WHAT EVERY STEEL ERECTOR SHOULD KNOW ABOUT

AISC ERECTOR C

ERTIFICATION

PROGRAM HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED TO

ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF STRUCTUR

AL STEEL ERECTION

. Contractors are cer-

tified based on their demonstrated expe-

rience, capability and awareness of

sound erection practices. Included in

the program are certain welding

requirements. These provisions are not

new and, in most cases, have been code

requirements for many years; however,

some additional documentation may be

imposed. Any contractor doing work in

accordance with AWS D1.1 or D1.5 is

already required to comply with these

code provisions.

The Structural Welding Code is a

“consensus document that represents

the collective wisdom of designers, fabri-

cators, inspectors, educators and consul-

tants, acquired over decades of experi-

ence” (Post, J.W., "Welding Solutions:

Put Things in Perspective with the AWS

D1.1 Code” 1998 National Steel

Construction Conference Proceedings).

It is not just a book of rules; rather it is

a document that promotes quality work.

The erector certification program

focuses on quality and safety, both of

which are key to the success of a project

and directly influence the cost effective-

ness of steel erection. Now is the time

for all erectors to get on board and join

the ranks of certified erectors. In a

learning curve analogous to that experi-

enced by certified building and bridge

fabricators more than 20 years ago,

steel erectors will also need to expand

their comfort zone as they embrace this

program. Eventually, it is expected that

the program will be end-user driven

through contract specifications. The

Modern Steel Construction / May 1999

goals of the program are to increase

awareness of quality and safety issues

in erector organizations and to provided

an incentive to comply with quality

requirements. A commitment from

management to become a certified erec-

tor in ‘99 will prove to be a wise deci-

sion.

The authors hope to provide some

helpful insight into the welding require-

ments associated with the AISC Erector

Certification Program, as well as some

of the code requirements. This paper is

not intended to be comprehensive, but

will address several key issues. A thor-

ough review of the AISC Erector

Certification Program and applicable

codes is recommended.

In the realm of steel erection, there are

several misconceptions related to weld-

ing requirements. To obtain certifica-

tion, erectors must first move beyond the

following fallacies and address the root

problems in the industry.

• Misconception #1:

The AWS D1.1 Structural Welding

Code applies to shop fabrication

only.

The D1.1 Code specifically states that

“this code contains the requirements

for fabricating and erecting welded

steel structures” (emphasis added,

AWS D1.1-98, para. 1.1). The Code

contains provisions, such as joint tol-

erances and fitup (AWS D1.1-98, para

WHAT EVERY STEEL

ERECTOR SHOULD KNOW

ABOUT WELDING

REQUIREMENTS

(BEFORE THE A

UDITORS A

RRIVE)

Duane K. Miller

(top) is Manager of

Engineering

Services and R.

Scott Funderburk is

Welding Design

Engineer with The

Lincoln Electric

Company in

Cleveland.

Common Misconceptions

5.22), that must be followed regard-

less of where the welding is done. In

fact, many of the sections were writ-

ten with field erection in mind. For

example, if the root opening on a

groove weld exceeds the “as-fit” toler-

ances, the Code provides options for

resolution of this problem (AWS

D1.1-98, para. 5.22.4.3 and 5.22.4.4).

It is speculated that these provisions

are used more frequently in the field

than in the shop.

The D1.1 Code is equally applicable

to both shop fabrication and field con-

struction.

• Misconception #2:

If a prequalified welding proce-

dure is used, then a written WPS

is not required.

The D1.1 Code mandates that “all

prequalified WPSs shall be written”

(D1.1-98, para. 3.1). Welding

Procedure Specifications are the com-

munication tool that gives the welder

instructions on how to make the

weld. Items such as minimum pre-

heat temperature, maximum inter-

pass temperature and bead place-

ment are listed on the WPS and must

be maintained to obtain the required

weld soundness and mechanical prop-

erties. More information on WPS

development is included in in

"Reviewing and Approving Welding

Procedure Specifications" (Miller and

Funderburk, NSCC 1998) and "What

Every Engineer Needs to Know About

Welding Procedures" (Miller, NSCC

1997).

Written WPSs are required for all

welding, including prequalified proce-

dures.

• Misconception #3:

Quality Assurance will handle all

of the field inspection issues – the

contractor does not need to do

any inspection.

Both the AWS D1.1 and D1.5 Codes

specifically define inspection respon-

sibilities for the contractor. D1.1

names the “Fabrication/Erection

Inspector” as the designated person

who acts on behalf of the contractor

with regard to all inspection and

quality matters (AWS D1.1-98, para.

6.1.3.1). D1.1 also says that fabrica-

tion/erection inspection “shall be per-

formed as necessary prior to assem-

bly, during assembly, during welding,

and after welding to ensure that

material and workmanship meet the

requirements of the contract docu-

ments. Fabrication/erection inspec-

tion and testing are the responsibili-

ties of the contractor unless

otherwise provided in the contract

documents”(AWS D1.1-98, para.

6.1.2.1). AWS D1.5 mandates that

the Quality Control (QC) function is

the responsibility of the erector (AWS

D1.5-96, para. 6.1.1.1), and the QC

Inspector works on behalf of the erec-

tor for inspection, testing and quality

matters (AWS D1.5-96, para. 6.1.2.1).

For many field projects, the contract

will require Verification or Quality

Assurance (QA) Inspection, often

stipulating that NDT be performed

by the Verification Inspector (AWS

D1.1-98, 6.1.2.2). This does not, how-

ever, preclude or replace the QC

Inspection that is required by the

Code. For more information on this

issue, the authors recommend

“Ensuring Weld Quality in Structural

Applications: The Roles of Engineers,

Fabricators and Inspectors (Part I of

III)” (Miller, NASCC 1996).

The contractor is responsible for erec-

tion inspection and testing, unless

specifically exempted by the contract

documents.

• Misconception #4:

The union hall takes care of all

the welder qualification issues.

Indeed, unions do provide a valuable

service to the industry through their

welder training and testing pro-

grams. Welders can even become cer-

tified welders through the AWS

Welder Certification Program.

However, in terms of the AWS D1.1

Code, it is the contractor’s responsi-

bility to qualify all welders, welding

operators, stud welders and tack

welders (AWS D1.1-98, para. 4.1.2.2

and 7.7.4). If a welder was qualified

on a previous job, that performance

qualification may be acceptable pro-

vided that proper documentation and

evidence has been maintained and

that the Engineer, not the contractor,

approves it (AWS D1.1-98, para.

4.1.2.1).

Welder qualification is the contrac-

tor’s responsibility.

Modern Steel Construction / May 1999

The authors would

like to thank Tom

Schlafly of AISC,

Inc. and Farnham

Jarrard, Clare

Ulstad and Art

Arndt of the Quality

Auditing Company,

Inc. for their valu-

able input on this

paper, as well as for

their diligent contri-

butions to the

structural steel

industry for many

years.

To improve quality and safety,

it is important that these mis-

conceptions be exposed and cor-

rected. These misunderstand-

ings can lead to other problems,

such as those discussed below, if

they are not addressed.

The acceptance criteria of the

audit are categorized in three

areas: Application (Ap),

Management (Mg) and

Operations (Op). These criteria

have requirements related to all

aspects of steel erection, includ-

ing welding. Based on results

from initial audits, nonconfor-

mance has been found in the fol-

lowing: Welding Procedure

Specifications, quality control,

welder qualification and other

miscellaneous welding issues.

To aid the erector in the certifi-

cation process, each “problem

item” is quoted from the AISC

Certified Advanced Steel Erector

Evaluation Checklist with exam-

ples of auditor citations of specif-

ic requirements. A few of the

requirements are for “Advanced”

Certification only, and these are

noted in the applicable sections

below.

WELDING PROCEDURE

SPECIFICATIONS

• Are representative weld

procedures submitted?

(AISC, Ap10)

“Erector did not submit any

WPSs.”

The contractor must have

WPSs that cover every weld to

be made on the job, and the erec-

tor must submit several to the

auditors for review. Also, an

inspector or the Engineer could

ask to review the WPSs at any

time (AWS D1.1-98, para. 4.1.1,

4.2.3 and 6.3.1). Therefore,

WPSs should be kept current, in

Modern Steel Construction / May 1999

use by the welders and ready for

submission. It also makes good

business sense, because complete

and proper WPSs generally

encourage quality and productiv-

ity.

“No steel specification or grade

was listed on the WPS.”

In this case, the WPS was sub-

mitted, but it was incomplete.

One of the essential variables is

the base metal specification and

grade (AWS D1.1-98, para.

4.7.3); this information must be

explicitly stated on the WPS.

Other examples of incomplete

or incorrect WPSs are the follow-

ing: polarity not listed, no date

shown, backing to be used with-

out the backing material desig-

nated, no supporting PQRs for

qualified procedures, and pre-

qualified status declared with a

non-prequalified process (e.g.,

GMAW short circuiting).

· Are approved written

welding procedures in

close proximity to and

used by the welders?

(AISC, Advanced Program

Only — Op444)

“The WPS was for E7018, and

the welder was using E71T-8.”

In this example, either the

welder had the wrong WPS or he

was violating the WPS he was

using. Whichever was the case,

what the welder was doing did

not match the requirements of

the WPS. The auditors will

often verify that the actual weld-

ing is in conformance with the

WPS.

“The WPSs were not at the job

site — apparently they are kept

at the home office.”

The home office is not “in close

proximity” to the welder. One of

the key objectives for WPSs is to

clearly communicate the require-

ments to the welder and inspec-

tors. This can not effectively

take place with the instructions

filed away at the office. The

Code does not say that the

welder must keep the WPS with

him at all times. However, the

welder should have quick access

to it. On most job sites, the field

office trailer is an adequate loca-

tion for storage of the WPSs. On

some projects, however, the trail-

er may be too far away for the

welding crew to readily retrieve

the documents. In this case, it

may be more appropriate to

issue a set of WPSs to each crew.

The WPS is intended to control

the welding. To do the work

properly, the welders need the

information recorded on the

WPS, including the allowable

tolerances.

“The WPS listed 225 degree F

minimum preheat temperature,

and the welder was using a 150

degree F crayon.”

The WPS must be properly

followed, and the welder must

use the right tools (the correct

temperature indicating crayon in

this case). Here, the welder does

not know if the steel is above the

minimum specified preheat tem-

perature of 225 degree F. He

only knows if it is above 150

degree F, and he can not main-

tain the minimum specified pre-

heat temperature.

Several other things could

happen if the WPS is not fol-

lowed, including: improper weld

size, maximum interpass tem-

perature exceeded, wrong elec-

trode, incorrect travel speed, and