Friday, December 16, 2011

Understanding Intent

I work for a large U.S. Corporation that is made up of 15 manufacturers, each with well known brands throughout their markets.  It seems like since we all work for "X-Corp", we could share weld procedures (WPS) and procedure qualification reports (PQR) across the company and save on testing and qualification expenses.  Could a case be made for each division, to use centralized "X-Corp" WPS’s that are supported by the PQR’s run at the 15 different manufactures?
Mike I.
Welding Engineer - CWI

That's a good thought.  Let’s take a look at a couple of code provisions...

AWS-D1.1, states, "Each manufacturer or contractor shall conduct the tests required by this code to qualify the WPS".  That same provision goes on to talk about "consolidation with parent company(s)". 
For some, that may create a "gray area", but we as CWI’s, in addition to being able to reference code previsions, also have to understand code intent.  The best way I know to better understand codes intent is found in the Annex’s and the Commentary of the code.

You remember those sections.  They are the ones your CWI instructor suggested you steer clear of during your exam.  Well, they have a purpose.  Located in the back of your code book, the Commentary shares the same Clause and Provision numbering with the exception of a "C" at the beginning.

In D1.1 Annex K, "Contractor" is defined as "Any company, or individual representing a company, responsible for the fabrication, erection manufacturing or welding, in conformance with the provisions of this code".  The Commentary notes, "C- All contractors shall be responsible for their final product." X-Corp would have no interest in taking on that responsibility when they have little control over "fabrication, erection manufacturing or welding..."  That is the reason each "contractor" (or division of X-Corp) hires guys like us.

We can share the information gathered from the testing, but we can not share the PQR.  The PQR will only apply to the individual manufacturer (contractor), not to the group.  Having the information is certainly helpful but it would only be to aid you in the processing of your own testing. 


Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Integrity doesn’t get a mulligan

The Company I work for regularly gets into more than we can handle. The more we take on jobs at the last minute, the harder it is for me to do my job at the level that is required by the customer. I do 100% visual, weld mapping, pressure testing, setting up NDE... The one area that seems to gradually get worse is providing Material Test Reports (MTR). I can not provide all MTR's our customer requires. Often we don't get them from our vendor, or parts have sat for so long that they can't be traced.
I've tried to convince my employer that this paperwork needs to be received and verified before fabrication, but that hasn't gotten me anywhere. I am not even given the authority to stop fabrication when we have exceeded our own qualified procedures.
It can be a tough spot to be in, so I have a couple serious questions to ask…
• How much trouble can a CWI get into if something like MTR's can not be provided to the customer, when it is required?
• Do I have to walk off the job to protect myself from losing my certification when I know that things aren't being done right?
• Do I have a legal obligation because of the code, or does the company?
T.C. - CWI

In the words of Ulysses Everett McGill, you’re “…in a tight spot.” The reason certification programs exist is this very reason.

Section 11 of AWS-QC1 “Standard for AWS Certification of Welding Inspectors” states:
• The… CWI …shall act to preserve the health and well being of the public by performing duties required of welding inspection in a conscientious and impartial manner to the full extent of the inspector(s) moral and civic responsibility and qualification. Accordingly, the… CWI …shall:
     o …Be completely objective, thorough, and factual in any written report, statement, or testimony of the work and include all relevant or pertinent testimony in such communiqu├ęs or testimonials.
     o …Sign only for work that the inspector has inspected, or for work over which the inspector has personal knowledge through direct supervision.
     o …Neither associate with nor knowingly participate in a fraudulent or dishonest venture or activity…
It sounds like you have come to a fork in the road and there are tough decisions to be made. I’ve always believed that the reason we inspectors are hired is to save our bosses from themselves. You can create the change that is needed, or, you can “drag up” and move on. I’d love to have a dime for every time went home and told my wife Dianne, “It’s over. They’re gonna fire me.” Strangely, I’m still around. But situations like yours are all too common for the CWI.
You can not place your stamp or signature on a document you know to be false. That said, I’m going to assume that you are moving forward with creating the change.
My advice to you:
• Be able to “Put your finger on it”. Know your code/standard/customer requirements and do not back down from them. When you make the call and refuse to “by-off” on something, know where it is in the documents and be able to reference it.
• Don’t wait until the entire weldment or piping system is complete before you stand your ground. Keep Welders, Foremen & Plant Managers in the loop from the beginning.
• Don’t over reach. Know what the acceptance criteria are and don’t require a smidge more.
• If you are treading in unfamiliar waters, get out of the pool. Those decisions are not yours to make. Stay within your field of expertise.
• Finally, (and toughest of all for a “hard head” like me) accept if you are proven wrong. Don’t build a wall of resistance. Learn where you went wrong and come out of it a better inspector.
This situation can teach you a lot about yourself. One way or another, this will be a career changer. Make it a good one.

Remember: Integrity doesn’t get a mulligan.

Friday, October 7, 2011

Questions on B31.3


I would really appreciate some of your time and expertise. I have some B31.3 questions.

1. Is the % of RT that is required generally understood as a quantity of welds (verses linear)? 341.4.1(a)(1)

PWC:  This paragraph:
341.4.1, b) Other Examination (1) Not less than 5% of circumferential butt and miter groove welds shall be examined fully by random radiography…”
The words, “shall be examined fully”, would indicate to me that the percentage is of complete welds, not linear inches/feet of weld.

2. If I RT 5% of fabrication (150 welds in this case) with each welder being represented and I have 10 welders, do I exceed the minimum?

PWC:  I’m trying to better understand your question…
If 150 welds are equal to 5% of your fabrication, and 9 of those Welders each welded one of those joints and 1 of your Welders welded the remaining 141 joints, you’ve met your minimum.
If 150 welds is the total number of welds in this fabrication then 8 of those welds require RT, but if 10 Welders worked the project you will need to RT an additional 2 welds (one for each Welder).

3. For “Normal Fluid Service”, am I required to have 5% of fabrication RT if I have 100% visual (by CWI)? 341.4.1(a)(1) last sentence

PWC:  Under Qualifications of the inspector is this line…
340.4 (b) The owner’s Inspector shall have not less than 10 years experience…”
I can be a CWI with 5 years experience and I would not meet the requirements of 340.4 (b).

4. In “Cat M” I am required to have “all fabrication” visually examined M341.4(a)(1). Does that exclude the 20% random RT M341.4(b)(1), or is that required regardless of the 100% visual? M341.4(b)(2) refers to 341.4.1(b)(1)

PWC:  The first requirement of any NDE is that the weld meet the visual acceptance requirement, so yes, it would include the RT’d joints.

Tim C:  I am a CWI in the field for a construction / fabrication company. The reason for asking these specific questions is that, per another CWI in the company, we have been doing 100% visual, and 5% RT of *each* welder. This (5% of each) is getting expensive, especially when we hire more welders to get the job done quicker. I am satisfying the 100% visual examination and hydro or pneumatic testing (as another suitable NDT method). Plus, providing weld mapping and MTR’s. I think we have our bases covered. I would like to help cut costs. But more importantly, I want to make sure I am interpreting the code correctly.

Thank you,
Tim Crowder, CWI
Lafayette, IN

PWC:  Tim, if I read your question correctly it would appear to me that you could cut cost by RT’ing 5% of the welds, not 5% of each Welders welds and still meet your minimum requirement.


Saturday, September 3, 2011

Welder Qualification using Partial Joint Penetration (PJP) Grooves

How would you evaluate a flare V-groove joint for welder qualification to AWS D1.1? D1.1 is not clear on how to test the prequalified joint (B-P11-GF) for welder qualification.
Thank you,

Hi Dale,
Thanks for writing.
If you take a look at AWS D1.1 Clauses 4.25 and 4.28 you’ll see that D1.1, for Personnel Qualification states that a Complete Joint Penetration (CJP) qualifies a Partial Joint Penetration (PJP) groove.
A Flare V- (and Flare Bevel) is a PJP.  Typically you would use the V- and Bevel Groove, CJP configurations laid out in Clause 4 for Groove Welding Personnel Qualification.
That’s not to say I would never use a Flare V- Groove for Personnel Qualification.  If Flare V- Grooves were a concern of mine, I would design a Workmanship Sample requiring the welder to complete the Flare V- Groove to my Weld Procedure Specification (WPS).  Then I would cut and etch it (usually at 3 locations) to evaluate size [(E)=3/4r, see B-P11-GF].

So I guess, long story short, you would always use a CJP Bevel or V- Groove for Personnel Qualification of Grooves (CJP or PJP) and you would only use a PJP as supplemental to verify size.



Thank you for answering my question, your input clears up some of my confusion.
I have a customer that is doing welder performance qualification to prequalified material and prequalified weld joint B-U4a-GF.  Looks as though weld joint B-U4a-GF will also qualify PJP flare bevel tubular according to Clause 4.25 and 4.28.
Dale L.


You are right on the money.
Don't hesitate to write again.

Sunday, August 14, 2011

Weld Stops & Starts

My question is… Where can I go to find out about tie-ins being done all in line with each other and not staggered / spaced out as they should be. I am having trouble with my Mig welders making their welds all the same length and not staggering / spacing there stops and starts out. 
I need physical evidence in black in white to show them in a meeting I am having on Tuesday. 
Allen T.

It is understood throughout the industry that most weld defects are attributed to weld stops and starts.  We automate (or change from manual to semi-automatic) for the purpose of improving cycle time and quality.  Most of that quality improvement comes from the elimination of starts and stops.  Starts in welding can lead to overlap, incomplete fusion and slag inclusions.  Stops typically lead to cracks and undercut.  

Some of these discontinuities may be considered acceptable but stacking them on top of one another in a multi-pass weld is just “flurtin’ with disaster”.  

Stops and starts are a necessary evil in welding.  We can minimize their negative effects through techniques during manual welding, and through weld data settings for semi automatic and automated welding.

In GMA (Mig) welding those weld setting that can be added to many wire feeders include:
  •  Adding a burn-back to keep the wire stick-out as short as possible to help with your next arc start.
  •  Adding a post-flow (3.0 sec) to insure the tip of the wire is kept protected and clean.
  •  Adding a pre-flow (0.2 sec).  This insures shielding gas covers the area before an arc is struck.
  • Adding a slow run-in speed (-100 to -200).  This will reduce the “Snap” that often occurs when initially striking an arc.
  •  Increased start voltage (1-2 volts).  This will also reduce the “Snap”.

As for your Welders techniques:
  •  When striking an arc, start out ahead of the desired start point (1-1/2 x the weld size). When the arc is struck, backup quickly to the desired start point then begin your weld.  This will almost eliminate any overlap (cold lap) that is common with weld starts.
  • When extinguishing the arc, weld to the desired stop point then back up (1-1/2 x the weld size).  This will fill the weld crater, slow the cooling rate, fill the undercut and reduce the chances of a crater crack.
You could probably search the internet for an article on weld stops and starts and get plenty of horror stories.  In that same search you will find oodles of “pixie dust” salesmen with a simple wire/shield-gas/power source that can take all those troubles away.  

Stick with common sense.  Set up your feeders with the settings that help improve weld starts and stops, and teach good welding techniques.


Monday, August 8, 2011

Welder Continuity Logs


I have a question on welder qualifications. Where I work we have had
guys certified for D1.1 for 15 years. But in the D1.1 book it says that
they need to weld in every 6 month period to keep it current. What type
of documentation do we need to keep on file to show that they have been
welding? I can not find this in the book so I want to make sure that we
are covered at this point.

Thanks Pat G. - CAWI

Good question Pat,
What you are talking about is called a Continuity Report or Continuity Log.
AWS D1.1 Clause - Tells us that a Welders qualification is effective indefinitely as long as that Welder does not go more than 6 months without using that process.  ASME Section IX and most Welding Codes make similar statements. 

We are required to provide documentation showing that the welder worked with all the processes (GMAW, GTAW, FCAW, SAW…) he/she held qualifications in, from the time qualification testing was complete to today with no gaps in service greater than 6 months. I did a word search of "continuity" in D1.1 and got about a million hits for “discontinuity”, but zero for “continuity”, so it looks as though you are on your own as to how you maintain that documentation.

I've worked for several organizations and each has had different ways of doing this.

  • I've maintained a simple Access Database where every 5 months I would go out on the shop floor and verify that each Welder is welding with the process they are qualified in.  I would then log the employee ID, the process and the date. 

  • I've worked with local unions ( who would maintain these records for their members and provide me, the contractor, copies with a clear trail and no lapses greater than 6 months. 

  • Today I have a software program that will generate a list of Welders by Plant Location, Department & Supervisor.  I forward those lists to the Supervisor every 5 months and they return them with the updates.  I update my database and I also sign and keep their hard copy.

There are many ways that the 6 month requirement can be broken:

  • A welder enters active military service and then returns to his/her civilian job 9 months later. 

  • An employee gets laid off and called back. (Fabricators typically monitor the 6 month time frame to save the cost of re-qualifying.)

  • A Welder takes a Supervisor job, but a year later decides to go back to welding. 

  • A GMAW (Mig) qualified Welder takes a job running a Submerged Arc Welder (SAW) for 7 months, then returns to Mig welding. 

  • A Welder in a job shop may seldom uses one or more of the processes he/she has qualified for due to the shops work load.
All of these are common scenarios that have snuck up on me at different times in my career.  It's a pain in the neck, but a Welder Qualification is of no value without an unbroken Continuity Report.  That is the thing that will sting you in an audit. 

Showing a clear line from the date of qualification testing to today with no break greater than 6 months is required per most welding codes.

Friday, July 29, 2011

Is Weld Inspector Certification Beneficial?

Mr. Cameron,

Thank you for writing the monthly column Arc Welding 101 in the Practical Welding magazine. Your articles are very informative. I have a question concerning CWI Certification. I am trying to decide whether obtaining a CWI Certification through AWS would be beneficial to my career. I am presently unemployed and would like to increase my marketability to potential employers. I have a BS degree in Metallurgical Engineering plus over 20 years experience as a materials engineer primarily in the power generation industry. I would appreciate any insight that you could provide me. The course is being offered locally during the first week of August so your prompt response would be greatly appreciated.

David P., P.E.

Thanks for reading, I appreciate your writing and I’m sorry you find yourself in this position.

In the interest of “Full Disclosure” one of my many hats includes Adjunct Instructor for the AWS-Certified Welding Inspector (CWI) Seminars.  That said…

One common career path for Welders is to Inspector.  Dan Davis from wrote an excellent article last year on just that subject (  By now we’ve all seen the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) numbers and read the many articles on the shortage of Welders in our industry.  I believe those numbers transfer over to other welding related careers as well.  With this shortage comes a lack of knowledge of subject matter throughout our field.

The welding world is made up of Inspectors, Welders, Engineers, Salesmen, Programmers, Purchasers, Managers and Metallurgists like yourself.  All of whom make decisions impacting welding every day. So where does the CWI designation fit in to this conversation?

Achieving the designation of CWI does not, in and of itself, make you a better Metallurgist or me a better Inspector.  What it does do is lets those we come in contact with know that we have a fairly good understanding of welding processes, weld quality and welding code requirements.  Those are important attributes for any weld decision maker.  That’s not to say all CWI’s have the same level of knowledge, but you certainly know a CWI’s base.

Although CWI positions are out there, it is not common that employers are looking for only a CWI.  The designation is often coupled with some other requirement such as; a Bolting Inspector, a Certified Welding Inspector w/UT Level II, a Welding Engineer w/CWI or a Materials Engineer w/BS & CWI.  Five years ago, these job designations may have come with a qualifier like, “Must be able to attain CWI designation within one year.” But that statement is becoming less and less common. 

So where do you find the training necessary to determine if you are ready for certification? I may be a little biased, but the American Welding Society ( holds regular seminars all across this country.  The AWS is one option, but it is not the only option.  The Hobart Institute ( offers an extended (80hr) class, The Lincoln Electric Company ( offers a “pre” class (40hrs) prior to the AWS seminar and there are several schools, AWS Chapters and businesses that offer CWI training.

More and more employers are requiring certification as a condition of employment, because they can.  Adding the designation of CWI to your resume certainly would be considered a feather in your cap.

Friday, May 20, 2011


Dear PWC,
I know of welding manufacturing companies that do not use WPSs, their welders are not qualified and their welders inspect their own welds! How can these companies get away with this type of practice?
Nelson M., CWI H.I.W.T.

Ah Freestylin’!  I find it’s best left to Rappers, Swimmers and Motocross and it doesn’t belong in the welding industry.  I too have been in many Freestylin’ fab shops, they lack documentation on their Welding Process and their Welding & Inspection Personnel.  That said, manufacturers are not required to weld to a code.  The requirement for code compliance is something a customer/governing agency places on them.
Typically, if I’m walking in the door, it is not to give awards for excellence in welding.  It is usually to determine, Are they in compliance? and if not, How do we get them there? and What steps do they need to take to maintain compliance? 
Consider this scenario:
Company A has built decorative fabricated metal products for years. There was never a code requirement. Their products had nothing to do with public safety, their Welders were skilled and business was good.  Enter the economic down turn
Company B, just down the street, builds off-road construction equipment. They too have skilled welders.  In fact, Company A and B share the same Welder training program. Company B’s people and process’s are backed and guided by all the right documents.
Stimulus Funds are granted for a highway project and Company B receives a contract. Because of a tight time schedule Company B requests help from Company A. Now what?
A down economy gets a lot of Fab Shops exploring other options and thinking outside-the-box.  If they are Freestylin’, doing so can quickly have them in hot water. 
Company A now has their work cut out for them, but this is not impossible. Where should they start?
1.) Purchase and review a copy of the code.  I’m surprised how many shops I go into that do not own a copy of the code they claim to comply with.  Often, if they do, it is several revisions old.
2.) Qualify the Inspector(s).  Someone’s got to be prepared to make the call as to whether welding is acceptable or not.  Codes require that the qualification of the inspector be documented.  This can be a Technician or Welder with the required background and knowledge, or a Certified Welding Inspector.
3.) Develop the required weld procedures (WPS).  A skilled Welder working with a qualified Inspector should be able to quickly produce the Procedure Qualifications (PQR) needed for the products to be welded.
4.) Qualify the Welders.  Keep it simple.  I’ve been in shops that require their welders to be qualified in all positions for all thicknesses, but they never weld in the overhead position and never weld groove depths greater than 3/8 inch.  You can loose a lot of good welders to an all position, all thicknesses test.
5.) Maintain the Welders and Inspectors qualifications. This is done by documenting their involvement in any 6 month period and monitoring their quality.

Freestylin’ I suspect companies just evolve that way.  Maybe they started out small and grew faster than they could keep up.  Perhaps they were in compliance at one time but the employee that managed compliance moved on and no one picked up the ball.  However they got there, it’s a risky way to run a business.

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Weave or Stringer?

Hi Paul,
I'm a big fan of "Practical Welding Today" and have recognized your input for quite some time. I have a very generalized and basic question for you about a weld situation we have, and I feel that you are more than qualified to give an opinion.

We build steel tanks mainly for containing hydraulic oil. The material is A36 picked and oiled and the gauge will range from 10 GA up to around 3/8".  We are using Lincoln 355M power sources, GMAW process, ER70-.035 wire and 90/10 gas. Almost all of the tanks are made with an overlap design vs. a corner to corner weld. This creates almost all fillet welds, mostly in the horizontal position, and a few in vertical. The question I have is, given this design and end product, do you feel it's appropriate to do a weave or a stringer bead when welding these? This is a big argument here right now. We used to allow weaving and we had great looking welds on our product with minimum leaks. Recently we have put a stop to all weaving and are demanding that all welders use straight stringer beads. Now we have welds that look very inconsistent and overall "poor".  We also have a great number of leaks which take a long time to repair and re-test. I know that weaving is NOT allowed in certain weldments, mainly when high strength steel like T1 is used, (Greater HAZ, slag inclusions, etc.). Do you think that on a simple product such as this when high strength is not an issue the weave method is acceptable? I don't believe the WPS for this weld states anything about weave vs. straight.

Please give me your opinion.

Thanks! Steve R.
Manufacturing Engineering Dept.

Hey Steve, Sorry for the delayed response. That 355m, do you use it in the Pulse or CV mode?  Also, your shielding gas and wire combination is going to tend to give you minimal sidewall fusion dependent on the mode of transfer used.  An increase in Co2 will tend to improve sidewall fusion.  It will also lead to increased penetration which could lead to burn through on thinner material.  That being said... Your joint design (Lap/Fillet) should lend itself, just fine, to Horizontal (2F) fillets using a stringer bead.  When weld size is increased (t>5/16) a multi-pass stringer technique should be utilized.  This is an application where I would never suggest a weave when manually welding. In the Vertical (3F) position the progression should be Up (vertical down with a process that minimizes sidewall fusion to begin with, is flertin' with disaster). This position lends itself to a weave technique. Keep in mind, I'm not talking about a "Whip" motion that constantly moves forward, then back.  We are talking about a side to side movement. As for the look of the weld... Don't let your personal opinion of what looks good cloud good judgement.  The welds should be acceptable, as determined by the code you use.  Liking the look of a weave better, as opposed to stringers, is a personal opinion.  I would suspect that if tomorrow I walked on to the shop floor where everybody used a weave and proclaimed, "Beginning this day and all future days the weave technique will no longer be an acceptable practice!", it would take some time before Welders got use to the new technique (could be months) and I would expect the welding to look inconsistent.

Monday, March 28, 2011

With DC Welders, CV or CC, What’s the difference?

Teaching seminars across the country, that is a question I’m often called on to explain.  The best way I’m able to describe the difference between CV & CC is this:

Electric arc welding has 2 main variables, Current and Voltage.  Welding machines will supply both, but are only capable of consistently maintaining one of those variables.  The other is maintained by some other means.  Direct Current (DC) power supplies can be Constant Voltage (CV) or Constant Current (CC). 

A Constant Voltage machine will provide a consistent, preset voltage.  CV equipment is typically semi-automatic and wire fed.  Presetting the weld voltage, a CV power supply will maintain a constant arc length (because arc length is directly related to weld voltage).  

So what determines the current draw? On CV equipment the wire feed rate, wire diameter and electrode stick-out are what draw current from the machine.  Set at 28 Volts, your GMAW/FCAW equipment will set an arc length that that will remain constant.  As you increase wire feed speed or increase wire diameter you will increase your welding current.  By increasing current you will, in-turn, increase penetration.  On the other hand, maintaining that wire feed speed and increasing electrical stick-out will introduce resistance into the electrode and reduce current, thereby reducing penetration. 

When a Welder fears burning through, he/she will increase stick-out, which will reduce current and penetration, reducing the chance of burning through.  A Welder can easily reduce weld current 25-50 amps by simply increasing that stick-out.

A Constant Current machine will provide a consistent, preset current.  CC equipment is typically considered manual.  Presetting the current, a CC power supply will maintain that amperage setting. 

So what determines the voltage?  Remember what I said above about voltage being directly related to arc length?  Voltage will be maintained manually by the SMAW or GTAW Welder.  He/She will regulate voltage by moving that stick or tungsten electrode closer to, or further from, the work (and typically, less is best).

That’s why I can’t Stick or Tig weld with a CV machine, and I can’t Mig weld with a CC machine.  


Monday, January 24, 2011

AWS-D1.3 Weld Procedures

We weld Sheet Metal to AWS-D1.3. Our current WPS is outdated and needs to be updated.  Our customers are asking for a separate WPS/ PQR for Fillet and Groove Welds. Until now, I believe we had both Fillets and Grooves covered by One WPS/PQR.

I have more questions than answers, so I may need outside help in dealing with these mega companies.
Best regards,
Sheldon M, Sr. Mfrg. Engineer, CWI

Communicating welding requirements can be challenging company to company regardless of size.  Sticking to the requirements of the code is one way to make that communication easier.  I learned from a mentor a while back that when answering code questions the CWI needs to open the book and, “put your finger on it.”
Your question as I understand it is; does a WPS/PQR for Groove Welding qualify Fillet Welding and does a single WPS qualify all Grooves?
There are 2 ways you can qualify a WPS per AWS D1.3.  You can use information in Clause 3 and develop prequalified procedures or you can perform actual qualification testing per Clause 4.  Either is perfectly acceptable. 
If you can use prequalified procedures you will need to write separate documents for each configuration (3.1A, 3.1B, 3.2A, 3.2B, 3.2C…) that you use in production.  And some of those configurations will require you to write more than one WPS.
If you had written weld procedures for all the prequalified joints in AWS D1.3 you would have a minimum of 16 different documents.  They may all contain the same welding parameters, but each will need to be written separately.
As for qualified WPS’s, Clause 4.1 keeps it simple, “A Welding Procedure Specification (WPS) shall be written for each type of weld as shown in Table 4.1…” and as for the PQR, “A Procedure Qualification Record (PQR) that records the actual values used to qualify a WPS shall be written.
Here at McNeilus Truck we have a total of 133 WPS’s and 58 PQR’s in our records.  Each was required because some variable was off just enough to require another document.  We have a lot of Customers inquire about our welding documentation and we’ve not let them down yet.

Good Luck