Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / Inspection & Qualification / Welder Qualification to D1.1
- - By Hurt991 Date 11-11-2015 15:23
I am wanting to qualify our welders in the 3G position on 3/8" plate using the Figure 4.31 in d1.1. I don't see this joint in sec 3 as a prequalified joint. Also the welders are using GMAW-S. My question is do I need to run a test plate shown in figure 4.11 and have it RT or UT to qualify a WPS in order to qualify welders in that position since this isn't a production joint? Our company currently isn't doing any projects requiring us to run to a code but we may have to in the future.

Thanks in advance for the help
Parent - - By welderbrent (*****) Date 11-11-2015 16:05
Good morning Hurt,


So, first, GMAW-S is not recognized in D1.1 as a Pre-Qualified process.  You must run a PQR to develop your WPS from to use it.  And even then many engineers are not going to allow its' usage on a structural project even when you have proved you can accomplish the successful procedure.  Too risky and welders tend to 'tweek' the variables beyond what would be acceptable.  I would not accept a test coupon examined by RT even though it is allowed in place of a bend test as I can easily make the process pass an RT that will still break in a bend test. 

Second, it is the procedure specified for welder performance qualification regardless or if one could find it in Clause 3 for production approved procedures BUT look at clause 3, Figure 3.4 Prequalified CJP Groove Welds B-U2a-GF on page 95 of the 2010 edition (don't have my highly coveted 2015 yet).  That is the joint in question and can be used for either the limited or unlimited coupon test.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - - By Hurt991 Date 11-11-2015 19:19
Thanks for the response! After I run the PQR I would have to have a visual, RT or UT, bend test and a tensile test to qualify the WPS for use correct? using figure 4.11 on page 167
Parent - By Lawrence (*****) Date 11-11-2015 22:19
Is there a compelling reason to use short circuiting transfer?

And welcome to the forum Hurt!!
Parent - By MRWeldSoCal (***) Date 02-16-2016 23:16 excludes GMAW-S from RT acceptance for welder qualification, as to be bent. Also, RT or UT is still required for PQR prior to destructive testing.  AWS doesn't trust it haha/
- - By jerrymcfly (*) Date 02-16-2016 16:19
Hi guys,

A supplier has a WPS qualified by ASME SECC. IX, and their welders were qualified following that WPS, but they (supplier) have write into WPQ that the parameters and variables meet with ASME SECC. IX and AWS D1.1.

Textually say:

"We certify that the statements in this record are correct and that the test coupons were prepared, welded and tested in accordance with the requirements of Section IX of ASME Code and with the requirements of section 4 of ANSI/AWS D1.1 Structural Welding Code - Steel"

I was reviewing all variables written in WPQ and its meet with ASME and AWS D1.1 for diameters and thickness.

The coupons were tested by mechanical testing.

Is it correct to the statement written by supplier in their WPQ's?

Thank you all.
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 02-16-2016 17:09
There are some differences in qualification/inspection criteria "PQR" between D1.1 and Section IX.   (Meaning the actual mechanical testing values/requirements may differ)

So the actual lab reports should be reviewed to be sure that if the testing was done per section IX and passed, that those values also are compliant with Clause 4 of D1.1.  Or visa versa
Parent - - By jerrymcfly (*) Date 02-16-2016 18:19

I forgot to say that the coupons tested by mechanical, were the coupons of the welders, in this case by side bend test. For Sec IX and D1.1 is the same criteria, isn't it?. 1/8"
Parent - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 02-16-2016 22:10
The acceptance criteria for D1.1 is more stringent than that for ASME Sec IX as is the Visual acceptance criteria. Bend dimensions are the same however D1.1 has additional requirements for preparation of bend specimens that differ slightly from those of Sec IX.
Parent - - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 02-16-2016 21:51 Edited 02-16-2016 22:08
If the certification statement indicates the requirements of both codes were met, all variables for each code are recorded, what leads you to believe that the documents are invalid?

If the content of the form meets the requirements of each code AND there is a certified record (the wpqr) indicating the requirements for testing were met. I would have a difficult time NOT accepting the document.

Since there are different requirements for testing then the person who signed the record should be able to explain the differences (there are some).

I would be cautious rejecting a document that meets the requirements of the code or multiple codes.

As with much, an opinion only based on limited experience. I have done this myself in the past and can explain the differences.

EDIT: Note that they should have qualified WPS's on file for each code if they are doing production work on your project under both codes.

Gerald Austin
Parent - - By jerrymcfly (*) Date 02-16-2016 22:39
Thank you all guys.
Attachment: Doc1.pdf - WPQ reference (192k)
Parent - By jerrymcfly (*) Date 02-16-2016 23:46
I´ve been attached the pdf document (WPQ) for reference.

Parent - - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 02-17-2016 03:05
I would love to see the 3G uphill spray transfer test in person myself.
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 02-17-2016 16:43
"I would love to see the 3G uphill spray transfer test in person myself." -by pipewelder_1999

Gerald, that makes two of us...:cool:

3G uphill with GMAW spray sounds pretty cool. Gravity is one of those laws of physics that is tough to overcome with a process that is so fluid. :eek:
Parent - - By aevald (*****) Date 02-17-2016 18:14
Why John......., didn't you read the part where there was a set of electro-magnetic backing coils that were being utilized to keep the fluid weld puddle in place. There's a new process where the coils are energized as the weld progression occurs and magnetically places and distributes the weld metal in a 3G plate/joint.

Sorry guys, I couldn't help myself. Best regards, Allan
Parent - By jwright650 (*****) Date 02-17-2016 18:29
"Why John......., didn't you read the part where there was......"
- - By 803056 (*****) Date 02-17-2016 05:02
This is so wrong in so many ways.

Basically, after reading this post, someone needs to bring in someone that understands the codes involved and how WPSs and welders are qualified.

Parent - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 02-17-2016 12:37
Are you speaking to the qualification being done for two codes at one time or something else?
- - By 803056 (*****) Date 02-17-2016 13:51
There are several things that I find bothersome. A few of my concerns include:

1) whether one can qualify the welder without a WPS, qualified or otherwise.
2) whether the welder qualification coupon can be RT'd or UT'd.
3) whether the joint detail used for welder qualification is prequalified or not.
4) whether qualifying a WPS with RT or UT is adequate. What ever happened to the part where mechanical testing is done?
5) qualifying the welder to multiple welding standards with a process that is unlikely to be used in the vertical position?
6) if the person completing the ASME/AWS lists spray transfer for a weld deposited in the vertical position, how much faith can be placed in the welder was qualified properly?
7) in a situation such as this, once a few obvious problems are identified, further problems are discovered as one "digs" deeper.

The train of questions and the WQTR /WPR provide as an attachment indicates there is a fundaments question whether the individuals involved have a "good" working knowledge of the welding standards and how welders or WPSs are qualified. Accolades to the person for asking the questions, but I believe it is time to bring in someone that understands the process. 

Parent - - By jerrymcfly (*) Date 02-17-2016 15:11

Thank's all.
Parent - By 803056 (*****) Date 02-17-2016 18:03
Working and knowing codes of any type isn't genetic. We all have to learn. Asking questions is a good start, but at some point one must get the necessary training. Training can take on different forms, one on one training, classroom training, self study, etc. A combination of all three is probably the most effective.

I have  been called on more than once to provide classroom training and one on one training. As one client put it, "You two are joined at the hip. Where I see one, I want to see the other until he knows what you know." A week later we went our separate ways.

The point being, working with codes of any type isn't something that is easy to master. Sometimes it is necessary to call in someone that has the expertise needed to walk one through the process. It is easier to perform brain surgery if there is an experienced person to help you through the first one. Watching U-tube can only get you so far.

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By jerrymcfly (*) Date 02-17-2016 18:14
Although the variables written in attached pdf maybe are incorrect or dubious, the main query was if it was possible to writte on form if they met with both codes if they watched during performance tests all applicable variables for both codes for welder performance qualifitacion (i.e. thickness and diameters range, backing, material groups, process, etc.)

The WPS followed was qualified under ASME code. I mean for example if they perform a WPS qualification for ASTM 36 (P1) under Secc IX, the resulting mechanical properties will be the same under D1.1 under same conditions of test. (variables) discarding for this specific case CVN, PWTH, etc.

D1.1 says: WPS Qualification to Other Standards.
The acceptability of qualification to other standards is
the Engineer’s responsibility
, to be exercised based upon
either the specific structure or service conditions, or
both. AWS B2.1-X-XXX Series on Standard Welding
Procedure Specifications may, in this manner, be accepted
for use in this code.

But Secc IX don´t says something simliar.

Please your interpretation to the paragraph above.

Sorry for my ignorance and for my questions.

Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 02-18-2016 02:06
Can it be done? Yes, but considering the difficulty most people have meeting all the requirements of one code, the problems are multiplied when trying to meet two simultaneously.

Remember to select a base metal that is acceptable to both codes, use the most stringent acceptance criteria of both codes, and don't leave out any tests.

Don't forget that the welder qualified under ASME Section IX must be under the supervision of the employer. Whether that responsibility can be delegated to a third party I find questionable since there are no such provision in Section IX. There are those folks that take liberties with their interpretation of that code requirement. This is an issue that usually get settled in court after there is an incident and damages are distributed to the parties involved, including the testing agency involved. 

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 02-18-2016 12:33
NOTE: I agree with the requirement for witnessing the testing. There is absolutely no exception for this requirement within ASME Sec. IX. So the person who witnessed and supervised the test would have needed too have been an employee of the company at the time the test was administered.

There may be some exceptions within ASME Codes of construction, but Sec IX by itself, there are none.

That doesn't preclude another party from administering a test, however use of that welder in production may not comply with the applicable code.

The certification signature and "Welding Test Supervised By" lines on the Qualification Record are often overlooked.

Gerald Austin
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 02-18-2016 15:50
I have an issue with an ATF qualifying a welder and AWS certifying that welder to ASME requirements. The AWS program, as it is written, does not require the employer's direct supervision or involvement with the qualification effort. As such the requirements of Section IX are not met. My position regarding this matter is the primary reason I no longer sit on that subcommittee.

I guess it will get sorted out in the courts as soon as something goes boom in the night and it is discovered the welder was certified by AWS as meeting ASME Section IX and the contractor utilized that welder on the project. It will be educational to see how a clever lawyer and his expert witness dismantles the ATF involved and the AWS National Registry of Certified Welders program. The deep pockets of AWS will be a tempting target.

I have had laboratories tell me they are the employer's representative once they are hired to qualify and certify welders in accordance with ASME. That is playing the game pretty loose and taking liberties I don't believe meets the intent of ASME. That's akin to the milkman servicing the wife of his customer; "I represent the husband in his absence by the fact that I sell milk to the household."   Sorry, I don't believe that is the milk the husband had in mind.

Parent - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 02-19-2016 12:04
If something goes "Boom" in the night for a project requiring appropriate ASME or NBIC stamps then that contractorr should be FULLY aware of the requirements of the applicable codes.

When it comes to ASME BPV and Pipe requiring a stamp EVERYONE involved except the contractor will have a waiver of responsibility including the NDE company and the AI. Or at least all of the ones I have worked with. NDE, its usually in fine print.

I think SEC IX is pretty clear about the supervisory responsibility and those organizations that work outside of those requirements are the ones responsible for compliance.

I think that there is a great many companies that somehow feel responsibility for the qualifications somehow releases them from liability of their workmanship. Not ever seen evidence of that but my experience is limited.

There is so much more to performing quality welding than welder testing and certification.
Up Topic Welding Industry / Inspection & Qualification / Welder Qualification to D1.1

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill