Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Technical Standards & Publications / D1.1 vs D1.6
- - By Bubba01 (*) Date 12-18-2009 14:43
A fellow Cwi asked me about about a job he had coming up this spring.  He has to write some PQRs and qualify his welders the job has 2205 duplex stainless,A992 and A588 carbon steel on it.  The stainless and carbon will be welded together and on some parts the stainless will be joined together. His welders are already qualified in the positions the will be welding under D1.1 for carbon with FCAW process another Cwi told him that he did not have to requalify his welders under D1.6 because the two work together and overlap I am not as familar with D16 as D1.1. Any input would be  appreciated Thanks
Parent - By Ke1thk (**) Date 12-21-2009 11:51
Bubba,

I've worked with two overlapping codes such as D1.1 and D9.1 or D1.3.  The reason being customer supplied.  Most codes will accept qualifications and other documents from other codes if approved by the engineer.  I'd get my notes in order, submit them to my customer, and receive their full blessing in writing. 

You might be able to save creating the full PQR package if you find the sections of the codes or you might find it just as easy to create the new PQR's. 

Good Luck,

Keith

Parent - - By bozaktwo1 (***) Date 12-22-2009 22:39
I would run an entire package (PQR, WPS, WPQTR) with B2.1 as the controlling specification, and take acceptance standards from D1.6 for all the bimetallic joints. 
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 12-28-2009 17:34
AWS D1.1 has prequalified WPSs for carbon and low alloy steels as does D1.6 for stainless steels. The rub is that neither has prequalified procedures for combinations of carbon or low alloy steels to stainless steels. The procedures have to be qualified and as mentioned, AWS B2.1 is a good place to start.

The welders may not have to be requalified, but it is advisable to qualify them never the less. The 309 and 310 filler metals are a little "sluggish" and do not run the same as some of the other filler metals (depending on the welding process).

Fillet welds deposited with the shielded metal arc process are a devil to pass. You will not pass the T-fillet break test with either E309-16 or -17 varieties (at least I have not seen it in my twenty plus years as an inspector).  I have not used either the EXXX-25 or EXXX-26 electrodes, so I cannot offer any advice on their use.

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By bozaktwo1 (***) Date 12-28-2009 17:43
That's a big part of the problem, mechanical testing of the bimetallic joints.  I'm not quite knowledgeable enough to design my own tests in that area, but B1.5 (which I have not yet purchased) should be helpful.  Also, hiring a CWE to design tests has been considered, but talk about $$$$! 
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 12-28-2009 19:03
OK, I'm not trying to bash CWEs or CWIs, but you may want to find a SCWI to work with you if you are looking for a consultant to guide you through this process.

The CWE is not a CWI (he may be, but doesn't have to be). The CWE and CAWI require the same passing score when taking the CWI examinations. There is nothing in the "job description" that states a CWE is qualified to document a PQR or develop a WPS. Likewise, there is nothing in the listing of table 5.1 (of B5.1) "job responsibilities" for the CWI that includes developing a WPS, although he can witness the PQR.

That isn't to say there aren't any CWIs with the experience to do what you are asking for, it just that it isn't expected that any (or all) CWEs or CWIs are capable of doing what you need to have done.

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By bozaktwo1 (***) Date 12-28-2009 20:34
I was thinking along the lines of the metallurgy knowledge, nothing more.  Maybe CWE was a poor choice.  More like nuclear chemist! :)  When it comes to figuring out chemistry in bimetallics, especially when considering dilution and property changes in the HAZ, who would be better qualified than an engineer?    Or perhaps, as often happens, do I have the scope of CWE mixed up with something else?
Parent - - By waccobird (****) Date 12-28-2009 20:55 Edited 12-28-2009 23:45
bozaktwo1
CWE stands for Certified Welding Educator.
CWEng may be what you meant to write
If you were thinking Certified Welding engineer?
Marshall
Parent - By 803056 (*****) Date 12-28-2009 21:29
What he wrote.

Al
Parent - - By bozaktwo1 (***) Date 12-29-2009 22:06
Eh.

In my little head CWE = Cert. Welding Engineer.  Never gave much thought to the educator title.  CWE is what I have seen in contract docs for years to denote requirements for project EOR.  All that aside, why would anyone want an educator to help design mechanicals? 
Parent - By waccobird (****) Date 12-29-2009 22:37
bozaktwo1
Exactly
Marshall
Edit: not saying you have a little head LoL
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Technical Standards & Publications / D1.1 vs D1.6

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill