Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
After many years and reading, learning, picking every inspectors brain I meet on the jobsite for thoughts on questions I have and slowly learning AWS is a bit muddy.
As an AWS D1.1 qualified welder with my very own prequalified procedures I've been digging in and learning about welding rods. Namely xx18. A question was raised about my "papers" for 8018 rod, a question I raised once before and was told it fell under my current papers. A week ago I go do a test D1.1, for a company with an approved inspector. The test itself was boring overall, ho hum, 3g. Test was clean. As he filled out my paperwork I was very curious to learn as I always am. Why is this, what is that and so on. He explained that in figure's 4.11 and 4.12 I believe(his edition was newer than mine so I cannot look it up again). Rod classification and such. You qualify with a Group F4 rod and you are then qualified for the lower groups, F3, F2, F1.
I have also been researching steel, A500, A572-gr65 and such. Learned that they are in different groups, each requiring it's very own test, or shale I say tests, 3 and 4G. So, I am qualified to run 8018, 9018, etc., but I can only run it on A36/50 because that is what I tested on. Ok, so, I need a test, 3/4G for group 2 steels, 3/4G for group 3 steels, throw in my FCAW and now I'm looking at 8 tests just to be qualified in all three groups of steel.
My other test last week I have to keep a continuous record and every 6 months mail in the form with, $15. If I do all of the steel groups I need, plus FCAW that means I will have taken 12 total tests, 3/4G. Does this mean every 6 months I'll have to mail in $180 to AWS? This is a test thru an accredited inspector, which another inspector told me was a money thing with AWS, milking me for all it's worth like ol' bessy out in the barn. Or, would it just be $15 for all of your current qualifications?
Ahhh, the joys of AWS code and trudging thru the merky waters. I must say, it's a way to learn it.
By welderbrent 
Date 06-21-2015 03:02
Edited 06-21-2015 03:05
Someone is giving you very false information Shawn.
YOU DO NOT NEED A SEPARATE TEST FOR DIFFERENT GRADES OF STEEL!! Period.
The electrode is correct but not because of the F4 classification, F classes are not part of D1.1 currently for welder qualification. Use of any low hydrogen entered on the qualification form as 'specification' : A5.1 or A5.5 and 'classification' : 7018, 7015, 8018, etc qualifies the welder for any SMAW low-hydrogen electrode and non low-hydrogen in the Table 3.1 for Group I non low hydrogen electrodes. Yes, those fall into the F1,2,& 3 classes, but that is not what determines that you can use them.
Different steel Groups from Table 3.1 or Category from Table 3.2 do not require their own tests. Pick one and you are good to go on any of them. They are NOT an essential variable requiring requalification (pronounced in this case: additional qualification) according to Table 4.12.
The only thing you have to watch out for is the use of steels in Group I of Table 3.1 with the use of "SMAW- other than low-hydrogen electrodes". If you use those you need another test with low-hydrogen electrodes. But you don't have to use a different steel from a different group.
Two tests with low-hydrogen electrodes, one vertical and one overhead, qualifies you for every steel that is pre-approved according to D1.1:2010 Clause 3 Table 3.1 with every low-hydrogen electrode and non low-hydrogen electrode and in every position.
He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent
Agree with Brent, except nothing in clause 3 should be looked at when discussing welder qualifications.
Really??
So, how do you know what materials are pre-approved and can be used for standard testing if you don't go to Clause 3?
How do you know to classify the WPS as 'Pre-Approved', 'Qualified by Testing', or 'PQR' without going to Clause 3?
How did you write up the mandatory, per 4.19, WPS to test from without going to Clause 3?
How do you know the appropriate, included on the WPS you don't have from Clause 3, filler metals for the materials groupings without going to Clause 3?
I think the term "nothing" may be going a little too far.
But, my references to Clause 3 are to clarify the OP comments about Groups and needing a test for every material the welder may encounter and attempting in my feeble way of making sure the relationships between the groupings and individual specifications of steels and welder qualifications and the 'ranges' of the qualifications upon successful completion of the tested coupon are understood.
There is a relationship betwixt Table 3.1 and welder qualifications that cannot be ignored. It must be consulted to determine if the testing is for just the welder or both welder and materials/process.
He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent
The welder should be following a WPS, whether qualified or prequalified. Shawn is talking about welder qualifications (I'm pretty sure).
Clause 3 is for prequalification of WPS. The WPS should already be in place when qualifying a welder, unless your qualifying to clause 4, which would also qualify a welder.
With that being said, there should be no reason to look at clause 3 when qualifying a welder.
So, how do you know what materials are pre-approved and can be used for standard testing if you don't go to Clause 3? Look at the WPS
How do you know to classify the WPS as 'Pre-Approved', 'Qualified by Testing', or 'PQR' without going to Clause 3? Look at the WPS
How did you write up the mandatory, per 4.19, WPS to test from without going to Clause 3? That should be done before the WPQT, and not all WPQT is done to a prequalified WPS
How do you know the appropriate, included on the WPS you don't have from Clause 3, filler metals for the materials groupings without going to Clause 3? Look at the WPS
I don't want to get into a plssing match about it, but clause 3 should have been looked into long before doing a qualification test to a prequalified WPS
Looking at Table 3.1 if I tested on 3/4" or less A36 then I would be qualified to weld all steel in Group I only. If I tested on 3/4" or greater(my case 1") A36 then I would be good for all steels in Groups I and II. My interpretation, worst case I would need to do the A572 Gr65 in Group III. I think one inspector I talked to mentioned different preheats between the groups and looking at it that is a difference in the Group I/II and Group III when looking at 3/4" up to 1-1/2", this would be the essential variable requiring another test from what I'm reading.
Table 4.8, Base metals, If you test in Group I to Group I then you can only weld group one materials but an A36, 3/4" and over is group II which is good for Group I and Group II materials, two birds with one stone sort of speak, am I reading that correctly? Now, Group III is not so clear. Seems you can weld a Group III to a Group I or II but does that mean you can weld Group I, II and III or just qualified to weld Group III to Group I materials? Which would be a weird qualification to have I suppose but I'm kind of thinking that welding the Group II to a Group III would qualify you for all groups? XX18 series rod or in that case 8018 and you would be qualified for all groups, all electrodes?
Ok, more reading over this, "The Specific PQR Group III or Annex M Steel Tested to Any Group I or Group II Steel". So this is saying that you could take, for example, 572Gr65 and weld it to A36 and you would then be qualified to weld specifically 572Gr65 to any group I or group II material? Think I answered my own question in the last paragraph.
My copy of D1.1 is a little dated(2004) so there are some things I believe that have been changed that I'm not seeing, like Clause 3. Looking at table 4.11 and 4.12 though and it's pretty clear, "To an SMAW electrode with an F-number (see Table 4.12) higher than the WPQR electrode F-number". So, with that one thing is proven, test with an F3 and your not qualified to run F4. Run F4 and your good for lesser electrodes.
Fathers day, got things to do I suppose. Time to let my brain rest. All and all, pretty interesting actually, learning this and chatting code. Think if I buried my head into it I could grasp it. What is clause 3, paraphrased or quoted? I couldn't find it in my copy, will look later maybe I'm missing it.
It is easy to confuse the requirements that are applicable to the qualification of the WPS and qualification of the welder.
The welder must follow a WPS when being qualified. However, the extent of the welder's qualifications are not restricted to those materials listed by the WPS or the F number listed by the WPS used for qualification.
I have WPSs that are used specifically for welder performance qualification. The WPSs list one base metal, one welding process, one electrode specification, one electrode classification, one F number, etc. The WPS tells the welder what he needs to know to set up and weld the test assembly. The WPS includes several figures taken from D1.1, D1.5, D1.2, etc. as they apply to the qualification test being administered. The specific figure that applies to the welder qualification test being administered is "circled" with black marker at the time of the test so there is no question as to what assembly the welder is welding.
The welder performance test record has three columns. The far left lists the appropriate variables that must be recorded and a few extra that I find useful. The center column lists the variables that apply to the test taken, e.g.: SMAW - Manual, ASTM A36, 3/8 inch thick, with backing - 1/4x1, 3G - vertical, uphill progression, A5.1, E7018, F4, 1/8 inch diameter, etc. The column to the far right lists the extent of the welders qualifications as it applies to production welding, e.g.: SMAW - manual, all low carbon and high strength low alloy steels, 1/8 inch through 3/4 inch thick, all A5.1 and A5.5 SMAW electrodes included in electrode groups F4, F3, F3, and F1, flat, horizontal, and vertical positions, vertical uphill progression, etc.
The welder qualification test is only a demonstration by the welder that the skills needed to deposit sound welds have been developed. Whether the particular base metal to be welded is included is at the prerogative of the Engineer. That comment is based on the fact that the Engineer can permit base metals not included by D1.1 to be welded. For instance, AISI steels can be used for miscellaneous attachments, secondary connections such a braces, etc.
It is easy enough to mistakenly impose limitations on the extent of the welder's qualification based on the WPS. While the welder is bound to weld within the limitations of the employer's WPS, it is easy enough for the employer to develop another WPS to address specific production needs. The welder is not required to take another performance test unless the new WPS includes ranges that are beyond the scope of the existing performance test's qualified ranges. For example, a welder that is qualified with E6010 electrode is not qualified to weld to a WPS that requires the use of an E7018 (different F numbers). However, a welder qualified to use E7018 (higher F number) is not required to take another performance test if the new WPS requires the use of E8010 (lower F number). As per my comment in the preceding paragraph, a welder qualified using ASTM A36 is not required to take another performance test to weld an ASTM A572 grade 50 or an AISI 1008 (cold rolled low carbon steel). Note: do not confuse an ASTM A1008 with AISI 1008, they are not the same!
One must read the applicable code carefully, remembering not to comingle the requirements of procedure qualification with those of performance qualification. It is also easy to limit the reading to the one or two clauses that "jump" and captures one's attention without reading the other clauses that are also applicable. There is a hierarchy to the code. It is easy to develop selective reading habits by reading the clauses that appear to apply to the question without reading the other clauses that are also applicable. When qualifying a WPS, one must read all the paragraphs in clause 4 and the applicable tables and figures, not just the tables, etc. The text of the code supersede the tables.
Best regards - Al
Al,
Great read and after extensive research and phone calls it has been told to me that all I will need is WPS in order for the higher strength steel, group 3 materials in the processes I intend to use. FCAW and SMAW. I will only have to test on 4 plates, A36 material, 1" thick using the 7018/E71. I was told by one inspector I talked to about this that it was in Chapter 4. Good for me because the cost of the official accredited test and testing of the one inch plates. At least I can save some $600 on not having to do additional tests for group 3 materials.
I need to make sure we are on the same page. We began the discussion with a conversation about welder qualification. Now, switching gears, we are taking about qualifying a WPS for welding high strength steels.
While the welder, qualified on A36, is qualified to weld a wide range of base metals from any group, the production welding must be performed in accordance with a WPS that is either prequalified or qualified by testing. The base metals listed in Table 3.1, Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 are prequalified. As such, a prequalified WPS can be developed without the need for testing in accordance with clause 4. Any base metal listed in Table 4.9 must be qualified by testing, i.e., they can be used, but the contractor has to "prove" the WPS is viable by testing.
If all the conditions of prequalification can not be satisfied, i.e., you decide to weld a single sided CJP groove without employing steel backing, you elect to use ceramic backing, you want to weld a double sided CJP without back gouging, then the contractor has to qualify the WPS by testing in accordance with clause 4. Then, and only then, does Table 4.8 come into play. Table 4.8 does not apply to prequalified WPSs.
If the contractor has to qualify the WPS in accordance with clause 4, there are no provisions to qualify multiple welding processes on the same test plate. Each welding process must be qualified separately. Once the contactor has a qualified WPS for each welding process, they can be combined into one WPS. That one WPS would be supported by multiple PQRs.
F numbers, or electrode classification groupings as listed in Table 4.13, are essential variables for both welder performance qualification and the qualification of the PQR. How the F number apply is different for welder performance and the qualification of the WPS.
I hope this helps you in your quest.
Best regards - Al
It's probably my self diagnosed ADD Al!!
The procedures, rod and steel all were in my original thinking. The different groups of steel, electrodes.
The reason I brought it up was because of a new thing going on where everybody is required to qualify to one owners standards and I didn't see anything about the higher grade steels, group 3 specifically. So when I posed the question to some inspectors in the "know" about this and a question of "what if I weld on this and you come out and inspect. I have already tested to their procedures and qualified but from what I have read their procedures will not qualify me for group 3 materials, but I tested to their requirements." His answer was, "we'd fail the welds".
I've got names, numbers and all pertinent information now and inspectors now have to be qualified by this owner in order to inspect. If they are not then they cannot do inspections for this company. If you are a CWI and you have not been approved by the HMFIC and you inspect it I'm assuming they will not accept your report as valid.
In a way I see what they are doing, trying to thin the herd and keep the quality contractors/welders/inspectors but having me go in for a test where I know I have to put down my ultimate does not mean that when I get in the field it will eliminate the bad welding. For me, I weld the same on the test as I do in the field, my name, ID on the welds, self respect and honor in my work. Other guys I've seen have passed the test, somehow and when they weld on site it looks like a dirt dobber on the end of stick. It may pass inspection by AWS standards but still not worth what you are paying some of these yahoo's.
Want them off your sites, boot their arse's off when they lay down trash, black list them if they don't follow the rules, like grind all galvy, no friggin' 6010's!!
I do appreciate your input in this. Next time I'm super bored at the notell hotel I'll open up chapter 4 and trudge thru it more thoroughly.
Shawn
Shawn,
Look through and find a very recent post I put up concerning companies going above and beyond and insisting CWI's call out corrections on welds that do not need them per D1.1 but this extreme perfectionism is not called out in the bid drawings or contract documents in advance.
They also are not excepting any welder certs except those from an outfit who has brainwashed them into believing no one else is doing welder quals correctly and they are not following code procedure to do theirs but what they FEEL are bad welds at both the look out stage and when doing the bends.
I will go no further right now. But there are some people who need serious looking into by the Ethics Committee but I know I am going to need a lot more to get even a first read without file 13 disposition.
He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent
Brent!! I cannot agree with you more and if I am thinking about the same thing you are I believe the ethics committee should be informed.
Accredited by AWS means AWS has put their trust in them to follow procedures to the letter. Now one is saying that the whole country must use one specific testing facility where they are charging an excessive amount of money. The more I talk to the one particular testing place I am getting the feeling they are getting butt hurt every time I mention using an ACCREDITED TEST FACILITY that is more reasonably price, closer to my home, does not require staying in a city that I would much rather never visit in this lifetime or the next and does the exact same thing as far as procedures, qualifications and destructive testing.
I'll look for the thread.
https://app.aws.org/forum/topic_show.pl?pid=268775Should be the one Shawn. Sorry, taking final classes to get my MT level II during the day and working my swing shift inspections at night. Here we go again. But I will be done with this Friday and then I can go back to remodeling the house, doing welding at my shop, doing inspections in Prescott, and driving to Phoenix to do inspections at night. Normal.
Brent
Dear Experts,
I have a set of qualified and customer approved WPS(s) for pipes as per Sec IX . Now I gotta qualify a set for structure. The customer spec states the structural WPS(s) shall be according to D1.1. I would like to know, is there any cross reference or a provision to use those previously qualified ASME WPS(s) for structure rather than qualifying a whole set of new WPS(s) according to D1.1, provided that all the other essential, non essential and supplementary essentials are same for both.
Glad to hear from you all.
Regards,
Shemeer
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.
WPSs qualified in accordance with ASME Section IX do not comply with AWS D1.1 for the following reasons:
1) the visual acceptance criteria of Section IX does not include most of the attributes that must be evaluated for AWS D1.1.
2) ASME Section IX does not require volumetric evaluation prior to the mechanical tests.
3) The dimensions used for the reduced section tensile tests required by ASME Section IX are about half the size required by AWS D1.1
4) The acceptance criteria for the guided bend testing required by Section IX is not as stringent as that required to pass AWS D1.1.
The best advice has been offered, go with the prequalified WPSs permitted by AWS D1.1 where possible.
Al
Is a flare bevel weld without a dimension for effective throat a PJP, i.e. HSS 8x8x3/8 fitted to 1/2 plate?
LDD,
A prequalified flare bevel groove weld is based on the joint being welded flush (note L). In my experience, if there is no dimension, I have always applied note L.
By welderbrent
Date 07-02-2015 16:30
Edited 07-02-2015 16:48
LDD,
WELCOME TO THE AWS WELDING FORUM!!
Now, you asked an interesting question without nearly enough information.
We really need to know your applicable code, your welding process, and if there is a WPS for this. Also, a picture, scan, attachment of the drawing/detail would really, really be helpful.
But, let's think about this with the information you did provide.
So, first, feature the difference between a PJP and a CJP. One means it is welded 100% and the other means it is only welded part way.
Secondly, in my feeble old mind I just can't picture an 8X8X3/8 HSS laying on it's side on a 1/2" plate being welded across the entire approximate 6" of contacting surface between the plate and the tube plus the area of the flare bevel coming out to some point that is unknown to me and it appears to you since you state there are no provided dimensions.
Which brings us to thirdlly, it would almost assuredly be a PJP.
The question really is, without dimensions being provided, how do you know how much strength the engineer/designer wants?
While the depth of weld into the root will be dependent upon thickness/radius of the tube, root opening (any separation between the plate and the tube), and the welding process being used (as some will be able to get down deeper into the bottom of the flare bevel groove than others) you have no idea how much weld filler you need for thickness to achieve the strength required for the job at hand.
Sometimes it only needs a pass or two and won't even come out to being 'flush' with the edge of the tube. Other times it is required to be filled so it is a flush finish. And then, it may even need a reinforcing fillet so that it has additional strength.
Now, Scott is correct, look at the notes in D1.1:2010, if that is your applicable code, on page 77 note 'L' which applies to all the following Pre-qualified joints in Figures 3.3. You will have to go back a few to get to the flare bevel groove welds.
Only the engineer knows for sure.
Personal opinion is that 'YES' your weld will be a PJP. The real question is, how much weld is needed?
One last thing, it would really be nice if you would start your own thread to ask a question not associated with the topic at hand. When in the topic area you think your question fits in, with no one else's posts or threads showing, go to 'post' and click to start your own. Don't worry about it this time. It's all good.
He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent
Hi, i'm new in the forum, I would apreciate an answer about this: For an alloy A103 and A53 to weld together, What electrode (alloy) is recomended? Those are pipes for steam water. Thanks in advance
Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill
