While the tests you described provides the employer with the information he is looking for, it does nothing relative to meeting the code requirement to qualify welders by testing.

However, you did make a perfectly ligimate point that such "tests" can be a valuable tool to determine if the candidate has the necessary skill sets to meet the employer's needs.

My first job as a welder was secured after showing the shop owner I could weld a vertical fillet weld. His comment was, "I'm not interested in you being able to tell me you know how to weld, I want you to show me you know how to weld." At which point he set up two plates and handed me a "stinger" with a couple of E6010 electrodes.

"Put up or shut up."

I went to work as a welder the next morning. Now that same company is one of my clients.

Recently the shop foreman told me, "I never thought we would be asking for your advice on how to weld something back when we first interviewed you." He and I started working there about the same time 40+ years ago.

Best regards - Al

Let's see......if we "test" enough fitters by having each one fabricate a beam; then we "test" enough welders by having them weld those beams... Look out China! We can give you a run for your money.

It seems like we have spent considerable time debating the issue of the types and configurations of the tests used to qualify welders. The discussion was timely.

I had an interesting conversation with a QC manager this afternoon on the subject of qualifying a welder. He asked if it was reasonable and appropriate to qualify a welder using a one inch thick grooved plate with a backing bar. So far, so good. Once the weld is completed the welder flushes off the backing bar. Then the welder back gouges the root side of the groove to "sound" metal and back welds the excavation.

At that point I must have winced, because he asked, "Is there a problem with that procedure?"

My response was, "If you have to ask if the test is appropriate, you must have some reservations of your own."

He said it gets better. "My inspector is telling me the one test qualifies the welders to meet the requirements of ASME, AWS D1.1, and D1.5."

I told him that if he has any concerns, ask the inspector to justify his position by listing the applicable clauses that permit or allow the welders to be qualified in such a manner. The inspector would have to justify his position for each of the three codes cited.

Since we had D1.1-2008 handy, I used the following as a basis of my position it didn't meet D1.1 requirements.

Clause 4.19.1 Welders and Welding Operators. The type and number of qualification tests required for welders or welding operators shall conform to Table 4.11.

The key work being "shall" indicating the type of tests listed are mandatory. 

Table 4.11 provides the following:

For qualifications on plate:

Type of Test Weld (applicable figures) - 3/8 inch thick plate - Figure 4.31 or 4.32
                                                        for plate thicker than 3/8 inch, but less than 1 inch - Figure 4.21, 4.22, or 4.30
                                                        1 inch thick  or thicker plate - Figure 4.21, 4.22, or 4.30

Each of the figures utilize a backing bar, a 45 degree groove angle, and a 1/4 inch root opening. None of the figures or provisions cited mention the use back gouging of the root side (after removing the backing bar).

Once again, I found no code provisions that permit alternative groove details for welder qualification testing on plate. Even for tubulars, the pipe diameter and wall thickness can vary, but the groove details are specified in detail, i.e., Figure 4.24 has a detail for open root, i.e., no backing bar utilized, and a detail for grooves welded with backing. No provisions are made for variations in groove angles, root opening etc.

If I'm wrong, I'll gladly entertain alternatives to my justification if you can support your position with applicable code provisions from any edition of D1.1-2006 through 2010. Hey, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I'm more than happy to learn something new. Is there something in the code that I'm overlooking?

Best regards - Al