Welder Requalification

By Cuong Mai Date 06-18-2013 04:25 Edited 06-18-2013 04:29

Dear all,
I have a problem. Our welders has not been welding for more than six (6) months. We are going to carry out a new project but the contractor does not agree with our elongation for welder certificates. So we have to prepare for requalify for welders.
In AWS D1.1 "4.33.1.3 Retest After Lapse of Qualification Period of Effectiveness. When a welder,s or welding operator's qualification period of effectiveness has lapsed, a requalification test shall be required. Welders have the option of using a test thickness of 3/8 in [10 mm] to qualify any production welding thickness greater than or equal to
1/8 in [3 mm]."
This confuses me so much. Does it mean the thickness of coupon is 10mm, and the rest essential variables are not changed from his previous qualification?
Our welders was qualified 6G and 6GR position. According to 4.33.1.3, can you please elaborate and support us the sample for requalification.
Thanks in advance,

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 06-18-2013 11:35

Cuong Mai,
What it means is you do not have to do the full 25 mm test to requalify the welders - saving yourself time and money in requalification.
The 10 mm test will "restore" their qualification for all thicknesses greater than or equal to 3 mm.
Hope that helps,
Cheers,
Shane

By eekpod

Date 06-18-2013 15:54

agreed, we have done the same thing in the past.
Also keep a log or sheet with the date re- "re-test" and mark up a calendar 6 months from that date so you won't have this happen again.
Good Luck

By ctacker (****)

Date 06-19-2013 02:32 Edited 06-19-2013 02:35

Sounds like the code needs a little tweeking, as it's worded now if I have a welder that was qualified for 3/4" (19mm) and his qualification lapses, he can weld another 3/8" (10mm) plate and be good for all thickness (1/8" and over). I see nothing stating otherwise. lol

By eekpod

Date 06-19-2013 12:21

That is correct but I don't believe it needs tweaking. It appears they are going under the idea that if the person could pass the thicker test, then he still posses the skills to pass a thinner test.
Granted if it's only been less than a year since the lapse that may be true, but if it were 20 years then he most likely may have lost those skills.
In the past if the person didn't get re-employed by us within a year or two, then I would re-test him with the 1" thick test even if he had the cert previously, just for that reason, to assure he still had the skills needed to weld properly.
Also keep in mind the code is the minimum required-is a company wants to require more than the code, they have that option.

By ctacker (****)

Date 06-19-2013 18:33

you didn't get my post correctly. if a guy welds a 3/8" coupon, he is qualified to weld 3/4" thick plate. so if he lapses that, he can weld another 3/8" plate and be qualified for unlimited thickness. that is how the code is written as it is. so I think it does need some tweeking to say he is qualified to the same thickness as before the lapse.

By 803056

Date 06-19-2013 20:12

Nice catch.

I went back to my copy of AWD D1.1-1979 to compare the text regarding requalification due to a lapse in continuity. Even in 1979 the words left something to the imagination. Clause 5.30 "In case (1), the requalification test need be made only in the 3/8 inch thickness." By the way, case (1) was a lapse in the welder's continuity.

In 1990 the words were the same as in 1979 regarding requalification.

In both the 2000 and 2006 editions the wording is changed and appears to be the same as in the 2010 edition of D1.1.

I agree that the text leaves some unanswered questions. Does the D1 committee actually intend that the welder that originally took a fillet break test or a 3/8 grooved plate test can go 190 days without striking an arc and then be qualified for unlimited thickness if he passes a 3/8 inch thick grooved plate?

The Philadelphia lawyer in me has my mind running wild!

While I do not believe that is the intent, there is the text in the code that supports that position.

Best regards - Al

By qcrobert (***)

Date 06-20-2013 12:40

I have taken "advantage" of this clause when on an out-of-state field install project but at that time I knew the fabricator/welder's (30 yrs experience) ability to produce sound welds.

However I do not accept previous qualification when hiring new employees nor retesting of existing employees under this (3/8" plate test) clause. The code reflects the minimum requirements but our company policy is to retest using the same test plate thk which in our case is 1" thk & all positions.

Additional testing requirements beyond code(s) include using special jig fixtures to limit welder's physical access during a test to determine his/her ability to successfully complete certain production welds in the field.

QCRobert

By eekpod

Date 06-20-2013 12:59

ctacker, yes your right I didn't pick up on what you were trying to get across, I see your point now. All I can say is I try to follow the code, even when things don't always make complete sense.