Side bend tests

By Mwccwi

Date 01-02-2014 20:00

Yes.
You are a CWI then you should know this, or at least I would think.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 01-02-2014 20:50

Martin is correct...as long as you are doing the tests in line with the Clause 4 requirements for bend radius and other visual standards.

You sign the record of the test results and if you are the authorized company representative you even can sign the bottom 'certifying' that all information is correct and completed as per code requirements.

The welder is then qualified to AWS D1.1 standards and certified by you for all your company work within the bounds of the test run. UNLESS, the customer wants another test or requires an independent outside inspection agency to do the testing.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By 803056

Date 01-03-2014 05:01

I would hope that as a CWI you understand how to read a welding standard and apply the requirements of the welding standard. The welding standard provides specific requirements regarding the size and preparation of the side bend specimens as well as the appropriate bend diameters and acceptance criteria. As the individual responsible for administering, testing, and evaluating the specimens, you would sign the appropriate portions of the test record. If you have not been authorized by your employer to sign the certifying statement, do not it.

I agree with Brent regarding who must sign the performance test record. A person with the authority to sign test reports other legal documents on behalf of the company can sign the test record. The authorized signature affixed to the certification statement (at the bottom of the sample form found in the Annex) is the "certification."

Best regard - Al

By marktski (**)

Date 01-03-2014 13:30

I appreciate the help I get from this forum, I was merely trying to reassure my authority. I wanted to verify that I did not need
an outside lab to OK the test results. After some of the scathing answers, I will seriously reconsider what I post for help in the future.
Thanks guys

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 01-03-2014 15:22

Don't worry about scathing answers.. Eat the meat and spit out the bones.

Another thing to consider if it hasn't been mentioned.

The requirment for a 3rd party inspector may not be mentioned in the welding specification but could still be required by specific contract doccuments agreed to between the buyer and the contractor. From time to time, production inspectors and QA are not alerted to these stipulations until after the fact.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 01-03-2014 13:02

In Mark's defense guys, it is rather disturbing how little they teach at the seminar regarding this issue and WPS's. You learn just enough to get through the tests and there are not many questions, even in Part B, on it.

This is part of continuing education for all of us. Everyone who passes the exams and becomes a CWI needs to then spend time in Clauses 3 & 4 as well as in other reference books and in discussions with experienced CWI's and learn all he can on these two topics.

The WPS seminar at FabTech is still sadly lacking in my opinion. I went two years ago in Chicago and again a year ago in Las Vegas. The new version is better but still needs work. It needs to be a two day class, one for beginners and one for advanced. Dr Helzer was way too crowded for time and while it was reasonably well presented there needs to be more. As given, a half day for each, it is not enough. They should have left the class as it was from two years ago and just added another day to work in the rest. Trying to get everything taught in half a day that was barely presentable in a full day was a mistake.

AWS has the Professional's Guide on WPS's which is a great help as well as the B2.1 manual. There is also information in both that will assist in welders certs as well. F numbers, sample forms, material group numbers, and more. Not to mention AGAIN, Al's articles in Inspections Trends covering WPS's. As well as a couple of other articles in IT on WPS's. Then, do a search here on the forum. We have covered these topics a good many times.

But, it would be nice if the AWS could find it 'profitable' enough to add seminars for us in these two areas.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By SCOTTN

Date 01-03-2014 14:43

I know that Martin, Brent, and Al are aware of this clause in D1.1, but I'd like to add that unless otherwise required per job specifications, one doesn't really have to be a CWI to give the test, to bend and review the coupons, and to sign off. D1.1 states that an individual, based on training or experience, or both, in metals fabrication, inspecting, and testing, is competent to perform inspection of the work. I've done this for years, mainly 2G unlimited thickness, with thankfully no questions asked. To take it a step further, I write the date, process, position, and the welders ss # (I write small) on the coupons and I keep them stored in a box. If anyone should question my ability, I can pull a welders coupons and have them reviewed by a CWI or whomever, to see if they agree or disagree with my evaluations.
The part of the D1.1 statement that's a bit of a concern to me is the "competent to perform" part of it. This seems pretty wide open to me, as anyone can decide that they are competent to perform. Just because one has "experience", doesn't mean that the individual has the knowledge to properly set up and administer the test, properly cut, prepare, and bend the coupons, and properly evaluate the results in accordance with the acceptance criteria for bend tests. I feel that I do have the knowledge and experience to do this in accordance with D1.1 and I'm sure that there are a lot of others out there who can say the same thing about themselves.... so what makes me any think that I'm any better? I can't help but wonder if there are other "experienced" individuals doing the same thing that really don't have the level of knowledge and experience that's needed in order to do this properly. Regardless that D1.1 allows us "experienced" individuals to do this, I know that if I were a structural engineer I would add a requirement in the job specs that all welders are to be tested and documented by a CWI or an independent testing agency.

By 803056

Date 01-03-2014 15:05

Ho Scott;

I believe a little clarification is in order. While AWS D1.1 does allow an individual with the appropriate experience or training or both to perform the duties of an inspector, that training and experience must be documented (clause 6.1.4(3). It is up to the contractor to provide that documentation upon request to the Engineer whom has the authority to verify the documented training/experience is satisfactory (clause 6.1.4.5). In short, self proclaimed qualification doesn't cut the mustard per the requirements of D1.1.

I agree with some of comments Brent made with regards that the CWI certification alone is no assurance that the individual understands the finer pots of performance or procedure qualification. There are enough question on the CWI examinations that the candidate could get most of those questions wrong and still pass the examination. It is interesting to note that the Part B examination, where many of the applicable questions are asked, seems to be the one examination my people find to be difficult. As some people say, it is the examination that separates book smart from those that have practical experience. That being the case, it serves its purpose rather nicely.

I have been a proponent of changing the number of correct answers required to pass each of the three exams to be on an even footing with the requirements of ASNT qualification documents (SNT-TC-1A and CP-189) and NAVSEA TP-271. So far, I have been unsuccessful.

The are other AWS publications that can provide additional direction to an individual interested in more information on qualification of procedures and welders, but they are standards, so the do not explain the "whys" of the qualification process.

As for delineating the responsibilities and authority of the CWI, the code, D1.1 in this case, doe a pretty good job of delineating that information. The CWI has little authority unless it is assigned by either the code, contractor, or Engineer.

Best regards - Al

By SCOTTN

Date 01-03-2014 16:03

Al,

Good point. I understand that the basis for qualification is to be documented.... i.e. a synopsis explaining someone's level of training and experience that's subject to review, and I have that documentation included in my resume that's in our AISC Quality Manual. My concern was just that because the code allows it, I don't think is a good indication, even with self proclaimed documentation, that tests are actually being administered and evaluated properly by those of us claiming to have the knowledge and experience to do so. That's why I said that I would add a requirement in the job specs that all welders are to be tested and documented by a CWI or an independent testing agency. Though I've not experienced an EOR asking for documented evidence that I'm qualified, nor have I experienced an EOR actually verifying my experience, I'm sure it does happen. I would think that it may happen more often if issues with shop welds are found in the field or issues are found during third party visits to a fab shop, and subsequently reported to the EOR. That would lead someone to dig deeper and get to the root of the problem, with part of that problem being that the individual claiming to have the knowledge and experience, isn't really qualified. I've only been required to submit welder qualification documents to the EOR, all of which I've signed off on. I've just often wondered if anyone else that is supposedly qualified by experience is being asked to submit their qualifications or actually being subjected to those verifications.

By 803056

Date 01-03-2014 17:00

In the case of welder or procedure qualification, as in the case of design, etc. the contractor is responsible for all activities taking place under their banner. The contractor has the liability should anything go horrible wrong. It is in the contractor's and the Owner's best interest that things be done properly. To that end, the contractor hires people with the proper qualifications and relevant work experience. The Owner, through his Engineer, develops project specifications addressing issues that are important to the success of the project.

Contractors that do not hire qualified individuals, whether that individual is a detailer, layout person, welder, or inspector, are at risk, and will ultimately pay the price for not acting in a prudent manner. I have seen contractors (and Owners) fall by the wayside for hiring people that did not know their jobs or could not perform their assigned jobs because they lacked the necessary qualifications. The degree of sophistication of the project is going to dictate the requirements and the documentation required to demonstrate the individual's qualifications. The employee’s job performance will dictate whether they keep their job.

Best regards - Al

By SCOTTN

Date 01-03-2014 17:17

I couldn't agree with you more. Speaking of an individual not being qualified by knowledge and experience, I remember a few years back, two welders from another structural fabricator in our area were hired for the structural shop. On their first day, I set up and gave them a 2G unlimited thickness test. While they were in the middle of their tests, I had an emergency at home and I had to leave for a little while. I told them to go ahead and finish their tests and that I would do the bend tests when I return. When I returned about three hours later, both of them saw me pulling in. They ran up to me as I was parking and proudly told me that they both passed the bend test. I reminded them that they were supposed to wait until I got back, but before I could ask them anything else, they told me that they bent the test plates and that the plates didn’t break. They said that the test plates were very hard to bend without heat, so they ended up having to tack weld the test plates to a table and use a rosebud in order to get the test plates hot enough so that they’d be easier to bend. By that time, morbid curiosity had set in and without acknowledging any safety rules, I ran through the shop to see the plates. The two guys eventually caught up with me, cautioned me that the plates are still pretty hot. They showed me a bar that they’d made to attach to the test plates to make them easier to bend and they told me that it took both of them to bend each test plate…. one guy to heat the test plate with the rosebud while the other guy tries to bend it. One of them told me “I bet you’re glad that you don’t have to do this every day”, while the other guy asked me if there’s not an easier way to bent the plates. My response to that was “Ok, where’s the camera?” “I know it’s in here somewhere” “Where is it?” Both of them looked at each other and asked me what I was talking about. So I said, “I know I’m on Candid Camera, so stop all this b.s. and tell me where the camera is”. After I finally realized that this was not a set up, I managed to pull myself together and as calmly as possible, explained to both of them that I have to cut strips out of the test plates, radius the edges, and bend the strips on a jig. As their mouths dropped open and both of them looked at each other, the look on their faces was something I’ll never forget. Then they asked me “So you don’t need to bend the whole plate?” I just shook my head, no. Needless to say, I had them throw the test plates away and start over. After it was over, it occurred to me that neither one of them asked me how far they needed to bend the plates.

By 803056

Date 01-03-2014 17:51

I happen to be testing a pipewelder to AWS D1.1 for fillet welds several years ago. At the same time the contractor was qualifying a couple of welders on pipe in the 6G position. The shop foreman (who was also the janitor) bent the specimens and then took the samples over to the belt sander. After a few seconds of sanding the surfaces smooth to remove the "surface cracks" the foreman announced to the welders they had both passed the test.

You can do what you might to make any process idiot proof, by you cannot make the process damn idiot proof.

Then there are the few individuals amongst us that are so interested in being good employees they will do things they know are wrong just to please their employer. They will accept substandard work, they will falsify reports, they will ship members they know are not in conformance with the specification all in the belief they are protecting the interest of their employer. What they don't recognize or consider is the ramifications of their actions. They do not recognize their actions can cause their employer to go out of business. The cost of repairing something in the field will cost several times more than it would have cost to correct it in the shop. A structural failure can cost the contractors involved millions of dollars in liability should someone die as a result of the failure.

Recently I was involved in a legal case where the contractor save about $300 by ordering some material from a supplier that was not approved by the Engineer (as per contract, any substitutions had to be approved by the Engineer). The resulting failure, equipment damage, lost profits, added interest, etc. cost the contractor about $2.5 million in claims. The contractor tried to blame the "foreman" for the mistake and shoddy workmanship, but that didn't hold up under scrutiny and he had to pay. "For the cost of material there is always MasterCard, the cost of failure: Priceless." Sorry MasterCard, I couldn't resist.

Al

By SCOTTN

Date 01-03-2014 18:21

The janitor? I be done heard it all now. And I thought my experience couldn't be beat. Oh my God.

By 803056

Date 01-03-2014 18:42 Edited 01-03-2014 18:46

That is nothing.

I had a job that was rejected when it arrived in New England. The convoy was turned around and sent back to the fabricator located in the Midwest. I spoke to the fabricator's spokesman and asked if they had a CWI on staff. He assured me they did. They refused to ship the steel back to New England unless it was inspected and accepted at their shop, so I proceeded out to their facility. I was teamed up with a welder to correct all the deficiencies. I should note that the steel was "corrected" before my arrival, but I still rejected about 40% of the members as being noncompliant.

The welder said my arrival at their facility was the best thing that could have happened. He said, "I've been telling them all along that this steel didn't meet AWS requirements, but they wouldn't listen to me."

I asked if the steel had been reinspected by their CWI and he replied that he was their CWI. I asked him if he also worked as their QC inspector. He said, "Hell no, I'm just one of the welders on the floor."

I said, "If you aren't QC, who is?"

He said, "Don't turn to look, but our QC manager is a couple of bays over looking our way. When you turn to look at him, he'll run the other way!"

Sure enough, as soon as I looked in his direction, he turned heel and quickly walked in the opposite direction.

I asked the welder, "What's his story?"

"Two weeks ago he was the janitor, then when the old QC manager quit, they made him the QC manager. He scared sXXXless of you." answered the welder.

I was in the fabricator's facility nearly to weeks. During that time I never did speak to the QC manager. He made a hasty retreat every time I walked in his direction. I set up to ambush him one morning. but he wouldn't even speak with me when I cornered him. He literally ducked under my arm to get away from me.

As it turned out, one of my friend's brother works for the same fabricator as a welder. He asked my friend if he knew a fellow by the name of Al Moore. Evidently, my name became synonymous with the "Boogie Man."

One engineer told me I was known in the industry as the "Welding Nazi." I'm not sure I know what that means, but it sounds good to me.

My parents said that if I ever wrote a book of my experiences it would be found in the fiction section because no one would believe the stories.

Best regards - Al

By JTMcC

Date 01-03-2014 23:08

I don't have any idea what field the two of you work in, I do know that you goof on the farm code quite heavily.

It appears to me thru observance, that most farm code work is done to a higher real world workability standard than what you describe in your "professional code enhanced" field(s) of fun.

You people, whatever slice of the welding world you swim in, work with true jackleg hacks. Either that or your posts are heavily exagerated for effect.

You can pick better climes, where work is routinely done to higher standards and those standards are enforced with nazi-like glee. But then you couldn't spend so much time on the net tellin' stories about the idiots in your workplace.
Just my take.

J

By 803056

Date 01-03-2014 23:36

What can I say John. There are no exaggerations and I will not deny the folks involved are what I would call hacks, but their existence isn't limited to one geographic region.

I usually get called in when there is a problem. I don't get calls if the fabricator is doing things properly. I guess you could say I get to handle the problem children of the industry.

When you need a bandage you go to your family doctor. When you need major surgery, you go to a specialist.

Best regards - Al

By JTMcC

Date 01-03-2014 23:55 Edited 01-04-2014 16:20

Just to be clear geography has nothing to do with my comments. Segment of the welding world does.

J

It's suprising to me that such a business can stay in business, same with the body filler on pressure vessels.

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 01-04-2014 18:53

That's because you live a sheltered life. :eek:

By JTMcC

Date 01-04-2014 19:20

Evidently I do.

In my time, I can't remember even being on a job where anyone could of gotten away (or attempted to) with the things I read here.
But I've never worked in a fab shop either.
I have been underbid (drastically) by people who turn out that type of end product, but they all end up outta business quick. I attribute that to the lax requirements in a lot of smaller commercial work.

J

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 01-04-2014 19:36

I agree that the quality workmanship and work ethic as well as a different set of morals that were the norm back in the day are no longer adhered to unfortunately..
Then again back then, life was was less complicated while progress and innovation were just beginning to find it's place in the overall scheme of things IMHO.

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 01-04-2014 19:51

At the present time, most of the outfits nowadays put profit margins and cutting corner to save as much operating and labor costs as is possible while crossing the invisible line that separates a margin of safety as well as quality minimums.... Yeppers! The old saying used to be "Measure twice and cut once." has now been replaced with "How much can I cut out in estimated costs and still get away with producing a product or service with maximum profit margins because E Pluribus Unum is how we roll today!" no matter how much they lack in both workmanship and quality which would also establish an unsafe condition to boot!

It's really sad and insane that there's not more of an uproar or outrage to some of the practices some of these hacks are indeed getting away with! And in order to punish them for their shameful actions, one must sue them before they declare bankruptcy which is at an all time high in filings these days...

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 01-06-2014 14:28

Funny you should mention this Henry.

Having jumped back into the *real world* and into quite a large international company, I can tell you that I have found a number of happy surprises. I'll share a couple of examples.

I am being allowed to research a number of issues... Such as past engineering/design changes based solely on reduction of weight.
When steel is your #1 cost of business, it makes sense to look at ways to reduce weight right? But sometimes reduction in weight means added splices, fabrication steps, thickness transitions, 3rd party UT inspections, and of course TIME. Those additional factors may not have really been considered closely enough before the design changes went into place a decade ago, and grew and grew and grew.   Now I'm NOT AN ENGINEER, but am still getting support to reevaluate the cost of fab vs. the cost of weight reduction and am going to save us buckets of money.   Bottom line? you bet! Making the welders life easier at the same time? Yes sir !

Workmanship and quality?   In one of our plants we have recorded a nearly 50% reduction in GMAW filler metal in less than 2 months (with no drop in inches welded) after implementing a QC/Management (not welder) training program. When you are buying Millions of pounds of filler each year, this is a real nice measurable addition to the bottom line. And as you well know, when the welders are paying enough attention to stop overwelding, the quality skyrockets in a very happy way :)

It's more ignorance and fear (my opinion) than stingyness and greed... Welding on the corporate world just isn't viewed like other production processes like machining and forming etc.

"welders are a special breed and you need to let them sort it out themselves becaise it's an art" is the excuse managers have been using for decades in manufacturing. A welders "bead" is his signature! We must let them do it how they choose. Managers often don't understand, and so are feared/shamed into backing off and letting the shop floor run itself.

No sir! Welding in manufacturing is an absolute hard science... Every inch, every amp, every volt, every ounce, is all measurable, controllable and profitable when the right approach is taken. Every damn weld should look the same in manufacturing... A "corporate signature" if you will.   Sure the old salty dogs resist at first, until they see in just a few days how much better things work with strict process controls.

I guess what I'm saying is that I have found "open mindedness" out here that I did not expect so early in the game... I have their attention already... and trust is growing.

I'm not trying to argue your very true corporate judgements... But there are a few happy counterpoints out there that understand that a well provisioned, safe, trained and planned shop floor (with all the expenses it takes to make that) will produce more bottom line money.

By JTMcC

Date 01-05-2014 03:02

Not only do I live a sheltered life, but my typed word mojo seems weak.

By "in my time", I don't mean back in the day. I mean in my years working in various welding sectors. I'm still working and Lord willing will for another 20 years.

J

By SCOTTN

Date 01-06-2014 15:19

JTMcC,

My slice of the welding world is the structural steel industry, and though I like to attempt to mix in a little humor from time to time, I take my job very seriously, and allowing sub par work puts the general public at risk and can eventually result in a failure. I have never, nor will I ever o.k. a piece of steel to leave the shop unless it meets the job specs and the applicable codes, as there are people's lives at stake with much of what we do. In structural steel fabrication, the job specs require the fabricator to adhere to the D1.1 Structural code, the AISC codes, and D1.8 and the IBC as required. The bottom line for me is simple. The workmanship either meets these codes, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, I do my job, without nazi-like glee, and I reject it.

As I encounter issues, I always take time to explain to a welder the basis for my rejections and what the code or the spec requires. During many of my conversations with welders, a lot of them tell me that they have never heard what I'm telling them, and many times they tell me that they were told something different. I always caution them not to believe everything they're being told.... even what I'm telling them. I encourage them to respectfully ask someone to show them in a spec or a code what they're being told, and I always respectfully tell them that I can back up what I'm telling them with a code or a spec reference, and that I can show them where I got it from. They've always been very receptive to that, and seem eager to learn more. This is something I've done over the years because some of the things I was told seemed a little far fetched to me, and I wanted to know where it came from because I was, and I still am, hungry for knowledge. Yes, there are a few, as you put it, jackleg hacks, but in my experience, they are few and far between. Most of the welders I've worked with really want to do a good job, but they typically do as they've been taught to do, and in their defense, they are not idiots. I don't see it that anybody is trying to get away with anything. Over the years I've seen some crazy things but in my experience I see it as a lack of training and knowledge. I just thought it would be interesting to share one of those instances. Nothing more and nothing less.

By 803056

Date 01-06-2014 17:04

I agree with what Scott has said.

It is unfortunate that we tend to remember the exceptions, i.e., the contractors that stand out because they tend to screw up everything they touch. The contractors that do their job are the companies that prosper in the long run. The contractors that look for the big profit by cutting corners in hopes of "getting away with it" are usually the short termers. They are here today and gone tomorrow.

The good citizen that makes a once in a lifetime mistake isn't the lawyer's bread and butter. No, the lawyer depends on the repeat offender because they represent repeat business. In my case, the contractors that try to work around the code represent profits because of repeat inspections. Their project are the memorable ones. Good contractors, well, let's say there is little profit working their projects.

If all the contractors followed the drawings and the project specifications and code, we inspectors would be out of work. Hail to the crazies, they are our reason for being.

Best regards - Al

By JTMcC

Date 01-06-2014 21:20

803056 says:

If all the contractors followed the drawings and the project specifications and code, we inspectors would be out of work. Hail to the crazies, they are our reason for being.

I say:

If all owners verified compliance with all drawings and spec's (in the shop and in the final field product) and wouldn't pay for work outside those boundry's, I'd get almost every bid and be richer than Bill Gates : )

J

By JTMcC

Date 01-06-2014 21:15

Scott,

In our bridge related work I get to see quite a bit of shop fab work (having never worked in one but watched a million tons of it unloaded from the truck), I've been pretty impressed with quite a bit of it over the last 10 years. The big structural shop in Las Vegas in particular has shipped out some very impressive work that I've laid eyes on.
Oddly enough it was done with 232 wire as opposed to a dual shield type. I can say without a doubt they have some slick 232 trigger pullers that take great pride in their work.

I have seen, and made a good living correcting it, poor to criminal fab work come out of China and Indonesian shops. I really hope the price was right because it's very expensive to correct on site. Wear a respirator cause they put the paint on THICK, and it's lead based. I have seen body filler used there.
3 American rig welders with fitters/helpers working 6/10's to 7/12's fixing junk month after month, adds up to significant dollars fast when you've already paid for the original product.

But (so far) I've not seen the hack work described almost every day on this forum in the field on any major project I've stepped foot on anywhere in the country.
Small commercial work can be a very flakey, sub farm code place, but they don't use heavy code welding very much.

J

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 01-07-2014 00:26

That's exactly what my comments were referring to Larry.
Not towards the outfits that know how to run a job or two so don't misunderstand who I'm talking about when it comes to some of the hack work that goes on out there in some of the smaller out fits that Al makes a living off of... And I totally agree that welding is a science first and foremost and only becomes an art form when used to express abstract or contemporary patterns of design related to making an artistic impression.

I'm happy for you that there's a positive response to your suggestions and I hope they continue to have confidence in your advice towards continuous improvement which you'll find much more commonplace also in the successful outfits as well.

Respectfully,
Henry

By jherrera (*)

Date 01-09-2014 02:00

yes you can do it if your customer allows it. But, you must be sure to use the right jig and specimen sizes (4.9.3.1, figure 4.13, 4.9.3, figure 4.15)