American Welding Society Forum
Just like when I order a piece of material, I as the purchaser need to let the supplier know exactly what I want. Sometimes this may be by reference. Normally the purchasing document used to specify the inspections to be provided would give a clear direction to the order of precedence for acceptance criteria.
The acceptance criteria for welder qualification testing is very generic for some codes. If you are testing welders for another organization, be sure you are aware of all of their acceptance criteria. Not meeting it or exceeding can be an issue when you are manning up a job.
Do what the instructions provided for the project spell out. No more, no less.
I have only used the VRtex360 and Soldamatic device during demos. I have used each of them 2 times.
I am by no means an expert on the topic but am somewhat interested.
Here are a couple of Lihnkedin posts that may be of help. This one is kinda long winded (I just get that way sometimes) https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/learning-weld-without-welding-gerald-austin
Another is from a friend who has multiple soldamatic units in his class. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/training-welders-you-can-keep-heat-anthony-hardin
Lincoln also has a new lower cost and smaller unit called the vrtx mobile.
You mentioned price not being a factor. Consider that you can get 3 for the price of one. That seems like an important factor but I guess everyone has their own things that are important.
My most recent use of the Vrtex360 was after I wrote the post above. One major issue I had with a $50k piece of equipment was the fact that there was no diopter adjustment in the hood for near vision. I scored in the 40's using the hood. 89 without by just looking at the gun with the hood off while welding with no visual representation of the weld.
Note that the price on the vrtex has stayed very much the same since introduction to now. So either there hasn't been enough volume yet to pay for the "development" or something else.
I also have a realweld trainer. Though it has been useful in a couple of cases, I cannot see how it would ever pay for itself.
Though it doesn't have t he same "wow" factor. A washer on a table with a tig rig can be a pretty good muscle memory builder and thats really what its all about. The visual feedback in my opinion is only a small factor since it poorly matches the real thing.
I am working on an idea that can be attached to an electrode holder of any type and measure euler angles and retract a fake electrode at the same time. Its one step above the washer method but will use less than $200 worth of hardware.
I would suggest contacting both companies and asking for customer contact info where you could call and talk to some of their users about what they think. It seems welding instructors may be a quiet bunch when asked specific questions online about what they do.
Have a great day
I strongly suggest looking into the area in which you gained your qualifying experience 1st.
Familiarity with the methods used in a certain industry can make your new evironment a bit easier to cope with.
Congratulations. Did you take a course or self study?
I have never seen one with that length of undercut but I have seen a few with undercut that was visible after prep that was over 1/4" and never open up when bent.
I am sure the severity/angle of the notch at the root of the undercut would severly increase the likelihood of failure.
Of course what I have seen in the welding world is limited to just my experiences. Someone that maybe worked in a test lab or similar would have some representative experience.
If the bends cracked or otherwise open up I think the question may not have been put forth.
How about some pics of the bends when they are done? Before and after would be great.
Even being an "AWS Certified Welder" may not be of much help. It does however provide a somewhat more reliable trail of documentation. The typical tests and I elections are the same as what is required by the code. The difference lies in the qualification of the facility.
In any case you may be required to test prior to employment. Thats half the fun. Ours always best to show up with a few skills than a ton of papers.
If you are interested in being an AWS Certified Welder you need to make sure the facility you test at is an Accredited Test Facility.
I think if you look at the code and it defines something as a "discontinuity" and that discontinuity appears on the convex face of the bend. The acceptance criteria is clear as to what it says.
I have seen some say that they do not blend in acceptable undercut on specimens before they bend them. That of course leaves a "discontinuity" based upon the definition. And they of course have a decision to make regarding verbatim interpretation of the code and deciding what the "intent" was. The latter of which is not addressed in the code.
The question opens up this question... Is undercut a discontinuity? According to the definition "...an interuption in the typical structure....." then undercut on a bend specimen appears to be a discontinuity.
In reference to bends, D1.1 uses the term "discontinuity" and not a more specific term "open discontinuity" like used in some other codes. That could include those little wrinkles that occur if one was so inclined to follow the code verbatim.
If undercut is a discontinuity and you are doing face or root bends and the undercut doesn't miraculously dissappear (even if it was acceptable before bending) then after you get the bends done, you have a big decision to make.
Cannot tell you what to do but I understand the situation. Maybe a code committee person can make an official interpretation.
Hope this helps and have a great day.
I teach non-credit courses (workforce training) so have some latitude in what I do.
I grade all of the final welds blind with no knowledge of the students. At the completion of the class, the final test welds are given with only one chance to pass. One example of grading single pass fillet welded tee joints is as follows.
1) Remove all welds that do not meet the minimum specifications for at least 70% of their length to the "Failed" pile.
2) Sort (left to right with left being the best) all remaining welds based upon consistency in size based upon the length of areas with variation in the length of the weld. Score them left to right 100 to 70 depending on the length of size variations. Write the score on the pc.
3) Measure total length of discontinuities on each weld and re-sort them based upon the length of discontinuity percentage.
4) Subtract the length of discontinuities from the length of weld and divide it by the overall length to get the score.
5) Re Sort the welds by score.
6) Average the score for consistency and the score for discontinuities.
Another "less technical" method I use is to just sort them left to right on appearance, score the best one based on a quick look at how much of it meets the minimum requirements. Thats the start of the curve. I then sort the rest in descending order and score the "worst" one that I still consider acceptable for the class a 70. I then go through them 2 or three times resorting them in groups with 5 point differences.
My preferred method is just Pass/Fail with specific acceptance criteria that addresses minimum and maximum conditons.
Being able to layout and fit has nothing to do with the ability to weld. Though they are good skills, the ability to reach 4 tubes deep in a superheater section and root and fill a tube joint that gets RT'd is FAR different than being able to make a wraparound template, use a square, plumb bob, level, and read a drawing.
I have done it with GTAW and the process should also be possible with GMAW. I think Argon is suggested with DCEP. Preheat will probably be needed. Try to minimize the the amount of melting of the carbon steel to reduce dilution. ERCuSi-A is the suggested filler metal I believe. AWS Welding Handbook 3 I think has the info. Mine is at the shop but the info is in there.
Also check out Copper.org.
You may be able to get a small quantity of filler metal and try a few things.
NOTE: The process is welding if it is done properly!
I think its between the section for selecting the proper roofing tin for bushog repairs and techniques for making your weld more harderer!
You make your own WPS's according to the rules within the code (Prequalified or Qualified By Testing) or you can purchase Standard WPS's from the American Welding Society.
My physical limit has been about 250-260 IPM in short circuit with .035 so it does look like there is some advantage with pulse, sign me up for some of that "special gas" and pulsing stuff!
Have a look at QW 461.1 for limits of positions as the axis changes. Part of a 6G coupon ARE vertical (Diagram Reference D and E). Thus, if the test position is 6G, part of the weld is vertical if any of it falls within the axis and rotation of the weld.
Hope this helps you find your answer.
Have a great day,
There it's a physical limit too how much wire can be melted in a position other than flat. Vertical has an advantage vs overhead in the fact that uphill progression is much less prone to fusion type discontinuities.
Pure overhead can be a challenge as there must be enough arc force to propel the metal against gravity and yet stay cold enough to reduce the time the metal is molten.
Pulse Transfer as a fix for difficulties welding out of position is somewhat hype in my opinion. Processes with Slag seem to provide more consistent results as far as bead appearance goes. Running 200 plus amps overhead with 71T1 is no big deal. Getting to that deposition rate with GMAW has been impossible for me to do but GMAW is by no means a strong point of mine.
I may play next week and see what can happen.
I'm not a big fan of the "optional" test unless that joint is to be used in production. Even myself knowing the fact that the lower piece is a big heat sink and prone to poor fusion, I still sometimes catch myself with a work angle pointing up. The 1st bead should almost be treated like a fillet weld (which can be a pain to pass by itself).
I qualified a procedure for open root fill and cap with 75/25 and short circuit so it is capable of producing quality welds. I suggest that you use the regular test coupon. But...
I also try to make companies aware that there is more to code compliance than having a qualified procedure and welders.
Consider the joints to be welded, do they comply with the range of qualification for the procedure and performance.
Are the joints as designed fillet welded or groove welded. If groove welded are they CJP or PJP. If groove welded, diameter restrictions may apply.
Are the dihedral angles on the handrails in need of consideration.
Are there jurisdictional requirements for code compliance?
Are the materials listed in the code and procedure qualified.
Is inspection performed in-process and finals.
You have already been straightened out on the pulse/short circuit deal so I won't comment ion that but understand that knowing what you don't know is sometimes as important as knowing what you don't. The ability to weld has nothing to do with the ability to perform duties as a welding inspector however a strong understanding of many things welding related is needed.
ALSO. The ability to obtain suitable results with 75/25 and conventional (non-pulsed) transfer modes . The bend being performed in this video is from a 2G weld done last night in class. 1/2" plate with open root. https://youtu.be/q6b0Lp-pqbM
That is correct. A welder is qualified to weld on a joint using ANY WPS that is also qualified that joint. Both the welder and the WPS must be used within their respective ranges of qualification.
I personally try to avoid indicating a welder is qualified for a WPS since the ranges allowed by a WPS may greatly exceed the range for which the welder is qualified.
Glad you got what you needed. Have a great day.
I will send you an email. I am trying to get enough people interested and hopefully get something going over the summer.
Thanks for the comment. There are some tremendous resources on this forum. You should try a search and check out the responses. There are many with incredible knowledge and experience that have left the forum and sadly some have left this earth.
Have a great day.
Sorry. QW 353. The table for to process variables for performance qualification.
If there is a groove weld with no specified dimension, it is CJP however if the depth of preparation is detailed but weld size is not, the the weld size is equal to the groove depth, so based upon the example written the effective size is equal to the depth of groove. Looking in an old standard (98) there is no reference to the depth of penetration of the backing weld be it dimensions or not dimensioned. There is a statement in the commentary that seems to indicate using a backing symbol means CJP.
If I was to come across this and had any questions as an inspector, I would refer to the design authority for clarification. It seems to be difficult to tie down based upon the content of the standard.
I should have read closer. My brain was telling me "backing strip". However since backing welds are NOT groove welds the assumption that an unspecified dimension means CJP may not apply.
I will have to break out the standard to make sure but may very well be wrong.
Then the groove weld size (E) is equal to the depth of preparation.
The De-oxidizers and denitrifiers (aluminum, Fluorspar is)can lead to subsequent cracking not to mention causing a great deal of pain and suffering when you try to weld over it with another process.
Though "down on the farm" the wire works great because you can vary stickout widely, minor changes in arc lengh in real life can affect the ability of the flux to perform. I think the controls needed to maintain consistent mechanical properties could be hard to achieve based on most methods employed for controlling "special processes" such as welding.
Look at QW-453(for SMAW but the same for others) then QW-403.18 then QW-423 and that should answer your original question.
The WPS has no reflection on the range of qualification of the welder. It must meet the variable ranges used for testing except for the allowances for substitution of materials AND in must meet the requirements for the variable used in production.
The welder may use the WPS during testing however he/she may not be able to weld on production joints using that same WPS if the ranges required for the production joint are outside his/her range of qualification .
The ranges of qualification can be seen in QW403.18. I would suggest reviewing that para.
I think most of your questions have been answered but I would like to throw in a few comments.
1) The format of the form is irrelevant. The content of Table 4.12 must be addressed and recorded. (Process, F-Number, Position, Diameter, Thickness, Vertical Progression and Backing. The digital form in fillable PDF is at https://app.aws.org/technical/forms/N-4.pdf
2) As indicated, you must use the joints as shown in clause form. A prequalified joint design exists in clause 3 that will match the details of the required joint designs in clause 4.
3) There are prequalified partial and complete joint penetration joints however there are no PJP joints for welder qualification.
4) The employer should have their own WPS's and of course you can prepare them for them however they need to have signature authorization somewhere on the form. I try to stress to organizations who are wanting their welders "certified" that there is more to code compliance than just that and having a certified welder will typically not release them from the responsibility of their work and though they may be able to show intent of compliance by certification of the welders, there is usually a great deal many more requirements within the code .
5) Submittal to AWS is only a requirement for an AWS Accredited test facility.
6) If you have the equipment to pull tensiles, you can pull them but don't forget the need for NDE prior to bends/tensiles.
If you are near NE Tennessee, I am planning a series of inspector training sessions this summer and welder testing and certification will be one of the modules (6-8 hours tentatively).
I apologize for duplicating any other responses. Just remember that welder testing is only a small part of code compliance and producing quality welds.
Have a good day
I do not understand what you are asking.
Impact testing variables have no reflection on qualification of the welder.
Group Number would be a limiting variable if
1) Impact Testing (Supplementary Essential Variables) were required.
2) You are only referring to the use of the WPS in production. Materials may be substituted for performance qualification.
Hope this helps.
The qualification ranges for the welder are separate and apart from the ranges for a WPS. The welder must be qualified for a production weld based upon his/her ranges of qualification and the procedure used must be qualified for the ranges used for production.
One may be qualifed outside the ranges of the other.
Structural Applications is the intended use. AWS and other bodies have a considerable amount of welding related standards and specifications. Many of which overlap and work in conjunction with each other.
I had a small block manufactured that contained steps, holes, chamfers etc. and had the mfg document all of the dimensions using a measuring system traceable to NIST standards and document the measured dimensions on the drawing along with a signature and references to the machine used.
I then have a "working standard" that is suitable for the degree of precision established within our quality policies and supporting procedures. It also works for tape measures, steel rules, micrometers, calipers etc... . My next one will be slightly larger because its a pit tricky for the base of the bridge cam gauge.
Have a great day.
One advantage of qualifying a procedure over purchasing one may be the wider range of customization that can be within the document vs using the SWPS as is. If you are just using the procedure for "qualification" then it very well may be the way to go.
For procedure qualification per Sec IX and B2.1, they could qualify the procedure on a pc of 3/16" or 1/4" plate, cut bends and tensiles, do the bends in house, get the tensiles machined locally ($60-$100), and send the tensiles to be pulled ($60-$100). So that coupled with your rate would exceed the cost of an SWPS. However the value may not. I am a firm believer in the"...teach a man to fish..." idea though it probably doesn't go well with my boss sometimes.
A thought, one other thing I always stress to organizations wanting their welders "certified" is that if they are performing a job in which the requirement for welder performance qualification is referenced, often within the project specifications there are more requirements to compliance than just testing the welders. Some understand a drawing note such as 1. All welding shall be performed in accordance with xxx and welders shall be currently qualified in accordance with xxx. to mean just "I need the magical mystical all knowing "CERTIFIED WELDER" to make sure everything in the welding world is good.
If the likelihood is high that this is a one time deal, the SWPS may be the way to go.
Have a great day.
Or maybe run a bead over some stuff as allowed by D1.1!
Anything to change up either the CWI program or the Big Red Book will probably never go over well according to those annual financial reports.
I think (for me) ASME IX is much clearer than some of the others and easier to follow but still pretty complicated. At least its not like the big red book where when it comes out AFTER 5 years for $500+ and STILL has an errata sheet with it. With some content very close in location and reference to errata sheets of old.
Have a good one Al.
Yes the welder is qualified.
If the nozzle passes through the shell, the diameter of the nozzle is not a restriction based upon the qualification range of the welder.
At least that's how I recall an interpretation.
Have a good day.
I previously worked as a support for Cspec and may be able to help. If you have some time, send me a message with a phone number and I will be glad too try to help.
Here is a video for creating a prequalified WPS. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82IwU_y_w88
What trouble are you having entering a pqr ?
If something goes "Boom" in the night for a project requiring appropriate ASME or NBIC stamps then that contractorr should be FULLY aware of the requirements of the applicable codes.
When it comes to ASME BPV and Pipe requiring a stamp EVERYONE involved except the contractor will have a waiver of responsibility including the NDE company and the AI. Or at least all of the ones I have worked with. NDE, its usually in fine print.
I think SEC IX is pretty clear about the supervisory responsibility and those organizations that work outside of those requirements are the ones responsible for compliance.
I think that there is a great many companies that somehow feel responsibility for the qualifications somehow releases them from liability of their workmanship. Not ever seen evidence of that but my experience is limited.
There is so much more to performing quality welding than welder testing and certification.
NOTE: I agree with the requirement for witnessing the testing. There is absolutely no exception for this requirement within ASME Sec. IX. So the person who witnessed and supervised the test would have needed too have been an employee of the company at the time the test was administered.
There may be some exceptions within ASME Codes of construction, but Sec IX by itself, there are none.
That doesn't preclude another party from administering a test, however use of that welder in production may not comply with the applicable code.
The certification signature and "Welding Test Supervised By" lines on the Qualification Record are often overlooked.
Are you speaking to the qualification being done for two codes at one time or something else?
I would love to see the 3G uphill spray transfer test in person myself.
The acceptance criteria for D1.1 is more stringent than that for ASME Sec IX as is the Visual acceptance criteria. Bend dimensions are the same however D1.1 has additional requirements for preparation of bend specimens that differ slightly from those of Sec IX.
Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill