Prequalified WPS with "sealing run"

Date 05-04-2014 16:06

Very good question. I have no idea of what a "sealing run" is.

It appears the individual reviewing the WPS may not be using the appropriate terminology or doesn't have a good working understanding of AWS D1.1.

Al

By Delawgee (*)

Date 05-04-2014 17:42

Thanks Al, I have bern bordered for some time now concerning that. I appreciate greatly!

By 46.00

Date 05-05-2014 03:21

I think we all know what a sealing run is, however, when accepting or rejecting a clause or paragraph in a standard, we really need to use the correct terminology as prescribed by that particular standard!

By Delawgee (*)

Date 05-05-2014 09:32

Please is there something you think he had in mind? Could you please explain want a ''sealing run'' is? Thanks

By 46.00

Date 05-05-2014 10:31

Hi Delawgee, are you really sure you need a 'sealing run' explained to you?

By Delawgee (*)

Date 05-05-2014 11:59

Hi 46.0,
Yes, I would like you to give me an explanation. Thanks

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 05-05-2014 12:44

I think (and it is of course a guess) that the term "sealing run" is a nonstandard way of saying "back weld"

back weld. A weld made at the back of a single groove
weld. See Figure B.24(C).

backgouging. The removal of weld metal and base metal
from the weld root side of a welded joint to facilitate
complete fusion and complete joint penetration upon
subsequent welding from that side.

Since we haven't seen the rejected WPS it's hard to know the real reason for rejection.

Is the back gouge operation noted in the tail of the weld symbol or on the drawn detail of the weld joint in the WPS ?

Is there an important sequencing or orientation that should be represented? (Which side to be back gouged?)

There is nothing wrong with picking up the phone with the WPS in front of you and asking the one who rejected the work to explain exactly what is missing or errant in the doccument he rejected.

A couple of images that might help guide the conversation. (and my guess as to what a "sealing weld" might be.

By Delawgee (*)

Date 05-05-2014 14:15 Edited 05-05-2014 14:21

Thanks for all the pictures to clarify the point. But I think back weld is not a requirement to back gouging. Besides back weld is done after welding from the opposite side. The joint design in question is from the prequalified ,B-U2 in AWS D1.1. Somehow, I suppose back weld is far from the term "sealing run" since the term suggest a weld that holds the material together and maybe a first weld. (please how did you attached this pictures for it to be visible?)
Thank you.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 05-05-2014 15:12

Then a backing weld.

Hit the "embed" box when you upload a file to get the pic to display.

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 05-05-2014 18:24

Are you referring to note 4 which states: " Backgouge root to sound metal before welding second side."? I mean - don't you think that is what Lawrence is trying to describe when he posted the definition of "Backgouge"?

I say this because according to a pre-qualified B-2 joint configuration, note 4 does apply clearly - that is unless, you didn't look at the notes which are very important for any of the D1.1 joint whether or being pre-qualified... If I'm incorrect then please elaborate specifically why if you don't mind and btw, if nobody has welcomed you prior to this post then:

"WELDCOME TO THE WORLD'S GREATEST WELDING FORUM!!!"

Respectfully,
Henry

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 05-05-2014 18:59

Probably I was wrong about everything and never even answered the original question.

Seal Run !

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 05-05-2014 19:11

By SCOTTN

Date 05-05-2014 20:16

Delawgee,

You stated that the “Prequalified AWS D1.1 WPS was REJECTED due to that the question with back gouging needs to state a sealing run in the weld detail"

I don’t understand the (due to that the question)part.

The back side of the B-U2 joint is backgouged, i.e., removing weld metal and base metal from the root side of the weld, to the point of exposing sound weld metal in order to facilitate complete fusion and complete joint penetration from the back side of the joint.

In the joint detail, the weld symbol clearly shows a single v groove at the arrow side, underneath the reference line, and a back weld above the reference line, for the other side. This prequalified joint designation shows “backgouge” in the tail, and one of the notes requires the joint to be backgouged to sound metal before welding the second side.

AWS A2.4 also requires a note in the tail….. “when a single reference line is used, “back weld” shall be specified in the tail of the welding symbol. Maybe this is what the rejection boils down to. Although we all know that the back side of this joint has to be welded, maybe it’s just simply that the “back weld” (a reference to sealing run?) notation is missing from the tail. If that's the case, just add "back weld" in the tail and resubmit the detail. It's not even a prequalified joint if it's not welded on the second (other) side, so it's pretty much a given that it has to be welded, regardless if it's indicated in the tail of the weld symbol or it's not.

By 803056

Date 05-05-2014 21:58

I concur with Lawrence's most recent post. See his attached photos.

Al

By SCOTTN

Date 05-06-2014 12:04

The picture in the most recent post shows a "backing weld". The original post referenced B-U2. My interpretation of this requires backgouging the root on the second side to sound metal before welding it.

As defined in A3.0, A "backing weld", as shown in Lawrence's most recent post, acts as the backing bar (backing in the form of a weld), which is non applicable for the B-U2 joint, whereas a "back weld", as defined in A3.0 is the weld made at the back of a single groove weld (after backgouging to sound metal). Lawrence shows the "back weld" in the first pictures.

I don't think it's related to a B-U2 joint, but if you were to use a backing weld to back up the weld metal deposited on the beveled side, the backing weld would have to be welded first, and then the beveled side would have to be backgouged before being welded. Does this contradict the requirements (notes) of B-U2? I've just never done it this way. I've always welded the beveled side first and backgouged the other side.

By aevald

Date 05-06-2014 14:35

Hello SCOTTN, I have seen many tanks welded in that manner, ie., the back-side first(the internal seams) and then either grinding or gouging and completion of fill from the bevelled side(outside of tank). I realize that which side is first or second is not really a big deal, in the case of the tanks that I was around, it meant that less time was spent in an "enclosed" space. Thus, generally less hassles with welding it out. Just a little something to consider. Best regards, Allan

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 05-06-2014 12:55

Just for fun Scott,

You say: "The back side of the B-U2 joint is backgouged, i.e., removing weld metal and base metal from the root side of the weld,"

Who exactly says the "root side" must be backgouged ?

Why couldn't the first pass be on the "other side" and the back gouge occur on the prepared side? As long as the back gouge to sound metal occurs, the weld is compliant.

The symbol used in the B-U2 figure (3.4) is according to A2.4 a Back or Backing symbol... Which my little brain determines a meaning of Back weld or Backing weld may be applied.

This is why I asked about "sequencing" in my first post... I belive either Back/Backing welds may be applied here but for the purposes of the WPS or shop detail their may be significance in order.

By SCOTTN

Date 05-06-2014 14:07

No. one.

I've just never done it the other way around, i.e., welding the other side first and backgouging to sound metal from the beveled side. I've always welded the beveled side first and then backgouged the other side.

One of the notes for B-U2 requires the root to be backgouged before welding the second side. Which side the first side is, and which side the second side is are not specified. I've just always understood this reference to the root to mean the root of the weld on the beveled side, not the root of the back or backing weld, but as you said, as long as the back gouge to sound metal occurs, the weld is compliant... no question about it. The bevel weld and the back weld both have a root. I've just never thought about welding and backgouging the other way around.

I guess what it boils down to, is that if you opt to weld the beveled side first, then the weld on the other side is a back weld, and if you opt to weld the other side first, the weld on the other side is a backing weld. I've never really thought much about it. I've just always taken the first side to be the beveled side (same as with backing). I will think more about it now. Thanks.

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 05-06-2014 23:37

Why would you want to first weld the unprepared side, and then run the risk of ruining the prepared side by backgouging it?

I mean what's the purpose of preparing the bevels on the side that can, and probably will be messed up during the "gouging" operation as opposed to backgouging the second side after the weld is completely deposited within the prepared side 1st instead?

It seems logical to me at least, and it's the way I was taught that the 1st side to be welded is the prepared side by proper understanding of the complete "Welding Symbol" being applied in the drawing for a B-U2 joint configuration... Meaning that the reference line shows that the weld symbol of the "Welding Symbol" is on the arrow side...

Yes, that's exactly what I mean! According to the location of the weld symbol on the reference line of the "Welding Symbol," typically the prepared side is to be welded 1st...
The "Backside" or second side of the welded joint is then backgouged according to the tail where it is specifically noted... K.I.S. folks! Let's not over think when we interpret
"Welding Symbols" :surprised:

I'm done here.

Respectfully,
Henry

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 05-07-2014 12:17

"Typically welded" is the opinion of the guy reading the code book and does not mean required.

Built-up sections (girts, beams, rafters, columns etc.) flanges, commonly run a single pass "backing weld" followed by assembly of the web and flange, with the bevel of the flange outboard to be completed after the web/flange connection.

There are all kinds of reasons to weld the unprepared side first.

The weld symbol "preperation" location relative to the reference line does NOT have any significance in B-U2... It can be a backing weld or backwelded in my opinion... Sequencing must be intentional and noted on the detail, and in this case it is not.

I doubt this has anything to do with the original post, so I'll stop here :)

By 46.00

Date 05-06-2014 08:12

OK as you posed this question in the D1.1 forum, I'll quote A3.0:

"Seal Weld.Any weld intended primarily to provide a specific degree of tightness against leakage."

Here is an article explaining seal welding in a bit more depth as per AWS:

http://www.jflf.org/pdfs/papers/design_file6.pdf

By jstepp

Date 05-06-2014 12:20

We've went from "sealing run" to "seal weld". Seal weld is a type of weld I saw in the Navy used mostly in the Nuclear Power Program. Maybe the "client" has experience there and is confusing terms. Regardless, Lawrence has provided the most correct answer.

By Delawgee (*)

Date 05-08-2014 06:11

Thanks for the article.

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 05-07-2014 16:08 Edited 05-08-2014 03:59

Hi Glynn/46.00?

I believe you're overlooking the fact that a "Sealing Run" is considered a non standard term in D1.1 therefore the definition by it's very nature would be incorrect with respect to the term's applicability within D1.1... And since it is as far as we know, not used in the contract drawing or specifications due to no reference used to signify as such...

So for these reasons alone, a "sealing Run" is a non-standard term and incorrect as well as not to be associated with AWS D1.1 Structural Welding Code unless someone can cite me clause, annex or even a commentary & paragraph where the nonstandard term "Sealing Run" is used. :surprised:

A "Seal Weld" is the correct term and according to A2.4 - 4.12-page 27, the definition states:
"When the intent of the weld is to fulfill a sealing function only, the weld shall be specified in the tail of the "Welding Symbol" as a "SEAL WELD" (see Annex B4.10).
EDIT: Even though annex B4.10 is referenced the correct topic is B4.12 found on page 105, first column, underneath the illustration... and it states:

"B4.12. Seal Welds. The primary function of a weld may be to contain fluids or gases, however, it will not perform this function if it cracks as a result of stresses caused by handling, storage, shipping, vibrations, temperature changes, etc. For these reasons a seal weld may require careful consideration regarding dimensions of the groove as well as the type. It should be recognized that a welding symbol with only "SEAL WELD" in the tail and no other requirements will relegate such welding to the discretion of the fabrication shop, whose judgment and welding practice may not ensure the service performance of the joint as expected by the designer."

Hi Larry!

"Since the prequalified joint detail B-U2 indicates a back gouge is required. So, at the very least, some weld must be deposited on the face side of the joint, i.e., the side with the groove preparation. The grooved side can be partially welded and then the root side back gouged and back welded or the face side can be welded to completion and then the root side back gouged and back welded."

So, you disagree with this explanation/description from Al also?

Respectfully,
Henry

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 05-07-2014 16:39

I'm still thinking about Al's explaination.

The drawing and symbol on B-U2 indicate (Back weld or Backing weld) as I demonstrated above citing A2.4

Whether it's a backing weld or a back weld, it would be gouged.

Nobody says that the beveling operation must be sequenced in any particular way... Again why couldn't the bevel be gouged after the backing weld is placed, and then filled? Where is the restriction to this?

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 05-07-2014 17:37

Hey Lar,
What about AWS A2.4?
Starting with the reference line to determine sequence of operations to be performed?

I don't see a big deal either way...I'm just thinking out loud.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 05-07-2014 17:57

Not sure what is being said here John.

The symbol used for B-U2 indicates which side the preperation is on the arrow side and that's all.

If sequence is important it *may* be specified.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 05-07-2014 18:00

When you guys finally convince me I'm wrong... Will I have to delete all my posts ???? :)

Or edit them to say... Don't listen to this !

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 05-07-2014 19:58

I think this thread is a good brain exercise....makes me think about things that I've taken as face value and not given much thought about.

By SCOTTN

Date 05-07-2014 20:11

Same here.

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 05-07-2014 20:12 Edited 05-07-2014 20:23

Well Larry, That's going to be not so easy to do with your credibility so, let's see if we can come up with a compromise agreement and @ the very least, agree that just because we may disagree, we'll still respect each others opinion on this topic... I guess I'll start with this:

1) A2.4 states this in 4.7, page 25 for Back and Backing Welds:
"4.7.1 General. The back and backing weld symbols are identical. The sequence of welding determines which designation applies. The back weld is made after the groove weld, and the backing weld is made before the groove weld (see 4.7.2 and 4.7.30)

4.7.2 Back Weld Symbol. The back weld symbol is placed on the side of the reference line opposite a groove weld symbol. When a single reference line is used, "back weld" shall be specified in the tail of the welding symbol. Alternately, if multiple reference lines are used, the back weld symbol shall be placed on a reference line subsequent to the reference line specifying the groove weld [see Figure 27(A)].

4.7.3 Backing Weld Symbol. The backing weld symbol is placed on the side of the reference line opposite a groove weld symbol. When a single reference line is used, "backing weld" shall be specified in the tail of the welding symbol. Alternately, if multiple reference lines are used, the backing weld symbol shall be placed on a reference line prior to the reference line specifying a groove weld [see 27 (B and C)]."

2) Now let's go to page 27:
"4.11 Groove Welds with Backgouging. A joint requiring complete joint penetration involving backgouging may be specified using a single or multiple reference line welding symbol (see Figure 30). The welding symbol shall include a reference to backgouging in the tail and (1) in the case of asymmetrical double-groove welds welds must show depth of bevel from each side (see Figure 28(A), together with groove angles and root opening, or (2) in the case of single groove welds or symmetrical double-groove welds, need not include except the weld symbols [see 4.2.2 and Figure 30 (B and C)], with groove angles and root opening."

AWS 3.0:2001 page 4,
3)"backing weld. backing in the form of a weld. see Figure 24(D)."

4)"back weld. A weld made at the back of a single groove weld. See Figure 24(C)."

There is a difference and yet according to A3.0:2001, the definition of the term backing goes like this:
5)"backing. A material or device placed on the backside of a joint adjacent to the joint root, or at both sides of a joint in electroslag and electrogas welding" (These two welding processes should have been written in Parentheses(sis) to avoid confusion)", to support and shield molten weld metal. The material may be partially fused or remain unfused during welding and may be metal or nonmetal. see Figure 8(D), 12 and, 37."

And finally, let's look at the definition of backgouging according to AWS 3.0:2001.
6)backgouging. The removal of weld metal and base metal from the weld root side of a welded joint to facilitate complete fusion and complete joint penetration upon subsequent welding from that side."

When you combine everything written in all of these definitions according to AWS 3.0:2001 and A2.4, I come to the overall conclusion that although it is not clearly written to which is the correct sequence if any, for a BU-2 joint in AWS D1.1, I see the words "Sequence and Subsequent" stick out to help me determine that the prepared side shall be welded first followed by backgouging the weld root side of the joint in order to deposit a back weld after the backgouging and cleaning by grinding of the completed backgouge operation and is finished in order to complete this BU-2 CJP joint.

Respectfully,
Henry

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 05-07-2014 20:29 Edited 05-07-2014 20:33

So following this train of thought..

D1.1 would not allow a single V groove joint with a backing weld of any kind to have prequalified status.

Even though BU-2 uses a welding symbol that represents both backing welds and back welds..

And we only have to open 6 sections of three different Standards to justify this restriction.

If we open one more specification we will be instantly transported to Narnia

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 05-07-2014 20:45 Edited 05-07-2014 21:06

That's how I read it Lawrence... However, I would like to see what Al has to write about my previous post for verification because Al is leaps and bounds more experienced than I am with AWS D1.1... My strength are in ASME standards but, Js55 clearly has me beat by a mile there also...

I guess that my overall strength which I'm really proud of is my ability to understand welding symbols and how they are applied in engineering drawings which in themselves are subjective to the knowledge of the designer/detailer producing the drawings and you can always tell how much experience and knowledge of welding symbols they have by the way they apply the various supplementary symbols which make up an entire welding symbol...

These threads are always interesting and educational so long as everyone remains civil including myself :twisted:

And now that I'm finally receiving the correct amount of Oxygen to help me think much more clearly these days, I'm experiencing a renewed sense of clarity with everything and everyone and for that I am truly grateful.

Respectfully,
Henry

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 05-07-2014 20:49 Edited 05-07-2014 21:03

I agree wholeheartedly with ending up in "Narnia" or I like to call it "Bizarro World" when navigating some of these joint configurations. :eek:

Btw, where is this "Narnia" place? :twisted:

Respectfully,
Henry

By 46.00

Date 05-08-2014 08:43

Henry, I think you will find I answered the question as it being a sealing weld and in full compliance with A3.0 and D1.1.

We, in Europe have an ISO that also covers Welding symbology, which does have a 'sealing run' symbol and this is where I think the OP is getting mixed up.

Here is a very informative link to a short book explaining the difference between ISO and AWS welding symbols and how it is being aimed to unite the two organisations in their terminology to avoid such confusion in the future. :wink:

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 05-08-2014 15:52 Edited 05-08-2014 15:54

Hi Glynn,

I get what you're saying regarding ISO and the years in fact, decades of effort to achieve such an endeavor... I have lost track as to where this project stands in regard to whether or not they're still hashing it out in the committee meetings or if they have finally reached their goal of unite both sets of welding symbols and terminology... I haven't read anything as of yet but I'll see what's going on later... Last time I checked, they has reached an impasse and took a break... I hope they resumed cooperation since then...

With respect to the non-standard term "Sealing Run." this term is not applicable when working to AWS D1.1 whether or not it is the correct terminology used in ISO last time I checked but, I haven't really had the opportunity to dig deep into AWS D1.1 2010 yet so, I may be mistaken... It certainly wouldn't be the first time that's happened to me...

ABS I believe also uses the term "Sealing Run" also and if I remember correctly, the reason being is that ABS has many components and terminology from ISO so, I'm not saying that it's not possible for this to happen...

Anywho, I'm off to the "pressure cooker" (Hyperbaric chamber) to get saturated with much needed Oxygen and then after that, go do some rehab exercising and then grocery shopping where I get to race around "Wally-World" and create mayhem throughout the store... Yay! :roll:

Respectfully,
Henry

By Superflux (****)

Date 05-08-2014 18:40

46.00
Is it me or is there no "very informative link to a short book explaining the difference between ISO and AWS welding symbols" link?

As the AWS/Esab Welding Forum matured to a more international arena, we are dealing with a much broader audience. Hence terminology that is unfamiliar.
Heck, it is hard enough just in the states when a welder says to me (I was foreman at the time) "ya wants me to Arc wayuld it or Mig it"??? Our processes at that time were SMAW and FCAW... ARGHHhhhh!!!

I had a good assumption of the OP's meaning, but was still not 100% sure. The "Seal Welds" (never have encountered a sealing run) I've dealt with were for inhibiting corrosion.

By 46.00

Date 05-09-2014 07:40

Superflux try this:

http://yusuf.mansuroglu.com/Welding_Symbols_on_Drawings.pdf

Ignore the low res front cover, the literature is good quality just needs zooming in and centering. Not sure why people can't see it in my previous post but thanks for pointing it out!

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 05-09-2014 15:39 Edited 05-09-2014 17:03

Hi Glynn,

Your previous post didn't have the url link to the page you're referring to. :surprised:

I also read that very same book some time ago and it was very informative for me when I was working to ISO standards many moons ago so, don't quiz me on the ISO symbols because for the most part, my memory is ridiculously terrible when it comes to ISO... Yes, it's been that long. :grin:

Respectfully,
Henry

By Superflux (****)

Date 05-10-2014 02:15

Thank you.

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 05-08-2014 00:18

Ask him to cite word verbatim where it is written the term "sealing run" because he will not find anything D1.1... Besides there's no such term or reference to a seal weld or seal run in the details of BU-2... Challenge him if you have to, but do so diplomatically... Hopefully he'll come to agree with your appeal and if he doesn't keep going up the chain of command if you have to as a last resort.

Respectfully,
Henry

By Delawgee (*)

Date 09-17-2014 13:38

Good day All, I contacted the client regarding the "sealing run" and he dropped it. Thank you all for your various contributions and assistance.
Regards,
Delawgee