comment review report document: committee: committee on welding … · · 2016-06-07committee:...

S/C ApvlAssign To: Com Apvl

Document:

Page Component Commentor Item Number Date Ballot #

Comment Review Report D3.6, Ed. 2 Draft: WD-1 7/2/2001

Committee: Committee on Welding in Marine Construction

Document OrderMixed Tech & Ed

Purpose:

0 0 189 7/2/2001 1st Comment

No No

All items assigned as new business transfered from Ed.1, WD-1, 1998 to Ed.2 WD-1

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

NoNo

Comment Including Proposed Resolution Committee Resolution

Remarks

Tech Neg

A Davis

0 0.0 196 5/24/2011 1

Yes No

This one is open for discussion. I have recently had numerous requests for information about doing overlay welds to repair corrosion damage. This may be something that we need to consider.

Groups C and D NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

G M Cain

Item for New Business

13-Aug-01 of 28


Document:





Purpose:

0 APP - Tables 41 3/16/1989 TAC-98-04

No No

After review of Group "C's" response to item #50 find the following comments:

(1) Hardness requirement for type A/O quality welds in Europe vary according to service conditions (restricted to 248 HV for sour conditions and max. 1% Ni in root pass). Limitations are often different for root, mid-thickness and cap. Macro and Hardness surveys are mandatory in Europe and it may be in our interest to set limits for "B" weld (e.g. say 375 - 400 HV to, to be discussed) and state an open limit for "C" welds. Stating figures is not always prudent but in this case to increase confidence of certification authorities, it will help to promote wet welding.

Additional comment submitted by D. Ogden 6/23/93. Page 79 Section 8.3(5) Test Results for Procedures Qualification.

Comment: There are no hardness criteria for Class B groove welds. Hardness is or can be significant concern to the Customer. With recent improvements in consumable technology and diver/welder performance improvements in sonsumable technology and diver/welder performance skills, appropriate hardness levels can be achieved and maintained.

Recommendation: Insert "Microhardness measurements shall not exceed 325 HV 10 (see 5.11.6) in Section 8.3(5). This inclusion would bring Class B groove weld procedure qualification in line with Class A, and impart a greater sense of specification up-grade to the Customer and IIW.

(2) Repair procedures qualification are mandatory in the North Sea. It is the business of this AWS specification to address repair procedures and clearly define what the minimum requirements for full thickness, mid thichness, cap or undercut repairs be, extent of mechanical testing, NDT examination, the number of repair attempts permittedm and welder qualification. This may sound like a big task but in practice is quite straight forward. Welders who qualify to the main procedure are considered qualified for repair welding within the essential variable limits! This is clearly a new business item and I an able to propose a full package for review of the committee.

(3) Electrode batch testing - disagree.

3/24/95 - Whitney to submit report. Note item 123 Group "D", response may resolve this item. Peter stated that the Subcommittee needs to decide what hardness value we are looking for and suggests Vic. 325. It was further stated that the mechanical testing criteria needs to be included for type "B" welds to be accepted in Europe.

Group C NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

P Szelagowski


13-Aug-01 of 28


Document:





Purpose:

10/13/95 - Whitney to submit response discussed with subcommittee for Draft #3.

0 Document 1 3/27/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

Use global search for "is", "are", etc., and substitute "shall", "shall be", etc.

Group A NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

H Hahn


0 Document 29 12/29/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

Delete Class C Welds completely from the D3.6 Specification.

The Foreword of the draft of ANSI/AWS D3.6:1998 starts with the statement, "In 1975, the AWS Committee on Marine Construction requested the Subcommittee on Underwater Welding to establish a standard reflecting state-of-the-art technology relative to underwater welding." When the first AWS D3.6 draft was prepared in the late 1970's (about 20 years ago), it included four Types of welds. Included was Type C, which on the low end of the scale, did reflect at that time, the state-of-the-art of wet welding. Today, Type or Class C welds are in no way related to the state-of-the-art of wet welding and should not be included in future ANSI/AWS D3.6 Specification or Codes.

Groups C and D NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

R D Holdsworth


0 Fig. 5.14 60 3/17/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

"Units for dimensions not given

Add ""All dimensions in mm""

Okay.

Group A NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

W W StCyr


13-Aug-01 of 28


Document:





Purpose:

0 Fig. 5.9 64 3/17/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

"Doubly dimensioned drawing. Don't need ""All dimensions in mm""

Delete ""All dimensions in mm"""

Accept Agreed

Group A NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

W W StCyr


0 Page VAR. P 46 3/16/1989 TAC-98-04

No No

10/13/95 - The following macro-section acceptance standards are to be included into Draft #3 as discussed by the Subcommittee:

Draft #2, page 120, 7.3.2 (6), delete and substitute: "(6) Macro - Macrosections transverse to the weld shall reveal no cracks at 5X magnification and shall meet exceed 3/32". Linear indications of 1/16" (1.5 mm) and less are acceptable when associated with the root or partial penetration and backing bar groove welds, provided such adjacent linear indications are separated by at least 1/8" (3mm).".

10/13/95 - Group B submitted a number of comments and editorials to be included in Draft #3. (see Group B attachment to 10/13/95 meeting minutes). Any items on this list that cannot be resolved in the ballot process will be entered as new business to the Subcommittee database.

10/13/95 - The comment are to be incorporated into Draft #3 for Subcommittee ballot and comment.

10/13/95 - Comments to be included in Draft #3 for Subcommittee ballot and comments.

Group B NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

T C West


0 Scope 71 3/17/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

"... but welding above the surface is not..." is too obscure a term to use. Does the author mean 10 feet up, in space or does he mean "Operations required at the surface other than welding in support..."

No change. Add to new business.

Group A NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

P T Delaune


13-Aug-01 of 28


Document:





Purpose:

0 VAR 40 3/16/1989 TAC-98-04

No No

There is no mention to mechanized/automatic welding and different weighting on ND-Techniques (e.g. little on RT) and no reference to repair procedures. Mechanical testing for hardness survey, toughness (CTOD, Charpy) is insufficient and tables could be simplified and be made specific for ease of reading (e.g. reduce notes). Many of the above aspects could be incorporated into the present review (Draft #1).

5/28/93 - P. Szelagowski to submit suggestions and solisit help from IIW SCUW. 12/06/1994 - P. Szelagowski agreed to split out and resubmit as new business. (chairmans not subcommittee final vote column will be left as no until new business is submitted).

3/25/95 - Various Review Cooments - Peter has completed review of D3.6 through section 5.11, and all comments submitted have been resolved or incorporated in new business items. This item 099 will remain open until Peter has a chance to complete his review.

10/13/95 - No action taken. Carry over to new database.

Group A NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

P Szelagowski


1 General 98 3/17/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

Terms such as "GTAW" and "SMAW" are not common to the international (ISO) community. AWS should identify all differences in welding terminology within D3.6, and incorporate the ISO preference (with U.S. Customary in parentheses?), where applicable. (10/31/96)

Accept

Group A NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

P Szelagowski


3 1.4.1 100 3/17/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

The specification should state that where alternative requirements are permitted by the Specification, the alternatives selected by the Customer should be specified in contract documents. (10/31/96)

Accept

Group A NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

P T Delaune


13-Aug-01 of 28


Document:





Purpose:

3 2.1.6 and 2.1. 198 5/25/2001 1

Yes No

Add to the last line of 2.1.7 (and change to 2.1.6); The Customer shall specify the standard that applies to this class of weld or they may provide their own requirements for tack welds or temporary welds where no standard or specification covers the application. The requirements for tack and temporary welds shall consider potential damage to structural or pressure boundary base metal caused by application and removal of such welds.

Group E NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

J E O'Sullivan


3 2.1.7 194 5/24/2011 1

Yes No

Further to proposal to delete class C welds

Add to the last line of 2.1.7; The Customer shall specify the standard that applies to this class of weld or they may provide their own requirements for tack welds or temporary welds where no standard or specification covers the application.

Group D NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

G M Cain


9 3.3.1.1 102 3/17/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

Second paragraph duplicates last sentence of last paragraph.

Delete second paragraph.

Accept

Group A NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

W W StCyr


10 3.4 104 3/17/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

I suggest that this paragraph (confirmation weld) is not correctly located. Perhaps Section 5 (qualification), although it is not actually a procedure test. My concept is that Section 3 should be reserved for requirements related to the acceptance of production welds. (1177)

Accept

Groups C and D NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

E L VonRosenberg


13-Aug-01 of 28


Document:





Purpose:

10 3.4 105 3/17/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

Confirmation weld requirements should be revised to specifically permit a bead-on-plate weld where such a weld adequately demonstrates that the welding system is functioning properly for a particular application (e.g., GTAW or Flux Core, or manual overlays). (10/31/96)

Accept

Group C NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

P Szelagowski


10 3.4.1 107 3/17/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

Add reference to new section.

Last sentence, add "3.4.5".

New business

Group A NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

J M Sturrock


11 3.4.2 110 3/17/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

Section 3.4.2 name

Rename to "Base Metal Requirements for Confirmation Welds"

open for consideration

Group A NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

J M Sturrock


11 3.4.5 111 3/17/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

New Section; Required to advise action to take if confirmation weld fails.

Add new section, 3.4.5 "If the confirmation weld is not acceptable, the equipment shall be adjusted as necessary and the confirmation weld repeated."

New business

Group C NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

J M Sturrock


13-Aug-01 of 28


Document:





Purpose:

16 Table 5.3 201 8/11/2001 1

Yes No

Comment from D. Abson at TWI

Please clarify information given in Table 5.3 of AWS D3.6M: 1999 . In the last column of the table, the minimum depth qualified is given as "X minus 10 m (33 ft) or 0.2X, whichever is greater". For a welding depth of 10m, the minimum depth qualified is therefore the greater of zero or 2m, which is 2m. Thus, a further procedure would have to be carried out to qualify for welding at, say 0.4m.to 2m, and another procedure to qualify for welding at shallower depths than 0.4m. For a welding depth of 100 m, the minimum depth qualified is the greater of 90m or 20m, i.e. 90 m. A possible alternative interpretation is X minus (whichever is the greater of 10m or 0.2.X), which would give minimum depths qualified in the two instances given above as zero and 80m.

I note that I failed to mention that my interest was in the depth limitations for welding with Ni-base electrodes, and therefore it is the last row of Table 5.3 which is relevant. Phil Boulter, of Hydroweld, has sent me a copy of a response which he received earlier this year from Roger Houldsworth, relating to interpretation of the depth limitations for wet underwater welding with ferritic electrodes. The response states that "the 0.2X factor only comes into play when X is greater than 50m". As such a statement does not appear in Section 5.6.2, nor in Table 5.3, I would appreciate clarification of its origin, and whether it relates also to Ni-base electrodes. (I recognise that current Ni-base electrodes are effectively unusable at a depth of 50m.)

Group D NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

A Davis


13-Aug-01 of 28


Document:





Purpose:

18 1.4.1 37 3/16/1989 TAC-98-04

No No

Recommend including ferrite number references on austentic steel.

10/13/89 - Group "B" recommend this action be taken. Work on this including ferrite number references is still required.

Workgroup response 3/25/94 - 4.1.3 Methods of underwater transport and storage of filler metals, as well as maximum time for exposure of filler metal to the underwater environment, shall be specified in the welding procedure.

4.1.4 For austenitic stainless steel filler metals used in wet welding, the undiluted delta ferrite content shall be determined by direct measurement of as-deposited filler metal in accordance with AWS A5.4 . Alternatively, delta ferrite may be estimated from chemical analysis of the as-deposited filler metal using the latest version of the Welding Research Council Constitution Diagram for Stainless Steel Weld Metals. The average delta ferrite content shall equal or exceed the average delta ferrite number of the filler metal used during procedure qualification, or 8, FN, whichever is less.

12. REFERENCES

W. Welding

(22) Welding Research Council, WRC-1992 Constitution Diagram for Stainless Steel Weld Metals.

10/13/95 - Group B to ask Jim O'Sullivan to come forward with a proposal and work with Damin Kotecko of the A5 Committee more guidence is needed for 4.1.4 above.

Group C NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

J E O'Sullivan


21 5.8.3 116 3/17/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

Last sentence: 5.8.7 does not apply to pipe groove welds

Delete "and 5.8.7"

Accept

Group A NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

J E O'Sullivan


13-Aug-01 of 28


Document:





Purpose:

22 2.2 36 3/16/1989 TAC-98-04

No No

Design Guidelines - A better definition should be given to performance characteristics expected from service level of weld types "A" and "B" and "C" welds such as allowable stresses, fatique characteristics, type of weld used, e.g. groove and/or fillet, etc. Basically, we have interpreted the specification by making assumptions of the performance we can expect from these welds. The specification should give better design criteria for the different service level welds.

Add to commentary. *preceeding response submitted 0/23/91*

Futher response - It is agreed that the type of information it seems is being suggested would be useful. However, it is more compatible with a "handbook." Bryan Wood should be asked to elaborate on the type of information he wants included. The commentary or an appendix might be able to accomodate the need. Bryan Wood might be a candidate to draft such a discussion or at least provide an outline.

12/06/94 - A commentary sec tion on design is being finalized by groups C and A for the next revision. It is intended that the commentary secion design is to be expanded with each new D3.6 revision. Chairmans note: The workshop on "Further Development of Standards for U/W Welding" held at the International U/W Welding Conference December 94 reinforced the need for an underwater weld design standard. While the workgroup was in agreement that design is not within the scope of an U/W Welding standard they did point out that the AWS D3b Subcommittee needs to pro-actively link with organizations who are responsible for design standards for U/W welding.

3/24/95 - Still waiting on Whitey's commantary on Design. Peter also volunteered to submit comments for commantary as well.

Group E NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

W E Wood


23 Figure 3.1 3 4/3/1998 TAC-94-08

Yes No

The joint details give tolerances for groove welds but not actual value for groove angle, root opening, of root face.

Provide groove joint dimensions.Angle is addressed by WPS not in this figure

Group E NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

J L Cooley


13-Aug-01 of 28


Document:





Purpose:

30 5.11.8 202 8/13/2001 1

Yes No

Comment from D Abson at TWI

The second issue relates to Section 5.11.8 Fillet Weld Shear Strength Test. This section contains the statement that "The specimen type and welding position are to be specified by the Customer." The following statement appears to be general advice relating to welding position. The Standard is not clear on whether this test is carried out in one position only, irrespective of whatever other procedure qualification testing is being done, or whether it must be repeated for each welding position, if other qualification testing is being carried out at more that one welding position.

Group C NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

A Davis


31 5.15 121 3/17/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

Also p. 19, 5.6:

-Class O welds "are intended to meet the requirements of some other code..." and "shall also meet the requirements identified in this section." (10.1, p. 80).-"However, this document shall take precedence in regard to essential variables and the extent of nondestructive and destructive examination", (5.15 and 5.6).-These statements conflict, if it is intended that the "other code" requirements shall be met, at a minimum.

Change 5.6 and 5.15 to read "However, essential virables, and the extent of nondestructive and destructive examination, shall also meet the requirements identified in this document."

Accept

Group A NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

S A Collins


32 5.16 (9) 122 3/17/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

Changes in breathing gas do not affect welder's skill; therefore, breathing gas should not be an essential variable for performance qualification. (10/31/96, 7/7/97)

Accept

Group D NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

P Szelagowski


13-Aug-01 of 28


Document:





Purpose:

35 T5.1 & T5.2 124 3/17/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

Arc voltage should not be an essential variable when current is, as one is dependent upon the other, depending on what kind of power supply is used. Recommend removal or arch voltage as an essential variable for shielded metal arc dry welding and wet welding. (10/31/96)

Accept

Group D NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

P Szelagowski


35 T5.2, (8)F, T6 126 3/17/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

A change from salt water to fresh water should be an essential variable for wet welding. (7/7/97)

Accept

Group D NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

P Szelagowski


35 T5.3 127 3/17/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

Depth limitations should be changed to +/- 20m. Alternatively, consider changing limitation to +10 m and - 20m. (7/7/97)

Accept

Group D NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

P Szelagowski


35 T5.5 128 3/17/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

Welder qualification in the vertical (3G, 3F) or 6G/6GR positions may not reflect ability to wet weld in the horizontal position. Reconsideration should be given of 2G (2F) qualification granted by 3G (3F) qualification testing. (10/31/96)

Accept

Group D NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

I Pachniuk


13-Aug-01 of 28


Document:





Purpose:

38 Table 5.1 9 4/3/1998 TAC-94-08

No No

Section C, Part 9, Item (a) - I think that the words "or classification in AWS A5.32" can be added as an editorial change after "Nominal percentage composition". The reason is that, when this document was first drafted, AWS A5.32 was not published. But it is now, and this draft should include reference to it.

Committee has not evaluated A5.32 classification characteristics.

Group A and C NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

D J Kotecki


39 Table 5.1 10 4/3/1998 TAC-94-08

No No

Section D, Part 9, Item (a) I think that the words "classification in AWS a5.32" should be added as an editorial change after "gas". The reason is that AWS A5.32 was not published when this document was drafted. But it is published now, and this document should recognize that.

Committee has not evaluated A5.32 classification characteristics.

Groups A and C NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

D J Kotecki


39 Table 5.1 11 4/3/1998 TAC-98-04

Yes No

This is a reason for my AQ vote.

1) Section E, Part 3, Items (a) and (b) - I cannot understand how it can be justified or correct that a change in the Filler Metal Manufacturer, or in the filler metal trade name for the same classification, can be an essential variable for GTAW, here, but not for GMAW on the preceding page. This is technical nonsense. Note that metal cored wires are not classified for GTAW in A5.18, A5.28, or in A5.9. So only a change in a ERXX-G manufacturer or trade name should be an essential variable. A change in other solid wire manufacturer or trade name, so long as the classification remains the same, should be a nonessential variable here, just as it is in the GMAW section on the preceding page.

Group A NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

D J Kotecki


13-Aug-01 of 28


Document:





Purpose:

39 Table 5.1 12 4/3/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

Section E, Part 9, Item (a) - After "nominal percentage composition", add "or classification in AWS A5.32" as an editorial change. A5.32 was not published when this document was drafted, but it is now. This document should recognize A5.32.

See Item #2173.

Groups A and C NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

D J Kotecki


45 TBL. 3 44 3/16/1989 TAC-98-04

No No

Make the following changes to the table for Depth Limitations:

Type Depth Prod. Max. Qual.Min. Qual.Manual dry OK x + 66'(20m) x-66' (20m) or ..Dry mechanized OK x + - 100' (30m)X - 150' (45m) or ..Wet w/mild filler >33' (10m) OKOKWet w/mild filler =<33' (10m) OKx - 33' (10m)

10/13/95 - Peter and Ivan submit revised Table 3 page 045 for dry welding using GTA and GMA.

Group D NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

P Szelagowski


52 6.16.1 138 3/17/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

ASTM E709 is referenced without an ISO reference. Resolved - no equivalent ISO standard exists. (1215)

Accept

Group A NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

W W StCyr


13-Aug-01 of 28


Document:





Purpose:

58 Figure 5.10 13 4/3/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

I recommend that this figure be eliminated and reference be made to Figure A7 in AWS B4.0. Same for Figure 5.10A.

Leave as is?

Groups A and C NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

D J Kotecki


59 7.10.2 146 3/17/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

7.10.2 contains no limitations regarding the accumulation of discontinuities [and the requirements of 7.10.1(6) can certaintly not be applied to a macroetch specimen]. Also, the maximum size of 1/8" for discontinuities is excessive for a Class A weld macroetch specimen [AWS/ANSI D3.6-93 had a 1/8" maximum for Class B welds, and ANSI/AWS D3.6-9X has a 3/32" maximum for Class B welds].

Limitations on the accumulation of discontinuity size be limited to 1/16" (1.5 mm) or 10 percent of the weld throat, whichever is less. [The U.S. Navy requirements for dry welding is 1/32" maximum or 10 percent of the weld throat, whichever is less.]

Accept

Group B NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

T C West


62 Figure 5.12 15 4/3/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

The bend fixtures in Figure 5.12 and 5.12A should be replaced by reference to AWS B4.0.

If Figure 5.12A is retained, add "(Customary)" to the end of the title.Not agreed

Groups A and C NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

D J Kotecki


13-Aug-01 of 28


Document:





Purpose:

65 T 7.3 155 3/17/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

Hardness value of 325HV10 is too high. 300HV10 is readily obtainable in dry welding, including cover pass heat-affected zone, and is generally accepted for most applications. (10/31/96)

Accept

Groups B and D NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

P Szelagowski


66 Figure 5.14 16 4/3/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

I recommend that this figure, along with Figure 5.14A, be replaced by a reference to AWS B4.0.

Not agreed

Groups A and C NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

D J Kotecki


13-Aug-01 of 28


Document:





Purpose:

68 8.4 & 8.10 156 3/17/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

Pages 68, 70 & 74. The fillet break acceptance criteria for Class B welds do not reflect reasonable limitations for discontinuity size and number. Paragraphs 8.4.2(3) and 8.7.2(3) reference Paragraph 8.10 for such limitations, but 8.10 addresses radiographic and macroetch acceptance criteria -- and this criteria is not realistic for fillet break specimens.

I propose the following new paragraph (which I have proposed previously), and the reference to such in Paragraphs 8.4.2(3) and 8.7.2(3):

"8.10/3 Fillet Break Acceptance Criteria

1) There shall be no cracks:

2) There shall be no slag inclusions in the weld. Slag outside the weld area, between the test assembly faying surfaces, will not be cause for rejection.

3) Porosity 1/16" (1.5 mm) in diameter and greater shall be limited to four per linear inch and shall not exceed 10 in number in any 8" (192 mm) of weld.

4) The maximum porosity size shall be 1/8" (3 mm).

5) There shall be no lack of fusion between weld passes or between the weld and the base metal."

Group B NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

T C West


70 8.7.2(3) 157 3/17/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

Porosity or slag should be examined per limitations of 8.10.1, as was required in 7.7.2(3), unless only the macroetch requirement is to be met, which would not be a good measure of porosity in a fractured weld. Because 10.1 is called "Radiographic Acceptance Criteria" but is being used as a visual standard on a break, it should be referred to by name.

In both 8.7.2(3) and 7.7.2(3) the criteria should read "If the fillet weld fractures, porosity or slag shall not exceed the limitations of (7 or 8).10.1 "Radiographic Acceptance Criteria."

Accept

Group B NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

S A Collins


13-Aug-01 of 28


Document:





Purpose:

74 T8.2 161 3/17/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

Hardness value of 375HV10 is too high. 350HV10 is readily obtainable in most situations, including cover pass heat-affected zone, and is generally accepted for most applications. (Note: Maximum hardness requirements may vary, depending upon service conditions (water temperature - North Sea vs. Gulf, loading conditions, joint desing, etc.) of the component involved.) (10/31/96)

Accept

Groups B and D NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

P Szelagowski


76 6.1.2 17 4/7/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

Visual inspection by? (Whom) Accepted by ??? - (should be AWS "CWI")

Visual examination shall be in accordance with Part II of this section and the results shall be acceptable per the aforementioned and by a current AWS "Certified Welding Inspector".

Group B NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

R D Messer


77 6.6.1 18 4/3/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

Line 2 - "defective" strikes me as an odd word to use in a standard that permits Class B and Class C welds with an assortment of junk in them. I suggest changing to "non-conforming".

Groups A and B NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

D J Kotecki


77 6.6.2 19 4/3/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

Line 1 - As in the previous comment, I think that "faulty" is an odd word to use in a standard that permits junk in Class B and Class C welds. In both places where "faulty" appears in this line, I suggest changing to "non-conforming".

Groups A and B NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

D J Kotecki


13-Aug-01 of 28


Document:





Purpose:

78 Part II, Visual 21 4/7/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

Page 78 & 79. The visual inspection contains no requirement for personnel qualification/certification in welding inspection.

Add: 6.10.5 Personnel conducting visual examinations shall be certified as either CWI or SCWI in accordance with AWS-QC1, current edition; or an equivalent visual inspection program approved by the engineer, or customer representative.

Group B NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

C E Pepper


79 6.11.1 27 4/7/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

Procedures and standards qualified to what?

The NDE (ALL) Procedures and Standards shall be qualified per ASME Section V (xxx) and approved by the customer.

Group B NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

R D Messer


85 9 193 5/24/2001 1

Yes No

Delete Class C Welds completely from the D3.6 Specification. I beleive that with the commentary and the Class "O" idea we could do it. We could also move the bridge bend test to an area that would be a commentary item for testing to insure that work such as overlays could be tested to insure that no cracks would form in the toe of the weld at the base metal.

Group D NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

G M Cain


85 9 195 5/24/2001 1

Yes No

Further to proposal to delete class C welds

Move the Bridge Bend test to another section possible Class "O" and refer to it as a test for tack and temporary welds.

Group D NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

G M Cain


13-Aug-01 of 28


Document:





Purpose:

85 9 197 5/25/2001 1

Yes No

Delete Class C Welds (i.e. the existing 2.1.6 verbiage) completely from the D3.6 Specification.

Group D NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

J E O'Sullivan


85 9 191 5/21/2001 1

Yes No

I would like to submit a new business item to delete the current Class"C" Welds from section 9 and place it in section 10 for Class "O" Welds. The current Class "C" weld can be executed under a Class "O" weld with a little clarification in the commentary. I recommend using section 9 for RemoteAutomatic Welding and calling it Class "C" Welds. This way the document would not have to be reformatted to add Remote Automatic Welds.

Group D NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

R Murray


85 9 200 5/25/2001 1

Yes No

At one time I felt that the Class C weld added real value to the document. This was based on the assumption that the users of the document would use it as intended. What I see all too often is the users of the document using the Class C qualification to sell the client that they are fully qualified to wet weld per AWS D3.6. Many clients do not have a clue about different classes of welds and do not have the time and money to get up to speed in this area. They are forced to rely on contractors in this area, and the Class C makes it very easy to fool the client into thinking he is getting a level of qualification in wet welding that is just not happening nor intented by the document.

The client usually learns the difference after some type of ugly situation where personnel qualified to Class C welds are performing structural welding. At the end of the day the client feels cheated by the contractor and disappointed in AWS under water welding document to ensure a level of quality for their project.

Group D NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

W J Couch


13-Aug-01 of 28


Document:





Purpose:

85 9 190 5/28/2001 1

Yes No

I agree with Greg and Tom that the class "C" welds should be removed fromD3.6. I have run across welders who have only been qualified to type "C" welds and are passed off as being more than they are.

Group D NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

J C Steinmetz


85 9 192 5/24/2001 1

Yes No

Delete Class C Welds completely from the D3.6 Specification. The Foreword of ANSI/AWS D3.6:1998 starts with the statement, "In 1975, the AWS Committee on Marine Construction requested the Subcommittee on Underwater Welding to establish a standard reflecting state-of-the-art technology relative to underwater welding." When the first AWS D3.6 draft was prepared in the late 1970's (over 20 years ago), it included four Types of welds. Included was Type C, which on the low end of the scale, did reflect at that time, the state-of-the-art of wet welding. Today, Type or Class C welds are not related to the state-of-the-art of wet welding and should not be included in future ANSI/AWS D3.6 Specifications or Codes.

Group D NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

C C Reynolds


88 7.3.2 4 4/3/1998 TAC-94-08

No No

Does not allow for UT as an alternate for qualifications.

Add UT or RT.

Group B NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

J L Cooley


89 7.0 2 3/27/1998 TAC-98-04

Yes No

The mechanical tests fail to reference AWS B4.0 even though AWS B4 is listed with references.

List B4 in such paragraphs as 7.4.2.4, 7.4.2.5, 7.4.2.7 and others where tests covered in B4 are used.

Groups A and B NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

H Hahn


13-Aug-01 of 28


Document:





Purpose:

95 C1.4.1 176 3/17/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

A better method of locating customer responsibilities is needed. "Index under the heading customer," is not easy to find (see last sentence in paragraph).

AcceptRevise new chapter

Group A NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

P T Delaune


95 C9.9 174 3/17/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

Why is undercut the same for Class C as Class B? The concern with Class C joints is preservation of base metal integrity - not weld quality. Since undercut affects base metals only, the same criteria is applied to Class C as applied to Class B. Group A to add explanation in commentary. (7/15/97)

Accept

Groups B and C NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

P Szelagowski


106 8.2 6 4/3/1998 TAC-94-08

No No

No UT alternate.

Allow UT as an alternate for RT for procedure.

Group B NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

J L Cooley


13-Aug-01 of 28


Document:





Purpose:

106 C5.6.1.3 177 3/17/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

Very little steel will be found in place with a 0.10% carbon content. The new steel to be welded to existing steel can be specified with a low carbon content, but exact chemistries are not obtainable.

In view of the fact that steel is supplied to a chemistry range, it is better to guide the user to a desirable chemistry or C.E. range rather than give absolute values.

The first reaction ws to change the "and" between 0.10% and C.E. to "or" and reuce the 0.40% to 0.30 or 0.35%. Then the word "suitable" stood out. Suitable is a strong word which infers that something else would be unsuitable. "Preferred" is a more flexible word which indicates that there is a range of desirable and undesirable steels fro wet welding. The use of 0.40% C.E. at the end of the first sentence in C5.6.1.3, at the start of the second sentence, and again at the start of the next paragraph gives the impression that this is an absolute value.

More through can be provoke and more weldable steels will be obtained by reducing the C.E. at the end of the first sentence to 0.30% or 0.35%.

C5.6.1.3 Carbon steels "preferred" for general purpose wet welding are those with a carbon content of less than 0.10% and a Carbon Equivalence, CE, of less than "0.35%."

Accept

Groups C and D NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

C B Champney


13-Aug-01 of 28


Document:





Purpose:

109 8.10.1.2 23 4/3/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

This is a reason for my AQ vote.

Line 2 - I have two problems here. One relates to interpreting the requirement. If I am allowed 7 pores per linear inch of weld per inch of thickness, does that mean, in a one-half inch thick weld, that I am allowed 3-1/2 pores per lineal inch, or does it mean that I am allowed 7 pores per 2 lineal inches. In the first interpretation, I fail if I find any inch in the radiograph containing 5 pores, even if the adjacent inch on either side is clean. In the second interpretation, same pore distribution, I pass. The specification needs to tell me more precisely what the controlling dimension on the radiograph is. It does not do that now. Typically, it would be a radiographic length dimension like 150 mm (6 in.), and then my 1/2 inch thick weld would allow 21 pores in those 150 mm of weld length.

Groups A and B NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

D J Kotecki


109 8.10.1.4 24 4/3/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

Line 1 - I think "indicating" is the wrong word. If the inadequate joint penetration is indicated, then the radiograph has done its job, so it (the radiograph, not the weld) should be acceptable. I think a better choice of wording would be "for determining".

Groups A and B NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

D J Kotecki


109 8.10.1.6 25 4/3/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

Line 1 - I think "indicating" is the wrong word. If the root underfill is indicated, then the radiograph has done its job, so it (the radiograph, not the weld) should be acceptable. I think a better choice of wording would be "for determining".

Groups A and B NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

D J Kotecki


13-Aug-01 of 28


Document:





Purpose:

110 C2.1.6 and 2. 199 5/25/2001 1

Yes No

Revise C2.1.6 from the in the commentary to explain the reasons for removal of Class C welds from the Standard (see Tom Reynolds' submittal of May 24, 2001). Add tack welds and temporary welds to the revised C2.1.6.

Group D NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

J E O'Sullivan


115 7.3.2(4) 42 3/16/1989 TAC-98-04

No No

Add to Commnetary why different percentages of all-weld-metal elongations are specified for Class A welds made on base metals of different yield strengths. Also change the tables in paragraphs 7.3.2(4) and (5) respectively as shown on the enclosed sheet. Chairmans Note: The enclosed sheet referenced was forwarded to J. Couch chairman group "B" on 1/28/95.

Group A NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

C E Grubbs


120 9.1 30 12/29/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

Application:

First sentence, delete the word "primary".

Because porosity is not restricted in size or in volume, a "load-bearing function" can not possibly be a consideration at all.

Agreed but new business item to remove class C welds will also take care of this

Groups A and B NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

R D Holdsworth


121 9.9.2 31 12/29/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

Replace with the following: "Slag inclusions are not restricted."

The present Specification does not address slag at all and it should be addressed. Complete fusion between passes should not be a concern.

Groups A and B NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

R D Holdsworth


13-Aug-01 of 28


Document:





Purpose:

121 9.9.3 32 12/29/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

Delete 9.9.3.

Why should craters need to be filled if pososity pores can be larger than the craters?

Groups A and B NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

R D Holdsworth


121 9.9.4 33 12/29/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

Delete 9.9.4.

Why should there be weld profile requirements if the surface and weld below it could be full of porosity?

Groups A and B NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

R D Holdsworth


122 Figure 9.1 34 12/29/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

Delete Figure 9.1.

Refer to Item No. 5.

Group B and D NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

R D Holdsworth


13-Aug-01 of 28


Document:





Purpose:

130 7.10 38 3/16/1989 TAC-98-04

No No

Paragraphs 7.10, 8.10 and 9.10 with regard to MACRO examination. All reference to Para. 3.9 should be deleted from these paragraphs. Although Para. 3.9 is addressed to "Radiography and Macroscopic Examination", these acceptance standards are developed around radiographic examination only (with some applicability to fillet break fracture surfaces). The present macroscopic examination acceptance standards for Tupe "A" and Type "B" groove welds, as outlined in Para. 4.5 should also be applicable to Tupe "A" and Type "B" fillete welds. The following additional discussion is offered in regard to macroscopic examination acceptance standards for Type "A" and Type "B" welds:

The present requirements do not take into account that fillet welds, and groove welds made against a backing will have occasional root discontinuities; these discontinuities both linear and non-linear are not expected to compromise the integrity of such partial penetration welds. The U.S. Navy (MIL-STD-2480) allows such discontinuities as long as they do not exceed 1/32 inch in any direction. I suggest we use this same standard for Type "A" fillet and groove-with-backing welds. I suggest similar allowance for type "B" fillet and groove-with-backing welds, except hte maximum discontinuity size should be increased to 1/16 inch. (Note that the requirements for fillet weld penetration are covered by the fillet break test acceptance standards; the fillet break test always accompanies the macroscopic examination test for Type "A" and Type "B" fillet welds.) (see item #43).

10/26/89 - T. West to clarify recommendations. Does it apply to macros for fillet welds and macros to Vee groove & backing? Should it appear under 7.9.2

Visual Acceptance Criteria? Group B does not understand reference to partial penetration welds.

Group B questions whether Class A and Class B macroscopic discontinuity allowance of 1/8 inch should be changed when a Class 0 weld can be specified by the Customer for conformance to other requirements such as MIL-STD-248.

3/24/95 - NO ACTION. T. West to clarify recommendations. Does it apply to macros for fillet welds and macros to Vee grove & backing? Should it appear under 7.9.2 Visual Acceptance Criteria? Group B does not understand reference to partial penetration welds.

Group B questions whether Class A and Class B macroscopic discontinuity allowance of 1/8 inch should be changed when a Class 0 weld can be specified by the Customer for conformance to other requirements such as MIL-STD-248.

Group B NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

T C West


13-Aug-01 of 28


Document:





Purpose:

160 New Annex 188 3/17/1998 TAC-98-04

No No

Human and Organization Factors and criteria, as they pertain to underwater welding, need to be reflected either with Personnel Safety, or in a separate Annex. These would address such things as welding and stay times at varying depths and temperatures, supplemental heating and/or cooling provisions, diving suit limitations, at-depth and top-side diver assistance, etc., which can initiate or contribute toward accidents and equipment failures. Shawn Cullen to prepare an initial draft for consideration by the committee. (7/15/97)

Accept

Group F NoNo


Remarks

Tech Neg

S T Cullen


13-Aug-01 of 28

comment review report document: committee: committee on welding … · · 2016-06-07committee:...

Documents