Standard Edition Section Inquiry # Question Reply

1104 18th May-94 1104-I-01-96 The section on essential variables for Weld Procedure Qualifications, The groups are not specified in API-1104, they are to be
Section 2.4.2.5, states a change from one group to another. However, this selected by the user. See Para. 2.3.2.3.
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 18th May-94 1104-I-01-96 The essential variable list in Section 2.4 for Weld Procedure Qualification Yes.
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 18th May-94 1104-I-01-96 Welder Qualification Tests for Automatic Welding Section 9.7 does not Welder Qualification Tests for Automatic Welding - Since Para.
specify any essential variables for Welder Qualification Tests. Is this 9.6 provides that both the equipment and the operator are
correct? qualified at the same time, the Essential Variables specified in
Para. 9.5 apply.
1104 18th May-94 1104-I-01-96 Weld Procedure Qualification - Automatic Welding Under Section 9, this Weld Procedure Qualification for Automatic Welding - The
appears to be leaving the groupings of diameters and wall thickness to the groupings are left to the writer of the procedure specification.
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-94 1104-I-02-96 Clarification of the requirements of paragraph 6.3.8.2.c with respect to If the cluster porosity cannot be proven to be in the finish pass,
cluster porosity is required since the collective aggregate size of porosity is the criteria of Para. 6.3.8.2 applies. If Para. 6.3.8.2c applies,
being interpreted differently by different inspectors. then figures 18 and 19 must be used even if the indication on
the radiograph has been defined as cluster porosity.

1104 18th May-94 1104-I-02-96 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"
which is in the assorted chart cannot be defined. When a cluster of 5 to 7 charts of Figures 18 and 19, then that is the chart which must
pores cannot fit into an inscribed circle on the fine chart, the client is be used as the acceptability standard.
rejecting it even though there is no other porosity within the entire
radiograph. An attached sketch illustrates the condition.

1104 18th May-94 1104-I-04-96 If the Company has not required the use of a line-up clamp in its project No. See Para. 2.3.2.11
specific specification, does API 1104 require the use of a clamp?

1104 18th May-94 1104-I-04-96 As paragraph 4.3 is concerning butt welds, is this indicating that a clamp Para. 4.3 requires that the use of line-up clamps must be in
must be used for butt welds and that the weld procedure specification (as accordance with the procedure specification. If the procedure
discussed in 2.3.2.11) for butt welds must reflect this? specification does not require a line-up clamp, then none
needs to be used when making the production weld. See Para.
2.3.2.11.
1104 18th May-94 1104-I-04-96 Why is a clamp required for a weld procedure qualification, when the pipe A line-up clamp is not required for the weld procedure
nipples for the WPS will have been cut from the same length of pipe and qualification. See Para. 2.3.2.11.
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 18th May-94 1104-I-04-96 Regardless of what the form of words that API 1104 uses, what was the We cannot comment on the intention of the committee, only
intention of the committee in regard to the use of clamp for butt weld joints? what is written.

1104 18th May-94 1104-I-04-96 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,
1104 permits the use of other methods of alignment, why are they not only the method, i.e. internal, 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 18th May-94 1104-I-05-96 If a tensile strength is conducted for welder qualification, what information Paragraph 3.5.3 requires that the soundness requirements of
should be recorded regarding the test? Currently, (a) I measure the Paragraph 2.6.3.3 be met. The tensile strength need not be
specimen before testing, document that, (b) calculate the specimen’s area, calculated. It is therefore not necessary to measure the tensile
document that, (c) test the specimen documenting the load, and (d) specimen or to record the breaking load. Only the results of the
calculate the tensile strength of the specimen, documenting the computed examination per Paragraph 2.6.3.3 need to be recorded.
tensile strength. If it meets the required specified minimum tensile strength Paragraph 3.5.3 requires that the soundness requirements of
of the material, it is accepted. But this is not a requirement of welder Paragraph 2.6.3.3 be met. The tensile strength need not be
qualification is it? It appears to me, that all that is required for welder calculated. It is therefore not necessary to measure the tensile
qualification is for the tensile specimen to break outside the weld zone or specimen or to record the breaking load. Only the results of the
meet nick-break requirements if it does break in the weld zone, and the examination per Paragraph 2.6.3.3 need to be recorded.
documentation is accepted or rejected and nothing else. Is this correct?
1104 18th May-94 1104-I-0810-96 1) Do a procedure and welder qualification on a butt weld, according to API 1) PROCEDURE QUALIFICATION One of the essential
1104, qualify for unlimited fillet welds as it does with other codes such as variables listed in Paragraph 2.4 is 2.4.2.3 "Joint Design." Here
ASME XI. 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.

1104 18th May-94 1104-I-0913-96 On samples extracted such that their length is parallel to the pipe axis, are The API-1104 Standard does not require charpy testing.
shear values required from testing? Is pipe mill roll direction relevant to the Therefore, we cannot respond to your question.
testing of site-produced vertical butt welds?
1104 18th May-94 1104-I-1015-96 Four examples of repair situations that could arise are attached. They are Example 1 Yes. Example 2 Yes, assuming that "Clause
labeled Examples 1, 2, 3, and 4 and are only scenarios and are not actual 6.3.2.a" in the first sentence was intended to be 6.3.8.2.
cases that have occurred on any project. Please review the four examples. Example 3 Yes. Example 4 Depends upon the diameter of the
In each example, is the repair acceptable in accordance with sections 6 pipe. See paragraphs 6.3.4.c and 6.3.7.2.g.
and 7 of API Standard 1104?
1104 18th May-94 1104-I-1015-96 What is the definition of the words "injurious Defect" as they are used in Any defect that exceeds the standards of acceptability.
paragraph 7.1.2, Removal and Preparation For Repair, API Standard 1104,
18th - May 1994?
1104 18th May-94 1104-I-1015-96 What is the definition of the words "Sound Metal" as they are used in Sound metal, as used in Paragraph 7.1.2, is the metal that
paragraph 7.1.2, Removal and Preparation For Repair, API Standard 1104, remains after the injurious defect has been removed.
18th - May 1994?
1104 18th May-94 1104-I-1019-96 Paragraph 2.6.3.2 states that nick-break samples shall be broken by: ) Paragraph 2.6.3.2 provides only three methods of breaking a
pulling in a tensile machine nick break coupon so that it is all that can be used . However,
b) supporting at each end and striking the middle; your point is very understandable so we are sending your letter
c) supporting one end and striking the other end. Is it the intent of the code to the Welding Procedures and Welder Qualifications
to specifically rule out other methods of causing fracturing through the subcommittee for review and possible revision to the standard.
weldment?
1104 18th May-94 1104-I-1122-96 Can I use a fillet weld procedure qualified using a non-bevel lap fillet to Paragraph 2.4.2.3 "Joint Design" specifies that a major change
complete a 45 degree single bevel fillet weld? And, vice versa. 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.

1104 18th May-94 1104-I-1122-96 When qualifying welding procedures for fillet welds, one must note the Both.
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?
1104 18th May-94 1104-I-0130-97 Under Section 3.2.2 and 3.3.2 for multiple qualification of welders, is it Yes. Paragraph 3.3.2.b requires requalification. if the direction
correct in understanding that a welder who has successfully completed the of welding changes from vertical uphill to vertical downhill or
multiple qualification tests using filler metal from the group 1, (example E- vice versa. Also, paragraph 3.3.2.c requires requalification. if
6010& E-7010), in the downhill travel progression would also be required to the filler metal classification is changed from Group 1 or 2 to
successfully complete those same two tests using filler metal from the Group 3 or from Group 3 to Group 1 or 2.
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?

1104 18th May-94 1104-I-0130-97 After completion of the multiple qualification tests prescribed in section No. The welder could be qualified under 3.2 "Single
3.3.2 using E-6010 and/or E-7010 electrodes in the downhill progression, Qualification."
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?
1104 18th May-94 1104-I-0130-97 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
allows for a welder to perform maintenance welding after successfully butt weld and branch described in paragraph 3.3.1 of API 1104
completing the requirements of API Std 1104 3.1 to 3.6 or API RP 1107 3.2 and to the branch described in paragraph 3.2 of API 1107.
to 3.5. Is a welder qualified to install sleeves using E-7018 if the welder test With this assumption the answer to your question is yes.
on a Butt and Branch using E-7018? However, to install sleeves the welder does not need to make
a butt weld qualification test. The welder can make a single
qualification test as described in the second paragraph of 3.2.1
of ASPI 1104.
1104 18th May-94 1104-I-0130-97 Questions 4 & 5 refer to API 1104, 18th - May 1994 and API RP 1107, Yes but the welder would only be qualified to weld using Group
Third Edition, April 1991.Provided a procedure was qualified and a welder 1 or 2 electrodes downhill on the root pass and Group 3
was tested on the 12-3/4" dia. butt weld and a 12-3/4 dia. full size branch electrodes uphill on the fill and cap passes.
test, per API Std. 1104 Sec. 3.3, using E-6010 downhill for the root passes
and E-7018 uphill for the fill and cover passes, wouldn’t 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?

1104 18th May-94 1104-I-0130-97 DOT CFR 192, Sec. 192.229(C) states that welders are required to re- The subject of a time limit for the qualification of welders has
certify after 6 months unless proof of welding using the process for which always been left to the codes and user companies. However,
they are certified under is produced. DOT 195, Sec. 195.222 does not this subject will be presented to the API 1104 Subcommittee
address a specific qualification term limit. Both DOT sections 192- On Welder Qualification for review.
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
doesn’t the API Std. 1104, Sec. 3.7 and API RP 1107, Sec. 3.6 stipulate a
time limit for qualification of welders?

1104 18th May-94 1104-I-0507-97 Does a specific procedure for the branch weld in a multiple qualification Yes, a welder must use a qualified welding procedure when
test of welders need to be in place when doing the multiple qualification? 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.
1104 18th May-94 1104-I-0910-97 Is branch connection diameter considered an essential variable when Diameter is not an essential variable in the qualification of a
qualifying welding procedures for fillet welds on branch connections? Is it welding procedure as it is not listed in Paragraph 2.4.2.
correct to assume that header diameter in a branch connection weld is However, Paragraph 2.3.2.3 requires that the company
NOT an essential variable? 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.

1104 19th Sep-99 9.3.9 1104-I-0106-00 Does the standard intend that any elongated porosity indication in the root Yes.
pass should be considered to be hollow bead?
1104 19th Sep-99 9.3.9 1104-I-0106-00 If so, does the standard intend that the definition of linear indication (length No.
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.
1104 19th Sep-99 6.1 1104-I-0121-00 Is the entire procedure qualification test rejected and thus the welding The welding procedure is not qualified because all of the test
procedure not qualified? specimens shown in Table 2 and figure 3 have not been
successfully tested.
1104 19th Sep-99 6.1 1104-I-0121-00 Is the welder’s test for the “A” side also rejected and thus the welder not Both welders have failed because their qualification weld must
qualified? 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.”
1104 18th May-94 3.8 1104-I-0301-00 "A record shall be made of the tests given to each welder and of the API 1104 Standard does not specifically specify information
detailed results of each test. A form similar to that shown in Figure 2 regarding the parameters of welding that is to be recorded, i.e.
should be used. (This form should be developed to suit the needs of the electrodes used, amperage, etc. This is left to the discretion of
individual company but must be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate that the the individual companies. However, a record must be made of
qualification test met the requirements of this standard.) A list of qualified the tests given and the detailed results of each test (see
welders and the procedures for which they are qualified shall be Paragraph 3.8).
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.
Please provide clarification as to the meaning of API 1104 Section 3.8
requirements,
especially regarding "detailed results."
1104 18th May-94 Para. 3.2.1 1104-I-0302-00 Clarification is requested regarding the utilization of multiple welders whose No. Each welder must weld the entire wall thickness when
qualifications are in a lesser wall thickness grouping than the full thickness he/she is qualifying. See Paragraph 3.2.1.
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.
1104 19th Sep-99 Figure 12, Note 1 1104-I-0224-00 There was a mistake in the printing of the 19th Edition of API
When two welders are being qualified using 20” diameter pipe and each 1104. While the title of Figure 12 is correct, the drawing is
person is welding one-half of the weld, do you have to weld tow sets ofincorrect. The drawing should be identical to Figure 12 of the
nipples in order to get the sixteen test samples required per welder? 18th Edition, which shows 12 total weld specimens instead of
16.
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).
1104 19th Sep-99 Figure 12, Note 1 1104-I-0224-00 If you have a welding procedure that was qualified with the MIG process You must requalify the procedure. AWS ER70S-3 is not listed
using AWS ER 70S-3 and you are going to use AWS ER 70S-do you have in Table 1. The note to Table 1 therefore requires
a requalify the procedure using the new filler metal or can you just make requalification.
the substitution?

1104 18th May-94 Fig. 10 pg. 15 1104-I-0221-00 In reference to Figure 10 on Page 15 (the non-branch connection Not necessarily. The larger pipe can be split and fitted to the
sketches), is the weld smaller pipe.
specimen for fillet-weld procedure qualification one piece of pipe (smaller
diameter) slipped into another piece of pipe (larger diameter)?

1104 18th May-94 Fig. 10 pg. 15 1104-I-0221-00 Is there a standard procedure and welder qualification report templatethat No.
is offered pre-printed from API?
1104 18th May-94 Fig. 10 pg. 15 1104-I-0221-00 Is radiography acceptable to qualify a welding procedure or Only a welder, not a procedure. However, please note that in
only a welder? 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)

1104 18th May-94 Fig. 10 pg. 15 1104-I-0221-00 Is destructive testing the only way to qualify a welding procedure? See 3 above.
1104 18th May-94 Fig. 10 pg. 15 1104-I-0221-00 If a welder is qualified using a standard type MIG welder, does Requalification is not necessary.
a change to the use of a pulse type MIG welder require requalification;
assuming that all other variables remain the same?
1104 19th Sep-99 App. B 1104-I-0327-00 Paragraph 2.2.1.3 of Appendix B states "For in-service fillet welds, pipe Yes, the reference to wall thickness applies to both the
wall thickness is not an essential variable." Does that also apply to the thickness of the sleeve and to the thickness of the service
thickness of a hot tap fitting (e.g. the fillet weld joining the fitting to an in- pipe. Neither are essential variables.
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?

1104 19th Sep-99 App. B 1104-I-0327-00 Can I use butt welding and fillet welding procedures qualified under Section You must re-qualify because Appendix B has requirements for
5 of API 1104 to make in-service welds or must I requalify? procedure qualification that are not required in Section 5.
1104 19th Sep-99 App. B 1104-I-0327-00 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
from a butt weld to a fillet weld is considered a major change in joint design under B.2.
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?

1104 18th May-94 Par. 6.3.8.c 1104-I-0419-00 Clarification of the requirements of API 1104 Eighteenth Edition, May 1994 Acceptance or rejection of porosity is based on two factors,
is requested for Paragraph 6.3.8 with respect to "Aligned Porosity as shown size of the individual pores (Par. 6.3.8.2 a and b) and amount
in Figure 18. The inquirer is welding an 18" diameter pipeline with a wall (Par. 6.3.8.2 c). In judging the amount, the reader is directed
thickness of 6.35mm (0.250"). In radiographs of the girth welds, we are to Figures 18 and 19, in your case Figure 18. Figures 18 and
able to see images of aligned porosity similar to that shown in Figure 18. 19 are not intended to show size, only amount or distribution
Figure 18 shows the distribution matrix, but the note at the bottom of the (see the note). All pores shown in Figure 18 and 19 would be
Figure states ?The size of the gas pockets is not drawn to scale; for smaller than 1/8" or 25 percent of the thinner wall thickness.
dimension, refer to 6.3.8.@ In the case of paragraphs 6.3.8.2 (a) and (b), Otherwise, they would be rejected under Par. 6.3.8.2 a or b.
there is a specific dimension for rejection, but for Figure 18 - ”Aligned Therefore, the reader must use judgement as to which of the
Porosity (three or more)” no specific dimension has been identified. four examples shown under "aligned" meets his case. Please
Hence, NDT interpretation by Inspector and Client is done as per Figure 18 refer to Par. 6.2 "Rights of Rejection."
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-94 Sec. 8.1 1104-I-0427-00 With reference to Section 8.1 Radiographic Test Methods, is it permissible Yes as API Standard 1104 does not specify the conditions
to radiograph welds joining API 5LX-60 pipe with wall thickness of 0.312" under which gamma radiography is used. It is the imaging
and 0.375" using gamma radiography? results that determine acceptability of the method. See Par.
8.1.1.
1104 18th May-94 Sec. 2 1104-I-0519-00 With reference to Section 2 of API 1104, is it permissible to list more than Yes.
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.

1104 19th Sep-99 Fig. B-2 1104-I-0728-00 Figure B-2 “Suggested Procedure and Welder Qualification Test Assembly” No.
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?
1104 18th May-94 2.2, 2.3.2.5, 2.4 1104-I-0817-00 Paragraph 2.2 states that forms similar to those shown in Figures 1 and 2 No. Paragraph 2.2 does not make Figure 1 mandatory as it
should be used. Figure 1 contains a sketch showing the sequence of states “Forms similar to those shown in Figure 1 and 2 should
beads. Paragraph 2.3.2.5 requires that the "sequence of beads shall be be used. However somehow the user must designate the
designated". Is the welding procedure required to contain a sketch of the sequence of beads as required in Paragraph 2.3.2.5.
sequence of beads?
1104 18th May-94 2.2, 2.3.2.5, 2.4 1104-I-0817-00 Paragraph 2.3.2.5: Can a welding procedure specify more than one size of Yes, the welding precedure can so state without requiring the
electrode, for example, 5/32" or 3/16" diameter electrodes for the fill pass? qualification of two separate welding procedures. Electrode
Or are two separate welding procedures required? diameter is not an essential variable (see Paragraph 2.4)

1104 18th May-94 2.2, 2.3.2.5, 2.4 1104-I-0817-00 Paragraph 2.3.2.13: For the materials being welded, the welding procedure No.
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?
1104 18th May-94 2.2, 2.3.2.5, 2.4 1104-I-0817-00 This question concerns the information to be recorded during the welding a.  Number of passes – The minimum number must be
procedure qualification. The allowable values/ranges are put in the welding recorded but not the actual number. See Paragraph 2.3.2.5
procedure specification. Do the actual values used during the test weld b. Electrode size- The sizes for which the procedure covers
have to be recorded for number of passes, size and type of electrodes, shall be listed but it is not required to list the actual sizes used
speed of travel, voltage, and amperage? 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-94 2.2, 2.3.2.5, 2.4 1104-I-0817A-00 Question 2 asked if the procedure can show more than one rod size for the Par. 2.4.1 does not specify how the revision is to be shown
fill pass. If that is done how do you show the revision to comply with Part only that it be made.
2.4.1 to show the changes from one rod to another.
1104 18th May-94 2.2, 2.3.2.5, 2.4 1104-I-0817A-00 On your reply to question 4 does the person conducting the test give No.
testamony by signing and stamping that the ranges specified in the
procedure were followed.
1104 18th May-94 2.2, 2.3.2.5, 2.4 1104-I-0817A-00 Also is the letter an official interpretation or opinion. Yes, the letter to Mr. Holk is an official API interpretation.
1104 18th May-94 2 1104-I-0908-00 If a procedure specification qualified under API 1104 Section 2 lists only The procedure can be used for any diameter without
one diameter and one wall thickness (.250"), is it only qualified for the requalification because diameter is not an essential variable.
specified wall thickness and diameter or can it be used outside the ranges However the welding prcedure specification must be revised to
listed as long as the WPS is revised to show the change? include the the diameter to be welded. If the range for wall
thickness has not been established before the 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.
1104 18th May-94 2 1104-I-0908-00 If a fillet weld procedure specification only lists one wall thickness (.250") See 1 above.
and one diameter, can it be used for material over 1/2" thick.
1104 18th May-94 2 1104-I-0908-00 To qualify a welder under Section 3.3 - Multiple Qualification, must the weld The wall thickness need not be over ½” thick but it must be at
test specimens be over 1/2" thick? Must the procedure specification least ¼”. (see the second sentence of the second paragraph
specify thicknesses over 1/2"? of Paragraph 3.3.1 and the second sentence of the third
paragraph of Paragraph 3.3.1). The procedure specification
1104 18th May-94 2 1104-I-0908-00 Under Section 2.2, what is meant by complete results? This refers to the results of the tests performed as specified in
Paragraphs 2.6 and/or 2.8.
1104 18th May-94 2 1104-I-0908-00 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-94 2 1104-I-0908-00 If a procedure is qualified and the wall thickness range is specified as 3/16" Your question is not clear. Table 2 prescribes the number and
through 3/4", does the procedure have to be tested differently accordingly type of test specimens that must be tested depending upon the
to the thickness groupings listed in Table 2 under Section 2? 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).

1104 19th Sep-99 Sec. 6.2.2 f 1104-I-0925-00 Does this allow a welder who successfully passes a single qualification butt Yes.
weld test at 45 degrees to do butt welds and weld on sleeves, saddles, and
similar encirclement fittings in all positions?
1104 19th Sep-99 Sec. 6.2.2 f 1104-I-0925-00 What is the definition of a lap fillet weld? 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.

1104 18th May-94 Sec. 2.4.2.2 1104-I-1102-00 Considering these groupings the materials we use are listed below and A. Regarding the question asked in A of your request for
grouped accordingly. interpretation, we call your attention to Par.
Group( A) SA-106 Gr.B, API 5L Gr.B, API 5L-X42 2.3.2.2. There you will note that the qualification test must
Group (B) API 5L-X52, API 5L-X60 be made on the highest specified minimum
Group(C) API 5L-X65 yield strength in the group. Therefore, the answers to your
questions are:
Also considering compatibility of the base materials and filler materials A1 Yes.
within the A2 No.
groups, I would like to know if I understand API correctly: A3 It will qualify x65 to x65 but not other materials that you
1. If I Qualify for group (A) X-42 (TO) X42, will it qualify all our materials might include in Group C, because each
in group (A)? grade must receive a separate qualification test.
2. If I Qualify for group (B) X-52 (TO) X52 will it qualify all our materials in
group (B)? Also we call your attention to the warning in the note at the
3. If I Qualify for group (C) X65 (TO) X65 will it qualify our material for end of Par. 2.4.2.2.
group (C)?
B. And C. Regarding the question asked in C, we assume that
B. We also weld the Base Material groups in combination. For example it by “above combinations” you mean those
is necessary to weld: listed in your Question B. Procedures qualified for
1. Group (A) X42 TO Group(B) X52, combinations of materials only qualify a procedure for
2. Group (A) X42 TO Group (C) X65 and using that combination of materials. Further note in Par.
3. Group (A) X42 TO Group (C) X65 and 2.3.2.2 that when welding materials of two
separate material groups, the procedure for the higher
C. One question is, will Qualifying a procedure with each of the above strength group shall be used.
combinations satisfy the materials we use in each group listed
in A1 thru A3 & B1 thru B3? D. And E. The same rules apply to branch connections as
apply to butt welds.
D. My other question pertains to Branch Connections:
1. X42 TO X42
2. X42 TO X52
3. X42 TO X65

E. Will I need to Qualify a Procedure for D1 thru D3 Branch Connections?

1104 19th Sep-99 Sec. 6.4 1104-I-0404-01 A recent comparison of the API-1104 18th and 19th Editions revealed a There is no tolerance for cracks, inadequate penetration or
notable change to the visual examination criteria utilized for welder burn-through on a welder qualification test.
qualifications, i.e. Section 3.4 of the 18th Edition and Section 6.4 of the 19th The references to the NDT sections in the 18TH Edition were
Edition. References to defect tolerances (of the NDT acceptance there to provide the definition of the defect,
standards section) shown in the 18th Edition have been deleted in the 19th not the defect tolerance. In the first sentence of both Par. 3.4
Edition. When read verbatim, there is no tolerance for cracks, inadequate (18th Edition) and 6.4 (19th Edition) it says, “----shall be free
penetration, burn-through or other defects when performing visual from---“. The NDT references were removed from the 19th
examinations during welder qualifications under the 19th Edition. These are Edition to eliminate any confusion.
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 the NDT acceptance standards
section, as was shown in the 18th Edition. Following our conversation, Mr.
Hickox suggested that I submit this formal request for clarification. Please
provide written clarification
that the welder qualification visual examination criteria of the 18th Edition of
API-1104 continue to a
to apply under the 19th Edition.

1104 19th Sep-99 11.4.6 1104-I-0517-01 We are currently considering the use of automated ultrasonic inspection for Yes. Paragraph 11.4.6 requires that requires that the
a range of pipelines (6 thru 18" OD and 0.25 thru 1.25" wall thickness) and compression wave test be made
are unsure as to the intent of this paragraph. after completion of the circumferential butt weld.

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-94 2.3.2.2 1104-I-0614-01 Caltex Pacific Indonesia (CPI) are intending to run new welding procedures Your interpretation is not correct.
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) Par. 2.3.2.2 states what information you are required to include
X 52, this higher grade will qualify CPI to weld to lower grades, i.e. (API 5L) in your procedure specification regarding pipe and fitting
Grade B. The qualification in X 52 material will eliminate the need to run materials. However, par. 2.4, “Essential Variables”, identifies
weld qualification tests on Grade B material. those changes to the welding procedure that require re-
qualification of the procedure. Par. 2.4.2.2 addresses base
Is my interpretation of Section 2.3.2.2 correct? Please clarify and advise materials, and there you will see the groupings of base
accordingly. 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 Sep-99 5.6.4.1 & 7.2 1104-I-0711-01 API 1104 clearly mentions that misalignment permissible as up to 3 mm. The Standard does not specifically address this question.
While machining the samples for bend tests, the code says that we should However it does state in the third sentence of Par. 5.6.4.1 that
flush the weld to the Parent Metal. If there is a misalignment in the two the -----“reinforcements shall be removed flush-----“. It does not
plates being welded, should the flushing be done up to the lower plate level permit the removal of base material other than that incidental
or should it be done in a tapered manner? to the removal of the reinforcement. This will result in a tapered
bend test specimen at the misalignment.

1104 19th Sep-99 App. B 1104-I-0713-01 Concerning the application of a qualified weld procedure incorporating a No but the Procedure Specification (see Figure 1) must be
temper bead sequence, with no change in joint design, heat input, bead changed to show the revised number of beads (see the second
size, or other essential variables but only a change in the number of sentence of Par. 5.4.1). Also the minimum number and
deposited weld passes from 6 to 9; does this type of change constitute a sequence of beads shall be designated as per Par. 5.3.2.5.
need for requalification of the entire procedure?

1104 18th May-94 Sec. 3.2.2 1104-I-0818-01 If the single qualification option is chosen to qualify a welder for a V bevel It is my interpretation the welder is qualified to weld the butt
groove weld joint design in the pipe diameter grouping over 12 3/4", and weld fitting to the pipe, provided none of the essential variables
within the 3/16" to 3/4" wall thickness range, will that welder also be of paragraphs A - G of section 3.2.2 are changed, the
qualified to weld a butt weld fitting to the pipe. The butt weld fitting will have requirements of 3.4 and either 3.5 or 3.6 are satisfied, and the
the same V bevel groove weld joint design, be in the same over 12 3/4" welder is following all the requirements of a qualified welding
diameter group, and the same 3/16" to 3/4" wall thickness group as the procedure.
pipe.
1104 18th May-94 Sec. 3.3 1104-I-0905-01 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
branch-on-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 Sep-99 Sec. 6 1104-I-1022-01 Does the production of a singular qualification coupon employing different No. Each welder must weld the entire wall thickness when
welding processes approved in Paragraph 12.1 in which part of the weld is he/she is qualifying.
deposited by a welder using one process and the remainder by another See Paragraph 6.2.1
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."

1104 19th Sep-99 Sec. 5 1104-I-1023-01 Are you required to qualify a full penetration branch connection PQR to Yes, both are to be treated as fillet welds.
weld full penetration weld-o-lets and fillet socket welds. If not what is
required.

1104 19th Sep-99 Sec. 5 1104-I-1023-01 Are full penetration weld-o-lets considered fillet welds by API 1104. Yes.

1104 19th Sep-99 Sec. 5 1104-I-1023-01 When you qualify a full penetration branch connection PQR are you Yes.
qualified for fillet welds too.
1104 19th Sep-99 Para. 9.3.12 1104-I-0822-01 The paragraph 9.3.12 said: excluding incomplete penetration due to high- Paragraph 9.3.12 means that when you add up the length of
low and undercutting, any accumulation of imperfections (AI) shall be imperfections in a 12” length of weld, you do not count the
considered a defect should any of the following conditions exist: undercutting or the incomplete penetration due to high low.
These are considered separately in Paragraphs 9.3.2 and
a) The aggregate length of indications in any continuous 12 in. (300 mm) 9.3.11.
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 high-low indication that exceeds 2 in. (50 mm), because Paragraph 9.3.2
?.

1104 19th Sep-99 Para. 9.3.9.2 1104-I-1109-01 I read on the API 1104's Code on the Paragraph 9.3.9.2 that an "Individual This appears to be a statement and not a question.
or 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 Sep-99 Para. 9.3.9.2 1104-I-1109-01 What's is the criteria for acceptance that situation: a) or b), before?, Par. 9.3.9.2 states “Individual------a defect should ANY of the
because if I considered the criteria a) before, the welding is acceptable, but following conditions exist.” Therefore the weld would be
if I considered the criteria b) before, the welding shall be considered a rejected by b.
defect.
1104 19th Sep-99 Para. B.4.1.2 1104-I-1130-01 We have a project, where we have to do a longitudinal welds in a split-tee Appendix B is a recommended practice and therefore is not
in a in service pipeline, so the situation is if the paragraph b.4.1.2 (API required by API 1104 (see Par. B.1). If you choose to use it,
1104-99) applies in order to do longitudinal weld in the split-tee, besides Par. B.4.1.2 does include split tees. The second sentence of
we want to know if we can weld this longitudinal joint with or without mild B.4.1.2 states “These joints should be fitted------.” Therefore it
steelback-up strip or copper back -up strip and if is necessary to remove is your decision to use or not to use a back-up but please read
this back-up strip. the precautionary note at the end of the paragraph.

1104 19th Sep-99 Clause 5.6.4.1 1104-I-0218-02 If an undercut (accepted visually as per Page 29, Table4) is observed on a No. The third sentence of Paragraph 5.6.4.1 states “The cover
bend specimen, is a thickness reduction permissible to grind that region to and root-bead---- removed flush ----.“ This does not permit
make it smooth and scratch free? grinding of the parent metal.

1104 19th Sep-99 Clause 5.6.4.1 1104-I-0218-02 If not, should the bend specimen be tested with undercut as it appears? Yes.

1104 19th Sep-99 Clause 5.6.4.1 1104-I-0218-02 If so tested, should openings in bent specimen resulting from undercut be Yes.
cause for rejection if they exceed the dimensions specified in Clause 5. 6.
4. 3?

1104 19th Sep-99 2.6.2.1 1104-I-0305-02 Is there a tolerance plus/minus to the approximately 1 inch wide? No.
1104 19th Sep-99 2.6.2.1 1104-I-0305-02 Is it permissible to notch the sides to a dimension less than approximately No.
1 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?

1104 19th Sep-99 Par. 6.2.2 1104-I-0312-02 Must a welder be qualified for each WPS or is it that being qualified for one Please see Par. 6.2.2, which describes the essential variables
WPS allows him to weld in any material type or group? that require requalification. The type of material is not an
essential variable.
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?
1104 19th Sep-99 Table 1 1104-I-0321-02 Table 1 lists filler metals into groups through ASTM/AWS specifications If the filler metal is not listed in one of the groups of Table 1 it
and classification. Does it mean that filler metal classifications not listed requires separate qualification. See the note under the table.
can not be considered within those groups?

For instance, SFA 5.28 ER 80S-G belongs or not to one group?

1104 19th Sep-99 5.6.4.3 1104-I-0401-02 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
uniform thickness equal to the minimum thickness available i.e., 6.4 mm in root –bead ------ removed flush-----“. This does not permit
the present case (Please see enclosed sketch)? machining/grinding of the parent metal of the test specimens. If
you 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.

1104 19th Sep-99 5.6.4.3 1104-I-0401-02 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?
1104 19th Sep-99 Par. 5.3.2.16 1104-I-0626-02 Paragraph 5.4.2.12 states that "A change in the range for speed of travel The Company establishes the range that they feel is
constitutes an essential variable." and requires that the procedure be appropriate and one way is as you have suggested in B.
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 within that specified range.

C) By some other method (Please explain).

1104 19th Sep-99 Par. 5.3.2.16 1104-I-0626-02 Is the speed of travel specified as an essential variable in order to control There are other factors that make speed of travel an essential
the heat input (joules per inch)? If so, why are the amperage and voltage variable such as penetration, bead profile, ability to weld in
ranges (or joules per inch) not listed as essential variables? If not, why is various positions etc.
the speed of travel listed as an essential variable?
1104 19th Sep-99 5.4.2.2 1104-I-0703-02 Does this mean that a WPB (35,000 psi yield) fitting can be welded to X-52 It means that fittings and/or pipe from different groups(as
Grade pipe as long as a qualified procedure for welding X-52 pipe is being defined in 5.4.2.2) can be welded together, provided that the
used (Please answer assuming all pressure, wall thickness and all other welding procedure specification to be used has been qualified
design requirements are met)? for welding the higher of the two yield strengths involved in the
specific pipeline design, regardless of the number of grades
Or, does it mean that when welding pipe, which has been double or triple that a specific pipe may have been qualified to by the pipe mill.
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.
1104 18th May-94 Sec. 3 1104-I-0709-02 Section 3. Welder Qualification There is no duration on the qualification of a welder. However,
a welder may be required to re-qualify if a question arises
Is there any duration on the validity of a welder qualification? (eg. a welder regarding his competence. See par. 3.8
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)?

1104 18th May-94 Sec. 3 1104-I-0709-02 Section 4.2 Alignment API 1104 does not address the separation of longitudinal
seams on adjacent pipes.
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).
1104 19th Sep-99 9.3.8.2 & 9.3.8.3 1104-I-0716-02 As a user of API Standard 1104 19th edition Sept. 1999, I would respectfully You are correct. There was a typo in the 19th Edition, dated
request a technical interpretation of Part 9 "Acceptance Standards for Sept. 1999. An errata dated Oct. 31, 2001 was issued to
Nondestructive Testing". correct this and other typos.
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?

1104 18th May-94 Par. 3.3.1 1104-I-0725-02 Paragraph 3.3.1 of API 1104 18th edition, Multiple Qualification General, The first sentence of the third paragraph of 3.3.1 states “For
states that a welder shell lay out, cut, fit and weld a full-size branch-on-pipe the second test, the welder shall lay out, cut, fit, and weld a full-
connection. If a welder successfully performs the lay out  portion of this test size branch-on-pipe connection.” Since lay out is but one part
on his first Qualification test, is he required to lay out the branch when he re- of the overall test it must be repeated on the retest.
qualifies, or is he allowed to use a template or shape cutter to cut out the
branch connection.   
1104 19th Sep-99 Clause 5.3 1104-I-0804-02 1) Under Clause 5.3, API 1104 stated that Diameter Group shall be Regarding your question about requalifing a welding
specified in the Welding Procedure Specification (WPS) procedure, it need not be requalified because diameter is not
2) But, under clause 5.4 (Essential Variables), Diameter group is not an essential variable. However the welding procedure
included in the essential variables list. specification must be revised to include the diameters to be
3) If we have qualified a WPS with NPS 8 pipe, do we need to re-qualify a welded.
WPS for NPS 16 pipe welding (within same material group and wall
thickness group)? For welder qualification, diameter is an essential variable. (See
4) Or we have to only qualify welder instead of re-qualify the WPS to the Par.6.2.2.d)
diameter group above NPS 12?
1104 19th Sep-99 App. B 1104-I-0923-02 If a welder can inspect his own welds, should he be required to take a test “If a welder---“
to prove this, in addition to the welder qual test. Inspection personal are not required to “take a test” but they
must be qualified as per Par. 8.3.

1104 19th Sep-99 App. B 1104-I-0923-02 Under API-1104 Appendix B, If a procedure was qualified with and without ‘Under API-1104----“
a heating blanket, but the procedure that was chosen was without, are both Yes, both welders would be qualified. Please note in the
welders qualified to weld on in-service piping to this procedure? Both test qualification of in-service welders (Par. B.3), preheat is not an
pieces were mechanically tested and passed. This test was given in the 5G essential variable.
position. How does this effect us in the field.
Regarding the 5G position, position does not effect you in the
field so long as the requirements of Par. 6.2.2f are met.

1104 19th Sep-99 App. B 1104-I-0923-02 The biggest issue is welding on in-service piping using 7018. One side “The biggest issue---“
currently uses 6010/7010 SMAW on all in-service gas piping operating at or API 1104 does not address design i.e. the type of filler metal
below 60 psi. Does the code allow this. I do realize that 7018LH is the you must use. However a change in filler metal does effect the
preferred method, but this would greatly increase our costs. qualification of the procedure. (See Par. B.2 which refers you
to Section 5. In Section 5 please note Par. 5.4.2.6. )
1104 19th Sep-99 Par. 5.1 1104-I-1015-02 API 1104, Paragraph 5.1 includes the following statement: To be qualified in accordance with API 1104 the welding
"BEFORE production welding is started, a detailed procedure specification procedure must be qualified before the start of production
shall be established and QUALIFIED to demonstrate that welds with welding. See Par. 5.1. Please be advised however that 49
suitable mechanical properties (such as strength, ductility and hardness) CFR Parts 192 and 195 do not require weld procedures to be
and soundness can be made by the procedure." qualified in accordance with API Std. 1104.

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?

1104 18th May-94 2.4.2.2 1104-I-1022-02 Since base materials are separated into 3 yield strength categories can Yes, it is permitted to weld materials from separate groups
category a (equal to or less than 42,000) and category b (greater than together provided the welding procedure for the higher group is
42,000 but less than 65,000) be welded together with a procedure qualified used. See the last sentence of Paragraph 2.3.2.2.
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 Sep-99 5.1 1104-I-1104-02 Does the final Procedure Specification have to state only the values Your question relates to what needs to be recorded on the
recorded during the qualification test such as volt, amp and travel speed Procedure Specification Form i.e. Figure 1. You do not need to
ranges or can the company use the welding rod vendor's recommended record the actual values as Par. 5.3.2.6 and 5.3.2.16 only
range even though the entire range was not experienced during the test? 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.
1104 19th Sep-99 5.1 1104-I-1104-02 Can the welding procedure include a different weld rod size for a specific Yes, because electrode size is not an essential variable.
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.

1104 19th Sep-99 5.4.2.6 1104-I-0102-03 Can Welding Procedure Specifications which have been established and Yes.
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?

1104 19th Sep-99 App. A 1104-I-0120-03 In Appendix A, Paragraph A.1, it is stated that "Welds subjected to applied The standard does not specify a limit for stress or axial strain
axial strain of more than 0.5% are not covered by this appendix." Is there a for welds inspected to the workmanship acceptance criteria
maximum applied axial strain or stress limit when not using Appendix A, i.e. given in Section 9. It is up to the company to decide whether
workmanship criteria? If yes, can you cite the paragraph with this such criteria are appropriate for the specific design strain
maximum limit? involved.

1104 19th Sep-99 Par. 6.2.1 & 6.2.2 1104-I-0212-03 My first question is Paragraph 6.2.1 does not state a particular pipe For single qualification, 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 apply. For your
diameter or wall thickness for a single qualification test, so if a welder example, under single qualification, the welder would be
qualification test on a 12.750 in. pipe diameter and a 0.322 in. wall qualified to do butt welds and lap fillet welds in all positions for
thickness, in the fixed position at the 45 degree angle, what pipe diameters the outside diameter group from 2.375 in. through 12.750 in.
and wall thickness range is this test good for? My assumption is that in and the wall thickness group from 0.188 in. through 0.750 in.,
Paragraph 6.3.2 the welder qualification test on a 12.750 in pipe diameter subject to the other essential variables in 6.2.2. You made an
qualifies the welder for all diameters and wall thickness ranges, can I incorrect assumption because 6.3.2 only pertains to multiple
assume the welder qualification on a 12.750 in. pipe diameter 0.322 in. wall qualifications, and is based upon the welder successfully
thickness, in the fixed 45° position, for the single welder qualification, would completing both of the tests (a butt weld test and a branch
qualify that welder for all pipe diameters, wall thickness ranges, and all connection weld test) specified in 6.3.1.
positions?
1104 19th Sep-99 Par. 6.2.1 & 6.2.2 1104-I-0212-03 My second question is about Paragraph 6.2.2, Part f, which states a welder Correct. A welder qualifying under 6.2.1 (single qualification),
qualification test in the fixed 45° position, qualifies a welder for butt welds with the pipe in the fixed 45° position would be qualified to do
and lap fillet welds in all positions, is this correct? 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.)

1104 18th May-94 Par. 1.2.2.9 1104-I-0131-03 My question is in reference to Paragraph 1.2.2.9 "Roll Welding." It reads, Yes
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 Sep-99 Section B.4.1.2 1104-I-0227-03 Question 1: When performing a procedure qualification for in-service Response 1: No. The user has the option to qualify a
welding, does it recommend the branch be taken with the sleeve? procedure for either a sleeve or a branch.

Question 2: Does API recommend this in-service procedure qualification Response 2: No.
be incorporated in another already qualified procedure?
Response 3: No. The use of flowing media is recommended
Question 3: Does the sleeve part of the procedure qualification test also for either a sleeve or a branch to simulate the ability of the
require flowing media? flowing contents to remove heat from the pipe wall.

Question 4: Should the sleeve portion of the procedure qualification test Response 4: If so required by the welding procedure
have a backing strip? specification. The use of a backing strip is recommended in
Section B.4.1.2.
Question 5: Is the use of a backing strip considered an essential
variable? (joint design) Response 5: No, for the welding procedure (Ref. Section
B.4.1.2). Yes, for the welder qualification if a backing strip
i d b th ldi d ifi ti i li i t d
1104 19th Sep-99 B.1 1104-I-0303-03 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 Sep-99 5.4.2.2 1104-I-0310-03 Question 1: Is it necessary for the WPS to have been qualified with Response 1: No; however, your assumption is incorrect.
materials having 65 ksi yield (the highest in the group B)? Question 2: Is it Group B does not include material that has a specified
possible to use a WPS qualified with materials API 5L X60 x API 5L X60? 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.
1104 19th Sep-99 1104-I-0313-03 Does the wire ER70S-3 (ASME SFA-5.18) fit in Table 1? Does this welding Wire ER70S-3 is covered by the note to Table 1, and requires
consumable belong to Group 5 of said table, or should it be considered as a separate procedure qualification.
unlisted and have a separate qualification for itself according to the note of
the table?
1104 19th Sep-99 Appendix A 1104-I-0315-03 Question 1: Can Appendix A be used to determine whether these rejected Response 1: Yes. As long as all the requirements in Appendix
indications could be accepted? A are met. (For example, refer to A.2.2.2)

Question 2: If, using a calibrated reliable densitometer, the measured Response 2: No. API 1104 doesn't reference ASTM E 1079.
density of a BT image is 2.83 and the measured density of the parent metal
image is 2.78, can the ± 0.05 tolerance referenced in ASTM E 1079 be Response 3: This is not an appropriate matter for
used to make the two measured values equal? interpretation.

Question 3: Does the storage time of radiographed films (for example, Agfa
D7 stored for 1 year) have an influence on density variations?
1104 19th Sep-99 Sec. 5.4.2.2 1104-I-0325-03 If we test a welder using 66,000 psi tensile material, is he qualified to weld Material grade is not an essential variable for the qualification
60,000 psi and/or 75,000 psi material? Note we are not mixing material; of welders; therefore, a qualified welder may weld any grade,
just using different materials in different locations. subject to the welder qualification essential variables in Section
6.
1104 18th May-94 Section 3 1104-I-0410-03 If the welder is qualified under ASME Section IX, can he also weld API No. For a welder to be qualified to weld to API 1104 welding
1104 procedures assuming that none of the welder essential variables procedures, all of the qualification requirements stated in API
stated in API 1104 are violated? 1104 for both welding procedures and welders must be met,
irrespective of ASME Section IX requirements.

1104 18th May-94 Section 3.5.1 1104-I-0420-03 If a pipe, for example 32 inch OD by 19.05 mm wall thickness, is to be No. As stated in the title of Table 3, the total numbers of
welded by two welders (each half of pipe), can we remove and test half of specimens (12 for your example) are required for each welder.
the test specimens for each welder? That is, total number of specimens If two welders are being qualified, each welding half of the
completed for pipe and not for each welder (in this example, 6 of 12 pipe, the location of the specimens shown in Figure 12 are
specimens per welder). rotated in accordance with Note 1 to that figure, such that 12
specimens are obtained from each welder's half of the pipe, for
a total of 24 specimens.

1104 19th Sep-99 1104-I-0509-03 Question 1: If accessible, can we use double side welding for API 1104 Response 1: Yes.
Pipeline Welding, ensuring reinforcement requirements are met as per the
standard? Response 2: No.

Question 2: Does API 1104 prohibit root side repairs from inside of the
pipeline, if accessible?

1104 19th Sep-99 1104-I-0527-03 Question 1: Is there any applicable clause / table in API 1104: 1999 that Response 1: Yes. Sec. 5.3.2.4 refers to joint design, and a
covers the welding procedure qualification test requirements of full sketch of the full penetration weld is to be shown in the
penetration T-butt (branch connection) for new pipe fabrication? {Ref. 8” procedure. All procedure test requirements are noted in Sec.
weldolet (branch) to 28” pipe.} 5.8 – Testing of Welded Joints – Fillet Welds. The joint design
described is a combination of a bevel and fillet welds.
Question 2: What are the types of mechanical tests to comply with, in
order to qualify the welding based on API 1104: 1999 requirements? Response 2: Sections 5.7 and 5.8 refer to the test
requirements.
Question 3: Is there any provision for re-test should any of the coupons for
mechanical test failed? Response 3: No

1104 19th Sep-99 Section 9.3.5.b 1104-I-0604-03 Am I reading this wrong; what is the correct meaning of 9.3.5 b and c? 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.)
1104 19th Sep-99 Section 9.3.8.2 1104-I-0606-3 Background: 9.3.8.2 states "For pipe with an outside diameter greater than Yes – Provided the other requirements of 9.3.8.2 are met.
or 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-94 Section 9.6 1104-I-0717-03 Can 9.6 be interpreted where as far as the welding process is not changed, 9.6 require that each welding unit be qualified. Therefore,
the welding equipment is qualified by making an acceptable weld using the each welding unit must be qualified
qualified welding procedure and there should be no requirement on separately, even though they may be identical. Note 9.6 states
requalifing the procedure because of the difference in model number of the weld testing can be either
welding machine used during weld procedure qualification being different destructive or nondestructive.
from the one used during production?

1104 19th Sep-99 1104-I-0723-03 Question 1a: Whether an established welding procedure for X56 to X56 Responses: 1a: Yes;
pipe can be used to support a butt weld for X46 to X46 pipe, if there are no
other essential variable changes. 1b: Yes;

Question 1b: Whether an established welding procedure for X56 to X56 1c: Yes;
pipe can be used to support a butt weld for X56 to Grade B pipe, if there
are no other essential variable changes. 2a: Yes;

Question 1c: Whether an established welding procedure for X56 to Grade 2b: Yes. The scope of the multiple welder qualification is
B pipe can be used to support a butt weld for X46 to Grade B pipe, if there defined in Sec. 3.3.2 in the 18th Edition and 6.3.2 in the 19th
are no other essential variable changes. Edition.

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.)
1104 19th Sep-99 1104-I-0223-04 Is the weld for attaching sock-o-lets, weld-o-lets and thread-o-lets to a API considers the sock-o-let, weld-o-let and thread-o-let welds
header a fillet weld or should these welds be considered branch welds and to a header branch welds and the welder must be qualified with
the welder only be qualified by an overhead branch test? a branch test.

1104 19th Sep-99 1104-I-0608-04 Does a welding procedure qualified for branch connection also qualify for Yes, but only if the longitudinal welds on the sleeve are fillet
welding full-encirclement sleeves? welds, and not full penetration, V-groove 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 Sep-99 Sec. 6.2.2 f 1104-I-072204 Question 1. Your first question deals with the definition of a lap weld fillet, Response 1. Welding terms in this Standard are defined in
as noted in Sec. 6.2.2.f. AWS A3.0, as noted in Sec. 3.1 – General.

Question 2. Your next question to deals with the welding procedure Response 2. The requirement for time between weld beads is
essential variable, “time between passes”, as noted in Sec. 5.4.2.8, and contained in Sec. 5.3.2.10, and requires the time between
whether that time may be “one hundred years”, if desired. beads to be designated. There is no specific time 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.
1104 19th Sep-99 1104-I-0723-04 Ref. the following list of pipe materials, (grades, wall thickness & diameter) Response 1. Three (3) procedures; X42 – X42, X52 – X52 &
Grd. X70 to Grd. X70, wall thickness .188” to .750”, 2” thru 42” X70 – X70, are required. Response 2. When welding pipe of
Grd. X70 to Grd. X52, wall thickness .188” to .750”, 2” thru 42” different base materials, the procedure for the higher strength
Grd. X70 to Grd. X42, wall thickness .188” to .750”, 2” thru 42” base material group shall be used for the qualification of
Grd. X52 to Grd. X52, wall thickness .188” to .750”, 2” thru 42” welding procedure
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?

1104 19th Sep-99 1104-I-0810-04 If a welder performs a welder qualification test using an E6010+ on the root No. Refer to Sec. 6.2.1 and Sec. 6.2.2, which state, changes
pass and an E7018 on all remaining weld passes, is the welder qualified to in essential variables described in 6.2.2.c, require
weld on a full low hydrogen weld w/ all passes being of the E7018 group? requalification of the welder.

1104 19th Sep-99 Section 6.7 1104-I-1008-04 My question is on Section 6.7(retesting). If a company chooses to allow a Proof of subsequent welder training is required as noted in 6.7.
second API 1104 does not prohibit a company from offering a re-test.
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?

1104 19th Sep-99 1104-I-1026-04 Are "wrap-around" and "roller" jigs permissible within API 1104? Yes
1104 19th Sep-99 Appendix B 1104-1108-04 What Sections of Appendix B apply to the testing and coupon locations for No, Table 3 applies only to butt weld test specimens for welder
a welder qualification sleeve test? Table 3? 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 Sep-99 1104-I-1115-04 Question 1. Welding contractor has stated that he can qualify two welders Response 1. Two welders can be qualified on a single pipe
on one coupon, each welding one side. They are not using different nipple as long as the total number of test specimens is taken
processes. My contention is one welder, one coupon; correct? for each welder in accordance w/ 6.1 and Table 3.

Question 2. Section 5.4.2 (19th Ed) does not list welding amperage as an Response 2. API 1104 does not list amperage values or
essential variable. What parameters are applicable for amperage values parameters for the WPS. Re-qualification is required only if
outside of the WPS/PQR limits? Is re-qualification required? the essential variables are changed, as referenced in 5.4.1.

1104 18th May-94 Sec. 3.5.4 1104-I-1206-04 In reference to Nick-breaks Section 3.5.4, 18th Edition; If the nick breaks in The nick-break must break in the weld metal for the evaluation
the base metal, not the weld, does it pass or do you need to make of the weld.
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 19th Sep-99 1104-I-1214-04 Question 1. What is the outcome if the contractor actually DELETES Response 1: In accordance w/ 5.4.2.14, any change to the
PWHT? According to the above clause, the Contractor is permitted to values of PWHT constitutes an essential variable and would
delete PWHT without affecting the Procedure or API 1104 essential require re-qualification.
variables.
Response 2A: There are no defined wall thickness groups
Question 2A: What is the defined thickness group - there isn't one referenced for the procedure specification in 5.4.2.5, however,
referenced? the ranges of diameters and wall thicknesses must be
identified in the specification, as noted in 5.3.2.3.
Question 2B: Is it API 1104 intention, to permit wall thickness groups to be
contractually agreed between Contractor and Client for weld procedure Response 2B: API 1104 does not address contractual issues.
groupings? See answer for 2.A.

Question 2C: Is it API 1104 intent to permit the Client to specify the wall Response 2C: API 1104 does not address contractual issues.
thickness groups for weld procedure groupings prior to award of contract? See answer for 2.A.
1104 19th Sep-99 Sec. 5.4.2.5 1104-I-0103-5 Question 1: The section on essential variables for welding procedures Response 1: Yes. The wall thickness range must be identified
section 5.4.2.5 states a change in grouping from one group to another is an in the WPS, as required in 5.3.2.3. Any change from that
essential variable however this section does not give a group. Can you range constitutes an essential variable. Response 2: There
clarify which group is applicable or can these be specified by the writer of are no essential variables for welding operators. Welding
the WPS because the grouping referenced in 5.3.2.3 relates to operators must be qualified in accordance w/ 12.6.
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

1104 19th Sep-99 Sec. 6.6 1104-0103-5 I have a question related to Welder Qualifications section 6.6 No. API 1104 Section 6.6.1 does not allow for the substitution
2nd Inquiry Radiography-Butt Welds only. "At the company's option, the qualification of AUT for RT
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.
1104 19th Sep-99 Section 5 1104-I-0104-5 1. Sec. 5.3.2.3: Is it correct to assume the diameter range of 2-3/8” and 1. Yes.
larger, as currently outlined in the contractor’s procedures, is acceptable?
Sec. 5.3.2.5: 2.Yes. Electrode size is not an essential variable, and,
therefore, a change in electrode size, alone, would not
2. When a procedure has been established for a SMAW weld, and the constitute a requirement for qualifying a new procedure. As
electrode size has been recorded for .188” WT pipe, is it acceptable to specified in Sec. 5.4.1, changes other than essential variables
change the electrode size to weld a .625” WT pipe without qualifying a new may be made in the procedure without re-qualification,
procedure? provided the procedure specification is revised to show the
changes.
3. Sec. 5.3.2.6: Is there an acceptable voltage & amperage
range/percentage that can be used outside the range recorded in the 3. No. Voltage and amperage are not essential variables for
qualified procedure? 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 Sep-99 Section B3.2 1104-0112-05 When qualifying a welder on the in-service sleeve groove weld, there is no This is an oversight in the 19th Edition. It has been addressed
Type and Number of Specimens table for welder qualification only a table in the 20th Edition
(B-1) 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?

1104 19th Sep-99 B-2 1104-I-0118-05 If a test piece welded as indicated in figure B-2 is used for in-service This is an oversight in the 19th Edition. It has been addressed
welders qualification test, only the circular welds are submitted to testing in the 20th Edition
(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?
1104 19th Sep-99 1104-I-1012-05 When qualifying welders, must a company measure and record the welder No. Speed of travel is not an essential variable for the
speed of travel? 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.

1104 19th Sep-99 Sec 9.3.3, 9.3.3, 1104-I-1019-05 Question 1: Sec. 9.3.3: Your first question deals with inadequate cross Response 1: The criteria for ICP for weld lengths less than
and 9.3.12 penetration and why there is no specific mention of aggregate length of ICP 12” in length is necessary, since ICP only occurs with a two-
in welds less than 300 mm in length. sided weld configuration; i.e. ID and OD welding.

Question 2: Sec. 9.3.5: Your second question deals with incomplete Response 2: The requirement in Section 9.3.5c applies to
fusion due to cold lap and why there is no specific mention of aggregate welds of any length.
length of IFD in welds less than 300 mm in length.
Response 3: All listed criterion applies to the accumulation of
Question 3: Sec. 9.3.12: Your third question deals with the accumulation imperfections, and both apply to all weld sizes.
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.
1104 19th Sep-99 1104-I-1220-5 Comment: The suggestion was made to add a SAW filler metal Response: As verbally noted to the individual who suggested
classification for SAW welding; namely: A5.23, used for low alloy double the addition of this particular filler metal classification during
joint welding 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.

1104 19th Sep-99 Para 8.4.1 1104-I-0123-06 Question 1: Paragraph 8.4.1 - Procedures states “Nondestructive testing Response 1: The 19th Edition of API Std. 1104 Section 8.4
personnel shall be certified to Level I, II or III in accordance with the does not specify the minimum qualifications or experience
recommendations of American Society for Nondestructive testing, level of user company personnel; however, we refer you to
Recommendation Practice No. SNT-TC-1A, ACCP or any other recognized Section 8.3 for guidance. It also it should be noted that
national certification Program that shall be acceptable to the company for company personnel may be subject to regulatory or user
the test method used. Only Level II or III Personnel shall interpret test company requirements.
results”. I would like an interpretation as to the minimum qualification
and/or experience necessary for the Individual who the “COMPANY” will Response 2: The 19th Edition of API Standard 1104 does not
employ to verify the NDE results submitted by the Level II or III? address the qualifications of the individual(s) authorized by the
Company as their representative(s).
Question 2: Can this individual also be used to enforce API 1104 - section
9.2?
1104 19th Sep-99 1104-I-0522-06 Question 1: My question is whether or not temporary welds performed for Response 1: If the temporary welds are removed, they are not
purposes of holding steel plate end plates on the end of pipeline governed by the standards of API 1104, unless specified by
components being hydrotested in a shop must be welded in accord with the user company.
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 Response 2: The use of API 1104 or another pipe welding
hydrotest is to pressure-test two circumferential permanent butt welds standard may be used by the user company to make these
made to hold an anode connector into a pipeline.  Two temporary caps temporary welds for hydrostatic testing pipeline components.
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 requirements for a temporary weld done for purposes of
allowing a hydrotest to be made of components required to be
hydrotested?
1104 20th Oct-05 1104-I-0522-06 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 Oct-05 1104-I-0123-06 One of our subcontractors has run a weld procedure on a 45°axis 6G, does Yes
this allow them to use the same procedure to weld in the 5G position?

1104 20th Oct-05 Section 11.4.7.3 1104-I-0124-06 Question 1: In the sentence of the item 11.4.7.3, the recommended Response 1: Section 11.4.7.3 was written without regard to
practice (should) of additional 4 dB for evaluation was made considering beam width.
AUT systems using conventional probes (wide beam)?
Response 2: Adding 4dB has the same effect on both focused
Question 2: The more precise AUT systems designed according to the and non-focused beams.
ASTM 1961 standard, (zonal discrimination with focused search units) had
been considered to do the recommendation of +4 dB for evaluation?
1104 19th Sep-99 Section 6.6.2 1104-I-0418-06 Question 1: In reference to API 1104 19th edition Response 1: Automated UT cannot be substituted for RT in
The requirement of RT in lieu of mechanicals, Sect 6.6.2. I refer you to pg. Welder Qualification.
54 within the Appendix of API. Sect A4 where it states "For automatic
welding, the welding unit and each operator shall be qualified in Response 2: There is no provision for partial qualification.
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 Qualification such that a welder may be qualified and be
restricted to Root, Fill and/or Cap passes. We are in a production
environment utilizing 8 welding stations. Our welders are currently being
qualified by completing an entire sample. What is being put forward is
should the welder complete a full sample and it is determined that the root
region was found to be rejectable (by AUT) can the welder still be partially
qualified to the Fill and Cap passes or must he re-test completely. Is partial
welder qualification possible by completing only the weld passes the welder
will required to deposit in a production environment?

1104 20th Oct-05 Clause 10.2 1104-I-0530-06 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?
1104 20th Oct-05 1104-I-0605-06 Question 1: In which conditions is necessary or recommended to realize Response 1: API 1104 does not address the requirements for
impact tests with notches in V for Charpy’s tests? Question 2: In the Charpy’s. Response 2: We are unable to understand your
procedure requirement of welding separation, it’s necessary to qualify question
again a new procedure of welding or the original qualify is applicable
(apply)?

1104 19th Sep-99 Section 11.4.7.2 1104-I-0713-06 Is it the intent of the API standard that only those ultrasonic indications that Response: Yes, please note that all procedures are to be
exceed the evaluation level given in 11.4.7.2 be considered as a possible qualified prior to use.
defect?

1104 20th Oct-05 Sec. 6.2. 1104-I-0514-07 If a welder makes a test weld in the 6G position (inclined from the Response: Section 6.2.2(d) lists the essential diameter groups
horizontal plane at an angle of not more than 45 degrees), on pipe with a for single qualification. A single qualification test on 12.750"
diameter of 12.750", wall thickness of .375" thick. Is this welder qualified to pipe qualifies the welder from 2.375" to 12.750" diameter pipe.
weld on 24" diameter pipe? If so why and if not why. 24" diameter pipe is in a separate group than 12.750" diameter
pipe and so will require a different single qualification test.
1104 19th Sep-99 1104-I-0121-09 Question 1: For qualification of welding procedure specifications (WPS) according to API Response 1: Yes.
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 Response 2: No.
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 Response 3: Yes.
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 Response 4: Yes.
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 of all pipe manufacturer combinations?

Question 3: 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 three different pipe
manufacturers designated as manufacturers A, B, and C, with no other changes in essential
variables, is preparing and destructively testing two sets of test joints described as A B and
C C, with each 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 4: 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 four different pipe
manufacturers designated as manufacturers A, B, C, and D, with no other changes in
essential variables, is preparing and destructively testing two sets of test joints described as
A B and C D, with each set including a test joint with high heat input (HHI) and a test joint
ith l h t i t (LHI) ffi i t t t th i t f th t d d d ll f
1104 19th Sep-99 1104-I-0122-09 Question 1: For qualification of welding procedure specifications (WPS) Response 1: 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 Response 2: No.
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 in
essential variables, is preparing and destructively testing three sets of test
joints described as A1 A1, A1 A2, or A2 A2, with each set 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 of all plate
manufacturer combinations?

1104 20th Oct-05 Appendix A 1104-0210-09 Question 1: Can the value parameter Fb be zero? No.
1104 20th Oct-05 7.2 1104-I-0619-09 Section 7.2 states that the alignment of abutting ends shall minimize the Response: No.
offset between surfaces. For pipe ends of the same nominal thickness, the
offset shall not exceed 3 mm. Larger variations are permissable provided The requirement of not more than 3mm of offset (High-Low) is
the variation is caused by variations of the pipe end dimensions. applicable to a single location and is not to be interpreted as
cumulative around the circumference of the pipe or weld.
Question: Does this mean that if you have more than 1.5 mm offset on one
side of the pipe you will have more than 1.5 mm on the other side thus
exceeding the 3 mm?

[Note: Others consider the 3 mm in any single location which could lead to
High-Low well in excess of 3 mm.]

1104 20th Oct-05 5.3.2.3 1104-I-0812-09 Question 1: Since API 1104 only suggests and does not state that the Response 1: Yes. Since diameter is not an essential variable
categories above shall be used, is it acceptable to combine category 2 and for welding procedure qualification, the welding procedure can
3 into a single category (2.375 and larger), especially since diameter is not be written to cover any diameter range regardless of the
an essential variable?   diameter used for the qualification test.

Question 2: When installing a split sleeve fitting using an in-service Response 2: The 1104 committee cannot comment on the
procedure, please confirm that a 6010 filler material is acceptable on the suitability of specific filler metals such as 6010. However, note
root pass of the longitudinal joint since this is not being welded directly to that in the specific case mentioned, where the root pass of the
the carrier pipe. longitudinal joint is not being welded directly to the carrier pipe,
this weld is not considered to be an in-service weld.
1104 19th Sep-99 5.3.2.9 1104-I-1125-09 Question: In accordance with API 1104 Section 5.3.2.9, the specification Response: No. Explanation: A procedure can be written to
must designate the welding direction. If the WPS designates both uphill include either direction or both directions. The issue is how to
and downhill for the welding direction, does API 1104 allow each half of the qualify the welding procedure. API 1104, Section 5.4.2.9
WPS qualification weld to be welded in a different direction? 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 19th Sep-99 1104-I-0304-05 If a city municipality has welders qualified to API standard 1104 19th edition Response: The subject of time limits for the qualification of
that are permanent employees how often, if ever, are the welders required welders to AP Std. 1104 has always bee left to the codes and
to requalify after successfully passing a qualification test?  I am unable to user companies, and is, therefore, not addressed in the
find a paragraph or comment that answers my question on the requirement Standard.
to requalify after successfully passing a qualification test.
1104 19th Sep-99 1104-I-0222-10 Background: If a welder passes a combination (dual) process GTAW (root) Response 1: No - the welder is only qualified for that specific
/  SMAW (remaining layers) open-butt groove qualification test using a combination of processes; the welder is not qualified for the
qualified welding procedure: individual processes separately.

Question 1: Does the welder obtain qualification to weld each process Response 2: Not Applicable
individually (using single process GTAW or SMAW welding procedures
having matching essential variable to the test taken)? Response 3: Not Applicable

Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is yes; how is the welder’s nominal

pipe wall thickness qualification range determined for each process?

Question 3: If the answer to Question 1 is yes, based on the combination

test, would the welder be qualified for welding open-butt groove welds
using only the SMAW process?

1104 20th Oct-05 B.3 1104-0928-10 Background: A welder has completed and passed the testing requirements Response: Section B.3 provides for three qualification paths:
of section 6.3 for a butt and a branch weld on a pipe with an outside 1. Appendix B test on less than 12.750” OD – qualifies for in-
diameter of 12.750”. The next test required is for in-service welding as per service welding on the tested size and smaller
Appendix B. 2. Appendix B test on greater than or equal to 12.750” OD –
qualifies for in-service welding on all sizes
Question: Is it the intent of Section B.3 that the above described welder 3. Section 6.3 multiple qualification and any size Appendix B
perform a test on 12.750” diameter pipe to be qualified to weld in-service test - qualifies for in-service welding on sizes qualified for
on all diameters and all thickness? under Section 6.3.
1104 20th Oct-05 6.4 1104-0912-11 Background: Welders completed the 1st and 2nd bead on a 12.750” Response: Only undercutting criteria of a weld adjacent to the
Horizontal fixed weld. The weld was cleaned up inside and out for review. bead on the outside of the pipe is specifically addressed in API
Undercutting was found on the inside of the weld adjacent to the bead. 1104, Section 6.4 for qualification of welders. The weld shall
The welder was informed that his services would not be needed on the meet the visual examination requirements of undercutting
project; and he was shown the defect using 6.4 of API 1104 20th Edition. depth and length. Section 6.4 is silent on the evaluation of
The QC/QA disagreed claiming that chart 4 must be used to measure the undercutting adjacent to the bead on the inside of the pipe.
under cutting. It was counter argued that chart 4 is for production Therefore, it is implied that the weld shall be free from cracks,
radiography; and that the undercutting is addressed in 6.4 with the inadequate penetration and burn-through, and that judgment
statement thatthere shall be full penetration and complete fusion. would be visually applied as to whether the weld (outside or
inside the pipe) demonstrates a neat workman-like
Question: Is the latter argument correct? appearance.

1104 20th Oct-05 5 1104-I-1101-13 Background: A customer insists that you must have separate welding Response: Yes. Separate procedure qualifications are
procedures for fillet welds in addition to your butt weld procedures with a required for fillet welds for each material grouping.
double bevel joint design. I contend that the section is clear and that as my
heat input will not change and that it is still a butt weld that an extra
procedure is not necessary.  

Question: Does the code require a separate set of fillet weld procedures to
cover each of the material groupings?
1104 20th Oct-05 11.1.3 1104-I-1102-13 Question 1: Which part of the IQI wire pack shall be within 1 in. of the end Response to All Questions (1 through 5): This subject is not
of the film length to be interpreted and at the center of the film? addressed in API 1104, 20th Edition and therefore API cannot
comment on these issues
Question 2: Is the specified wire in the pack to be within 1 in. of the end
and at center?

Question 3: Or, is it the edge of the manufactured plastic encasement of

the wire pack to be within 1 in. of the end and at center?

Question 4: Or some other component of the wire pack?

Question 5: Can these wire packs be cut to get them in closer proximity to
the required dimensions or are they manufactured to a code standard and
would be considered modified and unusable if altered?

1104 20th Oct-05 5.4.2.8 1104-I-1103-13 Background: We have another concern related to API 1104. Section Response 1: Yes, provided an increase in the maximum time
5.4.2.8, Time Between Passes, establishes the following: "An increase in between completion of the root bead and the start of the
the maximum time between completion of the root bead and the start of the second bead does not occur. Welder speed is not applicable.
second bead constitutes an essential variable ". We know that this
essential variable is established for procedure qualification, but we believe Response 2: No, provided the time between the root bead
that it has a serious implication in welder qualifications. Right now, we need completion and start of the second bead is not exceeded, the
to know if we have to consider it as an essential variable for welder procedure does not have to be re-qualified.
qualifications.
Response 3: This falls outside the scope of interpretation and
Question 1: There are welders who have the ability to weld faster than therefore API cannot comment on these issues.
others, so, If we have qualified a welding procedure using a 6 in OD pipe
and the time between passes was 6 minutes, this procedure can be used
to weld a 12 in OD pipe where time between passes should be higher?

Question 2: The procedure must be requalifed?

Question 3: If a welder was qualified through the procedure qualification (6

in OD pipe), How do we know that he's able to weld a 12 in OD pipe?
1104 20th Oct-05 5.6.1.1 1104-I-1104-13 Background: API 1104 20th states in paragraph 5.6.3.1 that the specimen Response 1: Yes.
shall be notched with a hacksaw.
Response 2: Yes. However, since the width of the specimen
Question 1: Is it the intent of the Code that no other means of notching are and depth of the notching is approximate, a ¾ inch fracture
allowed (e.g., wafer disk notch)? can be achieved.

Background: API 1104 20th states in paragraph 5.6.3.2 that the exposed
area of the fracture shall be at least ¾ in. wide. However in paragraph
5.6.3.1 it states that the specimen width will be approx. 1 in. and that the
specimen will be notched 1/8” deep on each end. 1 in minus 1/8 in minus
1/8 in. will result in a pretest specimen width of ¾”. When the method of
breaking the specimen is pulling in a tensile test machine there will be
some reduction in area. This could result in a fracture area slightly less
than ¾” wide.

Question 2: Would this constitute a violation of the requirement of

paragraph 5.6.3.2 as stated above?
1104 20th Oct-05 7.8.2 1104-I-1105-13 Background: There is an NDE specification that reads “If the SCR (pipe) Response 1: No, Section 7.8.2 is applicable to filler and finish
are reeled, then procedure welds and welder qualifications will be judged to (OD Cap) beads only.
both of API 1104 Section 0 and the alternative acceptance criteria.” The
alternative acceptance criteria read that “for reel installation on SCR critical Response 2: No.
weld pipe surface flaws, 0.0-1.0 mm height and a max 15 mm in length are
acceptable .” I understand that specifications overrule the standard API
1104 code (as long as standards are met) and this spec limits the depth
and length. People superior to me both on this job and in experience are
telling me that API 1104 Section 7.8.2 refers to all surface flaws (including
IC) as well as filler beads and cap passes. Therefore they interpret the
standard API 1104 as not allowing for any IC. I see nothing in the API 1104
section 9.3.6 (that talks about IC) that refers me back to section 7.8.2.
Section 9.3.6 plainly tells me that any length of IC is acceptable depending
on the density of the RT image vs. thinnest adjacent parent material. I
interpret section 7.8.2 as explaining the criteria of filler and finish (cap)
beads only concerning the height or depth above or below the OD of the
pipe.

Question 1: Can or does section 7.8.2 “At no point shall the crown surface
fall below the outside surface of the pipe nor should it be raised above the
parent metal by more than 1/16” (1.6mm).” apply to or cab be applied to the
root pass and IC?

Question 2: Does section 7.8.2 overrule section 9.3.6 of the API 1104 that
allows for IC depending on its density vs. adjacent parent material?
1104 20th Oct-05 1104-I-1106-13 Question 1: Is it acceptable to deposit alignment tack root bead segments Response to All Questions (1 through 5): This subject is not
with the pipe ends in the lineup clamps and then move the pipe to complete addressed in API 1104, 20th Edition and therefore API cannot
the alignment/root opening spacing of the abutting ends? comment on these issues.

Question 2: If a root bead alignment tack has been deposited with the pipe
in the lineup clamps and the pipe has been moved to complete the
alignment, is it necessary to remove the alignment tack prior to completing
the remaining root bead?

Question 3: Can this alignment tack be ground, examined visually, and

then be incorporated into the finished weld?

Question 4: Is it acceptable to move the pipe, not roll, after starting to

deposit the root bead in the fixed position before the root bead is
completed?

Question 5: is it acceptable to deposit hot pass and additional pass

segments over the completed root bead segments to strengthen the root
bead in restrained fitups before completing the entire root bead and prior to
removing the lineup clamps? This is defined as block sequence by AWS.

1104 20th Oct-05 11.4.4 1104-I-1107-13 Background: My client asked me to make demonstrations for a manual UT Response: This is not a subject addressed in API 1104. Wall
procedure for each thickness of the same pipe material; and the thickness thickness variation requirements for UT demonstrations are
difference is about 1.6mm. not explicitly defined in API 1104. But instead Section 11.4.4
a) provides guidance on variables which may impact ultrasonic
Question: What is the thickness range for demonstration in a UT procedure inspection.
in comparison to the range of ASME V?

1104 20th Oct-05 1104-I-1108-13 Background: While performing a nick break test on specimens, silvery, Response: This is not a request for interpretation. This subject
shiny areas of the weld metal are seen. I have heard all sorts of is not addressed in API 1104, 20th Edition and therefore API
explanations as to what this is. I am told it is nickel deposits by some, and cannot comment on this issue.
others are calling it slag.

Question: Just what is this? Is it considered rejectable?

1104 20th Oct-05 6.2.2e 1104-I-1109-13 Background: We have numerous procedures that were developed using Response: No. A change from one wall thickness group to
different limits on wall thicknesses that those listed in 1104, Section 6.2.2e. another constitutes an essential variable. A change in an
For example we have procedures for welding pipe ≥ 2⅜” to ≤ 12¾” with essential variable requires requalification.
tensile grades ≤42,000 PSI, each have a thickness range of ≥ 0.188” to
<0.250”; ≥0.250” to <0.344”; ≥to 0.500”.

Question: Would it be permissible to clerically change one of our existing

welding procedures to reflect those limits listed in 6.2.2? In essence we
would take a preferred welding procedure and change the wall thickness
limits to those listed in paragraph 6.2.2 and place those other welding
procedures in an archive file.

1104 20th Oct-05 6 1104-I-1110-13 Background: The only place that the 1104 code mentions the word "fitting" Response: Yes, within the limits of the welder’s qualified
is under the multi-qualification section. This can interpreted two ways. The essential variables.
gas company that we are doing work for is requesting that my welders to
be multiple qualified to weld a 90 to the end of a piece of pipe. They say
that the 90 is a fitting and that is why it falls under the multi-qualification
section.

Question: If a welder is single qualified on 12" .250wt @ 45 degrees from

horizontal plain in a fixed position, is he qualified to weld on all fitting, caps,
etc. as long as it is an open but weld?

1104 21st Sep-13 6 1104-I-1111-13 Background: Page 27 for Welder Qualification 4.5" to 12.75" diameter Response: No. The table is correct. API will issue an erratum
shows 8 locations for tests. Page 30, Table 3 shows only 6 tests required to reflect Table 3 accurately in Figure 12.
for this diameter. All previous editions at least since 1980 have only 6 tests
required.

Question: Is this an intended change?

1104 20th Oct-05 Appendix A 1104-I-1212-13 Question 1: Is the intent of the Fracture Mechanics Subcommittee that Reply to All Questions (1 through 12): Appendix A is not
qualifying individual pipeline welds for the alternative acceptance limits intended to be used in a post construction basis. Therefore
after a defect under Section 9 is detected requires preparation of a test API is unable to address the 12 individual questions based on
joint representative of the production welds that is tested in accordance the information provided.
with all the requirements of A.3.2 Mechanical Testing?

Question 2: Would the Fracture Mechanics Subcommittee agree with the

assertion by some that preparation of a test joint and testing it according to
A.3.2 Mechanical Testing is not necessary when qualifying individual
pipeline welds for the alternative acceptance limits after a defect under
Section 9 is detected because industry experience has shown that
toughness of most pipeline girth welds is sufficient to tolerate fairly large
flaws?

Question 3: Would the Fracture Mechanics Subcommittee agree with the

assertion by some that preparation of a test joint and testing it according to
A.3.2 Mechanical Testing is not necessary when qualifying individual
pipeline welds for the alternative acceptance limits after a defect under
Section 9 is detected because industry experience has shown that
toughness of most pipeline girth welds is sufficient to tolerate fairly large
flaws?

Question 4: Would the Fracture Mechanics Subcommittee agree with the

assertion by some that there is no need for a good faith effort to reproduce
the variables employed during production welding when welding a test joint
to be subjected to the testing requirements of A.3.2 Mechanical Testing in
order to justify qualifying individual pipeline welds for the alternative
acceptance limits after a defect under Section 9 is detected?
Question 5: Is the expectation of the Fracture Mechanics Subcommittee
that qualifying individual pipeline welds for the alternative acceptance limits
after a defect under Section 9 is detected requires that each of the
Essential Variables described in A.3.1 General a. through q. be
representative of the variables employed for production welding?

Question 6: Would the Fracture Mechanics Subcommittee agree that

qualifying individual pipeline welds for the alternative acceptance limits after
a defect under Section 9 is detected requires sufficient nondestructive
examination to determine the length, height, and depth below the surface
of the defect, even when performing that nondestructive testing may be
costly and time consuming?

Question 7: Would the Fracture Mechanics Subcommittee agree with the

assertion by some that the height and depth below the surface of a defect
under Section 9 can be estimated from a radiograph or assumed without
additional nondestructive examination when qualifying individual pipeline
welds for the alternative acceptance limits after a defect under Section 9 is
detected?

Question 8: Would the Fracture Mechanics Subcommittee agree that

when qualifying a few individual pipeline welds for the alternative
acceptance limits after a few defects under Section 9 are detected due to
errors in interpretation of radiographs the testing and analysis can be less
rigorous than when applying Appendix A analysis prior to production
welding?
Question 9: Would the Fracture Mechanics Subcommittee agree that the
practices that are employed for qualifying individual pipeline welds for the
alternative acceptance limits after a defect under Section 9 is detected
could influence industry-wide expectations for applying Appendix A testing
and analysis prior to production welding?

Question 10: Docs the Fracture Mechanics Subcommittee agree that the
subcommittee members are better prepared to clarify the issues relating to
qualifying individual pipeline welds for the alternative acceptance limits after
a defect under Section 9 is detected than are insurance adjusters,
attorneys, judges and jurors who have never attended a meeting of the API-
AGA Joint Committee?

Question 11: Does the Fracture Mechanics Subcommittee agree the

subcommittee members should take an action item to clarify in a future
edition of API Sid API Std 1104 requirements for qualifying individual
pipeline welds for the alternative acceptance limits after a defect under
Section 9 is detected?

Question 12: Does the Fracture Mechanics Subcommittee favor allowing

qualifying individual pipeline welds for the alternative acceptance limits after
a defect under Section 9 is detected only if the process is performed with
the same technical rigor that is required for Appendix A testing and analysis
performed prior to production welding?
1104 20th Oct-05 11.1.6.1a 1104-I-0402-14 Background: For DWE/SWV procedures requiring multiple exposures, Response: Yes
where multiple pieces of film are used per exposure, we use at least two
IQIs per exposure. One IQI is placed within 1” of one end of the film length
to be interpreted and one IQI is placed at the center of the exposure.

Question: Is this IQI placement a correct interpretation of the intent of API

1104 20th Edition, specifically 11.1.6.1 paragraph A?

1104 21st Sep-13 11.1.5 1104-I-0403-14 Background: Section 11.1.5 has a new note that says: ”For purposes of Response: Yes. The note is in error. The note is being
IQI selection,…… When the DWE/SWV technique is used, the thickness of replace with the following: NOTE For purposes of IQI
the weld means twice the specified wall thickness plus the weld selection, when the SWE/SWV or DWE/SWV technique is
reinforcement (internal plus external combined).” That note appears to be used, the thickness of the weld means specified wall thickness
an error as it not a standard practice and will drastically reduce the requiredplus the weld reinforcement (internal plus external combined).
sensitivity levels of radiographs. Normally, for DWE/SWV technique IQI When the “elliptical” DWE/DWV technique is used, the
selection, the weld is defined as the single wall thickness plus the weld thickness of the weld means twice the specified wall thickness
reinforcement (internal plus external combined). plus the single weld reinforcement (internal plus external
combined). When the “superimposed” DWE/DWV technique
Question: Can you please confirm that this is not an error as it will effect is used, the thickness of the weld means twice the specified
radiographic procedure? wall thickness plus twice the weld reinforcement (internal plus
external combined).
1104 20th Oct-05 6.3 1104-I-0601-14 Background: A welder working for ABC contractor has completed and
passed the testing requirements of section 6.3 for a butt and branch using
a welding procedure approved and accepted by Company “A”. The welder
has complete the project successfully after several months and is still in the
employ of ABC Contractor. ABC Contractor then submits the same
qualified welding procedure to Company “B” along with the welders original
welder qualification records and a continuity report with no change to any
essential variable.

Question 1: Is it the intent of the standard that the welder continuity to be Response 1: Yes, provided that the qualification is conducted
qualified to this welding procedure if no questions arise about his/her in the presence of a representative acceptable to the company.
competence?

Question 2: Is there a set amount of time that can elapse between the Response 2: No, API 1104 leaves this to the discretion of the
welder welding in this process that would render him disqualified? company.

1104 20th Oct-05 pipe diameter 1104-I-0602-14 Background: Per API 1140, 5.4.2.2,c, “…each grade shall receive a
separate qualification test;” My interpretation is that WPHY 65 is a
separate “grade” and would therefore require an additional qualification, but
just want to confirm the intent of the Code.

Question: Does this include different grades with the same SMYS? Response: Yes, but also see note under 5.4.2.2.
Example, does a qualification on API 5L X65 to API 5L X65 also qualify
welding X65 to WPHY 65?
1104 20th Oct-05 9.7.2 1104-I-0603-14 Background: There are differences in acceptance for undercutting in RT to
VT acceptance.
Response 1: Yes, provided the method of inspection is
Question 1: Can we accept any depth of internal under cutting in RT if radiographic testing only.
length is within acceptance?
Response 2: Per paragraph 9.7.2, when both mechanical
Question 2: If so, then table in Visual acceptance is valid? testing and radiographic testing measurements are available,
the mechanical measurements govern.
Question 3: If not, can we find depth acceptance in RT for internal under
cutting? Response 3: See response to Question 1.

Question 4: If we see in RT Internal cutting do, we have to perform UT to Response 4: No

confirm the depth (if VT is not possible internally)?

1104 20th Oct-05 5 1104-I-0604-14 Question: Does the WPS you use have to show the same material grade Response: Yes, provided the material used for the welder
as what you are qualifying on a multi-qualification? qualification is the same as the welding procedure
specification.

1104 20th Oct-05 11.4 1104-I-0605-14 Question: Can I use ToFD as automated UT with Pulse Echo for surface Response: Yes, provided the procedure is qualified to the
coverage? requirement of paragraphs 11.4.2 and 11.4.4.

1104 20th Oct-05 5.3 1104-I-0623-14 Question: Can a welding Procedure Specification (Section 5.3) contain Response: Yes, if the welding procedure specification is
several groupings of single essential variable on the same procedure supported by specific procedure qualification records having all
specification as long as the applicable procedure qualifications (Section essential variable or combination of essential variable
5.1) were successfully completed? For example, can the Position (Section requirements properly addressed.
5.4.2.4) of roll and fixed and/or the Base Material as listed in Section
5.4.2.2 bullets a. and b. be listed on the same procedure specification such
as Figure 5.1?
1104 20th Oct-05 5.4.2.2 1104-I-0624-14 Background: My concern is in 1104 5.4.2.2 (20th ed) where it states WPS
shall be qualified to the highest grade material. My question about multi-
stamped pipe deals directly to welding procedures and API 1104.

Question 1: If you have, for example, B/x42/x52 triple stamped pipe that Response 1: Use of specific pipe is a design issue that falls
you are going to install into an x42 system, do you have to use the pipe as outside the scope of 1104.
the highest stamped grade (x52)?
Response 2: NO, the WPS to be used must have been
Question 2: Do you have to weld it with an x52 WPS? qualified for the grade of pipe being installed.

Question 3: Or can you use the pipe as either B or x42 or x52 and weld Response 3: YES. However, please see NOTE under 5.4.2.2.
according to intended application (i.e. using as x42 weld with a WPS for
x42)?

1104 21st Sep-13 10 1104-I-0625-14 Background: I know that if we qualify a full thickness repair it qualifies both
internal and external partial thickness repairs which only makes sense
given the fact that you are removing all of the weld down to and including a
portion of the root bead. It is our intention to qualify in the overhead
position for both procedure and welder and also include CVN testing as
well as it was performed for the production procedure’s as well.

Question 1: Does a full thickness repair also qualify a partial thickness

fusion line repair and a cover pass repair at the fusion line if the full Response 1: No, a through thickness repair does not qualify a
thickness repair included those areas as well? cover pass repair at the fusion line. However, yes, a through
thickness repair does qualify a partial penetration repair.
Question 2: Would this groove weld procedure also be able to be utilized
on a fillet weld repair given it was performed on the same material grade or Response 2: No, the essential variables from 5.4.2 apply to
grade range? repair procedures. Major change in joint design is an essential
variable. A change from a butt to a fillet weld is a major
change in joint design.
1104 20th Oct-05 6.2.2 & Table 3 1104-I-0401-15 Background: For welder qualification with a coupon of OD 4.5 ", Table 3, Response: Yes
shows, for a defined thickness, 4 test specimens are required, while for a
coupon of OD 6", 6 test specimens are required, which would suggest that
the qualification with coupon 4.5 "does not cover the same requirements as
the qualification on the 6" coupon, therefore welder qualified on a 4.5" OD
coupon, does not qualify for a OD greater than 4.5".

Question: Will a welder qualification successfully completed on a OD 4.5"

coupon, qualify from OD 2.375" trough 12.75" OD ?

1104 20th Oct-05 A.1 & A.7 1104-I-0402-15 Background: For the following example: 42 inch diameter API 5L X70 Response: Appendix A does not address this issue.
Pipe, with 20 mm nominal wall thickness; The original weld is made by the
GMAW process using a WPS with meets Appendix A in 1104. Automated
ultrasonic examination reveals a root pass defect which exceeds the
established criteria determined by engineering critical analysis. The
continuous circumferential length of the defect requiring repair is 75% of
the 42 inch diameter API 5L x70 pipe, or approximately 100 inches of
defective weld. Repairs can ONLY be made from the OD. The entire 100
inches of initial defective weld metal is completely removed and weld repair
is made with a WPS different than that used for the original weld. The
repair WPS is not required to meet Appendix A, regardless of repair length
and depth.

Question: When using a WPS for a weld repair which is different than the
WPS used to make the original girth weld which meets Appendix A, is there
a maximum length and depth of repair weld beyond which the repair WPS
must meet Appendix A?
1104 20th Oct-05 A.4 1104-I-0403-15 Background: If the welder qualification range for a test coupon 56”
Diameter and 0.88” Wall Thickness with a process of M-GMAW – Welding
Machine Type is PWT-DWS.02 welding machine (pwtsrl.com) in
accordance with API 1104-20th edition. As per Appendix A, A.4
Qualification of Welders, welders shall be qualified in accordance to
Section 6. For Mechanized Welding, each operator shall be qualified in
accordance to 12.6. So, the range for the Welders should be as per 12.6.1
e.

Question 1: Welding Operator shall qualify on the heaviest wall thickness Response 1: Yes, if the question pertains to a welding
(Please clarify this phrase) does this mean that welder’s qualification range operator and the thickness quoted pertains to nominal pipe
will be as deposited weld metal up to 0.88” (22.35mm) if he welded the thickness (not as-deposited weld metal thickness).
whole thickness?

Question 2: Or the thickness range will be as per section 6 (More than Response 2: Yes, if the question pertains to a welder single
0.75” (19.5mm))? qualification.

1104 21st Sep-13 10.4.3 1104-I-0404-15 Background: Section 10.4.3 references welder qualification limit and refers Response: Yes, an erratum will be issued.
to a test described in 10.4.3.

Question: Should the test references be 10.4.1, not 10.4.3?

1104 21st Sep-13 10.4 1104-I-0405-15 Background: For the qualification of welders to repair the item 10.4 Response: No. Repair welders must be qualified by
provides that these must be qualified using a completed weld to make a destructive testing. The provision for qualifying welders by
repair weld following all the details of the repair procedure. The repair weld nondestructive testing in 6.6.1 does not apply to repair welder
shall be deposited in the fixed position on a segment of a full- qualification.
circumference test weld for each repair type to be qualified in the
location(s) specified by the company, by performing destructive testing
requirements in 6.5 are for qualification of a repair welder, except that test
specimens shall be cut from the joint at each individual repair area location
for each type of repair.

Question: Due to the high cost involved in qualifying a welder by destructive

testing, is this case applied the provisions of item 6.6.1, “At the company’s
option, the qualification butt weld may be examined by radiography or
automatic ultrasonic testing using a qualified NDT procedure in lieu of the
tests specified in 6.5” ?
1104 21st Sep-13 6.2.2 1104-I-0406-15 Background: In item 6.2.2 for single qualification welders, specifies the
following condition for the essential variable of the filler metal “A change of
filler metal classification from Group 1 or 2 to any other group or from any
Group 3 through 9 to Group 1 or 2 (see Table 1)”. 

Question 1: As interpretation of this section can we say that if I have a Response 1: Yes.
welder with a classified in group 1 electrode, is qualified to complete
welding with electrodes which are in Group 2 and vice versa?

Question 2: If the welder does the qualification under a procedure having Response 2: Yes.
electrodes of Group 1 and Group 2. This welder can complete welds in
Group 1 and Group 2?
1104 20th Oct-05 Appendix B 1104-I-0407-15 Background: In accordance with Appendix B, Table B2 only refers you to Response: Appendix B is a recommended practice and
Longitudinal Seam Welds for Number of Specimens. therefore is not required by API 1104 (see Par. B.1). However,
if you elect to use this appendix, the recommendations for in-
Question: Is it required to perform nick breaks on fillet welds for welder service welder qualification are described in B.3, which
qualification? references nick-break testing for fillet welds in 6.2.

1104 21st Sep-13 6.2.3c 1104-I-0408-15 Background: The 21st Edition changed the language requiring welder Response: No. A change from Group 1 to Group 2, or vice
requalification when a change of filler metal from Group 1 or 2 to any versa, does not constitute an essential variable.
group. etc. versus the 20th Edition which was specific to changes to/from
Group 3 filler metals.

Question: Am I correct that the 21st Edition language means that a change
from Group 1 to Group 2 (i.e. any other group) filler metal constitutes
welder requalification?
1104 21st Sep-13 7.8.2 1104-I-0409-15 Background: For position welding, the number of filler and finish beads Response: No. Section 7.8.2 is applicable to filler and finish
shall allow the completed weld a substantially uniform cross section beads on the outside surface of the pipe only.
around the entire circumference of the pipe. At no point shall the crown
surface fall below the outside surface of the pipe, nor should it be raised
above the parent metal by more than 1/16 in. (1.6 mm).

Question: If the same thing applies to the pass root?, I mean if the
thickness material at the root pass should not exceed above the parent
metal by more than 1/16 in. (1.6 mm)., according to paragraph 7.8.2
according to API 1104, or not?

1104 21st Sep-13 9.3.9.2 1104-I-1113-15 I would like some clarification on section 9.3.9.2 lines A. and B. I have Response: Your question was sent to the 1104 Committee /
some colleague's that is telling me that the 25% of wall thickness is only NDE Subcommittee for review and redress. The NDE
used if you are joining two different thicknesses of material. I think that is subcommittee, as a result of this review, has proposed a
not true If I have some 1/8" wall joining to another 1/8" wall material and if Itechnical change to the document that would address your
have an 1/8" diameter porosity thin there will not be any weld metal question. However a technical change proposal to the
covering the porosity. document requires approval by ballot before it can be released.
We expect to ballot and issue this revision by early 2016 as
Question: Does the 1/8" fall in place after the wall thickness reaches 1/2"? part of Addendum 2 to API 1104, 21st Edition.
1104 20th Oct-05 Section 6 1104-I-1114-15 Question 1: An individual has taken and passed the multi-qualification on Response 1: Yes
12” diameter pipe with Group 1 (6010) & 2 (7010) filler. Are they then
qualified to be able to weld in a rolled position with group 1 & 2 filler without Response 2: Yes
further qualification required?
Response 3: No, the welder is not qualified for Group 3 by
Question 2: An individual is not a multi-qualified welder has passed a qualifying using Group 1 or 2 (see API 1104, Section 6.2.2.c).
single qualification on 12” diameter in the 6G position with group 1 (6010) &
2 (7010) filler. Are they then qualified to be able to weld in a rolled position Response 4: No, it is assumed that the joint design for the in-
with group 1 & 2 filler without further qualification required? service test is not a butt weld.

Question 3: For both questions 1 and 2 above, what if the roll procedure Please note that the references to the specific electrodes have
utilized a group 1 (6010) root and hot pass and a group 3 (7018) cap? been ignored and that only groupings are considered for these
replies. It is assumed that the joint configuration in Questions
Question 4: If the individual in question 1 also passed an in-service test 1 and 2 is a butt weld.
with group 3 (7018) would they be qualified to use the procedure from
Question 3?
1104 20th Oct-05 7.8.2 & 7.9.2 1104-I-1115-15 Background: API 1104, Section 7.8.2 and Section 7.9.2 state that the Response 1: Yes, see API 1104, Section 3.2.18.
crown surface shall not fall below the outside surface of the pipe and
should not be raised above the parent material by more than 1/16". Response 2: No

Question 1: Can a procedure which currently states the crown surface be

at a minimum of 1/32" above the parent material and not more than 1/16" Response 3: API is unable to provide recommendations for
above the parent material be revised to allow the crown surface to be flush use of a specific procedure or practice. Seeking input from a
with the parent material but not more than 1/8” above the parent material source outside of the API may be required to address this
without requalifying the procedure? question.

Question 2: Was the statement that the crown surface should not be
raised above the parent material by more than 1/16" meant to limit the
heigh operator may have on their WPS?

Question 3: Section 7.2 states the maximum offset allowed is 1/8", but the
“should” statement in 7.8.2 states 1/16". Does API recommend a procedure
to measure the crown surfaces when alignment exceeds the 1/16"?

1104 21st Sep-13 Section 5 1104-I-1116-15 Background: A WPS was qualified as per API Standard 1104 Response: Yes, provided that the requirements in API 1104,
requirements. The joint design as stated in the WPS is a combined J- Sections 5.3.2.4 and 5.4.2.3 are satisfied.
Groove Butt.

Question: Is it acceptable to use a joint design (Configuration) term

combined J-Groove Butt as per the requirements of API 1104?

1104 21st Sep-13 Section 7 1104-I-1117-15 Background: We want to use lineup clamp for root bead weld. Response: Bridge tacks are not addressed in API 1104. See
API 1104, Section 7.3.
Question: Can we use a bridge tack in the butt joint after removal of the
clamp; is it possible?
1104 21st Sep-13 6.2 1104-I-1118-15 Background: In API 1104, Section 6.2 single qualification for butt welding Response 1: No, see API 1104, Section 6.3.2.
pipe OD less than 2.375’’ and wall thickness less than 0.188’’ are essential
variables which would require a welding procedure of its own to qualify a Resopnse 2: Not applicable, see Reply 1.
welder to do so. On the other hand, in API 1104, Section 6.3 multiple
qualification states taking two test, first is butt weld of OD at least 6.625’’ Response 3 & 4: Questions 3 & 4 cannot be answered given
and wall thickness at least 0.250’’ which would qualify the procedure for that insufficient information was provided.
(ALL) butt welds from 12.750’’ OD and less also (ALL) wall thickness up to
0.750’’ and the second is branch of the same size OD 6.625’’ and wall
thickness at least 0.250’’ which would qualify the procedure from 12.750’’
OD and wall thickness 0.750’’ and less.

Question 1: Is there any terminology in the API 1104 standards that tells us
that a separate test is required to qualify a procedure to weld on pipes less
than 2.375’’ OD and wall thickness less than 0.188’’ for a multiple
qualification?

Reasoning, they are the same test, butt and branch why would the 1.1/2’’
butt weld NOT be required in the multiple qualification?

Question 2: If so where is it, (what section)?

Question 3: Are we covered to weld a butt weld on a ¾’’ steel service line?

Question 4: Are we covered to weld a ¾’’ socket fitting on a service line?

1104 21st Sep-13 N/A 1104-I-1119-15 Background: There is no interpretation or definition in API 1104 on what is Response: “Hot pass” is a term not used in the API 1104
a "hot pass" and it limitations. A hot pass is a pipeline terminology for the Standard and therefore API has no basis on which to formulate
subsequent welding pass after the root pass is completed. This hot pass is a reply.
used to burn off any impurities from the root pass. This is usually
considered a singular pass and not should be used for buildup in a weld
joint. My interpretation is that what a fill weld application is used for.

Question: Is a hot pass limited to one pass or can it be used multiple times
in the buildup in a weld joint?
1104 20th Oct-05 9.3.4 1104-I-1120-15 Background: Radiographic film is displays an indication along the toe of Response: Yes
where the root should be if the root was present, the indication appears to
look like a very faint slag line however once the weld is cut out you can
visually see that the root has not fully penetrated the ID of the pipe. The
edge of the bevel has been broke down and not under cutting is present
but the weld metal deposited does not fuse directly into the base material at
this point. The point of fusion where the toe of the root directly merges into
the base metal is above the ID surface of the pipe.

Question: API 1104, Section 9.3.4 refers you to Figure 16. Is it the intent
of API 1104 to apply acceptance criteria of Section 9.3.4 when the root
does not fuse directly into the ID portion of the base material (i.e. breaking
down the bevel but leaving a void between the ID surface of the base
material and the deposited weld metal)?
1104 20th Oct-05 & 21st 5.3.2.10 1104-I-1121-15 Background: Between passes, API 1104 states “the maximum time between the Response: Yes, the intent of API 1104, Section 5.3.2.10 is to identify
Sep-13 completion of the root bead and the start of the second bead, as well as the the maximum time between the 1st pass and 2nd pass and the
maximum time between the completion of the second bead and the start of the other maximum time between the 2nd pass and 3rd pass.
beads, shall be designated.”
National’s understanding of the intent of API 1104, Section 5.3.2.10 is to define on
the WPS, the maximum allowable time between the completion of the root bead and
start of the hot pass (second pass) – which is an essential variable, as well as the
maximum time between the completion of the hot pass (second pass) and start of
the first filler pass (third pass). National interprets the word “beads” in this section to
mean the grouping of all remaining welding passes after the second pass and
therefore understands that, if the WPS specifies the maximum time between the
completion of the hot pass (second pass) and start of the first filler pass, the
requirement to specify the “time between the completion of the second bead and the
start of the other beads” as described in API 1104, Section 5.3.2.10 is specified.
Or alternately, should the requirement of API 1104, Section 5.3.2.10 be interpreted
to mean the “maximum time between completion of second bead and third pass,
second bead and fourth pass, and so on and so forth to second bead and final
pass”? It is National’s understanding that API 1104 does not require the WPS to
defined the time between each of the remaining passes as described in the
sentence above.

Question: National is requesting API to provide a concise “yes” or “no” response

confirming that National’s above explanation of the intent of API 1104, Section
5.3.2.10 accurately described the purpose and objective of this section. If National’s
understanding is inaccurate or incomplete and/or does not meet the intent of API
1104, Section 5.3.2.10, National requests an explanation in order that we
comprehensively understand the requirements?
1104 21st Sep-13 Section 5 1104-I-1122-15 Background: I have 2 difference pipes consisting of Response: Yes, any one of the 6 PQRs could support a WPS
1) Diameter 12" , 17.44 mm Wall thickness , Grade API 5L X52, and that could be written to cover the wall thickness and material
2) Diameter 12", 21.43 mm Grade API 5L B combination listed in the background. However, please
From the above, I have to weld unequal wall thickness and SMYS. reference API 1104, Section 5.4.2.2 Note 1.

Question: Note that API presumes the questions “Could I use…” is

1. Could I use PQR which pipe Diameter 12", 17.44 mm Grade API 5L X52 applied to the material combination listed in the background.
for production weld?

2. Could I use PQR which pipe Diameter 12", 20 mm Grade API 5L X52 for
production weld?

3. Could I use PQR which pipe Diameter 12", 9.5 mm Grade API 5L X52
for production weld?

4. Could I use PQR (Unequal wall thickness) which pipe Diameter 12", 9.5
mm Grade API 5L X52 welding with Diameter 12", 20 mm Grade API 5L
X52 for production weld?

5. Could I use PQR (Unequal wall thickness and SMYS) which pipe
Diameter 12", 9.5 mm Grade API 5L X52 welding with Diameter 12", 20
mm Grade API 5L B for production weld?

6. Could I use PQR (Unequal wall thickness and SMYS) which pipe
Diameter 12", 9.5 mm Grade API 5L B welding with Diameter 12", 20 mm
Grade API 5L X52 for production weld?
1104 20th Oct-05 Section 6 1104-I-1123-15 Background: API 1104 states (on page 19) that piping shall be welded by Response: Yes
qualified welders using qualified procedures and in accordance with the
procedure specification. Base material is an essential variable in qualifying
a procedure and it seems that if a welder is going to do production welding
on X65 pipe that testing on X42 pipe would not be using the same
procedure that would be used in production welding. This has been a
debate for some time among pipeline inspection and construction
professionals. Your clarification would be greatly appreciated and help to
resolve the interpretation differences by having clarification come from the
originator of the API 1104 that we all use in welding of pipeline. and related
facilities. 

Question: If a WPS is established to join X65 pipe to X65 pipe can a

welder qualify to weld on X65 pipe by performing a qualification test on X42
pipe?

1104 21st Sep-13 10.4.2 1104-I-1124-15 Background: In API 1104, Section 10.4.2 (Testing of Repairs), for a repair Response: No, API 1104, Section 10.4.2 should not reference
welder qualification test weld, the repair weld shall meet the visual Section 10.3.7.2. An erratum shall be issued to correct this
examination requirements of API 1104, Sections 6.4 and 10.3.7.2. The error.
destructive testing requirements in API 1104, Section 6.5 are for
qualification of a repair welder, except that test specimens shall be cut from
the joint at each individual repair area location for each type of repair. The
total number of specimens and the test to which each shall be submitted
are shown in Table 7.
A) In Table 7, It is not required.
B) In Section 6.5 (Destructive Testing), It is not required.
C) In Sectoin 10.3.7.2 (Macrosection/Hardness Tests), It is required.

Question: Is the test specimen preparation for macrosection necessary to

repair welder qualification?
1104 20th Oct-05 Section 11 1104-I-1125-15 Background: Placement of image quality indicators (IQI) . Response 1: Yes

Question 1: Would only one IQI be required on a 2" weld repair using Response 2: No
DWE/SWV procedure?

Question 2: Would only two IQI's be utilized on a single weld repair for 12"
weld using a DWE/SWV procedure?

1104 21st Sep-13 Section 6 1104-I-1126-16 Question 1: Per the API 1104 code, a welder passed a butt and branch Response 1: Yes
test on 12" or larger pipe with cellulose root and hot pass; and fill and cap
with low hydrogen. Since he ran a butt and branch with low hydrogen as Response 2: No, the interpretation of the “current person” is
the filler metal, is he qualified to weld a fillet weld completely? Yes or No incorrect.

Question 2: A current person is trying to say they must run the root and hot Response 3: Yes
pass in the fillet weld with cellulose because the welder took a butt and
branch root and hot pass was with cellulose? Yes or No Response 4: Yes

Question 3: In my interpretation a fillet weld has backing so it is a fillet weld Response 5: API does not address ASME Code requirements.
and the welder ran the filler passes on the butt & branch with low hydrogen
so he can weld any fillet weld with low kydrogen? Yes or No Response 6: No, a multiple qualification (butt and branch)
using only Group 3 electrode is required. Additionally, essential
Question 4: If it was a butt weld then he would have to run cellulose for variables for welder qualification would still apply.
root & hot pass then fill and cap with low hydrogen? Yes or No
Note: API presumed that the original butt and branch WPS
Question 5: For a welder to be qualified to run an open root on a was qualified with cellulosic electrodes used for the 1st and
"BRANCH" connection with low hydrogen would a 2" schedule 160XXH butt 2nd passes, and low hydrogen electrodes used for remaining
weld test welded completely with low hydrogen per the ASME code qualify passes.
the welder to run a branch connection? Yes or No

Question 6: Am I correct to say to be qualified to weld any "Branch"

connection completely with low hydrogen the welder would have to qualify
by passing a 12" branch with low hydrogen electrodes for the complete
weld? Yes or No
1104 21st Sep-13 Section 5 1104-I-1127-15 Question: It is allowed to use of a Standard Welding Procedure Response: No
Specification (SWPS) of AWS under the requirements of API 1104?
1104 21st Sep-13 6.2.1 1104-I-1128-15 Background: For single qualification of a welder contractors are Response: No, see API 1104, Section 6.2.1 “…segments of
questioning the fact that we are requiring the welder to complete a "Butt pipe nipples.”; testing as defined in API 1104, Figure 12,
Weld" on 20 inch O.D. pipe for production welding on 20" .300 W.T. piping. including Note 1 apply.
The contractor has opted not to take the 12.750 "Butt and Branch" for
multiple qualification which would allow the welders to then weld all
diameters. The contractors are opting to single qualify so I instructed them
that if they are wanting to single qualify that each welder will have to
complete a 20" "Butt weld" and have it destructively tested per API 1104
which states that for 20" .300 W.T. 12 specimens shall be taken and shall
be taken from locations "Equally spaced around the pipe". The contractor is
stating that the welder should be able to "Brother-In-Law" the 20" pipe on
the test. Which in my opinion is incorrect due to the fact of the welder not
making a complete weld around the entire circumference of the pipe and
that would prohibit the removal of the correct amount of test specimens "
Spaced equally around the pipe" on each welder. We would only be able to
remove the specimens on each welder on half of the pipe so in my opinion
the welder would not be qualified per API 1104 to weld on 20" O.D pipe.

Question: I have told the contractors that I have not seen anything in API
1104, Section 6 (Qualification of Welders) that says the welders allowed to
"brother-in-law" a qualification test. Is this interpretation of Section 6 of API
1104 correct?
1104 20th Oct-05 Section 5 1104-I-1129-15 Background: According to API 1104, 20th edition of standard, but Response 1: No, Nick Break tests are required.
unfortunately result of all the tests were accepted expect nick break test (1
to 4 specimens failed). The contractor repeated procedure qualification Response 2: No, only one failure is allowed to be retested.
tests with 4 different electrode brands and 7 different welder groups.
Tensile and bend test results were acceptable. According to specification of
the project impact and hardness tests were mandatory and their results
were acceptable: average of Charpy V-notch energy was more than
45J/cm2 (100 to 240 J/cm2) and hardness values were less than 275 HV10
(180 to 210 HV10).
.
Question 1: According to satisfactory results of radiography, tensile, bend,
hardness and impact tests, is that possible not to consider nick break test
for qualification of welding procedure?

Question 2: According to satisfactory results of radiography, tensile, bend,

Hardness and impact tests, if some of the nick break specimens fail, is that
possible each failed specimen be replaced by one nick break specimen?

1104 21st Sep-13 6.2.1 & 6.2.2 1104-I-1130-15 Background: API 1104, Section 6.2.1 states: "For qualification to a single Response 1: Yes
weld procedure specification, a welder shall make a test weld using a
qualified procedure..." Response 2: No
.
Question 1: Is a welder qualified to weld using any welding procedure
specification that has the same essential variables listed in API 1104,
Section 6.2.2 as the welding procedure used for welder qualification?

Questions 2: Is it the intent of API 1104, Section 6.2 to limit the welder to
be qualified for a single welding procedure specification that was used for
welder qualification?
1104 20th Oct-05 Annex B 1104-I-1131-15 Background: A welder is qualified under Appendix "B", with an electrode Response: No, the welder may not use an API 1104,
group 3 (fillet weld) (E-7018), he said welder qualified for that purpose. Appendix B WPS to complete a new construction weld.
.
Question: Can the same welder weld a fillet weld (no use of API 1104,
Appendix "B"), using the same WPS Appendix "B", keeping all essential
variables in accordance with paragraph API 1104, Section 6.2, including
the electrode group 3 (E-7018).

1104 21st Sep-13 Figure 10 1104-I-1132-15 Question: Is it correct to assume that when qualifying a repair procedure, Response: No, side bends are not part of the fillet weld
for repair of fillet welds, that the procedure can be qualified by destructively qualification testing matrix, see API 1104, Figure 10.
testing a total of (4) side bends?
Note: Qualification of a Fillet Weld Repair Procedure is
currently not addressed by API 1104, Section 10. The
subcommittee will consider including this in a future revision of
API 1104.

1104 21st Sep-13 6.6 1104-I-1133-15 Background: I understand automatic ultrasonic testing is the technique able Response 1: The question is unclear. API can only address
to record in 100% the weld inspected. questions that pertain directly to the requirements with the
document.
Question 1: Is this correct?
Response 2: No, API 1104, Section 6.6.1 refers to automatic
Question 2: Can I use semi-automatic scanner for this application or only ultrasonic testing.
automatic scanner shall be apply?

1104 20th Oct-05 11.4.7.1 1104-I-1134-15 Background: API 1104 (20th Ed), Section 11.4.7.1 states that, "Manual Response: No
compression wave testing of parent material shall be performed with the
second back wall echo from the reference standard adjusted to at least
80% full screen height".

Question: Is it the intent to utilize the response from the bottom of the N10
notch in the reference standard?
1104 21st Sep-13 5.4.2 1104-I-1135-15 Background: Concerning API 1104, Section 5.4.2, “The compatibility of the Response 1: Please see Special Notes in the 1104 Standard.
base material and the filler metal should be considered from the standpoint “Users of this Standard should not rely exclusively on the
of mechanical properties”. information contained in this document. Sound business,
scientific, engineering, and safety judgment should be used in
Question 1: Can we say this is a good engineering practice? employing the information contained herein.”

Question 2: Is acceptable for conformance to API 1104, to adopt one filler Response 2: API 1104 does not specify what filler metal to
metal E6010 classification in the root pass of a butt joints in API 5L X70- use for a particular welding procedure.
PSL 2 piping class (base metal)?
Response 3: Not applicable, see reply 2.
Question 3: If the answer is positive, kindly request, who has the authority
to accept this use? Response 4: Any combination of consumables can be used
provided requirements detailed in this Standard are satisfied.
Question 4: Is it required some specific quality control procedure for the
weld made with this filler metal ( E6010)?

1104 21st Sep-13 10.4.2 1104-I-1136-15 Background: API 1104, 21st edition states in Section 10.4.2 that the repair Response: No, API 1104, Section 10.4.2 should not reference
weld shall meet the visual examination requirements of Sections 6.4 and Section 10.3.7.2. An erratum shall be issued to correct this
10.3.7.2. error.

Question: Does this mean that we have to extract at least one specimen
for macrosection regardless that Table 7 in which the macrosection is not
requested?

1104 20th Oct-05 9.3.9.2c 1104-I-0222-16 Background: My question is in regards to the sizing and spacing in the Response: Yes. Per API 1104, Section 9.3.9.2.c, the porosity
Figures 19 and 20. They show porosity of various sizes and spacing, with spacing must conform to Figure 19 or 20.
the larger pores with some distance between them.

Question: Is it correct to interpret that the spacing of the larger acceptable

sized pores, be spaced such that the distance is similar to the figure?
1104 21st Sep-13 6.2.3 & 10.4.1 1104-I-0223-16 Background: API 1104, Section 6.3.2 lists the essential variables for the Response: Yes, just as the essential variables in API 1104,
welder who has qualified in compliance with part 6.3, Multiple Qualification. Section 12 and API 1104, Annex A are not referred to in API
API 1104, Section 6.3.2 lists specifically three essential variables for a 1104, Section 5, these requirements in API 1104 Section 10 do
welder who has qualified by the multiple qualification process. Basically, if not need to be referred to in API 1104, Section 6. However,
the welder qualifies performing the 12-3/4” OD butt weld and the full size 12- the reverse is not true.
3/4” branch on run weld successfully, they are qualified unlimited within the
limits of the listed essential variables.

Question: Does the statement in API 1104, Section 10.4.1 add an

essential variable to API 1104, Section 6.3.2?

1104 21st Sep-13 5.4.2.13 1104-I-0224-16 Background: API 1104, Section 5.4.2.13 says, “A decrease in the specified Response: Yes, it is also the temperature prior to the start of
minimum preheat temperature constitutes an essential variable”. each pass.

Question: It is the beginning of the first pass which corresponds to the NOTE: Please refer to AWS A3.0 for the definition of
minimum preheating temperature specified? “preheat”.

1104 20th Oct-05 12 1104-I-0225-16 Background: A mechanized procedure qualification record (PQR) was Response: Yes
developed to the requirements of API 1104, Section 12, prior to production
welding. Subsequently, a welding procedure specification (WPS) was
authored and issued for production. Soon thereafter, a second WPS was
requested which intended to use the same PQR as the first WPS.

Question: Is it acceptable to author multiple welding procedures under one

primary PQR?
1104 21st Sep-13 10.2.3c & 10.4.1 1104-I-0226-16 Background: API 1104, Section 10.4.1 in the second sub-paragraph Response: No
requires that a welder performing a repair on a weld using a qualified repair
procedure “…shall be qualified using the applicable qualified repair
procedure.”

Question: In accordance with API 1104, Section 10.2.3, c), if a company

does not require repair procedures for defects other than cracks and if
neither a) nor b) are applicable, is a repair procedure required?

1104 21st Sep-13 11.1.6.1 a) 1104-I-0620-16 Background: Section 11.1.6.1 a) third sentence, has added the words "or Response: No. The standard, as worded currently, requires
multiple films" to the section which would infer that when performing a two IQIs on each film length greater than 5 inches.
SWE/SWV (panoramic exposure) in a single exposure using multiple
overlapping films, two IQI would have to be placed on each film length over NOTE The 1104 NDT Subcommittee is currently evaluating
5". One IQI center and one IQI within one inch of the end of the area of Sections 9 and 11 for the upcoming 22nd Edition of the
interest. This would require an inordinate amount of IQIs placed around the document. This subject is to be discussed at the next meeting.
circumference of large diameter pipe which in no way would prove greater
sensitivity than placing four IQI evenly spaced around the circumference of
the pipe as stated in sentence one of 11.1.6.1 a), or by placing one IQI
center of each overlapping film.

Question: Is this in error or is this the intent of the code?

1104 21st Sep-13 5.3.2.3 1104-I-0621-16 Background: 5.3.2.3 Diameters and Wall Thicknesses - The ranges of Response: No. However, the range of specified outside
specified outside diameters (ODs) and specified wall thicknesses over diameters over which the procedure is applicable must be
which the procedure is applicable shall be identified. Examples of identified (in reference to section 5.3.2.3).
suggested groupings are shown in 6.2.2 d) and 6.2.2 e). A PQR was NOTE Please see Section 5.1, last sentence.
qualified on 40” OD (diameter pipe), hence the qualification range of
diameter is supposed to be specified OD greater than 12.750 in. (323.9
mm). But A WPS was received as qualified for all the diameter where the
Procedure has been qualified on 40” API pipe.

Question: Is the outside diameter an essential variable?

1104 21st Sep-13 5.4.2.2 1104-I-0622-16 Question: Is it allowed to weld the different mechanical properties of Response: No. ASTM A859, “Standard Specification for Age-
material (P1 (API X65) to P11 (ASTM A859)) without requalifying the Hardening Alloy Steel Forgings for Pressure Vessel
Procedure if the PQR is qualified with single mechanical properties of Components” is not within the scope as defined in Section 1,
material only (API X65 to API X 65)? which states this standard only applies to carbon and low alloy
steels.
1104 21st Sep-13 6.2.1 1104-I-0623-16 Background: Procedure A was written and qualified with X-52 pipe. The Response: No. API 1104, Section 6.2.1 says “…a welder
welder, when tested and qualified to procedure A, tested on X-65 pipe. Per shall make a test weld using a qualified procedure…”. A
1104, base material is not an essential variable when qualifying a welder, procedure qualified on X52 is not qualified for welding X65.
only when qualifying a procedure.

Question: If the pipeline consists of only X-52 pipe, is the welder qualified
to weld on this pipe per API 1104?

1104 21st Sep-13 5.4 1104-I-0624-16 Background: Pipe diameter limitation for WPS - with reference to Section Response 1: No.
5.4, no pipe diameter limitation specified for WPS however as per Section
6.2.2.d) a number of 3 groups of pipe diameters are defined. Response 2: No.
However, the range of specified outside diameters over which
Question 1: Is the diameter limitation applicable for welding procedure the procedure is applicable and must be identified (in reference
qualification? Section 5.3.2.3). NOTE Please see API 1104, Please see
section 5.1, last sentence.
Question 2: Is the diameter limitation applicable for repair welding
procedure qualification?
1104 21st Sep-13 1104-I-0625-16 Background: Base material P11C Procedure qualification test coupon is Response: API is unable to provide a response because
API 5L Gr. X65 pipe to same pipe, qualification done as per API 1104, base ASTM A859, “Standard Specification for Age-Hardening Alloy
metal Specification and grade in WPS is "API-5L-Grade X65 through Steel Forgings for Pressure Vessel Components” is not within
ASTM A 859 Gr. A Cl.2, WPHY X65", company representative rejected the scope of API 1104 (see Section 1) which states this
WPS due to dissimilar material like Pipe -API-5L-Grade X65 is P 1 where standard only applies to carbon and low alloy steels.
as Flange grade-ASTM A 859 Gr. A Cl.2 is P11C .

Question: Can we weld Group "C" materials with same group, where
impact test requirements are not required do we have refer P no's also?

1104 21st Sep-13 5.4.2.2 1104-I-0626-16 Background: As per clause No: 5.4.2.2, A change in base material Response: No. API 1104, Section 5.3.2.2 allows materials to
constitutes an essential variable. We have qualified PQR with X52 (group be grouped provided that the qualification test is made on the
“b”) materials. material with the highest SMYS in the group. The highest
SMYS in the group that includes X52 (i.e., what is referred to in
Question: Whether this PQR will support other materials (not X52) falls the inquiry as “Group B”) is X60.
under the same group “b to b” ?

1104 20th Oct-05 Appendix B 1104-I-0627-16 Background: We are involved from time to time with pipeline maintenance Response: Yes. API 1104, Annex B.1 states “The
and want to assure our procedures and work practices comply with the requirements for fillet welds in the main body of API Std 1104
applicable code(s) in this case API-1104, 20th Edition, Appendix B. should be applied to in-service welds that contact the carrier
pipe, except for the alternative/ additional requirements
Question: My question is does Appendix B in API-1104 have any diameter specified in this appendix.” See API 1104, Section 5 for
requirements or groupings for procedure or welder qualifications? procedure qualification and API 1104, Section 6 for welder
qualification.
1104 21st Sep-13 10.2.3a 1104-I-0628-16 Background: API 1104, 10.2.3a states that “Defects other than cracks in
the root, filler, and beads may be repaired with prior company authorization.
A qualified repair procedure shall be required whenever a repair is made by
welding…” As I understood the interpretation of above is that “If a repair
occurred in Root, Filling passes, cover passes, Qualified repair Procedure
is mandatory (as identified in 10.3 clause) if we are going to proceed for a
repair weld by any welding process.

Question 1: If we qualified GTAW + SMAW process using consumables Response 1: No. A qualified repair procedure is only required
ER70S2 +E7018-1H4R, after welding found repair on original weld by NDE, when the defect to be repaired is a crack, or when any of the
do we have to have a Qualified Repair procedure (with proven destructive items in API 1104, Section 10.2.3 occur.
tests, clause 10.3.2)?

Question 2: Can we re-use the same WPS which used in Original welding Response 2: Yes. If the WPS is in conformance with API
with same filler materials? (This WPS is not qualified for repairs by tests). 1104, Section10.2.3, it can be used.

1104 21st Sep-13 5.4.2.6 1104-I-0301-17 Background: A welding procedure qualified as per API 1104 with SMAW Response: Yes.
process, bevel fillet weld (branch connection), root pass with cellulosic
electrodes (Table 1 Group 1) and low hydrogen electrodes (Table 1 Group
3, eg E7018-1) used for the remaining passes.
Question: Can the above qualified welding procedure be used to support a
new WPS for production welds under SMAW process for non-bevel lap
fillet weld, using exclusively low hydrogen electrodes (Table 1 Group 3 e.g.,
E7018-1) for root and remaining passes without changes of other essential
variables?
1104 21st Sep-13 Annex B 1104-I-0302-17 Background: Specification requires testing samples to be extracted as per Response: Question is not sufficiently clear for the Committee
table B.1 & figure B.3 for procedure qualification. My interpretation is that to reply. You have not clearly defined which part of your
samples extraction as per figure B.3 can only be used for procedure question pertains to procedure qualification and which part
qualification using single welder i.e. if both upper and lower sleeve have pertains to welder qualification.
been welded by same welder and both longitudinal seams have been
welded by same welder. If we take samples as suggested by figure then
both welders must be used in combination always. If these joints are
welded by each welder, then each joint must be tested separately and fully
as procedure qualification. Further specification does not call for welder
qualification of branch and sleeve welds in appendix B.

Question: Considering a weld procedure qualification, out of 2 sleeves as

per joint configuration requirement of spec, if one sleeve is welded by one,
Should I do a total of 4 Nick Breaks, 4 Bends and 4 Macro tests? Or I
should do 8 Nick Breaks, 4 Bends and 8 Macro tests? If I do 4 Nick
Breaks, 4 Bends and 4 Macro tests only from locations as specified, are
both welders qualified along with procedure? If yes, can be they be used in
combination with other welders or they must always be used in same
combination.

1104 21st Sep-13 10.3.3 1104-I-0303-17 Background: A welding repair procedure ("A") is qualified (SMAW process)
according to API 1104, paragraph 10.3.3 - full thickness, with a successful
outcome. Note: The pipe materials are the same in all cases, and repairs
were carried out in approved welds, according to API 1104, paragraph 5.5.

Question 1: It is correct to apply the repair procedure ("A") in a weld made

with a combination of processes (SMAW / FCAW) without qualification Response 1: Yes
according to API 1104, paragraph 10.3.3 - full thickness?

Question 2: It is correct to apply the repair procedure ("A") in a weld made

with a combination of processes (SMAW / FCAW) with qualification in Response 1: Yes
accordance with API 1104, paragraph 10.3.3 - full thickness (since it
originally had a successful outcome)?
1104 21st Sep-13 10.5.3.1 1104-I-0304-17 Background: A welding method ("A") is qualified according to API 1104,
paragraph: 10.5.3.1. SMAW process was used in all the pass (the first
pass upward progression and subsequent progression downward, with
satisfactory return results).

Question: If I qualify a welding procedure according to API 1104, Response: The question does not provide sufficient detail to
paragraph 5.4.2, welding was done with the SMAW process (first and provide a yes or no response.
second pass with filler material group 2), (down) and the rest with FCAW
filler material group 9) process (downward). His result was satisfactory The
repair was carried out with the procedure ("A"), mentioned above. His result
was satisfactory. Is this correct?

1104 21st Sep-13 5.4.2.5 1104-I-0305-17 Background: Our company is currently planning to perform butt welding on
two (2) NPS 30 API 5L X70 line pipe with different thickness. One of the
line pipe thicknesses is 7.56 mm, and the other is 22.1 mm. WPS have
been qualified using base metal of NPS 30 API 5L X70, with wall thickness
of 10.88 mm. The 22.1 mm pipe will be chamfered to 7.56 mm before the
welding. Paragraph 6.2.2 (e) stated that wall thickness of 22.1 mm and
7.56 mm are on the different groups.

Question: Can we use the qualified WPS for NPS 30 API 5L X70 with wall Response: Yes.
thickness of 10.88 mm pipe to perform butt weld on NPS 30 API 5L X70
(with wall thickness of 22.1 mm) with NPS 30 API 5L X70 (with wall
thickness of 7.56 mm)?

1104 21st Sep-13 Table 3 1104-I-0306-17 Background: In accordance with API 1104 - 2013 ADDENDUM 2014, table
3 type and number of butt weld specimens per welder of Welder
Qualification test and Figure 12 shows the location of specimens.

Question: Can we use a single coupon for two welders (12-3-6 ‘O’ clock Response: Yes, provided the testing requirements (number
and 12-9-6 ‘O’ clock )? Or a single welder to complete 360° complete and location) for each welder are satisfied.
circumference? In that case. if two welders, then can you specify the
required quantity of specimens?
1104 21st Sep-13 8.3 1104-I-0307-17 Background: We are discussing about “the welding inspection personnel
qualification process of a pipeline construction project, welded according to
the API 1104:2013 requirements”. In order words: welding inspector
responsible to perform the visual welding inspection.

Question: In this situation is correctly to say that, in order to define the Response: Yes.
enough qualification requirement of one welding inspector, that will work in
a project build according to the API requirement, we need to follow the
requirement of item 8.3 of API 1104: 2013?

1104 21st Sep-13 3.1.7 & 5.3.2.8 1104-I-0308-17 Question: Can I weld a pipe fixed horizontal position and go by turning and Response: Yes.
continue welding in fixed position according to 3.1.17 and 5.3.2.8, although
the WPS was described in a fixed position without rotating, keeping all
other variables acceptable?

1104 21st Sep-13 5.4.2.4 & 5.4.2.9 1104-I-0309-17 Background: API 1104, 5.4.2.4 (Position) "A change in position from roll to
fixed, or vice versa, constitutes an essential variable". API 1104, 5.4.2.9
(Direction of Welding) "A change in the direction of welding from vertical
downhill to vertical uphill, or vice versa, constitutes an essential variable".
We have a WPS qualified to weld a pipe with a fixed horizontal axis,
vertical upward progression, the other variables being equal, also a
qualified welder for this purpose.

Question: If we want to make a weld with the same WPS and same welder Response: No for the WPS
but in a fixed vertical axis pipe welding in a horizontal position, do we need Yes for the Welder.
to qualify a new WPS and welder mentioned for this new situation?

1104 21st Sep-13 10.2.3 1104-I-0310-17 Background: Butt welds were made using a WPS and PQR satisfying the
requirements of Section 5.

Question 1: Is it correct to assume that the same procedure used for the Response 1: Yes, the original welding procedure may be used
original weld can be used to make the repair weld? to repair so long as the requirements of 10.2.3 are satisfied.

Question 2: In my opinion, I think the answer is “NO” since based on Table Response 2: No, the WPS used to make the original weld
5, the Macro/Hardness Test (Charpy Impact Test) is not a qualification does not need to be tested in accordance with Table 5.
requirement. Do you agree?
1104 21st Sep-13 10.4.3a & 10.2.3a 1104-I-0311-17 Question 1: Is it allowed by this code to use WPS 1st repair (full thickness) Response 1: Yes, the welder qualification does not depend on
to qualify a welder for 2nd repair (partial thickness), since we only want to the first or second repair.
see the welder’s soundness during qualification and refer to clause 10.4.3
(a) which only mentions the type of repair and does not mention whether it
is 1st repair or 2nd repair?

Question 2: Is it still allowed by this Code if my company decides to use the Response 2: Yes, provided the restrictions identified in 10.2.3
original WPS to do the 1st repair weld (refer to clause 10.2.3 (a)) and then are satisfied.
we just qualify WPS for 2nd repair?

1104 21st Sep-13 9.3.8.2e 1104-I-0312-17 Background: API 1104, section 9.3.8.2(E) states that if the maximum width
of an ISI indication exceeds ⅛" then it is not acceptable. Should it say "an
individual ISI indication shall not exceed ⅛", instead of "width of an ISI
indication"? If you have an individual indication then it would not be
considered aggregate therefore you should not be allowed ½” for an
individual indication that is not greater than a ⅛" in width. For an indication
that is ⅛" in width once it is greater than ⅜" in length it would be considered
elongated therefore it would then be unacceptable for being greater than
1/16" in width. Should an ISI indication be measured as a rounded
indication, whereas ⅛" would be the maximum dimension of an individual Response 1: No
ISI indication?

Question 2: Should the criteria in section 9.3.8.2 (E) state that "The size of Response 2: No
an individual ISI indication exceeds ⅛” (3mm)"?
1104 21st Sep-13 1104-I-0313-17 Background: I have a question about weld continuity for API weld tests,
specifically SMAW 6010 all the way out downward progression on pipe in
the 6g position. I see the same welders from utility companies and the city
re-certifying every 6 months to the same procedure and qualification. I
have been told by a CWI that it is a requirement of the API to recertify no
matter how often you weld to that code, which it just simply expires at 6
month intervals. Therefore you must take a practical assessment and weld
another coupon.

Question 1: Is it the same as other weld standards where within 6 months Response 1: No
you can perform a weld to the procedure and qualification and remain
certified in that process?

Question 2: Is re-certifying every 6 months to the same procedure an API Response 2: No

code requirement or is it at the employer’s discretion?

Question 3: Can we use continuity to remain certified past 6 months? Response 3: Continuity is not specifically addressed by this
Standard.

1104 21st Sep-13 5.4.2.8 1104-I-0314-17 Background: In API 1104, Time between the passes is an essential
variable.

Question 1: If the time exceeds the maximum limit, is the weld to be cut- Response 1: This weld would be in violation of 5.4.2.8. The
out? disposition of such welds is not addressed by this Standard.

Question 2: If the time exceeds the maximum limit, can one heat the pipe Response 2: No
to certain (preheat) temperature and continue the second pass?
1104 21st Sep-13 6.2.2 1104-I-0315-17 Background: Section-6.2 (single qualification) a welder who has
successfully completed the qualification test described in 6.2.1 shall be
qualified within the limits of the essential variables described below. If any
of the following essential variables are changed, the welder shall be
requalified using an applicable qualified procedure.
d) A change from one specified OD group to another.
e) A change from one specified wall thickness group to another.
A welder was qualified on a 46” dia pipe (greater than 12.750” dia) of wall
thickness 0.833” (21.15 mm) i.e. greater than 0.750 inch. The welder has
deposited a weld metal thickness of 4.8mm, 19.1mm and more than 19.1
mm i.e. 21.15 mm.

Question 1: Can the welder weld any thickness (Since he has covered the Response 1: No
highest possible thickness covered in the standard) above 12.750 inch dia
pipe or not?

Question 2: Or he can weld only 19.1mm wall thickness and above? Response 2: No, only above 19.1 mm thickness.

1104 20th Oct-05 Appendix A 1104-I-0316-17 Background: A pipeline construction project requires the use of internal Response: Yes
counterboring in order to facilitate the use of automatic GMAW to produce
girth welds between two different nominal wall thicknesses of pipe. The
heavier wall thickness pipes will be delivered with a pipe end condition
having an internal counterbore. The pipe ends of the heavier-wall pipes will
match the pipe ends of the lighter-wall pipes in both outside diameter and
wall thickness. It is the intent of the project team to quality welding
procedures between the heavier-wall pipes with counterbore and the lighter-
wall pipes and use Appendix A for the automatic GMAW girth welds. Both
heavier-wall and lighter-wall pipes are of the same API 5L grade.

Question: Section A.1 of API 1104 Appendix A states “The use of this
appendix is restricted to the following conditions – circumferential welds
between pipes of equal nominal wall thickness.” Assuming a weld
procedure qualification and all applicable mechanical tests are completed
per API 1104 20th Edition requirements, is it acceptable to apply Appendix
A of API 1104 for the girth welds between the 1.125” WT pipes (internally
counterbored to 0.833”WT) and the 0.833” WT pipes?
1104 20th Oct-05 & Section 10 1104-I-1115-17 Background: For a 48" x 24.1 mm API 5LX70 pipe to Induction bend, Response: For API 1104 (20th Edition), Yes, provided the
21st Sep-13 there is a qualified welding procedure, (SMAW root to cap); qualified on requirements of Section 10.2 have been met.
pipe to Induction bend (X70). After RT, a defect was revealed requiring a
full penetration repair. Also, there is qualified repair welding procedure, For API 1104 (21st Edition), Yes, provided a full thickness
(GTAW root, HP, fill 1, 2 & 3 - SMAW (fill & cap)). repair welding procedure was properly qualified per Section
10.3.
Question: In accordance with the 20th and 21st editions of the standard,
does the repair procedure (GTAW + SMAW) qualify a full penetration
repair to the original weld (SMAW)?

1104 20th Oct-05 7.3.1.1 1104-I-1116-17 Background: In regard to API 1104, 20th edition Section 7.3.1.1 the Response: There is no API 1104, 20th Edition, Section
penetrameter placement "shall be within 1 inch of the end of the film or 7.3.1.1. Section 7.3 in that document does not reference
image length to be interpreted”. placement of IQI. Therefore, your question cannot be
answered.
Question: Does that mean the wire pack plastic or the actual wire?

1104 21st Sep-13 5.1 1104-I-1117-17 Background: In Section 5.1, Procedure Qualification- "Before production Response: This topic is not explicitly addressed in API 1104.
welding is started, a detailed welding procedure specification shall be
established and qualified to NOTE: A PQR must conform to the requirements for the WPS
demonstrate that welds with suitable mechanical properties (such as based on the applicable1104 edition,
strength, ductility, and hardness) and soundness can be made by the
procedure. The quality of the welds shall be determined by destructive
testing.”

Question: Is it correctto use a PQR issued following a previous edition of

API 1104 to support a new WPS based on the 21st edition?

1104 21st Sep-13 6.1 1104-I-1118-17 Question: Per API 1104, Section 6.1, does a welder have to perform the Response: Yes, one welder can perform ½ of a
entire weld by himself or can the welder perform a weld on half of a pipe for circumferential weld as long as the test requirements are
12" and over (from 0 to 6 o'clock and then test). satisfied in accordance with API 1104, 21st Edition, Section 6.
1104 21st Sep-13 9.3 1104-I-1119-17 Background: Many CWI Inspectors tell me that the 1104 standard on Response 1: No, In accordance with API 1104, 21st Edition,
Porosity is 1/8" and larger is considered a defect. And the 25% rule applies Section 9.3.9.2a. an individual pore must exceed ⅛" to be
only when two different wall thickness are joined its 25% of the thinnest considered a defect.
one.
Response 2: No, In accordance with API 1104, 21st Edition,
Question 1: Is ⅛" and larger considered a defect? Section 9.3.9.2b the thinner of the two wall thickneses applies
even when both wall thicknesses are the same.
Question 2: Does the 25% rule apply only when two different wall
thickness are joined? NOTE: If the wall thicknesses are the same size, then both
are considered equally thin..

1104 20th Oct-05 12.6 1104-I-1120-17 Background: A project requires the welding operator to qualify on the Response: Yes.
heaviest wall thickness to be used during production. The applicable Code
of Construction in this example requires this wall thickness to receive post
weld heat treatment. The welding operator is required to qualify by
producing an acceptable weld using the qualified welding procedure.

Question: Section 12.6 requires each welding operator be qualified

producing an acceptable weld using a qualified welding procedure. If the
welding procedure has been qualified with Post Weld Heat Treatment
(PWHT), will the welding operator's test specimen be subject to PWHT
before meeting the requirements of 6.4 through 6.7?

1104 21st Sep-13 6.3 & 6.3 1104-I-1121-17 Background: We are making mainline welds with all downhill procedures. Response 1: No, the welder does not need to use the low-
The repair procedure is with low-high filler metal.. hydrogen (Group 3) welding procedure. The welder may use
any welding procedure to qualify per API 1104 (21st Edition),
Question 1: Does the welder have to be qualified single or multiple Sections 6.2 or 6.3, prior to repair welder qualification testing
qualifications with our low-high procedure per API 1104 (21st Edition), Section 10.4.

Question 2: Is it ok for him or her to be qualified with the downhill cellulose Response 2: Yes.
procure prior to testing to fix repairs?
1104 21st Sep-13 3.1.3 1104-I-1122-17 Background: Paragraph 3.1.3 the definition of Branch Weld was modified Response: There is not enough detail to effectively respond to
to read "Completed groove AND/or fillet weld joining a set-on or set-in this question.
branch fitting to a run pipe." In paragraph 5.8.1 figure 10 is referenced as
joint designs as the joint designs for fillet welds. One of the designs in
figure 10 is a branch connection. .

Question: Is it the intent of the code to have branch welds qualified using
both a groove weld specimen AND a fillet weld specimen to meet the AND
portion of the new definition or can a branch connection be qualified using
a single fillet weld specimen as outlined in paragraph 5.8.1 and figure 10?

1104 21st Sep-13 11.4.5 1104-I-1123-17 Question: When NDT PAUT Inspections are being performed on new Response: Yes, the AUT calibration reference standard
connector forgings to new 5L Line pipe welds, does the PAUT calibration requirement, that is cited in API 1104, Section 11.4.5, is to
reference standard have to be of the same pipe OD grade and thickness? match the pipe OD grade and thickness.

NOTE: API 1104, 21st Edition does not recognize the

acronym PAUT.

1104 21st Sep-13 B.2.3.1.1 1104-I-0306-18 Question: If the thermal conditions remain same as per PQR, can one use Response: No. Refer specifically to API 1104, Section
the pipe with higher CE values in PQR? For example, existing pipe in B.2.3.1.1, “A procedure may be used for higher carbon
facility has CE as 0.38. The pipe used during PQR has CE as 0.30. If equivalent materials than the material used for production
thermal conditions are simulated during PQR, can I use pipe with CE as qualification provided that the thermal conditions are less
0.30 for PQR and use the qualified procedure to weld the pipe with CE as severe than the procedure qualification conditions and no
0.38 or shall I have to procure pipe with CE as 0.38 or more? increase in the risk of hydrogen cracking results.”.
1104 21st Sep-13 10.4.1/10.4.3 1104-I-0307-18 Background 1: 10.4.1. states that the welder shall be qualified according to
the requirement of 6.2 or 6.3 in addition to the requirement of section 10.
Question 1: 10.4.3. does not indicate limits for the grouping of OD. Does
this mean that the grouping of 6.2.2.(d) apply also for repair welder Response 1. Yes.
qualification as per 10.4?

Background 2: 10.4.3.(b) states that a change in filler metal group (see

table 1) constitutes an essential variable and the welder shall be Response 2. Yes. Refer to 10.4.3(b) where a change in filler
requalified. metal group is an essential variable.
Question 2: Does this mean that a welder qualified with group 1 filler metal
(E6010 or E7010) is not qualified for welding with group 2 filler metal
(E8010 or E9010)?

Question 3: Is it possible to apply requirements of 6.2.2.(c).? Response 3. No

21st Sep-13 5.4.2.5 1104-I-0308-18 Background: With respect to WPSs we have the qualified thicknesses Response: Yes. A new WPS with the newly defined thickness
grouped in accordance with section 6.2.2 e as suggested in 5.4.2.5. For range supported by either of the two existing PQRs could be
simplicity I'll call the first group A, the second B, and the third C. We have written.
PQRs to support fillet welds on materials thickness B to thickness B as well
as fillet welds on thickness C to thickness C.
Question: Are these PQRs sufficient to weld thickness B to thickness C
fillet welds?

21st Sep-13 1104-I-0309-18 Background: A customer says one cannot reject a HAZ crack in Response: No. Section 3.1 refers to AWS A3.0 for definitions.
radiography since it is not stated in the API 1104 Standard. Refer to AWS A3.0 definition of “weld crack” which includes
Question: Are HAZ cracks acceptable if found with NDE? the HAZ.

1104 20th Oct-05 & 11.1.6.1a 1104-I-0419-18 Question: Pertaining to the text “When a repaired weld is radiographed, an Response: No.  Unless otherwise specified by the
21st Sep-13 additional IQI shall be placed across each repaired area”, is this also organization’s procedures, when the film length to be
required on film lengths less than five inches in length?? interpreted is 5 in. (130 mm) or less, one IQI is all that is
required. This applies to repaired welds as well.