Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Certifications / D1.1 test position for 4G plate?
- - By pipes (**) Date 08-31-2012 03:49
OK, it seems that I am just full of questions these days. Here's another. I have had  many discussions with different CWI lately about welding test plates overhead. Let's say that a welder is testing on 1" plate with no backing using SMAW. When he back-gouges and welds the back side what position is he now welding in for the back weld? 1G or 4G? I haven't found clear language on this in the code but I guess I always figured that once the test piece is in a jig or positioner that is where it stays until it is ready to be inspected. My logic behind that is simply that if that weld were being done overhead in the field the welder could not flip the building over to back-gouge and weld the back. Therefore, I have always had welders gouge and weld the back weld in the 1G position. I find some that agree and some that say I couldn't be more wrong. Honestly, I just want to do it correctly. If there is a citing of this in the code I would certainly appreciate the info. If not, what do you guys do?
Parent - - By Dualie (***) Date 08-31-2012 05:02
If you can back grind the root why not weld it in 1G?
Parent - - By pipes (**) Date 08-31-2012 11:38
Hmm....That, is a very interesting point. I never thought of that. I do at least a half dozen 4G that get backgouged every year.
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 08-31-2012 12:02
Hmmmm.....every 4G test that I've ever witnessed had a backing bar.  A 4G qualifies the welder for F and OH so does it matter which side that you gouge? You still have to weld it back up (without moving the coupon) regardless which side you gouge.
Parent - By pipes (**) Date 08-31-2012 14:04
True, but a 4G is clarified in Figure 4.3 as the groove being the under side of the weldment.
Parent - - By welderbrent (*****) Date 08-31-2012 12:27
Don't take my wording wrong please pipes:

Show me a welder certification in D1.1 without a backing bar.  When I look at Clause 4, there is only one style of test for welders.  Backing bar on the top, for a 4G, and weld it totally up from the bottom. 

Now, a customer is free to set up his own test that would test a welder in exactly the manner that will be prescribed in the field or shop usage.  BUT, that is after he has proven his ability to be certified to AWS D1.1 Clause 4 standards. 

You can qualify them only to the customer's requirements, but they will not be code qualified, only customer in house qualified.  If they want their people qualified to the Code they must first meet those requirements, then add any additional tests they would like.

Now, when doing it without backing and using backgouging, why would they not be able to do the second weld in the flat position?  In fact, why would they not be able to do the first weld in the flat position and then weld the overhead.  Does it matter which way the do the procedure?  It is to simulate real life, in position abilities.  Also, why would they not, if THEY choose to do so, be able to put the single bevel on top, weld the joint out 75% from the top, than backgouge and finish from the bottom?  Achieves the same end result since one of the flanges would always be welded thus.  And there is at least some overhead welding used to finish the joint.

And, all of these questions is exactly why the proper QUALIFICATION/CERTIFICATION test is with backing bar and welded entirely from the bottom.  To prove they can actually weld overhead.

Just my opinion and two tin pennies worth.

Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - - By pipes (**) Date 08-31-2012 14:01
Joint Design B-U2 in Figure 3.4 is the joint I am referring to. I often have welders (one company specifically) request this joint in a 3 and 4 position. They weld the face, backgouge and fill the back.

I know 3.13.2 says CJP groove welds made from one side shall have backing, but I honestly thought that the procedure I described had welders welding from both sides not just one.

Is this wrong? Do not take anything I post as hostile in any way. I am a relativley new CWI and I do a lot of testing at the Tech school I work for. It is imperative that I get these things right. I do not want to be "that" guy that does things because "That's how we've always done it!". I am more interested in getting it right, even if it means I am wrong. Thanks!
Parent - - By welderbrent (*****) Date 08-31-2012 14:47
Pipes,  I am not taking it wrong, just so long as you don't take mine wrong.  It is hard to 'read' posts sometimes and they turn to argumentative instead of research and informative because someone takes offense where none was intended.

So, this has been discussed before but I have not done a search to find it.  Al Moore was the one who walked the thread through the process and showed 'me' at least how to look at this.

First, remember that Clause 3 is for Determining rather a joint is Pre-Qualified or not.  And, it gives details of Pre-Qualified joints.  This is mainly applicable to the WPS's that need to be filled out for the job.  Notice in 3.1 Scope last paragraph that it states "Welders, welding operators and tack welders that use prequalified WPS's shall be qualified in conformance with Clause 4, Part C.

So, we move to Clause 4, Part C Performance Qualification.  Read the whole thing but the bottom line is in 4.21 Weld Types which then guides you to the appropriate area: CJP non-tubular takes you to 4.24.  First paragraph (b) "Note that qualification on joints with backing qualifies for welding production joints that are backgouged and welded from the second side."  Then 4.24.1 takes us to the figures that apply for the welds to be qualified.  Figure 4.21 with backing bar.  Through the whole list of Figures for testing the only plates without backing are for testing for tubular without backing. 

Then, as stated above.  A customer can set up HIS OWN qualification test to see if a welder can produce the quality of weld he wants for his application.  And, you can qualify a welder to that procedure.  But, it is not a D1.1 Welder Qualification test. 

There are others who disagree with this exact format.  But, It looks to be a proper application of the code as I read it and put all the parts together.

Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - - By pipes (**) Date 08-31-2012 16:24
I see what your saying but 4.24.1 states "The following figure numbers apply to the position and thickness requirements for welders." I does not show different bevels or root faces anything else as that is all depicted in figure 3.4. I always thought that Figure 4.21 is a generic weldment meant to show position and thickness and nothing more. I guess I am confused by you statement of "Through the whole list of Figures for testing the only plates without backing are for testing for tubular without backing."  Why would 3.4 show a joint to be back-gouged if it was a tubular connection?

I am seriously not trying to be difficult, it's just that this is the first time I have heard this line of reasoning. Thanks!
Parent - By welderbrent (*****) Date 08-31-2012 20:43

You're still confusing the scope/purpose of Clause 3 and Clause 4.  They serve different purposes.  Clause 3 is all about Pre-Qualified Procedures.  Clause 4 is about Procedure and Welder Qualifications.  3.4 shows a backgouged joint because it is a Pre-Qualified joint for any application, non-tubular or tubular (obviously some things apply more to non-tubular and yet can apply to tubular if the diameter is large enough.).

Clause 4, Figure 4.21 is not just generic.  But you have to apply the text from 4.24 and other applicable sub sections to get the full meaning. 

Now, I was away from this for a couple of hours dealing with a major distraction, so I am going to post it and see if anyone else posted while I have been away, grab my D1.1 and check a couple of things out, then come back if I missed something.

Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - - By bert lee (**) Date 08-31-2012 17:01
C-4.1.2 Performance Qualification of Welding Personnel.
The qualification tests are especially designed to
determine the ability of the welders, welding operators,
and tack welders to produce sound welds by following a

it says by following a WPS

why i must qualify a welder with backing if my approved wps requires backgouging and welding?

i qualified the welder by following a it not a D1.1 Welder Qualification test by following a wps?


Parent - By pipes (**) Date 08-31-2012 17:19
Confusing for sure.
Parent - - By welderbrent (*****) Date 08-31-2012 20:54
Hello Bert,

Yes, you must follow a WPS, but that particular WPS must be one that applies to the joint depicted by Figure 4.21 and specified from the text already sited above contained in Clause 4.  So, the WPS must be with backing and with the materials, process, and other variables you want the welder qualified to per Clause 4.

The tests are set to a standard to provide a common basis for qualification/certification.  From there, the welder can weld to any of the Pre-Qualified joints/details designated in Clause 3.  He can also be required by the employer, at the employer's discretion, to prove other abilities particular to the employer's application. 

You are first proving abilities conforming to AWS standards and an international base line.  You are then able to go even further and prove specific abilities that the individual employer requires. 

But the main thing I am seeing here is confusion between Clause 3 application, Clause 4 application, and trying to integrate the two where they are not meant to cross paths.

Also, while the commentary explains the code (and I don't see a problem here, just a reminder), the commentary is not Code. 

Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - - By bert lee (**) Date 09-01-2012 16:21
brent, i agree with the use of backing bar as per figure 4.21 but it’s hard to understand why non backing test coupon is a non compliance with d1.1 when it follows an approved wps.

have a nice weekend service,

Parent - By welderbrent (*****) Date 09-01-2012 16:41

It is not Non-Compliance as such, it is not the detailed procedure for welder certification.  It is fine to do further testing to make sure the welder can do a process/procedure particular to an individual employer such as a test without a backing bar to make sure a welder knows how to backgouge and weld from the opposite side to get a CJP without backing.  But, that is not the specified D1.1 procedure for certifying welders. 

And thanks, need to spend some time today getting ready for Sunday School class tomorrow.  Had to do both morning services last week, our pastor had had a surgery. 

Been busy as well getting ready to move, we sold our home last weekend and only have till the end of Sept to be out.  Talk about last minute arrangements, headed to OR this week to pick up my parents travel trailer since they can't use it anymore anyway. 

Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - - By ssbn727 (*****) Date 09-04-2012 22:46

It's spelled "whether":eek::yell::lol::roll::wink::cool:

"rather" Is that what they use out in Arizona? No offense but, that was driving me crazy wondering what you meant when I first noticed the use of that word.:confused::roll::eek::lol::wink::cool:

Every thing else is "copastetic".:lol::roll::wink::cool:

Parent - - By welderbrent (*****) Date 09-05-2012 03:26
Thanks Henry,

In AZ we learned a long time ago to weather the weather whatever the weather whether we like it or not..

There are a couple of main weaknesses in my language, whether/rather and affect/effect.  My language skills are not nearly as good as they should be.  Because of the weaknesses I see in myself I try not to be too condescending or corrective to those who use 'there' instead of 'their', or 'your' instead of 'you're', and so on. 

I also find it much easier to edit/correct the spelling and language of others than my own.  Usually I am typing way too fast for my mind to keep up with my fingers.  And, I get something on my mind trying to compose an answer to a post that I get lost in the thought without taking thought to correct language.  So, I try not to be critical.

Now, I am not complaining about you correcting me.  I honestly thank you.  I will try to refresh my understanding on when to use which term.  BTW, did you notice you misspelled 'copasetic'?  Is that why you put it in parentheses (the plural of 'parenthesis')? 

Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - By ssbn727 (*****) Date 09-05-2012 03:57
You tomatoe - I tomato, potatoe - potato, blah blah blah...:yell::lol::wink::cool: Heck, if ya wanna use "rather" instead then be my guest.:roll::lol::lol::lol::wink::cool:

Seriously, it is pronounced Co-pas-tet-ic as it is spelled correctly. lol :lol::lol::lol::roll::wink::cool:

Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 08-31-2012 14:54 Edited 08-31-2012 15:00
Brent is correct in stating that AWS D1.1 has specific tests that are required when qualifying welders. They are the minimum test requirements that must be met if the project requires complance to D1.1. The same cannot be said of other codes that do not provide direction of the specific tests the welder must pass. For instance, ASME says the welder has to follow a WPS, but they do not provide figures of the specific test configuration. ASME gives the contractor/manufacturer more latitude regarding the groove configuration, whether the joint is back gouged, etc. That is not the case with AWS. The opening paragraph of Clause 4, part C contains very specific language. AWS provides several figures depicting the required (mandatory) details for the tests administed for welder performance qualification.

Once the minimum testing has been completed, assuming the welder passes, the contractor administer can additional tests to ensure the welder can preform under production conditions. The contractor can make it a requirement that the production welder has to weld hanging from one knee, with one eye covered, one had tied behind his back, in the rain or in the snow, and only after drinking two full 8 ounce bottles of Kaopectate three days before the test. Oh yea, add to the list; with no leathers or shirt.

Since we are conversing about welder performance qualification, lets consider a couple of questions that should be included on the CWI examination. After all, it is the CWI that is often tasked with testing welders, completing the test record, and educating welders about the technical aspects of welding. As such, the questions are reasonable. The candidate should be denied CWI status if they answer either question incorrectly. A CWI should not find it difficult to respond with the correct answer to the questions. The very same questions are included in every examination I administer for contractors that work with NAVSEA welding standards. How would you respond to these two questions?

   (1) The moisture that appears on the surface of cold base metal when it is preheated comes from:
   (2) Welders must be certified by:

Some more things you will hear on a regular basis:

"We never had a problem until we had you test it."

"The other inspector always accepted it."

"We would have done it right if we knew it was going to be inspected."

"Joe should be able to pass the test, his father was a real good welder."

"I weld better after a couple of beers."

"You're picking on us because we're (fill in the blank)."

"This isn't the brand of electrode I use."

"I'm not used to using this machine."

"The sun was in my eyes."

Believe me, you'll hear all sorts of things over the course of a couple of years. As a teacher I would have expected you to have heard most of them by now.

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 08-31-2012 15:12
"I would have back gouged it, if I'd known you were coming to UT it"....a serious reply from a welder at a satellite plant we used to have years ago. He failed every column splice that day without any exceptions. I couldn't believe what I was seeing on the UT screen, the very minute I coupled the transducer the signal went off the screen, and the FSH signals just kept coming, joint after joint...all the way across, for 20 columns.
Parent - By 803056 (*****) Date 08-31-2012 16:20
Shock and awe. Shock and awe.

Parent - - By pipes (**) Date 08-31-2012 17:43
Real nice. I was welding slurry lines for the Oil Sands about 5 years ago. They were shooting 20% per API1104. The inspector flagged the welds to test the radiographer would shoot them about once a week. One welder figured out that we had about 4 days of welding that would not get RT'd. Then the next day the inspector was back flagging welds to RT. This guy was going crazy because he didn't expect to have anything shot for another week. The inspector said they were trying to get ahead on welds and they were shooting that afternoon. They shot 6 of his welds (30" pipe) and every single one of the had to be cut COMPLETELY out and re-done. What kind of welder works like that!!?? Sickening.

Needless to say it was not him that re-welded the joints as he was no longer employed.
Parent - - By 99205 (***) Date 09-01-2012 16:19 Edited 09-01-2012 18:47
You would be surprised at the number of welders that think like that.
Parent - - By Shane Feder (****) Date 09-02-2012 04:29
Back to the original question - IMHO a 4G weld test is just that (an overhead weld test).
Weld the single Vee overhead, take the plate down, flip it over and put back in the jig.
Backgouge or backgrind in the overhead position then place the backing run/s in the overhead position.
The 1G position is basically a "freebie", it is given automatically when a welder completes the 4G test so why allow the welder to weld part of the test in the easiest position ?
How would you write the welder qualification - 4G/1G ?
How would you control how deep the 1G backgouge was ?
You could end up with over 1/2 the plate thickness welded in the flat position on an overhead weld test,
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 09-02-2012 18:58
Since the original question references D1.1, it isn't a valid D1.1 performance test. Who gives a rat's patut?

Parent - - By Joey (***) Date 09-03-2012 10:18 Edited 09-03-2012 10:27

Will you suggest to use Fig 4.21 if the WPS is prepared for one side welding w/o backing or gouging of CJP Groove Welds for
Nontubular Connections?

So what Fig in D1.1 I can use to qualify a welder for qualification without backing / gouging of nontubular connections?

Fig 4.24 (A)? Who gives a rat's patut?:lol:

Parent - - By Shane Feder (****) Date 09-03-2012 12:22
I was a little surprised with your response.
It may have been a question relating to AWS D1.1 but I feel it is still relevant.
If you qualify a 1" PQR to AWS D1.1 and for whatever reason it is done in the overhead position what do you put on the PQR.
3/4" overhead - 1/4" flat.
Just because the original question was to AWS D1.1 does not mean the reasoning is not applicable to a lot of other codes that do not have a fixed backing bar test.
I have seen numerous test coupons welded overhead then backgouged/background from the top and then back welded in the 1G/Flat position.
I do not agree and do not feel that is a true 4G test - that was what I was trying to imply in my post,
Parent - By pipes (**) Date 09-03-2012 16:16
Right on Shane. I learned a lot with this post, and perhaps I don't completely agree with all of it, but I'm glad I had this brought to my attention. Either way, I am still unclear as to how a 4G without backing would be properly done. I can't see flipping any piece during any weld test, but then Shane brings a good point on how you would write it up. Whether this is common or not, there are at least two companies in our district (WI tech college district) that weld like this.
Parent - - By ssbn727 (*****) Date 09-04-2012 22:55
Take it up with the certification committee Shane.:eek::roll::roll::roll::yell::yell::yell::lol::lol::lol::twisted::twisted::twisted::wink::cool:

There's a lot of tests worldwide that are questionable as well yet if it's the code test, then that's the only way to give it dude...
Unless of course there's an alternative that is allowable to use and that would depend on certain conditions to be present for use.:roll::lol::wink::cool:

Parent - - By fbrieden (***) Date 09-07-2012 00:50

Good to see you posting again...hope you're doing better; not going to BS and say you're in my prayers, because I don't pray (but believe in God), BUT it's my pleasure to read/respect your postings...missed you brother!
Parent - - By ssbn727 (*****) Date 09-07-2012 04:30 Edited 09-07-2012 04:34
Thanks Brother!!!

I hope things are good for you as well..... Do you miss teaching???
Whoops!! Didn't mean to hijack this thread.:eek::roll::lol::wink::cool:

Al, I'm sure glad you're not!!!:lol::lol::lol::wink::cool: Set them up pal & keep them straight buddy.:lol::wink::cool:
Good work Brent!:lol::lol::lol::wink::cool:
Larry, well Lawrence is his own man... What can I say.:roll::lol::wink::cool:
Now and then, I still stand on my head Shane.:grin::lol::smile::wink::cool:

1996??? Hmmm, I believe the code was different back then compared to the 2010 edition Joey,
so please get yourself a current edition dude!:eek::yell::roll::razz::confused::wink:

Parent - By Lawrence (*****) Date 09-07-2012 10:59
For you Henry,  I'll help hijack the tread.

It makes me happy every time I see you post!

- - By 803056 (*****) Date 09-03-2012 18:18 Edited 09-03-2012 18:25
Hello Joe, Shane, et. all;

It is a holiday here in the US of A. Labor Day and I'm supposed to be kicking back and relaxing. Silly me, this is what I call relaxing.

“Will you suggest to use Fig 4.21 if the WPS is prepared for one side welding w/o backing or gouging of CJP Groove Welds for Nontubular Connections?

“So what Fig in D1.1 I can use to qualify a welder for qualification without backing / gouging of nontubular connections?

Fig 4.24 (A)? Who gives a rat's patut? ”

To your question with regards to procedure qualification; first, Figure 4.21. 4.22, and 4.30 (at least in the 2010 edition of D1.1) depict V-grooves (in plate) with backing which is to be used for welder performance testing. There are no provisions for removing the backing so the welder can back gouge the root. The visual acceptance criteria listed in clause 4.9.1 (5) (used for both welder performance and procedure qualification) states: "The weld root for CJP grooves shall be inspected, and shall not have any cracks, incomplete fusion, or inadequate joint penetration." I understand that to include fusion to the steel backing bar must be complete as well. With that, there should be no need or desire to back gouge and back weld.

Figures 4.24 A and 4.24B are applicable to welder performance qualification on tubular shapes. While the tests qualify the welder for production welds on shapes other than tubular, they are not applicable to testing the welder on plate. Following the thread back to clause 4.27, item (1) (paraphrased) states figure 4.24(B) can be used when the welder must be qualified for production joints that are backed or back gouged. Figure 4.24(A) is intended to be welded from one side, i.e., open root. Footnote “i” from Table 4.10 has provisions for production welds that must be back gouged, but it provides no provisions for back gouging the test assembly during the qualification test. Just because the test qualifies the welder for production welds that must be back gouged, it doesn’t mean the test assembly is back gouged. Remember, a welder that is qualified on a joint with backing is also qualified for production joints that will be back gouged (reference Clause 4.24)

If you are going to qualify a welding procedure, the WPS should stipulate the groove details. If you are qualifying a WPS for tubular joints, figures 4.25(A) or 4.25(B) can be used. Neither figure is intended for T, Y, or K connections between tubular members. AWS gives the fabricator free rein to design a joint anyway they want as long as the joint detail and the technique employed replicates what will be done in production and the variables listed in tables 4.1 and 4.5 are observed. Remember to separate the function of qualifying a WPS from the function of qualifying the welder. 

As I have stated before, any code, AWS D1.1 included, stipulate the minimum requirements that have to be met. The contractor is responsible to take whatever additional steps are necessary to ensure the integrity of their work. Once the basic welder performance tests prescribed by AWS D1.1 have been administered and passed, the contractor can administer any additional tests or any design they deem necessary to ensure the welders have the skills required to function as a production welder.

Whether it is reasonable to presume the welder is the only person that will perform back gouging operation is open to discussion. I have been in a number of facilities where the welders do not perform the back gouging operations. With the presumption that it is the welder that will be back gouging the joint, the contractor is free to administer a butt joint test on plate or tubular shapes and he is free to include a requirement that the welder back gouge the root to sound metal and back weld the joint. The contractor can even define what process will be used to back gouge the joint. The contractor can stipulate the welder must use a 8 inch grinder, a rotary file, a carbon arc gouging torch, an oxy-fuel gouging torch, a hand file, or a chisel and hammer to excavate the root to sound metal. However, the requisite performances tests as defined by AWS D1.1 must be part of the performance testing program. It is not a requirement per D1.1 that the welder be qualified on a test assembly where back gouging is a requirement. Again, Clause 4.24 is clear, a welder that is qualified with backing is also qualified for grooves that are back gouged. There are no provisions however that state that a welder qualified with back gouging is also qualified to weld joints that incorporate backing.

With regards to Shane’s question regarding the qualification of a WPS, there is a difference in philosophy between AWS D1 structural codes and ASME Section IX. Whereas ASME includes the thickness of the weld deposit as a variable, AWS does not. That is the fly in the ointment. AWS qualifies the WPS based on the thickness of the base metal. ASME includes the thickness of the weld deposit as well as the thickness of the test assembly when determining the range for which the procedure is qualified.

As is this entire composition, this is simply my opinion on the subject. I believe there is a presumption on the part of the AWS D1 committee that the entire assembly is welded with one process and in one position. I see no alternative considering there is no mechanism. i.e., the thickness of the weld deposit, to separate the welding processes used, there is no mechanism to separate the different filler metal strength levels, whether the electrode is a low hydrogen type versus nonlow hydrogen type, variations in alloy content, etc. all of which are listed as essential variables in Table 4.5.

With that in mind, my opinion is that when the contractor is qualifying a welding procedure specification in accordance with D1.1, the entire test assembly must be welded with one welding process, in one test position (tubular sections being an exception), using one type of filler metal. If more than one welding process is to be employed in production, and if more than one filler metal type is to be used, if more than one welding variable listed in Table 4.5 or 4.6 (when applicable) is changed, a new test assembly must be welded and tested. Clause 3.6.1 is the code provision that permits the contractor to use more than one WPS to complete a production weld.

Having said all that I have to say, there are enough weasel words in the code that a determined contractor will worm his way around and through the code to do what has to be done. In the end the Engineer (representing the Owner, not the contractor) has sufficient latitude to allow variances from the code’s requirements to get the job done. If the contractor can get the Engineer’s blessing, anything is possible.

Shane, in consideration of your location relative to where I sit, your overheads are my flats and my flats are your overheads. I'm not sure why there should be any confusion. :lol:

Best regards - Al
Parent - By Joey (***) Date 09-04-2012 10:50

Thanks for lenghty explanation, hope you enjoy your holiday.

"Figure 4.21. 4.22, and 4.30 (at least in the 2010 edition of D1.1) depict V-grooves (in plate) with backing which is to be used for welder performance testing".

So what Fig to select when qualifying a welder for one side welding CJP V-groove (in plate) when there is no backing or back gouging requirement?

Fig 4.24 (A) is inteded for one side welding but it is meant for tubular joints. Can you use this Fig 4.24 (A) for plate?

Parent - - By Shane Feder (****) Date 09-04-2012 11:20
It's OK,
I always stand on my head when I visit this forum :lol:,
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 09-04-2012 14:42
Welding from one side without backing is not prequalified. You need to qualify the WPS first. Once the WPS is qualified I guess you could qualify the welder to the qualified WPS. The welder would have to work within the parameters of the qualified WPS. There is no standard performance test for a CJP without backing other than the test for tubular and the T, Y, and K test. Footnote "i" of table 4.11 tells the reader to use Figure 24 (A) when the welder is to be qualified without backing or back gouging. Footnote "i" is only applicable when testing on tubular product. From the table, the welder that passes the test on tubular product is also qualified to weld plate.

I do not see the same provisions for qualifying the welder on plate. The only plate tests I see provisions for are with backing.

There are no performance tests in D1.1 describing a performance test that utilizes back gouging, nor are their provisions listed. If the production weld requires back gouging, a test that utilizes backing does the job.

Again I go back to my position that once the contractor has tested the welder utilizing one or more of the standard requisite tests described in D1.1, he is free to invoke any additional tests and requirements deemed suitable by the contractor. A proviso is that the welder must pass one or more of the tests required by AWS before additional testing can be performed.

Hey guys, I don't write the code, I just read it and try to apply the provisions without making up stuff that isn't in the code. Creativity is good, but not when trying to comply with code requirements.

Best regards - Al
Parent - By Lawrence (*****) Date 09-04-2012 16:23
See now,

He may infer that he doesn't give a rats patut...

But he has given you several thousand words that should help you *navigate* the code.

Good thread guys!
Parent - - By Joey (***) Date 09-05-2012 05:24
I think you hit the key points “Welding from one side without backing is not prequalified. You need to qualify the WPS first. Once the WPS is qualified I guess you could qualify the welder to the qualified WPS. The welder would have to work within the parameters of the qualified WPS”.

Now we go back to gouging issue, although the use of backing is the performance test listed in D1.1 but as long as you have the supported WPS, you have the option to follow the qualified WPS that requires back gouging in welder performance test. This is the same as welder qualification through WPS qualification, which I believe a valid D1.1 performance test.

Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 09-05-2012 13:18 Edited 09-05-2012 13:21
Joey, friend, you are cherry picking my response. You are leaving out the key point that the welder first has to pass the requisite tests prescribed by D1.1. Once the standard D1.1 tests have been administered and passed, the contractor/school/lab can administered any additional tests deemed prudent. Key word: "additional".

Granted there are some weasel words in the code that states the welder that welds a successful PQR is qualified. The welder that welded up a test coupon to qualify the WPS with a back gouge operation is qualified (no backing permitted in production) provided all the requisite NDT and destructive tests are passed, but that proviso is only applicable if the test assembly passes all the tests required. My position would be that if the contractor insists on testing his welders with back gouging, I would be forced to accept the results if the test plate passed the visual examoination, the volumetric examination, the requisite four guided bend tests, and the two reduced section tensile tests. The test plate would have to measure no less than that defined in Figures 4.10, 4.11, 4.27 or 4.28. The use of the standard 5 inch minimum test plate would not be acceptable. If the contractor insists, my response would be, "Go ahead. make my day." The invoice would be the charge of qualifying the WPS, not what is charged for welder performance qualification.

I routinely reject welder qualification tests that include a back gouge operation unless they can also provide a copy of their performance test that indicates they passed a test with backing as required by D1.1. Please read the first paragraph of Clause 4, Part C. It is pretty clear as to the intent of the specially devised AWS performance tests.

The performance test that includes a back gouge operation simply is not an AWS test per D1.1. The welder that utilizes a back gouge operation has not met the D1.1 requirements of part C. I cannot say it more clearly than that. Do not confuse production welding requirements with the function of welder performance qualification. Different, not the same, dissimilar, how many ways can I say it?

My suggestion is that you write an official inquiry to the D1 committee. My response is simply my opinion. A response from the code committee makes it policy.

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By Joey (***) Date 09-06-2012 01:38

Please let me have a chance to analyze your opinion, it is good to ask when you’re struggling to understand the information you’re reading (e.g. just like yourself, you will not know if you don’t ask the term “scallops”).

My D1.1 is 96Ed, is it written now in the latest Ed that you must pass the test with backing before you can go for test with back gouge operation? As what you mentioned "additional”.

What about my one side welding CJP V-groove (in plate) when there is no backing or back gouging requirement? Do we need to qualify the welder first with backing before going for this test as you mentioned “additional”? Why I have to qualify my welder with backing when it is no use in my production. I find it unique that you have to qualify a welder with backing first before going for the right performance test in accordance with applicable approved WPS. It means you have to qualify each welder twice. I have not encountered this arrangement before in any projects where backing bar or back gouging on weld joints is not required.

Don’t be sensitive friend, I’m not here to challenge your opinion and I have no interest to write an inquiry to D1 committee. I have no further question in your opinion on this thread.

Parent - By welderbrent (*****) Date 09-06-2012 03:51

I would encourage you to start at the beginning.  I have given some of the train of evidence in previous posts here.  Start in Clause 3 with what it says about Welder Quals being according to Clause 4.  Begin at the beginning of the Clause and follow the chain of references.  See if it doesn't take you the course that both Al and I have given. 

D1.1 is not about CWI's just picking any old method they want when qualifying/certifying welders.  There is a reason/method for the application of the references given.

Have a Great Day,  Brent
- By 803056 (*****) Date 09-06-2012 13:11
Hello Joey;

You will note that I have referenced the 2010 edition in my responses. I am glad you got around to telling us you are working with the 1996 edition. Now I have a question, "Why are you using the 1996 edition?"

There may be a perfectly logical reason to use the earlier edition for fabrication such as you are working on a project that invoked that edition in the contract; you are living in a state that has adopted that particular edition in their building code, etc. However, if you are employed by a laboratory or a school that tests welders as part of the services offered, it would be prudent to use the latest edition to ensure the welders are compliant with the current code requirements.

I sat through a deposition yesterday where I was questioned on this very subject. The inspector involved tested the welders to the 1996 edition of D1.1 in late 1999. Oops! No good. The edition that should have been used was 1998. There were other problems, to name one: the filler metal specification listed on the test record was for magnesium filler metal, which might be a problem when welding carbon steel. There were problems with the WPS the inspector developed as well. End result; all the welds were deemed noncompliant.

You have to navigate through the code and come to terms with it. Keep in mind that the function of welder qualification is a separate function and qualifying a WPS serves an entirely different purpose. Keep on mind that you can totally screw with the system and do everything wrong and no one will care until something goes horribly wrong. Then you and your paperwork will be scrutinized by several lawyers and their experts. They are tasked with the job of dismantling your very existence. The experience can be devastating in terms of your reputation, your ability to find another job, and the financial consequences can be permanent.

I didn't suggest writing an inquiry to the code committee because you are questioning my position; I did so because you need an official answer to your question. Any opinions voiced here in the Forum carry absolutely no weight once you leave this site. Anything posted here is simply an individual's opinion on the matter. You will read opinions that are based on experience, both good and bad, you will read opinions written by individuals that are experts in codes and standards, and you will read opinions written by individuals that are functionally illiterate. You have to decide which opinions make sense and disregard the rest. If the matter is important, always get an official response from the appropriate code committee. It takes many, many months to get the final response, but it is similar to a ruling by the Supreme Court. It becomes the "rule of the land" so to speak and it serves as the basis of future decisions. Inquiries are also the reason the code has evolved over time. Many code changes are in response to inquiries to clarify the committee's intent.

Reading a code is no simple task. It is a legal document. It has legal standing. Many individuals take a liberal position in how they apply the code's provisions. Just be aware that the are consequences if you are "too liberal" in your application of the codes provisions. Just because an individual is a CWI or a SCWI is warrentee that individual is a code expert. He may have used the API 1104 as his open book examination.

Best regards - Al
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Certifications / D1.1 test position for 4G plate?

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill