American Welding Society Forum
I have noticed this in D1.5 if I recall. Not sure why they work for one D1.x code and not another.
I don't have access to a D1.2 so I'm not much help.
If you operate using the same settings, the deposition rate is the same. The thing that may change is the production factor due to increased fatigue of the operator.
Deposition efficiency may also change as the overhead position with some processes due to spatter loss and stub loss.
For an overall calculation of costs, factors besides the deposition rate of the process need to be known.
I have been an AWS Member since 86 off and on and a member here since 2001 ish according to my profile. There have been years in which I gained NOTHING from my AWS membership other than welding journals. There has NEVER been a year go buy that I didn't gain something from this forum.
I do feel bad that I MAY have used the forum during times when my AWS Membership dues were not paid.
We used to be able to create a survey using the forum software but it looks to be disabled now. You could post a similar question on an online form if the responses get numerous.
I think the new forum with maybe some pinnned posts reminding users of the content here would be great.
However with membership of any group, there should be "perks". The welding Journal for instance is often avaialable to Non-Members online for free. What is left....book discounts...seminar discounts....access to a section library (easier said than done).
I do truly hope this forum stays searchable. I beleive with a few moderators and utilization of the features available through the Mwforum scripts, this forum could function as-is for quite awhile. The only problem I see with it is the Spam and thats something that a few moderators could handle by instantle deletinng users that post anything not welding related.
Back to work for me. Have agreat day.
Surfacing or Buttering is only used in reference to correcting dimensions for fitup. If you are using A668 and concerned about D1.1 compliance unnderstand that there is more to it than the joint design as the material is not listed.
Filler Metal Match is a small part of the whole process.
SIMILAR TO is a statement that should be used with caution. I don't have enough experience with that specific material but if you were making me a new product, an I specified that product be made from A668, I would expect you to assure that any processing that could change the properties would be performed in accordance with the requirments of the material specification.
I suggest not worrying about what D1.1 says and testing to assure that the properties required are maintained. Sometimes there is more to the QC than having a document that references a code. Weld a sample, do some testing on the BM and HAZ to verify properties fall within range of the original material.
It is possible that I am overthinking the whole scenario and those with more experience with the materials and applications are bettter suited to tell you what you need. Have patience with my ramblings. :)
That is a normalized and tempered material and I would suggest qualification of a procedure that verifies the mechanical properties intended for end use are maintained.
A written procedure should be required but formost it should be one that maintains the desired properties of the base metal in a manner that is suitable for the application.
In my experience gouges at the journal were less critical than those in the body of the shaft however that was decided by the engineering department of the company.
The joint would be a Surfacing Weld. If this is a rotating element of equipment, D1.1 would not apply unless mentioned by the MFG. If the end product you are providing must meet the requirements of the A668 Gr E, then look in that specification for limitations on weld repairs.
This (IMO) would be an engineered repair and should be looked at closely.
Send a message to anieves
I'd have to disagree with you but of course we are both just offering opinions. It has gotten a little heavier in advertising over the years but I find it as a pretty good resource. I also have thoughts about it, but not "fails"
I personally would like to see information geared towards the welder as opposed to management and supervision however I understand who their customer is. Its Industry as a whole and not the welder. Sometimes the "American Welder" articles seem a bit abstract however it could be me being out of touch with whats really happening in industry.
Another thing I would love to see is actual reviews of products and equipment. Not just an article that looks like its talking about some new process but is actually pushing a specific manufacturers equipment for super duper dynamic pulse glob circuit welding.
What ways do you think it fails ?
Have a good day
For SMAW, I believe the only code or specification in which one will find the mysterious 2-1/2" times the core wire diameter limitation is in AWS A5.1.
I myself am interested in the beta testing to see if it may be a useable forum. I think other than the spam and lack of moderation of members (Validate Email Addresses, Moderate 1st posts for approval etc..) that this forum is the best. I also like eng-tips and a few others.
I too think limiting it to AWS members will be a limiting factor but we will find out. The true error on the part of AWS will be if they do not somehow archive this forum for searching purposes.
Since many have contributed and AWS has claimed "ownership" of the contents, I am a bit troubled by the whole thing.
We will see how it goes.
If I remember correctly, we were taught that is C-School and it was based upon heat input limitations. Some of the welding procedures from NNSY and PSNSY controlled heat input for HY80 and also specified a minimum and maximum length of electrode meltoff for a given length of weld .
Procedures were the only restrictions I ever recall however I may not be sure about NS 250-1500 and NAVSEA 389-0317.
The requirements for bead width are pretty slim as far as a variable for procedure qualification. Heat input was referred to however the statement doesn't refer to bead width (which may not be an accurate variable related to heat input).
"Heat input requirements shall be specified for base materials with toughness
requirements. Combination limits of amperage, voltage and travel speed shall
be specified for the ranges of each parameter. Equivalent means of limiting
heat input (for example, nomographs or for shielded metal-arc, bead length
methods) are permissible. Simple reference to a formula is unacceptable.
Requirements for heat input shall comply with the applicable fabrication
document in all cases. "
Many times the things we are taught in schools stick with us and we never check out the sources other than what the instructor said.
Have a good day.
I asked my EP about the problems with Afib and the possible need for a pacemaker and he didn't seem to concerned however I am not at that stage yet. There are however a few articles online referring to maximum amps etc when welding with a pacemaker.
My afib comes and goes randomly so no hardware needed yet.
I figure if it happens, I will just take up brain surgery or something. I don't think they have to keep a continuity log!
But cant the "Log" take on any format?
I the undersigned hereby certify that that all welders listed below as of this date have continually welded with XXAW and have had no period of time greater than 6 Mos as specified in Quality Manual para xx.xx.x . This is based upon existing manufacturing practices which limit employees designated as welders to only perform welding and no other tasks. Continued employment represents continued welding with process XXAW. This statement is supported by timekeeping records for specific projects and may be audited if reason exists to question the abilities of any welders.
I have also seen the back side of WPQ's used as a log.
It can be as simple or as complicated as one wants to make their quality system.
AISC has a pretty extensive "certification" program however having been in some shops, it is sometimes, just "a program". I think a continuity log should be used in any work in which the governing code requires continuity be maintained. It can just get complicated when people think it has to be extremely detailed. Of course with the ability to computerize information so easily, I can't think of a reason to not have one for any fabricator (AISC or just your plain jane).
Thanks for your thoughts.
Do you think the differences in quality are based upon welder being tested every two years or possible quality system requirements of the CWB certification scenarios. I see such major differences in standards outside the US that seem so much more detailed I wonder why our building, bridges, boilers and pressure vessels aren't just falling apart at an astounding rate.
I would think if a quality system is in place that monitors quality, a degradation of an employees abilities would become evident without relying on a test. I do surely understand the issues with aging and vision not to mention the need to verify near vision acuity. One spot of LOF or porosity in a bend and what happens, is the person out of a job? I haven't read a CWB standard but do wonder how a failed test is handled. If they fail their test, does their work come into question that they did the day before?
We know welding is not a perfect science and many a good welders have made a bad weld. Or at least in the industries I have worked in. There is really no right or wrong in any of the systems, they just are what they are. I have little experience outside my little world so I thank you for taking the time to entertain my thoughts/questions etc...
"...have to..." is the key and was in the context of fulfilling code type requirements. Also I was referring more to welding inspectors vs NDE method inspectors which in my opinion are two different things for many methods.
The good thing about inspections is that I don't need a log since I keep all of my inspection reports thus I have objective quality evidence of inspections performed which is MUCH more reliable than a log.
I do think keeping a record of things is a good idea but does little to show proficiency at at process. It just shows you did it. I watched a guy come in, change batteries every morning on a USN 50, inspect welds, and never once calibrate the machine over a 4 day period. His documentation looked GOOD though!
Even to stray farther!
Do you notice any difference in actual product quality in fabrications under the jurisdiction of CWB standards, or even ISO?
What basis is there to think that someone who welds regularly somehow loses skills over a 2 year period. I wonder if there was any type of "Study" to show this or maybe just a bunch of inspectors and quality people sitting in a meeting thinking "Here how we can take care of those pesky welders"
We all know, as we gain experience our skills go down! Welding inspectors don't have to maintain "continuity" or even perform well on the job in many cases.
I need another cup of coffee!
Have a great day
Not required to have traceable information by ASME Sec IX or AWS D1.1 however that does not preclude it being in their project specific documents.
May be wrong but I think the 6" length of weld is required for RT and bends. But for Rt you are right, OAL length doesn't matter for RT.
It happens to all of us :)
Have a good day Al.
So would 2 pcs of pipe 3" long not be suitable as a coupon? Please enlighten me as I see nothing wrong with dimension?
The dimensions for bend specimens are listed as 6" or as required.
a weld or braze assembly for procedure or performance qualification testing. The coupon may be any product from plate, pipe, tube, etc., and may be a fillet weld, overlay, deposited weld metal, etc.
EDIT: From ASME Sec IX Definitions
That could really be deep. I could see the individual codes but going deeper than that could become difficult to manage.
On this specific project, I was representing an engineering company for a power company. These were SCR's for coal plants. The project specifications were outrageous. There were of course many fabrication issues. The beam copes were a recurring issue. If I remember correctly the bead was a torch gouge of unknown origin.
After the project was over, I was called to the jobsite by the end user project manager to explain why I hadn't provided shipment releases of many of the SCR modules. As the Site PM, My boss from the engineering firm, and the vice president of the fabricator looked on, I pulled out over 100 pages from my inspection database and asked them "what piece are you wondering about". We would locate the piece and I would show them the still outstanding item. After a half dozen or so in which nobody could explain why the issues still existed The fabricator got mad and said HE HAD SEEN ENOUGH after I was asked to show them the penetration in the SCR casing with a visibly cracked weld where a hole had been mislocated, patched, welded, and cracked.[http://www.weldingdata.com/pictures/92357103-3QCID203-1.JPG
The project as a whole was something. Any spliced stiffeners (1-1/2" or 2" angle) 100% UT. Panel flatness < 3/8" during trial fit (panels 60+ foot long)and many other things that could have easily been items referred to in D1.1.
The database I made kept track of PO.s, change orders, project specs revs., dwgs revs, inspections, and most importantly ANY conversation I had regarding an inspection item that included the who, what when, and where. Some of these conversations included some discussions with the engineering firm in which they requested I "slack up" a bit and use "my judgement" on items in which there specifications may have exceeded the code (D1.1) .
It was an exciting inspection job to say the least and quite a learning experience as far as how silly things can get on a project.
I was doing 3rd part inspection at a fabricator and flagged a joint that was presented for fitup in which the detail drawing specified a backing strip. There was none. This picture shows what I was presented with after it was "corrected".
I searched the online interpretations but didn't know if their book of interpretations included something else. I do like the ASME site for looking up interpretations much better. That and keeping the paragraphs essentially the same over the years as far as what they are.
I just do it by the code myself unless documented otherwise.
Have a good day
There is ABSOLUTELY no confusion on those two.
The code allows a welder to be "Qualified" by welding a coupon for a PQR. That coupon may very well have joint dimensions that are outside of the "required" ranges for performance testing. However the joint design has no bearing for performance qualification .
Again, you mentions "Tolerances" without specifying what you were speaking of. If tolerances were that important as far as performance qualification joint geometry goes, it is just odd that in the cases when a welder is qualified during the welding of a PQR, there is no concern for the joint dimensions as related to the validity of performance qualification ranges.
I am extremely aware of much of your statements below (You left out B31.3 as far as "other contractor" qualifications). In all of my previous statements I am completely in the context of D1.1.
I'm good though. Hopefully the thread didn't loose it valus on my wanderings.
Have a good one Al
I agree with the methods you describe for setting up the test and have done a couple that way.
So if a welder tested on a 60 degree included angle while qualifying a WPS, his WPQR would not be a satisfactory representation of his "meeting the code" ?
I see that it does based upon D1.1. Yet it is outside the nominal dimensions of the applicable test plate figures and definitely outside +/- 5 degrees.
You indicated you knew something about the "tolerances" so it led me to believe you had some inside information on the issue and could maybe provide some insight on the fact that though joint design for performance qualification is rigid (within those sensible tolerances not actually addressed in the code) yet great flexibility is allowed by performance qualification on a PQR/WPS plate in which the joint design could range outside of that for the test plate.
This is not a major issue for me to resolve but for the sake of discussion and based upon your statements I figured it may "enlighten" me. I too try my best to comply as my integrity is not based upon a industry code or specification.
Thanks for your time and valuable information.
Please explain. It could just be a statement as simple as "All Welder Performance Qualification Joint Designs shall comply with the nominal dimensions shown in the applicable pre-qualified joint design" and maybe just allow the as-fitup tolerances vs the as detailed and as-fitup.
For the figures "required" by D1.1 used for qualification of welders, there aren't any tolerances which can really be a pain when trying to clarify in your mind what is really allowed or not allowed. What if my gap is 1/64" big at one end and 1/64" small at the other. I couldn't find a general "tolerances" statement. Of course we could get into the "use common sense" idea regarding tolerances but that sometimes doesn't work well with inspection.
A thought on tolerances. If the figures for performance are shown without tolerances to assure that "easier joints" with greater included angles/access aren't used then would a welder who performed welds on a 3G and 4G groove weld for qualifying a WPS and the included angle of the groove was say 60 degrees with a 1/4" root opening on backing, would he somehow be less "qualified" to make production welds then a welder who tested on a required "test plate" ?
So I am not sure why NO tolerances are shown.
One noted thing on "tolerances" . It is odd that the figures for unlimited thickness qualification show a 1" thick plate with no allowance for deviation yet the table for qualified thickness ranges show the use of thicknesses other than 1".
But you only get so much for $500.00 . Of course if I am not on a committee I am part of the problem and not the solution. Not to mention the fact that I am often prone to overlooking things.
Was the statement you made regarding tolerances something similar to what I stated above or is it more complicated than that?
That is correct. The WPS must be qualified to use that joint. Not really a fly though, all WPS's must be qualified for the ranges used for performance testing. Even those qualified by testing.
I do often wonder why the figures for the test assemblies don't just refer to the BU2a joints as opposed to having their own "special" figure.
The SWPS is a WPS. It can be used for production and testing.
This idea is MUCH better!
The SWPS is all that is needed for a WPS for qualification however if the individuals are going to be doing production in accordance with D1.1 then a WPS (or SWPS) that also meets the ranges in production must be used.
The WPS used for the WPQR is just related to the WPQR and has no bearing on the range of qualification. The variables for performance qualification allowed by D1.1 would need recorded.
The contractor or organization performing the welding will need both welders and procedures that meet the requirements of D1.1. The Engineer has the responsibility for acceptance of WPS's however SWPS's are mentioned.
Not really sure if this is what you were asking..
Often times its best to just start a new thread for questions as opposed to tagging something on the end of another. It also makes it less confusing should someone decide to look at this thread later.
For ASME Sec IX it is not an essential variable for performance.
All of t he searchable forum content based on over 10 years of people asking and answering questions would be nice. Otherwise (In my opinion) leave the forum alone and have some people allowed to moderate the junk.
I am by no means as active as some of the other excellent participants but I do feel the content within the forum is extremely valuable. I doubt the software bloat associated with running scripts to a mysql database is not a big burden on ANY server.
I would love to help with the beta testing of any new online forum but again, you would be wasting a tremendous resource should you completely eliminate this forum or the data contained within it. The mysql data could be utilized by other scripts I am pretty sure.
I personally don't need the fluff associated with many social media formats. They are great for some things but exchanging technical information is not one of them.
Hopefully some others will chime in.
Just talked to Roque Corona (Digital Content Manager) and he said he would look at deleting the current spam posts. He did indicate the "new" software would keep the old content and also prevent spam better.
So a welder would work for IMI Logistics and IMI would also be the contractor performing and supervising the work ?
Yup. Just found em. I was wonder because one of my 1st weld tests was for a company in Memphis. It was a 3g MIG UH. I set the machine and started welding. The guy came a stopped me. Said I couldnt do it like that. He showed me how to trigger it uphill. I left.
Though headhunters may have a place, you can always be sure they are getting something for your work unless they are just paid a finders fee and then you are on the companies payroll.
During the question review process, I would imagine that values used during the test would be those that would not add undue complexity to the question but who knows.
Are you an employment agency or actual contractor?
I have taken the complete exam (All three parts) three times.
Each time I was troubled by some of the questions and even contested a few. In one case after I contested a question, I went to my car, thought about it, went back to the code, and realized I was wrong to contest it. The test graders probably got tired of reading my stuff. They didn't fail me though, passed all three times.
I think the test is challenging and a great indicator of ones comprehension (or memory from the seminar the week before) of the subject matter.
To me, any extra information is irrelevant when I really know the question and correct answer. Many of our radiation worker/Control Point/Radcon monitor tests when I was in the Navy were full of extra info.
I think any course with no prior knowledge is going to either 1) result in not passing or 2) result in passing but having little to no usable knowledge in the field.
I have often considered offering a welding inspector course but cannot offer it as a CWI course since I have never taken one. I think learning to be an inspector is much more valuable than "getting certified". If you do one, the other can be easy, if you do the the other, things can be difficult in the field.
A learning environment is which a student can interact with both the instructor and other students will stimulate learning better in my opinion. The online learning management systems such as Moodle or Claroline or others can be setup with forums in which students and instructors can interact.
Why a "time limit" would be placed on materials is beyond me but of course there is more to education than education.
There is NOT a direct line to passing the test that I know of. People learn differently. Some do good without any course, others may have to take multiple course to just get a passing score.
Online courses that do not allow communication with other participants and instructors in my opinion are just "presentations". That doesn't mean they aren't valuable, they just aren't courses.
I think the tests should be representative of the skills you want the candidate too have when the "hit the floor" after any in-house orientation/training.
Qualification tests as described in codes have the following attributes.
1) Very generic and may not represent the conditions at work.
2) Expensive to witness and test.
3) May be "practiced for" .
4) Meet the code but may not meet your needs.
5) Don't require much thought or understanding of welding/production conditions on the part of test supervisor.
6) Can be done offsite easily because of the "standardization" of the code rules.
7) Acceptance criteria of many codes is less than that required by company specification. (ASME Sec IX for instance only requires complete fusion/penetration)
Qualification Tests for assesing skills can have the following attributes.
1) Can be specific welds (or portions thereof) representing a challenge similar to that to be experienced in work.
2) Can be very inexpensive to administer.
3) Cannot be "practiced for"
4) Does not meet the code but doesn't need to for assessment purposes.
5) Requires supervision by someone experienced in welding that understands the difficulties encountered during making the weld.
6) Can be done offsite or by other organizations however specific instructions/procedures would have to be provided.
7) Acceptance criteria can be tailored to meet the requirements more specific for the position.
The above is an opinion and not based upon any survey of industry. The testing requirements can vary widely from "Show up with a hood and gloves" to written test, welding test, and oral review board.
You did mention a code but this response covers many codes. :)
Just a question, Is there a CWI that works for your company (Not that one is needed for qualification testing in most cases) ?
I would imagine (or hope) the people responsible for qualification of procedures/performance have a copy of the code and understand this concept.
As already indicated, Procedure and Performance qualification are 100% unrelated except as noted.
A welder may make the welds on a PQR that supports a specific WPS but may not even be qualified to weld under the ranges of the WPS.
The WPS is qualified based upon a set of variables with ranges as allowed by the code for Procedure Qualiifcation.
The welder is qualified based upon a set of variables with ranges as allowed by the code for Performance qualification.
The coupons needed for performance can vary and would be dependent upon the ranges needed for production and have nothing to do with the WPS used in production. The WPS used during qualification must meet the ranges for the variables used during testimg but have nothing to do with the ranges used during production.
ASME Sec IX for instance says a Pipe WPS can be developed from a plate PQR. A welder that welds that plate up is also qualified for pipe but only down to 2-7/8" OD.
Hope this helps
Does the online course include instructor feedback/participation ?
There is a note in D1.1 regarding "tolerances" that should answer all of your questions. No need for a special interpretation or even a class to get a "straight answer"
Not sure how its worded in the current D1.1 as I don't have one with me but I am pretty sure its very similar. If you could look in yours and post it then it may help others.
3.12.3 Joint Dimensions. Dimensions of groove welds
specified in 3.12 may vary on design or detail drawings
within the limits of tolerances shown in the "As Detailed"
column in Figure 3.3. Fit-up tolerances of Figure
3.3 may be applied to the dimensions shown on the detail
drawing. J-and U- grooves may be prepared before or
Let me know if this helps
Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill