Revalidation 1554

[steveton3]

I have ask this question on other sites, and some lads on here have answered it on the other sites

you have a welder qualified and the 6 months come to an end,  what NDT reqiarments do you need  to revalidate them??

is MPI ok or UT-RT??

Thanks Steve

[Flash]

Hi Steve
this is always an interesting one

the clause states that the operator continues to produce satisfactory welds as verified by NDT

In my opinion MPI is OK for fillets (as much as I think it is less than 100% assurance because the number of times I have seen operators fail fillet tests due to lack of root fusion), but butt should be verified by volumetric methods ie UT/RT, as MPI is surface only and does little more than Visual
Fillet can not be checked via UT/RT so it really is not an option and typically the loads on fillets are less than butts

I would be interested in other thoughts on this
R
GF

[tiggerfaebigger]

[Ballbearing]

TFB,
Most welding codes (including AWS D1.1 which is the most used structural welding code in the world) do not require any NDT at all. They only require proof that the welder has used the process – it can be by way of a welder log / register or it can be by way of NDT reports (UT / RT / MT / PT or even VT).
As usual, 1554 has to be different.
Regards,
BB

[tiggerfaebigger]

Hi BB,

If you use a visual inspection to revalidate a welder qualification according to the word of the code every 6 months how do you know that the welder is competently performing? As we all know in the industry, a weld that looks “perfect” can still go down in a bomb through lack of fusion etc and a weld that looks “ugly” however still visually conforms to the code (1554.1 SP) and passes internal NDT. Now, would this be at your own risk / peril by using surface methods to validate welders? Do not take offence to the question as we all interpret the code different!

Thanks

[Ballbearing]

Hi Flash,
This issue was discussed on another forum previously.

http://www.ukwelder.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=11393&st=20

My take on it is:

AS/NZS 4.12.2 2004
(f) Qualifications for welding to a specified welding procedure shall remain valid,
provided that it can be shown from records maintained by the organization employing
welders that the welders have been employed with reasonable continuity using the
relevant welding processes and have continued to produce satisfactory welds as
verified by a non-destructive examination.

Nowhere is a requirement for UT/RT mentioned. MT and PT are non destructive examinations.

WTIA Tech Note 11
The simplest and easiest method of verification of skill is to maintain
appropriate NDE records (especially ultrasonic and radiographic
test records) traceable back to the welder.

Preferably can be substituted for especially but it still means the same – UT / RT are considered the most preferable methods but not the only NDE applicable.

Regards,
BB

[Flash]

Gents
this does raise an interesting point
technically Aust Standards consider visual as an NDE method
so CassGazz is right you “could” get away with VT

Standards are the minimum my previous statement

In my opinion MPI is OK for fillets (as much as I think it is less than 100% assurance because the number of times I have seen operators fail fillet tests due to lack of root fusion), but butt should be verified by volumetric methods ie UT/RT, as MPI is surface only and does little more than Visual
Fillet can not be checked via UT/RT so it really is not an option and typically the loads on fillets are less than butts

I chose my words very carefully
UT/RT “should” be used, if I am doing the welder quals this is my approach, If I am looking at verifying welders qualifications I am very careful about making statements about welder quals and their validity, particularly when re-validated by MPI, it can become a contractual mess

look at AS2980 – clause 5.1.3 (b) evidence to support prolongation must be of volumetric nature or destructive tests made on at least two welds

It could be argued that AS1554.1-2004 Clause 4.12.2 (f) requires volumetric testing, because if you think about it does Visual or MPI provide evidence that the welds are satisfactory internally, the clause states “have continued to produce satisfactory welds as verified by NDE” the question is – is this externally only or internally as well

To add to this, a comment has been made regarding thickness qualified for welders, so I ask does a 10mm overhead butt cover you for all thicknesses? as there is no thickness range for welder quals

for these very reasons I prefer to use AS2980 for welder quals

On from TFB comment re welds looking great but failing RT, I have had more than one case were a test piece has passed RT will all A’s only to have it fail the macro due to LOSWF, because of the limitations of RT and detecting lack of side wall fusion

All these are great comments you have provided guys, that are thought provoking

R
GF

[cassgazz]

If you go back to acceptance criteria, AS/NZS 1554.1 SP, only VT is required. MT & UT/RT is only used as a back up for visual.
Now keep in mind that the standards are the bare minimum, and usually the client will specify extra NDT.

However, to answer the question, although I don’t agree, all that is required to requalify welders is VT.

[cassgazz]

UT/RT “should” be used, if I am doing the welder quals this is my approach, If I am looking at verifying welders qualifications I am very careful about making statements about welder quals and their validity, particularly when re-validated by MPI, it can become a contractual mess
Very true. I wasn’t say that I agree with surface methods for requal, I always prefer UT or RT.

It could be argued that AS1554.1-2004 Clause 4.12.2 (f) requires volumetric testing, because if you think about it does Visual or MPI provide evidence that the welds are satisfactory internally, the clause states “have continued to produce satisfactory welds as verified by NDE” the question is – is this externally only or internally as well
As much as I agree volumetric testing should be used, and it is always what I prefer to see used for requalifying welders, clause 4.12.2 (f) states as verified by NDE. Now if using VT, MT or PT for requalifying welders, it still complies to the code.

To add to this, a comment has been made regarding thickness qualified for welders, so I ask does a 10mm overhead butt cover you for all thicknesses? as there is no thickness range for welder quals
Yes – requalifications are based on process used.

Regards,
Gary

[tiggerfaebigger]

[Author]

Posts