Prequalified CJP detail...

By SWN1158 (***)

Date 11-15-2018 19:09

There's a prequalified joint detail, B-L1a-GF in D1.1 that I want to use. Our welders tested for CJP's using test plates with bevels, as shown in D1.1, but the CWI is telling me that our welders are not qualified to weld a B-L1a-GF joint, because it's not beveled... i.e. , the joint changes from a beveled joint to a joint that's not beveled, and our welders must be requailfied for a CJP that has no bevel. I've never heard of this. Any thoughts, comments, or code references that verify either stance is greatly appreciated..... but this is something I've never heard.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 11-15-2018 20:13

Hi Scott

Table 4.12 provides the essential variables for performance qualification and it says nothing about joint design. ZERO

Table 4.10 speaks to welder qualification to plate pipe via position and thickness... It defines two things. GROOVE and Fillet. It does not speak to square grooves, bevel, grooves, V-grooves or any other type of groove.

Is this the same inspector that continually haunts you?

Does he ever tire of being asked to demonstrate the clause that backs his imaginary rules?

The fact of the matter is for "Performance Qualification" The test assemblies provided in the code are the only ones the code recognizes. None of them are square grooves.

Clause 4.20.1 provides a list of figures for all of the performance qualification test assemblies.

You are being tormented by fools

By SWN1158 (***)

Date 11-15-2018 20:27

Yes, it's the same CWI. I need to give a CWI the benefit of the doubt, because I'm not a CWI. I have over 40 years of structural steel experience, and I feel that I have a decent amount of knowledge with regard to the codes, but I don't know everything. I looked over Table 4.12 before I posted, and nothing jumped out at me. I continued to look, but I saw nothing, which prompted my post. Thank you so much Lawrence, for your response.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 11-15-2018 21:25

I agree with Lawrence. Groove prep (or not) is not an essential variable that requires requalification. (Clause 4.19)

CWIs can get their essential variables (WPS vs Welding Personnel) mixed up sometimes, that's why we(CWIs) need to look it up before we call somebody out for something like this.

By SWN1158 (***)

Date 11-15-2018 21:37

Thank you John!

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 11-15-2018 21:58

I've had some heated conversations at my old place of employment with outside CWIs over these very topics of essential variables.

By SWN1158 (***)

Date 11-16-2018 14:12

These have been my first experiences with a CWI that disagrees with me. In fact, during a somewhat heated debate, he basically told me that when I become a CWI, then we can have an intelligent conversation about welding. He's recently been warming up to what I've been saying and referencing, so maybe he's come to realize that I'm not as dumb as I look :)

By 803056

Date 11-16-2018 20:47

It sounds like he took his open book examination using API 1104.

He may have looked at the figures in clause 4 and noticed the "optional" test for fillet welds that utilizes a square groove with a rather large root opening. He probably didn't take the time to read those pesky words that go with the figure.

Al

By SWN1158 (***)

Date 11-17-2018 00:53

Thank you!!!!!!

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 11-16-2018 21:56

I never let credentials outweigh proof until the engineer of record says so.

If you ever need someone to review something many would be glad to help including myself.

By SWN1158 (***)

Date 11-17-2018 00:53

Thank you !!!!!!!!!!!!