Welding Certification test Q&A and tips and tricks
Rick_H
  • Posts:
  • Joined:
    Sat Feb 08, 2014 1:50 pm
  • Location:
    PA/MD

AKweldshop wrote:OH MAN!!! :shock:

Please don't weave that wide.
Agreed to large of an area to weave, stringers will be more consistent IMO.
I weld stainless, stainless and more stainless...Food Industry, sanitary process piping, vessels, whatever is needed, I like to make stuff.
ASME IX, AWS 17.1, D1.1
Instagram #RNHFAB
Butcher
  • Posts:
  • Joined:
    Mon Jan 05, 2015 11:14 pm

What is the reason to not weave so wide? Slag inclusions?
User avatar
  • Posts:
  • Joined:
    Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:13 pm
  • Location:
    Eddy, TX

There are several reasons that weaving wide like that can be bad. The first two are slag inclusions and lack of fusion. It looks like that is what happened in your bend tests. Another reason is the code you are welding to and/or the WPS by a given company or customer. I would recommend trying stringers.

However, technically you can weave as wide as you want to as long as you can prove it will pass. There is technically nothing we can say against a wide weave if you pass your bend tests repeatedly.

I have a stack of 1" plates and some .052 71M, maybe you need to come over one night and run one in the garage. You are more than welcome.
-Jonathan
User avatar
  • Posts:
  • Joined:
    Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:40 pm
  • Location:
    Near New Orleans

Just as a rule of thumb (and I don't recall whether this was from AWS D1.1 for materials of 3/4"+, another code, or an anecdote from a weld inspector), you should never weave to produce wider than a 5/8" bead. That would mean stacking weaves, and the cap would be two weaves rather than a single wide weave in your example.

There's much more control in keeping a smaller weave, which is why stringers are often preferred. In a WPS, it may state "stringers" with occilation permitted. Occilation is a slight weave that broadens the puddle, but does not leave "tracks" as evidence of weaving.

Steve S
jef1
  • Posts:
  • Joined:
    Mon Feb 09, 2015 4:26 pm
  • Location:
    Erie, PA

Agreed. That weave is way too wide. Try splitting that into two smaller weaves and weave faster. It appears that your weave was very slow and that can allow your slag to freeze. Once the slag freezes you run the risk of trapping it in your weld when you run back over it. I will also caution you about running a grinder down the toes of your weld. It can create a groove that has a high depth to width ratio which can create problems with slag inclusions and incomplete fusion. Instead of holding a 90 degree work angle while weaving, try twisting your wrist from left to right as you progress up the plate. This will give you a much smoother transition between the weld and base metal. You want a slightly concave fill pass so that there is no void between base and weld metal. This void is what is trapping slag in your coupons. \

Hope I helped, good luck,
Jesse
Butcher
  • Posts:
  • Joined:
    Mon Jan 05, 2015 11:14 pm

I can't pull pictures off of my phone to post. I about ran out of flux core and it has been on backorder for a few weeks so I started using outershield, Lincoln's 71 M. This stuff I can lay vertical stringers with very easily, I can't with the flux core (Lincoln NR 211 I think). I had a test piece all set to send out and decided to trim the ends off since it was longer than needed anyways.

I found a slag inclusion at each end so I removed the backing bar and had slag all the way up the root. When I layed my root pass I weaved it a little bit and had a heck of a time grinding out the slag, it seemed like I ground out most of the metal I layed in there and am positive I didn't see any more slag. I had to of trapped slag between the base metal and the filler material. I had a backing bar and 1/4" gap so I wasn't hardly having to weave at all.

Next test I am just going to lay stringers for the root and test it, if it is good then I will do one to cert.
jwright650
  • Posts:
  • Joined:
    Wed Dec 03, 2014 3:27 pm

Otto Nobedder wrote:Just as a rule of thumb (and I don't recall whether this was from AWS D1.1 for materials of 3/4"+, another code, or an anecdote from a weld inspector), you should never weave to produce wider than a 5/8" bead.
It is shown in AWS D1.1:2010, Clause 3, Table 3.7 "Prequalified WPS Requirements", Maximum Single Pass Layer Width, Note e for GMAW/FCAW

" In F, H, or OH positions for nontubulars, split layers when the layer width w>5/8 in. In the vertical position for nontubulars or the flat, horizontal, vertical, and overhead positions for tubulars, split layers when the width w>1 in."

Edit* not sure why this Table lumps GMAW in with FCAW when the out of position spray method of transfer is all that is prequalified....GMAW-S is not prequalified. GMAW spray does not lend itself to out of position welding.
John Wright
AWS Certified Welding Inspector
NDT Level II UT, VT, MT and PT
NACE CIP Level I Coating Inspector
taz
  • Posts:
  • Joined:
    Mon May 26, 2014 12:43 pm
  • Location:
    Athens - Greece

Superiorwelding wrote: However, technically you can weave as wide as you want to as long as you can prove it will pass. There is technically nothing we can say against a wide weave if you pass your bend tests repeatedly.
That is not accurate. Bend tests only give information on discontinuities on the weld and ductility. This is why they are used for welder performance qualifications but a lot more tests are required to qualify a welding procedure.
A weave that wide will have an increased heat input which among others will lower the toughness (impact properties) of the weld.
jwright650
  • Posts:
  • Joined:
    Wed Dec 03, 2014 3:27 pm

taz wrote:
Superiorwelding wrote: However, technically you can weave as wide as you want to as long as you can prove it will pass. There is technically nothing we can say against a wide weave if you pass your bend tests repeatedly.
That is not accurate. Bend tests only give information on discontinuities on the weld and ductility. This is why they are used for welder performance qualifications but a lot more tests are required to qualify a welding procedure.
A weave that wide will have an increased heat input which among others will lower the toughness (impact properties) of the weld.
True...AWS D1.1 Clause 4 is for qualifying welding procedures that do not fall into the pre-qualified category. In Clause 4 Part B, it lists the type and number of qualification tests required to qualify a welding procedure. (ie. Visual Inspection, NDT, Face, Root and Side bend, reduced section tension, all weld metal tension, and macro-etch)

if you wanted to use a large weave as Superiorwelding suggested, then it would not fall into the pre-qualified category and you would have to subject the procedure to the qualification rigors listed in Clause 4 to prove through testing that your large weave indeed works without failing.
John Wright
AWS Certified Welding Inspector
NDT Level II UT, VT, MT and PT
NACE CIP Level I Coating Inspector
User avatar
  • Posts:
  • Joined:
    Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:13 pm
  • Location:
    Eddy, TX

jwright650 wrote:
taz wrote:
Superiorwelding wrote: However, technically you can weave as wide as you want to as long as you can prove it will pass. There is technically nothing we can say against a wide weave if you pass your bend tests repeatedly.
That is not accurate. Bend tests only give information on discontinuities on the weld and ductility. This is why they are used for welder performance qualifications but a lot more tests are required to qualify a welding procedure.
A weave that wide will have an increased heat input which among others will lower the toughness (impact properties) of the weld.
True...AWS D1.1 Clause 4 is for qualifying welding procedures that do not fall into the pre-qualified category. In Clause 4 Part B, it lists the type and number of qualification tests required to qualify a welding procedure. (ie. Visual Inspection, NDT, Face, Root and Side bend, reduced section tension, all weld metal tension, and macro-etch)

if you wanted to use a large weave as Superiorwelding suggested, then it would not fall into the pre-qualified category and you would have to subject the procedure to the qualification rigors listed in Clause 4 to prove through testing that your large weave indeed works without failing.
taz,
Thanks for the reply. You are correct, in a way, that a welder qualification is a guided bend test but keep in mind this is a pre-approved process therefore will not need a PQR. Also, Butcher is taking this test at our local career center mainly for the "bragging rights" so to speak to look better on a resume. With that in mind, the school and testing lab (same lab we use) allow weaving or stringers and both pass all the time. Technically when he leaves the school his certs are void anyway. He has switched to stringers and it doing very well with that method.

One thing I will point out for conversation is you mentioned that a guided bent test only gives information on discontinuities on/in the weld and the ductility of the weld. I propose that if you were to take your 3G test with stringers at a given amperage, say 150 and I take the same test using 250 amps but I weave and we do the calculations proving that we both were putting in the same heat input thus having the same HAZ, wouldn't that prove my procedure is just as good as yours? And if we performed a PQR using our methods and arrive at the same conclusion, would it not matter then which method we use??

Now, don't get me wrong, I agree with what John shows in D1.1 about acceptible limits, I am just making good conversation.
-Jonathan
jwright650
  • Posts:
  • Joined:
    Wed Dec 03, 2014 3:27 pm

Heat input (joules per inch) = Volts x Amps x 60 divided by travel speed (measured by in/min)

I suppose there is an "assumption" that a weave (particularly a wide weave) will not have the same "forward" travel speed along the joint, therefore given all other info remaining the same, the heat input increases due to the slower travel speed.
John Wright
AWS Certified Welding Inspector
NDT Level II UT, VT, MT and PT
NACE CIP Level I Coating Inspector
taz
  • Posts:
  • Joined:
    Mon May 26, 2014 12:43 pm
  • Location:
    Athens - Greece

Most codes allow for variations in the electrical parameters provided you stay within the qualified heat input. So if you could weave that wide and still move fast enough to stay within the qualified heat input you should be ok.
However considering we are talking about SMAW and the fact that most electrodes have a recommended current range it is almost impossible to weave that wide and still be able to move fast enough while making an acceptable weld. You will have to progress at a speed that will lead to an increased heat input.
EN 1011-2 "Welding Recommendations for welding of metallic materials — Arc welding of ferritic steels" states that for SMAW the weave width should be restricted to 3 times the diameter of the core rod. Similar guidelines exist in many companies recommended practices.
User avatar
  • Posts:
  • Joined:
    Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:13 pm
  • Location:
    Eddy, TX

taz wrote:Most codes allow for variations in the electrical parameters provided you stay within the qualified heat input. So if you could weave that wide and still move fast enough to stay within the qualified heat input you should be ok.
However considering we are talking about SMAW and the fact that most electrodes have a recommended current range it is almost impossible to weave that wide and still be able to move fast enough while making an acceptable weld. You will have to progress at a speed that will lead to an increased heat input.
EN 1011-2 "Welding Recommendations for welding of metallic materials — Arc welding of ferritic steels" states that for SMAW the weave width should be restricted to 3 times the diameter of the core rod. Similar guidelines exist in many companies recommended practices.
Will comment more later but we are discussing FCAW not SMAW.
-Jonathan
taz
  • Posts:
  • Joined:
    Mon May 26, 2014 12:43 pm
  • Location:
    Athens - Greece

Oops.
However the rest of my post applies to all procedures.
Butcher
  • Posts:
  • Joined:
    Mon Jan 05, 2015 11:14 pm

I went and preheated the test piece to around 250 degrees, which I hadn't done prior. I noticed no matter how dialed in I felt I had the machine the first weld I layed always had slag that couldn't be easily chipped off. This time there was a slight peeling to the slag of the first weld. The more I filled in the piece the more of a peel I had to the slag. Instead of weaving the root pass I ran a single fat stringer. I was pretty pleased with it minus one hiccup in it which I ground out. I ground on every weld and feel very confident I did well. I ran this around 375 IPM and started at 24 V and bumped it up to 24.5 V after a few passes. When I mig weld I can set the same machine to the same settings and it welds exactly like I expect it to. With this stuff it seems like I use a different setting every time.

My test piece is oversize so I will trim the ends off. Doing this on the last piece saved me from sending in what would have been a failure. The school pays for 3 certification tests, after that we pay for our own. I have a very minor amount of undercut that you really have to look close at to see it is there. I was worried about undercut on my previous piece and measured it and most of it was a 1/64" with none at the limit of 1/32", this is much less. That and I am over the 1/8" limit on cover pass height so I will grind that down also. It seems like I have been on this test for an long time and am ready to move on.

Pictures are of the root pass and finished product. Any criticism is welcome.
Attachments
0225151758.jpg
0225151758.jpg (34.44 KiB) Viewed 4412 times
0225152035.jpg
0225152035.jpg (38.23 KiB) Viewed 4412 times
User avatar
  • Posts:
  • Joined:
    Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:13 pm
  • Location:
    Eddy, TX

Butcher,
I think you have come along quite well. I wish you the best with this test piece. Keep us posted on your results.
-Jonathan
User avatar
  • Posts:
  • Joined:
    Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:30 pm
  • Location:
    Palmer AK

What are those ugly little things hanging onto the bottom of that last pic you posted?
Surely you are able to eliminate those ?
Just a couple welders and a couple of big hammers and torches.

Men in dirty jeans built this country, while men in clean suits have destroyed it.
Trump/Carson 2016-2024
GreinTime
  • Posts:
  • Joined:
    Fri Nov 01, 2013 11:20 am
  • Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA

@AKweldshop I think he mentioned his piece being oversize
#oneleggedproblems
-=Sam=-
Butcher
  • Posts:
  • Joined:
    Mon Jan 05, 2015 11:14 pm

AKweldshop wrote:What are those ugly little things hanging onto the bottom of that last pic you posted?
Surely you are able to eliminate those ?
I was starting my stringers on the backing plate so that is where the weld transferred from overhead (doesn't seem like the right term?) to vertical. Unless you mean the two short stringers, that is where I filled in two low spots.
User avatar
  • Posts:
  • Joined:
    Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:30 pm
  • Location:
    Palmer AK

Butcher wrote:
AKweldshop wrote:What are those ugly little things hanging onto the bottom of that last pic you posted?
Surely you are able to eliminate those ?
I was starting my stringers on the backing plate so that is where the weld transferred from overhead (doesn't seem like the right term?) to vertical. Unless you mean the two short stringers, that is where I filled in two low spots.

I'm talking about those two little stringers that you used to fill the low places, yes.
Bottom line.
They look bad.
Your capping stringers should be one weld from top to bottom.

If you have low places, for gosh's sake, fill them in thru out the fill passes.
You had tons of time to even things out.
Please do not fill the low places on the cap.

John
Just a couple welders and a couple of big hammers and torches.

Men in dirty jeans built this country, while men in clean suits have destroyed it.
Trump/Carson 2016-2024
User avatar
  • Posts:
  • Joined:
    Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:13 pm
  • Location:
    Eddy, TX

AKweldshop wrote:
Butcher wrote:
AKweldshop wrote:What are those ugly little things hanging onto the bottom of that last pic you posted?
Surely you are able to eliminate those ?
I was starting my stringers on the backing plate so that is where the weld transferred from overhead (doesn't seem like the right term?) to vertical. Unless you mean the two short stringers, that is where I filled in two low spots.

I'm talking about those two little stringers that you used to fill the low places, yes.
Bottom line.
They look bad.
Your capping stringers should be one weld from top to bottom.

If you have low places, for gosh's sake, fill them in thru out the fill passes.
You had tons of time to even things out.
Please do not fill the low places on the cap.

John
John,
You made those statements now back them up.

You have forgot that Butcher is welding to AWS D1.1 and he will be turning his test plate in with the cover pass ground down. Why then would it matter what the weld looks like?

There is NOTHING in code that states a weld must be continuous no matter the length of the weld.

"Section 3.7.1 Vertical-Up Welding Requirements. The progression for all passes in vertical position welding shall be upward, except that undercut may be repaired vertically downwards...."

Figure 4.21 Test plate for Unlimited Thickness-Welder Qualification clearly shows the test plate shall be 5" min to which his plates are 6", I know because I provied these particular plates, therefore he can cut off the ends and get rid of those "little ugly things hanging onto the bottow."

If I am incorrect in my reply, please correct me with the code to which he is welding to.
-Jonathan
User avatar
  • Posts:
  • Joined:
    Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:30 pm
  • Location:
    Palmer AK

Ok,
So technically there is nothing wrong with filling in low places.

But it won't impress anyone.
It's very simple to eliminate them.

IMO.

It was just a tip I was sharing in hopes of helping on a small way.
Just a couple welders and a couple of big hammers and torches.

Men in dirty jeans built this country, while men in clean suits have destroyed it.
Trump/Carson 2016-2024
jwright650
  • Posts:
  • Joined:
    Wed Dec 03, 2014 3:27 pm

Butcher wrote: the two short stringers, that is where I filled in two low spots.
As an inspector...I realize that these things happen...you realize that you have a low spot and you fill it in. Good Job!...now before you call me over to inspect the cap, take care of the extra reinforcement(any high places more than allowed in Table 6.1, generally 1/8" max) and all is good. :)

AK was just trying to get you to notice and correct the passes before you get all the out to the cap...but I realize there are times that you may not catch that in time...filling in is acceptable(as long as you correct the amount of reinforcement...aka grinding)

BUT....read on

If this was a performance test...I would ask you to fill it in like you have, and then wait and ask if you can grind it back into compliance. Reason being, grinding may not be allowed on some performance tests(depends on the code the test is being done to). Hope this helps.
John Wright
AWS Certified Welding Inspector
NDT Level II UT, VT, MT and PT
NACE CIP Level I Coating Inspector
Post Reply