D1.1 PQR RT/UT Test Requirements

[JohnTM]

Background:

The code in question is AWS D1.1:2015. There have been no exceptions or deviations of any sort granted by the EOR.

This is a production weldment, using a combination of listed and unlisted materials.

The weld shop will be using several pre-qualified GMAW WPS’s. They will also be using GMAW WPS’s qualified by PQR, as well as GMAW-S WPS’s qualified by PQR, all for a variety of listed and unlisted materials.

The weld shop contracts with a local AWS-CWI to help with their testing, paperwork and so forth.

My function is to review the weld shops documents and decide if they meet the contract specifications, and can be made part of the permanent quality records for the actual parts.

Situation:

When reviewing the PQR’s, at this point I have only looked at the PQR’s for GMAW-S, I am looking at the portion that I feel is dealt with in Clause 4.9, Methods of Testing and Acceptance Criteria.

I see the VT portion signed off on. I see values listed in the tensile pull portion. I see information about the bend tests. What I don’t see is anything in relation to the RT/UT portion, except that the CWI who completed the form has filled those blanks in with “NA”.

When I look at the code book, I see in the first paragraph under 4.9, it says “the welded test assemblies conforming to 4.9.2…”. 4.9.2 states that before preparing any mechanical test specimens, the test plate SHALL be non-destructively tested using RT or UT, and the requirements for those are spelled out in 4.9.2.1

When asked about it, the CWI who signed and stamped the completed form states “It is my professional interpretation that AWS D1.1 does not require a nondestructive (RT/UT) testing procedure to qualify a GMAW-S PQR”.

Finally, we get to the actual questions:

Which person is correct?

I am not interpreting, I am strictly going by what it says in black and white, it says RT/UT SHALL be performed. The CWI is interpreting. What is he interpreting, how does he arrive at it, what allows him to interpret, and what am I missing if he is correct?

Many thanks in advance!

 

[DekDee]

John,
Al (gtaw) is the AWS D1.1 guru and hopefully he will respond, but personally I think the CWI is wrong and all of Section 4 must be complied with,
Cheers,
Shane

 

[SectionIX]

John,

As you have pointed out, Clause 4.9.2 of AWS D1.1 required NDE prior to mechanical testing. The CWI does not have the authority to circumvent Code requirements. The Engineer, as described in Clause 1.3.1 along with latitude provided in Clause 1.4.1 (both references AWS D1.1)has limited authority to make such decisions. Having said that, it is unlikely that any Engineer would not require NDT, for no reason other that legal implications of weld failure.

The CWI who approved this WPS has created a liability for himself as well as the organization using the (improperly qualified) WPS.

 

[Mr168]

Assuming the coupons are CJP's and not used exclusively as a consumables verification test, then there is no out on NDE. This is reaffirmed in the footnotes of Table 4.2, which steers you back to 4.9.1.

 

[gtaw]

As pointed out, D1.1 is very clear in stating the test assembly must be tested with either RT or UT prior to performing the mechanical testing. If he failed to do so, the PQR is invalid. The WPS supported by the PQR are invalid. If any welders were qualified using the WPS, their qualifications are invalid. If any production welds were made using the WPS, the work is not properly qualified. The entire system collapses.

The exception to the above position would be if the CWI was the Owner's Engineer as defined by AWS D1.1. Under the auspices of D1.1 the Engineer is granted the authority to modify, add to, or delete requirements of the code for that particular project. Since you represent the "owner" I would venture the conditions cited do not apply, that is the CWI isn't the Engineer.

My position would be the WPS is unacceptable because it was not properly supported by a valid PQR. I would also write up the work completed using the improperly qualified PQR and WPS or being inspected as noncomplient with D1.1

I had a similar situations a few years ago. There was a structural failure and I was called in to inspect the steel involved. There were a number of deficiencies, one being the welders were qualified for GMAW in all positions using spray transfer. Not likely, more than likely they were qualified using short circuiting transfer (without a qualified WPS). The electrode was listed as F4 on the test reports. As it turned out, the contractor used FCAW. Long story short, the welders were not properly qualified. The CWI involved is no longer employed as a CWI. At the deposition the defendent's lawyer asked if there was any reason the welders involved couldn't be tested (now) to demonstrate their proficiency. I asked the lawyer how many cases was he permitted to present in court before passing his Bar Examinations? Case over, pay the plaintiff.

Best regards - Al