D1.1

Date 12-07-2016 17:58

That is an interesting question.

Personally, it depends upon your instructions to the welder prior to conducting the test. D1.1 does not necessarily specify but consider Clause 4.9 I believe it is about the 2nd or 3rd paragraph where it says welds shall be to the full cross section as to craters. Now, are you going to consider the very beginning and ending of a weld test plate as a crater? They do have run off tabs so it really shouldn't be that hard to fill the weld to the full cross section. But, many feel that since it is 'just' a test and the first 1" gets cut off that you don't need to worry about it at all. I don't feel quite that unconcerned about it. I inspect the whole length of the weld; undercut, overlap, fully filled weld, porosity, etc.

But, do I expect it to be filled ALL the way to the top and from the bottom? If there is a complete fill to all except a small area where the corner of the plate is more rounded than fully square, I take into consideration what my exact instructions were when beginning the testing. It does need to be a small area.

Now, if the welder finishes and adds weld there without me saying anything, why not accept it? Just as if one corrects some undercut or other discontinuity prior to declaring they are finished. While we claim it is a welding test not a grinding test, some corrections can certainly be allowed before I examine the weld. Unless the WPS does not allow power tools, then it needs to be by just adding weld.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 12-07-2016 18:26

The full length of the weld is subject to visual inspection, including underfill.

One way to increase your pass rate that is completely compliant is to use run-tabs as well as a backing bar.

Problem solved

Something like this:

By js55

Date 12-07-2016 19:07

I think you are reading too much into the Code. If a requirement is not in the sections pertaining to qualification then it is irrelevant to qualification.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 12-07-2016 20:58

4.9.1.1 (3)
(3) Weld reinforcement shall not exceed 1/8 in
[3 mm]. The weld profile shall conform to Figure 5.4
and shall have complete fusion.

This illustration effectively prohibits underfill in any portion of the length of the weld.

By js55

Date 12-08-2016 13:18

The issue here is what determines the terminus point of the required weld and whether the ENTIRE test weld 'length' must comply?
In fabrication this required length is determined by the 'specified' length or groove. In qualification there is no requirement that I know of.
When you consider 4.9.1.1.(2) the term 'full cross section' is not defined in consideration of the qualification coupon diagrams that state the length is a minimum. For example, if you use Figure 4.31 and your coupon length is 9", do you have to comply with 4.9.1.1 for the 'entire length'? I would argue no.
The other thing is, what is the point in rejecting a welder on such vague trivialities if he demonstrates a clear ability to weld. To me it is simply anal retentive inspector stuff and smacks of looking for reasons to reject somebody as opposed to thinking of the test as a demonstration of ability.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 12-08-2016 14:12 Edited 12-08-2016 14:15

That's a valid statement JS (all of them in fact)

And I really am all about success, meaning passing tests, and making excellent production welds. I don't want to bust somebody out on a "vague triviality" I want them to succeed and will do as much as ethically possible to assure that happens.

Using the option of run-tabs and extended backing bars as a routine part of the test assembly is a good way to help welders pass those tests. Especially on horizontal single bevels.

I guess my approach (more conservative than yours) is to avoid conflict with 3rd party inspectors. All of our performance qualification testing, whether AWS or CWB require some sort of 3rd party evaluation, CWB being the most thorough.

We don't pull surprises on the welders. We instruct them up front on the profiles and how they will be inspected visually. And to the point of the original post, we would not reject a weld that had a small weld placed at the one end or the other of the test assembly to deal with some slight underfull/undercut.

I have no problem with tabs and backing bar extensions in performance testing because our 400 welders are required by our own internal specifications to use them on all CJP connections that a backing bar or run-tabs can be employed.

By js55

Date 12-08-2016 16:05

Lawrence,
You're way more organized and knowledgeable than most. And I will agree that when you have 3rd party inspectors you will in essence comply with their requirements unless they are just way out there. If no 3rd party inspector is present I rely on my judgment and then toss the test coupon so as not to cause any questions later on. I comply with the Code but I readily admit my interpretation can be liberal at times.
You really hit the key though in the context of the OP. Clear and comprehensive instruction.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 12-08-2016 16:38

Thanks for the compliment JS

Every time I remember you and I disagreeing on this forum.... You have been right :)

So the kind words mean a lot.

By js55

Date 12-08-2016 18:00

LOL!!!!!
Not true. But I appreciate that.
I am frequently wrong. And often argumentative and I'm sure annoying.
But I like to challenge those of whom I know have extensive knowledge and experience. Some you win some you lose. But I like running with the big dogs even though I might get bit from time to time.
In this context I am constantly pushing for the idea of trying not to read too much into the Codes. All to easy to do, myself included, through force of habit.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 12-07-2016 20:10 Edited 12-07-2016 20:20

I prefer that the welder use the tabs. When I gave welders their test at my old employment, I provided the tabs and a lot of the ones who were hired as welders from outside the company asked me what were they were for and how to put them on.

By Vittonej Date 12-08-2016 01:32

Is that a V running tab, it is hard to see in the picture. But I will consider that.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 12-08-2016 12:03

Yes, it's just a piece of flat bar tacked onto each of the bevel ends so that the welder can run off onto those and maintain a full section so that the plate is not underfilled at the edges like in your situation. When the weld is complete, they can be cut off and the ends finished with a grinder.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 12-08-2016 12:23

Sorry about the poor picture quality, I searched quickly through some old pictures looking for run off tabs to show you. Most of the pictures that I had, the run off tabs had already been cut off.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 12-08-2016 12:29

Lawrence, you were quick with the camera on that one. The color is still in the puddle where the welder stopped.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 12-07-2016 20:15

If the welder realized it was low and repaired this without someone having to tell him to fix it...I'd give him a thumbs up.
If the welder had knocked the coupon loose and handed it to me with the ends low, I would have failed him. Especially after I had provided tabs for him to use.