Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / Why would a 3rd party engineer agree to 3G downhill as 4G?
- - By Bowler_Hat (**) Date 02-16-2016 13:17
Hey All,

I've got a peculiar case here...and I can't seem to make heads or tales of it.

A PQR was made with a GMAW backing followed by Submerged Arc Welding on both sides (Double V grove 25mm thick, 4mm landing), in the 1G position (flipped it over between welds). This, as we know, doesn't qualify one for vertical or overhead. In application the backing is put in overhead (large rolling cylinder)

However, I have notes here that the customer's Welding Engineer and CWI agreed that a backing documented as 3G down hill was acceptable (but no notes as to how or why it was allowed under what code/specification). The actual GMAW backing is put in at ~35° Past Horizontal (~55« from vertical). I've been reading around and I haven't found anything in D1.1 that permits this (I'd like to imagine that because the Backing is consumed entirely, it may be permitted...but again assumptions aren't a good place to stand legally).

Any ideas or insights would be greatly appreciated, thanks!

P.S. The company in quest did re-test their PQR inputting the backing in the 3G position with a downhill progression.
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 02-16-2016 16:59
Couple things, first, if the customer engineer accepts it then it seems to me it is good to go. Second, perhaps the engineer is an old ASME guy where procedurally position is irrelevant for standard qualifications.
Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / Why would a 3rd party engineer agree to 3G downhill as 4G?

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill