American Welding Society Forum
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.
Well, That appears to be a groove weld. Though maybe not by design, however the portion exhibiting penetration through the edges of one member is a fillet reinforced groove weld in a tee joint.
Some of the pictures exhibit undercut/underfill on the vertical member that I am pretty sure exceeds the limits of table 7.1.
If the weld is only specified as a fillet weld but exhibits the properties of a groove weld then it is difficult to pin that down however I think the engineering authority would be the person entity to cosult if you are unsure how to proceed.
"Suck Back: as you mention would be classified under Face or root underfill as listed in table 7.1 pg 34 which refers to groove welds only. (Not just butt joints!)
Of course I am by no means the authority on this code however the above thoughts would be on my mind should I be presented with a weld as shown in the pictures.
Have a great day.
Page loaded and looks interesting. Much neater than the VB program I made for doing some of those calculations.
I am about 3 hours away in Greeneville Tn and may be able to help. You can call or text me on my cell at 6626600162 .
Another option is to post questions about the topics you may have questions or doubts about here in the forum.
We are going to have the section (Holston Valley) meeting here and I am going to speak about welder certification, may be a good time to come up meer some people. Not exactly in your area, but close.
Have a great day
I think the majority of your questions can be answered by reviewing the applicable code of construction.
ASME Sec IX does not address repairs. The applicability of a procedure to a specific joint is dependent upon the variables listed within the WPS wether it be for repair or an original joint.
There are no restrictions within the ASME codes related to the applicability of GTAW over SMAW provided the WPS is qualified for the ranges to be used.
The ranges within the WPS would dictate where they can be used however some applications may require more detailed controls to be enforced during repair welding.
A repair procedure is always a good idea even if not required by the specific code.
AWS D1.1 addresses qualifcation differently and a review of clause 3 and clause 4 should get you up to speed.
I have not looked through all of the previous posts however.
If all of the provisions of clause 3 are met, pulsed spray transfer is prequalified.
However I STRONGLY suggest you verify by testing that the parameters you would like to use are suitable for the application. Though Spray Pulsed does not Short Circuit, it is possible to adjust the parameters where heat input is very low and may not be suitable for all conditions.
The commentary is D1.1 mentions a "....long record of proven satisfactory performance ." Which is something worth considerationn. Because of the wide range of variables that can affect pulsed transfer mode, I would suggest a few tests to make sure welders are clearly provided parameters that are suitable for the applications.
This is of course an opinion based upon limited experience. GMAW Pulsed is not the magic process that always works well. I am pretty sure with the right conditions, I can weld with parameters that achieve the same fusion related discontinuities associated to short circuit and be fully "legal".
Have a great day
I would probably ask for clarification as to why they have this displayed and does not match seem to be a valid certification as listed by the AWS website.
I would then contact AWS with the information related to the organization displaying the information and let them know the situation..
I would also inform whatever organization I was representing and give them all the facts.
I would do this regardless of the equirements of the contract/project I was there on.
I would have no problems doing this as a 3rd party individual contractor.
If I were employed by another organization, I would have to address it with them and let them know my wishes before doing anything.
Of course all of this is easy to say without being there.
The length that the ATF holds the records should be addressed withing their quality system.
Regardless of industry organization affiliation, any organization or individual that tests and certifies welders should have a documented system that identifies how they control records. Even if it just says the person tested shall maintain all copies of records.
I think "video records" would be the way to go. I have some ideas for a booth that records all activity and streams real time if needed. THAT would be a welder qualification record.
Have a great day Al. Thanks again for your time the other day too.
I suggest that you use the ranges within those suggested by the electrode manufacturers. As already indicated, voltage for SMAW is not a variable controlled.
As you write the procedure, take note of each of the variables listed in the table in clause 3 make sure it is addressed. If you are using an older code (not suggested), then the variables are referenced in clause/section 4-Table 4.5.
If you want to go over the requirements for a prequalified WPS, you can give me a call sometime. I am by no means an expert on the matter but may be able to help you through some spots. I do have some experience making mistakes on D1.1 WPS's. :)
I would suggest depending upon the code, listening to what others (CWI's, Labs etc...) have to say, and making sure it matches up (code vs opinions).
6626600162 Call or Text if you need any help. Usually up by 5:00 AM EST
If you tested at an AWS Accredited test facility, there are policies and procedures in place within the quality system that maintain your records in a manner that can receive your test. You would have been issued a unique ID number that links you to your records.
Any other system may use any number of methods to maintain control of your your information.
The best place to look is with the person/organization that tested you.
If you did not test as an AWS Certified Welder, then there is no centralized location for your records other than the organization that tested you.
Good thing about it, most companies worth working for will test you anyway. Thats half the fun of being a welder!
I had forgotten about this but was extremely impressed with how it worked.
I suggest checking it out. I think they can set you up with a demo account.
Page xvi in AWS D1.1-2010 refer to AWS B4.0 by stating ... "AWS B4.0, Standard Methods for Mechanical Testing of Welds, provides additional details of test specimen preparation and details of test fixture construction.
Have a great day.
There is no provision for utilizing the ASME procedures and compying with the requirements of D1.1.
There are also.some differences in requirements for qualification to be considered should you decide to qualify a procedure for both codes at the same time. NDE requirements and Guided Bend acceptance criteria differ between the two codes as may other requirements.
A good option would be to prepare prequalified procedures where possible.
Also, you may do better with questions on the forum that you place in their own post as opposed to another thread.
Gerald Austin-Not an Expert.
Normally a repair of this type would be performed utilizing a WPS that has been qualified and tested to assure the desired results are obtained.
My experience is limited to reapairs of cracked steam drum ligaments. I performed the PQR and also.performed the repair welds. Heat input was maintained at a fairly consistent level by close monitoring of preheat/interpass and energy input.
This does NOT mean what you speak of is not worth looking into. The repairs I performed were "half bead" temper techniques in which the every layer that was deposited on the bevels was partially removed by grinding prior to depositing the next layer.
I strongly suggest reviewing the WPS and if one does not exist, qualifying one using the parameters you are to use and obtaining suitible mechanical test results (Tensile, Hardness,impacts, and bends).
Understand that I am by no means an expert and I strongly suggest you contact a welding engineer.
These repaies are not to be taken lightly.
If you are managing more than a dozen documents of any type, I strongly suggest a commercial application.
I have used full versions of the software from both Cspec and TWI. Both are very similar in user interface. There are some differences with some form content and database back end.
I strongly suggest you contact both companies and request a demo. I have worked for Cspec before and currently use TWI's software so my opinion may be skewed one way or another.
Also check out http://www.weldassistant.com/
Here is a video showing the creation of a prequalified WPS using the software from Cspec. http://weldoffice.com/video/pwps/index.html
There are also other options using other database applications and building your own (Not for the faint of heart), and some online services. http://www.thinkcei.com/cei-products/prowrite
is another. I have used there demo years ago and didn't care for it however some of these programs change rapidly and some do not. Check it out for yourself.
A quality manual is not needed for "compliance" with D1.1 however in any organization, it can be either a useful tool for quality or a burden that is hated every time there is an audit.
Having just spent quite a few hours preparing one for the sole purpose of testing welders and now struggling with evreyone else in the organization "approving" it, I strongly suggest you do notg do this without input from purchasing, HR, production, shipping/receiving, subcontractor management etc....
Clearly define what your policies are 1st and get management to buy into them. Then develop procedures and instructions that support the policies. Implement the system and review it continuously.
If you are just looking for a "canned" manual that you can put on show during a contract review, I am not much help. I usually enjoy those when performing 3rd party inspections.
"But the notion of saying what you will do, how you will do it, and then following it up with proof? That is a great idea."
It is my opinion based upon limited experience that reviewing all of the information within the BOK is needed. ESPECIALLY if your core knowledge and experience is "limited".
There is a thread at https://app.aws.org/forum/topic_show.pl?pid=3315
that may have some reading as there are many others on the subject of preparing for the CWI exam.
In my opinion you should obtain the skills and knowledge BEFORE the certification. Study to become an inspector not certified.
I have always been a "Self Study" person for the CWI exams and it has worked, however I have observed many with little experience asking some odd questions during breaks between parts. Not saying you can't do it. There is nothing to loose really (other than saying "I passed the test 1st time" and some $$) but that's of no interest to many.
Below is text from the above linked thread1) Study all you can about welding technology. Welding Handbook Volume 1
2) Understand the meaning of terms and definitions including those used for describing discontinuities. Welding Handbook Volume 1
3) Get a basic undertanding of metallurgy. Welding Handbook Volume 1
4) Receive a basic introduction to the capabilities of various welding
processes. Welding Handbook Volume 1
5) Receive a basic introduction to NDT methods, capabilities and
limitations. Welding Handbook volume 1
6) Be familar with the available codes and standards that are used and how they are applied and their jurisdiction. Welding Handbook Volume 1
7) Get a basic understanding of Safety Issues related to Welding and Allied Processes. Welding Handbook Volume 1
8) Get a job in the welding field using some or all of the information
9) Get the code book you have been using at work and understand how it is laid out. Pick a code
9) Take the test on the code you use at work or any other code since the code portion is open book.
Of course from my experience in the field and from talking with others the
above method is not practical since it takes years of being interested in
the science of welding and many hours in the bathroom reading.
All of the above may not help you but I do highly recommend a copy of the "Welding Handbook Volume 1" to be located in a convienient location for random reading. In my opinion studying because of interest is much better than studying for a test. Retention is much better, years vs months.
I have never been through a formal course so I am not familar with the extent they cover all of the curriculum. But maybe this is of use.
Just a few thoughts on the process.
The whole concept of "Accreditation" and certification is rampant. Everyone wants a "credential" without any understanding what the requirements are, what they represent, and what specification spells them out.
The ATF program is no less credible in my book than the CWI program. They are both programs in which the individual certified may have skills and abilities that vary greatly from what is expected by the employer of those people. However, when compared to NO Program, at least some minimum requirements are met.
Each program is subject to items left out by the writer of the specification that may be essential to a company or specific industry. That's where diligence on the part of the organization utilizing the system is needed. If you don't understand the qualification process, how in the world can you control the fabrication process.
Some assume that a welder who is certified at an ATF is somehow different than one tested by some "non accredited" organizations. What people should assume is that the welders are tested and all operations documented as described by the institutes quality system.
Testing labs have been "certifying" welders for years with no standardized requirements for ANY part of the test process. Independent CWI's or just plain good ole boys have been doing it too.
Having welders tested by ANY method that just meets the minimum requirements of a code does not guarantee production quality. The system within the organization that establishes controls and monitoring methods for the process is a major part of the system.
Aside from the all important "compliance" side of things, a shop full of skilled and un-certified welders with a good quality control system will beat the pants off a shop full of ATF Certified, Shop Certified, CWI certified welders staffed with an armload of 2 week trained CWI's.
Certification (Signed Document supporting ...) of ANY type is no guarantee of quality.. Its just a part of a system. When it gets down to it, its in the hands and ethics of the skilled craftsman performing the work.
I have a quality system written for our facility and I did it from scratch. It's many more pages probably than a typical manual but regardless of how big it is or what it says, its only as good as the people who implement the procedures supporting the policies contained within it.
You made the statement "The difference between a Welder Performance Qualification Test Report generated by an ATF vs one produced by an independent CWI or even an in-house inspector does not carry much weight with anybody other than the people trying to sell ATF business." and I was wondering if you felt the same way about the CWI program.
I am the same inspector whether a CWI or not. I (or the companies I have worked for) have been guilty of feeding the cash cow since 90 and will probably continue to do so since it is whats expected. I may let it drop again and get a 4th CWI number. :)
Anyway, have a good one and thanks for reading my ramblings. Been a busy few weeks and just getting back to the online world of welding.
Have a great day
I have not been able to compare the application of welders to production welding that have been tested at an ATF myself. I do agree that there are shortcomings with quality control performed during qualification.
As I indicated before, If a company is not performing tests correctly, it would make you wonder what improves when they move to having their welders "certified" by an ATF when they very well may not understand the process. With the availability of testing facilities including labs that have been doing it for years, companies have some choices to make. Utilizing a facility with a documented quality system is a plus.
I have spoken with a few fabricators and manufacturers in our area regarding their reviewing our quality system prior to submiting to AWS and after speaking with some of them, I realize there are so few that even understand the process of qualification and certification of welders. Its just such a small part of controlling a possibly difficult process.
That looks nice. I had recently seen a few videos of someone designing a pulser utilizing the low cost Arduino microcontrollers. Not sure if he ever got it up and going but for a sub $100.00 set of components, it was pretty neat.
I would like to see this if you are taking suggestions.
Currently a voice recognition card can be added to the Arduino (and I am sure others) for < $100.00. A voice recognition remote control seems very possible. Even if it were wired to the machine it could be a great aid for welding.
I started piddling with the Arduno for the voice controlled remote idea but my learning curve has been pretty steep and I am still working on just getting the basics of electronics in my head.
Looks like a pretty neat add on.
Keep us posted.
Have a great day
Hector, Are these "Shortcomings" documented anywhere? I understand the difficulties encountered without the adequate resources to perform testing.
Though I am in the process of having our facility audited to meet the requirements of QC4, I still try to let employers know that they retain the responsibility for qualification of and application of the welders in their employment.
The advantage of "self qualification" is that it is easy to add additional internal requirements to the process that may not be required when just performing testing at an ATF. I can add more stringent acceptance criteria, restrictions, and other variables. As the company representative that may be tasked with making the decision to hire or not hire, my witnessing of the test could be invaluable.
The ATF tests are no different than the tests conducted by the company other than the material traceability, a few extra documents, and the CWI requirement.
I think that ATF's or ANY facility with a well documented system for how they test and certify welders can be an asset for companies without the internal knowledge, equipment, and process controls needed to assure consistent testing practices.However if you cannot "trust" a company to test the welder, HOW IN THE WORLD can you test them to do the fabrication ?
There are so many that think the magic formula to quality welding is a certified welder when it is in my opinion, a very small part of the overall system for assuring welds meet the expectations of designers and end users.
Another point is that some codes specifically prohibit the process of welder testing being performed by other organizations. I think the testing facility has a place, however I hope it NEVER becomes a requirement by any code unless those facilities are going to take the responsibility for the welding performed by the welders tested there.
Have a great day
I have developed a few applications for my own use using MS Access. Though it is a bit more difficult to use than excel, it can be a powerful tool for tracking data (Thats what a database is for).
If you are just interested in tracking info such as attendance dates and notes, then a spreadsheet or even word document is suitable however the ability to report the data in various formats is best done with a database or at least spreadsheet tables.
I am sure there are commercial application suitable for tracking a tremendous amount of information. I may have something you can run in access but as with anything, there is a learning curve.
What I have done may not be suitable for what you need but I figure I will put it out there. Below are some reports from class a few years ago.
Air from the root side may be causing the issue.
A quick "Test" may be to purge or shield the backside. The gap may be tight enough that the heated air is trying to escape from all directions.
Within the past few months I have been assisting a company with porosity on a .059" thick weld on a D17.1 item. Every quadrant exhibited porosity. The area coincided with an area where the faying surfaces were slightly separated.
Have you tried removing the scale from or cleaning the root face and not just the bevel face ?
If ASME Sec IX and the root has backing (Backing Ring or welded both sides) then yes. Provided all other ranges of qualification are satisfactory.
Welcome to the forum. Give us some background as to why you ask this.
"CommonArc" is a gathering of multiple contractors to witness welder performance qualification testing. One welder takes a test for multiple contractors at a time. Participating contractors submit records to the CommonArc organization to maintain continuity.
Both CommonArc and NCPWB are organizations catering to organized labor. Boilermakers and UA Pipefitters.
I believe the NCPWB allows easier "sharing" of WPS's across separate organizations. This allows for easier compliance with the requirements. Contractors join the NCPWB.
Though NCPWB isn't an employer, maybe they just handle the documentation. But they could be a one time employer during qualification.
Have a good day. Hope you find what you are looking for..
Various B31 codes have paragraphs that modify the restrictions on the responsibility for supervising qualifications. See 328.2.3 in B31.3 for example.
This would NOT apply to piping welded in accordance with B31.1. Sorry I can't post the paragraph, the B31.3 I bought doesn't let me copy text.
Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill