Hi guys,
ASME B31.3 is a piping code generally used for process piping (refinery piping and petrochemical piping etc). B31.1 is a piping code that is generally used for power piping (steam and condensate etc)
The welding procedures used for these codes are qualified in accordance with ASME IX.
The welders are qualified in accordance with ASME IX.
There is really no requirement for a welder to know which code they are welding to, it does not change the way you weld a pipe.
The design engineers use the code to design their piping systems and the CWIs and NDT technicians use the code to give them guidance on acceptance criterias.
As an example, the B31.3 code will give the designer guidance on type of piping material,diameter of piping, thickness of piping, type of allowable fittings, PWHT or no PWHT, amount of NDT, type of NDT and numerous other things.
These items are generally not the concern of the welder so that is why you may not have heard of the code.
Hope that helps,
Regards,
Shane
THANK YOU FOR YOUR INFO. thewelder.
ASME B31 series was developed for pressure piping, and is/has been broken down as follows:
B31.1 - Piping for industrial / power plants and marine applications. It has application in power and auxiliary service piping for electrical generation plants/ institutional plants, and heating plants. It may have changed in recent revs but it generally is limited to 15PSI and up for steam vapor, and high temp water at 160psi > 250F.
B31.2 is now NFPA z223.1 it's for gas piping systems mostly residential
B31.3 This Code contains requirements for piping typically found in petroleum refineries; chemical, pharmaceutical, textile, paper, semiconductor, & cryogenic plants, & related processing plants terminals.
B31.4 This Code prescribes requirements for the design, materials, construction, assembly, inspection, and testing of piping transporting liquids such as crude oil, condensate, natural gasoline, natural gas liquids, liquefied petroleum gas, carbon dioxide, liquid alcohol, liquid anhydrous ammonia and liquid petroleum products between producers' lease facilities, tank farms, natural gas processing plants, refineries, stations, ammonia plants, terminals (marine, rail and truck) and other delivery and receiving points.
There is also some limited application to offshore systems.
B31.5 This Code prescribes requirements for the materials, design, fabrication, assembly, erection, test, and inspection of refrigerant, heat transfer components, and secondary coolant piping for temperatures as low as -320 deg F (-196 deg C)
Care must be taken with this one as it does contain specific limitations of applicability
B31.6 This designation never made it to print. In 1974 it was to be the code section for chemical plant piping, but ended up incorporated into B31.3
B31.7 Nuclear power piping was killed after two editions (I believe in 1969) and responsibility was assumed ASME B&PV Code, Section III, Subsections NA, NB, NC and ND (if you can get a copy of it, it has some valuable information in it)
B31.8 Gas transmission and distribution systems: design, fabrication, installation, inspection, and testing of pipeline facilities used for the transportation of gas. This Code also covers safety aspects of the operation and maintenance of those facilities.
B31.9 Building Services Piping : applicable to water(heating and cooling), steam and condensate, vacuum, and compressed air/non toxic gases.
B31.10 Cryogenic Piping; another one that was DOA. It was folded into B31.3
B31.11 Slurry Transportation Piping
B31.12 Code for Hydrogen Piping and Pipelines
B31Q : This Standard establishes the requirements for developing and implementing Pipeline Personnel Qualification Program.
Some of those have additional criteria above Section IX. But for 31.3, I don't recall anything other than Section IX being required.
Its all as clear as mud.
Just kidding. As pointed out by CWI555, there are different piping codes for different applications. As such, each has variations on materials, design, fabrication, and testing.
I take exception to the comment that welders don't need to know what code is applicable. If is helpful if the welder knows what code is appropriate so that he is aware of the acceptance criteria being applied to visual examinations and if NDT will be required. What is acceptable for one pressure piping code may not be permitted by another pressure piping code. Likewise, some practices acceptable by one code is not acceptable by another.
It is unfortunate, but it has been noted by other respondents, that not all projects are fully engineered nor do the drawings include all the information the workmen or inspectors need. Welders nor inspectors are mushrooms. Contrary to popular beliefs, neither thrives when you keep them in the dark and feed them bxllshxt.
As for WPSs and welder performance qualification tests, the requirements of Section IX may be modified by the applicable pressure piping code. For instance, if the construction code is B31.3 for process piping and the owner (engineer) designate the piping as "high pressure", the welder can only be qualified by guided bend testing, i.e., radiographic examination of the test sample is not acceptable. Likewise, the applicable code may or may not permit the use of backing, brazed joints, socket fitting, etc. Does the welder have to know these types of information? Maybe not, but it would prevent a lot of work from being scrapped if the workers were aware of what code is applicable to the work being performed.
I was on a project several years ago where I overheard the piping inspector proudly announce that he rejected 90% of the pipe welds on the project. I asked him what piping code was specified by the owner? He said it was "only pipe".
I asked the project manager and his reply was that is was just like any other piping job. Even the contractor's site supervisor was not aware of the particular construction code that the piping was being installed to. I finally asked the contractor if he had a copy of the project specification, to which he replied that he had a copy of it in his desk. After looking through the project specification I found that the piping was to B31.3, category "Normal".
However, as it turned out, only five of the 80+ welds the inspector rejected actually did not meet the acceptance criteria of the appropriate code. Oops, a little to hasty with my typing. More accurately stated, only five of the welds were rejectable for the reasons the inspector stated. In reality the reject rate was much higher because many of the welds were rejected for reasons other than what the inspector cited. Among the problems I noted were those integrally reinforced fitting that were not welded completely. The inspector's comment was that it was a "low" pressure system and they didn't need to be welded completely. I asked where it was stated either in the code or drawings that the welded fittings didn't need to be completely welded to the edge of the "first" groove edge and where did it state a reinforcing fillet weld was not required. Another problem was the co mingling of carbon steel and stainless steel components in a stainless steel piping systems used to manufacture pharmaceuticals. The inspector saw no problem with using a carbon steel valves or fittings in the stainless piping system.
I believe everyone on the project should be aware of the construction code they are working to whether we are erecting structural steel, boiler, or piping. Fewer problems will arise if everyone understands what is expected of them. Do they need to have it memorized. No, but they should know where to look if there is a problem.
Best regards - Al
thanks everybody! I was just wondering because I heard we had to weld some pipe to B31.3 specs and I had no idea that ASME IX was broken down into different categories...but it makes complete sense now.
Clarification is in order here to avoid any confusion. It is confusing enough even when you think you understand it.
The ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code includes around 11 sections that address specific areas of interest. The B&PV code includes individual sections on Power Boilers (Section I), Materials (Section II), Heating Boilers (IV), NDT (Section V), and Welding & Brazing Procedure and Welder/Brazer Qualification (Section IX), and several others subjects I didn't list. Each section of the code deals with specific subjects as the title implies.
The ASME Pressure Piping Code is divided into different sections as well, each dealing with a different type of piping systems. The various sections of the piping code, i.e., B31.1, B31.3, etc., refers the user back to Section IX of the B&PV code for "how to" qualify the welding procedure and the welders. However, you have to make sure you review the requirements of the construction code (Section I, Section IV, B31.3, etc.) to see if they modified the basic reguirements of Section IX.
Best regards - Al
Al,
With all due respect I have to disagree and stand by my statement that knowledge of what code is being used is not relevant to the welder and in some cases it can do more harm than good.
When I qualify a welder to ASME IX (for example GTAW/SMAW) that enables him to weld using a variety of codes with different acceptance criterias and amounts of NDT. I want that welder to attempt (operative word being attempt) to reproduce a GTAW/SMAW weld that would pass ASME IX standard on every weld he does. As we know that is not always possible but the attempt must be made. A welder will take a lot more care if he knows there is 100% RT than if it is 5% RT. Likewise if he knows there is no RT and only visual he will take even less care.
It is only human nature, if you tell someone you are going to RT a weld before he welds it he will be a lot more careful than if you told him it definitely wasn't going to be RTed.
If the welder holds an ASME IX qualification and is welding to an ASME IX WPS then he must try and reproduce an ASME IX standard weld irrespective of the fabrication code,
Regards,
Shane
You help me make my point in this regards. Consider the visual acceptance criteria for Section IX for a moment. There is no requirement for radiographic examination per Section IX, it is an alternative to bend testing. The visual acceptance criteria is minimal at best; complete joint penetration and complete fusion of the weld and base metal. Any additional visual criteria such as limitations on face reinforcement, undercut, porosity, etc. is beyond the extent of those welding attributes addressed by Section IX. Even the radiographic acceptance criteria is not what I consider to be stringent.
Most construction codes do not require full radiography, but when it is specified the acceptance criteria is often more exacting than Section IX. I've been involved with several projects where the welder passed the requirements of Section IX, but had a very difficult time meeting the requirements of B31.3 for categories other than "normal" or B31.1 for high temperature (and pressure) service conditions.
When qualifying a welder, it is for those reasons that I ask what the applicable construction code is (for the particular project) and use the visual acceptance criteria based on the requirements of the construction code. The welder is well aware of the visual acceptance criteria because we review the requirements together and he signs a paper listing what visual attributes will be evaluated. The "test rules" list what he can and can not do on the tests, i.e., tack welds can be ground and feathered, cleaning must be done in the test position, etc. The signed copies of the WPS, acceptance criteria, and test rules stay with the welder in the booth until he is done and submits his test coupon for evaluation.
Like you and me, the welder has to know what the game rules are to play a fair game. The job he is working on today is not necessarily the same as the one he did last week, as such the acceptance criteria and the fabrication requirements may be, no, probably will be different than those of the last job.
When you took your written examination to become certified as an inspector, you had a pretty good idea of what to expect on the examination. When you perform NDT you have a procedure to follow and it includes the acceptance criteria on which your evaluation is based. Why should the game rules change for the welder. He should not be expected to approach every job as if he was shooting craps only to find out the game rules have changed after all his money has been taken. It should be a level playing field where everyone knows the requirements before the game starts. The games rules should not be "made up" by the inspector as the game progresses. It is unfair to expect the welder or the contractor to meet the owner's expectations if the rules are not made known.
It seems to me that even you encounter this several months ago where you were not happy with a vessel you received from a fabricator. The fabricator can only provide the level of quality you expect if he knows the expectations before hand. If the requirements are not provided, you have no right to expect a level of quality that was never defined.
If you ask for ice cream, and the "soda jerk" hands you chocolate flavored ice cream, you have no basis of complain just because you expected vanilla. You didn't ask for vanilla ice cream!
Best regards - Al
Gentlemen,
I can see both points here, and consider them both valid ones. B31.3 for instance gives undercut values that vary depending the system/class.
On one hand, a welder that knows the code, is going to know just what he can and cannot get away with. if during the process of welding a given joint,
He realizes he's left a bit of undercut in it, and it's acceptable, he'll let it ride rather than try to get it out. Since the code allows that quality level,
then the welder has saved time by not going back over something unnecessarily.
On the other hand, I have seen many welders familiar with the codes who will deliberately skirt the edges of the code. One of those welders made this statement to me:
"It's my job to try and get away with it, it's your job to try and catch me". This is the kind of welder Shane is worried about. If he knows it's not going to be RT'd or thinks there is only a 5% percent chance of it, He will take as many shortcuts as he can.
There is no one shoe fits all on this matter.
For myself, I usually prefer they know the code for the reasons Al stated, but that welder given in example 2 is just as valid a reason for them not to know the code.
I believe it comes down to the individual welder. If they lack professionalism and pride, they are going to cut corners they shouldn't and usually hang themselves in the doing.
If they have a sense of professionalism and pride, knowing the code will make no difference in their quality of work in that they will be trying their best every time.
In summary of it all, I give them the benefit of the doubt until they prove to me otherwise.
my two cents worth,
Gerald
I look at the situation as being similar to driving a car down the highway with no posted speed limits.
Is it reasonable to "learn" what the speed limit is only once the highway patrol officer pulls you over and issues a speeding ticket?
I don't believe any of us feels that is a reasonable approach to limiting the speed at which drivers drive. Nor is it reasonable to try to enforce good welding practice by not telling the welder what the acceptance criteria is. If the welds meet the code they are acceptable, if not, they are rejected.
As for the welder telling me that it is my job to catch him in the act of producing bad welds, I refuse to play that game. His welds will be inspected 100% and he will be closely monitored. After several welds are rejected, his ticket is pulled.
Best regards - Al
To simplify things down to it's brass tacks:
ASME IX is used to qualify welders and welding procedures (these terms also include brazors, brazing procedures, etc). Ya don't build a damn thing to ASME IX and you can't RT a welding procedure to ASME IX because there is no criteria for it (there is for performance qualifications, within certain limits).
The other codes are used to actually build and fabricate stuff and most of them rely on certain rules within ASME IX as a baseline. They can add to, subtract from or modify those requirements of ASME IX.
The key is remembering one is strictly qualifications (ASME IX) and the others are where the rubber hits the road.
Al,
Just to clarify, welder qualification is almost always done with RT in Australasia and not bend testing (I have never heard of it being done in 28 years in the welding game). I have never worked with B31.3 Chapter IX so I cannot comment on that. The majority of my work in the oil and gas industries is NFS with some Severe Cyclic (mostly LNG) and some Category D (Water Lines etc). For that reason the RT acceptance criteria of ASME IX is incorporated with the RT acceptance criteria of the applicable B31.3 section. Category D is the least stringent of the B31.3 categories and that allows no surface porosity, so therefore there is no point radiographing a test specimen that has surface porosity even though it is not mentioned in the ASME IX visual acceptance criteria.
When I supervise an ASME IX welder qualification test I allow no defects at all, no porosity, no undercutting, no concave root,no stray arc strikes and the profile should be as neat as possible.These are not covered by the ASME IX visual acceptance criteria.
When I say I do not allow it I mean the " finished " product must be as near to perfect as possible. I will point out things that I am concerned about, explain why they are detrimental to a weldment and ask the welder to repair the area.
Gerald,
Unfortunately for various reasons I have run into a large amount of "example 2" welders and it makes me extremely wary of giving out too much information.One example, welder welding NFS told me he had 30 mm of incomplete penetration but it was OK because he was allowed 38 mm. If he could see it and measure it why did he not repair it ?
With regard to the undercutting, this raises another question ? As CWIs we have various tools to measure depths of undercutting and even with these it is sometimes hard to get an exact depth. B31.3 Category D allows 1.5 mm max, NFS and M allow 1 mm max and Severe Cyclic allows zero.These are minute amounts, how is the welder going to know if it is .7 of a mm and acceptable or 1.3 mm and not acceptable.Surely it is better to have the welder act on the premise of no undercutting and touch up things before moving. Is it not better for a welder to spend 5 minutes longer on a weld and there be no chance of rework or spending an hour dragging gear all the way back to fix up a little bit of undercut.
It is an interesting subject and I think we all have differing opinions on how we deal with these things.
Regards,
Shane
Shane,
What my opinion is, and what the code allows are two different things. I understand your concern as I've worked LNG / severe cyclic myself among others.
However; the code is the code, and not subject to opinion unless otherwise directed by contract documents.
I see a lot of things I don't agree with personally, but at the end of the day, it's that code that covers my butt and my clients butt. When criteria is added above and beyond the code it takes more time to get it done, and while the individual weld is not necessarily a project killer, adding time to each trying to make it perfect when it meet the requirements of the code to begin with, can add and have a negative impact on the project schedule. That can lead to back charges and other form of ugliness that I usually try to avoid being the subject of.
If I had my wishes, they'd all be perfect welds. However; everyone needs to stick to the code, and if the code is deemed by engineering to be insufficient, then it needs to go into contract docs and specs for the changes.
As for difficulty measuring that level of undercut, GAL puts out some gauges just for that. Makes it real easy actually, just have to take care with them as they get out of spec real easy.
Regards,
Gerald
Mr. Feder,
I would like to make some comments about some of your statements in your post and please understand these are by no means an attack on your methods of inspecting. We all have somewhat different ideas of what we think is "Right" and most of them are very good for the industry as a whole.
I may be misunderstanding something. In your post above you said
"One example, welder welding NFS told me he had 30 mm of incomplete penetration but it was OK because he was allowed 38 mm. If he could see it and measure it why did he not repair it ?"
If he was not allowed 30 mm then he was wrong about his code interpretation and maybe should have been more informed about what the acceptance criteria was for that job. If he was allowed 38mm and only had 30 it would be needless to repair it unless as inspectors we are somehow more informed about what is acceptable for the intended service than those who designed it and thos who pay for its repair.
I also noticed you mentioned items that were "detrimental" such as a concave root. In VERY few piping systems is that detrimental and in most B31.xx codes it is allowed to some degree.
It is my opinion that inspectors should go by the code or specifications and that welders should be made aware of the requirememnts of the code/specification requirements.
I have been on both sides of welder testing. I have switched back and forth between welding and QC from job to job. I try to explain to welders what the code allows and also what I may be looking for based on the project requirements. When I take a test I often ask if they are just going by the code requirements. Many times I get answers such as "Yes, we are going by Sec IX, no internal concavity, no more than 3/32" root reinforcement, 3 bead cap." I just weld it up and " let the experts sort it out".
If it were OK to just make everything meet the most stringent requirements would we all have not saved a great deal of paper by just making all welds meet that criteria? OR was criteria established based upon engineering decisions, quality requirements and costs?
I do not want it to seem like I support the making of poor quality welds its just that I have made that long drive to a weld test for an ASME sec IX test only to have some inspector look me out on a root that was flush or 1/32" concave after he told me ASME Sec IX and Sec I were the only acceptance criteria. Sometimes when I go on a job and the inspector gives ME a test I think I should be able to give him one.
I don't take much time with weld tests, I just weld em up as quick as I can and let the RT crew or bend test sort em out. I take pride in being a professional welder. Not a slick one. I know whats acceptable and what is not. I try to make them all acceptable as fast as I possibly can.
I try not to go outside the code when I inspect. I will talk to a welder about the acceptance criteria if something is getting clsoe to unacceptable and let them know that if they have the spare time and want to touch something up a little to go ahead. I too sometimes get wrapped up in the whole inspection thing and get tired of getting out the undercut gage or flashlight etc and probably mark up some things that are acceptable but usually I try to stay within the code.
When I give welding tests I watch how the welder works. If the project has indicated they want me to use my judgement on the persons ability I will. Its just much easier to stick with the code.
I appreciate all the comments.
Y'all have a nice day
Gerald Austin
Iuka, MS
Gerald,
What is this business of Mr Feder. I have been Shane on this forum for 5 years now and I would like it to continue if possible please.
I consider myself to be a hard but fair inspector. I love training welders and I feel after 15 years as a pipewelder I have got a bit to offer in the way of experience.I will pass on any knowledge I have willingly if it will help a welder improve his work.
Firstly, I will never fail someone or something if it is not written in the applicable code. I will request they touch something up but they are quite within their rights to say that it complies with the code and walk away. It is me just trying to encourage the welders to take pride in their work and especially with welder quals.
" One example, welder welding NFS told me he had 30 mm of incomplete penetration but it was OK because he was allowed 38 mm. If he could see it and measure it why did he not repair it ?"
This group of welders were welding on a pulp and paper mill where they would be one day welding to B31.3 NFS (chemical lines) and the next day welding to B31.1 (steam lines).
One allows incomplete penetration and one doesn't.
Do I waste my time running around trying to make sure the 50 welders know what code they are working to each day or do I encourage them to try and get 100% fusion/penetration on every weld.I know it is not humanly possible but there is nothing wrong with aiming high."Treat every weld as if it is going to be bombed" was always my motto and I try and encourage every welder who works for me to do the same.
"I also noticed you mentioned items that were "detrimental" such as a concave root. In VERY few piping systems is that detrimental and in most B31.xx codes it is allowed to some degree."
In all three of the categories of B31.3 ,having a total joint thickness (including reinforcement) less than the nominal wall thickness is cause for rejection so if it is cause for rejection surely it is detrimental.
A welder qualification is a form of preparation for production welding so if a welder performs a weld with a concave root and is told it is acceptable will he not do similar in production ? Would it not be better to explain that he needs to "shovel" more wire around the bottom of the pipe and if he puts a slightly bigger cap in that area it will negate the cause for rejection.
I detest inspectors who make up there own rules and I sincerely hope that I do not appear to be one of those.
Regards,
Shane
Shane,
I understand your statements a little better now. I can see the issue regarding the multiple codes with B31.3/B31.1 and trying to make sure everyone knew what they were doing.
I too would prefer that all weld test coupons and production welds had internal reinfocement. It is much easier to measure. I was making an assumption that you rejected some of the conditions you were talking about. Most of the cases of internal concavity I have seen were shallow enough that a weld cap of 1/16" or so made the welds acceptable by the code.
I was not questioning your ethics as much as trying to clarify some of your statements. Codes, Spec, and other documents are in black and white but like it or not we are still called on to make judgements about how we do our job. I have on many occasions stopped people from completing tests based on my observations made while welding the coupon and by looking at passes before completion. This is NOT in the code but I do it.
I try to sort out the "good from the bad" based on each project and I try to inform the welders that if it appears they do not have the experience to make the production welds I will let the people they will be working for that that is my opinion.
I would rather have a guy that welds up his 2" coupon in 30 minutes with one spot of concavity within code than a guy that takes 2 hours because he wants the coupon to cool down between every pass because it makes it look better.
Have a nice day
Gerald
Shane;
Contractors here in Kazakhstan tend to use RT also for performance qualifications. While Code does permit permit this, it is considered an "alternate" method and not the "preferred" method. One must also keep in mind, ASME IX does NOT permit RT for certain materials and in all cases, code requires a MINIMUM of 150mm (6 inches) of weld. This may mean multiple tests in the case of small diameter works.
Just an FYI as I am working the B31.3 High Pressure segment; Chapter IX of B31.3 does NOT permit RT for performance qualifications.
I have no ill opinion of your tight criteria, for performance quals, I do the same. I'd much rather look a few "iffy" welders in the test booths than have my Construction Supervisors complaining about cutting out welds in production!
The recent posts on this thread bring to mind something that "they" tried to implament at the auto frame plant, "Statistical Quality Controll". The idea was that a process could be monitored, and precautionary measures taken to be sure that repaires were made before the quality deteriated below the point of acceptance. So far, so good, and not really aplicable to this thread. But here comes the bomb. The supposedly ideal situation was to make the parts just above the minimum acceptable quality level, beacuse making them "better" would cost too much, while never falling below ths minimum acceptable quality level. The intention was to make tha parts as CHEAPLY as possible, not to make them as GOOD as possible. After all, it was the engineeres who determined the tolerance, and a part on the extremes of acceptability in theory is as good as one that is spot on, or at least it pays the same.
Chapter IX does not prohibit the use of RT for performance qualifications. It merely requires mechanical tests for performance qualifications. Some clients want both. That is permissible.
NDT, I agree except there are certain P-Number groupings IX does not permit RT for, don't have my IX with me at the moment but if you like I can quote later? Nothing wrong with doing both NDE and DT, agree on that part.
Gerald,
Found a couple of interpretations that may shed some light (or make it more confusing)
IX-83-149 Question 1 states " In reference to the 1983 Edition of Section IX, QW-301.2, may the supervisor conducting the tests set his own visual requirements prior to the mechanical testing listed in QW-302 ?" Answer : Yes
Would this explain the inspectors who you mentioned in the past who made up their own rules ?
IX-83-149 Question 2 states " If the welder is testing under a code - for example, ANSI/ASME B31.1- is the supervisor conducting the tests supposed to base his visual requirements on the production weld visual requirements listed in ANSI/ASME B31.1 ?" Answer : No
That one has come as a surprise to myself and probably a few others on the forum.
IX-01-03 states " Is a welders performance qualification test coupon in which undercut is present acceptable, provided that the rest of the examinations and tests are acceptable ?" Answer: Yes, However, manufacturers may disqualify welders based on QW301.2 when discontinuities such as undercut and porosity do not comply with the quality requirement of the manufacturer.
Therefore, presumably an ASME IX test can be failed for undercut of any depth ( you would think as long as the supervisor informed the welder prior to the test)
The next one has got me a little embarrassed as I have not allowed this in the past.
IX-86-77 states " For welder qualification, does Section IX prohibit the changing of the height of a weld test coupon during the welding of the coupon ?" Answer : No
I have always felt that in the majority of production welding you cannot raise or lower the pipe to suit your comfort so when you do your test you should put it in the most comfortable place and weld it out without moving it.
Hope that helps,
Regards,
Shane
Shane,
I too have set my own rules based on project requirements but I always make sure the welder understands. I have specifically asked inspectors prior to starting a test what the acceptance criteria was and then upon completion of the test they were using their own criteria. Nothing in the code addresses the information that must be conveyed to the welder other than the wps.
Another paragraph I have used which stirred up a few IW BA's was
The performance test may be terminated at any stage of
the testing procedure, whenever it becomes apparent to the
supervisor conducting the tests that the welder or welding
operator does not have the required skill to produce satisfactory
results.
The entire visual acceptance criteria of qw-194 is pretty easy.
QW-194 Visual Examination -- Performance
Performance test coupons shall show complete joint penetration
with complete fusion of weld metal and base metal.
Thus "weld it up and let the test lab sort it out" applies many times . But welds can be failed for any reason. It is just an ethical issue if the inspector wants to inform the welder whats required. The inspection criteria for section ix indicates that additional acceptance criteria is allowed. However the "acceptance criteria" is very liberal. The liberties taken by the inspector are allowed by the code. When an inspector states the "acceptance criteria is Section IX only" that is different than saying "I am inspecting it in accordance with ASME Sec IX". One refers to a paragraph or two, the other an entire code.
I have often taken advantage of moveable test jigs myself. I actually tell some people they can move them if the are too short or too tall and if they don't like where it is they can move it more.
Have a good day
Gerald Austin
Guy's, I suppose there may be a few hard old souls who have disallowed moving a test jig up or down to suit a welders physical structure, but I too have often allowed this. The code cares about the ability of a welder to produce mechanically sound welds however if that welder produces what we've often heard referred to as "gorilla welds" what service have we performed for industry or the company we represent? Test conditions are usually favorable to those of field conditions so if I tend to be a bit more of a hard a** in the test booth, tough. Live with it, the intent is to save the Foreman from having to make numerous repairs and likely eventually end up canning that welder who I mighta passed because he had full fusion. Discretion is permitted and, in my opinion, EXPECTED.
Many times, I get more from observing the person making the test than I do the finished coupon.
I've seen kids right outta school that can flat out slick one on but if the gap is just a bit to tight or a bit to loose they break apart their tacks and fit it up again. Another guy fits it tacks it and welds it in the time it took for the 1st guy to get his 2nd root it. I then make a note for whatever forman they go to what I think their abilities are.
Some jobs any warm body that can pass a test is good. Other jobs are mre restrictive. Its a tough call sometimes. I recently went on a boilermaker job and was instructed to just "go by the code" at 1st and use my judgement based on what I observe. I allow a welder too fitup their coupon as they like. I sometimes say what "I would do" so they have a starting point. After hearing that a person takes 2 1/2" plates with backing and fits them up with a 3/32" gap and a 1/16" root face for a 1/8" 7018 root on backing. I stop the test.
Another guy fits his pipe/tube coupon up with a dogleg and 3/32" on one side and a fat 1/8" on the other and he says he don't care if I don't care, I let him weld it.
None of this stuff is addressed in any code. I am sure there are some companies that would not like the way I test welders and some that would. If they don't spell it out in writing, I have to use what I have.
There is some "judgement" allowed by codes and often required but I think it is necessary to let the welder know where the judgement comes into play.
Hello guys,
I would like some opinions on this please.
There appears to me to be too many "gaps" in the ASME IX code when you start to look into things.
Certain codes state they are a guide only and when it is not addressed by the code "sound engineering judgement" should be used. However, ASME IX does not really allow this.
I have just had a heated disagreement with my Welding Engineer boss (who is also a good friend) where he has stated that a welder qualification must be completed with no touch ups of any sort and the coupon must be submitted "as welded". As mentioned in previous posts I will allow a welder to "touch up" anything minor he or I are concerned about prior to RT (undercut/ surface profile etc.)
If a welder puts in a root run and he has for example 1/4" of missed edge that I pick up on inspection I will ask him to repair it. It must be done from the outside and if I catch him putting anything inside the pipe it is instant failure. The ability to repair ones own defects is a must so if he cannot repair a bit of LOP in a comfortable test booth I do not want him trying to do it out on the job.
My boss is telling me I am wrong for allowing repairs on welder qualification tests but I am asking him where it is stated that you cannot "touch up" things prior to bend tests or RT.
I have always lived by the "if it is not disallowed by the code it is acceptable" (within reason) so I find this hard to accept.
Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated,
Regards,
Shane
Your opinion is the same as my opinion on this matter. However, we have had clients who have tougher standards (ie - no touch up). In those cases, the client's welding specification is very clear on the more stringent requirements. I have not seen an ASME code that requires what your boss is stating. If he can't back it up with code or project specifications, he should "man up" and admit it is a personal requirement (in my opinion).
AWS D1.5 has the requirement, but not any ASME codes that I am aware of.
Charles Hall
In my opinion only - If I'm testing to sec IX and if I see that the root has LOP, that is a fail. Visual criteria is full full fusion and complete penetration. I will however allow "touch ups" on the faces of welds, whether it be the face of the root, a filler, or the cap. This rejection would only come at the end of testing though, if the welder turns in the completed coupon with LOP or LOF.
I will leave it completely up to the welder though. I will inspect the fit up, the root pass, a few fills, and the final weld. I also do allow grinders, but keep note of how much "repair" was done while testing. This info will be relayed to the production manager who actually does the hiring. So if by chance the coupon is visually acceptable (only criteria is penetration and fusion) and passes RT or bending, I will still give my input regarding how much of what it actually took to get an acceptable test. Like I said, I may go inspect the root and notice LOP, but I wouldn't say anything at that time. If the welder doesn't have the pride to inspect his work and fix before I do my inspection, or before final inspection, it is a fail. Same with final inspection. If the cap is "as welded" but full of trash (undercut, cold lap, slag, buckshot), although it may be technically acceptable, that will still go into consideration for actually hiring him.
There is nothing in Section IX that says you can't 'touch up'. And for good reason IMO. The idea is to judge a welders ability to provide viable welds. If, in your engineering judgment their ability to 'repair' certain 'defects' is critical to your program then you are allowed to do so.
Your boss may think its wrong, and many do, but there is no code clause to back him up.
By CWI555 
Date 03-05-2008 00:01
Edited 03-05-2008 00:03
The intent of section IX is clearly stated in the following four paragraphs from the 2007 edition.
"QW-100.2 In performance qualification, the basic criterion
established for welder qualification is to determine
the welder's ability to deposit sound weld metal. The purpose
of the performance qualification test for the welding
operator is to determine the welding operator's mechanical
ability to operate the welding equipment."
"QW-194 Visual Examination -- Performance
Performance test coupons shall show complete joint penetration
with complete fusion of weld metal and base metal."
"QW-301.1 Intent of Tests. The performance qualification
tests are intended to determine the ability of welders
and welding operators to make sound welds."
QW-302.4 Visual Examination. For plate coupons all
surfaces (except areas designated "discard") shall be examined
visually per QW-194 before cutting of bend specimens.
Pipe coupons shall be visually examined per
QW-194 over the entire circumference, inside and outside.
There is absolutely nothing in Section IX that says you can't touch up. The only remotely applicable statement that would agree with anything he said is:
"QW-301.2 last para.
"The performance test may be terminated at any stage of
the testing procedure, whenever it becomes apparent to the
supervisor conducting the tests that the welder or welding
operator does not have the required skill to produce satisfactory
results."
Key words are "required skill".
I take that to mean having the skill to know when something is going to be a problem and handling the situation.
If there is a touch of undercut, or a bit of trapped slag, I'd rather see a welder recognize the potential and deal with it without having to be told to.
That to me is a "required skill".
The intent is to assure the welder or operator can deposit sound weld metal. If they are mucking about grinding 1 pass for every 2 they put in,
sticking the rod repeatedly, or other obvious sign of lack of skill, that's when para 301.2 comes to play. Not when the welder is taking pride in his
or her work and shows a genuine desire to turn in only a quality product.
My opinion for what it's worth,
Gerald
Hi guys, It's interesting hearing things from the inspectors point of view. As a welder, after approx 12 re-tests ( 2" 6G - every 2 yrs here ) , I only flunked once. In my area (alberta & saskatchewan) , the provincial government inspectors get you to run the bead , then if it looks good ,they will let you finish. The time I was failed, the inspector looked at the bead, decided I had some undercut on the top and told me to go home. He was probably right about the undercut, but I sure didn't feel good about driving the 4 hours home. He was very busy that day also so maybe that had something to do with it . I should also mention that most inspectors here will tell you " run in your bead and when you are happy with it let me have a look at it" . I assume that statement would allow you to touch it up if need be. The Alberta Boilers Safety Assoc. has a very good website worth checking out at
http://www.absa.ca/ . Under ABSA forms & fees , form # AB-61 explains how the initial B pressure welder test is done here. Lots of other news & info there too. Thanks for your help in the past Gerald A. Have a good day - WS
Shane, simply put, your Boss is WRONG, from an ASME perspective.
There are many ISO and EU Standards that would agree with his take and position, but his position is not consistent with ASME IX nor any other ASME Code I am familiar with.
I share your position and if a welder is capable of passing his test (and this is admittedly a subjective matter) I allow him or her to make corrections as necessary.
On the other hand, if there is, in MY opinion, not a chance of them passing, I simply look them out then and there. Nuff said.
Hi Jon,
I have been put in a difficult position numerous times over the last few years due to the resources boom in Australia and the shortage of tradesmen.
I would be given 20 welders to test and at least 10 of them wouldn't have even got a foot in the front door 2 years ago but now I am being pressured to get these same welders through their tests.Half the time I am a Welding Tutor and the other half of the time I am the Supervisor.
I will never waste time with someone who is a "lost cause" but if someone has minor glitches in their technique that I can identify then I will gladly let them know and hopefully they take that on board.
I agree, in a perfect world we should stand back and not offer advice or allow remedial work but unfortunately we have to make do with the welders that are given to us and some need more assistance than othersRegards,
Shane
