Ethics of self-inspecting welder qualification tests?

Date 12-02-2009 19:51

Metarinka
I say no. I say it makes since and saves the expense of the costs of the failed tests.
I am not familiar with the aerospace codes and specifications I believe you work with so all I can say is it would be a good cost saver if the personnel are not right on.
Just my thoughts
Marshall

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 12-02-2009 20:01

Metarinka, I agree with wacco (since your question was as to rather it was 'bad practice').

I can't think of anything in 'most' codes that would stop you from not submitting a test coupon for a welder. The welder himself should be the first to look at his work and determine rather it was any good. And under most conditions, as recently discussed in another thread, he could grind or air arc any bad spots out while welding in the first place. And if need be, why not throw it away and start over.

Now, there may be times when that won't work, would depend upon the job specs and if there were conditions placed upon how the testing was to take place.

For me personally, it would also depend upon rather the welder had previously passed other tests and even one just like he was attempting at the moment. Then I would cut him slack as long as it is within all acceptable code and/or job spec perameters.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 12-02-2009 21:28

It was done regularly in my service in the Navy.. For annual 1595 requals we were shipped a box of coupons.. We welded them out and before we sent them back to Alameda, since we had an RT lab right there in the division we would run the aluminum coupons before we sent them... Why send a bad test?

(I was just a welder at the time and not supervision) But I see nothin in the code to prohibit.

By Metarinka (****)

Date 12-02-2009 22:31

thanks for the opinions. I was mostly curious as opposed to concerned. some quality engineers kinda frown on the idea of "cherry picking" tests prior to testing them.

While we are on the subject. Is there a conflict of interest for a CWI to inspect and approve their own welds? If that CWI was an engineer could they also be the EOR and approve non-conformances? The code books define the duties of the various personnel but does it expressly say they have to be different people?

By Tommyjoking (****)

Date 12-03-2009 07:00

Absolutely if you have the capability then use it. As far as ethics go....that's a great training aid to your welders because you can show them where they busted on the coupon and get back and forth feedback to find solutions. I do not see anything unethical and its not cherry picking....it is being more efficient with your company's money...especially if you have a crew or a few that are struggling on quals.

A competitor across the runway spent 5 MONTHS (ridiculous) trying to cert two welders....if they did not have in house NDT it would have cost them a lot more then it did. When I heard about the trouble I called them and made the offer to come in and test out in one day provided I got the pay of both the prospects combined.....they did not care for that for some reason.

There was a thread not long ago on your second question, for the most part, If I remember correctly the popular consensus was "no" it is ok to do so.

Best regards
Tommy

By waccobird (****)

Date 12-03-2009 10:42

Metarinka
Depending on the Code.
Some codes allow for personnel to inspect their own work before the piece continues through production but not final inspection.
So with out having more info I cannot say for your case.
Marshall

By Ke1thk

Date 12-08-2009 15:16

I'd say you're fine ethically and legally (double check each code for specifics). RT and destructive testing can cost a fortune, especially if welds fail. Do as many steps within the process as possible. I weld my own PQR's all the time. Several different customers, including the government, audit me several times per year. I hide nothing.

Good Luck,
Keith

By kipman

Date 12-08-2009 23:24

Keith,
I'm hoping I can learn something here. When you say "PQR", do you mean a welding procedure qualification test plate? If so, how do you go about measuring the essential variables if you are also doing the welding?
Regards,
Mankenberg

By Ke1thk

Date 12-09-2009 17:40

Mankenberg,

Yes, I mean full blown Procedure Qualification Records for AWS D1.1, 1.2, 1.6, etc. The PQR is the actual essential variables of the samples. I have an assistant record the amperage and voltage readings while I'm welding the samples. The other variables are not live, well maybe the gas flow. I record the other variables as they are; material type, thickness, position welded in, etc.

My favorite test is the 3G plates or pipe. I visually test the samples myself. If required, I outsource radiographic or ultrasonic, and tension testing. I bend my own samples and cut & etch my own macro samples. My next project is to build a tension tester.

I had a full-blown TACOM (government audit) earlier this year. The Auditor told me to include digital photos within my documents. Take lots of pictures at each step of the testing process.

Consider my costs for a recent NAVSEA Qualification of 1 5/8" and 2 1/2" tubes. I needed three samples of each. Dye Penetrate costs $125, Radiographic Test $350, and Tension Testing & Bend Testing $800. Total $1275. Add $75-$100 for UPS charges and hope they pass!!!

I need additional training and qualification to perform NDT except for Visual Testing (more studying, testing, and money). I can perform Destructive testing with my AWS CWI qualification (no more studying or testing). I need equipment and codes. The bend tester is pretty easy to make.

Good Luck,

Keith

By Superflux (****)

Date 12-09-2009 18:11

A question...
Could you use a camera or the cell phone to record the readings while performing the welding in leiu of a real live assitant?
You could also edit and use the pix to satisfy the requirement below.
"The Auditor told me to include digital photos within my documents. Take lots of pictures at each step of the testing process."

By Ke1thk

Date 12-09-2009 19:09

Sure.

The ultimate would be to hook-up a meter-reading device that captures all electrical values during the weld, like on my robots (hint Miller and Lincoln). You could print out, or download, a graph showing voltage, amperage, or a/c readings. You could set-up other electrical controls that would stay within the WPS ranges. If you're out of range you can't weld.

Good Luck,

Keith

By Metarinka (****)

Date 12-09-2009 21:30

some of the new machines have this capability in limited ways, along with syncing to hand held tablet computers. For the purpose of data-logging (arc-on time) etc, as foremen and welding bosses have expressed interest in this type of control.

The oldest form of control is a padlock on top of the controls or passwords on PLC's and the like to change controller settings and prevent "knob twisting syndrome" which affects any welder who is having a case of the "bad weldsies".
I believe it was SSBN or some other former nuclear welder who told me about a welding machine that wouldn't initiate an arc unless the variables were set within the preset limits.

However these set a bad precedent. First they treat the welder like a child, and criminal, instead of an informed member of the team.
Secondly in order for such a system to work, all the controls have to be calibrated. In the aerospace world, we have dedicated calibration techs who go through the whole facility yearly, recalibrating every gauge and every electronic indicator that are used for measurement.

Welding output gauges are usually considered "references" as they don't accurately quantify welding conditions empirically . What comes to mind is things like current drops in the secondary coils of RSW machines and long welding leads which can effect welding variables very significantly. It's a nuisance to calibrate gauges, and it's haphazard to lock things to reference gauges as they don't necessarily reflect true conditions.

finally anyone who's worked to code for a length of time knows that from time to time it is often impossible to complete welds at given parameters for reasons like voltage drops, part mismatch etc even if everything is acceptable code wise. Sometimes ignorance is bliss in these situations. If you get the perfect storm of parts at the edge of tolerances, plus machine parameters at the limits of procedures. You quickly have an unbuildable part.

All that being said modern Inverter machines would have no problem doing it and it is found on robotic welding systems, not sure what it looks like cost wise.

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 12-09-2009 22:21

Hello Joel,

You know it's very interesting that you say "In the Aerospace world" quite a few times recently as if to say that in any other "World" things are not as particular, or shall I say "knitpicking," I hope this is not what you think Joel (By the way, the name is Henry, and you should remember that by now) because in the Nuclear world, Naval shipyards, Petro-Chemical/ Refineries, Sour Service, they too do a whole lot of calibrating as well as in the automotive world where there are many, many robots and other hi-tech welding equipment also... Not as well in some instances, but nonetheless - they also practice it quite often also... Then if you really want to knitpick, try working in the Sour Gas service "World' where in some cases, they make the nukes seem rather adventurous in comparison...

There is a redundancy philosophy that is part of the reason why some "Worlds" have much more "knitpicking" going on than others... Sort of like checks and balances only, these have actual meaning to them! Remember this Joel! Each "world" has their own set of quirks because they need to have them, and they will not change no matter how much of a reason you can come up with to make them change - CAPECHE??? And don't take that the wrong way because when you get some more years under your belt, you'll agree that it is what it is, and the only way to change things incrementally is to get involved in the committee's themselves and convince enough of your peers that whatever it is that you would like to change is really worth changing and in the best interest of that particular "world" in which you work in.

So it's really not a bad idea to get involved in the committee's if that's what you want to do otherwise you'll end up frustrated beyond belief and one day not like what you turned into which is what I've noticed that some of my colleagues have become over the years... And it's shame because a few had some really good idea's that would probably have gotten them some attention had they become more involved in the technical committee's who write these practices. In other words, one has to work within the system in order to slowly change or improve the system - CAPECHE??? ;) ;) ;)

Respectfully,
Henry

By Metarinka (****)

Date 12-09-2009 22:39 Edited 12-09-2009 22:47

I was merely using the aerospace "world" as an example. as in my opinion it has more stringent requirements than the majority of structural applications and D1.1 and structural welding is by far the largest application of welding in the united states. you are correct in that several other "world's" also have strict or particular manufacturing and quality requirements for various reasons. I point out aerospace peculiarities because I'm familiar with them and work in that industry. I know offhand that nuclear work has perhaps more stringent quality requirements but I don't do engineering in that field so I'm not aware of particulars, I'm sure they have calibration techs as well. In that specific example i can't remember ever seeing a calibration tech going around a D1.1 site snatching gauges to measure them, which is common under more stringent codes. when you start talking about getting into locking welding parameters to values, the difference between reference and empirical measurements starts becoming important, that's why in my opinion total weld machine lock downs aren't practical for the majority of (read D1.1) applications.

I understand exactly the philosophy of redundancy, and quality. Risk and safety factors and how they affect building codes. I hope i didn't come off as griping about the stringency of codes. I haven't seen too many issues of superfluous clauses in the codes I work with yet. The only issues I've seen is the sluggish response of the AWS to adapt some new manufacturing and qualification technologies. Such as VSR which have a strong contingent of research and would be ripe for inclusion in codes. Perhaps this perceived sluggishness is in my mind, but new manufacturing and testing systems open up new possibilities for fabrication in all industries and tend to drive down prices.

Besides that I'm relatively satisfied with the code requirements for the specific codes I've dealt with and I would say for the majority of the time clauses were written either in blood or dollars, after someone royally botched a project. I only point out aerospace examples because the field is more stringent than the "Baseline" which I would say is D1.1

Just my little philosophy, if it's annoying I can stop :P

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 12-09-2009 23:25 Edited 12-09-2009 23:29

It's not that its annoying at all Joel, yet to say the D1.1 is as particular as some of the stuff that goes on in the "Aerospace world" is also a misnomer as well especially if you happen to work on for instance, one of the current high rises that are being erected as we converse which some also need to comply to FEMA 353 Seismic requirements as well as complying to AISI audits in order to fabricate a variety of simple to very complex structures which can run the gamut from high rises to T,K &Y connections on some drilling rigs, etc. So I wouldn't write off AWS D1.1 so quickly as being less stringent than D17.1 because then you run the risk of comparing "apples to oranges" by doing so.

Then there's the ASME!!! Always, Sometimes, Maybe, and Except. You want to read like an engineer??? Then that is the set of codes and standards that will make you lose sleep guaranteed!!! And never mind getting prepared to get ready to comply for an upcoming "R", "U," or "N" stamp audit!!! Just ask Jeff or Mike, or any of the other folks who are in the process of or have recently completed any of those and they can explain a thing or two about some of the distinct nuances that go on with them... Then there are the many different government audits that have their own idiosynchrocies...

Now getting back to D1.1 or D1.5 and you'll see that they are no cake walks either by simply asking John Wright or SWnorris A.K.A. Scott, or Joe Kane, Chet Guiford, and Al Moore, Kip Mankenberg both who deal with many different "Worlds" and they'll all tell you that they are no picnic either... Even certain aspects of the API world have become as stringent as they come especially when it comes to sour gas environments, and ask dbigkahunna, or Jon 20013 who last time I heard was working in Khazakstan on a very sensitive H2S pipeline and who had to adapt from working in the Nuclear 'World" to what he found out later to be a much more stringent environment when working on LNG lines...

I guess what I'm trying to pass on to you Joel, is that there are some aspects regarding a particular code or standard, or even an industrial sector where welding is involved much like the "worlds" we both use loosely - which are uniquely different in one way compared to another one and I cannot say to you that their is one world except for maybe NASA where every aspect is stricter in its amount of "knitpicking" that goes on if compared to another "world" would be in every circumstance. Anywho, You've got plenty of time to realize that on your own as you gain more experience in the variety of roles you will have in you career. ;)

Respectfully,
Henry