American Welding Society Forum
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.
Thanks for all you do John.
I think for those motivated towards self study that you cannot go wrong with the AWS Welding Handbook Volume 1 9th edition, The AWS Certification Manual for Welding Inspectors (for the questions), and whatever code book you have worked with the most or anticipating working with.
The body of knowledge listed for the CWI exam is almost completly covered in the AWS Welding Handbook. Get any welding book you can find and read it.
There is also a company that has some online training that is pretty good. The company is SonSet consultants.http://www.weld-procedure.com/freecwipartbhelp.html
Thats not to say there isnt any value in a class however things learned over a week or two are different than those studied over a period of time. There are, I am sure, some great classes.
Yup. Yours is still the only response. Once I get a few results I'll post a link.
I recently posted a survey in a "Welding Instructors" group in LinkedIn about which welding process you prefer to teach 1st. I have an identical copy of it here at http://goo.gl/forms/zcJ14w365f
. It would be cool to see what everyone here thinks (Unless you already answered from the LinkedIn post. The questions are the same, the data is just stored in a different location to keep it separate.
If this is not in accordance with any current restrictions on "link posting" etc.. let me know with a severe scolding.
Have a great day
There is nothing specific in the codes however that does not mean its not a good idea. I assign a specific and unique number to each test. That test ID number is linked to all of the information to the test. It is located at a specific orientation and location.
I have a procedure written that is part of our quality control program developed for welder testing if you would like to look at it. Probably much more complicated and "wordy" than it needs to be but sometimes I'm that way.
Pulsed Arc is Spray Transfer Mode. Or it was in older D1.1's.
Haven't gotten into a fact finding on it yet and willing to be pointed in the right direction as the where it Spray Pulsed is not prequalified.
Have a good day
More than likely the only reference to this can be found in the specification for the filler metal. This is a requirement for the manufacturers when qualifying the products. Not sure if it exist in A5.20 or not. Don't have a copy here. However regardless of what A5.20 says, they are NOT limits for production.
Have a nice day
This one probably would have been best posted in the safety section but no big deal to me.
The majority of the fumes will probably be generated by the filler metal or processing the base metal. Because the situation is infrequent and situations may change, source extraction is a great way to go. Air monitoring by an industrial hygienist would be the most surefire way to verify you are really looking out for your guys. There are also some great PAPR welding hoods available that may also be suitable solutions but in my opinion (which is mine), a safety professional is best consulted for safety issues just as a welding professional is best consulted for welding issues.
I would worry more about the SS wire than the Manganese. Especially if it is used more frequently.
Have a good day.
Glad your OK! That woulda drew me up pretty tight.
A mans gotta go when he's gotta go but I'm thankful it wasn't then for you.
Have a great day
I have worn safety glasses (prescription) my entire life. I have never had the "sand in the eye" feeling. I have had them feel a little irritated.
I think UV protection on my glasses has been a major factor in this fact. I have had my cheeks and forehead turn slightly pink but my eyes be fine and still white.
So I too agree that the proper eye protection can eliminate this hazard. Worked side by side on waterwall panel welds with never a burnt eye.
Have a good day
The thing to also remember is that all of the knowledge is available in some format.
I will throw in one more plug for the ole AWS Welding Handbooks ! Its almost all in there .
I reviewed some of the content quite a few years ago. It seemed useful however I had nothing to compare it too. Any information is good information it just depends on how it is best delivered to you.
There is no "best way" to study in my opinion. Just things that work for me, and things that work for you.
I know what you are talking about as far as the "What I want it to do". When I created the database for tracking welds for an orbital welding company, I thought what I charged didn't need to cover all the time since I could sell it to someone else. Then the someone else came along and I realized it was easier to just create another program. All in all, return was probably on the order of $8.00 an hour.
Because so many quality systems require different data to be recorded, its difficult to make an all inclusive program. When they are simple, with few relationships across data, then they can be pretty easy.
Building your own is kinda fun though. I am hoping to get back into it if I ever get back up to speed with something different than "Access" which is still a powerful tool in my opinion.
is a page I wrote about some of my "programming" stuff over the years. There is a link there for one of the Access Databases I wrote a few years ago. Love to hear your thoughts on this "desktop" type program vs the web application.
The link on that page includes the licensed "Runtime" version of MS Access so it is quite large. If you have Access 2007 or later, I can attach the Access file itself. It is less than 1MB.
Have a good day.
Have a good day.
Oh I gotcha on the sharks. I have posted quite a few links here myself. Luckily you guys know I am tender :)
I recently received an email regarding the pricing. Who knows, maybe I need to spruce up my MS Access applications and post a link or two myself :). Mama needs some new shoes!!!!
Have a good night. I mistakenly took a steroid late with a cup of coffee (dark roast) with a handful of Dark Chocolate Covered Cranberries. Who knows, I make make a new internet tonight--or get started on it and leave it unfinished like so many other things :)
Have a good one.
Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill