Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / Is Welder recertification required?
- - By jwright650 (*****) Date 10-10-2002 13:13
I have an Inspector holding our erector up until our erector recertifies his men(they were tested 3G and 4G on 1" steel plate with a B-U4a joint).

We have a prequalified B-U4b joint with 3/16" root(0-1/8", plus 1/16 fit up tolerance) and the erector is using ceramic backing to put the root pass in to prevent melting through, then is removing the backing and back gouging to sound metal and filling back up the second side full again.

The Inspector says the erector must recertify because of the use of the ceramic backing material rather than steel backing. I say He's wrong because it is a joint that is welded per the prequalified joint design, the backing is only used to prevent melting through(per Section 5.9, & 5.10 D1.1).
Parent - - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 10-10-2002 14:32
Table 4.10 of AWS D1.1 (1998 edition) indicates the OMISSION of backing requires requalification. If backgouging is performed, its a completely mute point.

It is my interpretation that if you were to NOT backgouge, the joint would be considered a PJP weld however that would not affect the qualification status of the welder.

Para 3.12.1 states "...., groove welds without STEEL backing, welded from one side, and groove welds welded from both sides, but without backgouging, are considered partial joint penetration groove welds."

I am NOT currently a CWI so these statements may need to be verified by someone who is certified.

Gerald Austin
http://www.weldinginspectionsvcs.com

Parent - By jwright650 (*****) Date 10-10-2002 15:29
Thanks for your reply,
The joint needs to be full pen, and if backing is used it must be removed(FEMA 353 paragraph 4.1.2), so therefore I chose the B-U4b joint. The erector was concerned about burning through and having a mess made of the joint, so he was going to back the root pass with the ceramic backing, and fill up the first side of the joint, then remove the backing and back gouge the second (underneath side) of the joint then of course fill in the groove that was back gouged.

I could see this Inspector's point IF we were leaving the backing in place and only welding one side of this joint.
Parent - By Wildturkey (**) Date 10-10-2002 15:21
I guess one question here is the ceramic backing equal to the steel backing. In annex B backing is defined as something to support and retain molten weld metal, it may be fused or unfused. Table 4.11 requires requalification if backing is omitted. From the definition of backing you are not omitting it.
Parent - By R. Johnson (**) Date 10-11-2002 12:25
See section 4.23.
Parent - - By rhoople (*) Date 10-16-2002 19:52
No, he does not have to requalify, as long as you backgouge, and reweld from the other side.
Parent - - By DGXL (***) Date 10-16-2002 22:24
jw650:

I've been monitoring the responses to your post, but I also noticed in this post you referenced FEMA 353, while in the other post with the same question, you did not mention these specifications.

If FEMA 353 is part of the criteria for your project, then requalification IS required under FEMA 353, Part I, 3.3.7. I have recently qualified welders under this same provision for SMRF's. The CA State Architects office recognizes portions of these documents.

Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 10-17-2002 11:45
DGXL,
Under this section, the erector needs to mock up the joint as in Appendix "B" because at the bottom flange he will be working through a rat hole, is this correct? I did not recommend a Max. Interpass temp as in FEMA Part I section 3.3.6 either. This Seismic Demand Catagory C was sort of sprung on us by the way of a mention of BOCA 1999 being listed in the specs. as reference material and as one of the governing codes. Now after we asked the engineer about whether or not FEMA was required, he paused for a minute and then said yes, I guess it is. Now that we are through fabrication and starting erection, we are stuck with it and having to deal with this code that is new to us on the east coast. I feel we were due an extra by the way this was handled during bidding of this project.

Sorry for crying on your shoulder, I'm learning about alot of this FEMA the hard way. Hopefully our eyes will be open for this in the future while bidding projects. It looks like the AISC should address making the bid documents very clear about requirements like FEMA.
Parent - - By DGXL (***) Date 10-18-2002 02:29
jw:
Before providing a technical response, Does this Engineer want to impose 353 in it's entirety, or just certain portions of this document? There is a statement in the front regarding this subject.

It sounds to me (through your post) that he is simply jumping on the "FEMA 353 bandwagon". While I have qualified welders under this Guideline, I do not agree or defend the document. This doc does have it's merit's, but it also has a lot of erroneous info as well. Too bad it is a done deal, it is a stand alone-one shot guideline. A lot of $$ (your tax dollars) and hard work went into 353, but there was very little input from the guys in the trenches.

3.3.6 commentary denotes: "Use of qualified-by-test procedures that result in high heat input..." Define high heat input. What Seismic Weld Consequence Categorie is specified by the Engineer? He'll have to think about that one as well I suspect... I'm not Engineer bashing (that's where 90% of my income comes), just noting that FEMA 353 seems to be a "flavor of the month" thing to me. The owner, the architect or the engineer may specify it's use, but it would or should be in the contracts as well as noting it's applicability in part or it's entirety. All of my projects involving 353 only had parts of it for use on the project.

As a welder, educator, consultant, inspector and technician, I agree that the use of non-fusible backing should require re-qualification. My opinion only. The welders I just qualified were very good at FCAW on SMRF's, but when the ceramic was implemented, it was a whole new learning curve for these guys. Fit-up also becomes critical. They were reluctant and frustrated at first, but they finally took a few pointers from someone not wearing the welding hood. Their best welder had the most trouble.

Sorry for crying on everyones shoulders' with this post ;-)
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 10-18-2002 13:28
DGXL,
I met with the Engineer and Architech in thier office Monday and they really let us off the hook on alot of this "crap"(for the lack of a better definition). He does want to use the design of welded moments in the strong direction of the beam to column flg. details described by FEMA 350 section 3.5.1 and figure 3-7.
Where we are framing beam to column web(weak axis), he wants us to use a full pen. butt joint (beam flg to col. stiff plate) and remove the backing at the bottom flg. and run a reinforcing back weld across the joint instead of the 5/16" fillet(because I told him there was no place to put the 5/16" fillet like required at the strong axis detail).

As for the welding, he says he wants us to go by D1.1 - 98 or later.

FEMA also added additional full pen. stiff plates in the columns(figure 3-6) where normally they would not be needed along with web doubler plates. All of which are not covered in our bid estimate. Plus in the field we now have over head welding and back gouging. Which now have to be done from man lifts or scaffolding all of which we did not cover in our estimate. We have learned a great deal from this job, I just want to make certain we don't get caught like this again. I really would like to get our people educated more in this seismic design and requirements.

I'm not sure if we would had been any better off if this was a bolted moment job. I think then we would be addressing a different set of problems. Holes not aligned and plates on the columns having to be cut off and relocated because of beam over-run.

R.E. Shaw of Steel Structures Technology Center is putting on seminars regarding FEMA, do you know if they would be benificial in getting our shop and office caught up to speed on FEMA?
Parent - - By DGXL (***) Date 10-21-2002 18:31
jw:
Yes I know who Mr. Shaw is, but re-read the comments above.

Bob was one of the SAC Committee members and he works for the Steel Structures Technology Council. He has basically dismissed any other input or commentary by others (without a sheepskin that says PE), as well as by other Engineers and established technical organizations and committee's in the past. He is an excellent public speaker.

The seminar will help to understand the document, but what about erroneous or incorrect information that has not been confirmed by testing or research data?

It's acedamia to these people.
Parent - - By DGXL (***) Date 11-03-2002 17:58
An update to the original post by jw:
Just had another FEMA 353 project plopped on my desk. Only specific provisions of 353 are being applied on this project, particularly erection sequencing. Not the entire guideline.

Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 11-06-2002 15:42
We keep seeing more and more FEMA guidelines in the new jobs that come through our estimating dept.
Parent - By DGXL (***) Date 11-07-2002 02:42
One more today jw, this time it's a hospital. Only portions of 353 apply here as well.
Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / Is Welder recertification required?

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill