Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / fillet welds with unequal t base material
- - By Metarinka (****) Date 01-07-2010 22:01
this has been stumping me
the code is mil spec 1595,  but this might be a generic question.

we have a welder qualification test that has two unequal thickness plates, one being ~0.050" and the other being about .175" The weld is more than possible, however the qualification record makes no note of the thinner material. the cert test only qualifies you for 0.67t of the base material to 4T. The cert states the thickness of the thicker sheet which would not qualify you for the thinner material. So if you performed this welder qualification test, what would you be qualified for, the thicker material, the thinner material, both?

the issue is, when using unequal thickness plates which plate determines weld size the only other note says:

"where the members differ in thickness more than 10% of the thicker, the cap sheet shall be the thicker"  I've never heard the phrase "cap sheet" before  I'm assuming they mean the plate laying in the horizontal plane of a 2f weld?

Any thoughts? my guess is it's not standard practice for welder qualification tests to use vastly different plate sizes? As the qualification test record shows no indication of the thinner material, it almost appears as if the welder is not qualified for the production weld?
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 01-08-2010 04:41 Edited 01-08-2010 04:44
Hey Joel.

"where the members differ in thickness more than 10% of the thicker, the cap sheet shall be the thicker"
This is a straight pull from 1595 fig 7

I think your read is the correct one.. (however, what does that matter in 3F eh?)

Your description appears to me to fall under a condition covered here:

5.7.5 Special applications. When none of the test welds described
above are applicable to a given production weld, a more limited welder
or welding operator qualification may be achieved with a test weld
consisting of the given production weld or a test weld representative
of the given production weld.

Typically in 1595, two tests are requred to establish a greater range of thickness qualification for welder performance.

5,3.2 Two test welds, each with members of equal thickness, shall
qualify welds with all intermediate thicknesses, in addition to the
thickness qualifications of 5.3.1.

So it appears to me, that the qualification test you have described is designed for a specialty production run or repair rather than an overall or general performance qual that would encompass a greater range of material thicknesses.  My admittedly conservative read would be that the record you have qualifies the welder only for a single project, part family or production run.

Edit:
Lastly keep in mind that in the 1595 world that groove welds in materials less than .063 do not qualify the welder to do fillets... Both grooves and fillets are required for production qualification if both will be done in production or repair runs less than .063.

"I_/ A groove test weld does not qualify for fillet welds in base metal"
equal to or less than 0.063 inch in thickness (see 5.5.1.1).
Parent - - By ssbn727 (*****) Date 01-08-2010 04:47
Hi Larry!

Out of curiosity, what does the term "Cap sheet" actually mean in reference to the sentence Joel was asking about?

Respectfully,
Henry
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 01-08-2010 04:55 Edited 01-08-2010 04:59
I'm really ashamed here Henry..

I was on a teleconference just about 2 months ago and I'm pretty sure this term was being bandied about... for some reason I think they were going to change it or remove it...  But I just can't recall with certainty.

So until I can recall or find out I'm sticking with Joels read.

Its prolly some prehistoric sheet metal term used by tinsmiths in the 1940s....  Maybe Al or Joe Kane can tell us...    >snort<

Edit:   Congratulation Henry on your 5th Star *****      Wear it well!
Parent - - By ssbn727 (*****) Date 01-08-2010 05:19
Thanks Larry! I will! :) But I really don't care that much about the darn diamonds, or ratings or anything else that really doesn't mean that much to me personally... In fact, had I been too busy lately by being in better health so that I could return to full time teaching instead of posting enough to get those diamonds, I would have preferred the ability to work over those diamonds in a New York minute! ;) Thank You nonetheless Larry! ;)

That's the first time I heard of the term myself, and if you don't know it that means I've got to do some digging online to see if I could find out more info on the term as it relates to 1595. ;)

Respectfully,
Henry
Parent - - By Metarinka (****) Date 01-08-2010 16:39
don't be modest.

You mine more diamonds than DeBeers
Parent - By ssbn727 (*****) Date 01-08-2010 22:48
I believe and I hope I'm correct in that you really meant to say that I mine more data than Debeers Joel?

Now if you're inferring that I post so much in order to "mine" for more diamonds than Debeers, then I would point out to you a plain fact that if I were really attempting to do so, I would have received my fifth diamond last year if that was my real intention...

Respectfully,
Henry
Parent - By Metarinka (****) Date 01-08-2010 16:55
thank you
5.7.5 was the call out I was looking for.
The issue was documentation, if audited there was no mention of the thinner member at all on the QTR.  because of this on the surface it appeared that the qualification test did not qualify the production weld due to the thinner member.  I'm sure most auditors would of seen it this way.

In table XIII
1/ reads: "where the members of the test weld differ in thickness, t is the thickness of the thicker member."  But that only appears to be applicable to the inspection criteria.
Really more of a documentation issue.

yah I remember the clause about groove welds not qualifying for fillet welds. luckily we don't weld anything in 18ga or beyond and I'm glad as I don't want to have to pass that weld test.
Thank you for the insight, time to crack the whip on whoever created the QTR and left out critical details
Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / fillet welds with unequal t base material

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill