I know most of the posters here are either CWI or studying for the exam to become one. What better place to ask a question like mine...
My company and the inspection company are at odds.
I'm not going to mention names or everything that's taken place over the past few months, for now lets call the inspection company: "Company X".
The project is valued around $2M (our contract), we have 19 welders, fitters and laborers in the shop, the company opened the doors in 1985 (so this isn't our first job). The project docs say the fabricator, must telephone and schedule and inspector 48 hours prior to needing inspection. No problem, I would expect the same notification and I obied by the terms.
We supplied the GC with all the WPS, quality assurance program, MSDS and pertinent documentation 2 weeks prior to the welding stage of the project.
I personally telephoned X on a Thursday requesting weld inspection the following Monday morning. The person whom I spoke with acknowledged my request and ended the call.
Meanwhile, our shop loaded the skids with WF beams, TS columns and placed pallets of shear tabs, stiffeners and plates along side the fitters fab area.
Monday morning rolls around and the inspector wasn't at the shop. No big deal, this happens from time to time whenever a new inspector starts at our facility. The shop foreman figured the inspector was just running late or had trouble finding the shop... meanwhile the shop started welding and fitting the beams and columns loaded the follwoing Friday. It's now 9:00AM and no inspector. We call company X to find out what happened. X says a misunderstanding must have taken place and a new inspector would be at our shop the following morning. The shop continued to weld and fit that day without the inspector present ( I can't send 20 people home because the inspection didn't show up). The following day, again no inspector. We call again but this time they told me that an inspector wouldn't be coming because X didn't approve our welding procedures.
Back and forth we went for hours and finally I removed all the material from the shop and started working another project that was waiting in the wings.
3 weeks went by until we had everything worked out. Now the GC is blaming us for delay of the project and company X failed and wrote NC notices on everything produced during the 14 hours without inspection.
X wrote the school district and told them we were at fault.
Keep in mind, we have 3 other school projects currently in fabrication during this time and 2 other inspectors from different companies full time. One of the inspectors has been at our shop for almost 2 years... This has never happened to us before and I'm at a loss as what to do.
The costs incurred by this are unbelievable. My position has always been that even if X had a problem with the WPS, they should have sent the CWI to our facility to watch the welding until the paper was as they wanted.
That's how it's worked with every other inspection company and the AWS commentary says that all the procedures don't have to be finalized prior to X sending an inspector.
Any advice or criticism is appreciated.
thats why you need a document trail! Verbal only works until something goes wrong in most cases!
you should have had something telling you your weld procedures were good to work on, and no work should have started until that happened. you can show the customer that you didn't get approval until such & such date.
back to a fire, I'm sure there is alot more people that can add to this!
The short version...
In the AISC Code of Standard Practice (whether you are a certified shop or not) states in Section 8 Quality Assurance:
8.5.1 ............A minimum of 24 hours notification shall be given prior to the commencement of work. (Check your Contract for advanced notification time)
8.5.2 Inspection of shop work.........shall be preformed at the Fabricator's shop to the fullest extent possible. Such inspection shall be timely in-sequence ..................not disrupt fabrication operation and will permit the repair of non-conforming work....................
8.5.3 Inspection of field work shall be promptly completed....................
8.5.4.................this provision shall not relieve the owner or the inspector of the obligation for timely, in-sequence inspections.
8.5.5 ....Copies of all reports prepared by the inspector shall be promptly given to the fabricator, erector........................
And my favorite.
8.5.6 The inspector shall not suggest, direct, or approve the fabricator or erector to deviate from the contract documents or the approved shop and erection drawings, or approve such deviation, without.....................................
Did the other inspectors at your shop accept the same WPSs or are these WPSs special for this job?
D1.1-08 6.3 Inspection of WPSs to meet Clause 3, 4, 5 as appropriate.
Did you have to change your submitted WPS to keep the engineer happy?
Did the changed WPS have any effect on how the project would have been welded?
Most WPSs (99%) I have looked at have something wrong with them as do Weldor qualification docs. If they still convey correct instructions to the weldor to set up His/Her machine and make the correct groove & fit-up, I do not reject them, although if bad enough I will inform them of the problems and to clean them up. The only ones I reject are the flat wrong, incomplete, not groove specific, or the use of restricted electrodes such as E71T-11 on thick materials etc.
From what you stated and knowing I only have your point of view and also seeing it from the fabricator side and Just a Guess, the Inspection Company X did not have its S**t together and is trying to jump start the blame on you. KNOWING fabrication is/was being done and keeping with deadlines, Company X still has the obligation to SHOW UP, I there were any delays its up to Company X to fess up.
ctaker is correct in document, document, document ,document, document....................
If it isn't in writing it did not happen.
Been there Done That ........... I feel your pain
I have written some WPS's for a friend of mines small shop and i have always strived to make those WPS's "audit proof". This is because i have seen too many conflicts like you describe. You have to make sure your paperwork is right. If company X finds legitimate things wrong with your submitted procedures then there is not much you can say. The thing to do is have the most complete and correct procedure you possibly can so you can at least have a leg to stand on when someone wants something ridiculous from you. Many companies have poorly written procedures and leave themselves open to this type of thing.
And yes i do believe as an inspector/inspection company it is there duty to notify the contractor immediately of any deficiency's (legitimate or not depending on the persons competence or lack there of) to not slow work and impact schedules.
You are in a "Catch-22" situation. I'm dealing with one of my own that I won't go into details on.
First off, the fabricator is always wrong, even if you are right - you are wrong. If you think you are right on one point, and prove that, then there will be at least 10 other undefendable points dragged up to prove you must be wrong on the first point because you dared to argue (BAD Fabricator, BAD). Sorry.....I'm letting my cynicism show through.
The good things I can say are that not all inspectors are morons on a power trip. Most are respectible, professional, and responsible. The morons know who they are and after a short while, everyone else does too.
You must document everything in writing. Your request for the inspector's attendence should be emailed/faxed to the GC, the inspector, the inspector's superiors, and the owner (if appropriate). Do not trust that a read receipt on an email is evidence that the inspectors was properly notified. Follow up with a phone call to the inspector or inspector's superiors, AND call the GC to inform him of your status - ie: your schedule, what stage you are at, what you are waiting on, etc, etc. You would be wise to require visitors, and any non-company personnel to log in/log out but do that for everyone.
If anyone indicates they didn't get your email/fax, confirm the address and send it to all again, marked as another attempt.
Also have it confirmed (same way - use email/fax and the telephone) as to what you can and cannot do if the inspector doesn't show. If the inspector does not show by a reasonable time, don't assume you ar still on firm ground - call someone and get direction.
Hint: GC's can be very demanding, both of you AND anyone viewed as holding up a job. And it would be to your benefit to coordinate with the GC on doing anything you can to keep him on schedule.
Also a good idea is to require a brief safety orientation that you document (steel toed shoes, safety glasses with side shields, gloves if handling anything - whatever your employees are required to do.
But whatever you end up doing, don't paint yourself as a powerless, unfortunate victim to your customers. They won't use you again. Do everything you can to be thorough, reaonable, and accomodating. The mark of a true professional is not whether you will or will not make a mistake - it's how you handle mistakes, yours or
others.
When this job is over, you'll have gained experience that will be valuable on the next one.
As others have mentioned, we are giving our opinions based on your side of the story. This is what I get out of what you are saying. (A) You are required to have continuous inspection while fabricating this project. (B) You fabricated a few days with no inspection. Bottom line you did not perform work according to job specs/code requirements. In my opinion you should have not started work until the inspector was present and had your paperwork in order (approved). Is it profitable to perform work this way? No. I would have not started fitting and welding until you had approval. If you would have documented that inspection was not provided in a timely manor, you would had an opportunity to back charge the inspection company for holding up the project. Issues with the WPS' could have been quickly resolved, without further impact to you. Now you have performed work without inspection and performed work using WPS' that are not code compliant. That is something you can not argue and win. Is it fair? No. Take it as a good lesson. Again this is just my opinion.
Tell the third party inspection company to F off, they are way out of line. If I know who they are(and its rare) I'll call them, other wise its up to them to show up. Don't wait for them, thats BS. Chris
Rich,
Keep rolling and tell the inspection company if they want to inspect what you've completed, they can inspect what they can see in your storage yard or on trailers, and the rest at the jobsite. There should be no rejected work if you're following the code.
Sorry it took so long to reply, I found out that I have cancer which required surgery. Everything is much better but my problems continue to escalate with the inspection company.
Someone mentioned calling the inspectors superior and the problem with that is that the owner is doing the field inspection.
Here is the latest; (just yesterday) Our field employees are installing bent plates around the perimeter of the building. The drawing call for a 5/16" fillet 2" every 12". Aparently some of the welds measured 2-1/2" long and some were a little larger than 5/16" (3/8), they were instructed to grind the 1/2" of extra weld away along with the extra 1/16" of weld material.
At this point I'm looking to hire a QC1 with extensive knowledge to help me fight this BS. When all the dust settles, my attorney will be filing a law suit for any misconduct.
Any opinions or QC1 contacts in my area SF Bay Area are welcome.
Rich,
Glad to hear your health issues are in check.
I find this odd: "Here is the latest; (just yesterday) Our field employees are installing bent plates around the perimeter of the building. The drawing call for a 5/16" fillet 2" every 12". Aparently some of the welds measured 2-1/2" long and some were a little larger than 5/16" (3/8), they were instructed to grind the 1/2" of extra weld away along with the extra 1/16" of weld material."
Unless there is something in the contract specs that addresses this, or the EOR has not accepted the oversized welds, to my knowledge, this is acceptable to D1.1 Maybe I missed it but I do not see the code that you are working to mentioned, so D1.1 is an assumtion at this point (Yeah I know "ass-u-me" LOL)
The only other issue I can think of would be if the welds being oversized interferes with something down the line, IE the weld being to long and large prevents another step in fabrication.
jrw159
Sorry to hear about your health, and your continued issues. I was rereading your initial post and have a question. You mentioned that you gave the documentation to the
GC 2 weeks prior. Was this a requirement? Or was there a requirement to have that info to company X two wees prior? If it was for company X then You need to find out when the GC gave that info to company X. Once your wsp' were rejected and then resubmitted the two weeks may apply again.
Now your current issues sound like BS. This is not industry standard. The only reasons for that much limitation on weld size would be clearance or heat input, neither seem to apply in this case. AWS has no limitation on maximum fillet leg size, except in regard to heat input. Additionally the tolerance on size sounds excessive. Being that the owner is performing the inspection a RFI will not be of much help at this time, but may be helpful at a later date. Good luck.
I would perform the work, but only after an "extra to the contract" was quoted, negotiated and signed. I'm guessing that this scope of work was not included in the base bid?
On your intermittent welds, as long as they are over 2 inches then you are ok, but if they are smaller then 2 inches, then you are in trouble. D1.1 states that if you have a 2-12 weld stitch, you can't have any more then 10 inches inbetween each weld. By welding them 2 1/2" you only have 9 1/2 inbetween each weld now, which is legal by code. It just cost you more money in weld deposit, that's all. ;-) I like to see them a bit longer the 2" because it make my life as a inspector easier plus you allow for a cold start and crappy craters. lol
"The drawing call for a 5/16" fillet 2" every 12". Aparently some of the welds measured 2-1/2" long and some were a little larger than 5/16" (3/8), they were instructed to grind the 1/2" of extra weld away along with the extra 1/16" of weld material". Sounds like these plates are pour stops. If so, the weld removal you've mentioned is absolutely ridiculous.
I've always called them perimeter angle (pour stops). Same thing I think. If that is the case I wouldn't even mess with rework. If the inspector has a problem with it you can request an RFI from the EOR and when the quit laughing they will buy it. Just my opinion.
The plates are pour stops and yes, its completely ridiculous.
One major problem is the inspection company has time to sit down and write letters to the owner / school district making it look as if were are in the wrong.
I sent an RFI to the engineer this morning regarding these welds and haven't heard back.
The specs call for the WPS to be submitted prior to starting fabrication, that's exactly what we did.
Some of the WPS were returned with stamps: "Rejected, Revise and Resubmit" for things like not having the contact tube to material distance listed. According to AWS, this measurement is not a required on prequalified welding procedures. If that's not correct please tell me.
Other items rejected:
Material Specification: Carbon Steel (Rejected)
Type: Table 3.1 (Rejected)
Thickness range: Group 1 or Group 2 (Rejected)
Those same specifications are being used on 3 other projects without an issue but were failed by X.
years ago I purchased WPS directly from AWS and the wording was exactly the same. My feeling is that the prequalified procedures can be generic because they have already been qualified in every possible instance by AWS. The code book reforces this thinking.
Thank you everyone for your replies,
Rich
Material Specification: Carbon Steel (Rejected)
Type: Table 3.1 (Rejected)
Thickness range: Group 1 or Group 2 (Rejected)
material spec = CS not detailed enough information
type = 3.1 Not detailed enough
thickness range = not detailed enough
material spec - There are requirements for the different groups. limit it to 1 and 2
thickness range - differing thickness ranges may require different preheats
type - is this filler or base metal?
Rich, it is a little vague.
WPS:
Under Base Metals:
Material spec. could be an ASTM designation.... such as ASTM A572
Type could be the grade..... such as Grade 50
Thickness range could indicate thickness for groove..... such as unlimited, and could indicate thickness for fillet...... such as.... all
Under Preheat:
Preheat table for various thickness ranges could be included.
Some items may not be required, but it's good information for the welder, especially the more inexperienced welders.
The latest:
Inspector refuses to UT the CP on all of the brace frames because he states; "the crown is oversized".
Each brace frame has 44 CP welds, non of which are being UT.
Is there a limit on crown size?
swnorris: I have a copy of WPS provided by AWs D1.1-94 and they state the exact same referece I mentioned above.
These WPS have worked for every job in the past (We only do state work). Like I said before, The commentary section in the AWs manual states that the prequalified WPS noted in the manual can be generic because of their extensive industry wiide use.
This is one of our WPS currently in use on other projects rejected by company X. While someone may find fault with wording, it obvious whats intended as it's prequalified.
http://eastbayerectors.com/wps/TCU4B.pdf
AWS spelled vertical wrong on that WPS. Is this prequalified WPS the one you got from AWS? For thicknesses they shouldn't of put group1 or group 2, those are prequalified base material call outs. I see it all the time where they just put table 3.1 steels for material specification and the same for type or grade. Thickness and preheat are the only things I would question. The preheat numbers would be out of bounds for some table 3.1 steels I think, at least for 2006 D1.1
rich,
Typically I would not help someone in your position. There should be someone in your company who is proficient at code compliance. But since your have a prick for an inspector I'll offer you some advice.
The first thing that I noticed on your wps is for all positions. This means you are locked into your amp, volt, and travel speed listed no matter what position your welding.
Next your preheat, mostly OK but AWS requires a preheat of 70 if under 32. I have seen wps' failed for not having this noted.
As mentioned previously type or grade listed as 3.1 is not specific enough.
Again your travel, it seems approipate for vert, but not for other positions. But I could be wrong.
By Duke 
Date 04-03-2009 13:21
Edited 04-03-2009 13:29
What lab is it, Rich? We have had to get picky on reviewing WPS and PQR, we're seeing some pretty sloppy paperwork lately.
Have y'all ever heard of "revising" a PQR without new tests? The first round of WPS/PQR was welded with ASTM A446? Withdrawn from ASTM 14 years ago. Are we off base to reject this? The application is A653/50 to A992. And this guy doesnt seem to understand why 6013 is not acceptable.
We had some PQR's submitted recently that contained the statement, (this is from memory) " test was welded prepared and tested in accordance with AWS D1.3-2008" and the freekin thing was signed and dated in 2004.
we called the guy and said it was not a typo.
can you say 'pencil whip'?
The first round of WPS/PQR was welded with ASTM A446? Withdrawn from ASTM 14 years ago.
Rich,
I have to say that the WPS is pretty openended. For example, there are many "carbon steels" in table 3.1 and group I & II. This needs to be more specific.
As for "oversized crown" I expect you are refering to face reinforcement. This is covered in table 6.1 #4 weld profiles which refers you to 5.24 which then refers you to figure 5.4 see D Acceptable groove weld profile in butt joints and note B, and it also refers you to 5.24.4 where it is spelled out pretty clearly. In figure 5.4 E it gives visual examples of unacceptable weld profiles as well.
jrw159
Rich,
I looked at the WPS you posted. One issue I see with it is that your AWS Classification is E71T-8 (required tensile 70,000 psi) and you refer to Table 3.1 for Type Or Grade.
When I commented that your information was a little vague, consider this. Table 3.1 contains some materials that require the Electrode Classification to be E80 or E90. Since your WPS is written for E71T-8, it is conceivable that at some point, a welder would or could follow your WPS and use the E71T-8 to weld a steel that requires E80 or E90. The increase in filler metal classification strength would make the WPS invalid, as it is an essential variable.
In your thickness range, you refer to Group 1 or Group 2. If this is another reference to Table 3.1, these groups are not for thickness ranges, they're for prequalified base metal/filler metal combinations for matching strength.... not thicknesses. While Groups 1 and 2 do not contain any filler metals that are greater than 70,000 psi tensile, I know what you mean and what your intent is, and I think that Kix, John, and hogan do as well, but when you refer to Table 3.1 for the type or grade, I can see where someone could misinterpret your intentions. A WPS really needs to be dummy proof.
So ya all would reject this one? Names removed.
I'm no ASME guru, but to AWS yes I would request it be revised to meet code requirements.
All the essential and none essential variables have to be addressed when writing a WPS per Section IX. Don't forget to review the applicable construction code for modifications to the basic requirements of Section IX.
As for AWS D1.1; review the information listed in Annex H (D1.1-2004) for prequalified WPSs. For WPSs qualified by testing, you need to review Table 4.5. Even prequalified WPSs have to limit the range for voltage, amperage, travel, etc. as per clause 3.6.
I use a base WPS format supplemented by an annex for base metals with the required preheat, another annex for joint details and assembly requirements, and an annex for the acceptance criteria. Remember the welder is unlikely to have a copy of D1.1 (or ASME Section yy) to refer to. The annexes provide the level of detail needed to meet all the code requirements while the WPS lists the generic information and is short and concise.
I reject the vast majority of WPSs (and PQRs) that pass by my desk because they don't address the variables required by the applicable code. The examples of WPSs I've seen in this thread don't pass muster when compared to the requirements of D1.1 or Section IX.
Best regards - Al
While watching this thread take a turn and looking at the wording used on the other posted WPS I noted something. So I posted WPS1. Just to let ya all know that WPS1 is a cut & past page 2 & the top of page 3 without page 4 the joint depictions used for and page 1 disclaimers & application. When all the pages are submitted to the EOR is in fact acceptable under the D1.1-08 clause 4 - 4.1.1.2 ...AWS B2.1-X-XXX series on Standard Welding Procedure Specification..... The ASME also accepts this under certain circumstances. A revised version of this SWPS is still for sale by AWS under B2.1.1-001:90R for $186
The following is ignoring D1.1-08 annex Q informative WPS info and only looking at prequalified processes limitation of wps variables of 3.6 1 document these variables on any format, amps, volts, travel speed, & shielding gas flow rate within table 4.5 limits. According to Table 4.5 SMAW is: (without listing them all or the notes) #12 amps limited by the manufacturer not by the code #16 volts not limited by the code #18 travel speed not limited by the code #31 limited by changes in a groove not listed in clause 3.12 or 3.13 #34 the omission but not the inclusion of backing or backgouging. All of this within 3.5.1 & table 3.7 There is so much more but this is going to be long enough.
Although annex Q is good information it is "not considered a part of the standard" only informative.
Noting I did not write it and personally I agree I don't like the amount of missing or vague info and have seen weldors hang their hat on incorrect or missing information written by a not so well informed welding tech or CWI, but someone on the AWS B2 committee thinks it is in fact enough information to pass the muster and sells it for a big profit. The other WPS I can assume someone bought a SWPS and wrote their own WPS using it as a template.
As for AWS "It is the policy of the AWS B2 Committee that the range of conditions and variables listed for an SWPS be more restrictive than permitted by application of the full range of conditions and variables allowed by the B2.1 document or by other American National Standards (such as AWS D1.1 through AWS D1.6 or ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section IX). The purpose of this policy is to restrict the WPS to a high probability of successful application by all users. In judging the extent of such restriction, the Committee is guided by the number and scope of the supporting PQRs, including the specific material, thickness and value for each welding variable used for the development of the PQR, and by known fabrication experience." "It is the intent of the AWS B2 Committee to have SWPSs only for commonly welded materials and common manual and semiautomatic welding processes."
You all can make your own conclusions
I, for one, don't care for the SWPSs sold by AWS, but like everything, opinions differ.
There is a difference between a prequalified WPS (per D1.1) and a SWPS. The difference is that the prequalified WPS is not supported by testing, i.e., a PQR or multiple PQRs, whereas the SWPS is supported by "several" PQRs that support the range of variables listed on the SWPS.
When submitting the SWPS (or using the SWPS) it is supposed to be in its entirety with no changes, revisions, missing pages, blah, blah, blah. The use of the SWPS is restricted by the license that is part of the "purchase agreement". A company is not permitted to change the SWPS in any way shape or form. At least that was the conditions of the license the last time I read it.
The problem is, few SWPSs are written for use by the welder. Once again the mindset of ASME comes into the picture and the needs for definitive information by the welder is all but ignored. Once again we have a piece of paper that is all but ignored by the one person that needs the information the most; the welder. For the most part I have found the ranges for some of the variables to be too liberal for a welder that is attempting to setup the welding equipment based on the information included in the SWPS. Do they have value, clearly to some people, but I find them wanting.
An SWPS is like a recipe with amount of each ingredient listed as a range instead of discrete amounts. It allows the cook to use 1 1/2 cup to 4 cups of flour, 1 to 5 tablespoons of salt, 5 to 12 eggs, 250 to 450 degrees, etc. Good luck trying to bake a cake with that recipe.
Best regards - Al
By petty4345 
Date 04-08-2009 14:35
Edited 04-08-2009 14:50
Maybe not what you are looking for, as this is not an accept/reject comment.
I find that when I try to write a WPS that can be used for 2 codes (Like the one you posted, AWS/ASME IX, that all kinds of questions start to get asked and it turns out not to be worth it.
One small thing that would be in question is for example that in AWS D1.1 A-588 is an M-1 group II weldable with the electrodes that you have listed unless this material is being used for weathering characteristics. But still you could weld this material with this procedure in some cases on a AWS project.
This material is an S-3 in ASME, so you could not use the WPS for an ASME project on A-588.
If I do intend to qualify to meet 2 codes, I do all of the required testing of both codes but write separate PQRs so they are code specific. It sounds like more work, but in the long run it's not.
