Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Certifications / Handrail Welder Qualification Predicament
- - By Samurai Sam Date 12-31-2010 02:23
We received a contract that requires all welding (including stairs and hand rails) to be in accordance with AWS D1.1. I have no problem with the structural WPSs and welder qualifications for welding the structural members, but as I read the D1.1 Code, our welder qualifications on 1.00" plate do not cover PJP or CJP welds on pipe for any diameter less than 24.00"
So, my question is, what test is to be given to qualify welders on the handrails? Weld joints are all square groove welds made both with and without backing. Our welders will be doing CJPs and PJPs on 2.00 diameter, 1/8 inch handrail. All welding will be done in the shop with .035 FCAW gas shielded wire in the 3G position. Any help on this would be greatly appreciated.
Parent - - By Joseph P. Kane (****) Date 12-31-2010 04:15
D1.1 used to reference D 1.3 for sheet metal ranges of thickness.
Parent - By Samurai Sam Date 12-31-2010 17:12
Joe; Thanks so much for your reply! In reviewing AWS D1.3, I did not see provisions for qualifying welding personnel for CJP/PJP connections on tubular products. I reviewed AWS D1.1 more in depth and it appears that a qualification on 4.00" diameter, 3/8" wall tube is the appropriate choice. Discussions with our customer indicate they have had previous projects where the quality of the welds was so bad that extensive and costly rework had to be performed. With slim profit margins being the norm nowadays, I cant afford any rework and still need a happy customer when my product hits the field for installation. Funny thing is that in the past, welder qualifications for welding handrails has never been an issue as the AISC Code of Standard Practice defines hand rails as nonstructural. We haven't ever given it much thought, but liability is liability and it affects the bottom line all the same.
Parent - By MBSims (****) Date 01-02-2011 01:00
We always gave a 2" SCH 40 pipe test in the 6G position for doing this on the jobsite.  I think you can be a little flexible on this since it is miscellaneous steel and not structural members.  We have also allowed a 3/8" 3G + 4G plate test for welding handrails and ladders.  If in doubt, submit an RFI to your engineer or customer requesting approval if you plan to use something other than a CJP pipe test covering the positions, diameters and thicknesses to be welded in production.
Parent - By welderbrent (*****) Date 01-02-2011 03:53 Edited 01-02-2011 03:59
From my own experience, which is in a small rural community, as a fabrication shop I have seen more and more print packs calling out ALL welding including stairs and railings to be done according to D1.1 along with all the other steel.  Usually no one has cared about the EXACT qualifications just so the welders are certified.  They just don't want any back yard shade tree mechanics doing the work in his driveway with a 110 volt wire feeder with improper fits and no bevels putting on cold surface welds and then sanding them back down to where there isn't really anything holding the rail together. 

Having said that, I certify all my welders to both D1.1 and 1.3.  Besides the plate test in 1.1 I have several of them do either a 2" or 4" pipe butt joint, groove weld test at least to 5G.  Since almost all my rails are built in the shop, and we roll them, that more than covers us.  Rather done in pipe or tube steel the majority of welds on a railing are fillet welds anyway.  Since there is an overlap in the Codes (D1.1 goes down to 1/8 while D1.3 goes up to 3/16) a simple fillet weld break test will usually cover almost all railing welds.  And you can do it with pipe to plate with a 1 1/2" pipe.

You could probably go way overboard and get very legalistic about which size pipe you use to take the test, which process you use (D1.1 won't let you use GMAW-S as a pre-qualified but that is what most shops use on railing jobs), which code actually applies, etc.  But usually the engineer just wants to make sure they have a true knowledge and skill to complete the job.

As Al said (I think it was Al) it wouldn't hurt to ASK the engineer and explain your exact setup and the welder's qualifications.  Even getting a FORMAL RFI.  They will let you know if they don't like it and want something else.

Have a Great Day,  Brent
- - By 99205 (***) Date 12-31-2010 05:25
It appears that your material and welder testing falls into D1.1. CJP will qualify PJP and I'm a little concerned about the 3G pipe position you mentioned.
Parent - - By Samurai Sam Date 12-31-2010 16:59
Thanks for the reponse 99205 I agree that welders need to be qualified to D1.1 as it is a contract requirement and the code contains provisions for qualification of welders in this situation. I looked at AWS D1.3 after seeing Joe's response, but I feel D1.3 is not an appropriate choice here.  I assume (there is that assume word) your concern with the 3G is in relation to the test position? From what I am seeing in Table 4.11, I need to qualify my guys in the 5G position. We would be welding typically from a 3 o'clock position to 12:00 o'clock in production however many of the welds will be run in a true 5G. Handrail is always such a PITA......... If I misunderstood your concern, please respond and thank you!
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 12-31-2010 18:42 Edited 12-31-2010 19:40
When in doubt, simply qualify the individual using the same joint that will be used in production.

Handrails, stairs, and architectual metal usually falls under AWS D1.1. I believe there is a clause in OSHA regarding health and safety related structures, i.e., ladders, stairs, and railings, whether temporary or permanent, that calls out AWS D1.1. If I remember correctly the issue came up in regards to a civil suit I was called in on.

I just checked around for some notes on the subject and I'm sorry to say I couldn't find anything. However, if my memory is correct (and it often is not) it seems that both OSHA and NFPA includes some of the requirements for welding anything that is related to fire, safety, etc.

You might want to check your local building code for some direction on the subject. Your contract is the governing document, however, you must comply with local or state building code requirements if they are more stringent that the project specifications.

Best regrds - Al
Parent - By MBSims (****) Date 01-02-2011 01:59
I have not seen an OSHA standard requiring conformance to AWS D1.0 or D1.1 for stairway and floor opening railings in buildings.  The most applicable requirements are:

"1910.23(e)(5)(iv)  The mounting of handrails shall be such that the completed structure is capable of withstanding a load of at least 200 pounds applied in any direction at any point on the rail."

"1926.1052(c)(5)  Handrails and the top rails of stairrail systems shall be capable of withstanding, without failure, a force of at least 200 pounds (890 n) applied within 2 inches (5 cm) of the top edge, in any downward or outward direction, at any point along the top edge."

Since OSHA does not address welding of handrails specifically, any requirements would fall back to the applicable state or local building code and the job specifications.

For aerial lifts, there is a requirement that "all" welding conform to AWS standards noted below:

"1926.453(b)(5)  Welding standards. All welding shall conform to the following standards as applicable:

1926.453(b)(5)(i)  Standard Qualification Procedure, AWS B3.0-41.

1926.453(b)(5)(ii)  Recommended Practices for Automotive Welding Design, AWS D8.4-61.

1926.453(b)(5)(iii)  Standard Qualification of Welding Procedures and Welders for Piping and Tubing, AWS D10.9-69.

1926.453(b)(5)(iv)  Specifications for Welding Highway and Railway Bridges, AWS D2.0-69."
Parent - - By 99205 (***) Date 01-01-2011 00:57 Edited 01-01-2011 01:01
5G would be the right choice.  There are loads of legal issues surrounding handrails so it would be advisable to maintain meticulous files on testing, procedures and materials.
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 01-03-2011 13:51
Let me ask this; are we talking about doing TYK quals for handrail procedures?
I know the general discussion was performance quals butr the OP did post "all welding".
Were it up to me I'd be tempted to tell the customer no thanks. Let someone else lose money on the project.
I can't afford TYK welders and procedures for handrail work.
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 01-03-2011 14:59 Edited 01-03-2011 15:13
Hello JS;

Many of the handrail jobs I've been on required the welders to qualify on a CJP butt joint using a backing ring to replicate a typical butt joint. The reason is simple, the number of hand rail joints that break during handling, i.e., going back and forth to galvanizing, transportation, etc. is amazing.

In the absence of the Engineer specifying CJP butt joints the fabricators tend to use square groove preparations with no root opening. A quick pass around the pipe with GMAW-S, grind smooth and move on to the next joint. A quick visual examination often detects the original joint joint, i.e., the fabricator ground off all the weld.

Intersecting joints between the verticals and the horizontals are not usually the problem areas, it is the butt joints between lengths making up the horizonatals and the corners where elbows are used.

If nothing else, requiring the welder to pass the butt joint on the same diameter pipe that will be used for the handrail puts the fabricator on notice that someone will be watching and looking at the quality of the welding.

These joints are not subject to RT, just a VT. It is amazing how little attention is given to handrails if no one minds the store. Have you ever grabbed hold of a rail and had the railing give way? It is not a good feeling when you are several stories up in the air.

This is a photograph of a section of rail that broke while it was being HDG. You can see there was no penetration and there was little to no weld left once the fabricator ground the butt joints flush.  Sorry I couldn't crop the photo. I haven't reloaded my photo editing program yet. 

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 01-03-2011 15:12
Al,
To me what you are saying is a reasonable approach that addresses concerns and establishes a system of verification without going overboard, though overboard can be difficult to clarify given that I also agree that handrails can be a serious application.
Parent - By 803056 (*****) Date 01-03-2011 15:15
There is nothing like a photograph to tell the story.

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By welderbrent (*****) Date 01-03-2011 16:47
Very good point and photo support Al.

It makes a difference in the materials being used (pipe or Square), residential or commercial, and rather there are horizontal pieces that require splicing. 

I prefer to make my sections so that they have no welded splices and if they need to be longer we use a bolt together application.  If the drawings don't show it that way I run it past the engineer.  Usually not a problem.  Makes it easier when you don't have to weld galvanized or powder coated pieces together in the field.  Just bolt and go. 

Just my two tin pennies worth.

Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 01-03-2011 17:00
It sounds like a reasonable solution.

Many of the problems I encounter are related to shop welds and GMAW using short circuiting transfer.

Best regards - Al
Parent - By welderbrent (*****) Date 01-03-2011 22:32
I agree.  And I said basically the same thing back toward the top of the thread as you did a couple posts back, they weld it with improper fits at improper amps and sand off almost all the weld they had put ON.  Doesn't take much to snap it.  Doesn't matter rather it is residential or commercial, improperly fabricated rail is more unsafe than no rail at all.  Gives people a false sense of security. 

Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - - By swsweld (****) Date 01-04-2011 03:23 Edited 01-04-2011 03:34
Well....at least my weld held :)
Parent - By 803056 (*****) Date 01-04-2011 05:14
That looks very familiar!

Al
Parent - - By Cumminsguy71 (*****) Date 01-05-2011 15:54
AHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! Run Forrest, Run!!!!!

I was not going to comment on this thread but after seeing that pic....holy cow! Actually think I have an old handrail I cut off of a job down in the scrap pile with a weld that looks just like that, wonder if it was the same guy? LoL!!

In a way more stringent guidelines and rules pertaining to handrail would be good....IF they would actually back them up and chase the "riglets" and fly by night guys out that do this as side work after their day job. But if they are not gonna "police" the area I can't see spending tons of cash to get wps in place to weld railing and try and compete with guys who do handrail for $25-35/per foot, no insurance, no workers comp, no business license, don't pay business taxes,.....Looks like the folks out there who want to do things right are the ones that will pay the extra costs while the hacks go at it without a care.

Good post though, nice read, educational.
Parent - - By 99205 (***) Date 01-05-2011 18:51
That's what happens when a Carpenter gets a hold of a welder.
Parent - - By Cumminsguy71 (*****) Date 01-13-2011 04:22
Must have been using nails as filler rod!
Parent - - By 99205 (***) Date 01-13-2011 05:49
probably slugged it with a coat hanger too.
Parent - - By welderbrent (*****) Date 01-13-2011 14:41
Bubble gum, JB Weld, Baling wire, and Duct Tape.  Every handyman's best friends.

Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - By joe pirie (***) Date 01-13-2011 16:29
I remember seeing some iron workers on a job only welding the top half of the pipe on some
railings because it was to hard to get the grinder in  between the pickets and make it look good
so they used automotive spot putty used for body work
Parent - By swsweld (****) Date 01-14-2011 04:03
This work was the result of the recession and unqualified contractors using unqualified workers to TRY to do work that they have no business doing except that they were the low bidder. The contractor does metal stud erection and the stairs were in his contract. The steel fabricator begged them to sub the stairs to me and I agreed to do them for the price that he had in it. But the metal stud erector chose to self perform them cuz welders are a dime a dozen, right? Then he found out after going through a dozen that weren't worth a dime, he was forced to sub the welding out to me. Uh..that was their weld before I fixed it, not my weld.

They were suppose to leave the landing returns (hand rail and grab rail) alone and I would fit and weld them but that pic was the results of their efforts. Eventually, they did the stair erection and I/we did the welding. Better than nothing but would have preferred the total contract.

Cost the contractor almost twice what it would have cost him IF he would have subbed it out at the beginning. That pic and many more like it demonstrates why.
Parent - - By kcd616 (***) Date 01-15-2011 17:36
This looks like it has been checked and approved by both welding engineer and welding inspection.
At least IMHO.
Now we could ask the building inspector, or city manager, the higher ups.
We could learn from that, what the developer had approved, and signed off, by the city council.
Always remember, garbage in=garbage out.
And your product is only as good as your material.
Hope this helps.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Kent
Parent - By eekpod (****) Date 04-20-2011 10:32
Samurai Sam

I'm curious, what did you end up doing to qualify your welders?

D1.1 or D1.3?
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Certifications / Handrail Welder Qualification Predicament

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill