Built from the Bottom Up

Welding codes and standards may appear to be finished authorities, assembled by institutions and delivered to the industry as definitive books. However, every clause, requirement, revision, and commentary is the result of a continuing process driven largely by volunteers.

These contributors come from fabrication shops, inspection firms, engineering offices, equipment manufacturers, transportation projects, aerospace operations, and many other corners of the welding industry. They bring different technical backgrounds and sometimes conflicting priorities, but they share a responsibility to improve the documents that guide the work.

During a discussion at the latest Inspection Expo and Conference (IEC) in Austin, Tex., host Jason Becker and Bill Komlos, a Senior Certified Welding Inspector (SCWI), AWS Counselor, and AWS Life Member, explored how that process works. Their message was straightforward: Welding codes cannot be developed effectively in isolation. They must be built from the bottom up by people who understand how requirements perform in the field.

A Responsibility to the Craft

Komlos’s path into volunteer leadership began when he started his business in 1999. Seeking stronger connections within Utah’s welding community, he became more active in his local AWS Section. His initial motivation was practical. As secretary, he managed a mailing list of hundreds of members and distributed newsletters during the era of printed mailings and postage.

That responsibility introduced him to fabricators, welding supply houses, and other industry professionals across the state. What began as a way to build his business gradually became something larger.

“As you get into it, you find that you’ve got responsibilities to the craft and to our industry,” Komlos said.

He later served as chair. To qualify for a district director position, he needed experience with an activity that had national impact. As a lifelong welding inspector, he found a natural opportunity in a technical committee focused on inspection methods.

That committee represented only one part of a much broader system. Technical activities include the development of welding codes and documents covering inspection, hydrogen studies, stainless steels, postweld heat treatment, metric conversion, heat input calculations, brazing, soldering, and nondestructive examination.

The range of work means volunteers do not need to fit a single professional profile. A person can find an area connected to an existing specialty or enter a subject area that offers room to learn.

Consensus Strengthened by Evidence

The code development process is consensus-based. Participants discuss technical questions, evaluate competing perspectives, and work toward agreement. Consensus enables specialists from different sectors to shape requirements collectively, but it also carries an important limitation: Agreement among experts is not automatically the same as experimental proof.

Komlos recalled a professor comparing consensus development to a group of great artists discussing what makes good art. The knowledge in the room may be exceptional, but discussions must still be supported by evidence.

Committees receive data from industries and organizations that perform testing and technical investigations. Volunteers bring that information into the standards process.

The process is demanding, but the results can have lasting value.

“These are lifetime achievements that you’re going to make,” Komlos said. “If you’re making a difference at AWS, you’re making a difference in the craft.”

The impact also extends beyond the United States. Industries in Asia, Europe, South America, and other regions reference AWS codes and standards. A volunteer participating in their development may, therefore, influence welding practices far beyond a local shop or project.

Entering the Room

Becker initially hesitated to join a code committee because he expected the commitment to require more time than he could provide. His view changed after attending an AWS B1 Committee on Methods of Inspection meeting that was open to the public.

The room included several highly experienced industry figures who agreed, disagreed, and considered how to improve welding practices. Becker recognized immediately that he had entered a place where he could learn.

“If you’re the smartest guy in the room, you need to find another room,” he recalled being told.

Rather than arriving with an immediate desire to influence decisions, he listened. After the meeting, he asked how he could become involved and, upon returning home, submitted an application.

Committee participation proved more manageable than he had expected. Potential meeting dates were distributed in advance, and members worked collectively to select practical times. Virtual participation also made it possible to attend meetings without traveling.

The environment was welcoming, but Becker did not feel compelled to speak before understanding the committee’s history and current work. He approached his first meetings as opportunities to absorb information and determine where his experience could add value.

For younger welders, inspectors, educators, and fabricators, that access can become an important form of professional development. Committee rooms bring emerging professionals into contact with people who know the codes deeply and understand the reasoning behind them.

Komlos emphasized that participation does not require someone to arrive as the most knowledgeable person in the room.

“You don’t have to be smart enough,” he said. “You just have to be committed to the craft.”

The Value of Different Perspectives

Committees work best when they include people from a wide range of technical environments. Bridge professionals, structural fabricators, engineers, inspectors, equipment manufacturers, amusement ride specialists, and others may all interpret the same requirement through different experiences.

No individual can fully understand the demands of every sector. Someone working primarily with structural steel may not be familiar with the concerns surrounding pressure vessels. A designer may not see the problems an inspector encounters while crawling around a completed structure. A specialist in one process may not recognize how another shop must interpret the same language.

This diversity helps keep requirements practical. It can also make technical language more understandable to the people expected to use it.

Komlos offered deposition rate as an example. The term may be clear within engineering calculations and filler metal documentation, but it is less useful as a direct instruction to a welder. Committee participation can help translate the concept into actionable limits, such as amperage or wire feed speed.

The goal is not to dilute technical accuracy. It is to make the requirements usable throughout the industry.

Fresh participants are especially valuable because they may notice weaknesses that longtime contributors have stopped seeing. Experience deserves respect, but it can also create familiarity with assumptions. New voices can ask why a requirement exists, whether it addresses current practice, and how it affects people performing the work.

Codes Must Continue to Change

New materials, equipment, and inspection methods require the standards governing them to evolve. A code written around older technology cannot fully address every development appearing in fabrication and construction.

The 2025 edition of AWS D1.1, Structural Welding Code — Steel, provided Komlos with a clear example. He described provisions involving ASTM A913 Grade 65 steel, a high-strength material that does not require the same preheat approach as some conventional steels. Its incorporation into the code followed the material’s development and formal ASTM designation.

The change has practical consequences. Reduced preheating can save substantial production time, particularly when shops are working with thick material. Yet the benefit can only be realized when designers, fabricators, inspectors, and welders understand the applicable 
requirements.

Code revisions may also force companies to update established procedures. Komlos noted that he had to revise his prequalified welding procedures after changes appeared in the 2025 edition. Whether an individual prefers a change is secondary to understanding the current requirement and performing the work accordingly.

This is one reason committee participation can be valuable. Volunteers gain insight into developing issues and hear perspectives they might not encounter within their own workplaces.

Key Takeaways

• Welding codes and standards are not created in isolation. They are developed through the ongoing work of industry volunteers representing fabrication, inspection, engineering, manufacturing, and education.
• Effective code development depends on real-world experience. Requirements are strengthened when professionals bring field knowledge, testing data, and practical lessons to committee discussions.
• Consensus is essential, but evidence matters. Committees evaluate technical data and industry research to ensure revisions are supported by more than opinion.
• Diverse perspectives help keep codes practical, understandable, and applicable across different welding sectors and environments.
• New participants play a critical role by challenging assumptions, asking important questions, and contributing fresh perspectives.
• Codes must evolve alongside new materials, technologies, and manufacturing practices to remain relevant and effective.
• Volunteer service offers significant professional benefits, including technical growth, leadership development, networking opportunities, and a deeper understanding of the reasoning behind requirements.
• The industry’s greatest need is not expertise alone but committed professionals willing to learn, participate, and contribute to the craft.

Judgment Grounded in Real Work

Field experience gives codes much of their practical strength. Komlos described investigations in which an apparent welding problem originated outside the weld itself.

At an Air Force facility, welders were having difficulty passing specialized tests. Examination of the work revealed issues involving low-amperage equipment performance and incorrect amperage information in a procedure. An aluminum porosity problem was also connected to a large evaporative cooling system that introduced high humidity into the welding area.

The lesson was broader than any single defect. Technical problems require investigators to look beyond the most obvious explanation. Equipment, environment, procedures, materials, scheduling, and manufacturing steps can influence results.

In another manufacturing example, welded components were placed in front of cooling fans immediately after welding. Komlos’s test pieces performed differently because he allowed them to cool naturally before placing them near the fan. The difference showed how a manufacturing step outside the defined welding operation could affect performance.

Experiences like these can lead to code revisions, commentary, cautions, or simply better committee questions. They reinforce the need for critical thinking rather than automatic acceptance of established assumptions.

Responsible Use of Emerging Technology

Artificial intelligence (AI) adds another emerging consideration. Committee members must protect copyrighted, proprietary, and unreleased information. Becker explained that participants agree not to upload committee materials, preliminary documents, or standards to public AI systems.

The discussion also highlighted the potential of closed systems developed around authorized information and customer knowledge. Such tools may help preserve the experience of inspectors and engineers without exposing protected codes or proprietary data.

In life-safety work, however, experimentation must be approached carefully. Incorrect guidance can have serious consequences. Any system used for technical decision-making must recognize its limits, protect the information it contains, and remain grounded in qualified experience.

The objective is not to label AI entirely good or bad. It is to determine where the technology can provide value while maintaining accountability.'

An Invitation to Contribute

Volunteer committee work benefits both the industry and the individual. Participation strengthens technical knowledge, professional confidence, leadership skills, and connections across the welding community.

Contributors may go on to chair subcommittees, earn recommendations from respected professionals, or see their names included in published standards. More importantly, they develop a deeper understanding of why requirements exist. Code language explains what must be done; committee discussions, supporting commentary, and members’ experiences explain why. That insight helps professionals apply requirements more effectively and avoid mistakes others have encountered elsewhere.

The industry also needs welders, inspectors, fabricators, educators, business owners, and technical specialists who are willing to listen, study, question, and contribute. Codes are strongest when they reflect the full range of people they serve, combining the knowledge of experienced leaders with the fresh perspectives of newcomers. The essential qualification is not status but commitment to the craft.