Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / General Welding Discussion / Welder Continuity Logs
1 2 Previous Next  
- - By Dreizehn (*) Date 06-30-2016 12:15
What exactly goes into a welders continuity log aside from the basics like his name, number, process and the signature every 6 months saying he's been welding with said process? I had a customer get back to me saying he wanted every job the welder has worked on listed on the logs as well, and with my shops crazy job turnover rate that would be damn near impossible.
Parent - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 06-30-2016 12:58
Not required to have traceable information by ASME Sec IX or AWS D1.1 however that does not preclude it being in their project specific documents.
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 06-30-2016 13:28
Your customer is an idiot.
Tell them you do not have the human resources at this time to collate and maintain such comprehensive and detailed information but that you would be more than happy to do so if they pay for it.
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 06-30-2016 13:31
And to follow up on pipewelders comment, in reality you are not required by code to have a continuity log AT ALL.
Parent - - By Dreizehn (*) Date 06-30-2016 13:57
Really? I've always had the understanding that without the log you can't "prove" or disprove that the welder has welded in said process within their 6 month cycle.
Parent - By jwright650 (*****) Date 06-30-2016 15:00
An AISC certified shop should keep logs, it's just a good practice.

It's up to the EOR on every project to approve welder certifications....so the EOR "could" ask via the job specs to recertify every welder that would be used on the EOR's job.....many times when you submit certs along with a continuity record they don't blink an eye and send it back approved. I have only had one or two jobs in 30+ years that the EOR wanted everyone that hadn't certified within the last 12 months(spelled out in the specs), to retake the welding test regardless of how long they have been welding.

Some shops have job travelers that follow a piece through the shop from receiving to loading on the truck....along the way the welder signs that when he/she is finished welding it out. That's just another method of tracking who welded what and how often they weld.
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 06-30-2016 15:17
I myself keep continuity logs. I keep them for 3 different programs, ASME, AWS, and API. Mostly because it IS good practice, but also because it is easier than fighting with the idiots who happen to be customers (or auditors) and therefore have leverage. But it is not Code required.
As for proof? This is an interesting question. When someone in essence asks for your continuity log they are not really asking for proof. A piece of paper 'proves' doodly squat. What they are asking for is evidence that you are complying with their concept of industry practice. For example, if one simply kept a list of welders who's continuities have been maintained (lets say you are a shop of five welders all doing GMAW and working all of the time-therefore you KNOW that they have maintained their continuity) this is just as much 'proof' as a robust log. If it is argued that this list could simply be created out of nothing I would argue that so could documentation of continuity of any nature, though one may have to work a little harder with some.
The nuclear industry especially has gotten itself in trouble by considering paper the holy grail.
Parent - By Trackergd (**) Date 06-30-2016 13:36
Unless it's in the contractual agreement, the most I will offer is to let them review the welders certifications in person.  I've never even had the military ask for continuity logs...
Parent - By Cumminsguy71 (*****) Date 07-04-2016 18:17
I was tested at an accredited facility so every 6 months I have at least one paper filled out to send to AWS. They send me a new card. I show inspector or whoever is asking my card and WPS for the process they are needing. You could download the paper from AWS and just copy them and use them. I keep a log in my briefcase and try to get every job just in case it comes time to renew mine and I forget, at least I will have several to chose from. I try to send the most recent.

Having a list of every job sounds excessive. Maybe they just want to be sure you've actually been welding for 6 months straight and not just one job in 6 months. Shouldn't matter, six months, use that process once with documentation and that is good according to AWS.
Parent - By Sourdough (****) Date 07-05-2016 18:30
Just test again....one handed.
- - By welderbrent (*****) Date 07-01-2016 00:20
In all honesty, the continuity log, and most of our practices, are a matter of trust.  None of it can be 'PROVEN' unless that customer was standing over every welder watching your entire shop practice for the past 10 years.  Tell them to pound sand.  Not going to happen.  Even if they were willing to pay for it.  Impossible task without an overwhelming QC staff to map every weld and keep track of who did what and when and where and which job it was done on.  The Grand Canyon needs more land fill, go jump in. 

There are two ways to approach it but I prefer this one: I believe their statement of certification, continuity, and QC to be true and accurate until they prove otherwise. 

Welders have a high failure rate when I UT or a lot of profile repairs, something is fishy with welder quals AND continuity. 

Finished parts have a high number of repairs upon my inspection; shop has no viable QC program worth mentioning and all work is suspect and subject to NCR's. 

ETC. 

The guys are correct: the codes do not truly mandate, for the most part, a continuity log in the fashion that most people think it needs to be done.  But, it is definitely good practice and helps with in house training when a problem arises or repeats itself. 

Brent
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 07-01-2016 12:10
I know it's not completely on topic... But to be a CWB fabricator, continuity logs for welders are part of the system.. And they are audited I promise you :)

Of course   CWB certified welders are examined every two years... so that is an extra measure of accountability..  Not the same as a 6 month continuity covenant... But I really like the practice and believe the expense to do it is justifiable.
Parent - By welderbrent (*****) Date 07-01-2016 14:06
I agree Lawrence.  Would love to see something a little more vigorous and responsible in our various codes here.

Then again, as long as a welder can show continued employment, for the most part they are 'tested' regularly.  How many true structural, pipe, aerospace, and even equipment shops don't have a fair amount of CJP's that either by code, customer, or in house QC don't get UT or something beyond VT regularly?  Maybe not every week, but regularly.  And as long as that is in play, then they are tested.  As well as QC monitoring of profiles, fit up, and all that goes into making sure the joints are pre-approved. 

The whole system is in play to give us the best possible chance of accomplishing quality welds that will not fail in use under normal circumstances.  Certs, WPS's, Pre-approved joints and procedures, and QA/QC monitoring.

But, we can't have everything WE want.  The system works fairly well even with so many who try to sneak around parts of it.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 07-01-2016 14:07
Even to stray farther!
Do you notice any difference in actual product quality in fabrications under the jurisdiction of CWB standards, or even ISO? 

What basis is there to think that someone who welds regularly somehow loses skills over a 2 year period. I wonder if there was any type of "Study" to show this or maybe just a bunch of inspectors and quality people sitting in a meeting thinking "Here how we can take care of those pesky welders"

We all know, as we gain experience our skills go down! Welding inspectors don't have to maintain "continuity" or even perform well on the job in many cases.

I need another cup of coffee!

Have a great day

Gerald
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 07-01-2016 15:10
"Welding inspectors don't have to maintain "continuity""-Gerald

I do. I have monthly logs with daily inspections listed, dating back to my first inspections as a CWI and they were signed by my boss at the time. Does it "prove" anything?, nothing more than for a welder who has logs maintained of the jobs they welded on....it's purely paperwork...could someone make up all of that paperwork? absolutely. But I think the volume of paper that I've collected would be rather difficult to just "make up" given the number of inspection hours and signatures and inspection method (VT, MT, PT, UT) details that were recorded.
Parent - - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 07-01-2016 15:27
"...have to..." is the key and was in the context of fulfilling code type requirements. Also I was referring more to welding inspectors vs NDE method inspectors which in my opinion are two different things for many methods.

The good thing about inspections is that I don't need a log since I keep all of my inspection reports thus I have objective quality evidence of inspections performed which is MUCH more reliable than a log. 

I do think keeping a record of things is a good idea but does little to show proficiency at at process. It just shows you did it. I watched a guy come in, change batteries every morning on a USN 50, inspect welds, and never once calibrate the machine over a 4 day period. His documentation looked GOOD though!
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 07-01-2016 16:11
That is the point. To think that by generating or maintaining paperwork that somehow the quality of welds will be improved is simply bizarre.
Quality is at the arc NOT in the file of an inspector.
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 07-01-2016 16:16
Tell ya what more paperwork does do. It provides greater job security for inspectors.
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 07-01-2016 16:20
Funny thing is I happen to be facing this problem right now. Only in this case hydrotest data. This customer has an army of 'clerks' whos job it is to scrutinize the hydrotest data. Interesting how these clerks, especially in an environment of industry slow down, are just chockablock full of suggestions as to how the system needs to be more comprehensive. And how does it improve hydro test? It doesn't. Keeps em busy though.
Parent - By welderbrent (*****) Date 07-01-2016 16:22
You missed how many people it puts to work, all the way from the timber faller, through the papermill, to the computer geeks and programmers, to ....

You get the idea.  And don't forget the toilet paper when it is all done.  That's about all most of it is good for.

Brent
Parent - - By TimGary (****) Date 07-01-2016 19:38
Hey Gerald,

What's the AWS ATF requirements for continuity?

Tim
Parent - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 07-02-2016 02:30
6 Mos. Done by an employer or at an ATF and of course includes a Fee. https://app.aws.org/certification/docs/Maintenance.pdf
Parent - By jwright650 (*****) Date 07-01-2016 21:53
"I do think keeping a record of things is a good idea but does little to show proficiency at at process."-Gerald

Agreed. :cool:
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 07-01-2016 17:55 Edited 07-01-2016 18:00
Gerald,

Do I notice any difference in actual production quality in fabrications under the jurisdiction of CWB standards?

I notice the difference in actual production quality by "fabricators" under the jurisdiction of CWB standards.

What basis is there to think somebody who welds regularly somehow loses skills over a 2 year period? 

My eyes and many failed tests.

In D1.1  I can qualify 6G and keep continuity by doing 1F until the Lord comes with a Shout !

With CWB every two years a "Check Test" shall be performed to the highest qualification on record.

Large manufacturers (like my gig) may have hundreds of welders... Some of them don't really move around that much as far as type of work they do in the shop... But we try to qualify *everybody* to the same standard as far as position and thickness so we have the ability to cross utilize if necessary...  

The check test is a good tool to ensure we can do that with minimal coaching when a guy might need to be moved.

Or when a guy has been in a rut and needs coaching

Or when a guy hit's his mid-40's and he doesn't realize he needs magnifiers in his hood.    He fails the check-test and we find out why and help him !
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 07-01-2016 18:19
One would have to ask why it is you need to wait for the 'check test' to determine a guy is blind.  :lol:
Unless of course we assume that his blindness only affects the check test and not his production welds. But then, if that were the case the logic of the problem fails. :evil:
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 07-01-2016 19:10
Sometimes quality, like a person's vision, slowly degrades.   They have to try harder to get the same quality and sometimes they just can't do things the way they used to... They get headaches from the extra concentration, they become sad and think their days are numbered.

I've seen it be a life changer for some folks.

CWB also requires that welders have eye exams... They can be done in-house to the Jegar.
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 07-01-2016 19:50
Lawrence,
Been through all of that. And recognized such without the check test or vision test.
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 07-01-2016 23:02
I'm ever so gratified to hear of your self described excellence

Most people, institutions, factories, manufacturers, welders, inspectors, engineers, Presidents, Swamis, Gurus, and High Fallutin Potentates are not as good as you are.
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 07-05-2016 12:45 Edited 07-05-2016 12:54
Lawrence,
As much as I would love to take credit for the millions and millions of quality welds produced every year by those people, institutions, factories, manufacturers, welders, engineers, swamis and gurus without the slightest hint of the programmatical robustness of which you claim is so critical, I will not. I will prefer to hold to the empirically proven minimalist doctrine so wisely espoused by the swamis and gurus of ASME, AWS, API and others that have provided us with thousands of safe and productive power houses, refineries, chem plants, hydroelectric dams, etc.
I will leave the concept of rules for rules sake and their self important internal logic to the self appointed guardians of quality. :grin:
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 07-06-2016 13:03
That really is a quality response Js !

I'm so caught up in the world of American and International manufacturing that I forget sometimes that other branches of the trades are actually sometimes staffed with people able to produce consistently without a more formalized structure.

And I don't think everybody needs this kind of thing 'imposed' on them... But whether it is self-imposed because the manufacturer knows they need the help of the structured approach or for a sales standpoint, telling an international client base that we produce *this way*.... 

There are still whole factories in the Mid-west and the South that by virtue of having a guy that passed a SMAW plate test in the 80's they consider their plant, workmanship and quality to be AWS Certified....  Until an audit of some sort disabuses them of such lofty status.   Heck, it's how Al makes a living :)

So I see a place for some of this CWB style institutionalized stuff.   But you are also correct that somebody can make workmanship of the highest quality without gubment/society/bureau oversight.
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 07-06-2016 13:30
Lawrence,
A formalized structure is absolutely critical to ALL fabrication or manufacturing environments. I think we can agree upon that. However, I am just very sensitive to those applications of formality that in my opinion have no empirical basis for existing.
To clarify I might argue that the qualification of weld procedures and welders is a formalized structure that has an empirical basis for existing. Ensuring accuracy in the information conveyed in drawings is another. Qualified NDE people is another. Material verification is another. Verifying contractual requirements is another. Training is another. There are many.
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 07-06-2016 15:28
Well said,

I guess my "opinion" is that there are many people manufacturing who don't have the subject matter expertise to perform all the formal functions (and more) that you listed... And sometimes those governing bodies, structures and voluntary structures provide that for people who otherwise would just fake it, or do it wrong.

I also HATE things that are audited that add no value to what we do...   I try to go over AISC/CWB/IAS and other standard audit forms and try to modify our quality manual to support them, but add production and quality value whilst doing so... Sometimes it's possible.. Sometimes they want to know or have records of stuff that I just cant see matter.
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 07-06-2016 16:14
ISO is the worst. The poster child for what you speak of.
The standard is ambiguous overlapping redundant gibberish. Esoterica designed to require consultants.
May work OK for widgets I suppose but not for piping, structural steel, or pressure vessel fabrication.
Doesn't keep the Europeans from cramming it down our throats however.
Parent - - By welderbrent (*****) Date 07-01-2016 19:13
I would think there would be a decrease in quality of all welding not to mention an increase in UT failures that would somehow suggest the possibility that something was slightly amiss with either the welders want to or their ability to either of which would demand training which would either correct the problem itself, indicate other action was needed, or end in termination.  Why wait for two years if this becomes apparent about 6 mo after the last test?

Brent
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 07-01-2016 19:18
I dunno why.

Who said anybody was waiting for two years...   It's just another system in place to help ensure quality.

Yes if Johnny is failing more UT's somebody ought to look into that...

Everybody wants to argue today...

I understand that the CWB is a real bureau in every sense of the word... Something you must comply with and most people think there is no value in external auditing systems.  Don't want to have to answer to 'The Man'

I think it's up to the user to make the things being audited valuable.

I'm done.
Parent - By welderbrent (*****) Date 07-01-2016 19:54
Easy Lawrence,  I'm not trying to be argumentative,  I'm trying to understand a reasoning process that would 'mandate' such a system when there should be plenty of other indicators as to a person's ability to do the work.

Yes, it is just another system and some of it's features I applaud.  There are just some items that don't make sense.

Now, I can easily justify some form of welder continuity log in a simple format that is easy for the dept lead and/or QC to maintain.  But, when customers start asking for verification down to specific jobs, dates, etc, they are overstepping any common sense let alone code application.  If the fabricators word isn't going to be good enough, at least until a welder proves their incompetence, then just specify a unilateral re-qualification of all personnel prior to starting work on your job. 

Brent
Parent - By jwright650 (*****) Date 07-01-2016 21:56
"Everybody wants to argue today... "-L

No arguments here, just relating my comments to points being made in the thread.
:cool:
Parent - - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 07-02-2016 02:24
Lawrence,

Thanks for your thoughts.

Do you think the differences in quality are based upon welder being tested every two years or possible quality system requirements of the CWB certification scenarios. I see such major differences in standards outside the US that seem so much more detailed I wonder why our building, bridges, boilers and pressure vessels aren't just falling apart at an astounding rate.

I would think if a quality system is in place that monitors quality, a degradation of an employees abilities would become evident without relying on a test. I do surely understand the issues with aging and vision not to mention the need to verify near vision acuity. One spot of LOF or porosity in a bend and what happens, is the person out of a job? I haven't read a CWB  standard but do wonder how a failed test is handled. If they fail their test, does their work come into question that they did the day before?

We know welding is not a perfect science and many a good welders have made a bad weld. Or at least in the industries I have worked in. There is really no right or wrong in any of the systems, they just are what they are. I have little experience outside my little world so I thank you for taking the time to entertain my thoughts/questions etc...

Gerald
Parent - By Lawrence (*****) Date 07-06-2016 13:11
There are several scenarios for dealing with failed performance qualification tests with the CWB...  W47 is the structural steel code I'm most familiar with...   There are provisions for immediate retest (not double coupon like AWS) and there is an option for further training and retest...  There are also provisional tests that can be done in-house without the CWB rep on site... This way Johnny can go into production if he passes..  The coupons are kept for the rep to view when he next visits, and then Johnny is retested upon said visit.
Parent - By Trackergd (**) Date 07-06-2016 12:29
" Even if they were willing to pay for it.  Impossible task without an overwhelming QC staff to map every weld and keep track of who did what and when and where and which job it was done on".

And you have hit on a very valid point here.  In a small company with limited staff, trying to maintain that amount of paperwork is a rather daunting task.  I find that if I work over 14 hours a day (salary, no overtime), I get all cranky.  I am the QC Manager, QC Engineer, Lead Weld Inspector and Lead Part Inspector with two helpers in a shop of 110.. plus parts coming in from sub-contractors. My job is like standing under a waterfall with a sieve trying to catch all the leaves and debris, or sweeping up poo in a large zoo..depending on the day I am having.  I would need a clerk to keep track of all those records and at least two more inspectors.

Mr Customer, if you want all that documentation, it will cost you eleventy billion dollars extra.  Amazing how reasonable they get when you attach a price tag to all that extra documentation.

Like most things, the people that write these specifications have never had to do it.
- - By Dreizehn (*) Date 07-01-2016 16:21
I can understand the need and the security(if you will) of having them. And I personally have no problem maintaining them, my issue is their contents themselves. I was, for lack of a better term, put into a QC position. The people who had my position previously never had any logs of the sort so I'm at a point where I'm having guys re-qualified just so I can feel comfortable signing my name on that log. To create the log though I'm curious as to what they can/should consist of outside process, name and date.
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 07-01-2016 16:30
In essence all you need is name, date, and process. This is well enough to satisfy any but the chronically and incorrigibly stupid.
- - By Texglide Date 07-01-2016 20:16
The codes generally leave things like this to the discretion of the manufacturer which at least in my opinion, is a good thing.
The manufacturer needs to decide what information is necessary to prove continuity.  The details you choose may be different from what I choose to include.  For ASME shops, the Authorized Inspector must be satisfied.  In my experience, that has been sufficient for customer also.
Parent - - By In Tension (**) Date 07-01-2016 22:14
This thread is timely and funny.  Timely because I was just having a conversation about this 'concern' with a 3rd party the other day; funny because there is no right or wrong answer, only opinions... yet the battle never dies. 
Is it a requirement?  Nowhere that I've seen, outside of customer specifications.  3rd party doesn't like it?  He can either take a hike or maybe he has a good point, depending on the specific situation.  It CAN be a valuable tool for a quality department, but that doesn't mean it should be used as auditor ammo when it's perfectly obvious that it's a superfluous activity.  No, weld quality is not inherently improved by virtue of signing a continuity log.  But in a multi-process shop with 100 welders it may not be apparent when a welder is slowly losing his eyesight, no longer gives a hoot, hasn't struck a GTAW arc in over a year, fails UT more often and hasn't been tested since the day he was hired 10 years ago... yet all are free to weld on whatever job the foreman points at.  In a situation like that can the inspector really say everybody is still within their period of effectiveness without a continuity log, or other proof, regardless of whether or not the 'log' is explicitly mandated in the code?  Is the auditor really being a bozo by questioning how one determines this?
Parent - - By welderbrent (*****) Date 07-01-2016 23:22
Some good points brought out there.

The shop I am performing TPI work at right now gets us a new employe/welder list every 4-6 months that tells us the welders name, their signoff initials/symbol, what process, position, material, thickness, and code they are qualified to.  It is easy to check on fitters and welders and see if they are good to go on the work being performed.

Continuity, these guys test everyone in the door.  No pass, no work.  Doesn't matter where you qualified before.  Once in the door you are good until you leave because they use limited processes to limited codes and make sure you stay current with anything you get qualified for.  

Brent
Parent - - By SCOTTN (***) Date 07-05-2016 20:25
If a fabrication facility is AISC certified, the fabricator must provide “objective evidence” that the period of effectiveness has not been exceeded, as indicated in the AISC Building Standard Audit Guide. In my experience, this “objective evidence” has always been the welder continuity log, which they ask to see when Element 12 is audited….

12. Fabrication Process Control
The Fabricator shall develop Documented Procedures for process control necessary to produce a consistent acceptable level of quality of the furnished product in accordance with the applicable codes or specifications. Fabrication processes include: thermal and mechanical cutting, fitting and assembly, welding, drilling, bolting, milling, and coating. The Fabricator will include additional “special Procedures” that cover fabrication processes done at the facility (e.g., cambering).
 
Regardless if these processes are routinely performed at the facility, effective implementation of the following Documented Procedures are required as a minimum:

12.1 Welding
The Fabricator’s welding Procedure shall include:
WPS's
Preheat requirements
PQR's
Welder, welding operator, and tack welder Qualifications and Qualification Test Records
Welder, welding operator, and tack welder performance records - to provide Objective Evidence that the “period of effectiveness” has not been exceeded for welder, welding operator, and tack welder qualifications
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 07-05-2016 20:41
Nice quotes.
Parent - - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 07-05-2016 21:16
But cant the "Log" take on any format?

I the undersigned hereby certify that that all welders listed below as of this date have continually welded with XXAW and have had no period of time greater than 6 Mos as specified in Quality Manual para  xx.xx.x .  This is based upon existing manufacturing practices which limit employees designated as welders to only perform welding and no other tasks. Continued employment represents continued welding with process XXAW. This statement is supported by timekeeping records for specific projects and may be audited if reason exists to question the abilities of any welders.

I have also seen the back side of WPQ's used as a log.

It can be as simple or as complicated as one wants to make their quality system.

AISC has a pretty extensive "certification" program however having been in some shops, it is sometimes, just "a program". I think a continuity log should be used in any work in which the governing code requires continuity be maintained. It can just get complicated when people think it has to be extremely detailed. Of course with the ability to computerize information so easily, I can't think of a reason to not have one for any fabricator (AISC or just your plain jane).
Parent - - By SCOTTN (***) Date 07-06-2016 10:26
In my humble opinion Gerald, I think that the log can take on any format as long as it provides "objective evidence", which is defined as "information based on facts that can be proved through analysis, measurement, observation, and other such means of research" that you can examine for yourself, as opposed to subjective evidence, which is evidence that you can't evaluate... you have to simply accept what the person says or reject it. I also agree that it can be as simple or as complicated as a person wants to make their quality system. I still use Lincoln Arcworks to keep track of welder continuity. It's the simplest way I've found.
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 07-06-2016 12:06
Scott,
Fine quote once again but a continuity log does not provide analysis, measurement, or any means of research. It is simply a more robust statement of what Gerald has suggested. With even a  continuity log you have to simply accept what the person says or reject it. There is no definitive difference between a continuity log and a simple statement.
If you are going to argue this then you have to tell us what is the definitive difference between simply stating that welder is good and adding a date that simply states the welder is good. Is an entire system of 'quality' to be built upon such flimsy arbitrariness. This is the very reason that Codes have stayed away from this.
Up Topic Welding Industry / General Welding Discussion / Welder Continuity Logs
1 2 Previous Next  

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill