American Welding Society Forum
Good morning, Experts.
We will soon be qualifying welders per AWS D1.1-15 for tubular in the horizontal position with backing using GMAW-spray transfer. I am looking at Figure 9.22 (b) and this appears to be the only groove joint configuration allowed for welder qualification on tubulars with backing, is this correct? We have a WPS qualified for a CJP single bevel groove weld on tubular with a backing ring, the top pipe beveled ant 45 degrees and the bottom pipe cut straight at 90 degrees, for a 45 degree included angle. From what I get from Figure 9.22(b) I am not able to use this WPS or joint to qualify our welders who will actually be welding that particular joint in production, is this correct? Do I need to have a new WPS that utilizes a v groove that is in conformance with Figure 9.22 (b) and use that to qualify the welders? Am I missing something here?
Thanks in advance for your help!
Looks like you're right.
Will you be doing CJP welds in T-, K-, Y- connections on Tube?
If not, you can use a Plate Groove test to qualify. Refer to Table 4.10 for limitations on tube welding when welders are qualified by plate.
We weld a lot of HSS, and we qualify our welders using plate tests (3G & 4G), but we do not do any TKY-connection CJPs. Only CJPs we do are in Tubular Butt Joints. Otherwise it is just Fillet and PJPs.
You really only need to do qualification to Clause 9/Fig. 9.22 if you are going to be doing TKY-Connection CJPs.
If you are going to be doing the TKY- CJPs, then you would need to write up a WPS for that joint design and qualify them to Clause 9.
Edited- Even then, you would need to do a 6GR to Fig. 9.25 to qualify for TKY- CJPs. Per Table 9.13.
This qualification will be for CJP groove welds in HSS pipe, not box tube. Table 4.10 does provide qualification on pipe via plate tests, but only 24"+ diameter pipe. We need pipe qualification down to 4" diameter. No we do not need TKY connection qualification. This just seems odd to me that there are multiple prequalified joints that you can use to write a WPS, but you are limited to only one joint to perform welder qualifications.
It is because the welder qualification is a uniform test for all. This allows for an apples to apples comparison of welder qualification, a set standard if you will.
Please check the mode of metal transfer you are going to use. GMAW-spray transfer is limited to flat and horizontal fillet positions.
Can you share with us the clause in the D1.1 code that supports your statement?
No clause in D1.1. It is a limitation for that mode of metal transfer. Spray arc transfer usually is limited to flat and horizontal fillet positions (except for some spray transfer on aluminum).
The joint can readily be welded with GMAW spray transfer, but it would be easier to weld using the bevel groove, which will be used in production, than the V Groove. OK, Thanks for all or your input, I guess that I was correct that there is no option for the bevel groove. I just thought that I was missing something because you do have the option of the bevel groove joint for welder qualification on plate, see figures 4.19 and 4.21. It seems to me that prior to the 2015 edition, and the addition of clause 9, that pipe qualification could be done with the bevel groove. I don't have a previous edition of D1.1 currently, and ultimately I guess that it doesn't make any difference for us now...
I looked through the errata yesterday thinking that this exclusion of the bevel groove for horizontal performance qualification is an oversight and might have been caught and fixed... But saw nothing published.
Also agree that in 2010 revision there would be no restriction for a bevel groove 2G performance on HSS....
Knowing how difficult it is for the D1 committee to change (especially by limiting) anything... I still suspect this is an oversight. Which does nothing to help you.
Keep in mind that D1.1 details minimum requirements.
You can always add anything you want to meet your specific needs.
There is also a lot of leeway given to the engineer to modify minimum requirements, and or use different codes and specs along the way.
I like to use the WPQR allowances in B2.1 to make Workmanship Qualification tests that better resemble unique production weld scenarios.
Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill