Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Certifications / welder qualification
- - By mjf (*) Date 08-17-2005 15:27
we are working now on a offshore jacket construction project, one of my welder is qualified 6GR for T,K and Y joints; as his qualification is 1year and two mounths old, he has been pull off the project by the inspector who said that the welder must be requalified one year after.
how can you help me in ASME section IX or AWS D1.1?
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 08-17-2005 15:48
Virtually any "qualified" person can sign the WPS/PQR.

Standard WPS' may be purchased through the AWS (Actually Global Engineering I believe). Standard WPS' or SWPS' do not include the PQR but references PQR numbers, the actual PQR's are supplied by industry and evaluated for completeness and accuracy by the Welding Research Council (WRC). If deemed appropriate they are then submitted to B2.1 Committee for development of an SWPS (this last part is my own intepretation of how the system works, beginning with the words... "If deemed appropriate...).
Parent - - By - Date 08-17-2005 16:29
Hi Jon,
Isn't the person that actually witnessed the PQR the only person that can sign it as being factual? I mean, how can someone sign the PQR if they were not there to personally witness the welding? The WPS, being the transcribed data directly from the PQR, and having been witnessed by the person signing the PQR, can be signed by any qualified person. Is this correct?

Chuck
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 08-17-2005 17:00
Chuck, ordinarily I agree completely with you however in this instance, I have to offer an example:

PQR test variables may be recorded by:

a). Shop Formen
b). A Senior Welder
c). QC Inspector
d). CWI
e). Consultant
(take your pick)

The actual PQR may be signed by any person who is authorized within the company to do so. It need not necessarily be the one who witnessed/recorded the variables. In my own shop, it is most often myself but I may chose to delegate it to another CWI however it is only myself and the Vice President of QA in my company who are authorized to sign the WPS/PQR. In signing the PQR/WPS I naturally assume responsibility for it's correctness and accuracy so if recording information is delegated it pays to scrutinize the information!

Sorry for disagreeing!
Parent - - By - Date 08-17-2005 18:15
Hey my Friend,
Please never feel bad about disagreeing with me. I'm sure you know more about this stuff than I do, anyway. :-)
I was just looking in Section IX, Article II, QW-200.1 and QW 200.2 that talks about "manufacturers and contractors" responsibilities on preparing the WPS and PQR. I cannot find where it specifically says who is capable to sign the forms. In QW-201 it seemed, just to me, that the recorded variables would be listed by a member of the manufacturer or contractor. I just figured, apparently I was wrong, that the person recording the welding of the PQR would be the logical person to sign it for validity. Hey, I learn something every day. Thanks, buddy !!!

Chuck
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 08-17-2005 18:47
Chuck;

Your knowledge so far outweighs mine, I am but a shadow in your greatness, lol!!! Unless I recollect wrongly, I believe the Codes used to have specifics in there about who did what, but it got to be such a jumbled up argument that I believe the philosophy now is simply "any competant person" who naturally has to be a designated representative of the company, manufacturer, etc., etc., even if they operate as a consultant.
Parent - By - Date 08-17-2005 19:07
Jon,
You're killing me !!! :-) I need to stick with what I know best..stainless steel welding and engineering. The Code books are not my strongest point, so I need to leave that alone. In the future, I will refer any questions to folks like yourself who know it a lot better than I do. Thanks for setting me straight..

Chuck
Parent - - By GRoberts (***) Date 08-18-2005 04:27
ASME does not specifically require anyone to sign the WPS/PQR. It just requires a certification statement on the PQR. As long as the PQR is an official company document, the company is saying that it comples by the certification statement- signature or not. Most companies have a policy in place to sign them though. Some end users would probably ask for that as well.
Parent - By jon20013 (*****) Date 08-18-2005 09:51
Correct. The format "seems" to indicate a place of signature but I do agree, none is actually specified.
Parent - By dlmann (**) Date 08-18-2005 12:01
Ref GRoberts above:
"Most companies have a policy in place to sign them though."
I think this would be a good indicator of what kind of quality program is in place regarding PQR's and WPS's.
Regards, Donnie Mann
Parent - - By - Date 08-18-2005 12:26
QW-483 "Suggested Format For Procedure Qualification Record (PQR)"
"See QW-201.2, Section IX, ASME, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code"
"Record Actual Conditions used to Weld test Coupon"
"ASME Procedure Qualification Record"

This is what is written on the suggested PQR form from ASME Section IX.

On the back of this PQR form, right below where the test data is recorded, there is this statement, "We certify that the statements in this record are correct and the test welds were prepared, welded, and tested in accordance with the requirements of Section IX of the ASME Code" To be signed by the manufacturer.
By__________________________ Date___________________

Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 08-18-2005 13:11
Chuck, I agree that is the statement on the back of QW-483 but I'm not sure what version you are seeing the words "To be signed by the manufacturer"? In my 2004 edition those words do not appear. Admittedly one would logically think to certify would require a signature, but that's the stuff of legal debate, not technical... without better defination it may be a typed name, a rubber stamp, etc., etc., the bottom line is the company that accepts and uses the PQR is responsible for it.
Parent - - By - Date 08-18-2005 13:24
Hi Buddy,
Not to seem argumentative, but if it has the statement, " We certify that the statements in this record are correct, etc. etc....." and says
By__________________ Date_______________
Doesn't that sort of lead us to believe that a signature is needed? I totally agree that it can be a typed name, signature, rubber stamp, etc., but I believe, again I'm probably wrong, that some name of a person has to certify that the information is correct. Jon, do you have a fax number where you're at?

Chuck
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 08-18-2005 13:29
Don't worry Chuck, I'm just playing Devil's advocate. My fax number here is: (248) 377-2338. Personally, I always sign both the WPS and the PQR.
Parent - - By - Date 08-18-2005 13:36
Jon,
I'm out of my league here, so just trying to learn something. :-) Gonna fax you something..
Parent - By mjf (*) Date 08-19-2005 09:40
chuck,
do not forget to fax me "something"
Parent - - By GRoberts (***) Date 08-18-2005 14:46
Hi Chuck,
The thing about the form is that it is only a suggested form. I probably would have said that a signature was required too, until I took the Section IX class from ASME. The instructor is a Section IX member, and brought the fact that there isn't a requirement for a signature to the classes attention.
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 08-18-2005 15:11
The signature requirement normally stems from an in-house definition by quality management of what the term "certify" means. The legal eagles would have one believe that in order to certify something it must be attested to, in writing but then one is left to define what "in writing" means. Logically, even though I agree a signature is not REQUIRED, it is simple enough to silence those who believe there MUST be one by just doing it...
Parent - - By mjf (*) Date 08-19-2005 09:29
hi jon,
i just want to know,
tell me, if you in are charge of inspection in a contruction project and you find in Welding-bookthat, all WPS h've been done without signature:
would you follow them?
Parent - By jon20013 (*****) Date 08-19-2005 10:00
Joseph; If you are asking me only about the WPS's, my answer would be yes, I would follow them, and enforce them as the inspector unless there were reasons to question them, if that were the situation, I would bring my questions to the engineer.
Parent - By - Date 08-18-2005 15:39
GRoberts,

You are certainly correct about this being only a suggested format, and it is a suggestion by the ASME, but do your PQR's have a space on the back that says for someone to "certify" that the data is true and accurate? I have in front of me a large stack of PQR's and WPS's, and every PQR has a place for someone to certify that the information is true and accurate. As Jon pointed out in an e-mail to me, the definition of certifying according to the Nuclear QA. "The act of determining, verifying, and attesting "in writing", that documents, processes, procedures, items, or personnel are qualified in accordance with specified requirements." There is a requirement, stated in ASME Section IX, that each contractor or manufacturer to prepare a PQR. If that PQR has a line for someone to certify or attest to something as being true and accurate, I don't take that as being able to verbally attest to it. If the PQR did not intend for a signature to be there, there would not be a space for it. That is just my opinion. Not arguing, just giving my opinion.

Chuck
Parent - - By - Date 08-18-2005 16:16
Mr. Roberts (sorry, I don't know your first name)
Let me present a scenario and give me your opinion on it.
Suppose you send one of your welders to a testing lab to qualify a procedure (PQR). On the back of that PQR there are "tensile tests", "guided bend tests", "fillet weld tests", and "other tests" which can include ferrite point counts, hardness tests, etc. All of the results of these tests are documented on the spaces provided on the back page of the PQR, along with all the parameters the welder followed to make this weld test. Would you not require signature (written or typed) of the person at the lab performing these tests to be true and accurate? The manager of Southwest Laboratory and Testing told me that he is "required" to fill out TEST CONDUCTED BY: SOUTHWEST LABORATORY AND TESTING, PER: (NAME OF MAN CONDUCTING THE TEST), and LAB NO. Per them, the name of the technician MUST be either written or typed on the PQR attesting to the truth and accuracy of the test performed as well as the accuracy of the welding information herein. Again, would you accept this PQR from the lab without any signatures?

Chuck
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 08-18-2005 16:33
Chuck; you already know my opinion, but I'll make it public; if there is not a name adjacent to the "By" line underneath the "Manufacturer" line I personally would not accept it. Whether that name is typewritten or signed is not a question that can be answered in this forum however the person taking responsibility for the act of "certification" must be identified. And, while ASME Formats are in fact simply suggested formats, the body of the code stipulates that all "required" information be present, to me that means all of the technical details as well as identifying the person who attested to the facts.
Parent - By mjf (*) Date 08-19-2005 09:10
thanks for your help
Parent - - By GRoberts (***) Date 08-19-2005 00:01
Hi Chuck,
The documents we produce here where I work all have signatures on them. Even though by the letter of the law, I don't think ASME requires it, I sign all of our PQRs because it aleviates complaints from our customers. I can't really see any reason not to have a document like that signed. As far as your question as to the lab performing the test, and whether I would accept data without a signature. As long as the data had a certification statement, I wouldn't have a problem without the signature. As a matter of fact, a lot of the CMTRs we are getting for steel material we buy these days is electronically generated and does not have a signature (but does have a certification statement). If I got the report from the lab had it had a space for a signature and then they didn't sign it, would look a little fishy. When we do testing at an outside lab though, all the data is accumulated on our own PQR which has a certification statement (and room for my signature).

It seems like whether we agree or disagree on whether ASME acutally requires a signature, we both agree that is seems silly not to sign PQRs, if only to avoid headaches down the road.

Oh, by the way, the ASME IX committee member that taught the class didn't even like the suggested forms that were at the back. I thought that was kind of humerous.
Parent - - By - Date 08-19-2005 00:18
Hello my Friend,
Your points are very well taken. Just because ASME does not require a signature, I believe the actual PQR does. I cannot imagine accepting a document that is asking for "certifying", and having a place for a signature, and not having anyone sign it. To me, having a certification statement and not signing it is like not having it certified. Oh well, we can talk this to death. I agree with you totally about having a space for a signature and one not being there. If it doesn't require a signature, why is it there? Without one would, like you said, certainly seem very fishy to me. Also, it is humorous that the teacher of ASME did not like the ASME suggested format. Hmmmmm....With all due respect, in my 35 years in this business,I have never seen a testing lab NOT sign the certification statement. I was told by a major testing lab Metallurgist/Manager that they are absolutely required to sign it. Well, its been a lively discussion and I think that in principal we all agree on the same thing. I always enjoy reading your comments.

Chuck
Parent - - By andy (**) Date 08-19-2005 08:12
chuck -


Interesting debate..

Here's another interesting scenario - in the digital age we see a lot of electronic signatures - embedded image files that are scans of a signature. Is this satisfactory to satisfy your requirment for a signature? I've seen a lots of sigantures on Material Certification that are clearly image files and maybe weren't put there by the person whose 'signature' it is...

In my (UK) industry, we hardly ever sign documents these days, the 'signature' is an entry in a Work Management Process system. This was introduced from the US as being best practice in certain utilities. Its been accepted by our regulator.

Regards

Andy
Parent - By - Date 08-19-2005 12:19
Andy,
I think we need to try to decipher the intent of the Code Book for a moment. Speaking strictly of PQR's for a moment, we all agree that the Code does not specifically say that the PQR has to be signed. It does, however, state in QW-103.2 that "each manufacturer or contractor shall maintain a record of the results obtained in welding procedure and welder and welding operator performance qualification. These records "shall be certified" by the manufacturer or contractor and shall be accessible to the Authorized Inspector." Does the intent of the Code mean that you can certify this document with a handshake or a nod of the head? Since all PQR's I've ever been associated with have a line for a signature and a statement of certification, I think the intent is to have a signature, or a name, handwritten, typed, scanned, or whatever, to signify acceptability of the document as true and accurate.
At Avesta, we are one of the world largest manufacturers of stainless steel. I concede that our Material Certs, probably all of them, do not have a personal handwritten signature, but it does have an authorized name entry. I think, in this case, that is quite satisfactory. I believe that a PQR is a different scenario. A PQR has an individual actually recording all of the variables encountered during the welding of the test coupon. Whether he is recording these variables on a piece of notebook paper and transferring it to the official PQR form, or if he's using the actual PQR to list these variables, he is recording them. Someone has to be witnessing the welding in order to accurately list the variables. I don't see how it can be the welder, since he has his hood down and can't see exactly what each volt and amp is registering. So, some authorized person has to be taking this info down. Just in my personal opinion, that is the person who should be required to sign the certification statement as true and accurate. From talking to a personal friend of mine who is the Quality Control Manager of a very large and world wide corporation for the last 27 years, and the Metallurgist/Manager of a very large testing Laboratory, I was told that there has to be a signature from the manufacturer and the lab that did the testing. They both told me, and even sent me a fax showing that typed, handwritten, scanned, etc. signatures are acceptable. But they both pointed out that it is up to the manufacturer or contractor as to what is acceptable to them. The point they were making is that an authorized, or designated person has to acknowledge the accuracy of the PQR by providing a name. I think that is the "intent" of the Code.

Chuck
Parent - By jon20013 (*****) Date 08-19-2005 09:23
I think I may know the person who taught your class Mr. Roberts. Part of the reason the ASME suggested formats are disliked by so many is they do not contain spaces for all of the information that is required to be recorded. This is especially true when one gets into some of the less traditional processes. I think ASME IX may even be looking into revising these forms. You'll also note also that there are no forms for recording the new Temper Bead WPS/PQR requirements.

On a personal note, I inherited many WPS/PQR's when I began my job and naturally I went through a process of making the program better suit my perception of our needs. To make a long story short, I found a few PQR's that were complete and had the typewritten name of my predecessor, but I refused to incorporate those PQR's into our program. The name was there but I didn't have an adequate comfort level to accept them (because most of the rest were signed). So, to that I say, to each their own! ;-)

On the other hand, when using SWPS; these are acquired without signature, and it is the user's responsibility to sign for them after fulfilling the requirements of B2.1.
Parent - - By mjf (*) Date 08-19-2005 09:35
dear Robert,
it means that nor WPS neither PQR should be signed?
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 08-19-2005 09:50
Joseph, the PQR really should be signed, in spite of all the discussion above. "Technically," the PQR may be valid without a signature, but one will encounter far less debate and far greater acceptance WITH a signature. The person signing the PQR should be a knowledgable and responsibility representative of the manufacturer/contractor. It is optional to sign the WPS.
Parent - By - Date 08-19-2005 11:41
Exactly..
Parent - By mjf (*) Date 08-19-2005 09:39
dear robert,
do you want to mean that neither WPS nor PQR shoud be sined?
Regards
Parent - - By mjf (*) Date 08-19-2005 10:10
chuck,
by who? anyboby? qualified or not qualified?
Parent - By - Date 08-19-2005 12:22
Please see the reply to Andy a few lines up.

Chuck
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 08-19-2005 12:32
Joseph, to avoid confusion you really should start this in a new topic, we have all been addressing your original question so things will get very jumbled up now that you've revised your original topic. I will be happy to address your comment but not under this topic heading. Clarification to Forum members: please see the very first posting which has been revised and a new question posed by the originator.
Parent - - By - Date 08-19-2005 12:42
Good idea, Jon. But, it does seem the Inspector has his information a little wrong, huh??? One year??

Chuck
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 08-19-2005 13:02
Yeah, for sure. Six months is the limit of both IX and D1.1 and then only if a continuity record is maintained....
Parent - - By - Date 08-19-2005 13:25
Jon,
You are exactly right. Also, this exact topic was discussed in a previous forum thread. I would be a little worried if even the inspector did not know the requirements of the Code.
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 08-19-2005 13:30
That would tend to make one wonder a bit, wouldn't it? Scary stuff!!!
Parent - By - Date 08-19-2005 13:41
Hmmmmm.. We go from who can sign a PQR to requalification after one year. I wonder if this is the same inspector making these decisions. Now, that is really scary... :-)
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Certifications / welder qualification

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill