“The only Welder that hasn’t failed a Welder Test is the one that hasn’t been a Welder very long.” - Roger "Bud" Malley

Paul
I remember you saying that if we had a question about something to just ask.  My question is about welder recertification.  The owner of the place where I work wants me to come up with a “welder recertification process” that includes two 3/8 plate test, one aluminum and one steel, send them out and have them tested.  With 24 welders, think that this would be very costly to do on an annual basis.  I’ve contacted our external CWI for information and he has never herd of doing that other that staying current with continuity.  I was wondering if you have any information on this subject that would help me down that road?  Any information would be greatly appreciated.
Joey D.

Joey,
I like your question.  Sounds like the boss wants to go above and beyond the code requirements (or, he doesn’t understand them), nothing wrong with that, but here’s some of the problems you’ll encounter…

Our first objective is to meet the code requirements.  Going beyond them is great, but the first objective has to be to meet them.

I’ve been in many environments where going beyond the code requirements was somebodies dream (never mine) forced onto me.  I have also found that often, the job of the CWI is to protect the Boss from himself.  Adding additional requirements can be a good way of maintaining skill levels and quality, but they will also, always increase drama & cost.

The Canadian Welding Bureau (CWB) will require that CWB Certified Welders re-test every 2 years.  I have found, working in CWB shops that skill levels are easier to maintain.  I always attributed that to the testing requirement.  But maintaining that program is expensive, and when times get tight it is one of the first things looked at to drop.

I have also worked with companies who have used additional testing requirements as a way of maintaining Welder Continuity (a requirement under AWS-D1.1), but these programs have been bulky and expensive and as an auditor it would take me about 10 minutes of snooping to find holes in the program.  In your email you mentioned this annual testing as possibly benefiting Welder Continuity.  There is your first hole.  Logs need to be updated every 6 months and your testing was every 12 months.  It wouldn’t take a lot of digging for me to find a Welder with an out-of-date log.

If you develop an annual testing program you will need to answer the question, “What happens to the Welder who fails an annual test?”  That needs to be known before you implement the requirement.

My Uncle (who me & my family considered the greatest Welder who ever lived) once told me, “The only Welder that hasn’t failed a Welder Test is the one that hasn’t been a Welder very long.”
What happens to your Welder that fails (and many will)?  He can’t fail the test and then go back out on the line as a Welder, right?  What about the work he was doing just prior to testing?  Isn’t that called into question?

You can always get those who fail your testing back up to speed with training and evaluation.  It’s been my experience that they don’t loose their skill, they loose their eyes.  Ol’ Welders that have been doing what they do for ever can make perfectly acceptable welds day in and day out, even as their eye sight deteriorates. But give that Ol’ Welder a qualification test (which is almost always different then their day-to-day) and they’ll struggle.  Often, to see.

With todays aging Welder Workforce I have issued “Cheaters” (reading glasses for welding helmets) at 4 of the fabricators I served as Weld Engineer for.

Again, you have to be clear on how you’ll handle these situations before they happen.  I had one Boss that commanded that, “If they fail the test we let them go.”  First Welder to fail was in his 60’s and had been at the company over 30 years (He didn’t get fired.  I worked with him, got him all “Cheatered-Up” and he was back doing what he knew and seeing what he’d forgot.).

I guess my point is, when we attempt to exceed the requirements we build cost and “drama” which seems to escalate to an unhealthy level and then suddenly the program is dropped and we are at risk of not complying to the code, our first objective.

There ya go, Ask me the time and I build ya a watch.
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

Radiograph and IP (off The Facebook)

James H
I recently had a friends weld get rejected by xray for a concave bead.  Repaired it, reshot it, and it came back rejected for IP.  Two times in this last year I've heard this. Both times, same example. Is it just a bad xray tech or is it a change in the rules today?

Paul W Cameron - CWI
A friend eh?
Let me preface this by saying, "I'm no RT Guy." but, a concave bead in a radiograph could easily mask Incomplete Joint Penetration (IP).
A concave bead will appear darker (because it's thinner) than the base material around it when viewed in a radiograph. Once that concave bead is repaired (adding more weld [making it thicker then base material]) the area that was once dark is now light and any IP would be clearly visible.

Great Question!
PWC
https://www.facebook.com/PaulWCameronCWI

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

"Common Sense" not always That common

Hello Paul,
I was hired into the quality group at a company  alongside three other CWI's last October.  I'd been asked to do a lot of paperwork type activities until this last July when they needed
that fourth CWI on the floor.
I seem to have put the floor into shock... for example: for inspecting parts to the tolerances on the drawing and writing a nonconformance when it's out of that tolerance range.  The other inspectors had been trying to convince me to apply "common sense" to let the parts through anyway, even if that meant the associated paperwork doesn't line up with what the physical part is.  I'm still the same person I was when I came through the code clinic, you can guess how the workplace has become increasingly hostile towards me yet again.

I write to ask two quick questions to verify if my thought process is correct if you have a moment:

1. Detailed vs. fit-up tolerances.  The code and chatter on the AWS forum eludes to fit-up tolerances applying to the as detailed one.  So if detailed gave me +10 degrees, fit-up would give an additional 10 degrees - stacking the two together.  I thought I distinctly remembered from the code clinic that the tolerances do not stack, but that both apply to the original, 45 degrees for example.  So the max. would be 55 degrees end of story.  I am not able to find the support in the code for that and was hoping to double check my memory on that.

2. Starts and stops of intermittent welds.  It seems that the D1.1 exception for filling a crater to the full cross section outside of the intermittent area has been taken to the level that the code doesn't apply outside of the intermittent length.  Doesn't it still say we should have complete fusion, and smooth transitions - not worms at the start and stop of those?

Just thought I would check in to make sure I'm not getting off base here.
Thanks,

Jessica P

Hey Jessica,

Let me get right to answering your questions...

When it comes to “AS Fit-up” vs “As Detailed” tolerances, during the seminar I will always emphasize, “For the purpose of this test, do not stack the tolerances.”  I’ll then go on to say, that may happen in life, but do not do it for the purpose of this test.” CWI’s should never use the “As Detailed” tolerances... only the engineer/designer of the part/joint should.  Let me give you some examples:

1.)  A Designer/Engineer calls out a B-U2a with a 45 deg Groove angle.  The shop floor/Welder/CWI can apply the “As Fit-up” tolerances ONLY and the Groove angle can now range from 40-55 degrees.

2.)  A Designer/Engineer calls out a B-U2a with a 55 deg Groove angle (he/she applied the “As Detailed” tolerances).  The shop floor/Welder/CWI can apply the “As Fit-up” tolerances ONLY and the Groove angle can now range from 50-65 degrees.

3.)  A welding symbol calls for a 30 degree V-Groove on a Butt Joint.  The shop floor/Welder/CWI can apply the “As Fit-up” tolerances ONLY and the Groove angle can now range from 25-40 degrees.

4.)  A welding symbol calls for a 35 degree V-Groove on a Butt Joint (engineer applied the “As Detailed” tolerances).  The shop floor/Welder/CWI can apply the “As Fit-up” tolerances ONLY and the Groove angle can now range from 30-45 degrees.
All those scenarios are perfectly acceptable for that joint type.  The Designer/Engineer has one type tolerance they design within, and the shop floor/Welder/CWI have a different tolerance they work within.

Now let me give you some scenarios that DO NOT WORK:

5.)  A Designer/Engineer calls out a B-U2a with a 45 deg Groove angle.  The shop floor/Welder/CWI applies the “As Detailed” &“As Fit-up” tolerances and the Groove angle now ranges from 40-65 degrees.

6.)  A welding symbol calls for a 30 degree V-Groove on a Butt Joint.  The shop floor/Welder/CWI applies the “As Detailed” & “As Fit-up” tolerances and the Groove angle now ranges from 25-50 degrees.

The shop floor/Welder/CWI should never stack the tolerances on their own.  Again, one set of tolerances is for the Engineer/Designer, another is for the shop floor/Welder/CWI.
Clear as mud, eh?

As for the intermittent fillet weld...
The crater can remain unfilled (weld is undersize) as long as the crater falls outside the required weld length.  All other acceptance criteria have to be met for the entire weld length (including the crater).  So unacceptable contours, unacceptable undercut, unacceptable porosity, cracks, overlap in the crater would still render the weld “Unacceptable”.

As for your work environment...

Working with other CWI’s can, at times, get challenging.  Like Welders, not all have the same skill set.
I took a position once and was over 5 CWI.  In my first week I found that all Welders were qualified with FCAW but 75% of the welding was with GMAW.  I called each into my office to ask about this.  The responses were pretty lame, “That’s what we’ve always done.” “You can’t change things around here.” “There really no difference.”

Don’t Be That Guy/Gal!  Stick to the requirements and intent of the code, and when there’s a disagreement don’t argue, “Put your finger on it”.  Better to have integrity then a stable job (I’m sure some would not agree with that line).  My unstable work history has worked well for me.

I hope that helps.  Hang in there, you know this shit.

PWC