Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / Inspection & Qualification / Ultrasonic Testing
1 2 Previous Next  
- - By Richard Cook (**) Date 06-18-2008 12:38
The contract documents specify the UT testing of the groove welds, both PJP and CJP.
I have a PJP groove weld with a reinforcing fillet weld specified at a joint in the panel zone for a seismic connection. The fillet weld was included by the engineer to maintain the effective throat of the weld at that joint. My question, would the fillet weld be included in the UT exam? I need a consensus on this issue I have my opinion but it is in conflict at this point, I will not specify my position at this time.
Parent - - By hogan (****) Date 06-18-2008 14:34
AWS D1.1 6.11  testing may begin immediately after the completed welds have cooled to ambient temp..
Parent - - By Richard Cook (**) Date 06-18-2008 15:06
This has nothing to do with the question. Maybe I didn't make myself clear, it's not when to test it, but is it required to be part of the test, the reinforcing fillet? The PJP was reduced and the fillet was added to accomadate the effective throat by the engineer. The original weld was going to be 2-1/2 inch PJP and the powers that be agrred to the change it. So would the Fillet weld be required to be included as part of the UT exam? Am I over thinking it?
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 06-18-2008 15:37
I would venture to say that you test just the PJP unless they specifically require the fillet (in writing somewhere) to also be included. I would try to verify the depth of penetration on the PJP to satisfy that the welder got the minimum and let it go at that unless told to do otherwise. The fillet can be verified visually and with gages.
Parent - - By Richard Cook (**) Date 06-18-2008 15:57
The specification and procedures do require it as approved by the EOR. My opinion is that it is a part of the joint, included to acheive the required effective throat. The joint is required to be UT'd to verify weld quality, to include depth of penetration. I feel it needs to be included in the UT, but I'm trying to be fair and find where I might be missunderstanding it, I agree the procedure. The PJP alone would not meet the required effective throat of the weld that is required by design at this joint. It is my opinion thatthe fillet becomes an intrinsic part of the joint subject to the same testing????

My employer wants to object to it and not perfom the exam, just because "it's never been done in the past" and that "you can't UT fillet welds", WHICH I DO NOT AGREE WITH!!! Of course they want me to fight for the change.

I'mjust looking for any technical or code basis, I'm still looking, my opinion is the specs and job procedures prevail. (even if I was the one that wrote the procedure the EOR approved)
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 06-18-2008 16:07
I agree with adding the two together in a way, but I think you can verify them seperately(UT the PJP, gage the fillet) and then add them together...if that makes any sense. UT'ing the fillet can be done, you just have to make sure you know where your sound is to verify everything. What does your Level III say about the UT procedure for verifying the PJP and the fillet?
Parent - By Richard Cook (**) Date 06-18-2008 16:15
no problem, I am UT certified and a Level III did sign off on the procedure, I wrote the procedure to include it because the engineer wanted weld quality verified by a volumetric NDT process. Doing the test by UT is no problem the procedure is very specific on how to accomplish it.

I guess I'm loking for justification for my including it in the exam, I surely felt it should be I may be wrong.
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 06-18-2008 15:45
AWS D1.1:2006...I didn't see anything in Section 6 but in Section 2, paragraph 2.6.4 talks a bit about Combination of Welds, but seems to not include PJP with reinforcing fillets.
Parent - - By Richard Cook (**) Date 06-18-2008 16:08
thanks, I missed that section
it does tend to support my thinking if I am reading it right. Combination welds should be calculated as seperate welds, EXCEPT, PJP with renforcing fillets. the key I'm seeing is the EFFECTIVE THROAT of this type weld. And since the fillet was added to assure the effective throat it should be tested as part of the joint???
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 06-18-2008 16:14 Edited 06-18-2008 16:16
Who said the fillet was added to ensure the effective throat?
Let me rephrase that. Is that explicit in the contract docs or is it an assumption?
Parent - By Richard Cook (**) Date 06-18-2008 16:18
EOR, they started off with 2-1/2 PJP and my company convinced the Engineer to go this way to reduce welding timebased on their figures. I agree with the alternate weld design but feel the fillet now is part of the weld as a whole.
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 06-18-2008 16:19
I'm sorry, it sounds to me like you wish to UT the fillets and are looking for justification to do so.
You said clearly the contract docs require UT of groove welds. Not fillet welds, no matter what esoteric argument you use to combine the two.
Parent - - By Richard Cook (**) Date 06-18-2008 16:36
Substantiate your position please refer to chapter and verse. I also said the NDT procedure included the testing of the fillet and was approved by the EOR. Yes I wrote it, but I included it because it was required to maintain the effective throat and the required weld was to be examined by ut. I'm not just anting to do the UT I'mtrying to find justification not to, which has yet been presented.
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 06-18-2008 17:09
I think you can meet the design by verifying both as I stated up above by UT'ing the PJP to verify that the minimum was met there, and then also gage the fillet to verify that the minimum was met there also.....now that you have verified that both welds meet the minimums required, there is no reason that the joint shouldn't pass EOR approval. He is asking for "X" depth of pen on the PJP and "X" amount of throat on the fillet to make up this combo and if your welds meet that it should be acceptable. Unless I'm not seeing this correctly, it seems pretty cut and dry.
Parent - - By Richard Cook (**) Date 06-18-2008 17:15
I think you are forgetting that UT is used for more than verifying depth of panetration and effective throat. it is used to examine for internal discontinuities that would not meet the minimum standads of the code. And when specified is requuired to do such and not just be used as a thickness gage.
Parent - By jwright650 (*****) Date 06-18-2008 17:19
Very True....hadn't forgotten that aspect of it, just was making sure that you had the design covered.
Parent - - By Richard Cook (**) Date 06-18-2008 16:23
I have documented records of the discussion. the original request asked for a smaller fillet but the EOR responded with his requirements and stated that ours would not maintain the effective throat. So the fillet was increased to his specified. No assumption on my part.

out side what the contract or EOR requirements, what are your thoughts is this a part of the joint???
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 06-18-2008 16:32
I feel that both welds need to be verified to meet the design. Now how you go about that is where your question lies, about whether or not to include the fillet in the UT or not.
Parent - - By Richard Cook (**) Date 06-18-2008 16:38
Yes, the EOR specifies it now what can I use to say thanks but no thanks.
Parent - - By hogan (****) Date 06-18-2008 16:52
Richard,
what i was trying to convey was that UT is to be performed after completion of weld. This would be after the fillet was completed. I did find an interpretation by AWS the is related, but is in regards to RT. Being that this is not an examination that is compliant with standard AWS UT, you will need to have your procedure approved. The approval will come from the same engineer that will decide if the fillet is in need of examination. i would state in my procedure if it is included or not. The EOR will then decide if your procedure covers what he wants. Below is a copy of the interpretation.

Subject: Fillet weld inspection
Code Edition: D1.1:2002
Code Provision: Section 6
AWS Log: INQ-45
Inquiry:
(1) Does D1.1-2002require fillet welds to be subject to RT requirements?
(2) Fillet welds subject to MT shall be evaluated based on visual inspection criteria. If these
welds have successfully passed the MT test based on visual acceptance criteria Table 6.1 but do
not pass the RT criteria applicable to CJP welds, will it be considered as Gross Non
Conformance to D1.1-2002 Section 6.6.5?
(3) Does D1.1-2002 require the fillet welds which are permitted to have a gap of up to 5 mm by
AWS section 5.22 to comply with the same acceptance criteria as applied to the CJP welds?
Response:
(1) No
(2) Since the Code does not address the RT of fillet welds, the acceptability of RT-detected
discontinuities is exclusively a contractual issue. The application of 6.6.5 to the detection of
flaws unacceptable to such contractual criteria is an issue to be decided between the contracting
parties.
(3) No
Parent - - By Richard Cook (**) Date 06-18-2008 17:09
I would agree with all stated, but I think we have something more than a "fillet weld", I consider it as PJP reinforcement to acheive effective throat. Maybe I'm overthinking it. The referenced information is dealing strictly with fillets as I read it.

There was a procedure approved by a Level III in accordance with Annex S to include the fillet weld. It was approved by the EOR, It was initially requested by the EOR. Yes it is not a standard UT per section 6 but this was recognizedand accomidated in accordance with D1.1
Parent - By jwright650 (*****) Date 06-18-2008 17:16
Well, there ya go...As long as you can verify both welds meet the mins...you're golden. Good Luck...now go forth and UT...LOL
Parent - - By CWI555 (*****) Date 06-18-2008 18:02
I fail to see the issue.
There was a procedure approved by a Level III in accordance with Annex S to include the fillet weld. ""It was approved by the EOR"", ""It was initially requested by the EOR""

Now you are questioning if the fillet should be included? I don't see that you have an option based on the language of AWS D1.1 2006 para 1.4.1., and mor specifically sentence 2). "All additional NDT that is not specifically addressed in the code".

What ever you think about it, the only path forward you have for not performing the exam is getting contract mod through the EOR.

Regards,
Gerald
Parent - By Richard Cook (**) Date 06-18-2008 19:30
I agree, thanks, this is really an internal situation where I have to please my employer but it "aint gonna happen". I was just wanting to see, with out including contract documents or specific engineer requirements, whether there would be justification or whether anyone would see it as I do, the reinforcement in this case is an intrinsic part of the designed weld and would be subject to the same requirements as the original weld no matter what is specified.

thanks again, this does help
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 06-18-2008 16:41
I would agree with john that the EOR has made it clear for you that the fillet is part of the 'joint'. I still think you have an uphill battle convincingly arguing that the fillet is now part of the contractual 'groove' terminology. Fillets carry loads all the time and are still only subject to VT.
Having said that, I'm not sure what the resistance would be, since it seems easier to me to get em both anyway when the weld is complete. So, always sensitive to production issues since that is where I started, I don't see it as a production issue, unless the welders are blowin these fillets left and right. In which case, you now have your justification.
In other words, your argument may be difficult to convince, but the other side is difficult as well.
Parent - - By Richard Cook (**) Date 06-18-2008 16:58
Be careful about saying fillets require only VT. This is the determination of the EOR and design issues. AWS Annex S provides for alternative UT exams which does include UT testing of fillet welds where required and approved by the EOR. AWS does recognize that the engineer holds the keys.
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 06-18-2008 17:06
Personnaly I think the resolution is simple. Take it up with the EOR. State the opposing cases and let him decide. However, manufacturing may argue that that wasn't in the original contract docs and therefore would incur additional costs. Since the contract docs did not make it explicit I think mfg would be well justified in making that argument.
This is common in my experience. You want more inspection? Sure. More money.
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 06-18-2008 17:32
Well now wait a minute. I'm confused. If a UT procedure for fillets was requested by the EOR, written and approved by a Level III, and that is now your justification, then what was the original question about?
Weren't you asking if UT is required?
If you now say that the EOR requested such, and a Level III approved such and that is justification then why the post?
If you feel its not convincing justification, which I agree with, and would be consistent with your original need to post, then why argue now that it is?
Requested by an EOR is not required by an EOR.
Or, what am I misssing here.
Parent - - By Richard Cook (**) Date 06-18-2008 19:20
I agree, it is my management wanting me to find a loop hole and convince the EOR it's not needed. The more I look into it, the more I think I have to tell my people there is no loop hole and just do it. I myself wrote the UT procedure because the Level III botched his first attempt (he was stuck on "typically" not UT'd).

This is my basis for including the fillet in the first place. The design specified a specific weld size for the given joint, our organization RFI'd with an option which included the reinforcement (fillet) based on the understanding that the reinforcement would develope the full effedtive weld size of the original design, the engineer agreed to the alternate weld call out. Since the reinforcement is used to develope the size of the weld required it was my opinion that it was subject to the same Inspection and testing of the original weld.
Notice I've left out the word "fillet", this is intentional, because I feel even though we call it a fillet we have a totally different condition than just a fillet on top of a designed PJP.

Do I make since??? I did talk to an engineer and based on this synopsis above, he agreed on my take, but he wasn't the EOR.

So all I have to present to either side is the contract documents and I see no means of convincing the engineer otherwise, no technical data or code reference. I'll use the engineer that supports me he is in house to sway my management.

Thanks for the banter guys it did help me and gave me some information so that I can word my position that gives no loop holes for argument. Now thinking, I might have some code references.

thanks again
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 06-18-2008 19:34
I understand your thinking and it is certianly responsible in its appraoch. But a fillet is a fillet no matter what the interpretation of its purpose.
Parent - - By Richard Cook (**) Date 06-19-2008 12:13
Read 2.6.4 in D1.1 as referenced in one of the previous replieslet me know what you think, I think you might see tha a "fillet" is not always just a fillet. At least thats how a read it, I've been told I'm a little twisted any way so maybe I've got it wrong.
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 06-19-2008 12:31
By that text being in the "Design" Section 2.....I take that as while calculating, the engineer has to go by this in his/her design of the joint. Also read C2.6.4 on the top of page 401.
Parent - - By Richard Cook (**) Date 06-19-2008 12:50
yes, but they use terminology there, "may not", which to me leaves it open. This reference is found in the design section but does lend to a better understanding when considered. If the engineer should consider it in the design then this understanding should "pass down the line" in all aspects of the standards. It's apparent it is not clear elsewhere in the standard, and it's clear we have two sides of the issue, so maybe the next step would be asking for an official interpretation and how long will that take?
Parent - By jwright650 (*****) Date 06-19-2008 12:56
Oh Boy...I hope you aren't in any hurry for that answer. They will get to it as soon as they can, but it takes some time for the committee to meet and go over those questions.
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 06-19-2008 13:10
I think we might be getting something muddied up here...The design needs to be the responsibility of the engineer(see D1.1:2006, paragraph 1.4.1), and the inspector should only be verifying that the welds are placed in a manner consistant with the requirments of the contract docs for workmanship and materials(see D1.1:2006, paragraph 1.4.3).
Parent - - By Richard Cook (**) Date 06-19-2008 13:20
Yea, I know but my delima is the ones that write my check wants me to argue the point with the engineer, and I see no point to argue. I finished my official statement as QA Manager to my organization, basicaly telling them to buck up and do what the engineer required. And that I would not approach the issue with engineer because there is no justification and I would not approaqch it with that it is "not typically done".

thanks again guys, all off you are saying the same thing I have thought.
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 06-19-2008 13:24
Good Luck with your letter to the powers that be ;-)

Hope all will work out, it is tough to have to take those stands, but sometimes they give you no choice.
Parent - By dmilesdot (**) Date 06-19-2008 14:08
Here is a situation to consider, if you examine the PJP by ut and on the second leg that bounces to the fillet weld, you see an indication.  Do you disreguard it because its in the fillet weld? Unless I had documentation to disreguard the fillet weld I would record it and let the owner determine if its significant.
Jmho
Dave
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 06-19-2008 14:19
Richard,
I sense this thread is slippin into irrelevent minutiae.
As I see it you have a contract clarity problem. Not a code clarity problem.You are insisting that the fillet get UT'd, but there simply isn't any code or contract support for that. At least with the info available. The code doesn't require you UT anything except certain fatigue applications (or RT-D1.1 2.18). So the extent of UT has to be made explicit by the EOR. If its not. Its not there.
And I'm wondering how a 'reinforcing fillet', to quote your first post,  is somehow not a fillet.
The contract clearly states groove welds, as you mentioned, and no amount of semantic calisthenics is gonna get you to the fillet. IMO.
If I can return to an earlier post, I think a better approach is to argue that it just wouldn't be an additional mfg burden, in fact may even be more efficient, as opposed to trying to argue that it is required.
Unless of course the welders blow the fillets. :)
Parent - - By Richard Cook (**) Date 06-19-2008 17:04 Edited 06-19-2008 17:10
I guess you did not read all the post
I did state it is in a procedure to have the fillet tested and approved by a Level III, reviewed and approved by the engineer, this procedure is part of the contract documents so contracturally it would be required theres the basis for doing it, the engineer sanctioned and required it.

so that is why we are doing it, not beause I want to, even though I agree with the engineer. But at least I tried to accomadate my employer. No one has presented any information substanciating that a "fillet is just a fillet" and what has been provided does tend to support my train of thought, at least in my mind.

As far as code clarity, i feel it doesn't exist. I say it matters and you say it doesn'ts, so where (now remember I want chapter and verse) does it clarify the issue. The simple question is, if the reinforcing "fillet" when applied to produce the required design weld size in a PJP weld, is it part of the design weld?? if the fillet was not in place would the PJP be acceptable?? No because the throat would be low, if the fillet is added would not the fillet require the same quality level as the groove becuase it is an essential part of completing the weld. You need it to make the weld joint complete but do you let it have lack of fusion, lack of penetration and cracks below the visible surface???? so what good would it be to require the fillet to maintain the throat and allow other discontinuities, not visible, to exist in an intrinsic portion of the weld????

read 2.6.4 and lok at Annex A, you tell me why it's not just a fillet.

I guess my point is, it is part of the PJP because it is required to make the efective weld therefore when the job specs require UT on PJP and CJP welds it would be included simple it's part of the PJP weld..
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 06-19-2008 17:46
Richard,
I didn't say code clarity is not important. I said its not the issue your dealing with.
You have established that the EOR has required UT of a fillet. Section 6 Part F only deals with Grooves. So now 6.1.1 kicks in. And again, you have a contract clarity issue. Not a code clarity issue.
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 06-19-2008 18:06
And let me add this, your fillet is not part of the the PJP weld. This is semantic confusion. The fillet is a fillet, and is part of the weldment system that accomodates the design stresses. That weldment system consists of a PJP groove weld and a fillet weld.
Its essentially the same thing as O-lets in piping. You have a groove weld and a fillet weld combination. Both are critical to the design stress intended. In fact, in piping its even tougher to distinguish because you have to contact the O-let manufacturer to tell you where one actually ends and the other begins. Nobody does that so most o-lets end up looking like mini volcanoes.
Parent - By Richard Cook (**) Date 06-19-2008 18:28
why, you need it to complete the weld?

you are skirting the issue, answer the questions in the post.
comment on 2.6.4 and annex A, convince me, you haven't yet.

when I was in piping and vessel work the entire weld of 'O-lets" when required to be tested was tested.
Parent - - By hogan (****) Date 06-19-2008 18:07
Richard,
On a side note, i was wondering what your acceptance criteria is for UT of a fillet?
Parent - - By Richard Cook (**) Date 06-19-2008 18:13
simply the requirements of the groove, since it is a part of the effective groove weld
you guys keep seperating the two welds explain to me why?? the one would not be without the other. what am I missing???
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 06-19-2008 18:26 Edited 06-19-2008 18:29
We don't seperate them, AWS does, AWS A3.0. Just because they are used together in a total weldment does not mean one disappears (see O-lets above). And your EOR has to provide you with the acceptance criteria because AWS D1.1 does not address it. Section 6.1.1.
And I would go further, if you are assuming groove acceptance criteria you, and the EOR, are in violation of the code. The EOR is required to supply that criteria.
Parent - By jwright650 (*****) Date 06-19-2008 18:29 Edited 06-19-2008 18:45
Yup...you use the largest right triangle that fits with the fillet weld to figure the theoretical fillet weld (see Figure 5.4 on page 208) and then you use the groove prep minus 1/8" to figure your theoretical PJP weld size(for theorectical weld size see Figure3.3 for actual weld sizes see 4.10.2 and 4.8.4.1)...anything more is a bonus that the engineer didn't count on(extra cushion to the safety factor).
Parent - - By Richard Cook (**) Date 06-19-2008 18:30 Edited 06-19-2008 18:38
or does it, if it is weld metal to complete the required groove effective weld size then it's part of the groove

still again comment on 2.6.4, annex A show me in annex A where the two are seperated.
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 06-19-2008 18:47
Show me in A3.0 where a PJP and a fillet are the same thing. :)
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 06-19-2008 18:53
As an engineer, you might be able to use both weld types to get the calculation you need,.....

but as an inspector, you have to see them as seperate welds so that you can verify that they meet the minimums to be acceptable. If not, how do you verify the weld is sufficient and or acceptable?
Up Topic Welding Industry / Inspection & Qualification / Ultrasonic Testing
1 2 Previous Next  

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill