Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / ASME Codes / Disrupted Weekend Over Qualifications
- - By qcrobert (***) Date 09-19-2011 18:52
Saturday afternoon, a situation came up at one of our field install jobs in GA where 1-1/4" double beveled plate required welding.  Welders previously tested on 1/2" plate so qualified up to 1" thk.  Client's CWI stopped job because same welder was welding both sides of plate.  I was called and agreed with inspector that welder was not qualified to weld out same joint but that two welders (each qualified up to 1" thk) could weld on opposite sides of joint.

CWI would not accept my disposition.  After heated debate, I instructed our install superintendent to continue the job with two welders, each on opposite sides, welding the double bevel joints.

Was informed by CWI those welds would be red flagged by Monday morning (today) and would be cut out.

Haven't heard a word yet but I believe someone may have gotten "educated" over the weekend.

QCRobert
Parent - - By waccobird (****) Date 09-19-2011 18:59
qcrobert

I don't know that much about ASME but before they are able to do that shouldn't you have a wps for the weld stating same?

Marsahll
Parent - By 99205 (***) Date 09-19-2011 19:07
They may be waiting for the EOR to decide on the fate of the weld.  The WPS is going to make the difference.
Parent - - By qcrobert (***) Date 09-19-2011 19:35 Edited 09-19-2011 19:38
WPS includes double bevel joints.

Also here is ASME Interpretation that has not been superceded;

Interpretation: IX-83-90
Subject: Section IX, QW-452.1
Date Issued: November 21, 1983
File: BC83-407
Question (1): Can a double-beveled plate, 1 in. thick with each beveled groove being of 1/2 in.,
be welded by a welder qualified to weld a weld metal deposit of 0.864 in.?
Reply (1 ) : No.
Question (2): Can the same joint as above be welded by two individual welders, each with a
deposited weld metal qualification of 0.864 in., provided each welder does not exceed 0.864 in.?
Reply (2): Yes.
Parent - By jon20013 (*****) Date 09-19-2011 20:10
Would personally agree the CWI is in for a learning experience from what you state.
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 09-19-2011 20:48
Just have him point out to you exaclty where base metal thickness is an essential variable for performance qualification.
When he does this, please come back in here and let us know.
I'll be waiting with a case of Snickers.
Parent - - By qcrobert (***) Date 09-19-2011 21:18
Actually Marshall, a double V groove joint is not required to be addressed in the WPS as the second welder is merely performing a single V groove weld with backing.  The welder originally qualified with a 1/2" thk single V groove open butt plate in 2G, 3G, & 4G positions.

On my QW-482 forms, Joints (QW-402), I usually state Single V, Double V, Square Butt, etc for joint design and also include a statement in the notes; "In addition, joints having groove designs resulting from end preparations conforming with ASME/ANSI B16.25 and prequalified joint details from complete joint penetration groove welded joint permitted by ANSI/ASE D1.1 are also allowable for application with this WPS.

I figure if ASME Section IX can reference AWS Standard Welding Procedure Specifications in Article V and Appendix E, I can reference AWS joint designs.

Besides, it has held up under scrutiny of ASME & NBIC review/audits for our "U", "PP" and "R" stamp certifications.

PS,, anyone who has met me would tell you that I am not the type to usurp anyone's authority.  I try my best to come across congenially with the attitude of how can we resolve this matter that most benefits the job in a timely and safe manner.  Unfortunately, this particular inspector was not of such frame of mind or attitude.

QCRobert
Parent - - By 99205 (***) Date 09-19-2011 21:37 Edited 09-19-2011 21:40
Well it appears that you gave him a tactful spanking.  Also, what's bad for him, is that the EoR is probably going to tell him he was wrong.  Double spanking, bad day for him.
Parent - - By qcrobert (***) Date 09-19-2011 21:56
Well it shut us (1 super & 6 welders ) down for 5 hrs on a contract bid project.  The conference call got pretty heated, mostly on the other end. :cool:

I don't know about a spanking, I just want everyone to get along cause the job is still 67 days out to start up.

QCRobert
Parent - By Superflux (****) Date 09-20-2011 01:09
I remember reading once under the code of ethics that a CWI is not supposed to unduly interfere with the production process (I don't have my library with me to make a quote, but that is a reasonable facsimile). Can you back charge them after a mutual agreement is met. QC is always getting blamed for slowing down the production and looks like you would have a solid case against the other party.
" shut us (1 super & 6 welders ) down for 5 hrs".  Go ahead and throw in an extra 5 hrs for yourself.
Parent - - By 99205 (***) Date 09-20-2011 01:46
It should be an interesting 2 months, seeing that the stage has been set.
Parent - By qcrobert (***) Date 09-22-2011 12:55
All's well today.  No backcharges.

Spoke with Client (Owner) and we have a mutual understanding that issues such as this one in the future will be directed to him only and work will not be impeded during disposition process.

My request that a written directive (to all involved parties) be generated to that affect was granted.  (Letter in hand):smile::grin:

QCRobert
Up Topic Welding Industry / ASME Codes / Disrupted Weekend Over Qualifications

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill