can a welder who's certified in D1.1,,,,,,,,,,who is also a certified CWI,,,,,,,,,inspect his own work............?
weld it up,,,,,,,,,sign it off................??????????
This has been a hot topic, and has come up several times before. If memory hasn't completely failed me, I believe D1.1 specifically prohibits inspecting one's own work (I admit I may be confusing with another Code). You see, it's hard to justify being objective in the inspection of one's own work. In my opinion you cannot sign for work you yourself have completed... if you do, and I'm you're auditor, you better be able to show me documented rejects as well as accepts.
The AISC also prohibits anyone inspecting their own work. Like Jon said, it isn't recommended due to the conflicts that can arise. When an approving authority sees this, it would definitely raise questions when they see the same name as welder and the inspector.
I think what the discussions of the past on this boiled down to was being able to "prove" that you were completely objective while inspecting. Place yourself in an approver's shoes and imagine not knowing the welder or inspector and seeing documents come through with the same name. It would probably make you take notice and doubts would arise, even though the work may be of outstanding quality.
By Atema
Date 01-14-2007 02:49
Just a little bit more build on this info. It is the AISC Certified Fabricator program (specifically Steel Building Structures category) that actually requires the welder to be capable of inspecting their own work for inprocess, but requries that the final inspection is done by another. Either specifically qualified QC or specifically qualifed production personnel (other welders) can perform this final inspection. However, a QMC(AISC) auditor can require a welder to describe/show how they inspect welds based on the requirement to "be capable".
As far as I know, this is the only place/program where AISC addresses specific welding inspection responsibility as a requirement. The organization had plans at one time to publish a "quality workmanship" document/standard that was going to address inspection responsibility, not sure if they have yet.
I am not so sure that D1.1 outright prohibits inspection of your own work but I believe the QC1 Code of Ethics demands that you make known any conflicts of interest to the appropraite parties.
AISC requires that final inspections by performed by qualified people and must not be done on a person's own work.
Take note of the term "final" though. It is expected that every welder, or any other craft for that matter will look over (inspect) his/her own work before presenting it as ready for final inspection.
Thats a great approach 1316! Yes, ALL welders should be the first line inspector! They should be critical of their work and want only to produce the best quality out of pride of craftsmanship; something unfortunately lacking today... It is, perhaps only the perception of conflict when "officially" inspecting ones own work, but when faced with the question by a third party it's an awful tough nut to prove objectivity. Far better off not having to answer questions of this sort, they can only lead to suspicions and other questions, whether there is any validity to the suspicions or not/.
In an oral interview for Los Angeles City Structural steel and Welding inspector this very question was posed to me. Could a welder who was also an inspector, perform acceptance inspections on their own work? The immediate and obvious answer to all in the room was No! This was followed by the auditor's question of Why Not? What came next was a very interesting conversation of about twenty minutes with the very people whom constructed the LA City Building Code concerning matters of welding. What I took from this conversation was this. It is clearly the objective of the code writer to convey an intent when creating a particular code section for content. Following the creation of intent is the redevelopment of that particular section direct specification, conditional situation, acceptance or rejection, etc. as may be required in an effort to make absolute the content of that section. Oftimes the orignal intent of a particualr code section in development is skewed by the redevelopment of the section toward specifivity. I was well advised early in my inspection career to gain clear understanding of the intent of the particular code in it's entirety and implement that intent with the focus that is directed by the specifics of that applicable code section. This one conversation's resultant effort changed greatly how I actually use the code in working with the "people element" of acheiving code compliance. Few now are the occasions where time is spent in the field debating code specifics in a theatrical like fashion with others.
To me, there should be several levels of inspection. The welder should inspect their own work as a matter of course. Then along comes the inspector and gives it another look. (Then there might be another inspector, say the owner's QA, who comes and looks at it again.)
If the inspector and the welder are one and the same, then one round of eyeballing is lost no matter how honorable the intent.
Hg
The bottom line is that the contractor is responsible for the work they perform. If they have a quality control system that includes "self inspection" then it's up to the customer to agree with the practice or to make different arrangements for the inspections to be performed by someone other than the welder. That's why it is important to review the contractor's Quality Control Manual before awarding the contract. If the contractor doesn't have a Quality Control Manual, that should be a "red flag" warning to the owner that is awarding the contract.
In the event something goes "boom" in the night, the contractor responsible for the work will be the party sued by the owner. It really doesn't matter who performed the initial inspection, it failed and someone (the contractor's insurance carrier) is going to pay.
I've worked projects where I acted as the welding engineer, welder, and final inspector. Written procedures were in place, documented qualifications and certifications were in place, and all parties (U. S. Navy) were aware of the situation and were satisfied with the overall quality system.
I was given the gentle reminder that if anything were to go sour, I was the one that would be facing the consequences. However, that is always the case with a small business. The owner is liable. Even if the business is incorporated, it doesn't guarantee immunity from liability if there are a limited number of stockholders and the stockholders participate in day to day operations and decision making.
Some of the best work I see is produced by small operations while some of the worst work is produced by large corporations where everyone feels they are isolated from personal liability. Then the next day, the opposite is true on the next project were the small organization took on a project that was way beyond their capabilities. Bottom line: buyer beware. You get what you pay for only if you enforce the requirements of the contract and purchase order. Use weak contract language and you have little leverage. Use strong contract language and fail to enforce all the requirements, and you get less than you pay for. The courts have ruled that an owner can not selectively enforce some contract requirements while allowing other requirements to be unenforced.
Best regards - Al
As always, excellent points Al.
I had an AISC "Super Shop" for evaluation to determine their competence. They utilized the "buddy method" of welders inspecting another welder's work. The fabricator was shocked when I did not recommend them to our client. Please allow my explanation:
1) Building Safety, (in my humble opinion), is equal to expeditious production, and black ink profits. AISC (in my humble opinion) provides the minimum requirements for steel construction, and is usually reinforced by savvy engineers, to provide additional requirements. Some of these requirements specify AWS D1.1 for welding; And CWIs for inspection.
2) Some fabricators provide training via a two - four hour seminar by an outside consulting party specializing in fab shop inspection certification, (minimal training).
3) Welder "ego".
4) Micro-Management.
5) Lack of concern for capable inspection, as opposed to managed quality control, which emphasizes production and profit.
These are just my thoughts on the subject. I hope I did not offend anyone.
Best regards,
Vonash
.
Any shop, large or small, is only as good as the people they employ. Management plays an important part in how the employees perform their jobs. If management slights the importance of quality, it will be reflected in poor shop practice and poor workmanship on the shop floor. If management provides the necessary training and provides positive reinforcement, the workers will pick up on it and provide the level of quality insisted upon by management.
Some shops develop the culture where it is the inspector's responsibility to check every weld and to catch every nonconformance. If the nonconformance is missed by the inspector, all is well and production goes on without remorse. That pits the quality control department against the production department. In the long run, everyone looses.
I have no problem if the welders perform inprocess inspection. As a matter of fact, I've written several quality control programs where the welders are required to inspect their own welds before QC is called in for the final inspection. Welders that do not properly police their own work and pass unacceptable work on to the QC department are disqualified by the QC manager. The disqualified welder is required to requalify via. classroom training for workmanship/inspection requirements, they are required to pass a written examination, and they are required to perform a skills based welder performance test. The humiliation of having their certifications "pulled" usually does the trick. The results has been very good. On occation you get someone that can't get with the system and they are replaced. The bottom line is that the overall quality improves, QC is seen as an resource used to solve problems and provide training rather than the policeman watching for the welder to "screw something up".
I've used this approach for union and nonunion shops as well as commercial and military work. The initial shock can rock the company's culture. In short order the welders gain a sense of pride (and ego) in their work and the system results in better quality and improved production due to reduced rework.
Best regards - Al
As a supporting point to Al, I work in a shop that caters STRICTLY to nuclear work... we're a very small shop so you'd think things would be easy... the fact is we have SO many levels of oversight that most often the tree's are lost amongst the forest and we have repeated failures time after time after time... as a Company we have failed to remember to keep things simple.... STUPID.... whether anyone in QA realizes it or not, MOST informed workers / welders want to do the best job possible, BUT if we load them down with too many responsibilities beyond the controlling of their processes we are really only hurting ourselves....
:)
I think that'a a good idea.. If welder have an Inspection Certificate or vice versa it will easy to make inspection..Because welder and Inspector are under the manifacturer..so if every after weld, he/she can inspect their welding..so it can reduce time for Waiting Inspection based on Six Zigma...The manufacturer will give an "big appreciate" for the Welder+CWI ...
It will ne the best if every welder can inspect their welding, of course,have qualified and certified inspection.
We can make very optimum hokding cost.
If AWS standard not given restriction definition about your opinion..so...why not..Go a head..
Have a luck day..:)
You quote six sigma, In the last few years, I've learned to be wary of a group that employs the methods taught by that. There is some value to six sigma, but the case you just made and how you made it is text book reason not to trust it. If you can get away with it, and it speeds up production, go with it. It's been my experience that philosophy has a nasty tendency of creating failures. Production is all well and good, if you have a reasonable quality level to go with it. There is something to be said for having a third party inspect, rather than the welder. Most welders want to do a good job, and most do, but there will always be that one trying to be a hero who lets something slide. For that reason I disagree with the welder performing the final inspection of any weldament. Six sigma doesn't take into account that human factor.
