AWSD1.6 Welder Qualifications

Date 12-26-2011 14:11

I ordered some testing materials for AWSD1.6:1999 welder qualifications (CJP, GTAW, 304L, 2G, 3G and 4G, Butt joint with backer) and after doing a couple of qualifications my test administrator noticed that the bevels were incorrect for the test that he was giving.

The plan was a prequalified joint from section 3 of AWSD1.6 single Vee-groove, root opening with a backer. However, the plates that I received were beveled to 37.5 degrees, so all the tests were 75 degree included with ¼” root opening with backer. None of the prequels match this joint configuration and I am using a prequalified WPS for welder qualification.

Reviewing para 4.7.6 joint details, it appears that all of the tests need to be rejected and redone because my prequal WPS refers to all of the prequal joint details from section 3 of AWSD1.6.

Can I do this and still be legal to the code book (keep the previous qualifications) or do I need to retest to be in compliant with the code book?

Can I use para 4.7.3 previous qualified records…. since I already have qualified welders to D1.1 for GTAW , can those records be used in lieu of D1.6?

By 803056

Date 12-27-2011 14:32

I looked D1.6-99 over and I don't see where the groove angle is an essential variable for welder performance qualifcation. The code simply states the joint details must be in accordance with a WPS (ref clause 4.7.6). It does not state the WPS has to use a WPS qualified by testing or a prequalified joint detail. Unlike D1.1 where the joint details are provided in clause 4, there are no actual joint details prescribed for performance testing in D1.6-99.

D1.6 states that "with the approval of the Engineer" (owner's represenitive per D1.1, but Engineer is undefined in D1.6-99) any of the base metals listed Groups I and II in D1.1 can be substituted for a steel listed in D1.6 for the purpose of welder qualification, but it doesn't say that an electrode suitable for carbon steel or high strength low alloy steel can be substituted for one of the electrodes listed in D1.6.

My question to you would be, "Did your welders follow a written WPS while they took their performance test?"

If the answer is not "yes", I would tell you to requalify them.

Best regards - Al

By welderla (*)

Date 12-27-2011 17:36

Thank you. My only problem right now is that our WPSs refer back to a weld manual that has all of the pre-quals copied out of AWSD1.6:1999 section3. So I think I stuck. I agreee with your approach but I think we are written into a corner.

By MBSims

Date 01-20-2012 23:19

Why not just revise your welding program to state that non-prequalified joint details may be used for welder qualification tests when approved by the welding engineer, so long as the essential variables for welder performance qualification are met? I don't see a reason to invalidate the welder qualifications when it is not an essential variable. At best, a nonconformance report needs to be written to ensure the problem is documented and properly closed out.

By 877412

Date 01-11-2012 06:47

I agree with Al as the D1.6 only states A WPS has to be followed and doesn't specify a prequalifed or qualified by test WPS. Also that the code only specifies that the fillers have to be Stainless Steel but not necessary the base metal(this can be a cost savings for multiple test situations as you can performance test with steels listed in D1.1). And lastly that the degree of the joint is not listed as an essential .
variable
Consequently you have some choices:
A) Have the engineer note an ok to a revision to the first Prequalified joint on the WPS to change the non essential variable to 45 degree MINIMUM +10 - 0

B) Or revise the prequalifed joint to 75 degree +0 - 30 for the "as detailed" with engineer approval again noted on the form

C) OR redo the WPS with new PQR testing per chapt 4 using the 75 degree and leave the Welder performance test stand as completed to the new PQR

D) OR Purchase a prequalified SWPS # B2.1-8-024 which already has a Minimum 45 degree specification in that CJP spec and change the Welder Qual papers to reflect that SWPS.

E) OR retest the welders with new machined degree parts to the 45 degree +10

F) In the future use carbon steel as performance plates as those plates are more economical and you are only need to test the welders ability to weld with the filler.

Personally I would do A and F

Ken K

By eekpod

Date 01-12-2012 19:35

Interesting,
Your saying that carbon steel from D1.1 can be used to qualify a welder using a stainless steel filler wire and be certified to D1.6?
Am I intrepreting you corrrectly?

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 01-12-2012 20:50

Chris,
You can use mild steel test plate coupons welded with Stainless Steel electrodes to save a few bucks.(only for the welder quals for D1.6)

By eekpod

Date 01-13-2012 12:06

Hmmmm
I'll have to look into that more in depth.
Ive seen the statment but didn't intrepret it that way.
How do you know what grade S/S filler wire to use for carbon steel plates?

Are the differeent grades of stainless not an essential variable?
I don't have the code in front of me.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 01-13-2012 12:36

What you are evaluating is the welder's ability(see 4.7.1) to weld with the SS electrode(F-No).(see 4.8.2)
So the mild steel plate material(D1.1 group I or II materials) doesn't really matter(but you need to ask the EOR).(see 4.7.5)

By eekpod

Date 01-20-2012 19:10

After looking this up, I intreprep this that as long as the EOR agrees to the fact that he tested with carbon steel plate it is ok.
But as a shop fabricator, I would not want to waste the time and material to test my guys for a stainless test with carbon steel plates, and then risk having an EOR reject the certs becasue he doesn't like the fact they didn't use S/S material during their test.

Maybe I'm missing something.

By JustinT (*)

Date 02-14-2012 19:52

If it's a nonessential variable, why do you even need to report it, other than for information?

As for the joint design, you bought pipe test plates essentially. It's a B-L2b joint design (I'm looking at D1.6-99, someone walked off with my '07 copy). The only question I have is what do they consider an amperage or heat sink (one of the notes). You could try to argue that the backing bar is an amperage sink.

We qualify our guys with CS plates using 309 filler all the time and never had an issue with it.