Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum
When in doubt, read the instructions. Works with many things including welding stuff.
Hope all is well Brent
Its not hard to do MANY Things that can add to the quality of a project.
A good contract review before work (Not required by D1.1)
A mockup of the joint for things other than the standard Single Vee Groove on Backing. (Not required by D1.1)
A written test for any inspector to verify their ability to read, understand, and apply project specifications (Not Required by D1.1).
A verification that using the extreme limits of all allowed variables will still produce satisfactory welds such as Min Groove angle, Min Root Opening, Max Voltage, Min WFS, Max Root Face, Max Pass thickness, etc will al provide a sound weld. (Not required by D1.1)
Though these things may be good ideas, there is no basis for them in the code however a sound welding professional will understand many of them regardless as to their documentation on paper.
Though it may appear to "...border on ignorance..." if it was not part of a contract and mentioned directly or by reference, it is just that. We all gotta pick a side of the border and decide.
Its crazy though that somehow anyone thinks a welders skill somehow deteriorates after 6 months when if you compared the ability of a CWI who passed a test only one time on a Saturday to their ability to actually get the job done on the following Monday you would see a much greater decline in ability. If they do not start inspecting in a MONTH its worse, then 5 months worse and so on. They have 3 years to get enough "experience" and that requires no sound objective quality evidence.
Much of this could be handled on the spot if its an item of contention with a single written statement by a company that says "All our welders have welded with the xxxx process on a minimum of a daily basis since original qualification."
BOOM then the paperwork police are happy, it only takes a few seconds to review as opposed to sitting in the QC office hunting for something to write up and then they can get out in the shop and look at something that directly affects quality.
With my previous post and this one I think we have now gotten a little closer to buying the cup of coffee!
Have a great day!
:)
The tensile tests need to meet the requirements for the specified minimum tensile strength (Probably 70KSI) and NOT what is on the MTR.
Many memories for sure. Its a great career for sure!
Have a good one Jim!
A welder for most B31.X piping is qualified in accordance with ASME Sec. IX. There are no levels.
It was a 900 PSI superheater outlet header on a bark boiler that someone (the mill) had put an SA 106B pup piece into. They asked us to come look at it because they thought it had a pinhole because they saw it was blowing out the lagging. We were there on a recovery boiler outage. They shut it down and we removed the insulation and the HAZ was cracked along the toe of the weld on the SA106. More than 1/2 of it was visible and after the boiler cooled off, it opened up quite well.
When the fitter cut it, it nearly took his head off. Many of the spring cans had failed or not been properly set or were damaged when the pup piece was put ib. It allowed the pipe to move over the years.
We got the new piece of P22 and cut an beveled everything square but the vertical run of pipe had a "twist" and another horizontal run had crept. An engineer decided it was ok and said if we could weld it, then weld it. AI had no problem. I coulda made a ton a money on the "bets" that were offered. The 300 preheat was a bit tough finger resting the root pass in. The RT looked like a weaved 7018 Cap on the root.
It is 1-1/8" wall so its pretty hard to get a bad RT using B31.1/Sec I acceptance criteria.
Thought that was a weld to talk about as far as be being able to weld, you can be pretty sure I made a few to wash that glory away!!!
In general, the parts of a groove weld all work together to increase/decrease weldablility, increase/decrease volume of weld, and increase/decrease weld joint prep time.
There are standard joint designs that are preferred and typical for many situations. I have welded 10" Schedule 160 with a 3/32" gap at the top and a 3/4" or so gap at the bottom. Techniques and settings all had to be varied during every part of the weld to get an RT Quality Root for B31.1 requirements.
With SMAW, the joint geometry will come into play sooner than with processes with smaller diameter electrodes. Because of the larger diameter electrode and the fact that the flux is on the outside, the ability for a joint with an narrow root opening, narrow groove angle, or thick root face may be more difficult than one with a more "open" joint. On the other extreme, wide root opening, larger groove angle, or thinner root face may cause excessive welding/distortion, and make controlling the root profile difficult.
All of the "parts" of a groove play a role in how easy it is to weld. As your skill grows as a welder the "perfect" fitup will grow in tolerances and you will gain some preferences when you are in a situation that allows some variation.
As welders, we may or may not have any options but to weld what was put in front of us or go home and let someone else that can handle it, weld it up. (Not a good cjhoice IMO).
Your numbers you provided are not firm. A CJP groove with a 1/16 root opening, 1/8" Root Face, and a 45 degree included angle would be tough in most positions and most processes. Take that same joint and either open the root opening to 5/16"or reduce the root face to 0 with a 70 degree included angle and it becomes more weldable.
There are "standards" in many industries and the structural world has AWS D1.1 for prequalified joint details or restricted amounts that geometry can change before a WPS must be requalified .
For piping situations, there are standards that address the preparation on the ends of fittings but those are almost always altered in the field because of inconsistencies, WPS requirements, or welder preference.
I hope you continue to chase welding related knowledge.
Have a great day.
Gerald Austin
I had trouble that day also. Tried it from 3 devices, then it worked later that same day.
Have a great day Al
It was more the groove angle and not the root opening I was speaking of though they both work together to allow/restrict access to the root of the joint.
I have experienced extreme toenailing with 6010 occasionally and sometimes it was the result of arc blow more than anything. Another factor that can make it occur more often in a narrow groove angle or groove faces being rounded.
If the joint fitup can take the added amperage you can almost NEVER go wrong with turning it up.
Have a great day.
I have used the technique you speak of along with keyhole by whipping and even a slight side to side technique when the gap gets big.
For all of them, the joint configuration, amperage, and arc force all play a part. My preference on the overhead section of a pipe is to have the electrode pushed against the groove faces tightly. With a set of factory 30 Deg bevels then it is hard to get deep enough in the groove sometime. In that case, I turn up the amperage and make a bigger keyhole (All methods produce a keyhole for the most part). When I whip back into the area of the keyhole, I make sure my arc is very close. If I am getting ANY sparks outside the pipe, I am probably not getting the root in there with any amount of reinforcement.
There are many ways to put the root in. I have my students work on "open roots" by welding 1/8" and 3/16" flat pieces until they can get a decent root in them by all three methods. Sometimes I have them fit them with various root openings which may force them to stop and change settings or change techniques "on the fly".
Without observing someone weld and even watching the weld, it is difficult to "armchair quarterback" welding.
For wear resistant materials, It's my opinion that you are best off looking at the manufacturers recommendations.
That's got some truth to it too!
Consult with someone that welds. When it comes to "developing" WPS's, the "Code" is NOTHING without the ability to weld.
Though WPS's are grand documents, there are other factors that will contribute to the suitability of the parameters on a WPS.
Welders can make sound welds without WPS's. WPS's cannot make sound welds without welders. Just a thought.
Have a great day and welcome to the forum.
Regardless of the code allowances, if the WPS indicates plate only, the it would have to be revised, a new one written, or a new one qualified.
In some codes, plate procedure qualification tests would qualify a WPS for pipe. But if that WOS indicated plate only, then you could not use that WPS for pipe until the WPS indicates so.
I usually try to follow the recommendations based upon the filler metal classification. I have varied from that over the years and have used cellulose sodium (xx10) electrode on DCEN for root passes.
Though this is not indicated in the AWS Specification for this electrode, it does not mean it cannot happen.
I have never filled a joint with DCSP using SMAW. Some electrodes are "intended" to be used on DCSP so it would not be an issue.
The maximum thickness for root and surface passes is not addressed for prequalified WPS's for FCAW.
8.5.2.2 Gives the requirement and the exceptions. The Exceptions are not addressed elsewhere so there is no limit.
If you or the ATF has a WPS.
Understand that most operating companies are going to test you anyway.
The same thing goes with ASME.
Each ATF will have a different quality system and procedures.
You would have to look in the applicable code/standard.
ASME IX allows it, AWS D1.1 does not. But there are many more codes out there.
A Prequalified WPS's for welding of aluminum in accordance with D1.2 cannot be written. A WPS could be prepared and testred in accordance with various codes such as D1.2, B2.1, D17.1, ASME IX and I am sure others.
The use of a "Spool Gun" has no bearing on the qualification process. Eacvh individual code has rules for qualifying the procedure. To do this, it could be costly for your school and thus the reason its not done.
For an individual to take a welding test, they must have a WPS in all cases I am aware of.
A convention CV power source will work fine. A 1/8" fillet will require a faster travel speed than your typical 1/4" fillet weld at the same wire feed speed. 4 times faster
While high end pulsed machines can achieve the required settings with little to no spatter, a conventional power source may require some fine tuning.
Miller makes a new pulsed power supply that is in the 3-4K range called the Millermatic 255 and I used one last week for pulsed GMAW on aluminum and I like it.
The condition of 13mm is only required when the base metal thickness of the production weld exceeds the qualified range of the WPS used for the root pass.
If a WPS for a root pass process were qualified on 10MM material, using that WPS in production by itself or in conjuction with another WPS would be limited to 20mm.
If that same WPS were qualified on 13mm material, then if that WPS were used with another WPS on a production joint that was 100mm thick, the process for the root pass would be qualified.
To combine 2 wps's in a joint or to have a WPS supported by 2 pqrs does not require 13mm of thickness for a pqr.
QW 200.4 must be looked at in its context.
You can combine the PQRS to make one WPS. The 14.22mm thickness limit for "T" and "t" still apply so the WPS that could be written would have to limit the base metal thickness to 14.22mm if any GTAW was used.
Another way to think of it is like this. If you were to use each individual WPS on one joint, then the WPS must be valid for the joint. QW200.4 provides an exception to this but only if the PQR was tested on material 1/2" or 13mm thick.
Make sure EVERYTHING is in accordance with project specs!!!
One of the pieces of information you are not providing is the condition related to backing.
The filler metal being 6010 does not mean it was an open root joint.
If a joint was welded without backing during the performance qualification test, then the welder would be qualified with or without backing.
If backing was used, then the welder would only be qualified for cjp groove welds with backing.
Backing is not just a backing strip or ring. It could also be weld metal in double welded joints.
Have a good day!
Regardless of the code, there are many other "variables" that come into play.
Materials, Joints, Code requirements, company requirements, inspection and testing, documenting, reviewing and many more come into play. Each one of those can take different amounts of time. Mix those up with someone new to the process, and the time goes up.
Why do you ask?
Have a good day.
Gerald
Radiography is not mandatory for AWS D1.1. Radiography or Guided bend testing can be performed.
Ultrasonic testing is not addressed for performance qualification at all in D1.1. only for procedure qualification.
Clause 4 will have all of the details for those requirements.
I only see the need for 1. I do not see where QW-451 comes into play.
The code seems pretty clear on this in my mind if the requirements of the paragraph are followed.
Some great responses already but I might as well ramble on a bit.
#1. There is nothing that you can do that alters a document signed by someone else.
#2.Manners are not a consideration. Fraud is
#3 People make mistakes on paperwork...Only they can fix those mistakes.
#4 There is no restriction or requirements in most codes for how a welder is identified but the most common requirement should be "unique". Other places besides welding forums would have information on what a SS number can and cannot be used for.
#5 The qualified ranges column is the location for the ranges of qualification as allowed by the applicable code/standard. The actual variables are used in conjunction with the code rules to establish what the range of qualification is.
If you are involved in welding inspection, at some time you will be faced with pressure to do something that may not feel right. You are the person that has to live with it. There are some advantages of welding vs. inspecting welds.
Remember this. It is NOT a prequalified procedure until it is written! Some people assume they can weld using parameters within the range for prequalified WPS's without actually writing it down.
I'm niot saying thats what you are doing but I wanted to throw that out there.
If you can do an open root with FCAW or SMAW on Stainless, then you could possibly have a fully shielded root pass on the back side. This is possible but not easy. I have qualified with open root SMAW on stainless before for window welds and its very fitup/amperage/technique critical.
For Stainless FCAW, I am sure the possibility exists to do the same thing but that does NOT change the requirements of your document. If your supplier has some open root Stainless FCAW skills, I suggest asking for a demo!
That class was back in January.
I think the "official" time is still the same.
I was able to sit in on a class and the students emailed their results to the group. I think it was around 2 to 3 weeks for the 1st ones and then more following at different times.
It would be interesting to let welders apply their thoughts to the requirements for inspectors to maintain their qualifications. :)
If an organization wants to exceed the requirements of a code because they do something "special" they should.
I guess the good things about making the process documentation heavy is that need for documentation people can sometimes be filled with inspectors...provided they have the right "documentation endorsement"
Have a great day.
For a company to perform this repair by the codes in the US, they must be properly credentials AND have their own WPS.
Have a great day!
That is not a requirement in most codes. It may be a requirement on a WPS, company requirements, or even in project specifications. It is an extensively talked about subject and may have quite a few opinions.
Often times the number of 2-1/2 times the core diameter comes up. It is a "wives tale" level requirement if its taught as something a code said and does not tell you which code! That number can be found in some the AWS A5.x filler metal specifications but is only for certain tests to qualify the filler metals.
If you "know" that it must not be more than 3X, then you gained that knowledge somewhere. Take a look at that "source" and see if any references are made.
If you want to do some research on many of the fine opinions used in this forum, check out the search results in the following link or use the search menu at the top of the page.
https://app.aws.org/forum/forum_search.pl?words=width&user=&board=0&field=subject&min=&max=&order=desc.
No reference to a code makes things difficult. What code are you working with and someone may be able to point you to the information you need.
In some cases, a piping project may require NDE in accordance with the code of construction for the project. A common one is B31.3 in which NDE requirements are specified by piping class and also for welder verification.
For ASME B31.1, the nde is decided by the service conditions of the pipe and maybe diameter (I am not looking at a code and may be wrong).
Even with the code requirements, a customer may specify additional NDE if they choose to.
I have seen that going around. Ya gotta pick out the rules you like!
Please understand that your statement comes with some other requirements. If someone reads the statement without following up with the actual code requirements, then they could be mistaken.
I have used pro-write as a demo and noticed one or two little items but cannot recall them. With any welding related software, it's always good to know that the software is performing correctly as required by the code. If you have done that and are still not satisfied with what is happening, a call to the company is usually a good idea. I worked in customer support for another company and we got many calls in which the caller did not quite understand what the code "said".
The call will either result in the company telling you the code rules and how they match what the software (free knowledge) or they will tell you that it is a "bug" or something "they decided was better" or they will "get back to you".
Let us know how it goes but do take a look at table 4.5 before calling. I am pretty sure there is some info there about one of your items!
Have a great day.
It was a great holiday for us. Very relaxing.
I hope it was great for everyone else!
A procedure that meets the requirements of the applicable code and is suitable for satisfactory welding of the production joint.
To provide any more detail requires more detail.
You are correct. I was involved with the process performing inspection. They used FCAW-G if my memory is correct.
If the WPS states Short Circuit, is there a reason to doubt that? The Oscilloscope or High-Speed video would be a way to confirm that. Some 1200 FPS cameras can be inexpensive. They will not record the arc in high resolution but you can see the darkening around the area easily.
AWS Membership is required then I imagine you could call them for some help.
That is very interesting. my experience with Spiral Welded pipe has ben SAW only. 4.0 MM GMAW would be interesting to see.
The transfer mode is best established by observation as opposed to the theory since you are there to observe what is happening. An oscilloscope or even high-speed video could be used to observe what is happening if you are undecided between short circuit and globular. Because you are using 30% CO2 only then theoretically, spray does not occur. I, however, have never used 4MM GMAW so I am only speaking from knowledge of information read. I have observed metal transfer that looked like, sounded like, and welded like spray using 75/25 Argon/Co2.
Spray is pretty obvious when it occurs also.
A paper on the subject of transfer mode sensing can be read at
http://files.aws.org/wj/supplement/WJ_1991_04_s91.pdf which may lead you to more information other than opinions.
In my mind, your options are globular and short circuit if you are sticking to accepted "theory" but verification using theory is not as strong as verification using observation. There are variations of our standard "textbook" modes and many research papers on the process.
If you are trying to use the transfer mode as a basis for qualifcation ranges related to thickness, I strongly suggest verification of suitability on all thicknesses to be welded. I know that could be an expensive process on a spiral weld setup but for straight seams, it could be a little easer.
Sorry if I used big words! :)
As far as HT's went when I was active duty, advancement was very quick for the most part. The HT's that enlisted with guaranteed schools because of higher ASVAB scores would probably have a slightly better chance on doing well on advancement exams.
When my enlistment came to an end, I requested NDT School. I was an E-6 and they wouldn't allow it because it was considered a "conflict of interest" because I was a Nuc welder. Never did figure that one out. The other thing was that if I were to make E-7, there was no assurance I would keep on welding so I was done.
How things are done now, I have no clue since my time was many years ago.
Regardless, getting all of the "details" worked out before signing up is important but recruiters are really only a notch or two from car dealers.
If the job to be considered is only a small percentage of the group, then that could be a positive or negative thing.
Positive, you are "special".
Negative, advancement is slow and trained and experienced peers to work with are few. If there were only 100 1316's in the Marines then I imagine welding was not a big demand skill requiring welding daily.
If someone wants to go into the military there are many choices. I consider the Marines to be best at what they do, the Navy best at what they do and so on.
Regardless, nothing beats working for less than minimum wage at a job you can't just "quit" for a boss that may or may not be any count.
There are a great many resources to help with study questions besides just looking for the "answer". The parameters that you list are ones that very few including myself would be familiar with.
These research questions are for learning typically. Understanding the topics related to the question are the "goal".
If I am wrong in my interpretation, please let us know the applications where you use 4.0 mm solid electrode and 170 cfh of CO2.
One of the best ways to answer this query is to setup using the parameters and test them out...unless this is a question for your learning. Then the study of some theory related to GMAW transfer modes is suggested.
Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill