repair of over-reinforcement in AWS D1.1 Certification

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 11-21-2009 08:20

I think it can fail because of the excessive reinforcement then again, I would have caught the test taker before they were about to deposit the cover pass and advise, or remind them that it will be unacceptable to have a weld reinforcement of over 1/8th of an inch in thickness over the surface of the base metal...

So if it looked as if they could not possibly deposit a pass with less than the prescribed allowable reinforcement by properly monitoring the test taker's progression throughout the test, I would then give them the opportunity to grind down the previous passes so that when the test taker does begin to deposit the cover pass, it will not be over the allowable 1/8th of an inch in weld reinforcement... Then again, that's just me! ;) Your proctor should have advised you of that if they were properly monitoring your progression throughout the test!!! ;) ;) ;)

Respectfully,
Henry

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 11-21-2009 13:33

I agree partly with what Henry is telling you.

Grinding on the cap is a no-no for performance qualification testing..

What the test proctor is allowed or willing to do for the participant may depend on several factors...

A good WPS has esblished hold points for inspection.

But I would not provide unprompted advice on bead placement strategy during a test... How to properly place the beads is part of being competent as a welder. If you can't place beads in a 6 inch test coupon without instruction under in the perfect conditions of a test lab you are probably not ready to work in the field.

During test time it is "go.... or no go" Advice may come before and after if they are a student... if they are simply welders contracted to take the test at my facillity, I may not tell them anything more than what discontinuitues put a stop to their test.

More later.......... coffee date

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 11-21-2009 15:54

Lawrence, Henry,

Grinding is not prohibited by D 1.1, even for Performance Qualification. Still, many companies have such add-on requirements for their qualification/certification testing requirements.

If you want to enforce this no grinding requirement, it should be done before the testing begins.

Joe Kane

By waccobird (****)

Date 11-21-2009 17:12

Joseph P. Kane
I am not around my code but I think I remember that for the welder qualification you are allowed chipping hammer and wire brush. Test plates not to be moved and there is something there about no powered chippers or grinders.
Like Lawrence wrote "How to properly place the beads is part of being competent as a welder. If you can't place beads in a 6 inch test coupon without instruction under in the perfect conditions of a test lab you are probably not ready to work in the field." Pretty much says it all.
jayelbee
You are referring to Clauses of the code for use in Fabrication or production, these are not things that can be done for Welder qualification at least not if the employer is wanting competent employees.
I have seen community Colleges and others allow the student to remove the test and grind all they want but this is not a option for the person showing his skill as a welder for employment. It is mainly to allow the student to have practice applying sound weld with out continually throwing test plates away when they make a mistake.
Marshall

By mightymoe (**)

Date 11-21-2009 17:18

Waccobird,
Do you think a grinder would be allowed to clean up high spots and slag on a 6010 root pass?

By waccobird (****)

Date 11-21-2009 17:42

not on a qualification test and maybe Joeseph is right about D1.1 it might of been D 1.5 and I know most DOT tests have the no power tools clause but as far as cleaning up high spots I allow the tester to practice till they are ready then it is them and the welding I don't pay welders to grind.

Attachment: welderqualification.wps (12k)

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 11-21-2009 17:31

Joe I agree...... Well agree or not.. The code does not speak to grinding.

All instructions and expectations should be given before the test.. common sense

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 11-21-2009 17:48

Joe... I may need help getting my brain around this one...

If a cap pass on a performance test weld (lets say it had buildup of 1/4 in. on the final pass and deep valleys that were as tall but not all the way down to flush with the base metal..... Are you suggesting that: A welder is free to grind all that mess down and hand you a piece that is now compliant (less than 1/8 in) simply because he ground it flush?

I can see grinding high spots in production to keep compliant... My assumption (maybe I'm being too strict here) is that under test conditions I need to see an unground cap on the face of a weld and an unground root if it is a full penetration weld made from one side.

Not being a smart ass here,,,, I'm really interested in your opinion on this one..

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 11-22-2009 03:51 Edited 11-22-2009 04:12

Lawrence

I agree with everything you say. However, if you are challenged, it is not written in the D 1.1 Code that way.

You are changing the requirements of the Code, and making them more restrictive. I still am not saying you cannot do this, However-----, In order to impose this in the welder, you should have an agreement from the Employer.

If the welder is your employer, you should tell him that he must agree to this, because your reputation is on the line, and is the only way YOU will test him.

Joe Kane

By ctacker (****)

Date 11-22-2009 22:33

A little off topic, but isn't the reinforcement requirement because it causes a stress riser at the weld toes?

By mightymoe (**)

Date 11-21-2009 17:13

Adding more metal to remove undercut is only a repair( in my opinion) if you turn it in with undercut, which you should not do.
I can see why they would not let you grind on the cap or root during a test. A grinder can cover up/fix alot.
No grinding lets them really see what kind of welder you are.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 11-21-2009 17:43

Last but not least for........ jayelbee

Vert down repairs on undercut are tricky at best...

Do you have a WPS that includes vert down with your low-hy rod? Did you know in the world of D1.1 that vertical welds not in upward progression are not prequalified, and so a PQR must be run even for a repair weld on a joint that is otherwise prequalified? It's a lot of work just to allow for a repair.

The strictness you are facing now will serve you well later. It's hard to be grateful for somebody telling you must start again or practice a bit more before you take the cert test...

In the end you really view your training as a tool to bring you to a point that you are consistantly making welds that pass visual and destructive tests (with no repairs) rather than moving forward with the notion of being in a hurry to get a break on one test so you can move on to something else.

By nevadanick (**)

Date 11-21-2009 18:16

All of the cert. tests i have done(3g, 4g 1" unlimited with 7018, 232, and dual shield) have been at TMCC in reno and the instructor does not allow grinding on a test. if your just practicing thats another thing. He will let you feather your tie ins if you are doing an open root.
Chipping hammer and wire brush is what you get

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 11-21-2009 23:04

Did you folks even read my post, or did you just glance by it??? Again, here's what I said:

"I would have caught the test taker before they were about to deposit the cover pass and advise, or remind them that it will be unacceptable to have a weld reinforcement of over 1/8th of an inch in thickness over the surface of the base metal...

So if it looked as if they could not possibly deposit a pass with less than the prescribed allowable reinforcement by properly monitoring the test taker's progression throughout the test, I would then give them the opportunity to grind down the previous passes (I should have wrote layer instead!), so that when the test taker does begin to deposit the cover pass, it will not be over the allowable 1/8th of an inch in weld reinforcement... Then again, that's just me! ;-) Your proctor should have advised you of that if they were properly monitoring your progression throughout the test!!! ;-) ;-) ;-)"

This would be a one time pass - PERIOD! If they couldn't produce an acceptable cover pass (AWS nomenclature here!) then the test is stopped!!!

Joe Kane knows a thing or two about what is allowed for both D1.1 as opposed to D1.5, so I know that they are allowed to grind!!! What I was suggesting since we are only talking about the cover pass here folks, is to have proper monitoring going on so, that when the test taker(s) get to the hold point such as where they are about to deposit the cover pass, not after the fact, the inspector will make the call then to judge whether or not grinding should be performed at that point in the test in order to improve the chances that an acceptable cover pass can be deposited...

If the final layer is in the condition where no amount of grinding is going to help, I would then end the test, because you cannot just let the test taker grind all of the deposited weld metal out especially all the way to the root of the joint, because there is a real good possibility that the joint geometry will be altered... So in effect some, even all of the joint opening can be altered, and you're basically giving them a pass to do what they please with the joint if you allow them to perform "excessive" grinding!!!

This is why I give them only one chance, and only if I feel they are capable of achieving the objective of depositing a cover pass which will meet the code requirement according to Section 4, Part C! I would not read into section 5 since it covers fabrication, so allowing a repair for undercut as referred to by Jayelbee really has nothing to do with performance qualification, and everything to do with production!

The only part of section 5 where it is applicable is 5.24.4 which covers "Groove or Butts Welds" regarding weld reinforcement, 5.24.4.1 which covers 'Flush Surfaces' and 5.24.4.2 which covers "Finish Methods and Values" and these are referred to by note 3 in figure 4.12 for face and root bend specimens provided the test base metal is 3/8" thick... These are not referred to in any of the notes for side bends should the test be on 1" thick base metal. I hope this clarifies my take somewhat. ;)

Respectfully,
Henry

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 11-21-2009 23:31

I read your post Henry.

And I respect your perspective on the matter.

I do not provide unsolicited technical advice to a welder between passes on a performance qualification test when I proctor. Henry, Maybe I'm a hard ass :)

I don't need to *give* them an opportunity between layers to grind down a high spot, it's already there unless the WPS forbids... If they know what they are doing they will take care if it without my guidance... Gudiance comes before the test, and after the test if they approach me.. not during the test in my opinion.

A test proctor can properly monitor a performance qualification exam without advising the welder about bead placement between layers or passes.

Nothing wrong with the way you do it... I just don't do it that way. However I have from time to time answered a question from test takers if it is put to me... but 90% of the time they don't ask questions during a test.

BTW I'm a much harder visual evaluator on my own program students than I am when I proctor tests I for local manufacturers, because I can be... and students will have plenty of time to practice again before a re-take.

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 11-22-2009 01:23 Edited 11-22-2009 01:28

Good for you Larry!!!

And I was not implying that everyone else had to, or should do the same and all one has to do is to look at my initial response on this thread to understand this... I only do this only on a rare occasion when I know that the student who's taking the test usually is a much better welder, yet is experiencing an intense case of the "Butterflies", so I give them this one and only chance to correct their problem, and not only if I'm sure that through proper communication as well as emphasis on them realizing that they better get it right this time or it's over,and they will NOT get this free pass so to speak, out in the real world, as they are reminded with gusto from myself, and to consider it a gift from their higher power, then 99.999% of the time since I have tested over 750+ welding students, they do indeed get it right and go on to become some pretty good welders I might add!!! ;) ;) :) Only once did I have a student that could not recover, so I believe it's a pretty good track record as well as still being in code compliance.

So, I do not object to anyone just failing them without giving them a chance like I do, and I say this in my very first sentence of my original post so, what is the debate about here??? Also, I'm perfectly in my rights to do so as you can see in AWS D1.1!!! Now if I was testing them to D1.5, then that's a different story completely, so I was just answering Jayelbee's question from my own personal experience which is after all what he was asking initially. I hope this finally clarifies my position, and if it doesn't, Tough noogies!!! ;) ;) ;)

Respectfully,
Henry

By waccobird (****)

Date 11-21-2009 23:53

Henry
You know I don't read too good.LoL
I was answering jayelbee as in a production scenario.
My employer doesn't pay me to train beginner welders. My tests are those suggested in the AWS D1.1 clause 4 and actually when I get ready to actually qualify them I use the specifications of D1.5 so that I can cover both bases with documentation. My job is to hire experienced welders ready for a production atmosphere. As employees that are non welding personnel learn the tricks of my trade and want to upgrade their position I give them good weld instruction, go over what WPS's are for, and give them all the scrap and instructive supervision they want to hone their skill, (on their time, like lunch breaks). But when it comes time for them to test it is them and their abilities as if they were going to be handed a project.
I believe you answered jayelbee in the educators point of view.
As always Henry glad to see that the Lord is still Blessing You.
Marshall

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 11-22-2009 01:25 Edited 11-22-2009 01:30

Thanks Marshall!

I do realize that you're in a very different situation than I am and once again, I do not disagree in failing the test taker if if anyone chooses to do so... I just do what is allowed for me to do according to the code. So there's no debate or argument from me here!!! ;) :) :)

Respectfully,
Henry

By scrappywelds (***)

Date 11-22-2009 22:44

When I took my Level 1 qualification for VT I remember reading and it was on the test that on a welder performance test it was at my option to stop the test at any point that I thought the welder couldn't make production quality welds.This point was beat into or heads AT ANY POINT!!! I will say I have not ran across any other documentation in any of my studies for my CWI test I am attempting next spring that states the same point, could be company policy.

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 11-23-2009 04:25 Edited 11-23-2009 04:32

Scrappywelds

ASNT doesn't make any welder qualification rules. The rules are made by the cognizant committee that writes the relevant code. They can also be modified by the owner to be stricter, and sometimes less stringent.

Even the AWS teachers sometimes teach things in the AWS CWI Prep course that I not factual and not in the code. "Hold Points" --- Many CWIs doing welder performance testing establish them and use them when they are administering tests. This is fine if the Employer/Owner is OK with it, but it is not in the D 1.1 Code. It is fine, if you can get the welder to agree to abide by it, but is is not in the D1.1 Code, even though you hear welding inspectors talking about them all the time. The same thing with stopping the test for "whatever" cause.

Bottom Line, if you are the TPI QA Inspector, you may want to CYA with the Employer, Regulator or the Owner, before you impose more restrictive conditions than are in the Code. If you do not, you could be looking at a lawsuit someday.

It would seem logical that you could stop a test at any time, for what you think is a good reason, But ASNT will not come and defend you in a court. What ASNT says is not "Documentation", even though it may be the correct answer for their Level 2 test. Now, acceptance criteria read directly from the applicable code book, is real documentation. Instructions on a company approved WPS, or in a Company directive, or Company policy is real documentation.

If you make your more restrictive rules known and they are understood and agreed to as a condition of YOUR participation prior to witnessing or administering the test, you may be OK. As a QC Inspector in the company you work in, you can probably get away with it, because your job title makes you a representative of the company who owns the test and pays the employer to perform it. There could still be uniformity of application issues, fairness issues, and reasonableness issues, so you still have to be careful.

Joe Kane

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 11-23-2009 13:19

IMO

As far as the code (D1.1) goes and I can see excess reinforcent being rejectable. However grinding would be allowed.I think some discretion is allowed by the proctor. Since the code is silent on grinding, then the code cannot be used as a basis for not allowing the grinding. One tie in a 9/64ths for a length of 1/8" of an inch "Failed Test, go to the house!"

I tell the people that I test (unless prohibited otherwise) that they cannot use a grinder without 1st showing me why. Use of a grinder otherwise is a failure. I am not going to throw away a test that I have watched that is obviously done by a skilled welder and reject it because he has a spot of excess reinforment. I'm also not going to let a guy grind his way through a test because of poor bead placement, excess convexity or any other practice that may cause problems.

Its real easy to write down a bunch of requirements and do's and don't when you watch someone test. I try to tell the people testing the requirements up front. The ones from the code, the ones from the WPS, and mine. I can't sign for a test in accordance with the code if its not. If I am acting as a contractor to test someone strictly by the code and it has been made clear that my opinion doesn't matter, then I sign as a witness for the test, they sign as accepting.

The D1.1 code as with many others is by no means an all inclusive system for doing things. Individual company policies and practices should be in place to allow for practical application of the code. I for instance look at the 1st bead made. If it is rejectable, I stop the test. That is above and beyond the requirments of the code. However I make sure the company I am doing the testing for understands that. If they want, I can omit that step.

Maybe the intent of the code was to make sure the welder could measure the reinforcement to make sure its below or equal to 1/8". I have seen so many things ADDED to tests (number of beads, bead width, angular distortion, inspect the root pass, etc) that were not in the code. In a case where something is not specifically prohibited, its easy to prohibit that to make it harder on the welder and use the ole "minimum requirement" thing.

If CWI's were subjected to retest requirements at the change of employers or every 6 mos and the minimum requirements were met but sometimes some things were added, wouldn't there be a stink!

Undercut is an odd creature because 5.26.1.2 indicates the only method of repair is welding. Grinding is not allowed without subsequent welding. None of the allowances that indicate its ok provided base metal min "T" is not reduced etc. Yet in an appendix, a method for rotary filing the toes of welds is shown and allows a depth of up to 1/16" ! Figure C2.7 in my 2006 code says repair of undercut may be made by light grinding YET 5.26.1.2 says undercut is to be repaired by welding.

Of course i guess if we wanted to reject everything there is always the "gradual transition" requirement that is in the code. Can that mean any re-entrant angle that has some amount of slope (89 degrees maybe)?

I would love to see the basis for why reinforcement is an issue. Does the number of failures under load go up as the reinforcement increases? Or maybe the re-entrant angle of the toe is more related but harder for some poor inspector to measure.

The code says >>>

1) some things clearly,
2) some things not at all,
3) some things requiring agreement between the parties involved.

Sorry if you had to read alot to get my ideas on the issue. But there they are. Free for all to ponder, comment on or otherwise . Be Gentle, Im sensitive :)

Gerald Austin
Iuka, MS

By scrappywelds (***)

Date 11-23-2009 22:46

Sorry i should have stated my level 1 is for my company only. We have a testing procedure sheet that each welder must sign, which states I can at my discression can stop the test at any point that I feel the welder can not make sound production welds. On the sheet is what is allowed ( grinding, wire wheeling, ect.), time limit of the test to be taken, hrs paid for test taken if passed, hold points, test area must be cleaned up, the welder received the WPS, and the welder received verbal instruction of the information provided. I took a look at the sheet and it states that the test is to be left in the tacked position and in the as welded state for final inspection. So for my department, of my company no grinding or filing of the excessive reinforcement, undercut, porosity, or overlap allowed.

By waccobird (****)

Date 11-23-2009 23:13

Scrappy
AWS D1.5 says about the same thing about the inspector's monitoring and ending the test if a lack of competence is noticed, It saves the Employer time, and helps insure only quantifiable personnel test. I think this is one thing D1.1 is slack in. Another thing also in D1.5 that D1.1 is slack in is it allows the tester to use only a Chipping Hammer and a Wire Brush, a grinder is only to touch up the bevels before testing.
I want to feel confident when I record the results of a Welders Qualification that it was not a fluke, a luck thing, or they had a good day, They need to be consistent in their abilities.
Marshall

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 11-23-2009 23:42

Looks like a good way to handle it. I think that each company should have instructions in place to support the code and add to it if needed.

By kipman

Date 11-24-2009 13:25

Gerald,
I agree 100% with your approach to performance qualification testing - fair, practical, and will show you who can weld and who can't. I also agree that D1.1 has numerous contradictions and I understand your reference to Fig C2.7 and 5.26.1.2 (2006) was to highlight this. However, I would point out that this specific example is not truly a contradiction - the Commentary contains no code requirements. Look at the third to last paragraph, last sentence of the Foreword to the Commentary. It states "The commentary is not intended to supplement code requirements, but only to provide a useful document for interpretation and application of the code; none of its provisions are binding."
Regards,
Mankenberg

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 11-24-2009 14:16

I agree regarding the commentary not being binding. However one would feel confident in anything contained in the commentary not allowing or suggesting something prohibited elsewhere.

I can not imagine the work that goes into writing the code and getting everyone on board and my view of an item or paragraph is just that. I should have used words to clarify that the commentary was not binding.

Have a good day and thanks for the comment.

Gerald

By fbrieden (***)

Date 11-24-2009 14:47

Will you ALL please type slowly????? I can't read that fast!

By atramsdell (*)

Date 12-01-2009 03:47

my instructors the same, nothing over 1/8"