Clause 5.30 is clear on removal of slag prior to applying additional weld beads. I am being told all I need to do is run a PQR and qualify a WPS without removing slag, I disagree. I feel this issue is an operator technique varible, and running a procedure is not the answer. I have been told this before by others, these were all CWI's and a welding engineer (tech). Am I off base standing strong and prohibiting welding over slag?? My position allows me to get my way but I'm pissing some people off, I even made them remove welds after a long effort of making them stop the practice. When the company weld engineer got involved I simple told him I would issue an NCR and he could disposition it as use as is and authorize the practice. He made them take it out.
I just want to know if my train of thought is not over the top.
What process is being used?
Most welding standards will allow the manufacturer/fabricator to do whatever they want provided they can demonstrate their procedure/technique will produce the required mechanical properties such as soundness, ultimate tensile strength, etc.
That isn't to say I would be an advocate of welding over slag, but it would place the inspector in a rather awkward position to take a stand against a specific practice if it was proven to produce acceptable results.
A similar case in point would be the recent standard published by AWS on qualifying a welding procedure for welding over paint. I thought I was going to lose my lunch when I read that document. I guess it safe to say not all the AWS publications are pearls of wisdom. I would place welding over slag to be in the same company as the standard for welding over paint.
Best regards – Al
So I guess it's time to start running that PQR with SMAW electrodes kept in a warm bucket of water... If they pass a PQR evaluation it must be acceptable .. Even though the code directly prohibits the practice elsewhere :)
I agree with Al here. Welding over slag is nonsensical to me, even if you manage to pass a WPQR test under controlled conditions. However, I have seen what I call "slag welding" (with Lincoln gas-less FCAW wires,) pass Radiography on column flange splices in NYC High-rise construction. So, as Al says, "but it would place the inspector in a rather awkward position to take a stand against a specific practice if it was proven to produce acceptable results."
I feel that whether it is an essential or a non-essential variable, and it is realistically incorporated into a successful WPQR Test, AND if a competent registered professional engineer OKs it, the inspector cannot prohibit or hinder the practice.
I still wrote the slag welding up and filed an NCR every time I saw it happen, even though I was told it was "OK if it passed X-Ray, or UT", by my boss (He is in jail right now, for running a continuing criminal enterprise (Testwell Labs). As for passing UT, - What a joke. I can count on two hands the number of people I trust to do UT, and NONE of them worked for Testwell at the time.
You can get two hands worth? I cant fill one, even if I count myself twice.
L51174
I am not counting myself even once!!! Heck, I claim that I do not even remember how to turn the machine on any more!
Hi Richard
I am with you on this one. 5.30.1 clearly requires slag removal. With or without slag removal is not an essential variable for WPS qualification, so qualifying it would not (in my mind) make the practice acceptable.
Removing the relevant weld is however a last resort, not the first. I would suggest that if they could do some relevant NDT to prove that the weld is OK, then I would have accepted that approach, but that would normally flow from a resolution of an NCR or the like, and would have been under the guidance of the engineer.
Unlike some other codes, D1.1 would allow you to bend the rules if the "Engineer" allows this in the contract documents, (See 1.4.1) so that would also be a possibility, although I would certainly not want to put my name to such a directive!
Regards
Niekie
Hey Woody
OK I'll bite.... Not only does the code 5.30.1 state the removal of slag but remember slag in non conductive ie the arc is not likely to go through it but around it leaving it trapped under or next to the last pass. Remember the D1.1.6.9 states “All welds shall be visually inspected and shall be acceptable if the criteria of Table 6.1 are satisfied”. Just how can you check for cracks, lack of fusion, crater cross section, weld profiles, undercut, porosity....... if the slag is still on. You can't.... Oh I will agree if the Engineer of Record...(not your on staff guy)... wants to sign off on leaving the slag between passes of even the final weld, by all means let him do it, in writing, PE stamped off, so it can be copied and added to every report you send out. If a weld then fails and hurts someone His career would end not yours. As for me during any pre-inspection discussion they know I don't carry a chipping hammer so if “I see slag its rejected”, so without the stamped letter my report will stand as written.
Jim
I don't believe many of us will take a position opposite of yours. However, the situation here is that the manufacturer hypothetically qualified the procedure without removing the slag between weld layers and was successful in meeting the code required mechanical properties, weld soundness, and visual acceptance criteria. He demonstrated the technique employed produced acceptable welds. In general, the welding standard, be it AWS or ASME, is going to permit the proven technique to be used for production welds.
It is and was a hypothetical case. The reality is as you inferred; weld soundness and the required mechanical properties would most likely not be met should the technique employ either SMAW, SAW, or FCAW. On the other hand, I'm not so sure I would bet too many gold coins it couldn't be done with GMAW using bare electrode or even FCAW if the proper metal core electrode was employed.
If the manufacturer is successful in his qualification effort, the third party inspector would be hard pressed to justify taking a position of prohibiting the manufacturer’s ability to employ a proven process/procedure.
Joe’s argument of bringing it to the Engineer’s attention is prudent. Let the Engineer make his decision and then the Third Party Inspector’s responsibility is limited to “ensuring” the manufacturer complies with the Engineers decision.
Best regards - Al
This is all in house Inspection, I'm the QA Manager and made the decision to argue it with the previous QA Manager, now PM and "Weld Engineer". Knowing the qualification level of our welders I stand on prohibiting the practice at this point, until I get more "educated".
What is your take on my response to James Corbin. I really do not think this to be a variable for procedure qualification and is strictly operator consideration and would be hard to control in production conditions.
![](/mwf/attachments//avatars/4269-2369.jpg)
I would have a hard time thinking that one could write a WPS allowing this and have it be a recipe that would be good for "every" welder to use and produce sound welds.
I agree that acceptable results can be achieved, but I bet it is going to be very welder/operator specific. IOW, not every welder is going to be able to do this successfully.
Amen, that's what I'm saaaayin!
Procedure qualification is made to verify the mechanical and chemical properties of the process and conditions, and the soundness verification during this process (RT) is to ensure no discontinuity is present in the sample areas for this testing.
Where when you qualify a welder you are verifying the operators ability to provide a "sound weld" using a qualified procedure, or soundness of the weldment. So I feel you would have to qualify each welder (200 in our shops) to use this practice, not necessarily the WPS. Is my train of thought off??
My post here is to help myself see his point of view, and maybe I'm being stubborn, but I still see nothing that would change my mind. It is poor practice when most of your welds produced are multi-pass fillet welds and you have production push.
I agree 100% and clearly understand, those were my arguments with him. He is a Welding Engineer ("tech" with diploma/certificate) and a CWI, but he sure did crawfish when I offered up an NCR with him dis positioning it and signing off on it. Here again I have someone that has the ear of those with "authority" that can make my life miserable.
Now what of the issue of qualifying a procedure to run with out slagging? He states that this is all I need to do to make it acceptable, I disagree and think I'm right.. I find this issue to be a welding operator variable not a procedural type condition that can be proved out in a WPS PQR.
99205, it is FCAW-G
Once again, I do not believe there are many of us that disagree with your position.
Like welders, not all "engineers" are experts in their field. Likewise, the CWI credential alone isn't sufficient to demonstrate a high level of expertise in our chosen field. There is or should be a level of practicality involved where a knowledgeable person steps back and recognizes what a code or standard allows may not necessarily be "good practice."
The code mandated welder performance tests are the minimum requirements that must be met. It is incumbent upon the manufacturer to take those steps and institute those procedures above and beyond code mandates needed to ensure their product meets safety requirements and customer expectations. Any company that fails to do so will fail at some point in time. While meeting the mandates I've listed, the company still has to make sufficient profit to weather various economic conditions.
In your situation, it would be prudent to test the welders to the specific procedure where in the slag is not removed between each weld pass. The reasoning is simple; you recognize that success in your application, i.e., utilizing a questionable "qualified procedure" is dependent on the welder's ability to implement the procedure properly. The economic success of your employer and your job is dependent on the welder's ability to produce acceptable welds. The welder's failure to properly implement the "qualified procedure" would ultimately result in the failure to meet code and customer expectations. Your customer base would quickly erode, along with profits, once welds started to fail in service.
I have seen more than one engineer or inspector experience short careers because they "met code" without satisfying the customer's expectations. In short, they were idiots that didn't recognize that shooting a hole in the bottom of the boat to let the water out doesn't work when the boat is in the water.
Best regards - Al
Hi Richard
AWS D1.1 clearly states that slag must be removed. (I will attach an extract of the comments to D1.1 also.) No amount of "qualifying" of the WPS or WPQ without slag removal will make this requirement go away. This is because this requirement is a QC activity, and has nothing to do with qualifications per se. It would be like saying that I will qualify the WPS and WPQ without NDT, then I do not need to apply NDT on the job. The NDT activity can not be "qualified out". In the same way, the QC activity of slag removal can not be "qualified out". Just as it would be possible for the engineer to specify less stringent NDT requirements from that asked in the code, the engineer could specify different QC requirements, but please have a look at the definition of "engineer" in the code to see that this is not just anybody that has the title engineer.
I am not sure what product you are making. If it is just some low risk, low stress application, (e.g. potplant holder?) then the consequences for failure is so minor that it probably is not an issue. If on the other hand this application is in a fatigue loaded structure, or is experiencing high stress, and the failure could have significant safety, environmental or economic consequences, then there will be very few engineers (I certainly do not know any in the oil & gas & petro-chem industry.) that will accept this practice.
Regards
Niekie
Neikie,
You would be correct if this thread were applicable to ASME where 'NO' engineer has the authority to overrule. Well, they can but then it ain't ASME.
But in AWS the EOR has that authority. And if a WPS is written with an allowance for slag to remain and that WPS is approved by the EOR then the slag removal requirement goes away and the inspector has no authority to enforce it.
I never have liked the EOR authority allowed by AWS.
Hi js55
I think you need to read my post again, then you will see that I was saying exactly what you are saying. I was just pointing out that the "engineer" in the code has a specific definition, it is not just any old engineer. For completeness sake, I will attach the relevant definitions.
Regards
Niekie
Agree 100%, everything brought to light is what I have found and concur with. I did my research and could not find anything to substantiate the position of the other Weld "Tech" (Eng)/CWI. I come to the forum with the attitude "well maybe I missed something", to give the other the benefit of doubt. You all have provided what I thought I would get.
Our product line is bridge and commercial buildings, fracture critical and seismic demand critical welding, so as the QA Manager it will always be prohibited in our program..