Cover June 2015_4/06 Cover 5/12/15 4:35 PM Page C1

JUNE 2015
WELDING JOURNAL • VOLUME 94 NUMBER 6 • JUNE 2015

PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN WELDING SOCIETY TO ADVANCE THE SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND APPLICATION OF WELDING
AND ALLIED JOINING AND CUTTING PROCESSES WORLDWIDE, INCLUDING BRAZING, SOLDERING, AND THERMAL SPRAYING
Holdren June_Layout 1 5/11/15 3:07 PM Page 66

Keys to Success
for a New
Welding Engineer

Why it is critical that a welding

engineer become knowledgeable
in what welding standards exist
BY RICHARD HOLDREN and how they must be applied

O
ne of the biggest challenges for a
welding engineer, especially
when newly introduced to the
position, is to understand the myriad
welding requirements existing for vari-
ous applications. Just determining the
applicable welding standard for a given
application can be a challenge. Once
this has been established, the next
task becomes the interpretation of
welding requirements related to quali-
fication, inspection, and acceptance
criteria. Few schools provide instruc-
tion in this aspect of the job, so on-
the-job training and experience are the
primary means of gaining this knowl-
edge. Becoming proficient requires
years of experience.
While there may be a shortage of
training in the specific activity of stan-
dards selection and application, a
welding engineer is considered rela-
tively well prepared for this challenge.
Welding engineering curricula require
individuals to be exposed to the broad-
ranging areas of expertise, including,
but not limited to, welding design, ma-
terials, welding processes, and welding
inspection and quality control. On a
daily basis, a welding engineer may be
required to interpret and apply draw-
ings, specifications, and other related
standards to understand the applica-
ble fabrication and quality require-
ments existing for the job at hand.
While it is not recommended for a
welding engineer to commit this vast
amount of information to memory,
he/she must become proficient in ma-
neuvering through the world of weld-
ing standards.
To be successful, a welding engineer
needs to realize that certain ground
rules exist. While many products could
not be effectively manufactured with-
out welding, some designers either
don’t understand welding or the stan-
dards governing welding design, and
this often results in overly conserva-
tive designs that can give rise to the
creation of designs and configurations
that are less manufacturable. This
may be further complicated by the
stipulation of overly restrictive quality
requirements.
A welding engineer must under-
stand these limitations. Few compa-
nies are of a size to warrant a separate
welding engineering department or
group, so most often a welding engi-
neer is found in a manufacturing engi-
neering position, which is an excellent
environment because a welding engi-
neer’s training makes him/her well
suited for observation and control of
the applicable manufacturing or fabri-
cation processes, including welding
and other ancillary technologies. I
have also experienced situations where

66 WELDING JOURNAL / JUNE 2015

Holdren June_Layout 1 5/11/15 3:07 PM Page 67
a welding engineer functioned as a
part of the quality organization. In
these cases, results were excellent
since there was an effort to ensure
that welding was being performed in a
manner that would reduce scrap and
rework, and therefore improve produc-
tivity. When the focus is placed on
quality, the overall result is positive in
terms of meeting both productivity
and quality goals.
Consequently, one of the keys to
success for a welding engineer is to be-
come fully aware of the quality re-
quirements so that these goals can be
attained in the most effective manner.
Part of this awareness is to understand
the distinction between weld quality
and welding quality. While the two
terms are considered synonymous,
there is a subtle difference. Weld quali-
ty relates to the attributes of the fin-
ished weld in terms of attainment of
the prescribed quality requirements.
Welding quality is a more inclusive
term, as it relates to not only the fin-
ished product, but also to all of those
design and manufacturing steps af-
fecting the resulting weld quality. It is
this area where a welding engineer can
be most effective in terms of ensuring
that the required quality levels will be
achieved. Consequently, the welding
engineer must also be aware of the
preliminary and in-process require-
ments and controls necessary to en-
sure that the manufacturing process
will be successful.
Quality Considerations
Prior to Welding
To ensure success, the emphasis on
quality must begin long before the
welding inspector examines the com-
pleted weld. In fact, the path to achiev-
ing the prescribed quality goals begins
in the design stage of a project. If a
product is not designed with an aware-
ness of how the welding and other
manufacturing operations will be per-
formed, it may not yield a successful
result. So, an area where a welding en-
gineer can be most effective is in the
execution of a design review. Some of
the critical factors to be considered are
as follows:
• Is the product manufacturable?
That is, can it be effectively manufac-
tured to meet the quality and produc-
tivity requirements?
• Does the specification and draw-
ing package contain all of the detailed
information necessary to execute the
design?
• Are all welding symbols present
and correct?
• Are the applicable welding stan-
dards clearly identified?
• Are the weld acceptance criteria
clearly specified?
If any of this information is missing
or incomplete, it may be difficult to
produce an acceptable product in an
effective and efficient manner.
Another preproduction concern for
a welding engineer relates to qualifica-
tion of welding procedures and per-
sonnel performing the welding. While
this can be a costly activity, it is critical
that a welding engineer have a clear
understanding of the applicable stan-
dards and job specifications so that
any qualification testing performed re-
sults in the maximum coverage for
both the existing job as well as poten-
tial work. Some of the items to be re-
viewed include:
• Do the drawings and specifica-
tions clearly specify the requirements
for procedure and performance qualifi-
cation?
• Do existing welding procedures
satisfy the current job requirements?
If existing procedures have been quali-
fied in accordance with some other
welding standard, will the customer
accept those in lieu of the applicable
specifications for the job?
• Are welding personnel properly
qualified?
• If additional procedures or per-
sonnel require qualification, be aware
that the acceptance criteria for the re-
quired qualification test welds are not
necessarily the same as the acceptance
criteria for production welding.
• If necessary to perform additional
qualification testing, develop a qualifi-
cation program that will result in the
maximum coverage for the procedure
or performance qualification, even if
greater than that required for the cur-
rent job being considered.
One of the ways a welding engineer
can get the most bang for the qualifi-
cation buck is to perform qualification
testing in accordance with AWS B2.1,
Standard for Welding Procedure and Per-
formance Qualification. This is AWS’s
general qualification standard and is
recognized by virtually all of the other
AWS fabrication standards. AWS
D14.3 and D17.1 directly specify that
welding procedures be qualified in ac-
cordance with AWS B2.1. Most of the
other AWS standards allow AWS B2.1
to be used as an alternate to qualifica-
tion requirements in those respective
standards. Consequently, if procedures
are qualified in accordance with AWS
B2.1, there is potential for those
procedures to be applicable for use
when working to a variety of AWS
standards.
Additionally, AWS B2.1 is essential-
ly equivalent to ASME Section IX, so
AWS B2.1 qualifications may also be
employed when doing ASME work.
Like ASME Section IX, AWS B2.1
groups materials with similar weld-
ability so that when a base material
from a given M-number group is used
for the qualification test, the proce-
dure is qualified for use with any of
the other materials from that same M-
number group. This can be a tremen-
dous benefit when working with AWS
D1.1 and using a nonapproved base
metal. Per AWS D1.1 requirements,
this requires that a procedure be quali-
fied by testing, and that procedure is
only applicable for that single base
metal. Employing AWS B2.1 would al-
low that procedure to cover the weld-
ing of all of the base metals in the
same M-number group. Additionally,
welding position is a nonessential
variable for AWS B2.1; however, D1.1
requires procedure qualification test-
ing in all positions to be used in pro-
duction when prequalified procedures
are not applicable.
Another advantage of AWS B2.1 is
that Standard Welding Procedure
Specifications (SWPSs) exist. These
SWPSs are based on results from actu-
al welding procedure qualification test-
ing and are developed using the essen-
tial variables of AWS B2.1. Users can
purchase these SWPSs and use them
without the need to perform qualifica-
tion testing, resulting in tremendous
savings. Many of these SWPSs are rec-
ognized by both ASME Section IX and
the National Board Inspection Code
(NBIC). A series of these SWPSs are
being developed for use by suppliers of
weldments for Navy ship construction.
More than 30 SWPSs have been devel-
oped and are available for purchase
from AWS.
A number of AWS standards, in-
cluding AWS D1.1, D1.6, and D14.3,
have allowance for the use of Prequali-
fied Welding Procedure Specifications
(PWPS). These procedures can be de-
veloped based on the applicable limita-
tions of the AWS standard and can be
JUNE 2015 / WELDING JOURNAL 67
Holdren June_Layout 1 5/11/15 3:08 PM Page 68
used for production welding without
the need for any procedure qualifica-
tion testing. To develop a PWPS, the
user must document the essential
variables specified in the applicable
standard and create a written PWPS,
but no testing is required.
Another area where a welding engi-
neer can potentially provide valuable
input to improve both quality and pro-
ductivity is in the selection of processes
and consumables to be used. Gas metal
arc welding (GMAW) tends to be a
workhorse in today’s manufacturing
world. The process has numerous varia-
tions in terms of both electrical charac-
teristics and welding consumables, so
selection of the best combination for a
given application is critical. One of the
options available is the mode of metal
transfer to be used. Greatest productiv-
ity can be achieved when using spray
transfer; however, its use is limited in
terms of both base material thickness
and position. When welding out-of-
position (other than flat position),
welding thin sections, or when welding
joints without backing, one’s choices
are limited to either short circuiting
transfer (GMAW-SC) or pulsed
(GMAW-P). Use of GMAW-SC requires
separate procedure and performance
qualification per AWS B2.1 and D1.1,
and its use is limited in terms of thick-
ness for ASME Section IX. GMAW-SC
also has limitations related to its poten-
tial for creation of incomplete fusion
when used for joining thick sections.
While GMAW-P is a suitable re-
placement for GMAW-SC for many ap-
plications, it requires a welding power
source capable of producing pulsing
output power. An alternative to this
solution, which can be costly, is the use
of metal core electrodes in lieu of solid
wire electrodes. Because of their con-
figuration, metal core electrodes oper-
ate at a higher current density. This al-
lows metal core electrodes to be used
for applications requiring either
GMAW-SC or GMAW-P without the
need to invest in costly pulsing power
sources. Additionally, metal core elec-
trodes melt more efficiently resulting
in a 15–20% increase in deposition rate
at a given amperage level compared to
solid electrodes. Consequently, the
change from solid to metal core elec-
trodes can result in very cost-
effective productivity improvements.
When adjusted properly, metal core
electrodes can be operated with essen-
tially no spatter, so the amount of
68 WELDING JOURNAL / JUNE 2015
cleanup required after welding is negli-
gible, equating to even further savings.
Quality Considerations
during Welding
Once production welding begins,
the focus for the welding engineer
changes to the assurance that the qual-
ity plan is being properly executed and
the welding is being performed in ac-
cordance with the qualified welding
procedure(s). Among the concerns at
this stage of the production process are
as follows:
• Are the proper consumables being
used?
• Have the consumables been prop-
erly stored and are they in good condi-
tion?
• Are the required preheat and in-
terpass temperatures being main-
tained?
• Are welding personnel properly
qualified, and more importantly, do
they understand the limitations of
the welding procedure and quality
requirements?
• Is welding being done in accor-
dance with the applicable fabrication
requirements?
In order to meet the dimensional
requirements for a weldment, the
welding engineer may need to develop
a plan for controlling distortion. To ac-
complish this, the first step is to un-
derstand what dimensional require-
ments exist and whether postweld
stress relief will be employed. Produc-
tion adjustments necessary to limit
distortion may include
• Use of weld sequencing
• Use of subassemblies
• For welding thick sections, consid-
eration of welding from both sides of a
joint to balance the shrinkage stresses.
Quality Considerations
after Welding
At this stage of the process, little can
be done to alter the result of the pre-
ceding steps. As is often said, quality
cannot be inspected into a product. Af-
ter welding, the activities involve verifi-
cation that the fabrication steps have
been successful to result in an accept-
able product. The most important con-
cern at this point is to be certain that
there is a clear understanding of the ap-
plicable quality requirements in terms
of both weld quality and dimensional
accuracy of the completed weldment.
The applicable acceptance criteria
must be known and understood
throughout the fabrication process;
however, after welding is complete, it is
critical that these acceptance criteria
are properly interpreted and applied
during the inspection process. While
desirous that welds be produced with-
out any discontinuities, this is imprac-
tical. That’s why welding standards ex-
ist. They provide limits on discontinu-
ities that, when achieved, will result in
a product that will perform as designed
and intended. A welding engineer must
have a clear understanding of these re-
quirements so that resulting welds can
be defended. For this part of the job, a
young welding engineer is encouraged
to become an AWS Certified Welding
Inspector (CWI).
Every welding standard incorpo-
rates its own set of acceptance criteria,
so maneuvering through this maze is
the first challenge for a welding engi-
neer. Below is a list of some of the ap-
plication-related welding standards the
welding engineer may be exposed to.
• Structural welding (AWS D1.1
through D1.9)
• Piping (Cross-country pipelines –
API 1104, Power piping – ASME
B31.1, Petrochemical piping – ASME
B31.3)
• Pressure vessels (ASME Section
VIII)
• Boilers (Power – ASME Section I,
Heating – ASME Section IV)
• Aerospace (AWS D17.1)
• Specialty apparatus (Industrial
and mill cranes – AWS D14.1, Con-
struction and agricultural equipment –
AWS D14.3 and D14.4, Rotating ele-
ments of equipment – AWS D14.6).
Within the context of this discus-
sion, it is impractical to cover the weld
acceptance criteria for all of these
standards. Since AWS D1.1 is consid-
ered to be the dominant AWS welding
standard in terms of its use both do-
mestically and internationally, the dis-
cussion below addresses some of the
weld acceptance criteria found in D1.1.
The requirements found in the other
D1.X codes are quite similar, as D1.1
has been the model for the others.
Understanding the Weld
Quality Requirements of
AWS D1.1
For any project where AWS D1.1 is
the applicable standard, the first ques-
tion to be asked relates to the classifi-
Holdren June_Layout 1 5/11/15 3:08 PM Page 69
Fig. 1 — These illustrations show how the fillet weld profile can vary when the same
limiting value for convexity applies to a range of sizes. While the three welds have
acceptable convexity, the reentrant angles vary significantly.
cation of the welded structure. This
applies not only to the acceptance cri-
teria to be applied, but it also dictates
some of the fabrication requirements.
D1.1 classifies structures as one of
three types: statically loaded, cyclically
loaded, or tubular. This is especially
important for the inspection effort,
since different acceptance criteria are
specified for each type of structure.
Some of the highlights of these accept-
ance criteria are discussed below.
Table 6.1 summarizes the visual
weld acceptance criteria for all types of
structures. Some of the criteria are
identical for all types of structures;
however, a couple, porosity and under-
cut, vary with the type of structure.
Requirements for weld profile are
found in the fabrication clause in sec-
tion 5.24. What is curious here is the
fact that the weld profile has perhaps
the greatest impact on the perform-
ance of a weld when subjected to fa-
tigue, i.e., cyclically loaded, service.
However, D1.1 makes no distinction
between the weld profile requirements
for the different types of structures.
Without differentiating, there exists a
potential for acceptance of weld pro-
files that will not perform as desired
when placed in fatigue service.
There are also issues related to the
manner in which the code limits weld
profiles. By current A3.0 definitions,
Fig. 2 — A — Fillet weld with acute and obtuse reentrant angles; B — reentrant angle
at weld bead toe.
there are three weld profile conditions
that can be quantitatively measured
— convexity, overlap, and weld rein-
forcement. Convexity is a characteris-
tic exclusively applied to fillet welds
and is defined as, “The maximum dis-
tance from the face of a convex fillet
weld perpendicular to a line joining
the weld toes.” Its counterpart, weld
reinforcement, is only applicable to
groove welds and is defined as, “Weld
metal in excess of the quantity re-
quired to fill a weld groove.” The final
profile characteristic, overlap, is appli-
cable to both fillet and groove welds
and is defined as, “The protrusion of
weld metal beyond the weld toe or
weld root.” In the current edition of
D1.1, overlap is not limited and both
convexity and weld reinforcement are
limited by a dimension. In the case of
convexity, this limiting dimension is
virtually impossible to measure with
conventional tools used by the welding
inspector.
In the current edition of D1.1, the
dimension for convexity is limited in
terms of weld face width, so a specific
amount of convexity is allowable for a
range of weld sizes. The illustrations
in Fig. 1 show how the fillet weld pro-
file can vary when the same limiting
value for convexity applies to a range
of sizes, i.e., face widths. While the
three welds have acceptable convexity,
the reentrant angles vary significantly.
To truly limit the profile of a weld,
the single characteristic defining pro-
file is the angle formed between the
weld face and the adjacent base metal
surface at the weld toe. In a weld con-
sisting of multiple beads across the
weld face, angles formed between ad-
jacent beads also form part of the weld
profile. In the next edition of A3.0,
these angles have been proposed to be
termed reentrant angles, defined as,
“The angle formed between a line tan-
gent to the weld face or root surface
and adjacent base metal surface at the
weld toe or weld root, respectively. In a
multipass weld, the angle formed be-
tween lines tangent to adjacent weld
bead surfaces at a weld bead toe.”
The illustrations in Fig. 2 show
reentrant angles at weld toes and be-
tween adjacent weld beads.
It has been proposed that the exist-
ing limits on convexity and weld rein-
forcement, which indirectly affect pro-
file, be replaced, or at least supple-
mented by limits for reentrant angle.
Reentrant angles can be easily meas-
ured with simple, template-type
gauges. A further benefit of this ap-
proach is that separate limits could be
specified for statically loaded and
cyclically loaded applications. This
same approach has been implemented
in AWS D14.4. The whole point of this
discussion is that not only is it impor-
tant for a welding engineer/inspector
to understand the acceptance criteria,
it is also important to know how to
measure characteristics. For weld pro-
file inspection, a welding engineer may
find it beneficial to suggest alternate
means of limiting weld profile charac-
teristics, which can be more easily and
consistently measured.
A couple of other inspection issues
a welding engineer needs to be aware
of when AWS D1.1 is being used relate
to the requirements for porosity and
undercut. It was mentioned earlier
that both of these discontinuities have
different limits depending on the type
of structure. Additionally, in the case
of porosity, only piping porosity is
considered rejectable. Per the limits of
D1.1, any other form of porosity is not
considered rejectable, regardless of
size or the type of structure. This dis-
tinction leads to disputes since various
entities, such as design engineers and
customers, may not understand the
significance of the type of porosity be-
ing limited. A further complication is
JUNE 2015 / WELDING JOURNAL 69
Holdren June_Layout 1 5/11/15 3:09 PM Page 70
For info, go to www.aws.org/ad­index
For info, go to www.aws.org/ad­index
70 WELDING JOURNAL / JUNE 2015
that, for cyclically loaded structures,
there is a difference in the porosity
limitation depending on the direction
of the principal tensile stress with re-
spect to the weld. To make this deter-
mination, the design engineer must be
consulted. This same problem exists
for the undercut requirements for
cyclically loaded structures.
These examples come from AWS
D1.1, but similar interpretation/appli-
cation issues can be found in many of
the other industry standards. Visual
examination of welds is not a straight-
forward activity, because it requires
the inspector to use tools to assist
with measurements and judgment in
terms of whether the physical attrib-
utes of the weld meet the written ac-
ceptance criteria. At times, this can be
challenging, especially for the inexpe-
rienced welding engineer. This is ex-
pected and helps to explain why there
is no replacement for experience.
That’s the only way one becomes effec-
tive and efficient in the art and science
of welding inspection.
Ending Thoughts
So, keys to success for a new weld-
ing engineer so that he/she becomes
effective in this position are numer-
ous, as has been explained here. It is
critical that a welding engineer be-
come knowledgeable in what welding
standards exist and how the require-
ments are to be applied. These docu-
ments will provide the technical basis
for your success in this position. The
better you know the contents of these
standards, especially those related to
qualification, fabrication, and inspec-
tion, the more successful you’ll be-
come. Becoming proficient with these
requirements will allow you to suc-
ceed. One problem you will often en-
counter are situations where other in-
dividuals attempt to apply their own
“requirements” that are in excess of
those required by the applicable Code
or specification. Your best defense is
to have a better understanding of the
real requirements through your knowl-
edge and experience. WJ
RICHARD HOLDREN (richard@arcspecial-
ties.com), a PE, AWS SCWI, and IWE, is a
senior welding engineer with Arc Special-
ties Technical Services, Houston, Tex, and
president of Welding Consultants, LLC,
Columbus, Ohio.
Tumuluru June 2015_Layout 1 5/11/15 2:14 PM Page 72
How Composition Affects
Weldability of Steels
Carbon equivalent describes the effect of key
elements that influence the ease with which a
given grade of steel can be welded
W
eldability, as defined by the
American Welding Society, is
“the ease with which a mate-
rial or a combination of materials can
be welded into a suitably designed
joint under shop-floor conditions and
the weld should perform satisfactorily
in the intended service” (Ref. 1). This
definition deals with two components
in a weldment, namely the weld (or
the fusion zone) and the heat-affected
zone (HAZ).
One of the key components of this
definition is the material being weld-
ed. In the case of steels, the composi-
tion of the steel is an important pa-
rameter that dictates the ease with
which that given grade of steel can be
welded. The difficulties with welding a
given grade of steel can come from
cracking in the HAZ or from the pres-
ence of other imperfections in the
weld fusion zone of heterogeneous
welds (where a filler metal is added to
the weld), such as cracks, slag inclu-
sions, or porosity. While fusion zone
imperfections can often be countered
by changing welding consumables and
the adopted welding procedures, find-
ing solutions to problems with the
HAZ is relatively more difficult and
requires a good understanding of the
base material composition effects,
specifically the knowledge of the
types and amount of alloying ele-
ments present.
The following information presents
72 WELDING JOURNAL / JUNE 2015
BY MURALI TUMULURU
Purpose of Adding
a brief review of the effects of alloying
elements, their role in steels, and how
they affect weldability. A brief discus- Alloying Elements to
sion is also provided on how weldabil- Steels
ity of steels is generally quantified in
industrial applications. Some of the purposes are as
follows:
Steel Classification
• Improve tensile strength
From a welding standpoint, steels
can be divided into several broad
groups. One such grouping classifies • Improve toughness
steels into three broad categories,
namely carbon steels, low-alloy steels, • Improve hardenability, which
and high-alloy steels. As the names permits hardening of larger sections
imply, carbon steels contain only car-
than possible with plain carbon steels
bon and small amounts of manganese
(typically less than 1%) as the inten- or allows quenching at less drastic
tional alloying elements and are gen- rates
erally deoxidized (or killed), common-
ly using aluminum. Killed steels are • Retain strength at elevated
required for welded applications to
avoid porosity. High-alloy steels con- temperatures
tain alloying additions in excess of 5%
and include families of steels such as • Improve corrosion resistance
stainless steels and heat-resistant
steels. • Improve wear resistance
Another classification of steels in
sheet steel applications is provided by
the World Steel Association, which • Impart a fine grain structure to the
classifies steels into four groups based steel to provide better toughness
on strength (Ref. 2). This classifica-
tion is widely adopted in automotive • Improve special properties such as
applications where sheet steels are
predominantly welded using the re- abrasion resistance and fatigue
sistance spot welding process. behavior.
Tumuluru June 2015_Layout 1 5/11/15 2:14 PM Page 73
Fig. 1 — Relationship between carbon
content and maximum hardness of steels
with microstructures of 50 and 100%
martensite (Ref. 3).
Effects of Major Alloying
Elements on Steel Properties
and Weldability
Carbon is perhaps the most impor-
tant element that has a strong influ-
ence on the weldability of steels.
Steels are generally classified as low-,
mild-, medium-, and high-carbon
steels. Table 1 provides the widely
used classification of carbon steels
along with typical uses. It is apparent
that while low-carbon and mild steels
are readily welded, medium-carbon
steels require special precautions such
as the use of preheat and postwelding
heating to successfully weld them.
This is because with the rapid cooling
rate that welds undergo, martensite
forms in the weld and the HAZ. The
amount of martensite formed and its
hardness depend upon the carbon
content of the steel.
Figure 1 shows the relationship be-
tween the carbon content and the
maximum hardness of steels (Ref. 3).
Alloying element additions affect
steel properties (Ref. 4) and weldabili-
ty. Among the alloying elements
Table 1 — Classification of Carbon Steels and Weldability (Ref. 3)
Type Carbon, % Typical Hardness
Low Carbon 0.15 max 60 HRB
Mild Steel 0.15–0.30 90 HRB
Medium Carbon 0.30–0.50 25 HRC
High Carbon 0.50–1.0 40 HRC
Fig. 2 — Hardening effect of various al-
loying elements dissolved in pure iron
(Ref. 4).
added to steels, carbon, by far, has the
most significant effect on weldability.
Carbon in steels is an austenite stabi-
lizer and serves as a strengthening
agent. However, with increasing car-
bon content, the propensity for crack-
ing increases due to the high hardness
of the weld and HAZ. Hydrogen-
induced cracking (also known as un-
derbead, cold, or delayed cracking) can
occur if there is sufficient hydrogen
and tensile stresses are present in a
crack-susceptible microstructure. The
sensitivity to hydrogen-induced crack-
ing goes up as the strength of the
steel goes up. In light of this, it is ad-
visable to keep carbon content low,
generally below 0.25%, if possible.
Manganese is the other significant
alloying element present in carbon
and low-alloy steels. Manganese is a
solid-solution strengthener and im-
proves notch toughness as well. Man-
ganese is generally present typically
anywhere from 0.3 to about 1.0%;
however, recently introduced dual-
phase and other automotive steels
contain much higher levels of up to
2.2 wt-%. One reason for high levels
of manganese is to minimize the in-
Weldability
Excellent
Good
Fair (requires precautions
such as pre- and postheating;
low-hydrogen welding practice
required)
Generally poor (requires pre-
and postweld heating and low-
hydrogen welding practice)
crease in carbon level required to
achieve strength levels of 800 to 1000
MPa. Manganese assists in the deoxi-
dation of the steel, prevents the for-
mation of iron sulfide and inclusions,
and promotes greater strength by in-
creasing hardenability; however, man-
ganese sulfides have a deleterious ef-
fect on weldability. Therefore, the ad-
dition of higher manganese levels in
steels requires that sulfur levels be
kept low, typically below 0.008 or
preferably 0.005%.
Silicon — usually present in only
small amounts (0.25%) — is present
in rolled steel when it is used as a de-
oxidizer. However, in steel castings,
0.35 to 1.00% is commonly present.
Silicon dissolves in iron and strength-
ens it. Weld metal usually contains ap-
proximately 0.50% silicon as a deoxi-
dizer. Some filler metals may contain
up to 1% to provide enhanced clean-
ing and deoxidation for welding on
contaminated surfaces. When these
filler metals are used for welding on
clean surfaces, the resulting weld met-
al strength will be markedly increased.
The resulting decrease in ductility
could cause cracking problems.
Nickel is an austenite stabilizer and
is added to steels to increase harden-
ability. It often improves the tough-
ness and ductility of steel, even with
the increased strength and hardness it
brings. It is frequently used to im-
prove toughness at low temperature.
Nickel steels are used in cryogenic
applications and are considered
weldable.
Other major alloying elements in
low-alloy steels are chromium, molyb-
denum, vanadium, and niobium.
These are carbide formers and are
good strengthening agents. Chromi-
um and molybdenum are added to im-
prove steels’ high-temperature per-
formance. These carbide formers also
resist tempering and minimize soften-
ing in the HAZ.
Sulfur is regarded as an undesirable
impurity in steel rather than an alloy-
ing element. In amounts exceeding
0.05%, it tends to cause brittleness
and reduce weldability. Alloying addi-
tions of sulfur in amounts from 0.10
to 0.30% tend to improve machinabil-
ity. Such types may be referred to as
“resulfurized” or “free-machining.”
Free-machining steels are not intend-
ed for welded applications.
Phosphorus is generally considered
to be an undesirable impurity in
JUNE 2015 WELDING JOURNAL 73
Tumuluru June 2015_Layout 1 5/11/15 2:15 PM Page 74
steels. It is normally found in
amounts up to 0.04% in most carbon
steels although for welded applica-
tions, a typical maximum of 0.015 to
0.02% is specified. In hardened steels,
it may tend to cause embrittlement.
In low-alloy high-strength steels,
phosphorus may be added in amounts
up to 0.10% to improve strength (as
in rephosphorized grades) and corro-
sion resistance. The effect of various
elements in improving the hardness
of steel is shown in Fig. 2.
Carbon Equivalent
To attain the desired strength and
microstructure, various amounts of
alloying elements such as carbon,
manganese, chromium, and molybde-
num are added to steels. The struc-
ture-property combination must be
accomplished without compromising
weldability. Therefore, steelmakers
add alloying elements in such a way as
to accomplish the desired structure
and properties without sacrificing
weldability. To accomplish this, it is
common to calculate the “carbon
equivalent” of a grade of steel. The
carbon equivalent expresses the cu-
mulative effect of carbon and various
other alloying elements on the weld-
ability of steels. In calculating carbon
equivalent, the effect of other alloying
elements is equated to an equivalent
amount of carbon.
Several formulas exist for calculat-
ing the carbon equivalent of steels.
Perhaps the most commonly used is
the one developed by the Internation-
al Institute of Welding (IIW) (Ref. 5).
The IIW equation is as follows:
CeqIIW = C + Mn/6 + (Cr + Mo + V)/5
+ (Ni + Cu)/15 (1)
The CeqIIW is used primarily to pre-
dict weldability. It appears that the
formulas on which it is based may
have been derived from a variety of
factors, including strength, hardness,
and cracking resistance. Although the
formula was useful for C-Mn steels,
its utility for low-alloy and microal-
loyed steels may be limited. Ito and
Bessyo (Ref. 6) developed a weldabili-
ty index called the composition-
parameter or Pcm. The Pcm is calculated
as follows:
Pcm = C + Si/30 + (Mn + Cu + Cr)/20
+ Ni/60 + Mo/15 + V/10 + 5B (2)
74 WELDING JOURNAL / JUNE 2015
Fig. 3 — Figure showing the relationship
between carbon equivalent, HAZ hard-
ness, and cracking propensity for a 1-in.
C-Mn steel welded with E6010 electrode
(Ref. 3).
It is generally believed the Pcm is
better suited to describe the weldabili-
ty of low-carbon steels, whereas the
IIW formula may provide a more real-
istic assessment of higher-carbon
steels. Yet another parameter devel-
oped by Yurioka, et al. (Ref. 7), called
carbon equivalent number (CEN), is
designed to incorporate both the IIW
carbon equivalent and the Pcm over the
full range of carbon contents. The for-
mula is as follows.
CEN = C + A(C) * {Si/24 + Mn/6
+ Cu/15 + Ni/20 + (Cr + Mo
+ Nb + V)/5 + 5B} (3)
where A(C) = 0.75 + 0.25 tan h{20
(C-12)}.
The CEN is similar to Pcm for steels
that contain less than 0.17 wt-% car-
bon. The CEN is good for steels con-
taining niobium because it takes into
account the effect of niobium, which
the other formulas do not. Niobium is
a strong carbide former and harden-
ability agent that is being increasingly
utilized to achieve higher strengths.
In resistance welding of steels, the
commonly used formulas for calculat-
ing carbon equivalent include Equa-
tion 1 shown previously as well as the
following:
Ceq = C + Mn/20 + Si/30 + Cr/20
+ Mo/15 + 2P + 4S (4)
Ceq = C + Mn/20 + Si/30 + 2P + 4S (5)
It is apparent that, while there are
similarities among the carbon equiva-
lent Equations 3–5, there are differ-
ences that will likely provide different
carbon equivalent numbers. There-
fore, users should choose the most
suitable equation that will best serve
their purpose. Additionally, carbon
equivalent should be used as a guide-
line to indicate the weldability of a
given grade of steel but not as an ab-
solute parameter. As the carbon
equivalent increases, it is generally
more difficult to weld steels — Fig. 3.
However, with proper procedures,
which might include pre- and post-
weld heat treatment and other steps,
it is possible to achieve welds that
perform satisfactorily in the intended
service. A recent study on weldabilty
of steels with different carbon equiva-
lents has shown that even steels with
high carbon equivalent can be welded
to achieve acceptable results if appro-
priate procedures are used (Ref. 8).
The procedures and practices required
differ depending on the carbon equiv-
alent of the steel being welded. This
means it is inaccurate to state that be-
yond a certain carbon equivalent a
particular grade of steel is not weld-
able. It only means, beyond a certain
carbon equivalent, steels require addi-
tional precautions to achieve accept-
able results.
Summary
Weldability of a given grade of steel
is strongly influenced by its composi-
tion. Various alloying elements are
added to improve properties of steels
to make them suitable for a variety of
applications. Among the various alloy-
ing elements added in steel, carbon by
far has the most influence on weld-
ability. Carbon equivalent, which pro-
vides a cumulative effect of various al-
loying elements in steel, provides a
means of quantifying the weldability.
Several formulas are available to cal-
culate carbon equivalent, and each
formula provides a different number.
Users should choose the most suitable
formula for their application. As the
carbon equivalent of steel goes up, it
becomes increasingly difficult to weld
and achieve satisfactory service per-
formance. As the carbon equivalent
goes up, certain precautions, such as
the use of pre- and postweld heating,
are necessary to ensure that welds
produced are of acceptable quality and
provide satisfactory performance in
the intended service. WJ
Tumuluru June 2015_Layout 1 5/11/15 2:15 PM Page 75

Disclaimer
The material in this article is in-
tended for general information only.
Any use of this material in relation to
any specific application should be
based on independent examination
and verification of its unrestricted
availability for such use and a deter-
mination of suitability for the applica-
tion by professionally qualified per-
sonnel. No license under any United
States Steel Corp. patents or other
proprietary interest is implied by the
publication of this article. Those mak-
ing use of or relying upon the material
assume all risks and liability arising
from such use or reliance.

References

1. Welding Handbook, 9th Ed., Vol.

1, Welding Technology. 1987. Miami,
Fla.: American Welding Society.
2. Advanced High-Strength Steel
Application Guidelines V5, www.worl-
dautosteel.org.
3. Welding Handbook, 9th Ed., Vol.
4, Welding Technology. 1987. Miami,
Fla.: American Welding Society.
4. Bain, E. C., and Paxton, H. C.
1990. Alloying Elements in Steel, 2nd
Ed. Materials Park, Ohio: ASM Inter- For info, go to www.aws.org/ad­index
national, www.asminternational.com.
5. ASM Metals Handbook, Vol. 6.
1990. Materials Park, Ohio: ASM In-
ternational.
6. Ito, Y., and Bessyo, K. 1968.
Weldability of high strength steels re-
lated to heat affected zone cracking.
IIW Document IX-576-68.
7. Yurioka, N., Suzuki, H., Ohshita,
S., and Saito, S. 1983. Determination
of necessary preheating temperature
in steel welding. Welding Journal
62(6): 147-s to 153-s.
8. Tumuluru, M. 2014. The signifi-
cance of carbon equivalent in the re-
sistance spot welding of dual phase
steels. Paper presented at the Interna-
tional Conference organized by the
International Institute of Welding,
April 5–8, New Delhi, India.

MURALI TUMULURU (mtumuluru@

uss.com) is research consultant with the
Research and Technology Center, United
States Steel Corp., Munhall, Pa.

For info, go to www.aws.org/ad­index

JUNE 2015 WELDING JOURNAL 75

LaPlante Article June 2015_Layout 1 5/11/15 2:23 PM Page 76
Performing Root Pass Welds
on a Super Duplex Stainless
Steel Pipeline
Making these types of welds for a
recent oilfield construction project
required massive workmanship quality
D
uplex stainless steels are often
specified for oilfield corrosive
service applications. In con-
structing a super duplex stainless steel
(SDSS) pipeline, the root pass is the
single most important as well as the
most demanding weld pass to make.
The SDSS root pass is critical owing
to the exposure of the internal
pipeline surface to corrosive media in
service. To endure service conditions,
achieving a root pass with sound me-
chanical and metallurgical properties
as well as the correct profile and sur-
face morphology is crucial.
Even for an experienced bead hand
(an oil industry term denoting a highly
skilled welder recognized for his/her
Fig. 1 — A shelter protects a bead hand while making a pipeline root pass weld using GTAW. Purge gas retaining tape placed
around the weld joint is gradually being removed as welding progresses. The pipeline alloy is as follows: Zeron 100 SDSS, 6.625-in.
OD × 0.250-in. wall thickness.
76 WELDING JOURNAL / JUNE 2015
pipeline root welding abilities), SDSS
root pass welding is demanding due to
rigorous workmanship quality require-
ments. A root weld made utilizing a
flawed welding technique, poor weld
joint fitup, or with an inadequate gas
purge will not meet respective radi-
ographic inspection and/or mechanical
testing criteria.
In addition, metallurgical require-
ments must be met pertinent to
achieving an optimum austenitic-
ferrite phase balance and in mitigating
the occurrence of adverse precipitation
reactions. A detrimental weld and
heat-affected zone (HAZ) microstruc-
ture increases the susceptibility of the
weld joint to pitting and corrosion as
BY WILLIAM C. LAPLANTE
well as for decreased Charpy impact
toughness.
This article centers on gas tungsten
arc welding (GTAW) of the root pass as
experienced during the construction
of a one-mile SDSS pipeline for an oil-
field seawater application — Fig. 1.
Pipeline PQR Qualification
Without a procedure qualification
record (PQR), achieving high-integrity
SDSS pipeline welds on a consistent
basis cannot be realized.
In qualifying the pipeline PQR, the
objective was to develop weld variables
to attain an as-welded weld deposit
and HAZ microstructure that effective-
LaPlante Article June 2015_Layout 1 5/11/15 2:23 PM Page 77

given to the thoroughness of weld

joint preparation and root opening
uniformity.
Good weld joint fitup is critical.
Weld time increases with poor fitup
wherein the weld HAZ and weld metal
experience multiple reheating cycles
and exposure to the damaging temper-
ature range 1000º to 1830ºF, where
sigma and other intermetallic phases
form (Ref. 2).
Weld joint fitup practices included
Fig. 2 — The PQR GTAW process and test data. Ferrite testing was performed per the following:
ASTM E562, Standard Test Method for Determining Volume Fraction by Systematic • Achieving uniformity of weld
Manual Point Count, where ferrite levels of 48 to 54% were identified. Intermetallic bevels and the root opening to ensure
phase testing was conducted per ASTM A923, Standard Test Methods for Detect- heat-input consistency.
ing Detrimental Intermetallic Phase in Duplex Austenitic/Ferritic Stainless Steels,
where no intermetallic phases were detected. Also, multiple pitting and corrosion
• Utilizing a knife root edge weld
tests were carried out per ASTM G48, Standard Test Methods for Pitting and joint design to facilitate root pass fu-
Crevice Corrosion Resistance of Stainless Steels and Related Alloys by Use of sion with reduced heat input.
Ferric Chloride Solution. • Attaining weld joint cleanliness by
removing contaminants and the oxide
film on the pipe inside diameter (ID)
ly retains the mechanical and metallur- occurring and achieve a close 50:50 and outside diameter (OD) surfaces at
gical properties of the pipeline alloy. austenitic-ferrite phase balance — least 2 in. back from weld joint edges.
For example, achieving a close 50:50 Fig. 2. This was accomplished by the • Performing visual inspection of
austenite-ferrite phase balance in the following: 1) limiting the number of weld joints prior to root tack welding
root pass and HAZ microstructure. weld HAZ and weld metal reheating with proactive intervention.
In SDSS multipass welds, each sub- cycles; and 2) controlling the weld
sequent weld pass can have a signifi- metal ferrite content via base metal/ GTAW Root Tack Welding
cant and adverse effect on the metal- weld metal composition and weld ther-
lurgical condition of the previous weld mal conditions, including preheat, in- Root tack welding is important be-
pass. This is due to harmful precipitat- terpass, and weld heat input (kJ/in.). cause tack welds typically become an
ing reactions that can occur in a weld, integral part of the root weld (Ref. 3).
including the Chi phase (χ), sigma Pipeline Weld Joint Fitup To ensure good weld pool fusion quali-
phase (σ), chromium-rich carbides, ties and oxidation protection, the
chromium nitrides, alpha prime (α'), Figure 3 shows the fitup method pipeline ID was prepurged prior to and
and other intermetallic phases (Ref. 1). and complete-joint-penetration groove during root tack welding as well as
During qualification of the PQR, it weld joint design. To optimize root throughout weld joint welding. Weld-
was critical to mitigate the risk for pass fusion and achieve consistent ing began when the oxygen content
damaging precipitation reactions from heat input, detailed attention was within the argon purge gas environ-

Fig. 3 — A — A pipe clamp aligns the weld joint and maintains the root opening during prepurging prior to GTA root tack welding; B
— a single-V-groove butt weld joint, 75 deg, included an angle with a 1⁄8-in. open root opening and knife root edge.

JUNE 2015 / WELDING JOURNAL 77

LaPlante Article June 2015_Layout 1 5/11/15 2:24 PM Page 78

ment was <100 parts per million. A

The weld joint purge gas environ-
ment represents the volumetric
pipeline ID space between two inflated
gas bladders, as shown in Fig. 4.
Pipeline welds were made using 1⁄8-in.-
diameter, SDSS Zeron 100X, ER/R
2594 weld filler metal. Care was exer-
cised to avoid making an arc strike
outside of the weld joint. In welding
duplex alloys, arc strikes promote the
formation of excessive ferrite in which
the area must be excavated by fine B
grinding to a minimum depth of
≈ 0.040 in.

Weld Joint Gas Purging,

Monitoring, and Control
Gas purging is a pivotal practice. To
facilitate good weld pool fusion charac- Fig. 4 — A — The type of inflatable purge gas bladder unit utilized for SDSS pipeline
teristics and oxidation protection, construction; B — a schematic of the unit installed within the pipeline for weld joint
weld joint gas purging is performed to welding.
protect internal root weld and HAZ
surfaces from atmospheric contamina-
tion. Internal heat-tint oxide levels
range from heavily oxidized “sugaring”
to visually clear oxidation-free welds.
Reference AWS D18.2, Guide to Weld
Discoloration Levels on Inside of
Austenitic Stainless Steel Tube.
Figure 4 shows the type of inflat-
able purge gas bladder unit used for
the pipeline project. The unit was in-
serted into the pipeline and positioned
during the weld joint fitup stage. The
strategy was to confine the pipeline ID
purge volume to a more localized and
controllable level as opposed to purg-
ing a whole pipeline section. Through-
out all welding activities, a calibrated
oxygen sensor was utilized to analyze
the oxygen content within the argon
purge gas environment. The sensor
display was continually monitored by a
welding inspector. Argon gas flow
rates for the two inflatable gas blad-
ders and purge gas were controlled by
the welder.

GTA Root Pass Weld Defects

Figure 5 shows the root pass weld
defects identified during pipeline
welder performance qualification test-
ing. Root pass weld defects included
the following: underfill (i.e., suck
back/internal root surface concavity),
excessive penetration, and incomplete
fusion.
During welder testing, root pass
weld defects resulted from the follow-
ing: 1) incorrect welding technique re-
Fig. 5 — Pipe ID root pass weld defects. Defects were visually identified during
pipeline GTAW welder performance qualification testing.
spective to the feeding of the weld the argon purge gas environment ex-
filler metal and torch manipulation; 2) ceeded 100 parts per million; 5) weld-
improper starts and stops; 3) failure to ing with a root opening less than 1⁄8 in.;
decrease the argon purge gas flow rate and 6) welding with pipe ID high-low
as well as the bladder gas pressure dur- misalignment in excess of 1⁄16 in.
ing the root pass tie-in; 4) welding too Radiographic weld inspection and
soon where the oxygen content within mechanical and metallurgical testing

78 WELDING JOURNAL / JUNE 2015

LaPlante Article June 2015_Layout 1 5/11/15 2:24 PM Page 79
Fig. 6 — A GTAW bead hand “cup walking” the root pass in the 5G position as a
pipefitter slowly removes purge gas retaining tape placed around the open root
weld joint.
Fig. 7 — SDSS pipeline root welds with acceptable root reinforcement (< 3⁄32 in.), root
surface morphology, and level of internal surface heat-tint oxide.
of welder performance qualification
test specimens were in accordance
with the Engineering Authority’s Du-
plex Stainless Steel Welding Specification
and ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code, Section IX.
GTAW Root Pass Welding
Figure 6 shows root pass welding
and the face of a root pass weld that is
slightly convex with good weld toe
fusion.
Figure 7 shows acceptable pipeline
root welds. The governing code for
pipeline construction was ASME
B31.4, Pipeline Transportation Systems
for Liquid Hydrocarbons and Other
Liquids.
Bead hands achieved radiographic
quality root pass welds on a consistent
basis by the following:
• Minimizing GTAW “cup walking”
torch manipulation. Only stringer
weld beads (i.e., ≤ 3× weld filler metal
diameter) were used for pipe welding.
• Maintaining “tight” arcs to better
define and provide directional control
of the weld pool.
• Employing the continuous weld
filler metal feeding method as opposed
to the dapping method.
• Adhering to key weld joint prepa-
ration and fitup principles, including
proper weld joint design, the precision
machining of joint bevels, uniform
open roots, surface cleanliness, visual
inspection, the ability to accurately
monitor/control the purge gas envi-
ronment, and the minimization of
pipe ID high-low misalignment.
• Exhibiting patience in manipulat-
ing the weld pool without using exces-
sive amperage.
Pipeline Welding Overview —
PQR Criticality
The qualification of the SDSS PQR
was an integral part of the pipeline
project. The PQR qualification was
based upon the knowledge that a
detrimental microstructural accumula-
tive effect occurs each time a duplex
alloy is held in the sigma formation
range. Thus, there was an emphasis to
minimize the total time at tempera-
ture by limiting the number of weld
HAZ and weld metal reheating cycles.
A compromise was established be-
tween the heat input and number of
weld passes required to achieve de-
sired mechanical and metallurgical
properties.
Also, there was strict control of the
weld metal ferrite content via the base
metal/weld metal composition and
weld thermal conditions. An impor-
tant aspect of weld thermal conditions
is the weld cooling rate. As the cooling
rate increases, the weld solidification
time decreases and vice versa. The
weld cooling rate has a profound effect
on the weld metal and HAZ mi-
crostructure during welding and re-
quires close control. For example, an
accelerated cooling rate can promote a
weld metal ferrite content that is high-
er than optimal.
Conclusion
Super duplex stainless steel pipeline
root pass welding is demanding owing
to the workmanship quality require-
ments to meet radiographic inspection
and mechanical and metallurgical ac-
ceptance criteria. This entails the fol-
lowing: 1) employing highly competent
GTAW pipe welders, i.e., bead hands;
2) adhering to key weld joint prepara-
tion and fitup principles; and 3) the
qualification of a PQR to ensure the as-
welded weld deposit and HAZ mi-
crostructure effectively maintain the
inherent mechanical and metallurgical
properties of the pipeline alloy. WJ
References
1. AWS D10.18, Guide for Welding
Ferritic/Austenitic Duplex Stainless Steel
Piping and Tubing.
2. Lippold, J. C., and Kotecki, D. J.
2005. Welding Metallurgy and Weldabil-
ity of Stainless Steels. New Jersey: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc.
3. AWS D10.11, Guide for Root Pass
Welding of Pipe without Backing.
WILLIAM C. LAPLANTE
(william.laplante@ge.com), an AWS CWI
and CWE, is a welding engineer at GE
Power & Water, Greenville, S.C.
JUNE 2015 / WELDING JOURNAL 79
KVIDAHL_Layout 1 5/11/15 10:56 AM Page 80
Understand the Building Blocks for a
Quality Welding Program
A methodical evaluation of the job requirements
and welder skills is presented to help new
welding engineers develop sustainable programs
A
welding program that demon-
strates consistent quality per-
formance begins with very basic
tools. An understanding of the re-
quirements to produce an acceptable
product is communicated, in writing,
to the welder who has previously
demonstrated sufficient skill and abili-
ty by producing workmanship samples
tested as required by the customer’s
specification. From these building
blocks, a program that consistently
produces quality welded products can
succeed in the modern world economy.
The Welding Engineer’s Job
A major responsibility for most
welding engineers is to develop and
create the welding procedure specifica-
tions (WPSs). These written instruc-
tions provide the technical direction
for a welding operation. The WPS is
typically based upon objective qualifi-
cation test data and contains the
Fig. 1 — The AWS B2.1 specification is a
valuable reference.
80 WELDING JOURNAL / JUNE 2015
process essential elements to provide
the welder or welding operator the
technical information required to com-
plete a weld.
There are no industry standards for
the format or content of a WPS. There
is a wide variety of standards and
codes (Fig. 1) that suggest a format to
be used, but the format is not the
most important feature of a WPS. The
technical content is the most critical
component.
Working with the Standards
There are many industry standards
and codes that do define the informa-
tion to be provided in each WPS. In
many cases, these standards and codes
provide very similar directions but not
necessarily identical directions. For
this reason, it is imperative that each
welding engineer research the specific
requirements for each of the standards
or codes invoked by the customer re-
ceiving the welded product. This can-
not be stressed enough — the WPS
must incorporate all of the informa-
tion defined by the applicable contrac-
tual fabrication standard and not have
been based upon an assumption that
one WPS may be adequate for multiple
standards.
Essential Elements of the WPS
The core of any WPS is the essential
elements. Commonly, a fabrication
standard will define what comprises
the WPS essential elements and what
information is mandatory for inclu-
sion in the procedure. The elements
themselves may change based upon
the process definition, such as addi-
tional elements are required for an au-
tomatic process than a manual weld-
ing process. Based upon the product
BY LEE G. KVIDAHL
being welded and the fabrication stan-
dard, the number and specifics of what
WPS information is defined as essen-
tial will determine the content of the
welding procedure.
Following are some of the more
common essential elements contained
in welding procedures.
• Process — Every WPS requires the
type of welding process and addition-
ally whether it is to be used semiauto-
matically, automatically, or in conjunc-
tion with some type of machine.
• Base Material — Each specification
may require this information to be re-
ported in a different manner. Many
standards group the potential base
materials into families based upon
chemistry or mechanical properties. A
WPS may simply reference the correct
family of materials, as defined by the
fabrication standard, or may need to
include the applicable material specifi-
cation and more specific material
designations.
• Base Material Thickness — A WPS
may be restricted to a material thick-
ness range. Normally, this is based
upon the material thickness used for
qualification testing, i.e., the proce-
dure qualification record (PQR).
• Filler Material — Similar to the base
materials, many of the filler materials
are grouped together based upon
chemistry. While this may simplify a
requirement, it is important that the
WPS specify the type of filler material
to be used for the intended applica-
tion. For example, it is common for all
of the austenitic stainless steel filler
materials to be placed into a single
group, but the WPS must direct the
welder to use the correct alloy for the
KVIDAHL_Layout 1 5/11/15 10:57 AM Page 81
specific type of base material and the
service condition the welded compo-
nent will experience.
• Joint Design — The WPS may be re-
stricted to a family or families of joint
designs. If the supporting PQR uti-
lized a partial penetration joint design,
most likely the WPS may not be appli-
cable for applications requiring a com-
plete-joint-penetration weld. In the
case of fully automatic welding proce-
dures, rather than a family of joint de-
signs, the WPS may require a very spe-
cific machined weld preparation.
• Electrical Characteristics — For arc
welding procedures, amperage, volt-
age, and polarity are almost universal-
ly required as essential elements.
Some standards may accept a wire feed
speed range to replace the amperage
range in the WPS.
• Gases — If a gas is used for the
welding process, a definition of the
type and potential mixes of gases, the
minimum flow rate, and whether the
procedure requires just a shielding gas
in the immediate zone of the arc or if
additional shielding gas is required for
internal purging or as a trailing shield
will be required. It is also common for
the WPS to provide direction as to the
minimum size of the shielding gas cup
to be used.
• Heating Requirements — Certain
materials require a minimum preheat
or maximum interpass temperature to
be incorporated into the welding oper-
ation. The WPS will contain this infor-
mation as well as any postwelding
heating operations such as a low-
temperature soaking heat or a full-
bore stress relief.
• Procedural Requirements — Other
procedural elements may be required
to complete the WPS. Factors such as
travel speed, torch orientation,
preweld cleanliness, and other attrib-
utes may be required by the specifica-
tions or codes being employed for the
specific job. It is mandatory that the
author of the WPS review the specifi-
cation requirements thoroughly to en-
sure that the necessary information is
contained in the WPS.
Qualifying the WPS
Most specifications and codes de-
fine the requirements for the qualifica-
tion of the welding procedure. This
process requires the use of the pro-
posed welding procedure (WPS) to
make one or more test welds that will
be thoroughly examined. The exami-
nation may entail nondestructive test-
ing, destructive testing, or in some in-
stances both. This testing is docu-
mented in the procedure qualification
record (PQR) and provides the objec-
tive quality evidence that the welding
procedure will produce an acceptable
weld when tested for soundness and
mechanical properties.
Using Prequalified WPSs
Not all fabrication standards re-
quire a WPS to be qualified prior to be-
ing written and implemented. These
standards have provisions for prequal-
ified welding procedures. The prequali-
fied procedures are typically used for
common welding processes to be used
to join common materials in less criti-
cal applications. The reason that the
procedures are considered prequalified
is that there is a large body of knowl-
edge and considerable history of use
demonstrating that the prequalified
procedure provides the directions re-
quired to make acceptable welds with-
out having to do additional testing.
When the WPS must be qualified,
the first step is to carefully and fully
review the procedure qualification re-
quirements as stated in the applicable
fabrication document. As with welding
procedures, the requirements between
different standards may also be differ-
ent. It can be costly in both time and
money, as well as very frustrating, if a
test is not performed during the quali-
fication process due to overlooking a
requirement and a second test plate or
pipe must be welded to provide the
necessary test specimens.
The Six Qualifying Steps
There are typically six steps to qual-
ify a welding procedure. First, under-
stand the requirements from the ap-
plicable specification. Second, weld the
necessary number of test plates or
pipes using the proposed WPS. De-
pending upon the product application
or specification requirements, more
than one test piece may be required to
be welded. Third, perform all required
nondestructive testing. Fourth, per-
form all required destructive testing.
Fifth, document the welding and test-
ing results in the welding procedure
qualification test record. Sixth, if re-
quired, submit the documentation to
the customer for approval.
The required nondestructive test-
ing may include visual inspection,
which will be needed for all qualifica-
tion welding, hardness testing, liquid
penetrant inspection, magnetic parti-
cle inspection, radiography, and in
some cases ultrasonic inspection.
Rarely are all of these inspection
methods required, but in many stan-
dards, some combination of these
will be necessary. The acceptance
criteria will be defined in the applica-
ble standard.
Destructive Testing Methods
Destructive testing can include fil-
let weld break test, tensile testing,
bend testing, and toughness testing.
As with the nondestructive testing,
rarely are all of these test methods re-
quired, but the applicable standard
will define the requirements. The stan-
dard will also define the acceptance
criteria and the appropriate test condi-
tions for performing these tests.
Minimizing Qualification Tests
A key part of reviewing the specifi-
cation requirements is to ensure that
the testing encompasses a broad
enough range of parameters that addi-
tional qualification test work will not
be needed in the near future. Most
specifications have a range of toler-
ances on each of the essential ele-
ments that permit some variations
from the qualification test values so
that a WPS may be altered without re-
quiring another PQR test regimen. For
example, many standards allow the
qualified base material thickness to
range from one-half the thickness of
the test material to twice the thickness
of the test material. If there are several
applications that may utilize the same
WPS, it is prudent, if possible, to use a
material thickness that may include all
of the thicknesses required by only
performing a single PQR.
Each standard has different re-
quirements for changes in the WPS
that are allowed without having an ad-
ditional qualification requirement.
The standard should be very carefully
reviewed to understand these allow-
able changes to determine the planned
JUNE 2015 / WELDING JOURNAL 81
KVIDAHL_Layout 1 5/14/15 11:16 AM Page 82
qualification process to ultimately
minimize the number of qualification
tests being performed while the full
range of the WPS stays within the con-
fines of the specification tolerances.
Welder Certification
In addition to welding procedure
development and qualification, virtu-
ally all standards define requirements
for welder certification. Many of the
standards have similar requirements
but, as expected, they will not be iden-
tical. Fortunately, many of the stan-
dards have requirements that are very
similar, so that the customer of the
welded product may accept the welder
certification testing from an alternate
specification.
Rarely are welder certifications
transferable between different em-
ployers without an additional per-
formance test. While this process may
permit a national certification pro-
gram to be considered for welder certi-
fication, the reality is that each em-
82 WELDING JOURNAL / JUNE 2015
ployer will most likely require a weld-
ing test to be included in the hiring
process. By having a national certifica-
tion, the welder has demonstrated the
skill necessary to make quality welds
and this should simplify the welder
certification process.
Typically, pipe and structural certi-
fications have different requirements.
Based upon the application, the stan-
dards should be reviewed to determine
whether a single certification test may
be applied to all of the required pro-
duction welds. Many standards define
a pipe with a diameter of 24 in. or
greater to be a plate, so this type of in-
formation may be of consideration for
the welder certification process.
Conclusion
Many standards define the welder
certification application by process
and filler material. Depending upon
the applicable standard, one filler ma-
terial grouping may also certify the
use of additional filler material group-
ings. By understanding this allowance,
a company may be able to certify their
personnel for multiple applications by
using a single welder certification test
package. A detailed understanding of
the applicable welder certification
testing process will provide the path to
have a fully certified welder with a
minimum of test welds being made.
Summarizing, the basic building
block of a quality welding program is
the conformance to the applicable
specification requirements for welding
procedures, their qualification testing
to demonstrate the acceptance of the
procedures and the talent of the
welder as demonstrated by the certifi-
cation process. By performing all of
these developmental steps, a welding
program is on the road to success and
will provide welded products that
meet the customer’s requirements. WJ
LEE G. KVIDAHL (lee.kvidahl@hii-ingalls.com)
is manager, Welding Engineering, Ingalls Ship-
building, Pascagoula, Miss., and an AWS past
president.
Sewell Feature June 2015_Layout 1 5/11/15 1:44 PM Page 84

Recent Advances in
Weld Purge Dams
BY RON A. SEWELL

Technical
improvements in
materials, gas
control, and
robustness of
purging equipment
for pipe welding
are outlined
Fig. 1 — Example of an inflatable dam system that ranges in size from 25 to 600 mm.

I
nert gas purging is increasingly
used to protect weld underbeads
from contamination, particularly on
materials and applications where im-
purities can affect performance. This
may simply be to eliminate discol-
oration or unsightly “grapes” or “sug-
aring.” It is particularly significant in
the pharmaceutical, biomass, food,
petrochemical, power generation, and
semiconductor industries where any
oxidation introduced during welding
can result in particulate materials or
reduce corrosion resistance.
Commercial purging equipment
has been available for decades, but
customer feedback in the last ten
years has alerted manufacturers to the
need for technical improvements in
materials, gas control, and robustness.
The inflatable dam concept has been
adopted globally as offering a solution
in purging equipment, and the range
of available systems covers all pipe di-
ameter sizes from 25 to 2500 mm — Fig. 2 — This system can be used for pipe in sizes between 150 and 2440 mm.
Figs. 1, 2.

84 WELDING JOURNAL / JUNE 2015

Sewell Feature June 2015_Layout 1 5/11/15 1:44 PM Page 85
Three areas in particular have been
addressed recently: the use of purging
when pre- and postweld heating is in-
volved, purging during the manufac-
ture of large vessels, and remote meas-
uring of purge gas oxygen levels.
Weld Purging with Preheat
and Postweld Heat Treatment
Some engineering alloys are prone
to cracking during welding. Industry
sectors having to overcome this prob-
lem are principally in power engineer-
ing, including nuclear power genera-
tion, and include low- and medium-
alloy steels that have been specially de-
veloped for their high strength. Metal-
lurgists have learned that heating the
joint prior to and after welding [pre-
heating and postweld heat treatment
(PWHT)] can reduce the sensitivity to
cracking quite significantly. It involves
temperatures in the region of 200°C,
although this may be much higher for
certain materials (Refs. 1–4).
An example of a commonly used al-
loy benefitting from this treatment is
SA 213 T91 or SA 335 P91 (Table 1).
This is a ferritic alloy steel that meets
the condition of creep resistance re-
quired in high-temperature steam gen-
erating plants. The material, often
simply referred to as P91, has been in
successful use for the last two decades
in power plant service.
Welding, which is widely used dur-
ing manufacturing, affects the mi-
crostructure of the metal. Preheating,
maintaining interpass temperatures,
and PWHT procedures are critical for
P91 and similar alloys. Failure to fol-
low the procedures can result in cata-
strophic failures in service.
Other high-temperature, creep-
resistant ferrous alloys requiring this
type of heat treatment are ASTM
A389 grade C24, A356 grade 9; DIN
21CrMoV 5-11, 15CrMoV 5-10, GS-
17CrMoV 511; and EN G17CrMoV5-
10 and GE B50A224.
Table 1 — Composition of P91 Steel
Grade C Mn
P91
0.08–0.12 0.30–0.60
V N
0.18–0.25 0.03–0.07
The preferred processes for this
type of fabrication are gas tungsten
arc (GTA) and gas metal arc (GMA)
welding, which offer protection to the
exposed upper fusion zone. The joint
around the underbead, however, needs
to be protected by purging.
Meeting the requirements of inert
gas purging when temperatures ex-
ceeding 200ºC are involved necessi-
tates the use of purge systems capable
of withstanding these temperatures
throughout the heating and welding
cycles. Typical thermal cycles can ex-
ceed 2 h and it may be necessary to
maintain the purge system in place
throughout.
Specially engineered purge prod-
ucts have been designed over the past
five years that are capable of with-
standing the temperatures involved
while at the same time maintaining
adequate gas sealing characteristics.
They are also rugged enough to sur-
vive multiple-use applications. They
feature inflatable seals manufactured
from flexible, thermally resistant engi-
neering materials, and longer inflat-
able dam connection collars to allow
the dams to sit a little further away
from the high temperature of the joint
during PWHT.
All materials are selected to be used
multiple times at temperatures ex-
ceeding 300ºC for 24 h and fittings
comply with international standards.
Another innovation incorporates
advanced pressure regulator technolo-
gy to ensure there is no possibility of
overinflation, and hence, failure of the
seals. The risk of loss of purge during
the whole weld cycle is, therefore,
minimized.
Inert Gas Weld Purging
of Large Tanks
While commercial systems have
been available to provide shielding or
purging when welding pipes, little at-
tention seems to have been paid to
P, S, max Si
0.020/0.010 0.20–0.50
Ni Al
0.40 max 0.02 max
shielding weld roots on the inside of
large tanks or vessels.
Simply filling the vessel with argon
would be time consuming and expen-
sive because of the large volume of gas
necessary. The health risks involved in
releasing such an amount of asphyxi-
ant gas into the atmosphere when the
welding process has been completed
must also be considered.
The use of inflatable dams or stop-
pers to fill much of the space, leaving
only a minimum volume close to the
weld region for protection with argon,
is becoming much more common. The
dams can be inflated with compressed
air or with a standard foot pump. Be-
cause the volume remaining for purg-
ing is then reduced significantly, cost
savings are clearly evident. Benefits
include
• Protection of the weld from oxida-
tion and elimination of any need for
postweld cleaning
• Significant reduction in expensive ar-
gon consumption
• Prevention from release of large vol-
umes of asphyxiant gas into the at-
mosphere following welding
• Shortened purging and welding
times.
Ingenious solutions to providing ef-
fective but practical devices have been
developed to meet the potentially wide
range of vessel configurations. Hunt-
ingdon Fusion Techniques, for exam-
ple, manufactures a family of dams
called Inflatable Stoppers.
The family includes spherical and
cylindrical models. Heat-resistant ver-
sions for use up to 300°C are available
to accommodate the need to weld us-
ing preheat or postheat schedules.
They are manufactured using an engi-
neering quality latex inner tube and
polyurethane-impregnated nylon fab-
ric outer cover.
Inflatable cylindrical stoppers are
collapsible. They can thus be inserted
through a small opening and then in-
flated to seal a larger-diameter vessel.
Cr Mo
8.00–9.50 0.85–1.05
Nb Ti
0.06–0.10 0.01 max
JUNE 2015 / WELDING JOURNAL 85
Sewell Feature June 2015_Layout 1 5/11/15 1:45 PM Page 86
Fig. 3 — Chart showing effect of sampling distance on measured oxy-
gen levels.
Remote Weld Purge
Monitoring
Circumstances occasionally arise,
particularly during on-site welding of
pipelines, for which it becomes neces-
sary to measure purge gas oxygen con-
tent using instrumentation located
some distance from the joint.
The accepted method of monitoring
has been to extract gas from a tube
and take measurements at the tube
exit. While this technique yields good
results when the tube length is short,
i.e., below 1 m, readings become in-
consistent and unreliable at sampling
distances greater than that.
In order to establish the reasons for
this variation in readings, laboratory
research, based on commercially avail-
able equipment, has been initiated.
The preliminary results confirm the
feedback from field observations con-
cerning erratic readings, but also re-
veal some alarming statistics. The de-
lay in readings when the measurement
distance exceeds 1 m can be up to 30
min to reach an oxygen level in the re-
gion of 100 ppm even when the actual
level is only 25 ppm measured at 1 m.
The user can thus be misled by a very
large margin and the welding process
thus extended considerably.
Data in Fig. 3 have been obtained
by sampling oxygen content at 1 (se-
ries 3), 10 (series 2), and 20 m (series
1), and show the change in oxygen
content in parts per million with time
over a 30-min period.
The efficiency of the system is indi-
cated by the fact that an oxygen level
86 WELDING JOURNAL / JUNE 2015
Fig. 4 — Electronic purge monitor eliminates delays in
oxygen level measurement even at 1000 m distance
from the weld region (Ref. 5).
of 100 ppm measured at 1 m is
reached in approximately 3 min. How-
ever, at 10 m this oxygen level is not
reached for 20 min. The reasons for
the very significant delays can be at-
tributed to a number of factors:
Gas flow velocity. The monitor used
in the research incorporates an extrac-
tion pump, but the manufacturer’s
pumping speed is based on unthrot-
tled measurement at the pump inlet.
Even at 1 m, this speed is likely to be
much reduced. Increasing the pumping
speed, however, will lead to turbulence
and aggravate the readings even more.
Sampling tube gas friction. Unlikely
to be significant with the polyure-
thane material used but nevertheless
contributory.
Sampling tube diameter. Possibly
better laminar flow with increased di-
ameter but even slower gas flow rate.
Sampling tube material. Polyure-
thane is probably the material offering
least resistance to gas flow and unlike-
ly to contribute to oxygen pickup from
the tube wall.
This preliminary research will be
supported by further, more compre-
hensive study but the results clearly
show that measurements taken be-
yond 1 m distance are unreliable and
misleading. Recognizing this problem,
and the consequent delay and cost of
welding involved, an electronic weld
purge monitor with a sensor that can
be located close to the weld purge exit
and a monitor connected by a data ca-
ble that can be up to 1000 m in length
has been developed — Fig. 4.
In this way, actual oxygen levels can
be conveyed instantly via data cable,
without having to wait 30 min or more
to see the results at a distance. WJ
References
1. BS EN ISO 13916:1997: Welding
— Guidance on the Measurement of Pre-
heating Temperature, Interpass Temper-
ature and Preheat Maintenance Temper-
ature. British Standards Institution.
2. BS EN 1011-2: 2001: Welding —
Recommendations for Welding of Metal-
lic Materials. Part 2: Arc Welding of Fer-
ritic Steels. British Standards Institu-
tion.
3. The Welding Institute. Technical-
knowledge series.
4. Bailey, N. 1995. Weldability of
Ferritic Steels. The Welding Institute.
5. Technical specification available
via HFT website www.huntingdonfu-
sion.com.
Ron A Sewell (rasewell@huntingdon-
fusion.com) is chairman, Huntingdon
Fusion Techniques, Ltd., Stukeley
Meadow, UK.
Change of Address? Moving?
Make sure delivery of your Welding Jour-
nal is not interrupted. Contact Maria
Trujillo in the Membership Department
with your new address information —
(800) 443-9353, ext. 204; mtrujillo@aws.org.
Welding Workbook June 2015_Layout 1 5/14/15 9:47 AM Page 94

WELDING WORKBOOK
DATASHEET 357

Welding of Tubular Connections

Tubular members, also called hol-
low structural sections, are used in
structures such as drill rigs, space
frames, trusses, booms, and earth-
moving and mining equipment. They
have the advantage of minimum de-
flection under load because of their
greater rigidity when compared to
standard structural shapes. Figure 1
shows six types of welded tubular
connections, the component designa- A B
tions, and nomenclature.
Because with structural tubing
holes do not need to be cut at inter-
sections, the connections are charac-
terized by high strength and stiffness.
However, connections made with
complete-joint-penetration (CJP)
groove welds must be given special
consideration, and care must be taken
to ensure weld quality and that ade-
quate fusion exists at the root. A CJP C D
weld must be made from one side
only and without backing as the small
tube size and configuration prevent
access to the root side of the weld.
Special skill is required to make tubu-
lar connections using CJP groove
welds from one side.
With relatively small thin-walled
tubes, the end of the brace tube may
be partially or fully flattened. The end
of the flattened section is trimmed at
the appropriate angle to abut against
the main member where it is to be E F
welded. This design should only be
used with relatively low-load condi-
tions because the load is concentrated
on a narrow area of the main tube
member. The flattened section of Fig. 1 — Welded tubular connections, components, and nomenclature.
the brace member must be free of
cracks.

Weld Joint Design
When tubular members are fit together for welding, the
end of the branch member or brace is normally contoured to
the shape of the main member. In the case of T-connections
(Fig. 1C), the members must be joined with their axes at 80
to 100 deg. For Y and K connections (Fig. 1D, E), an angle of
less than 80 deg would be used. The tubes may have a circu-
lar or rectangular shape. In addition, the member may be
equal in size or smaller than the main member.
The angle between the adjacent outside tube surface in a
plane perpendicular to the joint can vary around the joint
from about 150 to 30 deg. To accommodate this, the weld
joint design and welding procedures must vary around the
joint to obtain a weld with an adequate throat dimension.
Tubular joints are normally accessible only from outside
the tubes; therefore, the joints are generally made with sin-
gle groove or fillet welds. Groove welds may be designed for
complete or partial joint penetration depending on the load
conditions. To obtain adequate joint penetration, shielded
metal arc, gas metal arc, and flux cored arc welding are gen-
erally used to make tubular joints in structures. WJ

Excerpted from the Welding Handbook, 9th Ed., Vol. 1, Welding Science and Technology.

94 WELDING JOURNAL / JUNE 2015

 American Welding Society

RECRUIT MEMBERS & WIN

II CAMPAIGN RULES II CAMPAIGN PRIZES

RECRUIT NEW AWS MEMBERS FROM
JANUARY 1, 2015 TO DECEMBER 31, 2015 TO WIN.
You receive points for each AWS Member you recruit:
5 Points for every AWS Individual Member you recruit
1 Point for every AWS Student Member you recruit
PRIZE CATEGORIES*
Earn 10-24 points ...................................AWS Messenger Bag
Earn 25-34 points ..........................................AWS Polo Shirt
Earn 35+ points .................................................AWS Jacket
Top Point Earner Wins ............................. $500 VISA Gift Card
*Prizes will be issued at the end of the campaign, based on total points earned.

To recruit new Members, use the application on the reverse:

All AWS members in good standing may participate and are eligible to win. In order to be eligible to win the drawing, the
referring member must be an active AWS member at the time the campaign ends 12/31 /15. AWS staff members are not
eligible to participate. Participants' eligibility is also determined at the sole discretion of the campaign's administrators.
The campaign period runs from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015.
 AWS MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION
Join or Renew: Mail: Form with your payment, to AWS Call: Membership Department at (800) 443-9353, ext. 480
Fax: Completed form to (305) 443-5647 Online: www.aws.org/membership 8669 NW 36 St, # 130
Miami, FL 33166-6672
CONTACT INFORMATION Telephone (800) 443-9353
FAX (305) 443-5647
q New Member q Renewal Visit our website: www.aws.org

q Mr. q Ms. q Mrs. q Dr. Please print • Duplicate this page as needed Type of Business (Check ONE only)
A q Contract construction
Last Name:_______________________________________________________________________________
B q Chemicals & allied products
C q Petroleum & coal industries
First Name:___________________________________________________________________ M.I:_______
D q Primary metal industries
E q Fabricated metal products
Birthdate: _____________________________ E-Mail:____________________________________________
F q Machinery except elect. (incl. gas welding)
G q Electrical equip., supplies, electrodes
Cell Phone ( )__________________________ Secondary Phone ( )______________________
H q Transportation equip. — air, aerospace
Were you ever an AWS Member? q YES q NO If “YES,” give year________ and Member #:____________________ I q Transportation equip. — automotive
J q Transportation equip. — boats, ships
Company (if applicable):___________________________________________________________________ K q Transportation equip. — railroad
L q Utilities
Address:________________________________________________________________________________ M q Welding distributors & retail trade
N q Misc. repair services (incl. welding shops)
_______________________________________________________________________________________ O q Educational Services (univ., libraries, schools)
P q Engineering & architectural services (incl. assns.)
City:_____________________________________State/Province:__________________________________ Q q Misc. business services (incl. commercial labs)
R q Government (federal, state, local)
Zip/PostalCode:_____________________Country:______________________________________________ S q Other
Œ Who pays your dues?: q Company q Self-paid  Sex: q Male q Female
Ž Education level: q High school diploma q Associate’s q Bachelor’s q Master’s q Doctoral 01 q
02 q Manager, director, superintendent (or assistant)
q Check here if you learned of the Society through an AWS Member? Member’s name:_______________________Member’s # (if known):________ 03 q Sales
q 04 q Purchasing
05 q Engineer — welding
INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP 20 q Engineer — design
21 q Engineer — manufacturing
è Please check each box that applies to the Membership or service you’d like, and then add the cost together to get your Total Payment. 06 q Engineer — other
10 q Architect designer
q AWS INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP (One Year)......................................................................................................$86 12 q Metallurgist
A wo Years SAVE $25 New Members Only....................................$147 13 q Research & development
22 q Quality control
q New Member Initiation Fee ...........................................................................................................................................$12 07 q Inspector, tester
08 q Supervisor, foreman
OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO AWS INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS ONLY:
14 q Technician
A.) OPTIONAL Book Selection (Choose from 25 titles; up to a $192 value; includes shipping & handling) 09 q Welder, welding or cutting operator
q Individual Members in the U.S..................................................................................................................................$35 11 q Consultant
15 q Educator
q Individual Members outside the U.S (includes International shipping)...........................................................................$85 17 q Librarian
16 q Student
ONLY ONE SELECTION PLEASE. For more book choices visit www.aws.org/membership
18 q Customer Service
q (CD-ROM only) q q Welding Metallurgy 19 q Other
Welding Handbook Selections: q WH (9th Ed., Vol. 4) q WH (9th Ed., Vol. 3) q WH (9th Ed., Vol. 2) q WH (9th Ed., Vol. 1)
Technical Interests (Check all that apply)
Pocket Handbook Selections: q PHB-1 (Arc Welding Steel) q PHB-2 (Visual Inspection) q PHB-4 (GMAW / FCAW) A q Ferrous metals
B.) OPTIONAL Welding Journal Hard Copy (for Members outside North America) B q Aluminum
C q Nonferrous metals except aluminum
q Individual Members outside North America (note: digital delivery of WJ is standard)..............................................$50
D q Advanced materials/Intermetallics
INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP TOTAL PAYMENT..................................................................................$_____________ E q Ceramics
NOTE: Dues include $16.80 for Welding Journal subscription and $4.00 for the AWS Foundation. F q High energy beam processes
G q Arc welding
STUDENT MEMBERSHIP H q Brazing and soldering
I q Resistance welding
è Please choose your Student Membership option below.
J q Thermal spray
q AWS STUDENT MEMBERSHIP (One Year)...................................................................................................................$15 K q Cutting
Digital delivery of Welding Journal magazine is standard for all Student Members. L q NDT
q AWS STUDENT MEMBERSHIP (One Year)...................................................................................................................$35 M q Safety and health
Includes one-year Welding Journal hard copy subscription. Option available only to students in U.S., Canada & Mexico. N q Bending and shearing
STUDENT MEMBERSHIP TOTAL PAYMENT......................................................................................$_____________ O q Roll forming
P q Stamping and punching
PAYMENT INFORMATION Q q Aerospace
R q Automotive
Payment can be made (in U.S. dollars) by check or money order (international or foreign), payable to the American Welding Society, or by charge card. S q Machinery
q Check q Money Order q AMEX q Diners Club q MasterCard q Visa q Discover q Other T q Marine
U q Piping and tubing
CC#:____________ / ____________ / ____________ / ____________ Expiration Date (mm/yy) ________ / ________ V q Pressure vessels and tanks
W q Sheet metal
X q Structures
Signature of Applicant:_________________________________________ Application Date:_______________________
Y q Other
Z q Automation
OFFICE USE ONLY Check #:_______________________________ Account #____________________________________ 1 q Robotics
Source Code: IT Date:_________________________________ Amount:_____________________________________ 2 q Computerization of Welding
REV. 11/14