SECTION THREE VS SECTION 4

Date 06-11-2014 11:33

I've not heard of this before. My thought is, that if the job specifications state that all welding shall be in compliance with the current edition of AWS D1.1, there is no reason to re-qualify anything that D1.1 deems prequalified. If the welding engineers are saying "the latter does not apply", ask them to show you in the project specifications where Section 3 does not apply. If it truly does not apply, it must be stated in the project specifications.
Also, groove welds made from one side only without backing is prohibited, but you're saying they are allowing it?

By Milton Gravitt (***)

Date 06-11-2014 12:56

Scott wouldn't they be able to do groove welds made from one side only without backing if they are doing there on PQRs to get it qualified. Maybe the material that they are welding is not listed in the prequalified base material.

M.G.

By SCOTTN

Date 06-11-2014 13:06

Yes. I was thinking strictly prequalified, and if I remember correctly, if welded from one side without backing, a PQR wouldn't be required for secondary or non stress carrying members.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 06-11-2014 15:04 Edited 06-11-2014 15:07

Burnhart, Scott, and Milt,

Just because D1.1 gives us an entire clause dealing with Pre-qualified procedures because they have been done under those circumstances for generations to the count of millions of welds does not mean anyone has to use them. Burnhart states they are insisting on PQR's on everything. It is not that they are accepting work outside D1.1. They are doing PQR's even when D1.1 says they fall into Clause 3.

They are totally free to qualify their own procedures even if it falls fair and square into Clause 3 Prequalified WPS classifications.

D1.1 is a MINIMUM standard setting code. If their preheats are higher it is no problem per code. If they want to use lower then they definitely would need to complete PQR testing. If everything comes back good then they are set with their preheat desires.

If they are doing CJP's without backing and without backgouging and welding from the opposite side at any point in time then they need to complete PQR testing.

If they are using materials classified to EN but not listed in any way on the Table 3....whatever then they need to complete PQR testing.

A consultant, inspector, whatever cannot force his will on a company for going above and beyond. That is what additional testing is...above and beyond. They are doing testing that others don't do if they insist on testing items that are fairly Clause 3 Prequalified.

And, as a TPI or consultant, our job is to observe and report. Include a description of the fabricator's process to the engineer on the job and leave it up to them. It is not our call even if they were doing something wrong.

Just my two tin pennies worth.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 06-12-2014 11:41

Ok So if we are all missing the point and our free advice has not solved all your problems yet.

Please oh enlightened one; tell us the things that you want and we shall provide them for you at once.

Also sire,,, please be so gratious and kind as to number your requests and make them specific so that we may produce for you perfect answers which cannot be equivocated or misunderstood...

Ask of us any number of questions... But please number them so that our responses will not "miss the point"

By Milton Gravitt (***)

Date 06-12-2014 14:15

burnhard if you are talking about GMAW-S it's not prequalified if I'm not wrong you have to do a PQR or a WPS for GMAW-S using Clause 4 Table 4.5.

M.G.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 06-12-2014 16:27

Interesting. I most strenuously agree that someone is missing the point.

One more time clearly: YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE CLAUSE 3!! CLAUSE 4 PQR'S TRUMP PREQUALIFIED CLAUSE 3 PROCEDURES! If you have proved it works under Clause 4 PQR's then Clause 3 preheat is totally irrelevant. And, GMAW-S is acceptable if proven with a Clause 4 PQR.

Not to mention that Welder Qualification is totally separate from PQR Qualification even though they are both located within Clause 4.

Last Time Slowly: Not every part of D1.1 is mandatory in it's application to every situation.

How ...nevermind, I'm not going there. Breathe, relax, abort, abort, abort.

By SCOTTN

Date 06-12-2014 18:05

Sections 3 and 4 of D1.1 was what was in question. I understand that no one has to use the D1.1 prequalified procedures. What I don't understand is why would anyone take on the additional cost and the time to qualify procedures that are already qualified in accordance with D1.1.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 06-12-2014 18:35

Hello Scott,

I'm not sure they are working procedures that are prequalified. This guy is all over the board with his questions making it hard to follow. Besides, we are talking about European companies. They tend to do a good many things differently. I have hoped some of our members across the pond would chime in. Wouldn't blame them for staying away from this one.

And, if under some of their operating standards they feel the need to run PQR's because they don't totally hold to D1.1's ability to discern what is acceptable without testing then more power to them. Regardless of rather (did I get it right Henry?) they do it for personal reasons, regional/European conditions, customer requirements, or the phase of the moon.

This obsession with a company not using Clause 3 ... I'm headed down that road again, not going there.

We don't know what this is costing them but then they have procedures for all future work as well. We don't know if there is something about the procedure that actually makes it such that PQR's are required, hard to tell from the OP's posts. Process? Preheat? Material? Joint configuration? So many variables that could make it necessary and without enough properly worded information for evaluation.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

By SCOTTN

Date 06-12-2014 18:56

I agree. The original post sounded to me like the (unnecessary?) qualifications were for personal reasons more than anything else. Regardless, if that were the case, it should have been specified in the contract documents so that additional costs for doing so could have been included in the estimate. If it wasn't specified, and it's realized to be a requirement later on, the fabricator should be compensated for the additional cost.

By 46.00

Date 06-12-2014 22:57

Hi Brent,
I did quite a bit of D1.1 work a couple of years ago for a British firm.
Neither myself or the company were familiar with D1.1. It was quite a steep leaning curve.
The company engineers along with the client decided they wanted to use clause 4 for a couple of reasons eg one particular joint was a CJP without backing and without back gouging. Also, it was a contract stipulation for other reasons, so no joint configurations were covered by prequalified WPS's. Cost was not really an issue on this job. We never even delved into having to meet clause 3 requirements. Like you stated, we interpreted clause 4 to 'Trump' prequalified requirements.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 06-12-2014 23:09

Thanks for chiming in Glyn. Much appreciated on my part, and, though I am having problems with the OP (I hope not rift causing) I hope he understands the application and differences as well.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

By 46.00

Date 06-13-2014 01:56

No problem Brent, I suspect that the OP's first language is not english. I think there might be some cultural and communication issues. I know I have had a few both on here and quite a few more when I was living and working in the US :wink:

Best times of my life!

I don't think Europeans are used to working with a standard that has tried and tested prequalified WPS's available for construction, which can be used straight out of the box so to speak! Document's like that are far and few between in EU land! We like to be made to pay for new EN ISO standards that change every couple of months and often have multiple other standards referenced that also have changed and bear little resemblance to previous versions! Then we have the PED regulations to meet if we want to sell our products.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 06-13-2014 02:11

And that is what I was really looking for. Now the rest of us here can better understand where you and our OP are coming from with comments made from time to time. There really are differences beyond just language that we need to consider when trying to help others.

But, at the same time, the others need to try to understand what we are saying since he did reference 'our' code. It is not us who is missing the point. On the other hand, the point may not apply the same to him. Cultures, political/insurance/economic concerns and involvement, language, and so many other factors must be taken into account.

Let's use another extreme example: The Holy Scriptures written originally in Hebrew then the New Testament in Greek from 2000 yrs ago for the NT to up to 6000 yrs ago for most of the OT. Translated into many languages finally to English now brought to America where the English of the 1611 King James seems strange. It takes a great deal of study and prayer to try to understand many parts of it.

My point: the same with codes developed here and then put to use in other countries with different cultures, language, governmental regulations, etc. It takes a lot to interpret and most of all one must consider the original writers background, intent, and heart of the message to come to a reasonable application.

Did that make sense?

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

By 46.00

Date 06-13-2014 03:00

It does to me, but I have knowledge of working extensively in the US and Europe, it was a very steep learning curve working in the US! I mean, I'm English, I speak english but sometimes the differences were great! For instance, first week in the US, my car needed filling with gas, so I pull into the gas station in my hire car and try and stick the green pump into my filler. 10 minutes later I'm still trying, till I read the pumps and find that green pumps in the US are diesel and black pumps are gas! Thats exactly 180° to how it is in the UK! - UK = Green is gas :grin:

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 06-13-2014 03:52

Boy do I relate. When we visited England last year and rented a diesel sedan and pulled in to fill up, NO, not with the green one!! And because I drive a diesel p/u stateside that was fun to remember each time we filled up.

Not to mention leaving a tip at a restaurant, or asking for water- for those that don't know, different kinds, yes, of water.

Now, relate this minor differences to other issues as codes.

Thanks Glyn.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 06-13-2014 06:11

Close enough for Gubernment work Brent! :smile:

By burnhard Date 06-16-2014 16:36

hello Weldbrent,
Thank you for your clear answer.I always thought of the code as a whole with every section mandatory. So if you dont like section three, you can go to four and do your own cooking so to speak, no need to follow the recepy.So, if you think using a backing, or backgouging to sound weld is a waste of time, do a PQR under section four, pass all NDT hardness etc and off you go. Well I dont agree with that. Those PQR are just test plates in perfect welding conditions but twenty feet in the air in full weather tied to a harness welding upside down your only friend is going to be 3/8 carbon. production welds always have gaps, how are you going to duplicate your perfect test coupon? Are you going to do macros on your column, what if you cannot do UT ? I think section 3 is here for producing safe and sound welds over and over again. To me Section 4 is only when section 3 cannot be used because of specific materials or joint design (architectural for example) To go to section 4 because it is less strict and requires less man hours is a dangerous deviation of the code intention. Your answer is not necessary.
Sincerely,
Bernard Mauge

By 803056

Date 06-20-2014 12:57 Edited 06-20-2014 13:05

To allay your concerns regarding changes in the groove angle, root openings etc. due to actual field conditions, you might want to take a look at item 33 found in Table 4.5 of AWS D1.1/D1.1M-2010. Changes beyond the tolerances permitted by the clauses listed are considered to be essential variables, thus require a new PQR to demonstrate the conditions still permit the deposition of welds that meet the requirements of the code.

Considering my experiences with a few contractors that are still functioning at the Neanderthal level, I can understand why an Owner might insist the contractor demonstrate their procedures and welders will produce welds that meet the requirements of the code. Essentially, that is the mind set of ASME and I agree with that portion of ASME's philosophy.

The idea of prequalification only works if the contractor follows all the requirements. Unfortunately, there are those few contractors out there in the ether that try to cherry pick portions of clause 3 to follow, while ignoring those subclauses that give them heartburn.

Al