Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum
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.
Gerald
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.
AWS D1.1-2000
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
after assembly.
Let me know if this helps
Gerald Austin
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.
Gerald Austin
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.
Gerald Austin
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.
Gerald
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).
Gerald
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.zipThere 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?
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-hardinLincoln 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
Gerald Austin
Greeneville Tn
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.
Gerald
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.
Gerald Austin
Greeneville TN.
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,
Gerald Austin
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.
Tom,
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.
Gerald Austin
Greeneville Tn
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.
Gerald
Sorry. QW 353. The table for to process variables for performance qualification.
Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill
