Welder qualified under ASME

Date 11-13-2002 17:05

These are common issues. His open root pipe welding qualifications (ASME IX) allow him to weld structural steel, in any position, within the thickness limits established by his original test (assuming filler metal and base metal are similar). Athough you didn't ask, he may weld fillets, open root or full /partial penetration welds with backing. If you are attempting to establish that he has the D1.1 unlimited qualification, the answer is negative.

I wouldn't retest him unless the thickness of the structural steel exceeds his qualified limits.

Charles Hall

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 11-13-2002 17:47

Thanks Charles,
I was comfortable with all the parameters (processes, rods, thickness, positions, Table 4.9, etc.), but was concerned about the crossing over code issue. I looked all through my D1.1 code book but never could find in black and white anything addressing the ASME codes. It talks about D1.5 and others need to be requalified. I think AWS should address these types of issues when writing codes and specs. because they will pop up when welders change jobs.(from mechanical contractor over to structural fabrication or vise-versa) or maybe they did and I just missed it, anyway,
Thanks again for your reply,
John Wright

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 11-13-2002 20:44

As an update,
the inspector is now wanting to know where to find it in writing that this guy is ok in D1.1 production groove welds. Is it written in the ASME code?
John Wright

By chall

Date 11-13-2002 21:37

In ASME Section IX, check QW-303.1, which refers to QW-461.9. This will draw a link between a welder qualifiying on pipe, and being certified for plate (like table 4.8 in D1.1). It will still be necessary to produce a welder test record. If your forms are like ours, they are outlined around the format of Section IX and may take some explaining to set the inspector straight. Sometimes it takes a little while to connect all the dots.

Some inspectors are only used to evaluating to the letter of the code and may not be able to connect the dots as well. However, if you gave a welder a test and documented it on an ASME IX formatted document, it shouldn't be too tough to prove the bends were done, a visual inspection was completed, etc. Keep at it and you should be able to convince the inspector. Good luck. Charles Hall

By CHGuilford (****)

Date 11-13-2002 20:51

Just to add a word of caution.... ASME and AWS qualifications can have similar requirements for performance testing and some applications are often viewed as being equal to each other. However, I haven't seen anything in D1.1 that allows acceptance of previous ASME qualification, with the exception of Sections 1.1 and 1.4. Those allow the Engineer to use common sense in administrating the contract documents but aren't necessarily blanket approval to deviate from D1.1.

Provided that the original testing was performed by an entity that you are comfortable with and you have copies of test procedures, test results, and continuity records, I would agree in that I wouldn't require the welder to requalify. Certainly the test he took required more skill than the AWS "plate" test does. Just be aware that the WQTRs might not be accepted by some customers.
Normally, an employer will (and probably should) test newly hired welders. And most welders don't mind running another test. That's the easiest way to prove conformance to the applicable code.

CHGuilford

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 11-14-2002 03:31

If your organization certitfied the welder by giving him a welding test and the welding test meets the requiremnts for AWS D1.1 for welder performance qualification. Fill out another form with the variables required by D1.1.

If a test meets the requirements of multiple codes for preparation of the coupons, essential variables, welding, and inspection and testing requirements and acceptance criteria there is NOTHING that prohibits this.

A statement from an AWS code states below.

Procedures, welders, and welding operators qualified to other codes and specifications (such as, ASME IX, AWS D1.l etc.) shall be
acceptable to this specification if the previous qualifications meet the requirements specified herein.

This does not mean any welder or procedure qualified under the other codes can be used in this code unless it "meets the requirements herein". Those requirements could be coupon size, bend specimen widths, reduced section tensile specimen dimensions, qualified thickness ranges etc..

For instance, A wps can be written from a PQR that was welded with backing to weld joints without backing as far as ASME Sec IX goes. Other codes may not see it this way. ASME covers this issue in the codes of construction but not in the code for qualifying the procedure. However if the PQR was prepared welded and tested in accordance with D1.1 and Sec IX then one could write a D1.1 WPS from this PQR provided all of the variables required by D1.1 were recorded.

Apply that same concept to welder qualification. The recorded actual values on the ASME form would be "useable" to document what test was taken. If the testing on said test was in accordance with the requirements of AWS D1.1 then there would be nothing to prohibit the manufacturer from preparing another form.

This is my interpretation.

G Austin
http://www.weldinginspectionsvcs.com

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 11-14-2002 12:38

I did however find a section 4.1.2.1 Previous Performance Qualification that states...
"Properly documented evidence of previous performance qualification of welders, welding operators and tack welders may be accepted with the Engineer's approval. The acceptability of performance qualification to other standards is the Engineer's responsibility, to be exercised based upon the specific structure, or service conditions, or both. Welders and welding operators qualified by standard test to AWS B2.1, Standard for Welding Procedure and Performance Qualification, may, in this manner, be accepted for use in this code."
We hired an outside contractor (an AISC erector) to help us with some welding man power shortages and this is one of thier welders in question. They (the outside contractor)accepted his previous cert. without realizing it was an ASME cert. form. He (the welder in question) came to them from Southern Air (a mechanical contractor here in town). It looked like the same form that I had used to qualify some of this contractor's people in the past and he just missed the last statement on the form that stated the test coupons were prepared, welded, and tested in accordance with the requirements of Section IX of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. I notice the SCWI that evaluated this welder, was the one who gave me my CWI exam several years ago. This cert. is fairly recent (Sept. 16, 2002).
John Wright

By R. Johnson (**)

Date 11-14-2002 12:58

John
I have a question for you, what company certified him to ASME and is it the same company that is now requiring him to weld on structural steel to D1.1?

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 11-14-2002 13:50

This welder was qualified while working for Southern Air. He now is employed by an Erector. We hired the Erector to help us with man power to stay ahead of the block masons. The erector did not realize when he accepted this welders previous certs. from Southern Air that they were ASME instead of D1.1. It has caused alot of confusion at this job. Normally, when I hire guys to work for me in our shop I retest them just to clear all this up, but this erector saw 6G and it was a recent cert and accepted it without retesting.

He did test with 6011 root pass and filled with 7018 in a 6G position (vert up) with out backing on 8" sch 80 (1/2"wall)pipe. So by D1.1 table 4.9 He would be qualified on plate for thicknesses 3/16" to unlimited in any position with up to F4 classification rods in SMAW with or with out backing. But the statement at the bottom of this test record states it was in accordance with ASME code.

By R. Johnson (**)

Date 11-14-2002 14:35

The welder in question would not be qualified to weld under ASME unless the erector was one of the original companies participating in the qualification of the welder . I am guessing this is not the case.
As far as D1.1 is concerned, you are responsible for the qualification of this welder and since neither you nor your erector subcontractor witnessed the welder's qualification test, I would requalify the person just to be on the safe side. Otherwise the Engineer of record would have to approve using the ASME certification. My experience with Engineers is you would have difficult time just explaining what you are trying to do. It would be easier and faster just to requalify the man. Good luck.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 11-14-2002 15:42

Believe it or not this Engineer seems to live in the real world and has some common sense about him. He has been very understanding and very agreeable with other issues concerning welding. I just have to wait and see what the Inspector on this job has to fuss about today. Everyday this guy seems to come up with something to pick about.

By chall

Date 11-14-2002 18:19

Although my position, as stated above, is that you have a decent basis for using this welder, R Johnson has raised a couple of valid points. Maybe if you had a meeting with the Engineer and the inspector to air out all the facts, this could be resolved readily. On the topic of the inspector picking you apart, the best Authorized Inspector we deal with nevers shows up without finding something to point out. I believe we are very thorough, but this AI always has some good pointers. I appreciate a good inspector, as long as he or she is professional. Charles Hall

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 11-14-2002 19:25

I agree with you on appreciating a good Inspection. Professionalism is the key, when he's trying to throw road blocks, or to cause a delay, just because he can, then yes, I have a problem with it. A good Inspection makes everyone involved more comfortable about the job when things go well. And going by the book is great for everyone because you have a code or something to agree on.
John Wright

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 11-27-2002 12:55

I ended up re-testing the welder under D1.1 in the 3G and 4G positions.
Now the Inspector has no quarrles with this welder. He has been preparing welds for the other welders on the job until now. At least he wasn't just standing around, he was helpful.
John Wright