American Welding Society Forum
"...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
That is a somewhat tight gap/groove angle for manipulating the electrode in however electrode storage conditions and electrical factors can increase the likelihood of the arc blow. Have you tried other grounding scenarios and different electrodes ?
Never did receive a response from the OP? Hmmmm . I was told at a recent District meeting that all of the content from this form would be available on the new one so we will see how it goes.
The REALLY cool thing about it is that the welders didn't need any kind of meter to realize it didn't work! They may not have understood "Why" but they with their little knowledge noticed it pretty quickly.
It is my opinion that measurements should be taken at a short distance from the welding. If you qualify a procedure (not sure why you are recording setting for performance) on a given machine, any readings on a subsequent machine may not be accurate depending upon cable lengths/diameter etc.. With a system in which the voltage is displayed at the wire feeder and then in most cases, the voltage difference is negligible for a 12' lead.
Checking actual conditions near the arc can show things such a poor grounding/connections etc... Taking readings at the machine only shows that the machine itself is functioning and not the entire system. Even if a machine is calibrated the entire system may not be accurately represented by the machine reading/settings even if the machine is calibrated.
If I were a 3rd party inspector and tasked with verifying compliance with parameters, chances are EXTREMELY high that I will check at the location the welding is being done. Understand that if a company had a procedure in place that indicated they recorded values at the power source, controlled cable lengths, assured grounding, etc.. then maybe I would reconsider.
In cases where heat input is critical, then its my opinion that the procedures for verifying these parameters should be closely looked at and voltages/amperages should be measured as close to the arc as possible.
"Welding Machine Calibration" in my opinion is a farce in any case in which variations of a few amps or a half a volt at the arc is going to affect the quality of the weld. Calibration of equipment used to measure the electrical output however may be something that could be an asset.
Not sure what kind of discussions go on in the code committee meetings in which this is decided to be something that adds quality to welds. However since I have not attended any, I am part of the problem.
There are many variables that affect the quality of the weld. Usually there is a usable range listed on a WPS that allows for some variation in "real life". Sometimes there isn't as much "rocket science" to welding as we think. Then sometimes there may be a little. It just depends on the industry, how critical the components are, and the "brains" that went into the project specifications and related codes.
Have a great day.
Welders do not have to "test to" a specific WPS. There is a WPS used during testing but it may or may not be one used for production. It may only be for the test assemblies.
The acceptability of a welder qualification record is up to the engineer and welders who have met the applicable requirements for testing at a test facility should have also met the requirements for the code referred to on the supplied documentation.
However they may NOT have met the requirements of the company or project if their requirements exceed those of the code. In some cases the code requirements are very liberal compared to the requirements of organizations who have "engineered" more restrictive requirements into their testing program.
Their is "code compliance" and their are "quality systems" and sometimes a companies quality systems and policies may exceed those of a referenced code so don't be surprised if additional testing is required. That testing may or may not be required by contract documents.
Above are opinions based on limited experience though!
Have a great day.
Not to mention the PM. IS this a test question or homework assignment?
You don't state a wall thickness so the amperage setting are meaningless, nor do you refer to a joint preparation/fitup.
150-200 amps for a 2nd pass in a "Typical" pipe joint is excessive though in almost all cases. If they are running this hot and the WPS says so, I would question the WPS and the individuals that prepared it. If they are given a range yet choose the higher end, I would question the experience and qualifications of the welders. If there is NO WPS then I would question the entire project. That does not mean those are not use-able ranges in some cases but could be something to consider based upon the wall thickness, groove angle, root pass thickness.
You mention LOF and LOP yet indicate the roots "look good" so I'm not sure about the LOP part. If they are trying to fill a joint too quickly (Thick/Slow 2nd pass) then the possibility of internal concavity increases in some conditions (bottom and vertical sides of a horizontal run) as does the possibility of LOF from carrying a puddle that is too thick (Keep the arc near the front of the puddle ).
1 ) Performance Qualification and Procedure Qualification ranges are separate.
A welder takes a test following a procedure. That procedure may be qualified to be used on production welds that may be outside of the range the welder is qualified for. In addition, the welder (after taking a test using the ranges on the WPS) may be qualified to weld on production welds that are outside the range of qualification for the welding procedure.
2) Welders do not "Qualify a procedure"
A welder may perform the welding to qualify the procedure. The organization usually has the responsibility for qualifying the procedure.
3) When verifying the ranges of qualification for a welder, Only those ranges apply that are listed in the respective code.
4) When verifying the ranges of qualification for the procedure, only the ranges apply that are listed in the respective code.
5) When verifying the ranges of qualification for a production weld both 3 and 4 must be valid however the "WPS" to be used does NOT need to be referred to on the referred to on the welder performance qualification record.
6) A code of construction (B31.3) may refer to another code or standard (ASME Sec IX) for qualification for performance and procedures but may take exception to or make additions to those rules.
I suggest looking at the applicable articles in Sec IX regarding qualifcation of welders and procedures.
The other information is irrelevant other than the process.
Though the other variables are irrelevant to the thickness qualified range, they could be related to other ranges but the question doesn't ask anything about those.
As indicated before, there is no code restriction on piping. However the size of filler metal in conjunction with the electrode travel angle can greatly affect penetration/fusion. I recently tested 45 welds on the 2.75 OD x .625" Super coupon. The contractor wanted GTAW all the way out. The fail rate for bends was 22%. All failures were related to non-fusion between layers. The defects were not visible prior to bends and would NOT have been seen by radiography.
In more than a couple of cases the welders were heard to say things such as I shouldn't have doubled the wire, should have used the 1/8" instead of the 5/32" etc...
If you need to double the wire, maybe its time to reach into the toolbox for a tool with a better deposition rate. The pass rate for the SMAW welds on the same type coupons was 100% (Except for those that were looked out).
Look in the applicable code of construction for the project. It should either have requirements for qualification or refer to the code that does apply.
Welding "Certifications" don't get you jobs. Welding skills do. Having the ability to complete "on demand" a welder qualification test is a key part of obtaining employment as a welder. Though many jobs may require all position plate qualification tests be performed prior to hiring, the test positions you list only cover a small part of the story.
For example, the process you use, base metal, thickness, backing, progression etc... are all part of the variables for which you were tested.
Your ability to weld will be better represented by the work you do once hired vs. your ability to pass a test. If for instance all of your welding in school was standing at a booth and you never ran a 1/8" 7018 in a tee joint sitting on the floor, your abilities may be challenged on your first job.
We all had to gain "experience". I cannot speak for the large group of knowledgeable and skilled craftsman on this forum, but as for myself, in my 35 years as a welder, the only time I ever gave a copy of a welder qualification test (certification papers) to someone for work was when I went into the boilermaker apprentice program.
If your only skill is stick welding with 7018, then maybe look for local maintenance/repair companies who perform some welding to get started. In addition, larger construction projects often hire laborers or helpers. have on your resume that you have completed whatever test it is (list more than the test position) and have the papers ready to back it up.
Here is something worth a read maybe. https://app.aws.org/mwf/attachments//38/267938/CertifiedWelderpublic.zip
There is no piece of paper as valuable as your ability to weld good. Use it as a basis to establish communication with a possible employer but always be prepared to show your skills.
Also, understand that my opinion is based upon my limited experiences in the industry sectors I have worked in. There are companies that think the "certification" is all they need to do good welding. I won't work for those companies. If they don't need too test me, they don't need my skills !
This is what has been going on in this forum for 15 years. Just the search results in this forum are incredible. What will be "new" about the next community. Will it take on the look of FB or Linkedin?
Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill