Do you give the Welder "test taking tips"? -or- Do you shut up and let the Welder pass or fail on their own?

So, a company is paying you to help them comply with AWS/D1.1 You've written the WPS's and now it's time to qualify the Welders. Do you give the Welder "test taking tips"? -or- Do you shut up and let the Welder pass or fail on their own? -and- Once they fail, do you give the Welder test taking tips before the re-test?

Keep in mind the premise... a 3rd party inspector helping a company that requested it, comply with AWS-D1.1

Often, in fact usually, when I'm in this situation, it's a small company looking to bid on a job that is requiring them to do something they've never had to do before; show proof of compliance to the structural welding code. These companies are too small to have a Welding Engineer on staff and wouldn't have a Certified Inspector. Generally, what I find, they have a Welder they've hired, or has been working for them for some time. His/Her qualification documents (if any) are from a previous employer. The company is counting on their Welder to know all that is needed to know about welding the product.

I'll also find that the company needing to comply with AWS-D1.1 doesn't own a copy of the code (or the copy they have is 2-3 revisions old).  So now they've called me to see if I can help them out. I'll typically tour the shop, view the product, watch how the sausage is made... then I'll come up with a list of recommendations;

• These are the codes you need to comply with (typically D1.1 and D1.3, but often others as well).
• These are the Pre-Qualified WPS's needed.
• These are the Qualified WPS's needed.
• These are the Welder Qualifications required.

Total cost can easily fall around $3k-$10k, so we break it into small chunks. 1st the Pre-Qualified WPS's, then some Welder Quals... and that brings us back to my original question, "Do you give the Welder test taking tips?"

I'm going to provide the Welders a detailed WPS. I'll provide detailed test instructions. I'll let them know the acceptance criteria (visually acceptable root pass, cover reinforcement/crown not greater than 1/8"...). I'll answer every question they'll ask. Beyond that, I have to leave them on their own. Under this scenario I have to know / they have to know, "Do the skills and techniques that they have/use today get them the required result?" Most of the time, they do not. Failing the Welder Qualification test shows the Welder and the company that the process they currently have in place doesn't work. Something needs to change.

Had I offered helpful tips on the initial Welder Qualification, and the test fail, the only response would be, "The Inspector told me to ____ and that's why I failed." On the retest I will always ask, "Can I give you some tips?", but never on their initial test.

In a School or Training situation, that is a different scenario, but this isn't training. This is determining if the process you currently have in place yields the result you need and if not, what needs to change.

Thanks for reading and following.
PWC

Find Your Resident Experts

Hi Paul,
Quick question. Can a CWI write a welding procedure just being a CWI? Or does the company he works for engineering department have to give him the power to?

Unknown

Whomever you are,

Becoming a Certified Welding Inspector (CWI) does not, in-and-of-itself, qualify you as the one who writes Weld Procedures (WPS).  Codes and standards will require that we use “Sound Engineering Judgement” and AWS QC1 - Specification for AWS Certification of Welding Inspectors states “…the CWI shall: 11.2.1 Undertake and perform assignments only when qualified by training, experience, and capability.”

A designation as CWI (or CAWI & SCWI for that matter) does not qualify you for anything outside the scope of visual inspection of welds/welding.  CWI’s come in all shapes and sizes.  Some are Welders considering a career change, some are Engineers, Purchasing Agents, Lawyers, Supervisors or NDE Techs (nondestructive evaluation).  The list is pretty much endless.  All of those backgrounds can make great CWI’s, but none of those backgrounds make the individual an expert in the field of Code Compliance. 

Back in 1993 I was a 3^rd shift Welder who dreamed of bigger things.  My employer gave me the opportunity to take the AWS Seminar and CWI Exam.  Shortly after passing the Quality Mgr recruited me to his department for a short-term project of reviewing the companies ASME & AWS WPS’s, PQR’s and Welder Qualification.  Everything I knew about the subject I had just recently learned in a 1 week seminar.  I was nowhere near ready.

After about a week of banging my head, falling asleep reading and making zero progress, that Quality Mgr suggested I enlist the help of others, and that’s what I did.  I found that all throughout our company we had resident experts on some portion of the subject matter. 

Long story short, I mottled through with the help of just about every department in the company and came up with my first Weld Quality Program.  As difficult and frustrating as it was, it was an experience that changed me as a Welder and now, rookie QC inspector (6 months earlier I couldn’t spell QC).

So, none of that actually answers your question… or does it?  Who has, or gives, the power is not the real question here.  Who has the responsibility? is.  The responsibility lies with your Company, and as I found out early in my career, nothing less than the whole company is what it takes.

Good Luck,

PWC

No means No

Paul,
Here’s a question. I’m certified through the Iron Workers Union and I been welding for almost 19 years. Everywhere I've ever worked they says no welding downhill and if you weld downhill you won't pass the structural test.  When running a vertical weld with 7018 rod is it correct to run a downhill pass before you start your vertical ups on Structural Steel? (This email was in response to welding per AWS D1.1:2015 Structural Code – Steel)
Joshua R.

Joshua,
I guess the short answer is "No".
To do so, you would need a weld procedure (WPS/PQR) that qualifies welding vertical up & down with E7018.  You might struggle to find an electrode manufacturer that would support vertical down with E7018.  We’re required to use electrodes within the manufacturer’s requirements.
You (the Welder) would also need to have taken a vertical up and a vertical down Welder Qualification test with E7018 (or another Low-Hydrogen electrode).  These would be F4 electrodes.  Welding vertically down is often done with F3 electrodes, but a structural test with an F3 (E6010) will not qualify you to weld with an F4 (E7018).
I always say that the pre-qualified section of AWS-D1.1 (Clause 3 – Prequalified Weld Procedure Requirements) is filled with good engineering advice.  My “day job” consists of Ultrasonic Testing (UT) of steel structures.  Often, when I find rejects, I also find that some requirement of Clause 3 was not met. When asked, “What should we do now?” my response is always the same, “Meet the Clause 3 requirements.”  That’s not often a popular response.
Clause 3, wouldn't allow welding vertically down with E7018, so again, my best answer is still, “No”.

Good Luck,
PWC

When a Welder Qualifies a Procedure

Paul,
Specifically, AWS D1.1-2015 4.15.3 Welder an Welding Operator Qualification Through WPS Qualification states. "A welder or welding operator may also be qualified by welding a satisfactory WPS qualification test plate, pipe or tubing that meets the requirements of 4.9 The welder or welding operator is thereby qualified in conformance with 4.15.1 and 4.15.2."

Does this mean if an operator performs the same test as was done on the PQR, but it's only subjected to the Two Side bends, this operator is clear to use this WPS? If so, does an operator need to perform a test for every WPS that they use?
Neil

Neil,
This reference (4.15.3) is only referring to the actual operator that welded the actual PQR test.

Whenever an operator completes a successful PQR test that operator is awarded a Welder Performance Qualification Record (WPQR).  So from a single test plate you will develop 3 (min.) different documents;

• 1) a Procedure Qualification Record (PQR), 
• 2) a Weld Procedure Specification (WPS) and 
• 3) a Welder Performance Qualification Record (WPQR).

The first (PQR) will be a record of the actual parameters and acceptable results from the visual, destructive & nondestructive testing.  The second (WPS) will use the PQR data and Tables 4.1, 4.2 (or 4.3 & 4.4 if applicable), Table 4.5 (4.6 or 4.7 if applicable) and Table 4.8 to determine the ranges qualified and layout an actual procedure for welding.  The third (WPQR) will use the PQR data and Tables 4.10, 4.11 & 4.12 to determine the ranges for Welder qualification.

So to summarize, you have the same group of data, but you are developing 2 completely different documents from it.  One for the process and one for the person.  You end up with these funky conditions where a Welder is qualified to do far more then the procedure allows.

Nothing wrong with that.  Even though the Welder is “over-qualified” his limiting factor is that his welding needs to be done to a Weld Procedure Specification, so additional WPS’s would need to be developed for that Welder to use these additional qualifications.

For all additional Welders the PQR (Figure 4.6 & 4.7) and Welder/Operator (Figures 4.16, 4.17, 4.19, 4.20 or 4.21) test plates are different.  You would have to review those figures to determine what is appropriate.  A single tests performed by the Welder/Operator typically will qualify them to weld with multiple WPS’s.  Once a Welder/Operator completes a test, Tables 4.10, 4.11 & 4.12 would be used to determine if additional testing is needed.

PWC

WPS from Multiple PQRs?

Hey Paul,
How does one support a WPS from multiple PQR's?

Neil

I've used multiple PQR's on a single WPS many, many, many times.  When creating a WPS in manufacturing for GMAW I may want the WPS to cover all the electrode diameters (0.035, 0.045, 0.052) and wire feed speed (WFS) ranges that can be run.  A typical ER70S-6 WPS could take me 9 PQRs (3 dial. x 3 WFS ranges).  That was common for me as a Welding Engineer.
Equally…
When I qualify a single PQR I'll write as many WPS's from it as I can.  Example: I qualify a Bevel Groove with a PQR, I'll also write a WPS for a V-Groove, a U- or J-, all the PJP's I can and Fillets.  I try to get as much “Bang For My Buck” as I can.
PWC

Pre-Heat & Interpass Temp

Hey Paul,
From your experience, what is your preference when it comes to measuring the temperature of your PQR's?
At current I have access to 7 different rated tempilstik's, but that doesn't sound like a reasonable arsenal to do the job....or is it?
The IR Pyrometer I have is unreliable at best (as well, no calibration records).
If anything, I'm intrigued by the digital contact pyrometers out on the market. Specifically the Estik looks good, though the 2% tolerance for each displayed value is a bit concerning in the upper limits.
As always, thanks for your insight to age-old questions for us newbies!

Neil

Good questions…
The thing about the Temp Stix is that they are considered the “accepted” method (no controversy), especially when dealing w/Governmental agencies (Army Corp of Eng, DOT…).
Honestly? I use my IR gun to determine which TempilStik to use.  Sounds weird, I know.
If I can prove to myself that my IR gun is accurate (often dependent on surface condition) I’ll use its readings, but if I’m the least bit concerned, I turn to the TempilStik. 
Here’s how I’ll write a PQR:

Pass 1: Greater than 125 / Less than 175
Pass 2: Greater than 175 / Less than 225
Pass 3: Greater than 225 / Less than 300
Pass 4:  Greater than 300 / Less than 500

Kinda messy, but I don’t know a better way to do it and it’s never been questioned.  In fact, when they see the ranges they almost automatically know I used a TempStik and don’t question it.
I use to have a contact pyrometer and would spend a lot of $$$ keeping it calibrated.  After going into biz on my own I simply wrote a calibration procedure that stated “Place probe in ice water (50% crushed ice/50% water) let stand 10 min.  Insure temp reads 32 deg F +/-5%”.  That always worked (right up until I lost it).

Hope that helps.

PWC

WPS & PQR for Dummies

Hey Paul,
I'm reading up on the proper procedure and practices for developing a WPS and PQR, my question is, do you know of any resources that give a sort of 'WPS & PQR For Dummies'.
At current I'm reading through section 4 of D1.1, and taking notes as to what is required. The process we'll be qualifying is an in house change (bevel angle, and a slight change of amperage and travel speed.) that will be implemented into production.
From my limited perspective I'll be writing down the proposed values on the PQR, send it out for testing, if it comes back with a passing marks, I'll used that information to create a WPS.
However, on the PQR forms we have here, there is a line for "Governing WPS"...something about your seminar mentioning "Which comes first, WPS, or PQR" comes to mind, however I'm unable to to more than remember that idea.
Any help on the how-to is much appreciated! And also, do you have some sort of donation or fund in your name? I feel guilty asking for your assistance without some way to pay you back. If you've any ideas, let me know!
Thanks again!
Neil

Hey Neil,

WPS & PQR for Dummies… I like that.
You may find AWS-B2.1 helpful (https://pubs.aws.org/p/1245/b21b21m2014-specification-for-welding-procedure-and-performance-qualification).
Start by writing a “Preliminary WPS” (This could be considered a “Governing WPS”).  This isn’t a real, qualified WPS, it is simply a list of what you’d like your final WPS to look like.  Write each of the essential (and non-essential) variables, as you would like to see them.  Then work backwards to figure out what PQR(s) you’ll need to qualify them (notice, it could be several).
Starting with a Preliminary WPS helps keep you on track and keeps you from making the common mistake of finishing all your testing and concluding with an, “Oh Crap!... (insert problem here)”.  Problems like, “I should have used a Group II steel.” Or “I should have dropped the plate temperature to 50 degrees before starting the root pass (or fill pass).” Or “What was I thinking using a 4 in. pipe?” Or “I should have used a square groove.”  You get my drift.
Once you have a Preliminary WPS, break down each variable and ask yourself,  “What do I need to do to achieve that?”
Chances are your finished WPS will have greater ranges than your Preliminary because you’ll be working with real data.

As for your specific need (bevel angle, and a slight change of amperage and travel speed).  You may find that your original PQR already qualified the joint and parameters to within the ranges you are shooting for.  If so, you simply have to revise, or write an additional WPS.  If not, just go through the steps I laid out above.

This line kinda creeps me out, “I'll be writing down the proposed values on the PQR, send it out for testing, if it comes back with a passing marks, I'll used that information to create a WPS”.
That sounds a little, just-throw-it-over-the-wall-ish to me.  Let me break it down…
You’ll be:
• Writing down the proposed values
• Taking them to the Welder/Technician for feedback
• Observing, measuring and documenting as those proposed values are utilized
• Determining visual acceptance
• Sending the weldment out for NDE and destructive testing
• Reviewing the test results for compliance
• Using your collected data to develop a WPS
You have to be the one insuring every step was followed.  You’ll need to wear the welding helmet to insure technique was correct.  You’ll need to insure the final weldment met the acceptance criteria before NDE/Destructive testing.

And finally (and most important) yes, I have a GoQuenchMe campaign that runs continually.  You show up in my part of the country or I show up in yours and you have to buy the first round.  I believe in keeping it simple.

Cheers!
PWC

Essential and non-Essential Variables... they can make ya nuts

Dear sirs, I have a doubt about WPS (Weld Procedure Specification) by API 1104 - 2013. For me is not clear if “is outside diameter an essential variable in wps api 1104”, because of in 5.3.2.4 say “The ranges of specified outside diameters (ODs) and specified wall thicknesses over which the procedure is applicable shall be identified. Groupings are shown in 6.2.2 d) and 6.2.2 e).”, and in 5.4 is not included as an Essential Variables.
Thanks regards
Rafael

Rafael,
Essential and non-Essential Variables... they can make ya nuts.
We're often familiar with Essential Variable (those variables that, once changed beyond specific limits, require re-qualification of a WPS.), but what is a non-Essential Variable?
These variables may not show up in a table or list telling us what are allowable variations but they are equally important when writing your WPS.  I often find them left off of WPS's and that only leads to confusion when customers, inspectors or Welders try and interpret or apply your WPS.

When a non-Essential Variable is changed no additional testing is required, but the WPS needs to be changed to reflect the new variable.
Some examples would be:
     *Base materials - Although base material Groups can be Essential, the individual material types are considered non-Essential.  You completed a WPS of a specific material and it qualified you to within a Group.  If you want to change (or develop new) your WPS to reflect a different material within the Group
it is simply a matter of paperwork.
     *Joint Type - Once I qualify a specific joint type that test qualifies a large number of joint types.  I only need to change my paperwork to reflect a different joint design.  (You can now see where a single PQR can qualify a large number of WPS's.)
     *Electrode extension - As a Welder I can vary current by as much as 50 amps by simply changing my stick-out.
     *Electrode type - (GTAW)
     *Technique - Can I weave? Can I whip? Am I allowed to oscillate?  All should be addressed.
It surprised me, that Diameter is not be an Essential Variable per Section 5.4 of API-1104.  But listing it on the WPS is required.
“5.3 Welding Procedure Specification
5.3.1 General
The welding procedure specification shall include the information specified in 5.3.2 where applicable.”
So thickness IS an Essential Variable but Diameter is considered a non-Essential Variable.  Both must be listed on the WPS.
Good Question, Good Luck,
PWC

Combination GMAW & FCAW

I was wondering if you could shed some light on this subject. We have two different processes being used, GMAW and FCAW. The GMAW is used for tacking stiffeners to panels up to 60 feet long the joint configuration is a T joint. The tacks are between 1/8" and 3/16" weld sizes and they vary from 3" to 4" in length about every 18" in between tacks.  The FCAW is then used from a welding gantry, welding over the previous tack welds from the GMAW with the FCAW process with a continuous weld.

D1.1 2010 in table 4.5 PQR Essential Variables. Comparing the processes there are substantial variables. Our thought is to run a PQR using the two processes together on a V groove weld to qualify both processes. GMAW and FCAW using 100% CO2 welding the root pass with GMAW and then the second pass with FCAW mixing the two processes until the groove joint is completed. Clause 4 in table 4.4 groove test figure 4.23 1 G test.

Will this suffice what we're trying to achieve? I appreciate your input on the matter.

Best Regards.
Gabriel M.

Gabriel,
There are a couple ways you could approach this.  First, are PQR's needed?  This should fall under prequalified unless I'm missing something.  If it is, all you'd need to do is write the prequalified WPS using both processes.

If it is not able to be considered prequalified you could do the required PQRs for each process (GMAW & FCAW).  Or, you could combine processes in your PQR's.  A GMAW root would be sufficient, then a FCAW fill and cover.  Don't switch back and forth between processes for the fill and cover, you are qualifying each to a depth (GMAW to about 3/16 and FCAW to the remainder).

Another option might be to qualify these fillet welds using a fillet welded T-Joint just like you do in production.

Keep in mind, all Welders shall be qualified.  If you are using both processes they will require qualification to both processes.

PWC

Repair WPS

Paul,

When codes refer to a company having a "repair WPS", are they saying that a different test needs to be qualified other than the procedures that have already been qualified?

If this is the case, would you record the NDE, hold points, etc. that are required in the WPS? Sort of like, these are the steps and sequence of events that are required to take place.

 

Timothy C. CWI, CWE

ACCP Level II VT, PT

ASNT TC-1A Level II MT, UTT 

P.S, Thanks for the time you've taken over the years to let us ask, argue, talk through, and debate all the issues we come across. It only makes us better at what we do.

Tim,

And all this time I thought I was the only one that would get up at 6am on a Saturday with welding on the brain (I happened to be calibrating my UT scope when I got your email).

Let me concentrate on your first question as it would relate to AWS D1.1 (because you are right, the Bridge Code is more specific).

D1.1 requires a repair WPS, why would they state that? 

In most manufacturing environments we would have specific WPS’s for specific joint configurations, materials, positions welded… Let’s imagine the company "PWC Weld-All" had WPS's for all position, unlimited thickness, Base Metal Group 1 & 2 for Lap, T- (fillets & grooves), V-, Bevel and Square Groove Joints.  Your first impression would be that PWC has his shit together, right?  Now let's say PWC hired his brother (because his Mom made him) to punch bolt holes in steel with an Iron Worker.  Who could mess that up?  Well, his brother did and now you’ve got four 1- inch holes in the web of a S24x100 I-Beam.  The customer insists they be filled.  Which WPS will cover this repair?  Since the joint configuration now is a hole in a plate none of the existing WPS's will apply.  A new WPS will need to be developed which may or may not require testing (dependent on code requirements).

Here's another scenario… The base plate of a light pole tower is welded using FCAW-G.  While being erected the customers inspector finds unacceptable porosity and requires a repair.  That repair could be made using the same procedure used to manufacture the tower, but it wouldn’t be practical to use FCAW-G, in the field.  A procedure would need to be written (and possibly qualified) to complete this repair using another process (FCAW-S or SMAW). 

One last scenario… A crack in a weld is discovered in a Bevel-Groove.  The engineer determines it can be repaired.  This can typically be done using the original WPS.  While excavating you find this crack extends into base material.  Now your joint configuration will probably be outside the tolerances of your WPS, so another WPS will need to be written (and possibly qualified).

Often times the PQR's you've previously completed will cover the repair WPS, but you still need to write the new WPS. 

As the engineer I have written many repair WPS's.  When I do I will put language in there that is not typically found in a production WPS.  Things like, “Drill a X/X diameter hole at each tip of the crack to reduce the chances of growth.”  or, “Once  discontinuity is removed PT to insure its complete removal.” or, “MT each weld layer to insure soundness.” or “Never let my brother touch that machine again.”

So your repair WPS isn't anything different then any other WPS, you just want to insure that you've covered all your bases in regard to material, joint configuration, position before moving forward with the repair.

Ask me the time and I build you a watch.  Sorry about that.

PWC

GMAW Globular Transfer

Paul,
I work at a machine shop where I am employed as a qualified welder to AWS-D.1.1. I was wondering why it is that you can certify 75% argon and 25% CO2 when you are not allowed to use a short circuit transfer on materials over 3/16". I read your article every month and in order to obtain a spray transfer you need at least 83% Argon but yet I passed on a 1 inch test piece.

Thanks K. B.

Your question insinuates that if your shielding gas mixture is not Argon rich enough to obtain a Spray Transfer mode the only alternative is Short Circuit Transfer, that's just not the case.
When using a 75% Argon and 25% Co2 mix you would not be able to achieve a Spray Transfer, but achieving a Globular Transfer would be no problem. It is quite common to complete the test you discribed (Unlimited Thickness to D1.1) in the GMAW Globular Transfer mode for all positions (3G/4G) successfully.  This is a fairly typical test commonly given in todays construction industry.  I think you will find Globular Transfer a prefered transfer mode in industries that utilize a 75/25 mix.
As for Short Circuit, when I mentioned in an earlier article, the possibility of incomplete fusion being a concern on materials greater than 3/16th inch, I prefaced that by including, "... in certain positions and progressions...".  Completing an open root limited thickness Welder Qualification in the Vertical progression (Root Down/Fill & Cover Up) is a very common transfer mode used during testing.  In fact, a test of that nature, Root Pass with Short Circuit, Fill and Cover Pass in Globular, would successfully qualify a Welder in 2 processes (GMAW-S & GMAW) in a single test.
That would be a good Welder Qualification to have in your wallet.
PWC

GMAW-S & Pre-Qualified Weld Procedures

The company I work for welds with GMAW-S and all of the Weld Procedure Specifications (WPS) that we have are from pre-qualified AWS-D1.1 welds. When I look in D1.1 I find that GMAW-S is not a pre-qualified transfer mode. Are all of our WPS's therefore null? If I understand D1.1 correctly we would need to have a PQR for all of our WPS's because they are GMAW-S, is this correct?

 It seems like GMAW-S is the most common, or at least a very

common, GMAW transfer mode why in the world is it not pre-qualified?

Thank you for your insight, Martin

Martin, Love the question(s). The short answer is... Yes, but just to clarify…

When you mention GMAW-S the transfer mode referred to is Short Circuit Transfer (See AWS-D1.1 Annex K, “GMAW-S”). You are right to note that GMAW-S’s use is wide spread. You are also correct that GMAW-S is not a pre-qualified process, per AWS-D1.1.

So what’s up with that?

AWS-D1.1 is the Structural Welding Code for Steel. Its intent is to be used with materials 1/8 inch thick and greater. The concern by those who determine the requirements for pre-qualified procedures is, welding using the Short Circuit Transfer mode has the potential to generate a lack of fusion. It has been my experience, after running hundreds of PQR’s, that this lack of fusion becomes consistent on material thicknesses over 3/16 of an inch in certain positions and progressions.

That’s not to say GMAW-S can not be used with a pre-qualified procedure. AWS-D1.3 is the Structural Welding Code for Sheet Steel. Its intent is to be used with material 3/16 inch thick and less. Clause 3 of AWS-D1.3 lays out the requirements for developing pre-qualified weld procedures using Short Circuit Transfer.

AWS D1.1 in Clause 1.2, “Limitations”, encourages the use of D1.3 on materials 3/16 inch thick and less. So using pre-qualified procedures for Short Circuit Transfer is do-able, it simply has to be done to a different Structural Welding Code.

PWC