Here's one for D1.1 brain children

Date 05-05-2011 08:47

jon20013
How about where it says the welder welding the qualification procedure is also qualified after satisfactorily completing.
AWS D1.1 has the qualifying the responsibility of the employer so really the employer can design the qualification however they want. The only catch is when the customer requires more proof of qualifications.
Good Luck
Marshall

By qcrobert (***)

Date 05-05-2011 15:36

I don't understand your question. Can you refer to particular para. in code?

Thanks,
QCRobert

By 99205

Date 05-05-2011 15:49

I guess you need to explain exactly what you are try to do. There are a number of pre-qual's for open butt joints.

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 05-06-2011 02:33

Gents (and CWI's)... I am NOT looking at pre-qualified anything as pre-qualified applies ONLY to procedure (process) and I am not looking tio do anything other than maybe understand why....

My question is for PLATE welder qualification, NOT tubular. Repeating myself, I can qualify a WPS without backing BUT if I want to follow the rules for welders, please see Fig. 4.21, 4.22, 4.30, 4.31 and 4.32. Notice anything strange? Everyone of these figures is WITH backing.

So then, since I used to have a fair knowledge of D1.1 but have drifted on to other standards, my question to REGULAR users of D1.1 and "experts" is can you please explain how I could qualify a welder on open butt plate WITHOUT backing?

Hope thats clear enough? Where's Al??? :)

By 99205

Date 05-06-2011 04:25

D 1.1 (2010) 2.18.1 ONE-SIDED GROOVE WELDS. Groove welds, made from one side only without backing or made with backing, other than steel, that has not been qualified in conformance with Clause 4 shall be prohibited except that these provisions for groove welds made from one side shall not apply to the following: 1.Secondary or non stress carrying members. 2. Corner joints parallel to the directions of calculated stress between components of built up members.

Now that should explain why you can't do what you want to do. Now to answer your last question, change your joint design and backgouge. Try being a little clearer next time so we "non experts" can TRY to Help you.

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 05-06-2011 09:02

Please re-read question again.... I'm asking why I can't qualify open butt for WELDERS PERFORMANCE QUALIFICATION. Chapter 2 is joint design, okay I get that, but I am interested in Chapter 4, Part C.

I don't care anything about pre-qualified joints.

Chapter 4, Part B lets me qualify a WPS without backing (or back-gouging) so why can't I qualify a welder in Part C using similar criteria?

Sorry 99205 but believe you need a few more years behind your CWI to even try taking this question. (No offense intended).

Also, this is an acedemic question, not trying to do anything except stir some thought.

By waccobird (****)

Date 05-06-2011 10:37

jon20013
About the only way around this as far as welder qualification and the backing back gouging dilemma of AWS D1.1
Certify them to 6GR.

Good Luck
Marshall

By js55

Date 05-06-2011 12:20

jon,
Its a good question but I think your askin the wrong fellers.
The list of names in the early pages of the code might be a better place.
I know some in here attend ASME Code week and can fill in some blanks of intent, unofficially of course, for code requirements, (we even have a distinguished code committee member who visits regularly and offers his expertise and insite) but I'm not sure there are any in here that attend D1.1's. Maybe Joe.
On the other hand, sometimes there is no real intent. Its just the mud that comes from committee consenus. :smile:

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 05-06-2011 12:28

Jon

You are right. This is an area where the Code does not seem to address the "..with or without backing" or "...Omission or deletion of Backing" issue. However, there is no outright prohibition against eliminating the backing bar and closing the root opening. There is actually no outright prohibition against changing the groove angle either. You would not be able to say that the welder was qualified per Figure ---, but you could say "Qualified per Figure --- MODIFIED". Under the Code qualification with one groove weld qualifies with the other groove welds. Short Circuiting Transfer would still pose a problem.

Joe Kane

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 05-06-2011 13:55

Joe, I LOVE that answer BUT it still seems to fall short.

I'm actually working with EEMUA-158 which is a somewhat bastardized verison of D1.1 for Offshore Platforms in the North Sea ~~~ Nothing to do with what I'm doing here in Kazakhstan, but that's what our silly specs call out.

Jeff, I e-mailed a long time colleague, Hardy Campbell III who basicaklly confirmed this "disconnect" in D1.1 for lack of better words.

I know the code can't be a cook book, but in this instance I think AWS D1 is sorely deficient. I shall write a few of the officers to find out why.

Silly as it might sound, if Jeff qualified the PQR, then Joe should be able to come behind and get the same set of certs if Joe follows the variables and gets good results... unless age is catching up to me, lol!!!

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 05-06-2011 15:59

I think I see it alot like you do Jon.

If a PQR is established, the operator who does that testing is qualified (that much is in the text)... If another welder does a performance qualification under the same joint configuration (and this is the production joint) I can see a route to qualification via the test. I agree code text could be more clearly written to back this notion/intent. I'm betting the committee has reason for the language being the way it is, because surely this question has been posed time and again over the years/decades.

Just to throw another vairable into the mix.... Would the welder/s qualified on this open root, welded from one side joint be qualified for other D1.1 Prequalified joints? Even though the open roots are obviously more difficult skillwise. Not sure there is anything in the text that would validate.

Joe K. mentioned Short circuiting transfer, a pretty good guess for open roots welded from one side in my opinion, but not a necessity I suppose. Nonetheless... I'm pretty sure any open root joint welded from one side that is intended to be full penetration is going to require procedure qualification per section 4.

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 05-06-2011 17:02

Lawrence, Jon

In D 1.1, and in some other Codes, any issue with Short Circuiting Transfer is problematic. The Essential Variable ranges for amperage,voltage, WFS, Travel Speed and Shielding Gas composition & flow rate, are (In my opinion) necessarily narrow. Joint design and angle limits are probably too restrictive, but not in all cases.

In his OP, Jon did not specify Short Circuiting of solid wire. He could have been referring to Flux Cored Electrode, and many of those formulations can be used to make sound open root welds in all positions.

It is not just the D 1.1 Code that must be considered. The Construction Code, such as the AISC Steel Construction Manual. has a symbiotic relationship to the D 1.1,and any other code that is appropriate. If you consider all the other codes, and specifications that incorporate D 1.1 "By Reference", it becomes more and more difficult to write the D 1.1 Code Book in such a way as to cover all possible permutations and welding conditions. I think it is reasonable to assume that some variations can be made with the consent of the Engineer of Record. Thus you would stick as close to the letter of the Code as possible, then get permission from the EOR to vary the specifics, only as much as necessary to accommodate job needs. Let the EOR confirm that you are only varying the Code enough to perform the job and still maintain adherence to the "spirit" of the Code.

Joe Kane

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 05-07-2011 07:40

Joe, did you get the e-mail I sent you saying my wife and I are going tio be in NYC briefly the first week of June? If you're in town maybe we could catch up. What's it been 11 or 12 years since we last met?

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 05-06-2011 17:59

just thinking out loud here....on your hypothetical question about open root welder qual on plate:

Where will you have a situation where you can not get to the second side to back gouge or could use backing on a plate configuration?

The code shows how to deal with Tubular open roots because they are necessary on small diameter shapes where you do not have access to the inside, so that makes sense....but with plate?...just walk around to the other side, address the root and reweld it...or use backing.

Why even do a open root welder perf qual on plate to start with?....have them weld out a tubular joint open root and be done with it.

By 99205

Date 05-06-2011 16:31 Edited 05-07-2011 03:10

Trying to answer a question or accomplish a feat and failing, is by far, better than not trying at all. I take no offense because you feel I need more experience as a CWI. Sometimes people of knowledge forget where they have come from. That being said, by posing an "academic question" and "trying to stir some thought" you should expect answers to your question that may not be to your liking or not entirely correct. After reading your last response i now see the direction you were taking with your initial question. I'm now able to see the problem you've described and it gives me a little more depth in understanding the Code. To guide a less knowledgeable person to the correct answer is far better than to ask a person not to try at all.

By 46.00

Date 05-06-2011 17:29

"To guide a less knowledgeable person to the right answer is far better than to ask a person not to try at all."

99205, very,very true!!!

Regards

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 05-07-2011 01:23

Touche 99205, well done. I myself (as a veteran and FORMER SCWI) answered questions too abruptly without fully thinking them through and thankfully there's usually been a wiser person to put me in my place.

In our position, the welders are rooting with E7016 and fill, capping with E7018. It is a closure plate, creating a boxed in structural assembly. EEMUA-158 requires qualification to D1.1 which I could do using tubular joints or a 6GR pipe test but because I think the code is deficient, I WANT to have the code permit a single sided plate test without backing or back-gouging.

By nantong (**)

Date 05-08-2011 15:59

EEMUA 158 is quite clear. Follow fig 11 (essentially 6GR) or if it is a closure weld, asyou stated, the purchaser may require you to do a test in accordance with fig 12, wide root gap at the top and 3mm root misalignment. AWS or EN standards are also quoted but EEMUA takes prescedence. I take it you are working outside the UK so compliance with AWS is secondary really. My edition of EEMUA is 1994 with ammendments 1,2 and 3. Don't know if it has ever been updated!

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 05-09-2011 02:31

Yes I know all about Figure 11 but there is also some language in the text that allows the engineer to do a mock up of production piece. Doesn't make much sense welding a 6GR if your not welding tubulars.

By nantong (**)

Date 05-09-2011 03:40

I think everyone would agree that testing on pipe is more onerous than on plate. Hence for construction of offshore structures in the North Sea the Users Association has decided, probably in consideration of the North Sea environment, that the minimum demonstration of skill required for the welding of any single sided joint is the 6GR test. Nothing to do with it being representative, just ensuring a higher skill level is used. Have you ever done the fig 12 test? Very very difficult. I had a quick look but did not see anything about mock-ups. The only thing I see with reference to plates is that plates maybe substituted for pipe with the purchaser's approval.

By 803056

Date 05-16-2011 02:29 Edited 05-16-2011 02:42

Sorry for the late arrival to the discussion, but here is my take on the subject.

The standardized tests in AWS D1.1 are intended for welders that will be welding using prequalified welding procedures based on the premise that D1.1 relies heavily on the concept and advantages offered by adopting prequalified WPSs.

Should the contractor wish to qualify the WPS, e.g., an open root CJP groove weld, the welder would be qualified using (following) the qualified WPS and the limitations of Table 4.5 (D1.1-2006 for example) would apply to the WPS and Table 4.12 would apply to the welder qualification.

The welder’s performance test report would indicate he was qualified using the qualified WPS without backing. Hopefully the inspector would be astute enough to ask a copy of the qualified WPS used by the welder so Table 4.12 could be cross referenced to determine the range of qualifications.

As a SCWI, I would defer any questions on the subject of welder performance qualification to the Engineer for resolution. It would be the responsibility of the Engineer and the contractor to arrive at a mutual resolution to exceptions or ambiguities found in D1.1 unless a clarification or an interpretation was obtained from the D1 Committee.

This would be akin to previous discussions regarding qualification of welders utilizing a back gouging operation rather than a backing bar. Based on the provisions of clause 4.23 (D1.1-2006 as an example), I would take the position that a welder qualified with a WPS that requires back gouging would not be qualified for a weld made with backing. However, if the Engineer (representing the Owner) said it was acceptable to allow the welder to weld both with or without backing I would note the Engineer's position in my report and move forward. In this situation, if the Engineer accepted a welder performance test that utilized an open root on plate without back gouging as being adequate to demonstrate the welder's proficiency, I would not challenge the decision. That's why the Engineer gets the "big money."

Best regards – Al

By nantong (**)

Date 05-17-2011 08:33

You Americans should not treat AWS or ASME as if Moses brought them down from the mount. They are only guidelines. EEMUA 158 is a really good specification written for a specific purpose. If you are working to it forget what AWS says as it means nothing. AWS does not clearly state anything about single-sided performance tests basically on plates 99.99% of the times you have access to both sides and obviously it is better to weld both sides. AWS does not cover closure welds but EEMUA 158 does because it recognises the potential problem, from a skill point of view, when encountering this on a job.

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 05-17-2011 12:39

Jon,
Cannot understand what reason you would want a single sided plate qualification test.
What application are you looking to cover ?
The only things I can think of that would require single sided qualification with AWS D1.1 are splicing pipes or box tubing or welding a T,K,Y joint with pipe or box tubing - all these are covered by prescribed tests.
If it is something large (eg. ducting) without access to the back side can it not be welded with a backing strip ?
Cheers,
Shane

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 05-17-2011 12:47

Jon,
My apologies, I didn't read your previous posts properly.
IMHO structural welders and pipe welders generally use totally different processes so structural welders who use predominantly FCAW, GMAW or SAW may not have the ability to put in an acceptable root run with GTAW or SMAW. There are obviously welders who are competent in all processes but they are the exception and not the rule,
Regards,
Shane

By nantong (**)

Date 05-17-2011 16:47

Shane, have you ever worked to EEMUA 158? I worked to it a lot of years when I was a Welding Engineer in the UK. Great spec, but expensive whe coming to qualify welding procedures on materials 40/50mm thick. not a mickey mouse spec like AWS. I can send you a copy if you like.