aws_it_201207

www.aws.org

July 2012 / Vol. 15 / No. 3

THE MAGAZINE FOR MATERIALS INSPECTION AND TESTING PERSONNEL

Confined Space Safety

Qualifying Welders

A Question of Ethics

IT

BLI

ND

PE

RF

Vol. 15 / No. 3

Features

1714

Understanding Welder Performance Qualificationby Jeff J. Fluckiger / Questions related to welder qualificationare answered / 11

Performing Inspections in Confined Spacesby Peter C. Amin / These tips will remind you of what you need to do tosafely perform inspections in confined spaces / 14

Qualifying Welders on Fillet Weldsby Albert J. Moore Jr. / A change is proposed as to how welders arequalified for fillet welds / 17

Ethics Alert: Recent Casesby Joseph P. Kane / Several recent cases in which ethics violations werecharged are discussed / 20

Departments

Editor’s Note................................6

News Bulletin ..............................8

Print and Product Showcase ......10

The Answer Is ............................22

Mark Your Calendar...................24

Just the Facts ..............................28

Technology Notes.......................30

Certification Schedule................31

Advertiser Index.........................32

Special care must be given to ensurethe inspector’s safety when working ina confined space such as this finnedheat exchanger. (Photo courtesy ofPeter C. Amin)

INSPECTION TRENDS (ISSN 1523-7168) is

published quarterly by the American Welding Society.

Editorial and advertising offices are located at 550 NW

LeJeune Rd., Miami, FL 33126; telephone (305) 443-

9353. Printed by R. R. Donnelley & Sons Co.,

Senatobia, Miss. Subscriptions $30.00 per year for

noncertified, nonmembers in the United States and its

possessions; $50.00 per year in foreign countries;

$20.00 per year for noncertified members and students;

$10.00 single issue for nonmembers and $7.00 single

issue for members. American Welding Society is located

at 550 NW LeJeune Rd., Miami, FL 33126-5671;

telephone (305) 443-9353, Periodicals postage paid in

Miami, Fla., and additional mailing offices.

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to

Inspection Trends c/o American Welding Society, 550

NW LeJeune Rd., Miami, FL 33126-5671.

Readers of Inspection Trends may make copies of arti-

cles for personal, archival, educational, or

research purposes, and which are not for sale or

resale. Permission is granted to quote from articles, pro-

vided customary acknowledgment of authors

and sources is made. Starred (*) items excluded from copy-

right.

AWS MISSION STATEMENT

The mission of the American Welding Society is to advance the science, technology, and application of welding and allied processes, including joining, brazing, soldering, cutting, and thermal spray.

Inspection Trends / Summer 2012 5

Editor’s NoteBy Mary Ruth Johnsen

Dear Readers,

In speaking with CWIs, I have

come under the opinion that welder

performance qualification is one of

those subjects that’s not as simple as

it might seem at first. While it’s

certainly something that many of

you do as a regular part of your job,

it’s also something you have

questions about and want some

verification that you’re doing correctly.

This issue provides the answers to some of those questions, but may

also spark some additional discussion. In the article beginning on page

11, Jeff Fluckiger covers the topic from a variety of viewpoints. First of

all, through the eyes of a person who had to take those performance tests

early on in his welding career, secondly as a person who has

administered those tests, and thirdly from his position as a longtime

member and now chair of the AWS B2 Committee on Procedure and

Performance Qualification. Fluckiger answers questions such as why

passing the qualification test for a groove weld means the welder is also

qualified for fillet welds and why qualifying for gas metal arc welding

also qualifies a welder for flux cored arc welding.

In The Answer Is (page 22), Al Moore explains why AWS codes,

standards, and specifications are truly consensus documents and why

there are occasional discrepancies between the requirements of one

dcoument and those of another. It all boils down to the fact that the

members of each committee have different backgrounds, different

professional interests, and different points of view. They make

compromises to get the committees’ work done. This process is

somewhat played out in the pages of this issue of Inspection Trends by

reading both Fluckiger’s and Moore’s articles on welder qualification.

In answering the question of why a groove weld qualifies for a fillet

weld, Fluckiger said, “This is an interesting question that I know

firsthand garnered hour after hour of debate for years during AWS B2

Committee meetings. Bottom line is this: It has been judged that it

requires more skill to weld a groove than a fillet.”

Moore, in his article that starts on page 17, says the debate needs to

be continued and gives his reasons for why qualification for groove and

fillet welds should be separated. According to Moore, “A simple code

revision would allow the welder to be qualified for both fillet and

groove welds with a single test.”

I’d like to know what you think about the subject. Contact me at

[email protected].

PublisherAndrew [email protected]

EditorMary Ruth [email protected]

Associate EditorsHoward [email protected]

Kristin [email protected]

Production EditorZaida [email protected]

Senior Production CoordinatorBrenda [email protected]

National Sales DirectorRob [email protected]

Advertising Sales RepresentativeLea [email protected]

Senior Advertising Production ManagerFrank [email protected]

Subscriptions RepresentativeSylvia [email protected]

American Welding Society550 NW LeJeune Rd.Miami, FL 33126(800/305) 443-9353

Copyright

Copyright © 2012 by American Welding Society in bothprinted and electronic formats. The Society is not responsible for any statement made or opinion expressedherein. Data and information developed by the authors ofspecific articles are for informational purposes only andare not intended for use without independent, substantiating investigation on the part of potential users.

Inspection Trends / July 20126

www.AmericanWeldingOnline.com

Online Welding Safety Certificate Course

Earn PDHs and increase your ability to improve safety and health of your welding operations.Three-hour self-paced course covers electric shock, vision and skin protection,

ventilation, fire protection, handling of gases, and much more.

Sample seminar at awo.aws.org/seminars/safety

OSHA estimates that4 out of every 1,000welders willexperience a fatalinjury or accident overtheir working lifetime

Online W g Safety Certificate CourseeldinOnline W g Safety Certificate Course

injury or accident overexperience a fatalwelders will4 out of every 1,000

estimates thatOSHA

g Safety Certificate Courseg Safety Certificate Course

Three-hour self-paced course covers electric shock, vision and skin protection, Earn PDHs and increase your ability to improve safety and health of your welding operations.

their working lifetime


their working lifetime


their working lifetimeinjury or accident overtheir working lifetime



Sample seminar at awo.aws.org/seminars/safetySample seminar at awo.aws.org/seminars/safetySample seminar at awo.aws.org/seminars/safety

News Bulletins


SGS Performed NDE for Eurovision SongContest Facilities

SGS recentlyperformed NDEservices for thesteel structures forthe press centerand Baku CrystalHall built for theEurovision SongContest 2012. Thecontractencompassedtesting of weldjoints, concretestrength, and bolttorque inspection.

The Eurovision Song Contest took place in May at the newdevelopment built in Baku, Azerbaijan.

Obermayer, part of the Obermayer Corporate Groupfounded in Munich in 1958, began construction of BakuCrystal Hall last year. SGS inspectors worked on site todetermine problem areas and ensure speedy feedback to theclient in order to facilitate rapid repair of weld joints and theproper tightening of bolts.

TÜV Rheinland Celebrates 140th Anniversary

TÜV Rheinland recently celebrated its 140thanniversary. The company, which began in 1872 as anendeavor to inspect steam boilers in the districts ofElberfeld and Barmen in Germany, has grown to a networkof laboratories and test and training centers with 500locations in more than 60 countries. The companyemploys 16,000 people, and has an annual revenue of $1.9billion.

The company inspects technical equipment, products,and services; oversees projects; and helps to shapeprocesses for a wide variety of companies through itsworldwide network of approved labs, testing facilities, andeducation centers.

“For 140 years, people and companies around theglobe have placed their trust in TÜV Rheinland because ofour history, reliability, and long-standing reputation in theindustry,” said Gerhard Luebken, chief regional officerand president and CEO of TÜV Rheinland North AmericaHolding, Inc., TÜV Rheinland of North America, Inc. “Wekeep our focus on serving customers, achieving success,and developing safe and sustainable solutions for thechallenges of today’s ever-changing markets.” Additionalinformation is available at www.tuv.com/us.

An SGS inspector at work. The companyrecently performed NDE of weld jointsfor Baku Crystal Hall and the new presscenter at a facility in Azerbaijan.


Monroe County Community College NowOffering NDE Program

To tap into the state’s need for high-tech skills in high-techapplications, Monroe County Community College, Monroe,Mich., recently developed a nondestructive testing program,one of the first at a community college in the state.

The NDT Certificate Program consists of seven newcourses: introduction to NDT; liquid penetrant and magneticparticle testing; visual testing; radiographic testing Levels 1 and2; and ultrasonic testing Levels 1 and 2. The courses arederivative of the existing Nuclear Engineering Technologyassociate degree program and have direct relevance to thecollege’s existing Welding Technology associate degreeprogram within the Industrial Tech Division. Students will take24 credit hours to receive the certificate.

According to the school, “Through course progression, thestudent will gain a general knowledge of how to apply NDTmethods and develop a deeper understanding of hownondestructive testing impacts the world in which we live.”

Stork Technical Services Invests in New Dive Craft

Stork Technical Services Subsea, Aberdeen, UK, recentlyinvested more than $3.2 million in a new specialized diveintervention craft and full diving spread. The 49-ft vessel isequipped with a custom-made diver recovery system andsoftware-based dive management system. It is expected to bedelivered this summer.

The new air and nitrox diving spread will allow StorkSubsea to deliver subsea inspection, repair and maintenance,survey, and wet welding services from dive support vessels

around the world.In February, the company won a $15.8-million contract to

provide subsea inspection services off the coast of West Africa.To service the contract, Stork Subsea chartered DSV Adam’sVision for 15 months.

X-R-I Testing Opens Facility in South Carolina

X-R-I Testing, Troy, Mich., recently opened a new testingfacility in Duncan, S.C. The new facility is Nadcap accreditedto perform radiographic and liquid penetrant testing. Nadcapaccreditation for magnetic particle testing is expected sometimethis year. The facility will also provide consulting services tocompanies with internal NDE operations.

A privately held company, X-R-I Testing provides NDEservices to the aerospace, automotive, and power-generationindustries nationwide. More information is available atwww.xritesting.com.

See that the bolting’s done right.

TR

AI

NI

NG

•F

IE

LD

SU

PP

OR

T•

TE

CH

NI

CA

LE

XP

ER

TI

SE

[email protected]

Scan for installation/inspection video link

or go to our website appliedbolting.com

1 800 552 1999

the best way to bolt!Squirter DTIs*®

You have questions, we can help.

Drive a Squirter® at:Booth # 327

*USA's only manufacturer of Quenched &Tempered DTIs per ASTM, RCSC and FQA.

Stork Technical Services Subsea’s new dive intervention craftis equipped with a custom-made diver recovery system andsoftware-based dive management system.

For info go to www.aws.org/ad-index

— continued on page 32

Print and Product Showcase


Phased Array Flaw DetectorImproves Inspection Speed

The veo 16:128 phased arrayultrasonic flaw detector addresses 128probe elements for inspection andenables operators to connect largersingle probes or multiple probes to theinstrument. This increase in power andcapability is important for weldinspection, where a linear scan fromboth sides of the weld is needed. Theinstrument can address a pair of 64-element probes, allowing inspection tobe carried out in a single pass,improving speed of inspection andpositional accuracy since the twoprobes are linked together. Theinstrument features the capability forpitch-catch inspection techniques,merged C-scan inspections, and topviews. It offers a simple-to-useinterface, rugged housing design, andincludes UT Studio viewing andanalysis software.

Sonatest

www.sonatestinc.com

(210) 697-0335

Video Camera Easily Attachesto Most Borescopes

The Luxxor® portable videocamera can be easily attached to anyHawkeye® rigid or flexible borescopeand to most other major borescope

brands. The borescope attaches to thevideo coupler on the camera. Thecamera allows users to view internalinspection images on benchtop orportable video monitors or on acomputer. Video footage and stillphotos can be viewed live and thensaved, documented, and e-mailed. Thecamera has a 1⁄4-in. color CCD, built-in25-mm borescope coupler, and 768 ×494 pixel resolution.

Gradient Lens Corp.

www.gradientlens.com/lpc

(585) 235-2620

LED Flashlight Available inFour Models

The OPTI-LUX 365 Series UV-A(365 nm) LED flashlights are useful fora variety of NDE inspectionapplications. Four models areavailable: high-intensity and standard-intensity versions, each with or withoutan internal black light filter. The blacklight filter reduces the output ofwavelengths longer than 400 nm. High-intensity models produce a nominalsteady-state UV-A intensity of 10,000μW/cm2 at 15 in. Standard-intensitymodels produce a maximum UV-Aintensity of 4500 μW/cm2. Theflashlights come with a lanyard, beltholster, two rechargeable batteries,two-position smart charging cradlewith AC power cord, and UV-absorbing spectacles.

Spectronics Corp.

www.spectroline.com

(800) 274-8888

System Offers Wireless,Hand-held Weld Inspection

The WiKi-SCAN hand-held laser-

based systemcan be used toinspect weldjointpreparations,joint fitup,weld beadprofiles, andweld defects.It measures

critical parameters such as face androot openings, mismatch, and bevelangle. Results can be automaticallycompared to the tolerances set andprovide go/no-go feedback. Apermanent record of the weldmeasurements, voice and writtencomments, and photos of the weld arestored in the instrument and can besent to a computer. To inspect a part,the operator holds the unit up to thejoint and presses the trigger to takemeasurements and determine whetherany defects are present.

Servo-Robot, Inc.

www.servorobot.com

(450) 653-7868

Software Analyzes Data fromPhased Array Flaw Detector

The company developed itsOmniPC software specifically for theOlympus OmniScan phased array flawdetector. The computer-based softwareprogram provides comprehensiveanalysis of inspection data acquiredwith the flaw detector. The softwareallows the flaw detector to beemployed as a dedicated acquisitionunit when scanning for hidden cracks,voids, and other internal discontinuitiesin metals, composites, plastics, andceramics. This allows data acquisitionand data analysis to be conductedconcurrently, which increasesproductivity and decreases inspectiontime. The user interface is similar toOmniScan’s onboard data analysisprogram, making it easier forinspectors to learn the program.

Olympus NDT

www.olympus-ims.com

(800) 225-8330

Feature


By Jeff J. Fluckiger

Understanding Welder PerformanceQualification

This guide stresses the importance of the welding procedure specification and answersquestions related to welder qualification

One of the most difficult things Ihave ever had to do was tell anexperienced, seasoned welder that hewas no longer qualified to weld. I wasinspecting production work onelectrical conduit hangars deepunderground, and the weld quality wasvery poor. The welder had cheaters onhis cheaters, and he simply could nolonger see well enough to successfullyproduce an acceptable weld. Over theyears, he had repeatedly completedrequalification tests and hadmaintained qualification throughrecorded continued use, but he finallymet the day that officially became theend of his welding career. Of course,this was news he did not want to hearand did not accept well.

As inspectors, we have a greatresponsibility to know what we aredoing and to accurately call the shots. Ialways love when challenges that comefrom welders, foremen, engineers, andhigher-level managers are quicklyrebuffed and set right throughknowledge of the applicable code orspecification requirement. It is alwaysimportant to know what you are doingand why you are doing it.

The purpose of welderqualification testing is to determine theability of welders to produce a soundweld in the welding test positions.While many people — both welderstaking the tests and inspectorsconducting them — find performancequalification to be difficult, I knowsome, if not many, of you reading thisare saying to yourself, “What is sodifficult about a performance test?” Asyou gain experience, they do get easier,but just remember your first test.Personally, I was young and very

nervous. I knew I could weld, butcould I do it right on a test? As I lookedat the welding procedure, I wonderedwhat F4 and 3G and P1 were all aboutand what did it mean that the procedurewas qualified to ASME. All I wantedwas to pass the test and earn apaycheck.

Fortunately, there are manyeducational institutions across thecountry teaching not only theapplication of welding but also thetechnical theory behind welding.Welders need to know base metal andfiller metal designations. They shouldhave a basic understanding of materialgroupings, and they specifically needto know the limitations of theprocedures they use.

In addressing performancequalification, here are some of thequestions you might ask. Why does agroove weld qualify for fillet welding?Why does F4 qualify for the lower Fnumbers? Why does gas metal arcwelding (GMAW) qualify for fluxcored arc welding (FCAW)? Why?Why? Why?

For more than 25 years, I haveserved on the committee responsiblefor producing AWS B2.1, Standard forWelding Procedure and PerformanceQualification. I will offer answers tothese questions based on my opinionsand the experience gained throughworking with this committee.

The Basics of WelderQualification

I think it is worth taking the timeto review the basics. Thesefundamentals are critical in order toclearly understand the basis for

performance qualification. First, apreliminary welding procedurespecification (WPS) needs to bedeveloped, establishing the weldingrecipe to be followed to complete awelding procedure qualification record(PQR). The PQR is the actual record ofthe qualification variables used toproduce the test weldment whilefollowing the recipe of the preliminaryWPS and, when successfully tested,proves the mechanical compatibility ofthe filler/base metal combination. ThePQR is then used as the basis forwriting a WPS within the limitation ofthe variables established by theappropriate code or standard. Thisprocess can be simplified by using aStandard Welding ProcedureSpecification (SWPS) published byAWS. The SWPS is supported by asummary of applicable PQRs. Anappropriately qualified WPS is criticalto the performance test since thewelder is required to follow therequirements of the WPS.

The purpose of welderperformance testing is simple: It is atest for a welder to demonstrate theability to successfully complete a testweldment following the instruction of awelding procedure that has beenappropriately qualified or isprequalified as allowed by theapplication code. Most people tend tofocus on the arc part of this test morethan they do following therequirements of the WPS. Once awelder is qualified, there are limitationsestablished that restrict use, includingbut not limited to, change of process,position, filler metal, base metal,progression, mode of metal transfer,thickness, and diameter.


Key to any welder performance testis the welding procedure specification(WPS) that provides instruction to thewelder. Without this instruction, thewelder simply cannot take the test. TheWPS provides base and filler metalrequirements, as well as spells out theposition, electrical characteristics,preheat and postheat requirements, etc.I’m sure you have caught on by now thatI am uncompromising on the use andpurpose of the WPS. As a qualifiedinspector in the welding industry, youmust understand WPSs. Unfortunately,at most of the job sites and shops that Ivisit, the welders are not veryknowledgeable nor sometimes evenaware of the WPS. They followinstructions provided by a foreman orsupervisor, and do their best to “make itlook good.”

To aid in understanding, let’sdiscuss the “why” questions mentionedpreviously. Keep in mind thatperformance requirements are written toadequately test the welders’ abilities butare also generalized to a certain extent sothat individual tests are not required foreach unique application. Throughout thisdiscussion, references made toqualification variables or requirementsare to AWS B2.1/B2.1M: 2009,Specification for Welding Procedure andPerformance Qualification.

Why does a groove weld qualify

for a fillet weld?

This is an interesting question that Iknow firsthand garnered hour after hourof debate for years during AWS B2Committee meetings. Bottom line is this:It has been judged that it requires moreskill to weld a groove than a fillet. Agroove test weldment requires tie in atthe root and sidewall when made withbacking or tie in on the prepared back

side of the joint. It requires a certainamount of bead profile control to allowmultiple-pass welds along with thecontrol of undercut, slag inclusions, andother inherent defects. A fillet weld maybe multiple pass and require some of thesame but not to the extent or degree asfor a groove weld.

The reason for so much debate onthis subject in the committee meetingswas that if a fillet weld is made withoutproper tie in at the root, it will fail. Someof the reasons for incomplete rootpenetration and tie in are electrode angle,electrode diameter, amperage, and arclength. This being true, it is alsoconsidered a training aspect: If a weldercan successfully weld a groove he or shecan weld a fillet, even if a little trainingis necessary.

Why does qualification using an

F4 electrode qualify for use with the

lower F numbers?

In general terms, F4 is a low-hydrogen electrode producing a thick,fluid, atmosphere-protecting, slow-freezing flux, whereas the lowerF-numbered electrodes consisting ofcellulose, rutile, and iron powdercoatings provide a less fluid, faster-freezing flux. Considering again thepurpose of the performance test and theability of the welder, it is consideredmore difficult to manipulate andmanage a molten weld pool with an F4electrode than with lower-F-numberedelectrodes. While you may think this isidiotic, most of us do recognize thatthere is a significant difference in thetechniques used with these variouselectrodes such as whipping, weaving,stringing, and long and short arcing.However, if a welder can succeed withan F4 electrode, he or she can usuallysucceed with the lower-F numbers even

if a little training on technique isnecessary.

Why does performance

qualification with the GMAW process

also qualify a welder for the FCAW

process and vice versa?

The principle here is historicallybased on the ability to use asemiautomatic process and theequipment associated with it ratherthan being based on the arc. There is asignificant difference at the arc whenyou have flux compared to when youdon’t.

You may be interested to knowthat this qualification variable is anactive action item within the B2committee. Serious consideration isbeing given to not allow this variableto stand and to require separatequalifications based on process.

There are a lot of whys to be askedthroughout the performancequalification process, and they are alllegitimate. I can tell you that theestablished requirements are based onmany years of experience from a wideindustrial application base and on thetechnical merit that all voluntarycontributors provide.

Conclusion

As you oversee welder qualificationtests, you’ll be in for lots of surprises.Figure 1 is a trophy from one of myexperiences. Normally, a trophy isawarded for something a person is proudof and is given for a specificaccomplishment such as in a sport oractivity such as hunting or fishing.Occasionally, however, a trophy is keptas a memento or souvenir based on theshock or surprise value that it offers. Awelder came into the weld lab to take thestandard 3⁄8-in. plate with backing,shielded metal arc welding, low-hydrogen test. This fine specimen was tobe welded in the 2G test position. Thewelder was turned loose after a fitupinspection. I heard the power supplysurging from the abruptly changing arclength and wondered what in the worldwas going on. I looked around thecurtain and saw the “welder” hadrepositioned the test plate to the 1G testposition. He was working his elbow andwaving his electrode-holding arm fromside to side trying to complete the weldbefore he got caught. Busted! As youcan tell by the picture, this guy was not awelder, and I am surprised he knew howto put the electrode in the electrode

Fig. 1 — An example from a poor attempt at a welder qualification test.


holder. By the way, he was provided acopy of the WPS.

If you have questions and/or concerns

you would like the B2 Committee on

Procedure and Performance Qualification

to consider and evaluate, please submit

them to committee secretary Alex Diaz at

[email protected]. Also, we can always use

your help, and we welcome you to attend a

meeting and to apply to become a

committee member. It is the committee’s

desire to provide a comprehensive

standard to the industry that is both

technically correct and useful.

JEFF J. FLUCKIGER([email protected]) is QA man-ager, Idaho National Laboratory, IdahoFalls, Idaho. He is chair of the AWS B2Committee on Procedure and Perform-

ance Qualification.

Practical Knowledge, Worldly Wisdom & Extraordinary Ingenuity

Mark Your Calendar! For more conference details visit www.asnt.org/events/events.htm

ASNT Fall Conference The 2012 NDT ExperienceOrlando, Florida, USA

29 October-1 November 2012Rosen Shingle Creek Resort



Feature


By Peter C. Amin

Inspectors in many industries haveto enter a confined space from time totime, if not on a regular basis. A con-fined space may be defined as a spacethat has any or all of the followingcharacteristics:• Limited openings for entry and exit;• Unfavorable natural ventilation;• Not designed for continuous worker

occupancy.Confined spaces include, but are

not limited to, boilers, pressure ves-sels, cargo tanks, fuel oil tanks, lubeoil tanks, service tunnels, pump rooms,compressor rooms, and enginecrankcases.

Some of the risks are as follows:• Serious risk of fire or explosion;• Loss of consciousness from asphyxi-

ation arising from gas, fumes, vapor,or lack of oxygen;

• Drowning arising from increasedwater level;

• Loss of consciousness arising froman increase in body temperature;

• Asphyxiation/suffocation arisingfrom free-flowing solid (engulfment)or the inability to reach a breathableatmosphere due to entrapment.

Working in confined spaces isdangerous not only because of the rea-sons stated above but also because res-cue from the confined space, in thecase of an accident, is a difficult taskin and of itself.

There are some precautions thatcan be taken to minimize the risk toproperty and human life. Beforeentering the confined space, it isalwasy helpful to meet with the safetypersonnel and others in charge at thesite. Getting to know the details of theconfined space is very important tohelp you deal with unexpected situa-

tions that may arise during the inspection.

Organizational Procedure

Every organization must have asafety procedure for entering andworking in a confined space — Fig. 1.Before starting inspection work, get toknow those procedures thoroughly.Spare the time to take training, if avail-able. Familiarize yourself with thespace, hazards related to the space,entry and exit procedures, rescue pro-cedure, and Emergency Action Plan(EAP).

Emergency and evacuation proce-dures should be agreed upon and under-stood by all parties involved in a poten-tial rescue operation. Steps for safe res-cue should be included in all confinedspace entry procedures. Rescue shouldbe well planned and evidence should bemade available that indicates drills havebeen frequently conducted on emer-gency procedures.

Entry Certification

In many situations, certification by aqualified person is required before per-sonnel may enter a confined space.Whenever there is a requirement forcertification, anyone who is not certi-fied, no matter how much experiencethey might have in similar situations,must not enter and commence work.

The Permit

Entry into permit-required con-fined spaces must comply with regu-

Performing Inspections in Confined SpacesThe hazards of confined spaces and the processes necessary to work in them safely are outlined

Inspections in confined spaces such as theinside of this cooling tower must beplanned carefully before the inspector en-ters the space and precautions must betaken to minimize the risks.

Fig. 1 — Signs such as this warn ofa confined space area and should be

part of the organization’s safetyprocedures.


Fig. 2 — Warning sign for a valve leadingin or out of a confined space.

Fig. 3 — Example of a meter for measuring avariety of gases.

Fig. 4 — Ensure proper arrangement ofventilation or blowers.

lations promulgated by theOccupational Safety and HealthAdministration. These regulationsinclude developing a written program,issuing entry permits, assigning atten-dant(s), designating entrants, andensuring a means of rescue.

In other words, the permit should• Identify the nature of work to be

done, exact location, and precautionstaken or to be taken;

• State safe working procedure;• Provide written authority for the con-

fined space to be entered and thework to start, and the time when thework must cease;

• State the time slot allocated for thedesignated work;

• Identify the personnel entering thespace and verify they have receivedthe required training.

Entry into a confined spaceshould only be allowed when a sepa-rate permit has been issued verifyingtests have been taken to ensure theatmosphere is safe to breathe.

All valves leading in or out of theconfined space should be clearlymarked “do not operate” — Fig. 2.

Testing the Atmosphere

Never trust your own senses todetermine whether the air in a confinedspace is safe! Many toxic gases andvapors can neither be seen nor smelled,nor can the level of oxygen present bedetermined without instrumentation.Proper procedures must be establishedto verify that the atmosphere is safe towork in or if some special respiratoryequipment is needed.

Effect of Work Performed

The type of work performed isalso important because toxic atmos-pheres are generated in variousprocesses. For example, solvents areused in many industries forcleaning/degreasing. The vapors fromthese solvents are very toxic in a con-fined space. Operations such as weld-ing, cutting, and brazing produce highheat that consumes oxygen. Painting,scraping, sandblasting, and degreasinggenerate dangerous gases and/orvapors. As you can see, the atmos-phere in a confined space, which maybe safe at the time of enty, canbecome toxic after the work hasbegun.


Personal ProtectionEquipment

Use of proper personal protection

equipment (PPE) is very important.

You should not only have the proper

PPE, but also know how to use it.

Some common types of PPE are as fol-

lows:

• Body protection (hard-wearing over-

alls with suitable pockets for note-

book, etc.);

• Foot protection (steel toe caps, steel

midsoles, good grip, oil resistant);

• Head protection (hard hat with chin

straps);

• Hand protection (hard-wearing

gloves);

• Eye protection (protective glasses,

goggles);

• Ear protection (earmuffs or ear plugs,

which may need to be worn with a

communication system);

• Gas meter (a multigas meter for

measuring HC, H2S, CO, O2 is rec-

ommended) — Fig. 3;

• Lighting (hand-held with lanyard and

appropriate beam width);

• Special equipment as needed, i.e.,

explosion-proof lighting, special

breathing apparatus.

Care also must be taken to not

carry too much material such as extra

drawings, notebooks, unnecessary

PPE, etc., because these may cause a

problem if a rescue is necessary as

well as they could restrict your move-

ment in a confined space. Carry only

what you need, nothing more.

Lighting and Ventilation

A dark confined space is even

more dangerous to work in, so ensure a

proper level of lighting in the work

area. Ensure the electrical connections

provided to the lights are properly

insulated so as not to cause explosion

or fire. The type of light should be

suitable for the type of work being

done. A 60-W bulb cannot be provided

for painting work being carried out in

a confined space, an explosion proof

light is required.

Ventilation is also a major factor

in this case — Fig. 4. Ensure proper

arrangement of ventilation or blowers.

Table 1 shows the health effects creat-

ed by varying levels of oxygen. Lack

of oxygen can lead quickly to uncon-

sciousness and death.

Standby/Rescue

A person should never enter a con-

fined space without a rescue person

standing by — Fig. 5. A standby per-

son should always be available at the

entry of the confined space to ensure

the worker’s wellbeing.

The standby person

• Should not have any duties other

than to serve as standby and know

who to notify in case of emergency;

• Should never leave his or her post

even after help has arrived. The

standby person is also a key commu-

nication link to others onboard;

Rescuers must be trained to fol-

low established emergency procedures

and how to use appropriate equipment

and techniques (such as lifelines, res-

piratory protection, and serve as

standby persons).

Summary

Whenever the need arises to enter

a confined space, ensure the space is

secured. Otherwise, you are putting

your life in danger. Always remember

that no inspection is worth risking your

life or health.

Fig. 5 — Diagram showing the positioning of the standbyperson when work is being done in a confined space.

PETER C. AMIN([email protected]) is with Lloyd’s

Register Asia and is stationed at Surat,Gujarat, India. He is an AWS CertifiedWelding Inspector and an ASNT NDTLevel III in RT, UT, MP, and PT. He isalso secretary of the AWS West Zone —

India Section.

Table 1 — Health Effects from Lack of

Oxygen

O2 level Effects

22% Oxygen-enriched atmosphere

20.8% Normal level. Safe for

entry (± 0.2%)

19.5% Oxygen-deficient atmosphere

16% Impaired judgment and

breathing

14% Rapid fatigue and faulty

judgment

11% Difficulty breathing and

death in a few minutes

FeatureBy Albert J. Moore Jr.

I consider myself to be one of the

many ground pounders of the

inspection industry. Much of my

practice involves inspecting welds: big

welds, little welds, fillet welds, groove

welds, plug welds. If it is welded, I

have been asked to inspect it.

Part of the inspector’s job entails

checking the welder’s qualifications

and the employer’s certification.

Following are several questions that

must be answered: Did the welder’s

employer sign the test record attesting

to the welder’s abilities and that the

information contained in the

performance test record is correct? Is

the welder qualified for the type of

welds being inspected? What test did

the welder take? That final question is

important because many welding codes

state that a welder qualified with a

groove weld is qualified to weld both

grooves and fillet welds, but a welder

who qualifies by taking the fillet weld

test is only qualified for fillet welds. I

believe there is a disconnect between

the test the welder takes and the type of

welds the welder is permitted to make.

Manufacturers must meet the

code requirements when a code is

referenced in the contract documents,

i.e., the purchase order, design

drawing, project specification, etc.

The intention is to ensure the structure

— whether it is a machine, building,

or a widget — that has been fabricated

or constructed is safe and will

function as intended. The code

requirements, limitations, restrictions,

prohibitions, etc., have evolved over

time to address issues and concerns

common to the industry. Changes in

the codes reflect lessons learned from

research and through analysis of

accidents.

Qualification Requirements

Let us get back to the problem

stated in the last sentence of the

opening paragraph. There appears to be

a disconnect between the requirements

contained in the welding codes and

how the welder is qualified to weld. Is

it reasonable for a welder to be

qualified to weld both fillet and groove

welds if the welder passes a

qualification test consisting of a groove

welded joint? Is it reasonable to limit

the welder’s qualifications to fillet

welds if the welder passes a typical

fillet test? My position is that the

current code requirements do not

properly assess the welder’s abilities to

produce sound welds.

My experience has been that the

success rate for a seasoned welder

taking the fillet break test on a T-joint

is very low. Overall, the success rate is

only about 15% when the welder is

evaluated by the fillet break test and

the fillet weld is deposited along the T-

joint as a single-pass weld. If the

discussion is limited to the test results

on gas metal arc welding (GMAW) and

flux cored arc welding (FCAW) using

electrode diameters of 0.052 in. or less,

the pass rate drops to about 5% on the

welder’s first attempt.

What is the problem with large

single-pass fillet welds? Why is the

failure rate so high? To answer those

questions, we have to look at weld

designs and consider what has

happened on the production floor in

recent years.

While taking a structural steel

design course many years ago, I asked

my professor the following question:

“Why do all the designers typically

specify 1⁄4-in. or 5⁄16-in. fillet welds?”

His response was short and simple:

“Quarter-inch and 5⁄16-in. fillet welds are

common because they are the largest

fillet welds that can be easily deposited

in a single pass.”


Qualifying Welders on Fillet WeldsA veteran inspector proposes a change to how welders are qualified to better reflectcurrent production practices

Fig. 1 — Proposed welder performance test for combination fillet and groove weld.

That made sense to me. I had

worked as a welder in the shop and was

currently welding in the field as a

structural ironworker. At the time, the

predominant welding process was

shielded metal arc welding, and we

used relatively large-diameter

electrodes. In the shop, we used E7024

and E7028 where the welds were in the

flat and horizontal positions. The same

was true in the field unless we were

welding in the vertical or overhead

positions. Still, we used the largest-

diameter electrodes we could handle

without wearing the molten metal. The

single-pass fillet welds were typically1⁄4 or 5⁄16 in., and they were not that

difficult to make.

The same cannot be said now that

fabricators use FCAW and GMAW

with smaller-diameter electrodes. The

small-diameter electrodes, 0.052 in.

and smaller, require specific techniques

to deposit a 5⁄16-in. weld successfully in

a single pass. Many welders simply do

not have the skills to deposit the

required weld size in a single pass, yet

they are expected to do so in

production. The root cause is the

absence of training and proper

assessment of the welder’s skills.

Some inspectors hold the position

that there is nothing in the code that

requires the weld to be deposited as a

single-pass fillet when taking the fillet

break test. I agree, but I am of the

opinion that the welder performance

test should reflect production needs

and requirements. When management

insists on single-pass fillet welds in

production, the welder should

demonstrate the ability to deposit the

single pass weld size required for

production work. The stated purpose of

the welder performance test is to allow

the welder to demonstrate proficiency

and the ability to deposit sound welds.

If the welder cannot demonstrate the

ability to deposit a single-pass fillet

weld of the required size in the test

booth, why should the employer or the

inspector be surprised when he or she

cannot do it in production?

Why Welders Fail

The primary reason welders fail

the fillet break test is they do not

secure fusion to the root of the joint.

The problem is not limited to one

position. I have seen welders struggle

in all the test positions. Another

common discontinuity observed is

undercut when welding in the vertical

position. Both undercut along the

upper toe and overlap along the lower

toe of large single-pass fillet welds are

common when testing in the

horizontal position.

These same welders can usually

pass the grooved plate test once all

hope of passing the fillet break test has

faded. Yes, you read the sentence

correctly. On many occasions, the

client has asked the welder be tested on

a grooved test coupon in the same test

position they just failed (using the fillet

break test), and they nearly always

pass. The pass rate for a grooved

coupon is approximately 85%. The

welder has demonstrated an inability to

deposit a sound fillet weld, and yet by

virtue of passing the groove test, is

qualified to make both fillet and

groove welds. This is the disconnect

between the welding codes and

production requirements mentioned in

the introduction.

A Modified Test

Is there a solution? I believe there

is. I do a considerable amount of work

that does not require compliance to

either the AWS Structural WeldingCodes or ASME Boiler and PressureVessel Code. When those jobs come up,

I incorporate AWS D1 structural

welding requirements in the project

specification when practical, but with a

slight modification. The welder is

required to qualify using a standard

fillet break test using a T-joint when

fillet welds are the only production

requirement — Fig. 1. The welders are

tested using a square groove with

backing and a 15⁄16-in. root opening

when both groove welds and fillet

welds are required. This test is similar

to the fillet weld option depicted in the

AWS Structural Welding Codes. The

rationale is that the modified test

requires the welder to deposit two fillet

welds that are subject to visual

examination. If the fillet welds are

acceptable, the remaining V-groove is

welded in the same test position. The

welder is essentially tested for fillets

and grooves on the same test coupon.

When the coupon is cut and the guided

bend testing completed, any

incomplete fusion in the roots of the

fillet welds is obvious. The visual

examination, detects any surface

discontinuities such as undercut and

overlap associated with the fillet welds.


The welder prepares and welds a fabricated miter joint that will be subjected to aburst test. This test piece survived the burst test by remaining intact as the testpressure reached 1200 lb/in.2

The groove weld is subjected to visual

examination, and the guided bend tests

provide a means of assessing the weld

soundness. A crack initiating in the root

of the fillet weld due to incomplete

fusion is sufficient to reject the weld.

Evolution of Welding Codes

Welding codes evolve as

production methods and needs change.

The next edition of D1.1, StructuralWelding Code — Steel, is due for

publication in 2015. I believe this is an

opportune time for the code committee

to consider my proposal. The change

proposed in this article is a simple

extension of the tests already contained

in the existing Structural WeldingCodes. It is one more evolutional step

to make the Structural Welding Code

more relevant to current manufacturing

methods. Shielded metal arc welding is

no longer the dominant welding

process used for fabrication. The use of

large-diameter electrodes is no longer

the norm. Gas metal arc and flux cored

arc welding have largely replaced

SMAW, and the use of small-diameter

electrodes predominates.

This evolution in the production

methods necessitates a change in how

welders are qualified. Welders should

be required to demonstrate their ability

to deposit sound single-pass fillet

welds that are the same size required

for production. They should also be

required to demonstrate their ability to

deposit sound groove welds. A simple

code revision will allow the welder to

be qualified for both fillet and groove

welds with a single test. The revision

would involve requiring the welder to

pass a single test consisting of a square

groove with backing and a 15⁄16-in. root

opening (similar to the fillet weld

option depicted in AWS D1.1). The

current fillet break test would still

qualify the welder for fillet welds. The

current grooved plate test would

qualify the welder for grooves only. A

simple change in the current

methodology and language would

reaffirm the correlation between

production requirements and

performance qualification.


ALBERT J. MOORE JR.([email protected]) is vice presi-

dent, Marion Testing & Inspection, Canton,Conn. He is an AWS Senior Certified Weld-

ing Inspector and an ASNT ACCP NDTLevel III. He is also a member of the AWS

Certification Committee and the Committeeon Methods of Inspection of Welds.

This welder tests the T-joint he just welded. The testweld is a single-pass, 5⁄16-in. fillet weld. The fracturedweld must display fusion to the root with no excessiveporosity, slag inclusion, incomplete fusion, undercut,overlap, and excessive convexity.

The welder fabricates and welds a mitered joint that will be sub-jected to a burst test. This mitered joint withstood the test pressureof 1200 lb/in.2 without bursting, squirting water, or leaking.

FeatureBy


By Joseph P. Kane

This article is the third in a four-part series related to the Code ofEthics found in AWS QC-1: 2007,Standard for AWS Certification of

Welding Inspectors.

The most severe sanctions issued

for a violation of the Code of Ethics are

revocation, suspension, or refusal of

renewal of an AWS certification. These

sanctions are commonly referred to as

the “death penalty.”

The most recent ethics violation

that went before a Hearing Panel has

run through the administrative hearing

and the administrative appeal

processes. The Respondent was a self-

employed AWS Certified Welding

Inspector (CWI). He is also an ASNT

SNTC-TC-1a Level 2 technician in

Ultrasonic Testing and Magnetic

Particle Testing.

Late last year, the Respondent,

who has been an AWS CWI since

2005, was charged with a violation of

several articles of Section 8 of AWS

QC-1-96 (specifically 8.1, 8.2, 8.2.4,

8.4.5, and 8.2.6). These articles are

related to integrity and responsibility to

the public. Apparently, the

Complainant who brought the charges

did not know there is a 2007 edition of

AWS QC-1, and that the Code of

Ethics, Rules of Conduct, and Practice

is now in Section 11. It is likely that

the following provisions now apply to

the complaint: 11.1, 11.2, 11.2.4,

11.2.5, 11.2.6, and 11.6.

QC-1: 2007, Standard for AWSCertification of Welding Inspectors,

can be downloaded free of charge from

the AWS Web site at www.aws.org.

The Basis for the Complaint

The Respondent was hired by an

engineering and inspections firm (the

Complainant) in a southeastern state to

perform visual welding inspection and

nondestructive examination in a

fabricating facility in New England. He

was to work as a third-party quality

assurance inspector for steel fabrication

for a prominent public sports venue.

The facility in New England was just

one of the fabrication facilities

involved in this project, at which the

Respondent performed the third-party

inspections, but it was reportedly the

only facility where the alleged

violations occurred.

To facilitate this third-party

inspection activity, the engineering and

inspections firm provided its own

company credit card to pay for the

inspector’s travel, hotel, and meal

expenses. The CWI was required to

travel to the fabricating facility at

certain times and perform the specified

surveillance and required testing. He

was required to file narrative and

nondestructive examination reports for

each activity and each visit, along with

time, travel, and expense reports

accompanied by appropriate receipts.

The CWI (Respondent) initially

traveled at the required intervals,

visited the fabrication shop, and

reportedly actually performed the

mandated inspection and

nondestructive testing activities.

However, for reasons not explained,

starting in June, he did not visit the

facility, but he did submit fully detailed

visual inspection and NDE reports,

along with payroll time and expense

reports, as well as receipts for several

visits to the facility. On its face, all

appeared to be normal.

The fabrication facility also

received a copy of the inspection

reports; however, personnel there

reportedly knew the inspector was

never at the facility during the five

dates the reports covered. The

engineering and inspections firm asked

the fabricator how it was shipping steel

with no inspection. The fabricator

reportedly said it had received the

reports via e-mail. The fabricator did

not report anything amiss or make an

actual complaint until September.

As things began to unravel, the

engineering and inspections firm asked

the CWI to explain the fabricator’s

allegation, as well as other

inconsistencies. At first, the inspector

denied the allegation, saying he had

gone there, and did conduct the

inspections. Later, he changed his story

and said he had gone there, but no one

saw him because he had visited during

the night shift. The engineering and

inspections firm reportedly conducted

its own internal investigation. It visited

the New England fabrication facility

and questioned key personnel.

The hotel’s records showed the

Respondent as a “no show, not

cancelled,” so their charge on the credit

card bill was still valid. The airline

showed him as a “no show,” and

eventually refunded the ticket charges.

Finally, the engineering and

inspections firm confronted the

Respondent, who reportedly admitted

he had not traveled to the site and did

Ethics Alert: Recent Cases

Each year, the Ethics Subcommittee handles a variety of complaints regarding the Code ofEthics, ranging from minor violations to those requiring the most stringent sanctions


not inspect the steel pieces on the dates

concerned. He also reportedly admitted

he had falsified the reports, and owed

the firm money for payroll, expenses,

and per diem.

In the evidence presented with the

complaint, there was a copy of an e-

mail message sent from the

Respondent to the client (the sports

facility contractor), in which he

admitted the fraud. The Respondent

also said the engineering and

inspections firm had no knowledge of

the fraud, and that the reports for the

dates mentioned in the complaint were

the only inspections that were

fraudulent. At the rest of the fabrication

facilities where he was supposed to

perform inspections for this project

during the previous seven months, he

said, “Every other inspection was

recorded correctly to the applicable

code and to the best of my ability.”

The Complainant reported that the

steel in question was subsequently

reinspected by a third party. All was

rejected.

The Hearing Panel

The AWS Hearing Panel convened

in a teleconference on February 1,

2012, and the AWS attorney swore-in a

representative from the Complainant,

the engineering and inspections firm.

The Complainant stated her case, then

was required to leave the call. She was

not party to the Hearing Panel’s

deliberations. The Respondent did not

participate despite notifications

inviting him to do so. The Respondent

did not even have to travel anywhere to

participate; he only had to attend a

teleconference.

The Hearing Panel deliberated and

“…further determined that a sanction

should be imposed, consisting of

revocation of the Respondent’s

Certified Welding Inspector status and

permanent ineligibility for CWI status

at any time in the future. This sanction

is to take effect at the earliest date

possible, subject to the Appeals

process.” (The date was February 2,

2012.)

Through his attorney, the

Respondent then appealed in

accordance with AWS QC-9,

Administrative Procedures for AllegedViolations of AWS CertificationPrograms, Section 8. On March 6, the

AWS Executive Committee met and

one of the items of business was the

Respondent’s appeal. The Hearing

Panel president was invited to present a

summary of the violation case, and the

Hearing Panel’s deliberations. The

appeal letter from the Respondent’s

attorney was also read and considered.

A motion was introduced and

seconded, to affirm the final ruling of

the Hearing Panel in all respects. The

motion carried 6 to 1.

For my part in this drama, I was

concerned that the e-mail submitted

with the complaint was not signed, and

was really untraceable without true

forensic investigation. The rest of the

evidence (inspection and NDE reports)

were not signed either. However, I also

knew the Respondent would get the

opportunity to have his say during the

hearing.

Most importantly, I was concerned

about all those steel tension welds

getting installed without proper

ultrasonic testing, and about the

fabricator’s possible complicity in the

whole affair. To this day, I would like

to know if the engineering and

inspections firm had the proper amount

of third-party surveillance on the

project at each of the fabrication

facilities, or if they cut corners with

intermittent inspection. (If there is

more to this case, perhaps the death

penalty might not have been

appropriate.)

However, with regard to the prima

facie case against the Respondent, I

didn’t even need a second reading of

the complaint to vote for convening a

Hearing Panel. The e-mail trail shows

that the other Ethics Subcommittee

members all voted very quickly for the

AWS Executive Director to convene a

Hearing Panel per the provisions of

AWS QC-9, Administrative Proceduresfor Alleged Violations of AWSCertification Programs. All generally

agreed that this was an easily verifiable

allegation that cried out for the harshest

sanction, the CWI “death penalty.”

I commend the engineering and

inspections firm for a concise, detailed,

properly documented, and properly

filled out complaint. The American

Welding Society could easily use this

complaint packet to pursue the

complaint through the administrative

hearing process. Assembling the

complaint packet took a lot of time and

effort on the company’s part. It is

seldom that the Ethics Subcommittee

gets a properly filled out and

documented complaint.

Other Recent Cases

There were some other complaints

of alleged violations last year though

none as dramatic or potentially harmful

to the public safety as the one outlined

here. However, they were still serious.

Some of these would be amusing if

they weren’t such serious violations.

There was an allegation that an

inspector did not want to wait for the

welders to come back from lunch to

complete their welder qualification

coupons, so he welded them to

completion himself. Can you imagine

that? Another allegation claimed an

inspector took some old welded

coupons out of a scrap bin and used

them as the welder’s coupons. These

cases did not go before a hearing panel

for various reasons.

The Ethics Subcommittee also

received complaints about phony CWIs

as well as former Certified Associate

Welding Inspectors (CAWIs) acting as,

and pretending to be, real AWS CWIs.

These cases do not go very far because

the phony CWIs have no actual

relationship to the American Welding

Society. The most that happens to them

is they receive a threatening letter from

the AWS attorney telling them to

desist.

These are just a few examples of

the types of cases presented to the

Ethics Subcommittee.

JOSEPH P. KANE([email protected]) is with

Pennoni Associates, King of Prussia, Pa.He is an advisor to the AWS CertificationCommittee, a member of the Subcommit-

tee on the Code of Ethics, and chair of theStructural Inspection Subcommittee. He is

also an AWS Senior Certified WeldingInspector.

The Answer IsBy


The Society is not responsible for any statements made or opinion expressed herein. Data and information developed by the authors are for specificinformational purposes only and are not intended for use without independent, substantiating investigation on the part of potential users.

By K. Erickson and A. Moore

Q: I am a relatively new CWI, and I

have a question about why there is a

difference between AWS D1.1,

Structural Welding Code — Steel, and

AWS B2.1, Specification for WeldingProcedure and PerformanceQualification. In D1.1, the test

coupon to attain an unlimited

thickness qualification for plate is

required to be 1 in. thick. In B2.1, it

is only required to be 3⁄4 in. I’m

curious because both publications

originate from the American

Welding Society. (Question

submitted by Brian Gerkin, CWI.)

A (from A. Moore): AWS committees

are populated by volunteers who serve

without compensation from AWS. I

assume most volunteers have similar

circumstances to mine. I have a

regular job. My employer demands

much of my time if I expect to collect

a paycheck with which I can pay my

mortgage, feed my family, pay my

taxes, etc. That limits the time I can

serve on AWS committees. The

specific committees I elect to serve on

are largely influenced by my interests

or those of my employers. I cannot

afford to serve on all the committees I

would like, and I assume that is the

situation many other committee

members find themselves in.

Considering all the committees,

subcommittees, and task groups

working under the auspices of AWS,

there are hundreds, if not thousands,

of individuals volunteering their time

to develop AWS welding codes and

standards. While the system permits a

large number of people to participate,

that also means there are just as many

philosophies regarding what is the

best way to meet the needs of our

industry.

The D1 Structural Welding Code

committees and subcommittees have

developed a particular philosophy of

how structures are to be welded and

they have adopted the requirement that

the welders must pass a 1-in.-thick

grooved plate (or ½-in.- or 0.203-in.-

thick wall for pipe) test if they are to be

qualified for unlimited thickness. It is

simply what the committee members

agreed to, and it has served industry

rather well for many years.

In contrast, a different group of

individuals populate ASME’s Section

IX Committee. Those people are of

the opinion that any welder who can

weld a ½-in.-thick plate (or pipe) is

qualified to weld with no thickness

limitations. It should come as no

surprise that a different organization

composed of individuals with

different philosophies working on

similar problems as AWS committee

members would resolve problems

differently.

AWS B2.1 was once considerably

different from how it is now. If you

compare an earlier edition such as the

1984 revision to the current edition, you

will note there are many differences. I

attribute many of the changes to an

attempt to harmonize AWS B2.1 with

ASME Section IX. Since all of AWS’s

standards are consensus documents,

majority rules and compromise is the

way things get through the system. I am

certain there are members of the B2.1

Committee who have an affiliation with

AWS D1.1. I would not find it surprising

if they pushed for 1-in.-thick plate to be

the basis for unlimited qualification.

Likewise, I know there are members on

the B2.1 Committee who have a strong

affiliation with ASME Section IX. I am

sure those members pushed for ½-in.-

thick plate as the basis for unlimited

qualification. I would not find it

surprising if the B2.1 Committee

eventually settles on ¾ in. as a

compromise to which the majority of the

membership could agree.

Membership on any committee

forces each member to make certain

compromises to develop a document

that satisfies the needs of industry. It

is rare that any one member gets

exactly what he or she thinks is best.

Q: On some large construction jobs,

the CWI might be responsible for

numerous welders in different

locations. Is there a maximum

number, and if so, which codes

apply? (Question submitted by Alan

Johnson, CWI, Seal Beach, Calif.)

A (from K. Erickson): To my

knowledge, there are no codes that

provide direct reference to this

question although this particular

subject matter has been a topic of

discussion relative to a variety of

industries and CWIs.

Different locations can apply to

numerous welders on a single

construction project or could also

apply to a number of welders involved

in separate construction projects. In

either application, the CWI’s

involvement is a direct relationship

between his or her contract

specification duties and the actual

time to carry out these duties. The

CWI’s involvement may be as simple

as performing final visual inspections

to actual 100% participation to

monitor in-process welding

parameters on more critical welded

joints with a hands-on turnover

approach.

The proper diagnosis of how many

welders a CWI can satisfactorily be

responsible for should be determined by

supervision to ensure that not only is the

contract specification being satisfied but

the governing standard is also being

The Society is not responsible for any statements made or opinion expressed herein. Data and information developed by the authors are for specificinformational purposes only and are not intended for use without independent, substantiating investigation on the part of potential users.


adhered to along with the CWI’s

involvement for scheduling and possibly

performing any NDE required.

In the past, on larger-scale

construction projects, it was generally

viewed that a CWI should be able to

cover the activities of from 4 to 8

welders involving welding/NDE

inspection and from 6 to 12 welders

when lighter activities are required. I

have also heard of projects for which

the CWI was responsible for 12–20

welders. That, in my opinion, is very

demanding on the CWI and would

lead to a greater opportunity for error

and possible added repairs, reworks,

and nonconformances. In addition,

CWIs vary in both knowledge and

experience, so what may be a suitable

number of welders to cover for one

CWI may be too demanding for

another.

The bottom line is that if your

employer is extending you beyond

your capabilities, then your ability to

carry out your responsibilities are

being affected. This then needs to be

brought to the attention of your

supervisor(s) and/or company

management for resolution

immediately.

Inspection Trends encouragesquestion and answer submissions. Pleasemail to the editor ([email protected]).

KENNETH ERICKSON is manager of qual-ity at National Inspection & Consultants,Inc., Ft. Myers, Fla. He is an AWS SeniorCertified Welding Inspector, an ASNT Na-

tional NDT Level III Inspector in four meth-ods, and provides expert witness reviewand analysis for legal considerations.

ALBERT J. MOORE JR. is vice president,Marion Testing & Inspection, Canton,Conn. He is an AWS Senior Certified

Welding Inspector and an ASNT ACCPNDT Level III. He is also a member of the

AWS Certification Committee and theCommittee on Methods of Inspection of

Welds.

The all new S1 TITAN

[email protected]

Positive Material Identification Fast alloy ID and chemistry Completely non-destructive Prevents material mix-up Lightweight – only 1.44kg / 3.17 lbs,

including battery

fie all new S1

ight and ex

nition of Pr

ceptionally accurTIT

recision

ceptionally accurate TATAN

Innovation with Integrity

or

[email protected]/s1titan

y of virtually any alloy.y analyzer which provides grade ID and element

Handheld XRF

uk r-er-Elemental.net

vides grade ID and elemental

Handheld XRF

An Important Eventon Its Way?

Send information on upcoming events to InspectionTrends, 550 NW LeJeune Rd., Miami, FL 33126. Itemscan also be sent via FAX to (305) 443-7404 or bye-mail to [email protected].



Mark Your Calendar65th Annual Assembly of the International Institute ofWelding. July 8–13, Hyatt Regency Hotel Denver andColorado Convention Center. Sponsored by the AmericanWelding Society, Edison Welding Institute, and WeldingResearch Council. Visit www.iiw2012.com.

Review of Progress in Quantitative NondestructiveEvaluation (QNDE). July 15–20, Hyatt Regency TechCenter, Denver, Colo. Contact [email protected] orwww.qndeprograms.org.

ASNT Digital Imaging XV Conference. July 16–18,Foxwoods Resort, Mashantucket, Conn. Contact AmericanSociety for Nondestructive Testing, (800) 222-2768 orwww.asnt.org.

12th EPRI Balance-of-Plant Heat Exchanger NDESymposium. Aug. 6–8, Park Hyatt Beaver Creek Resort,Avon, Colo. Contact Kenji Krzywosz, (704) 595-2596,[email protected], or www.epri.com.

AWS/GSI Conference on U.S. and European WeldingStandards: Structural, Pressure Piping, Pipelines,Railroad, NDT. Oct. 22, 23, Munich, Germany. Visitwww.gsi-slv.de/en/conferences/conferences-in-2012/.

ASNT Fall Conference and Quality Testing Show. Oct.29–Nov. 2, Rosen Shingle Creek Resort, Orlando, Fla.Contact American Society for Nondestructive Testing, (800)222-2768 or www.asnt.org.

20th National Quality Education Conference. Nov. 11, 12,Hyatt Regency Louisville, Louisville, Ky. Contact AmericanSociety for Quality (ASQ), (800) 248-1946 or www.asq.org.

FABTECH 2012. Nov. 12–14, Las Vegas ConventionCenter, Las Vegas, Nev. Sponsored by the American WeldingSociety, Society of Manufacturing Engineers, and Fabricators& Manufacturers Association, Int’l. Visitwww.fabtechexpo.com.

Educational Opportunities

NDE Classes. Moraine Valley Community College, Palos

Hills, Ill., offers NDE classes in PT, MT, UT, RT, Radiation

Safety, and Eddy Current, as well as API 510 exam prep and

weld inspection. For more information, contact (708) 974-

5735; [email protected]; morainevalley.edu/NDE.

CWI Prep Course and AWS CWI Seminar and Exam.The Prep Course prepares candidates for the AWS Certified

AWS agreement with ASNT offers ACCP toqualified CWIs & SCWIs.

Do you need visual testing certification which meets the guidelines for Recommended Practice No. SNT-TC-1A as required by somesections of the ASME Code? Through this agreement, qualified SCWIs and CWIs can obtain ACCP Level II VT certification without examination.

Enhance your credentials and satisfy work requirements with the addition of an ACCP credential.

To apply and for more details visitwww.asnt.org or call 614.274.6003 or 800.222.2768 US/Canada.

Opportunity Knocks.

Image © Longview InspectionFor info go to www.aws.org/ad-index


Welding Inspector (CWI) seminar and examination. OfferedJuly 16–20 and October 15–19. The CWI seminar covershow to reference AWS codes, examine welds, and prepare forthe CWI exam on that following Saturday (proctored byAWS). Offered July 22–28 and October 21–27. ContactLincoln Electric’s Welding School at (216) 383-8325 or visitwww.lincolnelectric.com.

EPRI NDE Training Seminars. EPRI offers NDE technicalskills training in visual examination, ultrasonic examination,ASME Section XI, UT operator training, etc. Contact SherrylStogner, (704) 547-6174, e-mail: [email protected].

Nondestructive Examination Courses. A course schedule isavailable from Hellier, 277 W. Main St., Ste. 2, Niantic, CT06357, (860) 739-8950, FAX (860) 739-6732.

NDE Training Courses. GE Inspection Technologies offerstraining on topics such as eddy current, digital radiography,and remote visual inspection. For the complete schedule,contact (866) 243-2638; [email protected];www.ge.com/inspectiontechnologies.

Preparatory and Visual Weld Inspection Courses. One- andtwo-week courses presented in Pascagoula, Miss., Houston,Tex., and Houma and Sulphur, La. Contact Real EducationalServices, Inc., (800) 489-2890; [email protected].

CWI/CWE Course and Exam. A ten-day program presentedin Troy, Ohio. Contact Hobart Institute of Welding Technology(800) 332-9448; www.welding.org; [email protected].

T.E.S.T. NDT, Inc., Courses. CWI preparation, NDEcourses, including ultrasonic thickness testing and advancedphased array. On-site training available. T.E.S.T. NDT, Inc.,193 Viking Ave., Brea, CA 92821; (714) 255-1500; FAX(714) 255-1580; [email protected]; www.testndt.com.

NDE Training. NDE training at the company’s St. Louis-area facility or on-site. Level III services available. For aschedule of upcoming courses, contact Quality TestingServices, Inc., 2305 Millpark Dr., Maryland Heights, MO63043; (888) 770-0103; [email protected];www.qualitytesting.net.

CWI/CWE Prep Course and Exam and NDT InspectorTraining Courses. An AWS Accredited Testing Facility.Courses held year-round in Allentown, Pa., and at customers’facilities. Contact: Welder Training & Testing Institute (WTTI).Call (800) 223-9884, [email protected], or visit www.wtti.edu.

Welding Inspection, INTEG, Welding Health and Safety,and Welding Supervisor Courses. Contact the CanadianWelding Bureau for schedule at (800) 844-6790, or visitwww.cwbgroup.org.

In hydrotesting, time is money.We save you both.

The GripTight® high pressure test plug uses proven self gripping features to safely, quickly, and effectively test pipe — whether it’s pipe spools, pipe rack modules or process modules. The greater the test pressure, the greater the grip. Available to ANSI N45.2 and 10CFR50 Appendix B quality requirements. EST Group is ISO-9001 certified. When time equals money, add GripTight to the equation.

We invite you to see all that we can do for you at http://estgroup.cwfc.com

For info go to www.aws.org/ad-indexFor info go to www.aws.org/ad-index

November 12-14, 2012 | Las Vegas Convention CenterREGISTER NOW at fabtechexpo.com

Scan this code to watch an exciting preview of FABTECH.

North America’s Largest Metal Forming,Fabricating, Welding and Finishing Event

Follow us: Cosponsors:

CONNECT.

LEARN.

COLLABORATE.

Experience the dynamic learning environment of FABTECH 2012 – a place where you can exchange best practices and discover new ideas and trends to take your business to the next level. Network with peers, learn from top industry experts and be inspired by the 100+ targeted educational sessions. Th ere’s nothing else like it!

THE ONE EVENT TO GAIN CRITICAL KNOWLEDGE AND ENHANCE YOUR TECHNICAL EXPERTISE.FABTECH 2012.

Just the FactsBy Lyndsey Deckard


The American Welding Societyrecognizes welder qualification andcertification in two ways. An employermay qualify a welder in accordance toAWS codes and standards, or theAmerican Welding Society itself maycertify a welder.

An AWS Certified Welder has beentested by a test supervisor (who must bean AWS CWI) at an AWS AccreditedTest Facility (ATF). If the welder’swelding tests are successful, the ATFwill forward the required records toAWS headquarters. The welder will thenbe placed on the AWS National Registryof Certified Welders. The registercontains all significant informationrelating to the welder’s certification andlimitations. It identifies the processes,materials, positions, thickness ranges,and currency of certification. In order tomaintain AWS certification, a weldermust not go for a period of more than sixmonths between welding in eachcertified process and position. There is

also a small certification/recertificationfee to be paid every six months. (Note:Because payment of the maintenance feeand submittal of the documentation ofwelding continuity every six months hasbeen viewed by some as cumbersomeand is often forgotten by the CertifiedWelder, AWS is currently looking into asystem that would reduce the frequencyof sending this information toheadquarters. If this change is made tothe requirements, it would greatlyincrease the convenience to the welderfor maintaining certification.)

A welder certified and current onthe AWS registry may work anywherein the world, and the AWS certificationwill go with that person. Acceptance ofthe certification by a foreign country is,of course, the decision of that country.

Welder qualification by theemployer, in accordance with AWScodes and standards, is entirely legal andmay be used on any projects thatcompany undertakes unless contract

documents specifically require the use ofAWS Certified Welders. Employercertification is not transferrable. If thewelder chooses to change employers, theperson’s new employer would requirehim or her to be retested and recertified.

Following is an excerpt from AWSQC7-93, Standard for AWS CertifiedWelders, Sections 1 and 3.

1. Scope1.1 Program. The rules for the

American Welding Society (AWS)Certified Welder Program and therequirements for maintenance ofcertification are provided in thisstandard. This standard requires the useof accredited test facilities forqualification testing.

1.2 Exclusion. This standard doesnot prevent a manufacturer, fabricator,or contractor from continuing to qualifywelders according to other standards.Employers may impose requirements inaddition to this standard, as deemednecessary.

How Welders Are Qualified and Certified

PublisherAndrew Cullison [email protected], Extension 249General Management,Reprint Permission,Copyright Issues

EditorMary Ruth [email protected], Extension 238Feature Articles

Production Editor Zaida [email protected], Extension 265Design and Production

Production Senior CoordinatorBrenda [email protected], Extension 330Design and Production

Advertising Sales Director Rob Saltzstein [email protected], Extension 243Advertising Sales

Advertising Production ManagerFrank [email protected]; Extension 465Advertising Production

Advertising Sales & Promotion Coordinator

Lea Garrigan [email protected], Extension 220Production and Promotion

Welding Journal Dept. 550 N.W. LeJeune Rd. Miami, FL 33126 (800) 443-9353; FAX (305) 443-7404

CAN WE TALK?The Inspection Trends staff encourages an exchange of ideas with you, our readers. If you’d like to ask a question, share an idea or

voice an opinion, you can call, write, e-mail or fax. Staff e-mail addresses are listed below, along with a guide to help you interact withthe right person.


1.3 Limitation. Certification underthe American Welding Society CertifiedWelder Program shall be limited to thosewelding performance variables providedin the applicable supplements to thisstandard.

3. Employers and AWSResponsibility

3.1 Employer’s Responsibility. Theemployers of AWS Certified Welders areresponsible for the work performed bytheir employees. The employers mayaccept the AWS certification withoutadditional testing or may addrequirements as deemed necessary tomeet a specific need. Some standards orcontract documents may require theowner, engineer, or other individuals toapprove the use of AWS CertifiedWelders (without requalification) ontheir work.

3.2 Employers’ Obligation.Companies who employ AWS CertifiedWelders shall be fully aware of theprovisions of this standard. Theemployers shall specifically note theextent of qualification as stated on theAWS welder identification/qualificationlimits card. The employers areresponsible for all work performed bytheir employees; and therefore, should

verify the employee’s prior work history,or otherwise determine that thequalification(s) apply to the employer’swork. The welder’s current status shouldbe verified with the Q&C Department(call (800) 443-9353, ext. 273).

3.3 AWS Responsibility3.3.1 The AWS Q&C Department

shall be responsible to maintain thefollowing:

1) Application for AWS CertifiedWelder

2) Welder Qualification Test Record3) Decertification action reports4) Maintenance of certification

records5) National Registry of Welders6) List of Accredited Test Facilities3.3.2 The Q&C Department will

provide, upon request, individual welderverification of maintenance ofcertification.

3.3.3 The Q&C Department willprovide database searches upon request.These searches will include only thoseauthorizing public disclosure on theapplication form.

3.4 Test Facility Responsibility. TheTest Facility is responsible for safety andhealth matters during testing at thatlocation in addition to other

requirements stated herein.It is extremely important that

Certified Welder candidates, SCWIs,CWIs, and ATF training andmanagement personnel, read andbecome familiar with the followingdocuments:• QC7-93, Standard for AWS Certified

Welders• QC7-93, Supplement C, Welder

Performance Qualification SheetMetal Test Requirements

• QC7-93, Supplement F, ChemicalPlant and Petroleum Refinery Piping

• QC7-93, Supplement G, AWSPerformance Qualification Test.

All four of the above-mentioneddocuments are available as freedownloads atwww.aws.org/w/a/certification/docs/.

LYNDSEY DECKARD([email protected]) is quality man-ager of the Vehicle Division of Parsons

Brinckerhoff Transit & Rail Systems, Inc.He is an AWS Senior Certified Welding In-spector, an ASQ Certified Quality Auditor,

and a member of the AWS CertificationCommittee, Examination Question BankSubcommittee, and Ethics Subcommittee.


Technology NotesErrata

B2.1/B2.1M:2009-ADD1

Specification for Welding Procedureand Performance Qualification

The following errata, in addition topreviously announced corrections (seewww.aws.org), have been identified andwill be incorporated into the nextreprint.

Page 63. Figures B.5B, Guided BendFixture-BottomType-Noteb — Correct“For M-26, M-81, and M-83 materials,two macroetch specimens shall be usedin lieu of guided bend testing (see alsoFigures B.5B and B.5C).” To: “For M-26, M-81, and M-83 materials, twomacroetch specimens shall be used inlieu of guided bend testing (see also Fig-ures B.5A and B.5C).”

Page 64. Figures B.5C, Guided BendFixture-Wrap-Around-Noteb — Correct“For M-26, M-81, and M-83 materials,two macroetch specimens shall be usedin lieu of guided bend testing. See alsoFigures B.5B and B.5C.” To: “For M-26,M-81, and M-83 materials, twomacroetch specimens shall be used inlieu of guided bend testing (see also Fig-ures B.5A and B.5B).”

ErrataD17.1/D17.1M:2010

Specification for Fusion Welding forAerospace Applications

The following errata have been iden-tified and will be incorporated into thenext reprinting of this document.

Page 35. Table 7.1, Acceptance Cri-teria in (mm), Discolorationb — Tita-nium, Green, Class B. Correct “Accep-tancea” to Acceptancec”

Page 35. Table 7.1, Acceptance Cri-teria in (mm), Discolorationb — Tita-nium, Green, Class C. Correct “Accep-tancea” to Acceptancec”

ErrataAWS D1.1/D1.1M:2010

Structural Welding Code — SteelThe following errata, in addition to

previously announced corrections (seewww.aws.org), have been identified andwill be incorporated into the next reprint.

Page 150, note h — Correct “See 4.25and 4.28” to “See 4.26 and 4.29”.

Page 193, 5.1 — Correct “4.15” refer-ence to “4.16.”

ErrataAWS D14.3/D14.3M:2010

Specification for Welding Earthmoving, Construction, and AgriculturalEquipment

The following errata, in addition to previously announced corrections (seewww.aws.org), have been identified and will be incorporated into the next reprintingof this document.

Page 15, Table 5 — Incorrect Yield Strength Range — Change Yield Strengthrange for Class III from “40–45” to “40–55”.

Official InterpretationsD1.6/D1.6M:2007

Structural Welding Code — Stainless Steel Subject: Electrode and Shielding MediumCode Edition: D1.6:2007Code Provisions: 4.8.3, Tables 4.1 and 4.5AWS Log: D1.6-07-I03Inquiry 1: In accordance with Table 4.1, does changing the percentage compositionof shielding gas mixture require requalification of the welding procedure?

Response: Yes.Inquiry 2: In accordance with paragraph 4.8.3 and Table 4.5, does changing the per-centage composition of shielding gas mixture require requalification of the welder?

Response: No.

Addenda B2.1/B2.1M:2009The following Addenda have been identified and will be incorporated into the next

reprinting of this document.AWS Standard: B2.1/B2.1M:2009, Specification for Welding Procedure and Per-formance QualificationAddenda No.: ADD1Subject: Annex D, Normative, Base Metal Grouping

Page 73, D1 Base Metal Specifications: Remove “AISI”Page 73, D1 Base Metal Specifications. Add “Table D.3 List base metal specifi-

cations for iron castings in accordance with AWS D11.2 groups”Page 74–135, Table D.1, List of Base Metal Specifications. New base metals have

been added and corrections have been made to Table D.1.Page 136–258, Table D.2, M-Number Listing of Base Metals. New base metals

have been added and corrections have been made to Table D.2.

Do You Have Some News to Tell Us?If you have a news item that might interest the readers of the Inspection Trends,

send it to the following address:Welding Journal Dept.Attn: Mary Ruth Johnsen550 NW LeJeune Rd.Miami, FL 33126.Items can also be sent via FAX to (305) 443-7404 or by e-mail to

[email protected].

Certification Schedule

Certified Welding Inspector (CWI)LOCATION SEMINAR DATES EXAM DATE

Orlando, FL July 15–20 July 21Milwaukee, WI July 15–20 July 21Los Angeles, CA July 15–20 July 21Sacramento, CA July 15–20 July 21Louisville, KY July 15–20 July 21Kansas City, MO July 22–27 July 28Cleveland, OH July 22–27 July 28Denver, CO July 29–Aug. 3 Aug. 4Philadelphia, PA July 29–Aug. 3 Aug. 4San Diego, CA Aug. 5–10 Aug. 11Chicago, IL Aug. 5–10 Aug. 11Miami, FL Aug. 5–10 Aug. 11Baton Rouge, LA Aug. 5–10 Aug. 11Bakersfield, CA Aug. 12–17 Aug. 18Charlotte, NC Aug. 12–17 Aug. 18Rochester, NY Exam only Aug. 18San Antonio, TX Aug. 12–17 Aug. 18Miami, FL Exam only Aug. 18Portland, ME Aug. 19–24 Aug. 25Minneapolis, MN Aug. 19–24 Aug. 25Salt Lake City, UT Aug. 19–24 Aug. 25Pittsburgh, PA Aug. 19–24 Aug. 25Seattle, WA Aug. 19–24 Aug. 25Corpus Christi, TX Exam only Sept. 8Houston, TX Sept. 9–14 Sept. 15St. Louis, MO Sept. 9–14 Sept. 15New Orleans, LA Sept. 9–14 Sept. 15Miami, FL Sept. 9–14 Sept. 15Anchorage, AK Exam only Sept. 22

Miami, FL Exam only Oct. 18

Tulsa, OK Oct. 14–19 Oct. 20

Long Beach, CA Oct. 14–19 Oct. 20

Newark, NJ Oct. 14–19 Oct. 20

Nashville, TN Oct. 14–19 Oct. 20

Portland, OR Oct. 21–26 Oct. 27

Roanoke, VA Oct. 21–26 Oct. 27

Detroit, MI Oct. 21–26 Oct. 27

Cleveland, OH Oct. 21–26 Oct. 27

Atlanta, GA Oct. 28–Nov. 2 Nov. 3

Corpus Christi, TX Exam only Nov. 3

Dallas, TX Oct. 28–Nov. 2 Nov. 3

Sacramento, CA Oct. 28–Nov. 2 Nov. 3

Spokane, WA Oct. 28–Nov. 2 Nov. 3

Las Vegas, NV Exam only Nov. 14

Syracuse, NY Dec. 2–7 Dec. 8

Houston, TX Dec. 2–7 Dec. 8

Reno, NV Dec. 2–7 Dec. 8

Los Angeles, CA Dec. 2–7 Dec. 8

Miami, FL Dec. 2–7 Dec. 8

9–Year Recertification Seminar for CWI/SCWIFor current CWIs and SCWIs needing to meet education require-ments without taking the exam. The exam can be taken at any sitelisted under Certified Welding Inspector.LOCATION SEMINAR DATES EXAM DATE

Miami, FL July 16–21 No examOrlando, FL Aug. 20–25 No examDenver, CO Sept. 10–15 No examDallas, TX Oct. 15–20 No examNew Orleans, LA Oct. 29–Nov. 3 No examMiami, FL Nov. 26–Dec. 1 No exam

Certified Welding Supervisor (CWS)LOCATION SEMINAR DATES EXAM DATE

Minneapolis, MN July 16–20 July 21Miami, FL Sept. 10–14 Sept. 15Norfolk, VA Oct. 15–19 Oct. 20CWS exams are also given at all CWI exam sites.

Certified Radiographic Interpreter (CRI)LOCATION SEMINAR DATES EXAM DATE

Dallas, TX July 16–20 July 21Chicago, IL Sept. 10–14 Sept. 15Pittsburgh, PA Oct. 15–19 Oct. 20The CRI certification can be a stand-alone credential or can exemptyou from your next 9-Year Recertification.

Certified Welding Sales Representative (CWSR)CWSR exams will be given at CWI exam sites.

Certified Welding Educator (CWE)Seminar and exam are given at all sites listed under Certified Weld-ing Inspector. Seminar attendees will not attend the Code Clinic por-tion of the seminar (usually the first two days).

Certified Robotic Arc Welding (CRAW)WEEKS OF, FOLLOWED BY LOCATION AND PHONE NUMBER

Aug. 10, Nov. 9 atABB, Inc., Auburn Hills, MI; (248) 391–8421

Aug. 20, Dec. 3 atGenesis-Systems Group, Davenport, IA; (563) 445-5688

Oct. 22, Oct. 26 at Lincoln Electric Co., Cleveland, OH; (216) 383-8542

Oct. 15 atOTC Daihen, Inc., Tipp City, OH; (937) 667-0800

Sept. 10, Nov. 5 atWolf Robotics, Fort Collins, CO; (970) 225-7736

On request at: MATC, Milwaukee, WI; (414) 297-6996

Certified Welding Engineer (CWEng) and Senior CertifiedWelding Inspector (SCWI)Exams can be taken at any site listed under Certified Welding In-spector. No preparatory seminar is offered.

International CWI Courses and Exams SchedulesPlease visit www.aws.org/certification/inter_contact.html.


IMPORTANT: This schedule is subject to change without notice. Applications are to be received at least six weeks prior to the

seminar/exam or exam. Applications received after that time will be assessed a $250 Fast Track fee. Please verify application deadline

dates by visiting our website www.aws.org/certification/docs/schedules.html. Verify your event dates with the Certification Dept. to con-

firm your course status before making travel plans. For information on AWS seminars and certification programs, or to register online,

visit www.aws.org/certification or call (800/305) 443-9353, ext. 273, for Certification; or ext. 455 for Seminars. Apply early to avoid pay-

ing the $250 Fast Track fee.

American Society for Nondestructive Testing . . . . . . . . . .13, 24www.asnt.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(800) 222-2768

Applied Bolting Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9www.appliedbolting.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(800) 552-1999

AWS Education Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7, IBCwww.aws.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(800) 443-9353

AWS Member Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IFC, 8, 29www.aws.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(800) 443-9353

Bruker AXS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23www.bruker.com/s1titan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(800) 234-9729

EST Group/Curtis Wright Flow Control Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25www.estgroup.cwfc.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(800) 355-7044

FABTECH 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26-27www.fabtechexpo.com/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(800) 443-9353

G.A.L. Gage Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13www.galgage.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(269) 465-5750

NDT Seals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25www.ndtseals.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(800) 261-6261

Olympus NDT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .OBCwww.olympusNDT.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(781) 419-3900

IFC = Inside Front CoverIBC = Inside Back CoverOBC = Outside Back Cover

Visit Our Interactive Ad Index: www.aws.org/ad-index

Results of Annual NDE and Quality SalarySurvey Released

Compensation levels for NDE and quality professionalscontinued to climb over the past year, but at a slower pace thanin previous time periods, according to the results of the annualsalary and benefits survey from PQNDT, Inc. The company isan NDE personnel recruitment and placement organizationbased in Arlington, Mass. Complete results of the survey areavailable at www.pqndt.com/resources.html.

Besides the rise in compensation levels, results showed anuptick in the number of full-time benefits available, whichcould be a sign of more competition for experienced workers.

Although reported unemployment is down to 5%, there isa still a sense of caution among many NDE professionals.

Some 61% of full-time workers and 69% of contract workersfeel the economy is still in a recession or getting worse.

While only 44% of full-time workers feel that job

prospects are better than last year, 81% feel their own job is

secure. Similarly, only 36% of contractors are optimistic about

job prospects, but 62% are “very confident” about finding

contracts for themselves.As far as the remainder of this year, PQNDT President

Michael Serabian said, “Indications during the first fewmonths of the year are positive. The number of full-time jobopenings is up across all levels of certification and in all areasof the country. This contrasts with a year ago, when employerswere more interested in hiring contractors on a temporarybasis. Full-time openings are an indicator of more confidencein a consistent volume of work ahead.”

Business Cards

Business Products

Advertiser Index


— continued from page 9

IT

BLI

ND

PE

RF

Welding Fundamentals

AWS’s American Welding Online is introducing a self-paced online seminar designed to provide technical knowledge and insight to non-welders who work in the welding and fabricating industry.

Welding Fundamentals is an approximately 14-hour course that can be taken at your own speed and convenience. The course provides a fundamental overview of welding, focusing on the most widely used welding processes. Fundamental instruction is presented onwelding theory, equipment, safety, weld design, metallurgy, welding inspection, and qualitycontrol.

Professional Development Hours and a certificate of completion will be provided uponcompletion.

For more information, visit American Welding Online at

www.aws.org

New online course

Op

www.olympus-ims.com

OmniPCPC-Based OmniScan Data Analysis SoftwareThis new software is the most efficient and affordable option available for OmniScan data analysis.

Now you can use a PC to perform powerful data analysis using the same tools provided on board

the OmniScan.

Improve productivity: The OmniScan unit can now be used strictly for scanning while

analysis is performed simultaneously on a personal computer.

Same user interface as the OmniScan: An inspector with training on the OmniScan is

automatically qualified to use the OmniPC.

Take full advantage of extra large monitors

and resolutions for increased precision during

analysis.

Intuitive keyboard shortcuts have been added

to boost productivity levels during file analysis.

Parameters used for inspection can be

validated during analysis.

OmniPC is the perfect analysis software for all applications and markets, including power generation.

OmniPCPC-Based OmniScan Data Analysis SoftwarThis new softwar

Now you can use a PC to perform powerful data analysis using the same tools pr

the OmniScan.

ff

OmniPCPC-Based OmniScan Data Analysis Softwar

ere is the most efficient and


ff

PC-Based OmniScan Data Analysis Softward affordable option available for OmniScan data analysis.


PC-Based OmniScan Data Analysis Softwardable option available for OmniScan data analysis.

Now you can use a PC to perform powerful data analysis using the same tools provided on boar

PC-Based OmniScan Data Analysis Softwaredable option available for OmniScan data analysis.

ovided on board

Improve productivity: The OmniScan unit can now be used strictly for scanning while

analysis is performed simultaneously on a personal computer



TaTake full advanta

and resolutions for incr

analysis.

Intuitive keyboar

to boost productivity levels during file analysis.

oductivity: The OmniScan unit can now be used strictly for scanning while

analysis is performed simultaneously on a personal computer



ake full advantage of extra large monitors

esolutions for increased precision during

Intuitive keyboard shortcuts have been added

oductivity levels during file analysis.


analysis is performed simultaneously on a personal computer.


ecision during

d shortcuts have been added

oductivity levels during file analysis.



Opp



OmniPC is the perfect analysis softwarall applications and markets, including power generation.



OmniPC is the perfect analysis softwarall applications and markets, including power generation.

OmniPC is the perfect analysis software for all applications and markets, including power generation.

w.www.olym

.olympus-ims.comFor Info go to www.aws.org/ad-index

aws_it_201207

Documents

Transcript of aws_it_201207