Bolting Competence and a CWI Inspecting Family
A 14-person erection crew is preparing for a project with 1,850 slip-critical bolts and 320 shop-primed faying surfaces. Four welders hold current AWS D1.1 certifications, but two have not welded in nine months. Six ironworkers are qualified to install bolts, but only two have documented training in tensioning slip-critical connections; the company uses a calibrated torque wrench and turn-of-nut. One crew member is a Certified Welding Inspector who is scheduled to inspect connections installed by his brother. Three new apprentices arrive from a pre-apprenticeship program. The project specification requires verification of 5 percent of tensioned bolts.
1. Build a competence matrix for the bolting scope and identify the gaps that would prevent the 1,850-bolt scope from being completed with documented competence.
Read the worked answer
A competence matrix should have one row per task and columns for required qualification, evidence on file, current status, gap action and owner. For this scope the tasks are: receiving and storing faying-surface material, pre-installation verification, bolt installation, tensioning, verification of tensioned bolts, and NCR disposition.
The gaps are quantitative, not abstract:
- Tensioning: two trained people for 1,850 bolts is thin. Two shifts, illness or a single absence removes the capability. At least four trained people, two per crew, is a working minimum.
- Installation: six qualified installers is adequate for installation, but the matrix must show who is allowed to tension, not just install. Apprentices should be listed as supervised-only until trained.
- Verification: the 5 percent requirement means about 93 bolts verified. That requires a calibrated torque wrench, a person trained in the verification method and a record that ties each verified bolt to the project and date.
- Faying surfaces: 320 primed surfaces require someone to confirm the coating is the qualified type and that the surfaces were protected in storage. That is a receiving-inspection competence, often overlooked.
The matrix is useful only if it is updated before mobilisation and signed by the QCM.
2. Decide how to validate the two welders returning after nine months and who should sign off. Justify the method.
Read the worked answer
A nine-month gap is not automatically disqualifying, but it is long enough that the company should not rely on the certificate alone. The validation should match the welding the project actually requires: process, position, thickness and joint type.
Method:
- Check continuity records. Confirm the dates of the last production welds and whether the qualification covers the process and position to be used.
- Require a test coupon under the project WPS for each returning welder, in the position they will weld. If the project has a mock-up requirement, weld it there so the test doubles as a constructability check.
- Inspect the coupons visually and by the method the project requires. The CWI or an independent inspector signs the result; the welder's supervisor witnesses the coupon being made.
- Document the outcome as either requalified for this project or referred for retraining, with a date and a scope.
The justification is that the risk is not general welding skill but the specific loss of rhythm and technique after a layoff. A coupon under production conditions tests the right thing at low cost. Sign-off sits with the CWI and the QCM, not with the welder's foreman, so that the record is independent of production.
3. The CWI is scheduled to inspect his brother's connections. Explain the conflict and outline inspection coverage that keeps the project moving without relying on that inspection.
Read the worked answer
The conflict is close and personal: the inspector has a family relationship with the person whose work he would accept or reject. Even if he acts honestly, the record is impeachable, and an auditor or owner can set aside the acceptance. The problem is the appearance and the dependency, not an assumption of dishonesty.
Coverage options, in order of preference:
- Reassign by area: the CWI inspects all connections except those made by his brother's crew. With 14 people this usually works if the crew boundaries are clear and the inspection map is set before work starts.
- Independent inspector for the affected scope: contract a CWI for the brother's connections, or use a qualified third-party inspector for that area. The cost is limited to the affected connections.
- Structural separation: if neither is possible, move the brother to a different crew or scope so that his work is not in the CWI's inspection area.
Document the conflict-of-interest policy, the inspection map and the reassignment in the quality records. The project should also define who signs when the CWI is absent, so that the same conflict does not reappear as a schedule workaround.