I want to know that, if a sensitive welding operation, can be verified, tested e.g, through hydrualic testing, radiographic testing, or by some non-distructive testing, latest crack detection methodS before it is put into use, then should it be dealt as SPECIAL PROCESS (clause 7.5.2)?

Since you are working to AS9100 system I think you will find that all your aerospace customers concider welding a special process. :2cents:

And if you will be welding for Aerospace customers, you should know almost all of them require you to be NADCAP approved by now. AS9100 registration is not enough for welding process.

I am sorry, i didnt state that i am talking about ISO 9001:2000 based Quality Management system not AS. Now can the organization based on ISO take exclusion from 7.5.2 even if sensitive welding activites are being carried out? Welds are tested through NDT procedures, and hydrostatic testing, RT and other crack detection methods.

I am sorry, i didnt state that i am talking about ISO 9001:2000 based Quality Management system not AS. Now can the organization based on ISO take exclusion from 7.5.2 even if sensitive welding activites are being carried out? Welds are tested through NDT procedures, and hydrostatic testing, RT and other crack detection methods.

In refering to ISO section 7.5.2 the output of processes should provide a finished product that meets your customers requirments. It should be in the best interest of your company to develop and implement processes that are fully capable of meeting finished-product requirements;if you do then your company minimizes or eliminates the possibility of nonconforming product.

Also when processes are such that the validation/verification of the product specification cannot be fully verified by exmination of finished product either at an earlier stage, in-process inspection, or at final acceptance testing, process validation must be performed. The inability to ensure that every item is verified may be due to the nature of the testing that has to be peformed i.e. Shear testing, flamability testing that is known to be "destructive ". In such cases, the process must be validated and records maintianed for example we have personnel that perform soldering work and we ensure that they are certified to IPC standards to be able to solder and all traininig records are kept as well.

It seems that you are validating your process if you use the tests that you mentioned above, but you should also check to ensure that you don't have any customer stated requirements concerning processes like welding, soldering, composites, etc.


Best regards,

al40

Dear al40,

Thus i think i got the answer that though welding is a special process, but since the process is being validated during the process and inspected (every mm during radiography) , so we can exlude special process requirements.

Thanks and best regards

Dear all,

Thanks for very valuable discussion and conculsion.

Still, Is anybody in a position to tell what are the most common type of special processes found in industry. Yes question is very silly, but i need some suggestions.

Regards all

I am still doubtful that everything about a weld can be checked by subsequent testing. Could you tell what rods/wire was used; if rods, were they pre-heated and if so to what temperature; how was the joint prepared; what amperage was used on the welding set; etc?

In terms of examples - how about making matches (the only way to tell if they work is to strike them), or ring-pulls on cans, or bullets or packing a parachute - the only way you will know if it works is to use it - and you may not get a second chance.

Welding has always been considered a 'special process'. The quality of a weldment, in its entirety, cannot be determined through any amount of fancy inspections.

Welding requires many controls to be in place; operator/welder certification/qualification, welding materials controls/storage/conditioning, weldment material preparation/preconditioning, approval of welding procedures, and so on.

Without these kinds of controls, it is highly likely that latent defects, un-inspectable by the techniques mentioned, can be introduced.

Welding has always been considered a 'special process'. The quality of a weldment, in its entirety, cannot be determined through any amount of fancy inspections.

Welding requires many controls to be in place, operator/welder certification/qualification, welding materials controls/storage/conditioning, weldment material preparation/preconditioing, approval of welding procedures, and so on.

without these kinds of controls, it is highly likely that latent defects, un-inspectable by the techniques mentioned, can be introduced.

I agree with Andy. Any process that produces a product/result of which its integrity can only be verified through a test that renders the product unsaleable is considered a "special process." No big deal. In automotive ALL manufacturing processes must be validated.

One of the best examples that I have heard was from one of my audit course participants who represented a ready-mix concrete company. I never realized the science behind- and the impressive controls applied to making concrete for load-bearing columns in hi-rise buildings...

Stijloor.

Hello,

if you believe the AIAG Automotive standard they have defined the following special processes:

- Heat Treating (CQI-9)
- Plating (CQI-11)
- Welding (upcoming CQI)
- Coatings & Pretreatment (CQI-12)
- Chemical Processes

in the attachement you find a small presentation from the AIAG, but the Aerospace industry may have other definitions.

Regards,

TamTom

It's a paradox that the AIAG would publish such a document, when nearly every domestic car making bodyshop (and a lot of their suppliers) regularly do a chisel test on (spot) welds........

I am sorry, i didnt state that i am talking about ISO 9001:2000 based Quality Management system not AS. Now can the organization based on ISO take exclusion from 7.5.2 even if sensitive welding activites are being carried out? Welds are tested through NDT procedures, and hydrostatic testing, RT and other crack detection methods.

I have changed the thread title from AS9100 to ISO9001:2000 since you clarified which standard the question was applicable to.

I want to know that, if a sensitive welding operation, can be verified, tested e.g, through hydrualic testing, radiographic testing, or by some non-distructive testing, latest crack detection methodS before it is put into use, then should it be dealt as SPECIAL PROCESS (clause 7.5.2)?

What is this obsessions with claiming exclusions? :nope: What you are doing says you probably meet the requirements!

You are describing in detail how you manage processes in accordance with clause 7.5.2 The organization shall establish arrangements for these processes including, as applicable
a) defined criteria for review and approval of the processes You probably did something here when you were designing the product,
b) approval of equipment and qualification of personnel You may be doing something here too,
c) use of specific methods and procedures All of your testing methods listed above - and there may be welding procedures as well specifying weld materials, process settings etc., etc.,
d) requirements for records (see 4.2.4), and
e) revalidation.

If you are doing all of this for engineering welds then there is no need to claim an exclusion and it is not appropriate anyway.

hi,

we are dealing with the soil investigation works for the piling and other construction works. All the design for the invstigation scope been provided by the customer and the lab test been carried at accridated labs.

Is i still i need to consider the soil investigation as a special process under the clause 7.5.2 in this case.

Pls carify.

Welding requires many controls to be in place; operator/welder certification/qualification, welding materials controls/storage/conditioning, weldment material preparation/preconditioning, approval of welding procedures, and so on.
.
Hi to All,
Does any body of you are using a welder ID badge? Do you have a format to share with me?
Thanks

I don't know what "soil investigation" means, I am guessing it's not a single process but a few of them, ecah of which may or may not be a "special process"
Welding is definitely a special process , for the reasons Andy pointed out. By the way 7.5.2 does not define what a special proces is , it only says what one needs to do in the case of special processes.
There may be applications where welding is not critical (not load bearing , nor safety related) still you'll have a hard time convincing any auditor that it shouldn't be considered critical.

Welding has always been considered a 'special process'. The quality of a weldment, in its entirety, cannot be determined through any amount of fancy inspections.Welding is definitely a special process , for the reasons Andy pointed out. By the way 7.5.2 does not define what a special proces is , it only says what one needs to do in the case of special processes.
There may be applications where welding is not critical (not load bearing , nor safety related) still you'll have a hard time convincing any auditor that it shouldn't be considered critical.An architectural company orders some rectangular plant boxes made of stainless steel plates, duly welded. The only requirements are the dimensions, workmanship and the need for the plant boxes not leak around the seams. The first two requirements can be easily verified, so can the last one, by a leak test. A welding process was used, but all required characteristics can be easily and subsequently verified. No need to validate this weld process.

.... Welding is definitely a special process , for the reasons Andy pointed out. By the way 7.5.2 does not define what a special process is , it only says what one needs to do in the case of special processes.

Of course these days ISO 9001 does not call them 'special processes' although a previous version did do so. I do think that the clause specifies what they are though - '... where the resulting output cannot be verified by subsequent monitoring or measurement.....' So if you can't check it, how are you going to be sure it will be right is the question I ask and how important is it to be right, what are the consequences of failure?.

I think Sidney's example is an excellent demonstration that we should not get 'stuck in the tramlines' of thinking 'always and never' when we look at a situation - take each case on its merits.

I pointed out myself that there are types of weldments and applications that are not critical. By the way there are many types of inspections and NDT to verify the quality of weldments-red dye penetrant to give an example of just one that is widely used. X-rays are a very good test, the think is the cost of doing it on every piece is much higher than having in place a certified welder and process.
The thing is that you can't take a special process and say it is not, because you only use it for non-critical applications. Today it's a flower box, tomorrow it's something else..I have worked for an electroncs manufacturing company, we had a welder who made what we thought were pretty good weldments , nothing critical was required just that the box would not fall apart and we never had any complaints.
One day a customer insisted that the welder should be certified. Piece of cake,we thought, this guy has over 10 years of experience in aluminum weldings.
The bottom line , he failed 3 times the certification tests that included welding samples of part shapes and thicknesses that he never did before.
If a job definition requires certification , you can't afford not having it certified unless you are content to do flower boxes for ever and turn down anything more demanding than that. Even so, the boxes in this example passed a leak test, but this only shows that they weren't leaking at the moment. How about 6 months or 2 years later?

A special process is any process where the final results cannot be verified through a destructive test.

Welding will always be a considered a special process.

Welding will always be a considered a special process.WRONG.

Read my previous post (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=274596&postcount=18) on this thread and you will see why.

An architectural company orders some rectangular plant boxes made of stainless steel plates, duly welded. The only requirements are the dimensions, workmanship and the need for the plant boxes not leak around the seams. The first two requirements can be easily verified, so can the last one, by a leak test. A welding process was used, but all required characteristics can be easily and subsequently verified. No need to validate this weld process.

Since this thread has been revisited, I've had a chance to rethink this. I belive you have missed the point Sidney and use an example to justify your answer!!

It is true to say that the application is a low risk, but I still stand by that you cannot look at a weld and know that it's O.K. I remember taking a bike back to the store where the top tube joint had been brazed and everything 'looked' O.K except they'd changed the tube material and the tube was brittle! It cracked and broke after only a short time.

Had the process been treated properly, care would have been taken to ensure the tube was to the correct specification, before brazing! A step at the heart of a 'special process'.......

I'm going to have to disagree with you..........the criticality of product application only drives the type and amount of controls required.........

but I still stand by that you cannot look at a weld and know that it's O.K. If you carry that line of thought, EVERY process requires validation. In the example I gave, the only requirements for the weldment are: aesthetically pleasing (workmanship) and leak-proof.

If you still think the welding I offered in my example requires validation, then I ask you: what kind of validation would you expect to see for that welding process, equipment and welder?

Having made some welds, myself, which looked good (to me) but when subsequently tapped hard on a vice or steel table top, broke - I'd have to say 'Competencies' of the welder!!:notme:

Control of the material (we don't want the thing to fall apart if the metal becomes brittle!). You have extended it to the equipment, but that could fall under welder qualification.......couldn't it?

While I think you are over reacting to the premise, by saying all processes are this way - which I hope you aren't - my memories run to the Chrysler Neons running around which have paint stripping off them.......sure it looked good when it left the factory, was painted to the correct thickness, gloss etc., but the undercoat wasn't correct and didn't 'key' the top coat!!!

In fact, yes, maybe all processes should be validated! Isn't that the basics of (correctly) using tools such as SPC? Isn't the reason why Toyota has done so well with its manufacturing effectiveness and efficiency due to its relentless pursuit of process verification and validation, instead of QC?

I am very surprised with your position, Andy. I thought that you, like me, was a firm believer in seeing ISO 9001 through the added-value prism. To make a bold statement such as all welding processes need to be validated is nonsensical, in my opinion.

For example, the welds performed to erect scrap-metal sculptures such as this one need no validation whatsoever.
http://www.modernartisans.com/images/GD0125A.jpg.

Try as you might, you will never going to be able to convince me that this welding process needs to be validated.

Sydney,
I feel compelled to cast my vote to Andy on this...The very particular example that you bring to prove your point is correct but hardly relevant.
In an "artist's" shop where sculptures of this kind are created, indeed there is no need for weldment certification, or shall we say to a much lesser degree (the welder should still have to have some basic training but that is not the issue.) In a situation like you describe there is no need for a quality system at all, ISO 9001 or otherwise, so your example is not relevant.
My late mothers cooking wasn't ISO9001 certified and I CAN assure you it was a lot , tastier, fresher, healthier than that of any ISO9001 certified caterer's. So what does that prove? NOTHING.
An artist would object in principle to submit to any type of process control. Each piece is unique to be "art"...., and I presume he would take pride that no two pieces he creates are alike.
I think we are discussing here real situations, manufacturing processes (not art) and as such Andy is absolutely right. I worked once in a place that made electronics, we manufactured our own enclosure of aluminium and it had a welds. The welder was pretty experienced and the boxes looked good, none of it fall apart.
When a more knowlegdeable (aerospace) customer came along, our argument that it wasn't any structural integrity concern as it was not an aiframe part he didn't buy the argument, and insisted that if our welder was that good let him take the certification exam. Guess what? He did and he failed....
In an industrial environment you can either have a certified process (in which case you can't limit the scope to sculptures or flower pots only) or you don't .
Best regards,

Sydney,
I feel compelled to cast my vote to Andy on this... ... and I have to support Sidney. Both schools of thought know what they want from this. The thread developed with the following post by Andy:
Welding has always been considered a 'special process'. The quality of a weldment, in its entirety, cannot be determined through any amount of fancy inspections.

Welding requires many controls to be in place; operator/welder certification/qualification, welding materials controls/storage/conditioning, weldment material preparation/preconditioning, approval of welding procedures, and so on.

Without these kinds of controls, it is highly likely that latent defects, un-inspectable by the techniques mentioned, can be introduced.
Sidney's example took this (perhaps to the extreme) by showing how welding can be part of a 'manufacturing' process but no requirement for 'special' controls.
The very particular example that you bring to prove your point is correct but hardly relevant.
In an "artist's" shop where sculptures of this kind are created, indeed there is no need for weldment certification, or shall we say to a much lesser degree (the welder should still have to have some basic training but that is not the issue.) In a situation like you describe there is no need for a quality system at all, so your example is not relevant.The reason there is no need for 'special' process controls is solely that welds do not have any significant engineering function (beyond resisting gravity :lol:).
An artist would object to try to submit to any type of process control. Each piece is unique to be "art"...., and I presume he would take pride that no two pieces he creates are alike.
I'm also not convinced with the point on process control / all pieces being one offs. Most artist have good control of their processes - there is the story of the pope selecting architects based on their ability to draw a perfect circle here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giotto_di_Bondone). All pieces may be commissioned as one off but that doesn't mean the artist wants the quality of the weld to vary.

I think we are discussing here real situations, manufacturing processes (not art) and as such Andy is absolutely right. I worked once in a place that made electronics, we manufactured our own enclosure of aluminium and it had a weldds. The welder was pretty experienced and the boxes looked good, none of it fall apart.
When a more knowlegdeable (aerospace) customer came along, our argument that it wasn't any structural integrity concern as it was not an aiframe part he didn't buy, it and insisted that if our welder was that good let him take the certification exam. Guess what? He did and he failed....
In an industrial environment you can either have a certified process (in which case you can't limit the scope to sculptures or flower pots only) or you don't
Best regards,The question in the case of your customer is what engineering function he wanted the box to have - if there was none then there is no need for qualified welders, certificated welds, controlled processes. The weld just needs to look OK.

Neither Sidney or I is arguing that engineering welds don't require 'special' controls - only that not all welds are engineering welds. Those that are cosmetic can be controlled visually.

I had started a response earlier, but got bumped off line.......

I'm not trying to convince anyone! I'm merely taking a different point of view, Sidney!:bigwave:

My experience, training (as an apprentice tool maker etc.) and education as a mechanical engineer tells me that many products from 'special processes' cannot be assured by visual controls. Indeed, I believe that we're 'over blowing' the validation steps - to make them seem ridiculous and, hence, unnecessary!

Let me put it this way. Not everyone can weld - so it's important to know someone's competent - that's part of validation, isn't it? You can't weld all types/grades of materials together successfully. Control of materials, is part of validation isn't it? Similarly with equipment - if the (we'll say electrically powered) welder is underpowered, or incorrectly set, that's important to welding isn't it? So, in general terms, all these things have to come together - and often proven by a test or sample weld, before production begins. Isn't that part of validation? It has to check all these criteria though, not just that the weld looks good!

Similarly, I've (easily) pulled apart wire crimped terminals which looked fine. Luckily, I found them, since they were a electrical safety barrier box application. The people who had made them and inspected them were not qualified to know any better!

To Willy's point, I've seen some good looking food, which subsequently turned out to be nasty tasting!

Indeed, I believe that we're 'over blowing' the validation steps - to make them seem ridiculous and, hence, unnecessary!And my contention is: anytime someone makes generalized, all-encompassing, dogmatic statements, such as ALL WELDING PROCESSES NEED TO BE VALIDATED, they are bound to be wrong.

I think you are mixing the skill to be a welder and validating the welder. In my previous example, if the artist who builds such scrap-metal scupltures was forced to validate his welding process, it would be a crass example of non-value added bureaucracy that many auditors and consultants would demand, because they can not think out of their boxes and heard once that ALL WELDING PROCESSES NEED TO BE VALIDATED.

Remember, common sense still applies.

And my contention is: anytime someone makes generalized, all-encompassing, dogmatic statements, such as ALL WELDING PROCESSES NEED TO BE VALIDATED, they are bound to be wrong.

I think you are mixing the skill to be a welder and validating the welder. In my previous example, if the artist who builds such scrap-metal scupltures was forced to validate his welding process, it would be a crass example of non-value added bureaucracy that many auditors and consultants would demand, because they can not think out of their boxes and heard once that ALL WELDING PROCESSES NEED TO BE VALIDATED.

Remember, common sense still applies.

Sidney - I might take offense at your comments about being dogmatic, or the implication my ideas are not based on common sense........;)

My assertion comes from the need for production facilities who manufacture products in a consistent manner, in compliance to ISO 9001, not stuff built from scrap by artists!:notme:

Oh, and I'm not wrong, I'm merely adopting a different position!:bigwave:

When I think about special processes, I tend to ask, do I have to break it/destroy it to find out if it's ok? So think about areas where you may do destructive testing. Here are some examples I have run into in previous lives: welds, flammability, UV, tensile and elongation, shrinkage, finish levels, there are many more but it is really so dependent upon the product that it's hard to make an all inclusive list. :2cents: Hope this is somewhat helpful. Cheers

My assertion comes from the need for production facilities who manufacture products in a consistent manner, in compliance to ISO 9001, not stuff built from scrap by artists!I can give you examples of industrial products which include welding processes in it's realization cycle, and such welding processes do not require to be validated.

NOT ALL WELDING PROCESSES NEED TO BE VALIDATED, according to ISO 9001, 7.5.2.
There you have it, my "dogmatic" statement of the day. :tg:

Thousands of people flock to The Cove, looking for answers. I think it is important they realize that one must assess each situation, based on it's own envelope conditions, and just because many welding processes require validation, it does not mean that ALL do.

I can give you examples of industrial products which include welding processes in it's realization cycle, and such welding processes do not require to be validated.

NOT ALL WELDING PROCESSES NEED TO BE VALIDATED, according to ISO 9001, 7.5.2.
There you have it, my "dogmatic" statement of the day. :tg:

Thousands of people flock to The Cove, looking for answers. I think it is important they realize that one must assess each situation, based on it's own envelope conditions, and just because many welding processes require validation, it does not mean that ALL do.

I'm tending to agree with Sid here. It all depends on specifications. If there are no explicit performance specifications and there is no reference to standards where weld integrity requirements are specified, there isn't necessarily anything to validate. If you have a drawing that shows a seam weld, or a fillet weld or a spot weld without further specifications, if the thing is welded the requirements have been met.

This does not mean that common sense doesn't dictate a "voluntary" level of scrutiny in such cases, but again, if there's no explicit requirement, there's nothing to validate.