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. ;-]
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.
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?
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
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
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