Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / ASME Codes / Welders qualification ASME vs AWS
- - By Larry Theroux Date 03-24-2012 09:38 Edited 03-26-2012 07:20
I've recently run into a situation that my cost me my assignment as the Supervisor of NDE for the weld school of our facility, we are an AWS-ATF certified school.
On March 1st a 2" sch 80 was radiographed.  The radiographic interpreters evaluation rejected the work (coupon) due to "imperfections in the base material transpired into the weld".





Can you imagine the Administrator of the weld school forcing this into an RT without a VT.

My concern is that we are an AWS-ATF and this pipe was evaluated to ASME Sec IX.  The management is insisting that the fact the pipe was not VT'ed prior to RT is irrelevant as it is not an AWS certification.  I wholeheartedly disagree, as we are an accredited  test facility.  After this piece was in the school administrators hands, its next stop should have been in the recycle bin and not sent for further NDT.

Am I totally off base on this evaluation, as I brought up code requirements (AWS) where all test pieces need VT before any other NDE and ethics.  The ethics is where the administrator blew his lid.  I do have the latest copy of ASME Sec IX but I can't seem to locate where it requires VT as the first NDE.

Thanks for any information.  This situation has not gone any farther than our company and now here.
Parent - By MBSims (****) Date 03-24-2012 14:11
Don't have ASME IX in front of me, but I believe the VT requirement is in QW-192 or somewhere near there. You may be a bit disappointed though, as it only addresses complete fusion and not undercut, porosity or other "workmanship" type defects that you would find in the fabrication codes.

I am appalled that someone felt this coupon was ready for RT. The appearance of the weld cap and the excessive grinding of the pipe represent poor workmanship and lack of skill. The pipe material looks like old pipe that has been in service and is full of pits on the inside. Probably OK to practice on, but is kind of severe to require the welder to test on. Does this institution have 2 different programs for controlling quality, one for AWS acredited tests and another for everything else? Seems like poor management practice to me.
Parent - By ozniek (***) Date 03-24-2012 15:04
Hi Larry

I assure you that visual examination is always the first stop for any welder qualification, irrespective of code. See below for ASME IX requirements.

Regards
Niekie
Parent - - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 03-24-2012 15:35
As an "accredited test facility" a Quality manual is required. That manual I would think is in affect for all operations. If it is, it should address practicces/procedures for all weld tests. If nothing is addressed, Sec IX is very lenient. I often incorporate the acceptance criteria of a code of construction for my student performance qualifications. Meeting the requirements of Sec IX alone, very easy visually. However interpreting them on a radiograph could be very difficult. One may not be able to reject it, but may be unable to accept it if the radiograph is cluttered with what may or may not be relevent indications.

As an ATF, I would think there are procedures in place to control the base materials used. If this was a coupon supplied that was welded outside of the facility, I would note that the weld was unable to be evaluated due to the condition of adjacent base metal. As far as what I can see on the weld, its acceptable by code only. Maybe those were swaged tubes :).

Gerald Austin
www.weldingdata.com
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 03-24-2012 17:26
Might be putting my neck on the line here, but as former assistant director of the AWS Certification Department (way back when) I tried desperatley to kill the ATF and welders options in AWS.  Of course I was obviously unsuccessful....

This post is a perfect example of things that can go wrong and if I were the customer I would most definately be looking to shut the doors on this apparent farce of an organization.

Sorry, perhaps a bit harsh but I find very little value with either the ATF or certified welder program... just one question, does ANY code accept these (not looking for interpretative answers such as "by others," but black and white).
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 03-24-2012 18:20
My opinon on your post Jon, goes hand in hand with SENSE in a way.

It was a "build it and they will come" paradigm that recieved US Federal Grant support in the late 1980s and early 1990's.

If these two programs (ATF's and SENSE) would have been adopted by *anybody*  I think the resultant traction may have made them succsessful.

I hold out more hope for SENSE than I do ATF's   Because the "volunteer" group, especially the leaders of that group, are very level headed and realistic, and what they have developed is superior to NCCR in my opinion.  It is finding a niche in education and textbooks and more importantly Carl Perkins funding are using the curriculum guide for an external standard for articulation/accreditation.

ATF's  ?   Still are looking for somebody out there to love them...    I know I looked *VERY* hard into having my facillity become an ATF and in the end, there was too much work and money to be invested in what was a very small grey area of return.  At least in my part of the country it would be impossible for an ATF to sustain itself.
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 03-24-2012 21:02
I absolutely agree Lawrence, SENSE is a very good program, it simply needs wider recognition.  There is also a program "Commonarc" I believe could take a real foothold if coordinated properly.  Of course, having been outside of the USA for the past few years I may also be a bit out of touch with current trends.
Parent - - By Shane Feder (****) Date 03-25-2012 00:44
Guys,
Just a query from a different direction - irrespective of whether it was visually acceptable or not, how was it rejected by RT ?
If it was a production weld, yes it could be rejected based on the density of the pitted areas.
However, it is a welder qualification coupon and it must be evaluated / interpreted in accordance with the acceptance criteria of QW 191.2.2.
Regards,
Shane
Parent - - By Larry Theroux Date 03-25-2012 16:53
Shane,
That is the issue.  As the base material is so defective, as in excessive pitting, it interferes with the interpretation of the radiographic picture of the weld, as explained on the RT report.  On the film those pits are interpreted as porosity.

Isn't this is one reason why we need to VT as an initial inspection.
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 03-26-2012 16:09 Edited 03-26-2012 16:28
If there is a concern that the interior surface condition could have an adverse affect on the results of the test, why was the material used?

I see no issue if the coupon was used for practice only, but surely, a quick glance at the surface condition of the pipe ID would have excluded it from use for a test piece.

Just because the facility is or is not an ATF is no assurance the system is fail safe if someone is not looking to see that the test coupons are in good or suitable condition for testing purposes. One would expect the test coupons are stored in a manner that preserves their integrity for testing. That would include base metal identification if more than one base metal was stocked. That would appropriate whether the testing was done by an ATF or "Johnnie's Weld Testing".

Give the situation was what it was; the test piece could have been sliced and diced for a guided bend test.

As for the school administration putting pressure on the instructor to accept the sample, that would be a case of the administration influencing the decisions of the inspector. That is not permitted under the AWS requirements for an ATF. This situation sounds like it would be ample justification for AWS to revoke the school's status as an ATF. The school's status as an ATF is provisional. They agree to meet AWS' requirements and it sounds like several violations have occured in this case. AWS givith and AWS can taketh away. This instance should be documented by the instructor and made available when AWS does their next audit. It would be interesting to see how the same school administrator justifies his actions. It would also be interesting how AWS responds.

I wonder how the administrator's superiors would react if the school lost their acreditation as an ATF because of his involvement?

My advice, document (a daily diary) everything that happened and who said what. Self preservation should be your primary interest when working with a superior such as this one. You may need to protect your CWI credential as well as your job.

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By Larry Theroux Date 03-26-2012 20:00
After the fact, I was told by someone else in the dept. that that material WAS for practice only.  How it made it to RT is obvious, no one VT'ed it. 

As I see it, the organizational code the it was inspected to, us, being an ATF,  you should adhere to certain standards set by the AWS.
Parent - By 803056 (*****) Date 03-26-2012 20:29 Edited 03-26-2012 20:39
The wagon needs to back up a bit in this situation. These nipples should not have been issued for the welder performance test to begin with. Who monitored the test? Was he or she a CWI, if not, why not. That is a fundamental premise of the AFT; all tests are monitored by an individual that is a current CWI. If the test monitor was a CWI, why didn't he or she check the nipples out before permitting them to be used? Who performed the fit up inspection? Was he or she a CWI? If not, bad news, once again a violation of the ATF requirements. Who performed the initial VT? Was he or she a CWI? If not, why not. One more strike against the institution for not being in compliance with e requirements of an ATF and their own QC manual. Who signed the welder’s performance test record? If not a CWI, who, and once again the institution is in violation of the AFT program and the approved QC manual.

I'm sure your QC manual, as reviewed and approved by AWS, requires each test piece to be visually examined. That being said, VT is required by every welding standard I have worked with, be they AWS, ASME, API, or military standards. VT must be performed and the sample accepted before any additional NDT is performed. If coupon doesn’t pass VT the test piece is rejected plain and simple. NDT isn’t used to arbitrate the results of the visual examination.

You are aware of the requirements, but your administrator doesn't appear understand the requirements. No one likes to commit job suicide, but this individual must be made to understand that he is placing the entire ATF accreditation in jeopardy by his actions.

Best regards - Al
Up Topic Welding Industry / ASME Codes / Welders qualification ASME vs AWS

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill