Range of approval for WELDER qualified to weld grove welds according to API 1104
Sam Malemela
Hi Colleagues,
I am working on a pipeline construction project in Mpumalanga –South Africa. The client is a reputable water utility company in South Africa who has appointed a contractor to construct 37 km of 610mm Diameter pipeline. The joint design is Partial Joint Penetration ( by means of fillet weld). The pipe fit up is spigot and socket joint.
The appointed inspection authority is refusing to accept welder qualification for ‘v’ grove joint design allegedly because the client specification has asked for fillet weld and NOT butt weld.
Requalification of welders is not an issue apart from the time it will take to set up and get the qualification test done. I also know from training that range of approval for grove includes fillet welds as well.
Should I simply re-qualify the welders although their qualification covers fillet welds if range of approval is considered or should I insist on the inspection authority consulting for proper information on this matter?
The integrity of the profession is under threat if people without proper knowledge are allowed to rewrite the specifications for the industry and go unchallenged.
Your urgent response will be greatly appreciated.
MALEMELA N. S.
SITE MANAGER
SOUTHERN PIPELINE CONTRACTORS
6 Main Reef Road
DUNSWART
1508
TEL:0119148519
FAX:0119144524
CELL:0823892592
Dinesh Somwanshi
--
To post to this group, send email to material...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-weld...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.
Saravanan Sornam
Just try this.
--
Jorge Mejía Lema
QW-202.2 Groove and Fillet Welds
(a) Qualification for Groove Full Penetration Welds.
Groove-weld test coupons shall qualify the thickness
ranges of both base metal and deposited weld metal to
be used in production. Limits of qualification shall be in
accordance with QW-451. WPS qualification for groove
welds shall be made on groove welds using tension and
guided-bend specimens. Notch-toughness tests shall be
made when required by other Section(s) of the Code. The
WPS shall be qualified for use with groove welds within
the range of essential variables listed.
(c) Qualification for Fillet Welds. WPS qualification for
fillet welds may be made on groove-weld test coupons
using test specimens specified in QW-202.2(a) or (b).
Fillet-weld procedures so qualified may be used for welding
all thicknesses of base metal for all sizes of fillet welds,
and all diameters of pipe or tube in accordance with table
QW-451.4. Nonpressure-retaining fillet welds, as defined
in other Sections of the Code, may as an alternate be
qualified with fillet welds only. Tests shall be made in
accordance with QW-180. Limits of qualification shall be
in accordance with table QW-451.3.
--
Chow HK
That depends on which Code is used, ASME Sec IX or API 1104. If ASME Sec IX, a welder qualifies groove weld also qualified to weld all fillet welds at the same time.
However, in API 1104 it's different, a welder who qualifies to weld V-groove allow to weld V-groove only. It is stated in API 1104 para. 5.4.2.3 that "A major change in joint design (for example, from V groove to U groove) constitutes an essential variable". A change from a butt to a fillet weld is a major change in joint design. That welder would therefore, not be qualified to make fillet welds.
I hope this helps.
From: smal...@spc.co.za
To: material...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [MW:14374] Range of approval for WELDER qualified to weld grove welds according to API 1104
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 08:20:12 +0200
John Henning
You don’t specify the Code or standard you are working to. The case for specific fillet weld qualification is becoming more contentious, particularly with the change in the latest edition (-11) of BS EN 287 which now requires separate fillet weld performance qualification. Note that ASME Section IX does not.
To be honest, it is not unusual for a customer to impose their own set of personal peculiarities on top of the applicable Code or make recommended practices (applicable or not) mandatory. This application of singular proclivities has become common practice and unfortunately it is often more productive to simply try and comply than to apply reason. One tack you might try is that if this is the inspection agency acting alone, you can inform your customer that you will be happy to comply with the inspection agencies request but that it will add X hours to the scope and result in an additional charge of Y dollars/euros/pounds/pesos/ dracmas . . . as it is not a part of the contract.
Good luck – you have my sympathy.
John A. Henning
Welding & Materials
From: material...@googlegroups.com [mailto:material...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sam Malemela
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 1:20 AM
To: material...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [MW:14374] Range of approval for WELDER qualified to weld grove welds according to API 1104
Hi Colleagues,
--
To post to this group, send email to material...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-weld...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.
______________________________________________________________________
The information in this email is confidential, and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this email please let us know by reply and then delete it from your system; you should not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. The internet can not guarantee the integrity of this message. HAMON (and its subsidiaries) shall (will) not therefore be liable for the message if modified.
______________________________________________________________________
Clubb, Archie
The grouping system is open to abuse and ASME need to recognise this soon - their statement re the grouping must not be taken unilaterally is small print!
Always guys are hiding behind ASME and this is wrong! More in particular with corrosion resistant requirements which ASME does not cover apart from overay.
My opinion.
Archie
************************************************************************* This e-mail message and any attachments to it are intended only for the named recipients and may contain confidential information. If you are not one of the intended recipients, please do not duplicate or forward this e-mail message and immediately delete it from your computer. If you received this email in error, please notify postm...@veoliawater.com *************************************************************************
salman cader
If the WPS says its partial penetration and then you not looking at root run qualifications then Fillet weld tests are in order.
Partial Penetration Joint = Here think it as a partial V joint i.e. Consider a 10 mm plate, where the V groove is only 5 mm from the top.... and you weld it. This is partial welding. In this case, 5 mm happens to be 50% of the total thickness of the plate..hence it is called 50% partial penetration.
If you can make the inspection authority understand that your fillet weld is good enough as a test because the partial penetration is like a fillet weld just circumferential then you have nothing to worry about because im sure that is the customer is under the impression of it too.you not doing full penetration u just running stringers and its a water pipe and not a high pressure pipe so you are to be good to go
....i think the inspection body is thinking root with pen
Salman
Gem consulting
Cape town
South Africa
Salma...@gmail.com
salman cader
Graham Adams
Hello Southern Pipelines,
Unfortunately the AIA is correct in this case. API 1104 requires a separate WPS for fillet welds (Clause 5.4.2.3) “Joint Design” being an essential variable. Your welders then have to qualify for that specific WPS (See clause 6.2 and 6.3).
Sorry
Graham Adams
Pipetech
From:
material...@googlegroups.com [mailto:material...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Clubb, Archie
Sent: 29 May 2012 09:10 PM
To: material...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [MW:14400] RE: 14374] Range of approval for WELDER
qualified to weld grove welds according to API 1104
John/others
The grouping system is open to abuse and ASME need to recognise this soon -
their statement re the grouping must not be taken unilaterally is small print!
Always guys are hiding behind ASME and this is wrong! More in particular with
corrosion resistant requirements which ASME does not cover apart from overay.
My opinion.
Archie
From:
John Henning [mailto:jhen...@deltak.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 07:53 PM
To: material...@googlegroups.com
<material...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [MW:14397] RE: 14374] Range of approval for WELDER qualified to
weld grove welds according to API 1104
You don’t specify the Code or standard you are working to. The case for specific fillet weld qualification is becoming more contentious, particularly with the change in the latest edition (-11) of BS EN 287 which now requires separate fillet weld performance qualification. Note that ASME Section IX does not.
manpreet
This is the beauy of this forum that we as an individual don't have enough time to read all the codes and keep tracking of the changes happening with new editions, then forums like this keep updating everybody associated with idustry.
Now coming back to original question regarding fillet weld qualification (WPQ) in accordance with API 1104, It is generally accepted that welder qualification on groove weld qualifies fillet weld as well, however for procedure qualification (PQR), API 1104 does ask for a separate qualification (Refer 5.7 & 5.8) and procedure is qualified by visual examination, NDT and mechanical testing.
Your query seems to be more contractual than technical, if Welder qualification specifically on fillet welds is clearly mentioned in the Client spec then it would not be wise to even discuss with Client, if there is no clear description in the spec or spec only dictate to follow API 1104 then you have all the rights to claim for extra expenditure for qualifying welders specifically for fillet welds as it's a universal practice for people following API 1104 to weld fillet welds in production welding using welder qualification on groove welds.
Approval of claim will entirely depend on how well do you protray this to Client.
We remain available for further guidance upon request.
Regards,
Manpreet Singh
Cell:- +61 0434674601
On Wed, 30 May 2012 20:46:29 +0530 wrote
> You don’t specify the Code or standard you are working to. The case for specific fillet weld qualification is becoming more contentious, particularly with the change in the latest edition (-11) of BS EN 287 which now requires separate fillet weld performance qualification. Note that ASME Section IX does not. To be honest, it is not unusual for a customer to impose their own set of personal peculiarities on top of the applicable Code or make recommended practices (applicable or not) mandatory. This application of singular proclivities has become common practice and unfortunately it is often more productive to simply try and comply than to apply reason. One tack you might try is that if this is the inspection agency acting alone, you can inform your customer that you will be happy to comply with the inspection agencies request but that it will add X hours to the scope and result in an additional charge of Y dollars/euros/pounds/pesos/ dracmas . . . as it is not a part of the contract.Good luck – you have my sympathy.John A. HenningWelding & MaterialsFrom: material...@googlegroups.com [mailto:material...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sam Malemela Subject: [MW:14374] Range of approval for WELDER qualified to weld grove welds according to API 1104Hi Colleagues,I am working on a pipeline construction project in Mpumalanga –South Africa. The client is a reputable water utility company in South Africa who has appointed a contractor to construct 37 km of 610mm Diameter pipeline. The joint design is Partial Joint Penetration ( by means of fillet weld). The pipe fit up is spigot and socket joint.The appointed inspection authority is refusing to accept welder qualification for ‘v’ grove joint design allegedly because the client specification has asked for fillet weld and NOT butt weld. Requalification of welders is not an issue apart from the time it will take to set up and get the qualification test done. I also know from training that range of approval for grove includes fillet welds as well.Should I simply re-qualify the welders although their qualification covers fillet welds if range of approval is considered or should I insist on the inspection authority consulting for proper information on this matter?The integrity of the profession is under threat if people without proper knowledge are allowed to rewrite the specifications for the industry and go unchallenged.Your urgent response will be greatly appreciated. MALEMELA N. S.SITE MANAGERSOUTHERN PIPELINE CONTRACTORS6 Main Reef Road DUNSWART1508TEL:0119148519FAX:0119144524CELL:0823892592www.spc.co.za--
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-weld...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.
______________________________________________________________________
>
The information in this email is confidential, and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this email please let us know by reply and then delete it from your system; you should not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. The internet can not guarantee the integrity of this message. HAMON (and its subsidiaries) shall (will) not therefore be liable for the message if modified.
>
______________________________________________________________________
>
--
>
To post to this group, send email to material...@googlegroups.com
>
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-weld...@googlegroups.com
>
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
>
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.
>
 |
| Follow Rediff Deal ho jaye! to get exciting offers in your city everyday. |