Grinding on a D1.1 weld

Date 03-11-2012 01:40

Hi!

Think of this, if grinding flush a weld was against code, why would we have weld symbols saying too do just that? It happens all the time!

However, it is quite within your rights as a test house to specify whether you allow grinding of the capping run (or even any run) on a weld test for employment etc, just don't look for a generic 'Not Allowed' code statement.

By aevald

Date 03-11-2012 02:21

Hello pipes, this isn't AWS D1.1, but is based on it and in use in the state of Washington to govern their welding requirements for welding of structural steel under their WABO program. Note 1.1.5 and 1.1.6, these statements cover allowances/restrictions for grinding and other removal means during a certification/qualification test. In this particular case the examiner is able to dictate whether he/she will allow for certain amounts of grinding while testing. The link is the entire code, the excerpts are from the section covering testing requirements and limitations. Hope this helps a little bit. I have not been able to find anything similar in the the AWS code books as of yet. Good luck and best regards, Allan

http://www.wabo.org/assets/pdfs/Welder/wabo-standard-27-13.pdf

Section 27-13.5 - WELDER QUALIFICATION GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
1. KNOWLEDGE AND ABILITY
1.1 Work Performance. Each welder and welding operator shall perform one or more test welds
on prepared test coupons in accordance with the following:
1.1.1 Welding machines shall be set at zero or minimum setting prior to the welder or
welding operator adjusting the machine.
1.1.2 Prior to welding, each test weldment shall be identified by placing a welder or
welding operator identification mark and laboratory test number on the test weldment
for each process and position.
1.1.3 Each specimen removed from the test weldment shall be stamped with laboratory test
number and specimen number.
1.1.4 Test weldments may not be removed from position during the test.
1.1.5 Cleaning and removal of slag, undercut and excess bead convexity between passes is
acceptable if made in position with the approval of the welder examiner.
1.1.6 Grinding of root and cover passes not permitted.

By 46.00

Date 03-11-2012 03:05 Edited 03-11-2012 03:08

Yeah, have heard of this standard, never worked it as am based in UK, seems to be made up to me by money making officialdom ! Typical nanny-dom procedure!
Like I said, it's up to the testing authority regards grinding allowances! No Grinding of ROOT and cover passes seems to me, to be unduly restrictive! Also, do we have to ask to remove slag between runs????

By pipes

Date 03-11-2012 16:56

""No Grinding of ROOT and cover passes seems to me, to be unduly restrictive! Also, do we have to ask to remove slag between runs????""

I agree. I'm a steamfitter by trade and we use SMAW for almost all of our welds. Can you imagine running a 6010 open root and not grinding to feather rods together? There is no way that would pass an RT. Or even after your root is done no pipe welder in their right mind would not grind their root before covering with 7018. And then during the process of welding your 7018, if you trapped slag in your weld wouldn't you grind it out? You wouldn't just cover it. So why do some inspectors mandate different expectations for a test?

Last month I had a welder come in to test and his PQR said in big bold letters "NO GRINDING PERMITTED" No grinding? Again, I'm not talking about what each of us think as individuals, we all have opinions based on the way we were taught, I'm talking about code, plain and simple. What is an inspectors response if a welder challenges the no grinding rule? Where would you find that in D1.1 or ASME Section IX? Now perhaps there are codes out there that specify no grinding, but I feel that we as inspectors have no right to "invent" parameters that the code committee did not feel was important enough to include in their exhaustive documents that we put so much stock in.

For instance, I was working with a company doing training and certification and on of the QC guys rejected a weld because of "excessive spatter". Now, he as QC, has every right to do that, we all hate spatter, but he told that welder it didn't meet code. The code he was referring to was D1.3 Structural Steel Sheet metal code. I have read that code, many times and I have never seen the words "excessive spatter" anywhere in it. What does excessive mean? One BB or a plate covered in them? It's too open ended. Codes by definition leave little to no room for interpretation. That's the point of the code. Not to preach our own welding doctrine but to read and interpret and then apply.

Do you all remember taking the part "B" exam? What if we would have applied our own logic to those crappy plastic molds? None of us would be CWIs...true? We have to read, interpet and apply.

I guess I just feel that if it's not in the code it shouldn't be part of our inspection. Where would we draw the line? When will an inspector prohibit a chipping hammer? What about the inspector that forbids an auto-darkening shield? Flashlights? Magnifying (cheater) lens? If an inspector has the authority to forbid a grinder even though it's not in the code why can't he do these other things?

Read, interpret and apply.

By aevald

Date 03-11-2012 22:03

Hello pipes and others, I am one of those examiners who will not allow grinders during a CERTIFICATION/QUALIFICATION TEST depending upon the "type" of test, there I said it. Why, because if someone comes in to test for a 1" STRUCTURAL Unlimited Test they should be able to weld 10" worth of total sound weld on the two sets of plates that I provide for them to weld on without needing a grinder and it is also left up to my discretion by the particular Code that they are testing to.
   They are also given this test in the most ideal conditions around, a test booth, the ability to position their plates at whatever particular height they choose and are also allowed 5 degrees tilt either direction, etc. They are provided with parameters to determine their machine settings from and are given scrap steel to get "dialed in on" before they start on the test. Foremost, if they don't like the conditions that I have set forth they can opt to go elsewhere to test. In other words no one is holding a gun to their head and forcing them to accept my particular conditions. I have never had anyone say that my testing regimens were unacceptable and leave.
   Before everyone gets in a tizzy over my statements allow me to include just a bit more information. We also do testing for structural applications that includes pipe. When that type of testing is involved I do allow grinders and for the reasons that most of you would use them. If it is an open-root test where the individual is using either E6010 or E6011 I will certainly allow them to feather their tacks before proceeding to place the root pass in the pipe. Once the root pass is in I will allow for grinding of high spots at the starts and stops over the tacks or along the toes of the root pass if it is need to provide for an even surface for the hot-pass. I am going to be more interested in what's on the inside of the pipe than necessarily what I see along the toes of the root pass. Once the hot-pass has been placed I will visually inspect it and determine to what degree I would allow for additional grinding. At that point and once the E7018 fill passes and cap passes are applied I will not allow for additional grinding.
   I would add one more item, a certification/qualification test, depending upon the particular test, may include proficiency with a grinder, that is certainly the case in pipe welding testing since it a part of the overall process practiced in industry. Structural plate testing doesn't fall into the same category. A proficient and skilled structural welder isn't going to be camping on a grinder to make acceptable welds, or I guess a better way of saying this is that if they rely on having that grinder to make successful welds then they are not proficient in their particular area of intended expertise.
   I do believe that there are any number of variables in any number of specific areas of welding that have exceptions with regard to welding procedures and how the welding,grinding, or preparation needs come in to play. If the act of welding on a particular application does indeed "require" the use of a grinder then I agree that it should be allowed and used. If not the "test" should be about the ability of a welder to weld.
   I am sure that the barrage will begin soon and when it does I will likely learn a whole lot about a lot of things and others will too. Best regards, Allan

By pipes

Date 03-11-2012 23:51

"....it is also left up to my discretion by the particular Code that they are testing to. "

I guess that is what I disagree with. Where do you get that discretion. If a code calls that out, in any form, I would completely agree with you that you have the right to enforce that. D1.1 makes absolutely no mention of an inspector having that right. If a welder wants to grind every pass he does even in perfect conditions why is that the inspectors business? I totally agree that in that case the welder is not good at what he does and will not be employed long, however, that is not our concern as inspectors. We test the quality of the weld, not the method.

Look at it this way. What is D1.1 leaving out? It has fabrication, essential variables, how to cut the plates, bend the plates and examine the plates as well as a ton of other instructions and parameters. But do you realize what is missing? Nowhere in that huge book does it tell the welder HOW to weld the joint. That is not our business. As long as it is done without deviating from outside essential variables it should make no difference to an inspector if the guy wants to chew up 1000 grinding wheels in the process. Again, I agree, he wouldn't work for me, but we are not doing employment tests, we are looking for soundness of welds. My teaching partner and I disagree on SMAW 3G welds. He Will use one very large and wide cover pass while I use a series of 4 stringers. That is because i'm a pipe welder and he is a shipbuilder. However, we both pass our tests. Can an inspector use his "discretion" to mandate whether a welder uses stringers or one huge weave? Why not?

If a welder came in and trapped slag in a weld, even in perfect conditions would you not allow him to grind it out? That is ridiculous. What you are telling me is that you expect perfection each time a welder is tested. That is not only not realistic, it's the whole reasoning behind why the codes are written with acceptable criteria. If a welder was expected to be perfect than his welds would be too. But if he makes a mistake and is not allowed to grind it out I think he has been cheated out of the money he paid to test. That is part of what a good welder can do, fix mistakes. And most of the time when a welder fixes mistakes it is done with a grinder.

With all this talk nobody has cited a specific reference in D1.1 that prohibits grinding. That's what I'm getting at. Why do we feel we can enforce something that doesn't exist. Oh, we can, I know. We can say "That's the way it is, like it or leave it." But we can not claim to be following D1.1 then. And we most certainly can not claim to be fair impartial inspectors.

By aevald

Date 03-12-2012 00:43

Pipes, the difference is that I am an examiner and not an inspector and WABO does include that statement in "their" version of code. It is my job by "certifying/qualifying" to ensure that I can verify within reason that someone who tests with me is qualified or certifiable to weld with a given process. Best regards, Allan

By 99205

Date 03-12-2012 03:19

Being and Inspector and an Examiner, I agree with Allen. When a welder comes in to test, they are testing their abilities, to be able to be certified in a given process and procedure. Like any test you take in this world there are going to be rules and/or procedures to follow. Those rules/procedures, more often than not, have been implemented because past experiences have shown that they are needed. If a welder feels the rules of the test are too stringent or unfair, they are free to leave and not test.

By aevald

Date 03-12-2012 05:39

Hello again pipes, do I follow some of your reasoning and logic? Yes, do I feel that I am being unfair and not impartial by the way that I conduct my WABO testing regimen? No. Why? because if that's really the way that I looked at this I wouldn't even bother being a part of the certification/qualification process. You also quoted a particular statement that I made in one of my responses to you: "it is also left up to my discretion by the particular Code that they are testing to". In this case since I am following the WABO standard which governs the testing that I do, they "do" have that listed as a provision or an option for my consideration or implementation. So I am following a listed provision of this particular standard.

   I also have another belief with regard to some of the statements you made:

"If a welder wants to grind every pass he does even in perfect conditions why is that the inspectors business? I totally agree that in that case the welder is not good at what he does and will not be employed long, however, that is not our concern as inspectors. We test the quality of the weld, not the method."

I do not know if you actually feel that way for certain or not, I know for myself that if my beliefs were such I would get out of the welder qualification/certification arena as I would feel absolutely no value or merit to the process nor a need for it. My personal view provides for the belief that a certification/qualification should or does carry some weight when presented to a potential employer or a field inspector, certainly the quality of work will be the real test or proof of proficiency, yet in lieu of that "hard" evidence a reasonably witnessed example should provide proof and I believe is the intent of these processes.
   You asked if I expect for a welder to have perfection every time that they test, absolutely not. I certainly have not run perfect tests every time that I have tested. Yet, I have passed plenty of tests even when they have not been perfect. The testing that I perform is no different. That is part of why the tester is judged on so many different aspects of the test. Visuals for one (speaking to cover passes), excess weld reinforcement, under-fill, undercut, lack of fusion, etc. Mechanicals for another, if it is a bend test there is criteria for maximums of trapped slag, cracks, etc. Should we just throw those out as well and not consider their impact due to a position of allowing for unlimited grinding and other methods of weld correction during a testing regimen. If we did allow for unlimited grinding would there even be a need to proceed with the testing since all of the defects would already be addressed?
   I apologize for being so extreme pipes and I am not challenging your abilities or wisdom. I am making statements on the how's and why's for my position on this issue. Thank you for your questions and statements I believe all of us will come away from this discussion with some new considerations to ponder. Best regards, Allan

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 03-12-2012 15:50 Edited 03-12-2012 16:45

Thanks Allan and Al for your responses. They match many of my own opinions about this issue.

The bottom line for testing is that it is not the letter of the law from the applicable code that matters but the WPS and/or the job specs for the contracting customer. From there, every state or local jurisdiction will have certain requirements that the local labs and/or CWI's understand but the welder may not. And because of those factors, I am free to conduct tests as the customer and/or local jurisdiction has established guidelines to be met.

I think Al and Allan expressed many of the other conditions and reasons very clearly. It is not up to the welder to say how he wants to take a test. Even if what he wants is within the code. He must learn to take orders, read WPS's, and do things as they are required for the job at hand. The codes, as Al stated, give us a minimum standard. Engineers, customers, employers, local jurisdiction building officials are all free to expand on those but not diminish them.

And I have really come to agree with and impliment their (Al & Allan) position that the welder needs to prove his ability under less than ideal conditions. Not every job you go to will have power tools available to clean your welds. Air may not be present to run the needle scaler or air arc. What if you forget most of your little picks and other items? Usually you can grab a piece of scrap steel and make a makeshift slag hammer. I have had to use the end of an electrode to clean the slag and not had a wire brush available to clean before the next pass. Still passed. No grinding, no power wire brush, no hand wire brush, no slag hammer. This job had nothing available. Started making sure my bucket went with me even when they SAID they would supply all the tools I needed. But at the time that wasn't an option.

Why do you think we as inspectors are supposed to at least look at the WPS and make sure it matches the job at hand? I am tired of getting to jobs and the GC and the Fabricator/erector have not read the 500 page job specs nor the GSN page of the Structural Drawings. Then, they don't even have a code book handy let alone know how to read it to make sure they are in the correct section. So when I start telling them they are out of compliance all they do is whine and demand I show them where in the code it says that they must do it that way. The code doesn't say it. But the engineer did. And his rule is the law of the weld on this job.

You better look through the GSN as well to see how often and where it may apply AISC instead of AWS D1.1 for the welding. There are a couple of differences to be considered when applying their Construction Manual. Then, don't forget to look at section 17 of the IBC to make sure of where you are told that a PJP and/or CJP must be continuously VT inspected.

We just had a GC get stamped RFI from the engineer that the 30 moment connections (about 60 welds for both top and bottom flanges) did not need VT because they were to be UT'd. My report quoted the sections of D1.1 & IBC as well as the general notes that had given us direction to do continuous visual before UT. I also stated that the engineer was accepting ALL responsibility for the welds as I would not even comment on the cover passes as I had been released from any observation of those welds and without the continuous visual I had no idea what the joint type, fitup, pre-heat (mornings below freezing), interpass cleaning, electrode classification, electrode storage, etc, etc were. Boy did I get a bunch of flack from the GC. But when put on the spot by the guys over me in our QC management organization he backed way down. They flat asked- What do you want us to change? Do you want a doctored report? Are there any FACTS that are not correct in the report? Were we not released from examining those welds?

Well, then they did half a dozen that when the UT tech got there they were told that UT could not be performed because of thickness (actually 'thinness'), joint angle/location, and some other factors. OOPPSS!! No Visual and now no UT. Then they wanted me to sign off on them with a visual of only the cover pass. NO WAY. Learn to follow the rules. Inspections is not the place to try to save a few dollars.

Just some points from my two tin pennies worth on why it is not a matter of the letter of the law/code, but several other factors that the welder may not understand.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By pipes

Date 03-12-2012 16:40

welderbrent -

I agree with you on this, if a welder is asked by an owner or jurisdiction to do something different than he has to do it. The owner and engineer overrule the code, point taken. I'm not talking about that though. But if he wants to get qualified to D1.1 for himself then why do we have the right to tell him he can't grind slag? Do you think a piece of steel laying around is a suitable cleaning method? Neither do I.

And please understand, I know their are a ton of variables in the field, but I am talking about qualification to D1.1 period. That in my opinion is cut and dried. It's in the book.

By vagabond (***)

Date 03-12-2012 04:41 Edited 03-12-2012 06:38

Well since this is a topic that is near and dear to my heart here it is. I've been told more than once by an examiner or inspector or whatever about the grinding thing and have asked them to produce a code for me while I was still under my hood. To date none have.

Now that being said I have never taken a D1.5 test as someone mentioned, nor am I a bridge inspector. And I passed plenty of tests w/o using a grinder just to make some prima donna CWI happy at "his" nuke. Now that I am an inspector (not that I've looked that much) the only reference I've ever seen to this in a ASME or AWS or API publication says "no visible grinder marks on the cover passes" doesn't say you can't grind just says you gotta cover it up. If someone has something like you've shown to go by then fine, that is legit. The problem is there are far too many inspectors out there (opening my can of worms) who aren't welders and never have been. These are usually the ones I've found who tend to make up thier own codes and come up with stuff that doesn't exist.

The other problem I've come to realize is a lot of things are written up and brainstormed by some jackwagon who volunteered for a committee so he can put it on his resume. I've worked with a number of folks who pontificate at length about the AWS and/or API stuff that thier input was involved in and a lot of them are not the sharpest nails in the bag. As far as the WABO goes, if I was ever asked to go by that I suppose I would. But in my opinion it is not realistic. Are you going to not let them grind on the root or cover passes during production/field work also?? Why don't we just outlaw grinders on the job altogether unless you'reprepping bevels. . . . .

Same thing goes for D1.5 if that is the case. I mean excessive grinding is one thing and we all know the difference. But in the case of starts/stops, I mean really. Just doesn't seem realistic in the real world. I'm not a great welder but I can introduce y'all to some and they've been known to use a grinder now and then too.

And Pipes to answer your original question about code specific. I think that was in pipeline 1104 about no grinder marks on the cap, not sure. I am in Qatar for another week and I don't have all my codes w/me.

Hey your name ain't really Jeremiah Johnson is it?? Cuz if it is that's kewl as he**.

By pipes

Date 03-12-2012 16:24

Amen vagabond...AMEN!

I couldn't agree more with almost everything you just said. If it's in the code that it's the law. I would never DREAM of challenging grinding if I was welding to a code that prohibited them, but this discretion thing drives me nuts! Again, could a CWI prohibit the use of an auto-darkening shield? Why not? I know an instructor that hates them and thinks they are ruining the trade. Whether you agree with that or not, if he were a CWI why couldn't he use his "discretion" to prohibit them for a test? It's nothing more than opinion and I don't think we have that right.

In the case of D1.1 specifically let's read Section 5.30.1:

5.30 Weld Cleaning
5.30.1 In-Process Cleaning. Before welding over previously
deposited metal, all slag shall be removed and the
weld and adjacent base metal shall be cleaned by brushing
or other suitable means.

All slag shall be removed. If a welder undercuts a pass and the slag does not come out with a wire brush, grinding is then a suitable means to remove the slag is it not? It is certainly and acceptable industry standard. Why then should we say it is not suitable?

When I was prepping for my CWI I remember the instructor saying, "As an inspector you need to learn to be completely impartial. You can't fail a welder because he wore a Chevy hat the day you tested him." I know it's different, but not really, it all goes back to an inspectors opinion influencing the certification instead of looking for a sound weld. That is why codes are written, to keep our opinions out of the testing.

I don't mean to belittle anyone on here, we all do things differently, but I have been on the receiving end of an inspector calling out things that are pure opinion. I welded on pipe for for the Oil Sands refinery in Alberta. We were welding to API1104. This code states in section 7.8.2:

7.8.2 Filler and Finish Beads
.....nor SHOULD it be raised above the parent metal by more that 1/16". (1.6mm)

I had an inspector make me grind out a part of a weld on 40" pipeline that had 3/32" face reinforcement. The code says should, not shall. That means I should strive to hit that mark, but it is not reject-able if I do not. Only shall is mandatory requirement as per this code. I did it because it wasn't worth arguing about as it was only about 2", but it changed the way I thought about inspectors forever. And as a side note, most of our finished welds on that line had visual grinder marks and passed inspection.

All I hope to do with this discussion is to get inspectors to look at how and why we do what we do. I obviously have respect for all of you on here or I wouldn't be on here myself. All the welders I know have great respect for inspectors that can empathize with welders and all of them are wiling to be held to a standard that is laid out in a code book. But on the other hand, I can tell you that when an inspector rules on a weld with no code to back it up, a welder feels tricked or cheated. I AM NOT saying that this is the inspectors intent, I am just saying that's how the welder feels.

And yes, my name really is Jeremiah Johnson, and I can skin grizz!

By 803056

Date 03-12-2012 17:09

We all appreciate your two cents worth.

I do not believe it is "best practice" to say grinding is not permitted on the qualitfication test because it isn't permitted by the "code". If the code does not specifically prohibit grinding on the test plates it is a cop-out to say it is.

Just a quick question from a CWI/SCWI that has been involved in inspection activities since 1981; if the welder cannot perform in a weld booth where everything is per the text book, how can you expect that welder to produce acceptable welds on the job site where the conditions are less than optimum?

In many cases the inspector act as the gatekeeper on behalf of the contractors they work with. Whether the welder can produce a weld that meets the minimum code requirements is only part of the task. Part of the task is to separate good welders from those that have poorly honed skills. The type of welding involved dictates what the welder can and cannot do when taking the qualification test. For instance, I do allow pipe welders working to ASME to feather their tack welds, but I do not allow them to grind as a means of performing interpass cleaning or to reshape the weld profile. The reasoning is that if the welder has to correct the bead profile when welding under optimum test booth conditions, he will not be a productive welder on the job site. When testing structural welders I do not allow any power tools for interpass cleaning which reflects the fact that many job sites do not provide each welder with a grinder or other power tools for interpass cleaning.

Since you stated you are now an inspector (CWI?), it is your prerogative to institute the test rules/requirements you feel are necessary to determine if the welders you are qualifying meet the minimum code requirements as well as be a productive member of the production team. Just remember that when that welder shows up on the project and can't produce an acceptable weld under job conditions, it is your name attesting to the fact that this welder, "Billy Bob" is a qualified welder. Your name is associated with their failures when too many welders show up on the job and fail to produce acceptable work. Your signature will quickly become a “red flag” indicating to the contractor this welder’s abilities are questionable. In short, your “paperwork” will not be accepted as evidence that the welder can produce welds that meet code requirements.

I will admit that my perceptions changed rather dramatically when I transposed from a welder to the function of an inspector. With the title of inspector come the responsibilities associated with the position. Many of the things I questioned as a welder were clarified when I became the inspector. The welder is only responsible for the welds he deposits. The inspector is responsible for the welder’s work and the liability should something fails once it has been “accepted” as good enough. That transition is not one every welder can make. In some cases it is because the inspector is not aware of the liability associated with his activities. In the end, an inspector’s failure to “hold the line” will be his downfall.

I sit on several AWS committees and subcommittees. I can assure you that I am not the only person at those meeting with actual “hands-on” welding experience. Let me assure you that sitting on a committee will not going bring an individual accolades, admiration, fame, or fortune. What it does afford you is an opportunity to make a difference in our chosen field, welding.

Most of the AWS standards are ANSI standards. As such they are developed under a system where it is a requirement that the committees be composed of individuals with varied interests. They represent manufacturers of welding consumables and equipment, fabricators, suppliers, academics, owners, and people with an interest in the activities of the particular committee. There is balanced representation on the committees and subcommittees. This is in contrast with other organizations where individuals sit on a committee by invitation. You do not have to be a member of AWS to sit and serve on an AWS subcommittee or a committee. So, if you have a strong desire to serve on a subcommittee or a committee I invite you or anyone to complete an application or at least attend a meeting. You have a perfect opportunity to make your voice heard and you have an opportunity to contribute to developing a code or standard with international recognition. I invite you to do more than offer two cents worth of personal opinion and do something constructive that will make a difference.

Best regards – Al

By pipes

Date 03-12-2012 17:51

That is simply not true. An inspector is not responsible for a welders work. He is responsible for the test that was done on the day of qualification. What if a welder did everything perfectly to pass a test and then cut all the corners in the field. (Like most do in my experience) The inspector is not responsible for that. Also, you said "contractors they work with." Again, what about the guy that is getting qualified for himself to D1.1? No engineer or contractor standards, just the code? An inspectors duty is to public safety above all else. If you deem a welder to be unsafe don't qualify him. But slow or unproductive? Unless you are working for the contractor why is that our concern? And if it is so important why is D1.1 silent on how a welder should PERFORM the weld?

Could I as an inspector then say that all the tests I do must be done in the dark outside while it's cold windy and rainy? I guess I could huh? If we are throwing standards in because we feel like it then where is the line? Why do we allow a chipping hammer? What if a welder showed up to work and forgot his tools? We better start testing guys for that scenario too.

Should a welder be able to pass a structural test without grinding? Absolutely. No doubt. And if he never needs a grinder in the field then he will be a great asset. But to prohibit a welder from fixing a mistake with no code reference I think is wrong.

I guess we will disagree on this issue for now. To be honest, what I really wish is that D1.1 would just put grinding in as an essential variable. That would solve everything in my opinion. If you qualify with a grinder, your only qualified to weld with a grinder. Or else just come out and say that they are prohibited or allowed.

Anyway, I hope I didn't upset anyone as that was not my intention with this post!

By 803056

Date 03-12-2012 18:08

Inspectors do more than test welders. They may provide third party inspection services or thay may be working as an employee. Each has different responsibilities and different liability. If you have any doubts, ask the inspector that worked (past tense) for Newport News that is now serving a three year jail sentence for falsifying test report.

Best regards - Al

By pipes

Date 03-12-2012 19:00

I said nothing about falsifying reports. That inspector did not protect public safety which is exactly what I just stated. His downfall was not allowing a different method to achieve the same result. He outright lied and in doing so allowed a welder that couldn't pass a qualifiction test to do production welds. Big difference in my eyes. We are talking the difference between incompetence and personal preference.

If I were testing guys for an employer, I would ask that employer EXACTLY what he wanted out of a welder. That's not what i am talking about here. I just find it hard to reckon in my mind why somebody would think that using a grinder makes them a poor welder or less of a welder when I see it as using the best tool available. Perhaps we are speaking of two different things. I think if you have to grind after every rod you are not ready to weld professionally. But that is different than prohibiting grinders...you know?

By aevald

Date 03-12-2012 19:57 Edited 03-12-2012 23:25

Hello again pipes, let me start by saying that I do believe that this is a good topic for discussion. Very likely many of those reading this, whether they are replying or not, are being led to consider their own positions and might likely adjust their thinking accordingly, that is, whichever way they believe to be correct and applicable for their given situation.
You made mention of the individuals who are working on their own and do not necessarily have specific WPS's or other considerations to influence the intent for needing a particular qualification/certification.
Let's say that they go out and fabricate and install a structure or perform the welding on a project that is not inspected or does not require inspection. Or maybe it simply requires the "individual" performing the work to be certified to D1.1. That can certainly leave the workmanship up to this individual. Would this be a good thing for public safety and would you wish for an investigation to be performed where a group of lawyers were examining this scenario? They would likely be looking for an individual with deeper pockets than the one that you certified who actually performed the work and this scapegoat might be you. If this person was simply not going to concern themselves with proper welding craftsmanship due to the "time is money scenario", maybe they bid the job for a set number of hours so they will do a minimum as oposed to what is right and actually required to meet "code". Meaning short-cut repairs, cover up discontinuities instead of addressing them properly. I believe this might apply in the sense that we as examiners do have some responsibility for those that we qualify/certify beyond just a "sound weld" approach. I also realize that anyone could take some of the approaches or shortcuts that I just listed above whether "properly" certified or not, yet, in that scenario you would likely not be in the sights of that group of lawyers or at least be in a position of lesser liability. Thanks again Jeremiah for the topic, although we may not share the same thoughts on all of these issues, I do respect your points of view and understand where you are coming from. Best regards, Allan

By pipes

Date 03-12-2012 20:19

Thanks for that response, well said.

I guess maybe I see things differently because I teach a tech school. Part of my job is doing qualification testing. Almost everybody (except students) that we qualify are are their own with their own WPS's. Most of the time we generate their procedures. Sometimes we qualify for companies, but more often then not they are individuals that want their own procedures. I don't feel like I can tell them they can't grind if they want to. Is that to say that if this welder passes qualification with or without a grinder that we should be responsible for every weld he does from now on? No way. The state of WI has an audit department within the department of commerce in case a welder's integrity ever comes into question. As state weld test conductors, any time we qualify a welder me must keep a copy of his paperwork and bend specimens for this reason. I even take pictures of every weld I test although this is not required. That way if a welder is found negligent after I test him I have proof that the weld I tested was legit. That is the best that any inspector can do. We certainly can not be responsible for every welder we test forever.

By aevald

Date 03-13-2012 04:17

Hello once again pipes, I have a full-time job as a welding instructor at a community college teaching welding and then a portion of my job deals with providing WABO testing for our geographical area and for students.
   You mentioned students and your expectations for them, I do believe there is little difference there either. I am shooting a bit off topic from your original posting, yet I do believe this sort of things applies here in a definite sense.
   When a student utilizes their own abilities and those that are afforded to them by the existence of our program and what we potentially have to offer them they can be very successful. That is certainly our intent as we work with them and attempt to provide them with the maximum benefits that we have to offer. After all, when they leave a welding program they generally will not have a lot of verifiable industry experience and much of the time only have their school experience to draw upon. That being the case we work very hard to give them the basic tools to do the best welding that they are capable of while they are in attendance. At the same time we work very hard to impress upon them that these are the things that will get them in the door......not keep them there. For that, they need to continue to have a hunger to learn and progress with any number of additional skills and amounts of knowledge. A part of this skill building is to acquire and apply confidence in their abilities to perform welding in a manner that requires the least additional amount of corrections (yes, read in grinding, air-arc removal, etc.) so that speed and accuracy become a subject of confidence and not one of fear. I would group "reliance on these tools" as something that we try not to promote. Do we tell them that they can't use them or they do not have a purpose, certainly not, yet we do try to stress that a large majority of welding does not need to be addressed with those tools unless mistakes are made. We then also: give, show, and require use of them for as many of the various scenarios as is practical with our given resources and time to make them feel comfortable with their use. Essentially they are told: plan for the most challenging scenario (no grinders, etc.) so that they won't be intimidated if that is the case and if not, they will likely feel as if a particular test or task is a breeze.
   Since our school is a WABO testing facility that is the testing that I/we are responsible for here, I am glad for that. I believe we provide a valuable service for our students and the community. I am also glad that I do not do additional types of testing or inspection, mainly due to the fact that teaching takes up a great deal of my available time, WABO a bit more, and I just wouldn't especially care to tack on an additional amount if we addressed AWS, API, ASME, and others. Once again Jeremiah, I do believe these conversations, views, and otherwise have been a good thing. At least for now this thread has maintained civility and not gone off on a tangent with attitude. Best regards, Allan

By pipes

Date 03-13-2012 13:10

aevald, I totally agree with everything you just said about how you teach your students. I'm glad to see there are more instructors with industry experience that can prep students for more than just the technical skill part of the job. And I totally agree that a grinder should not be an essential crutch, just that it should be allowed if needed. There is nothing better that I have found than when a student calls you back a year later with a success story or a company calls you and thanks you for sending a guy their way. Pretty cool.

By aevald

Date 03-13-2012 13:19

Good to hear that you know that feeling also, as it is shared at our school as well. Like I said, I learn from most posts here and on occasion I contribute a bit too. This topic has brought out some strong opinions, yet the bottom line is in interpretation and that isn't always so simple and straightforward. We are fortunate that we live in a society that allows for an opinion without big brother stepping in......at least for the most part. Best regards, Allan

By vagabond (***)

Date 03-13-2012 09:19 Edited 03-13-2012 09:27

Al-

"Just remember that when that welder shows up on the project and can't produce an acceptable weld under job conditions, it is your name attesting to the fact that this welder, "Billy Bob" is a qualified welder. Your name is associated with their failures when too many welders show up on the job and fail to produce acceptable work. Your signature will quickly become a “red flag” indicating to the contractor this welder’s abilities are questionable. In short, your “paperwork” will not be accepted as evidence that the welder can produce welds that meet code requirements. "

First of all I can assure you that my reputation, last I checked is still intact. And to answer your question yes I am a CWI and I hold some other cards also for what it's worth. My signature at present seems to have made me a fairly valuable commodity even in todays barren job market, so I am going to assume I'm doing something right. My paperwork is certainly accepted, my phone rings off the hook with offers and "my" welders (and inspectors) meet code requirements every day. I am firm but fair. I don't write codes and I choose not to re-write them. But that's just me. Ask anybody they'll tell you the same thing. That is why I do it that way.

You stated:

"The inspector is responsible for the welder’s work and the liability should something fails once it has been “accepted” as good enough. That transition is not one every welder can make. In some cases it is because the inspector is not aware of the liability associated with his activities. In the end, an inspector’s failure to “hold the line” will be his downfall."

I guess if something fails because of ordinary everyday grinding there are destined to be a lotta failures out there someday. Most of the stuff seems to be holding together pretty good though. . . . . I'm a little unclear on the transition?? If you mean transitioning to not using a grinder than OK that is probably not one every welder can make, nor should they have to unless it is a code requirement or an internal spec. if you want to beat around the bush about it. I disagree that letting welders grind (within reason) is a liability anymore than letting them control their own remote is a liability. If we are supposed to "hold the line" what line is that?? 1104?? ASME IX?? D1.1?? Or do we just make it up as we go along??

Our job is to inspect, recommend, document and report to a set criteria as I see it. I have little time or patience for people who don't like blue machines because red ones are better etc. etc. Of course there are grey areas in any code as well and I get that. I've read a number of your posts and learned a lot from them. I also knew this thread would go on for a bit when I contributed to it to begin with. This topic is much like whether or not someone should have welding experience to be an inspector. . . . .your probably not going to change an individuals viewpoint on it. I get that too.

As far as the whole committee thing goes I've given it a lot of thought, more than once. I guess I feel like I do plenty of constructive things that make a difference in this field already. I currently work overseas anyhow so it probably wouldn't work. I don't really know. There are a lot of things about the AWS I'd like to see change I will say that for now. The problem is most people in our society aren't real big on change. We like to repeat the same thing over and over and hope for different results. If you don't believe me than watch what happens in November. . . . . .

I don't mean to sound like a smart a** it just comes natural. I guess this horse will get beat for a few more paragraphs and then it'll go away. I feel bad for those kids that aren't smart enough to ask "where is that in the code?" took years for me to figure it out. After that the inspectors got a lot easier to get along with.

By pipes

Date 03-13-2012 13:37

Good point vagabond. I grind on every pipe weld I make and yet I was one of if not the most productive welder at the company I worked for before I started teaching. Even now I work for them on weekends and even some nights. They call me back every summer, Christmas break and I will be welding for them next week as we have a one week Spring break at school. But do you know why? Because I pass RT's. And I do it quickly. I know guys that choose not to grind down potential problems and bounce RT's, they don't last long. Oh, they may be fast without a grinder, but I guarantee the grinder is coming out when they have to dig into a weld to fix some IF on a start/stop. Just saying.

By pipes

Date 03-12-2012 16:31

803056 -

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. The test should have nothing to do with the inspector. That's my whole point. A welder tests to a code and he passes or he doesn't, the inspector should be immaterial.

If the weld is being inspected as per code, to the letter, then it should make no difference who is doing it. If the inspector is cheating then they should no longer be an inspector.

Allow me to be clear. I am strictly talking code. If the owner wants something above code than the welder must adhere to that. Most of the welders we test are testing for themselves, to a specific code. In that case we use the code and nothing else. If the code says no grinding,
hen no grinding it is, otherwise, who am I to say no? I just don't see why any inspector would do something different.

By 803056

Date 03-12-2012 18:02

That is your prerogative. Just remember that it is your name and stamp on the bottom of the qualification record attesting to the fact the welder produced an acceptable weld. If he fails to produce in the field, your name and reputation will suffer.

Consider the plight of the contractor hiring a welder that presents your paperwork as evidence he can weld. Is the contractor going to be satisfied when they discover the welder had to grind every weld bead in order to pass the test? Are they going to accept the papers signed by that same CWI in the future?

Based on nearly thirty years of experience in this business I believe the answer is “no.” The tests dictated by a code establish the welder has the minimum skills required to meet code requirements. A welder with the minimum skills may be sufficient for an entry level position, but most of the contractors I deal with expect and demand more than the minimum skills. A welder that has to grind every weld bead in order to meet visual acceptance criteria probably is not going to last long with the contractors I work with.

To extend this discussion a bit further, consider a welder that is qualified to ASME Section IX. The visual criteria of Section IX are sparse. Consider the following excerpt for ASME Section IX:
QW-194 Visual Examination — Performance
Performance test coupons shall show complete joint
penetration with complete fusion of weld metal and base
metal.

Notice there is no criteria for typical discontinuities detected by visual examination such as overlap, face reinforcement, porosity, undercut, under filled grooves, etc. Do you believe a welder that simply meets the criteria listed in QW-194 is going to satisfy most contractors?
Compare the visual criteria of QW-194 to that of ASME B31.3 for one of the pipe categories or other ASME construction code.

Welders tested to Section IX will be expected to weld on projects involving Section I for power boilers, Section IV for unfired pressure vessels, B31.1 for power piping, B31.3 for process piping, etc. each with different visual acceptance criteria that is more stringent than Section IX. How will a contractor respond when he hires a welder tested in accordance with Section IX only to discover the welder cannot produce a weld that meets the applicable construction code? The welder will eventually be run off the project. It is for that reason that I always ask the contractor what construction code will be used for production work. I apply the applicable inspection criteria of the construction code to the welder qualification test to ascertain whether the welder will be able to meet the requirements of the project. Simply meeting Section IX usually will not satisfy either the project requirements or the contractor. At some point the welder has to be capable of meeting the applicable criteria of the construction code. Is it better to discover the welder’s short comings in the test booth or on the job? The ramifications of failing the welder in the booth are inconsequential compared with the costs that can be incurred when the welder fails to meet the code requirements on the production floor or on the job site.

Once again, you are free to meet the code requirements as you see fit. I not saying my way is the right way, I am only saying that this is how I have been doing it for thirty years without complaint from my customers. My customers agree my philosophy and the welders know what is expected of them before they test.

Best regards - Al

By pipes

Date 03-12-2012 19:17

Somebody please just help me with this: what is so horrible about grinding a weld? It doesn't hurt the weld quality. It's not like the grinder is doing the welding for a guy. Why the hard line? It just doesn't make sense to me at all. A grinder is a welder's tool. I could totally see if you were arguing no excessive grinding, but none at all? I can't see it. I just can't.

So, just to be clear, what your saying is that if a welder trapped slag that he could not get out, you feel that it is an acceptable practice to just weld over it and let the chips fall where they may. I find it hard to believe anybody believes that. Is there ever a case in which a welder could use a grinder on a D1.1 test?

Also, I want you to know that I feel the same way most of you do about the code being minimum standard. I am an instructor at a tech school and I demand almost perfection from my welders. Each one must pass 2 welding qualification tests (of their choice) in order to pass our program and I am hardcore on visual inspection. Well, I am with every weld they do every day. That is because I am protecting my reputation as an instructor. Local companies trust me and when a welder goes in to a local business with a letter from me it means something. I would never jeopardize that. We teach them to weld without a grinder. Every weld, every qualification test. But, if they need it, it's there. Please don't think I am letting unqualified guys pass test just because they paid. Not at all. I just don't see the use of a grinder as a cause for rejection.

By 803056

Date 03-12-2012 21:11

Then let them grind their welds.

Al

By pipes

Date 03-12-2012 21:40

I do. I just don't understand the rationale for inspectors that don't allow it. Besides that they may not have one someday, what is the reason?

By TAC

Date 03-12-2012 22:42

I do not allow grinders on D1.1 plates. Reasoning being simply this: If the welder does their job, a grinder IS NOT needed. We are testing welding skill. My grandmother could lay in a 1/2" tall cover pass, then grind it down to 1/8"...

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 03-13-2012 01:41 Edited 03-13-2012 07:16

Hello guys,
Heres my two bahts worth.
AWS D1.5 prohibits the use of grinders during welder qualification.
WABO prohibits the use of grinders during welder qualification.
Both pretty clear cut.

AWS D1.1 does not prohibit the use of grinders during welder qualification.
IMHO if it is not prohibited by the relevant code, the relevant standard, the relevant jurisdictional requirements, the relevant clients specifications etc - in other words if the prohibition is not documented it cannot be enforced.
Hypothetically I pay $1000 to obtain my AWS D1.1 welder qualifications and the CWI fails me because I used a grinder on a stop / start.
I take him to court and the first question from my lawyer to the CWI is what justification did you use to fail my client.
Answer from CWI - I personally didn't think it was good work practice.
That is personal opinion and in our profession (CWI) personal opinion SHOULD NEVER be used to reject or accept something.

However, all codes I am aware of have a clause where the inspector / examiner can terminate a weld test if there are questions over the welders ability (eg. excessive grinding, grinding of every pass)

I have personally performed hundreds of weld tests over the years ( ASME IX, BS/EN287, AS/NZS 3992, AWS D1.1, AS 1554, NZS 4711 - both piping and structural) and I have used a grinder on every single test.
Did using a grinder make me a bad welder ? - no, I was a perfectionist and I wanted to use a valuable tool to give the best possible surface finish.
Example: If you have a slight bump (maybe a pronounced stop / start) on the first fill run and you continue running over the top you will end up with a slight bump in the same spot on the cap - I wanted a perfectly uniform cap so I knocked the top off the bump prior to capping.
Maybe 10 - 15 seconds with the grinder.
Is that reason to fail the test ?
Regards,
Shane

By pipes

Date 03-13-2012 02:00

Shane, well said sir. In a 2 hour pipe test I may use a grinder a total of 5 minutes. Almost all of it while welding my root. On a structural test I have used one to knock down a start/stop that got too high. I find it hard to believe that someone could say I was not doing my job because My start/stop got higher than I wanted. I'm not the kind of welder that leaves imperfections in a weld when I can easily use a grinder to fix it. And if I was in the field I would do the same thing. A welder can always have a grinder. There is no scenario I can think of when a welder would find it physically impossible to have a grinder. If you have a welder you have a power source. I have worked on hundreds of job sites from remote pipelines to 15 story buildings and I have always had power for tools (I mean, we needed them for our microwaves right! HA!) You all know that if you made a mistake...let's say you were welding in a rain storm, ever been there? I have, many times. Your welding in this storm with the wind and water gusting and you end up with porosity right in the middle of your weld. Please tell me you would not shrug your shoulders and weld over it. You would grind it out. I don't think that makes you less of a welder at all, just one that knows how to fix errors.

By 46.00

Date 03-13-2012 02:03

At last some common sense!

Good Answer Shane, I totally agree!

If the code states no Power Tools/Grinding, then fair enough, but apart from the two standards mentioned (D1.5 & WABO), which I have never welded too or inspected too, No universal standard that I am aware of prohibits the use of power tools to aid cleaning?

Obviously, none of the promoters of the 'No Grinder' brigade has ever welded a 6" 6G 304L stainless pipe butt weld!

I once had a discussion with a client inspector who insisted on rejecting welds for any reason he could imagine. Eventually, he rejected one that I had accepted and I challenged him on his reasons for rejecting said weld, he replied it was based on his thirty year experience as a welder and an Inspector, to which I replied 'we are working to 31.3 here!

By pipes

Date 03-13-2012 13:29

Agreed.

By vagabond (***)

Date 03-13-2012 09:24

Nicely put Mr. Feder.

By pipes

Date 03-13-2012 01:46

TAC -

I agree with you, I do. I'm talking about hitting a spot for 5 seconds with a grinder. I disagree with the staement "If a welder does his job". Mistakes happen and a welder should be allowed to fix it as long as the code does not prohibit it. That's all I'm saying.

By nantong (**)

Date 03-13-2012 06:33

Most experienced welders will leave the final fill passes slightly underflush and if necessary grind down localised high spots. This is what they will do on the job. This allows them to deposit a nice even cap.
If you allow welders to grind the cap down on a test is he going to do this on all his production welds?

If you do your construction manager is sure going to question how these welders passed a test. He pays welders to put weld metal on not too take it off.

By pipes

Date 03-13-2012 13:16

No doubt nantong. But that is a far cry from not allowing grinders period.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 03-13-2012 21:22

I agree exactly Nantong

And am happy that I can enforce just this dicipline in my testing

There is a difference (or should be) when inspecting the cap (finished weld) on a test vs in production...

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 03-13-2012 21:22

I agree exactly Nantong

And am happy that I can enforce just this dicipline in my testing

There is a difference (or should be) when inspecting the cap (finished weld) on a test vs in production...

By 99205

Date 03-14-2012 00:27

Agreed also.

By pipes

Date 03-14-2012 01:03

I've (obviously) been thinking a lot about this lately. Grinding to remove porosity or slag will never bother me, what always has is grinding on the cap. And I don't mean grinding a stop on a cap. We did this all the time while welding 40" pipe for the Oil Sands Refinery. If we didn't it would cast a "shadow" on the RT film and we would end up grinding it out anyway. What I mean is the welder welding too much reinforcement, grinding below 1/8" and leaving the weld. I have always hated that, but could never find code to enforce it. I don't feel that it's right or a quality weld. Today it hit me. This practice would not be considered "neat workman like appearance" as stated in D1.1 Visual Acceptance Critirea. Don't get me wrong, I will still allow grinders for fixing mistakes, but (partly thanks to this thread) I will no longer allow a welder to grind a weld and turn it in as finished.

Also, due to some suggestions in this thread, I stated a list of expectations for welders before they start a test. I like that idea a lot. I think I will list all of the visual criteria for the applicable code. Anyway, I can't say I totally agree with all of you, but this has been a productive discussion for me, and hopefully for others, thanks!

By aevald

Date 03-14-2012 03:37 Edited 03-14-2012 06:00

Hello pipes, I don't believe that "no grinding" has ever really been intended to exclusively prevent such an action when it's use has been within the scope of a reasonable application (however the rub comes into play when an interpretation of reasonable application needs to be defined).
   Unfortunately, I do believe that whenever there has been a reasonable request for "limitations" that it has generally been abused to the extent that it has allowed "unqualified individuals" to benefit by these allowances and provided for a less than acceptable result in some testing regimens. I would also bet that the discussions that have taken place in the various code committees that have attempted to address and implement "fair" definitions are probably out of this world.
   In my current standing I only deal directly with WABO code interpretations and implementation, yet I do try to stay abreast of what's going on in other codes and incorporate these items and information in the training that we provide at our school. I feel that our students do need to be aware of many of the differences, similarities, and requirements that are carried/stipulated within these codes.
   Since much of this information is very in-depth and involved and for many of you who are involved in it full-time, it is very apparent that it is a challenge in itself to keep track of everything. I try, whenever possible, to pay attention to everyone's commentaries and to gain a better overall understanding. I have opinions as everyone does, they only really count when they are correct for a given situation. Thanks Jeremiah and others. Best regards, Allan

By 803056

Date 03-14-2012 04:16

Let's not forget the post originally asked about testing to the requirements of D1.1. A few of the responses have introduced qualifications in accordance with ASME and API for pipe welding qualifications.

Let's not confuse welder qualification testing per D1.1 with production welding for structural applications with that of other codes and standards. In the case of ASME or API it is the contractor's obligation to qualify the welders and if they are actually meeting ASME or API requirements, there should be a procedure in place for qualifying the welders. The WPS should list how interpass cleaning is to be done. AWS D1.1 is one of the few welding codes that allow a third party to qualify the welder. Different rules for different games.

I don't recollect a clause in D1.1 with the exact text: "neat workman like appearance". That sounds more like something extracted from an architect's boiler plate found in the project specification.

There is no prohibition against the use of a grinder when making a production weld in D1.1. Again, a word of caution with regards to rejecting a production welds because the welder used a grinder to remove excess reinforcement, etc.

Welder qualification is a separate activity from production welding. As a matter of fact, the visual acceptance criteria for evaluating the completed test coupon is not found in AWS D1.1, Table 6.1.

When I administer a welder performance test per D1.1 for a client that has no QC program in place, no WPS, etc., such as is often the case with small owner operators, I provide them with a prequalified WPS, a list of test rules, and the applicable visual acceptance criteria. The welder is briefed before the test. The welder and I review the requirements of the WPS, test rules, and acceptance criteria before the test coupons are handed to the welder. The welder is even informed that in the event of a failure, there is an additional charge and two acceptable test coupons are required if he opts for an immediate retest. There are no secrets, there is no mystery, and all the cards are on the table. The welder has an opportunity to stop the process and no money is exchanged if he decides he is not ready to be tested.

I part ways with the philosophy of the AWS Accredited Test Facilities with regards to how the welder performance test is administered and the equipment used. I provide the test coupons, but the welder provides the welding machine, filler metal, hand tools, and PPE. My philosophy is the welder should use the same equipment he will be using on the job. He should use the same filler metal and the same tools he will use on the job. If he elects to use an engine drive that has a six cylinder engine that is only firing on four cylinders, so be it. If the welder elects to use E7018 that has been bouncing around in an open can for the last two weeks, so be it. If he shows up for the test without the proper hand tools, he free to use a screwdriver or a sledge hammer to clean between passes. I’ve had welders show up and tie a length of welding lead tied to a column because they didn’t believe in using a work piece connector (ground clamp). That’s their prerogative; it’s their money they are spending to take the test. If I only sign the test record as the test witness and they are being certified by their employer, I even let them use a grinder. It is only when I sign the paperwork attesting to the fact they have met the qualification requirements of D1.1 or D1.5 that I don’t allow the use of power tools for interpass cleaning.

Best regards - Al

By eekpod

Date 03-14-2012 11:14

When I test applicants I always let them know up front what is expected and what the parameters of the test are.
They test to D1.5 and D1.1 at the same time so no grinding allowed becasue of the D1.5 code.

Now I've had some guys have a hickup here and there, and they needed to grind a small portion or risk failing the entire test and having to start over. In those rare instances I've let them grind the area, and if they passed the VT and bend tests I will only certify them for the D1.1 code which doesn't restrict grinding. This way I did'nt waste a guys attempt and my time on a situation that had it happened during fabrication, would have been ground anyway.
We don't do any bridge work currently but I try to have the welders meet the higher standard, but there are times when some of the newer guys can't, but they are fine for the building side and D1.1 doesn't restrict the use of a grinding.

By pipes

Date 03-14-2012 13:48

Yep, you are correct. "neat workman-like appearance" is from API 1104 not D1.1. My bad. Why won't D1.1 committees just make reference to grinders? Or at least grind marks on the cover pass. Oh well, wish in one hand......

I like the way you think, letting them use their own stuff, it seems like the right way to go.

By 803056

Date 03-14-2012 15:14 Edited 03-14-2012 15:21

Codes and standards delineate the minimum requirements that must be met. It is the contractor's responsibility to take any additional steps they deem prudent to ensure the products they produce will meet the code and their internal requirements. In addition to code requirements, customer expectations and customer imposed requirements must be taken into consideration. Products that meet the requirements of the welding standard may not satisfy customer expectations. Any company that expects to be around for the long haul must recognize that a satisfied customer is essential to repeat business and new business.

If you review my previous posts I mention that my typical clients are not satisfied with entry level welding skills. My testing regiment is formulated to meet their needs.

A young welder that just completed a welding course has what I consider to be entry level skills. Most welders and managers will agree the newly minted welder fresh from a school, whether it is a 10 week crash course in SMAW or a 2-year associate program is still considered to have basic entry level skills. It is appropriate for those entry level welders to utilize power tools for a basic structural performance test. They are still learning their chosen profession, but they still have much to learn when they enter the "School of Hard Knocks". The lessons to be learned while burning rod behind the hood, reading drawings, laying out, fitting, etc. cannot be mastered in the short time the student spends in the classroom or the typical school environment.

A welder that still needs to use a grinder to pass a D1.1 structural performance test is not ready to go to work with one of my clients. My clients demand more and I provide them with welders that have the skills they require. I set baseline requirements that comply with the applicable welding code and the expectations of my clients. My tests are regimented and well documented. I have welders come to me for their performance tests even though they have been tested previously. Why? The answer is relatively simple; my clients will not consider them for employment if they don’t carry my credentials. Experience has taught my clients that papers issued by an ATF or other laboratory do not mean the welder has the level of skills they required. They know that a welder that carries my paperwork has passed a test that requires more than entry level welding skills.

Not everyone agrees with my philosophy. The AWS subcommittee that developed the standard for ATFs is amongst those that disagree with my philosophy. I guess every person tasked with qualifying welders has to determine whether they are simply assessing skills of an entry level welder or if they are assess the welder's skills to ensure the welder meets the expectations of the employer or project. The codes are written to provide the inspector with sufficient latitude to tailor the test to meet both situations. To grind or not to grind is left to the discretion of the individual that is signing the performance test record.

Best regards - Al

By hillbilly (**)

Date 03-16-2012 02:41

I've taken a few tests in my day and they all allowed grinding, with a hand file. Ha.

All jokes aside this has been a good read about the difference in interpretations.