What's new
What's new

Welding specifications.

motion guru

Diamond
Joined
Dec 8, 2003
Location
Yacolt, WA
We received a print for part that will mount to a machine we are building with the following note:


WELD PER GSE WELDING DOCUMENT A00001 INSPECTION CLASS "A" AND
AWS D1.1 (STEEL) & AWS D1.2 (ALUMINUM).​

Is this worth us coming up to speed to do this part? . . . or is the documentation and process sufficiently obtuse so as to make it easier to outsource the welding to a shop who is familiar with this standard?

This will only pertain to A36 steel parts on this machine. Also requires magnetic particle inspection followed by stress relieving before machining.

We are likely to get more of this work in the future, however, this has a short fuse of only a few weeks and our fab shop is presently slammed.
 
Taking the note in reverse order, D1.1 and D1.2 are worth getting up to speed with if you aren't already. They are the basic standards for welding structural steel and aluminum. The documentation requirements basically say you need to qualify your welders and have weld procedure specifications. A note of "weld per AWS D1.1" is incredibly common for steel work. It's also useful if your engineers designing steel parts are familiar with it; there is a lot of good information in there.

The only inspection that D1.1 requires is visual, and there's no requirement that the person doing the visual be a CWI (i.e. a Certified Welding Inspector who has passed a big test). D1.1 basically says that if you want NDT, that needs to be in the contract. Some company/government specs list the NDT requirements for various categories of welds. It sounds like the A00001 document is telling you what inspection you need to do.

Bigger picture, the weld per D1.1, MT, and stress-relief is a really common sequence for GSE. Depending on the design, sometimes we'll be able to just do visual, or need to step up to RT. Since you're trying to get more work like this, I would learn how to do it. That being said, you don't need to do the NDT in house. We usually contracted with a third party to come to our shop and do the NDT. Stress relief was also outsourced.

Unlike the ASME BPVC or AISC, the AWS does not certify shops, there is not auditing or anything. Welders can be tested by an AWS testing center and have a portable qualification, but this isn't required. You can qualify your welders internally. It's a simple bend or x-ray test.


A few other things you'll want to know about welded structures if you end up designing things and the contract calls out various welding standards:

1) They'll often call out AWS D17.1. The NDT requirements for non-flight in D17.1 are actually more stringent than the requirements for flight hardware. Luckily there is an out. You can, as the engineer, elect to use D1.1 (or 1.2, 1.3, 1.6, etc.) instead for non-flight.

2) Under D1.1, as the engineer, you can accept other welder and weld procedure specifications in lieu of the AWS requirements. This is useful if you want to sub work out to a weld shop that falls under the BPVC rather than AWS. I just document that I'm accepting their ASME qualifications for the purposes of D1.1. They have a letter on file to keep their ASME auditor happy when he sees the print calling out D1.1.
 
Daniel, when are you going to make the move west and join my engineering team?

Thanks for the cogent and thorough answer. I am not sure why, but a big plane maker in the NW has opened up the spigot for projects lately and we after a ton of work to gain DPD compliance, jump on the CATIA bandwagon, gaining AS9100 based quality program approval, etc . . . we are finally landing orders for tooling and test stand automation.
 
I made the move east and started my own company :) Though I have to say that running a project on the Pacific NW was easier in one key regard. I never used to have to plan for delays due to the fab shop getting 16+ inches of snow.

I don't envy you on the Catia. I was never on the tooling side of the aircraft programs; I always worked on the machines, where we got to use Solidworks and not follow nitpicky rules. As long as the bolts were put in correctly and we didn't mar the panel, the customer was happy. The one (only?) really nice thing about CATIA is DELMIA. The inverse kinematics, etc. are slick and handy when you need to get a multi-axis machine to touch a bunch or points/surface normals.

One piece of Boeing tooling advice I did pick up is to avoid slip-critical joints like the plague. You don't want to need Boeing inspectors to witness you torquing bolts. If you make it a pinned joint, with a couple of bolts to hold it together, you don't need witnesses.
 
is it pre qualified process required - certified welder with current papers required for weld? Does print have welds defined? d1.1 is on every print, and sometimes means something (preheats and mixed grades, full pens) but usually just on drawing from a template for fabricated part. Electrode (e70xx usually speced (std flux core co2 shield)and size (bevel and fillet) are things you have to document. annealed and inspected sounds like a full pen weld (as does gse anything); is it worth the effort to you, do you have a welding machine with the umph for full pen on plate that is in d1.1 (3/8 - 1" off the top of my head), do you have a welder that can burn wire in said welder?
gse "A" is the premium organic free range shade grown craft cultivated milk fed of welds; you can not have failure, nanobots at cern labs level inspection. Not sure what you are building with that, but it must be cool. Last (only) I saw that was for a rocket/bomb testing thingy-ma-bob.
Sometimes let us lowly fab shops share work with you. You still cover heat treat and inspection on your end pre machining. Good fabrication shops kinda excel at welding, almost like highly skilled trained professionals.
 
There is no mention of a requirement for a certified welder. While I am certain our welder could take and pass a welding certification program, he is not a native English speaker and is very self conscious about it and has shied away from the prospect of doing this in the past. He learned to weld in Japan and is a far better welder than the certified welder we had in our employ prior to him.

This AWS note is a general requirement note on the first sheet of a drawing package (done in CATIA) . . . (with drawings that are 35” tall by 240” long!) . . . and packed with details on calibration, electronics, bearings, fasteners, etc. But only one note on this weld spec as detailed in my first post.

Our largest machine is a Linde 600 Amp unit typically used with a wirefeed unit running flux core. We have a nice adjustable boom cart setup and regularly build up welments using plate to 3 inches thick with this machine. This part is much smaller with the thickest plate being only 1/2”.

Our welder is characterized by being overly fussy and tends to want to tig weld everything. Regarding machines, we also have a Dynasty 350 inverter machine and a Millermatic 300 wirefeed as well. We regularly do everything from breadbox sized aluminum weldments that fly (cockpit instrument panel parts - the only outside welding we do precisely because our welder is fussy and was specifically sought out to do this work) . . . to multi-thousand pound machine frames.

We will dig a bit deeper into this spec and tackle this process and get it documented so that we know how to bid and conduct this work. It is coming across my desk more and more often and it would be good to gain competence in this area.

We have one seat of Catia and I believe 8 seats of SolidWorks. Catia is specifically used for DPD compliance and allowing us to receive and view native Catia files. We have one guy with significant Catia experience and another who is learning. Both prefer SolidWorks. . . and we do forward and inverse kinematic transformations and modeling with a slew of different tools including some we have developed in-house (excel) or running in a motion controller similar to a digital twin.

And I have to say that I really struggled whether I should call our guy that welds a Weldor or a Welder . . . however based on the predominant use of the word in our less and less sophisticated world of readers I went with “welder” even though I was taught otherwise. Uggghh, my pragmatism is corrupting my orthodoxy.
 
papers mean little to me with regard to weld quality, it is more for those that chase paper trails. The gse a (literally the highest spec for a weld) is the much bigger thing on your drawing set, and I am pretty sure (not certain) that doesn't require certified welder, just to pass a x ray, ultrasound, and partical as a perfect or better weld with full pen. We are finishing a bridge (someday, on second or fifth major change order), and it doesn't have the gse a.
If CATIA is using the solidworks templates (dessault still right?) then it could just be a generated spec, like sp-2 prep.
The gse a is mission critical extreme high load with impact weld. D1.1 is up to page 8, not that much http://betawelding.ir/en/images/AWS_D1_1_.1[smallpdf.com].pdf .
Planes are cool! They have curves, like boats. mad props to you on that.
 
And I have to say that I really struggled whether I should call our guy that welds a Weldor or a Welder . . . however based on the predominant use of the word in our less and less sophisticated world of readers I went with “welder” even though I was taught otherwise. Uggghh, my pragmatism is corrupting my orthodoxy.
IIRC it was Lincoln that was pushing the usage of "Weldor" as the person, and "Welder" as the red box.
 
And I have to say that I really struggled whether I should call our guy that welds a Weldor or a Welder . . . however based on the predominant use of the word in our less and less sophisticated world of readers I went with “welder” even though I was taught otherwise. Uggghh, my pragmatism is corrupting my orthodoxy.

I think wire burners prefer to be called their given name, like Bucket, Daryl, or LaShandra.
For me, another word is another chance to get creative with spelling.

I looked up gse a before leaving work. I was wrong, it is not mission critical on failure, it is universe implodes if weld fails spec. After that synopsis I didn't dare read more. The d1.xx are worth reading for knowledge, nothing that is scary, but good to know when long paper trails, and things like welder calibration certs are needed.
 
papers mean little to me with regard to weld quality, it is more for those that chase paper trails. The gse a (literally the highest spec for a weld) is the much bigger thing on your drawing set, and I am pretty sure (not certain) that doesn't require certified welder, just to pass a x ray, ultrasound, and partical as a perfect or better weld with full pen. We are finishing a bridge (someday, on second or fifth major change order), and it doesn't have the gse a.
If CATIA is using the solidworks templates (dessault still right?) then it could just be a generated spec, like sp-2 prep.
The gse a is mission critical extreme high load with impact weld. D1.1 is up to page 8, not that much http://betawelding.ir/en/images/AWS_D1_1_.1[smallpdf.com].pdf .
Planes are cool! They have curves, like boats. mad props to you on that.

This is a non flying part - and that PDF has a 24 page fine print table of contents . . . much more than an afternoon read! I’ll skim to see if this is the most appropriate resource and if it is we will purchase a copy for our shop library.
 
I looked up gse a before leaving work. I was wrong, it is not mission critical on failure, it is universe implodes if weld fails spec. After that synopsis I didn't dare read more.

Not only do they have a high initial NDT cost, they drives up the customer's recurring costs (periodic NDT) and your paint costs (they often want the welds masked and left bare). The key is to avoid them whenever possible in the design phase. It makes your job as a designer and stress analyst much more difficult, but it's often worth it not to have critical welds.

And after all that design and analysis, you have an elegantly designed structure with fully redundant welds... and the welder ignores the print and does a single long fillet weld.
 
I don't deal with many weld spec's, How much NDT and other inspection
is needed on such a wide open material of a36 steel ?
 
I don't deal with many weld spec's, How much NDT and other inspection
is needed on such a wide open material of a36 steel ?

Good question - that is why I asked, I have put a request into the buyer for the GSE spec as I believe this is an in-house customer specification.
 
If your welder is self conscious just send someone with him... the guy doing the welding doesn't need to say a darn thing haha. It shouldn't cost much or take more than half a day to get speced out on one or two basic structural weld tests. In my mind it can't hurt to have him hold a few relevant and current cards. Weld tests are strange and I feel like outside of the very specific industry driven certs in the structural and pipe welding arenas it gets very blurry very quickly.

I guess if I was the boss and making the calls I would get your guy at least one cert on each process you use and keep it current just as a safety net. If a specific customer has a specific requirement fullfill it, but at least having him hold something current is worth it imo.
 
I don't deal with many weld spec's, How much NDT and other inspection
is needed on such a wide open material of a36 steel ?

The short answer is: it depends. For the stuff we're discussing here, the wide-open spec of A36 doesn't really matter; you're more concerned with the weld, and most of the weld failures can happen with A36 just as well as with other grades. In general, the NDT requirements for a weld are determined by the criticality of the weld, not by the parent material*.

The general baseline requirement is a visual inspection (VT), which doesn't have to be done by a CWI (Certified Welding Inspector). This one is just common sense; the welds should be looked at to make sure they're good before you ship the part.

The next step up is to require the visual inspection to be done by a CWI. This level is more of a paperwork exercise, having a CWI sign off on it does increase the chances that the visual inspection will actually happen and be done right.

The next step up is to look for surface defects with NDT. This is usually either dye penetrant (PT) on aluminum or mag particle (MT) on steel. This is good, cheap insurance. I've had some weldments done by experienced welders where we found tranverse cracks in fillet welds using MT that were missed in VT. The cost is pretty cheap. We'd get large weldments MT inspected by a third party for about $250 (this was 5 or so years ago).

For even more critical welds, you want to look for defects under the surface. The two main methods are ultrasonic (UT) and x-ray (RT). UT can be cheaper, but doesn't work on thin stuff. RT is the gold standard, but is more of a disruption to use (you need to clear the area). RT also provides a permanent record of the inspection (i.e. the film).


A few other scenarios where NDT can be important even on mild steel/HSLA:

1) when you have a highly-restrained joint with thick sections. When the steel is rolled, any discontinuities get rolled flat, so your transverse (through-plane) strength is lower than either your longitudinal or longitudinal transverse directions. When a thick plate is heavily welded on one side, the stresses from the weld pool solidifying can actually crack the heavy plate internally. This can only be detected by UT or RT. I believe there have been a few structural collapses due to this phenomenon, but I don't know the details off the top of my head.

2) Another weld restraint issue with thick sections can be if you have small cracks near the weld, for example a weld access hole. If the hole is thermally cut it can have small cracks that can be worsened when stressed by weld shrinkage. One technique for dealing with this problem is to grind the thermally cut surfaces and the PT them to ensure there are no cracks.

3) Because the transverse strength of steel plate is not well controlled, it can be risky to weld a padeye to a plate where it's loading the plate transversely. It's better for the padeye to be connected to a web under the plate. If you do have transverse loading of a plate, some lifting equipment standards require either UT/RT (to check for inclusions/delamination) or using special "z-quality" material**.


* There are exceptions, of course. For example, when welding A514/T1 steel, you need to wait at least 48 hours after welding before you NDT.
** I've never actually seen such material, nor have any steel shops I've asked ever seen it, but apparently it does exist.
 
From the welders perspective, most welding tests are pretty easy. D1.1 and 1.2 should be a cake walk for a competent and picky welder. AWS has a bunch of pre qualified procedures you can buy. Get the WPS, give it to your welder and make sure he follows it and you are good to go. There are NO pre qualified procedures for short circuit or pulsed mig, every procedure has to be tested but its not as scary as it sounds. See if you can find a local CWI or welding engineer to have a chat with.

What I still dont get about welding codes/specs is how they often have almost no relation to the part they are certifying.
The settings for an 1/8" open root 1"thick V groove are nothing like what you need for a fillet weld on 1/4" plate.
I had to take 2 tests for one company we do work for. The first was a 6G 3" sch 40 pipe weld. That covers welding on most of their stuff, lots of 16 gauge SS and bunches of sch 5 and 10 pipe...
The hard test was a 6G 1/2" sch 160... Tiny and thick.
I have never had to weld Any thing on any of their parts that even remotely resemble the weld tests. The most stringent things on their parts are lifting ears which are always fillet welds...
 
kustomizingkid;3306619In my mind it can't hurt to have him hold a few relevant and current cards. Weld tests are strange and I feel like outside of the very specific industry driven certs in the structural and pipe welding arenas it gets very blurry very quickly.[/QUOTE said:
I second that, i have seen it cause no ends of issues when a supposedly highly certified welder goes to work in a more open fab shop type environment were they no longer have the procedures to follow, sure pipe works no cake walk, but when all the joint preps done for you and all the plant settings are just whats laid out, its a very repeatable process, now give that man a MIG torch and tell him to go stick a frame together out of box and plate and they generally don't have a clue - need a fair bit of advice - time with someone to get the hang of stuff. Specialism can kinda not work out in your favor at times.
 
What I still dont get about welding codes/specs is how they often have almost no relation to the part they are certifying.
The settings for an 1/8" open root 1"thick V groove are nothing like what you need for a fillet weld on 1/4" plate.
I had to take 2 tests for one company we do work for. The first was a 6G 3" sch 40 pipe weld. That covers welding on most of their stuff, lots of 16 gauge SS and bunches of sch 5 and 10 pipe...
The hard test was a 6G 1/2" sch 160... Tiny and thick.
I have never had to weld Any thing on any of their parts that even remotely resemble the weld tests. The most stringent things on their parts are lifting ears which are always fillet welds...

I think the theory is that if you are a capable enough welder to do 6G pipe, you should be able to do flat fillet welds, so there's no need to test that as well. That's why 2G groove covers you for 1G fillet, but not vice versa.

The WPS will, or at least should be, different depending on the type/thickness of joint. The AWS qualification really separates out the welder qualifications from qualifying a WPS.
 








 
Back
Top