American Welding Society Forum
If the certification statement indicates the requirements of both codes were met, all variables for each code are recorded, what leads you to believe that the documents are invalid?
If the content of the form meets the requirements of each code AND there is a certified record (the wpqr) indicating the requirements for testing were met. I would have a difficult time NOT accepting the document.
Since there are different requirements for testing then the person who signed the record should be able to explain the differences (there are some).
I would be cautious rejecting a document that meets the requirements of the code or multiple codes.
As with much, an opinion only based on limited experience. I have done this myself in the past and can explain the differences.
EDIT: Note that they should have qualified WPS's on file for each code if they are doing production work on your project under both codes.
I believe there are some exceptions to acceptance of qualification performed by others in B31.3. I'd have to look it up.
Recently tested quite a few welders for a project local to here and explained to them that statement in Sec IX regarding qualification. They and the end user accepted supervision from our testing facility. No ATF requirement either.
Hope all is well.
Hmmmm. My thought is that if incomplete fusion is visible at any stage while inspecting it would be rejectable based upon the criteria listed in my previous post.
When I have cut straps I have noticed a line at the back side of the joint . I think it's LOF however cannot verify it visually (could be undercut or a rolled edge). When I bend the strap, if I see the in fused edge of the plate I reject it. I have had some where they did not open enough to see this and accepted them provided the dimensions were acceptable.
I will ponder this more though.
Have a good day Lawrence.
That appears to a discontinuity related to fusion/penetration at the root. It is also a corner crack.
That discontinuity could possibly be observed prior to bending after backing is removed.
"The weld root for CJP groove welds shall be inspected and shall not have any cracks, incomplete fusion, or incomplete joint penetration"
I can't see I side the opening however if it revealed no tearing or stretching, the above defects mentioned would apply.
Just an opinion and subject to being wrong. That's how I would call it.
If you are speaking of AWS Sense schools then they should have curriculum that meets the requirements of the sense program however that does not mean every class they offer meets those requirements.
Note that AR400 does not meet the requirements of A514. Two slightly different mfg processes. If you are getting 400BHN out of A514, it's not A514.
AR 400 will have a higher yield than the grades/types of A514 available. The chemical composition may be the same however the heat treatment applied is different.
AWS D1.1 allows for additional bend radius based upon the base metal yield strength. If you look at the figure for the bend fixture, it is there.
It will bend at the proper radius. If the yield is way over 90KSI there may be issues but you should try it 1st. Its how the code says to qualify it. If you don't want to test your welds, bend a piece cut from the plate.
The WPS's can be as detailed/specific as you like as long as the requirements of clause 3 are addressed.
A single WPS per joint would be the way to go if the individual WPS'S were used as a reference for verifying the joint configuration and providing useful information to the welder. This would eliminate the need to have a copy of D1.1 handy. However there is nothing that that says you cannot refer to another document on the WPS.
When WPS's are used there are 2 general ways they are applied.
1. They are documents that are mainly handled by QC and supervision and verified to be "code compliant" and must not fall into the hands of the welder. They are often brought out during audits and contact reviews.
2. They are used as a tool and always available for reference while welding and contain ranges that are specific to the application taking into account thickness, position, and process limitations.
You cannot buy a pWPS from an organization but if you were in the area, I would sell you a class on clause 3.
There are some software applications that make the process a bit easier.Here is a video I made quite a few years back showing it being done with WeldOffice by C-spec. https://youtu.be/82IwU_y_w88
Have a great day
I have a pipe welding course that is 160 hours that starts in Feb. Have room.
I am also considering starting a series of Welding Inspection courses (NOT CWI PREP) for topics such as contract review, material control, welder testing and certification, Weld Defects and interpretation, weld tracking, NDE Method Overview, Document Control, Non-Conformance Reporting, and others. https://registration.xenegrade.com/wscc/courseDisplay.cfm?schID=10365
is a link to the pipe welding course.
I also have some one day pipe welding clinics on Saturdays but not much interest yet. https://registration.xenegrade.com/wscc/courseDisplay.cfm?schID=10357
Feel free to email me.
My email address is the same as my name (Note a period between the 1st and last name) followed by ws.edu. Or PM me here if you have any questions. Call me and I can let you know what my experience and abilities are and see if I can help you. Understand that we may be at the same level and I may not be much help.
Cell Number is 423-914-1481.
Office is 423-798-7991, (Will be out the afternoon today so cell is better)
Have a great day
Does CWB have a forum that may be a great place for him to ask those questions? I never really thought about the "funded" options.
By no means an expert but would like to throw something out there for clarification. And forgive me if you were already aware of this.
1) A welder or Operator does not "Qualify" to use a WPS. He/She qualifies to weld within a range of variables designated for the production weld he/she is making. A person could test on 3/8" thick material, be qualified to weld on material up to 3/4" and use a WPS in production that is qualified up to 2 inches. However because he/she is using that WPS, that does not mean he/she is qualifed to weld on 2" thick material.
2) WPS's are used a couple of ways
a) To provide QC types with verification of an adequate paper trail that is code compliant for the project. Put all you can on one to cover all of the ranges possible and make sure you meet the code.
b) To provide welders with clear and useful information related to the weld they are making that complies with the allowable range for the specific code. Place the information on the WPS in a manner that provides clear guidelines for usable paramters that are specific to the joint or joints including position. Example, a prequalified WPS using 3/16" diameter E7018 on 5/16" butt joint in the vertical position, may very well "meet the code" however unless there is some serious "Welding magic" going on, its just wasted ink on paper.
Just my thoughts.
In my limited experience, most organizations are looking to create documents that fall more into a than b
Have a great day
"So if we give them a test and it passes visual and the other required bend tests this welder is "certified" term used loosely."
Yes, provided the variable ranges for which they are qualified meet fall within the ranges to be welded on in production.
Understand that if you are fabricating items in accordance with D1.1, there is more to it than just performing welder qualification testing.
Maybe a small baby goat or two !
PPE wouldn't have helped with that one. Take my chances with a 9" B&D Wildcat waaaay before crawling in there with that one!
But, if one can burn the rods well, money is good. If one is interested in jobs where welding is "part" of the job, then other skills and abilities can be their primary job and welding will support what they do and they may not need to be greatly skilled in welding.
I have cleared a few grand in a week and never once did I do anything except weld pipes/tubes together. No math, no drafting, no metallurgy, no inspection. Just my skills with my hands (which are average) . Not saying those other things aren't helpful sometimes, but that ability to weld stuff together is unmatched in my opinion.
Someone can learn in a classroom many things related to welding that are not actual welding, but when it comes to being a welder, being able to weld is essential and carries the most weight in many of the industries I have worked in.
My experience is somewhat limited so this is just one mans opinion. Being able to fit or do other tasks is a definite as I have also hired in as a welder and fitter and also as an inspector. So the more talents, the better.
A guy with a PHD in math, metallurgy, and the grand poobah of drafting that can weld "a little" is no match to that person that can weld anything on the job regardless of material, process, position, or accessibility. Again, an opinion based upon limited experiences.
Still, some good points and we can never learn too much.
I recently tested a guy that went through 5 mos of training 4 hours a day for 5 days a week. Still couldn't weld uphill with a 7018. He missed out on a 38 Hr construction job. Said they spent 2/3rds of their time in the classroom.
A mig welding course will lead to employment sooner based upon the hours of training required. Consider it close to learning how to change oil, replace a waterpump, and do a tune up. Something that can put you to work but far from being able to rebuild an engine, install it, and getting it to run.
MIG can be learned in a relatively short period of time to a level suitable for entry level employment. 40 to 80 hours can get many to a level suitable to jump from a minimum wage job. I recently had a student that never welded and was working on a road crew laying asphalt and 40 hour of training later, he is working at a company MIG welding 5th wheels for tractor trailers. On the other end, I have had students that completed a 2 year course at another college and it was difficult to watch them struggle with the most basice welding exercises. Abilities can be somewhat related to the drive and skills of the individual.
GMAW (Mig) as a lifelong career may be limiting. My 1st welding job was MIG as a HS student. Though I have used the process since and the skills gained have been valuable, the ability to perform all processes and possession of a core knowledge related to welding has been what has provided me a fulfilling career. The training time began in HS and has continued since.
Here is something that may be worth a read. http://weldinginstructors.org/ga/2015/02/how-much-training-is-needed-to-be-a-welder/
I looked at the course and it looked fine. Just remember, if 37.5 hours of training could lead to a well paying career with many options for employment, everyone wouild be doing it. There is a somewhat linear "effort to reward" relationship.
Have a great day!
Not exactly sure why perfectly good Mil Stds are replaced with other documents. I read the forward but still don't get it.
I would have a difficult time rejecting a welder qualification test for a FILLET welded sample based upon the criteria in the code only for the condition shown if the undercut on the welded side of the joint did not exceed .07t. The condition on the other side is not undercut as defined by any sources I am aware of.
I think this very condition (which can be difficult to control with some production settings) is why 17.1 allows for some IP at the root for thinner materials with fillet when performing qualification tests. But that is just a guess.
So suggesting to your client that "cooler parameters" could prevent/minimize this type of condition could be something to minimize this is the future.
If its a groove welded Tee joint then yup Table 7.1 applies as far as underfill goes. Its bad and the code says so. If its designed as a fillet weld, I'd have a hard time providing a code paragraph to provide. Face or Root Underfill is not addressed for fillet welds. Still wouldn't accept it as a production acceptable condition for a product unless the engineering authority gave me something.
That's how I would feel about it.
I have seen this same (or very similar) image and question in the past. Since this seems to be a sample (maybe for qualification) and not a production part, some investigation is required. I have seen cases of this on Welder Qualifications for test welds however without the thickness being reduced below the base metal thickness.
D17.1 may not have the "support" you need for rejection however if you don't wanna put your name on it and can explain why, just go for it with the understanding that you are of course accountable for your actions. The other option is to place a hold on the item and request guidance from the engineering authority based on the fact that this condition has reduced the effective thickness of the base metal/weld metal below the as supplied thickness.
As an inspector, for all I know, the design "minimum" thickness is 75% of the nominal thickness. Thus the joint MAY be OK however I would request guidance from the engineering authority 1st.
Codes do not always cover all the bases but if all you have is the code and you wanna stick with the code, stick with it.
I probably wasn't much help. Some of these things are best answered internally. Hate to have to back up a questionable decision with "...well the guy I talked to on the internet said .........."
Have a great day
Look at the applicable table for the process and note the requirements for group number. In all the typical processes, group number is a "Supplementary Essential" variable. If the process you are using indicates that, and you know the requirements for notch toughness, you have your answer.
Based upon the fabrication requirements of AWS D1.1 as indicated in Para 5.24.3 the profiles for groove welds and reinforcement must meet the requirements shown 5.9 and 5.10 which refer to profile sketches in fig 5.4. In all cases, underfill is noted as unacceptable regardless of measurements.
However if the designer/engineer specified the joint to meet a specific profile other than that indicated within D1.1 I would expect them to provide the acceptance criteria.
With the variation in radius (unless root opening dimensions based upon radius are provided) being the deciding factor in the effective throat, allowing variations in which the effective throat varies can compound the variations that you get in production.
As an inspector, I would typically be interested in the fabrication requirements and acceptance criteria quoted within the code. If the designer/engineer has decided that a condition as you have shown above is acceptable, thats fine. He/She should specify somewhere that the groove weld does not need to be filled all the way. he has an entire chapter designated to him/her in D1.1.
There is no "Acceptance Criteria" for what you show above since what you show above could not be verified by inspection of completed welds and I am pretty sure D1.1 does not address macro on samples other than for qualification. Of course what you show would be detected visually as far as the underfill goes. In no case I am aware of is there a statement that says, "..if ya got enough penetration sometimes, its ok to not fill the joint all the way as long as you think the penetration is deeper than needed. "
Another thing I would consider is the joint. If prequalified, the effective weld size is based upon the weld being flush. If it were qualiifed by testing, the testing should reflect the abilty for the procedure to obtain the required weld size with a given amount of underfill based upon some given fitup dimensions (Root Opening, Radius etc)
Of course all the above is an opinion and subject to being changed if the info is correct. If there were questions, I would consult the engineer. That's why they learn all that smart stuff!
Have a good day. I myself am on my 3rd SNOW DAY and do NOT feel bad about it!
You may be better off checking with your instructor on those.
Are you speaking of angular distortion after welding ?
Not aware of one in D1.1 or Sec IX (Which doesn't mean it doesn't exist)
5 degrees in S9074-AQ-GIB-010/248 (Figure 14)
Not sure about any other codes.
Have a great day.
Have you suggested trying the tacks only, inspecting (maybe MT), and welding with progressive inspection. Transverse cracking that occurs at the tacks only could be a type of crater cracking or cracks that are occurring as the joint is welded.
Just reposting this for those who are interested in what you can do with MS Access or other database management systems for tracking welding information. This is a demo and not intended for production. It will expire after a period of time. http://weldingdata.com/FtpPublic/WeldTracking2015NRT.zip
- NOTE: This require MS Access 2010 or later to run or the MS Access Runtime (609k)
It's easy to teach a person to pass a test but throwing a little something out to them that is closer to "real world" can give a company some valuable info.
When I do testing as a 3rd party I'm all for just the code or whatever written requirements are provided by the company paying for the test. When I am in charge of quality on a project and have been provided permission to do what I think is best you can be pretty sure a 2.75 x 5/8 wall tig coupon is not all that's gonna be done if your doing 3/4 nps butt welds.
Have a great day.
I assuming GMAW, FCAW or GTAW as the process.
This is a very common practice. One thing you can do to add to your confidence regarding the very minor differences when welding thinner stainless is to have an individual perform a workmanship test on what you would consider a typical weld they would encounter in the field.
Code wise you are good to go and the rules and exceptions for P no substitution are easy to find.
However code compliance is only a small part of a quality system.
I like the test option but went with credit for teaching hours due to sheduling and $..
I have always enjoyed the tests.
How long was your Navy exp. I would expect 6 years but maybe not.
Your active duty time from C school to discharge would count towards work related experience.
I did have a student come in awhile back that had "22 certifications" but needed to brush up on his skills. he is probably in the top 10.
Many of the manufacturers suggest E70 Electrodes for their wear plate material and armor plate. The lower strength filler metal is much more forgiving of the lack of ductility in the base metal and also possible base metal/weld metal dilution.
As the weld metal tensile strength goes up, the need for preheat increases with AR plate.
If a product were being designed based upon the mechanical properties and actual thicknesses of the base metal, then the filler metal would need to match the stress levels to be encountered at the joint. I just don't think thats what is done with AR plate that much but when it is, then the weld metal should be matched accordingly.
Hope all is well.
If you are using it for armor protection, there is often no need to match base metal strength since with material of that hardness, its pretty difficult.
If you are using it and basing design criteria on the properties listed for the base metal, be VERY careful.
M11 may be close if there is a clause referring to unlisted materials with near matching properties but I dont have that info off the top of my head.
Much of the wear resistant plate is HSLA Q&T (A514/A517) with modified or minimum tempering.
I think they add additional time if your a bubblehead! :)
The educational requirements are based upon years completed and not credits. However the "Work Related Experience" should be fulfilled depending on your time as a AI since the NBIC is closely related to Welded Repairs.
If you notice in the references section of the specification there are no references to ASTM specs for materials nor references to UNS numbers. Anyone manufacturing this material would probably advertise it as such.
Mechanical properties seem similar to AR400 . Wear materials even in the civilian sector used to be difficult to match to a specification.
Are you looking for a source?
Seems to be a pretty common issue among welders.
However there is nothing that prohibits you from "certifiying" the welder. The role is not defined by D1.1 and in many cases is assumed by an individual who is much less qualified to certify anything was done in accordance with a code.
Thus, an overall quality system that clearly defines the roles and responsibilities within your organization would be the place to start.
Just my opinion.
Congratulations on passing the test. Your capabilities are neither enhanced nor reduced by your passing of the the test by most codes.
They are strictly driven by your knowledge and skills (or lack thereof).
Their are a couple of things to think about regarding "certification".
1) Compliance- If you have been building a product in accordance with a code, a quality system that addresses the overall fabrication process could be something worth considering. Having a welder who has passed a test that has no procedure qualified for production joints is no more "Compliant" than welding without being tested. If you build custom projects and have no procedures in place for contract review, document control, non-conformances, inspection and testing, materials etc then you have some other issues to consider.
2) Quality- If the welders you have been using for production are just "certified" there will be no change in what they have been doing in the past by just becoming "certified". There is no difference in the ability or work ethic of a welder who has been certified vs one who has not, only a piece of paper. If you are looking to improve real quality, consider some training that incorporates the requirements of your organization and any referenced codes or specifications.
Have a great day.
My biggest point is too make sure that you dont assume your company is any more compliant if all you do is test your welders until you verify the requirements for your product(s).
I would do a couple of things if I had this requirement and I am sure there is probably some more detailed "specifications referenced somewhere (hopefully).
1 Establish what specific "Standard" is being referenced.
2 Verify that the applicable standard does not have a more restrictive time limit (6 Mos vs 12 Mos)
3 Review the joints to be used in production to establish the ranges of qualification needed for both procedures and welders.
4 Review all documentation provided (Welder Qualification Records and WPS's to be used in production) for content based upon whatever the applicable code or standard is regardless of WHO has stamped it or blessed it.
5 Review the "Manufacturer or Contractor" signature block to assure that the part responsible for the welding is also the one who qualified the welder and procedure.
Just an opinion though. Some great information already provided but figured I would throw something out there.
Have a great Day
My primary concern would be airborne Hex Chrome. The process will generate significant amounts . maybe enough to warrant protection for those in the shop besides the ones doing the gouging.
As already mentioned, an alternative such as GTAW on the root or a process/joint design that minimizes the amount of metal to be removed would be ideal.
Have agreat day.
The audit went very well. Tim Gary was able to come administer a test to one of my students while I reviewed the audit checklist with the auditor.
The checklist in my opinion could stand some revision. A reference to the applicable documented requirements within the QC4 standard would be good. There are a few redundant items.
The auditor was thorough and experienced with the testing and certification of welders. I have a few editorial changes to make to a couple of forms and quality control procedures, submit them, and we are gonna just be waiting on AWS to send us our notification. There were no discrepancies noted .
All in all, very little changes about how I test welders in the lab other than the additional AWS paperwork and their poorly designed WPQR form.
Tim tested one of my students on a GMAW 1G plate IAW D1.1 and he passed so that was really the high point for my day.
Have a good day.
We have already had the wallet dented:). I will let all know how it goes. I do love audits.
I have a pretty lengthy quality manual that I prepared that I think is more than was needed based upon a conversation with the auditor so I will see how that goes.
Gonna let one of my current students do a flat GMAW Groove weld test as a demo. He will have 40 hours of training and be an "AWS Certified Welder". Something to think about :).
Has anyone gone through the ATF audit and have some experiences they want to share regarding situations that they maybe were not expecting ?
We are having ours this coming Friday and am looking forward to it. My audit "experiences" in the past sometimes showed great variations between both individual auditors for the same company (Different Projects requiring new audits but with the same audit plan), and with different companies using the same project specifications (building products for the same end user but through different companies).
Anyway, any feed back is appreciated.
I strongly suggest you attempt the 1/2" fillet as both a single pass and multipass and let the "proof" be in the finished weld.
So many variables can affect the quality of a weld that size so record exactly what you are doing for each attempt.
Love to see your results.
Just a polarizing filter and manual settings on the camera if I remember right. The bright light sometimes causes problems in auto modes. It was edited in Lightroom to get the look I wanted.
Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill