American Welding Society Forum
With consumable insert joints utilizing an Inverted T style the included angle is typically greater than that used on conventional open root joints. 80 degrees+. As the joints get tighter, pulling the insert is a little harder.
CS, SS all pull well in my opinion. As you move into Inconel, NiCU, and CuNi, things get more difficult. I shouldn't say it around these other ex navy guys but on seawater systems, I have pulled more than one insert out of a joint and open rooted it due to the difficulty precleanining the inside of the pipe to remove the seawater caused residue. Glad I did, it was helpful when I got to the "Real World" and realized nobody had a clue what an insert was.http://www.weldingdata.com/New_Folder/misc/consuminsert.html
is a page I made to answer a question a few years ago but it only shows a representation of an insert. Doesn't really say much.
I worked for the following
QBEK Inspection-Now owned by KBR. I averaged 20 hrs per week with them. They are looking to replace some people retiring.
Footbridge Staffing was good to me. Joe Squires is a contact 877-807-8400. They aren't doing anything today but like all headhunters, they will take you info.
SQA Services has called me a few times. I did some work for them 10 years ago (Including shopping for batteries) and a year or two ago. Seemed like a pretty professional outfit.
I thought I had posted t his earlier but guess my mind is going.
A filler metal that meets the requirements of the applicable AWS Classification will have specified "Nominal Chemical Composition" values stated within the specification.
You can lookup some of the ASME Interpretations on the subject. Here is one.
Question (1): If a particular submerged-arc
wire/flux combination does not conform to an SFA
specification classification, may one use that
wire/flux combination, and by what paragraph?
Reply (1): Yes, by the provisions of QW-404.5
which requires an A-Number or the nominal chemical
composition of the weld deposit to be stated.
This composition may also be designated by the
manufacturer's trade designation, AWS
classification, or established procurement
Anyone can certify anyone to do anything. The validity of the certification is based upon the controls put in place by the organization certifying. The suitability of the controls put in place are validated by the performance of the individuals who have certified in accordance with that system.
A certified welding inspector is not a trademarked term as far as I know. An American Welding Society Certified Welding Inspector is.
If a certifying organizations system is auditable and suitable for the tasks/abilities being certified, then what is to say they are not efficient.
I have seen some things that make me go "hmmmm" when dealing with individuals who have certified in accordance with one of the largest welding inspector certification schemes in the world!
Just of course my opinion and not based upon me being "certified" to offer up opinions on such matters.
I think websters should add the following definition to the term certified. "One of the most abused terms in the welding industry usually signifying someone has done something witnessed or reviewed by somebody, usually for some amount of money, supported by some system deemed valid by some people"
Have a great day.
I have to second the statement "...beyond compare..." . The content, peer review, and desire to share is unmatched in ANY other welding related forum.
I have piddled with other online resources but really feel this is the one where the people who are truly interested in advancing the art and science of welding gather.
I created a database years ago for inspection. Every inspection was entered. If I am tracking multiple Customers>Projects>PO>Line Items>Inspections I will ALWAYS want hard data. I can lookup today for every inspection I performed with the word "overlap" on an item to a specific customer, with a given ship date and provide a list in a few seconds. With pictures.
However, that extent may not be desired by everyone. When I did this, tablets and phones did not have this capability so I would either carry a notepad and transpose data at my next visit to the office OR bring my laptop in the shop.
I enter almost everthing in a database that I would ever want to lookup again.
There are plenty of other methods utilizing technology now too. Cameras with voice notes for images, ease of recording video etc.
It really gets down to your preferences and comfort with technology. I do strongly suggest archiving paper documents electronically. Flash drives are cheap and extremely tough. I have swam with and washed and dried more than one or two.
You may be right. I do think it will reduce the amount of penetration and I agree there is a point where "too little heat is too much heat". I have welded a few thin pieces with Argon and DCRP and the penetration was definitely limited.
If your material is thin, try adjusting your AC balance to Max Cleaning (+) . This may minimize the overheating of the puddle. In addition, if you are welding on a small piece of material, remember that once it gets hot, it melts quickly. Cooling your pieces to the same temp before welding each practice bead will help maintain consistent conditions for each bead until you begin to get "an eye" for what is happening in the puddle. The lack of ripples indicate the puddle is staying molten long and cooling down slowly. Try speeding up.
If your base metal is thinner or near the thickness of the filler metal things can be a little more difficult. Try the same settings on a thicker piece.
Thanks to all for the info.
Looks like the 2 suppliers here in town won't sell cylinders outright. The largest cylinder they will refill that is customer owned is an 80. I think they have figured out that it's better to rent items out that essentially last forever.
All of my machines are 64 bit so I don't even use these. I have installed it in quite a few others with no issue.
An equal leg fillet weld will normally have a theoretical throat .707*Leg Size .
However that is something designers decide. Not all welds are designed to be or need to be "Full Strength".
In some countries, the fillet weld size is referring to the throat. That is NOT the case with AWS Welding Symbols.
Hope this helps
Seems normal to me. If the weld sizes are specified by legs, then thats in the ball park. If specified by min throat it seems a bit much but still fine. The designer was the designer so I would check with him/her 1st.
If you are working with something that is sensitive to some overwelding you may need some face to face type help.
I only tried from one supplier when I was in Mississippi and they indicated they only rented bottles and sold gas. It was one of the ones you mentioned but I will check it out here.
So what is a good source for buying bottles outright ? Not sure about the vendor up here but that same vendor in Mississippi indicated they didn't sell them.
Never by an AI Agency and to be honest I have seen a wide variety of AI's between organizations. However that was 10+ years ago so maybe there is more consistency in training now I think. You absolutely cannot go wrong with Walt Sperko's class as a source to get you up an running in both basic and advance topics. https://www.asme.org/products/courses/bpv-code-section-ix-welding-brazing-fusing
Other courses may be fine too.
Attached is a spreadsheet I made for calculating gas costs of 2 vendors. The user can put input the values in blue. I HAVE NOT fully proofread this but figured it may be of interest to someone or spur some ideas. I of course welcome anyone to straighten me out on any errors, fix the spreadsheet, and upload it again for all to use.
For PWPS- There is a limit to Maximum bead with for some processes (NOT SMAW)- See Table 3.7
For WPS qualified by Testing-Its not addressed as you see in the code unless impacts are required. The variable to be concerned with is heat input if it is addressed elsewhere on the WPS.
What says you cannot weave is the WPS, so essentially, the code does say you can't weave however it is easily remedied by revising the WPS.
Hope this helps.
I know a Quality Manager for a Steel Fabricator that failed 2 or 3 times that I would love to have on my side when it comes to welding inspection, quality control, and code application issues.
He's taken the class 2x. But even before he went he was pretty sharp.
I was impressed and motivated by his energy.
Great Info. I can relate to that somewhat. Not long after I got out of t he Navy I went to a place in Memphis that built some material handling equipment. He gave me a couple of 3/8" plates and told me to weld them uphill. GMAW with 75/25. I set the machine where I could control the puddle uphill, tacked the plates, and he gave me the go ahead. I welded part of the plate up and he stopped me. He indicated he needed to show me how to weld vertical. He proceeded to trigger the weld all the way up. I told him I probably wouldn't fit in well in that environment.
I don't mind working somewhere that the organization may not know the correct things to do. I just don't want them to force me to do them wrong.
Thanks for the comments Al. Your comments have been appreciated and give me another set of eyes to see the welding world with.
Have a good night.
Are they the result of certification or lack there of is my point. How does the US rank in weld related deaths in comparison to other countries I wonder?
Has the number of weld related failures per welded product gone down since the inception of the CWI program ? If we have a problem then maybe we should look into a better system. A weekly report similar to what OSHA generates listing failures would be a great training aid.
As with many, my experience is limited and what I see only a small part of the welding world. You would think with ther high potential for death and loss of property, much of this information would be shared with the common welder, inspector, supervisor etc... Boy would that be a training aid.
Maybe a law requiring codes to incorporate the CWI program would really improve quality. I don't know. I have much to learn in these matters .
Have a good one Al.
Al, that was easier for my brain to follow. :)
You are correct about the possibility of pushing classes. I am all about teaching and making resources available to those t hat want to learn a little or alot.
Many of the instructors indicated a need to learn more about certain topics. A few mention the AWS resources, and other paid courses. I suggested that welding instructors form an organization that allows through networking, the sharing of information and practices with each other. Just think if there was a of instructors whom were willing to share their experiences, techniques, and resources to "further the art and science" of welding. . I brought this up at the open forum discussion but no real response. And its possible the way I say things doesn't go over well in public. But that is another topic altogether.
I too think that prescreening may be helpful. Maybe establish a baseline minimum proficiency by online testing. I don't know. And again, things aren't falling apart in the country because some guy allowed a welder with an ASME WPQ to weld on a D1.1 item.
Thanks for the comments
Thanks for the comments. I do think certification is a good idea. Documentation signed by someone indicating that someone has met specific requirements is a commonplace occurrence. But certification and credentials can begin to lose their value when a large number of people have them and it appears to allow individuals to be validated that are incapable of performing many of the tasks associated with the certification. My original post was concerned with the fact that someone suggested the certification program could be "improved" by mandatory class time. Yet in many cases I have observed (While Taking the Exam , and While Proctoring Years Ago), the majority of those who attended class seemed to struggle some. So the suggestion that making the class "Mandatory" struck me as a silly idea.
In my mind, one of the worst things you can do is teach someone the subject matter on a test, then give them the test immediately. I think a testing and certification system that is suitable for the task/job is sufficient. The CWI program has worked well for me. There is a wide range of knowledge held by employers as to what certification means. In welding, it means one thing for an inspector, another for a welder, and yet another for a SENSE certified welder. We could almost stand to have Certified Certification Inspector.
I propose nothing to replace certification, and I guess if I wanted to change it I should get on some committees. And though in depth interviewing as you describe is absurd, so is every little "stackable" credential that may come up for a CWI. One for welder Qualification, One for writing a Prequalified WPS for a carbon steel butt joint, reviewing a NDE reader Sheet, reading a project specification, verifying material, witnessing a PQR, and who know what else. Again, I'm not discounting certification, but it seems to be something that could get out of hand.
The question really is, “How far does one go and how much money is to be spent to prove ones knowledge and capabilities for the task under consideration?” I agree that the credential should a consideration when hiring someone to provide a service or to fill an employment opening. However, it is a recognized tool may overate, underrate or match an individuals potential.
I too am in favor of training. And even certification. But like all systems, a review may be in order. As far as I know, there are not tons of weld related failures occurring in the US that are the result of inadequate certifications. As you indicated there are many ways to learn. Forcing one method of learning is what I was originally concerned with. I fully support classroom training, I would just hate to become a second class CWI because I don't feel like paying someone to learn things that I learned from the welding handbook in the 12th grade.
I think there is a problem related to both individuals, employers, and agencies understanding what a CWI or Even a Certified Welder MUST be able to do, Might be able to do, and can Learn to do.
Again, I really like "certifications". And maybe even "Endorsements" to better document and verify abilities, but we need to make sure that when a system indicates someone has an ability, they have that ability. But it could also be perceived that just because an individual isn't proficient in one area, the whole individual is inadequate. Kinda like the statements I have heard from companies about a welder that couldn't read a tape measure. Though a desirable skill, I have worked with some guys I would pay top dollar for that only need a hood and gloves.
Have a great Day Al.
"Like any system of accreditation the CWI program isn't perfect. CWIs do make mistakes just as licensed engineers make mistakes and doctors make mistakes that are buried everyday. The human element is something that can't be overlooked. Any accreditation system that involves a human element is not going to be perfect. "
Very good point Al. I think with many things, there is always an individual element that can lead to a large variation in abilities. Accreditation may be given more "credit" than its due in some cases.
Thanks Kent. But with experience only, it would have taken me years to be able to pass the exam. The study time that I put into it was based upon an interest in welding with no knowledge of the CWI program for most of that time. I do think some way to better confirm related experience would be nice. And maybe that is done now. Maybe someone goes over in detail what is on an application, makes a few calls, and sends the application on down. Or not.
My concern is a "Mandatory Course" would probably lead to a "Mandatory Paid Course" and thus be a burden to those who have dedicated many hours to self study.
I think that often times we organizations think of "certification" as a fix all solution for a system that doesn't work to begin with. I think testing and certification is a great way to get started, but lets not depend on that piece of paper to assure that our employees are doing what is expected. Let them know what is expected, monitor their performance, coach them where needed, and move them up in responsibility.
My intent in the "Better pre-screening prior to testing" item was in relation to documentation of experience.
I don't know about now, but when I certified 1st time many years ago, the industry I worked in had few CWI's. Yet the industry prospered. However within that industry, all of the companies involved were required to have a documented quality control system that addressed many of their tasks. I think Certification is fine, but its never going to be the magic solution to assure knowledge and ability. Just another tool to help assure a minimum level of knowledge. Certification (Inspector/Welder or Other) is no replacement for sound screening of individuals and a well documented quality system that addresses qualification and training requirements.
Thanks for your response Brent. Not sure how the poll would go over. Figured I would try it.
During the educational Conference this past week there were a great deal of comments and discussions. I probably ran my mouth a bit too much. At the end there was an open forum to throw out some comments to the panel. A few comments were made regarding the inability of CWI's to perform certain functions. One of the people in the audience indicated he felt mandatory classroom training would help.
I already had a few things I wanted to bring up and during most of the conference I had probably used more than my allotted time so I refrained from saying anything. But just the suggestion that the ability of a CWI is improved by taking a 2 week class blew me away.
Wonder what others may feel about this? The possibility exists that maybe I felt so strongly due to the fact that I never took a prep class for the CWI exam. However as a CWI I don't think I have come across anything I didn't understand because I didn't learn to tab and highlight my code book.
I think that if those who took a course were required to wait a period of time before taking the test it could improve the likelihood that there was some actual retention.
I don't know the answer but I would think that someone who takes the test without the course and passes represents a different type of knowledge than someone who completed a course of Friday and tested on Saturday.
And maybe I "mis-listened".
There was a man from Arizona. Samuel Colton. I appreciated his energy and what he had done with his program. Didn't really talk in detail with many. I asked quite a few questions during the presentations so maybe many got tired of hearing me. There is much more for me to say about the conference. The augmented reality welder was the only actual demo. AWS didn't have their video recorder there for todays session so I don't know if any of it was recorded.
There was lots of "information" shared for sure. There were some things that blew me away. Some in a good way, some not.
Have a good one.
I know this is an old post but I just want to mention Soldamatic by Seabery.
I went the AWS Welding Conference for Educators. Most of the conference was presentation and questions. But the last presenter was a company from Mexico. http://www.soldamatic.com/
and the product they had was for Augmented Reality Welder Training . I have experienced the Lincoln Vrtex360 and Realweld trainer. Both of these are interesting. And in my opinion the realweld is of use for what I want to do. But both are 30-40k ish right now. This company showed up and in my opinion Blew Lincoln, Miller and Realweld away just because of the features and price.
I do have a realweld and feel it has some capabilities that just cannot be achieved with the VR or Augmented reality. But as a tool to help prepare students for welding without welding, The Soldamatic is IT. The welding is close to realistic, supports multiple processes, the coupons can be put ANYWHERE you want. The coupons are plastic with imprinted QR codes and anywhere you put the coupon you can weld.
I really want to get my hands on one for more time. But if you hear about one being in your area, you should check it out.
I just finished up the Welding Educators conference and have tons of things to comment on. But the most awesome thing I observed was the augmented reality device.
All I can say is weld done soldamatic.
Position pieces anywhere
View the environment you are in with a virtual weld joint that looks very realistic.
Weld operation seems responsive
Comparitive low cost 1/3rd ish.
Fillet Welds groove welds and possible custom solutions.
Record data for each weld of each student
Display screen output on monitors/big screen tvs.
Not much bigger than a Microwave
And Much More probabaly.
I want one. Period.
Oh I fully agree when there are specifications requiring a system, or a specific system. It's those cases in which nothing other than a code of construction is referred to and the interpretation is that your have to do some crazy backtracking to get them a "continuity log" in "accordance with the code" when the code is silent on how a period of effectiveness is maintained.
When the scope of work becomes something in addition to what was agreed upon I guess a contractor can either comply, and perpetuate the issue, or get it straightened out. And that would be an option they would have to weigh.
I think specification or some type of program above and beyond a code is required in many cases. I would think a contractor approved to do any "critical" work works be one that had a quality system in place that addresses much of this.
Look in QW-211 PREPARATION OF TEST COUPON and all your answers await.
It is easier to just do it by a method documented by your system. That way when the "super bestest inspector ever" comes in thinking he has to have objective quality evidence of for the process by date, job, code, position, mood, and start alignment you can just say.
Here is our system, we have been using it for years, we would be glad to look into alternatives if required by the contract. If not we would accept a change order issued for xxxxx if you want us to modify our system. If you don't mind, could you please indicate in writing what we or not conforming with so we can move forward on these garbage dumpsters.
Have a great day John.
Been unpacking boxes and setting up welders at the school this AM. I really am tired of blue!
Yes. If you qualify on plate you can weld along the axis of a pipe in any position provided that axis is within the range of the plate position qualified. For example if a pipe were inclined at a 45 degree angle you would be qualified to weld along the axis of the pipe as shown in figure 4.1.
Production welds ARE NOT classified as 6G or any other XG Test position. They are either flat horizontal vertical or overhead. (Figure 4.1 and 4.2). Test positions are adressed in Fig 4.3-4.5.
I hope I interpreted your question. Your English is much better than any of my languages besides English.
It is the one where you weld. There is also an ARC Off option.
I am not sure of its value as of yet myself. It does seem to be a tool that would minimize the need to "look over the shoulder" when trying to correct some errors. I often have had students come to me with a coupon with undercut and I tell them its either from electrode positio, angle, arc length, settings, travel speed, or any combination of those. After the weld has been made, its hard to pin down.
I think the concept is great and the tool is useful. Just not sure if its going to be something that pays for itself but I am going to put it to use.
It was priced better than the "Non Welding" system that I looked at. I think there will be some interesting applications though. I am interested in going to the conference next week to see if there are any real world results that can be reviewed.
With the advances in technology happening so rapidly I would think there are some great applications for motion sensing technology. Welding being one of them.
One idea I have is bringing in a set of welders from a company, letting them make a specific weld, reviewing all of the data, then coming up with a averaged set for employee testing or skill verification. The proof is in the weld but the machine seems extremely sensitive to movement. It will record things that do not show up on the outside surface of the weld.
As I am setting up the program, I am thinking the money would have been better used for some simpler things but it is what it is. Got a long way to go. Back to attaching wheels to some miller prefab tables (I think the Realweld is a better value).
Have a good day
We have received and setup a Realweld system at our training center and I am curious if anyone on the forum has used any type of technology to augment their training and have they seen any results?
I have not had an opportunity to start any classes yet but I do have a database of hours for student training to accomplish various tasks (Pad weld, Tee Joints etc) . Of course within that data set there is wide range of hours however I think I will be able to gather data over a year or so and see if there is a difference.
I am curious if anyone else has looked into their own training times and compared before and after results with any of the technology thats available. I see tons of endorsements, case studies, and other advertising info but has anyone here done this?
I think the realweld sytem is going to be useful for evaluating an individuals ability to control travel speed, work/travel angles, CTWD/Arc length, and joint tracking however the jury will be out for awhile as to its "Value". I can see it as EXTREMELY useful for providing real time monitoring of what a student is doing with his/her hands without actually having to be there. The instant audio feedback seems useful too and seemed to respond quickly when I change a variable.
Anyway, any information, thoughts, suggestions, experiences are appreciated.
Also, if ANYONE is in the Northeast Tenneseee area and would like to come by and check it out, they can. 6626600162 is still my cell or just send me a message here. The welding center is not yet opened and I am still getting things together but the realweld trainer is setup and working.
We both said it, it must be true !
Just something to add though I am confident many are aware of this..
Qualifying with an F4 (low hydrogen electrodes) qualifies you to weld with any of the carbon steel SMAW electrodes ... provided all other variables remain the same
I am not sure in what context you are speaking of completely.
In AWS D1.1 there is NO F-6 listed as an F number in Table 4.13 so it does not apply. Table 4.12 item 2 specifically says "To an SMAW Electorde with an F-number higher.......) indicating F number is only an consideration for SMAW
ASME handles F Numbers differently and for tyhe most part says the same thing but addresses more Fnumbers.
Regardless, F Number is NOT the only consideration. For any of the variables to work within their range, all other variables must be within the range of qualification. Keep the same F Number but change another variable (Position, Process, Thickness, Backing, Progressions, etc...) In you example below you refer to F6 which is NOT an SMAW F Number but then you refer to 7018. In that case the statement changes the process so another variable is changed.
If you are not intimately familar with "The codes" I would strongly caution questioning anyone else in a production setting until you become more familar.
As far as D1.1 Clause 4 will address what you need to know regarding variables for performance qualification.
Nope. They are pretty easy. I think sometimes we look for too much in the content. I'm all for do what you say and say what you do.
Going back is definitely a pain.
That is why, in my opinion, anyone performing welding that is in accordance with ANYTHING should have their own written QC program. Because welding is a "Special Process" there may be things that need to be addressed. This will prevent an inspector who comes in AFTER an approval audit from saying something like "The fabricator has indicated that they verify continuity based upon continued employment and this is not in accordance with standard industry practices" after the system has been approved. Thats when I whip out the manual and documentation showing that the system has been approved and indicate to him how I will respond to that item.
In many cases a Pre-Audit checklist is sent to contractors to see what is involved in the approval process. This is the time when you really need to do your homework as a Quality Manager and let those people in sales/project management know where your system is lacking. NOT after the award of the contract. I have participated in a few audits where the ole QC manual was dusted off, opened up, and looked at in AWE when everyone realized none of the things written into the manual were being done. (Continuity Verification being one of them.)
Continuity is an easy thing to maintain as is the supporting documentation but often times we make a system so complicated its difficult to use.
The key to all of this is individuals responsible for the operations they are doing being familiar with the requirements of the operation they are doing. THEY includes purchasing agents, engineers, specification writers, QC Manager/Inspector, shop supervision, and people doing the work. In cases where those requirements change based upon customer driven requirements than a detailed policy for "Contract Review" should be in place with procedures that support the policy.
Many people may think "Well thats an awful lot for a small fabricator" but then again so is making up some fancy paperwork to please one out of 20 customers because the continuity log didn't look like the one "on the last job".
I do agree that correcting it up front with your own documented system is MUCH better than correcting an item.
Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill