Over the years as a CWI, I have been asked to inspect some welds by companies who do not have a CWI on staff other than the one I work for on a part time basis, nights, weekends or whatever the case may be. I'm sure I'm not the only CWI who has been asked this. The situation is almost always the same, just come in a look at the finished welds to sign off on them. Although in this situation you could probably name your price, I have always turned it down because I've always been leary of just looking at a weld and "OK ing " it without knowing anything else about it such as : Do even have a WPS? Was it properly followed? Who welded the joint? What were their qualifications.To any other CWI's in this situation, what do you do? In this case would the CWI be responsible or the contractor if something happened down the road? Do you feel comfotable with just looking at a finished weld? Maybe I'm just being too cautious about where I put my signature, but I don't want to lay awake at night thinking about it. How do you or would you handle this????
I give them exactly what they ask for. An assessment of the "visual" appearance of the object. No more no less. I can look at a weld bead, who's condition meets all the criteria for the visual method, and be chuck full of LOF, IP etc. If they want an in depth inspection, including material, PQR/WPS/WQR/NDE results, that is another animal. I can write a report on that as well. "documentation meets the requirements of the referencing code".
What I won't do is sign anything stating I witnessed all or part of the relevant processes. Stick to the truth and what you have first hand knowledge of, it will usually support you. Word your reports carefully, and do no more, no less than requested in writing, and do nothing at all if said request for services is not in writing, with no worm clauses.
that would be my advice,
Gerald
I do the very thing you are talking about.I do contract visual inspection for a company I used to work for.I feel comfortable with them being that I used to work there,and I know that they do things the right way,as I was there for the development of the procedures,and they still abide by them.However,I would really keep my eyes open to a place that I had no experience with,because alot of times they don't want a full time CWI because they know that any CWI worth his salt will make sure that things are squared away on the welding end.They just want a CWI to buy it off in the end (usually driven by their contract).
Don't comprimise your reputation or your certification.
Good Luck,Ringo
a large portion of an inspection companies work is visual inspection of completed welds. only completed welds, not monitoring, and that is how it is reported.
That may be,but would you not be concerned that they used the proper filler metal,correct heat input,qualified procedures?I would worry that if these welds failed for whatever reason,the powers-that-be would come after me.
Lets put it this way. If I were a governing authority yes I would be. More often is the case that it is simply reporting on conditions as found.
If through honest error or criminal intent, the weld failed due to filler/heat input etc issues, my report would not reflect those conditions for a visual exam.
On the other hand. If a visual indication (crack for instance) was noticed and FC 2002 applied to it, then I would be concerned about someone or entity coming after me.
It comes down to integrity. If I've done the job I've been tasked to perform correctly, to the best of my ability, I will sleep well at night. I will not be responsible for someone else's incompetence or nefarious behavior.
I understand that,I just like to get the whole picture.It's like buying a used car,you don't know where it's been.
lets say The company you worked for and trust has welded for a month before someone realized they were using the wrong filler, it could cost 100k or more to fix. if they were a small company, do you trust that they would put themselves out of business and do the right thing or just say they did the right thing and stay in business?
That's a tough call to make,but I say they would let it go,rather than be put out of business.That's why it would be tough to come in at the end,and just assume they used the right filler material.Sometimes trust only goes so far.
I dont' mean to sound callous, but I dont see it as a tough call. A visual exam is not a survelliance program. Conditions are recorded as found and when found. It's simple as that.
It's typically reported that the welds meet the requirements of AWS D1.1 table 6.1. No mention of weld monitoring, or process, etc..
"On the above date Joe Blow performed a visual inspection of completed welds. All welds complied to the requirements of AWS D1.1 table 6.1"
I agree with CWI555 all the way.
If a company want you to simply perform a visual inspection of the finished weld, then that's what you do, and that's all you do. Report the results as mentioned above. Make it clear that's all that is needed, if applicable. You are going in to do a VT, not acting as the company's QC for all processes.
Is the RT or UT tech responsible for the metallurgical properties, correct filler, correct base metal, correct rod storage, correct WPS, etc? Nope, they are hired to inspect the weld(s) with that one method, and they report out that they performed RT/UT to whatever criteria and report the results.
But make sure this is all that is asked of you (just a final VT).
jsdwelder,
If asked to do visual only on completed welds, one can do this. As stated it is important that you have everything in written form, with a signed copy IN YOUR POSSESION, and that your reports reflect accuratly, ONLY what you have inspected, and at what level. IE: VT, PT, MT, UT, or RT. It is all in the documentation and details.
I have done visual inspection only, a few times on pre existing structures that were already painted. All I did was verify that the weld was or was not there, and if it was the proper lenght, and size. No more and no less, and my reports reflected this.
So in short, YES you can do visual inspection on welds after the fact, but make DA** sure that your reports reflect this, and you are good to go. :-)
jrw159
The contract specifications should determine what type inspections are required. I'm currently on a government job. Code is B31.1 We are required to RT/PT 10% of our underground welds. They get 100% VT. Inspector must meet AWS QC-1 requirements for visual. The above ground (a different contractor) gets 100% VT, no RT or PT. They're code is 31.9. Inspector does not have to be a CWI. This satisfies the specs. It does not require fit up, root pass, etc., hold points. It's just mechanical piping, not super critical. One huge reason that's all it requires is money. If the specs require inspection on every feasible point it would jack up the contract price.
The companies that are asking you to inspect the finished welds are required to have documented inspections. You are not doing anything unethical if you inspect these jobs. The submittal process should catch any deficiencies of the contractor such as WPS, WQTR, weld map, etc. Some jobs I work on(as a contractor) have a QC/QA dept to deal with these issues. Some others do not.
If you don't do it somebody else will. You don't sound like the "OK ing" it kind. The next guy might be.
By 3.1 Inspector
Date 06-06-2008 07:44
First of all let me say, I am NOT American - therefore my answer may not suit your actual situation (and spelling errors aswell)
In europe we do a VT according to a "VT standard", which means, when I inspect welds I simply write on the report: The above indicated welds meet the visual criteria of EN5817.
EN5817 does not mention anything about fitup, PQR, WPS, heat input, etc, etc....
I am not sure how you actually do it in the US.
I would think, that if you wrote that the welds is acceptable according to ASME B31.3 table XXX (cant remember the table) you could end up with some problems, because that table also give limits on INTERNAL imperfections - which you really cant inspect visual.
The key is really to word your report very carefully, as some clients tend to misinterpret reports to their benefit.
:)
Thanks guys for all the replies. With the info you all gave me I would feel more comfortable inspecting these welds and documenting it that way. This forum is an incredible resource.
Gerald is dead on. The inspectors responsibility from a practical standpoint is the contract scope. Getting into the 'worrying beyond scope' practice is a never ending sprial and not conducive to a good night sleep. The possible things to worry about beyond scope are infinite. Just make sure you state your scope and results clearly and succinctly.
