You have to remember that the code committees are made up of individuals from different industries, different responsibilities, and different interests. Each of those committee members has one vote and if they are like most people, they vote for things that serve their best interests.
Many AWS standards, such as D1.1, are ANSI standards. As such, the committees are required to have their membership "balanced" so no one interest makes up an overwhelming majority.
Since a number of the committee members probably don't have the experience you have described, they are unaware of the differences in skill required to weld with the different types of electrodes. Then there is always the crowd that takes the position of "That's the way we've always did it, why change now." Well, maybe that is over simplifying the situation. Any major change in philosophy can have unexpected consequences for those responsible for implementing those changes. One consequence that would be resisted very strongly is one that would have a major cost impact on the end user whether the end user is a fabricator, designer, inspection agency, or owner.
Consider for a moment that AWS D1.1 doesn’t require inspections to be performed by a current CWI. One would be inclined to believe that all the AWS committees would adopt a program that validates the inspector’s qualification. However, that isn’t the case. It is my understanding that the fabricators have resisted such a requirement for years because of the cost involved (higher wages for a qualified individual versus the lower wages paid to the individual that was the janitor and now is assigned the task of inspector). Then there’s the situation where the fabricator would have less influence to sway the inspector if the inspector is certified and answerable to another party, i.e., the Certification Committee via the Code of Ethics. The fabricator would much rather use an individual without AWS credentials doesn’t have the independence of the AWS CWI.
Back to the question, the final decision of the committee is a conglomeration of the ideas, thoughts, and opinions of all the members of the committee. The Chair of each subcommittee has some sway, but ultimately, it is the members of the subcommittee that has the final vote, then the main committee has their vote on the subject, then the Standards Committee, and TAC has their final say and vote before the standard is made public for their comments. It is a long winding road to say the least. What is published is not always what the subcommittee had in mind when they began the process and not everything they want included in the standard finds its way into the published standard.
It isn’t a perfect system, but it does give everyone a say in the process. That is unless you really cross swords with the chair of the subcommittee in which case he’ll toss your bloody carcass off the subcommittee. Been there, done that.
Some of the issues you have noted have been observed by others. Another example of the inconsistency is the fact that a welder qualified for groove welds is automatically qualified for fillet welds. Yet, it has been my experience that the failure rate for a fillet break test is much higher than for those taking the groove test. I have also noted on many occasions that welders that have passed the grooved plate test (or pipe for that matter) will routinely fail the fillet break test. On the other hand, the pass rate for a welder that has passed the fillet break test is very high when they attempt to take the groove test (after passing the fillet break test).
It ain’t a perfect world.
Best regards – Al
Blaster,
Al said it well. The system isn't perfect. But it is better than most and works fairly well. Having sat through a sub-committee and then the main committee meetings for one of the D codes while back at FABTECH this year I got some first hand experience in their procedings. It is not an easy job, and especially when they have a particular area to review because of a technology change, research that requires input or change in the code, etc. Making sure they get into every aspect of one little change is complicated.
I think most of us have seen the welder qualified to 7018 that is terrible with 6010. Or the guy that can weld with one form of flux core but not the other. And as Al said, fillets and grooves aren't really inter-related from either direction.
BUT, how many qualification exams would you want to pay for for any one employee. Or worse yet, pay for yourself to prove to some company you are worth taking a look at. Just to go through it again after they hire you. Then imagine the increase in paperwork for continuous usage documentation. Al pointed it out, bottom line- It's All About The Money. As long as we can get reasonable results and qualify welders well enough to prove they have at least a moderate skill level then they aren't going to spend the kind of money you are talking about by making these changes.
Have a Great Day, Brent
Hi Brent
I see no reason such changes would require any additional qualifications for an employee. If the standard all position unlimited thickness test required the more dificult bevel grooves in the future, it would automatically qualify the welder for the easier V-grooves, just as the easy V-grooves currently qualify welders for the more dificult bevel grooves. No additional testing necessary, just a change in what comprises the standard all position unlimited thickness test. It wouldn't even require requalification of previously qualified welders, only welders qualified under future editions of the code that contained such a change. Groove type is not a variable that requires welder requalification.
If the wires were organized in a tier system like the F-groups for SMAW electrodes, I am sure welders would train with and test with the highest ranking wires, like they do now with F-4 group stick electrodes. That would require no additional testing either, once a welder was initially qualified with the highest ranking wire. I have yet to hear any complaints about unnecessary costs and paperwork due to the teir system that is in place for stick electrodes.
But I certainly understand resistance to change. Any change can bring confusion and additional costs up front. However I do think such changes could make our industry more viable and more efficient in the future. As a welder, I watched contractors throw away rediculous amounts of money on "certified welders" who were simply not up to the task of code quality bevel grooves with T-8 wires. I worked on a job where I swear the contractor must have wasted a couple hundred thousand dollars on rework and reinspection of failed welds, likely more. I was embarrassed for the welders and the union hall that was sending the guys out. The worst part was during this year plus long job they never once changed the way they operated to prevent the needless waste.
Why don't all contractors give realistic performance tests to their guys before turning them loose on production work? I can't say for sure. I suppose it is done under the belief that it saves money. I know many supervisor types who have zero or limited welding experience themselves simply can't understand why it would be important to do so, especially if the welder just passed the V-groove test in the job site shack the day they got there. Why the V-groove test on site when production is actually bevel grooves? Because that is what is in the D1.1 picture for all position unlimited thickness welder qualification. The employers not being professional welders themselves just don't understand that their production joints are vastly more dificult.
I am sure that most people who have been around for a length of time realize that the D1.1 standard all positiion unlimited thickness plate tests are what drive a lot of our industry's training, both in the welding schools and in the union halls. Should it? I don't think so. But I know that it does to a large extent. If the joints were more realistic, and used the more difficult electrodes that are being used in the field, the preparation of the welders would be substantially better. That could save contractors money and benefit the welder.
But again I appreciate the insight into the code making process. This is not something with which I have any familiarity. I can see why such changes, or any changes, could be dificult to implement.
Hi Blaster
You must remember that nothing stops you (your company) from requiring more stringent testing than the code minimum. Many end-user organisations will specify more testing than the code minimum, for the very reasons you have given. As an example, instead of a standard 6G V-groove, ask for 6GR tests. This sort of thing is more common in client specifications, (because the client is willing to pay a little more now, to save problems down the road) than for fabricator specifications / practices.
Regards
Niekie
Neikie sort of hit upon it. Maybe, just maybe the code committees figure it isn't their responsibility to do the job of a company's engineer (see cookbook thinking). Maybe, just maybe their responsiblity is a minimum standard that can be applied to a broad cross section of the industry. Maybe, just maybe the code committees are acutely aware of these issues but they realize they cannot idiot proof the industry by imposing a code the size of the library of Congress, and that its not so easy to balance the collective and unconscious desire for a code to fill the Queen Mary and the ability of a human being to assimilate all that info, though I'm sure there is consultant interest enough to want to make it prohibitive of our being able to work with it.
Oh, I know we are just talking about a qualification issue. In this context. Others have opinions of other code shortcomings. And so lets impose them all. I'm sure there are good justifications from many corners of the globe. And then we can deal with the inability of people to work with a code in which they have to be Rain Man to remember. Or maybe comapnies can hire an army of code interpreters or consultants.
Hopefully when the day arrives that the battle cry of 'MORE CODE, MORE CODE!!!' gains the acendancy I will be long retired and sipping Long Island Ice Teas on a beach in Florida.
Hi js55
I would never suggest the AWS should adopt all the opinions presented by everyone in the industry. However I would be in favor of the AWS considering any of those ideas that could provide meaningful benefit and that are both logical and practical.
Not trying to belabor the point too much, but it is not the responsibility of the code to 'provide meaningful benefit'. Thats an engineering or quality program function. The codes cannot be in the business of helping people along.
And as for ALL of the opinions, the point is, other people have just as valid concerns for 'meaningful benefit'.
I'm not saying that your concerns aren't valid. I happen to think they are. But as an earlier post mentioned nothing is stopping you from imposing it yourself. The advantage of doing it yourself is that if you change your ind you can. If its in the code your stuck. Unless you can get the EOR to validate your Emily Litella.
Hi Nieke
I am with you 100%.
I am not a contractor but if I was I would never turn a guy loose on production work without thoroughly testing him out first.
Jeez,
Now I am really confused.
I typed "welder qualification versus certification" into google and the majority were from countries outside the US and agreed with my interpretation based on what happens in the Southern Hemisphere (Australia / New Zealand).
A "qualified" welder is someone who has performed a WQT and passed.
A "certified" welder is someone who has performed a WQT and passed and has also passed a welding theory examination.
So, I thought as this was the AWS forum I would only post the links from AWS - that's where the confusion set in.
AWS QC7-93 Standard for Certified Welders requires the test to be performed at an AWS ATF - presumably you are now an AWS "certified" welder ?
AWS QC7-97 Supplement G Performance Qualification Tests requires the test to be perfomed in the presence of an AWS CWI (No mention of ATF) - presumably you are now an AWS "qualified" welder ?
AWS D1.1 basically states that anyone who has had suitable training (the janitor ?) can witness the WQT - does a successful test make you certified, qualified or janitorised ? Or maybe certificated. LOL !!
Cheers,
Shane
If you think you are confused now, wait a few months.
I used to sit on the subcommittee that is developing the latest document governing the Accredited Test Facilities and the AWS Certified Welder program until I got my butt kicked off for locking horns with the chair of the subcommittee one time too many. Currently there is no one on the subcommittee that has operated a testing lab as an independent agency testing to several different welding standards. Perhaps I voiced my concerns a little too strongly. In my humble opinon there are a few serious flaws in the document that is will have serious repercussions for anyone that wants to operate as an ATF for AWS and still test for other welding standards and codes.
When the document (QC47) is made available for public comment, I strongly suggest that anyone with any interest in how ATFs are supposed to operate read it very carefully and voice their concerns to AWS.
Best regards - Al
Al,
Would you please do us the kindness of alerting the forum with a new thread in the "certification" area when the new doccumentation becomes available for review?
I have a long standing interest in ATF's and their role in our industry... Especially where the rubber meets the road for every day welders looking to get/remain qualified to code standards.
In my opinion there is little sensitivity to the plight of professional welders.. And great attention paid to every other aspect of the process.
Not a problem.
All too often the public comment period for a new standard is past by the time it is published in the Welding Journal.
Best regards - Al
