Often, when I'm on the job I notice that many fittings don't fit when they come from the factory. Olets are often a good example. For example, they may be saddled to fit between 5-10 inch diameter pipe. Not one exact size in particular. What is the correct way to fix this problem, according to the welding codes? Should I weld the olet like it is, with a tight gap on two sides and a wide gap on the others, or should we resaddle it with the grinder? This is another example of how QC's on the job are unable to answer real world questions like this.

Another question is about the different thicknesses of pipe fittings, compared to the pipe wall thickness of the same schedule. This seems to be a common problem. Doesn't the welding code specify that high-low isn't allowed inside the pipe? Yet, I don't see any QC's forcing the pipe fitters to transition the pipe.

Many piping codes simply state the root opening must be in accordance with the WPS. I guess that means the WPS must provide the welder with more information about the joint detail/design than "all grooves and all fillets.”

ASME B16.25 provides some direction on the details of butt joints for pipe to pipe and pipe to fitting (weld neck, valves, etc.), but that is pretty much the extent of the information available from ASME.

ASME B31.3 states that joints not meeting the requirements of B16.25 must be qualified by testing if the system is designated as "high pressure" by the Owner. To the extent possible, following B16.25 is prudent.

As a recommendation, the contractor/welder could use AWS recommended practices developed the D10.X committees. Before anyone goes off on a rant about how much does AWS know about pipe welding, let me say that many of the committee members are also on ASME code committees. The committees are comprised of industry recognized piping gurus that have developed a number of recommended practices for welding carbon steel pipe, austenitic stainless steel pipe, aluminum pipe, etc. I guess it is a case of where ASME is hesitant to tell anyone how to do anything; instead they and industry uses AWS as their vehicle to get the message out. It is up to the user to either develop the necessary joint details by trial and error or to adopt the recommended practices available from AWS or other recognized sources. Generally speaking, recommended practices are accepted as industry best practices. From a liability standpoint, should something go horribly wrong and litigation rears its ugly head, damage awards are often mitigated if the contractor or the engineer can show that "industry best practices" were followed. That doesn't mean someone on the witness stand testifies "That's the way we always did it." It means the witness can show that a recommended practice published by a recognized professional organization was followed routinely.

Back to the question; I agree with the previous post that the manufactured fittings are made to fit a range of pipe diameters, but not necessarily in the “as received” condition. The fitting have to be fitted to the field conditions to produce a uniform root opening that meets the requirements of the WPS and provides the fit-up needed to ensure the welder can produce a weld with complete joint penetration.

Now for the rub; the employer is responsible for the work performed by their employees. It is common practice to qualify the welder to meet the minimum code requirements. That normally means the contractor is going to do as little as practical to meet the minimum standards. To that end various contractor organizations have developed welder qualification programs where member contractors can get their welders qualified once and the qualification is “transportable” from one contractor to another. The goal is to reduce the time and cost of qualifying welders that often jump from one project to another and one contractor to another. After all, most of us agree that the welder’s skill is not perishable and the welder does not forget the skills that have been acquired over time. In theory the concept is viable.

Customer expectations are higher than they were twenty or thirty years ago. The manufacturing world of Frederick Taylor has been largely pushed to the side except in Third World Countries. This especially true on modern construction sites were every job is different from the last job completed. It is not unusual for the applicable code to be different, the materials being welded to be different, the acceptance criteria are different, and project specifics are different on each new project. We expect the workers to adapt to the new requirements, but how can they if they are not aware of the new requirements?   

My position differs from that of many contractors. I view the welder qualification test as an opportunity to assess the welder’s skills, work habits, and working knowledge of how the work is to be accomplished. It provides me with an opportunity see if the welder has safe work habits; does he/she wear safety glasses, etc. It affords me an opportunity to review the job requirements with the welder and to see whether the welder can follow written work instructions. After all, that is the function of a WPS; it is a written work instruction providing the welder with information about how a weld is to be made. In today’s working environment it is important that worker have the capability to follow directions and not depend on the industry culture of “That’s how I always do It.” or “That’s the way I did it on the last job.”

Many problems I encounter on the job site are the result of the welder not being aware of code requirements or specific techniques that ensure acceptable work. In my humble opinion the time spent qualifying the welder is time well spent and cost effective if the opportunity is used to its full advantage. One of the contractor’s prime objectives is to reduce the cost of producing a structure or product that meets the customer’s expectations. Rejected work and associated repairs subtracts profit from the job, it causes the customer to question the contractor’s ability to perform the work, and detracts from worker satisfaction. A comprehensive welder qualification program can improve the profitability of the project and customer satisfaction. 

In closing, questions such as that asked in this post could be or probably should be addressed by the WPS. Taking this one step further, fit-up requirements could easily be addressed during the welder qualification process when the contractor could spend time reviewing the WPS and provide the welder with specific information about the project requirements.

Best regards - Al

Sorry to say Hacksaw, your head is situated in the wrong place.

Don't go blame other people for your failure. You have 8 years of experience? Welding pipe? Are you serious? In 18 years of welding pipe you never learned how to fit an integrally reinforced branch fitting (weld-o-let)?

It is not the third party inspector's responsibility to show or tell the contractor (or the welder) how to do the work, nor is it ASME’s responsibility. The code will specify minimum design requirements and little details like the minimum size of the reinforcing fillet weld, but it will not tell the contractor whether to use GTAW, GMAW, or SMAW. The code isn’t going to tell the contractor when to use a chainfall to hoist the pipe. The ASME codes do not tell the contractor "all pressure boundaries must be welded with two layers" (that is a requirement from NAVSEA TP278). Those are decisions the contractor must make. It is the contractor's responsibility to instruct their workers and provide the necessary supervision and quality control to ensure the code is met.

If you don't know how to fit a branch fitting or a weld neck flange, go ask your boss, not the inspector.

A long time ago an engineer that was inspecting a project I was welding on made the comment, "I can always tell a welder, but I can't tell him much."

I admit I was as much of a boneheaded welder as many I meet now. Hopefully you aren't one of those boneheads Hacksaw. Learn from the mistake and don't repeat it on the next job. If you don't know how to do something, ask your employer how he would like it done. You should be taking direction from your boss, not the inspector. If you follow the instructions of your employer you are in the clear. If you guess and you are wrong, it's down the road again.

You didn't say whether you are a pipe welder or a structural welder. If you are a cross country pipe liner, i.e., API 1104, I can see the quandary. API calls the weld joining the branch fitting to the run pipe a fillet weld, but hey, those pipes only blow up once in a while. API 1104 is one of the few welding standards I know of that permits cracks in the weld; crater cracks that is.

I really wish I could give you a sympathetic ear, but you screwed up and have no one to blame but yourself. Next time, ask for the WPS and ask for direction if you don't know how to do something. Who you gonna ask? You should ask your foreman, supervisor, or someone that works for your employer, not someone that doesn't work for your employer. The inspector working for a third party agency would have to be a complete idiot to expose himself and his employer to unnecessary liability by providing you or any of the contractor's people with advice or direction on how to do "something." If I got wind that one of my inspectors was offering advice to a contractor, he would be cut loose so fast the ink on his check would still be wet when it was handed to him.

I go back to my original response. Had my advice been followed this discussion wouldn’t be necessary. This is a case where the contractor didn’t provide sufficient supervision, it appears the contractor didn’t provide the necessary quality control, and you my friend were thrown under the bus because you didn’t ask how your employer wanted the branch fitting welded.

You want to blame the inspector, go ahead. Your whining will fall upon deaf ears. It is not the inspector’s responsibility to direct the tradesmen on the job. It is the contractor’s responsibility to provide direction to their workforce.

You are complaining about the poor advice that has been provided by inspectors in the past. Why would you listen to any advice offered by an inspector now? Could it be you just don’t want to face the fact that you messed up and need to blame someone else?

Your tears are pulling at my heart, so with 5 minutes spent searching the internet I found the following website:
http://www.pennusa.com/technical_resources/customer_training/outletguide.pdf

I apologize for repeating myself, but I find repetion is often needed in order to ensure the information has time to filter through the boney mass between the ears. It comes with being a welder I guess. Maybe that's why my wife always repeats what she's telling me three or four times; "Honey, the water still isn't draining from the bath tub."

"I know, I know, you've told me that 12 times since last month."

Lesson 1 for all newby CWIs working for 3rd party agencies; never, never offer advice to the contractor or their workers! You might be smarter than they are, but you have to let them hire their own consultants if they get into trouble. Your advice makes you a party to the problem. After all, the Owner hired you and is paying you a paycheck. You work for the Owner, not the contractor.

Lesson 1 for all newly married men: at least make believe you are listening to your spouse's complaints and find something to compliment her about. "Yes dear." Yup, that was the best roast I've eaten." Only then can you cut away the blackened crust.

The trick is to watch out for her traps; "Honey, do these pants make my butt look too big?"

"Yes, dear." is the wrong response!

Good luck - Al

It sounds like a tired old gear box after a while, but I find that it’s true; 10% of the people excel at their job, 80% do enough to get by, and 10% should be doing something else with their time.

QC shouldn't be telling tradesmen how to do the work. That being said, a good number of QC people come up through the trades and are well versed in how the work can be accomplished in a manner that will satisfy the code and design. I have met many such individuals over the years. They can be a valuable asset in getting the job done properly, safely, and turn a tidy profit for the contractor. When such people are discovered, the smart contractor hires them for his team. There's is nothing wrong or unethical with going to work for a contractor. When the inspector is on the contractor’s payroll there is nothing wrong with the inspector giving direction to the workers.

When the contractor needs advice, there are talented people that provide those types of services for a fee. Their fees are usually well worth the money and can easily save the contractor time, expenses, and reputation. That being said, the contractor is usually tighter with the purse strings than a welder paying for a qualification test.

There have been a number of instances where contractors have refused to pay my fees and hired different company to provide the services for lower prices. Surprise, surprise, I show up on the project, get paid my original fee by company XYZ who was hired by the contractor. The insult comes when XYZ charges the contractor for my consulting services at double my going rate. Ouch!

"I could have hired you directly for half the price I was charged by XYZ!" says the contractor.

"Right you are sir, but you said I charged too much when you made your inquiry!" is how I respond to such comments.

Verbal procedure? If it isn't in writing, it isn't worth listening to. If it doesn't come from the Engineer signed and sealed you are crazier than the inspector giving the advice!

From what I have been reading Hacksaw you folks must be working with the Farm Code. That is the only explanation I can come up with. One of the advantages to the Farm Code is that it is available at no charge from the Forum. I did a search and couldn't find it, so I have attached an older version so you can add it to your library of references. It looks like it needs to be updated.

Best regards – Al

Piping codes: per ASME B31.X
QC - contractor's responsibility
QA - Owner's responsibility

This job: Who is the inspector the welder is speaking of? Contractor's QC or Owner's QA?

Did the welder ask questions before welding or after the weld was rejected?

Would the welder have listened to advice offered?

Would the welder in question have followed a WPS if one was available?

Does the welder figured he knew more than anyone else on this project?

Has the welder taken any courses in pipe welding, code compliance, pipe design, or other related subjects?

Does this welder feel its him against a cold cruel world?

Did anyone fulfill their responsibility as assigned by the applicable code or project specification?

Did this job fall under the jurisdiction of a code or was this fast tracked by the Owner or contractor because "It's just pipe?"

Just a few questions that would help me understand.

I admit I don't know all the real facts, but I learned long ago that crap rolls downhill and any weld I made was my responsibility.

Al