Unlimited D1.1 inspection procedure?

Date 03-17-2014 11:15

Hi Tate48,
If you are doing it wrong, I have been also...I always watched the root being placed, then visually inspected for any problems....watch the coupon being welded the rest of the way out...then removed the backing and any reinforcement before mechanical testing. If a testing lab was to be involved, I only witnessed the welding and parameters, then sent the entire thing off to the lab and let their people do the preparations for the testing.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 03-17-2014 11:20

Out of curiosity, I looked back in the Commentary and they(the code writers) didn't mention anything like what you described about removing the backing after the root was run, other than before sending the welded coupon off to the lab to first use RT or UT to verify soundness so that you could possibly save some money due to the machining being a costly process.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 03-17-2014 11:35

One more thing that I was thinking about, I typically do not want to move the coupon while testing is being performed.....it stays fixed in the position from start to finish, you would have to move the coupon to scarf off the backing.

By SCOTTN

Date 03-17-2014 12:21

Like John, I've always witnessed the root pass and before allowing the welder to proceed with the test, I visually inspect it for any problems. There are several ways to remove the backing strap prior to bend testing. One way I've heard about is by using a backing strip removal machine that's sold by several companies specializing in mechanical testing services. After sawing the coupons I've always just removed it with a cutting torch, cutting it close to the base metal and then carefully grinding the remainder of it away. Prior to removing the backing from the coupon strips, I've always looked at the cross section of the weld root pass to see whether proper penetration had been achieved.

By Tate48

Date 03-17-2014 15:35

The plates stay in place till welding is done. Then they wanted to take down the plates and scarf all the backing strip and inspect the root. I felt we inspect root after welding, then have them continue, then when it is done we could cut the side bend specimens, and then remove the backing of just the pieces to be bent not the entire backing. They felt this is wrong because the code said shall inspect the root, and the fell we are not inspecting the entire root this way.

Thanks for the responses.

By SCOTTN

Date 03-17-2014 16:32

I've never heard of this for a welder qualification. If they, as you've said, "feel we are not inspecting the entire root this way", I recommend respectfully telling them that is not how you interpret the requirement and respectfully ask them to show you in the code where it's required to inspect the entire root of a WELDER QUALIFICATION. Obviously, you, and as far as I know, everyone else in the universe cannot inspect the entire root of a welder qualification that way, so in that aspect, their statement is correct because .... you simply can't inspect the entire root. As far as I know, it's not a requirement to inspect the entire root of a welder qualification. If they feel this is wrong, then they should be prepared to reference exactly where it indicates otherwise. Many times someone has told me "what's required", but when I respectfully ask them to show me, they can't. Maybe 4.9.1.1 (5) is where they got the root inspection notion from, but that's for a WPS qualification, not a welder qualification.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 03-17-2014 16:57

It is easy to get the requirements mixed up for WPS(Part B) and Welder(Part C) qualifications.

....to add to the confusion....
...if you look at 4.31.5 in the Welder Qualification(Part C) clauses for root/face/side bends, it refers you back over the WPS(Part B) qualification clauses and spells out the acceptance criteria in 4.9.3.3.

By KBNY

Date 12-08-2015 20:11

I hate to reply to a thread that is old but I wanted more clarification on this. My understanding of this exact topic seems to differ than what has been stated in this thread.

My understanding of welder qualification testing has been to NOT inspect the root pass DURING the welding. The welders weld the test completely and then VT is done. According to D1.1 under performance qualification, VT is to be done using WPS requirements in 4.9.1.

4.9.1.1 (5) The weld root for CJP grooves shall be inspected and shall not have any cracks, incomplete fusion, or inadequate joint penetration.

I've always read this to mean the root of a CJP groove weld is to be inspected.. Not the root pass before other layers of weld are deposited. In the case of procedure qualification (which this criteria is written for), this tells me to inspect the root of CJP groove welds that are welded from two sides or that are welded from one side with removable backing for example. I do not agree that steel backing needs to be cut away to inspect the root if there is steel backing used as in the performance qualification test.

I've never read this as the root pass needed to be inspected BEFORE any additional weld layers were deposited.

Have I been doing this wrong? (would love to hear what Al thinks..)

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 12-08-2015 21:29

Hi KBNY,
My reasoning behind inspecting or witnessing the placement of the root is that many times you can save alot of time for the welder and for the person giving the test if you can spot a troublesome root pass. Why let somebody continue if they really screw up the root pass? There isn't much anybody can do to correct it, you are pretty much guaranteed to fail them after you spend all of that time preparing the coupon straps.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 12-08-2015 21:33

I can tell what AL might say, and that would depend on who he's working for....he could save them his billable time or not by stopping a welder who has placed a terrible excuse for a root pass....LOL

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 12-08-2015 22:04

Well, I'm NOT Al, not even close. He's the handsome one. I'm...well, I'm just me.

This can have several considerations depending upon your responsibility. Inspector for a company as QC. Third party inspector doing WPQ testing. Working for a fabricator, the welder, or the customer of the fabricator.

I understand what you are saying and there are two aspects. First, you can't really look at the weld root, see cracks from the bottom side, and/or check the weld's penetration without removing the backing. Second, as John mentions, you can save time by looking at the root from the weld side to see if the person is even worth letting continue or is wasting everyone's time and money.

One is more aligned with the code and the other is an economic perspective.

Then, as mentioned previously, there are times when the backing isn't removed; if RT is to be used in place of bends.

And how long has the exact wording been the same in this clause and was it put in taking currently proper terminology into account? So, does weld root actually apply to the root pass?

Some of these questions may be impossible to answer. But, I look at it this way: I am accountable/responsible to make sure the welder is competent and qualified per the applicable code. While this may not be code enforceable how many welders and companies understand the application enough to challenge me if I say I want a hold point after the cleaning of the root pass so I can inspect it based upon D1.1 Clause 4.9.1.1? If they are paying me to witness the test anyway then it isn't costing them anymore and may actually save them money.

Terminology comes into play once again with the question really being: Is it needed? Prudent? Required? Mandated? OR...

While I believe the OP was a wrong application of the procedure I don't know if you can say that you have been doing it wrong. John, Al, Lawrence, Allan, myself or others may do it differently but is it wrong to NOT look at the root pass before letting the welding continue? That would completely remove any testing facility from EVER receiving coupons and testing them without having witnessed the root pass. While I would prefer that, it isn't worded that way.

My personal two tin pennies worth? We really do need to look at the root after cleaning and before allowing more passes. We can tell a lot from that inspection. Would we win a court battle on the wording demanding we do so? I don't think so.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

By 803056

Date 12-09-2015 03:13

We may have missed a point in our collective responses. The criteria is applicable to groove welds made with backing and without backing. If the weld is CJP, without backing, one would inspect the root side to verify CJP has been achieved, the weld is fused to both pieces, there is no burn through, no cracks, etc. If the weld is CJP, but backing is used, one would check the visible surface (face side for evidence of unacceptable conditions, etc. One would also check the root side to verify the welder did not burn through the backing bar. I usually look for the heat tint as a "measure" the root bead is thoroughly fused to the backing as well as the two members. While it may not be scientific, the absence of heat tint is a good indicator the root is not properly fused to the backing.

When the weld is complete, and the backing is removed, one should check the root side to determine if there is incomplete fusion or incomplete penetration, etc. before performing the bend tests. Generally, if RT is needed, I will remove the backing to determine if it was fused. I have experienced a couple of situations where the RT indicated the was acceptable, but I happened to see a clear and distinct separation of the backing and the rood bead. The code does say the backing must be thoroughly fused to the backing. RT or not, the welder failed.

Best regards - Al