AWS D1.1 - will the code allow this....?

admin

Dear all, We have qualified a PQR on heavy plate (single sided CJP butt weld) where we used SMAW for the root run and filled it up using FCAW-gas shielded. We are facing a situation out in production where the workshop has used FCAW all the way i.e. 1) root + 2) fill + 3) Capping, all welded from one side in a T-joint; they intend to backgouge and remove the root run and fill it up from the back side using FCAW-gas shielded. Some questions on AWS D1.1:a) Is the above really supported by the code? To me it seems to be a flagrant example of unauthorize welding since you have not qualified FCAW for the root run; I don't care that your intention is to remove this root pass later on using back gauging. By the way, how can one be sure to have removed the root pass after having finished the back gauge? b) Will ASME IX allow the above?c) If I had qualified two separate PQRs, one welded solely with FCAW and the other welded solely with SMAW: Am I allowed to issue a WPS that mixes the two methods any way I want it (root, pass, fill and capping any way I want it)? d) If the drawing specifies a single sided T-joint: Am I allowed to perform gauging and weld a pass from the back side without violating the code, or would this be considered as a weld repair from the back side. Thank you in advance for your contributions on the above questions, Kind regardsStaffan CarlssonWelding Engineer
Reply:Originally Posted by StaffanCDear all, We have qualified a PQR on heavy plate (single sided CJP butt weld) where we used SMAW for the root run and filled it up using FCAW-gas shielded. We are facing a situation out in production where the workshop has used FCAW all the way i.e. 1) root + 2) fill + 3) Capping, all welded from one side in a T-joint; they intend to backgouge and remove the root run and fill it up from the back side using FCAW-gas shielded. Some questions on AWS D1.1:a) Is the above really supported by the code? To me it seems to be a flagrant example of unauthorize welding since you have not qualified FCAW for the root run; I don't care that your intention is to remove this root pass later on using back gauging. By the way, how can one be sure to have removed the root pass after having finished the back gauge? b) Will ASME IX allow the above?c) If I had qualified two separate PQRs, one welded solely with FCAW and the other welded solely with SMAW: Am I allowed to issue a WPS that mixes the two methods any way I want it (root, pass, fill and capping any way I want it)? d) If the drawing specifies a single sided T-joint: Am I allowed to perform gauging and weld a pass from the back side without violating the code, or would this be considered as a weld repair from the back side. Thank you in advance for your contributions on the above questions, Kind regardsStaffan CarlssonWelding Engineer
Reply:I will give you one, but you should research the code.C. Section 3.6.1 A combination of qualified and prequalified WPS may be used without qualification of the combination, provided the limitation on essential variables applicable to each process is observed.AWS Certified Welding Inspector,certified welder (unlimited 3G/4G)NDT and Coatinge inspectionShieldarc 250Presion TIG 225Alpha 200xChop sawDrills / grindersband sawoxy/acetylene hand toolsEtc....
Reply:[QUOTE=Josh Flynn;3051241]I will give you one, but you should research the code.C. Section 3.6.1 A combination of qualified and prequalified WPS may be used without qualification of the combination, provided the limitation on essential variables applicable to each process is observed.[/I put the section but forgot to tell you that the information was found in D1.1 2010 ed.AWS Certified Welding Inspector,certified welder (unlimited 3G/4G)NDT and Coatinge inspectionShieldarc 250Presion TIG 225Alpha 200xChop sawDrills / grindersband sawoxy/acetylene hand toolsEtc....
Reply:I am no longer in a code shop, but when I was it was common practice to weld out with FC and the back gouge and fill/cap.  That was my experience and was signed off by our engineers, but I wouldn't go by my .02 worth.  Things change and you need a source in print.  Hope you find it. Good luck.
Reply:Thank you for your input. It's appreciated. I did research the code but was left without an answer I have no problem to understand that if you qualify one PQR using SMAW only and then qualify another PQR using FCAW only that you can issue a WPS where you mix the methods any way you want (paying attention to all essential variables). This is also the case in ASME.However, this is not the issue in my case. We qualified one single PQR using SMAW for the root run, only,  and finished off the welding using FCAW. Based upon this dual metod PQR we issued a WPS dictating the use of SMAW for the root run and FCAW for the fill and cap. However, in the production weld, FCAW was used all the way i.e. even for the root pass (root gap was closed since back gauging was to take place at a later stage. I still refer to a root run for the first pass even though the gap was closed. To me, the first weld pass will always be the root pass). When the QC started protesting, the workshop claimed that since we are back gauging, we are not violating the code. To me, this is just nonsence. The WPS dictates the use of SMAW for the root run and that is all I need to say that if you use FCAW instead, you're violating the WPS and the code since you have not qualified the PQR using FCAW for the root run. Am I right, or wrong?Cheers,Staffan CarlssonWelding Engineer
Reply:The welding process being used per your WPS is an essential variable, when you change or omit a process your exceeding your limits. I understand back gouging but the WPS states SMAW root, FCAW fill/cap with back gouging with SMAW backside welding? The whole idea with the back gouging is to remove the non fused area and preform back welding to make this a CJP weld,  but being that you have preformed FCAW for your root you will need to gouge deeper to remove the non fused area plus the FCAW root areas which will require more welding.  Does your WPS specify only a root pass with SMAW or say for example the first 1/4 of groove welded with SMAW and the remaining 3/4 welded with FCAW?Last edited by Josh Flynn; 09-11-2013 at 09:24 AM.AWS Certified Welding Inspector,certified welder (unlimited 3G/4G)NDT and Coatinge inspectionShieldarc 250Presion TIG 225Alpha 200xChop sawDrills / grindersband sawoxy/acetylene hand toolsEtc....
Reply:Hi, Thank you for your input and please accept my apologies for answering so late. The WPS specifies SMAW for the Root pass (2.5 and 3.25 mm electrode diameter) and FCAW for fill and cap. No specific thickness specified for the root and/or the. Since the WPS specifies the use of SMAW for the root, using FCAW for the root is a clear violation to the WPS. I have no doubts about that. However, would the Code allow me to issue a new WPS that dictates the use of FCAW for all welding and also requiring that the root pass be removed through arc gauging and the subsequent finishing off by means of a couple of FWAW back side passes. All this referring to a PQR that has been welded using single sided butt welding with a SMAW root pass and fill + cap using FCAW (don't ask me how I know when I have removed the root pass, because there is no way to know). I'm just curious to know how generous the AWS Code is. That's all. Thank you for your time and efforts.Kind regards, Staffan
Reply:Pretty sure your original WPS is invalid if you are following the code.  There is a pretty good discussion on the aws forums right now on this subjectExperience is something you get right after you need it
Reply:I don`t have the code in front of me but i don`t believe you can write a new WPS for FCAW only when you tested and qualified the original PQR  to SMAW/FCAW process.  Are the material, joint,process etc your using prequalified?
Reply:Aren't you comparing a fillet weld to a groove weld? See what the code says, re fillets, I don't think the same rules apply.
Reply:Just looked in the code, and dont see any provision to have 2 different processes on a single PQR.  Not sure that your original PQR/WPS combo is compliantExperience is something you get right after you need it
Reply:Originally Posted by StaffanCDear all, We have qualified a PQR on heavy plate (single sided CJP butt weld) where we used SMAW for the root run and filled it up using FCAW-gas shielded. We are facing a situation out in production where the workshop has used FCAW all the way i.e. 1) root + 2) fill + 3) Capping, all welded from one side in a T-joint; they intend to backgouge and remove the root run and fill it up from the back side using FCAW-gas shielded. Some questions on AWS D1.1:a) Is the above really supported by the code? To me it seems to be a flagrant example of unauthorize welding since you have not qualified FCAW for the root run; I don't care that your intention is to remove this root pass later on using back gauging. By the way, how can one be sure to have removed the root pass after having finished the back gauge? b) Will ASME IX allow the above?c) If I had qualified two separate PQRs, one welded solely with FCAW and the other welded solely with SMAW: Am I allowed to issue a WPS that mixes the two methods any way I want it (root, pass, fill and capping any way I want it)? d) If the drawing specifies a single sided T-joint: Am I allowed to perform gauging and weld a pass from the back side without violating the code, or would this be considered as a weld repair from the back side. Thank you in advance for your contributions on the above questions, Kind regardsStaffan CarlssonWelding Engineer
Reply:the code will not allow you to omit a process (SMAW)  from your WPS that was used on your PQR (FCAW/SMAW).  I understand you are going to back gouge the root after welding, but the root is one of if not the most critical weld passes during your PQR testing and your test results came from SMAW root with FCAW fill/cap not FCAW alone.   If your going to write a new WPS with just FCAW you would need requal a new PQR based on D1.1 figure 4.10/4.11 also take a look at note A on those figures
Reply:Many thanks for all your suggestions and ideas guys. It's highly appreciated.Our client does not accept prequalified WPSs so I think I can leave that option out (to use it in support of using FCAW all the way).I'm prone to stick to my original believes that you are not allowed to remove/change a process for the root run, that was originally used to qualify the PQR. Rigth or wrong, I don't know. It just feels like the only viable option here. Thanks again guys, Regards, Staffan
Reply:Hi again, Saw that somewhere in the above, you write that AWS D1.1 won't allow me to qualify a PQR using two or more welding processes?Can you please elaborate on this because you make me very confused here. Kind regards, Staffan
Reply:Curious:  Are impact properties adversely affected when the two processes are used?  Or is this a non seismic condition using filler materials with no impact properties?
Reply:Originally Posted by StaffanCHi again, Saw that somewhere in the above, you write that AWS D1.1 won't allow me to qualify a PQR using two or more welding processes?Can you please elaborate on this because you make me very confused here. Kind regards, Staffan
Reply:Here is thier responceThank you for contacting WPSAmerica.com, my name is Hamilton.Since 2006, 100's of companies are using WPSAmerica.com online software.AWS welding code allows using prequalified WPS for combined processes,  if each process meet the requirement with the code for particular  joint configuration outline as prequalified in such code. The software  allow you (engineer) to prepare WPS for multi-process (prequalified or  non-prequalified).As you can see in our demo, Library of over 10,000 AWS prequalified  procedures, it is prepared for only single process, as our bonus to  users beside the software! You can take a tumbnail look at it all  right now from the site.Highlights and Benefits of WPSAmerica.com:-For your entire weld document needs, WPSAmerica.com online software  supports more codes for the AWS and ASME welding codes, with complete  code's rules and full guidance.-There is no restriction for users inside of your company, no softwaredownload, no corporate license fee, no seat license fee,no maintenance service fee, no upgrade fee,...-Suggested weld data for welding different materials and weld process(Learn First on Main Menu)-Huge saving by using from over 10,000 AWS prequalified procedures and  avoid doing unnecessary costly tests, when allowed by AWS code. These  procedures prepared by code experts and are continuously updated with  latest edition of thestructural steel welding codes.WPSAmerica.com's prequalified procedures ease the complexity ofdevelopment of weld procedures for structural steel applications, likemild steels, low alloy steels and stainless steels (Plate, Pipe,Sheet, Box), in accordance with the AWS D1.1, AWS D1.3 and AWS D1.6welding codes.-Hands-on expert presentations that worth days of taking expensive courses-Welding community, a place for business success, providing you withyour own webpage, including internal mailbox and instant e-mailnotification for members business networking.-Answers to your questions on codes and the software online(You Asked We Answered on Main Menu)-Store and save all your weld documents onlineThank you again for your interest on WPSAmerica.com  Sincerely,  We appreciate your business!  Your WPSAmerica.com Team  Affiliate Company Member of AWS  Phone: 1 (877) WPS-WELD  Online Support (24/7 Message Center): (828) 367-5632  http://www.wpsamerica.com/  The Global Leader of  Online Welding Software  (AWS, ASME, CSA)
Reply:I amazes me that anyone would require a closed root with SMAW then use a wire feed process to fill.  Most up to date shops very rarely use SMAW since it is so slow and expensive.  I agree that the WPS must be followed exactly but why start welding with one hand tied behind your back.  After all it is really all about time and money as long as quality is met. Picking something up, turning it over, backgouging then filling is SOP inside a shop.  Outside is often another matter since one does not have cranes and backgouging ready at hand.
Reply:Originally Posted by StaffanCThank you for your input. It's appreciated. I did research the code but was left without an answer I have no problem to understand that if you qualify one PQR using SMAW only and then qualify another PQR using FCAW only that you can issue a WPS where you mix the methods any way you want (paying attention to all essential variables). This is also the case in ASME.However, this is not the issue in my case. We qualified one single PQR using SMAW for the root run, only,  and finished off the welding using FCAW. Based upon this dual metod PQR we issued a WPS dictating the use of SMAW for the root run and FCAW for the fill and cap. However, in the production weld, FCAW was used all the way i.e. even for the root pass (root gap was closed since back gauging was to take place at a later stage. I still refer to a root run for the first pass even though the gap was closed. To me, the first weld pass will always be the root pass). When the QC started protesting, the workshop claimed that since we are back gauging, we are not violating the code. To me, this is just nonsence. The WPS dictates the use of SMAW for the root run and that is all I need to say that if you use FCAW instead, you're violating the WPS and the code since you have not qualified the PQR using FCAW for the root run. Am I right, or wrong?Cheers,Staffan CarlssonWelding Engineer
Reply:No matter what the fabricator must follow the welding procedure.  Certifying authorities rarely do a fast rulling simply because it can be fodder for lawyers long after the work has been completed.   It reminds me of guys on their trucks doing local gas lines in the 1970's.  Being from Alberta they did them with SMAW.  When they knew the engineer was coming by they pulled out their oxy-acetyelene torches and proceeded to weld up the small pipe per the welding procedure..... until the engineer left the site.   If they had been caught they would have lost that contract and any future business from that gas company.
Reply:Years ago, part of a test I took included a 1" plate, 30° bevel, 1/4" land, butted tight to another 1" plate, no bevel. I had to run the root in the bevel, using a dualshield (FCAW) and subsequent fill and cap. The coupon was turned over, and a single pass (no backgouge) was run, with the same process. The coupon was x-rayed, then bent.  Personally, IMO, I don't follow using SMAW on a closed root. FCAW would save time (labor) and money.
Reply:Thank you guys for your input. I'm as confused today as I was when I started this thread But it's been interesting to read your input on the subject. Kind regards, Staffan