Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Certifications / D1.1 6G Welder Qualification Moving test piece
- - By kmaher Date 04-29-2014 22:18
Where in D1.1 can I find the section that states the test piece cannot be moved from its test position for slag removal during the test?
Clause 4 Part C is Performance Qualification, but I can seem to find where it is listed. I have looked in the commentary and don’t see anything there either. 

thanks for any help and guidance provided.

krm
Parent - By SCOTTN (***) Date 04-30-2014 11:53
I don't recall ever seeing it in D1.1, though, it's really common sense.  If you're making an out of position weld in the shop or the field that you're qualified to make, moving the piece so that the slag can be removed, etc. is typically not an option.  What happens if the test piece is moved to remove the slag, and then there are issues with the weld? Is the welder going to fix those while he/she has the test piece out of position as well? A performance qualification test is specifically devised to determine a welders ability to produce sound welds.  This can't be fully determined if the test is moved out of position to remove slag.
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 04-30-2014 12:38
This may be a more interesting question than first appears. We, and I do include myself, QC types have a tendency to think in terms of rules, and rules are important, but in this case I am not convinced it is that important. Sometimes common sense needs to be maintained. The positionality is intended to test the welder. For example, we test welders in a 6G to cover all positions with full knowledge that the 6G is probably the least likely production position. So how important is it really to judge if a person can grind buff or file in the 6G?
If there is a verification that the test coupon is replaced in position as it should I just don't see this as that big a deal. Though in reality to me it seems more inconvenient to take it out of the fixture than to leave it in.
Parent - By Blaster (***) Date 04-30-2014 13:17
Moving the test piece might skew any time component of test completion, if that wasn't already factored in.  That may or may not be important to the employer. 

A bit OT but speaking of time limits, I watched a guy on a job site take a 3G and 4G structural plate test with inner shield for two and a half days.  Put it in, grind out 90%.  He did pass, was hired, got on the production work, put a couple weeks worth of bad welds, the inspectors caught up to his work, and he was fired when his production work couldn't pass UT.

Had the employer enforced a reasonable time limit on this test, I believe the outcome would have been entirely different.  Personally I like time limits.
Parent - - By kmaher Date 04-30-2014 13:27
Thanks your thoughts.  Would it be allowable to qualify a welder in the 6G position, while allowing the coupon to be removed for cleaning assuming that the piece is set back into the right orientation every time? I  know Washington State clearly states the test weldment cannot be moved until the test is over. But then again we are testing the welder ability to deposit sound weld metal, not cleaning.  I just want to have the right  source available when I go out.

thanks for the help

kyle
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 04-30-2014 13:49 Edited 04-30-2014 13:52
As mentioned above,  It seems to open the door to substandard talent.

It may be a reach... But is a weld pass complete if the slag is not removed?    My opinion is no.

If a welder is not competent to finish a weld pass by removing slag in test orientation in preperation for the next pass, then they are not competent to place that same weld in production.

You most certainly may demand directions that exceed the code for your testing.  Wisdom dictates that those extra instructions be in writing and clearly explained to the welders prior to the test.

Edit:
Are slag free weld passes a requirment in your quality manual?    If yes, than it's reasonable that your quality manual component is written into test procedures.
Parent - - By SCOTTN (***) Date 04-30-2014 14:02
Good points.  I don't allow a welder to move the test out of position to do anything, including removing slag.  As I said, once the slag is removed, if the weld needs some correction, what then? What if a groove weld isn't built up to at least flush with the top of a test plate, and it's not realized until the plate is removed from the test position and after the slag is cleaned? I agree if the welder is not competent enough to remove the slag while in the test position, I wouldn't deem them competent to place the same weld in the shop or the field.
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 04-30-2014 16:45
The issue may not be competence. It may be simply convenience. QC people (auditors too) are like government bureaucrats. The first thing you lose is your common sense.  The first thing you gain is your ability to justify unnecessary rigidity.
I am not saying I advocate such a practice but I don't dismiss it out of hand either.
Parent - - By SCOTTN (***) Date 04-30-2014 16:53
That explains why I keep hearing, "Here comes Scott and his elusive friend, common sense".
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 04-30-2014 17:07
All I'm saying is that we, in this forum, have a tendency to give best case scenario advice. Understandable considering that we often do not know who we are talking to and their circumstances. But perhaps a note of flexibility can be as helpful.
the OP now knows it is not a code requirement, has heard the reasoning form yourself and Lawrence. And an opposing view.
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 04-30-2014 16:52
Lawrence,
I also want to address the idea of 'substandard talent'.
What does this mean?
What is standard talent?
Those who can achieve the Code minimum?
We have already determined its not.
In reality you will at some time or another have to deal with 'substandard talent'. Especially during boom times.
The world is not full of golden arms.
I have seen many many instances where if you were not flexible you had no welders AT ALL!!!
I see my reject rates go up when I start to dip into the 'substandard talent' pool. In other words, when work booms. And the opposite is true also.
Parent - - By JTMcC (***) Date 04-30-2014 19:43
If you look at it from the point of view of the contractor, say bechtel is testing 140 welders over a few days, it's just economics that the coupons should be tacked in position and stay that way for the duration.
If you have one guy covering say 10+ welders testing in booths, and everybody is constantly moving the coupon to clean it up, some cat is going to try to cheat and pile some weld in while it's flat on the table. Plus it'll take forever.
Code requirement or not it's a very "practical" requirement for the qualifying company to take, in my opinion.

Most booths I've ever been in were poorly lit, I can see the advantage of getting a good look for small bits of left slag but still. I rarely go in a booth but it's always with a good flashlight.

In a similar vein, the Bridge Code requirement of only manual slag removal, is too me ridiculous. We've made quite a few thousand D1.5 field welds over the years and not nary a single one was cleaned with a circa. 1918 hand held wire brush and a chipping hammer.
It is what it is I guess.

Owners/Prime Contractors have the option of applying specs above and beyond any code requirement. When they do, in a practical real world manner, they get more welds, faster, at lower repair rates.
Those "above and beyond" requirements need to be spelled out clearly in bidding doc's, not arbitrarily imposed after the fact on an inspectors whim.
Just my take.

JT
Parent - - By kcd616 (***) Date 04-30-2014 22:28
JT
love to test for bechtel or fluor
just so I could kick the inspector and engineer in the butt
and tell them look at my resume
I worked for you 30 years ago
but I want the practice, for free:wink:
btw my first test was LA city
and only chipping hammer, wire brush, were allowed
and cheater was 1/8" tungsten keep it your pocket
sincerely,
Kent
Parent - - By JTMcC (***) Date 04-30-2014 22:50
Kent, you certainly have your problems.

You definitely didn't work for me 30 years ago.

30 years ago I was but a youngster, with no employees.

Next thing we know, you'll be saying I'm a nuclear spy, and only YOU know what I'm up too. Only you.

Good luck to you man, take those meds, and try to relax.

Please give the details for all those bechtel inspectors and engineers that you claim to have "KICKED IN THE BUTT"????
Be specific, otherwise it's simply another old guy blowing smoke on the interwebs.

You really aren't sincere when you type, sincerely, you're a dillusional phoney.

JT
Parent - - By kcd616 (***) Date 05-01-2014 03:04
JT
should I dig out 30 year old docs?????????????
and working with somebody for 6 months you might not remember their name
but if you need work Don Laughlin, needs hack rod burners
done with this thread
Kent
Parent - By JTMcC (***) Date 05-01-2014 16:58
Please do dig out those 30 year old docs Kent.

30 years back I was a kid, living on Ft. Knox, KY and wearing woodland camo every day. Or working on motorcycles at my Brothers shop, depending on what part of the year.
I think I'd remember if I had someone on the payroll for 6 months. If I'da had payroll money in those days, I'da run everybody off and spent it all on my Shovelhead : )

Maybe I was living in a parallel universe.

I'd love to see the documents you reference.

JT
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 04-30-2014 19:48
Good statement.

I think talent standards need to line up with work standards.

In my role, I try to convince plant managers to take people who "can't quite" meet our test requirements and hire them for other duties and train them *IF* they are convincing during the test that they show promise.

But to qualify for production (which is what most tests do in the manufacturing world)  I would rather write in specific instructions into the tests that speak to my production needs, even if they are outside the scope of the code.

I also agree that managers need *some* autonomy that can reflect to the level of talent applying if necessaery.... But that also demands a plan be put into place to train those who don't have what it takes to do things like chip slag in the overhead position.

Now if they are using a slag forming process and testing in the overhead position... and there is no overhead welding in production...  Than change the test.
Parent - By JTMcC (***) Date 04-30-2014 20:45
Exactly, the "code" has it's place (as a minimum requirement only). It might well be (probably is) too lenient for your actual workplace demands.

Not that it matters, but probably way less than 90% of the test's we've seen in my little bitty business over the years, have been solely to a code. Always additional requirements that some times actually apply to the work at hand. Sometimes not.
If not, then it's just an entrance fee with no real world application.
The latter we usually see imposed by an opinionated inspector who's grown just a bit too big for his britches (those can sometimes be circumvented via a mature discussion with the eor) and tries to impose his personal hangups. And doesn't really grasp the welds to be made on the job.

Either way, it's always been somewhat interesting.
Inspection is like my Dear Old Dad described a Good Wife. If you get a good one, there's nothing like it. If you get a bad one, there's nothing like it.

The Old Human Element : ), always present in this life.

JT
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Certifications / D1.1 6G Welder Qualification Moving test piece

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill