Information from the “Source”!
Before I go into my opinions and observations about the differences, I strongly suggest you take a look at some of the information from the organization that writes the “standard” for the programs. It is not my intent to suggest that one is “better” than the other.
AWS SENSE information.
The primary document that addresses the SENSE program for “Entry Level” welders is AWS QC10. The current version of AWS QC10 can be obtained from https://pubs.aws.org/p/1843/qc102017-specification-for-qualification-and-certification-of-level-ientry-welders.
Below is some text from the “SCOPE” section of QC10 but understand that the standard itself is longer and refers to other standards with much more content.
- Scope
1.1 This specification establishes the minimum requirements for trainees to receive AWS SENSE training certificate for full or partial completion of the Level I—Entry Welder program. SENSE training organizations are free to exceed these minimum requirements.
1.2 This specification defines practical knowledge examinations, as well as the workmanship and performance qualification tests that require a minimum level of reading, computational and manipulative skills to successfully complete.
1.3 All individuals that meet the specified training certificate criteria will be listed in the AWS SENSE Certificate Database provided that:
(1) the training facility is a SENSE Accredited Training Program (ATP) per the requirements of AWS QC21, Specification for AWS Accreditation of SENSE Welder Training Programs
(2) the required proof(s) of completion are submitted to AWS along with applicable fees.
1.4 Organizations that are not a SENSE Accredited Training Program may use this specification, but individuals they instruct will not be eligible for SENSE training certificates, nor will they be listed in the AWS SENSE Certificate Database.
For a “summary” of the program, you can see the information at this link
One of the biggest changes that caught my eye is the reference to the facility being accredited. The reference is made within the new standard to
AWS QC21, Specification for AWS Accreditation of SENSE Welder Training Programs.
If the link no longer works a search at AWS will help or contacting them. They sometimes change things and have old documents linked and some pages such as the main SENSE page at https://www.aws.org/education/sense have little info.
AWS “CERTIFIED WELDER” Information.
The primary document that governs the
The Scope Section of the 25+ year old document for Certified Welders says this.
1.1 Program. The rules for the American Welding Society (AWS) Certified Welder Program and the requirements for maintenance of certification are provided in this standard. This standard requires the use of accredited test facilities for qualification testing.
1.2 Exclusion. This standard does not prevent a manufacturer, fabricator, or contractor from continuing to qualify welders according to other standards. Employers may impose requirements in addition to this standard, as deemed necessary.
1.3 Limitation. Certification under the American Welding Society Certified Welder Program shall be limited to those welding performance variables provided in the applicable supplements to this standard.
To read more about the program, see the AWS page at https://www.aws.org/certification/page/certified-welder-program
My opinion and observations
I have been involved as a consultant or employee with the setup, demonstration, and accreditation of four AWS ATF’s. I have served as test supervisor for three of those and am currently the Technical Manager at one. This doesn’t elevate me to expert status, only somewhat experienced.
I am also an AWS Certified Welder #1805901W and have a few basic tests because of a teaching position requirement. That does not mean I am a good welder, I am just “Certified
Three of the facilities above were also SENSE facilities. I am also an AWS SENSE “ENTRY LEVEL” welder for SMAW #17021105661.
Below is a table with some general observations about the program differences. This is by no means everything and I strongly suggest you read the standards. Again, this does not mean one is “better” than the other. As with many “
| Attributes | AWS SENSE | AWS Certified Welder |
| Training Required | Yes | No |
| Training Quality Referenced | No | No |
| Welding Processes Knowledge | Yes | No |
| Welding Terminology Knowledge | Yes | No |
| Weld Quality Knowledge | Yes | No |
| Welding Symbol Knowledge | Yes | No |
| Welding skills demonstrated | Yes | Yes |
| Cutting Skills Demonstrated | Yes | Sometimes |
| Performed by AWS Employees | No | No |
| Administering Facilty Required to be audited | No (at this time) | Yes |
| Qualifications Required for Supervision | No | Yes |
| Recognized by Industry | Seldom | Sometimes |
| Fee Paid to AWS for institution | Yes | Yes |
| Fee Paid to AWS for Individual | Yes | Yes |
I could go on and on but suggest you take a look at the applicable standards, talk to industry around you, and maybe give AWS a call and try to communicate with them about the two programs.
My general opinion is this.
An organization can become a SENSE by paying money to AWS and agreeing to do what they say. There is now an “
I have gone to SENSE High Schools and verified by observation and questioning that the supervision of the computer-based testing is supervised at various levels and that students are sometimes trained for the test. But they have at least been exposed to some knowledge about welding!
An organization can become an ATF by paying money to AWS but also going through an audit by AWS before actual testing can begin. Additionally, there are requirements for the test supervisors that do not exist for SENSE facilities at this writing. A person can
Another variable that has a very wide range is the actual welder qualification test. For SMAW as an example, the SENSE program requires a typical groove weld test with requirements essentially identical to AWS D1.1 However, for an “AWS Certified Welder” title, the test could range from a very basic flat sheet metal test Per D1.3 or a very much more difficult test in accordance with QC7-93 Supplement F that actually exceeds the requirements of codes such as ASME Sec. IX. The Supplement F has tests with space restrictions around the coupon and the need for the welder to prepare the coupons. by torch cutting IN POSITION! (See the document at https://pubs.aws.org/content/free_downloads/AWS_QC7-93_-_Supplement_F,_Chemical_Plant_and_Petroleum_Refinery_Piping.pdf)
As a test supervisor at various ATF’s, I have tested welders that met the requirements for AWS Certified Welder that I would NOT let loose on the job without close scrutiny. I have also met students who have completed the SENSE requirements that have no understanding of current, polarity, CTWD etc…
The bad part about both programs
As far as being a welder goes in my world/opinion, showing up with a hood and gloves ready to weld is better than a stack of “papers”.
Very well said. Your are absolutely right. There should be more training and in the field. When I started welding. The company I work for trained on the job. After getting deeper into welding. I noticed a lot of no no’s. I figured going to a community college will give me more training. But it was the same thing. The school only was training the basics. So after welding over a year. I decided to go to a aws certified school that would really teach me about welding. To make the long story short I truly also believe that programs that you are writing about should be aws accredited. Great column.
I think that schools can be just like welders. The credentials they have may not reflect what they can do.
I can’t speak about the SENSE program, but I do have some observations as someone who self certified as a ‘certified welder’ when I started a very small, one man fabrication business more than 10 years ago.
1 – The QC7 program is largely irrelevant to the practical day to day work of a small time fabricator who is focused on repairing broken equipment, custom fabricating fixtures, jigs, and similar one-off types of projects. Certifying a welder to a specific WPS is likely irrelevant to any project the independent fabricator is likely to encounter in a ’emergency’ repair situation. Meaning the title ‘Certified Welder’ is largely meaningless, in my opinion.
2 – the requirement that the QC7 certified welder submit a renewal form every 6 months with a testimonial from a customer or employer is a serious nuisance. The $10 fee is trivial and demeans the value of the credential. The hard 6 month deadline for renewal is punitive and a practical nuisance. My experience with the AWS is that the certification department doesn’t see processing these renewals as a valuable use of their time and the attitude of the personnel I communicated with was dismissive, at best. The whole 3 years I maintained my QC7 certification left me with the impression that the AWS sees this a means of generating revenue; not serving the public welfare.
There is a need for a way for the public to separate ‘the wheat from the chaff’ when hiring a welder for a small construction or repair project. And there is a need to foster small businesses who can provide these services with lower cost(lower overhead) than the major construction companies or fabrication shops. (And these companies are hardly interested in erecting steel beams in residential homes or repairing buckets for small excavation companies)
Requiring a welder to pass a welder qualification test based solely on any pre-qualified WPS is a poor way to serve this need. Instead the program should consist of 2 or more phases or status levels. In no particular order I think these should be
I. a one-time written test covering a broad swath of welding knowledge. This might include topics such as terminology, technology, welding symbols, practical issues(e.g. distortion) and very basic metallurgy, secondary school level math and science concepts)
II. A standardized test for mild or low alloy steel which serves to allow a welder to demonstrate the ability to weld in all positions. This test can’t and shouldn’t cover all possibilities, just demonstrate a minimum level of competency in the most general fashion. Anything more than this is the perview of qualified welding procedures and the existing code requirements for welder qualification.
III. A standardized test for aluminum alloys which services to allow a welder to demonstrate the ability to weld in all positions.
IV. A “masters” level exam which covers topics such as dissimilar metal joining, welding exotic materials, preheating, post weld heat treatment, and situations where welding is NOT the correct solution to a problem. This exam should be based on a written test with paragraphs of information for the student to digest and use or reject. Or optionally, a verbal exam by a panel of qualified examiners using randomly selected, standardized problems.
V. A ‘master’s’ level exam which covers welding procedures, weld inspections, and the remainder of the topics covered by the CWI/CWE credential.
IN, fact, every credential that the AWS offers could be incorporated into this structure; but suspect some should be dropped as not being worthwhile or overlapping needlessly with other credentials. Renewal should be on a 3 or 5 year basis and the fee should not be trivial, but also not beyond the reach of a new one-man business. Other skilled crafts have licensing requirements at the state level and this program could be the basis for such. IF electricians, plumbers, and HVAC technicians must be state lisenced, maybe welders should too? I think this type of certification would convey to the public that they are speaking with a professional craftsman; a skilled welder. Or a knowledgeable engineer or consultant without hands-on skills.
Any welder, welding engineer, CWI, CWE, or independent consultant should be able to take any of the qualification tests outlined above. The ID card should indicate which tests the holder has passed; with succinct definitions of each test category on the reverse of the card, written in layman’s terms. This is for the public’s benefit. So when Joe layman hires a welder to fix a mower or weld connections in steel beams supporting a new pole barn, there is a sense that they’re hiring a qualified professional; not a hack with enough money to buy an ID card. Or when a small fabrication company hires a consultant who claims to know how to solve the latest welds are failing quality issue, there is some basis for faith that the person hired is a professional. I think the AWS believes their current suite of credentials serves this need, but I don’t see people asking for my CWI card, or certified welding engineer card, or anything issued by the AWS. And when I’ve offered my CWI card to a client, I’m most often met with confusion, not recognition.
In 10 years I can count on both hands the number of times a customer has insisted on having a certified welder perform the work requested. In all of those instances it was clear to me that the customer didn’t understand what they were asking for, and would have refused to complete the necessary WPS/PQR/welder qualifications needed in order to satisfy the letter of their request for a certified welder, according to the AWS definition of the term. This speaks to a significant gap in communication between the AWS, the self appointed guardian of the welding craft, and a majority of the public that uses welders to drive the small business economy.
David,
Some excellent comments and thank you for taking the time to write them. I am going to add a few comments related to yours.
1) The machinery repair “business” is full of end users, fabricators, and repair organizations that have absolutely no concept of any type of “code compliance”. The AWS Certified Welder Program is nothing but system in which an organization performing testing has to meet some requirements. With the many types of equipment and machinery, one of those AWS D14.X codes would apply and the fabricator could do the testing on their own. On more than a few occasions I have suggested to organizations to develop their own welding quality control program that includes more than just welder “certification”. in almost all cases, they prefer to just hand it off.
2) I’m not sure if you are saying the cost should be more or less but the 6 month requirement is pretty common among codes. I think many inspectors should have to submit something similar. If they don’t get an inspection job with 6 mos after learning how to pass the test and passing, they should have to re-test.
The “levels” you speak of are something I too have been thinking about. Something that shows skills, knowledge and the ability to apply both. There is nothing other than $ that stops an organization from developing a program. I have considered it for developing regional credentials that are based upon the skillsets needed by regional employers.
Anyway, I think your comments are great and this industry varies so much that all things should be considered. If I go work for a company as a welder, if they don’t want to give me a test, they don’t deserve to see my skills. I warn people against going to a company that does not give them an welding test.
Have a good day!