Weld Wire

Date 02-11-2015 19:52

Richard,

Your question leaves many areas undefined in order to produce a complete answer.

For example: the end of your question specifically states spec sheet/msds. So, is your concern for filler material specifications or is it for the msds log and knowing what the hazardous elements and/or conditions are? But, the simple sheet of paper that comes with rolls of wire electrode or in the package of stick electrodes is more than likely NOT what is being asked for.

Now, an answer to your question will also depend upon applicable codes, at least to a degree. The main consideration is if it is for Seismic application or not. In Seismic with Demand Critical welds there are additional requirements that can come into play.

OVERALL, AISC 14th ed, 16.1-118 (J2.6) states "The manufacturer's Certificate of Conformance shall be sufficient evidence of compliance." You can get these off line and they apply to every batch made under a specific product line for the manufacturer. AWS D1.1 is not as clear but does state that if the engineer requests the info the contractor is required to supply certification that the electrode used conforms to the job specs. The main place to always check is in the Contract Documents/Job Specifications. There can be requirements there that will clarify the engineer's desires for the job at hand.

So, in that exact situation, No, it does not make sense. One Certificate of Compliance will cover all the electrode made to that specification. IF you use the same electrode manufacturer and a particular product each time. If you change, you need to go online and get the applicable Cert for the new product.

BUT, if you need qualification for those pesky Seismic Demand Critical welds and are using special steels to boot, you start going down a dark and lonely path that will require further documentation. Sometimes the manufacturer has certs that will be acceptable to the engineer and other times it will require additional testing to prove CVN at the correct ft lbs and temperature, YS, TS, etc.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

By Blaster (***)

Date 02-11-2015 20:34

We have to maintain current certificates for all of the electrodes (and base metals) we use for welder testing under WABO Standard 27-13. This seems silly to me. If a manufacturer specifies an electrode as being "E71T-1M" or whatever, as far as I am concerned that is what it is. I don't see a purpose of an additional document stating the same thing all over again. If the manufacturer can't be trusted to sell only actual E71T-1M as E71T-1M, I don't see why the customer should find any reassurance in a second document stating again that what the manufactures claim is E71T-1M is in fact E71T-1. These certs could easily be fraudulently drawn up, same as the package and electrode markings, by an unscrupulous manufacturer.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 02-11-2015 21:09

AAHH yes, WABO, City of LA, and others. Always more exceptions that prove the rule, 'What is good enough, isn't'. They must have more just because as the Building Authority Having Jurisdiction they can.

BB

By JTMcC

Date 02-11-2015 21:38

It's the same as an MTR, just a little further justification including detailed test reports.
I guess a reputable consumable manufacturer could fake it, so could the steel/pipe mill, but they would be putting everything they own on the line.

It lays a defined line of responsibility in any negligence case that might arise, and protects everyone downstream from liability, from the welder holding the stinger to the eor.

Just another hoop, jump thru enough of them and you can actually build something : )
In my experience, the more hoops, the more compensation. So we really have come to like seismic hoop jumpin'. It eliminates all the non hoop jumpers.
Submit a bunch of documentation (that we have on hand), take a bunch of pictures (before/during/after), deal with heavy onsite QA (that only demands compliance to docs/codes), charge accordingy, more money only because the fly by nite bunch won't/can't do that little bit of compliance/documentation.

It's the workplace environment today (in many areas), and it only serves to weed out the hacks, and to provide a little better product to the owner.

J

By SCOTTN

Date 02-11-2015 21:43

I think it's worthy to point out that the reference that was made to 16.1-118 and the statement "The manufacturer's Certificate of Conformance shall be sufficient evidence of compliance" in the AISC 14TH ed. is in reference to filler metals with a specified minimum CVN toughness of 20 ft. lb. at 40° F or lower that must be used in (1)CJP tee and corner joints with steel backing left in place, subject to tension normal to the effective area, unless the joints are designed using the nominal strength and resistance factor or safety factor as applicable for PJP joints, and (2) CJP splices subject to tension normal to the effective area in heavy sections as defined in Sections A3.1c and A3.1d. After all that, it states "The manufacturer's Certificate of Conformance shall be sufficient evidence of compliance."

The addition of Section N in the 14th ed.of the AISC Manual, N3 item 6 (page 16.1.171) states nothing other than “for welding consumables, copies of manufacturers certifications in accordance with Section A3.5”

Then, Section A3.5 (page 16.1.9) lists 11 AWS filler metal and flux specifications, and further states that “manufacturer’s certification shall constitute sufficient evidence of conformity with the standards. Filler metals and fluxes that are suitable for the intended application shall be selected.

My experiences with QMC auditors have been that they review these manufacturer certs and they look to see if the cert complies with the most up to date specification that’s referenced on the COC, and they also look at the COC date to see how old it is. If the referenced spec on the COC is out of date, for example, if the referenced spec is AWS A5.18 2001, and the current spec is AWS A5.18 2005, that poses a problem that could result in a CAR. We’ve always updated our COC's once a year to avoid an issue during the audit. Just a thought.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 02-11-2015 21:54

You are absolutely right JT. And it does weed out many because they don't realize how simple of a record keeping system it is and how easy all of that paperwork is to get. I do understand what Blaster was saying though, with all of today's QC for manufacturers and suppliers and fabricators it really seems redundant. Which becomes one of those debates we get into often here on the forum about over the top inspections/inspectors and redundancy.

But you really hit it, it weeds out some of the less informed who really don't belong in that particular arena if they don't understand the basics while protecting those who are qualified with an extra layer of paper that basically just says they did their due diligence to make sure the job was done correctly. MTR's, Electrode Certs of Conformance, PQR's and WPS's, WPQR's, etc. Just confirms to the customer/engineer, public, and insurance that you know what you are doing and can document it.

While there are some requirements that will take a little more effort, for those like yourself who are counting on job after job to absorb those costs it pays off in the long run.

Hope all has been well for you. Must have been keeping busy since you haven't been around much.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent