Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations TugboatEng on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
AWS - SWPS honored through a contractor ? 1
- Thread starter JIPMKWA
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #4
I guess the title should have been - Are AWS WPQ's honored through contractors ?
It says in D1.1 that contractors are responsible for qualifying welders whether it's by the manufacturer , contractor or independent testing facility. They take the AWS test at their union hall with an AWS c.w.i/proctor there. So I looked at that as an independent testing facility. As long as the customer ( power company ) and the contractor that said ironworker is ok with it - they should be good to go ? They just need to obtain a copy of the WPQ that they were certified to during said test.
It says in D1.1 that contractors are responsible for qualifying welders whether it's by the manufacturer , contractor or independent testing facility. They take the AWS test at their union hall with an AWS c.w.i/proctor there. So I looked at that as an independent testing facility. As long as the customer ( power company ) and the contractor that said ironworker is ok with it - they should be good to go ? They just need to obtain a copy of the WPQ that they were certified to during said test.
As per QCRobert's comment; it is the Engineer, representing the Owner, that has the last word with regards to accepting evidence of previous qualification.
Personally, if the current employer will not cosign the performance test record issued by a previous employer or by a third party, why should I?
The current employer is responsible for ensuring the welder is properly qualified. The current employer is legally responsible for the welder's work. The acceptance of that legal liability and obligation to ensure the welder is qualified is by the employer's signature at the bottom of the performance test report. No signature? Why not? Is there a reason why the current employer is unwilling to cosign the test record?
As a testing lab and as the witnessing SCWI, I sign the test report as the test witness. I leave it to the contractor/employer to sign the certification statement.
As the third party inspection agency representing the Owner, I will not accept any welder performance test record that signed by the current employer for the reasons listed above.
Best regards - Al
Personally, if the current employer will not cosign the performance test record issued by a previous employer or by a third party, why should I?
The current employer is responsible for ensuring the welder is properly qualified. The current employer is legally responsible for the welder's work. The acceptance of that legal liability and obligation to ensure the welder is qualified is by the employer's signature at the bottom of the performance test report. No signature? Why not? Is there a reason why the current employer is unwilling to cosign the test record?
As a testing lab and as the witnessing SCWI, I sign the test report as the test witness. I leave it to the contractor/employer to sign the certification statement.
As the third party inspection agency representing the Owner, I will not accept any welder performance test record that signed by the current employer for the reasons listed above.
Best regards - Al
- Thread starter
- #6
They take the test to D1.1 (1" butt welds with backing - vertical and overhead position) at the union hall. AWS issues them welding papers - though I have never actually seen the WPQ. They do however have an AWS card with photo ID showing which code they certified to ( usually D1.1 , D1.5 or both). They also keep a log book that they have to send in every 6 months showing that they have welded as per D1.1's requirements. Generally all of the contractors that they work for accept this "card" any where they go for bridges / buildings etc.
I have 4 guys coming into a coal fired power plant to install some new platforms over the ductwork.
Needless to say this all comes down to the time and money involved with making them test for us.
I have 4 guys coming into a coal fired power plant to install some new platforms over the ductwork.
Needless to say this all comes down to the time and money involved with making them test for us.
Question is to be addressed to the Engineer-of-Record and the client's Inspector [if any]. This happens *all the time*; a union guy shows up with a qual card from his union hall. And I'll bet $20 to a stale donut that the cards in question are not from AWS, but from the hall.
1 - AWS D1.1 [and also ASME] put the onus of welder quals on the *contractor* [you].
2 - these guys are probably good welders, but are not certified by either the contractor, nor the client
3 - It is not cheap to requal a welder on the job. And that cost may add nothing to the quality of the job.
What I do when representing a customer that is using out-of-the-hall welders is to have them produce a company WPS(s) that will cover their scope of work. Then they pull copies of their guys hall papers and sign them off at the bottom, representing the contractor; i.e. accepted by Joe Bloe, supt. for the Blow Duct Corp
This fulfills the *other* intent of the Code, in addition to having the welders prove their skill. The contractor that they are working for has now assumed the responsibility for these welders, and has promised in writing that they have been tested and found acceptable, and that the company stands behind them.
But to do this, you require permission from the Engineer, and at least an "I won't veto it" from the customer's inspector. And you should've known this before you bid on a Code job.
1 - AWS D1.1 [and also ASME] put the onus of welder quals on the *contractor* [you].
2 - these guys are probably good welders, but are not certified by either the contractor, nor the client
3 - It is not cheap to requal a welder on the job. And that cost may add nothing to the quality of the job.
What I do when representing a customer that is using out-of-the-hall welders is to have them produce a company WPS(s) that will cover their scope of work. Then they pull copies of their guys hall papers and sign them off at the bottom, representing the contractor; i.e. accepted by Joe Bloe, supt. for the Blow Duct Corp
This fulfills the *other* intent of the Code, in addition to having the welders prove their skill. The contractor that they are working for has now assumed the responsibility for these welders, and has promised in writing that they have been tested and found acceptable, and that the company stands behind them.
But to do this, you require permission from the Engineer, and at least an "I won't veto it" from the customer's inspector. And you should've known this before you bid on a Code job.
- Thread starter
- #9
The "cards" in question are in fact issued by the AWS through a national certification program at an accredited facility.
OK, OK, I'll drop my price; $1.50 and two box tops and I'll issue the welders a card with their photograph on it!
The codes are nearly unanimous; the contractor/employer is responsible to ensure the welders are properly qualified. My question; how does the contractor know if the welder was properly qualified if they have never seen the SWPS used when the welder welded the test coupon, the contractor never saw the completed test coupon, the contractor never saw the radiograph or the guided bend test results, and the contractor wisely never signed the performance test report accepting the legal responsibility for the qualification or the welder's work?
Last question: The AWS is ready to accept the welder's payment for the certification, but is the AWS, through their National Registry, ready to accept the legal responsibility for the welder's work?
I've yet to accept AWS certification for several reasons, one of which is: the "certification" does not list the essential variables required to establish whether or not the welder is qualified for the welding to be performed. The last certificate I saw failed to list whether the welder took the test on plate or pipe and it failed to state whether it was with or without backing. "Trust me" is the basic premise needed if one is to accept the "certification" at face value. Don't forget to place an index finger in each ear, one hand over one's mouth, and don't forget to place the hands over one's eyes. Oh, wait, I only have two hands, what to do, what to do.
Best regards - Al
The codes are nearly unanimous; the contractor/employer is responsible to ensure the welders are properly qualified. My question; how does the contractor know if the welder was properly qualified if they have never seen the SWPS used when the welder welded the test coupon, the contractor never saw the completed test coupon, the contractor never saw the radiograph or the guided bend test results, and the contractor wisely never signed the performance test report accepting the legal responsibility for the qualification or the welder's work?
Last question: The AWS is ready to accept the welder's payment for the certification, but is the AWS, through their National Registry, ready to accept the legal responsibility for the welder's work?
I've yet to accept AWS certification for several reasons, one of which is: the "certification" does not list the essential variables required to establish whether or not the welder is qualified for the welding to be performed. The last certificate I saw failed to list whether the welder took the test on plate or pipe and it failed to state whether it was with or without backing. "Trust me" is the basic premise needed if one is to accept the "certification" at face value. Don't forget to place an index finger in each ear, one hand over one's mouth, and don't forget to place the hands over one's eyes. Oh, wait, I only have two hands, what to do, what to do.
Best regards - Al
- Thread starter
- #11
GTAW ,
I see exactly where you're coming from. Who's to say that the C.W.I that "passed" said ironworker at the "accredited" test facility wasn't his brother in law. Also , what's to stop a guy from just "updating" his buddies continuity log if he got in an accident and hasn't worked in 2 years ( and has never struck an arc in that timeframe) or his eyes went bad in that period of time.
Really I just wanted to know if it is o.k code wise to accept this AWS national certification.
After doing a little more research in to this, there is a website where you can log in ( username and PW is readonly) look guys up by LOCAL union # - print the WPQR that was filled out( which has a photo I.D of the weld tester , the C.W.I that bent the coupons and his C.W.I stamp at the bottom.. It also shows on there every time that they sent in their continuity log to make sure they are current.
I see exactly where you're coming from. Who's to say that the C.W.I that "passed" said ironworker at the "accredited" test facility wasn't his brother in law. Also , what's to stop a guy from just "updating" his buddies continuity log if he got in an accident and hasn't worked in 2 years ( and has never struck an arc in that timeframe) or his eyes went bad in that period of time.
Really I just wanted to know if it is o.k code wise to accept this AWS national certification.
After doing a little more research in to this, there is a website where you can log in ( username and PW is readonly) look guys up by LOCAL union # - print the WPQR that was filled out( which has a photo I.D of the weld tester , the C.W.I that bent the coupons and his C.W.I stamp at the bottom.. It also shows on there every time that they sent in their continuity log to make sure they are current.
Any certification or certification program is only as strong as the integrity of the people that stands behind it.
The "certification" is a signed statement that the welder in question took a test, followed the rules, and passed the test on a specific day when the stars were in the proper alignment. It offers no assurance the welder will deposit a good weld every time he or she strikes an arc.
The plain fact is that the employer is responsible for quality control. As such, the employer is responsible for the work performed by the employees that work for him. It is a responsibility that cannot be delegated or absolved. As such, it is in the employer's best interest to take the steps necessary to ensure the welder's skill are up to par before putting that welder to work. While accepting qualifications of a previous employer might save some time and money, it is a fools game in the long run. The cost of removing an unacceptable weld and rewelding a connection can cost several times what it would have cost to qualify the welder before putting him to work.
Laboratories and other organizations that qualify welders do just that, they test welders in accordance with specific welding standards, but one must consider the human element. The welder taking the test is a variable subject to all sorts of external influences, as is the individual administering the test. The welder qualification test is a demonstration the welder has the minimum skills necessary to deposit a sound weld under ideal conditions. That being the case, I would rather test the welder under conditions that replicate job conditions, that is, have the welder take the test using the equipment that is used on the job. If the contractor's equipment is in bad repair, it represents what the welder will be using on the job, it is what the welder should use to take the qualification test. If the contractor has no electrode oven and does not store low hydrogen electrodes properly, that's what the welder should use for the test. If the contractor is using XYZ's brand of flux core electrode because it is less expensive (but harder to use), it should be what the welder uses to take the qualification test. The bottom line is there is more involved in producing acceptable welds than simply the welder's skill. The welder qualification test should reflect what the welder will encounter on the project or in production. Taking the welder qualification test under ideal laboratory conditions, using a machine in perfect working order, with a "high quality" electrode does little to assess the welder's ability to produce acceptable welds under actual job conditions.
Best regards - Al
The "certification" is a signed statement that the welder in question took a test, followed the rules, and passed the test on a specific day when the stars were in the proper alignment. It offers no assurance the welder will deposit a good weld every time he or she strikes an arc.
The plain fact is that the employer is responsible for quality control. As such, the employer is responsible for the work performed by the employees that work for him. It is a responsibility that cannot be delegated or absolved. As such, it is in the employer's best interest to take the steps necessary to ensure the welder's skill are up to par before putting that welder to work. While accepting qualifications of a previous employer might save some time and money, it is a fools game in the long run. The cost of removing an unacceptable weld and rewelding a connection can cost several times what it would have cost to qualify the welder before putting him to work.
Laboratories and other organizations that qualify welders do just that, they test welders in accordance with specific welding standards, but one must consider the human element. The welder taking the test is a variable subject to all sorts of external influences, as is the individual administering the test. The welder qualification test is a demonstration the welder has the minimum skills necessary to deposit a sound weld under ideal conditions. That being the case, I would rather test the welder under conditions that replicate job conditions, that is, have the welder take the test using the equipment that is used on the job. If the contractor's equipment is in bad repair, it represents what the welder will be using on the job, it is what the welder should use to take the qualification test. If the contractor has no electrode oven and does not store low hydrogen electrodes properly, that's what the welder should use for the test. If the contractor is using XYZ's brand of flux core electrode because it is less expensive (but harder to use), it should be what the welder uses to take the qualification test. The bottom line is there is more involved in producing acceptable welds than simply the welder's skill. The welder qualification test should reflect what the welder will encounter on the project or in production. Taking the welder qualification test under ideal laboratory conditions, using a machine in perfect working order, with a "high quality" electrode does little to assess the welder's ability to produce acceptable welds under actual job conditions.
Best regards - Al
- Thread starter
- #13
I appreciate all of the feedback guys. From a QA/QC standpoint I am with you 100% in needing to certify guys on the job to make sure they can weld.
From the supervision standpoint, all they see is the initial $ in having to buy coupons , pay a guy 6 hours to take the test and to pay QA/QC to vt & bend the coupons ( or RT to shoot them ). They also have said " Well they're just welding little platforms in, it's just a little 1/4" fillet weld , who cares". I don't need to tell you of the ignorant mentality of guys that are watching the budget and the shortcuts they try to take.
The bottom line is , if the customer ( in this case the power company) is ok with it & the contractor ( me ) is ok with it - it is acceptable.
Thanks again guys
From the supervision standpoint, all they see is the initial $ in having to buy coupons , pay a guy 6 hours to take the test and to pay QA/QC to vt & bend the coupons ( or RT to shoot them ). They also have said " Well they're just welding little platforms in, it's just a little 1/4" fillet weld , who cares". I don't need to tell you of the ignorant mentality of guys that are watching the budget and the shortcuts they try to take.
The bottom line is , if the customer ( in this case the power company) is ok with it & the contractor ( me ) is ok with it - it is acceptable.
Thanks again guys
Platforms ? Are they those things that people stand on that are suspended in the air ?
123 people were killed on the Alexander L. Kielland oil rig due to a 1/4" fillet weld.
Obviously power companies and oil rigs are different scenarios but power companies have some very thick material (both pipes & structures) and all you need is a 1/4" fillet weld applied with no (or insufficient) preheat by an inexperienced or incompetent welder and you may have big problems.
Regards,
DD
123 people were killed on the Alexander L. Kielland oil rig due to a 1/4" fillet weld.
Obviously power companies and oil rigs are different scenarios but power companies have some very thick material (both pipes & structures) and all you need is a 1/4" fillet weld applied with no (or insufficient) preheat by an inexperienced or incompetent welder and you may have big problems.
Regards,
DD
- Thread starter
- #16
in this specific case it's an access platform to the pressure differetential ports on top of the flue gas ductwork.
But who's to say on the next job they aren't welding a 2" thick moment connection on structural steel. That "card" says they're good for everything...
But who's to say on the next job they aren't welding a 2" thick moment connection on structural steel. That "card" says they're good for everything...
It is easy enough to check a welder's welds to get an idea if they are competent or not. The fly in the ointment is the person doing the check must know what clues to look for.
Structural welds, for the most part, are only visually tested. That is a significant different when comparing structural welding to pipe welding that is often tested by a volumetric test method. The visual examination must be performed by an individual that has the training and experience necessary to properly evaluate the weld. It is unfortunate, but the visual examination required by the project specification is after the fact. That is, after the welds are complete when it is too late to check the proper electrode was used, the electrodes were properly stored, the proper root opening was present, the weld size was increased to compensate for the excessive root opening, proper preheat was employed, an approved WPS was followed, etc. If the contractor has competent QC, those attributes were checked, but how many contractors have QC on the job site?
Welder qualification on the job puts everyone in the right frame of mind. The realization that the Owner is serious about quality provides a strong incentive to do the job right the first time. A simple fillet break test is fast and effective in determining if the welder has the basic skills needed to produce a sound weld. A skilled welder can complete a T-fillet break test in about a half hour. The test consists of a single pass 5/16 inch fillet weld with a start and a stop mid-length of the 8 inch long fillet weld. If the welder cannot pass that test, it probably is a good metric that the welder will not be the star of the welding crew.
Best regards - Al
Structural welds, for the most part, are only visually tested. That is a significant different when comparing structural welding to pipe welding that is often tested by a volumetric test method. The visual examination must be performed by an individual that has the training and experience necessary to properly evaluate the weld. It is unfortunate, but the visual examination required by the project specification is after the fact. That is, after the welds are complete when it is too late to check the proper electrode was used, the electrodes were properly stored, the proper root opening was present, the weld size was increased to compensate for the excessive root opening, proper preheat was employed, an approved WPS was followed, etc. If the contractor has competent QC, those attributes were checked, but how many contractors have QC on the job site?
Welder qualification on the job puts everyone in the right frame of mind. The realization that the Owner is serious about quality provides a strong incentive to do the job right the first time. A simple fillet break test is fast and effective in determining if the welder has the basic skills needed to produce a sound weld. A skilled welder can complete a T-fillet break test in about a half hour. The test consists of a single pass 5/16 inch fillet weld with a start and a stop mid-length of the 8 inch long fillet weld. If the welder cannot pass that test, it probably is a good metric that the welder will not be the star of the welding crew.
Best regards - Al
racookpe1978
Nuclear
Then again, I did have to witness the cert's and tests done by some overseas welders for a power plant structural job.
Got to the contractor's site - they had a nice layout and a nice "testing area" ... First thing I had to do was re-align all of their test vises and fixtures from 30 degrees up to the "legal 6G" 45 degrees angle. 8<)
Then I had to teach them how to accurately and correctly cut their weld samples for the bend test. Many were too small, irregular, or wedge-shaped at their first and second tries. . A few were too thick! (Makes it easier to fail if the sample is too wide across.)
Got to the contractor's site - they had a nice layout and a nice "testing area" ... First thing I had to do was re-align all of their test vises and fixtures from 30 degrees up to the "legal 6G" 45 degrees angle. 8<)
Then I had to teach them how to accurately and correctly cut their weld samples for the bend test. Many were too small, irregular, or wedge-shaped at their first and second tries. . A few were too thick! (Makes it easier to fail if the sample is too wide across.)
At a Weyerhaeuser plant in Oregon, as QA Representative (11 yrs), I tested all welders coming in from the union halls and subcontractors (if they only had "cards" to Weyco in-house qualified procedures. Not all passed.
QC = washing you hands after yuo go to the restroom
QA = not peeing on your hands in the first place
Robert
QC = washing you hands after yuo go to the restroom
QA = not peeing on your hands in the first place
Robert
- Status
Similar threads
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question