Specification AWS D1.3

Date 10-24-2003 20:48

You have a touchy situation there.
First off, it would be good if the customer and the vendor actually have a copy of D1.3. Maybe they do but aren't taking the time to read it?

At any rate, AWS D1.3 Section 3 does have provisions for prequalified WPSs. The vendor doing the welding could write out a WPS or they could have someone else like a consultant do it but the vendor is responsible. Section 3 is essentially saying that if ALL applicable requirements are met, Procedure Qualifications (testing the welds as they will be welded by the WPS) do not have to be done.

Strangely, I haven't yet seen where Engineer's (customer) is required for WPSs and welder qualifications except for when there are deviations from D1.3. Maybe I scanned over it.
It is not unusual for contract specs to require approvals though. You might want to double check there.

Nothing says a CWI MUST be used, unless the contract says so.
The person who prepares and reviews welding documents SHOULD know the codes but doesn't have to be certified for it. Testing can be done in-house by a designated person, it does not have to be evaluated by an independent. Caution is advised here though. D1.3 has welder qual requirements the go beyond what we have in other codes, specific tests are required that must be performed according to joint type and other essential variables.

That's a Friday afternoon, 'shotgun' approach to it. If the contract documents don't supercede D1.3, and D1.3 provisions are met, I would say the customer is in error.
Just one more thing to consider here, is there an underlying problem that is bringing all this out? You might want to check.

Hope I didn't lead you astray. If I did, I'm sure my capable colleagues will post a correction and enlighten us both.

Chet Guilford

By primeszat2003 Date 10-27-2003 14:52

Thank you for your insight.
The original contract required "welding to be in compliance wih AWS D1.3".
When the vendor submitted his supporting documentation after performing the welds, he sent:
1. Certificate of Compliance with the statement " Welded per AWS D1.3. After reviewing weld standard AWS D1.3 parts welded per MIL-STD-2219 meet or exceed weld standard AWS D1.3".
2. His internal welding procedure referencing MIL-STD-1595A and 2219.
3. Material certs for the material (304L) that was used to fabricate the electrical enclosure.
4. Independent test lab results (dated Dec 30, 1999) for the specific welder who made the welds, certifying him to Visual/Radiographic I/A with 1595A.
From this, can you tell me if, in your opinion, the contract was fulfilled with regard to welding I/A with D1.3?
Would it be possible to talk with you by phone on this matter?
I am stuck between the provertbial rock and a hard place here, and I am getting nowhere. Any additional input that you can provide would be sincerely appreciated.
Thanks.

By primeszat2003 Date 10-27-2003 14:59

Sorry, one thing I forgot.

If your answer to my previous post is that the qualification is not acceptable:

If the specific welder must be qualified to D1.3, is the qualification retroactive?
In other words, if he is qualified today, would the parts he made last week be considered acceptable, or would they have to be made over?

Thanks, again.

By CHGuilford (****)

Date 10-27-2003 18:19

primezat,
I didn't answer whether the welder was qualified or not because there is not enough info to determine that. Testing would have to fully comply with all applicable parts of D1.3 in order to say the welder is qualified. There are many aspects of D1.3 that have to be considered.

Your items from today's post bothers me a bit.

Item #1- the vendor is saying that the Mil spec meets or exceeds D1.3.
I have no experience with Mil specs so I can't agree or disagree. However, since the customer spec'd D1.3, he should be the one to determine if compliance is there, not the vendor. The vendor should have reviewed specs and sent in RFIs and such for clarifications and permissions. Usually that is all worked out before the project begins.

Item #3- stainless steel 304L was used. Stainless is not disallowed, but weldability must be established by qualification per D1.3 section 4. Not necessarily a problem but I believe the approved materials in D1.3 sec 1.2 are all carbon steels? (Not 100% sure because I dont have access to my ASTM references right now) That would mean 304L is not prequalified.

Item #4- just a caution that there should be continuity logs showing the welder has been using the process since he qualified. Also you should note, D1.3 sec 4.7.2 indicates the various joint types (Table 4.1) requiring separate qualification tests as it applies to the actual work (meaning what the welder did for a test may or may not be what was welded in production). The test records should show what was done. The fact that there was a radiographic inspection of the weld test makes me suspect that only a plate test was done, not fillets and flare-bevels and such indicated in Table 4.1.

Items 1 & 2- as above, I believe those would be up to the customer to determine suitability, compared to what was spec'd out for the job.

For your 2nd post, naturally qualifying prior to doing the work is best, but mistakes do happen , usually it is acceptable to do the qualification after the fact when there was a misunderstanding. The idea is to prove the person is capable of making good welds instead of rejecting parts if they don't have to be.

The long and short of all this is that I suspect the customer has a solid postion based on the info and reading between the lines. I hope I am wrong for your sake.
I'm thinking that you would probably be better off hiring an local independent inspector or knowledgeable person to review your information. Probably a meeting should be set up with the intereted parties?

Chet Guilford

By DGXL

Date 10-27-2003 22:00

Prime:
I am the same person that posted a reply to your query in the eng-tips forum.

You are for the most part getting the same response to your post in this forum;

1.) D1.3 is D1.3, period, The use of the MIL-STDs is not out of the question, it is more of will your customer accept these certifications in lieu of what is required in your contract. I'll repeat what I have already stated in E-T, that there is no code that is equal to or better than, they are all intened for a specific application using specific materials.

2.) The D1.3 is intended for cold-formed steels, but it does permit other sheet steels to be welded, but they are required to be tested and accompanied a by a PQR (D1.3-98, 1.2.2).

3.) AS I noted in the other forum, the vendor is trying to convince you that the MIl 1595/2219 "meet or exceed" the D1.3, as I already noted, ask for the PQR to verify this point... I would not accept the vendors welder qualfifications if the customer is not accepting these. Ultimately you will be the one who pays for this if the Mil certs are not accepted. I also noted both of these MIL-STD's are now superceeded by the AWS D17.1 specification.

The vendor is trying to convince you their outdated welder qualifications are acceptable qualfications performed under outdated Mil-Stds.

edited 10-28-03 (Ooops!)

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 10-28-2003 11:03

Hi DGXL, Chet, Prime!

I have to agree with DGXL about the fact that D17.1 supersedes Mil std. 1595/2219... I also believe DGXL is correct in his interpretation as to what the vendor is trying to justify regarding the outdated Mil std's... Perhaps another forum member named "Lawrence" might also shed some light on the situation... Lawrence's Boss sat on the committee that wrote D17.1 (specification for fusion welding for aerspace applications), so he can also explain the intricacies regarding proper interpretation, and how it relates to the outdated/superseded Mil std. 1595/2219, to D1.3, and D1.1 respectively... There are some significant changes in AWS D17.1 that need to be addressed to this vendor... You can find his call sign, "Lawrence" in this forum, and he has his e-mail listed once you click his call sign... If you have trouble finding it, well here it is:
LMTBower@charter.net

Respectfully,

SSBN727 Run Silent... Run Deep!!!

By primeszat2003 Date 10-30-2003 14:11

Thanks everyone for the help and guidance.
One more question:
If the contract calls for 1595A/2219, and these have been superseded by D17.1, can the old spec still prevail?
In other words, the customer is effectively saying 1595A/2219 is what I want, I do not want the part welded to the requirements of the newer D17.1.
Is this allowed?
Thanks again.