Welder Qualification Essential variables D1.1:2010

By ctacker (****)

Date 02-03-2012 18:11

I would agree with you, IF the welders qualified on a WPS that was for AC. The essential variables don't list current or polarity as you said.
I would also inform him he will be getting a bill for having to requalify the welders to HIS specs.

By 803056

Date 02-03-2012 19:25 Edited 02-03-2012 19:29

Ditto.

As long as the welder was qualified using a WPS (qualified by testing or prequalified), the welder is qualified for any WPS using the same process, for the same base metal family, using the same or lower F# (F1 through F4 if using SMAW), AC or DC (either polarity appropriate for the electrode used) and within the essential variables from Table 4.12 applicable to welder qualification.

Unfortunately "stupidity" is not grounds for an ethics charge against the CWI. If the CWI says he doesn't care what the code requiresand the demand to requalify the welders is based on what he (the CWI) wants, you can tell his boss to expect an invoice for the amount of $XXXX, the cost of qualifying your welders per his inspector's requirements. Don't forget to include the welder’s wages plus the cost of lost production time along with your wages when you write up the invoice.

If the CWI has found a number of welds to be nonconforming as a result of his VT, you have a different problem and the CWI may be justified in asking the welders to be requalified.

The bottom line is it is the Engineer's (the Owner's representative) responsibility to review and accept or reject previous performance qualification. It is not the CWI's purvey unless he is the EOR assuming the contract documents reference a recent edition of D1.1 (refer to clause 4.2.2.1 of D1.1-2010). In my opinion, even if the Engineer has delegated the responsibility for reviewing WPSs and WPTRs to the CWI, any demand that the welders be requalified should come through the Engineer.

Best regards - Al

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 02-03-2012 19:56

The guy's qualification that is in question was qualified by the book, no exceptions taken, yet the inspector will not budge even after I laid it all out for him in a nice email with the code spelled out in plain English for him.

Here is the inspectors reply:
"(name ommitted),

Section 4.22 requires welding personnel to follow a WPS. “All of the WPS essential variable limitations of 4.8 shall apply, in addition to the performance essential variables of 4.23”. If (company name ommited) wants to have one machine set up AC for (name ommitted), and he is the only one to use it, the cert is valid. However, (company name omitted) will use DCEP in the field with all their equipment; this cert does not meet the limitations of 4.8 to weld with this current."
-end quote

How do you deal with an inspector like this who cannot interpret the code correctly?

The company called me and we talked again and they decided to take the one welder off that job who had qualifed on the AC machine and use him elsewhere because they don't want to upset the inspector because they have alot of work to get done and don't need the guy hasseling them over petty stuff because he's upset. What a shame.

By 46.00

Date 02-04-2012 01:23

Hi
are there any CVN test requirements set by the client?

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 02-04-2012 11:05

No CVNs...it's all pre-qualified.

By Mwccwi

Date 02-06-2012 10:55

Your inspector cites Clause 4.22 & 4.23, both clauses refer to Table 4.12 which has 7 items only
1) to a process not qualifed
2) To a Higher SMAW electrode F #
3) position
4) diameter & thickness
5) vertical progrsssion
6) omission of backing
7) To multiple electrodes

Also clause 4.19
the test are devised to determine a welders ability to produce sound weld.....these test are not intended to be used as guides to be used in actual construction.

By TimGary (****)

Date 02-03-2012 19:58

No doubt the inspector is wrong to reject according to that code spec, but what about contract requirements and customer pre approved procedures? Perhaps the contractor is trying to pull the old switcharoo?

By 99205

Date 02-04-2012 02:26

That Inspector quite possibly has overstepped his authority. In doing so he opens himself up to a lawsuit. Some people just need to prove to others how important they are.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 02-04-2012 11:10

It sure seems that way from my point of view. That company is taking one of their best welders and will be sending him elsewhere, so that job is suffering due to the inspector's inability to read and decipher the code.

By 803056

Date 02-04-2012 14:49 Edited 02-04-2012 14:56

This is not a case of the inspector not interpreting the code properly, he simply does not know how to read and apply the code. I believe it is called functional illiteracy.

I am sure you have made the point the clause cited by the CWI simply means the welder is required to follow a WPS while testing. It does not limit the welder's qualification to the one WPS used for test purposes.

This is a situation where the CWI's employer should be advised of the situation. The employer should pull the CWI off the project if the CWI cannot perform his duties because he is unfamiliar with the requirements of the applicavble code or if he cannot be objective in carrying out his duties.

The CWI has an obligation to ensure the applicable project specifications and code requirements are met, but he doesn't have the right or the authority to make up requirements as he sees fit based on his personal opinion. This is a gross case of overstepping one's authority which has financial implications for both the welder and his employer. Perhaps the welder’s employer has another position for him this time, but what happens on another project where this CWI makes a similar mistake?

While stupidity cannot be the basis of the Code of Ethics, the inability to be objective in carrying out his duties as a CWI is. The following excerpts from QC1 could serve as the basis of formal charges against this CWI:

11.1 Integrity. The SCWI, CWI, and CAWI shall act
with complete integrity in professional matters and be
forthright and candid to their employer, the regulator or
employer’s customer, and with the Committee or its representatives,
on matters pertaining to this standard.
11.2 Responsibility to the Public. The SCWI, CWI, and
CAWI shall act to preserve the health and well being of
the public by performing duties required of welding
inspection in a conscientious and impartial manner to the
full extent of the inspector(s) moral and civic responsibility
and qualification. Accordingly, the SCWI, CWI,
and CAWI shall:
11.2.1 Undertake and perform assignments only when
qualified by training, experience, and capability.
11.2.4 Be completely objective, thorough, and factual
in any written report, statement, or testimony of the work
and include all relevant or pertinent testimony in such
communiqués or testimonials.

I would view this as a situation where the inspector is not objective or impartial, he is not performing his duties in a conscientious manner, and he certainly hasn’t demonstrated he has the necessary training, experience, or the capability perform his functions as a CWI.

Rest assured, if this CWI has demonstrated he doesn’t understand how to apply the requirements of D1.1 on this project, he is doing the same on other projects.

I would be interested to hear from our good friend Joe on this matter.

Welder performance qualification is the cornerstone of how the welding industry ensures welders have the necessary skills to deposit sound welds. Most codes follow the same principals with regards to how welders are qualified. In general, most welding standards are in good agreement as to what welding variables are applicable to the range of welder qualification. If this CWI cannot read, understand, and apply the requirements of D1.1, there is little likelihood he understands how to use other codes. Remember, the CWI only needed to score a 72% to pass the open book examination. I would hardly say that test score constitutes “mastery” of a given code or standard.

I recognize we do not have the full story. There may be factors I am not aware of, but the simple fact that someone is prepared to draw a line in the sand may be sufficient to bring the CWI to his senses. This may be a simple case of a new CWI having a case of the “God Complex” and in need of good spanking to make him realize as a Verification Inspector he has limited authority under the auspices of D1.1.

It would be nice to believe this CWI can be educated before he causes real financial harm or worse.

Best regards – Al

By ozniek

Date 02-05-2012 07:43

Hi

If the problem is that the inspector interprets the code incorrectly, then some logic will help set him right. For example, you could state that according to his interpretation, if a welder welded a test piece with a hydrogen controlled electrode (F4) then the welder would not be allowed to weld with an F2 electrode, (see variable (2) in Table 4.5) but variable(2) in Table 4.12 clearly allows the welder to weld with F1; F2; F3 & F4 electrodes. If this is the case, how does the inspector explain this? If he merely needs to have a misunderstanding of the code changed, this will give him enough to re-consider his position.

If however the problem is that the inspector is trying to protect his ego, even though he knows that his call is incorrect, then I would just contact the client who has to pay, and politely ask him if he is prepared to pay for the additional testing required by his inspector. If the answer is yes, then no problem let him pay for the test. If the answer is no, then ask him to have a word with his inspector.

Regards
Niekie

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 02-06-2012 14:54

Thanks for all of the replies,
The reassurance that I'm seeing things right(or wrong), means alot. It's easy to get off track and knowing that I have a group of knowledgeable, experienced people to fall back on is comforting.

I can always count on the forum to set me straight, if I'm off base on something...or back me if I'm right. :cool:

Thanks guys.

Al, I don't want to bad mouth the fella(even though I don't agree with his stance on this issue)...I will no doubt cross paths with him many times in the future since he works for a local inspection agency. I've even sent work his way in the past thinking that he could help them out when I didn't have time to deal with other small fabricators who had inspection and certification work to be done.

By Joey

Date 02-07-2012 04:26

If I’m the foreman or contractor’s QC, I will not argue and educate the inspector instead I will challenge him to issue an NCR and indicate whether he/she wanted us to stop work.
Once NCR is served, I will let my welding engineer or project engineer to prove that the NCR is groundless. I believe once proven wrong, the inspector will be more cautious next time…..otherwise, he/she seem to enjoy slap on the butt. :yell:

~Joey~

By geralderik (*)

Date 02-06-2012 20:36

Hi

I think that the problem is the WPS of field. Your welder can weld anything if he shall follows table 4.12.

However if you are using ac and you want to change for dc.
Its necesary requalificated only the "WPS" (Essential variable 13)

Regars

Erik

By 803056

Date 02-07-2012 02:50 Edited 02-07-2012 13:24

If they are welding in accordance with D1.1 there is a high probability they are using prequalified welding procedure specifications. That being the case, current or polarity isn't one if the essential variables listed in Table 3.7. The WPS must be revised to reflect the change in current type when listing AC as well as DC or vice versa. If the WPS was qualified by test, current type is an essential variable for the WPS per Table 4.5, so the WPS would have to be requalificed by testing. Current is not a variable listed in Table 4.12 for welder qualification. A welder qualified for DC is also qualified for AC and vice versa for SMAW or any other process per Table 4.12.

Based on the information provided in this thread, the CWI in question may be having difficulty discerning the difference between the essential variables that apply to the WPS and those that apply to the welder's qualifications. That in itself is not that unusual, but most CWI recognize the error once it is pointed out to them.

I tried researching the code interpretations to see if there was a similar case that had been addressed by the code committee. There is none that I could find where this particular problem had been addressed. Evidently it isn’t that common. It appears most people can recognize the distinction between current as it applies to the WPS versus welder qualification.

Best regards – Al

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 02-07-2012 14:18

>the CWI in question may be having difficulty discerning the difference between the essential variables that apply to the WPS and those that apply to the welder's qualifications. That in itself is not that unusual, but most CWI recognize the error once it is pointed out to them.

That is what I think is going on too. Heck wasn't that one of the (similar)questions that was on the CWI exam back 12 or so years ago? Seems like I remember several questions trying to trip you up concerning those two Tables...4.5 and 4.12(only difference was 4.12 was labeled 4.10 back then). I would have to look it up to be sure, but I don't even think the wording in Table 4.12 has changed since then.

By 803056

Date 02-07-2012 18:07

It is unfortunate the time allocated to D1.1 is relatively short in the AWS CWI seminars. Three days would permit better coverage of the code, but how many people would be willing to pay the price? If the length of the CWI seminar was increased by two or three days the cost would be increased accordingly. There is always a trade off involved when the duration of a course is increased due to the cost of securing a room for the course and the added cost of meals and lodging. There would be a percentage of people that would be excluded due to the increased expense associated with longer training sessions.

The CWI examinations can only ask so many questions on each subject included in body of knowledge, the open code book, and hands-on practical examinations. The CWI candidate only has to score 72% on each of the three examinations. Squeaking by with those scores hardly demonstrations a mastery of the code or functions of a CWI/SCWI.

The alternative is to learn the code by attending the "School of Hard Knocks" (SHK)and suffering the humiliation when we make a bad call. To some extent, we all have to attend the mandatory SHK trials by fire and learning the lessons they teach. It is a ritual of growing up and maturing.

I believe the general thought is that the candidate will continue to learn how to use and apply the code as well as other aspects of the CWI’s duties and responsibilities of a CWI once they are working as an inspector. Whether that is the case or not is another question. For the majority of CWIs and SCWIs, I believe most do continue to learn as they apply the code in their day to day activities. There is always a percentage that never master the subject matter. For the most part, they eventually find employment elsewhere.

Best regards - Al :eek: