack welders, blah, blah, blah are qualified per AWS D1.1. It begins with the general statement that AWS has standardized welder qualifications tests that prescribe the tests required, dimensions, size of test plates, etc. Assuming the welder passes the prescribed standardized test, he is qualified for all the prequalified and qualified joint details provided the conditions of tables 4.10, 4.11, and 4.12 are met.

The welder can also be qualified by welding a test plate intended to qualify the WPS, ref. clause 4.19.3. The test plate (much larger than a standard welder qualification coupon) must pass all the requisite tests required to qualify the WPS. That includes VT, NDT, bends, tensile, etc.

No place in clause 4.19 (includes all subordinate clauses) is there mention of using a prequalified joint detail or a qualified joint detail (qualified by passing the tests required to qualify the WPS) for performance qualification. All the conditions contained in clause 4.19 is based on the premise the welder is qualified using one of the standardized tests. Clause 4.19.2 addresses the thickness and diameters qualified by referencing table 4.11. Still, it is based on a standard joint configuration.

Clause 4.20.1.1 permits the welder to be qualified by radiographing a production groove weld. However, the groove must be at least 15 inches in length. All bets are off if the groove was welded using GMAW-short circuiting transfer. The range of thickness for which the welder is qualified is per table 4.11. It is interesting to note it does not state the range of "thickness and diameters" qualified in the text of the clause.

Clause 4.21 lists the different performance qualification tests recognized by AWS D1.1 and it lists the specific geometry and joint configuration by referencing clause 4.24, 4.25, through 4.30. The referenced clauses include references to specific figures. Again, there is no reference to any prequalified joint details depicted in figures 3.3 and 3.4 in the text or by the referenced figures of the standard joint details used for performance qualification.

There are no provisions for administering any performance qualification test other than the standardized tests described in AWS D1.1 and the appropriate figures 4.27 through 4.39. The exception is when the welder welds up a coupon to qualify the WPS, in which case the length of the joint is considerably longer and the test regiment considerably more involved. Then and only then is the welder considered to be qualified to the ranges of thickness, diameters, etc. of table 4.11.

That being said, I have to reiterate that the welder qualified by examining the first 15 inches of the production groove weld using RT is not qualified for the full ranges of thickness and diameters of table 4.11, but only the thickness ranges. Was it an oversight by the code committee not to include the diameters? I do not know, but if it was a concern for my application I would ask for an official interpretation. I can only apply the code as it is written until clarification by the code committee provides additional information.

In response to your question regarding table 4.1, I would conclude that a WPS that utilizes a prequalified joint detail, but was qualified (because the WPS included a base metal that was not prequalified or a welding process that was not prequalified, etc.) would be qualified for the weld types and positions permitted in table 4.1.

That being said, the table referenced (table 4.1) lists the positions and weld types for which the WPS is qualified and says nothing of the welder's qualifications.

I would expect the requirements contained in the 2006 or 2008 editions of D1.1 would not differ substantially from those of the 2010 edition although I did notice some difference in the numbering of the clauses.

Best regards - Al

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 09-10-2010 01:02

Hi Al,
Just going through some old interpretations and noticed this regarding "standardized tests".
AWS Log: D1-85-031
Subject: Qualification Requirements
Inquiry (6) Must only the standard joint details specified for plate in Figures 5.18 and 5.19 be used for qualifying welders ?

Response (6) No

That statement seems to me to be allowing other joints (other than specified) to qualify welders.
As this is an old interpretation (1984) is the response still valid ?
Regards,
Shane

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 09-10-2010 01:41

I bet if you keep looking you may also find that testing to non-standard joints only qualifies the operator to that specific joint.

The details for performance qualification and the specific drawings allow qualification to all pre-qualified joints eh?

I don't think a non-standard production Mock-up joint qual test would qualify for all prequalified joints... Or would they?

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 09-10-2010 04:21

Hi Lawrence,
Here is an even older one.
D1-84-014(2)

Inquiry: Do qualification provisions in 5.25 and 5.36 require a welder or welding operator to follow a qualified or a pre-qualified joint procedure specification ?

Response: Yes. Either a qualified or prequalified procedure specification is acceptable.

I do not have access to the old versions of the code to see if there are any restrictions (as you say, only qualified to a specific joint ?)
Regards,
Shane

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 09-10-2010 16:10

This is a good thread Shane..

I don't have any answers at all.. Just questions.

By 803056

Date 09-10-2010 04:32 Edited 09-10-2010 05:33

I lean toward agreeing with Lawrence's position.

There is nothing that stops the contractor from doing nearly anything he wants provided they demonstrate their ability to produced the required results.

Shane, a written WPS is always required when qualifying a welder. If the welder is qualifying using a standard welder qualification test plate, the WPS may be qualified by testing or it maybe prequalified depending on whether or not the welding procedure meets the conditions of prequalification. If the welding procedure was qualified by testing because the base metal for construction was not prequalified, i.e., it wasn't listed in table 3.1, any of the prequalified joint details could be used without additional procedure qualification testing. Likewise, the welder, if he is administered the performance qualification test using one of the standard joint details depicted in clause 4 could weld any of the prequalified joint details.

I'm not positioning myself as agreeing or disagreeing with D1.1 on the way a welder should be qualified. If it were up to me I would have the welder weld the square groove depicted in Figure 4.33. The option for fillet weld qualification would be my choice for the joint detail. I would require the welder to weld the two fillets in the corners, pass a visual inspection, then proceed to complete the weld in the test position. As a matter of fact, that is exactly what I require when the job doesn't specify a particular code such as when I develop a repair for existing machinery. It is surprising how many welders do not get fusion to the root of the fillet welds, but you've heard that story before.

Each of us have to read the code as it is written and make a determination of how to apply it to a specific situation. We also have to accept the ramifications and the consequences of those decisions. Hopefully we don't forget that we are not judge and jury. We do not work in a vacuum. When there is a question or dispute we have to defer to the Engineer until an official interpretation by the code committee is rendered.

The bottom line is that I'm not going to allow a contractor to force me into the position of guessing what the code committee intended. I read what is available and take a conservative position. If the contractor wishes to dispute my position it goes up the ladder to the Engineer. The Engineer is authorized by the Code to make the final call and I am happy to oblige by his decision. It isn't my job to convince the contractor he is wrong or to argue my position. My job is to inform the Engineer of any nonconformances I observe.

The inspections will tell the story. The welds will pass or fail regardless of the paperwork that may or may not be falsified. The inspector will know soon enough whether the welder knows how to weld. I don't put much faith in any paperwork regardless of who tested the welder, ATF's inclusive. The welder qualification test record simply indicates everything was right with the world the day the welder took his test. Nothing more, nothing less. The paperwork is no warrantee the welder will produce a good weld each and every time.

Have we strayed? I still don't agree that it is good practice to qualify the welders using a prequalified joint detail with the tolerances permitted. If that was the intent, the code committee would not have had to include the standard joint details used for welder qualification in clause 4. They could have easily referenced a prequalified joint detail and saved several pages of ink and paper.

Best regards - Al

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 09-10-2010 07:30

Hi Al,
Not trying to be arguementative, purely trying to get my head around the concept of having to use standardized joint details for tests.
A lot of the work I have been involved in in the past bans the use of backing strips so what is the point of me testing on a joint the welder will never encounter ? I realise it is to test his ability but I would rather use a test that incorporates welding / backgouging and grinding as that is the majority of work that will be performed.

If a welder performs a Double Vee weld with backgouging as a WPS qualification test (4.18.3) he is thereby qualified in accordance with 4.18.1 (qualified production welding positions) and 4.18.2 (qualified production welding thicknesses and diameters). There is no mention of which joints the welder is qualified to weld.
Why is it acceptable to the code to qualify a welder on alternative joint details if it is for WPS qualification but supposedly not acceptable for welder qualification ?
Table 4.11 also makes no mention of joint detail as being an essential variable.

Based on Clause 4.18.3 I could hypothetically have 20 welders perform a Double Vee weld with backgouging for WPS qualification and select the best looking coupon for my PQR.

Am I missing something in the code, does it specify that if you weld something with a joint detail other than the standardized details you are only qualified for that joint ?
Regards,
Shane

By 803056

Date 09-10-2010 15:12

Are you missing something?

Consider the 20 welders welding 20 PQR coupons, only the individual whose coupon was selected for the complete battery of testing; NDT, tensiles, bends, etc. is qualified as a welder per clause 4.18.3.

You can qualify the welders as you are, with the single or double V-groove with BG, but I cannot find a provision in D1.1 that says they are qualified for anything but the joint you described. I cannot find it in the code where it says the welders are also qualified for welding grooves with backing, whereas the code is specific in saying the welders qualified with backing are also qualified for grooves that are BG. Refer to clause 4.23.

I need to turn this question around and ask you how you justify your methodology in relation to D1.1 requirements. Follow the code's provisions and show me the justification. I am not saying you can't, but I have a difficult time finding a logical progression that allows you to use something other than a standardized test without entering a field of potential land mines of assumptions and leaps of faith. No leaps of faith allowed, just cold hard provisions to justify your position.

Just a couple of questions; when your welders do perform BG as part of the qualification process, do you comply with the requirements of clause 3.13.2? If not, do you have a qualified WPS that includes BG of the root and the contour you do require the welders to use? If not, how do you justify each welder doing something different without the support of qualified WPSs to support the details of the BG each welder uses? Do you check their BG to verify they are in conformance with the qualified WPS?

When I recognize the contractor isn't using standardized welder qualification tests, I start asking questions. One of the first question I ask is where is your WPS? If it is not prequalified, where is the PQR, and it goes downhill very quickly. After the bodies are hauled away and the blood is cleaned up, the requalifying process is begun anew.

Remember, if you are working to AWS D1.1, a WPS that includes the statement "all grooves and fillets" for joint details will do little to satisfy most clients or a TPI.

This is a good discussion. I am willing to listen to any rational justification of using anything other than a standard welder qualification specified by AWS D1.1 if someone can give me a logical progression of code provisions that allows one to do so. I am ready to listen and learn.

Best regards - Al

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 09-10-2010 16:28

Hello again Al,
Firstly let me apologise to the OP for taking his posting a little bit off course.

Secondly,
I will revert to my earlier posting;
Inquiry: Do qualification provisions in 5.25 and 5.36 require a welder or welding operator to follow a qualified or a pre-qualified joint procedure specification ?

Response: Yes. Either a qualified or prequalified procedure specification is acceptable.

This interpretation is still valid as of today so based on that (IMHO) any WPS joint detail that is qualified or pre qualified is acceptable as a Welder Qualification test.
There is nothing in the code to state which joints the welder is now qualified to make, as I stated it is not even an essential variable.

"Just a couple of questions; when your welders do perform BG as part of the qualification process, do you comply with the requirements of clause 3.13.2? If not, do you have a qualified WPS that includes BG of the root and the contour you do require the welders to use? If not, how do you justify each welder doing something different without the support of qualified WPSs to support the details of the BG each welder uses? Do you check their BG to verify they are in conformance with the qualified WPS? "

In response Al,
A qualified WPS is provided to the welders with the required width and radius of the the backgouge.

I do understand where you are coming from, why would the code stipulate specific welder qualification tests if they did not require them to be followed.
IMHO it is a mistake in the code, you can't stipulate required tests, then have interpretations (from 1984) allowing qualification to other joint details but have nothing in the code as to what those tests actually qualify you for.

Always good to debate these issues, keeps the brain cells engaged,
Have a good weekend,
Regards,
Shane

By 803056

Date 09-10-2010 22:11

This has been interesting. There are some things that you take for granted because that's how you have always done it. It is good to be forced out of your comfort zone once in a while. This question forced me out of my comfort zone, so now I'll play the Devil's advocate.

Assuming you and some others are correct in your position that the groove detail is not an essential variable for welder qualification. Consider the following:

The welder is qualified using FCAW on a CJP grooved joint, 1-inch plate, all positions, the joint is a double-sided V-groove where back gouging was used to ensure weld soundness. Based on your assumption, the welder is qualified for all grooves and fillets, all position, including pipe over 24 inches in diameter, unlimited thickness.

Now the welder is assigned the task of welding a joint that is 1 1/2 inch thick with a single 60-degree groove angle and a bevel that is 1 inch in depth. The requirement is to produce a weld size of 1 inch.

Is it reasonable to expect the welder to weld such a joint? Yes, it is a standard prequalified joint detail.

Reduce the groove angle to 45 degrees. Can the welder be expected to produce a weld with the required weld size? The procedure was qualified with a 45-degree groove angle and it was CJP with BG. So, according to your line of thought the welder is still qualified and can be expected to produce the required weld.

Reduce the groove angle to 30 degrees. Can the welder still be expected to produce the required weld? Yes, it isn't an essential variable, so the welder should be able to weld it.

Reduce the groove to 15 degrees; still it is not an essential variable, so the welder should still be able to weld the groove as detailed.

Reduce the groove to 0 degrees. The groove angle is not considered an essential variable for welder qualification, so by all logic he should be able to deposit the required weld.

By now you should be saying, "Al, you silly Son of a Beach ball! No welder can deposit a 1 inch weld (joint penetration = weld size) in a groove that has a 0 degree groove angle and no root opening."

And that is my point. The welder is not going to be expected to weld anything that isn't either a prequalified joint detail or one that is qualified by testing. Even the WPS qualified by testing is a crapshoot. I've seen companies weld several test coupons before they got one good one because the joint details were simply ridiculous, but the code doesn't prohibit "stupid".

I have always advocated that the welding of a test coupon for qualifying the procedure is an opportunity to see what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. If the test coupons fail one after another someone has to step back and say, "Is it the welder, the joint design, base metal, what is the reason for the failures?"

If only one out of ten welders can weld a particular joint detail with consistent results that are acceptable, the joint detail is bad. If the joint detail isn't a prequalified joint, it makes sense to qualify the welders using the "poor choice" for a joint design. If the welder can weld it during qualification, it is reasonable to expect him to weld it in production. That is the one occasion where I can understand a contractor qualifying the welders on a nonstandard joint detail.

Unfortunately, D1.1 doesn't spell everything out for us. It cannot take into account every possible hair brained idea some contractor will come up with. They provide a means of qualifying the welders using a standard joint detail that is more restrictive than the prequalified joint details in figured 3.3 and 3.4. If the welder passes the qualification test for groove welds, he can weld any groove, any joint detail, etc. The catch is that if the joint to be welded isn't a prequalified joint, it has to be qualified by testing and the if the conditions set forth in Table 4.5 are exceeded, all bets are off and the procedure has to be qualified with the new joint detail that has been proposed.

I'm stupid, I freely admit it. It takes me a while to comprehend the words I've read, but eventually it sinks in. My motto, one of many, is "when in doubt, throw it into the Engineer's lap" and make him earn his big paycheck and let him assume the liability should something go horribly wrong.

This exercise has been both educational and humbling. I never imagine people would even consider administering welder qualifications that deviated from those specified by D1.1. I now must consider my position carefully, I may have to concede defeat.

Do you really think I’m going to buy into this hogwash, no way! ;)

No one has provided a logical path through the thicket of code provisions to delineate a means of supporting the position that the welder can be qualified using any test the contractor wants to administer, i.e., double sided welds with or without back gouging, single sided groove welds with any groove angle and/or root opening that suits their fancy. No, I believe the code is very clear on what welder qualification tests are to be administered if the ranges of qualifications listed in D1.1 are to be applicable. Clause 4.21 delineates the required tests and it refers the user to specific figures. It uses the verb “shall”, not “may”, nor are there options offered. I believe there has to be consensus by the Engineer and the Owner before the contractor can deviate from what is required and specified by D1.1.

Good God man, this isn’t ASME! ;)

As for the code interpretations, my limited experience has been that if a code interpretation affects the code, the change is made in the following edition. The last two code interpretations I requested have resulted in changes in the code language.

After reading this tirade, just remember who is writing it, and take some of my remarks with a grain of humor. ;)

Best regards - Al

By Mayur

Date 03-20-2017 09:38

Dear,

Thanking you, as your this reply mattered a lot to me. But, your this reply has raised some more questions in my mind.

Please, resolve my below ambiguities:

1. Is it mandatory to use any appropriate of figures 4.27, 4.48. and 4.29 for T-,Y-, and K- connections, figures 4.30 and 4.32 for horizontal grooves (options), and figures 4.21 and 4.31 for groove welds mentioned in the AWS D1.1 - 2010 for welder performance qualification?

2. If a welder is qualified using groove details of any of figures 4.27, 4.48. and 4.29 for T-,Y-, and K- connections, figures 4.30 and 4.32 for horizontal grooves (options), and figures 4.21 and 4.31 for groove welds mentioned in the AWS D1.1 - 2010, is he qualified to weld groove joint details which has not been included in figures 3.3 and 3.4?? for example, my production joint has 10 mm root face 1 mm root gap and 60° groove angle. So, if I qualify my welder by groove details of figures 4.27, 4.48. and 4.29 for T-,Y-, and K- connections, figures 4.30 and 4.32 for horizontal grooves (options), and figures 4.21 and 4.31 for groove welds mentioned in the AWS D1.1 - 2010. So, now in this situation,is my this qualified welder still qualified to weld groove details of 10 mm root face , 1 mm root gap and 60° groove angle with back gouging and weld from other side??

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 03-16-2011 12:18 Edited 03-16-2011 12:21

Steven,
Table 3.7/3.8 nor Table 4.5 in D1.1:2010 does not show changing brands as an essential variable requiring requalification of the WPS(a side note: D1.5 does though)....so I believe you are OK as long as you stay within the other variables for the filler wire, for this WPS in D1.1.

EDIT: I just noticed that Table 3.7 is continued on the two next pages as Table 3.8.

By Nalla

Date 03-16-2011 12:59

Hi, Steve
Just a caution on WPS/PQR Require requalification if CVN is a requirement ( Table 4.6 - Filler Metal # 4).
Offcourse-Table 4.5 Filler Metal- in not essential variable
Welder qualification not goverened by Table 4.5 or 4.6.

Hope i'm not wrong
Thanks

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 03-16-2011 13:07

Good point Nalla, thanks for chiming in. (in AWS D1.1:2010 Table 4.6, it was changed to item #5)

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 03-16-2011 14:42

Steve,

The guys have answered your question the same as I would...BUT,

WELCOME TO THE AWS WELDING FORUM. Hope you enjoy all available here.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 03-20-2011 00:58

Guber,

First, WELCOME TO THE AWS WELDING FORUM!!

Second, we do not represent the AWS and it's official standards. This is a Forum of individuals with knowledge, experience, education, skills, and very diverse opinions.

Third, the type of joint to use is a determination that can only be made by the engineer of record for the job being done. You can RFI them and make a suggestion as to how you would like to do it based upon the equipment available, the materials being used, the position of welds to complete the joint, the accessibility of the joint, and other factors. The engineer will then either confirm or change to suit his calculations.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By Guber Date 03-29-2011 14:14

Dear Brent, thanks for the answer... but the type of joint is also determined by the strength and depending on the distribution of such a type of joint is more feasible than the other, so I asked if they had any information about these two types of joints:
[img]emendas[/img]
i prefer the letter b) but I need a grounding in the AWS code to be approved

Attachment: emendas.jpg (16k)

By eekpod

Date 03-29-2011 20:11

We have done splices in W shape material like example B, I have never done one like A.
Just be aware, that unless you have permission form the engineer of record, your not supposed to splice the material. Make sure you cover your ass and get permission to do that. Good Luck

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 03-30-2011 00:08

Guber,

I understand, AND, I agree with Chris. I have done many as your (B) choice and almost none of (A). But, it is not up to the fabricator and/or welder in any way to try to determine what is best for strength or application as to distribution of load. That's what the engineer goes to school for and then gets the almighty 'STAMP' of approval that they apply to prints. And it is exactly because of the strength requirements and loading that an engineer has to calculate everything out and not be the guess work of a bunch of welders who 'THINK' one joint may be better than another. AWS Codes have to do mostly with 'Welding'. Not 'Design' or 'Engineering'.

As far as I know there is nothing in any AWS documents, especially any of the 'Codes', as to any preference or alternative choices of one or the other. Now, there may be in AISC Construction Manual. I'd have to look and see if I can find anything.

But, it is an engineers decision and even if you have a preference or opinion it must be accepted and stamped through the RFI process to be acceptable. They will even call out the specifics for the joint design.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By 803056

Date 10-05-2016 19:29

It is best to start a new thread rather than adding on to an old existing thread.

Which edition of the Farm Code are you working with? It probably will not make a difference, but it is best to answer the question that is to a specific edition of the correct code.

Generally speaking, a weld made from one side without the benefit of backing or back gouging is considered to be a partial joint penetration groove weld.

You mention the WPS is qualified without backing. Was the WPS qualified to AWS D1.1 and if so, which edition? Again, in this case it should not change the response. The WPS is qualified without backing, so the WPS is also qualified for partial joint penetration as well as fillets.

The welder can only do what is allowed by the WPS. If there is no provision for back gouging and back welding, the welder's hands are tied. The WPS can be revised to include CJP welded from one side or from both sides, PJP, and fillet welds. Until the WPS is revised, no can do.

Al

By Anish Joy Date 10-06-2016 03:06

Thank you for the responds.
Probably you may get misunderstood from my quire that, we have welded a joint (CJP) single bevel or single V. (not PJP).
After weld completion from onside, the welder would like to make back weld (without back gauging, just grind and one pass weld in root side).
the WPS is qualified with AWS D1.1 Edition 2010.
AWS D1.1 Edition 2010, Annex K (terms and definitions page 333, stated that Back weld; A weld made at the back of a single groove weld.
The WPS is qualified for the single side (CJP) weld, and the table 4.5, item 34 stated, the omission, but not inclusion of backing or back gauging.
Does it mean that if the WPS qualified for single side (CJP) weld and the same WPS can be use for back weld as per table 4.5?

By 803056

Date 10-06-2016 04:26 Edited 10-06-2016 04:31

This is a question about terminology as much as anything.

A back weld is the last weld bead deposited and is usually performed after back gouging. In your case, you welded a joint from one side. Now you are grinding to remove any unfused root, possibly some excessive melt through, what ever the reason, that can be considered a back gouge operation to attain sound metal. The weld bead deposited to fill in the excavation is the back weld.

You should obtain a copy of AWS A3.0 welding terms and definitions which is referenced by D1.1. The sketches can prove to be helpful in understanding the terminology.

back weld. A weld made at the back of a single groove
weld. See Figure 24(C).

Best regards - Al

By Anish Joy Date 10-06-2016 13:45

Sir, thank you very much for the responds.
can I conclude, without any change or approval of the of current WPS can use for back weld.( Is there any supporting or rejection clause exist in AWS D1.1?)

By 803056

Date 10-06-2016 13:56 Edited 10-06-2016 14:00

Your WPS should be revised to include the back gouge and back weld. As far as an approval process, that is dependent on your employer's quality control system or a customer imposed requirement.

Remember, the WPS is the work instruction provided to the welder. It should address those issues that relate to making a code compliant weld. It needs to address all the variable listed in clause 3 or 4 as well as the list of provisions listed in the Annex. The one page format included in the annex of the code may not provide ample room to provide all the information needed by the welder.

The analogy I use is that the WPS is much like the recipe one would find in a cookbook. Like the cooking recipe, the WPS should provide the welder all the information needed to produce an acceptable weld. The recipe must include sufficient details that an average cook can produce an acceptable cake or cookie. Likewise the WPS should provide sufficient information to ensure the welder understands what is needed. It is an error to assume every welder is an expert with 30 years of diverse experience and has a firm understanding of metallurgy, design, and examination. Most welders have a poor understanding of the theories that support welding, so assumptions to the contrary usually results in less than desirable outcomes. The more information provided, the better the outcome.

The WPS becomes the welder's bible. He can only do what is permitted by the WPS. If is isn't addressed by the WPS, the welder's hands are tied. QC's job is to verify the welder is following the WPS. If the WPS is inadequate, get it revised before handing it to the welder. One would not provide a list of ingredients to a novice cook and expect a feast fit for a king. The novice needs specific direction on how much of each ingredient is needed, how to incorporate them, how hot, and how long to cook the batter. Think of the analogy when developing the WPS.

Al

By Anish Joy Date 10-07-2016 06:37

Thank you for the detailed description.

By Joey

Date 10-09-2016 13:23

Wait, you must understand which one comes first! You write a WPS based on your drawing details (welding symbol), so before anything else, the drawing should be revised and approved before going to the issue of WPS :roll:

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 10-25-2016 13:58

Start your own thread for a beginning.

Go to your level III and have them write up your procedures based upon the Contract Documents criteria for applicable codes and including acceptance/rejection criteria for the NDT for submittal to the Engineer for approval. Then, do your testing.

Brent

By 803056

Date 10-26-2016 01:56

The acceptance criteria for both PT and MT is the same as for VT. Look at clause 6.10, AWS D1.1-2015

Al

By nagarajan Date 10-26-2016 11:16

Thank U AI

But VT it has given particularly for some defects like porosity, undercut,underfill we have cracks,etc in DPT so what should we refer for this defects.

Naga

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 10-26-2016 13:36

I understand and agree with Al's comment though I would still be seeking out my level III to have a written practice/procedure that states what, when, where, and how I am doing my inspections. I have a certain amount written right into my QC manual for our company.

With what he said and your reply my comments would be: Look at D1.1 Clause 6.9 just above 6.10. It applies to visual and as Al said, VT applies to MT and PT. They are basically enhanced VT or visual aids. Also look at 6.12 and 6.14.

Now, the one common item you will find out through these is that as VT acceptance/rejection criteria is applicable to MT and PT you need to go to Table 6.1. Especially since you reference 'cracks'. If VT criteria is the standard then no crack is acceptable.

You can also reference this from other locations in D1.1 but this is the place you will generally be sent and that most often is used for knowing what is acceptable or rejectable.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

PS. His name is AL, Not AI. The lower case 'l' is often mistaken and many people have called him that. Just thought I would let you know.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 10-26-2016 13:40

Use AWS D1.1 Table 6.1 Item#'s
(8) porosity
(7) undercut
(6) undersized welds, (3) crater cross section <-- regarding underfill of craters
(1) cracks

Use Figure 5.4 required weld profiles <---underfill for groove welds

Your Level III MT or PT guy should have a written procedure to follow and should address the acceptable and rejectable indications that you may find.