Code interpretation

Date 08-24-2013 21:40 Edited 08-24-2013 21:44

It is a great day here in New England. Too bad I'm working on a WPS for a client.

I did receive an interesting E-mail this afternoon regarding one of my inquiries to the D1.1 committee. My question had to do with the repair of undercut using downhill progression and prequalified welding procedures. D1.1 states that it is permitted to repair undercut in the vertical position using downward progression. My question was whether a welder qualified for vertical using uphill progression was also qualified to repair the undercut using downhill progression. This is the response I received:

Subject: Welder Qualification and Position Qualified
Code Edition: D1.1:2006
Code Provision: Subclause 3.7.1 and Table 4.12
AWS Log: D1.1-06-I13

Inquiry: Is a welder that is qualified for groove welds in the vertical position using upward
progression qualified to repair undercut using downward progression without further
qualification testing?

Response: No, see Table 4.12 (5).

That has been a point of contention on several of my projects over the years. You can see this question goes back "several" years and it just now received a response. Evidently it wasn't a cut and dry decision for the committee.

What seems so obvious to one person, isn't always that clear to someone else. My position has always been the welder must be qualified for the direction of progression used in production. Now I have something I can hang my hat on.

Wait, the question isn't fully answered. Now comes the interesting part; If the welder has to be tested using downhill progression (yes) and if the welder has to follow a qualified WPS while testing, must the WPS be qualified using downhill progression? I believe I know the answer, but it kind of throws a monkey wrench into the gears for all the previous editions of D1.1 and D1.1:2010 that contains similar wording as clause 3.7.1(1). I wonder how the clause will read in the next edition of D1.1.

When in doubt, ask the question. It might take a while to get a response, but it is worthwhile to ask. Pull the rope, ring the bell!

Best regards - Al

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 08-25-2013 04:21

You must be kidding! There is no way it should take THAT long to get a response.

Interesting, but that is the answer I would have expected and have always contended was the correct procedure.

Now I have to do some checking, but I don't believe vertical down is pre-qualified? That means a PQR then a WPS and welder qualification. That means....money and time, time and money, it always comes down to...MONEY.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By 46.00

Date 08-25-2013 11:02

I seem to be missing the date this query was submitted? I see 2006 edition?

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 08-25-2013 13:44

Glyn,

Knowing Al, and since the edition was 2006, I would bet it was submitted prior to 2010 anyway. Which gives it a wait time in excess of three years. For a simple "No" answer. Also, look at the AWS Log date.

Now, remember, the committees are made up anymore of reps from large contractors and suppliers as well as engineers. There are few CWI's on the committees. We don't have someone to pay our way to meetings and pick up our wages while we represent our cause.

So why the wait and this particular answer? Would you want to be the large company rep telling other large companies they had to put their people through extra testing as well as do other PQR's in order to properly complete their jobs? Not to mention go back and tell your own boss you just voted to increase cost on a job and extra paperwork and qualifications. This was not a topic they wanted to get into. Al did indeed go deep to the root on this one.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By 46.00

Date 08-25-2013 14:27

Yeah, I can fully see the ramifications of such a decision.

I find it hard to believe it took so long to bite the bullet! Even so, they (AWS Committee) seem to have have left themselves open to further questions on this subject!

Are these queries/interpretations retrospective?

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 08-25-2013 15:01

You would have to ask Al to clarify that one.

IMHO, it would be difficult to go backward other than to justify previous stated opinions of this topic if that is what you mean by retrospective. We can only start complete application going forward. But it would also include any other earlier code editions that had the same wording (again IMHO). And it includes any work in progress still using 2006 as it's code for construction.

How would we go backward and start qualifying welders who had already left a job but had done repairs to undercut in vertical down? If that is what you meant. But we can make them do so from now on. Though, I have always believed thus.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By 803056

Date 08-25-2013 14:56 Edited 08-25-2013 15:02

This particular inquiry was submitted several years ago (2008 if I remember correctly) and just now received an official response. Being a member of several AWS committees I know how long and winding the path is to get something through the subcommittee, the main committee, TAC, back to the subcommittee, back to the main committee, and back to TAC, until all parties can reach a consensus. One must consider the fact that these committees only meet a couple of times a year, so time is consumed very quickly when two or more cycles of approval are involved. Considering the repercussions this interpretation has, I can understand why it took a long time to get agreement.

This issue has come up on several of my projects over the years. I disagreed with the contractors' position that the welder could repair undercut using downhill vertical progression without further qualifications. This interpretation puts the matter to rest once and for all. It could also mean that there will be changes in the upcoming revision of D1.1. At least previous interpretations I’ve received have resulted in changes to the code and I see no reason why this will not be incorporated into the next edition of D1.1.

I agree with Brent’s observation that this interpretation does not represent a minor clarification. It has repercussions that also involve the qualification of a WPS using vertical downhill progression. My reasoning is as follows:

a) The welder must follow a WPS when taking the performance test.
b) The WPS has to be either prequalified or qualified by testing.
c) Since downhill vertical progression is not prequalified, the WPS must be qualified for downhill vertical progression.
d) Once the WPS is qualified for downhill vertical progression, the welder can use it to take the performance test.

Assuming my understanding of the code is correct; I have also suggested that the code be changed by moving clause 3.7.1(1), with an appropriate change to the provision numbers, to clause 5. Moving the provision to clause 5 should help clarify the requirements of the provision by removing it from the section addressing Prequalification.

When in doubt, ask the question and let the appropriate committees take the necessary action to provide an interpretation to clarify the intent of the provision. That is process by which our codes are improved and strengthened. The system may not respond as quickly as we would like, but it does work. Our standards have stood the test of time and they have industry backing because every sector of the industry has an opportunity to present their case. In the end, the best interests and safety of the general public are protected and strengthened.

Best regards - Al