If welder certs are to 8 mm GTAW, can he weld 3/8 fillets?

[racookpe1978]

At a site, using a subcontractor's welders and their welding WPS and cert's.

The cert's are specified clearly for GTAW and SMAW, but most of his welders are cedrtified only up to 8mm (pipe wall implied) weld thickness.

OK, fine. That is what he tested them to for the qual's, that is what they normally weld. (P1-P1, P1-P8, and P8-P8 are what we are using.)

If a P8 pipe fillet weld is P8-P8 3/8" thick, can the welder do the fillet? (He could not complete a 3/8 pipe wall butt weld, but this is NOT an open root weld.)

--

Part 2. If his WPS calls for Layer 1 and layer 2 with GTAW, and the rest with SMAW, can we allow him to finish with GTAW or must we require him to change to SMAW to finish the extra layers? (Seems like we would.)

 

[Ron]

Welder qualifications are generally good for up to twice the tested thickness, so if tested at 8mm, he should be good for 16mm, thus greater than the 3/8" noted.

 

[DVWE]

First you should tell us which code applies here.

 

[racookpe1978]

In Spain, Spanish contractor, using his (locally approved by the power plant QA's office) WPS and his welders'
cert's.

 

[ishvaaag]

Ron,

for construction, standing code CTE at section "12.4 Quality control of the fabrication", imposes that who directs the specific part of the works aprove before start a memory report by the fabricator upon which ...

"12.4.1 control of quality of the fabricator documentation 1 the documentation of fabrication, elaborated by the fabricator will be revised and approved by the director of the works"

"... will verify, with special attention, the compatibility among the different procedures of fabrication and between these and the used materials ..."

This direct approval normally will fall for mechanical services not on the general director of the works -except for ensuring the adjudicated responsible does- but on the director of the works for the particular mechanical services at the job, as pertains to the standing regulations, someone understood to be conversant on the permissible procedures and implications. For structural work the architect or engineer director would likely be those giving approval.

Anyway, depending on the mechanical service some might argue it falls out of the scope of the general regulations of CTE, but this is extremely unlikely since CTE is a code applicable with the utmost generality to anything done to (and in) a building that requires some kind of authority approval.

Also, the to be approved memory for quality control of the fabrication furnished by the fabricator will establish as well the quality control procedures to follow (and to be approved), specifically

"12.4.2. 2... it will be verified
... that each operation is made in the mandated order and with the specified tools (especially in the case of the works of cutting plates and profiles),
... that the personnel in charge of each operation has the proper qualification (especially in the case of the welders),
...that an adequate process is followed that allows to identify the origin of each lack of compliance, etc."

So CTE by itself adjudicates to the quality control team (inner or brought-in) the verification of that the welders have the proper qualification, this meaning that once approved by the director of the "Proyecto Específico" (a project pertaining to one or varius mechanical or electrical services) it falls upon the quality control as devised for the occasion to verify that the welders are properly qualified.

So the best advice I can give instead of entering deep in waters that I am not familiar is to ask that, following the mandatory "Código Técnico de la Edificación, CTE" in its section "DB CTE SE-A" and quoted sections above, the memory by the fabricator identify a quality team endowed with the full acceptance of its proper qualifications to practice as such and let, er, make them certify that the welders are properly licensed to practice the defined operations.

As to the procedures themselves I am not aware of the usual procedures for this kind of work and I must not give practical advice, yet it is clear that because of the approval is a responsability of the director of the "Specific Project" for the installation (that may be different of the general director of the works) to ensure that it is in accord to proper practice.

 

[DVWE]

In Spain, Spanish contractor, using his (locally approved by the power plant QA's office) WPS and his welders'cert's.

Still doesn't tell us the code of construction. If it is in Spain at a power plant, it is probably PED?

If the WPSs and certs are approved by the QA dept, what's the issue?

 

[BigInch]

CET says exactly what he said.
BTW, that's a general building requirements code.

As Spain has very few codes of its own, and what they have are not much more than recent attempts to appear like standardization, adequacy of resulting work and quality control mean something here, they seldomly apply to anything you really want to know. There is still no national electric code or piping code (that I know of), so Endesa and similar companies have their own set of specs, continuing the custom over the years. Discrete codes, as we are typically familiar with, generally do not exist, except for a few cases. I think the structural design code is only about 5 or 6 years old. Legal requirements are deeply embedded in an infinite series of "Royal Decrees" (RD) and Official Bulletins referenced by date! RDs are adopted by the automonous regions by publication of their "Official Bulletins". BOJAs = bulletin official de la junta andalucia, etc. There is no cross-reference I know of. No common list of CFRs. Latest RDs and BOs may override previous RDs and BO, which are never ammended and reissued. Just various possibly superceeded clauses. In most cases, the only way to know what the current legal requirement might be, is starting with RD/BOs made in the year 10,000 B.C. and read every RD/BO ever issued up to the present date. Engineering companies that want to know what they're doing keep notebook after notebook of collections of all applicable RD/BOs, with ammendments highlighted in yellow and deletions red. Note that if the owner DOES have specifications, they may or may not meet the RD/BO, or ISO requirements anyway, since with this "system" its very difficult to ever know what the current requirements are. Does that sound like anybody knows what the hell they're doing around here, except for making perfect excuses... IMO.

ishvaaag, what do you think about my summary of the "system"? Its the reason that I do not do any work in Spain. In my mind there is no way that I could accept the potential liabilities of not knowing the legal requirements of one's work. Hannibal had a more modern code system.

**********************
"Pumping accounts for 20% of the world’s energy used by electric motors and 25-50% of the total electrical energy usage in certain industrial facilities."-DOE statistic (Note: Make that 99% for pipeline companies)

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.live.com/

 

[BigInch]

Perfect example of what I'm talking about,

http://www.ideandalucia.es/index.php/en/legislation

**********************
"Pumping accounts for 20% of the world’s energy used by electric motors and 25-50% of the total electrical energy usage in certain industrial facilities."-DOE statistic (Note: Make that 99% for pipeline companies)

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.live.com/

 

[ishvaaag]

BigInch,

Well, what there is here is no lack of codes, but excess of. The main thing in what you are in error is in structural codes not existing but from 5 years ago. I myself have referrals of codes for rail and road bridges of the fifties and surely there were also before. Building regulation (technically) was firmly quite clear and in place by the sixties with a series of MV codes adressing masonry and steel work. That I know the first formal code adressing concrete design was EH-73 of 1973. Really, for most construction works, life was simple till the early years the eighties, when the tide of the nightmare of legislation ongoing in the world reached our places. Of always there were ISO clones (sometimes ASTM clones I think) codes emitted by AENOR, this existed at least already in the sixties, addressing almost the same span of things that ISO was doing, and were mandatory for the specific targets of the codes but were rarely a concern for an architect or engineer doing construction work.

Now I am not at all in whole accord that the unbearable instability of the codes is something of here, I see this excess almost anywhere I look at on the subject; there must be some strain of madness requiring that everything lately written at some technical publication be made law or prizes for it, who knows. Governments are in a frenzy of worprocessor laws (everyone that can write can write a law, you know), and since "Autonomías" (regions) have legislative powers and there's public appraise of the "differential traits" of every Autonomy then the democratically elected guys with the "live forces" of the region create protective laws to keep the region someway isolated from the "greed" of "foreign" non autonomic people. No that this is without reason, for the current building code (CTE, Código Técnico de la Edificiación) starting 2005 has been seen, and not without reason as "countercultural" in that imposes ways of work contrary to the building practices of here and giving a footstart for say Germany, England, France and every developed country plus say the region of Cataluña and Madrid some entry on the other's markets with more prefab products, so being actively in other ways denied by dragging feet and if, at hand, regional law.

In all I don't see that what we have here is at all different of what I see in CE, just what above described may be doing the things a bit more difficult to follow.

Respect electrical code, there has been always in my practice both low and high voltage, and has been quite seriously implemented of always.

The result of this, and in that you are entirely right in this, is that the fragmentation of the laws regionally and the amendments and revisions by the tons makes very difficult to practice the country wholespan, and if you want, be able for yourself with your team truly warrant accordance with codes anywhere; architects have for the most part abandoned the mechanical services design field since about the mid eighties, but hold firmer in the bastion of the structural design of our buildings, yet not all, for services for structural design are also common.

From an AEC firm viewpoint, there are some big spanish firms, many times with close association with the powers that be (railway works), or big construction firms, sometimes very competent at particular international markets, that can practice all over Spain, have funds enough to even on the march create some delegation for substantial slice of the cake somewhere, or less funded upstarts can develop some contract or partnership with some architectural or mechanical services firm seriously working in the region, but otherwise this aspect I don't see very at reach. Structurally I don't see much problem now that most of the requirements are joined in the CTE. It is also true for services work but more fragmented since mechanical services codes are growing much wider in scope and almost all requiring separate "Specific Project" by specifically licensed professionals.

Since I am not a multinational I feel the same about practicing anywhere: a vast see of unknowns, and between them tons of unknown legislation, and formation of partnership etc... that is, something only apt for very wily people with deep pockets. To not name overspread taxation and mandatory bank deposit that I thinks makes in practice the state the owner of 85% of the ongoing cash-flow at every instant; from this viewpoint we are still "Romans" where the ability of the Senate to award the bids made amenable almost all wills (H.L. Havell, "Republican Rome"). In this context if you want that some portion of this 85% pass trhough your hands and not immediately revert in the public finances well, you better be at ease with thes modern "senators".

And well, more or this is what I can say of what ongoing here. Respect the weld issue addressed above surely there is almost as much as ISO defines elsewhere, since more ISO codes are almost immediately turned spanish code through the AENOR institution, with some flavor. In fact I may have -but I am not certain about- everything required to answer properly the question even from the weld viewpoint issue at this same computer, only that welding flanges it is not my area of expertise nor particular practice and so it is better someone doing the job daily bring adequate answer. So I was directing to the responsible and liable people to take their load and if out of responsability you see them not performing, calling them to attention upon any reasonable argument you can give.

 

[BigInch]

Thanks for that good explanation. Appreciate your comments.

Since I wasn't living here before 2000, I'm not familiar with the dead codes, so I'm only see the present day mess. From what I've seen of older buildings, either there wasn't much emphisis placed on code work, or the old codes didn't say much of anything. The other thing seems to be that the construction industry has been doing their own thing using their own engineers for a long time too. Private and large consulting company engineering still seems to be in its infancy. I've even seen a number of official types ask why they need an engineer; as they've been accustomed for the contractor to just build them something.

As far as electric design goes here, Endesa has their specs and all their contractors follow that document. There is no mention of ISOs. My experience here is limited, but it seems that the practice of company specs superceeding all other documents continues. Yes ISO codes supposedly are adopted as they are issued, but there is no or little practical implementation of them that I'm aware of. I am seeing some solar energy water heating adopted, but not to the extent that the CT requires. Local electrical work seems to be whatever the inspector has allowed = "the code". I know structural engineers seem to be following the new codes, but others (outside the few large design houses) seem to be lost for the most part. I myself put together a compilation of all solar PV design codes and it was a major effort taking about a month to do it.

At least most places seem to be able to make a code and keep it updated and in one place for anything they want to ensure is regulated; not like the endless BOs and RD system that is in place here now. Its not easy for one guy to have the time to sort out that mess and still do some design work. Spain really needs to bring the ISOs down to a practical level and be sure they are being implemented in actual design and installation work as fast as possible. Adopting and cataloging them in a straight forward manner by the ministry responsible for inclusion into a national regulation scheme would be a step in the right direction too ... IMO.




**********************
"Pumping accounts for 20% of the world’s energy used by electric motors and 25-50% of the total electrical energy usage in certain industrial facilities."-DOE statistic (Note: Make that 99% for pipeline companies)

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.live.com/

 

[ishvaaag]

You surely are more aware than me for the electrical part yet will comment what I know.

The main codes for electrical work were as said the "Reglamento para las líneas aéreas de alta tensión" RAT, high voltage, and the "Reglamento electrotécnico de baja tensión" REBT, low votage. The 2005 CTE is an attempt to join all codes applicable to construction together, aiming to european integration, and whilst changing some of them quite integrally, it subsumed some others practically untouched or more precisely, left alone in their own way to be revamped. The main untouched ones, if you want, accepted by just reference are the concrete (RC, PC, PT and mass) code EHE-2008, the REBT (low voltage supply) and the RITE, that cares mainly of HVAC issues and the efficiency (machinery part). Respect the clemency of the entry in vigence of the modifications, last april significant modifications were made to the CTE and vigence started 15 days after being known (publication) or so. So all conscientious professionals have a halt of whatever the time is required to check what complies, what not, and make the changes.

On the electrical code issues, the main arms of REBT are what are called "Instrucciones Técnicas". These are as common as the concrete code for the whole territory, and so, must be complied with by designers and companies together. Problem, the companies have, yes, as you say, own inner ways to practice that local practice must meet. This evolved surely on the practical territorial monopolies held by them, so they were free to ask whatever they wanted since they were (it is to be assumed) complying with the national codes, their way.

Respect criteria on what is adequate for many things, say, quantity of hot water from solar systems, there's the whole politically correct body of those preaching what to implement, those hearing and extending the good news, and those that for bread justify anything you want justified. To this kind of madnesses I refer when say that I don´t see everything seen this year in investigation be the next mandatory code.

Respect ISOs (their versions here called UNE norms) etc about 15 years ago the construction codes started (or restarted, who knows) the practice of making them mandatory if quoted, by reference. This is not much deal for ordinary work but may turn troublesome when something happens, since made mandatory. So you see these goverments have followed a path of more and more encroachment on making more and more legislation mandatory; to not say that the referred UNE codes are very expensive and no individual professional can really afford a subscription to cover their general revamping. Last time I investigated the issue about 10 years ago were more or less the median of what an architec had of brute cash-flow, yearly. So no way to keep apace.

So you see the scheme: codes, here, and in many other places as well, are not only ways of regulating practice, but true weapons to keep afloat some practices and others at bay (just to not name awarding practices where 85% of the rolling monies are in public hands). There have been some AEC design firms with about over 1000 engineers yet mostly the practices are decimated unto many far smaller firms, even now in the "crisis" individual professionals. And the times with their sociopolitical realities have undermined demography, identity, reliance on oneselves, capacity to focus; a path emphasizing authority upon rationality is not a path to proper organization; and this is what we have, and we have had to stand.

 

[ishvaaag]

And a thing at which you are entirely right. Code here is equated to what the approving party wants, I reached to this conclusion ... er ... 25 years ago, and stands. Not much rational, eh?

 

[racookpe1978]

Reading, listening, and much appreciating your continuing feedback!

 

[BigInch]

I just used the "Endesa code". It was for a cost estimate, not detailed design, so I felt it would suffice for my purposes at the time.

In many places in the world where there is no regulation, it makes perfect sense to design to the owner's requirements. In fact, its probably the best way, as long as the owner avoids conflict of interests and devotes equal attention to public and private safety issues as he does to the objective of the project.





**********************
"Pumping accounts for 20% of the world’s energy used by electric motors and 25-50% of the total electrical energy usage in certain industrial facilities."-DOE statistic (Note: Make that 99% for pipeline companies)

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.live.com/

 

[ishvaaag]

You are right, BigInch. Once a quite active colleague asked me how I addressed structural matters in general. I said him that as soon as I envisaged that along the process no one would be understanding the reach of my intent, as I pleased. So the important part is that We must care of everything being OK for many times there won't be other truly able to check.

 

[Welder4956]

If the welding is performed to ASME IX, then a welder qualification on groove welds qualifies for all fillet sizes in all thicknesses of material. For grrove welds, the welder is qualified for a maximum of 2 times the deposited weld metal thickness for each welding process used in the qualification test and a maximum of 2 times the base metal thickness used on the qualification test.

 

[racookpe1978]

Thank you.

 

[ishvaaag]

Just to add the precision that concrete codes at least started in Spain in 1968 and not 1973, because there was a code EH-68 that I didn't remember.