Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / Acceptance of welding material on marking / packing
- - By Abdul Samad Date 05-03-2011 08:39
As per Sec VIII, Div -1 para UG-9, "when welding materials comply with one of the specifications in Sec II, Part C, the marking or tagging of the material, containers or packages as required by the applicable Sec II specification may be accepted for identification in lieu of a certified test report or certificate of compliance".

Can we interpret from above that if packing / marking  of welding materials done by manufacturer as per Sec II, part C, we can accept welding material with out certified test report or certificate of compliance. Moreover, if Sec VIII, Div 1 permits only packing as per Sec II as a base for acceptance of welding material then why certificate test report are mandatory for acceptance of other material i.e. plates, pipe etc and we can not accept material only on the basis of packing as per ASME Sec II, Part A or B.

Please any one can clarify the above code requirements.

Thanks

Abdul Samad
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 05-03-2011 12:13
First of all, plate, pipe, etc doesn't come in packages that can be used as a certificate.
Second, filler metal requirements come from AWS and base materials come from ASTM/ASME. Sometimes the twain meet but not always.
Parent - - By G.S.Crisi (****) Date 05-03-2011 17:49
Plates and pipes use to have their quality stenciled (painted) on their surface. In this case, may this mark be accepted instead of a certificate? In my opinion, yes.
Giovanni S. Crisi
Sao Paulo - Brazil
Parent - By jon20013 (*****) Date 05-03-2011 19:27
Further, accepting welding materials by the manufacturer as per Sec II, part C is based on the specifications via "typical" analysis versus "actual" analysis with CMTR.  When the manufacturer labels such materials he is, in essence, certifying that his product meets said specifications.  Not all of the ASME Codes allow this, in fact of the B & PV series it might even be limited to ASME VIII (someone please correct me if this isn't correct).

The bottom line: it all depends on what the constructing code permits.
Parent - By qcrobert (***) Date 05-03-2011 20:36
"Plates and pipes use to have their quality stenciled (painted) on their surface. In this case, may this mark be accepted instead of a certificate? In my opinion, yes."

I cannot accept stenciled plate or pipe without having a certified mill test report showing both chemical & physical analysis and only then after I have checked the report against the latest code edition & addendum because our company's QA Manual states thus.  An ASME review committee would not allow this not to be in a QA Manual.

It is a good question being posted.  We are allowed to accept filler metals from the Manufacturer with just the reliance of the information on the box/package stating it conforms to ASME Sec II Part C and AWS Classification.  However, it has ocurred in the past that a Client's PE has required we have a Statement of Certification from the Manufacturer.  Also has been required to show a Certificate of Composition for the welding gas we are using.
Parent - By kcd616 (***) Date 05-04-2011 04:31
The Doctor is correct
I have been on too many jobs.
From nuke, aerospace, structural.
Thank you for time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Kent
Parent - - By Mikeqc1 (****) Date 05-05-2011 15:11
But isnt the AI required to review MTRs
ug-93
Plates ....the vessel manufacturer SHALL obtain  the MTR or c-ofc
the inspector SHALL examine the Material and MTR to verify that the MTR represents the material.
If this is wrong please let me know
2010 ed page 72
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 05-05-2011 18:33
MTR's or C of C's.
And this requirement is only for plate.
Parent - - By Mikeqc1 (****) Date 05-05-2011 20:04
so, if my PO has no requirment for CMTRs and it shows up at the shop.........With all required markings Per SA-312 Spec i could accept that and the AI wouldnt think twice about it?
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 05-05-2011 20:38 Edited 05-05-2011 21:13
I don't know about not thinking twice about it. He is after all an AI. :grin:
But have him show you where it is required.
Most of us try to set up our systems to be stringent enough to be comfortable, even beyond code mins.
In the real world you have customers screaming at you to get it done because a system is down and its costing them a million a day, and your supplier is a big fish and your a minnow and he just really doesnt care that much, you'll get your MTR's when he can get around to it, but you do have an option, and he knows you have an option.
And you can say that OK I'll dump him from my approved vendor list but then next time he is the only one that has what you need in the time frame you need it, i.e., big fish, and you have to eat s#&t and get it done.
You can still comply with the code AND deliver on time.
Parent - By Mikeqc1 (****) Date 05-05-2011 21:01
I get MTRs with everything, because of that ive not considered what can be accepted with only  marking.
Parent - - By G.S.Crisi (****) Date 05-05-2011 19:05
Mike,
your message is full of initials that I don't understand: AI, MTR, c-ofc.
Giovanni S. Crisi
Parent - By Mikeqc1 (****) Date 05-05-2011 19:10
AI= Authorized inspector
MTR =Material test report
C of C=Certificate of compliance.
I found this interesting when an MTR is needed or when its not.
Parent - By Mikeqc1 (****) Date 05-03-2011 19:28
The markings can be used to accept filler wire, actual Test reports from my experiance is an additional requirment.
Parent - By Mikeqc1 (****) Date 05-03-2011 20:37
Some weld wire suppliers allow the typical certs to be downloaded from the web site by using lot numbers.
- By 46.00 (****) Date 05-03-2011 20:32
Hi All!

In my experience, this criteria is usually covered by client requirements that supersede ASME! CoC is usual minimum for most situations with traceability issues! Full traceability is often required with 3.1 certs for nuc stuff.
- - By Abdul Samad Date 05-04-2011 04:04
Dear All

Thanks for your views. I agree with Just John statement " it all depends on what the constructing code permits" but there must also be some logic behind it. Some individual have opinion of accepting the welding consumables as typical chemical composition available on manufacturers website and we can verify them with code.

Similar to welding consumables, chemical composition and mechanical properties of other materials i.e. pipe, plates, tubing also made available by some manufacturer on their website but code does not allow to accept the material based on just marking verification and made material test certificates (MTCs) as mandatory document for acceptance.

Does any one have the experience of rejecting welding consumables after chemical analysis that can be accepted based on product marking / packing.

Thanks

Abdul Samad
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 05-04-2011 12:46
"but there must also be some logic behind it".

You haven't been around code work long have you?  :smile:

All joking aside, keep in mnd that filler metal specs, plate, pipe, casting, forging, etc. specs, standards and codes of construction are all made up of different people from different industry sectors in an industry that is gargantuan. And all of these industry sectors have particular points of view, not to mention that each individual on the committees have particular points of view. And though these bodies try their utmost to be logical and sound, and the people on them intelligent and accomplished, the communication between them doesn't always translate well. Its too big. And it doesn't sit still.

Sound engineering judgment. Thats the key. And it is up to the engineer to fill in the blanks.
Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / Acceptance of welding material on marking / packing

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill