Welding, Codes and Questions

Paul,

In evaluating a FCAW weld cross section to AWS D1.1:2010, the weld engineer has asked that the CJP groove weld be evaluated by 4.9.4.1 for PJP. This is a requirement that the weld engineer has asked for.

The Macro weld cross section as evaluated, revealed anomalies in the base material (A36), see photo. In the cross section the base material shows laminations. Under higher magnification the laminations (or tearing/crack) in base material are confirmed.
The laminations have to be considered a Crack and rejectable per 4.9.4.1(a) and the weld engineer’s requirement, correct?

Dale,
Leave it to me to be the dude that disagrees with the engineer.
Breaking my first "cardinal rule" of weld inspection (CR-1: Never evaluate a weld from a photo), the anomalies you've noted are not in the weld. Nor are they (with the exception of one) in the H.A.Z. (heat affected zone). Nor do they run in a direction which would suggest a welding related problem.
If you have concluded that these are laminations (Dye-Pen [PT] would confirm) they would not be included in 4.9.4.1
These laminations should be evaluated per the material specification of the base material (ASTM A36). That should be the criteria used to determine acceptance.
On the other hand, the beauty of being the "Engineer" is that your word is final. So if you're asking me, I say this weld is acceptable and the laminations should be evaluated per ASTM A36, but you go with whatever the Engineer determines.

Paul,

IS THERE ANYONE ON YOUR STAFF THAT CAN TELL ME HOW TO IDENTIFY TUNGSTEN AFTER THE PAINT IS WORN OFF?

Signed Reader

There are 2 common weld processes that use a non-consumable, tungsten electrode, Gas Tungsten Arc Welding (GTAW/Tig/HeliArc) and Plasma Arc Welding (PAW). These electrodes come in a variety of compositions or alloys. Each composition serves a specific purpose.

Pure tungsten electrodes (AWS classification EWP) contain 99.50% tungsten. These electrodes provide good arc stability for AC welding on aluminum and magnesium. Their color designation is GREEN.

2% thoriated tungsten electrodes (AWS classification EWTh-2) contain 1.70 to 2.20% thorium. They are the most commonly used. Unlike pure tungsten, these electrodes are exceptional for DC electrode negative or straight polarity on carbon and stainless steels. Their color designation is RED.

2% ceriated tungsten electrodes (AWS classification EWCe-2) contain 1.80 to 2.20% cerium. These electrodes perform best in DC welding at low current settings but can be used in AC or DC processes. Their color designation is ORANGE.

1.5% lanthanated tungsten electrodes (AWS classification EWLa-1.5) contain 1.30 to 1.70% lanthanum, or lanthana. These electrodes have many of the same advantages as ceriated electrodes. They also closely resemble the conductivity characteristics of 2% thoriated tungsten. Their color designation is GOLD

Zirconiated tungsten electrodes (AWS classification EWZr-1) contain 0.15 to 0.40% zirconium. It is ideal for AC welding and under no circumstance is zirconiated recommended for DC welding. Their color designation is BROWN.

Each of these electrodes placed side-by-side look identical. For that reason a color code system has been developed to designate each. Short of sending them to a lab for analysis ($$$) once the color designation is gone, there is no way to tell what type of tungsten you're holding.

As the hack Tig (GTAW) welder I am, I keep short, unmarked tungstens in old military stick match containers. Each container is clearly marked as to the type of tungsten inside. Along with that, I always-always-always break down my torch when I'm done and store the tungsten in its designated container.

This works for me in my garage. This would not be a good practice in a manufacturing or code environment.

Once the marking is removed the tungsten is not traceable and you just lost control of your weld process.

PWC

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

Preparing for a trip to Oregon for my little brothers wedding my wife Dianne bought me an Esquire magazine. “You just need to read this.” It sits around the house, showing up everyplace I find to relax for a moment. Finally, I pick it up. In amongst the men’s fragrances, schwanky alcoholic beverages and Mini Cooper ads is a section titled, “Grooming – Man at His Best”, sub-title “Summer Feet”. After reading about pumice stones, exfoliation and lotions it hits me, “This is why they bought this.”

Being one far too advanced to fall for simple trickery, I asked, “Is this why you got me this magazine?” Her response, “Well, you’re not going to find this stuff in your damn welding magazines.”

She’s right, so let’s change that. Let’s talk PPE & hygiene…

Starting at the top – Your hard hat has a service life that few folks monitor. It is designed to protect you once. When it does, we say thank you and replace both the shell and head band.

Days can get long and hot. I put hard hats, welding helmets and jock straps in the same category… I don’t share them, you shouldn’t either. Would it kill you to wash or replace the head band in both from time to time? Maybe you have helmets or face shields that are stored at equipment and used by others. Keep a disinfectant (wipe or spray) available for everyone to use.

You spend your whole shift singing into that Welding Hood. Break it down and clean it out with a little soap and water. It also wouldn’t hurt to wear a disposable respirator. It won’t do much for your singing, it tends to muffle the sound (your co-workers will appreciate that) but it should keep your lungs and helmet clean. Keep in mind that Positive Air Flow hoods have their own replaceable components. Change them regularly. And I don’t care how many generations have passed down your Huntsman, when it’s cracked we don’t duct tape it, we replace it.

Ear protection, whether muffs or molded or disposable, need cleaning or replacing regularly. For muffs or molded hearing protection, always follow the manufacturers’ recommendations for maintenance. For disposable hearing protection, replace them with a new set every time you remove them.

Protect your hands with gloves that are appropriate for the Weld Process you are using. Gloves for GTAW (Tig) can be significantly different than the gloves used for FCAW. Insure heat and light can not penetrate them. Replace gloves with any holes. Replace leather gloves that shrink up so bad you can’t get your trigger finger in them. Don’t get them wet and don’t get them oily. You hands are counting on you to protect them. Choosing a glove because it’s light could be a bad decision. Choose a glove because it’s right.

Leathers, flame retardant jackets, chaps need to be free from holes and frays. Unless they can be repaired by a Leathersmith, they should be replaced. Insure they cover any cotton clothing from ultraviolet rays. A day of exposure to the welding arc can be hell on your neck, wrists or crotch (ouch). Insure your PPE protects you completely.

Finally your boots, insure they are appropriate for your welding environment. Snow and rain can be hard on leather. Waterproofing can do wonders for your feet over a 10hr day. Keep your socks dry. Keeping a fresh pair can be great around lunch time. Gravity will insure all spatter and sparks land directly on top of your boots, make sure your laces are ready for that.

And as noted in Esquire; a pumice stone to the foot and a little lotion may just keep your significant other happy and lengthen the life of your bed sheets.

PWC

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

Came in and found this in my Inbox…
“Subject: RE: Welder - Riceville IA

Mr Cameron
I just submitted my resume and application online there today :)
You was a very great teacher you made me had a great learning expierence :)
Thank you very much :)=
Sara Lee B.”

Sara Lee has 2 children and has recently divorced. She’s about the same age as my daughter. She dropped out of school after 7th grade, but now has her GED. She is hoping a night class at the local community college, will help her secure a good job, and give her the hand up she could use right now.

Sara is going to take a Welding test on Thursday. She texted me after she got the call and said she was “gonna be sick”.

Keep Sara in your prayers on Thursday, but know… I’ve watched Sara Lee do this so many times with Everything else on her mind, that doing it Thursday with This on her mind is nothin’.

To those of you who look for change from the couch…
Turn your hat around!
Take the metal out of your face!
Put on a pair of jeans without holes and pull ‘em all the way up!
Lace up your boots, cover your cleavage and get your ass in my class!

It’s good to be me!

What makes a good ground (Work Lead) connection and why is it important?

In a welding circuit, current needs to pass through as few connections as possible and the circuit it self needs to be as short as is practical.
On the positive (+) side current passes through the (+) stud connection, the feeder connection, the Gun connection and the contact tip (to the wire) connection. With the exception of the wire, all of those connections are typically, copper or brass.
On the negative (-) side current should passes through the (-) stud connection, the cable to the Work Lead (ground) clamp, possibly across a rotating surface and then to the work piece.
When any of these connections are anything less than clean copper or brass to clean copper or brass the possibility of a poor connection and a current and/or voltage loss exists. These losses can be great enough to run outside the parameters of the weld procedure causing spatter or a lack of fusion. That can get a welder into trouble.
Some good examples of poor connections would be:

A Work Lead (ground) connected to a building column.

Using a steel building column and a steel bolt, this connection will oxidize (rust) and create resistance.

A Work Lead (ground) connected to a steel plate run across the floor.

Of course the initial connection is the same as the building column.
When that steel plate isn't of a sufficient size (area) and that plate is joined by one or several welds (extra reduction in area) the condition are ripe for a drop in current and/or voltage.

The 2 conditions mentioned above also create a safety issue. Once a Work Lead (ground) contacts a building it gives current alternate routes. One of the most popular is through a jib or bridge crane.

Aside from creating havoc with the cranes electrical system, current passes through the lifting devices (cables, hooks and chains), heating them over and over and thus weakening them and making them susceptible to failure.
One last good example of a poor connection would be an unlubricated rotary clamp, or a rotary clamp lubricated with a lubricant that is not made for electrical connections.

A key to quality welding starts with a good quality circuit and a key component of that circuit is the condition of the Work Lead (ground).

Side Note: Notice I’ve replaced the word “ground” with “Work Lead”. You should too. Keep in mind, a welding “ground’ doesn’t ground anything.
PWC

Paul,

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

Thanks K. B.

Your question insinuates that if your shielding gas mixture is not Argon rich enough to obtain a Spray Transfer mode the only alternative is Short Circuit Transfer, that's just not the case.

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

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

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

Hi Paul,
I see your references on The Fabricator.com website and am wondering; how I can inspect/verify welds on painted product without being destructive?

Best regards,
Eric D.

Hey Eric,
On fabricated products coatings come in many types. galvanizing, paint, even the oxidizing of a weathering steel will have negative effects on the inspection of welded products. For visual inspection (a form of nondestructive evaluation) any coating on the finished weld has the potential to mask or cover rejectable discontinuities such as size, cracks, undercut, overlap, porosity, etc… Keep in mind, when we list defects by criticality, those that come to the surface generally top the list. So there is risk in completing a visual inspection on any coated product.
That being said, as a CWI I’m often asked to do visual inspection on coated product. I do, but I will ALWAYS note that the weldment viewed was coated and that coating limited the inspection.
As for other forms of NDE…
•Die penetrant (PT) would not be affective. With die penetrants the discontinuity needs to come to the surface and the penetrent needs to enter the discontinuity through capillary action. Any coatings would not allow that to happen.

•Magnetic particle testing (MT) does have the potential to reveal sub-surface discontinuities but that ability is limited and any coating will certainly affect its dependability. MT will not work on your aluminum products, the material tested needs to be ferromagnetic.
•It’s not uncommon to do Ultrasonic testing (UT) on coated weldments. I’ve performed UT on thousands of galvanized and painted products successfully. Calibrations need to be adapted to allow for loss due to the coating, but those types of inspections are performed every day (at least in my world).
•Radiograph (RT) is another nondestructive method that would not be affected by most coatings. In fact, RT would probably be the least affected.
So there ya’ go. There are several nondestructive methods of NDE that can be performed on coated products, there are simply some adjustments that may be required due to the coating. But your most affective form of nondestructive testing is visual inspection performed before, during and after welding and prior to any coating.

Ask me the time and I build you a watch.
PWC

UPDATE:

In this original posting I talked about common solutions to Pin Holes. My apologies for not picking up on this, but in his question Marv B. stated that prior to welding he “tried cleaning them [the components] with Brake Cleaner”. Welding and Brake Cleaners can be a deadly combination.

There are many warnings on the “everyday” chemicals we use. Often, I will simply assume that if it’s sold over the counter surely it must be safe. But the SDS (Safety Data Sheet) for a can of brake cleaner may read, “Do not use this product near open flames, welding operations or excessive heat. Vapors may decompose to harmful or fatal corrosive gasses such as hydrogen chloride and possibly phosgene.” This can be debilitating or even deadly to the Welder or those around him/her.

There are many manufacturers of cleaners, removers and degreasers used throughout our industry. Most are safe when used as directed, so pay attention to the product labeling and review the products Safety Data Sheet (SDS). Please use caution when determining how your weldment will be cleaned. Only use approved cleaners to the manufacturer’s instruction. Read the warnings and review the products SDS. As my old boss used to say, “Somebody wants you home tonight.”

Thanks to Steve 'Brewdude' Garn who shares his experience on welding and brake cleaners at (http://www.brewracingframes.com/safety-alert-brake-cleaner--phosgene-gas.html). I also want to give a special Thanks to the loyal readers that pointed my over-site. You come to us for good advice and I should pay attention to details when giving it.

PWC

**************************************
Hi Paul,
I was doing a search over the internet and came across your contact information. If you don’t mind, can you help me with a problem?
I am machining a Bearing Housing made out of 1045. I have to plug and weld some cross holes. I am using 1018 for the plugs. I am also using a tig welder to eliminate too large of a weld. My problem is that I am getting pin holes in my weld. Is it because I am not preheating the part. or is it because I am welding 1018 to 1045?

We didn’t machine the parts dry so maybe there is a light film of coolant on the parts but I tried cleaning them and that didn’t seem to help.
If you could reply back that would be great or go ahead and give me a call.
Thanks!!!
Marv B.

Hey Marv,
The welding of the materials shouldn’t be a problem.
Let me ask, the machined port looks to be made up of 3 different drilling operations. Are all 3 completed before the plug is welded in?

The reason I ask…
If the port to be plugged is drilled first (others drilled after welding) trying to weld a plug in the hole creates a condition I’ve dealt with most of my career. When trying to seal weld the only opening in any cavity the air (or gases) in that cavity heat and expand. During that expansion a pin-hole will form at some location in the weld (just on solidification) to allow that expanding gas to escape. Molten metal makes a poor seal 
Pipe-Welders see this same condition when finishing the root pass in a purged pipe. If they don’t build an alternative location for the gas to escape the gas will blow through the final weld crater.
I also dealt with this condition on Flare Bevel Groove welds on a robotic application of a manufacturer where I served as Weld Engineer. We were able to remedy that with a punched whole on the faying surface of the joint.
Not sure if this is your condition, but if you’re trying to seal the only opening, it sure could be.
Let me know.
PWC

Hi Paul,

As I was looking through the AWS website I found accredited test facilities listings. Then digging a little deeper I found AWS QC4-89 (standards for accreditation of test facilities). I was of the understanding that given the CWI endorsement, I could certify welders to the standards laid out in D1.1.

Am I to understand that as a school, accreditation is where we need to get to in order to send welders out the door with a certification? If not, what is the accreditation good for, besides marketing?
I thought that I had a pretty good handle on where I was going with this, but now I am second guessing myself.
Once again, thanks for any clarification and/or advice you can give.

Richard F.

Hey Rich,
You’re getting your “qualified” and “certified” all cobbled together…
You may have been a qualified Welding Inspector (meaning you have the skills needed) and once a 3rd party evaluated those skills you became a Certified Welding Inspector (to QC-1).
I may be a qualified Welder (meaning I have the skills needed) and once someone evaluated my skills against a standard and found that I met that standard I became a Certified Welder (to my employer or my trade union…)
The AWS runs a Certified Welder Program (Much like a Certified Inspector, Certified Educator or Certified Supervisor). To run a program like that the AWS would need testing facilities around the country to do the testing. The AWS wants to keep “tight wraps” on the program to maintain the programs integrity so they developed a program to certify a facility. So there are guidelines your facility would need to meet to become an AWS Certified Test Facility.

You can still administer welder qualification tests without being an AWS Certified Test Facility, but those welders would be certified per AWS-D1.1, not AWS Certified Welders. There is a difference.
A Welder takes a test at your facility or at his/her employer and those test results are not transferable employer to employer. That Welders qualifications/certifications are the property/responsibility of the company. A Welder who goes through the steps of becoming an AWS Certified Welder keeps that certification and that certification is portable.

There ya have it.
PWC

Hello Mr. Cameron,

I am writing this regards to an article you had wrote about grounding/grounds. I do have some

questions in regards to said article.

First of all do you have any references to the way grounds should be connected?

Secondly you mentioned in your article that grounding to a structure should not be used if at all possible. My question in regards to this: If OSHA regulations state that it is okay to ground to structures why say no to this?

The reason I am asking is that where I am employed we use the building structure for grounding purposes and we have people who are getting shocked while welding. The material is 6061, using pulse Mig and GTAW. The machines are grounded to the structure and from said structure to said welding fixture using a jumper. In a nutshell I'm trying to find references whether they be OSHA or from some other agency in regards to grounding.

Any help or information would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

Chris A.

Chris,

Yours is the perfect example of how the terms "ground" and "work piece lead" get used interchangeably. This leads to a dangerous situation.

On a common welding power source you will find a + stud and a - stud. To one of these you would attach a conduit leading to the electrode (ie: a wire feeder, a stinger, a Tig torch). To the other you would connect a conduit leading to a Work Lead Clamp. The polarity required would determine if the work lead runs from the + or - stud.

In the article you’re referencing I state, "…the work place lead does not ground anything." When installing welding equipment that statement is critical to remember.

OSHA will require that equipment be grounded to protect people from electric shock. The way equipment is grounded has nothing to do with the + or - stud on the front of the welding machine. This is accomplished through the permanent power connection supplying the machine (the plug). Or by a separate clamp and wire connecting the case or frame of the machine to ground (like the building). Sometimes both the plug and one of these wire connections is used. Again, they have nothing to do with the + or - stud on the machine.

ANSI Z49.1 - Safety in Welding and Cutting will require that the work table (positioner, fixture) also be grounded. This is accomplished with a conduit connected to the table or positioner, connecting it to a "driven rod" or often, the building. Again I clarify, this has nothing to with the + or - studs.

When we use the term "ground" we are talking about protection of people and equipment. You would be much better off referring to the leads coming off a welder as an electrode lead and a work lead, or a positive lead and a negative lead, but neither is ever considered a ground.

PWC

Paul W Cameron

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

Paul,

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

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

Timothy C. CWI, CWE

ACCP Level II VT, PT

ASNT TC-1A Level II MT, UTT

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

Tim,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PWC

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

Paul,

I know what you're thinking, another early Saturday morning question.

I've been looking at the requirements of obtaining a CWB inspector certification. Am I seeing this correctly? A CWB inspector can apply for a CWI by reciprocity by nothing more than an application and fees. But a CWI who wants to be a CWB, in this case a level 2, would fill out the application, pay fees, and still have to take an exam?

Doesn't strike me as "equivalent" or fair.

Tim C. CWI, CWE

Level II VT, PT, MT, UTT

Tim,

Your assessment is correct. For a CWB to apply for a CWI it’s just a fee and some paperwork. For a CWI to apply for a CWB it’s a test. Those Canucks take their welding seriously.

I was the Quality Manager in a pole manufacturing company that was CWB Certified. Every 6 months I had to hire a CWB engineer to audit my organization (and it was an in-depth look at our welding). There were a lot of hoops to jump through, but if we wanted to sell power-line poles in Canada it was a requirement.

I was also a contract CWI for a boss that was Canadian. Anytime I mentioned my past work as a Welding Engineer he would go ballistic. Calling yourself a Welding Engineer in Canada means you’ve met specific requirements in education and testing and if you referred to yourself as a Welding Engineer without meeting those requirements you could go to jail.

Some of the things I liked about working in a CWB shop: 1.) Welders had to retake their Welder Qualification Tests every 2 years. I believe that helped maintain weld quality in our shop. 2.) Welder Qualifications were given using a Bevel Groove. The first pass was a Fillet Weld of a specific size up against that square edge of the Bevel Groove. The fillet had to have a restart in it. The location of the restart was marked, and 1 of the 3 required bend coupons had to contain that restart.

One of the things I didn’t like was that they consider FCAW and GMAW with a Metal-Cored wire (MCAW) the same process (for welder qualification purposes). The Welding Engineer in me (said quietly so as not to be heard across the MN/Canadian border) sees these processes as requiring different skills.

When working in a shop that requires compliance to CWB and AWS this FCAW/MCAW thing reeks havoc. In fact, when I showed up for my first week at this pole shop I learned that All of the Welders took a FCAW test to get their job, but the shop ran about a 50/50 mix of FCAW and GMAW using Metal-Core. From a CWB perspective this was no “Biggie”, but from an AWS perspective (which was about 90% of what they did) no Welders were qualified for GMAW (and not one of the 4 CWI’s that worked there seemed concerned). What a mess!

The way I turned that around was by using the CWB 2yr retesting requirement. I gave MCAW tests, had them evaluated by the CWB to Canadian standards and evaluated them myself as a CWI to AWS standards. At 6 month intervals, over a 2 year period, those Welder Qualifications were brought up to speed.

If I was an independent contract CWI I’d probably pursue the CWB route, but if you work in a shop that’s considering bringing in CWB work then CWB/CWI reciprocity is the least of your worries.

PWC

Is Welding Really a Career Worth Pursuing?
My reply to your questions:

I first entered the welding industry in 1981 by signing up for the welding program at my local technical college. Today I work as a Nondestructive Test Technician and a Welding Inspector Educator, I would LOVE to answer your questions.

What are the true needs for these skilled professions?

State labor statistics all across the country will show that the rate of Welders leaving the work force to retire far out paces the number of Welders entering the work force. I’ve worked in manufacturing and construction in many different locations and have found contractors/employers struggling to fill the role of Welder. It is true that there have been many advances in the field of welding. Robotics, mechanization, automation has come along at a pretty fair clip, but it has barely put a dent in the need for skilled Welders and skilled Welding operators.

Patients, a steady hand, good hand-eye coordination and attention to detail would be characteristics of a good Welder candidate. I’ve found that when being challenged the most, my job as Welder was most satisfying. A Welder can easily find him/herself tethered to a beam 6 stories up having to use their hands for everything other than holding on. They may find themselves cramped inside a boiler where just standing up would be a much welcomed break. Maybe on a fast paced production line with overhead cranes sounding their alarms and hammers and scaling guns make so much noise it’s tough to hear your own thoughts. None of those situations sound glamorous, but after a slew of 6-10’s, when the buildings up, the boilers fired or the production quota is met, there’s a satisfying sense of accomplishment.

And if you have embarked on a career as a welder or a technician, why did you do that?

“One Lost Trouble Maker” would have described me back in the late ‘70’s, early ‘80’s. I pumped gas for minimum wage ($2.35hr-$2.90hr) for as many hours as the boss-man would give me. I had close friends who spent most of their High School days in shop class. One went to work in a machine shop right out of school, another got a Degree of Occupational Proficiency in Welding that summer and headed to the shipyard. They could get their own place, have a nice car, but they couldn’t hang out with us “cool kids” because they both worked the night shift. I was convinced I couldn’t work like that.

After a relationship changing conversation with my Dad I decided I was going to take Carpentry classes at our Technical College. I filled out all the paperwork and as I was heading out of the councilors office she shouted, “Mr. Cameron, you have to make a second choice.” It was a requirement. I checked the box that said Welding and left.

So, welding as a career was more or less thrust upon me, and I thank God it was.

Do you think you can make a career out of it?

I believe I’ve done that. When I left that $2.90hr job to attend Welding School I didn’t know how I was ever going to get by. After graduating 9 months later I went to work for $8.50hr and a 50hr week… 3^rdshift.

As a Welder, my wife and I, who was able to be a stay-at-home-Mom, raised 4 kids, meet every mortgage payment, lived in 4 states, travel all over the country and now educate others. I have an acronym, IGTBM, drives my kids crazy (It’s Good To Be Me). This year, for the 5^th year in a row, and for 10yrs over my career, I’ll exceed $90k. IGTBM Baby, IGTBM!

How is it different than you might have first imagined?

I imagined it would be hard work. I imagined it’d be dirty and noise. I imagined there would be day that sucked to go to work. I nailed that, but I never imagined the people I would meet, the opportunities that would be presented to me and the security that I feel knowing I have the security of a high demand field.

I was laid off from that first job after a little under 3yrs. I was out of work for a long time and falling back into my slump when I realized, my skills were portable. I packed my life into a Toyota Celica and headed West. Since then I‘ve been out of work once, for 3 days. I was fired from a job on Memorial Day Friday, took my family to visit Gramma & Grammpa for the weekend, purchased a Denver Post and started job shopping on the ride back home. I was hired that Wednesday. Again IGTBM!

Does it enable you to have a satisfying life outside the workplace?

OH HELL YA! Everybody busts it at work for their 8, 9, 10, 12 hr day. Once the week, the project, the goal is met, there is plenty of time (and money) to enjoy life. That’s not a Welding Thing, that’s a Work Thing.

Welding’s been good to me. I hope others consider this as a career.

God Bless,

PWC

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

Cracks or Laminations, they can't be both

Color Coding of Tungsten Electrodes

GMAW-S & Pre-Qualified Weld Procedures

Exfoliation and Bed Sheets

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

…you made me had…

A Welding "Ground" doesn't ground anything!

GMAW Globular Transfer

Those damn CVN requirement...

"Put your finger on it"

Weld Inspection After Coating

Pinholes and Purging

You’re getting your “qualified” and “certified” all cobbled together…

It's a Work Lead... it doesn't ground anything

Maybe B2.1 is the better choice...

Repair WPS

Fillet Welds on Corner Joints

Those Canucks take their welding seriously

Is Welding Really a Career Worth Pursuing?

Preheat and Toe Cracks, Sounds Painful!