Looking at AWS D1.1-2004, Section 3, Prequalification of WPSs, clause 3.7 General Requirements, clause 3.7.1(1) undercut may be repaired vertically downward when preheat..........
That indicates to my way of thinking that a qualified WPS is not required for the repair of the undercut.
As for the welder, if it is simply the repair of the undercut, I see no requirement for the welder to be qualified for vertical downward progression. The repair of undercut using downward progression is an odd fish since it is not addressed in Section 4. Personally, I would not require the welder to pass a qualification test using vertical downward progression because that would require a WPS that is not considered prequalified and there are provisions allowing downward progression for the repair of undercut in Section 3.
I've often said that I don't interpret the code, I simply read it and give the can a shake and let the chicken bones fall as they may. If there is no clear definition or direction provided by the code I have a choice, let the contractor do as they see fit (as long as it isn't a direct violation of something contained in the code) or write to the code committee and ask for clarification.
I try not to impede production unless there is a direct violation of the code requirements or unless the contractor's processes are definitely not producing the desired results. With that in mind, if the welder's attempt to make the repair fall short, another direction has to be taken.
Best regards - Al
I spoke with AWS technical services about this issue and was told vertical down is prequalified for use as a repair weld. He also said a welder would need to be qualified. He mentioned doing a vertical down fillet and macroetch/break test it to keep it as simple as possible.
I vertical down fillet wouldn't qualify for downhill on a groove weld. That may not have been what he was indicating. You must have been writing your post at the time I was. I didn't realize "Technical Services" would answer these questions. COOL
Hey Al,
Do you feel that this is an item that could be adressed a little clearer in the code. It seems a welder not qualified for a specific weld would be a direct violation of the code. What if the undercut is 1/3rd the thickness of the material?
It seems a fine line between what the code says (or doesn't say) . And what happens.
I agree with the concept of just reading what the code says. I just can't find the part that says the welder does not have to be qualified.
We know t he procedure does not have to be requalified because the code says so. If the code did not provide an exception, it would be clear that requalification by testing is required.
In the case of the welder, no exception is given. It would stand to reason based on the information available that the code indicates the welder must be qualified. Progression i s clearly addressed for performance qualification but no mention is made regarding undercut or if a procedure exists. The lack of a provided exception for performance leads me to believe that the code says what it says.
A procedure without a qualified welder is no more useable than a qualified welder without a procedure.
It is hard to say what the intent of the writers is. Again, here we are with this high speed electronic media with access to people all over the world. How about an "Official Interpretation" from AWS. I know there must be someone here on the D1.1 comittee.
This one is not rocket science. (though I see how differing opinions could exist) . Does a welder have to be qualified to weld downhill if the welder is repairing undercut. ? The code says one thing to me, and something else to someone who I respect greatly and feel is an authority on many matters related to the subject matter here.
Aren't codes great!
I don't disagree with much of what you say. It simply a case where the AWS hasn't provided a very clear path to follow. The repair of undercut isn't the same as making a fillet weld, so I don't see where the fillet break test is the "way out" of the dilemma.
The repair of undercut is simply correcting the surface condition of the weld. If you are adding a substantial amount of metal and if the undercut represents a third of the base metal thickness then clearly there are other problems that need to be addressed.
The extreme would be to make the welder qualify on a 3/8 inch plate or a one inch plate and consider the undercut to be a groove weld. Again, I don't think that is the intent. However, there is nothing that says that position is incorrect.
The bottom line is, what is going to result in a product that meets the requirements of the code and will result in a sound weld.
The only course of action is to pose the question to the D1.1 committee and let them issue an official response.
Has anyone read the official interpretations that have been issued by the D1.1 committee to see if this has been addressed in the past?
Joe, have you seen any official statements issued by the committee on the subject in past memory?
Best regards - Al
I agree. It is odd that for a prequalified procedure, you can change the direction of travel, but for a welder that was tested, you cannot.
It almost seems that they just "forgot" to address the performance qualification.
Of course if the codes were not as confusing, there would be 5 CWI's for every welder and they would be asking all the welders how to study up for the "Certified Welder" test and if there was a 40 hour course that could show them how to pass all the welding tests!
As far as a fillet not qualifying a groove weld, you are correct. This would be my intent because, frankly, I don't want our welders doing it (grooves).
Yes, Technical Services does answer code questions. My boss goes directly to them with code questions but I prefer to open it up for discussion on here first. It's much better IMHO to work through these things and exercise the brain. Besides, I'll take some of the minds on here any day over the TS people (no offense to you TS people if you're reading).
I would be surprised if Technical Services wasn't careful to preface any responses that their statements are their opinions and are not to be construed as an official AWS opinion or position. That gets us back to asking the code committee for an official response.
Best regards - Al
I think a recommendation to allow a similar exception for performance qualification would be the way to go. One note under table 4.10 saying something like
"Welders tested in the 3G position Uphill progression shall be qualified to weld in the vertical postion with downhill progression to repair undercut and/or underfill not greater than xxx deep."
That would eliminate
1) The need to create a downhill procedure for welder performance testing.
2) The need for the welder to qualify.
3) The discussions related to the subject.
Of course there may be a reason that the committee decided to leave this out for perfomance qualification. I am sure some interesting discussions take place about any of the code changes that take place..
Gera
After thinking about this and reviewing the code, would it be acceptable to write a prequalified repair WPS? This would be based on a prequalified "repair" procedure limited to ( and noted on the WPS ) the repair of undercut. Having to meet all other requirements of section 3
That would be a way to avoid the WPS. Just use that WPS for the performance testing and then note that the qualified range for downhill is for repair of undercut only. Of course none or very little of the weld metal deposited downhill would be subjected to bending if mechanical testing were done.
I think an allowance by D1.1 would be the way to go.
I checked the AWS website for a code interpretation on the issue and found none.
The subject has come up before on the job site, but some of the comments I've read here has given me cause to rethink my original position on the subject.
I just submitted an inquiry to the code committee to get an official interpretation on the issue. It may take a while, the last inquiry I made took over a year to resolve.
Best regards - Al
Topic American Welding Society Services / Technical Standards & Publications / Uphill vs. Downhill welds
pipewelder_1999 
