American Welding Society Forum
I have QC47. Purchased it at IHS. It was pulled.
I attended my 1st online committee meeting this past week. I was hoping to go to Miami soon but don't think its in the bank account at home or my employer. May have to withdraw.
Have you tested welders before? For a company or otherwise? That may help me better answer your questions. What is your experience related to the topic? If you have no experience in the matter, I suggest working with someone who does. The CWI credential does not reflect an aptitude or ability for anything. In many cases, its just a certification that one passed a test on a given day.
I passed HS English and have even been using the language my entire life, however, I have no knowledge of diagramming a sentence and wouldn't know a dangling modifier if I ran into it. Though I use the language and am around it, I am by no means qualified to "inspect" others use of the language and tell them if it "complies".
There are a couple of concepts you can consider.
1) A facility fully equipped and available for an organization to perform large-scale testing.
You could charge "rental" for the space and equipment, and then have add-ons for arranging/performing inspection and testing of completed welds.
This will take a considerable amount of equipment investment.
2) A facility that charges "by the test".
With this option, your initial investment for equipment can be low. Understanding that most decent employers perform their own testing is worth considering. If you build a good relationship with them as an organization that can test people in a manner that meets their requirements, where codes allow, you could perform the testing for them.
Do not think "Build it and they will come!!!!"
I have helped a couple of AWS ATF's get started but not all function well due to the fact that they are schools and other than "free money" from grants, they are limited in resources as far as people who have experience in industry testing welders. Many instructors are "single industry" experienced and may not have ever looked at a code.
Realize this, business and industry will often indicate they would "like" some type of service or resource in the region. This "LIKE" does NOT mean they will use it or support it.
If you are going to test individuals or even people for a company (not advised unless they have a WPS but just my opinion), you will need WPS's. Sure D1.1 and a few other codes allow for "prequalified" WPS's. But other codes do not. So knowing the "need" in the region can help you prepare for what code books you want to buy.
I have been working on a website for gathering and sharing knowledge related to the subject but have yet to get anything complete. I am intending to move forward a little quicker on the subject. The site is weldingclassroom.org and there is a registration form at https://wp.me/P8Uwjj-3b
. I only have a few pcs of content related to setting up a test facility but your welcome to look around.
I'm not so sure about that "short order". :) I guess in comparison t0 a document approved in 89, its a good description for one dated 2016 but yet to be released. I bought one online but it has now been removed.
In the new standard, the requirement for anyone to be a full time employee or have ANY experience is now removed. The exception for the test supervisor having the currently non-existent "endorsement" is understood but that person may be a contractor or employee.
So a one person "organization" could do it all as I see it. That may or may not have been the intent. The requirements for assuring personnel have suitable "education, training, technical knowledge and experience" is a BIG loophole since nothing defines any of the requirements. (Except for the "qualifier). I thought about asking for an interpretation but have yet to decide if that's worth the potential damage to my perception of how things should work.
With some organizations, the current experience requirement of 5 years and full time employee for the technical manager is a problem. That problem will go away now and anyone can be considered qualified under the ever accurate perception of "management".
"Ooooooh look, Bobby the student has completed our 2 year degree program and passes and AWS certified Welder Test, lets hire him so he can be our long term employee and we can fine tune him into the ways of academia and also be over our ATF."
It is going to be interesting as it is a considerable change in requirements. Having recently joined a committee and as an observing applicant, I can say that I have a better understanding of some of the things I see. ;)
As QC4 is written now and from what my brain understands, there is no requirement for the Technical Manager, Facility Rep, Test Supervisor, or Quality Manager to be a separate person. It also doesn't require anyone to be an employee other than the technical manager. So an individual could perform all of the functions as needed and for the sake of keeping things a little less "fox in the henhouse", use an outside source as the quality manager.
I'm not sure all "labs" do a much better job from a few that I have seen. So working with one should be accompanied with caution.
They have absolutely no "requirement" for a documented system for what they do from material control, to verification of identity.
I'm not saying some labs don't do a good job. Some go overboard rejecting welders that make welds that meet the written requirements. Others have not a clue about filling out a welder performance qualification test record. And some do fine.
I'm currently working on a training session for "Welder Qualification Testing" to help some "Certified" individuals become more knowledgeable about the process. Hoping to do classroom training in one session followed by actual testing.
I think a few D14 codes refer to the AWS Certified Welder Program but none require it as you indicated.
I can't think of any pitfalls or ramifications that exist that are any way different than what we would come across inspecting. In both cases we "certify" that something met the requirements of a written specification. I never sign for "Manufacturer or Contractor" unless I am their representative. I will create a form that certifies I observed all testing, performed inspections, and all code requirements for performance testing were observed. But the ole "Manufacturer or Contractor" line doesn't get my name.
It would be very difficult for one to have all three of these and be able to give a true comparison. They are all lower price import machines that may have very similar components and capabilities. I have a longevity Plasma, DC Tig/Stick machine that has continued to be able to weld for 8 or 9 years. However The ESAB 235ic I got a few months ago has more arc time on it and welds the same.
The longevity machine no longer plasma cuts and power output has gone down about 25%.
One machine cost me $500.00 ish and the other $2000 ish.
Check out the manufacturers ebay and amazon reviews may be a good way to go.
Most of the "Combo" machines that include a plasma cutter are imports from various manufacturers and distributors overseas.
I for instance have a Longevity Stick/Tig/Plasma that is about 9 years old and still welds (at a reduced output) and also will no operate in plasma mode. But I paid around $500.00 for it and it has long since paid for itself but is pretty much useless for anything but lower amperage welding.
Had I bought a conventional transformer/rectifier that was just for stick welding, it would still be welding today at full capacity and would probably continue to do so for many years to come.
I recently purchased a CC/CV (Stick, DC Tig, or wire fed process) ESAB machine and its been great.
I think in Appendix A there is provision for using other WPS's but it does seem like a "gimmick" to convince people to use SWPS's. I was given 2 SWP's from a company that went out of business many years ago. They had never been "assigned" in writing to a company. They are seldom used as its sooooo easy to qualify a WPS per Sec. IX or B2.1.
For Welder Qualification Testing:
For an ASME Sec. IX test in which just the individual is testing for his/her own documentation, I try to make sure I provide the welder with as much information as possible regarding requirements and the process but also not tell them exactly what is the "best" amperage to run the root at or assign specific WFS/Voltage settings or even lock them into a fitup requirement unless the project will have "exact" fitup dimensions on every joint or its a D1.1 test in which the test assembly is specified.
For tests performed for a company and per ASME Sec. IX, I let the company know the wording in Sec. IX that requires them to supervise the testing and then offer my services to supervise the process to assist with assuring code compliance. I also let them know how much Sec. IX leaves out of acceptance criteria and that if they want to "bump it up a notch" they need to let me know.
I will attache a 6010/E71T1 WPS I have written for testing. EDIT: (Still Editing)
The Squarewave is an inverter and the precision Tig is a transformer/rectifier machine.
I think the warranty is the same on both. I also would imagine that there have been more inverters returned for repairs over the years than transformer/rectifiers. This is based upon speaking with 2 repair techs at local welding suppliers. Understand that that is only a small part of the real world.
An inverter will not have the same electrical load for the same output.
Filler metal Classification should be for GMAW filler and not SAW.
Thank you Al. I had a good one myself.
I don't blame the welders for some of the things I see. The welders and I BOTH know they could have done better. I think often times the welders know what they are supposed to do quality wise but if a supervisor comes out 4 times a day and asks when they are going to be done and NEVER looks at their work, they very well may believe that quality is not important.
There are statements in codes indicating that the tensile tests used when qualifying a procedure should fail in the base metal or at a specific load. Your inspector may have that in his/her mind as prohibiting the use of lower strength filler metals.
Those statements usually allow for failures in the weld metal when lower strength filler metals are used provided the filler metal requirements were met.
Without knowing the code, there is nothing I can refer you to.
If you find the code that applies. Look under the applicable section for qualification for procedures. The required tests (Tensiles, Bends etc...) will be referenced and should point you to the acceptance criteria.
Additionally, there may be statements in design portions of the codes allowing use of lower strength filler metals (A common practice).
In some cases there are even advantages to using the lower strength filler metals.
I am even amazed by the general contractors lack of knowledge related to welding. Surely if I were paying someone to perform a task for which I was responsible for, I would have someone in my organization with a clue!
Are you inspecting steel construction by any chance? That's what I have come across.
You give the welder the WPS, not the PQR.
The dimensions of the weld should be detailed on design documents. (See 4.3.4)
The acceptance criteria should be made aware to the welder but is the responsibility of the inspector.
A code by itself is NOT a suggested practice for operations. A written quality system would be expected in most cases. Within that system, policies and procedures for training should be addressed. The code contains requirements that may or may not help your organization assure quality.
Companies should have in-house training requirements for assuring personnel meet their requirements. A JOB CARD may or may not give them the information they need. There is nothing that prohibits you from writing joint specific WPS's with supplementary info including acceptance criteria and other requirements.
Of course that is one persons opinion.
I agree with all you have stated. I have run into instances in the field on tubing in which welds are below the surface. The welding symbol doesn't allow for it and often times the designer doesn't detail it otherwise.
If it were detailed as less than flush, I would have to see a qualified WPS for the condition and dimensions.
3.5 The applicant shall have the latest mandatory edition of the NBIC,
all parts, and shall have available the code of construction
edition/addenda including any applicable referenced standards for
materials, welding and nondestructive examination required for
performing the repair or alteration activity.
You will need the code books to do the work. If you intend to just do boiler proper repairs, you will need Sec. I , If pressure vessels then Sec VIII Div I and Maybe Div 2. If boiler external piping, you will need B31.1 and probably also Sec I.
Supporting codes will also be required such as Sec II All parts, Sec V, and Sec IX
You cannot 'refer" to them and must have them in your possession for the audit.
You may also do a joint review which would allow you to not only repair but mfg components.
You must have the codes. Thats your reference to assure that you are compliant with the applicable codes. You are doing code work and would need the codes.
My point I really wanted to get across is that the code is needed too. I was pretty sure you had a good grasp on the topic too:) .
Have a great day.
The requirement for a WPS for welder qualification is pretty common among all codes. The item you really need is a copy of the code which will be followed for qualification. Then within that code, you would find the information you need.
What code will be used?
I think the opportunities that are opened up are highly dependent upon the experiences you already have and how you can apply any subsequent "credentials". When I 1st certified, I was not aware of any advantage to be gained other than me thinking it would be cool to have a piece of paper that confirmed what I already knew about a trade that I really enjoyed.
If your experiences were in structural steel erection, then look towards geotechnical firms that are often on the "ground floor" of steel construction. I imagine there is plenty in your area however I imagine there are plenty of CWI's also.
Focus on the industries you are in as far as researching the opportunities.
Keep your eye on jobs using jobs searches such as Indeed.com. Maybe contact companies you have worked for in the past. A "New" certification for a proven employee can be something that attracts a company to you.
Understand that sometimes a certification is just a piece of paper. Sometimes it helps, sometimes its just paper. Moving forward in your knowledge and abilities is ALWAYS a good thing.
As we all know, the experience of many "seasoned" hands often results in a knowledge greater than that of the "book smart" welding inspector :)
Are you asking? The production weld you speak of is not 6G. 6G is a test position.
A 3G and 4G test qualifies for All positions. Which would include any position on the referenced pipe joint within the other limits imposed by the code.
There are some advantages and disadvantages to joining a union. I cannot speak for the Ironworkers. I was a member of the Boilermakers and USW.
1) Representation by an organization that was originally designed to protect workers from unfair labor practices.
2) In the boilermakers, there was a greater number of people with training and experience in the trade. In non union situations, the training and experience level sometimes varied widely depending on "kinority". Friends or relatives hired with nothing more than a tool bucket.
3) A livable wage and then some was negotiated for us. This included a great base wage and then benefits on top of that.
4) A business agent that worked towards getting us on the job.
5) Better adhearance to safety awareness.
1) Union Dues that contributed to a president with a wage and benefit package of over $700k per year.
2) No advantages for individuals with higher skill levels.
3) You are at the mercy of the projects being worked with organized labor. Boilermakers work is very profitable during certain times of the year. Other times but so much. Not sure about other organizations.
4) Noticed some preference given to individuals that were members of another organization as far as placement in supervisory positions. Or they almost all bought the same rings to wear.
5) Locals with large numbers may take awhile to get to you depending upon the "call list". I myself never reviewed the list however based upon some experience, it was a "fluid document".
6) A wide variation in work ethics of individuals, some excellent, some were slugs..Both stay on the job.
Please understand that the observations above are only those one of soooooo many people in organized labor. I think workers should be organized at any opportunity. The majority of the brothers and sisters I worked with both as a Boilermaker and USW member were excellent at their craft.
If you are working within the scope of ASME Sec IX and most of the B31 codes, using two different WPS's on a single joint is allowed. Even if they are two different processes.
Though it's allowed does not mean it's a good idea. Welding over a ground exx10 root pass with GTAW might not be advised.
These types of questions are best answered by project requirements.
Is there any corresponding change on the ID machine at all ? I would suspect input power fluctuation if its not occurring in a manner where it progressively gets worse.
1) Take all of the books that were supplied or referenced during your training to achieve an AS Degree and read them to understand all of the content.
2) Obtain the the AWS Body of Knowledge for the CWI and buy an AWS Welding Handbook Volume 1, 9th edition. Read the sections in the book...a few times.
3) Purchase a "Welding Inspection Technology" book and workbook and go through it. Answer the questions, closed book and check your scores. Go through it a few more times until you feel your understand the content.
4) Obtain a code book, any year, any code such as D1.1, ANSIi B31.1/3, API 1104 and read through it not really cover to cover but more learning where certain subjects are addressed.
Then after you have done some learning, decide if you need a course or just want to spend the money trying a test.
The above is an opinion only and based on only my experiences.
Keep in mind we all learn differently. I feel you should learn all you can about welding,inspection, codes etc... before attending a "prep class".
Weldability of Steels, RD Stout Welding Research Council
AWS Welding Handbook All volumes
Sad to hear. He seemed very passionate about sharing his knowledge.
I am not a fan of 17.1 as far as how a code is written.
I have looked through it and there is NOT an general statement as in other codes stating what you have mentioned.
So therefore, you must look at the variables for qualification of the operators. 126.96.36.199 refers you to only the 1st 3 variables above. No reference is made to any variable that is "operator specific" such as manual controls of joint tracking, speed, etc....
The AWS 3.0 definitions are referred to for operator and welder but have no purpose as far as defining qualification requirements.
So ask yourself what variables must apply to operator qualification? Not very many!
Then on the other side of things, look at the variables required for a welder. Nothing there that distinguishes a welder from an operator either. A person could follow all of the requirements for a welder on a mchine weld, does that make them qualified as a welder???
The only distiguishing thing left is the definitions. I'm safe testing each type on each type.
Sorry I wasn't much help. I do not see anything that allows an operator to be qualified by virtue of manual or semi-auto welding. If it does, then the opposite works too based upon my logic.
I only glanced through my .pdf version of the code using the search term "Operator" and "Machine" independently an nothing jumped out at me. I did not re-read the code from cover to cover.
QW-423.1 I believe refers to the range of Pnumbers for performance.
As the paragraph you quoted states, Preheat or PWHT may be omitted.
Since for performance qualification, plain carbon steel base metals can be used to qualify for many other base metals, this should seldom be an issue.
In the case where an organization has the desire to use crack sensitive materials, then preheat would be an issue and regardless of the allowance, should be applied.
the WQT does NOT require preheat/pwht in accordance with the WPS.
He could qualify to make those welds provided all of the filler metals you refer to are for GTAW (F-6)
He would of course need a qualified procedure to make the production welds.
If you follow all of the P-number requirements, you will find out that for performance, substitutions are allowed. P1 qualifies P1 hrough P11, P3x, P4x base metals.
Turn it up for the overhead.
Its just like flat but harder on your neck and of course when the slag peels off in one big piece, it may fall on you :)
I think there are a couple of things contributing to your difficulties.
1) In real life, the joint design you describe is a challenge for anyone with the method you describe. Not impossible, but difficult. A typical open root prep for a 6010 root pass would almost always have an included angle of 60 Degrees Minimum. A change in weld prep could help but I understand this may be a fixed setup that is always used...WHY who knows.
2) The issue with slag on the pass placed over the root which in many circles is referred to as the hot pass is probably NOT because of slag but more the result of convexity on the bead. In many "real life" operations, the 2nd pass would be deposited with an XX10 electrode and NOT a 7018. The 2nd pass would have a much flatter profile AND the width of the face of the weld would be wider and therefore better facilitate getting the big ole 1/8" 7018 in the joint with a nice tight arc and also room for manipulation.
If all of the slag were removed from the toes of the 2nd pass bead, defects would probably still occur if the profile were still convex.
Reducing the convexity would result in reducing the discontinuities along the toes. Because of the difficulties associated with the joint you describe, a wider 2nd bead with more pause on the sides and less time in the middle may help. An adjustment of amperage can sometimes help and I have found a sweet spot for 7018 to be in the 110 range and anything much below 105 gives me issues unless welding on lighter material
3) 1/8" E7018 can be a challenge for many when the conditions are ideal. The settings, arc length, and manipulation all play a key part in what happens. I am assuming you have already welded a plate on backing. If it were fitup like typical joints of that type, then there is plenty of room to manipulate the electrode as shown in the image attached. Because of the conditions, all of the things that work to correct convexity as you learned to weld with 7018 are now more critical.
I have not walked in your shoes or those of your instructor so what you are doing may have a purpose. All variables in a given weld work together. Amperage, Voltage(Arc Length), Travel Speed, Manipulation, Groove Angle, Root Opening, Root Face, Preheat, etc.. Changing one will always change the results unless something else is changed along with it.
For those that say the exam is easier, ask them if they have taken it with both. I have tested and passed with D1.1 and B31.1/Sec IX but never tried 1104.
Everyone has different experiences. Its my suggestion to use the code you have been using.
Temporary or any other weld must be performed by an organization authorized to weld on pressure vessels. The WPS and Welder qualifications mean nothing without being the authorized organization.
This is assuming an ASME pressure vessel.
If you are the design authority, you may select whatever you like based upon the intended use of t he product unless there is some jurisdictional law requiring parts be designed, manufactured(built), inspected and tested in accordance with a specific standard..
AWS Has numerous codes and standards that may be applied to your product. Obviously using one for structural steel for stainless sheet metal will lead to eventual problems. Not with the product per se but with the documentation that supports it and may be passed on to customers or subcontractors.
Take a LOOK AT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_welding_codes
AND JUST PICK YA ONE OUT :)
One thing to understand regarding heat input is that it is controlled during welding and the value is listed on the WPS. Because ranges for Amps/Volts/Travel speed may allow for settings that exceed the max heat input.
However your formula should be
Heat Input (Joules per minute) = (Volts x Amps x 60) / Travel Speed (IPM)
You are using the Wire Feed Speed which has nothing to do with calculating heat input.
Regardless, I may very well have a WPS in which heat input is required to be controlled yet the right "mix" of variables within the ranges allowed could result in not meeting the requirements. As the welder and inspector, I would need to verify that the ranges used DURING PRODUCTION are within the heat input requirements of the WPS.
I am not familiar with the specifications related to the new part B so their may be some other limiting factor to consider but your travel speed value is outta whack regardless.
Hope this helps.
Have a great day.
Can you provide a joint design?
Was the crack along HAZ or Centerline?
Was the crack detected right after welding the root or after completion of the entire weld?
Was preheat dropped prior to PWHT ?
What was the cooling rate after Welding and PWHT.?
Was the item attached to any operating machinery ?
Was any in-process inspection performed on the root pass or intermediate passes.?
If it was a saddle on connection, was the run pipe prepared to allow the hole to line up precisely with the ID of the branch?
With a tight groove angle, concave root contour, and a deep depth to width things can be difficult. I imagine this is a saddled on nozzle and not through the shell.
QG-108 QUALIFICATIONS MADE TO PREVIOUS EDITIONS
Joining procedures, procedure qualifications, and performance qualifications that were made in accordance with Editions and Addenda of this Section as far back as the 1962 Edition may be used in any construction for which the current Edition has been specified. Joining procedures, procedure qualifications, and performance qualifications that were made in accordance with Editions and Addenda of this Section prior to the 1962 Edition may be used in any construction for which the current Edition has been specified provided the
requirements of the 1962 Edition or any later edition have been met.
Procedure specifications, PQRs, and performance qualification records meeting the above requirements do not require amendment to include any variables required by later Editions and Addenda, except as specified in QW-420. Qualification of new procedure specifications for joining processes, and performance qualifications for persons applying them, shall be in accordance with the current Edition of Section IX
In most codes, there is no expiration on a PQR. A company could qualify a procedure and record the data on the PQR and at a later date, prepare a new WPS within the qualified ranges of the applicable code.
In many cases, a single PQR may support various WPS's as is the case with ASME Sec IX.
Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill