Hey there Paul,
Had a message sent to me from a former employee, they wanted to share with me that "because I was certified by the AWS through the SENSE program my Level 2 certification (QC11) never expires."
Was curious if you're ever heard anything like this before?
Neil
Neil,
Correct, when certified through SENSE QC11 it never expires (QC10 expires after 1 year, see 9.1). Keep in mind, this is certification to a level of education and skills training.
I received my “Degree of Occupational Proficiency – Welding” from Duluth Area Vo-Tech in 1980, it never expired. It simply was proof that I completed the program. An employer who understood the Minnesota Education System for “Degree(s) of Occupational Proficiency” understood the minimum requirements. So they understood what they were getting in potential employees (skill-wise anyway). Like the vast majority of Welders I was never a “Certified” Welder, I was simply a “Welder” who was “qualified” by my company per AWS (or ASME or API…).
QC10 & QC11 were developed to create a standard for Welder Education. Prior to the SENSE program, I could have a certificate in Welding from my local trade school, but if I moved out of my local school district, Lord knows what it meant. The SENSE program puts a clear, understandable meaning to “Entry Level” and “Advanced Welder”.
An employer is still required to administer a qualification test and maintain a continuity log. Hiring a Welder out of a SENSE program simply helps the employer understand who they’re hiring.
Don’t get a “SENSE Certified” Welder confused with an “AWS Certified” Welder. One is certified to a level of education, the other is certified to a Process, Position, Electrode… The later requires the Certified Welder to maintain continuity through the AWS.
Hope that helps.
PWC
Friday, April 8, 2016
Tuesday, March 8, 2016
How Many Weld Passes?
What determines how many passes you need to make? My understanding is the weld needs to be the same profile as base metal.
Tim K.
Tim
There is a lot that goes into determining the number of passes. First and foremost, you have to review your WPS to see what the minimum or maximum pass number requirements might be. When the WPS does not specify then you're free to use as many or as few as your skills allow.
Here are some things that will determine number of passes:
*Travel Speed - The higher the travel speed, the lower volume of weld, the more individual passes needed.
*Weave Width or Oscillation - As with Travel, the smaller the weave the lower the volume and the higher the required number of individual beads.
*Joint Configuration - All other parameters the same, a bevel groove will need more passes then a V- groove.
*Electrode Diameter and Wire Feed Speed (WFS) - Again, all other parameters the same, larger diameter electrodes or higher WFS will increase volume per pass and decrease the overall number of passes.
Example:
A 3/8" Welder Qualification plate test completed in the 1G (flat) position might be done in as few as 2 passes, or, in as many as 7 or more. Either can be perfectly acceptable welds made by a skilled Welder.
That same joint in the 2G (horizontal) position would probably require a minimum of 4 passes and may take as many as 9-10. Same weld quality, just different Welder technique and comfort level.
Same joint in the 3G (vertical) would typically take a minimum of 3 passes but would be of equal quality if it took 5-6 passes.
Code books typically limit minimum and maximum pass size. That is dependent on process, heat input requirements, material thickness and position of welding.
I've given 1000's of Welder Qualification tests and I'm almost always asked, "How many passes do I use?" My response is always, no less then 3, and as many as it takes to insure the Groove is full, and has no more then 1/8" of Weld Reinforcement (Crown). Other then that, you're on your own.
PWC
Tim K.
TimThere is a lot that goes into determining the number of passes. First and foremost, you have to review your WPS to see what the minimum or maximum pass number requirements might be. When the WPS does not specify then you're free to use as many or as few as your skills allow.
Here are some things that will determine number of passes:
*Travel Speed - The higher the travel speed, the lower volume of weld, the more individual passes needed.
*Weave Width or Oscillation - As with Travel, the smaller the weave the lower the volume and the higher the required number of individual beads.
*Joint Configuration - All other parameters the same, a bevel groove will need more passes then a V- groove.
*Electrode Diameter and Wire Feed Speed (WFS) - Again, all other parameters the same, larger diameter electrodes or higher WFS will increase volume per pass and decrease the overall number of passes.
Example:A 3/8" Welder Qualification plate test completed in the 1G (flat) position might be done in as few as 2 passes, or, in as many as 7 or more. Either can be perfectly acceptable welds made by a skilled Welder.
That same joint in the 2G (horizontal) position would probably require a minimum of 4 passes and may take as many as 9-10. Same weld quality, just different Welder technique and comfort level.
Same joint in the 3G (vertical) would typically take a minimum of 3 passes but would be of equal quality if it took 5-6 passes.
Code books typically limit minimum and maximum pass size. That is dependent on process, heat input requirements, material thickness and position of welding.I've given 1000's of Welder Qualification tests and I'm almost always asked, "How many passes do I use?" My response is always, no less then 3, and as many as it takes to insure the Groove is full, and has no more then 1/8" of Weld Reinforcement (Crown). Other then that, you're on your own.
PWC
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
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
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 4.6Over 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
Tuesday, December 29, 2015
“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
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;
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
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
Wednesday, November 4, 2015
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
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?
NeilHow does one support a WPS from multiple PQR's?
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)