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

The Same Welder Quals Over and over and...

Paul,
Why do companies require so many different test from one place to the next if your always doing the same kind of work?
Jacob M.

Jacob,
Certain tests are required to qualify you for the correct material, process, thickness and position.  The code you're welding to will specify the test requirements.  Often, these tests can look far different than the actual welding you'll do in production or on the job site.
Each employer is responsible for their Welders qualifications, so if you hop from employer to employer each of those employers are required to give you the required tests.  The employer is held liable for your qualifications, so they would not typically accept a qualification from another employer.

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

Become the "Qualification Guru of Choice"

Hello Paul,

Much like yourself, I am a CWI, CWE, teaching welding classes and following the guidelines of AWS D1.1, Structural Welding Code Steel.

I have purchased a number of the pre-qualified weld procedures from the AWS bookstore that fit the specific circumstances of the most common welding practices used in our area (6010 open root, 7018 fill/cover passes).  These weld procedures are referenced in the area on the WPS for welding procedure.

Students are given a written, step by step procedure with illustrations, dimensions and weld parameters for the fit-up and welding of their test plates. Each section must be followed by the students, and signed by the Instructors. The guided bend test is performed by a qualified AWS CWI, and the test results are documented by the same Welding Inspector.

My question is: does this weld test constitute a Welding Certification?

W.P.

 My answer is: It does, but will the contractors, manufacturers or company the Welder works for accept it?

AWS D1.1 tells us that Qualification (not “Certification”) is the responsibility of the “Contractor”.  They can “farm” the work of qualifying a welder out to an educational facility, but the responsibility for that Welder Qualification still falls on the contractor.  That’s the reason contractors give their own welding test regardless of any past qualifications the welding candidate may have.

Setting up a “Certification” program (meaning; backing up a Welders qualification with documentation) in a vocational school isn’t uncommon, but if that program is sold to Welders as a means of becoming “Certified”, you’ve done those Welders a disservice. They could go through your certification process not understanding that their new “Certification” is not valid anywhere.

Setting up that same “Certification” program and making your ”pitch” to area employers as the 3rd party qualification guru of choice would be far more honest and code user friendly.

I spent many years in the welding industry filling the role of Welding Engineer (The person responsible for the qualification of persons and processes), Welder qualification was a messy and time consuming part of my job.  When testing Welders “off the street” I would have a 10/1 pass rate (and then my 1 would fail the piss test).  I would always look to my area technical schools to help me with that, but I found either a welding program that didn’t give me confidence that ALL the requirements of qualification would be adhered to, or the program was nonexistent.

What do I mean by adhered to?:

•  Test plate fit-up met the WPS requirements

•  Test plate position was maintained from start to finish

•  The root pass was visually inspected (by someone who knows the acceptance criteria) and found acceptable

•  Fill passes were randomly monitored

•  The cover pass met the acceptance criteria without requiring repair to do so

•  The bend coupons were from the correct location and same test plate (I use steel stamps)

•  Removal of the backing and weld reinforcement did not fall below the plane of the base material

•  The samples were bent in the correct fixture

•  The person evaluating the bend samples understood the acceptance criteria

Seems simple enough, but at all of the locations I evaluated over my career, one or more (usually many more) of the requirements listed above were not met.

There’s a great need for the service you’re suggesting, just insure you are selling it to the right people.

Good Luck,

PWC

AWS-CWI's, Who needs 'em?

Good Morning,

I am very interested in a research article into industry perception of the overall value of the AWS CWI Certification. Many organizations have established training and certification programs internally that applies job scope specific training to inspectors while it seems that the AWS CWI training and exam is too general and wide ranging? Just looking for others opinions on this.

Thank you,
Victor K.

Hi Victor,

Although most codes accept the credentials of a Certified Welding Inspector (CWI) for visual inspection of welds, they DON'T REQUIRE that the Inspector be a CWI.  What they DO REQUIRE is that your Inspectors be qualified and that qualification be documented.  Those are two very important requirements; qualified & documented.  They are the requirements of welding codes that I will find not being adhered to when I'm conducting Fabricator/Manufacturer audits with in-house qualified Inspectors.

In your letter you state, "Many organizations have established training and certification programs internally that applies job scope specific training to inspectors..."  I've worked for many manufacturers and have developed those exact programs, but each program I developed insured that my Inspectors were "qualified" and that qualification was "documented". 

It is common in industry today to claim, "Our Welder is our first Inspector."  That's a great approach, but again, to make that claim, your Welders would be required to be qualified as Inspectors (don't confuse this with qualified as Welders) and their qualifications would need to be documented.

There is a document published by the American Welding Society (AWS) to help you develop that training and documentation; AWS-B5.1, "Specification for the Qualification of Welding Inspectors".  It is a terrific guide for developing a visual Welding Inspector program.  Programs developed by a knowledgeable Welding Inspector/Engineer to AWS-B5.1 would typically be excepted by your customers and/or governing agencies.  I have often found, once I've developed an "in-house" Inspector qualification, it was easier to evaluate employees and determine which inspectors may be ready to take the next step to certification.

It is typically your customers or governing agencies that put the requirement in contract documents that visual Welding Inspectors "shall" be AWS-CWI's (meaning certified to AWS-QC1-"Standard for AWS Certification of Welding Inspectors").  When listed in contract documents there's no "wiggle-room" for alternative qualification programs. 

From my own experience, walking onto a project overseen by an AWS-CWI gives me confidence that the Inspector has a good rounded background in all the different areas Inspectors need to understand.  Those areas include; Process, Code Requirements, Inspection Techniques and Metallurgy.  When I'm asked to be a 3rd party Inspector, and I find myself in a manufacturing environment where Inspectors are trained in-house, I tend to ask a series of questions that help me evaluate the qualifications of the other Inspectors.  I want to feel confident that they understand the requirements and the acceptance criteria for the weldments they inspect.  That is a bad time to find out they don’t, and I'll always ask to see their documentation.

I understand folks believing that Certification to AWS-QC1 (AWS-CWI) can, at times, be over-kill for some inspection requirements.  When an alternative program is developed you must insure that it is developed by an individual with a well-rounded understanding of welding requirements.  The kind of well-rounded understanding you'd typically find in a CWI.

Thanks for your question.
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

What's With Weave Width? (Woah!)

Good morning Paul,
I have a question for you.
When welding (1/8") E7018 welding rods, what's the maximum width for stringers and for weaving?  I've heard different answers but can't find anything in the D1.1 Structural Code.
Thanks and have a good day!
Ivan A.

Ivan,
For the process you mentioned, SMAW (E7018), you will not find many restrictions on weave/oscillation width. Table 3.6 in Clause 3 - "Prequalification of WPS's" limits the maximum size of single pass fillet welds to somewhere between 5/16" and 1/2" depending on the position.  That would be a limitation on weave width.  Table 4.6 in Clause 4 - "Qualification" would also limit weave/oscillation width in Charpy V-Notch Testing (CVN) applications by limiting heat input and weld metal volume (see: Electrical Characteristics 9).  Travel Speed plays a key role in both those calculations and weave width has a direct impact on travel speed (the wider the weave, the slower the weld progression, or travel).
With other processes (GMAW, FCAW...) weave width would be governed by the Weld Size and "Split Layer" limitations of Table 3.6, the travel speed (see: 19) limitations of Table 4.5, and the Heat Input/Volume (9) limitations of Table 4.6
Over the years as the "Weld Engineer" on specific projects I've come up with weave width limitations that I have found to work in my applications.  They were not limitations listed on a Weld Procedure Specification (WPS) because of a code requirement, they were listed on the WPS because of the "Engineers" requirement (mine).
I'm sure you came looking for a "hard" number you could use to determine weave or oscillation width.  But that is a number that you would need to calculate given your specific requirements.
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

"Scare a moose, scare a moose, will you do my fan Van Gogh"

Paul

I find myself rejecting a lot of welds. I don't want to fail them and find out that I misinterpreted something. When there is undercut in small amounts throughout the length of the weld I'm still not clear on what they mean by "...in two inches up to 12 inches..." (AWS-D1.1, Table 6.1(7))  so I find myself pretty much disregarding the 1/32nd undercut rule, unless the weld is less than 2 inches long. And I just use 1/16.
David N.

All right, here we go...
Table 6.1 (7), Undercut:
"shall not exceed 1/32 in. except...Shall not exceed 1/16 in. for more than 2 in. in 12 in." (artistic liberties taken liberally)
So, undercut that is not more than 1/32" is acceptable. Period!  Also, undercut greater than 1/32" that does not exceed 1/16" and it's accumulated length comes to 2" or less is also acceptable.
Example 1: You're looking at a 3" weld. It's got 1/16" of undercut (depth) for 2" of its length. It's acceptable.
Example 2: A 3" weld is part of a 3 on 6 intermittent fillet weld. Imagine 3 of those fall with in 12". One 3" weld has undercut and the undercut is 1/16" (depth) for 3/4" (length). Another 3" weld is undercut  at 2 places. The undercut is 1/16" deep for 3/4" and again for 1/2"‎ of length.  The last 3" weld has 1/32" for its entire length. These 3 welds falling with in the same 12" of a joint length would be acceptable (Total length of undercut greater than 1/32" deep equals 2").
Now my head hurts.
PWC

Ahh... finally it makes sense.  Now I'll have to read it until it's burned into my brain.  I never put it together that they were talking about intermittent welds.  I wonder if everyone else assumed I understood that, or if they don't know either.
Thank you!  You have saved me much self-doubt!
David N.

No, no, no... I simply used intermittent welds as an example. If you had a weld that was 8" long, the same rules would apply.If it had undercut its entire length that did not exceed 1/32"‎ it's acceptable.  Along that same weld, at one location the undercut is 1/16" deep for 1/4", then 1/16" deep for 1/2", then again for 1", then again for 1/4", that weld would still be acceptable. (as long as the individual undercuts greater than 1/32" but not over 1/16" do not total more then 2" of length in any 12")
Again, my head hurts.
PWC

Holy crap! I understand even better now! So the length they are talking about is how far along the weld the undercut runs.  That is the biggest part I wasn't grasping before. That's so simple... And now quite embarrassing. No wonder nobody could explain it to me, it should have been obvious. Every time I read about the two inches, I was thinking it had something to do with the length weld, not the length of the undercut portion.

I guess I am finding the downfall in studying by myself! I couldn't get past my initial understanding. Kind of like when you learn the words to a song incorrectly, and even after you find out the correct words, you still sing them wrong out of habit... Okay, fine. Maybe it's nothing like that!
David N.

That is Exactly what it's like.
"Scare a moose, scare a moose, will you do my fan Van Gogh"
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

Preheat and Toe Cracks, Sounds Painful!

We have been welding on a coupler ladder assembly for an ATB. (Articulated tug barge) It veries in thickness from 3"-1/2" up to 9" thick. The coupler ladder is structural casting ASTM A148-90-60 (Ce= 0.69 Pcm= 0.38) and is being welded to ABS Grade A 1"-1/2" plate and also ABS AH36 3/4" plate. The current WPS is for FCAW it states to use filler metal AWS Specification: A5.20 and AWS Classification: E71T-1CDH8 and to preheat to 300* F. We are having some cracking problems on the weld toe to the cast parent metal. On some of the research that I did it states to use an E81T1-Ni1C wire and to preheat to 400*F. In clause 3 of AWS D1.1 2010 on 3.5.1 base metal / thickness combination. (base on the category and thickness) shall be the highest of these minimum preheats. Would you suggest to increase the preheat to 400* F and use the E81T1 electrode?

Best Regards.
Gabriel M.

The 70ksi electrode should work and the 300 degree preheat should be sufficient. You should have a PQR that was used to qualify these materials. If you do not then you should start there.
My experience with preheat...
When a 300 degree preheat is required keep in mind that the measurement to deturmine if the preheat's been met would be a minimum of 3 inches from the weld. That's 3 inches or the thickness of the material, which ever is more. You mentioned 9 inch material. That preheat would need to be measured 9 inches from the weld.
With toe cracks in high strength material (that A148 is a Class 3) I would suspect preheat and more then that, I would suspect a preheat that is not being applied the full material thickness distance.
PWC

Fillet Welds on Corner Joints

Hello,
I have a question regarding D1.1 code.
My question is regarding the corner joints in the plates encompassing the columns. They are calling them Fillet welds, yet there is not any faying surface. D1.1 says a fillet can have up to 3/16ths misalignment (with certain stipulations) which is effectively is making the joint an open root CJP.

They are using a ceramic backing that (desired because of the tight fit around the square column plus the misalignment) is reducing the theoretical throat greatly. Now they are having substantial issues with cracking threw the throat, which isnt surprising.

My issue though is with the joint design; Im inclined to say it is not a fillet weld, but I cannot find a code reference to support that claim. And I cannot find a prequalified wps and joint config that in any way resembles this joint PJP or CJP groove.
Am I missing something in the code that resolves this? Specifically any denominational requirement for the length of faying surface on fillet welds? What course of action would you advise?
Thank you for any assistance,
- Caleb

Caleb,
I'm not sure of the plate thickness, it looks (from the photo) to be about 3/8”. If that's the case these 1/4" welds are undersized. That said:
This is a common Fillet weld on a Corner joint. If you have a copy of AWS D1.3 Fig 3.2a you'll see a picture of it.
Questions I would ask…
Does the shop/contractor have a WPS for welding this?  The fillet looks to have been done vertically down. This would require testing. What is the process used?  It looks to be GMAW-S. If so, this would require testing also.
I'm sure your cracking is due to insufficient throat. You can fix that by requiring multiple passes.
Here's where you should go with this…
Ask about the WPS and the process. If they are not in compliance, take out a rubber hose and beat them until they are (that’s a metaphor for fix that first 😊).
Ask the engineer to change the weld call out to:
Weld size = T (remember, T is thickness)
Require a Convex contour (that will insure the throat size)

That should do it.
PWC

Maybe B2.1 is the better choice...

 Hey Paul,

 It’s Kody P.  I was in your Minneapolis seminar, I was wondering if you would be willing to get me pointed the right direction for a PQR/WPS testing of pipe/tube to plate for fillets and PJP groves in AWS-D1.1?

The pipe/ tube is “unlisted” material of the following specs: A519 1026, A519 1026cw, A519 1026hr, A513 1026, A513 1026cw, (min yield is 35ksi – 70ksi grade dependent).  All are not pre-qualified or listed and the rings will be A36 or some grade of A514.  Size ranges from 2” OD tube 3/16 wall with 1/8” fillet and bevel to 20” + OD 2” wall with up to 1 ¼” fillet / bevel.  Plate ranges from 3/8” to 2”+

I know I need to do macro etches but I am a little confused as to how to get the tensile specimens /side bends for the sizes we are working with.

As of right now my thoughts are to purchase some large od tube/pipe and use that to cut coupons from to do 1G test plates to prove the process, Then do the fillets/PJP etches. If both are successful I could use both PQR’s to make a WPS and repeat for all combos. But then at that point should I use AWS-Fig. 4.10/4.11 or 4.23 for the 1G test set up?

Any thoughts or advice would be appreciated

Thank you

Kody P. Lead Inspector

Kody,

It’s amazing what you run into, isn’t it?  My first WPS experience as a “green” CWI was insuring the company I worked for met all the requirements to weld carbon and stainless to ASME.  Something I had zero experience with.  (I learned a lot… one mistake at a time)

First thing I would do if I were you would be to group the A519 grades and the A513 grades (what do I mean by that?).  Just find some A519 Grade 1026 and some A513 Grade 1026 (forget about those additional designators, they don’t amount to enough to matter.).

Next: Get yourself a copy of AWS-B2.1 Specification for Procedure and Performance Qualification.  In it you’ll find that the AWS groups your A519 into Group 2 and your A513 into Group 1 (or visa-versa, I don’t remember which).

Now…

This group of PQR's could get extremely complicated if you qualify to D1.1, so don’t.  Qualify to AWS B2.1 and just state that on your documentation.  Qualifying to B2.1 can be as simple as making the weldment just as you do in production and then cutting and etching the welds to insure you meet the size and soundness requirements.  You may have to do one for each pipe size (or significant change in part size) but that is a whole lot easier and can be done in pretty short order.

I have a lot of experience in writing WPS's for “Unlisted” steels and take it from me, meeting D1.1 with materials that aren’t the same shape (ones a tube and ones a plate) sucks.  I would never advise it.

Sounds to me like you are the perfect example of why the AWS came up with B2.1

That's my advice and I'm only 1/2 a beer into giving it, so it should still be good.
Let me know what you decide.

PWC

"Put your finger on it"

Hi, Paul.
I was seeking advice from you regarding D1.1  I'm a welding instructor at a steel mill in Northwest Ind.
We were sent 12 yrs ago to Hobart welding school for train the trainer class and to certify in all positions,limited & unlimited thickness plates w/backing. All SMAW, 7018 rod. (Did not like Hobart's 7018 rod). We believed that we are Qualified to qualify welders to weld anything structural in our mill. Does this sound correct or our we missing something?
Also the big question is, does D1.1 say you have to certify to weld structural or just qualify through the testing procedure to weld structure? A new instructor is saying we have to certify I do not believe this is what D1.1 says.
Any advice would be helpfull, Thank you for time.
Thanks, Pat

Hi Pat,
Hobart is a great school and the Train the Trainer program was a great idea.
If your company accepted the Hobart documentation as your Welder Qualifications (common) and your company maintained a Welder Continuity Log (see: http://www.thefabricator.com/article/arcwelding/arc-welding-101-d1-1-welder-documentation) and as long as there is no reason to question your ability, your Welder Qualifications will continue to be current.
Although the AWS Certified Welding Educator (CWE) program would require you to maintain your Welder Qualifications, being a CWE is not a code requirement for those of us who train and qualify our Welders, so anyone your company deems competent to do so can train and qualify your Welders.
As far as qualifying Welders to weld anything structural in your mill… you would need to determine what governing documents covers the welding requirements of your mill (D1.1, D1.3, D14.1…) and insure your Welders are being qualified to those requirements.  Those Welders would need to be qualified to a (or many) test procedure(s) and the test procedures would need to encompass all of the essential variables listed in the code(s) being used.  (I know… it’s enough to make your head spin)
Bottom Line: When someone comes to me with a code requirement that I don’t believe to be accurate, my first response is to ask them to “Put your finger on it”.  Equally important, when someone asks about a code provision I would never give an answer until I had ALL the required information and I was able to “Put my finger on it” as well.

PWC

Those damn CVN requirement...

Paul,
Do you mind my asking a quick question drawing from your expertise of AWS D1.1?
Table 4.6 of AWS D1.1-2010 is a list of supplementary essential variable changes that would require WPS requalification due to CVN (Charpy V-Notch) testing requirements.  Under base metal (item 2) it indicates:

“minimum thickness qualified is T or 5/8” whichever is less except if T is less than 1/4” then the minimum thickness qualified is 1/8”

I take this to mean that to qualify a PJP groove weld of a 3/16” plate a weld procedure would have to be qualified using 3/16” thick material  (“minimum T or 5/8” whichever is less”).  Do you agree?

I had been going off of the table 4.2 where a 1” plate would qualify for a range from 1/8” to unlimited thickness.  But that table is not intended for Charpy requirements.  So I may have been wrong with using table 4.2 when Charpy requirements exist. I can see the need to qualify the thinner materials when CVN is required due to the heat input changes due to the thickness changes.  But just want a second opinion.

Thanks,
Wes

Oh those damn CVN requirement...
I currently have 2 clients that I'm working with on this issue. Your assessment of the CVN Supplement is correct.
What we advised for our client to do was to machine the test plates to a nominal of 0.230" (because I also wanted to insure I was under 6mm to eliminate any code questions). We completed PQR's on 0.230", 0.3125" and 1.0" material, that covered our range.

Other things that bite ya for CVN requirements is...
"Multi vs Single Pass": Most PQR's that are typically run are multi pass.  These multi-pass PQR's would not qualify single pass welding.
-and-
"Max. Interpass Temp": If interpass tempuratures were to be measured under 125F the Maximum qualified interpass tempuature qualified would be under 225f. This would limit Preheat Catigory A and C Steels to 1-1/2" max. and Catigory B Steels to 2-1/2" max.

Good to hear from ya Wes.
PWC

"All Welding Shall Comply with AWS-D1.1"

Paul,
I am a welding instructor/inspector. I have a business client that builds control panels and a potential client of theirs is requesting that they conform to AWS D1.1 standards on a control panel. Seems odd to me what the customer is wanting? Does or can a company become AWS D1.1 certified? Is there a certain process they have to go through to become a D1.1 facility? I tested some of their welders over a year ago to the sheet metal code. Looks like they would want them to conform to D1.6-Structural welding Code - Stainless Steel? Thanks for any help. I got your name from practical welding.
John

Hi John,
Let’s dispel a few myths: Companies are not AWS-D1.1 “Certified” or “AWS-D1.1 facilities”. They simply comply, or they do not, and they call on folks like you and I to insure that. It’s not uncommon for contract documents to call for compliance to AWS D1.1 when the work being requested falls outside the limitations of AWS D1.1. The code is so accepted throughout industry that often those calling it out are unaware of its requirements. It has become some-what of a “Boiler Plate”.
The D1.1 committee recognizes this. If you look to the Limitations of D1.1 noted in Cause 1 at 1.2 it states, “The code may be suitable to govern structural fabrications outside the scope of the intended purpose.” It then goes on to state that the user may be better off looking into the requirements of other D1 documents that are more practical for your application (I used a little creative liberty in that last line).
In your case, AWS D1.3 and AWS D1.6 are far more applicable. Focusing your procedure and welder qualification on these codes will (a.) comply with AWS D1.1 and (b.) save your company, or the company you are working with, boat loads of money.
You could certainly review the job requirements and develop the requirements to AWS D1.1, but you would find yourself doing PQR’s and Welder Qualifications that may not have been required if you had used the Pre-Qualified procedures laid out in AWS-D1.3 and AWS-D1.6.
Using documents like AWS-D1.2, D1.3, D1.4, D1.5 and D1.6 when your welding doesn’t quite fit in a D1.1 box is certainly considered acceptable when your contract documents read, “All welding shall comply with AWS-D1.1”.
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

Weld Penetration Problems

Ken P...

Our problem, we get linear porosity at the furthest point of penetration (heavy plate). The size of porosity is 0.3mm dia. but occurs regularly in every weld sectioned so far. Please suggest any steps, which should be checked.
Weld Info: Semi-Automatic process, Spray Transfer, Blasted Material, Electrode: 0.045" ER70S-6, Gas: 91Ar / 5Co2 / 4O2 @ 35cfh, WFS: 485ipm, Travel Speed: 13ipm, Amps: 335A, Voltage: 29.3, Finished weld size is 12mm

Ken,
I would suspect that your weld penetration profile is showing “finger penetration” (Not sure if that is a real term but), a real deep area of penetration at the weld root. The profile is much deeper (at this location) than it is wide. This will cause this area to open up during solidification.
Grab your copy of AWS D1.1 and check out the Commentary section at C3.7.2 “Width/Depth Pass Limitations” also, Figure C-3.2 “Examples of Centerline Cracking”.
I was asked to troubleshoot a similar condition during a job interview for a former employer. To save money, they had changed a process from an 0.045 dia. electrode to an 0.052 dia. When they made the change they did not change any other parameters. The high wire feed with the larger diameter electrode created a considerable increase in current which equates to a considerable increase in root penetration. Like you, everywhere they sectioned, they had this pore, which I believe was more of a linear void. A reduction in WFS, although not popular, eliminated the problem. P.S. I got the job!
Typically, a reduction in current (WFS) will reduce this finger penetration and this should remedy your issue. One other thing; yours is a weird shielding gas mixture. Not sure why you would go with so much Oxygen but I don’t know your whole story. If you can, replace the Oxygen with more Co2. Perhaps that will change your weld profile as well.

Good Luck! PWC

"It's Good to be Me!"

Which welds are required to be visually inspected and by who?

Ed called: “We work on Off-Road and Lifting Equipment and our welders are qualified per AWS D1.1. Which welds are required to be visually inspected and by who?”

Ed, A few documents you should consider adding to your welding library are:
• AWS D14.1- Specification for Welding Industrial & Mill Cranes & Other Material Handling Equipment,
• AWS D14.3- Specification for Welding Earthmoving, Construction & Agricultural Equipment -and-
• AWS D14.4- Specification for Welded Joints in Machinery & Equipment
These welding specifications are a little more applicable to the industry <> services.

You asked which welds are required to be visually inspected and I had to snicker… There was a time in my life when on one side of my Hard Hat was printed “AWS D1.1 Sec 6.9” I would get this question, smile, point to my Hard Hat and say, “Look it up!”

AWS D1.1 keeps it simple, Clause 6.9 – Visual Inspection, “All welds shall be visually inspected…” Section 10.6 of D14.1 is similar, “All welds shall be visually examined.” That doesn’t leave a lot of “wiggle room”. A qualified inspector needs to visually inspect all welds.

As to who the qualified inspector is, I told you over the phone that a Certified Welding Inspector (CWI) isn’t required. Welding codes and standards typically accept the qualifications of a CWI but they don’t require certification. AWS D1.1 and D14.1 require inspectors to be qualified and that the bases for qualification are documented. In addition, D1.1 requires a regular eye exam.

As long as <> writes a qualification procedure for your inspectors, the inspectors conform to Para: (1), (2) or (3) [see D1.1 Para: 6.1.4.1 or D14.1 Para: 10.1.3] and <> maintains documentation that those inspectors meet the qualification requirements, visual weld inspection can be handled internally.

A great document to use as a guide for developing your Weld Inspector Qualification Procedure is AWS B5.1 – Specification for the Qualification of Welding Inspectors (http://files.aws.org/certification/docs/b5.1-2003-errata.pdf). This is a free download made available by the American Welding Society at www.aws.org

As for what I had printed on the other side of my Hard Hat… “AWS D1.1 Sec 3.1, 2nd Sentence”. Look it up! But that’s a whole other column.

"It's Good to be Me."

PWC

Pulsed Welding Equipment

Cory G. from Norther Iowa asks:

"We use the Pulsed GMAW process with Lincoln equipment. When setting weld voltage the Trim can be adjusted between 0.5 and 1.5
What do those numbers mean and how to they relate to weld voltage?"

Pulsed welding equipment can challenge the conventional wisdom we’ve picked up over the years using a good ol’ constant voltage (CV) GMAW (Mig) welder. With typical CV equipment, the Welder will select a voltage and wire feed speed (WFS) combination, possibly a percentage of slope and/or inductance and then be ready to weld. Today’s pulsed Mig equipment changes most of that.

Most pulsed Mig welders run on pre-set programs. The Welder will select the type of wire, the wires diameter, possibly a base material and the shielding gas used. From this information the equipment will look at the WFS selected and do a calculation as to what the optimum weld voltage should be.

Of course, this optimum voltage may need some type of adjustment depending on the needs of the Welder. Example: The optimum weld voltage to weld a flat position, 3/8 inch fillet (1F) at 475 ipm may not be optimum to weld a root pass in a horizontal groove (2G) at the same WFS. Understanding that, each manufacturer of this equipment has built-in, an adjustment for voltage. Think of it as a percentage of optimum voltage.

Manufacturers may give you a 0.50 to 1.50 range, or a 0 to 50 range, or something similar. All will call this “Trim”. Using the 0.50 to 1.50 range as an example, 1.00 would be considered the optimum setting. When you reduce your Trim from 1.00 to 0.85, you have reduced arc length and, in doing so, reduced weld voltage. Similarly, when you increased Trim to, say 1.15, you’ve increased arc length and, in doing so, increased weld voltage.

This is very similar to what you were doing all along on that old CV Mig equipment. When you reduced voltage, you were reducing arc length. Even with this new fancy equipment the age-old understanding that “Weld voltage has a direct relationship to arc length” doesn’t change.
What’s different is that a Trim of 1.00 for a given electrode (type/dia.) will give you a completely different weld voltage when you change electrode, shielding gas or WFS.

Most of today’s pulsed equipment will display average weld voltage as the equipment is welding, and some will continue to display it for a short period (seconds) after welding has stopped. This feature helps the welder monitor compliance to the weld procedure (WPS).

PWC

"It's Good to be Me."