weld traceability

Date 12-05-2009 08:00

Yes, this would be an automatic fail - according to code.
Common sense could argue that the particular fluid and material is not the most critical :)

Do additional x-rays (at contractors costs) and move on....IMO
Don't forget to give the previous inspector and the contractor a good spank.

3.2

By CWI555

Date 12-05-2009 13:16

B31.1
(A) This Code covers boiler external piping as defined
below for power boilers and high temperature, high
pressurewater boilers in which: steam or vapor is generated
at a pressure of more than 15 psig [100 kPa (gage)];
and high temperature water is generated at pressures
exceeding 160 psig [1 103 kPa (gage)] and/or temperatures
exceeding 250°F (120°C).

From 127.6
This may be accomplished by the application
of the symbol on the weld joint in a manner specified
by the employer. Alternatively, the employer shall maintain
records which identify the weld(s) made by the
welder or welding operator.

There are several problems with your post. The first one that grabs me is the use of B31.1 rather than B31.5.
"B31.5 B31.5 - 2001 - Refrigeration Piping and Heat Transfer Components"
It is possible that the engineers on the project chose B31.1 even though it doesn't make any sense.

The second part is, stamping of the welds is not required by b31.1 You must observe the use of the word may
Therefore, the welds Do Not require a stamp. What is required the next sentence.
"Alternatively, the employer shall maintain records which identify the weld(s) made by the welder or welding operator.

If they don't have FSK's/Weld maps/ or other clear and concise documentation of which weld was done by whom, when, and with what, then you have a problem.

There is something more going on here from your description, but I'd sure check the assumption that the previous inspector "dropped the ball".
I'd be smelling a rat in your situation. Proceed with caution.

Regards,
Gerald

By joe pirie (***)

Date 12-05-2009 15:23

yes the engineers called out for B31.1. which as you stated is for boiler piping.
I feel that B31.9 should have been the approiate code .
I don't believe any weld maps were done ,but they may have some kind of daily report
as to what welder did what on a particular day. Thank God it's only chilled
water. Your absolutely right I re read 127.6 and the weld does not need to be stamped but it does need to
be documentated as to who made the weld. I think the engineers, the contractor and the inspector
need more than a good spanking. How do these people stay in business?
Thanks for the advice

By CWI555

Date 12-05-2009 23:54

It's people like that, that keep me in business.

By swsweld (****)

Date 12-06-2009 21:26 Edited 12-06-2009 21:49

Joe,
You could put the contractor out of business by following the advice of 100% RT for all welds. Does the punishment fit the crime?
The specifications (probably) call for visual and pressure test only. In my experience, the specs will give the owner the right to RT whenever they see the need to RT and IF the weld(s) fail, the contractor pays for all NDE. Most of the CW/HW jobs that I have done reference 31.1 but occasionally call for 31.9.

The goal is to ensure that the welds meet a certain acceptance standard and are performed by qualified welders. Because the welds do not have the welders ID on it does not mean that it is a bad weld. It does mean that the contractor did a poor job requiring the welders to ID the welds.
The site QC (before you) should have met with the contractor (pre construction meeting) and gone over the requirements. ID'ing the welds should have been discussed then. The contractor shouldn't have to pay for the GC/QC lack of coordination. Having said that, the contractor should do that without being required to.

One job that I'm on now (as a contractor) has a plumber serving as the mechanical QC. This is the 4th mech. QC. for this project. He is clueless when it comes to CH/HW piping.

My advice is to ensure that all welders were/are qualified, that they provide a WPS, that they are following the WPS (check some fit-ups without prior notice), VT the existing welds, RFI the mechanical engineer and advise him or her of the situation.
Let the contractor know what you require from this point on and you will not accept less than that.
Additionally you could issue a Non Conformance Report.

If the existing welds miserably fail VT then you can require RT. The hydrostatic test will proof test the system.

Again, the goal is to give the owner a quality product that meets a pre established acceptance standard. Not to punish the contractor unnecessarily. The 100% RT suggestion only punishes the contractor and as you correctly stated, all parties dropped the ball. Also, somebody has to PAY for the RT's if the welds pass. Who is going to do that?

For those that haven't dealt with CH/HW projects. RT is rarely required in the job specs except for underground pipe and as a "fear factor" element.

Don't get me wrong. I have no respect for companies that get jobs and do poor work whether in CH/HW, misc. metals, structural etc. We have made over $70,000.00 since June by repairing sub par work by other contractors on those three mentioned trades. We have made new customers as well. I've got some pictures that show how bad of work that some contractors try to get away with.

By joe pirie (***)

Date 12-06-2009 22:17

your right on the money no rt is required because of the thin wall thickness sch 40 .288 low temp and pressure. This is a sheet metal company
trying to play piping contractor. no one on the job even has a copy of the code lol. The VT on root passes only pertains to those welds that are
accessable such as 90'S tees's and flanges. so if you can't see it you can't inspect it. thank you all for your imput

By swsweld (****)

Date 12-07-2009 02:29

Joe,

>This is a sheet metal company trying to play piping contractor. no one on the job even has a copy of the code lol.

This doesn't surprise me.....now. But coming out of the nuclear and fossil fuel power industry it was a real culture shock to see what goes on in commercial construction.
Good luck with the project and as always, cover your bases.

By Metarinka (****)

Date 12-07-2009 23:34

every industry has it's quirks, overall process flow and culture. Takes some time to adjust and get used to them, and it's really what seperates the big players from the small ones.

Coming from the commercial world, to Aerospace. I was surprised how long it takes to get anything done. Mention the word "change" to any procedure and everyone becomes real sheepish real fast. You can hardly change the font size on a PO without having 5 engineer approvals and a First article inspection.

mad scramble to get things setup properly before it goes to FAI or else you end up getting locked into subpar procedures that no one wants to change for fear of having to do the charade all over again.

By swsweld (****)

Date 12-09-2009 04:11

>You can hardly change the font size on a PO without having 5 engineer approvals and a First article inspection.

That's funny.

I was involved in a decommisioning of a nuclear plant in Conn. and the plant people were very gun shy. They had meetings to schedule meetings. Really, they did.

By Metarinka (****)

Date 12-09-2009 16:10

in my experience the nuclear people are just about the most sheepish folk. besides CYA no one wants to be the next 3 mile island, so they duck for cover whenever anyone yells "change". make sure you run your font changes past the safety engineer first.

By raptor34 (**)

Date 12-06-2009 18:45

Cutting every weld out would be impractile. My suggestion would be to do 100% x-ray on any weld that is not traceable at the contractors expense.

By scrappywelds (***)

Date 12-06-2009 21:16

we never stamp our welds we do have to stencil the welds for weld mapping.I have been told that the stamping can decrease the min. wall thickness, so now we just write on the stencil the company assigns us for weld mapping.

By swsweld (****)

Date 12-06-2009 21:42

scrappywelds,
Permanent metal markers are what we use to ID the welds. We give a list of qualified welders and their ID to site QC and to the EOR for approval prior to welding.

Low stress stamps should be used if allowed but in our work we only use PMM's.

http://www.chhanson.com/stampsRoundFace.html

By 803056

Date 12-07-2009 20:31 Edited 12-08-2009 14:15

I think the real issue is whether the welds meet the soundness requirements of the applicable code. Weld tractability is to ensure it is possible to establish who is responsible for an unacceptable weld, should it happen, so a requalification test can be administered if there is a question of the welder's ability to meet the code requirements.

In this case, you have not made the claim that the welds appear to be unacceptable for reasons other than the failure to identify who welded what. There should be no reason to request 100% radiography if there is no reason to question the weld soundness, i.e., quality. On the other hand there is no reason to assume all the welds are perfect. A reasonable solution might be to select several welds at random and subject them to radiographic examination. Should one fail, radiograph another one. If the welds are sound, there is no problem. If there is evidence that the welders did not do an adequate job of welding, you have reasonable grounds for questioning their welds and requesting additional radiography.

You are not responsible for the actions or inactions of other people that were on the job before you arrived. You are responsible for the work you inspect once you are on site. You may want to consider making your thoughts known to your employer or the owner to see what their position is on the subject. The inspector does not work in a vacuum. The inspector should be the eyes and ears for the owner and engineer, not judge and jury. At some point the owner or engineer has to make the determination whether or not it is necessary to perform radiography on the existing welds. That is not a decision the inspector makes on his own accord. The inspector might be involved in selecting the specific joints to be radiographed (that should not be left up to the contractor) once the decision to perform random radiography is made by the owner.

It may be more palatable to all parties if the owner pays for the initial radiography and the contractor pays for any additional radiography resulting from unacceptable welds.

I am sure the contractor will have no problem in ensuring the welder mark their welds once it is made clear to him that it is a requirement that will be enforced now that you are on the job. No identification, no acceptance until the joint is radiographed. Then it becomes the contractor's decision to stamp the welds or live with radiography.

Best regards - Al

By Atorroja Date 12-11-2009 16:32

The only real value of the identification of welds is to expire with the percentages of NDT's and PWHT ( Plus Hardness). After paint, the welds and welders marks will be loose. (Refer to others accetaptable kinds of marking than hard stamp). But, you are out of CODE and 100% Rt is a good solution. Again, for what we need , or use, the welding map 2 or 5 or 10 years, or one day, after the pressure test??
May be CODES needs to chekc this point.