Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Certifications / Do SWPS still need welder qualification test?
- - By Jwelder Date 06-01-2016 12:27
Hello all, I'm new to the forum and have a quick question.

If you purchase an AWS SWPS such as B2:1-1-004 (10 Ga. GMAW-S Carbon), does the welders still need to qualify to that WPS with test plates (in this case destructive testing)?, Also can these be performed by a third party lab if the equipment is not available to do so at the facility that purchased the SWPS??

Thanks in advance for any information and clarification.
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 06-01-2016 17:12
Welcome to the Forum Jwelder !

You did not tell us what code/specification the production work will be compliant with... So assuming AWS D1.1 in the response.

If you purchase an AWS SWPS such as B2:1-1-004 (10 Ga. GMAW-S Carbon), does the welders still need to qualify to that WPS with test plates

Yes,  The welders must pass a performance qualification test that is representative of the transfer mode, position, thickness range and joint type covered by the SWPS to be used in production.

Also can these be performed by a third party lab if the equipment is not available to do so at the facility that purchased the SWPS??


3rd party labs are often used for welder performance qualification testing.  Whether it can be done in your case depends on the requirements in your contract with the customer.   The D1.1 has no objection to the practice.

But, I don't understand.... If you are purchasing a GMAW short circuiting transfer SWPS to do production with that transfer mode... How is it possible that you don't have the equipment to make the welds?    Or is it that you don't have the equipment to do the destructive testing ?
Parent - - By Jwelder Date 06-01-2016 17:28
Thank you for the quick response Lawrence, welder qualification to the SWPS was what I was assuming too. This happens to be the first SWPS I have purchased, and have only used company proprietary WPS in the past.

To clarify, you are correct that it would be D1.1.

We will have the equipment to perform the welding, I don't have anything currently capable to do the destructive testing (i.e. fillet break and etching).

Again, thank you kindly for the information.
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 06-01-2016 19:24
To be clear... Because I neglected to ask if your welders had any current qualifications for short circuiting GMAW:

If your welders are already currently qualified for GMAW short circuit in accordance with AWS D1.1 they would NOT need to qualify to the specific SWPS, unless the essential variables to the initial qualification do not fall within the scope of the SWPS.
Parent - - By Jwelder Date 06-01-2016 19:44
Thanks Lawrence, they have not qualified on GMAW-S before. They have Just qualified on  Spray Arc transfer GMAW, 1" coupons in 3G and 4G using a different wire diameter and shielding gas mixture previously.

This SWPS test would be for 10 ga. carbon "Fillet weld Tee" for a Fillet Break test and etch.

Thanks a bunch.
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 06-01-2016 21:34
Jwelder,
I don't have my D1.1 handy at the moment, but I don't remember mode of transfer being an essential variable for GMAW performance qualifications(pretty sure wire dia and gas are not essential variables that require requalification of the welders)...check Table 4.XX (XX depends on the edition of D1.1 for the table) that addresses the essential variables for welder qualification. You may or may not need to requalify the welders..., check the Table to verify
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 06-02-2016 11:23
Here you go :)
Parent - By Jwelder Date 06-02-2016 12:13
Yep, that is it.

Excellent guys, thanks for your help.
Parent - By jwright650 (*****) Date 06-02-2016 12:36
Thanks Lawrence....:cool:
Jwelder, yep looks like your welders will requalify.

On another note: Sure wish the D1.1 committee would have kept the same Table numbers instead of rearranging them and giving them different numbers over the years. I understand how and why it happened, but you have to have the edition being referenced in hand to get to the correct Table or otherwise everyone is confused while looking at different editions and referencing a Table by number. And there lies the problem with typos in the newer codes where the Table number was changed and the Clause text didn't get the same treatment.
- - By jshot (*) Date 06-23-2016 14:06
I searched and found this thread and would like to ask a question because I am referring someone to a SWPS. I've never used a SWPS directly from AWS. If someone takes the 2G optional unlimited coupon, does a WPS need to be written for that test using the SWPS or can a WQR just be wrote stating the parameters used as long as they are within the limits of the SWPS and just have the WPS number reflect the B2.1-1-016:1994 from the SWPS?

The person wants to have a couple guys qualified for 7018 D1.1  for tight access areas where GMAW can't access. I came across this B2.1-1-016:1994 procedure and thought I would recommend the SWPS.

Appreciate any responses, thanks.
Parent - - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 06-23-2016 15:18
The SWPS is all that is needed for a WPS for qualification however if the individuals are going to be doing production in accordance with D1.1 then a WPS (or SWPS) that also meets the ranges in production must be used.

The WPS used for the WPQR is just related to the WPQR and has no bearing on the range of qualification. The variables for performance qualification allowed by D1.1 would need recorded.

The contractor or organization performing the welding will need both welders and procedures that meet the requirements of D1.1. The Engineer has the responsibility for acceptance of WPS's however SWPS's are mentioned.

Not really sure if this is what you were asking..

Often times its best to just start a new thread for questions as opposed to tagging something on the end of another. It also makes it less confusing should someone decide to look at this thread later.
Parent - - By jshot (*) Date 06-23-2016 16:14
So for the following SWPS:

(B2.1-1-016:1994 STANDARD WELDING PROCEDURE SPECIFICATION (SWPS) FOR SHIELDED METAL ARC WELDING OF CARBON STEEL, (M-1/P-1/S-1, GROUP 1 or 2), 1/8 THROUGH 1-1/2 INCH THICK, E7018, AS-WELDED OR PWHT CONDITION)

As long as the ranges in which the production welders are performing with the 7018 is covered in this SWPS, then there is no need to create written WPS's (basically the SWPS is a purchased standard ready for welding)? Is that what I'm understanding? A wps for the actual qualification would be needed for meeting D1.1 coupon requirements but the range of welds the employees do are restricted the SWPS.

I hope I'm grasping correctly. I have never seen a SWPS. The only reason I'm suggesting the SWPS to the company is to take away some of the leg work and cost of writing.

One last thing, right now they are using GMAW and have written wps's, I'm recommending the SWPS for the 7018, both ways are equal correct? Some are just wrote to D1.1 for GMAW and the SWPS will be purchased for 7018.
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 06-23-2016 16:26
Why not generate a prequalified WPS if you are working to D1.1?

The Engineer has the last word on whether the SWPS is acceptable on "his" project.

Al
Parent - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 06-23-2016 16:42
This idea is MUCH better!
Parent - - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 06-23-2016 16:46
The SWPS is a WPS. It can be used for production and testing.
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 06-23-2016 20:18
Technically the SWPS can be used to qualify the welder, but the welder must use the joint details included in D1.1, not the joint details listed by the SWPS. Just a small fly in the ointment that can really stink up the works.

Al
Parent - - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 06-23-2016 21:26
That is correct. The WPS must be qualified to use that joint. Not really a fly though, all WPS's must be qualified for the ranges used for performance testing. Even those qualified by testing.

I do often wonder why the figures for the test assemblies don't just refer to the BU2a joints as opposed to having their own "special" figure.
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 06-24-2016 02:22
Let's just say it has something to do with tolerances.

Al
Parent - - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 06-24-2016 11:34
Please explain. It could just be a statement as simple as "All Welder Performance Qualification Joint Designs shall comply with the nominal dimensions shown in the applicable pre-qualified joint design" and maybe just allow the as-fitup tolerances vs the as detailed and as-fitup.

For the figures "required" by D1.1 used for qualification of welders, there aren't any tolerances which can really be a pain when trying to clarify in your mind what is really allowed or not allowed. What if my gap is 1/64" big at one end and 1/64" small at the other. I couldn't find a general "tolerances" statement. Of course we could get into the "use common sense" idea regarding tolerances but that sometimes doesn't work well with inspection.

A thought on tolerances. If the figures for performance are shown without tolerances to assure that "easier joints" with greater included angles/access aren't used then would a welder who performed welds on a 3G and 4G groove weld for qualifying a WPS and the included angle of the groove was say 60 degrees with a 1/4" root opening on backing, would he somehow be less "qualified" to make production welds then a welder who tested on a required "test plate" ?

So I am not sure why NO tolerances are shown.

One noted thing on "tolerances" . It is odd that the figures for unlimited thickness qualification show a 1" thick plate with no allowance for deviation yet the table for qualified thickness ranges show the use of thicknesses other than 1". 

But you only get so much for $500.00 . Of course if I am not on a committee I am part of the problem and not the solution. Not to mention the fact that I am often prone to overlooking things.

Was the statement you made regarding tolerances something similar to what I stated above or is it more complicated than that?

Gerald
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 06-24-2016 12:39
The sketches provided in D1.1 for welder qualification include no tolerances whereas the figures for prequalified joints details do. The tolerances included in the prequalified joint details are beyond what is expected by AWS. Were that not the case, the code committee could have simply referenced the prequalified joint detail rather than showing the specific joint details for welder qualification.

The dimensions shown for welder qualification are nominal values. Setting the root opening is as easy as setting the opening with a 1/4 inch backing bar. The bevel groove of 22 1/2 degrees is a nominal value. I don't believe most of us would quibble over a degree one way or the other. A tolerance of +/- 5 degrees is not what I would consider a reasonable tolerance.

Tolerances mean different things to different people. I see some cars with three regular tires and a spare while driving rather than buying a new tire. Tires wear at different rates depending on whether they are providing the motive force or not. They wear at different rates depending on breaking and driving habits. Driving with four different size tires isn't recommended for most driving conditions, but that doesn't mean there isn't a few motorists that do it on a regular basis. Common sense appears to depend on one’s frame of reference. Tires, women, fit up tolerances; what is acceptable and what isn’t depends on the circumstances and the amount of alcohol one has consumed.

Codes and standards for the most part are consensus documents that represent the views of people representing different interests. Are they right all the time?  I think the adoption of some of the changes in the New Farm Code is evidence they aren't always right, but when a code or standard is invoked by the customer or when we state that the welds were prepared, welded, and tested in accordance with a particular code there is an obligation to do one's best to comply with what the code says.

If one has no intention of meeting the requirements of the code or if there is serious disagreement with the requirements of the code, simple don’t make the statement that the work meets the code. I would consider a test report stating that the welder was qualified in accordance with D1.1 when the welder utilized a 60 degrees groove angle to be a fraudulent representation of the welder’s qualifications.

There are many times when I qualify welders using joint details that are representative of the conditions the welders will encounter in production. When such is the case, I simply state the welders are qualified for the specific project.

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 06-24-2016 13:16
Nominal- Yup! 

I agree with the methods you describe for setting up the test and have done a couple that way. 

So if a welder tested on a 60 degree included angle while qualifying a WPS, his WPQR would not be a satisfactory representation of his "meeting the code" ?

I see that it does based upon D1.1. Yet it is outside the nominal dimensions of the applicable test plate figures and definitely outside +/- 5 degrees.

You indicated you knew something about the "tolerances" so it led me to believe you had some inside information on the issue and could maybe provide some insight on the fact that though joint design for performance qualification is rigid (within those sensible tolerances not actually addressed in the code) yet great flexibility is allowed by performance qualification on a PQR/WPS plate in which the joint design could range outside of that for the test plate.

This is not a major issue for me to resolve but for the sake of discussion and based upon your statements I figured it may "enlighten" me.  I too try my best to comply as my integrity is not based upon a industry code or specification.

Thanks for your time and valuable information.

Gerald
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 06-24-2016 14:28
One should not confuse the qualification of a WPS with the qualification of a welder when working to any code.

While the welder is qualified when he/she welds the test coupon for the PQR, it does require the test coupon to pass visual, volumetric NDE, guided bend tests, as well as the reduced section tensile tests. So, my position would be that if the welder wants to qualify by qualifying and passing all the requisites tests needed, go for it. If not, then the standard AWS performance test is necessary.

The conditions stipulated by D1.1 clearly are not the same as those required by ASME Section IX. While AWS D1.1 enjoys the flexibility of utilizing both WPSs that are prequalified and exempt from testing as well as WPSs qualified by testing, ASME has opted to follow a different route. With ASME, each contractor must (with exceptions taken for SWPSs and B31.9) qualify their WPSs and the welders must be tested by the contractor (with some exceptions). Where AWS permits the Engineer to accept previous performance qualification, ASME is less inclined to do so. Different codes, different philosophies, and different requirements and limitations  apply. Some people have a difficult time reconciling the differences. I try not to rationalize the differences and simply change hats when moving from one code to the next.

Working with different codes is like trying to preach to different congregations consisting of different religions. While they believe in similar fundamentals, it is in the details where there are great differences. Reconciling those differences is an exercise that only leads to frustration.

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 06-24-2016 14:59
There is ABSOLUTELY no confusion on those two.

The code allows a welder to be "Qualified" by welding a coupon for a PQR. That coupon may very well have joint dimensions that are outside of the "required" ranges for performance testing. However the joint design has no bearing for performance qualification .

Again, you mentions "Tolerances" without specifying what you were speaking of. If tolerances were that important as far as performance qualification joint geometry goes, it is just odd that in the cases when a welder is qualified during the welding of a PQR, there is no concern for the joint dimensions as related to the validity of performance qualification ranges.

I am extremely aware of much of your statements below (You left out B31.3 as far as "other contractor" qualifications).  In all of my previous statements I am completely in the context of D1.1.

I'm good though. Hopefully the thread didn't loose it valus on my wanderings.

Have a good one Al

Gerald
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 06-24-2016 19:36
I just visited the AWS site for interpretations. It seems they are selective of what interpretations are included. I know of a couple that don't appear on the site.

That being said, I didn't find much in the way of an interpretation on the limitations or tolerances of the dimensions for the test plates used for welder performance qualifications. Without an interpretation from the committee, who am I to say it is wrong to use one of the prequalified joints for welder qualification?

We've discussed this before, but I'm open to other opinions regarding welder qualification. Was it an oversight by the committee or was it intentional? I can't read their minds and I don't have a crystal ball. I guess it is up to each employer or testing agency to adopt and comply with the sketches provided in the code or decide to "do it their way."

Best regards - Al
Parent - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 06-25-2016 20:44
I searched the online interpretations but didn't know if their book of interpretations included something else. I do like the ASME site for looking up interpretations much better. That and keeping the paragraphs essentially the same over the years as far as what they are.

I just do it by the code myself unless documented otherwise.

Have a good day

Gerald
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 06-23-2016 17:26
If you're asking whether or not the welders need to be qualified, it depends if they are currently qualified  for SMAW F-4 electrodes in the thicknesses and positions required to be welded or not
Parent - By HJLBX Date 06-25-2016 05:59
I asked about the prescribed welder qualification test plate versus the pre-qualified joints.

I was told that the test plates are to be dimensioned as illustrated -- so that every welder is given an identical performance qualification test plate.

In other words, uniformity of the test plate from welder to welder - to ensure as much consistency of welding conditions as is practicable and fairness from one welder to the next.

I took the explanation at face-value.

It made sense...
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Certifications / Do SWPS still need welder qualification test?

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill