Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Certifications / A Question About Qualification Position Plate Groove 4G.
- - By freewelder (*) Date 10-15-2008 08:11
Hi, here is a question for Welding Inspectors. Supposing we are conducting a WPS Qualification with the Welder being qualified through the same test in the Plate CJP Groove position 4G and, the procedure requires back gouging. Upon the completion of the weld on the groove side, must the welder remove the test coupon, turn it over and complete the back weld also in the 4G position?
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 10-15-2008 08:40
That's what I require.
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 10-15-2008 11:39
John

do you also require that the back gouge be done in the overhead position?

This is a good thread.. I've never thought of this question..

Shows how green I am when it comes to qualifiying procedures and welders
Parent - By jon20013 (*****) Date 10-15-2008 12:02
Lawrence, I do not require the backgouge be done overhead, the reason being that at my current employment, backgougers have a separate qualification test from welding.  Yeah, I know, sounds strange but not a bad idea.  I agree, this is a good thread as I had never given the question any thought either until my current job!
Parent - By jrw159 (*****) Date 10-15-2008 12:24
freewelder,
  Yes the welding of the back side needs to be done in the 4G position. As for the actual backgouging, I would say it depends on the method, IMHO. If you are grinding it, I would say no, but if you are oxy gouging, I would say it should be done in the same position as welded. Being that I can find nothing stateing this in code, this is again, just my opinion. It could also be argued that the grinding should be done in the welding position as well.

jrw159
Parent - - By bozaktwo1 (***) Date 10-15-2008 16:47
Definitely the welding must be placed in the 4G position; the exception would be a workmanship test which is designed to simulate the actual job site conditions.  For example, I once did a cjp with ceramic backing which then had to be gouged and filled up in position, which put me on a stepladder with a grinder a good part of the day.  Something about those submariners, they like to know you can weld before they let you on the boat! ;)
Parent - - By freewelder (*) Date 10-16-2008 07:27 Edited 10-16-2008 07:48
Gentlemen, thank you for your enthusiastic response. I can understand some of the logic being expounded here but when you say the test is designed to simulate actual job conditions, this is where the argument fails. Even if it is an exception, how do we note this on the WPS or WPQ? I looked in Tables 4.1 & 4.9, there isn't a 4G/1G or 1G + 4G qualification. We are currently working on a job fabricating very large gas ducts for a mining concern. The ducts will have appurtenances attached to it making it impossible to rotate or impractical to turn the article over. But supposing that we could why, would we want to do that? The welder has finished a difficult 4G weld. To finish off the weld, the welder just have to climb over to the other side and complete it in the 1G position.

The other argument that the welder needs to demonstrate the ability to clean and complete the weld all in the 4G position also doesn't hold much water. The welder doing the test has already completed multi-passes on the groove side in the 4G position. Cleaning between passes was also done in that position. My question boils down to this, if the welder can make so much weld in the 4G position why, do we have to doubt the welder's ability to complete a back weld in that position? On top of that, it would be completed with backing. As one of you have stated earlier, it isn't mentioned anywhere in the code, at least not explicitly.

My take is, it doesn't have to be mandatory though the code does not prohibit Inspectors from demanding that the back weld be also completed overhead. It doesn't make sense to me because in actual work conditions, I can't imagine a situation where a welder have to turn the article over and complete a back weld in a difficult and inefficient manner. What idiot would do that or rather, what idiot would require a welder to do that? Of course, in the case of Plate 3G or Plate 2G position, it is readily understood that all sides must be tested in their respective orientation. I wonder if this issue have been submitted to the committee for interpretation.
Parent - - By Shane Feder (****) Date 10-16-2008 11:47
freewelder,
The positions used in the weld test are to hopefully cover a welder for "all positions" that maybe required on the job.
I agree with what you are saying but it would be difficult to quantify and even harder to try and document.
If it is D1.1 (which I am not that familiar with) how can you claim "unlimited thickness" qualification when you have used 2 different positions in the test.
If I am in charge of a project requiring overhead welding that will be backgouged I would have the welders weld in the overhead, turn it over, backgouge in the overhead position and then backweld in the overhead position.
The whole idea is to give the welder the most difficult task and then he is supposedly qualified for all the positions required,
Hope that helps,
Regards,
Shane
Parent - By freewelder (*) Date 10-17-2008 07:46
Thank you Shane. May I recall that in my initial posting, I mentioned that this test is for a WPS and it is under AWS D1.1 not, ASME IX. If you will note, position is not an essential variable in ASME IX but it is in AWS D1.1  Meaning, a qualification test for 4G only covers OH. But I also said, the welder will be qualified through this WPS test. So that means the welder will be qualified for F, OH as per table 4.9. That pretty much makes sense because as one respondent here mentions, he or she wouldn't allow the welder to "move" the piece. If that is the case, the welder would have to complete the back weld that is regarded as a backing in the 1G position or F for Flat. Even in ASME IX, performance qualification test in 4G position only qualifies the welder for F, O not "all positions".

IMO, a WPS test that takes into consideration the orientation of the weld joint will be designed to test just that. I have never seen nor have I come across any customer that require WPS test be conducted for other than standard single-V-groove. That means, no double-V-groove nor double-U-groove or other special weld profiles. In my example, it will be just the standard single-V-groove with a root face and opening meant for full penetration. The back weld will be limited to a single pass to provide capping on the other side. If you will recall Figure 4.14 - Reduced-Section Tension Specimen, all excess weld will be machined away. Even for the Bend Specimens again, the weld reinforcement and backing shall be removed flush with the surface of the specimen. That means the back pass doesn't figure much in the mechanical tests. I would say, if the test piece is 1 in. and over, the WPS test conducted without the piece being "moved" should be qualified for "unlimited thickness".
Parent - - By bozaktwo1 (***) Date 10-16-2008 12:04
My example of a workmanship test is exactly that; an example.  If the job will require the weldor to perform in-position work, then it would make sense for the qualification test to simulate those conditions.  As for the requirements of a GENERAL qualification test, I agree with Shane and others; the back gouge and back weld shall be done in 4G to present the operator with the most demanding task.  Does the code require it?  No; however the code allows it. 

As to why turn the work: I am sure you can see the benefit of performing a given weld in the 1G or 2F position as opposed to 4G.  Of course, not all processes are created equal for this supposition; a fair example would be aluminum GMAW, which is much easier (less demanding skill-wise) to run flat as opposed to overhead.  If I have a structure that requires 300 welds in the overhead position, I will recommend turning it every time, if possible and feasible.

Just my two cents.  It used to go a lot farther than it does.
Parent - - By dbigkahunna (****) Date 10-16-2008 16:17
Testing welders to ASME Section IX there is nothing in the code which requires the grinding to be done in position. The test is to determine the welder can deposit sound weld metal. I am about as tough as they come when testing welders and I do not require them to gouge or grind a 4G in position.
I also have never seen it in the customer specifications.
However, if the welding you are doing is critical enough you want to be sure your welders are capable of gouging in position, you can make it part of the test.
Just it is not code for Section IX
BABRT's
Parent - - By hogan (****) Date 10-16-2008 16:43
dbigkahunna,
I have to disagree with you on this. It seems to me that inter pass cleaning is part of a WPS. A welder qualification requires you to follow a WPS. I see your point that there is no mention of grinding position, but I see it as part of the process of making a weld and that is what you are testing.
Parent - - By 3.2 Inspector (***) Date 10-16-2008 19:39
I agree, when I certify welders I dont allow them to move the test piece - for any reason.

3.2
Parent - - By dbigkahunna (****) Date 10-16-2008 23:00
Let me clarify. On interpass cleaning and grinding that has to be done in position. However the discussion is the back gouging/grinding. Requiring a back gouge/back weld on a 4G would be a 1G.
Right?
BABRT's
Parent - - By ctacker (****) Date 10-17-2008 02:08
right, in my eyes
Parent - - By freewelder (*) Date 10-17-2008 06:14
My point exactly. The back weld in this test would be in the 1G position. I must reiterate that the welder have completed the weld on the groove side including the inter pass cleaning in the 4G position. The back weld is only a single pass.
Parent - - By hogan (****) Date 10-17-2008 14:41
But are you testing his ability to make a weld in the 4G position in the field? He would not be able to take the connection off of a jig and back weld/grind in the field. Make the welder do the 1G portion on a ladder or whatever is needed to get it. He will not be welding it standing on the floor in the field.
Parent - By dbigkahunna (****) Date 10-17-2008 22:25
Sorry, I do not see this as a essential variable for welder qualification by Section IX. Read QW301.1
No where in Section 3 of Section IX is interpass cleaning or gouging mentioned. There may be customer specifications for testign of welders which addresses this but as far a code goes I do not see it as pertinent.
BABRt's
Parent - - By ctacker (****) Date 10-17-2008 02:07
I make them tack the plate and if it moves during the test, they failed!
An open root dont need backgouged.
Iif its not open and you cant get to the other side, then a backing bar should be in place, and I feel if you can get to the other side, you damn sure don't want to flip the part just so you can weld overhead.
Parent - - By Shane Feder (****) Date 10-17-2008 03:00
Guys,
If you do a 1" plate in the 4G position you must weld the whole 1" in the 4G position.
You can't have 3/4" in the 4G and 1/4" in the 1G.
Yes, in production you may do 3/4" in the overhead and 1/4" in the flat position but we are talking about qualification testing.
Hypothetically, what would happen if someone backgouged 1/2" deep on the 1G side, how could you possibly then say that was a 1" thick 4G weld ?
Regards,
Shane
Parent - - By aevald (*****) Date 10-17-2008 04:48 Edited 10-17-2008 06:36
Hello Shane, I am chuckling a bit on this one and not because anyone is being funny but more so because if I knew that I was going to be required to do a backgouged root in the 4G position I would be planning on making the initial weld as a 1G and then backgouging the 4g portion. Why would anyone want to call out a 4G weld with a backgouge? I guess that's why this has struck me as an odd sort of call out to begin with. Typically if there were access to perform a backgouge in this position I would also expect that the majority of the welding would be taking place in the 1G to simplify and speed-up the process and or completion time. Sorry to side-track the question and issue here, it has just struck me as being an odd sort of scenario. Best regards, Allan
Parent - - By ctacker (****) Date 10-17-2008 13:49
Thats what I was getting at in a previous post Allen, I'm glad you explained it better.
Regards, Carl
Parent - By aevald (*****) Date 10-17-2008 14:02
Hello Carl, I just replied to a post from Shane Feder, he also had a valid point and gave an example of how you WOULD need to apply both welding positions, in his case however you could backgouge from either the underside or the topside, yet given the choice I would certainly opt for the topside backgouge and grind. I guess it's all in how you interpret this one. Best regards, Allan
Parent - By freewelder (*) Date 10-17-2008 07:49
I think I have addressed this concern above.
Parent - - By freewelder (*) Date 10-17-2008 07:48
Makes sense to me :-).
Parent - - By Shane Feder (****) Date 10-17-2008 09:29
Hi Allan,
I hadn't thought of that but you are right, you would think that the majority of the welding would be in the flat with a backgouge in the overhead and 1 or maybe 2 runs in the overhead.
Regardless, you would still need to do a 4G welder qual and that welder qual should be done completely in the 4G position (backgouging included). That automatically qualifies you for flat welding as well.
When I had the misfortune to work in the coal mining industry the repairs of cracks in huge eartmoving machinery ( 1" to 8" plates) was performed by gouging halfway through from underneath and then welding and then backgouging and welding the remainder from the top.
freewelder,
You mentioned that your original post stated WPS qualification. But you also mentioned welder qualification using the same coupon.
Nobody on this forum would disagree that position is a non essential variable for ASME IX WPS qualification but it definitely is for WQT.
I have seen numerous WPS's drawn up with 4G/1G or 1G/4G but that is a guideline for production welding, not a welder qualification test.
If you have to combine 2 positions in the one joint you would qualify to the hardest and that automatically gives you the qualification for the supposed easiest position.
I do not agree with the previous poster about never allowing a plate to be moved. Go into any welding school in the world and if they have bays/booths the plates will be tacked or clamped to their bench while they perform their 2G or 3G test. Once the first side is completed they will break the tacks or undo the clamp and turn it around to backgouge/backgrind and then backweld the second side.
What is the difference between what they are doing there and taking down a 4G plate and turning it over to backgouge/backgrind and then backweld.
If you take a 1G test do you go underneath and backgouge and then backweld in the 4G position- of course not. You turn the plate over - backgouge/backgrind and then backweld. It is a 1G test.
Absolutely no difference with a 4G test.
Regards,
Shane
Parent - - By aevald (*****) Date 10-17-2008 13:57
Hello Shane, similarly, I hadn't really considered the scenario that you described concerning the very thick section weldments. In that case it makes total sense that you would need to equalize the welding stresses(hence a double-bevel groove) and also minimizing the weld metal required, thus requiring a different application of the welding positions. At the same time I would definitely make my backgouge and do the grinding from the 1G position as opposed to the 4G. Great topic gentlemen. Best regards, Allan
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 10-18-2008 03:07
Well, there you have it freewelder, so many great inspectors, managers and trainers, so many very good opinions!  There are no code requirements addressing your topic, I think rather it's a matter of opinion.  Obviously, most of us had never even considered your topic so it's a welcome subject.
Parent - By freewelder (*) Date 10-22-2008 03:26 Edited 10-22-2008 03:29
Thank you Jon. I couldn't agree more. I suppose it all depends on individual opinion and interpretation. Still, I can't help wondering if it would be better for the code (D1.1) to address this issue perhaps in the Commentary section or elsewhere. It could help resolve any disagreements or disputes that may arise between the shop conducting the test and the Inspector.
Parent - - By jarcher (**) Date 10-19-2008 15:44
As an inspector, the best recourse is to ask the ER what he wants done during welder qualification in 4G, as ultimately it is his responsibility.  When I was welding I took 4G plate tests both ways, depending on who was giving them. It really shouldn't make much of a difference, IMHO, whether a back gouge and fill at the root is done in 1G or 4G. Any welder that can make acceptable welds in 7/8's of a one inch plate in 4G can just as easily do the whole thing in 4G. The all 4G approach eliminates any second guessing by other parties' inspectors whether the qualification plate is truly a valid qualification for that position, while the 1G option has the virtue of speeding up testing by a little bit on large projects and more closely approximating the actual production task.
Parent - - By freewelder (*) Date 10-22-2008 03:28
My sentiments exactly. But what does "ER" stands for?
Parent - - By aevald (*****) Date 10-22-2008 04:13
Hello freewelder, I believe in this context "ER" refers to "engineer of record". Best regards, aevald
Parent - By freewelder (*) Date 10-23-2008 08:34
Ah, yes I understand that one. Thank you :-).
Parent - - By waynekoe (**) Date 10-23-2008 19:51
I got to tell you guys', I'm missing something here and, I've read all these posts twice. Unless your using some new exotic hybrid carbon steel, or a radically new martian welding process, this whole debate sounds suspiciously like a prequalified single V with back gouge. If this is the case, then there is no reason to run a section 4 qualification. And if that is the case, who cares how the back gouge is positioned because it doesn't matter. Just specify on you procedure how you want it (back gouge) done and your off to the races. Please, someone tell me if wrong or missed something.
Parent - - By freewelder (*) Date 10-24-2008 07:54
Hi Wayne, the problem with prequalified single V is that it is just good for that particular joint geometry. We wanted a WPS that will cover all sorts of groove designs and fillet as well.
Parent - - By waynekoe (**) Date 10-24-2008 14:56 Edited 10-24-2008 15:18
Such as? Your first post didn't mention that your looking for a catch all procedure, in fact it says just the oppisite.The way I see it, with the prequalified procedure, all that would be required is for you to include the particular joint details to fit your situation. You could essentially submit a detail drawing of each joint in 3.4 with the WPS, then, pick and choose what joint fits your needs at that time. As you are aware, performing a section 4 qualification is going to limit you to that joint configuration with very little wiggle room, so, I don't understand your reasoning.-Wayne
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 10-24-2008 15:26
freewelder, although I haven't notice you enter a constructing code, it does sound like work that could fit under the AWS D1.1 umbrella... if so, why not qualify to ASME then, (or AWS B2.1) which joint design is NOT an essential variable?
Parent - - By waynekoe (**) Date 10-24-2008 16:17
Jon, he mentions that its D1.1 in his 3rd post.
Parent - By jon20013 (*****) Date 10-25-2008 00:44
Ohhhhhhh, forgot that, dohhhhhh!!!  Friday night effect, lol!
Parent - By freewelder (*) Date 10-25-2008 07:27
Hi Wayne, you are right. If we were allowed to use prequalified WPS, we could cover all positions. I had in fact suggested this to the customer but the guy on the other end with tons of experience, didn't allow it. As it turns out, our job was not limited to V-groove only and we needed to use more than one type of welding process. The customer was concerned that we will end up with a great number of WPS and we have to change all our drawings to indicate which WPS to use for each joint. It would be a nightmare to monitor. I think he has a point. What is your view on this?
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Certifications / A Question About Qualification Position Plate Groove 4G.

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill