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