Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Technical Standards & Publications / D14.3-94, D14.4-97, and B1.11:2000 question
- - By Kix (****) Date 01-05-2009 14:14 Edited 01-05-2009 14:19
     We are in the process of building some new snow dozers for the State of California and these quality standards are what these dozers are supposed to be built to apparently.  We build everything at the present time to D1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.6 standards.  In a paragraph of the weld draft standards I found this "Although certified welders are not required, it is expected that the final weld quality will be equivalent to a weld made by a certified welder."  So I'm wondering how much furhter they skew from the typical D1 standards.  Is there any free info on these standards or am I going to have to purchase all three of them?  I found it funny that they are building snow dozers to earth moving equipment standards. lol  I know, I know, that snow get pretty dam heavy.;-)  Take a look at the examples for welding these things together and feel free to comment. ;-)
 
  Thanks, Kix
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 01-05-2009 18:48
I'd love to look at a few photos when you post them Kix.

Without going through my library, many of the differences have to do with the base metals used for construction.

They sometimes use production mock-ups in lieu of welder qualifications test as described in the D1.X and the acceptance criteria typically differs from the D1.X codes.

I don't know of any free information that would give you the type of information you need. I guess your employer is going to have to forgo a round of golf so they can buy a copy of each standard.

Best regards - Al 
Parent - - By Kix (****) Date 01-05-2009 19:33 Edited 01-05-2009 19:54
Al,
  
   Here ya go.  I forgot to post the link.  Check out the pictures and how they are doing the welding. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/eqsc/QualityStandards/Welding/Welding_R/welding.htm
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 01-05-2009 19:39
No links. Too much time off?

Best regards - Al
Parent - By Kix (****) Date 01-05-2009 19:55
Yeah 2 weeks off and to much beer I guess. lol  Man, what is wrong with me today. ;-)
Parent - - By kipman (***) Date 01-05-2009 20:16
Kix,
I'm not familiar with the other standards, but D14.3 does require that welders be qualified.
Mankenberg
Parent - - By Kix (****) Date 01-05-2009 20:31
Read this paragraph that I got fromt he above link and you'll see where I came up with what I qouted about the welder certification.  I wouldn't think that they would want unqualified welders welding on these things.

Workmanship and Welding Quality Requirements
Weld design, preparation, procedures, materials, and quality shall conform to ANSI/AWS D14.3-94 and ANSI/AWS D14.4-97.

Welded joint design shall be per ANSI/AWS standards as described in referenced publications.

Although certified welders are not required, it is expected that the final weld quality will be equivalent to a weld made by a certified welder.

Table A includes common symbols used on State of California Division of Equipment Drawings. Weld drawing symbols conform to ANSI/AWS standards and weld details.

The State of California Quality Assurance Inspection will conform to the guidelines and recommendations covered in AWS publication B1.11:2000 Guide for the Visual Examination of Welds.
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 01-06-2009 12:44
What exactly is it that you are welding?

It looks like a dump body attached to a truck chaise. If that is the case, be careful of welding to the high strength quenched and tempered steel frame.

Some of the GMAW welds look pretty good for out of position work. Incomplete fusion can be a problem if the welders/inspectors don't watch the welding parameters.

I've got a job right now where I was called in after the steel was hot dip galvanized. All of the steel was welded with GMAW and it looks like it was all short circuiting transfer. At least 70% of the welds show indications of overlap at the toe of the welds. I have a job meeting tomorrow to discuss  the corrective action. I love GMAW(S). It is a money maker for me.

The WPS the contractor submitted (after the fact) listed GMAW spray transfer, but the parameters were too low to be true spray and there was insufficient Argon to ensure good consistent spray transfer. The welders were qualified, but the test records didn't indicate what position the welders were tested in. The reports listed the positions (qualified for production work?) as 1G, 1F, and 2F. Based on that information, you would suspect they were tested on plate in the 1G position. However, the test report included test results for vertical and overhead, which most of you will agree is very difficult to do considering the test report listed GMAW spray transfer.

The sad part of this is that the individual that tested the welders and wrote the WPS is a current CWI. I spend a considerable amount of time cleaning up after this one individual. It is unfortunate that his clients end up paying twice for the same service. Then again, it does keep me gainfully employed.

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By Kix (****) Date 01-06-2009 15:40
Al, 
     I wanted you to look at those welds in the pictures and see that they were GMAW-S (which you did) and note the side ways weaving on the one horizantal fillet weld.  If we are to do this, I would have my guys using fluxcore due to all the out of position work and the need for a good deposition rate.  Don't get me wrong, I know this could be done succesfully with GMAW-S, but I just don't think the consistency would be there with the skill level some of our welders have.  Fluxcore, the right WPS and some decent skill is pretty much dummy proof.  About the CWI you are cleaning up after, I unfortunately have see this a few times now as well.
    Oh yeah,  we're building the lower half of Oshkosh Trucks snow dozers for the state of California.  Basically the chassis and some other things. Here's kind of what they look like. http://www.oshkoshsnow.com/pdf/Oshkosh_H-Series_brochure.pdf.  Wow, I remembered the link. ;-)
Parent - - By jrw159 (*****) Date 01-06-2009 16:12
Kix,
  Link does not work, "Page Not Found".

jrw159
Parent - By 803056 (*****) Date 01-06-2009 16:20
Try a cut and paste in the URL.

It worked when I did the C&P.

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By Kix (****) Date 01-06-2009 16:54
Try this one..   http://www.oshkoshsnow.com/pdf/Oshkosh_H-Series_brochure.pdf
Parent - By jrw159 (*****) Date 01-06-2009 17:05
That one works. I would love to get involved with the manufacturing of something like these in the future, pretty neat stuff. :-)
Parent - By 803056 (*****) Date 01-06-2009 16:19
Heavy duty!

I agree that FCAW would provide better consistency. As is always the case, you have to monitor the welders to make sure they are working within the parameters prescribed by the WPS to ensure consistent results.

Pulsing can provide you with good results if you set it up and monitor the welders. I like to test the welders using the setting to be used for production. Once they pass using the settings prescribed, there's no reason for the welders to toy with the machine's settings beyond the ranges permitted by table 4.5 of D1.1. For the most part, the ranges allowed by table 4.5 seem to provide acceptable results. The cost of testing the welders is next to nothing compared to repairing unacceptable welds.

Are the chassis Q&T steel? If so, you may want to reconsider using wide weaves as depicted in the photographs. Toughness may suffer with the wide weaves. Limited weaves may be able to meet toughness and tensile strength requirements, but I would be suspect of the wide weaves for your application.

I should send a percentage of my earnings to the poor fellow. He is responsible for a portion of my earnings, so maybe I should set him up on a commission! :)

Best regards - Al
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Technical Standards & Publications / D14.3-94, D14.4-97, and B1.11:2000 question

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill