Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Certifications / Stainless performance qualification
- - By strat (**) Date 03-25-2008 18:03
In D1.6,  4.7.5 states with the approval of the engineer,performance qualification test coupons may be with any of the steels listed in AWS D1.1,groups I or II.Qualification established with any one of these base metals shall be considered as qualification to weld any of the base metals permitted by this code.
Could someone break this down,is that stateing that if you tested with one of these metals that you are qualified to weld stainless
Parent - - By Kix (****) Date 03-25-2008 19:41
That's what it looks like to me.  It's with engineering approval only though.  You could save some money on material for testing this way.  My guys that don't have any certs in the stainless category or any other category will test on stainless.  My guys that allready have certs with group II steels won't need to be tested again.  That's how I'm reading this clause.
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 03-25-2008 21:04
If your engineers are willing to sign off on that..

Would you?
Parent - - By eekpod (****) Date 03-26-2008 10:15
D1.1 says that because in theory if you get the engineers approval, you wouldn't have to certify the welder if he was already certified.  Basically do you do like most companies and test a new welder who works for you?  What that statement in D1.1 means is if your engineer agrees to it he can take them for their word and you won't have to re-test him.  I've never seen this done, most engineers don't know the welders so they would'nt sign off on this, but the code makes it an option.   Chris
Parent - - By Kix (****) Date 03-26-2008 11:57
The performance test that my welders would have to take for what we do would be a couple of fillet weld tests that are not to difficult.  So why not have them take it and get another cert under their belt incase they move on or get laid off.  I'd test em for short circuit stainless for sure.  Thats a weird clause coming from D1.6 structural.
Parent - - By strat (**) Date 03-26-2008 13:02
I am testing the welders on stainless,that just caught my eye while back when reading it and i was wont'ing to make sure I was reading it correctly.
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 03-26-2008 14:39
Let's take this a bit further and please remember I am expressing my personal opinion on this subject.

D1.6 allows the welder to be tested using any of the base metals listed in D1.6 or D1.1 provided the filler metal is listed in D1.6. So, it is not the intent that a welder qualified with a carbon steel filler metal on carbon steel base metal to also be qualified using a stainless steel filler metal on both carbon and stainless steel.

I recently had a project that required welding carbon steel to austenitic stainless steel where the procedure was qualified using C.S. to S.S. with 309 filler metal. The welders were qualified for fillet welds on C.S. to C.S. using 309 filler metal. It is so much easier to obtain C.S. and much less expensive than using S.S. Considering the number of practice samples we went through, it was a huge cost savings.

The welder qualification testing also demonstrated the need to use E309-15 for the root pass if fusion to the root is required (and we all know that it is required). No one could get fusion to the root with E309-16 or E309-17. I specified E309-15, but the fabricator said no one stocked it, so he asked to used E309-16. After a couple of days and many failed weld samples he ordered E309-15 which had to be shipped from the manufacturer. It made the difference and the welders were able to pass the test.

Best regards - Al
Parent - By Kix (****) Date 03-26-2008 15:12
Good stuff Al.  Very informative post.  I'll have to remember that about the 309-15.  Do you think the 309-16 would of fused the root more consistently on stainless test pieces instead of carbon?
Parent - By strat (**) Date 03-26-2008 15:24
Thanks for the info and you guy's time.Greatly appreciated
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 03-26-2008 15:29
I agree with Kix, very good post. I was also wondering (as Kix mentioned) about if they used the SS on the test vs the CS if the root would have still given them trouble. I completely understand the economics of the CS vs the SS during testing.
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 03-26-2008 15:54
You raise a good point, i.e., whether the fusion to the root would be more easily attainable had stainless test plates been used.

A similar situation arose on another project and once again I administered the fillet break test on 304 stainless base metal. In this case the test material was only 3/8 inch thick to replicate the project conditions. Once again, the results were the same as had been in the case where carbon steel plates were used. The fabricator did not have E308-15 electrodes and proceeded to fabricate the parts using E308-16. Because the parts were already fabricated before my involvement, the engineer accepted the installed components "as built" based on the fact that the welds were 3X what was required to transmit the design loads. The length of the welds were based on the need to "seal" the joint versus the need to transmit loads.

The point is, my experience indicates the flux covering on EXXX-16 and EXXX-17 results in very poor "penetration" characteristics.

This brings us back to my position that it is a fallacy to believe that because a welder passed the groove test, he/she is "automatically" qualified to deposit fillet welds. In this case, had the fillet test been omitted because the welder had previously passed the groove test, we wouldn't have known the extent of the welder's skills problem or the difficulty as a result of the electrode classification (flux covering).

Best regards - Al
Parent - By jwright650 (*****) Date 03-26-2008 16:03
another good point concerning the welder passing groove vs fillet test....
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Certifications / Stainless performance qualification

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill