Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Certifications / welder continuity
1 2 Previous Next  
- - By yrag Date 06-13-2014 19:24
I have a question about welder continuity. Section 4.1.3 states there can be no gaps in welding proces greater than 6 months. Does this mean that there must be continuity logs dating back to the original qualification? During my inspections some welders are qualified 10 years ago, but there is only evidence of continuity for a couple of years.
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 06-13-2014 19:36
That is a good question !
Parent - By jarsanb (***) Date 06-13-2014 20:51
I guess that depends on who is asking. Our state officials (who do audit our continuity records) require complete continuity records from the point of initial qualification. On one welder last year I actually found his original in a box stored on microfish from 1983 just before we started cutting out some welds. Continuity was fine. Just no record of what those were based on...
Parent - - By welderbrent (*****) Date 06-13-2014 20:55 Edited 06-13-2014 20:59
Yrag,

WELCOME TO THE AWS WELDING FORUM!!  Great question.

First, 4.1.3??  Which code are we talking about?  Let's proceed anyway:

Now then, show me where it says they have to be able to prove it to you.  Who is responsible for their honesty in continuity? 

Now that I have played devil's advocate and got the fire going in some...:lol: ,  look at D1.1 Clause 4.2.3.1 and 6.4 balancing both with 4.2.2 and 4.2.2.1 and especially 4.2.2.2 which says the Contractor is responsible for qualification whether they do it or an independent testing agency.  My main emphasis here is that this is part of the reason that each employer should be qualifying their people upon hiring.  That way your employment history is your main proof of continuity without major paperwork on the part of your QC people and/or taking other people's word for it. 

Now, barring this application of certification at hire, if all else fails you fall back on 6.4.2  Quality of Work.  If you truly have good grounds, repeated repairs, then insist on a retest.  Put it in your report and get the customer/engineer involved if needed.  Some jobs will require good paperwork but the code does not specify how this continuity is taken care of.  It does say who is responsible, the Contractor.

Remember: if you are a TPI, our job is to Observe and Report.  So, is the Contractor and their QC staff doing their job and making sure all welders are current?  We only make sure they are doing their job and our best witness is weld quality during production. 

If you are the in house, then you need to make sure your company procedures verify welder competency and continuity in some way because this is supposed to be submitted to the engineer for welders to be approved along with MTR's and Shop Drawings, and WPS's prior to beginning work.  Then, the TPI can easily review your process, procedures, and approvals and make sure that welders on job are those named as qualified and approved.

Finally, if they have continuity for the past two years, more than likely they are good to go.  But, not always I agree.  Some have viewed it as taxes and other legal documents, only keep records back a few years compared to the whole thing.  I have pushed to see employment history for the entire time even if that does not contain an actual continuity log of any kind.  As long as they worked for the company or any welding company they more than likely have continuity. This is usually prompted by indications of foul play in the form of repeated discontinuities requiring repair and/or very poor weld profiles. 

Now, after talking about the problem cases, I really love working at shops that are AISC approved fabricators and take it at least reasonably seriously.  Then you don't run into these problems.  A weld test is part of being hired and employment history is part of continuity but they put a new list out every quarter of current welders on the production floor.  So nice.

Note too the application mentioned by Jarsanb.  It will definitely depend upon the customer and thus the Job Specifications.  Many will indicate how they want it handled and state or other government agencies are pretty thorough.  You have to know your job specs as well as the code requirements.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 06-14-2014 00:15
Again why I like CWB W47

Mandatory performance requal every two years.

Continuity need only go back that far...

Simple and professional...//

Better than D1.1 in my opinion in at least 3 ways
Parent - By welderbrent (*****) Date 06-14-2014 00:40
You are right Lawrence,

And yet, D1.1 is trying to be a little easier to adhere to than say, D1.8 or D1.5.  Those also have different requirements of welder continuity.  D1.8 is 36 months. 

So it depends upon job criteria.  Does CWB have separate codes for seismic as compared to standard structural?  (just asking, not meant to be sarcastic or demeaning or...)  If they don't then I understand making the one standard better than our 'basic' model.

You know it but let's lay it out again, D1.1 is a minimum standard that is based upon increasing the probability of successful weld project completion based upon years of experience that says that if we mandate these items at a minimum we stand a proportionately increased chance of attaining a worthy product that will do what is expected of it. 

And no one system is perfect.  There is always room for improvement.

My main complaint about the system is to review who serves on the current committees for D1.1.  Mostly big fabricator representatives and others who are not on the inspections side of the system.  They have been stonewalling or lowering many of the portions of D1.1 for years because the QC arena is not equally represented.  Most of us are small companies with no time and/or money to GIVE to volunteer committee service.  If we could get a number of people to serve because we all contributed to a pot that would at least pick up our expenses we may have enough influence to change some things in what we see to be a positive direction without putting undo added burdens on Contractors.

Want an education in the process, when at FabTech go to a committee meeting.  Even if it's D14.  It will change your view of how the codes are worked over.  And, you can get PDH's for it. 

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - - By 46.00 (****) Date 06-16-2014 07:22
What is CWB W47?
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 06-16-2014 11:38
The exact proper term is "CSA W47.1 Certification of Companies for Welding Steel"

CSA W59 Welded Steel Construction Metal Welding is the complementary manual to AWS D1.1 in many regards.

The Canadian Welding Bureru certifies companies as well as welders...  If you want to play their game you pretty much need a quality system...  Something D1.1 does not require.
Parent - By welderbrent (*****) Date 06-18-2014 16:53
Nice link Glyn.  Thanks.

If I tend to harp on the Seismic Codes it is because I see them as a completing of a system under the conditions when they are most appropriate.  That type of mandate is not always needed.  My two tin pennies worth of explanations is that this is why D1.1 is more 'lax' than the Seismic Codes or the CWB.  It is allowing room for lower Requirements when not as needful in order to complete the job successfully.  The committees recognized the differences to insure the highest possible success ratio while not bringing factors into play that would cause undo burdens for the job at hand. 

You can't compare codes without taking many factors into consideration.  The CWB appears to be a one size fits all.  But, I don't really know it.  I asked but no one said, do they have seismic codes?  Or do they rely on the one to cover everything.  If they only have one, then don't just compare with D1.1.  You must add D1.8 in order to get a full comparison.

For the everyday, how much howling would we hear from those who already complain about our application of D1.1 if they had to adhere to D1.8 as well.  :eek:  Boy would it get things in an uproar. 

Sure, Canada has a system which makes many things easy as it puts it all together in a program that appears clearer than D1.1.  But, it doesn't give freedom to use procedures that while workable in this situation may not be in the next.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - By welderbrent (*****) Date 06-16-2014 22:54
Added note, Lawrence, again I find that requirement in D1.8 and the AISC Seismic Design Manual.  Those codes take D1.1 to greater heights with more complete conditions of working requirements. 

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 06-16-2014 19:18
If a person has been producing satisfactory work for a two year period why would it be a good idea to test them again?

If it were assumed that we get worse as we gain experience then maybe someone should snatch up all the welders right out of school!

Monitor performance on a regular basis and the need to retest would go away.

I think sometimes we make a VERY BIG deal out of a process that can be fairly simple. In reality,  what is another 6G coupon using the acceptance criteria in most codes , do to verify my abilities. What if I have that ONE bad start and stop at the bend ? LOSE MY JOB?

The codes in and of themselves are not a replacement for a suitable quality system for welding. Yes I do think quality and performance need to be monitored and when questionable, closely scrutinized, and if possible corrected. But I am not sure about code required retesting being anything other than the ability to make a big "to do" about nothing.

As a welder I think it is somewhat silly that I need to verify my skills on almost every job when travelling, yet many other trades and supervisors are seldom check to see what they can really do.

Of course only an opinion. Individual organizations should develop systems that work for their business. If that means pencilling a job number in on the back of a QW484 with a date. Then so be it.

Or even better yet, a statement made similar to

"Based upon job requirements and current hourly work history, Gerald Austin has welded with the SMAW process on a daily basis since original qualification date of XXXX"  That meets most of the codes I'm aware of.

Just some thoughts.

Gerald
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 06-16-2014 20:10
All I can say is that "I'm livin the dream" of manditory requalification and have come to see value in it.

Admittedly we are not doing 6G pipe work with our employee talent getting top dollar...

I've worked for two different organizations now that have required recurrent welder testing;  and I can say without hesitation that there is value and that whether its the aging workforce or other factors.... Those tests did identify people who needed help that they were not getting through other quality system avenues.
Parent - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 06-18-2014 11:38
I think there are some cases where is valuable.  Positions where welding isn't performed on a regular basis, Project specification changes that introduce varying acceptance criteria, and maybe when you get old blind and far like me.

Gerald
Parent - - By dbigkahunna (****) Date 06-14-2014 00:32
Using Section IX the continuity is 6 months from initial qualification for the contractor. If you are working for Joe Blow and the initial qualification was 5 years ago, continuity has to be proved from 5 years ago.
As the inspector if I am handed a continuity log with initial welder certification papers from the owner or QC I have to accept it.
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 06-17-2014 12:35
kahuna,
This is incorrect.
Section IX does not specify continuity shall be maintained to that extent.
Parent - - By CWI7611 (**) Date 06-16-2014 17:12
I used to be an inspector for a Gas Transmission and Distribution Company before retiring after 37 years. I loved going into ASME PV fabricators and asking for continuity reports on their welders. You first get that blank stare then they realize you are serious. I usually didn't ask for every welder's continuity. I would just pick out some stencils on some of the welders working on our projects. One of the problems that occurred was they would usually provide you a stack of papers that didn't even pertain to the welder or they wouldn't have a copy of the welding procedure included. Sometimes they would provide continuity reports for welders you didn't ask for. They were always able to find satisfactory records but they always seemed to be insulted that I had the audacity to ask for the records in the first place. Those were some of the more enjoyable days.

What I always liked was a paragraph in DOT Part 192.229(b) that states that no welder may weld with a particular process unless, within the preceding six months, he has engaged with welding with that particular process. I always wondered, if I had a welder arrive for a test and he hadn't welded for the last six months was I violating the Code by allowing him to test with a process that he hadn't welded with in the last six months. I'm joking of course but read literally would the code be violated?

I think that users or Owners are beginning to see the light about record keeping for welders. We had local union welders qualified for years by continuity reports in the past. But on our major projects most of the welders would travel in with the contractor or be dispatched from the hall, UA-798. Usually when those projects ended we would never see those welders again. If the records were not kept together with the project files there were no records that the welders were ever tested. What really frosted me on one job was that the welders were not properly tested. The inspector said the state inspector had accepted them. I told him the welders were not qualified from the data that had been recorded on the WQR. A report was written and properly distributed to the powers that be and nothing happened till one of the welders was released from the job and went to another job and the TPI reviewed the report and made him test again in accordance with the Standard API-1104. Guess what, when I returned to the project I was asked to review the WQR's again and all the records were somehow mysteriously found to be correct. This was only about three months after the error had been found. It was so inspiring to find that I had so much support from my management. Someone pencil whipped the reports so that the records would be acceptable. I had copies of the original reports for some time after the job had ended. No one asked. The job should have been shut down and all the welders tested properly. I guess there was some cost involved that prevented that from happening. Most of the time everything is OK but once in a while you find that glaring mistake that has the possibility to cause a significant violation of the codes. Just be careful.

Worse than that was the fact that the WPS's were usually reviewed prior to the start of fabrication and finding errors on the WPS's. We required impact testing on the welds on a project one time and required them on test welds on the materials that they were providing. They went ahead and started fabrication prior to qualifying the weld. Guess what, the impacts on the parent material failed. Obviously this created a s**t storm and I had to give them a solution with approval from our project engineer.
Parent - - By JTMcC (***) Date 06-16-2014 21:22
Welder Continuity always seemed sort of an oxymoron to me.

J
Parent - - By JTMcC (***) Date 06-16-2014 21:35
Pipewelder_1999 says:

"As a welder I think it is somewhat silly that I need to verify my skills on almost every job when travelling, yet many other trades and supervisors are seldom check to see what they can really do."

Joe the Welders last job may of been across the country, and he might of been run off for repairs, or need a new prescription to see the pipe, or his machine (if a rig welder) might be too jacked up to push a bead in there, or maybe he's developed a bad case of the shakes, or maybe his main squeeze is good with a computer and whipped up some nice looking welder qual papers.
So in my slice of welding land, I see the importance of testing.

Common Arc and the UA building trades papers are a step foreward (in my opinion) but only cover a small percentage.

In a steady job in a shop not so much.

But there's a fringe point, when Bechtel receives let's say 2k for every welder tested, and they test 800 to get 75 (and all 75 are retest's), a small profit center is born out of previously thin air : )

J
Parent - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 06-18-2014 12:14
I will have to say that from a welders standpoint,  Commonarc is great. As an experienced inspector,  it's a few knowledgeable people from company x and y that kniw what's going on and " company representatives" that Jane no clue what ASME Sec IX says. 

And it does little to verify the ability or skills after initial qualifications unless someone has not worked with a participating contractor.

I think every company should verify the ability of their welders.  Both up front and after the fact.  I do not think that should be a code requirement but instead part of their "control of special processes" part of their manual. There is just so much more to welding quality control than going through another round of tests.

If inspectors (especially tpi's) put as much effort into climbing steel, getting in the pipe rack, actually monitoring compliance, then the need for "retesting" to give us the "warm fuzzy" would be meaningless. 

With a good QC program, welders not performing can be located,  additional training provided, or become welding instructors :).

Have a good one brother. 

Gerald Austin
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 06-17-2014 12:44
Welder continuity is one of those functions that has grown to a proportion, in most programs, that is WAY beyond its value. I would go so far as to say it is stupid. But that's just my opinion. It certainly allows auditors to be as anal as gets their motor running, and get all giddy as they wax on about maintaining a proper program.
My program has been driven to a point of being asinine by auditors and customer reps who, not knowing schyt about welding can find something to harp on and make them feel good.
However, understanding what the minimum requirements ACTUALLY SAY, is a sobering experience.
The jist of most codes and standards is simply that you have to do it. They do not specify how you do it. And they don't care. They fully understand the silliness that can come from getting carried away with it.
I have watched an entire governing body program crash and burn because of anal retentive silliness like this.
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 06-17-2014 12:55
CWI17611,
So essentially what you are saying is that your were an azzhole. "I loved going into ASME PV fabricators and asking for continuity reports on their welders. You first get that blank stare then they realize you are serious."
Why would you have an attitude such as that?
And if you are talking about an ASME PV fabricator (Section VIII) as I am one, I would ask you to show me where it says I have to do what you are insisting upon.
Here's a clue. You won't find it in ASME Section VIII, IX, III (for nukes) or the B31's.
You as an customer rep can certainly impose it upon my program. As many have. But don't try and convince me its Code.
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 06-17-2014 13:01
There seems to be a great deal of confusion here about what the Codes and standards actually say and what we have gotten in the habit of thinking they say.
It is actually a point of humor for me that the ignorance of an auditor about welding and Code requirements is directly proportional to how anal he gets over continuity.
Parent - - By CWI7611 (**) Date 06-18-2014 04:55
Oh yeah, I read your second post too. And yes I probably did get a little anal on occasions but I knew it was MY anus that was on the line when the product hit the jobsite. You wouldn't like something coming back to your shop because the nozzle was on the back side instead of the front side. That's the kind of stuff I used help with. We usually didn't have time to send something back for rework. If things were not right when something got to the jobsite it cost money. I argued with our engineering department for hours one day to get them to add a 2" nozzle to a 2 1/4" thick vessel head so the PV shop could x-ray the closing seam with one shot using Iridium instead of three shots with cobalt.

You know what, if you were paying my wages I would go to the mat for you. Loyalty and honesty means a lot to me and I think it does to you too. I would fight every bit as hard for you as I did for my company.

If you're still upset, I did the best I could.
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 06-18-2014 13:06
CWI,
I'm not upset.
Parent - - By jarsanb (***) Date 06-17-2014 17:07
In CWI17611 defense, there are other requirements in play on occassion. Potentially in this case C.F.R 192 and State Utility commission added rules may have been in play. Even though they referense ASME IX for procedure and welder qualifications they still have requirements that proceed those. One would be continuity records and/or periodic testing which maintains initial qualifications. Now if someone is in a state that interprets this differently, or has not added rules to federal requirements - great. But most ASME shops that win bids for the company I work for fail miserably at complying with original contract specifications and think ASME trumps everything. Things that get over looked - 192.229, 241, 245 and specific material grade requirements for preheat in specifications...ASME does not trump these requirements, at least in my neck of the woods. BTW...I'm not suggesting that this is your stance, just that I see CWI17611's comments a little differently. This post has gotten a little generalized regarding requirements.
Parent - By welderbrent (*****) Date 06-17-2014 17:18
And as many of our posts tend to get long enough to lose the impact of that brief defining point it is worth mentioning all by itself:

More often than not,  PROOF of welder continuity for the TPI is mostly a matter of both their and the Contractors Contract Documents.  What do the Job Specifications call for?

This will often reflect the policies and procedures of the Customer especially if they are any variation of one of the multitude of Government entities that purchase products in any form. 

It is so often a matter of expressing how they want the Code to be applied for their satisfaction of product quality.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 06-17-2014 17:40
jars,
Be careful when you use the word trump. ASME when it is invoked must be complied with in total. Other bodies may add to it or be more robust. But there is no authority that allows exceptions to its requirements. Of course, you can always take exception to anything in ASME, but then it isn't ASME and you can't claim as such.
Parent - - By jarsanb (***) Date 06-17-2014 17:56
Fair enough. Let's try this...sometimes ASME fabricators ignore specific job specifications and/or supplementary requirements, at least in my experience. To the point of arrogance. We had one issue regarding welder qualification, welding procedure compliance and ispection go to litigation - cuts outs due to documentation. Contractor lost.
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 06-17-2014 18:16
jars,
Clearly contract requirements cannot be ignored. My experience has been as yours. But I have also seen customers who did not even know their own specs, (I once went to a meeting to get an azz chewing by a customer only to find out we were operating to the latest rev and they were not). I constantly communicate with customers that do not know the Code. And as many instances of fabricators ignoring specifications are instances of customers expecting something that is not there.
They lose.
It is not an insubstantial part of my responsibility to diplomatically assist clueless customers. In fact, I did that very thing this morning where they assumed something was in the Code that was not. Fortunately this was in the quote stage. And we caught it. But the problem is I cannot anticipate all ignorance's.
And arrogant inspectors coming in here do not make the cooperation necessary for a profitable business relationship easy. It only serves to feed their ego.
And I am not without ammunition. If an arrogant inspector wishes to run roughshod then he better have his quotes in hand. Because if he is imposing his opinion then the costs of that opinion will be related to the customer and then they will be the arbiter.
Parent - - By CWI7611 (**) Date 06-18-2014 04:24
Seems you have a very good handle on the use of the English language and believe me I have been called worse, just like water off a ducks back. You must have been having either some very questionable inspectors or some poor shop practices. My company usually sent one of their employee inspectors to the shops and have only recently in the last few years began to use TPI's. I think most of the shops appreciated a company that was concerned enough about the product that they sent their own employee to do the inspections.

And I'm probably one of the biggest one you would ever have seen. I think it's better to be one than to have your head up one. Bet you get along very well with inspectors. Yeah, I probably did get into a few shops like yours. Fortunately, I had an engineering department that listened to advice that came along well before me and had a pretty good specification, you can read that as contract document, if you have difficulty understanding that as a fabricator. It seems that many of them do. The specifications also did evolve over the years to stay current. It is good to have an AI who thoroughly reviews documentation from the fabricator then misses plate, heads, and other materials identification. As an example, a head specified as ASTM 516 Gr70 and stamped Gr60. Of course the shop traveler was proper initialed by the AI. Let me think a while about who pays him???

Apparently you read my post as well as Owner specifications. I did not say that it was a Code requirement. Of course, I will also defend you as I did not say it was in my specification either. Oh yeah, I forgot to say that many fabricators wouldn't read the specification either. Most of them did after the first visit though so I can say that they improved after my first visit. Usually after that I would begin to see notes on the shop drawings. I will go on to say this, many times our specification was still in the vendors engineering and not in the production or fabricating area where they should have been. You can't do the work to the customers satisfaction unless you have his specification.

I will say this, I was never asked to leave a shop and was always welcomed back. I also had a bad habit of offering advice to the PV shop where I could. I also failed to say that I LOVED going into a shop that did have their ducks in a row. Most of them usually did. Probably never had anything fabricated in your shop though.

Thanks jars. You knew about our Standard Operating Procedures. Unfortunately they are depending too much on TPI's now. Payday will come, remember Ray III.

I'm sorry js55, I'm having a bad day. I usually don't give comments like yours much time. I just don't think this is the place for that but I thought I would make an exception just for you. I really don't think your a bad guy, I don't know you but I have read some of your posts and have refrained from commenting.
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 06-18-2014 13:03
CWI,
A rather winded response for one making a point about refraining and making exceptions.  And yet in none of the 6 or so paragraphs did you address what was essentially the jist of my critique.

"I loved going into ASME PV fabricators and asking for continuity reports on their welders. You first get that blank stare then they realize you are serious".
How else would anyone take this other than your taking pleasure in the distress of others.

Thoroughness was never at issue. Attitude was.

And as for inspectors, it is rare indeed that I don't get along with them. In fact, I have many of 'them' working for me. Cooperation is the life blood of good business relationships. Our AI and ANI (currently two separate individuals) are as thorough as any inspectors with which I have had the pleasure of working. This is not a problem. However, I happen to have one in house right now that has little to no knowledge of materials specifications, his own specifications, or the Code, and yet he seems to 'love', as you do, the distress caused by imposing his will.
Sure, I have a problem with that. And somehow this is a critique of myself?
Odd.
Parent - - By CWI7611 (**) Date 06-19-2014 03:48 Edited 06-19-2014 03:54
I never imposed my will. I just tried to get the product my company was paying for. Thank you for complimenting me on my "winded" reply. You don't know me but I was not one of THOSE inspectors. I have had to deal with THOSE inspectors who tried to impose their will on contractors and we have always worked those problems out, either by reaching an understanding or finding a replacement. I never compromised my standards by lettings things slide or imposing my "will" on contractors or vendors. The unfortunate thing for you as a vendor is that if you go to the client and explain what a putz the inspectors is the client may think "Hey, this guy must be doing a great job. We need him on all our inspection jobs". I heard about these inspectors from lots of vendors. The guy shows up for about an hour in the morning, creates a storm, then you don't see him till the next day or several days later. Vendors, fabricators, and contractors deserve better.

I know I probably used a bad choice of words when I said "loved", but sometimes it was funny to see that look, I know, pissed you off again. I think you and I would probably get along fine. I do know the code and I did know my company's specification. I do know that making the vendor do things outside of the code or specifications costs money and in that case I think the vendor should be compensated. I didn't have time for those mistakes.

In your favor, I think that welder qualifications should be transferable from one shop to another. You can test them if you want to but if they come in with qualifications and you know them from past experience why not accept a transferable qualification. The industry I worked in, the Owner or his representative has to witness the welder qualification testing. This is a requirement from a DOT incorporated by reference standard section, API 1104.

I know that you probably review the client specifications prior to submitting the bid, I don't think all vendors do or as I said the engineers or estimators do and that information never gets to the guy doing the work. And that includes the shop foreman or supervision.

Respond if you want but I'm putting this dog to bed. Spent too much time on this already.
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 06-19-2014 12:13
CWI,
Pissed? LOL!!!
No
Been coming in here for a few years and have never been pissed.

Get along?
Absolutely.
Doesn't keep me from being direct and saying what I think even if those whom I get along with might have preferred I said otherwise.

Poor choice of words?
Agreed.
But its not like I don't choose words poorly from time to time. If you yap enough (and I do) at some point you will.
- - By 803056 (*****) Date 06-19-2014 15:40
There have been some excellent points made in this thread.

I always warn new CWIs that their job is to ensure the contract and the code is met by the contractor. They are the eyes and the ears of the Engineer when they are acting as a verification/third party inspector. They report their findings to the Engineer/client and let them make the determination whether to accept the condition "as is" or to require a repair. I warn the new CWI that while they may have an opinion on a subject, that opinion should be expressed to the Engineer or the client, not to the contractor. Generally the inspector's opinions do not belong in a written report.

I like to tell the new inspector that if they cannot point to a specific code requirement, they should keep quiet. When they do find support in the code, they should be able to reference the specific clause with the code in hand, not based on their recollection.

Human's have egos and unfortunately that ego can become an obstacle to a career as an inspector. All decisions must be based on the applicable code. If the code is quiet on a subject, the inspector cannot invoke requirements based on previous jobs or experience. A good example would be the inclination to reject a welded pressure vessel because of the presence of undercut. Since Section VIII has no criteria for undercut, i.e., the word does not appear in the acceptance criteria for welds, one cannot reject the undercut. However, there is a provision addressing "base metal thinning due to the manufacturing process." That is the provision the inspector can use to evaluate the weld. The same is true with regards to welder continuity. If the code or the project specification does not define the method of establishing continuity, the contractor can use any method they deem suitable. The inspector should simply relay the information to the Engineer or the client and let them make the determination if the method is acceptable.

It is interesting to note that a number of inspectors take on authority and responsibilities that are not bestowed by the code or project specification. They do so at risk of their reputation and career.

Best regards - Al
Parent - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 06-19-2014 19:06
Good Commments Al.

As with another book. Speak where it speaks, remain silent where it is silent. Provide Commentary only where asked and understand that your comments or opinions may or may not be helpful or even desired.

Gerald
- - By yrag Date 07-02-2014 16:32
Interesting,

   Lots of interesting responses and some dumb ones too, but no one was able to answer the question. Not sure why there were so many refences to ASME, 4.3.1 is in D1.1

Thanks to those who tried.
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 07-02-2014 16:36
yrag,
The answer is no.
Parent - By welderbrent (*****) Date 07-02-2014 16:40
Well, until now you never came back to clarify that we were indeed dealing with D1.1 in order to answer your question.  And, your initial reference was typed wrong.

Now, the answer is 'NO' . 

But, as usual, there is no simple one word answer to code questions.  And there are many applications that must be considered that can change the pure answer from the code itself. 

But, as another newbie came here only to 'school' those they were seeking advice and direction from, the answer remains, NO.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - By Lawrence (*****) Date 07-02-2014 16:49
Oh yeah,

We are all on pins and needles waiting for your next question now.
Parent - - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 07-02-2014 17:58
Interesting,

There is no such item as a "Continuity Log" that I am aware of referenced at all in AWS D1.1. I am not sure the word "Continuity" is used.

Para 4.3.1 in my code (D1.1-2010 Pg 126) makes absolutely no reference to "Period of Effectiveness"

I am not sure what responses were dumb. Not sure why you are asking the question regarding the additional references. Its hard to know what someone is thinking when they are trying to help someone out. Often times discussions here can get quite detailed. It makes for interesting search results when you just lookup a topic.

Gerald
Parent - - By SCOTTN (***) Date 07-02-2014 19:09
The commentary states that it's been prepared to generate a better understanding in the application of the code.  As we know, and as Gerald said, continuity and continuity log are not used in D1.1.  The commentary only states that the period of effectiveness subclause controls the expiration date of a welder's qualification, and that the qualification remains in effect for six months beyond the date that the welder last used the welding process.  This is a little more information than 4.2.3.1 provides, and documented continuity is needed to verify compliance.
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 07-02-2014 20:48
Scott,
Documentation is needed perhaps but not required by Code.
Parent - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 07-02-2014 21:28
Yup. If the company who certified an individual employs that person on a daily basis as a welder and no other contract documents exist requiring any other form of verification, its a hard way to go to say they are not still within their "period of effectiveness".

There have been a few inspectors when I have been on the fabricators/contractor end that have had an impossible time forcing me to supply a "Continuity report" for a contract that only referred to D1.1 with no additional requirements. I referred them to continuous employment records from the date of test.

Its a crazy crazy world.

But of course if it weren't for some of these perceptions and wives tales, many would be jobless. So much for the inspector sitting in the office for 4 hours at the end of each month "Updating the continuity report".

Have a great day.

Gerald
Parent - - By SCOTTN (***) Date 07-03-2014 11:57 Edited 07-03-2014 12:16
js55, I understand that and I agree.  My post said "needed".  It didn't say "required", but how else can an individual who is reviewing project documentation verify continuity without continuity documentation? In my structural experience, for several years now, continuity logs are always asked for, along with welder certs, for review and subsequent filing, for future reference, if needed.  The AISC auditors have also asked to see the continuity log.  As we all agree, nothing is mentioned in the code regarding a continuity log, so technically, you can give someone your word that continuity has been verified, but in my experience, they've not asked me to tell them continuity is being verified.  They want to see documentation. 

Edit: I did a search on the AISC website's Engineering FAQ page, https://www.aisc.org/DynamicTaxonomyFAQs.aspx?id=1892 and this was the only thing I found regarding the period of effectiveness, which is mentioned in the last paragraph. 

SEARCH IN FAQS

8.6.3. What constitutes sufficient evidence of qualification of welding procedures and personnel?

AWS D1.1:2004 Section 4 covers two types of welding procedures, prequalified and qualified; as well as the qualification of welders, welding operators, and tackers. With prequalified procedures, as described in AWS D1.1:2004 Section 3, project-specific qualification by weld procedure testing is not required. However, procedures that deviate from tolerances described therein must be qualified by weld procedure testing as indicated in AWS D1.1:2004 Section 4.1.1. Such testing is time-consuming and costly, and may be repetitious if similar joints have already been tested for previous projects. Likewise, arbitrary re-qualification of personnel, as sometimes specified in contract documents, may unjustifiably increase the cost of welded construction.

As stated in AWS D1.1:2004 Section 4.1.1, properly documented evidence of previous qualification of joint welding procedures should be accepted without re-qualification. Additionally, properly documented evidence of previous qualification of welders, welding operators, and tackers should be accepted without re-qualification, provided that the period of effectiveness has been maintained as described in AWS D1.1:2004, Section 4.1.3.1.
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 07-03-2014 14:00
Scott,
It is my contention that if one had the time and the inclination to challenge auditors asking for that which is not required one would justifiably win. I mean, if an auditor issued a corrective action for something that is not only not required but not even mentioned, on what basis would they refuse your challenge and thereby withhold certification?
I mean, other than them saying something synonymous with 'because we're the mommy that's why".
Or better, 'because that is the way we have always done it".
Or, and this gets good, if you don't, how do you go about verifying that you have complied with the Code?
So, are you saying that I must have documented verification that I have complied with EVERY SINGLE REQUIREMENT in the Code?
No?
Then why this one in particular?
See 'always done it' above.

OK. How about a C of C?

On the other hand, even though I am making these arguments I myself have a program in place that documents continuity. But I do it because my customers require it and it is thereby a contract requirement.
As for the governing bodies and their enforcement of a 'rectumus extracticus' requirement, it is best to let sleeping dogs lie. Hmmm. Is there a double entendre in there?  :twisted:
Parent - By SCOTTN (***) Date 07-03-2014 14:29
I absolutely agree with you regarding challenging an auditor.  If asked for and not documented, the auditor has no case, and a CAR could not be justified.  It's just never gotten to that point with me because although not required, I have maintained documentation because it's always been part of a package of documents we send to the EOR on each of our projects, because they typically ask for it.  I think that it's bullschyt! as well, and I don't really care much for it.  I have it on an Excel spreadsheet and I'm alerted a week before the 6 month period expires on a welder, so it doesn't take a lot of effort to maintain it.
Parent - - By welderbrent (*****) Date 07-02-2014 23:09
Sorry, all it takes to meet D1.1 requirements is my verbal word on either myself or any employee.  No written documentation is even insinuated. 

Having said that, I usually have outside inspectors initial the back of my original cert papers to verify continuity.  Just one of those beyond a shadow of a doubt and conflict of interest things that I do.  But nothing requires that of me. 

Until someone gets it in their mind to define these terms and make an application to them within the code it is very slippery ground to try to cause any problems with welder continuity verification in a written format. 

It's one of those 'acceptable unless you can prove otherwise' provisions.  Your best fallback is to watch every welder very carefully at the beginning of a job and challenge those who are constantly requiring repairs to welds, especially CJP's. 

Now, knowledgeable engineers will include wording in the Contract Documents that will help their TPI out in this area. 

I'll get my AISC Construction Manual from my car here in a bit but I don't recall any wording there to change this either.  

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 07-03-2014 10:14
brent,
The Codes are not inclined to 'get it into their minds' because the requirements are as they intend. Something there to provide a minimal standard of continuance. It is QC types and audit types that make every attempt to turn continuity into some grand and complicated system where numerous I's must be dotted and numerous T's must be crossed so that the slightest oversight can be grounds for the justification of existence, the dreaded non-conformance and corrective actions. In other words, what the Codes look at as a reasonable foundation others turn into monstrosities of stupidity!! Compliance for compliance sake with no real purpose, i.e. bullschyt!
Parent - - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 07-03-2014 12:55
I agree Brent.

I do not know that some method within a written quality control system for verifying and maintaining the period of effectiveness for welders is a bad idea. Its just not what is required by D1.1. I have often suggested to fabricators when questioned to review the individual employment records to ,verify that based upon their daily job tasks, that they have at least struck an arc with the process. If pressed by an inspector with no basis other than D1.1 to just write a statement on the record of qualification indicating period of effectiveness has been maintained. No further evidence is required.

If a contractor has already been approved including their quality system, who am I as an inspector to require something that is absolutely not required by the code.

It should have been addressed in the contract and if there is a reason to question the ability of a welder to make a weld, there are other methods. I think much of this is about paper shuffling QC types worried more about the papers  than getting out there and climbing around seeing what is going on.

Gerald
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Certifications / welder continuity
1 2 Previous Next  

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill