"Restamping" Welder Qualification Records

Date 02-23-2011 16:27 Edited 02-23-2011 16:36

I would advise you not to participate in this activity. It is a clear black letter violation of the Code of Ethics. What possible legitimate reason could there be to ask for such activity?

If you were going to sign it off as qualification based on a successfully tested production weld, why not just make out a new form and sign it off? However, you say that there is no destructive or non-destructive testing involved. There is only one AWS Qualification based solely on visual testing, and even there, you should just make out new qualification paperwork.

It isn't a work record.

Run. Do not Stop, Do not collect $200.00. Steer clear of possible fraudulent ventures.

By 803056

Date 02-23-2011 17:29 Edited 02-23-2011 18:07

It sounds to me like the welder is establishing a continuity log. A key point is that the individual signing the test record witnessed the welder making the welds.

There is nothing wrong, nor is a violation of the Code of Ethics if the welder is asking the CWI to sign off on a continuity log to indicate he is using the welding process indicated by the test report and if the last signature was within the previous six months. However, if there was a lapse of more than six months, I would not sign it because I would have no way of knowing if he had been welding during the previous six months or if he was washing dishes at the Bar-Z Steakhouse.

When I test a welder, I tell them to have a CWI, SCWI, or supervision sign and date the back of the test record to indicate the welder is using the process for which they are qualified. The basic inspection required of by D1.1 is a simple VT of the welds. Assuming the welder meets the VT requirements, nothing else is required for the majority of welding per D1.1. In reality, there is nothing in D1.1 that says the welder has to be welding to D1.1 or any other code for that matter, nor does it say the welder has to be producing acceptable welds, only that the welder has been using the welding process for which he is qualified with no lapses in excess of six months.

I have issued new test reports to several welders that have completely filled the back of the test report with signatures spanning nearly 15 years of welding. They have an inspector sign and date their test records on each project. The certification does not expire if the welder can show continuity.

Best regards - Al

By js55

Date 02-24-2011 13:46

I don't fully understand the question.
I do not get the reference to "restamping" qualification paperwork when there is no requirement to stamp in the first place.
And continuity is not an assessment of the 'ability to satisfactorily perform the weldment'.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 02-24-2011 14:39

Through the years I have seen this on both sides, welders & inspectors.

The welders, especially if self-employed, want more than their own signature saying they have been continuously employed and/or working with the process called out on the cert. So they ask inspectors who come to check their work to sign off on their certs, either on the back or on another sheet of paper they carry for a continuity log. And, many of the inspectors 'stamp' it with their CWI stamp for further 'documentation' as to their qualification to say that the man was welding and the welds were Acceptable per VT to D1.1, Table 6.1. They can also get the General Contractor to sign. And I believe they are able to fill it in themselves and just document the job name with the dates it was worked. But adding some CWI names, sigs, and stamps makes it more acceptable to other TPI's and/or city bldg officials on later jobs.

From the inspectors side, many have told me that they would sign my continuity log if I wanted to verify that I had worked code jobs with outside inspection to keep my certs updated. When they have done so they have included their stamp on the paperwork.

I personally, also have an independant inspector come into my shop and completely re-test me on several processes every so often anyway. The time span between these tests depends on how many jobs I may have worked that required UT and/or RT. When these as well as VT by a TPI are verified I let the testing go farther between. For a self employed welder I feel these steps are rather important to document continuity as well as ability to complete work with quality. It is better to start the job off with all parties knowing you can do the work rather than everyone waiting for the job to be half finished to see if you are any good. But, at the same time, it save having to test before every single job to prove you are qualified.

Now, JS, that is not to say that I understood the question properly either. It is not worded real well. But I was under the same impression that I believe Al also expressed in his post. So I think that is what the OP was asking. And it is not that it is a 'Requirement'. But it has become, in many areas an accepted method of proving continuity.

Now, I don't see where this is a conflict of interest, or a violation of the Code of Ethics, or a problem that violates any code provision. But if someone has documentation showing why we, inspectors, should not help the welders to maintain a continuity log then please show us chapter and verse with applicable committee interpretation. It looks to me to be a good way of proving continuity for the self employed welders trying to keep paperwork updated at a minimum expense that also carries a form of official validity.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 02-24-2011 16:21

Just to be knit-picky;

D1.1
4.1.3.1 "Welding and Welding Operators. The welder's or welding operator's qualification as specified in the code shall be considered as remaining ineffect indefinitely unless."(1) the welder is not engaged in a given process for which the welder or operator is quaified fora period exceeding six months or unless (2) there is some specific reason to question a welders or operator's ability..."

I've seen several statements in this thread that might be interpreted to infer continuity is tied to having welds wittnessed and *inspected* , then found to be acceptable via table 6.1....

While there is great practical wisdom here... The code is clear that continuity is kept as long as the welder simply uses the process, without a break exceeding six months...... There is no language about, CWI's, welding position, thickness, joint configurations, or acceptance criteria. There is also no language that continuity must be kept by working on "code jobs".

Striking an arc equals compliance.

By 803056

Date 02-24-2011 18:54

Therein lays the rub.

The code requires requalification by testing if the welder does not use the process during any six month period. The contractor is left to his own devices to provide some objective evidence the Engineer, Owner, or third party inspector that John, his best one eyed welder, who is on hobbling on crutches, has no breaks in continuity. What to do, what to do?

A growing number of contractors (including AWS by the way) have adopted the idea of a Continuity Log. It is a simple means of tracking the welder's use of the different welding processes used during any period of time. There is no single format, but the system usually lists the welding process, the date used, and a signature of the foreman or an inspector. In the field the operator/welders will typically do as Brent mentioned, have a project supervisor or inspector sign off on the back of the welder's qualification record.

The code is silent on what constitutes "welding with the process" for the purposes of maintaining the welder qualifications. A simple tack weld on a scrap of steel is considered to be acceptable by some. Most inspectors that do "sign-off" on continuity records usually insist on seeing a production weld before signing off, but the code is absolutely silent on the matter. There is nothing that says the weld has to meet the requirements of a code or if it is a code weld it doesn't say it has to meet the visual, UT, or RT criteria. All it says is the welder has to use the process.

Best regards - Al

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 02-24-2011 19:33

I agree Al and Lawrence,

The code makes no specific requirements.

The continuity log has gotten some misapplication in my personal experience. The local building officials really get picky about proving your continuity in my area. And they don't really understand that application of D1.1 in many instances when it comes to how to prove, who can sign off, rather it needs a sign off, etc.

My above post was just about what I have seen practiced and how I personally apply proof of continuity in order to avoid any problems and prove to both the building officials and my customers that I am indeed qualified to do the job at hand.

FOR ME, it is better to be over qualified and have the proof to back it up than to have a job shut down even if the shut down is only temporary and on mistaken understanding and application.

I do not force this exact procedure on those whose jobs I inspect. With reasonable proof of continuity on proper certification papers that represent the current work being performed and no reason to question the welders ability, judged by the first welds that go into the work, I accept their work.

I see no reason to shut them down. But on mine, I go the extra mile.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By JTMcC

Date 02-25-2011 00:52

I agree with welderbrent, who agrees with Al and Lawrence.
In my experience, at the bottom of the food chain where the welds are made and sold, there can be (and often is) an amazing variety of strange, odd and bizarre/goofy requirements placed on our work by people who have either no knowledge or just enought knowledge of the applicable codes (plus a large amount of missinformation, mixed with folklore/urban myth, mixed with a dose of farm code, mixed with what "uncle Joe the Best Welder Ever told them when they were but a tot", mixed with very limited personal experience, mixed with "heat it till the moisture burns off", mixed with internet(?!) wisdom) who try to impose conditions that have no relation to what the code or reality requires.
You can navigate those waters sometimes with the code book and qualified procedures in hand, asking for a specific reference, but lots of times that only makes the poor Guy In Charge very mad because he is wrong, you can easily show him (and his boss) he is wrong via code, but the bottom line is this guy often holds the key to the kingdom, ie what amounts to a year or two of business income for me (that being the ability to feed the kids:))
We don't run into this much in piping, but it's rampant in structural work.
So the end result, like welderbrent says, is that we sometimes conform to odd, wierd, off the wall demands because we have to survive in the workplace as it exists and it is after all a "harsh" economy and welding business' are dropping like flies right now.
If it only takes a few minutes of time to make the jerk happy then we do it for the sake of a years worth or more of income for several families. We do point out somewhat politely where they are deviating from code requirements but that falls on deaf ears usually, and always damages the fragile little egos involved.
Sometimes it's just not worth it and we make that plain and move along. Sometimes we just grin and keep on trucking and cashing the checks and making payroll.
But keep in mind that there are a lot of large construction projects in structural land that have people who just don't know in positions of authority.
I've been shut down numerous times on hard money jobs by ignorant (to be polite) inspection, only to have someone with enough knowledge eventually arrive to allow us to continue with the work. It's certainly not a perfect "code" world out there and you can never get away from the human element. Back charges always apply in those situations and that usually makes the "Powers That Be" rein in the overzealous "make it up as I go along I don't care if you lose money" code inforcers shut up.
So yes we keep printed continuity logs on hand (plus some other stuff), only because it makes us money.
Sometimes as a business owner it comes down to the amount of money involed, do I want to stomp my foot and draw a line in the sand over code compliance or do I want to just chuckle and jump thru a ridiculous hoop or two in order to take these peoples money.
Sometimes you have to deal with the world as it is, not the world as it should be ; )
My experience only.
JTMcC

By petty4345 (**)

Date 02-25-2011 20:01

FCAW maintains continuity for GMAW, correct?
We have the same issue, where in ASME we weld E71T-1 FCAW and all kinds of materials like high nickel GMAW(P). That's two way different sets of controls ands skills.
So, you could quaify for GMAW(P) Inconel, qualify for SA-36, weld FCAW for 30 years and you are still all set for the next Inconel job that come along.
If you are responsible for your companies weld quality, you'll do a little more than is required for continuity.

This is not in response anyones post by the way, just saying.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 02-25-2011 21:19

Um...

As far as D1.1 goes.. GMAW and FCAW are different processes. So continuity for them would be controlled separatly.

For the inconel and GMAWP....... I suspect that running GMAWP process fulfills continuity requirments for GMAW regardless of alloy.

By petty4345 (**)

Date 02-26-2011 11:29

Yes, D1.1 GMAW - FCAW are 2 different processes.
ASME Sect. IX, same as far as essential variables and continuity.
I didn't mean to get the thread off track throwing ASME in here, just a round about way of making the point of the "minimum requirements" that the codes call out.
Another way to look at this is to look at how welding machines have evolved since someones original qualification.
I know this has nothing to do with an individual who has their own machine, but in a shop we go out and buy the latest and greatest thing with all the buttons and dials in the world, doesn't mean that someone that qualified long ago, and has maintained continuity correctly even knows what half of the bells and whistles do and can't set them to make an acceptable weld.
Just trying to say there are alot of reasons to sometimes do more than the minimum, that's all.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 03-18-2011 18:29

Praise the Lord I was on the 'OTHER' retort. The one that got finished. I believe it was a combo of Union and Chevron that financed it.

I don't think I would have accepted that "requal". While there may be a lot of latitude for how continuing work is viewed and accepted, that doesn't cut it in my book.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By qcrobert (***)

Date 03-18-2011 19:06

So which one were you on? And were you a welder or inspector or?

The Exxon retort went belly up in '81 before finishing. Govenor declared Marshall Law to control all the construction workers.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 03-18-2011 22:06 Edited 03-22-2011 23:04

You know... You're right, Exxon shut down. But they had hardly even broke ground. Started talking about cost overruns on a project they won with a Time and Materials bid and right as the gas shortage broke and crude oil dropped. Was at about $1.50 and by Christmas came down to under $1.00. Wasn't going to be cost effective to get the oil from the shale. They were going to build four and each one was at least double the size of the one we built. Union and Chevron were talking, I believe, about putting some in somewhere else in the area.

But I think your year is wrong. If I remember correctly, which I already blew once here, I was there from late winter, March, of '82 through Dec of '82. Took a voluntary layoff about 4 days before Christmas. Packed and hit the road to make it home to OR for the holiday. Our daughter was born in the hospital in Rifle in Sept of '82 while we were there. And it was during that time period shortly before I took a lay off that the big shut down came.

Shell was probably the one that got completed up on top of the hill way back up the canyon. I was welding for CBI and I believe...Brown and Root was the General??? But I don't remember a 'Daniels International' and I sure don't remember any testing like that. Not with CBI and we did all the tank farm down at 5000 ft just outside of town, the auxillary tanks on the hill, and the Retort/pressure tank for the main operation. Also built a huge tank and put insulation on the walls then assymbled over the retort to do the heat treat/stress relief procedure. All the welders were union, Boilermakers. Some of us were NTD and the rest came out of Denver. The Denver boys didn't like the distance from home and the small town area. Couldn't keep most of them around very long. They'd come in and make a couple weeks wages and head back home.

We caught a bus an hour before work started and rode up the hill. A 2000 ft elevation change every morning. Got an extra $20 per day perdium for the bus ride instead of taxable wages.

Most of those people shouldn't have been there. That was during another 'recession' period. They were speculating that if they were already there they could land some kind of job on the project. Some were doing a lot of construction on the town. Apts, homes, stores, schools, parks, etc. They shut the whole thing down in one day.

CBI had a mobile home park set up just for their people to rent down in the bottom ground. Just across the RR tracks. Remember the 'Brass Pig'? Pretty good BBQ joint. We used to go into Rifle every weekend to do our shopping, cash check, and watch a bunch of the guys play baseball.

I'm terrible with remembering details about jobs that far back in my youth. LOL!!

Have a Great Day, Brent

By qcrobert (***)

Date 03-22-2011 16:18 Edited 03-22-2011 18:28

Yea I was off on my dates, Exxon closed their facitily (Colony II) in one day, Black Sunday May 2, 1982. Marshall Law was declared because the 3000+ Exxon workers were tearing up the town and apartments, etc over at Battlement Mesa.

I got there shortly afterwards, hired in as a TIG welder for their stainless & some chromoly piping till 1983 when I headed west to work for Ultrasystems at Burney and Westwood, CA.

We must have been on the same job but it was Union Oil and contracted by non-union Daniels International, now Fluor Daniels Corp. Just about the entire Daniels group of fitters and welders came there from the Phillips 66 Desulfurization Project in Borger, TX.

The mancamp just up from Parachute on the left hand side of the road was the Daniels mancamp. Great food but guns weren't allowed so a buddy & I got an apartment in Rifle with a great view of Book Cliff mtn range to the north. Yep I remember the Brass Pig and there was a dance hall called the Cattle Company (met some fine girls there during my stay, single at the time) ;).

Couldn't believe the amount of mule deer there. Half a dozen killed each month on the way up to the Ranch to catch the buses up to the Retort.

There was also a conveyor system that ran down from the "bench" that was called the "Widow Maker", remember? And I believe there was 3 mine openings in the side of the mountain to extract the shale.

A buddy of mine sold t-shirts at the end of the job portraying a construction worker with sayings pointing to objects on his clothing.

Now at 61, I look back on those days with fond memories.... should've saved my money better. We were making $16.50/hr working 5/10's with some Sat work.

That facility ended up producing 1000 barrels a day for awhile getting up to 90 gallons of oil per shale ton. All was extracted from heating the shale to 900 deg F to get the karogen. Trouble was the spent, sticky waste material kept cloggin up the conveyor belts.

Our project manager was a guy named Bowman, my general foreman was Bobby Clarke and foreman was Larry Kelly.

Never liked that ride up to the Bench from the Ranch, the berm just wasn't tall or big enough. I remember a guy and girl from the tool room had come up to inventory tools and somehow jumped the berm on the way down, needless to say they were killed.

By qcrobert (***)

Date 03-22-2011 18:22

There is some renewed interest in oil shale in that region.

Shell, Chevron and Exxon Mobil are pursuing an in-situ process called "electrofrac" in which shale is heated in place underground to produce oil. The shale is heated by passing an electric current through a large resistive heating element formed by filling a hydraulic fracture with an electrically conductive material.

Don't know if that is environmentally friendly or not but do know that we need to produce more at home to become more independent of foreign oil.