API Standard 1104 - Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities

API Stan Edition dard 1104 18th - May 1994

Section

Inquiry #

Question

Reply The groups are not specified in API-1104, they are to be selected by the user. See Para. 2.3.2.3.

1104-I-01- The section on essential variables for Weld Procedure Qualifications, Section 96 2.4.2.5, states a change from one group to another. However, this section does not specify which group. Is the first group specified in Table 2 which is < 12.7 mm and > 12.7 mm? Or is it the group specified under Welder Qualification Tests which is < 4.8 mm, 4.8 mm - 19 mm, and > 19 mm? 1104-I-01- The essential variable list in Section 2.4 for Weld Procedure Qualification 96 does not cover diameter groupings although Welder Qualification Tests do have groupings. Is it correct in saying that qualifying a procedure on 2" diameter would qualify, say, a 40" diameter butt weld provided all other essential variables were met? 1104-I-01- Welder Qualification Tests for Automatic Welding Section 9.7 does not 96 specify any essential variables for Welder Qualification Tests. Is this correct? 1104-I-01- Weld Procedure Qualification - Automatic Welding Under Section 9, this 96 appears to be leaving the groupings of diameters and wall thickness to the Contractor as it states this will be stated in the WPS. Should these groupings be per API 1104 and/or Company requirements?

1104 18th - May 1994

Yes.

1104 18th - May 1994 1104 18th - May 1994

Welder Qualification Tests for Automatic Welding - Since Para. 9.6 provides that both the equipment and the operator are qualified at the same time, the Essential Variables specified in Para. 9.5 apply. Weld Procedure Qualification for Automatic Welding - The groupings are left to the writer of the procedure specification.

1104 18th - May 1994 1104 18th - May 1994

1104-I-02- Clarification of the requirements of paragraph 6.3.8.2.c with respect to cluster If the cluster porosity cannot be proven to be in the finish pass, the criteria of Para. 6.3.8.2 96 porosity is required since the collective aggregate size of porosity is being applies. If Para. 6.3.8.2c applies, then figures 18 and 19 must be used even if the indication on interpreted differently by different inspectors. the radiograph has been defined as cluster porosity. 1104-I-02- With similar size porosity all falling into the medium category, the density If the size of the porosity is the size shown in the "medium" charts of Figures 18 and 19, then 96 which is in the assorted chart cannot be defined. When a cluster of 5 to 7 that is the chart which must be used as the acceptability standard. pores cannot fit into an inscribed circle on the fine chart, the client is rejecting it even though there is no other porosity within the entire radiograph. An attached sketch illustrates the condition. 1104-I-04- If the Company has not required the use of a line-up clamp in its project 96 specific specification, does API 1104 require the use of a clamp? No. See Para. 2.3.2.11

1104 18th - May 1994 1104 18th - May 1994

1104-I-04- As paragraph 4.3 is concerning butt welds, is this indicating that a clamp must Para. 4.3 requires that the use of line-up clamps must be in accordance with the procedure 96 be used for butt welds and that the weld procedure specification (as specification. If the procedure specification does not require a line-up clamp, then none needs discussed in 2.3.2.11) for butt welds must reflect this? to be used when making the production weld. See Para. 2.3.2.11. 1104-I-04- Why is a clamp required for a weld procedure qualification, when the pipe 96 nipples for the WPS will have been cut from the same length of pipe and hence the dimension fit up will be very good; whereas, the field fit ups are from pipes that will vary in dimension, ovality, etc.? 1104-I-04- Regardless of what the form of words that API 1104 uses, what was the intention of the committee in regard to the use of clamp for butt weld joints? 96 A line-up clamp is not required for the weld procedure qualification. See Para. 2.3.2.11.

1104 18th - May 1994

1104 18th - May 1994 1104 18th - May 1994

We cannot comment on the intention of the committee, only what is written.

1104-I-04- API 1104 only discusses the clamp as a method of weld alignment. If API API 1104 does not discuss specific types of line-up clamps, only the method, i.e. internal, 96 1104 permits the use of other methods of alignment, why are they not external or no clamp. discussed and parameters given for their use, removal, etc.? If other methods are permitted, what are they and what other parameters govern their use? 1104-I-05- If a tensile strength is conducted for welder qualification, what information should be Paragraph 3.5.3 requires that the soundness requirements of Paragraph 2.6.3.3 be met. The recorded regarding the test? Currently, (a) I measure the specimen before testing, document that, (b) calculate the 96 tensile strength need not be calculated. It is therefore not necessary to measure the tensile specimens area, document that, (c) test the specimen documenting the load, and (d) calculate the tensile strength of the specimen, documenting the computed tensile strength. If it meets the required specified minimum tensile strength of the specimen or to record the breaking load. Only the results of the examination per Paragraph material, it is accepted. But this is not a requirement of welder qualification is it? It appears to me, that all that is 2.6.3.3 need to be recorded. Paragraph 3.5.3 requires that the soundness requirements of required for welder qualification is for the tensile specimen to break outside the weld zone or meet nick-break requirements if it does break in the weld zone, and the documentation is accepted or rejected and nothing else. Is this Paragraph 2.6.3.3 be met. The tensile strength need not be calculated. It is therefore not correct? necessary to measure the tensile specimen or to record the breaking load. Only the results of the examination per Paragraph 2.6.3.3 need to be recorded. 1104-I0810-96 1) Do a procedure and welder qualification on a butt weld, according to API 1104, qualify for unlimited fillet welds as it does with other codes such as ASME XI. 1) PROCEDURE QUALIFICATION One of the essential variables listed in Paragraph 2.4 is 2.4.2.3 "Joint Design." Here it states that a major change in joint design constitutes an essential variable. A change from a butt to a fillet weld is a major change in joint design, thus requiring that a new procedure be qualified. WELDER QUALIFICATION If a welder qualifies by making a butt weld per Paragraph 3.2 "Single Qualification," that welder is subject to the essential variables listed in 3.3.2. Here in subparagraph "g," it states that a change in joint design constitutes an essential variable. A change from a butt to a fillet weld is a major change in joint design. That welder would therefore, not be qualified to make fillet welds. (2) Paragraph 4.3 requires that the use of line-up clamps must be in accordance with the procedure specification. If the procedure specification does not require a line-up clamp then none needs to be used when making the production weld. See Paragraph 2.3.2.11.(3) A line-up clamp is not required for the weld procedure qualification. See Paragraph 2.3.2.11. (4) We cannot give advice on the use of clamps, only interpret what is written. (5) API 1104 does not discuss specific types of line-up clamps, only the method, i.e., internal, external, or no clamp. This covers every possible method. The API-1104 Standard does not require charpy testing. Therefore, we cannot respond to your question. Example 1 Yes. Example 2 Yes, assuming that "Clause 6.3.2.a" in the first sentence was intended to be 6.3.8.2. Example 3 Yes. Example 4 Depends upon the diameter of the pipe. See paragraphs 6.3.4.c and 6.3.7.2.g.

1104 18th - May 1994

1104 18th - May 1994

1104 18th - May 1994 1104 18th - May 1994

1104-I0913-96 1104-I1015-96

1104 18th - May 1994 1104 18th - May 1994 1104 18th - May 1994

1104-I1015-96 1104-I1015-96 1104-I1019-96

1104 18th - May 1994

1104-I1122-96

On samples extracted such that their length is parallel to the pipe axis, are shear values required from testing? Is pipe mill roll direction relevant to the testing of site-produced vertical butt welds? Four examples of repair situations that could arise are attached. They are labeled Examples 1, 2, 3, and 4 and are only scenarios and are not actual cases that have occurred on any project. Please review the four examples. In each example, is the repair acceptable in accordance with sections 6 and 7 of API Standard 1104? What is the definition of the words "injurious Defect" as they are used in paragraph 7.1.2, Removal and Preparation For Repair, API Standard 1104, 18th - May 1994? What is the definition of the words "Sound Metal" as they are used in paragraph 7.1.2, Removal and Preparation For Repair, API Standard 1104, 18th - May 1994? Paragraph 2.6.3.2 states that nick-break samples shall be broken by: ) pulling in a tensile machine b) supporting at each end and striking the middle; c) supporting one end and striking the other end. Is it the intent of the code to specifically rule out other methods of causing fracturing through the weldment? Can I use a fillet weld procedure qualified using a non-bevel lap fillet to complete a 45 degree single bevel fillet weld? And, vice versa.

Any defect that exceeds the standards of acceptability.

Sound metal, as used in Paragraph 7.1.2, is the metal that remains after the injurious defect has been removed. Paragraph 2.6.3.2 provides only three methods of breaking a nick break coupon so that it is all that can be used . However, your point is very understandable so we are sending your letter to the Welding Procedures and Welder Qualifications subcommittee for review and possible revision to the standard.

Paragraph 2.4.2.3 "Joint Design" specifies that a major change in joint design constitutes an essential variable thus requiring requalification. A change from a non-bevel lap fillet weld to a bevel fillet weld is a major change as it involves a bevel in addition to the fillet. However, if the same procedure is qualified on a bevel fillet weld, the same procedure can be used to weld a lap fillet because in the qualified procedure, once the bevel is filled, the joint design remaining is essentially the same as that of a lap joint. Both.

1104 18th - May 1994

1104-I1122-96

1104 18th - May 1994

1104-I0130-97

When qualifying welding procedures for fillet welds, one must note the range of wall thickness and diameters over which the procedure is applicable. Is API 1104 referring to the wall thickness and diameter of the branch or header piping? Under Section 3.2.2 and 3.3.2 for multiple qualification of welders, is it correct in understanding that a welder who has successfully completed the multiple qualification tests using filler metal from the group 1, (example E-6010& E7010), in the downhill travel progression would also be required to successfully complete those same two tests using filler metal from the group 3, (E-7018), in the uphill travel technique to install attachment fittings on pipelines such as thread-o-lets, requiring the use of E-7018, since the weld joint for fittings is a full penetration single bevel? After completion of the multiple qualification tests prescribed in section 3.3.2 using E-6010 and/or E-7010 electrodes in the downhill progression, and electing not to certify on a full size branch test again, is the only other option for a welder to be qualified for welding fittings on a pipeline using E-6010 for the root and E-7018 for the fill and cover passes are those outlined in ASME Section Ix, Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, QW 452?

Yes. Paragraph 3.3.2.b requires requalification. if the direction of welding changes from vertical uphill to vertical downhill or vice versa. Also, paragraph 3.3.2.c requires requalification. if the filler metal classification is changed from Group 1 or 2 to Group 3 or from Group 3 to Group 1 or 2.

1104 18th - May 1994

1104-I0130-97

No. The welder could be qualified under 3.2 "Single Qualification."

1104 18th - May 1994

1104-I0130-97

Question 3 refers to API RP 1107, Third Edition April 1991. Section 3.1 We assume that by "---on a butt and branch---" you mean the butt weld and branch described allows for a welder to perform maintenance welding after successfully in paragraph 3.3.1 of API 1104 and to the branch described in paragraph 3.2 of API 1107. completing the requirements of API Std 1104 3.1 to 3.6 or API RP 1107 3.2 to With this assumption the answer to your question is yes. However, to install sleeves the welder 3.5. Is a welder qualified to install sleeves using E-7018 if the welder test on a does not need to make a butt weld qualification test. The welder can make a single qualification Butt and Branch using E-7018? test as described in the second paragraph of 3.2.1 of ASPI 1104. Questions 4 & 5 refer to API 1104, 18th - May 1994 and API RP 1107, Third Edition, April 1991.Provided a procedure was qualified and a welder was tested on the 12-3/4" dia. butt weld and a 12-3/4 dia. full size branch test, per API Std. 1104 Sec. 3.3, using E-6010 downhill for the root passes and E7018 uphill for the fill and cover passes, wouldnt this welder meet the criteria as outlined in API Std. 1104, Sec. 3.3.2 for qualifications to weld in all positions, all wall thickness', joint designs, and fittings on all pipe diameters, including the installation of full encirclement sleeves as outlined in API RP 1107, Sec. 3.1? Yes but the welder would only be qualified to weld using Group 1 or 2 electrodes downhill on the root pass and Group 3 electrodes uphill on the fill and cap passes.

1104 18th - May 1994

1104-I0130-97

1104 18th - May 1994

1104-I0130-97

DOT CFR 192, Sec. 192.229(C) states that welders are required to re-certify The subject of a time limit for the qualification of welders has always been left to the codes and after 6 months unless proof of welding using the process for which they are user companies. However, this subject will be presented to the API 1104 Subcommittee On certified under is produced. DOT 195, Sec. 195.222 does not address a Welder Qualification for review. specific qualification term limit. Both DOT sections 192-Transportation of Natural Gas and DOT Section 195-The Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline, reference API Std. 1104 and ASME Sec. IX for welder qualification testing. ASME B31.3 (1990 Edition), Sec. 434.8.3 references API Std 1104 and/or ASME Sec. IX for welder certification. ASME B31.4 (1992 Edition), Sec. 328.2 references only ASME Sec. IX for certification testing. ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code Sec. IX, QW-322 does address six months without welding requiring a new qualification. With the Federal Regulations and required codes referencing API, why doesnt the API Std. 1104, Sec. 3.7 and API RP 1107, Sec. 3.6 stipulate a time limit for qualification of welders? Does a specific procedure for the branch weld in a multiple qualification test of welders need to be in place when doing the multiple qualification? Yes, a welder must use a qualified welding procedure when qualifying. See the first paragraph of Paragraph 3.3.1, "For multiple qualification, a welder shall successfully complete the two test welds described below, using qualified procedures." We point out that the welder who successfully makes the procedure test weld is also qualified. Diameter is not an essential variable in the qualification of a welding procedure as it is not listed in Paragraph 2.4.2. However, Paragraph 2.3.2.3 requires that the company establish its own diameter range for which the procedure is applicable. This range must then be recorded in the procedure specification. Having done this, pipe with diameters that were outside the selected range can be welded without requalifying the welding procedure. However, the procedure specification covering that weld must be changed to include the new diameter range for which the procedure is applicable. Yes. No.

1104 18th - May 1994

1104-I0507-97

1104 18th - May 1994

1104-I0910-97

Is branch connection diameter considered an essential variable when qualifying welding procedures for fillet welds on branch connections? Is it correct to assume that header diameter in a branch connection weld is NOT an essential variable?

1104 19th -DATE 1104 19th -DATE

9.3.9 9.3.9

1104-I0106-00 1104-I0106-00

Does the standard intend that any elongated porosity indication in the root pass should be considered to be hollow bead? If so, does the standard intend that the definition of linear indication (length more than 3 times the width as in MT and PT) be applied to porosity indications in radiographic applications? At the moment, we have a project (.250" wall pipe) in which a proe of porosity 1/16" wide and 5/32" long is deemed rejectable because it does not meet the linear indication criteria, and is considered a single pore rather than hollow bead. If the same indication was over 3/16" long, it is considered hollow bead and is acceptable. In other words, the shorter indication is rejectable and the longer indication is acceptable. This interpretation is causing some confusion. Is the entire procedure qualification test rejected and thus the welding procedure not qualified? Is the welders test for the A side also rejected and thus the welder not qualified?

1104 19th -DATE 1104 19th -DATE

6.1 1104-I0121-00 6.1 1104-I0121-00

The welding procedure is not qualified because all of the test specimens shown in Table 2 and figure 3 have not been successfully tested. Both welders have failed because their qualification weld must have been made using a previously qualified procedure. See the first sentence of 6.1 General. However, had the procedure been qualified, i.e. both the A and B side tests passed, then the procedure and both of the welders would have been qualified provided the proper number of test specimens were successfully tested as discussed in the third sentence of 6.1 General.

API Standard 1104 - Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities

1104 18th - May 1994

3.8 1104-I0301-00

1104 18th - May 1994

Para. 3.2.1

1104-I0302-00

"A record shall be made of the tests given to each welder and of the detailed results of each test. A form similar to that shown in Figure 2 should be used. (This form should be developed to suit the needs of the individual company but must be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate that the qualification test met the requirements of this standard.) A list of qualified welders and the procedures for which they are qualified shall be maintained. ..." Some people presume that Section 3.8 of the Standard requires that written documentation must be made to verify that each welder welded within the established parameters of the qualified welding procedure(s). This would include written notations of the electrodes used, amperages, voltages, and travel speeds of each pass, preheat temperature(s) and interpass temperatures. However, others contend that the Standard does not require written details of the welder qualification tests other than a pass/fail designation and a reference to the qualifying radiograph when welder qualification by radiography is utilized. (Para. 3.6) They contend that as long as the welder tests were "monitored", no other documentation is required. Clarification is requested regarding the utilization of multiple welders whose qualifications are in a lesser wall thickness grouping than the full thickness of a production weld. For example, welders on the job are qualified to weld thicknesses between 4.78 mm (3/16") and 19.05 mm (3/4") but the production weld has a thickness of 25.4 mm (1"). Is it permissible to utilize two welders wherein each welder would only deposit up to 19.05 mm weld deposit thickness in order to fill up the weld groove? Basically, the first welder would weld the Root, Hot Pass, and Part of Fill passes; and the second welder would complete the balance of the weld thickness, i.e. part of the fill passes and the Cap.

API 1104 Standard does not specifically specify information regarding the parameters of welding that is to be recorded, i.e. electrodes used, amperage, etc. This is left to the discretion of the individual companies. However, a record must be made of the tests given and the detailed results of each test (see Paragraph 3.8).

No. Each welder must weld the entire wall thickness when he/she is qualifying. See Paragraph 3.2.1.

1104 19th September 1999

Figure 12, 1104-INote 1 0224-00

1104 19th September 1999

Figure 12, 1104-INote 1 0224-00

There was a mistake in the printing of the 19th Edition of API 1104. While the title of Figure 12 When two welders are being qualified using 20 diameter pipe and each is correct, the drawing is incorrect. The drawing should be identical to Figure 12 of the 18th person is welding one-half of the weld, do you have to weld tow sets of nipples Edition, which shows 12 total weld specimens instead of 16. in order to get the sixteen test samples required per welder? The response to your question is no. You do need to test 12 weld specimens from each welder's half (see Table 13). The weld specimens should be equally spaced around the segments welded by each welder being qualified (see Figure 12, Note 1). If you have a welding procedure that was qualified with the MIG process using You must requalify the procedure. AWS ER70S-3 is not listed in Table 1. The note to Table 1 AWS ER 70S-3 and you are going to use AWS ER 70S-do you have a therefore requires requalification. requalify the procedure using the new filler metal or can you just make the substitution? In reference to Figure 10 on Page 15 (the non-branch connection sketches), is the weld specimen for fillet-weld procedure qualification one piece of pipe (smaller diameter) slipped into another piece of pipe (larger diameter)? Is there a standard procedure and welder qualification report templatethat is offered pre-printed from API? Is radiography acceptable to qualify a welding procedure or only a welder? Not necessarily. The larger pipe can be split and fitted to the smaller pipe.

1104 18th - May 1994

Fig. 10 pg. 15

1104-I0221-00

1104 18th - May 1994 1104 18th - May 1994

Fig. 10 pg. 15 Fig. 10 pg. 15

1104-I0221-00 1104-I0221-00

No.

1104 18th - May 1994 1104 18th - May 1994 1104 19th September 1999 1104 19th September 1999 1104 19th September 1999

Fig. 10 pg. 15 Fig. 10 pg. 15 App. B

1104-I0221-00 1104-I0221-00 1104-I0327-00 1104-I0327-00 1104-I0327-00

Is destructive testing the only way to qualify a welding procedure?

Only a welder, not a procedure. However, please note that in Sections 9 and 10 "Automatic Welding" and "Automatic Welding Without Filler-Metal Additions nondestructive testing is required in addition to destructive testing when qualifying a procedure. (See Par. 9.2 and Par. 10.2.1) See 3 above.

If a welder is qualified using a standard type MIG welder, does a change to the use of a pulse type MIG welder require requalification; assuming that all other variables remain the same? Paragraph 2.2.1.3 of Appendix B states "For in-service fillet welds, pipe wall thickness is not an
essential variable." Does that also apply to the thickness of a hot tap fitting (e.g. the fillet weld joining the fitting to an in-service pipe)? I understand that the wall thickness of the in-service pipe is not an essential variable but what about the sleeve wall thickness?

Requalification is not necessary.

Yes, the reference to wall thickness applies to both the thickness of the sleeve and to the thickness of the service pipe. Neither are essential variables. You must re-qualify because Appendix B has requirements for procedure qualification that are not required in Section 5.

App. B

Can I use butt welding and fillet welding procedures qualified under Section 5 of API 1104 to make in-service welds or must I requalify?

App. B

In a previous technical inquiry (TI 1104-081096), it is stated that a change Yes. See the last paragraph under Par. B.1 and the sentence under B.2. from a butt weld to a fillet weld is considered a major change in joint design and thus requires a new procedure to be qualified. In branch connection welding, if I change the weld prep on the branch pipe from a square edge to a single bevel edge, must I consider that a major change too? Clarification of the requirements of API 1104 Eighteenth Edition, May 1994 is requested for Paragraph 6.3.8 with respect to "Aligned Porosity as shown in Figure 18. The inquirer is welding an 18" diameter pipeline with a wall thickness of 6.35mm (0.250"). In radiographs of the girth welds, we are able to see images of aligned porosity similar to that shown in Figure 18. Figure 18 shows the distribution matrix, but the note at the bottom of the Figure states
?The size of the gas pockets is not drawn to scale; for dimension, refer to 6.3.8.@ In the case of paragraphs 6.3.8.2 (a) and (b), there is a specific dimension for rejection, but for Figure 18 - Aligned Porosity (three or more) no specific dimension has been identified. Hence, NDT interpretation by Inspector and Client is done as per Figure 18 dimensions only. Please identify the size of the pore for each type shown in Figure 18, that is, with spacing 4T, 2T and 1T between the aligned pores.

1104 18th - May 1994

Par. 6.3.8.c

1104-I0419-00

Acceptance or rejection of porosity is based on two factors, size of the individual pores (Par. 6.3.8.2 a and b) and amount (Par. 6.3.8.2 c). In judging the amount, the reader is directed to Figures 18 and 19, in your case Figure 18. Figures 18 and 19 are not intended to show size, only amount or distribution (see the note). All pores shown in Figure 18 and 19 would be smaller than 1/8" or 25 percent of the thinner wall thickness. Otherwise, they would be rejected under Par. 6.3.8.2 a or b. Therefore, the reader must use judgement as to which of the four examples shown under "aligned" meets his case. Please refer to Par. 6.2 "Rights of Rejection."

1104 18th - May 1994 1104 18th - May 1994

Sec. 8.1

1104-I0427-00 1104-I0519-00

Sec. 2

1104 19th September 1999

Fig. B-2

1104-I0728-00

1104 18th - May 1994

2.2, 2.3.2.5, 2.4

1104-I0817-00

1104 18th - May 1994 1104 18th - May 1994

2.2, 2.3.2.5, 2.4 2.2, 2.3.2.5, 2.4 2.2, 2.3.2.5, 2.4

1104-I0817-00 1104-I0817-00

1104 18th - May 1994

1104-I0817-00

With reference to Section 8.1 Radiographic Test Methods, is it permissible to radiograph welds joining API 5LX-60 pipe with wall thickness of 0.312" and 0.375" using gamma radiography? With reference to Section 2 of API 1104, is it permissible to list more than one filler metal rod size for each welding pass in a welding procedure specification when the procedure was qualified using only one rod size? The rod size used in the procedure qualification is not necessarily the size or sizes listed in the procedure specification. Figure B-2 Suggested Procedure and Welder Qualification Test Assembly does not have specific information such as dimensions for the assembly nor flow rates for the cooling fluid into and out of the assembly. Is there a relationship between what the length of the assembly should be compared to the pipe diameter? Paragraph 2.2 states that forms similar to those shown in Figures 1 and 2 should be used. Figure 1 contains a sketch showing the sequence of beads. Paragraph 2.3.2.5 requires that the "sequence of beads shall be designated". Is the welding procedure required to contain a sketch of the sequence of beads? Paragraph 2.3.2.5: Can a welding procedure specify more than one size of electrode, for example, 5/32" or 3/16" diameter electrodes for the fill pass? Or are two separate welding procedures required? Paragraph 2.3.2.13: For the materials being welded, the welding procedure requires preheat. The welding inspector is checking that the proper preheat is achieved. Is the welding procedure required to specify how the inspector measures the preheat? This question concerns the information to be recorded during the welding procedure qualification. The allowable values/ranges are put in the welding procedure specification. Do the actual values used during the test weld have to be recorded for number of passes, size and type of electrodes, speed of travel, voltage, and amperage?

Yes as API Standard 1104 does not specify the conditions under which gamma radiography is used. It is the imaging results that determine acceptability of the method. See Par. 8.1.1. Yes.

No.

No. Paragraph 2.2 does not make Figure 1 mandatory as it states Forms similar to those shown in Figure 1 and 2 should be used. However somehow the user must designate the sequence of beads as required in Paragraph 2.3.2.5.

Yes, the welding precedure can so state without requiring the qualification of two separate welding procedures. Electrode diameter is not an essential variable (see Paragraph 2.4) No.

a. Number of passes The minimum number must be recorded but not the actual number. See Paragraph 2.3.2.5 b. Electrode size- The sizes for which the procedure covers shall be listed but it is not required to list the actual sizes used to qualify the procedure. (see Paragraph 2.3.2.5) c. Type of electrode- The type (classification number) of the filler metal must be listed (see paragraph 2.3.2.5) d. Speed of travel The range, not the actual speed must be listed. (see Paragraph 2.3.2.16) e. Voltage and Amperage- The range for each electrode, not the actual, must be listed. (see Paragraph 2.3.2.6)

1104 18th - May 1994 1104 18th - May 1994 1104 18th - May 1994 1104 18th - May 1994

2.2, 2.3.2.5, 2.4 2.2, 2.3.2.5, 2.4 2.2, 2.3.2.5, 2.4

1104-IQuestion 2 asked if the procedure can show more than one rod size for the fill Par. 2.4.1 does not specify how the revision is to be shown only that it be made. 0817A-00 pass. If that is done how do you show the revision to comply with Part 2.4.1 to show the changes from one rod to another. 1104-IOn your reply to question 4 does the person conducting the test give No. 0817A-00 testamony by signing and stamping that the ranges specified in the procedure were followed. 1104-IAlso is the letter an official interpretation or opinion. Yes, the letter to Mr. Holk is an official API interpretation. 0817A-00 2 1104-I0908-00 If a procedure specification qualified under API 1104 Section 2 lists only one The procedure can be used for any diameter without requalification because diameter is not an diameter and one wall thickness (.250"), is it only qualified for the specified essential variable. However the welding prcedure specification must be revised to include the wall thickness and diameter or can it be used outside the ranges listed as long the diameter to be welded. If the range for wall thickness has not been established before the as the WPS is revised to show the change? start of any production welding, the procedure can be used for other wall thicknesses without requalification provided the welding procedure specification is revised to include the wall thicknesses to be welded. If a fillet weld procedure specification only lists one wall thickness (.250") and See 1 above. one diameter, can it be used for material over 1/2" thick. To qualify a welder under Section 3.3 - Multiple Qualification, must the weld test specimens be over 1/2" thick? Must the procedure specification specify thicknesses over 1/2"? Under Section 2.2, what is meant by complete results? The wall thickness need not be over thick but it must be at least . (see the second sentence of the second paragraph of Paragraph 3.3.1 and the second sentence of the third paragraph of Paragraph 3.3.1). The procedure specification need not specify thicknesses over . This refers to the results of the tests performed as specified in Paragraphs 2.6 and/or 2.8.

1104 18th - May 1994 1104 18th - May 1994

2 1104-I0908-00 2 1104-I0908-00

1104 18th - May 1994 1104 18th - May 1994

2 1104-I0908-00 2 1104-I0908-00

Under Section 2, if a company takes the procedure specification, has a Yes, provided the test results are attached. welder make welds that are destructively tested and pass can they just date the specification and use it for the permanent qualification record? This assumes that they welded within all of the essential variables of the specification but did not record the ACTUAL variables as they were used? An example would be an amperage range of 80-120 on the specification. They actually welded at 100 amps but didn't record this information anywhere. Can the specification now be used as the permanent record of qualification?

1104 18th - May 1994

2 1104-I0908-00

If a procedure is qualified and the wall thickness range is specified as 3/16" through 3/4", does the procedure have to be tested differently accordingly to the thickness groupings listed in Table 2 under Section 2?

Your question is not clear. Table 2 prescribes the number and type of test specimens that must be tested depending upon the diameter and wall thickness of the test weld. For example, if the test weld was made on 16 diameter x .375 wall pipe 16 total test specimens would be rquired (4 tensile, 4 nick-breaks, 4 root bends and 4 face bends). Yes.

1104 19th September 1999 1104 19th September 1999

Sec. 6.2.2 1104-If 0925-00 Sec. 6.2.2 1104-If 0925-00

Does this allow a welder who successfully passes a single qualification butt weld test at 45 degrees to do butt welds and weld on sleeves, saddles, and similar encirclement fittings in all positions? What is the definition of a lap fillet weld?

1104 18th - May 1994

Sec. 2.4.2.2

1104-I1102-00

Considering these groupings the materials we use are listed below and grouped accordingly. Group( A) SA-106 Gr.B, API 5L Gr.B, API 5L-X42 Group (B) API 5L-X52, API 5L-X60 Group(C) API 5L-X65 Also considering compatibility of the base materials and filler materials within the groups, I would like to know if I understand API correctly: 1. If I Qualify for group (A) X-42 (TO) X42, will it qualify all our materials in group (A)? 2. If I Qualify for group (B) X-52 (TO) X52 will it qualify all our materials in group (B)? 3. If I Qualify for group (C) X65 (TO) X65 will it qualify our material for group (C)? B. We also weld the Base Material groups in combination. For example it is

The definitions of terms used in the API 1104 Standard, unless defined otherwise in the Standard, are contained in AWS A3.0 (See Paragraph 2). There you will find a lap joint defined as a joint between two overlapping members in parallel planes. A lap fillet weld is shown in the center and lower test assemblies in Figure 10 and in the upper right corner of Figure 11. A. Regarding the question asked in A of your request for interpretation, we call your attention to Par. 2.3.2.2. There you will note that the qualification test must be made on the highest specified minimum yield strength in the group. Therefore, the answers to your questions are: A1 Yes. A2 No. A3 It will qualify x65 to x65 but not other materials that you might include in Group C, because each grade must receive a separate qualification test. Also we call your attention to the warning in the note at the end of Par. 2.4.2.2. B. And C. Regarding the question asked in C, we assume that by above combinations you mean those listed in your Question B. Procedures qualified for combinations of materials only qualify a procedure for

API Standard 1104 - Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities

1104 19th September 1999

Sec. 6.4

1104-I0404-01

A recent comparison of the API-1104 18th and 19th Editions revealed a notable change to the
visual examination criteria utilized for welder qualifications, i.e. Section 3.4 of the 18 Edition and Section 6.4 of the th th 19 Edition. References to defect tolerances (of the NDT acceptance standards section) shown in the 18 Edition have th been deleted in the 19 Edition. When read verbatim, there is no tolerance for cracks, inadequate penetration, burnthrough or other defects when performing visual examinations during welder qualifications under the 19 th Edition. These are very onerous conditions to place on welder qualifications. Following this discovery, I contacted Mr. George Hickox on 02/21/01 to inquire as to the intention of this section. He agreed that these were very strenuous conditions and that this was not the intent of the API-1104 Committee. As Mr. Hickox explained, there must be a set of conditions by which to judge defects and that the proper conditions for use during welder qualification visual examinations were those listed in th the NDT acceptance standards section, as was shown in the 18 Edition. Following our conversation, Mr. Hickox suggested that I submit this formal request for clarification. Please provide written clarification th that the welder qualification visual examination criteria of the 18 Edition of API-1104 continue to a th to apply under the 19 Edition.
th

There is no tolerance for cracks, inadequate penetration or burn-through on a welder qualification test. The references to the NDT sections in the 18T H Edition were there to provide the definition of the defect,
not the defect tolerance. In the first sentence of both Par. 3.4 (18 Edition) and 6.4 (19 Edition) it says, ----shall be free from---. The NDT th references were removed from the 19 Edition to eliminate any confusion.
th th

1104 19th September 1999

11.4.6

1104-I0517-01

We are currently considering the use of automated ultrasonic inspection for a Yes. Paragraph 11.4.6 requires that requires that the compression wave test be made range of pipelines (6 thru 18" OD and 0.25 thru 1.25" wall thickness) and are after completion of the circumferential butt weld. unsure as to the intent of this paragraph. As part of the pipe manufacturing process (i.e., before the linepipe is delivered to the fabrication site) all linepipe is ultrasonically scanned using compression wave testing. This testing takes the form of automated UT and the 'dead zone' (i.e., approx a 4" band at the end of each pipe) is cut off after scanning or the end zone is manually ultrasonic scanned to ensure freedom from unacceptable defects. Provided the factory ends of the pipe are in the same condition as they were manufactured (i.e., they have not been cut back) is it necessary to repeat this scanning as part of the girth weld assessment. If so, why?

1104 18th - May 1994

2.3.2.2

1104-I0614-01

Caltex Pacific Indonesia (CPI) are intending to run new welding procedures in accordance with API 1104. My interpretation of Section 2.3.2.2 is that if we run a weld qualification test on a higher grade pipe material, i.e (API5L) X 52, this higher grade will qualify CPI to weld to lower grades, i.e. (API 5L) Grade B. The qualification in X 52 material will eliminate the need to run weld qualification tests on Grade B material. Is my interpretation of Section 2.3.2.2 correct? Please clarify and advise accordingly.

Your interpretation is not correct. Par. 2.3.2.2 states what information you are required to include in your procedure specification regarding pipe and fitting materials. However, par. 2.4, Essential Variables, identifies those changes to the welding procedure that require re-qualification of the procedure. Par. 2.4.2.2 addresses base materials, and there you will see the groupings of base materials. A change from one group to another requires qualification of a new procedure. In your case you would need one procedure for the Grade B material and another procedure for the X-52 material as they are in different groups. Also, note the last sentence in Par. 2.3.2.2.

1104 19th September 1999

5.6.4.1 & 7.2

1104-I0711-01

API 1104 clearly mentions that misalignment permissible as up to 3 mm. While machining the samples for bend tests, the code says that we should flush the weld to the Parent Metal. If there is a misalignment in the two plates being welded, should the flushing be done up to the lower plate level or should it be done in a tapered manner? Concerning the application of a qualified weld procedure incorporating a temper bead sequence, with no change in joint design, heat input, bead size, or other essential variables but only a change in the number of deposited weld passes from 6 to 9; does this type of change constitute a need for requalification of the entire procedure? If the single qualification option is chosen to qualify a welder for a V bevel groove weld joint design in the pipe diameter grouping over 12 3/4", and within the 3/16" to 3/4" wall thickness range, will that welder also be qualified to weld a butt weld fitting to the pipe. The butt weld fitting will have the same V bevel groove weld joint design, be in the same over 12 3/4" diameter group, and the same 3/16" to 3/4" wall thickness group as the pipe.

The Standard does not specifically address this question. However it does state in the third sentence of Par. 5.6.4.1 that the -----reinforcements shall be removed flush-----. It does not permit the removal of base material other than that incidental to the removal of the reinforcement. This will result in a tapered bend test specimen at the misalignment.

1104 19th September 1999

App. B

1104-I0713-01

No but the Procedure Specification (see Figure 1) must be changed to show the revised number of beads (see the second sentence of Par. 5.4.1). Also the minimum number and sequence of beads shall be designated as per Par. 5.3.2.5.

1104 18th - May 1994

Sec. 3.2.2 1104-I0818-01

It is my interpretation the welder is qualified to weld the butt weld fitting to the pipe, provided none of the essential variables of paragraphs A - G of section 3.2.2 are changed, the requirements of 3.4 and either 3.5 or 3.6 are satisfied, and the welder is following all the requirements of a qualified welding procedure.

1104 18th - May 1994

Sec. 3.3

1104-I0905-01

In the API 1104 18th Edition, Section 3.3 Multiple Qualification it states that The decision as to the method of layout is left to the company. for the second test, the welder shall lay out, cut, fit, and weld a full size branchon-pipe connection. Question: For a first time welder qualification, does layout mean: 1. The welder shall layout the branch connection from scratch (using wraparounds, steel squares, or any tools necessary)? 2. The welder can layout the branch connection utilizing a precut template? This question has come up often and it can be interpreted differently. What is API's meaning of the word layout?

1104 19th September 1999

Sec. 6

1104-I1022-01

Does the production of a singular qualification coupon employing different welding processes approved in Paragraph 12.1 in which part of the weld is deposited by a welder using one process and the remainder by another welder using a second process, tested in accordance with and conforming to the requirements of Paragraph 12.6, satisfy the Standard in qualification of both welders for the duration of the job." Are you required to qualify a full penetration branch connection PQR to weld full penetration weld-o-lets and fillet socket welds. If not what is required. Are full penetration weld-o-lets considered fillet welds by API 1104.

No. Each welder must weld the entire wall thickness when he/she is qualifying. See Paragraph 6.2.1

1104 19th September 1999 1104 19th September 1999 1104 19th September 1999 1104 19th September 1999

Sec. 5

1104-I1023-01 1104-I1023-01 1104-I1023-01 1104-I0822-01

Yes, both are to be treated as fillet welds.

Sec. 5

Yes.

Sec. 5

When you qualify a full penetration branch connection PQR are you qualified for fillet welds too. The paragraph 9.3.12 said: excluding incomplete penetration due to high-low and undercutting, any accumulation of imperfections (AI) shall be considered a defect should any of the following conditions exist: a) The aggregate length of indications in any continuous 12 in. (300 mm) length of weld exceeds 2 in. (50 mm). The last means that if I have 12 in. (300 mm) length of weld, imperfections of 2 in (50mm) in that weld length plus, eg 1/2 in. (13 mm) of incomplete penetration due to high-low or undercutting, in this case is not considered defect. Now if I have 12 in. (300 mm) length of weld, imperfections of 2 in (50 mm) in that weld length plus, eg individual incomplete penetration due to highlow indication that exceeds 2 in. (50 mm), because Paragraph 9.3.2 ?.

Yes.

Para. 9.3.12

Paragraph 9.3.12 means that when you add up the length of imperfections in a 12 length of weld, you do not count the undercutting or the incomplete penetration due to high low. These are considered separately in Paragraphs 9.3.2 and 9.3.11.

1104 19th September 1999

Para. 9.3.9.2

1104-I1109-01

I read on the API 1104's Code on the Paragraph 9.3.9.2 that an "Individual or This appears to be a statement and not a question. scattered porosity (P) shall be considered a defect should any of the following conditions exist": a) The size of an individual pore exceeds 1/8 inch. (3mm) b) The size of an individual pore exceeds 25% of the thinner of the nominal wall thickness joined If I've a welding between two pipe of 5/32 inch (4 mm) and 1/4" (6 mm) of wall thickness and I found a pore which size is 1/8 inch (3 mm).

1104 19th September 1999

Para. 9.3.9.2

1104-I1109-01

What's is the criteria for acceptance that situation: a) or b), before?, because Par. 9.3.9.2 states Individual------a defect should ANY of the following conditions exist. if I considered the criteria a) before, the welding is acceptable, but if I Therefore the weld would be rejected by b. considered the criteria b) before, the welding shall be considered a defect.

1104 19th September 1999

Para. B.4.1.2

1104-I1130-01

We have a project, where we have to do a longitudinal welds in a split-tee in a Appendix B is a recommended practice and therefore is not required by API 1104 (see Par. in service pipeline, so the situation is if the paragraph b.4.1.2 (API 1104-99) B.1). If you choose to use it, Par. B.4.1.2 does include split tees. The second sentence of applies in order to do longitudinal weld in the split-tee, besides we want to B.4.1.2 states These joints should be fitted------. Therefore it is your decision to use or not to know if we can weld this longitudinal joint with or without mild steelback-up use a back-up but please read the precautionary note at the end of the paragraph. strip or copper back -up strip and if is necessary to remove this back-up strip. If an undercut (accepted visually as per Page 29, Table4) is observed on a bend specimen, is a thickness reduction permissible to grind that region to make it smooth and scratch free? If not, should the bend specimen be tested with undercut as it appears? No. The third sentence of Paragraph 5.6.4.1 states The cover and root-bead---- removed flush ---. This does not permit grinding of the parent metal. Yes.

1104 19th September 1999 1104 19th September 1999 1104 19th September 1999 1104 19th September 1999 1104 19th September 1999

Clause 5.6.4.1 Clause 5.6.4.1 Clause 5.6.4.1

1104-I0218-02 1104-I0218-02 1104-I0218-02

If so tested, should openings in bent specimen resulting from undercut be cause for rejection if they exceed the dimensions specified in Clause 5. 6. 4. 3? Is there a tolerance plus/minus to the approximately 1 inch wide?

Yes.

2.6.2.1

1104-I0305-02 1104-I0305-02

No.

2.6.2.1

Is it permissible to notch the sides to a dimension less than approximately 1 No. inch to facilitate the tensile-strength test (so the base material will break in a designated area out of the weld zone) especially in thick base metals and still meet all the requirements for the tensile strength by dividing the maximum load by the smallest cross-sectional area of the specimen? Must a welder be qualified for each WPS or is it that being qualified for one WPS allows him to weld in any material type or group? For instance, is a qualified welder for API 5L X65 allowed to weld on API 5L X70, 60, 56, 42, B and so on, or does he need to be qualified for each WPS group? Table 1 lists filler metals into groups through ASTM/AWS specifications and classification. Does it mean that filler metal classifications not listed can not be considered within those groups? For instance, SFA 5.28 ER 80S-G belongs or not to one group? Please see Par. 6.2.2, which describes the essential variables that require requalification. The type of material is not an essential variable.

1104 19th September 1999

Par. 6.2.2 1104-I0312-02

1104 19th September 1999

Table 1

1104-I0321-02

If the filler metal is not listed in one of the groups of Table 1 it requires separate qualification. See the note under the table.

1104 19th September 1999

5.6.4.3

1104-I0401-02

1104 19th September 1999 1104 19th September 1999

5.6.4.3

1104-I0401-02 1104-I0626-02

Does API 1104 prohibit machining/grinding the entire bend specimen to a Yes. The third sentence of Par. 5.6.4.1 states The cover and root bead ------ removed flush---uniform thickness equal to the minimum thickness available i.e., 6.4 mm in the -. This does not permit machining/grinding of the parent metal of the test specimens. If you present case (Please see enclosed sketch)? must use a flange for the qualification weld then you must machine it to the correct thickness prior to welding. However, please note Par. 5.5 where two pipe nipples are required to make a procedure qualification weld. Does API 1104 prohibit machining/grinding the root-bend specimen surface Yes. See the third sentence of Par. 5.6.4.1. until an acceptable undercut just disappears? Paragraph 5.4.2.12 states that "A change in the range for speed of travel constitutes an essential variable." and requires that the procedure be requalified if this range is changed. How is the range of travel speed for each pass established? A) By measuring the travel speed of each pass during procedure qualification and listing the exact speeds employed by the welder for each pass. If this is the correct method then what is an acceptable margin for measuring error for qualification vs. production welding? It is unlikely that the travel speed will remain exactly constant even under ideal conditions. B) By establishing a reasonable range of travel speeds based on experience and/or experimentation at the filler metal manufacturers recommended amperage and voltage ranges and welding the procedure qualification coupon The Company establishes the range that they feel is appropriate and one way is as you have suggested in B.

Par. 5.3.2.16

API Standard 1104 - Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities

1104 19th September 1999

Par. 5.3.2.16

1104-I0626-02

Is the speed of travel specified as an essential variable in order to control the heat input (joules per inch)? If so, why are the amperage and voltage ranges (or joules per inch) not listed as essential variables? If not, why is the speed of travel listed as an essential variable? Does this mean that a WPB (35,000 psi yield) fitting can be welded to X-52 Grade pipe as long as a qualified procedure for welding X-52 pipe is being used (Please answer assuming all pressure, wall thickness and all other design requirements are met)? Or, does it mean that when welding pipe, which has been double or triple stenciled, such as a double stencil of X-42/X-52, that a procedure qualified to weld X-52 or the higher yield rating must be used. We are trying to understand whether fittings and/or pipe from different groups in section 5.4.2.2 can be welded together utilizing the procedure for the higher yield material of the two or if this statement is trying to cover the procedure by which the pipe mills will stencil pipe to qualify for several grades.

There are other factors that make speed of travel an essential variable such as penetration, bead profile, ability to weld in various positions etc.

1104 19th September 1999

5.4.2.2

1104-I0703-02

It means that fittings and/or pipe from different groups(as defined in 5.4.2.2) can be welded together, provided that the welding procedure specification to be used has been qualified for welding the higher of the two yield strengths involved in the specific pipeline design, regardless of the number of grades that a specific pipe may have been qualified to by the pipe mill.

1104 18th - May 1994

Sec. 3

1104-I0709-02

Section 3. Welder Qualification Is there any duration on the validity of a welder qualification? (eg. a welder conducts a manual welder qualification test in Dec 2001 and conducts production welding using that process/procedure with the same employer until Mar 2002. Will this welder still be qualified to conduct production welding in Sept 2002 provided no other conditions have changed)?

There is no duration on the qualification of a welder. However, a welder may be required to requalify if a question arises regarding his competence. See par. 3.8

1104 18th - May 1994

Sec. 3

1104-I0709-02

Section 4.2 Alignment This section does not address minimum separation (or location) for longseam welds in seam welded pipe. Is there a recommended minimum (eg. 4" or six times the wall thickness, whichever is least). As a user of API Standard 1104 19th edition Sept. 1999, I would respectfully request a technical
interpretation of Part 9 "Acceptance Standards for Nondestructive Testing". In paragraph 9.4.2.c (Magnetic Particle Testing, Acceptance Standards) and 9.5.2.c (Liquid Penetrant Testing, Acceptance Standards) it is stated that "Rounded indications shall be evaluated according to the criteria of 9.3.8.2 and 9.3.8.3, as applicable." This requires you to evaluate all "Rounded" indications to the "Linear" indication acceptance criteria of Slag Inclusions? A "Rounded" indication is where the maximum dimension of the indication is considered its size for evaluation. A "Linear" indication is where the maximum dimension of the indication is considered its length for evaluation. See paragraphs 9.4.1.3 and 9.5.1.3 for the definitions of rounded and linear indications for evaluation. The evaluation of rounded indications would be better suited to and relate more closely the type of imperfection being evaluated if when the evaluation is made it is made to the acceptance criteria of 9.3.9.2 and 9.3.9.3 (Rounded) instead of that contained in 9.3.8.2 and 9.3.8.3 (Linear). How do you make the correct evaluation and interpretation of relevant rounded indications to linear acceptance criteria as required in the current acceptance standards that are referenced? May this reference to 9.3.8.2 and 9.3.8.3 be a typo that requires a correction to 9.3.9.2 and 9.3.9.3 in the next review and revision cycle of the Standard or is the current reference to 9.3.8.2 and 9.3.8.3 correct as written or is this a matter that is already under your consideration?

API 1104 does not address the separation of longitudinal seams on adjacent pipes.

1104 19th September 1999

9.3.8.2 & 9.3.8.3

1104-I0716-02

You are correct. There was a typo in the 19th Edition, dated Sept. 1999.
correct this and other typos.

An errata dated Oct. 31, 2001 was issued to

1104 18th - May 1994

Par. 3.3.1 1104-I0725-02

1104 19th September 1999

Clause 5.3

1104-I0804-02

Paragraph 3.3.1 of API 1104 18th edition, Multiple Qualification General, states that a welder shell lay out, cut, fit and weld a full-size branch-on-pipe connection. If a welder successfully performs the lay out portion of this test on his first Qualification test, is he required to lay out the branch when he requalifies, or is he allowed to use a template or shape cutter to cut out the branch connection. 1) Under Clause 5.3, API 1104 stated that Diameter Group shall be specified in the Welding Procedure Specification (WPS) 2) But, under clause 5.4 (Essential Variables), Diameter group is not included in the essential variables list. 3) If we have qualified a WPS with NPS 8 pipe, do we need to re-qualify a WPS for NPS 16 pipe welding (within same material group and wall thickness group)? 4) Or we have to only qualify welder instead of re-qualify the WPS to the diameter group above NPS 12?

The first sentence of the third paragraph of 3.3.1 states For the second test, the welder shall lay out, cut, fit, and weld a full-size branch-on-pipe connection. Since lay out is but one part of the overall test it must be repeated on the retest.

Regarding your question about requalifing a welding procedure, it need not be requalified because diameter is not an essential variable. However the welding procedure specification must be revised to include the diameters to be welded. For welder qualification, diameter is an essential variable. (See Par.6.2.2.d)

1104 19th September 1999 1104 19th September 1999

App. B

1104-I0923-02 1104-I0923-02

If a welder can inspect his own welds, should he be required to take a test to prove this, in addition to the welder qual test. Under API-1104 Appendix B, If a procedure was qualified with and without a heating blanket, but the procedure that was chosen was without, are both welders qualified to weld on in-service piping to this procedure? Both test pieces were mechanically tested and passed. This test was given in the 5G position. How does this effect us in the field. The biggest issue is welding on in-service piping using 7018. One side currently uses 6010/7010 SMAW on all in-service gas piping operating at or below 60 psi. Does the code allow this. I do realize that 7018LH is the preferred method, but this would greatly increase our costs.

If a welder--- Inspection personal are not required to take a test but they must be qualified as per Par. 8.3. Under API-1104---- Yes, both welders would be qualified. Please note in the qualification of in-service welders (Par. B.3), preheat is not an essential variable. Regarding the 5G position, position does not effect you in the field so long as the requirements of Par. 6.2.2f are met. The biggest issue--- API 1104 does not address design i.e. the type of filler metal you must use. However a change in filler metal does effect the qualification of the procedure. (See Par. B.2 which refers you to Section 5. In Section 5 please note Par. 5.4.2.6. )

App. B

1104 19th September 1999

App. B

1104-I0923-02

1104 19th September 1999

Par. 5.1

1104-I1015-02

API 1104, Paragraph 5.1 includes the following statement: "BEFORE production welding is started, a detailed procedure specification shall be established and QUALIFIED to demonstrate that welds with suitable mechanical properties (such as strength, ductility and hardness) and soundness can be made by the procedure." In our case, since we are verifying adherence to the requirements of DOT & API 1104 after fabrication, the procedures can't qualified BEFORE welding. However, we have had these same procedures qualified to API 1104 by an independent testing laboratory. Our question is whether you feel that in this instance we've met the intent of API 1104 by performing these weld procedure qualifications after welding?

To be qualified in accordance with API 1104 the welding procedure must be qualified before the start of production welding. See Par. 5.1. Please be advised however that 49 CFR Parts 192 and 195 do not require weld procedures to be qualified in accordance with API Std. 1104.

1104 18th - May 1994

2.4.2.2

1104-I1022-02

Since base materials are separated into 3 yield strength categories can Yes, it is permitted to weld materials from separate groups together provided the welding category a (equal to or less than 42,000) and category b (greater than 42,000 procedure for the higher group is used. See the last sentence of Paragraph 2.3.2.2. but less than 65,000) be welded together with a procedure qualified on X46 (46,000) pipe? Specifically this operator is welding together X46 and grade B (35,000) pipe and their procedure was qualified on X46.

1104 19th September 1999

5.1 1104-I1104-02

Does the final Procedure Specification have to state only the values recorded during the qualification test such as volt, amp and travel speed ranges or can the company use the welding rod vendor's recommended range even though the entire range was not experienced during the test? Can the welding procedure include a different weld rod size for a specific pass even though that rod size was not used for the procedure test? Again, one would use the manufacturer's specified volt and amp range. For example, this inclusion could allow a welder to use a 1/8" rod for a root pass instead of the 3/32" rod used in the procedure test because the test was done with a 6" pipe even though the qualified range extends up to 12" diameter. Can Welding Procedure Specifications which have been established and Qualified in accordance with API Standard 1104 specifying SMAW electrodes Of the E7010-G classification also be considered qualified with SMAW Electrodes of the E7010-P1 classification? Likewise, for E8010-G and E8010-P1? In Appendix A, Paragraph A.1, it is stated that "Welds subjected to applied axial strain of more than 0.5% are not covered by this appendix." Is there a maximum applied axial strain or stress limit when not using Appendix A, i.e. workmanship criteria? If yes, can you cite the paragraph with this maximum limit? My first question is Paragraph 6.2.1 does not state a particular pipe diameter or wall thickness for a single qualification test, so if a welder qualification test on a 12.750 in. pipe diameter and a 0.322 in. wall thickness, in the fixed position at the 45 degree angle, what pipe diameters and wall thickness range is this test good for? My assumption is that in Paragraph 6.3.2 the welder qualification test on a 12.750 in pipe diameter qualifies the welder for all diameters and wall thickness ranges, can I assume the welder qualification on a 12.750 in. pipe diameter 0.322 in. wall thickness, in the fixed 45 position, for the single welder qualification, would qualify that welder for all pipe diameters, wall thickness ranges, and all positions? My second question is about Paragraph 6.2.2, Part f, which states a welder qualification test in the fixed 45 position, qualifies a welder for butt welds and lap fillet welds in all positions, is this correct? My question is in reference to Paragraph 1.2.2.9 "Roll Welding." It reads, Roll welding is welding in which the pipe or assembly is rotated while the weld metal is deposited at or near the top center. My question is what if the welder starts welding on the top of the pipe (welding downhill); he welds one quadrant, STOPS, rolls the pipe where he needs to weld, to the top, and begins welding again; and he does this till he finished welding. Is this considered position welding (Paragraph 1.2.2.8) or rolled welding? I guess the key word is "while the weld metal is deposited" because in reference to Paragraph 2.4.2.4 "Position," a change from rolled to fixed constitutes an essential variable. To sum all this up, if we have a procedure in the fixed position, can we roll the pipe, as long as if we do not roll it while welding, without reestablishing a new procedure?

1104 19th September 1999

5.1 1104-I1104-02

Your question relates to what needs to be recorded on the Procedure Specification Form i.e. Figure 1. You do not need to record the actual values as Par. 5.3.2.6 and 5.3.2.16 only requires that you record the ranges. However we point out that the actual values of voltage and amperage should be recorded on Figure 2 Sample Coupon Test Report. The same is true regarding travel speed. Yes, because electrode size is not an essential variable.

1104 19th September 1999

5.4.2.6

1104-I0102-03

Yes.

1104 19th September 1999

App. A

1104-I0120-03

The standard does not specify a limit for stress or axial strain for welds inspected to the workmanship acceptance criteria given in Section 9. It is up to the company to decide whether such criteria are appropriate for the specific design strain involved.

1104 19th September 1999

Par. 6.2.1 1104-I& 6.2.2 0212-03

For single qualification, 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 apply. For your example, under single qualification, the welder would be qualified to do butt welds and lap fillet welds in all positions for the outside diameter group from 2.375 in. through 12.750 in. and the wall thickness group from 0.188 in. through 0.750 in., subject to the other essential variables in 6.2.2. You made an incorrect assumption because 6.3.2 only pertains to multiple qualifications, and is based upon the welder successfully completing both of the tests (a butt weld test and a branch connection weld test) specified in 6.3.1.

1104 19th September 1999 1104 18th - May 1994

Par. 6.2.1 1104-I& 6.2.2 0212-03

Par. 1.2.2.9

1104-I0131-03

Correct. A welder qualifying under 6.2.1 (single qualification), with the pipe in the fixed 45 position would be qualified to do butt welds and lap fillet welds in all positions, subject to the other essential variables in 6.2.2. (The bottom two sketches in Figure 10 provide examples of lap fillet welds.) Yes

1104 19th September 1999

Section B.4.1.2

1104-I0227-03

Question 1: When performing a procedure qualification for in-service welding, does it recommend the branch be taken with the sleeve? Question 2: Does API recommend this in-service procedure qualification be incorporated in another already qualified procedure? Question 3: Does the sleeve part of the procedure qualification test also require flowing media? Question 4: Should the sleeve portion of the procedure qualification test have a backing strip? Question 5: Is the use of a backing strip considered an essential variable? (joint design)

Response 1: No. The user has the option to qualify a procedure for either a sleeve or a branch. Response 2: No. Response 3: No. The use of flowing media is recommended for either a sleeve or a branch to simulate the ability of the flowing contents to remove heat from the pipe wall. Response 4: If so required by the welding procedure specification. The use of a backing strip is recommended in Section B.4.1.2. Response 5: No, for the welding procedure (Ref. Section B.4.1.2). Yes, for the welder qualification if a backing strip required by the welding procedure specification is eliminated.

1104 19th September 1999

B.1

1104-I0303-03

In B.1, it is stated that "This appendix does not cover pipelines and piping No systems that have been fully isolated and decommissioned, or have not been commissioned." At Keyspan, we isolate our lines by shutting 2 valves on either side of the section we will be working on and we take the line out of service and bleed the pressure down below 15 pounds before we weld. The line has no flow and the temperature of the main is usually ambient. Question: Would this be considered "fully isolated and decommissioned?"

1104 19th September 1999 1104 19th September 1999

5.4.2.2

1104-I0310-03

Question 1: Is it necessary for the WPS to have been qualified with materials having 65 ksi yield (the highest in the group B)? Question 2: Is it possible to use a WPS qualified with materials API 5L X60 x API 5L X60? Does the wire ER70S-3 (ASME SFA-5.18) fit in Table 1? Does this welding consumable belong to Group 5 of said table, or should it be considered as unlisted and have a separate qualification for itself according to the note of the table?

1104-I0313-03

Response 1: No; however, your assumption is incorrect. Group B does not include material that has a specified minimum yield strength of 65 ksi; such material is covered by Group C. Response 2: Yes; however, it should be noted that it would also be possible to use a WPS that has been qualified with API 5L Grade X56 pipes. Wire ER70S-3 is covered by the note to Table 1, and requires a separate procedure qualification.

API Standard 1104 - Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities

1104 19th September 1999

Appendix A

1104-I0315-03

Question 1: Can Appendix A be used to determine whether these rejected Response 1: Yes. As long as all the requirements in Appendix A are met. (For example, refer indications could be accepted? Question 2: If, using a calibrated reliable to A.2.2.2) Response 2: No. API 1104 doesn't reference ASTM E 1079. Response 3: This is densitometer, the measured density of a BT image is 2.83 and the measured not an appropriate matter for interpretation. density of the parent metal image is 2.78, can the 0.05 tolerance referenced in ASTM E 1079 be used to make the two measured values equal? Question 3: Does the storage time of radiographed films (for example, Agfa D7 stored for 1 year) have an influence on density variations? If we test a welder using 66,000 psi tensile material, is he qualified to weld 60,000 psi and/or 75,000 psi material? Note we are not mixing material; just using different materials in different locations. If the welder is qualified under ASME Section IX, can he also weld API 1104 procedures assuming that none of the welder essential variables stated in API 1104 are violated? Material grade is not an essential variable for the qualification of welders; therefore, a qualified welder may weld any grade, subject to the welder qualification essential variables in Section 6. No. For a welder to be qualified to weld to API 1104 welding procedures, all of the qualification requirements stated in API 1104 for both welding procedures and welders must be met, irrespective of ASME Section IX requirements.

1104 19th September 1999 1104 18th - May 1994

Sec. 5.4.2.2 Section 3

1104-I0325-03 1104-I0410-03

1104 18th - May 1994

Section 3.5.1

1104-I0420-03

If a pipe, for example 32 inch OD by 19.05 mm wall thickness, is to be welded No. As stated in the title of Table 3, the total numbers of specimens (12 for your example) are by two welders (each half of pipe), can we remove and test half of the test required for each welder. If two welders are being qualified, each welding half of the pipe, the specimens for each welder? That is, total number of specimens completed location of the specimens shown in Figure 12 are rotated in accordance with Note 1 to that for pipe and not for each welder (in this example, 6 of 12 specimens per figure, such that 12 specimens are obtained from each welder's half of the pipe, for a total of welder). 24 specimens.

1104 19th September 1999

1104-I0509-03

Question 1: If accessible, can we use double side welding for API 1104 Pipeline Welding, ensuring reinforcement requirements are met as per the standard? Question 2: Does API 1104 prohibit root side repairs from inside of the pipeline, if accessible?

Response 1: Yes. Response 2: No.

1104 19th September 1999

1104-I0527-03

Question 1: Is there any applicable clause / table in API 1104: 1999 that covers the welding procedure qualification test requirements of full penetration T-butt (branch connection) for new pipe fabrication? {Ref. 8 weldolet (branch) to 28 pipe.} Question 2: What are the types of mechanical tests to comply with, in order to qualify the welding based on API 1104: 1999 requirements? Question 3: Is there any provision for re-test should any of the coupons for mechanical test failed? Am I reading this wrong; what is the correct meaning of 9.3.5 b and c?

Response 1: Yes. Sec. 5.3.2.4 refers to joint design, and a sketch of the full penetration weld is to be shown in the procedure. All procedure test requirements are noted in Sec. 5.8 Testing of Welded Joints Fillet Welds. The joint design described is a combination of a bevel and fillet welds. Response 2: Sections 5.7 and 5.8 refer to the test requirements. Response 3: No

1104 19th September 1999 1104 19th September 1999

Section 9.3.5.b

1104-I0604-03

As stated in 9.3.5, IFD shall be considered a defect should any of the conditions exist. (a, b & c must each be considered separately.)

Section 9.3.8.2

1104-I0606-3

Background: 9.3.8.2 states "For pipe with an outside diameter greater than or Yes Provided the other requirements of 9.3.8.2 are met. equal to 2.375 in. (60.3 mm), slag inclusions shall be considered a defect should any of the following conditions exist:" Item f states "More than 4 ISI indications with the maximum width of 1/8 in. (3 mm) are present in any continuous 12-in. (300-mm) length of weld." Question: Is this to say that more than 4 ISI indications, each having less than the maximum width of 1/8" are acceptable, provided they do not exceed the maximum length?

1104 18th - May 1994

Section 9.6

1104-I0717-03

1104 19th September 1999

1104-I0723-03

Can 9.6 be interpreted where as far as the welding process is not changed, the welding equipment is qualified by making an acceptable weld using the qualified welding procedure and there should be no requirement on requalifing the procedure because of the difference in model number of the welding machine used during weld procedure qualification being different from the one used during production? Question 1a: Whether an established welding procedure for X56 to X56 pipe can be used to support a butt weld for X46 to X46 pipe, if there are no other essential variable changes. Question 1b: Whether an established welding procedure for X56 to X56 pipe can be used to support a butt weld for X56 to Grade B pipe, if there are no other essential variable changes. Question 1c: Whether an established welding procedure for X56 to Grade B pipe can be used to support a butt weld for X46 to Grade B pipe, if there are no other essential variable changes. Question 2a: Whether it is permissible to weld different pipe diameters in the butt weld test (14), and the branch connection test (20). Question 2b: Whether it is permissible to weld with different filler metal groupings and weld progression in the butt weld test and the branch connection test (e.g. Group 1 or 2, downhill progression in the butt weld and Group 1 and 3 uphill progression in the branch connection.)

9.6 require that each welding unit be qualified. Therefore, each welding unit must be qualified separately, even though they may be identical. Note 9.6 states weld testing can be either destructive or nondestructive.

Responses: 1a: Yes; 1b: Yes; 1c: Yes; 2a: Yes; 2b: Yes. The scope of the multiple welder qualification is defined in Sec. 3.3.2 in the 18th Edition and 6.3.2 in the 19th Edition.

1104 19th September 1999 1104 19th September 1999

1104-I0223-04 1104-I0608-04

Is the weld for attaching sock-o-lets, weld-o-lets and thread-o-lets to a header a fillet weld or should these welds be considered branch welds and the welder only be qualified by an overhead branch test? Does a welding procedure qualified for branch connection also qualify for welding full-encirclement sleeves?

API considers the sock-o-let, weld-o-let and thread-o-let welds to a header branch welds and the welder must be qualified with a branch test. Yes, but only if the longitudinal welds on the sleeve are fillet welds, and not full penetration, Vgroove welds. For in-service procedure qualification, Appendix B refers to Section 5, (See Section B.2). Section 5.4.2.3 states a major change in joint design constitutes an essential variable. A change from a branch connection to a full penetration, V-groove weld is considered a major change in joint design, and thus requires a new procedure to be qualified.

1104 19th September 1999

Sec. 6.2.2 1104-If 072204

Question 1. Your first question deals with the definition of a lap weld fillet, as Response 1. Welding terms in this Standard are defined in AWS A3.0, as noted in Sec. 3.1 noted in Sec. 6.2.2.f. Question 2. Your next question to deals with the General. Response 2. The requirement for time between weld beads is contained in Sec. welding procedure essential variable, time between passes, as noted in Sec. 5.3.2.10, and requires the time between beads to be designated. There is no specific time 5.4.2.8, and whether that time may be one hundred years, if desired. required by the Standard, but as noted in Sec. 5.4.2.8, an increase in the maximum time between the completion of the root bead and the start of the second bead constitutes an essential variable. Ref. the following list of pipe materials, (grades, wall thickness & diameter) Grd. X70 to Grd. X70, wall thickness .188 to .750, 2 thru 42 Grd. X70 to Grd. X52, wall thickness .188 to .750, 2 thru 42 Grd. X70 to Grd. X42, wall thickness .188 to .750, 2 thru 42 Grd. X52 to Grd. X52, wall thickness .188 to .750, 2 thru 42 Grd. X52 to Grd. X42, wall thickness .188 to .750, 2 thru 42 Grd. X42 to Grd. X42, wall thickness .188 to .750, 2 thru 42 Question 1. Your first question to deals with the minimum number of configurations of butt weld procedures required when welding on all pipe grades, diameters, and wall thicknesses shown above. Question 2. What is the true meaning of the first paragraph of Section 5.4.2.2? Response 1. Three (3) procedures; X42 X42, X52 X52 & X70 X70, are required. Response 2. When welding pipe of different base materials, the procedure for the higher strength base material group shall be used for the qualification of welding procedure

1104 19th September 1999

1104-I0723-04

1104 19th September 1999 1104 19th September 1999 Section 6.7

1104-I0810-04

If a welder performs a welder qualification test using an E6010+ on the root pass and an E7018 on all remaining weld passes, is the welder qualified to weld on a full low hydrogen weld w/ all passes being of the E7018 group? My question is on Section 6.7(retesting). If a company chooses to allow a second attempt at a test when a welder failed a test (due to poor skills / technique and NOT due to unavoidable conditions), is there an obligation to provide additional training prior to the second welding test? Also, is there anything in 1104 that prohibits a company from offering a re-test?

No. Refer to Sec. 6.2.1 and Sec. 6.2.2, which state, changes in essential variables described in 6.2.2.c, require requalification of the welder.

1104-I1008-04

Proof of subsequent welder training is required as noted in 6.7. API 1104 does not prohibit a company from offering a re-test.

1104 19th September 1999 1104 19th September 1999

1104-I1026-04 Appendix B 11041108-04

Are "wrap-around" and "roller" jigs permissible within API 1104?

Yes

What Sections of Appendix B apply to the testing and coupon locations for a welder qualification sleeve test? Table 3?

No, Table 3 applies only to butt weld test specimens for welder qualification. For in-service welder qualification, Appendix B refers to Section 6.2, Single Qualification. Fillet weld test sample acceptance criteria are contained in Sections 6.4 and 6.5. Sample location information for fillet weld testing is referenced in Section 6.5.6 and Figure 10.

1104 19th September 1999

1104-I1115-04

Question 1. Welding contractor has stated that he can qualify two welders on Response 1. Two welders can be qualified on a single pipe nipple as long as the total number one coupon, each welding one side. They are not using different processes. of test specimens is taken for each welder in accordance w/ 6.1 and Table 3. Response 2. My contention is one welder, one coupon; correct? Question 2. Section API 1104 does not list amperage values or parameters for the WPS. Re-qualification is 5.4.2 (19th Ed) does not list welding amperage as an essential variable. What required only if the essential variables are changed, as referenced in 5.4.1. parameters are applicable for amperage values outside of the WPS/PQR limits? Is re-qualification required? In reference to Nick-breaks Section 3.5.4, 18
th Edition; If the nick breaks in the base metal, not the weld, does it pass or do you need to make additional specimens and nick it further to assure it will break in the weld are? (The situation arises because of 2 different thicknesses of pipe. One (1) side is thicker, and we have fracture in the base material.

1104 18th - May 1994 1104 19th September 1999

Sec. 3.5.4 1104-I1206-04 1104-I1214-04

The nick-break must break in the weld metal for the evaluation of the weld.

1104 19th September 1999

Sec. 5.4.2.5

1104-I0103-5

Question 1. What is the outcome if the contractor actually DELETES PWHT? According to the above clause, the Contractor is permitted to delete PWHT without affecting the Procedure or API 1104 essential variables. Question 2A: What is the defined thickness group - there isn't one referenced? Question 2B: Is it API 1104 intention, to permit wall thickness groups to be contractually agreed between Contractor and Client for weld procedure groupings? Question 2C: Is it API 1104 intent to permit the Client to specify the wall thickness groups for weld procedure groupings prior to award of contract? Question 1: The section on essential variables for welding procedures section 5.4.2.5 states a change in grouping from one group to another is an essential variable however this section does not give a group. Can you clarify which group is applicable or can these be specified by the writer of the WPS because the grouping referenced in 5.3.2.3 relates to Section 6.2.2 d and e and these are only suggested groupings and not mandatory.There is no diameter shown in essential variables so is the diameter also to be stated in other words would a procedure qualified on 10"be applicable for 40' provided all other stated essential variables were adhered to? Question 2: Welding operator and equipment Qualification for Automatic Welding Section 12.7 has no essential variables specified and the essential variables in 12.5 are applicable for welding procedures and not welder qualifications. If this is correct what essential variables are applicable I have a question related to Welder Qualifications section 6.6 Radiography-Butt Welds only. "At the company's option, the qualification butt may be examined by radiography in lieu of the tests specified in 6.5". As we only use AUT we are not set up for radiography so my question is can API clarify that AUT may be utilized instead of the stated radiography for welder quals. I know this may not be the route to go through but if you could forward this to the appropriate person or give me the name of who I should send such queries to I would appreciate it as we are being put in a position we have to carry out radiography as is stated in API 1104 on welder quals. There are also more clarifications I would like to get in writing from API.

Response: In accordance w/ 5.4.2.14, any change to the values of PWHT constitutes an essential variable and would require re-qualification. Response 2A: There are no defined wall thickness groups referenced for the procedure specification in 5.4.2.5, however, the ranges of diameters and wall thicknesses must be identified in the specification, as noted in 5.3.2.3. Response 2B: API 1104 does not address contractual issues. See answer for 2.A. Response 2C: API 1104 does not address contractual issues. See answer for 2.A.

Response 1: Yes. The wall thickness range must be identified in the WPS, as required in 5.3.2.3. Any change from that range constitutes an essential variable. Response 2: There are no essential variables for welding operators. Welding operators must be qualified in accordance w/ 12.6.

1104 19th September 1999

Sec. 6.6

11040103-5 2nd Inquiry

No. API 1104 Section 6.6.1 does not allow for the substitution of AUT for RT

API Standard 1104 - Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities

1104 19thSeptember 1999

Section 5

1104-I0104-5

1. Sec. 5.3.2.3: Is it correct to assume the diameter range of 2-3/8 and larger, as currently outlined in the contractors procedures, is acceptable? Sec. 5.3.2.5: 2. When a procedure has been established for a SMAW weld, and the electrode size has been recorded for .188 WT pipe, is it acceptable to change the electrode size to weld a .625 WT pipe without qualifying a new procedure? 3. Sec. 5.3.2.6: Is there an acceptable voltage & amperage range/percentage that can be used outside the range recorded in the qualified procedure?

1. Yes. 2.Yes. Electrode size is not an essential variable, and, therefore, a change in electrode size, alone, would not constitute a requirement for qualifying a new procedure. As specified in Sec. 5.4.1, changes other than essential variables may be made in the procedure without re-qualification, provided the procedure specification is revised to show the changes. 3. No. Voltage and amperage are not essential variables for the welding procedure; however, the ranges of electrical characteristic must be identified in the welding procedure, and can not be used outside the ranges listed in the procedure.

1104 19th September 1999

Section B3.2

11040112-05

When qualifying a welder on the in-service sleeve groove weld, there is no Type and Number of Specimens table for welder qualification only a table (B1) for procedures qualification. Section B.3.2 Testing of Weld refers to requirements of 6.4 and 6.5. If Table 3 is used, what diameter of pipe should be used for number of specimens and type of test, i.e. root bent, nick, break, or face bend? Or was the diagram of the sleeve weld in Figure B-3 meant to indicate one coupon each of the root bend, face, bend, tensile, and nick break were required? It is my interpretation that the fillet welds on the end of the sleeve are nick break tested according to the diagram on Figure 10 and Figure 11. We would nick break test 4 coupons from each end. Is this correct?

This is an oversight in the 19th Edition. It has been addressed in the 20th Edition

1104 19th September 1999

B-2

1104-I0118-05

If a test piece welded as indicated in figure B-2 is used for in-service welders qualification test, only the circular welds are submitted to testing (YES/NO)? If the answer is NO, then which is the testing to be performed to the longitudinal butt welds (with backing) according to clause B.3.2-> clause 6.5? When qualifying welders, must a company measure and record the welder speed of travel?

This is an oversight in the 19th Edition. It has been addressed in the 20th Edition

1104 19th September 1999

1104-I1012-05

1104 19th September 1999

Sec 9.3.3, 1104-I9.3.3, and 1019-05 9.3.12

Question 1: Sec. 9.3.3: Your first question deals with inadequate cross penetration and why there is no specific mention of aggregate length of ICP in welds less than 300 mm in length. Question 2: Sec. 9.3.5: Your second question deals with incomplete fusion due to cold lap and why there is no specific mention of aggregate length of IFD in welds less than 300 mm in length. Question 3: Sec. 9.3.12: Your third question deals with the accumulation of imperfections and why one defect criterion is over 16% of the weld length (exceeds 2 in continuous 12 of weld length), and the other criterion listed is greater than 8% of the weld length. Comment: The suggestion was made to add a SAW filler metal classification for SAW welding; namely: A5.23, used for low alloy double joint welding

No. Speed of travel is not an essential variable for the qualification of welders; therefore, measuring and recording speed of travel during the welder qualification process is not required. Welders, however, must follow qualified procedures in which the range for speed of travel is specified for each weld pass, therefore, companies may elect to measure and/or record the speed of travel during welder qualification. Response 1: The criteria for ICP for weld lengths less than 12 in length is necessary, since ICP only occurs with a two-sided weld configuration; i.e. ID and OD welding. Response 2: The requirement in Section 9.3.5c applies to welds of any length. Response 3: All listed criterion applies to the accumulation of imperfections, and both apply to all weld sizes.

1104 19th September 1999

1104-I1220-5

Response: As verbally noted to the individual who suggested the addition of this particular filler metal classification during the annual meeting of the API-AGA Joint Committee on Oil and Gas Pipeline Field Welding Practices on January 20, 2006, the 20th edition of the Standard, as published, does not exclude the use of A5.23. As noted in 4.2.2.1.i, filler metals that do not conform to the specifications listed in the standard may be used, provided the welding procedures involving their use are qualified. The Subcommittee will consider adding the A5.23, provided it is also addressed in Table 1- Filler Metal Groups, of the Standard. Response 1: The 19th Edition of API Std. 1104 Section 8.4 does not specify the minimum qualifications or experience level of user company personnel; however, we refer you to Section 8.3 for guidance. It also it should be noted that company personnel may be subject to regulatory or user company requirements. Response 2: The 19th Edition of API Standard 1104 does not address the qualifications of the individual(s) authorized by the Company as their representative(s).

1104 19th September 1999

Para 8.4.1 1104-I0123-06

Question 1: Paragraph 8.4.1 - Procedures states Nondestructive testing personnel shall be certified to Level I, II or III in accordance with the recommendations of American Society for Nondestructive testing, Recommendation Practice No. SNT-TC-1A, ACCP or any other recognized national certification Program that shall be acceptable to the company for the test method used. Only Level II or III Personnel shall interpret test results. I would like an interpretation as to the minimum qualification and/or experience necessary for the Individual who the COMPANY will employ to verify the NDE results submitted by the Level II or III? Question 2: Can this individual also be used to enforce API 1104 - section 9.2? Question 1: My question is whether or not temporary welds performed for purposes of holding steel plate end plates on the end of pipeline components being hydrotested in a shop must be welded in accord with API standard 1104 if the permanent welds in the same spool are being welded in accord with API 1104. Please assume that the purpose of the hydrotest is to pressure-test two circumferential permanent butt welds made to hold an anode connector into a pipeline. Two temporary caps consisting of 15 inch diameter 2 inch thick plate were welded on the free ends of the pipeline segments permanently welded to the anode connector. The entire spool piece being hydrotested tested consists of the anode connector and its two permanent welds, but also includes the welds being used to hold the temporary end caps on the open ends. Put another way, the hydrotest not only tests the two permanent welds used to connect the anode connector to the pipeline spool but also tests the two temporary welds used to hold the two end plates on the ends of the spool. Must those temporary welds also be made to the standards of API 1104? Question 2: If API 1104 does not contain the appropriate standard for making these temporary welds, what API standard does include the appropriate Question 1: A welding procedure is qualified as per API 1104 with a combination of processes (example root and hotpass with manual GTAW process and filler and cap passes with manual SMAW). Can we engage two welders (one for GTAW process and other welder for SMAW) on a single test weld coupon for welder qualification to qualify these welders for the respective processes? Question 2: A welding procedure is qualified as per API 1104 with a combination of processes (example root and hotpass with manual GTAW process and filler and cap passes with manual SMAW). If we intend to engage two welders for different processes, is it mandatory that these welders must independently weld separate test weld coupons with combination of GTAW and SMAW as per the PQR to qualify the welders?

1104 19th September 1999

1104-I0522-06

Response 1: If the temporary welds are removed, they are not governed by the standards of API 1104, unless specified by the user company. Response 2: The use of API 1104 or another pipe welding standard may be used by the user company to make these temporary welds for hydrostatic testing pipeline components.

1104 20th January 2003

1104-I0522-06

Response 1: The 20th Edition API Standard 1104 Section 6.2 requires each welder to complete (weld) the entire wall thickness when qualifying. Response 2: The 20th Edition of API Standard 1104 Section 6.2.2(a) (2) allows 2 alternatives for qualifying welders to weld with a combination of processes. A welder may complete the entire weld in accordance with the PQR or the welder may qualify by making separate and complete welds utilizing each of the separate processes involved in the PQR.

1104 20th January 2003 1104 20th January 2003

1104-I0123-06 Section 11.4.7.3 1104-I0124-06

One of our subcontractors has run a weld procedure on a 45axis 6G, does this allow them to use the same procedure to weld in the 5G position?

Yes

Question 1: In the sentence of the item 11.4.7.3, the recommended practice Response 1: Section 11.4.7.3 was written without regard to beam width. Response 2: Adding (should) of additional 4 dB for evaluation was made considering AUT systems 4dB has the same effect on both focused and non-focused beams. using conventional probes (wide beam)? Question 2: The more precise AUT systems designed according to the ASTM 1961 standard, (zonal discrimination with focused search units) had been considered to do the recommendation of +4 dB for evaluation? Question 1: In reference to API 1104 19th edition Response 1: Automated UT cannot be substituted for RT in Welder Qualification. Response 2: The requirement of RT in lieu of mechanicals, Sect 6.6.2. I refer you to pg. 54 There is no provision for partial qualification. within the Appendix of API. Sect A4 where it states "For automatic welding, the welding unit and each operator shall be qualified in accordance with 12.6" Section 12.6 then refers you back to 6.4 thru 6.7 but it needs to be pointed out that 12.6 refers to "non destructive methods" where as 6.6 only calls for RT. Pluralization would imply that alternate NDT methods are acceptable. Also Section 8.2 states that" Nondestructive testing may consist of radiographic inspection or method specified by company..." once again offering multiple NDT methods are available to the Company, although this section is for production welding inspection. Funny how Section 12.2 allows for multiple NDT methods to be used for Automatic welding procedure qualification! My question pertains to the substitution of alternate NDE methods, specifically Automated UT in lieu of RT as required for Welder Qualification program to a qualified welding procedure. Please note that our project will be using AUT as the primary NDE method for production weld inspection. Question 2: Assuming that AUT is allowable in lieu of RT, is it possible to run Welder Is it the requirement of the standard that only the welder(s) who perform No. welding of test joint for a repair welding procedure, in accordance with clause 10.2, be allowed to perform repair welding on job? Question 1: In which conditions is necessary or recommended to realize Response 1: API 1104 does not address the requirements for Charpys. Response 2: We are impact tests with notches in V for Charpys tests? Question 2: In the unable to understand your question procedure requirement of welding separation, its necessary to qualify again a new procedure of welding or the original qualify is applicable (apply)?

1104 20th January 2003

Section 6.6.2

1104-I0418-06

1104 20th January 2003 1104 20th January 2003

Clause 10.2

1104-I0530-06

1104-I0605-06

1104 19th September 1999 1104 20th January 2003

Section 11.4.7.2 Sec. 6.2.

1104-I0713-06 1104-I0514-07

Is it the intent of the API standard that only those ultrasonic indications that exceed the evaluation level given in 11.4.7.2 be considered as a possible defect? If a welder makes a test weld in the 6G position (inclined from the horizontal plane at an angle of not more than 45 degrees), on pipe with a diameter of 12.750", wall thickness of .375" thick. Is this welder qualified to weld on 24" diameter pipe? If so why and if not why.

Yes, please note that all procedures are to be qualified prior to use.

Section 6.2.2(d) lists the essential diameter groups for single qualification. A single qualification test on 12.750" pipe qualifies the welder from 2.375" to 12.750" diameter pipe. 24" diameter pipe is in a separate group than 12.750" diameter pipe and so will require a different single qualification test.

1104 19thSeptember 1999

1104-I0121-09

1104 19thSeptember 1999

1104-I0122-09

1104 20th October 2005

11040210-09

Question 1: For qualification of welding procedure specifications (WPS) Response 1: Yes. Response 2: No. Response 3: Yes. Response 4: Yes. according to API Std 1104 19th Edition Appendix A for use of a mechanized welding system to produce 5G joints in a pipeline segment from API Spec 5L line pipe supplied from two different pipe manufacturers designated as manufacturers A and B, with no other changes in essential variables, is preparing and destructively testing a set of two test joints described as A B, the set including a test joint with high heat input (HHI) and a test joint with low heat input (LHI), sufficient to meet the requirements of the standard and allow for welding of all possible pipe manufacturer combinations? Question 2: For qualification of welding procedure specifications (WPS) according to API Std 1104 19th Edition Appendix A for use of a mechanized welding system to produce 5G joints in a pipeline segment from API Spec 5L line pipe supplied from two different pipe manufacturers designated as manufacturers A and B, with no other changes in essential variables, is preparing and destructively testing three sets of test joints, described as A A, A B, or B B with each of the three sets including a test joint with high heat input (HHI) and a test joint with low heat input (LHI), specifically required by the standard to allow for welding Question 1: For qualification of welding procedure specifications (WPS) Response 1: Yes. Response 2: No. according to API Std 1104 19th Edition Appendix A for use of a mechanized welding system to produce 5G joints in a pipeline segment from API Spec 5L line pipe supplied from a single pipe manufacturer designated as manufacturers A, that procured plate to the same specification from two plate manufacturers, designated as 1 and 2 so that each pipe could be classified as either A1 or A2, with no other changes in essential variables, is preparing and destructively testing one set of test joints described as A1 A2, the set including a test joint with high heat input (HHI) and a test joint with low heat input (LHI), sufficient to meet the requirements of the standard and allow for welding of all plate manufacturer combinations? Question 2: For qualification of welding procedure specifications (WPS) according to API Std 1104 19th Edition Appendix A for use of a mechanized welding system to produce 5G joints in a pipeline segment from API Spec 5L line pipe supplied from a single pipe manufacturer designated as manufacturer A, that procured plate to the same specification from two plate manufacturers, designated as 1 and 2 so that each pipe could be classified as either A1 or A2, with no other changes Question 1: Can the value parameter Fb be zero? No.

API Standard 1104 - Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities

1104 20th

7.2 1104-I0619-09

Please can you clarify section 7.2 in API 1104 Welding of Pipelines and Related Facilities. The standard states : " The alignment of abutting ends shall minimize the offset between surfaces. For pipe ends of the same nominal thickness, the offset shall not exceed 3 mm. Larger variations are permissable provided the variation is caused by variations of the pipe end dimensions....." Our interpretation of this is that if you have more than 1.5 offset on one side of the pipe you will have more than 1.5 on the other side thus exceeding the 3 mm. Others are interpreting the 3mm in any single location which could lead to hi-lo in well in excess of 3mm.

1104 20th

5.3.2.3

Question 1:

Since API 1104 only suggests and does not state that the categories above shall be used, is it acceptable to combine category 2 and 3 into a single category (2.375 and larger), especially since diameter is not an essential variable? Question 2: When installing a split sleeve fitting using an in-service procedure, please confirm that a 6010 filler material is acceptable on the root pass of the longitudinal joint since this is not being welded directly to the carrier pipe.

Answer 1:

Yes. Since diameter is not an essential variable for welding procedure qualification, the welding procedure can be written to cover

any diameter range regardless of the diameter used for the qualification test. Answ er 2: The 1104 committee cannot comment on the suitability of specific filler metals such as 6010. However, note that in the specific case mentioned, where the root pass of the longitudinal joint is not being welded directly to the carrier pipe, this weld is not considered to be an in-service weld.

1104 19th

5.3.2.9

1104-I1125-09

Question: In accordance with API 1104 Section 5.3.2.9, the specification must designate the welding direction. If the WPS designates both uphill and downhill for the welding direction, does API 1104 allow each half of the WPS qualification weld to be welded in a different direction?

No. Explanation: A procedure can be written to include either direction or both directions. The issue is how to qualify the welding procedure. API 1104, Section 5.4.2.9 makes the direction of travel, uphill or downhill, for vertical welding an essential variable. API 1104, Section 5.5 states To weld the test joint for butt welds, two pipe nipples shall be joined, following all of the details of the procedure specification. Section 5.7 uses similar wording for qualifying fillet weld procedures. There is no provision to qualify a welding procedure with only half of the pipe. A test weld with each half welded in a different uphill-downhill direction will only qualify for production welds with that same uphill-downhill combination of welding. To be able to make complete welds in the uphill direction and complete welds in the downhill direction will require two qualification welds.

1104 20th

5.4.2.2

Background: It is increasingly common for pipe to be certified to multiple Answer 1: Yes Answ er 2: No pipe grades. The multiple grade certifications often span multiple material Answ er 3: Yes groups described in 5.4.2.2 a., b., and c. Examples include pipe certified to Answ er 4: Yes and stenciled as grade B, X42 and X52, or grade X60 and X65. As a result there is often confusion regarding which welding procedure specification should be selected for use on multiple grade pipe. Question 1) For the purpose of selecting welding procedures for use on multiple grade pipe, may a user designate the grade of the pipe to be any one of the grades to which the pipe is certified, assuming the designated grade complies with all applicable pipe design criteria for the intended application? (For example, may pipe certified to grade B, X42, and X52 be welded using procedures applicable to either grade B, or X42, or X52?) Question 2) For multiple grade pipe, is a user required to use a welding procedure that is qualified for use on the highest grade to which the pipe is certified? Question 3) Assume a welding procedure has been qualified using multiple grade pipe and that the results meet the strength requirements for each of the

API Standard 1104 - Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities

API Standard 1104 - Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities

API Standard 1104 - Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities

API Standard 1104 - Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities

API Standard 1104 - Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities

API Standard 1104 - Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities

API Standard 1104 - Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities

API Standard 1104 - Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities

API Standard 1104 - Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities

API Standard 1104 - Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities

API Standard 1104 - Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities

API Standard 1104 - Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities

API Standard 1104 - Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities

API Standard 1104 - Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities

API Standard 1104 - Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities

API Standard 1104 - Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities

API Standard 1104 - Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities

API Standard 1104 - Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities

API Standard 1104 - Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities

API Standard 1104 - Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities

API Standard 1104 - Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities

API Standard 1104 - Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities

API Standard 1104 - Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities

API Standard 1104 - Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities

API Standard 1104 - Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities

API Standard 1104 - Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities

API Standard 1104 - Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities

API Standard 1104 - Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities

API Standard 1104 - Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities

API Standard 1104 - Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities

API Standard 1104 - Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities

API Standard 1104 - Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities

API Standard 1104 - Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities