Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Certifications / Essential Variables
- - By Bryan Bidewell (*) Date 11-02-2007 16:06
In reviewing welders qualifications for recruitment, I look to see whether their qualifications comply with PQR's that we have already established. My confusion sometimes arises from the consumables in deciding if the welders are suitable qualified. For example AWSD1.1 clearly states that if a change in the manufacturers brand name of electrode is used then requalification for FCAW is required. Therefore when I'm reviewing new welders and their qualifications, if their consumable are different to that specified in our PQR's are they suitably qualified or does it make their qualification certificates irrelevant?
Parent - - By swnorris (****) Date 11-02-2007 16:26
What part of D1.1 are you referring to? Unless I'm mistaken, that note only applies to CVN applications.
Parent - By Bryan Bidewell (*) Date 11-05-2007 08:56
Yes that is the part I am referring to as we are dealing with CVN applications.
Parent - - By CHGuilford (****) Date 11-02-2007 16:30
I'm not looking at my D1.1 at the moment but isn't the brand name essential variable specific to D1.5 and not to D1.1?  (A lot of D1.1 weldingis pre-qualified and does nott need PQR tests)

You are mixing testing requirements:

The PQR's are intended to qualify welding procedure specifications(WPS's); not to qualify the welders. Usually the welder who actually welded out the PQR is qualified because of that test but that is coincidental to the purpose of the PQR.  Often a PQR is welded by a person already qualified for the process anyway, but that is not a requirement, just common sense because PQR testing can be expensive.

Welders perform qualification tests in accordance with a WPS and that qualifies them to weld with the process without restrictions on the brand they weld with.
Parent - - By rickc (**) Date 11-02-2007 16:42
What swnorris said!
A change in filler metal manufacturer's brand name or type of electrode only requires requalification w/ CVN testing for FCAW per Table 4.6(5) on Page 141 of D1.1:2006. Changing it doesn't affect the welder qualification either (see Table 4.12 on Page 150).
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 11-02-2007 16:49
Since we're talking about performance quals I wouldn't worry about any of that. If you want a prescreening criteria I would think that process, materials, positionality, and consumables that are catagorially close for say SMAW(for example 6010 guys cannot necessarily handle 7018) would suffice. And then test em. I would always test em.
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 11-02-2007 20:11
Bryan,

It sounds to me (I could be wrong) like you are looking at cert papers that prospective employees are handing you as they come off the street, and if the you like what you see; you are considering them to be qualified for production in your facility.

If that is the case, I would tell you that most people are not that trusting....

If you are using the certs as a screening tool, to weed out who you will test and who you will send down the line, that is what most employers do.

Most employers, even when they know exactly when and where the cert came from and who perfromed the destructive testing or RT; They will still make prospective welders pass a performance qualification test before putting them into production.
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 11-02-2007 20:23
L,
We re-test every new welder....whether they come through the door with a briefcase full of paper or not.....that is the only way that I can vouch for their continuity(D1.1:2006 paragraph 4.1.3). Plus, all of my welder's certs are on our letterhead and approvers are less suspicious when they are sent out for submittals of approval.
Parent - - By swnorris (****) Date 11-03-2007 12:27
We do the same thing.  As far as screenings for potential employees, their certification papers really mean nothing.  In fact, when we set up a welding test for them, some of the guys who have certification papers can't make code quality fillet welds.  Is anyone else out there seeing the same thing?
Parent - By Lawrence (*****) Date 11-03-2007 14:12
Al has mentioned this a number of times.

Just because you pass a groove weld exam does not make it a given that fillets are going to be perfect.

I know we are going to work more fillet break tests into GMAW, FCAW and SMAW training for just this reason.

Most entry level fabricators are making fillets anyhow... It seems natural to give that joint some extra attention.
Parent - By ctacker (****) Date 11-03-2007 16:22
we get it with groove welds, lots of guys have papers for 3g unlimited, but just this week, i tested 3 welders, 1 left after starting his cover, didnt even say a word,
after looking at his plate, I would have snuck out too. another thought he did good, underfill and over 1/16 undercut. 1 passed.

We get on average about 5-8 tests to find 1 that passes!
Parent - - By Bryan Bidewell (*) Date 11-05-2007 09:02
The brand name is an essential variable in D1.1 for CVN applications. As for for mixing testing requirements I'm not sure, there is a possibility I am, however I do understand PQR's are to qualify WPS's, but is at also not that case that as a result of the produced WPS, the welder in question should be qualified and therefore shown on their certificates that their ranges and parameters comply with that WPS and does this not also need to include the electrodes i.e. brand?
Parent - - By swnorris (****) Date 11-05-2007 11:14 Edited 11-05-2007 11:17
Lawrence,

I guess I should have been clearer.  I'm not referring to actual break tests.  Our "initial tests" are simple fillet welds, (two plates in a tee configuration with 5/16" fillet welds on both sides, and a L3 x 3 x 5/16 on a plate with a 1/4" fillet weld on three sides).  Some of these guys are entry level welders and some have been welding for a few years. 
Parent - - By Bryan Bidewell (*) Date 11-05-2007 14:33
In addition to the point on variable made fro reviewing new welders, I have an additional query. My company is looking at resourcing it's welding consumables, however as my WPQR's and WPS's specify a particular brand/manufacturers consumable, am I restricted from changing and may I only proceed with changing providing I produce new WPQR's and WPS's? AWSD1.1 does state that any change in electrode, brand name or other, requires requalification for FCAW. Does that requalification refer to the WPQR and WPS or just the welder?
Parent - - By swnorris (****) Date 11-05-2007 15:01 Edited 11-05-2007 15:04
Bryan,

The engineer has the authority to override code requirements, and therefore has the authority to waive the requirements of Table 4.6.  If you don't want to perform further testing, you might want to consider submitting certs for the consumable indicated on your old WPS or PQR, along with the cert for the consumable you want to use.  If the CVN values (and other values) are the same, there's a possibility that the engineer will approve its use.
Parent - - By Bryan Bidewell (*) Date 11-05-2007 15:28
Who is it you refer to as the Engineer, I'm the Quality Manager and as such my duties include managing all the welding activity within my company? So if I understand you correctly are you suggesting that the key consideration is the CVN values of the consumable and that if these are equivalent a change may be possible, without further testing?
Parent - - By swnorris (****) Date 11-05-2007 16:06 Edited 11-05-2007 16:11
The Engineer of Record, who is responsible for the contract documents and the design of the project; and yes, a change may be possible (See 1.5).  Most engineers are willing to work with the fabricator, but dealing with some are about as difficult as trying to nail jello to a tree.  Put it this way....You haven't lost a thing by asking. 
Parent - By swsweld (****) Date 11-06-2007 00:24
nail jello to a tree. LOL! That's good stuff!
Parent - - By Bryan Bidewell (*) Date 11-06-2007 10:31
Thank you and I understand your comment about the Engineer but is it not imperative that compliance with the code is maintained and therefore if approval is granted by the Engineer surely that has to remain in accordance with the code as I can't imagine they would have the authority to overule the code? This topic has been a thorn in my side for a long time and it seems wherever I turn, I am unable to achieve a conclusive answer with regards to if a change in brand or manufacturers name of consumables requires requalification?
Parent - By swnorris (****) Date 11-06-2007 11:11 Edited 11-06-2007 11:19
Brian,

Did you read 1.5? "The engineer may add to, delete from, or otherwise modify the requirements of this code to meet the particular requirements of a specific structure".  Being ultimately responsible for the integrity of the structure, the engineer has the authority to do just that.
To answer your question, if notch toughness requirements are imposed on a project, a change in FCAW manufacturer's brand name requires WPS requalification.
The only one who has the authority to waive that requirement is the engineer.
We just had a situation in the field, and the engineer approved welding several joints that were not prequalified.  The third party inspector originally brought the non-qualified joint to the EOR's attention, but after review, the EOR approved it.  There are several other instances in my experience where the EOR has chosen to override D1.1, and each time, we get signed approval from the EOR.  
Parent - - By HgTX (***) Date 11-06-2007 22:29
Brand is essential variable in D1.5 for procedure qualification, not for welder/welding operator qualification.

Hg
Parent - - By Bryan Bidewell (*) Date 11-07-2007 08:44
Still struggling with this so anyway here's my dilemma! I have PQR's and WPS's specifying ESAB Tubrod 15.17, Classification A5.29/E81TTI and we are looking to change to the material used by our parent company which is either Select Arc 720HP and/or Select Arc 727, both are Classification A5.20. What action do I need to take to proceed with these changes?
Parent - - By CHGuilford (****) Date 11-08-2007 14:14 Edited 11-08-2007 14:21
In reviewing this thread, I'm kinda losing what the main focus is.  I realize there are additional requirements for CVN testing - you have already acknowledged that; and you seem to have a background in what you are doing.

So at the risk of oversimplifying-

Welder qualifications:
         If your welders are already certified for the FCAW process, positions, and thicknesses, then nothing need be done in that department

Welding Procedure Specifications (WPS):
        If you can write a WPS that complies with pre-qualification requirements, than no testing is needed.
       
        If you have special requirements that are not considered to be pre-qualified, conduct the appropriate testing per D1.1 Section 4.

I wonder, if you cannot simply utilize your parent company's testing documentation, why not duplicate the testing they performed?
Parent - - By Bryan Bidewell (*) Date 11-08-2007 14:51
When you say pre-qualification requirements do you mean that if the pre-qualification cals for a particular brand of consumable then so must the WPS?
Parent - - By CHGuilford (****) Date 11-08-2007 18:18
I meant that if you can write a WPS in accordance with Section 3, brand name is not an essential variable.  If you must consider CVN requirements, making brand an essential variable, then you'll have to Section 4.  (You already knew that). 

My main point is that if your parent company has already done the testing then you have a road map on what to do. If you must test, then do the same things in the same way, that is unless your welding needs are significantly different. For instance, if you typically run larger or smaller fillets than you parent company does, and you find you are always on the edge of their PQR limits, you would then choose parameters that are more appropriate for your own welding.  However, you could probably still do your testing in the same basic way.

If the parent company's quality and management program is the same as your company's, that is if you are all under one big happy umbrella, then it may be acceptable to use the WPS without further testing.  Some customers are OK with that, and some are not, so check first.
Parent - - By Bryan Bidewell (*) Date 11-12-2007 16:39 Edited 11-12-2007 17:52
I'm just not getting my head around this, I thought I required a Weld Procedure Qualification (WPQR) and a Weld Procedure SPecification (WPS) and that one is born from the other. In view of your last comments, I can put a WPQR (is this the same as a prequalified WPS)together in accordance to section 3, which does not control my consuambles in the same way as Section 4? However I then surely need to qualify my welders accordingly and to do this I have to as per section 4, which brings me back to the restriction on consumable? Am I missing something glaringly obvious? In addition to this Section 3 is very vague!

Thanks for your continued help!

I have read further into AWS with regards to CVN testing, particularly Annex III. Does the CVN test requirements only apply if the WPS is going to have impact tests and the welds thereafter. If this is the case just because we are in production, welding CVN tested materials, does this exclude the essential variables for CVN testing?
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 11-14-2007 14:42
Bryan,
If I may, it seems as though, to me, and not meaning to be insulting at all becasue if I am correct I have done the EXACT SAME THING. And perhapos all of us have.
Your biggest problem is preconceived notions that you can't let go of. The answers to the questions you've asked thus far have been handled quite clearly and quite well by the respondants, and yet it just seems to lead to more confusion for you, in my opinion because it doesn't fit your established ideas. You're trying to make the answers fit what you think, and it doesn't fit.

I would suggest that you try as much as you can to clear your head of your current thinking habits, sit down with D1.1 Sections 3, and 4 and read them from front to back taking it one step at a time starting from square one.

Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Certifications / Essential Variables

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill