Play by the Rules

Paul,

I have a problem with the B31.3 code. It seems to be costing us getting jobs.

Recently, we were going to do some copper brazing for a regular customer.

When we made them aware of the requirements for pressure testing, they backed out. They didn't want to "go thru all that". This is not the first time this sort of thing has happened.

My question is,

Do we do the work anyway and allow them to "waive" code requirements, or loose the jobs to someone who will do it cheaper because they don't have the QC costs and don't go by the rules?

Thanks,

Tim C

Lafayette, IN

Tim,

I once had a local concrete contractor approach me.  He had the opportunity to bid on a project and asked, “What would it take for us to comply with AWS-D1.4 – Structural Welding Code – Reinforcing Steel?”  After I laid out a plan to get him there he just lowered his head and mumbled, “Damn!”

Remember, “…to safeguard the health and well being of the public and to maintain integrity and high standards of skills, practice, and conduct in the occupation of welding inspection…” –AWS-QC1 Sec. 11.  That is why we became Certified Welding Inspectors.  People who have no clue as to what we do, trust we’re good at it, and are counting on us to follow through.

Codes and standards are developed by people who work in our industries.  They are often the result of tough lessons learned over the years (Google: The Sinking of the Sultana).  When referenced in contract documents they become law, and we need to adapt the entire code into our project. 

Loose the job or not, you don’t have a problem with B31.3, and you already knew the answer to your question…  You play by the rules.

PWC

Qualified per Clause 3? or Clause 4?

Paul

I'm working with company that has their Welders certified on A36 plate with .045 solid wire. They have taken the test with GMAW, in a vertical down progression, in a globular transfer. They took it on 1 inch plate, Single V- Groove with backing. The company they want to do work for wants them qualified to do flat and horizontal fillet joints but says they are not qualified because they welded there test plates vertical down.
Who's right?
Loren H.

Loren,
“Who’s right?”  My first reaction would be, "The Customer", but we're Inspectors so we’ll dig a little deeper then that.   For the sake of this question I’m going to assume the qualification we’re discussing is to AWS-D1.1.
When the Welders were tested they needed to be tested to a qualified weld procedure specification (WPS). They could not have taken the test using a prequalified procedure because a prequalified procedure would require a vertical up progression (See AWS-D1.1-2010, Clause/Sub-section 3.7.1). So the company you are working with must have on file a Procedure Qualification Record (PQR) for welding groove welds in the vertical position with a downward progression.

Often, I’ll audit small fabrication shops for compliance to AWS codes and standards.  Welding to a Prequalified WPS that does not fit within the guidelines of Clause 3 is something I come across all too often.  The 3 big hitters I find are:
#1) welding materials not found in Table 3.1,
#2) welding vertically in a downward progression and
#3) not staying within the preheat/interpass requirements of Table 3.2.
So, long story short, if the company has written weld procedures for the Flat and Horizontal positions and has qualified the Vertical down progression, then Welders tested 3G down to a qualified procedure would be considered qualified (within the restrictions of Table 4.10).
It has been my experience that it's pretty tough to qualify a multi-pass procedure 3G down. Not to say it can't be done. I've just struggled with it.
Let me know if the procedure was qualified… That’s kind of a big deal.
Thanks for writing.
PWC

Loren Replied:
Thank you for your response.  Believe me you haven’t heard the last of me.  I’ve been looking for someone to answer my questions , and I usually have a lot of them.  Unfortunatly  I’ve made a mistake thinking you could weld GMAW down and it would be prequalified. I’ve contacted the company and explained the problem.  I have a date to retest them either vertical up or just doing fillet joints which is all they need anyway. I guess it’s one of life’s lessons. I should read more and not listen to others.

Somebody expects you home tonight

Stephanie V.

Which is more dangerous, Nuclear Welding or Underwater Welding?

Often, when we use the term Nuclear in welding we are talking about high weld quality.  Nuclear welding can be carried out in a fab shop miles from a Nuclear Power Plant, or right there on site during construction. 

In these cases, Nuclear implies highly skilled workers doing welding that will be Radiographically (RT) or Ultrasonically (UT) tested to a very strict code.  Welds need to be free from defects; fit-ups need to be accurate and free from added stress.  Pipe and fittings need to be manufactured in such a way as to be traceable as do welding consumables such as electrodes and welding rods. 

To be a Welder on a Nuclear job site requires high skill.  A failed X-Ray can cost big money and probably your job.

Underwater welding brings images of a diver striking a shielded metal arc weld (SMAW/Stick) on some moss covered oil platform deep in the Gulf with Scuttle hovering over head and Flounder swimming by.  Like Nuclear, underwater welding also requires a high degree of skill.  The cost of getting a skilled worker to that repair is high and everybody involved has a “fix it once, fix it right” attitude. I once watched as a welder had to submerse himself in to a 24 in. diameter bridge footing form to re-weld a damaged piece of re-bar.  

That was a spendy repair.

In addition to being a skilled Welder, the underwater Welder needs to be a skilled diver.  They need to be able to manipulate the welding electrode while dressed in an outfit reminiscant of Neil Armstrong.  He/She may work directly in the water “wet welding” or do “hyperbaric welding” (dry welding) where a positive pressure enclosure is attached to the hull of a ship.  The water is removed from the chamber and the Welder is in a dry environment deep below the surface.

So the Underwater Welder sounds as though he would have the more dangerous job, but did you know there is such thing as an Underwater Nuclear Welder.

 

WHAT? 

This dude has to suit up, climb into the cooling pool that is filled with 100 degree, radioactively contaminated water, and complete a weld repair. 

Now that’s crazy!

All these Welders require a high degree of skill.  Not just in welding, but in several other categories, diving, working in confined space, working with restrictions on your hands, your legs your sight, working with an oxygen supply, and climbing, climbing, climbing.

Which brings me to the Welder who has the highest chance of a fatality on the job; five or fifty stories up, walking an I- beam, attached to a 6 ft. tether, dragging a “beamer” close behind.  I believe statistics show, the Iron Worker is the Welder who is most likely to suffer a fatality on the job.

It’s good work if you can get it, but pay attention to your Trainer and be careful.  Somebody expects you home tonight.

PWC

Understanding Intent

Paul,

I work for a large U.S. Corporation that is made up of 15 manufacturers, each with well known brands throughout their markets.  It seems like since we all work for "X-Corp", we could share weld procedures (WPS) and procedure qualification reports (PQR) across the company and save on testing and qualification expenses.  Could a case be made for each division, to use centralized "X-Corp" WPS’s that are supported by the PQR’s run at the 15 different manufactures?

Mike I.

Welding Engineer - CWI

Mike,

That's a good thought.  Let’s take a look at a couple of code provisions...

AWS-D1.1, 4.2.1.1 states, "Each manufacturer or contractor shall conduct the tests required by this code to qualify the WPS".  That same provision goes on to talk about "consolidation with parent company(s)". 

For some, that may create a "gray area", but we as CWI’s, in addition to being able to reference code previsions, also have to understand code intent.  The best way I know to better understand codes intent is found in the Annex’s and the Commentary of the code.

You remember those sections.  They are the ones your CWI instructor suggested you steer clear of during your exam.  Well, they have a purpose.  Located in the back of your code book, the Commentary shares the same Clause and Provision numbering with the exception of a "C" at the beginning.

In D1.1 Annex K, "Contractor" is defined as "Any company, or individual representing a company, responsible for the fabrication, erection manufacturing or welding, in conformance with the provisions of this code".  The Commentary notes, "C-4.2.1.1 All contractors shall be responsible for their final product." X-Corp would have no interest in taking on that responsibility when they have little control over "fabrication, erection manufacturing or welding..."  That is the reason each "contractor" (or division of X-Corp) hires guys like us.

We can share the information gathered from the testing, but we can not share the PQR.  The PQR will only apply to the individual manufacturer (contractor), not to the group.  Having the information is certainly helpful but it would only be to aid you in the processing of your own testing. 

PWC

Integrity doesn’t get a mulligan

Paul,
The Company I work for regularly gets into more than we can handle. The more we take on jobs at the last minute, the harder it is for me to do my job at the level that is required by the customer. I do 100% visual, weld mapping, pressure testing, setting up NDE... The one area that seems to gradually get worse is providing Material Test Reports (MTR). I can not provide all MTR's our customer requires. Often we don't get them from our vendor, or parts have sat for so long that they can't be traced.
I've tried to convince my employer that this paperwork needs to be received and verified before fabrication, but that hasn't gotten me anywhere. I am not even given the authority to stop fabrication when we have exceeded our own qualified procedures.
It can be a tough spot to be in, so I have a couple serious questions to ask…
• How much trouble can a CWI get into if something like MTR's can not be provided to the customer, when it is required?
• Do I have to walk off the job to protect myself from losing my certification when I know that things aren't being done right?
• Do I have a legal obligation because of the code, or does the company?
Thanks,
T.C. - CWI

T.C.
In the words of Ulysses Everett McGill, you’re “…in a tight spot.” The reason certification programs exist is this very reason.

Section 11 of AWS-QC1 “Standard for AWS Certification of Welding Inspectors” states:
• The… CWI …shall act to preserve the health and well being of the public by performing duties required of welding inspection in a conscientious and impartial manner to the full extent of the inspector(s) moral and civic responsibility and qualification. Accordingly, the… CWI …shall:
     o …Be completely objective, thorough, and factual in any written report, statement, or testimony of the work and include all relevant or pertinent testimony in such communiqués or testimonials.
     o …Sign only for work that the inspector has inspected, or for work over which the inspector has personal knowledge through direct supervision.
     o …Neither associate with nor knowingly participate in a fraudulent or dishonest venture or activity…
It sounds like you have come to a fork in the road and there are tough decisions to be made. I’ve always believed that the reason we inspectors are hired is to save our bosses from themselves. You can create the change that is needed, or, you can “drag up” and move on. I’d love to have a dime for every time went home and told my wife Dianne, “It’s over. They’re gonna fire me.” Strangely, I’m still around. But situations like yours are all too common for the CWI.
You can not place your stamp or signature on a document you know to be false. That said, I’m going to assume that you are moving forward with creating the change.
My advice to you:
• Be able to “Put your finger on it”. Know your code/standard/customer requirements and do not back down from them. When you make the call and refuse to “by-off” on something, know where it is in the documents and be able to reference it.
• Don’t wait until the entire weldment or piping system is complete before you stand your ground. Keep Welders, Foremen & Plant Managers in the loop from the beginning.
• Don’t over reach. Know what the acceptance criteria are and don’t require a smidge more.
• If you are treading in unfamiliar waters, get out of the pool. Those decisions are not yours to make. Stay within your field of expertise.
• Finally, (and toughest of all for a “hard head” like me) accept if you are proven wrong. Don’t build a wall of resistance. Learn where you went wrong and come out of it a better inspector.
This situation can teach you a lot about yourself. One way or another, this will be a career changer. Make it a good one.

Remember: Integrity doesn’t get a mulligan.
PWC

Questions on B31.3

Paul,

I would really appreciate some of your time and expertise. I have some B31.3 questions.

1. Is the % of RT that is required generally understood as a quantity of welds (verses linear)? 341.4.1(a)(1)

PWC:  This paragraph:

“341.4.1, b) Other Examination (1) Not less than 5% of circumferential butt and miter groove welds shall be examined fully by random radiography…”
The words, “shall be examined fully”, would indicate to me that the percentage is of complete welds, not linear inches/feet of weld.

2. If I RT 5% of fabrication (150 welds in this case) with each welder being represented and I have 10 welders, do I exceed the minimum?

PWC:  I’m trying to better understand your question…

If 150 welds are equal to 5% of your fabrication, and 9 of those Welders each welded one of those joints and 1 of your Welders welded the remaining 141 joints, you’ve met your minimum.

-or-

If 150 welds is the total number of welds in this fabrication then 8 of those welds require RT, but if 10 Welders worked the project you will need to RT an additional 2 welds (one for each Welder).

3. For “Normal Fluid Service”, am I required to have 5% of fabrication RT if I have 100% visual (by CWI)? 341.4.1(a)(1) last sentence

PWC:  Under Qualifications of the inspector is this line…

“340.4 (b) The owner’s Inspector shall have not less than 10 years experience…”

I can be a CWI with 5 years experience and I would not meet the requirements of 340.4 (b).

4. In “Cat M” I am required to have “all fabrication” visually examined M341.4(a)(1). Does that exclude the 20% random RT M341.4(b)(1), or is that required regardless of the 100% visual? M341.4(b)(2) refers to 341.4.1(b)(1)

PWC:  The first requirement of any NDE is that the weld meet the visual acceptance requirement, so yes, it would include the RT’d joints.

Tim C:  I am a CWI in the field for a construction / fabrication company. The reason for asking these specific questions is that, per another CWI in the company, we have been doing 100% visual, and 5% RT of *each* welder. This (5% of each) is getting expensive, especially when we hire more welders to get the job done quicker. I am satisfying the 100% visual examination and hydro or pneumatic testing (as another suitable NDT method). Plus, providing weld mapping and MTR’s. I think we have our bases covered. I would like to help cut costs. But more importantly, I want to make sure I am interpreting the code correctly.

Thank you,
Tim Crowder, CWI
Lafayette, IN

PWC:  Tim, if I read your question correctly it would appear to me that you could cut cost by RT’ing 5% of the welds, not 5% of each Welders welds and still meet your minimum requirement.

PWC

Welder Qualification using Partial Joint Penetration (PJP) Grooves

How would you evaluate a flare V-groove joint for welder qualification to AWS D1.1? D1.1 is not clear on how to test the prequalified joint (B-P11-GF) for welder qualification.
Thank you,
Dale

Hi Dale,

Thanks for writing.

If you take a look at AWS D1.1 Clauses 4.25 and 4.28 you’ll see that D1.1, for Personnel Qualification states that a Complete Joint Penetration (CJP) qualifies a Partial Joint Penetration (PJP) groove.

A Flare V- (and Flare Bevel) is a PJP.  Typically you would use the V- and Bevel Groove, CJP configurations laid out in Clause 4 for Groove Welding Personnel Qualification.

That’s not to say I would never use a Flare V- Groove for Personnel Qualification.  If Flare V- Grooves were a concern of mine, I would design a Workmanship Sample requiring the welder to complete the Flare V- Groove to my Weld Procedure Specification (WPS).  Then I would cut and etch it (usually at 3 locations) to evaluate size [(E)=3/4r, see B-P11-GF].

So I guess, long story short, you would always use a CJP Bevel or V- Groove for Personnel Qualification of Grooves (CJP or PJP) and you would only use a PJP as supplemental to verify size.

PWC 

Paul,

Thank you for answering my question, your input clears up some of my confusion.
I have a customer that is doing welder performance qualification to prequalified material and prequalified weld joint B-U4a-GF.  Looks as though weld joint B-U4a-GF will also qualify PJP flare bevel tubular according to Clause 4.25 and 4.28.
Regards,
Dale L.

Dale,

You are right on the money.
Don't hesitate to write again.
PWC