Forum Replies Created
February 7, 2018 at 11:15 am #1413
Yeah your right to think its optimistic and UT is required to verify the throat thickness and the NDT report will state the size. As the drawing is not showing the throat and only the depth of bevel my only action would be a back grind to ensure full pen to prevent repairs at a later date.
ThanksFebruary 6, 2018 at 8:44 am #1411
The weld symbols should be to AS1101.3. The rest of the drawing is complete penetration welds which leads to the confusion.
There is no throat thickness evident just a bevel depth. The welding process is inershield and the client specifies that all critical butts are 100% UT/MT and all other butts 30% UT/MT even partial pen butts are UT. My thinking is that the welders should achieve 2mm penetration either side of the butt weld and therefore achieve a full pen weld anyway, however if they do not, then do you go with the depth of bevel for the required penetration? The other way is to back grind to clean metal in order to achieve full pen.
I think i have just answered my own question!
ThanksFebruary 4, 2018 at 12:25 pm #1704
Inter pass is max temp, so normally this will be governed by the max temperature the PQR is subjected to, however will depend on the manufactures recommendations, standard or material standard stating the max inter pass recommendation. If you run a PQR then this will result in Minimum temp (preheat) and max temp (max inter pass). This is what I go on, however the standard will dictate what is required. If you think about it, then the mechanical testing shows that between these temps then its all good, out with this (dependent on standard).
I hope this helps, but look forward to further comments!February 2, 2018 at 11:05 am #1440
Hi Inspector Gadget,
What is the reason you cannot use the TIG process?
TiggerfaebiggarFebruary 1, 2018 at 3:06 pm #1435January 30, 2018 at 11:35 am #1414
Hi Flash and BB,
I just came across something interesting in WTIA tech note 11, page 34, clause A4.12.2, where it states:
“Welders contracted out by labour hire companies do not require re-qualification where labour hire company (their employer) maintains the welders qualification records and such records are made available to the contracting company”
Interesting don’t you think!!!
However going with my gut instinict and advice from this site and test them out!
ThanksJanuary 30, 2018 at 9:40 am #1332
Thanks for clearing that up for me,
Tigger fae BiggarJanuary 30, 2018 at 8:23 am #1410
Thanks for the information, i will test them out to our WPS’sJanuary 29, 2018 at 4:19 pm #1476
Thanks for your reply,
You know your stuff mate.
However if you look at tech note 11, clause A4.7.3, which states “where the joint restraint is of unsual severity…..employ strongbacks to adequately simpulate restraint”
Unsual severity restraint will mean most structural tie-in welds (SP) will be under this class.
Do you think most engineering companies would take this into account when they run their PQR and hand the welder the wps to go and weld the joint?
I agree with you on pre-heat, but an appendix in AWS D1.1, a bit off the subject here, has a section on restraint and increases preheat accordingly through calculations, and i know that their basic preheats seem to be pretty low compared to australian standards, however does 1554 take restraint into account when working preheats out?
Look forward to your comments,
Tigger fae BiggarJanuary 29, 2018 at 10:35 am #1403
Thanks for the replies, it just goes to show that two lads cannot agree on the same thing which is a major problem with 1554.
As for tech note 11, it explains the “easy stuff” but does not go into the main questions that all inspectors working in OZ are needing claification on. Can the the 1554 commitee be approached on such things?
BB, i left the last job because the the QA guy was using all the “grey areas” in 1554 and i did not feel comfortable in what he was doing, which is a shame.
Can i get through my prediciment by using their WPS which they are qualified to?
ThanksJanuary 28, 2018 at 10:59 am #1475
Annex I in D1.1 :2008
Thanks for your input.
TFBJanuary 27, 2018 at 12:43 pm #1426
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!
ThanksJanuary 25, 2018 at 11:31 am #1423January 24, 2018 at 10:07 am #1459
If you use multiple strong backs on your weld procedure qualification to prevent angular distortion, then this surely would be considered restraint! and if verified the absence of cracks by MT and UT (although NDT not required by standard, but backs up your weld procedure under restraint), then you have carried out a weld procedure under restraint.
Your thoughts please.January 22, 2018 at 11:43 am #1634
According to AS/NZS1554.1 – 2011 clause 220.127.116.11, page 48, a minimum examination length of 300mm is required for welder qualification.