WPS Question

Date 02-22-2008 14:03

QW-351 General

third para.

The limits of weld metal thickness for which he will be
qualified are dependent upon the approximate thickness of
the weld metal he deposits with each welding process,
exclusive of any weld reinforcement, this thickness shall be
considered the test coupon thickness as given in QW-452.

QW-452.1 Groove-Weld Test.

GENERAL NOTE: The "Thickness of Weld Metal" is the total weld metal thickness deposited by all welders
and all processes in the test coupon exclusive of the weld reinforcement.

As a bit of constructive critisism, I would encourage you to actually get the code out and read it in full. This is a fairly basic premise in Section IX as if your testing personnel for groove welds, you will have to visit the two listed points on a very frequent basis.

Regards,
Gerald

By chall

Date 02-22-2008 17:39

A good response.

On a slightly different angle; the reinforcement you mentioned >1/8" seems excessive for a 1/4" wall thickness pipe weld. You should also check the applicable construction code for guidance on this.

By kriskenmac (*)

Date 02-22-2008 19:19

Gerald,
I took your advice and read the code and either I did not explain myself well enough or I read the code differently than you. I am talking about production welds and not a weld test. In a weld test ,yes the reinforcement is not considered.If you read QW 351 it states.
"In any given production weldment,welders may not deposit a thickness greater than that permitted by QW-452 for each welding process in which they are qualified" The key word here being production weld.
To clarify: A welder tests on 1/4" test coupon his reinforcement is 1/8" .. he is not qualified to weld any more than 1/2". The reinforcement is not considered in the weld test, but in production welding it is! the welder in this scenario is qualified to put up to 1/2" deposited weld metal ONLY ... if he is welding out a weldment that has a wall thickness of 1/2" he cannot put a reinforcement pass on it.. he is not qualified for the extra reinforcement weld.

By CWI555

Date 02-22-2008 21:45 Edited 02-22-2008 21:50

A production weld is not welded to Section IX which is titled "Welding and brazing qualification".
If your looking to bust this person on the requirements of Section IX, you cannot for reasons already posted.
If you've got issue with a production weld, then you need to be looking at that code and not Section IX.

As for "In any given production weldment,welders may not deposit a thickness greater than that permitted by QW-452 for each welding process in which they are qualified"

Thats why the general note definition under 452.
GENERAL NOTE: The "Thickness of Weld Metal" is the total weld metal thickness deposited by all welders
and all processes in the test coupon """exclusive of the weld reinforcement"""

weld reinforcement: weld metal on the face or root of a
groove weld in excess of the metal necessary for the specified
weld size.

weld size: groove welds: the depth of chamfering plus any
penetration beyond the chamfering, resulting in the strength
carrying dimension of the weld.

His qual only takes into account the 1/4" dimension.

QW-462.2 SIDE BEND

GENERAL NOTE: Weld reinforcement and backing strip or backing ring, if any, may be removed flush with the surface of the specimen. Thermal
cutting, machining, or grinding may be employed. Cold straightening is permitted prior to removal of the reinforcement.

Then there is this under the tension test:QW-462.1(a) TENSION -- REDUCED SECTION -- PLATE

Weld reinforcement shall be
machined flush with base
metal. Machine minimum
amount to obtain approx.
parallel surfaces.

If weld reinforcement counted, why would they be telling you it's permissible to remove it to flush for qual side bend test or requiring it for a tension test???

No matter which way you cut the BS here, from a section IX qual standpoint the starting point is 1/4" not 3/8". Which makes him qualified to 1/2".

Now looking to the definitions above, the weld that counts is bevel to bevel filled to the full cross section. It does not include consideration for reinforcement.
So if he had a 1/2" weld and even a millimeter of reinforcement, or 3mm by section IX he has made a qualified weld.
"he is not qualified for the extra reinforcement weld." is incorrect. He is qualified to fill the groove of a weld designated as a half inch. Reinforcement doesn't come into the picture for this qualification. only the metal necessary for the specified weld size counts in this regards.

With that out of the way, I've seen people try to argue it when weld reinforcement is specified in the drawings that the welders quals needed to take that into account. However; you have to remember, Section IX is for qualification not production, and is only concerned with "can that welder make a metallurgically sound weld".

Having said that, you have not specified the code that referenced Section IX for qualifications.
For your purpose, the referencing construction code is all your going to have to rely on for busting this guy. Which if I may note, you seem hell bent on doing for whatever reason.

Try to read para. QW100 with an open mind and think about it.

By ctacker (****)

Date 02-22-2008 22:12

I would agree with Gerald on this one. it seems as though he made a call, got corrected and is afraid to admiit he was wrong and now bent on proving it!

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 02-23-2008 04:48

Gerald,
Just to add to your excellent response.
ASME V Art 2 T222.2 Welds
"The finished surface of all butt welded joints may be flush with the base material or may have reasonably uniform crowns, with reinforcement not to exceed that specified in the referencing code section."
Reinforcement never has been and probably never will be included in the thickness of a weldment.
Regards,
Shane

By kriskenmac (*)

Date 02-23-2008 11:40

Oh look its DR.PHIL!! boy you have me pegged! you know just agreeing with someone's post does not make the post your own. You have to write a response all by yourself!

Here is a big question for you DR.Phil

Do you adhere to all parameters listed on a weld procedure?

And just a note to you and your Broke back mountain friend Gerald, The question came from the welder himself. He knows that he is Qualified to weld that thickness ... but he seen that the weld procedure itself stated"max allowable deposited weld metal"

Just some constructive criticism for you and Gerald, If you want to answer the posts do so..Keep your 2 bit worthless assumptions of why people are posting the questions to yourself. I'm not into soap operas like you women are.

By CWI555

Date 02-23-2008 13:17 Edited 02-23-2008 13:25

Now all that was entirely unnecessary. Your initial post was answered entirely. It was you that came back with what reads like an insistence that it couldn't possibly be right for this condition to exist.

"so am I right in saying the weld procedure was not adhered to ...I had a response telling me that it was O.K."

"if he is welding out a weldment that has a wall thickness of 1/2" he cannot put a reinforcement pass on it.. he is not qualified for the extra reinforcement weld"

You stated the same thing twice in two different post. You clearly had your mind made up before you ever logged on. I don't think it an unreasonable assumption in light of that fact.

As for the welder making this statement; I doubt it, your quest for validation was running entirely the other way as both statements in both post were making the assumption that this welder was not qualified.
The venomous nature of your response adds credence to the idea that you did not get the response that you expected, and further; that you did in fact wish to bust this guy for no good reason.
Making the assumption that a welder questioned you as you've stated, the situation remains the same, you clearly did not believe he was qualified. So in the best case scenario, you lost face over the response you gave.

There are lot of good people on this forum, sometimes we agree, sometimes not, but most times when we disagree we try to maintain at least some modicum of civility. For your information; chall, shane Feder, and ctacker are "some" of the more knowledgeable persons on this forum, all of which have disagreed with each other and me at one time or another, but we do maintain respect without resorting to mudslinging and making an ass of ourselves.

I suggest you get over yourself and try to maintain an impartial view when it comes to the code while you have a career to work with. It only takes one time of getting 6 figure back charges because some over zealous qc hand wants to insert opinion over fact before you find yourself in the soup line.

Respectfully,
Gerald

By 803056

Date 02-23-2008 20:20

Good show Gerald!

The reason many of us return to the forum day after day is to discuss various points of interest on the subjects of welding, design, and inspection. The keyword is "discuss". We are not able to meet face to face to have these discussions, but the forum offers us a means of doing so and we freely use it as a sounding board to see if we have our heads on straight. We also use the forum to seek advise from individuals that may have more experience or knowledge than the person asking the question.

Many of us appreciate hearing views that differ from our own. I enjoy seeing several answers that may have different "takes" on the same question. Many questions have more than one reasonable response that is dependent on the circumstances and code that is applicable.

I do not appreciate derogatory comments or responses about any individual that takes the time to respond to a question. I may or may not agree with the technical aspects of the response, but civility (I used the word because Gerald used it and it seems fitting to use it again) is the cornerstone to open discussions.

Am I responding in defence of people I consider friends? You betcha! Do I always agree with them? No way, but I do respect them, I respect their opinions, and I enjoy reading their response.

Any actions or responses that would cause anyone to be embarrassed or hesitant to answer a query is not encouraged or appreciated.

If you can't play nicely with the other girls and boys, stay out of the playground.

Best regards - Al

By kriskenmac (*)

Date 02-23-2008 21:15

The welder is qualified,... The weld procedure says 1/4" Max deposited weld metal.

If you read QW 351 it states.
"In any given production weldment,welders may not deposit a thickness greater than that permitted by QW-452 for each welding process in which they are qualified"
Now if there is any other way to look at this let me know... or again, where in the code does it state any different?

This being said, I will go back and tell the welder he is good to go and that reinfocement is not accounted for in the weld procedure.

As for the welder making this statement; I doubt it, your quest for validation was running entirely the other way as both statements in both post were making the assumption that this welder was not qualified.

The above statement by Gerald once again proves my earlier post.....

By kriskenmac (*)

Date 02-23-2008 21:02

For your purpose, the referencing construction code is all your going to have to rely on for busting this guy. Which if I may note, you seem hell bent on doing for whatever reason.

I would agree with Gerald on this one. it seems as though he made a call, got corrected and is afraid to admit he was wrong and now bent on proving it!

My response is justified, I am never out to try and bust anyone's ass...

Just some constructive criticism for you and Gerald, If you want to answer the posts do so..Keep your 2 bit worthless assumptions of why people are posting the questions to yourself. I'm not into soap operas like you women are.

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 02-24-2008 20:31

Kriskenmac,
You posted a question on the forum and I answered it.
You didn't like the answer so you reposted the question.
I wasted 15 minutes of my time looking for additional information to support what Gerald had already said and what did I get.
One of the most childish responses I have ever seen on this forum.
Grow up !
Shane

By aevald

Date 02-24-2008 21:12

Hello Shane, I have loosely followed this thread. It definitely took some twists and turns that I didn't see the purpose of. One thing I can tell you my friend, even if the person asking wasn't appreciative of the response, it has still had a positive impact on the forum for the many of us who learn from yourself and the others and it has also shored up the knowledge that you possess by reaffirming it to you. It wasn't a waste of time, Shane. Have a great day! Best regards, Allan

By ctacker (****)

Date 02-26-2008 05:37

sounds like a nerve got hit. If i am not right on my assumtion, I apologize, but your post struck a nerve with me about inspectors trying like hell to bust someone just because they have a personal reason for doing so, I have been on the end of that rope, and I do attribute getting my CWI on the fact that I have had to prove inspectors were only trying to bust me because they didn't like me for one reason or another. and after i dug through the code books to prove them wrong, they would try even harder to bust me.

To answer your question, YES I always adhere to ALL parameters on a weld procedure. When i welded I got paid the same whether or not i followed a WPS, so it made sense to adhere to it and not have to question whether i did something wrong. there were a couple times i was asked to change the procedure in order to speed things up or make the weld easier to manage( changing gas mixtures for instance) and unless i was provided a WPS i refused. In 30 years i have been fired one time and have never been out of work because i made the right decisions.

if you have a good welder, you want to keep them, a bad welder only makes your job harder! you will gain more respect if you admit you were wrong than if you try and find loopholes to prove an invalid point!

and btw, I agreed with everything Gerald wrote, and I couldn't have topped what he wrote, so i left it at that. and if I was wrong, then accept my apology. If i am right, you may want to rethink the way you deal with your welders and be open to accept the fact we all make mistakes, its how you accept the correction that will make or break you!

Carl

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 02-23-2008 23:01

The statement you make here
"To clarify: A welder tests on 1/4" test coupon his reinforcement is 1/8" .. he is not qualified to weld any more than 1/2". The reinforcement is not considered in the weld test, but in production welding it is! the welder in this scenario is qualified to put up to 1/2" deposited weld metal ONLY ... if he is welding out a weldment that has a wall thickness of 1/2" he cannot put a reinforcement pass on it.. he is not qualified for the extra reinforcement weld.

is incorrect.

Procedure

Interpretation: IX-83-08
Subject: Section IX, QW-451
Date Issued: July 2, 1982
File: BC-82-265

Question: A welding procedure for a particular
process has been qualified on 3/8 in. thick
material. Weld reinforcement was removed during
preparation of test specimens for mechanical
testing. A 3/4 in. thick pipe is to be welded in
production using this qualified procedure. May
the finished weld include the reinforcement
permitted by the Code [for example, Section VIII,
Division 1, UW-35(c)], or must the finished weld
be flush with the surface of the base metal?

Reply: The finished weld may include the
reinforcement permitted by the applicable Code

Performance

Interpretation: IX-83-07
Subject: Section IX, QW-452
Date Issued: July 2, 1982
File: BC-82-246

Question: A welder has been qualified for a
thickness of deposited weld metal from 1/16 in.
to 3/4 in. for a particular welding process. A
3/4 in. thick pipe is to be welded in production,
using a single-vee butt joint, with the same
process for which the welder is qualified. Is a
second welder required to deposit the weld
reinforcement, or is it permissible for the welder
who completes the weld to deposit the
reinforcement?

Reply: A second welder is not required to deposit
the weld reinforcement. It is permissible for the
welder who completes the weld to deposit the weld
reinforcement.

There is a very useful index of interpretation in the back of each ASME code. You are not the only person to have this question.

Have a nice day

Gerald Austin
Weldingdata.com

By 803056

Date 02-24-2008 00:36

Maybe a sketch will help explain the meaning of the "weld deposit thickness".

Best regards - Al

Attachment: T-BaseMetalvst-WeldDeposit23-Feb-08.dwg (30k)

Attachment: T-BaseMetalvst-WeldDeposit23-Feb-08.wmf (9k)

By kriskenmac (*)

Date 02-24-2008 03:35

Thank you very much!! I have much to learn and look forward to doing so. I do very much appreciate the forum. Thanks to ALL that responded.

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 02-27-2008 22:09 Edited 03-05-2008 16:17

Kriskenmac!!!

If you are being sincere to everyone whom you attempted to offend here, then the least you could do is to offer your apology!!!
By doing so, you gain respect from most - if not all of us who frequent here!!! We don't always agree on things in here but as Al stated before but, we always respect each other and maintain a level of civility in this forum... Gerald(Pipewelder1999) & Gerald(CWI555), and Shane from "down under" have in my book, always been great folks to learn from in here, and to have civil discussions with on a wide range of topics related to welding or not!!! You should at the very least apologize to them for the comments (mudslinging) you posted towards them twice here in this thread!!!

This forum is not to be perceived like the other forums out there because we do respect each other in here!!! This is what separates this forum from the rest!!!

Henry

By jrw159

Date 02-28-2008 14:03

All to often as human biengs we find it hard to admit when we have been wrong. All to often becuase we are human we make mistakes. Nobody is perfect, and sometimes it is hard to accept this fact. I do not like to be wrong anymore than anyone else does, but it is something in life we must deal with. The ability to learn from mistakes is priceless, but one must be able to admit to oneself the mistake before anything can be learned. Something to remember and live by as inspectors: FAIR, FIRM AND CONSISTANT.

By HgTX

Date 03-04-2008 01:45

Hey, he called y'all women (twice). Considering the overall positive attitude expressed on this forum about lady welders, I'm guessing he must have been offering compliments! What a nice guy.

Hg

By Tommyjoking (****)

Date 03-04-2008 09:41

boy I got to this one late.....But it was handled very well....

I just got three things to say about it all....BRAVO!! way to go Henry too!

Kriskenmac not to0 many on this forum reply to someone just for the sake of shooting them down or to create arguments. Some of the most intelligent, experienced to the extreme welders, inspectors, educators and even engineers frequent this forum. They do so for #1 outstanding solutions and answers to problems, #2 to expand their knowledge thru the experience/knowledge of others, #3 the camaraderie of others who love what we do for a living. Like Henry and others have said...in all things we try to maintain a PROFESSIONAL attitude in how we conduct ourselves here...and more then that we maintain a sense of respect...unless of course someone proves they deserve none. I think all the replies here have shown a great sense of restraint...this is not a gaming site ....If you want to continue to hang out and ask questions and give your own answers thats great man. BUT please do so without posting such vehement replies because you do not like a response..a lot of times we only learn a lesson by being wrong..I have a SINCERE sense of respect for some of the people you spoke to in this thread....not because of some title they hold but because I have been reading what they have to say for quite a while....they earned it by being who they are.

Best regards fellas
Tommy