Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / WELDER REQUALIFICATION
- - By richpitt3 Date 12-11-2002 01:57
I WORK IN A STEEL FAB PLANT AS THE QUALITY CONTROL INSPECTOR AND NEW CWI. IF WE CHANGED FROM FCAW TO FCAW WITH GAS DO I HAVE TO REQUALIFY ALL MY WELDERS. I THINK I DO BUT I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO A PISSING CONTEST WITH MY BOSS AND LOSE. SO COULD ALL THE CWI WHO HAVE BEEN AROUND LONGER THAN ME LET ME KNOW. THANK
Parent - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 12-11-2002 02:18
ASME Sec IX doesn't require requalification. I don't have a D1.1 with me but I'm sure someone will have one and let you know where its located.

G Austin
Parent - By DGXL (***) Date 12-11-2002 02:31
Welcome to inspection.

Yes, these are two different processes, but are similar in operation. If the work is performed in accordance with AWS D1.1, then Table 4.10 (1) would dictate re-qualification (a different process).

Table 4.5 (19) denotes a change in shielding gas, there was no shielding gas (other than that provided by the flux) with FCAW-S. This would apply to procedures.

Don't be afraid to stick to your guns if your confident with your call and you did some research before you made the call.

Finally, get used to the pissing contests, it comes with the trade. Usually problems can be resolved without dispensing any bodily fluids.
Parent - - By Weldmedic (*) Date 12-11-2002 12:24
Im going out on a limb here.... I dont have my code with me..but....
As long as the new wire you are using falls into the same qualification category as your old wire- no you dont have to requalify your welders. Addition of shielding gas does not require requal.

Steve
Parent - By jwright650 (*****) Date 12-11-2002 14:18
I believe Table 4.11 Welding Personnel Performance Essential Variable Changes Requiring Requalification, only mentions the use of a shielding medium combination not approved by an AWS A5 document. Therfore no requalification of welders is needed in your case. If you are using the prequalified WPS's to qualify your welders then You are OK to switch FCAW wires without requalifying.

DGXL, I think you were thinking about PQR's essential variables that require WPS requalification, or am I all mixed up on all this. These issues get confusing when you dig into this D1.1 code and I get turned all around sometimes.

Check out the prequalified joints in section 3, I thought across from FCAW it says shielding gas not required, in some of the notes.

I'll have to look it up in my book, I can't remember all this stuff,
John Wright
Parent - By jon20013 (*****) Date 12-11-2002 14:57
I don't quite get where DGXL is coming from saying that FCAW with/without gas are different processes ~ would like to hear the logic on that one. However, in looking at the Welding Performance Essential Variable Changes (Table 4.11 - 2002 Edition), I would say that my answer would be "No" you do not need to requalify the welders. Sheilding gas, interestingly enough, is not a variable at all in Table 4.11. One must keep in mind there are substantial differences between qualification of the WPS and the qualification of the welder. This is an easy enough error for new inspectors to make. I am kind of going out on a limb myself in assuming you are using the AWS D1.1 standard. If you said which standard your welders are qualified to, I missed it. Good luck! Keep us posted.
Parent - - By CHGuilford (****) Date 12-11-2002 17:50
If you are dealing with D1.1, then you do not have to requalify welders when switching from FCAW Self-Shielded to FCAW Gas-Shielded.

You would need a new WPS to cover the change, and possibly would need to run a PQR if the parameters don't fall within the prequalified allowances.

Table 4.11 (3) only says "combination not approved by an AWS A5 document." Since all FCAW has shielding of some kind and most electrodes are manufactured per an A5 document, you should be fine unless you have something very unusual.

CHGuilford
Parent - - By DGXL (***) Date 12-11-2002 22:35
What is the composition of your sheilding using FCAW?

What is the composition of your sheilding using FCAW-G?

Prequalified joints change (depending on the type of joint and dimensional properties).

When you look up the these processes, are they classified as one?

I also stated 2 tables, one for procedure qualification and one for performance qualification.

I did not include all of the applicable essential variables that would require a new or revised WPS. There are more qualifiers for my statement. Are you using the exact same electrode classification for both processes? (Table 4.5)

Section 1.4 of the code denotes definitions to be interpreted in accordance with AWS A3.0. These are listed as two different processes. One a variation. GMAW-S is referenced in a similar manner in D1.1.

You guys have referenced Table 4.11(?)
Table 4.11 pertains to SMAW groups, not FCAW grouped electrodes.

I have had my services retained to "re-qualify" welder for this same reason by numerous local jurisdiction entities. We (me and the local authorities) could be wrong, but I will stick to my guns unless I see a post that provides a qualifier for their statements.
Parent - - By R. Johnson (**) Date 12-12-2002 14:02
DGLX
You are not looking at the latest edition of AWS D1.1 and the basic definition of FCAW from AWS A3.0:2001 states:
flux cored arc welding (FCAW). An arc welding process that uses an arc between a continuous filler metal electrode and the weld pool. The process is used with shielding gas from a flux contained within the tubular electrode, with or without additional shielding from an externally supplied gas, and without the application of pressure. See also flux cored electrode, gas shielded flux cored arc welding, and self-shielded flux flux cored arc welding.

Therefore whether a welder is using an external gas shielding or not it is still a basic FCAW process. From a common sense standpoint this make sense, the welding techniques used are basically the same whether you has a self-shielded wire or a additional gas shield.
Parent - - By Kamaruzaman (*) Date 12-14-2002 14:56
2.0 mm diameter of solid wire are not equal to 2.0 mm diameter of flux cored wire. there are different in range of current, voltage, feed speed then travel speed.

hence, heat input will be change.
Parent - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 12-14-2002 15:24
2.5 mm E6012 are not equal to 2.5 MM of E6011 there are different requirements for range of current, current and polarity , electrode melt rate, and travel speed.

The thing that is the same is the required skill on the part of the welder to deposit sound metal provided all of the operating parameters are correct.

Still the same process. :) but different F-Numbers

G Austin

Parent - - By R. Johnson (**) Date 12-12-2002 13:23
I assume that you are welding to AWS D1.1 and the short answer is no you do not have to re-qualify your welders. Table 4.11 Welding Personnel Performance Essential Variable Changes Requiring Requalification (see 4.22) is the latest information for AWS D1.1:2002.
4.22 Essential Variables
Changes beyond the limitation of essential variables for welders, welding operators, or tack welders shown in Table 4.11 shall require requalification. Now let's look at Table 4.11
(1) To a process not qualified (GMAW-S is considered a separate process)
FCAW whether self-shielded or having a secondary gas shielding is a process qualified to use for AWS D1.1 welding. See paragraphs 3.2 and 4.7.1 for examples.
(3) To an electrode and shielding medium conbination not approved by an AWS A5 document.
I assume your welders are welding on carbon steel, if your wire classification meets either A5.20 or A5.29 then you are using an approved AWS wire.
These two variables are the only two from Table 4.11 which directly address your question, of course there are other limitation which might require re-qualification but moving from one approved AWS wire without gas to another AWS approved wire with gas will not cause you to requalify the welders. Procedures maybe but not welders.
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 12-12-2002 15:21
Guys look,
FCAW-S = flux cored arc welding self shielded
FCAW-G = flux cored arc welding gas shielded
GMAW-S = gas metal arc welding short circuit

There is a differnce in the "S" behind these processes
D1.1 don't seem to like the GMAW-S, so they specifically say that it isn't accepted in most of the prequalifieds.(penetration problems)

I'm not trying to ruffle feathers or rub the cat's fur backwards, just trying to understand some of this D1.1 better.
Thanks for the help,
John Wright
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 12-12-2002 15:34
DGXL,
I see what you are looking at now, I pulled out and old D1.1:96. And you are right Table 4.10 has been changed to Table 4.11 now in later editions of D1.1. Infact 1998,2000 has Table 4.10 the same as Table 4.11 in 2002.
We just wasn't on the same page...
Everybody put thier fur back down on the neck, everythings OK.
No dispensing of bodily fluids please,
John Wright
Parent - - By DGXL (***) Date 12-16-2002 13:25
I have been traveling, but would like to further explain my previous posts:

1.) I am referencing from the 2000 D1.1, which I should have noted to begin with. The 2000 is the most current revision recognized by most of the local jursisdictions. Many are still using the 96/98. (I recently had to retest my ICBO-SS&W certification using the 2000 D1.1.) Typically, the most current revision is used for performance qualification. [ref: D1.1:2002, 4.2.1] (Have a project on the table here that denotes the use of the 1994 D1.1 for fabrication, QA to be in conformance with the most current revision (02) - this will be a very interesting project indeed...) I have only tested 2 welders all year with the 02, this was contract specific. Table 4.6 of the 02 D1.1 requires re-qualification of a FCAW WPS by changing the electrode manufacturer. DOT/Caltrans enforces these variables vigorously, although this is not required in previous editions. The most current revision of the welding codes typically take several years before they are adopted by the jurisdictions.

2.) What is standard practice apparently is not standard. On the West coast, performance re-qualification is often required by simply changing to a new WPS. The "show me you can" rational is implemented by the RDP. Welders are often re-tested by starting a new project even though he/she had tested using the same WPS previously that year. Lot's of testing here in these parts.

3.) I would like to know how many postee's have actually qualified in either process noted in the original post? (Not run a few beads, I'm talking earned a living burning wire.) This could turn into a previous post in itself. I will expand on this if any "fur" has been ruffled.

4. We are all assuming steel fabrication is being performed to AWS D1.1, Rich still has not clarified that. Shame on us all. (Me too of course.)

5.) I noted what is common practice here in the West. My opinion only. Again, we could be wrong, I don't make the rules, I just follow my last order first. When my clients request requalification of their own welders when changing from FCAW-S to FCAW-G, or vice-versa, I comply with their request. The original post by Rich was: re-qualify using FCAW-S/FCAW-G? Out here 90% of the time the answer would be: YES. Typical for this region, YES. Commonly required by the RDP: YES. A common requirement by local agencies?, depends which one.

p.s. I got a sore throat from someone in the Windy City, I intend to reciprocate in the "Western" manner when I return this later week. ;-]
Parent - - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 12-16-2002 13:50
I have actually used and been qualified and used in production both self shielded and gas shielded flux core. E71T-11 and E-71-T1. They had different arc characteristics and reacted differently to voltage variations and stickout. The manual dexterity I employed with both wires was the same. Consistant travel speed, controlled bead placement, watch the leading edge of the puddle when possible, and chip slag.

Qualifying to a "WPS" seems a bit excessive. A wps may be written for 1/2" material max. Say I take a test on 1/2" material. A new WPS is needed for 3/4" material. I am qualified up to 1", do I then retest in California to use this new WPS?

Testing for a new project is common here. I have left a brand x paper mill in one location and went to another location still brand X and worked for the same stampholder and had to retest. I think we sometimes make too big a deal out of this and sometimes exceed the requirements set forth by various codes just to make us feel important.(Not directed at anyone here).

Have a good day

G Austin.
Parent - - By DGXL (***) Date 12-16-2002 14:05
Gerald:
The new FEMA 353 Guidelines recommend performance qualification using "...the highest deposition rate to be used in the work". I say if the welder performs within the WPS parameters, that is all that should be required.

It does get quite anal at times, does it not?
Parent - - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 12-16-2002 14:15
I haven't ever dealt with FEMA and have no clue. It always makes me wonder if weld metal reacts differently depending on how many people get involved writing the specifications? :)

Gerald Austin
Parent - By jwright650 (*****) Date 12-16-2002 15:40
FEMA has been a hassle, where ever we run into it. It seems here on the eastern side of the country, the engineers are getting on to that bandwagon that started out there in the west over in Oakridge, CA. Luckily, the spec. writers haven't fully caught on to what all is required under the FEMA documents. We bid a few jobs unaware of the FEMA regs and "got by" without losing our shirt. It seems that engineers don't have to spell out in the specs that the job you are bidding has FEMA requirements, yet you still have to be held to them. The Inspector on one of the jobs went to the engineer and asked for an extra to his contract for the extra work and Inspections required, and the engineer backed off alot on some of the requirements for everybody involved because he didn't realize what all was required.
Yes, Gerald I believe metal does behave differently if more people are involved.
John Wright
Parent - By CHGuilford (****) Date 12-16-2002 16:46
DXGL

I've burned pallet loads of E71T-1, a bit less of E71T-8. I prefer the gas shielded electrodes, but depending on circumstances, would rather burn self shielded FCAW if I have a lot of long, heavy, boring welds to make and my only other option is SMAW. If the welding is "fussier", then I like to use SMAW.
I think we all qualified our comments by stating things like "if you're working to D1.1...". Gerald even mentioned ASME Sec IX. But since a steel fab plant was mentioned, it was a reasonable guess.

Of course, what went unsaid here is that the welder must be able to make acceptable welds and different electrodes can require adjustments to technique. In some cases, requalification can be a smart way to document additional training. In other cases, requalification is just an added expense that fabricators naturally want to avoid. Either way can be fine if good results are attained.

CHGuilford

Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / WELDER REQUALIFICATION

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill