[Butcher]

Anyone have any resources for doing a 3G 1" test plate with flux core. I have bent 5 3/8" plate coupons that were all nearly flawless. I am far better at weaving than running stringers and am not sure I can weave a large gap. Could I weave a covering pass on 1" plate. I guess it would be nearly an inch to an inch and a half wide weave and wonder if that is too wide. The purpose of the test is to certify.

[jwright650]

Anyone have any resources for doing a 3G 1" test plate with flux core. I have bent 5 3/8" plate coupons that were all nearly flawless. I am far better at weaving than running stringers and am not sure I can weave a large gap. Could I weave a covering pass on 1" plate. I guess it would be nearly an inch to an inch and a half wide weave and wonder if that is too wide. The purpose of the test is to certify.

The WPS for the company giving the test should have that information on it. It may or may not limit the cap to stringers, or maybe a certain width weave...hard to say without seeing the WPS. I've written them several ways depending on several factors.

[Butcher]

It is for an AWS cert through a career center, not for a job.

[AKweldshop]

It is for an AWS cert through a career center, not for a job.

Call the "career center" and talk to the CWI.
He'll tell you what's allowed and what isn't for this test.

[jwright650]

It is for an AWS cert through a career center, not for a job.

Call the "career center" and talk to the CWI.
He'll tell you what's allowed and what isn't for this test.

Ditto...I could sit and guess all day and still not give you the correct answer. I'm going to make another assumption: the testing center has a written WPS for a B-U2a-GF to give 3G tests with backing and depending on several things:
3/16" root gets a 30°
1/4" root gets a 45°
3/8" root gets a 30°

...so, you can see that the number of passes in that 1" test plate could vary a lot, therefore so could the width of the cap.

and then there is a B-U2-GF (open root)...another whole new ball of wax.

[Superiorwelding]

Butcher,
The instructors at WCSCC are very good, in my opinion, and they will be very helpful. Just ask how they want to see it. They might leave it up to you. What size wire and gas are you using and what are your settings, if I may ask? I might have to sneak over and meet up with you one day. I need to talk to John again also.
-Jonathan

[Butcher]

I am using Lincoln Electric's 00.45" flux core, I think it is NR-11 or NR-211. On 3/8" plate I was running the first 2 passes at 21 V and 300 IPM and would drop to 20.4 V and 300 IPM. All three passes at 21 V was too hot and I would have the puddle run down the test piece. I set up a 1" deep gap and for whatever reason was able to keep it at 21 V the whole time without any issues. I now have actual 1" plate to start welding on this week.

[jwright650]

I am using Lincoln Electric's 00.45" flux core, I think it is NR-11 or NR-211. On 3/8" plate I was running the first 2 passes at 21 V and 300 IPM and would drop to 20.4 V and 300 IPM. All three passes at 21 V was too hot and I would have the puddle run down the test piece. I set up a 1" deep gap and for whatever reason was able to keep it at 21 V the whole time without any issues. I now have actual 1" plate to start welding on this week.

20-21v is too hot for .045" NR-211 according to this: See page 42(about 1/3rd down the page)
http://www.lincolnelectric.com/assets/g ... c32400.pdf

Hope this helps

[Butcher]

Any criticisms? The one piece has slag inclusion. I used a wire wheel to clean up my weld, next time I will run a grinder down the toe of the welds. The one piece that looks undercut is. I will probably weld up three more test pieces and if they go well then do one for a certification. Hopefully tomorrow I can get macro etch pictures on here.

[AKweldshop]

OH MAN!!!

Please don't weave that wide.

[Rick_H]

OH MAN!!!

Please don't weave that wide.

Agreed to large of an area to weave, stringers will be more consistent IMO.

[Butcher]

What is the reason to not weave so wide? Slag inclusions?

[Superiorwelding]

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

[Otto Nobedder]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[taz]

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]

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.

[Superiorwelding]

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]

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.

[taz]

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.

[Superiorwelding]

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]

Oops.
However the rest of my post applies to all procedures.

[Butcher]

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.