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
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 07:53 PM
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com <materials-welding@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.
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: materials-welding@googlegroups.com [mailto:materials-welding@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sam Malemela
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 1:20 AM
To: materials-welding@googlegroups.com
Subject: [MW:14374] Range of approval for WELDER qualified to weld grove welds according to API 1104
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
FAX:0119144524
CELL:0823892592
--
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding+unsubscribe@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.
______________________________________________________________________
************************************************************************* 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 postmaster@veoliawater.com *************************************************************************
No comments:
Post a Comment