American Welding Society Forum
I have a customer qualifying a 1/8" plate short circuit 2G and 3G the Table is clear about the 2T range on that. My question arises from the welder qualification table. It only list 3/8", nothing smaller and qualifies from 1/8"-3/4"MAX. Does the 2T still apply? is there anything to clear this up? I have no need to run them at 3/8" for a welder qual that is over kill for this project, and is out of range of the WPS. I was told if its for production I can just have the welder weld the max thickness for the job which is 1/4". I get that being ok, but the "3/8" and lack of any info for smaller plates is throwing me off a little bit. Looking for some clarification.
Some good questions.D1.1 2015
For your GMAW short circuit procedure qualification on 1/8" plate... If you are not back-gouging on the PQR be aware of Table 4.2 Note "C"
I don't see a lot to stand on when it comes to making a performance qualification test that is less than shown in the Clause 4 figures and tables.
However, Here is something to chew on from an "official interpretation" https://www.aws.org/standards/page/interpretations-d11
The interpretation question is specifically about root openings, but the response from the committee says a little more if you are willing to read it that way.Inquiry: Is it permissible to have a 0-1/16-in. root opening between the test plates shown in Figure
Response: Yes. The Committee has not specified any tolerances for the dimensions in Figure 5.22A. The
dimensions shown are nominal and need not be exact. (The contractor may place dimensional
tolerances on shop drawings, such as those required in 3.3.)
The dimensions for the test assembly are *nominal* so if you want to fight about what "nominal" means and apply that to base metal thickness for your test assembly with the sustaining argument that the "contractor" can place dimensional tolerances' on drawings..... maybe you have a leg to stand on. But that still leaves the question of qualitied thickness eh?
But I think a 3/8" short circuit test assembly is not that imposing for a task.... My first semester welding students were able to pass an open root limited thickness GMAW short circuit in all positions.
Anyhow... Food for thought.
I agree that a 3/8 plate should be done. It was more the difficulty of the welders to pass and a time constraint of getting them done for a project. I was weird to me that the WPS range can include thinner than 3/8 but the WQTR starts at 3/8. With these 1/8 plates they did bevel them slightly, as to not be fully square. We are going to run another set of 1/4 plates for PQR. Looking more for welder qual information range qualified for thinner.
That's a "nominal" response! :)
Sometimes "weasel words" can be our friends :)
The standard qualification tests are specified by the figures in D1.1. I always treated them as the initial qualification test. Then if the contractor feels it is appropriate, additional tests can be administer, first; hanging by the left foot, second; hanging by the left wrist, third; hanging by the next.
In your case, the contractor would have to qualify the procedure and then each welder would be qualified per the WPS. There are no provisions in AWS D1.1 for the welder to take a test without backing unless it for tubulars per clause 9.
I don't know if I'm nominally confused or what now haha. As they qualify to the procedure per the WPS is there a range per thickness tested? Say the welder who performed the PQR passes, is their range now the range of the PQR if it was tested at 1/4"?
Al for president 2020
It's a good point
The code takes the effort to stipulate the welder who performs the PQR is qualified to do production without further testing.
But if the PQR base metal thickness is less than the 3/8" limited thickness performance testing assembly, what is the thickness of welder qualification ?
The welder can only weld the thickness range listed by the qualified WPS.
Ok so does that imply a welder taking the same test qualifying to that procedure is qualified to that same range as the PQR was?
That makes perfect sense.
Where exactly in clause 4 do we find the justification for that guidence?
I wanted to find that but haven’t. :)
It was a smart ass response to our good friend. The welder can only weld within the parameters of the WPS handed to him. If the WPS is limited to 5/16-inch, that is the limit of what the welder can weld regardless of what the test record indicates.
I would default to AWS B2.1 for testing the welder if a standard D1.1 qualification test doesn't fit the bill. I perform the visual examination and bend tests to the D1.1 requirements and note it on the qualification record. Clause 126.96.36.199 of AWS D1.1 provides the weasel words needed. Of course the Owner's Engineer has the final word on whether to accept or reject previous qualification.
The Farm Code doesn't include provisions for test thickness less than 3/8 inch when qualifying the welder. The thickness range qualified by the 3/8-inch test plates probably cover 80% of the thickness ranges welded in a structural shop. There are no provisions for testing the welder without backing or with back gouging unless there is a qualified WPS. Still, even with a qualified WPS, there are no provisions in the Farm Code for qualifying the welders without backing (except tubulars) or with back gouging. We've had that discussion on several occasions. Again, my default for such cases would be B2.1, but that isn't without some conflicts since it is a rehash of ASME Section IX and the acceptance criteria deviates from the Farm Code. That's why I use the acceptance criteria of the Farm Code and include a notation on the test record. It is a "work around" for the short comings of the Farm Code.
I thought I had a class in Houston coming up, but I don't see it on my calendar. I'll touch base with you if something comes up.
Best regards - Al
That works for me Al, I can include the B2.1 note on my welder qualification and just make it the range of the WPS. This job is project specific anyways.
Sorry for being a distraction Jordan... I think Al has given you legs to walk with here.
Now Al... I'm like a dog with a bone on this one.
The 2008 D1.1 hard copy on my desk shows table 4.12 Welding Personnel Performance Essential Variable Changes Requiring Requalification
"(6) The omission of backing (if used in the WPQR test)"
No footnotes, no restrictions, no mention of plate or pipe......
If this is not a provision for welders to qualify without backing, what is?
Unless we are going to argue about what "variable" actually means.
The Big Red book is mysterious eh?
It isn't called the Farm Code without reason.
I'm sure the code hasn't changed for the better since 2008, but consider clause 4.15. It speaks of "specially devised tests...." Then clause 4.16 is titled "Types of Qualification Tests Required", then clause 4.17 addresses the specific weld types for qualification tests where the applicable clause is listed for each weld type, i.e., 4.20 for CJP in nontubular connections, 9.19 for CJP in tubular connections, etc.
Following the thread; Clause 4.20 lists the figures to be used for qualifying the welder for CJP on nontubular connections. Clause 9.19 addresses the figures used to qualify a welder on tubulars and it is only there that there is any mention of qualifying the welder with backing or with the option of including a back gouging operation (figure 9.22B) or qualifying the welder without backing or a back gouge operation (figure 9.22A). Other options are included, but it is only in Clause 9 that I see where the welder can be qualified with or without backing, with or without a back gouge operation.
If I recollect, it may have been you that once said the text of the code takes precedence over the tables or figures when reading and applying the Farm Code. Even so, the table isn't wrong, it simply applies to tubulars with regards to the "backing" options.
I admit I did this in a hurry. It is my granddaughter's birthday and I'm suppose to be there for supper. My son-in-law has fired up the BQ grill and I have to admit, he is good with the BQ grill.
Best regards - Al
Grilling is greater than any technical discussion.
I’m not the one to say text takes presidence, but I’ve heard it.
I know one of the very good things happening in the D1 meta-narrative is that important language is being moved to text rather than hidden in footnotes....
If there is a conflict... well... it needs to be sorted out rather than one conflicted statement taking presidence over another.
That’s what I get when I stray away from my 2015
If only we had five years or more to await a response from the committees.
I still have questions waiting for interpretations. I was asked to resubmit them because they were "misplaced", still no response after more than five years.
How was your Easter?
We had a good time with the grandchildren and a nice meal with the in-laws and out-laws on all sides of the families.
Best regards - Al
Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill