Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Certifications / welder continuity
1 2 Previous Next  
Parent - - By rjtinsp (*) Date 07-03-2014 17:30
I agree that Brent is right when D1.1 is concerned. As a TPI I don't ask to see continuity logs unless the contract specifically requires them, however in fourteen years I have never seen such a requirement on a structural steel project. To me a welder certification is a license to try, some guys have a pile of certs but can't weld well at all.

Also as a TPI I don't view it as my responsibility to have welders re-certify if they are having to repair all of their welds. If the guys boss is willing to pay him to do everything twice then that's his prerogative as long as the welds are acceptable in the end otherwise I report them as not meeting code and let the engineer decide.

Ramon
Parent - By Superflux (****) Date 07-03-2014 18:45
rjtinsp

BINGO!
I will submit an NCR for multiple occurrences of non compliant workmanship. It is up to the "bosses" to ferret out the source.
Parent - - By welderbrent (*****) Date 07-03-2014 17:57
Gerald and JS,

I think a good many of us here are on very close agreement.  But there are way to many god complex types out there that fall into Gerald's suggestion of paperwork over actual work.  And they just want to see how much they can make others squirm and jump through hoops to satisfy them and their ego. 

Shop's could do a much better job of documenting continuity without going to great time wasting, monumental extremes because it really is not that defined in the code.  And I agree, this is only a minor motion on my part to verify that information about welder qualifications was accurately provided and approved by the engineer prior to work starting. 

Now, when you cross over into other codes there may be a difference or when the engineer has written it into the Job Specs.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - - By Joey (***) Date 07-07-2014 04:19
Here in smokey, before they award you some major project, the customer will send an auditor to contactor’s factory to check the facilities and the QC documentations whether they are in order. If you don’t have the continuity record of your welders, then that is a disadvantage, it’s not a non compliance....but the audittor will put it as one of major observation.
It’s hard to close out the observation by saying that it is not stated in the Code to document continuity. The auditors will surely happy that they need not to review further your old welder certs if you have no continuity records. Because in their mind, requalification of welders is the best option to close out this observation. If the contractor wants the project, then the choice is to requalify the welders & invite the owner rep to witness the test. It's not wise to wait for this thing to happen before deciding to get the continuity documented.

~Joey~
Parent - - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 07-07-2014 14:09
That is why, in my opinion, anyone performing welding that is in accordance with ANYTHING should have their own written QC program. Because welding is a "Special Process" there may be things that need to be addressed. This will prevent an inspector who comes in AFTER an approval audit from saying something like "The fabricator has indicated that they verify continuity based upon continued employment and this is not in accordance with standard industry practices" after the system has been approved. Thats when I whip out the manual and documentation showing that the system has been approved and indicate to him how I will respond to that item.

In many cases a Pre-Audit checklist is sent to contractors to see what is involved in the approval process. This is the time when you really need to do your homework as a Quality Manager and let those people in sales/project management know where your system is lacking. NOT after the award of the contract. I have participated in a few audits where the ole QC manual was dusted off, opened up, and looked at in AWE when everyone realized none of the things written into the manual were being done. (Continuity Verification being one of them.)

Continuity is an easy thing to maintain as is the supporting documentation but often times we make a system so complicated its difficult to use.

The key to all of this is individuals responsible for the operations they are doing being familiar with the requirements of the operation they are doing. THEY includes purchasing agents, engineers, specification writers, QC Manager/Inspector, shop supervision, and people doing the work.  In cases where those requirements change based upon customer driven requirements than a detailed policy for "Contract Review" should be in place with procedures that support the policy.

Many people may think "Well thats an awful lot for a small fabricator" but then again so is making up some fancy paperwork to please one out of 20 customers because the continuity log didn't look like the one "on the last job".

I do agree that correcting it up front with your own documented system is MUCH better than correcting an item.

Gerald
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 07-07-2014 14:31
Gerald I even keep a running (monthly) log of all of the inspection(VT, UT, MT and PT) that I have completed since my initial certification and have my supervisor sign it each month. I use a contract Level III and if I have to change Level III's for some reason or another, I can back up all of my experience hours(years) with documentation to make the transition easier.
Continuity logs are not that difficult to keep up with.....trick is to maintain them on a regular basis so the task doesn't get overwhelming trying to go back and document the work that has been done.
Parent - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 07-07-2014 16:48
Nope. They are pretty easy. I think sometimes we look for too much in the content. I'm all for do what you say and say what you do.

Going back is definitely a pain.

Gerald
Parent - - By ssbn727 (*****) Date 07-03-2014 09:44
Where do you come off with referring to 4.1.3 in your OP, and now you refer to 4.3.1 in D1.1? It's important that you post correct and accurate details in order for any of us to give you an intelligent suggestion so please remember that in the future...

No wonder why no one could give you an answer!!! SHEEEESSHHHHH!!! I GIVE UP!!!

Btw, "WELDCOME TO THE AWS WELDING FORUM!!!"
Parent - - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 07-03-2014 12:56
And none of those refer to period of effectiveness.
Parent - - By JTMcC (***) Date 07-18-2014 03:50
A month ago I was required to provide a "Continuity Record" for API 1104/1107 work, from a state corporate commission. ??????????  Figgur that one out.

Then required by a prime's third party QA company to provide a "welder certification update letter". OK.
Clark County NV requirement:

http://www.clarkcountynv.gov/Depts/development_services/Industry%20Notices/2010%20Industry%20Notices/welder_qualification_record.pdf

Caltrans work has much harsher requirements (unless you're a china fab co.), field work there goes way beyond anything in D1.1 or D1.5.
So in many cases (all of mine evidently) there are requirements in place that exceed anything AWS (or API) ever thought of, and they are enforced with gusto.

So we keep detailed continuity records (or whatever the governing body in place likes to call them this year), just so we can walk on the job. It's the (one of many) price of admission.

J
Parent - - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 07-19-2014 15:07
It is easier to just do it by a method documented by your system. That way when the "super bestest inspector ever" comes in thinking he has to have objective quality evidence of for the process by date, job, code, position, mood, and start alignment you can just say.

Here is our system, we have been using it for years, we would be glad to look into alternatives if required by the contract. If not we would accept a change order issued for xxxxx if you want us to modify our system. If you don't mind, could you please indicate in writing what we or not conforming with so we can move forward on these garbage dumpsters.

Have a great day John.

Been unpacking boxes and setting up welders at the school this AM. I really am tired of blue!

Gerald
Parent - - By JTMcC (***) Date 07-19-2014 21:02
Gerald that may work in some cases, but not when a govt agency has official specs in place.

You either comply, or the work is unavailable to you.

Over the last many years, compliance with AWS, ASME or API codes/standards has become the smallest portion of our compliancability to job specs. Local state & county requirements have become the largest (and usually oddest) cost of admission. Some of that's because of seismic zone location but some of it's just typical bureaucratic misunderstanding, arrogance, ignorance and ineptitude.

Govt regulation has become so burdensome (in a non productive, non value added, non quality way) that a business either shucks that work or increases pricing to the point that the poor old taxpayer is forking out 4X the $$$ for a compliant working product.
Or.......... get's a bridge (complete with built in weld cracks) shipped from china.

You can't fight govt regs even if you have Bill Gates money.

J
Parent - - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 07-20-2014 02:58
Oh I fully agree when there are specifications requiring a system, or a specific system. It's those cases in which nothing other than a code of construction is referred to and the interpretation is that your have to do some crazy backtracking to get them a "continuity log" in "accordance with the code" when the code is silent on how a period of effectiveness is maintained.

When the scope of work becomes something in addition to what was agreed upon I guess a contractor can either comply, and perpetuate the issue,  or get it straightened out. And that would be an option they would have to weigh.

I think specification or some type of program above and beyond a code is required in many cases. I would think a contractor approved to do any "critical" work works be one that had a quality system in place that addresses much of this. 

Gerald.
Parent - - By ebsterdog Date 07-13-2021 15:26
I pulled this old thread in effort to gain insight into the fabricators sentiment for continuity requirements when working under AWS and ASME codes. What I found was more of that old arguement: "Tell where it says I haft too!!!"
I get the heartburn being conveyed due to the need for more paper, but do not get the hard words toward the TPIs or auditors contained herein. It is true that qualifications can be maintained post test day, but only if a record can be produced legitimizing that qual. Word of mouth and handshakes do not get you very far when doing code welding. The proof is either in black and white or there is none. Why would any of us considering ourselves to be intelligent, argue otherwise? For example, AWS D1.6 and ASME IX list only 2 pieces of information as requirements for a welder to maintain his/her/their qualification.
1) Frequency of use
2) Process used

I have the privilege of seeing this from several points of view (ex-welder, ex quality manager, current welding eng) and I get the strife that comes with dealing with the "Know it all inspector"but the option in the code to avoid unnecessary test shop events is a plus for all parties involved. It saves both time and money and even jobs in some cases. But this can only be legitimized if the employer tracks those 2 pieces of info for the welders they employ. Simply tracking 2 little pieces of info for each welder keeps unused process quals from wrongly being perpetuated beyond the welders abilities (to weld is certainly not to ride a bike) and avoids the expense of time in the test shop for processes they have maintained a sufficient skill-set for.
To argue against the concept of continuity by declaring a lack of obligation in the code seems to border on ignorance, but is counterproductive to say the least. We have the option for making life easier and proiects less expensive. Why would we kick against that?
   I have been that welder that drove 1000 miles for test day only to have a bad 10 seconds under the hood that left me jobless. I've also been the engineer trying to approve a small mom and pop shop that disagrees with tracking the info we need to say yes to welders with 20 year old qualifications. If we take that route, everyone suffers except the guy sitting in an office chair under the A/C posting quarterly continuity reports. I say let the suffering of keyboard strokes, excel formatting and carpel tunnel proceed. It is worth the effort to give those welders that are maintaining their skills at a high level for each process, the break they deserve. Would the guy sitting in the chair still oppose this option if not doing so resulted in their completing a mandatory proficiency test every few months to confirm he/she/they can still type 100 words per minute??? If so, lets add one more stipulation for interest sake: < 100 WPM results in immediate termination. perspective...
 
My 2 cents... 98 more and you're into a decent cup of joe

eb
Parent - By jwright650 (*****) Date 07-13-2021 17:19
Yeah...it's not all that hard to document that a welder has welded within the last 6 months, and it saves the heartburn when being challenged over whether a welder has any lapses in his/her continuity.
Parent - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 07-13-2021 18:02
Its not hard to do MANY Things that can add to the quality of a project.

A good contract review before work (Not required by D1.1)
A mockup of the joint for things other than the standard Single Vee Groove on Backing. (Not required by D1.1)
A written test for any inspector to verify their ability to read, understand, and apply project specifications (Not Required by D1.1).
A verification that using the extreme limits of all allowed variables will still produce satisfactory welds such as Min Groove angle, Min Root Opening, Max Voltage, Min WFS, Max Root Face, Max Pass thickness, etc will al provide a sound weld. (Not required by D1.1)

Though these things may be good ideas, there is no basis for them in the code however a sound welding professional will understand many of them regardless as to their documentation on paper.

Though it may appear to "...border on ignorance..." if it was not part of a contract and mentioned directly or by reference, it is just that. We all gotta pick a side of the border and decide.
Its crazy though that somehow anyone thinks a welders skill somehow deteriorates after 6 months when if you compared the ability of a CWI who passed a test only one time on a Saturday to their ability to actually get the job done on the following Monday you would see a much greater decline in ability. If they do not start inspecting in a MONTH its worse, then 5 months worse and so on. They have 3 years to get enough "experience" and that requires no sound objective quality evidence.

Much of this could be handled on the spot if its an item of contention with a single written statement by a company that says "All our welders have welded with the xxxx process on a minimum of a daily basis since original qualification."
BOOM then the paperwork police are happy, it only takes a few seconds to review as opposed to sitting in the QC office hunting for something to write up and then they can get out in the shop and look at something that directly affects quality.

With my previous post and this one I think we have now gotten a little closer to buying the cup of coffee!

Have a great day!
:)
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Certifications / welder continuity
1 2 Previous Next  

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill