Weld procedure on socket welds.

Date 09-11-2009 03:10

I have never had a socket weld test. If you do the butt weld, you're good for sockets also. Crap, I did a 10" sch 160 flip-flop test to end up doing 1/2"-2" socket welds in January. lol

By sqiggy

Date 09-11-2009 04:06

I have taken a socket weld test once. It was for Exxon in Baytown. They were having problems with welders not breaking down the walls with the first pass, 6010. Then, when the parts went on line, they were blowing out. That was a few years ago and haven't had to do one since. But back then, there was a procedure for it. Infact, there should be a procedure for every weld made.

By up-ten

Date 09-11-2009 04:12

Thats just it, there is no weld procedure or test for socket welds! Yet, they are typically pressure retaining lines. But what they will do is x-ray the socket weld to ensure that you have set the pipe leaving the 1/8 gap inside.

By js55

Date 09-11-2009 12:29

There doesn't need to be a special test or specific procedure for socket welds. The are essentially fillets which ASME makes quite clear are included in procedure and performance qualifications.
I suppose you could establish a specific procedure for them if you wish, some have, but IMO they are totally unnecessary.
If you have an application that is especially concerning then require a minimum two passes, establish a more robust VT criteria and RT for gaps. This is essentially a procedure as such and is not uncommon.

By vagabond (***)

Date 09-11-2009 14:05

I agree js55. This is what I've always done in the past. I definitely require a minimum of two passes, and I've seen a few contractors are going back to requiring gap rings which I suppose is indicative of the overall skill level out there right now. There used to be a welder shortage and now it seems like there is an everything shortage, a real fitter is tough to find anymore too. If you have the means it's good to RT 10% for gap, you'll catch more mistakes than you expect in most cases.

By slagline 3 (**)

Date 09-11-2009 14:10

I'm with you squiggy...I worked at that same plant(Exxon) in Baytown, Texas with Parsons out of Houston. Sure enough they were x-raying socketwelds to make sure that the first pass broke the inside wall down. We finally went to putting the first pass with GTAW-Autogenous in between tacks and coming back and grinding out tacks...complete penetration. then finish with 7018 ...no more bad film. And yes they were looking at the internal gap. At that time we were using an internal spacer that we dropped in prior to fitup then the welders would take it from there.

By up-ten

Date 09-11-2009 14:16

Thank you js55. That explains it, but I wish our QC guys could offer that explanation. Thanks again,Bob.

By 803056

Date 09-11-2009 18:08

I hate to disagree with everyone on this issue, but here goes!

ASME, AWS, and Navy welding standards have fillet weld tests that are appropriate for socket joints.

ASME QW-461.6 depicts fillet weld tests on either a nipple to plate or nipple to coupling. For those individuals that insist the codes allow grooved butt joints to cover fillet welds, I have no disagreement, but it is an eye opener to administer a fillet break test to welders that have recently passed a grooved butt joint test. The majority of them will fail the fillet weld test if they are directed to weld the joint with a single pass.

Some of you say the inspector calls for two weld passes on the socket joint, yet many welders will attempt to weld the socket with a single pass. That is when the problems rear their ugliness. Incomplete fusion at the root is common place.

I just finished testing welders (15 welders total) for two different companies using the T-fillet break test on 1/2 inch plate. The test requires a single pass fillet with a 5/16 inch leg and a stop and start half way along the joint. Eleven of the welders had passed the grooved butt joint previously. Not one of the eleven welders (with certs for groove welds) passed on their first attempt, not their second, a few passed on their third attempt. Granted, I'm not easy on the boys, once they fail the initial test they have to pass two consecutive practice break tests before I will administer a second test. The second test consists of two more test plates, both of which have to pass the break test. None of the 15 welders passed the fillet test without some hands-on show and tell. I should have asked for the scrap left over after the testing as payment. I would have been able to take an extra week of vacation!

I have said this for years and I will continue saying, "There is a disconnect between ASME, AWS, and other welding standards when it comes to fillet welds." The ability to pass a grooved butt joint test has little bearing on the welder's ability to pass a "simple" fillet break test. While most codes and standards permit the welder that has passed the grooved butt joint to weld fillets without additional testing, the plain truth is, few of them will pass the fillet break test.

The Navy does require the welders to pass a separate test for socket joints if the wall thickness is less than 3/16 inch, in which case the pipe size and socket shall be the smallest diameter to be used in production. Way to go Navy!

I always require the welders to pass a fillet break test on the job site when I have input while the project specifications are being drafted. Rarely, if ever, do the welders pass on their first attempt. It is an eye opener! The number one reason for failure is incomplete fusion to the root!

As for the need for a WPS, absolutely! There should always be a WPS that includes working instructions on the proper way of fitting and welding the socket and integrally reinforced branch fitting, as well as the butt joint. Any company that doesn't have that information available for the welder isn't meeting the code and deserves all the headaches associated with not having a WPS. Welders are skilled at welding, but they aren't necessarily mind readers nor are they code experts. The contractor is responsible for providing work instruction, direction, and supervision. The welder is responsible for following the work instructions and applying his skill to the task. They are not responsible for reading or applying the code unless they are in a management roll. The welder does not select the materials to be welded. He does not select the matching filler metal. He does not decide which type of fitting to use. He does not decide whether a 1/16 pull back is appropriate. He does not decide if a single pass or multiple pass technique is to be used. Those are functions the employer's staff is responsible for. They are supposed to provide information and direction to the worker. Management gives direction, workers follow direction.

Best regards - Al

By js55

Date 09-11-2009 19:54

Al,
Not trying to be sarcastic, and I am certainly not disputing your results, but,
1) Testing on carbon steel wire does not garantee you can weld with SS
2) Testing SAW with an acid flux will not garantee you can weld with a basic flux
3) Testing with CO2 will not garantee you can weld with 100% argon on GMAW
4) Testing on carbon steel pipe does not garantee you can weld on Grade 91
5) Testing on a V groove does not garantee you can weld a J bevel
6) Testing on 6G does not garantee the ability to weld 2G
7) Testing on standard electrode extension does not garantee the ability to weld with greater electrode extension
8) Testing in a facilty does not garantee you can weld standing on your head in a windstorm while wlding with a mirror (Ok just little sarcastic to add humor)

The code is full of these things. I am not convinced its a disconnect as much as it is a reference to sound engineering judgment. Otherwise the codes will be the size of the Library of Congress. My experience is the folks on code committee are very well aware of these issues. Tests are tests. Service failures are service failures. If you have evidence of failures go to committee and state your case. I am convinced that if your case is robust enough you will get a serious hearing.
I believe the case would need to be based upon evidence that groove performance quals are responsible for fillet weld service failures.
I think perhaps the primary dispute you and I may have is in your characterization that it has little bearing. I think mine is more accurate. It may not garantee, as with the issues above, but it does have bearing. I know this issue is important to you but I have heard discussions of everyone of the above as well (except for 8 maybe-no, there was a thread on this too I think).

And not to just beat up or defend the Section IX guys, one that pops into my head from another code since I dealt with it recently is the fact that RT/UT is not required on pipe in ASME Section I under certain conditions (Table PW-11) for <16" or 1 5/8" thick. Some might argue this is pretty lenient. I think it sounds that way, but I sure ain't no boiler guy. Not even close.
In any case, this is a good discussion. And I am bored.

PS: Do you REALLY hate to disagree? :)

By 803056

Date 09-11-2009 22:07

I would agree with you that there are few guarantees in life. Passing any welder qualification test is not a guarantee the welder isn’t going to make a bad weld on occasion.

We can add to your list;
Just because you graduate with a degree in engineering doesn't mean you’re a good designer.
Just because you passed a welding test doesn't mean you will do X-ray quality work on the job site.
Just because you can write your name in the snow doesn't mean you won't hit the toilet seat once in a while, Oops!

When I was making a living under the welding hood, there were a lot of things that I believed that I've found were not were not true in real world situations. I though anyone with an ounce of ability could weld carbon steel, stainless steel, or aluminum equally easily. Thank the Good Lord that isn't the case or I would have to sit in my office and actually do engineering work. Wait a minute, I do that already. OK, I'd have to bait hooks on the fishing boats. No that would make me a Master Baiter and I do that already. Give me a minute, I'll think of something.

The problem I'm talking about is so pervasive that it is scary considering the majority of welds deposited are fillet welds. Most people would assume the fillet weld is easier to deposit than a groove weld. If it were the case only one out of three welders that passed the groove test would fail the fillet test. If that was my experience I would tend to agree with you, but that isn't what I see in my practice. My experience is that 9 out of 10 welders that have passed the grooved plate test will fail the fillet break test. I think you can agree that those failure rates indicate there is a problem.

I asked one of my professors in college why most engineers called for either a ¼ or 5/16 inch fillet weld. His response was that is because that is the largest weld that can be deposited in a single pass. That statement was probably true when we were using large diameter SMAW electrode. That isn’t the case when small diameter GMAW or FCAW electrodes are used.

GMAW was not popular when I started welding in the shop. The vast majority of welds were deposited using large SMAW electrodes. I used 3/16 and ¼ inch electrodes day in and day out. It was relatively easy to make a 5/16 inch fillet weld with a single pass. My experience was in line with my professor’s comment.

There is a little more to the problem than meets the eye. Many of our welding standards were developed over the course of time. Most of the welder performance qualification tests were written with SMAW in mind. It has been a rather recent development that the use of GMAW and FCAW have surpassed the use of SMAW in most shops and FCAW is quickly, if it hasn’t already, surpassed the use of SMAW in the field.

Time has passed and things change. Now both FCAW and GMAW are widely used and the one thing in common is many shops use small diameter electrode. I’m talking about 0.045 to 1/16 inch diameter GMAW/FCAW electrode. I believe that is the source of the problem. One way to deposit the most common sized fillets (for structural applications) is to “weave”. The technique I observe most often is a circular motion where the welder “washes” over the root of the joint. Incomplete fusion is typical with that technique. The other technique I see is where the welder slows the travel speed to develop the larger size, i.e., 5/16 inch, but that usually results in undercut along the upper toe and overlap along the lower toe.

It isn’t the case where welders can’t deposit single pass 5/16 inch fillet welds. It is a case where many of them employ the wrong technique. The inspector or the employer doesn’t recognize there is a problem until they administer the fillet weld break test.

In the cases you listed, would you say there is a problem if 9 out of 10 welders passing the carbon steel welder qualification failed the same test using stainless steel?

Would it signal a problem if 9 out of 10 welders that passed the SAW test with an acid flux failed the same test with a basic flux?

Would you say there was a problem if 9 out of 10 welders that passed a test with CO2 failed the same test with argon? That’s not a good comparison, what material and what process would use either 100% CO2 or 100% argon on the same base metal? Right there is the fallacy in your argument.

No, I believe you would agree there is a problem if 9 out of 10 welders consistently fail using any particular procedure or technique or methodology.

The disconnect I'm talking about doesn't apply exclusively to ASME Section IX. It holds true with other welding standards as well. AWS has the same flaw in their welding codes and standards with respect to groove weld qualifications automatically qualifying welders for fillet welds.

For giggles sometime, try testing some of your welders for fillet welds. Its fast, it’s simple, it consists of a single pass 5/16 inch fillet weld in a T-joint in the horizontal position. See how many don't pass because they have either incomplete fusion to the root or overlap at the toe. The results will surprise you.

I find it interesting that the welders being tested pick up on the significance of failing the test. I have them break their own test pieces. They recognize right away there is a significant difference in the force required to break a "good" weld than a "bad" weld of equivalent size.

Best regards - Al

By js55

Date 09-14-2009 13:36

Al,
"In the cases you listed, would you say there is a problem if 9 out of 10 welders passing the carbon steel welder qualification failed the same test using stainless steel?
Would it signal a problem if 9 out of 10 welders that passed the SAW test with an acid flux failed the same test with a basic flux?
Would you say there was a problem if 9 out of 10 welders that passed a test with CO2 failed the same test with argon? That’s not a good comparison, what material and what process would use either 100% CO2 or 100% argon on the same base metal? Right there is the fallacy in your argument."

It might. It might not. As you well know the codes take a minimum standard approach. Does this minimum standard provide viable welds. This argument is no uinlike the arguments for increased inspection in AWS as opposed to VT only except for transverse tensiel fatigue regimes. Certainly there will be "indications" making their way into a weldment that are going unnoticed. But is the minimum standard working?

By js55

Date 09-16-2009 12:57

Al,
"Would you say there was a problem if 9 out of 10 welders that passed a test with CO2 failed the same test with argon? That’s not a good comparison, what material and what process would use either 100% CO2 or 100% argon on the same base metal? Right there is the fallacy in your argument."

OK. 100% Co2 to 98Ar-2 O2. Both common for carbon steel. :)

By 3.2 Inspector (***)

Date 09-14-2009 18:37

Al,

Even though I do not agree with you, based on my own experience, I must say that this is one of the best (if not THE best) post I have seen here all year :)
As you clearly state: This is YOUR experience, I am not going to argue, but rather take note that is is funny how we, even though we are in the same field of work, has very different experiences when it comes to certain things.

On a side note,I want to add that the european standards requires fillet test if the majority of work is fillet welds.

3.2

By 803056

Date 09-15-2009 04:30 Edited 09-15-2009 04:34

I like their approach 3.2. And thanks for the compliment.

As I have said, my opinions have changed over the years based on what I've seen as an inspector versus what I experienced as a welder. Basic beliefs I held as truths as a welder have burst like a multitude of bubbles based on my experience as an inspector.

I don't subscribe to the notion that something has to fail and endanger life and limb before I address what I perceive as a problem. As I said, I'm fortunate that I am usually involved while the project specifications are being drafted. I don't wait until some code body, be it AWS or ASME decide to take action. In this case I insist on each welder passing a fillet break test on the job site using the contractor’s equipment. There are several reasons for doing so, but this isn’t the time to get into those details. It’s been a long hard day.

I don't see myself as Don Quixote chasing windmills. I do what I can for my clients and I inform others of my experience. If after being warned of a potential problem they decide to ignore the warnings and if their conscious still allows them to sleep at night, so be it. Lawyers have to make a living too.

As a contractor, I would do what I could to ensure my workers knew their job and I would take steps to ensure they were doing a competent job. However, if the contractor rests his laurels on simply meeting the minimum code requirements, I am more than delighted (as is my bank account) to show them the error of their ways. I challenge anyone to show me it is cost effective to do any job twice because it was too expensive to do it right the first time.

In my humble opinion the codes set the minimum standards way too low in some instances. This is one such case.

I don’t expect anyone to accept what I say on face value. That is the reason why I challenge folks to try taking the test or administer the test to several welders within their organization. The fillet break test is a great teaching tool if the welders are experiencing unacceptable reject rates.

I was told (while I was burning rod for a living), “You can always tell a welder, but you can’t tell him much.” The comment was directed at yours truly. However, if the welder can be shown there is a problem and if he is shown how to correct the problem, he can be very attentive student.

Best regards - Al

By F-17

Date 09-15-2009 05:48

To quote your qoute....................from the picture you've supplied it looks like you should have told him to turn it up..............a range.That's a pretty nasty looking seagull poop that even my uncle the farmer with nothing but Ag shop from 1969 could out do with 6011 downhill.

By 803056

Date 09-15-2009 13:40 Edited 09-15-2009 14:02

Needless to say, this photograph was the worst of the worst, but still the welder claimed to have passed a 3/8 inch grooved butt joint plate test in the vertical position previously. Hence my concern that allowing the grooved plate test to qualify the welder for fillets is an issue.

Many contractors and the structural welding code allow a 3/8 inch single pass fillet in the horizontal position, therefore it isn't unreasonable to expect the welder to pass the fillet break test using a single pass 5/16 inch fillet weld. In addition to that, their WPS typically allow for or specify single pass fillets typical of that called for when I qualify the welder for fillet welds. It is unreasonable to administer a welding test solely to ensure everyone passes, but then employ a technique in production that has proven to be difficult or at high risk of producing unacceptable welds. It is reasonable and prudent to require the welder to replicate the size and type of welds done in production. As for the welding parameters, they had a qualified WPS and the ranges were within reason.

Hell, if I can pass the test, which I did several times during the day while I demonstrated the proper technique, anyone with the skills required can pass. Of the 15 welders tested, only one, the one welder that made the weld in the photograph, didn't finally pass the test. It was interesting to note that I previously qualified several of the welders that are working for the company. When I walked in they just laughed and said this should be interesting and educational because they had gone through the same exercise a couple of years earlier.

I don't experience that same failure rates when 3/16 inch or smaller welds are required for production. The problem arises with 1/4 inch or larger single pass welds made with FCAW and GMAW. Socket welds, the majority of which are 3/16 inch or less, are not as concerning. That isn't to say I haven't seen problems with smaller fillet welds as well. I have a case now where incomplete fusion to the root was discovered in a 1/8 inch fillet weld that was sectioned for a court case we are preparing. However, the IP was limited to 1 out of 4 welds sectioned, not 9 of 10 welds sectioned.

Is this an issue related to skill or procedure? Clearly, it is a skills issue, but isn't that the reason we test welders? Isn't it an opportune time to improve the welder's skills if they fail the initial welder qualification test? I believe it is. Once the welder, who has been welding for several years fails the initial test, he is more receptive to learning how to make a better weld using the better technique.

Best regards - Al

By mightymoe (**)

Date 09-15-2009 21:05

Al,
What electrode was used for the fillet weld test?

By 803056

Date 09-16-2009 02:12

E71T-1, 0.045 inch diameter, SG-CA-25.

Al

By Paladin (***)

Date 09-16-2009 03:05

Al,
What needs to happen for a weld to pass the fillet weld break test? Could you explain your technique for these welds? How about posting a picture of a good fillet weld break. Thanks.

By 803056

Date 09-16-2009 03:30 Edited 09-16-2009 03:57

To pass the weld must have complete fusion to the root, no inclusion or porosity in excess of 3/32 inch, the accumulative sum of defects must not exceed 3/8 inch in six inches of continuous weld, it must include a start and stop, the weld size must be 5/16 inch (both legs), and whatever additional criteria is provided by the applicable standard.

If it is done properly, the weld will "bite" into the root of the joint so the failure looks scalloped, pulling metal out of the 1/2 inch thick plate. There will be no slag line along the root and you won't be able to see a lower edge of the vertical (butting member) plate.

I don't believe I have a single photo of an acceptable weld. I never had a need to show a "good" weld. The embedded photo shows incomplete fusion to the root, the typical cause for rejecting the test sample. Close, but no cigar! Adjacent to the edge of the plate is a silvery U-shaped trough. It was a line of slag that I chipped out to reveal the edge of the plate. You can see one speck of slag still in place near the right edge of the red ellipse.

Best regards - Al

IncompFusionFilletBreakTest14-Sept-09.jpg (87k)

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 09-16-2009 10:32

Hello Al,
Agree totally with everything you have said.
I have requested hundreds of these tests over the years with a huge amount of failures from guys who had already passed a radiographic groove test.
As you are well aware but for the benefit of anyone required to perform this test the vetical plate must have the abutting edge perfectly flat (so no slag/porosity can be trapped) and the edge to be welded should be as square as possible.
A few years back I worked on a refinery where the electrical company was welding small lightweight brackets for aluminium cable trays on to beams and columns. No qualified welders, just electricians who thought they could weld a bit.
When I stood up at a meeting and said the welders/electricians should have some sort of qualification everyone laughed at me as if I was an idiot. "Cable tray brackets ???" Don't be stupid !!!
I took two of the managers out on site and showed them chainblocks hanging off these brackets with large sections of pipe being supported by the chainblocks. The riggers didn't know that these brackets had not been welded by a competent welder, they had basically been "glued" on by an electrician .
Spent 2 weeks training and testing them all and was more than happy to allow them to continue welding after that.
It is definitely not as easy as it looks or sounds.
Regards,
Shane

By js55

Date 09-16-2009 12:49

Al,
"I don't subscribe to the notion that something has to fail and endanger life and limb before I address what I perceive as a problem."

First of not all failures endanger life and limb. But perhaps if you believe this is my point I didn't state my case very well. And I assume you don't believe this is the philosophy of the Code Committees.
But the truth of it is, the codes, all of them, are chockabok full of decisions based upon economy not a philosophy of absolute assurity, though safety is certainly foremost in their thinking. Economy is justified through a systemic approach. Just as it is with the VT only philosophy of AWS D1.1. When ASME dropped the Design Factor from 5 to 4 in 1945 did they make boilers and pressure vessels less safe? And again when they dropped it to 3.5? I'm sure there were at the time some sincere and concerned arguments against it.
But the challange stands. If you have evidence of welders who have passed groove tests (not guys who claimed they passed a groove test-and I certainly have serious doubts about this fellow of which you posted the picture) being responsible for socket weld failures in service this evidence should be presented to code committee. I myself know of none and could therefore not state the case convincingly. However, it would certainly be of interest to present such a change to ASME Section IX and participate in the debate. St Louis, first week in November.
Let me finish by saying I am not necessarily opposed to what you are suggesting, but to claim irresponsibility on the part of code committees in light of the codes as a whole should perhaps be tempered.
I have always been a firm believer that code committee decisions should not be treated as if from on high, especially in a consensus venue, but I am sure with convincing evidence the change would get a serious hearing.

By 803056

Date 09-17-2009 04:46 Edited 09-17-2009 06:12

You said you were bored! It seems that I touched upon a raw nerve. I hope that isn't the case.

This thread started with the question, “is there was a separate test available for fillet welded socket joints?” My simple response was, “Yes there is.” The discussion expanded from there. I apologize if I hijacked the thread by meandering in to the realm of structural welding where large (1/4 to 5/16 inch) single pass fillet welds are common.

Try as I might, I just can't resist stirring up the mud in the puddle with a stick once in a while. This is one of those situations where I perceive a problem that isn't adequately addressed by the codes.

There are some fundamental concepts most welding standards adhere to. They subscribe to minimum workmanship requirements that have to be met to provide a certain level of assurance the welds will perform as expected. There are occasions where the codes permit alternative means of accomplishing a degree of assurance the system will function adequately. Some of the alternatives include additional NDT, in-service inspections, performance based designs, finite element analysis, etc. Even the lowly fillet weld has some basic workmanship criteria it has to meet. One fundamental workmanship requirement for welder performance testing for a fillet weld (every welding standard I’ve worked with) is that it has to have fusion to the root. Calculations depend on that fundamental principle; the theoretical throat is equal to the leg times 0.707. That is only true when we have fusion to the root. If that relationship is wrong, the throat is less than what the designer anticipated. We now have a scenario that can be a serious problem.

I believe my argument has been that large single pass fillet welds are the primary culprit. If the weld size is appropriate for the welding process and if the welder is properly trained and the necessary skills are validated by performance testing, we can all sleep better at night.

My position has been unchanged for many years. That position is that the premise that a groove weld should automatically qualify a welder for fillet welds is flawed in light of the changing technology prevalent in today’s fabrication industry. I believe many of the forum members that test welders on a regular basis and have administered a fair number of fillet break tests as well as grooved butt joints will agree with my observations.

I also recognize that those organizations involved in building pressurized systems to an ASME code do not typically administer fillet break tests to their welders. The fillet break test is more prevalent in the structural steel fabrication and erection sectors.

Trust me, I know the members of the committees, be they AWS, ASME, or any other organization, put their time, money, sweat, and tears into the valuable work they perform. It is no easy task to get a motion passed to change a code requirement. I've been involved with committee work for several years now and I know a lot of thought goes into developing the various codes and standards we use every day. I also recognize that the membership of the committees consists of people from different interest groups and there is an attempt to maintain some sense of balance so each group has representation.

I don't believe I have ever said the code committees were irresponsible. I did place the burden of responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the contractor. I did say it is something the codes should reconsider.

I trust the gentlemen that sit on any committee, ASME, AWS, or others, would not find a public debate over a code requirement offensive.

In the case of the reduction in safety factors you cite I recognize there were advances in materials as well as NDT that occurred before the reductions in the safety factors were adopted. The reduction of safety factor provides systems that are less expensive to fabricate (in the interest of the fabricator), requires more quality control and perhaps more NDT (in the interest of the boys that do such things), and in the interest of the owners (who has to look into his pocketbook to see if there is sufficient funds to make the purchase). Everyone is happy when they have to spend fewer dollars whether it is for a pair of socks, shoes, jackets, cars, pressure vessels, or a bridge.

Did I succeed in muddying the water a little? ;)

Rather than dismissing my concern and "evidence" I provided, run a couple of experiments to satisfy yourself by administering a few fillet break tests to a couple of welders and see what happens. I've had a few failed socket fitting tests where the welders tried to weld it out with a single weave bead, but the primary concern is with the large single pass fillet welds. I've seen failures with SMAW, but the problem is more severe with GMAW and FCAW using small diameter electrodes. You may experience something different than I have. I would be interested in your results. I'm not asking you or anyone to take my word for fact. I've been known to stretch the truth a wee bit. My wife still believes 3 inches is six (unless she's just playing along with my little game). ;)

Best regards – Al

By js55

Date 09-17-2009 12:14

Al,
I have some fellas coming in from HSB this morning so I don't have a lot of time. But let me quickly say, no raw nerve at all (unless thats what you wanted-in which case you really pizzed me off :) ). I always enjoy our debates. I suppose it may be my tone or tact. But to me its the debates that make this forum most interesting. Thus, a cure for boredom. Conversations seem to end so quickly when everyone agrees. Not to mention that the facts you use in debate are always taken seriously by me and are invaluable, and I always learn more from disagreement than when everyone happens to agree with my point of view (something to do with the great variety of experience I believe).
Trust me, when I have more time I will read your post thoroughly and with every confidence I will learn something. And perhaps if we're lucky, find something to disagree with. :)

PS: I did catch the measurement confusion comment at the end. :)

By 803056

Date 09-17-2009 13:59

Aw yes, the old measurement trick! I am careful that I don’t use that “uncalibrated” measuring stick on the jobsite!

Like you, I always enjoy a lively exchange of ideas or experience, but your comment that my remarks regarding the code committee should be tempered caught me off guard. That's why I thought I may have touched upon a raw nerve.

No one should be surprised when I disagree with a position taken by a code or welding standard. I'm certain I'm not the only person that would like to see specific changes to the code or disagree with the positions taken by other members of this Forum on various aspects of welding. There is going to be a lively debate whenever you get two people in the same room discussing codes or any of the multitudes of issues affecting welding operations.

A good debate with you on the opposite side of the fence is always interesting and educational, but I am surprised every time you get defensive regarding code issues. I enjoy sitting in on the meetings that have anything to do with welding. The exchange of ideas and information are typically quite heated. I’m sure it's because each member of the committee considers his position to be the correct stance on the issue being discussed. Majority rules on the AWS and ASME committees and very few ballots are unanimous.

I would enjoy the opportunity to sit in on an ASME Section IX committee meeting, but it would have to be planned well in advance so I could clear my calendar. My ASME courses are planned a year in advance as are my AWS courses. In the next few weeks I will be teaching in Las Vegas, Newark, Norfolk, Orlando, and visiting Chicago (FabTech), with a few days in between to pay cloths and wash bills. I mean wash cloths and pay bills. You can see how confusing it can get. I remember a couple of years ago I decided it was time to curtail some of my travel when I checked into the wrong hotel in the right city and couldn't remember the color or make of the rental car! I'm sure you've been in the same position.

Anyway, I agree, the conversations are more interesting when there are differences in opinion being expressed. As I said, in a different thread you said you were bored! I’m delighted I was able to interrupt the boredom! ;)

By the way, if you bump into Nino O. (of HSB fame and member of Section IX), tell him I said hello. He is a good friend and member of the Executive Board of our local section of AWS.

Best regards – Al

By js55

Date 09-18-2009 13:07

Al,
Defensive of Code issues is not necessarily my intent. But I do believe strongly in the code philosophy of minimalism (read anti cook book) when it comes to the code, so I suppose there is an element of knee jerk.
I think an evolving code is certainly a necesity but that changes should be very carefully considered and conservative.
The basic premises of this thread are the same basic premises of virtually every proposed code revision(though motivations can vary greatly). There is a perceived deficiency in code requirements and the change proposes to remedy that deficiency.
With this I believe that it is incumbant upon the person arguing the deficiency to state their case as clear and cogently as possible.
In this case we have a clear and cogent argument that we have a problem with fillet weld tests, but not a clear and cogent argument that we have a problem with fillet/socket welds. If not, why not? The tests certainly indicate there should be. But where is it?
Add to this, the fact that the biggest problem I see is that once a rev is imposed in stone no matter how hard they try, no matter how simple the assumed change, there is always created a mountain of ambiguity and interpretation around it, and therefore greater need for more revision. This is why revs need to be carefully considered, slow to evolve, and as simple and sparing as possible.

PS:
"I remember a couple of years ago I decided it was time to curtail some of my travel when I checked into the wrong hotel in the right city and couldn't remember the color or make of the rental car! I'm sure you've been in the same position."

Not yet, but I have unconsciously wandered onto a few planes and then panicked as to whether I was on the right one or not (never mind the logic of boarding passes-machines scroo up too), only to relax when the pilot announced the destination.
However, when you check into the right hotel chain in the WRONG city then its time to curtail. :)

By 803056

Date 09-18-2009 13:33

I spent several hours in Chicago O'Hare one night. I arrived at 11:00 PM; the connecting flight was 6:00 AM. As I strolled around to see what I could, I notice a mechanical "Robbie the Robot" attempting to pass through a metal detector. Of course all the buzzers sounded and the security people had no clue as to how to handle the robot. I followed the robot through the terminal to see what would happen next. Every time the robot would encounter somebody it would make a few comments and move on.

The robot could say anything to anybody and they would laugh. If you or I were to say with it did, we would have two black eyes. I remember it saying to two flight attendants, "Nice rack baby." They both laughed and kept walking. About that time I spotted the fellow that was operating the machine. He was standing some thirty feet away from the robot and had a mic attached to his lapel and a hand controlled in his coat pocket.

He and I talked for a bit. It seemed that he went from convention to convention with this 6 feet high robot and made a decent living with it.

The capstone was at about 5:00 AM he positioned the robot next to a gate where the passengers were disembarking from an overseas flight and started to announce in a very load voice, "Welcome to Houston, Welcome to Houston!"

The look of horror on the passenger's faces was worth the all night wait!

I still laugh every time I recount the experience!

Best regards - Al

By js55

Date 09-18-2009 15:29

Al,
I'm laughin now. That's hilarious!!!!
Thats just what you want to hear after a long flight. You're a 1000 miles from your destination. Or even worse, thinkin you're in Houston.

Robby would never fit in a coach seat. And I bet he could certainly silence a screamin baby.

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 09-16-2009 10:36

Hey 3.2,
Finally got my results, passed my CSWIP 3.1.
Quite stoked really because I didn't take the course, just relied on 13 years of experience and lot's of questions on this forum.
So now I have CBIP, CSWIP - just need AWS and I will have the trifecta.
Cheers,
Shane

By 3.2 Inspector (***)

Date 09-16-2009 11:37

Congrats!!

3.2

By swsweld (****)

Date 09-16-2009 11:52

Congratulations Shane! Well done, especially without taking the course.

By Paladin (***)

Date 09-16-2009 12:39

Al,
Thanks. Very clear as usual. When I get caught up a bit I'll see what I can do with a fillet weld ( in the privacy of my shop).

By 803056

Date 09-17-2009 03:14

Good show Shane! Congratulations!

Best regards - Al

By 803056

Date 09-18-2009 13:48 Edited 09-18-2009 14:00

I have a project that will very likely end up in court for final resolution.

I am preparing some macro etch samples taken from some hangers. I haven't finished yet, but the first sample had four fillet welds. The welds were specified as 3/16 inch fillets. None of them measured a full 3/16 inch and 3 of the 4 had incomplete fusion to the root.

Each of the welders was qualified by a lab, but I rejected the paperwork because it wasn't even close to being correct. If the lab can't fill in a performance test report correctly, what are the chances the test was done properly? The test report indicated the welders were tested using spray mode transfer GMAW, but there is no way they were going to spray with the shielding gas they used, globular, possibly, but no spray. The electrode was listed as an E705-2, F4. Simple typo, maybe, or the test tech was an idiot. Since I know the individual, I opt for the later.

As is often the case, I don't get involved until there is a failure or the SHTF for another reason. A weld failed in this case and a $750K piece of medical equipment crashed to the floor. Fortunately it was still being installed when the failure happened.

In the grand scheme of things, I like the minimalism of the codes. They ensure a steady stream of work and cash flow into my bank account. ;)

Best regards - Al

By js55

Date 09-18-2009 15:45

Al,
LOL!!!!!

Well, I'd advocate 10" thick titanium for everything and a code the size of the library of congress but I would want to see you unemployed. :)

By 803056

Date 09-18-2009 16:23

There you go, getting sarcastic.

I already had to knock down a wall in my library to accommodate the existing code and I had to take out a 2nd mortgage to pay for the most recent editions! For a low monthly payment of $333.00/month for sixty months, you too can own your own set of ASME code section. Just kidding, it is actually more expensive than that to keep up with the new revisions.

You have to keep a sense of humor when trying to meet code requirements. In the end, I think you and I agree the contractor/employer is responsible for their work and it’s the owners responsibility to take whatever steps are necessary, via the project specifications and other contract documents, to ensure they are purchasing a piece of equipment or structure that will serve the purpose intended and pose no (little) threat to the safety and well being of the workers or general public. If, and that's the fly in the ointment, everyone did what they were suppose to do, I would be out of business. There would be no need, or at the very least a greatly reduced need, for inspectors or lawyers.

Great discussion! We beat this dead horse enough, so let move on to another one!

Best regards - Al