Fillet weld test per D1.1

Date 03-03-2007 03:03

If you are talking about whether the welder that welded the fillet weld procedure qualification with the 3 macros is qualified by the fact that he/she welded the procedure test, then no, the welder is not qualified for fillet welds by that test. If you can find them, the AWS D1.1 committe has published an interpretation to this affect.

By jerrykroll (**)

Date 03-04-2007 23:59

My take (interpretation) on welder qualification via WPS (PQR) Qualification
is that the welder is qualified as such:

From D1.1 (quote)

"4.18.3 Welder and Welding Operator Qualification Through WPS Qualification.

A welder or welding operator may also be qualified by welding a satisfactory
WPS qualification test plate, pipe or tubing that meets
the requirements of 4.8. The welder or welding operator
is thereby qualified in conformance with 4.18.1 and
4.18.2.".

No mention therein I see of a break test required.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 03-05-2007 03:26

Right,

The welder who actually did the welding for a successful procedure qualification may be considered quaified. Thats one guy.

Once the procedure is qualified.... Welders from that point must complete welder performance qualifications as directed by the code.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 03-06-2007 16:59

I stand corrected

By GRoberts (***)

Date 03-06-2007 01:38

http://www.aws.org/technical/d1interps/d1-85-022.pdf

By jerrykroll (**)

Date 03-06-2007 15:48

That interpretation states it clearly, but shouldn't paragraph 4.18.3 be "corrected" or ammended ?

Seems that 4.18.3 still clearly and completely states that the welder is qualified and that it needs no interpretation, or the welder any further testing.

Is the fact that the interpretation is from the 1983 code edition have anything to do with the issue ?

Also - I find no bend/break test in 4.8 required, or referenced in 4.18.3

By GRoberts (***)

Date 03-07-2007 04:59

I kind of wonder about the 1983 thing myself, but I think it would stand unless the wording or requirements get revised. I can agree with their point though in that the break test evaluates a lot more of the weld than 3 small macro-etches do, so I don't disagee with their reasoning, even though some of the paragraphs may not be clear.

By jerrykroll (**)

Date 03-07-2007 15:55 Edited 03-07-2007 15:58

Here's an interesting twist -

Check out Table 4.10 Welder and Welding Operator Qualification..... number...range....thickness...... qualified.

If a welder performs a Test Weld per Option 3 (Fig. 4.20) (any diameter pipe), it requires not 3, but only 1 macroetch and no destructive testing.

I haven't found an "option 3" in the codes prior to 1996.

add- (using the cross reference in the 1996 code ) 5.10.3 in the interpretation became 4.11.1, and 5.17.1.2 became 4.18.3

By jerrykroll (**)

Date 03-20-2007 16:53

any responses out there to my last post ?

I'm considering a request to AWS for a new interpretation, but am waiting for any new arguments or support to question.

By jerrykroll (**)

Date 11-06-2007 01:39

bump - I know this topic is a little cold -
Hoping to see one last time if anyone has any further input before I ask AWS for a new/revised interpretation.