Production Work

Date 12-20-2013 16:47

Just a side note, but about 5 years ago several contractors in the SoCal area started being a lot more stringent on written continuity records, and shortly after that requiring the welder to have tested within the last 6 months and a CWI stamp on their papers. Continuity or no continuity, no test over 6 months old accepted.
I guess it was a result of poor welder quality but don't really know. After the crash a lot of out of work hands were taking welder calls just hoping to make a few bucks.
That's field bridge work, not shop.

J

By Blaster (***)

Date 12-21-2013 02:04 Edited 12-21-2013 03:20

Thank you for the replies.

The term "production work" is used on the welder certification cards issued by the Washington Association of Building Officials. Their certifications (yes that is the correct term as that is what they call them in their standard) are held by and can be renewed annually by the welder. The welder is provided a signature card (http://www.wabo.org/assets/pdfs/Welder/2011%20signature%20form.pdf) by WABO that they should have signed off every 3 months. The card asks the signer to verify "production work" with the processes the welder is certified with. Each year the welder can send in the signed card and $50 and get a new card. Like AWS, there is a six month continuity requirement. There also is no definition of "production work".

The reason I asked about D1.1 is that is the primary code that WABO used and uses as the basis for their own standard. Their own standard is essentially an abbreviated and extracted welder qualification chapter from the D1.1, along with some additional administrative requirements for authorized test sites for book keeping, facility requirements, materials security, and test site accountability. Pretty good organization actually. However it is a minimally staffed non-profit and there really isn't a mechanism to get a prompt answer to these types of questions pertaining to their welder program unit the next committee meeting.

The WABO standard "reflects the applicable requirements and intent of most recent editions of the Washington State Building Code; Structural Welding Code-Steel (ANSI/AWS D1.1); Structural Welding Code – Seismic Supplement (ANSI/AWS D1.8); Structural Welding Code-Sheet Steel (ANSI/AWS D1.3) and the Structural Welding Code-Reinforcing Steel (ANSI/AWS D1.4)." Like any standard there are areas that are rather open to interpretation by the users.

Thanks again.

By Blaster (***)

Date 12-21-2013 03:22

Major edit above.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 12-21-2013 04:30

Now see, that's not at all fair Blaster. WABO is a totally different animal. And, once again, the point is proved, never use the word "all" because about that time someone will come up with a major exception.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By Blaster (***)

Date 12-21-2013 18:37

Sorry Brent. Few are familiar with WABO. Since the WABO standard specifically states it reflects the applicable requirements and intent of D1.1, that seems to be the place to look for guidance when it is needed quickly.

By Joey

Date 12-21-2013 16:27

Al

Quote :Since the AWS structural codes do not specify the basis of maintaining continuity there is no requirement that the welding comply to a specific welding standard.

Are you indicating here that the service you have provided is substandard because you did not base your VI assessment on the code that is relevant to the certification you endorsed? It does not mean that you will use the farm code when there is no requirement that the welding must comply with a specific welding standard. Your VT assesment should be at least as a minimum complied with the code that the welder has been qualified for.

Here in Smokey, the TPI has the privilege to review and comment on the QA/QC manual prepared by contractor. The TPI who endorsed the back of the certification record must produce a supplementary report to show that there is no doubt to question a welder’s or welding operator’s ability in producing acceptable welds based on the inspection or NDT / test report.

You are contradicting your statement , you mentioned the Engineer's responsibility to make a determination whether the contractors QC/QA system is acceptable or not. Once the Engineer makes that termination, the VI or TPI should ensure the QC/QA system is implemented. But then as an Owner, you would require each welder to qualify if they are going to weld on your project. Are you an Engineer or Inspector?

Confusing, I would prefer you provide a concise direct input.

~Joey~

By 803056

Date 12-21-2013 17:44 Edited 12-21-2013 17:47

Sorry if you find it confusing Joey.

The AWS structural code as well as ASME require the welder to use the process to maintain continuity. Neither standards specify the welding has to be to a specific code, theirs or otherwise. Technically speaking, all the welder has to do is make an arc on a scrap piece of metal to meet the letter of the welding standards cited. Neither welding standard specifies the weld made with the process for which the welder holds the qualification must meet any criteria or specifies a NDE method of evaluation. They simply state that the welder must use the process within the time frame specified. A signature on the back of a welder's performance test record simply indicates the welder used the welding process. It not an attestation the weld meets the requirements of a particular code.

Following your logic, the welder would have to make welds that meet each welding standard for which he has been qualified and the inspector cosigning the performance test record would have to certify the welds meet the requirements of each welding code the welder used. I have never seen that to be the case. To clarify, The inspector can evaluate the "sample" weld to any criteria he see fit in order to maintain the qualification. That criteria can be as simple as "it looks good to me."

Whether I cosign the performance test record or not is based on the acceptance criteria of AWS D1.1, but there is no requirement that I do so. It is my name on the qualification test record as the test witness, so I have a vested interest in making sure the welder can do the work. I am not the individual responsible for certifying the welder, that is the employer's responsibility.

To clarify your other concern, I act on the behalf of the Owner. I represent the Owner when acting as the TPI, but there are a number of projects where I have input while the project specifications are developed. It is in that document that we (the Owner, Engineer, and I) include a requirement that the welder be tested on-site or in the shop. For most field work where the majority of the welding is fillet welds, the on-site test is usually the fillet break test. If you are a regular in the Forum (and you are) I am sure you know my position on fillet welds and the fillet break test.

Whether you feel my services are substandard is up to you. Whether you agree with my position or not is up to you. If you take issue with my position and you want an official interpretation you should direct an inquiry to the AWS D1 committee. There are directions for doing so in the Annex of each AWS structural welding code. Each of us are free to express our opinion on the subjects being discussed. That's what make the Forum a useful sounding tool, a sanity check, but no one should take anything said in the Forum as gospel. Only the code committee can make a final determination or interpretation on a subject relating to a structural welding code.

If your jurisdiction has requirements that differ from what the codes specify, that's fine. I have no problem with that. However, lacking additional requirements invoked by local jurisdiction, the code is what the code is.

My concern is whether the TPI is overstepping their authority by invoking requirements that are nonexistent. I find that to be the case all too often. I call it the "God Complex." The inspector, CWI or otherwise, sometimes develop a swollen head and make demands on the fabricator that are not based on code requirements. The TPI is bound by the contract documents. To invoke more stringent requirements based on the TPI's personal opinion is asking for trouble. It will bite the inspector in the ass sooner or later.

Sorry for the hurried response, but I have to get moving. I have a Christmas party to attend. I'll proof read this tomorrow and probably make a few corrections.

Best regards - Al

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 12-21-2013 20:58

Adding a little fuel to the fire here, while you don't see many of those requirements in the codes they will often be written just that way in the job specifications. That is, welders are to be experienced and current in an applicable procedure for the job at hand (not even close to an exact wording, I'll have to see if I can find a set of plans around here with the General Notes page still intact).

Thus, they want you to have been using the process you are certified to on related types of production within the recent past. But I have yet to see that written in the codes in question.

Now, with Blaster's update as to this being a question based upon WABO's requirements, that changes things. Just as doing work in the City of Los Angeles changes things. They both have their own requirements which greatly expand upon D1.1. Similar to what happens when you add the D1.8 Seismic Code to D1.1. Things change. Some items are spelled out more clearly. Some items are more restrictive. But it means you can't just go off half cocked because D1.1 doesn't say so, you must follow the additional requirements.

As TPI's we must always (yes, I used the term correctly and carefully) be on guard, up to date, and fully aware of ALL of the requirements surrounding the job we are overseeing for the Customer/engineer. Don't get caught being ignorant. It is still no excuse. It can get tricky when you get a client who doesn't make everything clear because they don't know that you don't know all of the requirements within the jurisdiction they are dealing with. They start asking for things and you are saying, that isn't required. Both of you get bent out of shape only to find out eventually that it is a clear lack of communication.

But the contractor we are overseeing was supposed to be responsible to find out and apply all of those added regulations. And we cannot call out anything beyond what the applicable code has established as a base line.

Continuity is important. But, it is not 'normally' our responsibility to push it too far. If all the appropriate paperwork was submitted and approved prior to work beginning then we know that the welders are current and approved by both the fabricator's QC Dept and the Engineer. We only have to make sure they are doing due diligence in monitoring their own people to maintain continuity and quality. Then, observe and report. If there is reason to question abilities, report it and let the engineer do his job. Include every member the questionable welder has worked on so they can repair anything that is not up to code specs.

I agree with Al though that is not the case often with my jobs. I don't get to ask that all the welders do a test to verify ability. Mainly because most of my work is through other inspection companies that have already worked out all the details and just need extra help or someone in my geographic location so they don't have to pay travel and housing.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By 803056

Date 12-22-2013 15:50

We often overlook the fact that AWS D1.1 assigns the responsibility of approving previous welder qualification (I assume that also means continuity) to the Engineer. Once the Engineer is satisfied the welder's qualifications are suitable, we, as inspectors, are responsible to verify the approved welders are actually the welders doing the work.

The structural welding code is specific as to who is responsible for what. The Verification Inspector has very limited responsibility relating to the review and approval of welder qualifications and WPSs. While many Verification Inspectors assume those responsibilities, it is not within the scope of responsibilities assigned by AWS D1.1. The Engineer may delegate those responsibilities to the Verification Inspector, but I would hope there is a paper trail that includes something in writing that does delegate those responsibilities to the Verification Inspector.

Back to the idea of a continuity record, there is nothing in D1.1 that calls for a continuity record. It makes no mention of how continuity is maintained. The idea of a continuity record has developed as a means of providing objective evidence the welder has no lapses in continuity. The concept of a written record is most likely a carryover from the nuclear industry where the need for a paper trail is hammer into the very soul of every inspector that has worked on a nuke. How often have we found ourselves in a conversation that includes the statement, "On my last job, this is the way we handled it." Thus, the continuity record is born and adopted as a means of meeting a perceived need.

One must ask, what is the value of the continuity record considering it is a case of the fox guarding the hen house? The contractor is assigned the responsibility of ensuring their welders are properly qualified. They also have the responsibility of ensuring continuity. There is no requirement for continuity to be documented. Continuity operates on the honor system for many contractors. Even the AWS National Registry operates on the honor system. Send two box tops, one thin dime, and a signature that the welder has been welding during the previous "X" months and the "certification" is renewed. Oh yea, don’t forget the money. By the way, don’t forget the money.

Most welding standards do not recognize the probability the welder's abilities may change over time. Consider for a moment the welder's visual acuity. How many welder’s arms are simply too short to read the newspaper in the morning? Yet, they are expected to weld day in and day out without anyone asking whether their visual acuity has changed. Military standards typically require the welder to meet visual acuity requirements similar to those the inspector has to meet. It is a reasonable requirement considering a welder that cannot see is less likely to deposit sound welds. Another point: the welder should be inspecting the welds he/she made before handing them off to the inspector. The caricature of cartoon character "Magoo" is as applicable to welding as it was to driving a car. If you cannot see what you are welding, you probably are not going to make a “good weld.”

Continuity? Just how valuable is a piece of paper that requires no independent verification the welder’s work experience has no extended interruptions? Given the number test reports that are falsified or are pure fabrications, what would lead me to trust a document that is generated by a contractor with no independent verification?

The bottom line is the contractor is responsible for the work produced by their employees. If the contractor says the welder meets the requirements of AWS D1.1 there is little the Verification Inspector can say about the subject. Vigilance while performing the duties assigned to the Verification Inspector is what will sort out the welders that can produce acceptable welds from those that can’t.

If you really want to ensure the welder has the skill needs to produce good welds, give him/her a test before the project gets underway.

Best regards - Al

By 46.00

Date 12-22-2013 18:04

Al I guess your glass must be half empty today! All this talk of fabricated and falsified records, you must work on the 'Dark' side a lot of the time........... :smile:

You state that AWS D1.1 does not call for any continuity record to be kept, I could argue that 4.2.3.1, by the use of the word 'Shall' would invoke that some method of checking/verifying welder or operator process history. I agree that no mention of how this record is kept, just the fact that it shall be kept.

By 803056

Date 12-22-2013 19:27 Edited 12-22-2013 19:31

I'm just playing the Devil's advocate.

The clause you cite makes no mention of the need to keep a record of continuity. It simply states the welder's qualifications remain intact unless the welder fails to use the process for more than six months or if there is a reason to question the welder's ability. The burden of proof could just as easily be shifted to the Verification Inspector. In other words, the contractor could just as easily say, "Show me evidence the welder hasn't welded in the last six months."

There is nothing in the clause cited that says it is the contractor's responsibility to demonstrate continuity. It is an assumption that many people make, but it isn't supported by the text contained in AWS D1.1.

I would like someone to show me the words taken from AWS D1.1 that says the "contractor shall demonstrate continuity."

I take the position that many individuals are reading into the code words that simply do not exist. They are invoking requirements that do not exist.

Where are the words in AWS D1.1 that would prohibit the contractor from simply making the verbal statement "My welders have no lapses in continuity, thus they qualifications are as valid today as the day I signed them."?

I think there are those amongst us that are making much too much of this idea of continuity. If continuity is so important, why doesn't the D1 committee state the contractor must maintain a system of continuity and provide the Engineer with objective evidence of continuity? I don't believe the committee feels it is very important. There are no sample forms to show how continuity is to be maintained and documented. There is no textual description of how continuity is to be maintained. The word "continuity" doesn't even appear in AWS D1.1. How do you document, verify, or enforce a concept that isn't addressed by the code? How does the text contained in AWS D1.1 support the idea that continuity has to be documented?

"Let the bees swarm now that the nest has been stirred!"

As for working the "Dark Side”, any inspector that has functioned as a TPI for more than a few years has encountered falsified records. How many times I’ve reviewed PQRs had the voltage, amperage, travel speed, preheat, interpass temperature, groove angle, root opening, etc. added days after the test assembly was welded? How many times have I reviewed PQRs where the information was missing, only to see it added when the documents were resubmitted for review?

I can remember taking tests for several other welders in my early years, when I was young and naive. The contractor stopped when I caught on to the trick and refused to take any more welder qualification tests.

How many times have I had a welder hand me qualification papers where I could see the original name obscured with “whiteout.”

Yes, I have worked the dark side. I have had the owner, president, QC manager, supervisor, welder, and even the inspector lie without batting an eye.

Thank God for humans. I and many other inspectors would be out of work were it not for human frailties.

Best regards – Al

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 12-22-2013 22:51

Well, I have maintained that same position since before I became a CWI. BUT, as a shop owner and welder, I used to get outside inspectors to sign the back of my cert papers whenever they were on my jobs and kept copies of RT and UT reports on file to verify my abilities. Thus, it was not just my word. I also took a complete set of new tests every so often to also verify my abilities. I didn't like handing customers a set of certs that was 30 years old (I have had that happen to me on jobs many times, with no verification of any kind of continuity.).

In my shop I used outside CWI's to qualify my welders and update them in order to be unquestionable as to validity.

Overboard? Yes. Required by code? NO. I have always gone over and above to make sure what I did was not able to be questioned/challenged.

I don't expect others to do what I did. I don't expect others to understand, or even believe, the extent to which I went to run my business as I thought best.

What I do expect, as an inspector, is to be lied to. We are all human. Humans are bent to deceive. I am not going to go into my religious beliefs, but that is the way it is. So, we must hope and pray for the best, meaning honesty, while knowing that it is often not what we hear. Dealing with that is a difficult position to be in. Personally, I am glad the codes don't put much of that burden on me. It is delegated to those with the stamp proving they have a lot more education and knowledge than I do.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By 46.00

Date 12-22-2013 23:20 Edited 12-22-2013 23:28

AWS D1.1 2010

C-6.1.5 Inspector Responsibility.
This subclause requires that the Inspector verify that all fabrication and erection by welding is performed in conformance with the requirements of the contract documents. This includes not only welding but also materials, assembly, preheating, NDT, and all other requirements of the code and provisions of the contract documents.

C-6.4.1 Determination of Qualification.
It is important that the Inspector determine that all welders are qualified before work is begun on the project. If discovered after welding has begun, lack of welder qualification documentation may cause serious delays in the acceptance of weldments.

C-6.4.2 Retesting Based on Quality of Work.
The inspector shall regularly appraise the quality of welds produced by welders, welding operators, and tack welders. Individuals producing unacceptable welds should be required to produce satisfactory test welds of the type causing difficulties. Complete requalification may not always be necessary. Only qualified welders producing acceptable welds may be employed in the work.

C-6.4.3 Retesting Based on Certification Expiration.
Welders who cannot provide evidence that they have used, without interruption, the welding process for which they were qualified, for a period exceeding six months, shall be requalified by appropriate tests. Since active welders can maintain their certification as long as they continue to do good work, it is essential that Inspectors regularly evaluate the quality of the welds produced by each welder, welding operator, and tack welder.

I definitely see the words 'evidence' of process use, 'Inspector verify welding is to the requirement of the code', one aspect of this, is the use of qualified welders...........By definition, if a welders qualification is older than six months then some evidence of use of qualified process must be available and it must also be quantifiable either by volumetric NDT cross ref or at the most basic level a VT acceptance signature on a weld history document ?

I have been on the dark side, it is not a nice place. I much prefer to do business with people who are at least half trust worthy, why would I give work to someone who I could not trust even basic documentation from? That's why we have trusted vendor lists for.

Not that I am an angel but I firmly believe that if you lay down with dawgs, you will get up with fleas :wink:

By 803056

Date 12-22-2013 23:37

You are quoting from the commentary which is not part of the code. The contractor can not be held to anything in the commentary. Please refer to page xvii.

Nice try though!

Al

By 46.00

Date 12-22-2013 23:39 Edited 12-22-2013 23:42

Thanks!

I am trying!

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 12-23-2013 08:32

There in lies one of the major problems when it comes to understanding what parts of the code are to be mandatory and what is not... And this is a good example of a misunderstanding of how one needs to properly navigate a code by being able to differentiate between requirements and recommendations which are technically not a required part of a code or standard.

One must be very careful to note the differences between the two! :wink:

Respectfully,
Henry

By 46.00

Date 12-23-2013 09:39

Thanks Henry, I was aware that the commentary was non mandatory. I was quoting it in the context printed in AWS D1.1

"Commentary. The Commentary is nonmandatory and is intended only to provide insightful information into provision
rationale."

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 12-23-2013 04:18

Glyn,

While Al and I are in general agreement on this issue of continuity, there may still be areas of application where we approach the handling of it in different ways.

On many items, and this issue is one of them, I can tend to push a contractor to more than the code specifies where I know it is being expected by the inspection company I am contracted to. My support for the pushing for evidence beyond the limits of the AWS code, as far as I am concerned, is from language in AISC, IBC, and the Contract Documents/Job Specifications. Usually I can find something in at least one of them that makes it even more of an issue than what I feel D1.1 expresses.

Now, I agree with Al about not being able to 'enforce' anything from the Commentary. But, I am a firm believer in the use of the Commentary to explain and better understand the application of the Code. I think most of us understand where you are coming from and don't necessarily disagree, entirely. The problem is in the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. They don't always blend.

Al expressed it in his post, how to you see an unnamed item as critical when the code has no prescriptive means defined anywhere? No method, sample form, or other procedural qualification. It is laid squarely on the shoulders of the engineer though there are aspects of it that become part of our job after the original acceptance of the welders qualifications by the engineer. But overall, it is the contractor's word that must be accepted or rejected. Now, that is usually not a battle I choose to fight. There are better ways of approaching it. Even, reading their own QC manual and looking at what they say they do. Especially if they are a pre- qualified fabricator. If they say they have a method of verifying continuity then it better exist in their system.

I need to go for now. Hope this is helpful.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 12-23-2013 12:52 Edited 12-23-2013 12:56

46,
I'm glad that you referenced the Commentary. That part of the book is often overlooked as it doesn't carry any weight when dealing with enforcement of the code....however, it does give the reader some helpful insight as to what the code writers were thinking at the time. Many times the code may be completely silent on a situation, but the Commentary will give the reader some guidance.

To me the key words are "properly documented", in Clause 4.2.2.1 when dealing with welders who have been qualified/certified before the start of a project(w/ certs that are older than 6mos.). To me this means, regardless if 1 year or 30 years in advance of the start of a project, the documentation demonstrating continuous continuity for that welder and processes qualified for, should be in order.

edit* whoops, I should have read closer before posting...I see that Al, Henry and Brent have already covered their view of the use of the Commentary.

By Joey

Date 12-23-2013 16:50

Hi Al

It’s true that there is nothing in D1.1 that calls for the use of a continuity record.

Even a piece of testimonial letter from employer can be used to support the welder’s current work activities. However, I find that the testimonial maybe insufficient without producing the current NDT/Inspection report on production welds made by the particular welder.

In API recommended practice, it states “Welder performance qualification expires if the welding process is not used during a six-month period. The welder’s qualification can be revoked if there is a reason to question their ability to make welds. A welders log or continuity report can be used to verify that a welder’s qualifications are current”.

Same intention except that the continuity report is not stated in D1.1

Merry Christmas to all :grin:

.

~Joey~

By 803056

Date 12-23-2013 20:57

This question pertained specifically to AWS D1.1. So, I'm going to cry foul on that one Joey. No fair bring in API. I'm taking my ball home and I'm not going to play with you any more. :wink:

Best Regards - Al

Merry Christmas Everyone (its close enough to start partying. Isn't it?)

By Joey

Date 12-24-2013 16:40

Al, I thought you are the Michael Jordan of this forum :lol:

(retired). Anyway, my earlier post is not like putting David Beckham in NBA :lol:

Well I can say atleast it's like
Tony Parker playing in NBA as well as useful in European basketball league.

I already agree that continuity record is not stated in D1.1, but there was some discussion on continuity record, contractor's quality manual blah blah etc.
To bring some of the recommended practices from API are good ingredients for the preparation of Quality Manual, which can be for generic use aside from Structural Steel.

Although not clearly mention in D1.1, but when there is opportunity to comment or advise, the use of continuity record or welders log may be recommended.

~Joey~