Extended Validity for Welder Qualification

Date 10-31-2013 12:46

Judging from your post title and question, I hope I understand correctly, I think there is a portion of each involved in the answer.

Process is one of the categories first mentioned such as: GMAW, FCAW, SMAW, GTAW, SAW, OFW, PAW, EBW, etc.

But, within the essential variables you will break some of them down further such as the difference between GMAW or GMAW-S (spray arc vs short arc), or FCAW-S vs FCAW-G (Flux core self-shielded vs gas shielded).

Both are essential in determining the full description of the process to be utilized as well as the Welder limits on their qualifications.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 10-31-2013 14:08

Jy

5.3.2.2 speaks to dissimilar metals welding and the word "process" does not appear.

D17 is unlike D1.1 in many ways.

Please say more about your issue and review your codebook to provide us some more clear references...

I bet we can find your answer :)

By jyeffy Date 10-31-2013 23:39

Thanks for the response guys. I referred to the wrong para, it should have been 5.2.3.2 as seen below:

5.2.3.2 Extended Validity. The qualification time limits of 5.2.3.1 may be extended indefinitely provided an
auditable record is maintained from the date of the initial qualification that verifies that the welder/welding operator has
used the process within a six-month period to weld applications normally welded by the certified individual.

My question is regarding the term "process" and what this is referring to. Is this referring to GTAW, GMAW, FCAW, etc...? Or, is this referring to Base Metal Composition, Base Metal Thickness, Position, GTAW, etc...?
I appreciate the feedback.

jyeffy

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 11-01-2013 02:33

If the welder/person was qualified to GMAW (the process) and has used it at least once within each six month time period then the qualification continues to be valid.

In regards to welding qualifications and written welding procedure specifications (WPS) the word 'process' refers to GMAW, GTAW, SMAW, FCAW, etc. As you know these stand for Gas Metal Arc Welding, Gas Tungsten Arc Welding, Shielded Metal Arc Welding, and Flux Core Arc Welding.

While the usage does not have to be an exact procedure matching what was originally qualified to there are parameters that do need to match. As I am not familiar with D17 I will leave more details to those who are.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 11-01-2013 12:12

I'll go ahead and take issue with Brent's last sentence.

In D17 context: when discussing extended Validity in 5.2.3.2

The code says "...to weld applications normally welded by the certified individual"

Example:
My welder is GTAW certified in all 6 material groups in all positions with both thin and thick fillet quals. This highly qualified welder has been working regularly for 2 years since testing but has not done any overhead welding for the last 8 months, nor has he welded any magnesium, or precipitation hardenable superalloys >062 thickness...

As long as this welder's management has kept an auditable trail of his GTAW work to company procedures, he is compliant in all the areas he was originally tested. (no further testing required)

This is my opinion.

.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 11-01-2013 12:42

I think we agree on that Lawrence, at least if I followed your example correctly. The same is basically true of D1.1 and other codes as well.

Let me ask it this way, If I test to GTAW with 2%Tor electrode on carbon steel all position, and during the following 1 year period I only use GTAW on Alum projects, does that keep my GTAW updated for a carbon steel project that comes along? Now, I'm going to say 'No'. They aren't even the same codes let alone the same parameters. Electrode change, polarity change, material change, code change, etc.

That's why I said there are certain parameters that must be consistent.

But as long as we are truly talking, I'll call it 'related' parameters, then I agree. You can change materials within the code acceptable list, you can use only one or two positions of the four qualified, and you can change other items as well. But there are limitations to what you can do and maintain the qualification.

So, are we in the same camp? I appreciate your input. Thanks Lawrence.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By BIGBOB

Date 11-01-2013 18:37

Just my two cents....

For every welder/welder operator certification that our welders have I feel that there should be a record of at least one project or job that has been performed (welded) within a six month period from the last time he or she welded under that certification.

In other words if I have a GTAW cert that was performed in 3G position for group I and II materials in D1.1, we need to have welded one of the materials in either group I or II in a 3G position within 6 months of that test. This in my opinion would cover all positions that the 3G qualifies for. It doesn't however keep a GTAW welder /welder operator certification in stainless steel current, like Brent has said, the are many essential variables that are different between the qualification coupons welded.

Also, we have other certifications in carbon steels that are not prequalified under group I or II and they as well have to be kept current by either production welding or coupon welding within the 6 month period.

Same in Aluminum, GTAW welding on M22 base metals does not keep the GTAW certifications with M23 base metals current.

Its not a big deal for us to run a coupon every 6 months to keep certifications current. This method seems to keep all of my auditors happy!

-Bob

-Bob

By BIGBOB

Date 11-01-2013 18:39

Just for clarification, these coupons or production welds do not have to be sent out for testing every 6 months, just documented.

-Bob

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 11-01-2013 20:41

Bob,

D17 never requries coupons to be sent out for testing... It may be handled in house if you have the facillities.

Continuity logs provide compliance as far as time goes.

If continuity is broken.. Disquaification occurs.. See 5.2.3.3 and in order for the welder to go back into production they would need to comply with 5.2.3.4 Reinstatement

Here is an excerpt from 5.2.3.3
"...The final authority for retest frequency, training requirements, and overall evaluation of the individual's qualificationin accord with this document, and granting of certification or reinstatement of certification rests with the fabricator."

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 11-01-2013 20:50

Bob,

I don't see any code based authority for your assertions:

I think they are great ideas and would encourage anybody putting them into your local quality system!

In other words if I have a GTAW cert that was performed in 3G position for group I and II materials in D1.1, we need to have welded one of the materials in either group I or II in a 3G position within 6 months of that test.
Where does D1.1 support this?____________________________

Also, we have other certifications in carbon steels that are not prequalified under group I or II and they as well have to be kept current by either production welding or coupon welding within the 6 month period.
Where does D1.1 support this_________________________________

Same in Aluminum, GTAW welding on M22 base metals does not keep the GTAW certifications with M23 base metals current.
Where Does D1.2 support this _____________________________________________

By BIGBOB

Date 11-05-2013 18:46

Lawrence you are correct, there is no code requirement for what I do as far as coupons and documentation, hence "my two cents". I did however word it to where it was misleading and one would think that I was quoting codes. Qualifications are specifically based on processes and not variables.

I need to keep my opinions/requirements to myself so that they are not mis-interpreted, especially when someone is asking a code specific question!

Happy Welding!
Bob

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 11-07-2013 15:01

Bob,

Your opinions are excellent!

By hvymax

Date 11-07-2013 16:33

Actually the welder just has to document that they have used the process period. When I renew I usually grab a couple of 6" practice pieces and lay down 2"SMAW,2"GMAW and 2"GTAW to renew 20+ certs on multiple base metals.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 11-01-2013 20:28 Edited 11-01-2013 20:52

Brent

D17 is a horse of a different color :)

The specification encompases EIGHT "material groups," including carbon and alloy steels (group 1A)

Continuity is based on "process" not material groupings.

Tungsten type, alloy type, thickness, position, plate/tube are non sequitur to the discussion of welder performance qualification continuity.

Does this in theory mean a person could qualify by performance test on an alloy or position and then go long periods of time without welding those specifics and remain qualified by virtue of welding in the "process qualified" on other alloys groups or lesser positions?

In my opinion, strictly speaking to compliance............Yes it does.

That does not suggest that a wisely implemented quality program could not create controls that would better suit you and I.
Edit: I think this is what Bob is doing

I'm in your camp pal... Whether or not we agree :)

.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 11-01-2013 20:57 Edited 11-01-2013 21:04

I figured it was Lawrence, that's why I deferred to a D17 expert and I'm glad you were following.

I also wanted to make sure that my personal understanding was correct and was only trying to run a comparison between D1.1 and D17.1 in order to understand the continuity areas of similarity and dissimilarity.

The difference here would be rather the welder had qualified to D1.1 with GTAW or D17. D17 has provisions for steel. D1.1 doesn't have provisions for aluminum. So continuity would be questionable if not welding to D1.1 qualified materials. My opinion anyway. I'll have to look up some exact wording to see if I will still feel that way with what you have said here.

I'm not sure I have all of them. But I think those working to D17 should understand those differences.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 11-01-2013 21:08

Hey Brent...

Go buy yourself a copy of D17.......... Only $4 per page!

Non-profit, written by volunteers!

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 11-02-2013 01:04

I have it Lawrence (my company is a sustaining company so I have them all). I just haven't had reason to look at it. And currently I am too busy trying to get some other qualifications for an upcoming job.

I will examine it when I have time to see where the differences are. My main concern is about my most used code, D1.1, and how this applies to the continuity expressed within it.

One thing I do know, often the job specs specify currently qualified welders to D1.1 and the application of the job at hand. Far from the exact wording but good enough for you to understand. They want experience that benefits their job attached to the qualification. That's where being qualified to the fabricator's specs who is the current employer and having a continuity of employment as well as welding process documentation comes in.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By jyeffy Date 11-04-2013 05:13

I really appreciate the discussion on this topic and the difference of opinions indicates that the specs may not be as clear as they could be. There is a discussion at my place of employment regarding how this part of the spec is interpretted (whether it be D17 or D1.1) and some are in line with Lawrence's original interpretation that "process" is defined as GTAW, GMAW, SMAW, etc. while others say that all of the essential variables should be considered. It seems that if a welder tests and qualifies for multiple GTAW thickness ranges on aluminum or steel in anticipation of upcoming production work and only uses some of the thickness ranges but not others then that welder would still be qualified for the thicknesses that were originally qualified for since they had been welding in the GTAW process on like materials. Thanks again for the responses and feedback.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 11-05-2013 02:08

Jeff,

I think the code is perfectly clear.. The problem is that sometimes people "want" to read things into that just are not there. :)

There is no ambiguity in D17 about the issue at hand... The only way wires get crossed is when people try to apply essential variables from other sections to a part of the code that is silent on variables.

The code means exactly what it says. No more, no less.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 11-05-2013 04:06

For what you are talking about I agree with Lawrence 100%. Even in D1.1 process means process and that is the only criteria for welder continuity. If they use the process they are good.

From the beginning I defined process as those separate operational methods describing various welding methods: GTAW, GMAW, SMAW, etc. Process has nothing to do with the balance of the variables.

Within the codes I do not see such application. Thus far in my search the only thing I find is toward my reference to Job Specifications which has nothing to do with codes. If a customer wants welders qualified within certain parameters they may so specify. But the code only says they must use the process within each 6 month period. I said I would look more and I have been. I agree with Lawrence on this one.

Even pushing the boundaries with my question: certify to one code, use the process per another code, are you still qualified; according to the codes, yes. Does that mean it is the best? No. But it is the application.

So, if I qualify to D1.1 GTAW (which is not pre-approved) and only use it on alum to D1.2 over the course of a year, I have used the process and my original qualification is still intact. That's the way I am seeing it. I'm still checking some wording out but that's how it looks at present.

Customers and employers can make their own requirements that are more strict than the codes but as far as the minimum code standards go there is not an issue. And, I gather from Lawrence's stance on D17 that it is even clearer. (He should know, he is more involved with D17 than most realize)

Don't twist anything within my questions and attempts to clarify something in my own mind to make a stand that isn't intended by the codes. I am not an official interpretation; just an opinion.

There are many things we as members of this forum disagree on. Often, because we read or remember something wrong. We usually really mess up when going from our memories without a book in front of us. I already stated I had not read D17, probably wouldn't understand most of it even if I did. Not an area I am familiar with.

Well, with that said, you have a choice to make. But, don't hang your hat on what you think I said, or at least on what you think I meant by what I said. Base it on the code only. If there is still a question in your mind, send off for a technical interpretation and get the official viewpoint.

Have a Great Day, Brent