Interpreting code ?

Date 05-22-2008 15:58 Edited 05-23-2008 01:45

flamin,
When you are AWS certified for welding inspection, you have proven your ability to USE *(interpret) a "code" in general. So if one tests to D1.1, one is not limited to D1.1.

I tested to D1.1 and have inspected to several other codes, ASME included.

Best regards,
John

*EDIT: Improper use of the term "Interpret". And improper spelling as well, I think. :-)

By 803056

Date 05-23-2008 01:22

Only a code committee can interpret a question about the code. In other words, if there is a question about how the code is to be applied in a specific situation, the code committee will ponder the issue and eventually issue an official interpretation if someone, e.g. a user, makes an official inquiry.

The CWI/SCWI does not interpret the code, they simply use the code.

The CWI/SCWI open book examinations do not include questions that require the examinee to interpret the applicable code. The question simply requires the examinee to look up the clause that contains the information requested by the examination question.

By passing the CWI/SCWI examination you have demonstrated the ability to use a code, i.e., find specific information, in a timely manner. What is required is a familiarity with the code so that the correct answer can be located quickly.

The ability to look up information in a specific code is a "skill" that is transferable to other codes because most codes follow similar constructs. However, with increasing frequency, clients and owners are requiring the inspector to show objective evidence or a demonstrated ability to navigate through specific welding standards, e.g., some DOTs require the third party inspector to show evidence they passed the open book examination with D1.5 or in other cases D1.1.

Best regards - Al

By jrw159

Date 05-23-2008 01:43

Al,
Thank you for promptly correcting my improper use of terminoligy. The word "interpret" should be "use".

John

By flamin

Date 05-23-2008 03:11

There I go, already on the wrong foot using the wrong terminoligy =]

Thanks for setting me straight guys. And for the clarification.

Jason

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 05-23-2008 03:13

That is the usual male bovine excrement.

Anyone can interpret the code. Anyone.

Only the Code Committee can give you an "Official" interpretation.

By jrw159

Date 05-23-2008 11:41

IMHO, "Useing" the code is to "interpret" the code, to an extent. But as I have stated elsewhere, you can not make everyone happy.

Sorry to have contributed to the ever growing pile of "male bovine excrement."

Regardless of the proper or improper use of the word "interpret" or "use" the fact remains that when you aquire AWS certification for welding inspection, you are NOT limited to the code that you tested with, and this is NOT my opinion, it is fact!

Good day.

By js55

Date 05-23-2008 13:47 Edited 05-23-2008 13:51

Well, I'm sort of in between Al and Joe in this one. When using the terminology 'interpret' we need to be very careful. And this is where I lean towards Al. Far, far too many inspectors (especially the CWI variety where I've discovered egos run rampant) have gotten carried away with themsleves trying to assert their 'authority' in 'interpreting the code. But the fact is-now leaning towards Joe-each time you read the thing you are to a certain extent performing some kind of interpretation since the language is often difficult and ambiguous.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 05-23-2008 14:17

It's not BS at all... Nor is it all that simple.

Of course we interpret... There is even a non binding *commentary* section in D1.1 to aid in interpretation of the intended meaning of the code text.

Now a code committee *interpretation* is a horse of a different color... This is a situation where the committee speaks about something the text does not fully encompass... They are interpreting "situations" NOT explicitly detailed in the code.

No need to be worked up about semantics in this case... Nobody is being led astray.

By 803056

Date 05-23-2008 21:26 Edited 05-23-2008 21:31

js55 and I agree on the issue that some CWIs, not all of them, but a minority, have the idea that because they passed the open book examination they have the authority to "interpret" the intent of the "code" and their interpretation is beyond reproach. I've heard this condition described as the "God complex". My position is: the CWI certification does not arrive in the mail box with a black robe and white wig.

The open book examination does not ask questions that requires interpretations. They are simple questions that require a "word for word, comma for comma" response.

I have no issue with a CWI or SCWI that voices an opinion on a subject, but those few that insist their "interpretation" is the only correct "interpretation" and it is the final word give all CWI/SCWIs a black eye. It amazes me that these are usually the same individuals that issue their edicts without looking in the "code" first. All too often they don't even quote the "code" correctly.

I usually try to phrase it as, "it's my understanding that clause XXX means ........"

Yes, we do read the text of the code and we make a determination as to how it applies to the job at hand, but as a CWI/SCWI, ours is not the binding opinion.

At some point, if the contractor and I can't come to a mutual understanding the issue goes back to the owner or engineer for resolution. The last thing I'm going to do is get into a battle of the minds with a contractor. As the inspector, I'm the eyes and ears of the owner or EOR. They have the last word on any issue the contractor and I can't resolve.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Best regards - Al

By jrw159

Date 05-23-2008 23:38

Al,
That is a good story and one I think most of us can agree with. Stick to it. You have hit the nail on the head, IMHO. ours is not a "Untouchable God" position, but rather a "Middle Man" position that we have proved ourselves competent enough to fill, even if we can not spell very well.

John

By CWI555

Date 06-02-2008 13:26

Someones tag line (can't remember who's) applies to this one. Apparently even the word interpret needs interpreted.
On the most anal retentive level, no one but the code comittee makes an "interpretation".
However; most codes are written clear as mud. Sometimes I have run across several incidences of assumptions in various codes. For an example: one code stated "final acceptance of a radiographed shall be based on the ability to dicern the required Image qaulity indicator ". Thats all well and good, but that statement was taken to mean that if the density was 1.4 HD it was good. After all the code said "final acceptance shall be based on" without a qualification statement for density requirements. I was instructed to eval the situation and therefore, purchased a contrast sensitivity gauge, plaque IQI's etc. While I could see the wire, I could not see the required hole, nor the required for the contrast sensitivity gauge.

Therefore, it is my opinion the relevant code committee, (whom I spoke with as well) had made an assumption in regards to the required density. It was assumed 1.8 to 4.0 for x ray, 2.0 to 4.0 for source, 1.3 and 1.3 min for composite shots etc.
(reference ASME section V most recent edition article II)

Later editions of the same code clarified this, but for that point in time an "interpretation" had to be made. Waiting months for the committee to meet was simply not an option.

I have noted several such "assumed" thoughts in the codes. The codes are written by professionals in the business, and very often what is normal par the course for them, is not for others.

I do not get into mind reading. Trying to read the minds of people 3000 miles away or more is a piss pour technique for addressing the issues at hand.

Therefore, in 98 percent of situations, the inspector should not give opinion but simply quote code.
for that 2% of time in which the code comittees have left all on the project out to dry by their assumptions, the CWI/inspector should have enough knowledge to give some direction and suggestions as to how to go about resolving the "assumption", but leave to engineering/owner the final resolution. In the situation I described, the owner opted to allow the shot for economic and schedule reasons. I performed due diligence, but in the final analysis, they owned it, they can sign for it.

Thats my interpretation of the word and or action of interpretation being performed by a CWI.

thats the world as I see it.

Regards,
Gerald

By Mikeqc1 (****)

Date 06-02-2008 18:00

Perhaps you can answer this? If i can see the required wire on the film but my density is below 1.8 (single film veiw) could the shot still be acceptable?
if it can could you tell me where in the ASME code i can find this?
something like this has come up before (using low density film ) but i cannot find anything about it in the code.
Mike K

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 06-03-2008 00:19

Mike K,
ASME V Article 2 Clause T282.1 Density Limitations states a minimum density of 1.8 for x-ray and 2.0 for gamma.
As far as I am aware sensitivity and density are separate requirements and you must be able to see the required wire and also achieve the required density for the radiograph to be acceptable,
Regards,
Shane

By Mikeqc1 (****)

Date 06-03-2008 11:04

Thats what I thought...thanks.
Mike

By CWI555

Date 06-03-2008 11:16

Thats my understanding as well Shane. However; my understanding and that of a contractor running over a few months on schedule with hundreds of shots out of density, who has been moving scaffolding immediately after the shot has been "bought" by a less than technically apt interpreter, is different.
Density and Sensitivity, both have to be present.

Regards,
Gerald