Bozaktwo1,
Looking at the original question I thought it was doing 2 positions on the one test plate but after reading it again it appears the 3G and 4G tests have already been done, it is just the issue of whether the 3G and 4G can be recorded on 1 certificate or if a seperate certificate is required for each test.
I personally cannot see any problem with recording 2 positions on the one certificate,
Regards,
Shane

Hello Lawrence;

Your format is similar to what I am using. The difference is in the test results report. I list the position, the test specimen identification, i.e., 3GFB1, 3GRB2, etc., the thickness and the bend diameter (for audit purposes for materials like aluminum that use something other than the standard 1 1/2 inch diameter). I guess the only recommendation I would offer is that you indicate in the "test Positions" entry is to indicate two tests were taken in the vertical and indicate whether vertical upward or downward progression was used to ensure the individual reviewing the document understands two separate tests were administered.

I guess I am sensitive to the information listed and the manner in which it is presented because I review so many test reports. It is amazing how often they are simply wrong or don't list sufficient information to know what was done. As an example; I had one report listing both E6010 and E7018 (F3 and F4 electrodes, an essential variable), but it didn't indicate what was used when or the thickness of the weld deposits of each. Most of us will agree that it is important to know that E6010 was used in the root and E7018 for the fill and cover (it is never a safe bet to assume that was the case). It is equally important to know the thickness of the deposits to establish the thickness range for each, i.e., F3 and F4 electrodes. Likewise, the report simply indicated the welder was qualified for a thickness range of X inches max. That statement by itself is not correct considering to different F numbers were used on the test piece. Another issue would be that the F3 used for the root pass (assuming that is the case) would be qualified for "with or without backing", where as the the F4 would be qualified for "with backing" assuming the test was taken "without backing". The same would hold true if the welder uses two different welding processes on a single test.

Most of use would agree that the basic form included in Section IX, D1.1, and other welding standards are set up for tests that don't include multiple F numbers or welding processes, or dissimilar base metals. It is left to us to devise formats that will accommodate such cases. I've developed different formats for different companies that address their specific needs. For example, my D1.1 test reports are different from my NAVSEA format and it is different than the format used for sheet metal.

The one thing I do that most people don't is to include a photograph of the welder and I eliminate any information for tests that were not used to evaluate the test piece. I do not include the information for radiography or fillet break testing if they were not used to evaluate the test piece. It frees up more real estate for the information I do include. Using a word processor makes it an easy task to modify the forms. It's back to the argument of the minimalist approach of just meeting the minimum requirements of the applicable code or providing useful information to the person reviewing the documentation. I'm not sure there is just one approach that is best or correct. That leaves some latitude to the individual responsible for completing the forms. Each of us will develop a system based on our experiences that meets our needs and at the end of the day that is the correct approach.

Carry on with the good work you do.

Best regards - Al