What comes first, chicken or egg?

Date 08-19-2010 12:09

Buser
AWS 3.0 2001 Standard Welding Terms and Definitions
Welding Procedure Qualification Record (WPQR) A record of welding variables used to produce an acceptable test weldment and the results of the tests conducted on the weldment to qualify a welding procedure specification (WPS)
Welding Procedure Specification (WPS) A document providing the required welding variables for a specific application to assure repeatability by properly trained individuals and welding operators.

You can write numerous WPS's from one PQR

First PQR then write WPS's

Good Luck
Marshall

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 08-19-2010 12:22

Marshall is right, but you still need a (pre)WPS of sorts to get started with the PQR. The welder needs some guidance to get started so that it isn't a wasted PQR.

By waccobird (****)

Date 08-19-2010 13:31

John
I hear your (pre)WPS of sorts. LoL
But when I did our PQR's I did them using the PQR document not a WPS. It had things that needed to be recorded before it became a legitimate WPS. WPS's are more forgiving My PQR document was more restrictive and specific.
Plus the PQR document was developed from the guidance in the AWS Code and not just the way I wanted to do it.
As Toughness tests, (CVN) were required I had to work up the Maximum Heat in-puts and such.
But AWS D1.5 2002 Bridge Welding Code says it like this under C5.7.1 WPS Qualification Test (second paragraph) The Procedure Qualification Record (PQR) is the written document stating the actual welding variables used to produce the WPS Qualification Test Weld and also stating the results.
Marshall

By fbrieden (***)

Date 08-19-2010 20:06

You can tell by which one is smoking a cigarette!

By MBSims

Date 08-21-2010 14:57

The WPS usually comes first because you should to have some idea of what you want to get out of the qualification. You may do this by taking a blank WPS form and start filling in blanks by pencil until you have an idea of what the PQR values need to be to get the WPS ranges needed. There are no words in any code that say a WPS HAS to be prepared before the PQR is welded. There may be times when you want to create a new WPS and review existing PQRs to determine if one already exists to cover the ranges needed. It would not make sense to say you can't use an existing PQR because it was welded before the WPS was written.

So the correct answer is SOMETIMES it's the chicken, and SOMETIMES it's the egg!

By HgTX

Date 08-23-2010 22:11

The way the AWS codes are written, the writers of the code imagine that the WPS comes first, and then one runs the test & writes the PQR, and then maybe other WPSs come later based on the PQR.

In actuality, it's how others in this thread describe--either there's a special WPS that's used expressly for the purpose of running the PQR but that isn't necessarily intended for use in production, or there's no WPS at all and they just go by the anticipated values written in one part of the PQR and record actual values in another part.

This descrepancy between reality and code assumptions is not without problems...

Hg

By js55

Date 08-24-2010 11:10

HgTx,
Especially when, as the best argument for the PWPS seems to be it is very helpful. Code writers should not be in the business of imposing 'very helpful' as code requirements. Though I understand it is not a requirement as yet, but an 'imagining'. One can only wonder though how long before an imagining becomes a requirement especially given the enthusiasm for it in the forum.

There also seems to be an inherent illogic in the way it is being argued in that, where there is a concern for an ability to determine good parameters seems to be exactly where it is needed most, and exactly where the ability to write a good one would be wanting.
Those who would have the ability to write a really effective one are those least in need of one.
So you stand a good chance in one case of having it ignored because its parameters are wrong, or the document is ignored because the engineer doesn't really need it because he has the info in his head. But you have a piece of paper to show the auditor, and thats important. :)

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 08-19-2010 18:20 Edited 08-19-2010 19:24

Bill,

Hopefully John or Marshall will stay with this, but here is my take:

The WPS asks if the Procedure is 'Prequalified', or 'Qualified by Testing' or by 'Procedure Qualification Records'. Obviously you are not 'Prequalified'. So, it would be one of the other two. Until you have the test results and they are properly Recorded you cannot be Qualified by 'PQR'. I'm not sure I want to go into the other option, with my limited experience there I will probably say something really stupid.

I think what is being said by John and Marshall is that you need someplace to start for the welders performing the test. At that point does it matter what EXACT format you use as long as you give them someplace to start with process, amps, electrode, gas, etc? Then, you record all the ACTUAL data as to meter readings, inches per minute travel, pre-heat, etc that you want to be the operating standard that all other tests and the work will be done to if the original tests pass all the PQR testing and gives you the ability to then write a WPS with a 'PQR' supporting it's working perameters.

Now, if I am even close in my review of Annex 'N' of D1.1 and the Definition of Welding Procedure Qualification Record from A3.0 then the original PQR contains all your original information for the test to be run. And, it is to be (future tense) 'Qualified by Testing'. And, if tests pass it will be Qualified by Testing and a Report will come back with all the official results as your 'Record' of testing of the procedure. From that point all WPS's written with that PQR as the base will be Qualified by 'Procedure Qualification Records'. The first is a future event- Qualified by upcoming testing, the second is of a past event- Qualified by already completed testing and here is the record of the welding, testing, and results.

Did I make it clear as mud? Or am I as lost about this as Bill already felt?

Have a Great Day, Brent

By waccobird (****)

Date 08-19-2010 18:29

Buser
That is kinda what John said, I think he called it (pre) WPS.
I had determined through some calculations of heat input and prior welding experience the variables I would test. So when I welded the test plate I basically had my PQR form and as no testing had been done it wasn't complete or valid for anything except to list my welding variables.
If you want me to help confuse you more just let me know I am good at it.
Good Luck
Marshall

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 08-19-2010 18:39

Your (pre) WPS can be written on the outside of a brown paper bag, it doesn't matter....it just somewhere to start. I apologize for the confusion. Like Marshall said, from previous testing you kind of have an idea of where to start to keep the heat input in check so that you don't completely blow your PQR testing. The PQR actually comes first, but in the beginning you only have the parameters to fill in, once the rest comes back from the lab, you can fill in the rest of the blanks off their paperwork....then write your "official" WPS based on the PQR.

By Buser

Date 08-19-2010 19:00

OK, I'm starting to understand. What I have actually created is a generic procedure that i will use to create my PQR. I can use what i have to make the weld test and if it passes everything i can then fill in the rest of my PQR then write the official WPS from that. It seems like it will be identical. What is still confusing is that the WPS forms have a lot more specific info on joint design and parameters that I would think you need to make the weld to begin with. Now I'm off to be super Dad and coach some flag football so I shall chat with you gents in the am! Thanks for all the help!

Bill

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 08-19-2010 19:50

Just to be clear,
....the PQR must have the actual amps/volts(all of the parameters, not just these two) used during the welding of the test plate.
....the WPS can have a range of amps/volts that can be used in production.

By TimGary (****)

Date 08-19-2010 19:53

What you should do is make a mock up of the parts you intend to weld, with the same materials, same joint, same root gap.
Then experiment with machine settings in order to find the right balance between ease of weldability (in order to make it easy to weld for semi-skilled welders) and high deposition rates (in order to please the bean counters). Once you've determined the ideal settings, record them on a note pad and run a WPQR test plate using them. If the weld sample in the test plate passes the destructive tests, then you've got a qualified WPQR to build WPS's from. If not, then you have a guide on how to adjust your parameters in order to make an acceptable procedure.
Once you have a qualified WPS, then test your welders against that and record the results on a PQTR, or Performance Qualification Test Record.

Tim

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 08-20-2010 00:17

Buser,
As John says it can be on a brown paper bag but to keep all your documentation in order you can maybe try this.
The pWPS (Preliminary Welding Procedure Specification) can be the exact same form you use for your WPS.
Where it states on the form WPS # you enter Preliminary XXX-XXX-XXX
Where it states PQR # either leave blank or put "To be qualified"
Fill out all other details on the pWPS (material type, material thickness,process, joint type,root gap, included angle, root face, electrode type, electrode diameter etc, etc)
For the amps / volts use past experience or manufacturers recommendations.
Travel speed will generally only be determined during the test.

Perform the test coupon to qualify the PQR.
If it passes the required tests your PQR is qualified.
Take your pWPS and remove Preliminary so it is now WPS # XXX-XXX-XXX then add your new PQR number to the WPS.
All the other variables get a +/- determined by the code to give you a range to work within.

The project I am currently on in Thailand is AWS D1.1 & D1.5.
Due to the unavailability of certain steels we are having to substitute a lot of materials which means qualifying numerous new PQRs.

Our contractor prepares a pWPS and submits to me, I review and approve (or disapprove) and they go ahead and perform the PQR based on the approved pWPS.
Hope that helps,
Regards,
Shane

By 803056

Date 08-20-2010 01:54

1) preliminary WPS - my best guess of what will work: Base Metal: size, thickness, specification, and joint detail. Process: current, amps, wire feed speed, voltage. Filler Metal: spec., classification, diameter, etc. All the information the welder has to have inorder to weld the "specific" test piece required to qualify the procedure. The more formal the presentation the less likely mistakes will be made.
2) PQR - independent verification that the conditions listed in the PWPS are followed, it is a record of what was actually done. Includes a record of the test results.
3) WPS - production WPS that is based on the PQR, lessons learned, etc. The ranges listed includes the ranges for the welding parameters that are "wide" enough for actual production work. Joint details, technique, preheat, etc. are listed. WPS must meet the requirements and limitations of the applicable welding standards and any additional information needed by the welder to meet the requirements of the applicable welding standard.

Several responses follow the same sequence and same thought process.

Best regards - Al

By Duke

Date 08-20-2010 02:53

just call the first document a "proposed" or "preliminary" WPS
EDIT:
Al i didnt see your post right above this one...
just do what Al says

By js55

Date 08-24-2010 11:17

It seems to me you are lost because you are worrying more about the paper trail than the qualification. If you utilize a pre WPS how do you know where the parameters should be? They have to come from somewhere.
A Pre WPS does not generate the parameters. It only notes what is generated from an engineer. You have to engineer the thing first.
It seems what you are lacking is the engineer. Not a piece of paper.

By js55

Date 08-20-2010 12:35

I'd like to throw a fly in the ointment here if I may with some friendly sarcasm.
IMO the Pre WPS is the most illogical waste of time there is involving the qualification of a weld procedure.
I know it has become quite standardized and expected but the inherent problem/stupidity is this.
Who is going to be signing off on the PQR?
The welder?
The welding engineer?
The QC guy?
And the person signing off on the PQR is essentially signing it off as a certification that such and such was done.
And if he is certifying it, he must have witnessed it. Otherwise the cert is a lie.
And if he witnessed it he must have been standing right there.
If he is standing right there is a piece of paper really necessary to convey what needs to be done to the qualification coupon?
Is the cert signer/engineer/QC guy totally incapable of speech?
John came closest to my sentiment with his brown paper bag comment.
When I qual a weld and am certifying it you can bet I am standing right there dictating what is to be done. That way my nmae on that PQR means something. Do I really need a brown paper bag to tell the welder what to do? What if it ain't working? Do I need to revise the brown paper bag?
This pre WPS idea is was certainly born out the minds of code/desk jocky/auditor types who really have spent no time on a shop floor actualy doing qualifications.
OK. Thats my rant for the day. Where's the coffee?

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 08-20-2010 14:08

It's "Official..." The Chicken comes before the Egg according to some very wasteful, and painstakingly long winded government study the has just recently been completed and published as well as touted on the news as "Breaking News!!!"

GIVE ME A BREAK FOR CRYIN OUT LOUD!!! :) :) :)

Either way Bill, you cannot go wrong with the recommendations given in this thread... So, now I hope you have enjoyed the responses, and I'll end mine by stating this with genuine sincerity:

"WELDCOME" TO THE WORLD'S GREATEST WELDING FORUM!!! :) :) :)

Respectfully,
Henry

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 08-20-2010 14:32

Jeff,
Astounded by your reply as you have always been the voice of reason on this forum.
Maybe it is more than coffee you require ??
I am not aware of any code that mandates the use of a pWPS, it is merely an aid that can be voluntarily used.
I am all for it, please read my post again.
As has been noted on the forum before anyone can write a WPS (as jon20013 stated even the floorsweeper if he is a company employee) - no prior experience necessary.
Hypothetically, I am the Quality Representative for Company A (the Client) and Company B (the Contractor) needs to urgently qualify a procedure.
Do I just sit back and wait for Company B to try and qualify a procedure (cross my fingers and hope for the best) only to find out it failed due to wrong electrode/base metal combination (as an example) or do I ask for a pWPS before they begin showing what their intentions are ?
In a perfect world the person who signs the PQR is the person who witnessed the test but we all know that doesn't happen. If it is on the other side of the country / world it is usually a third party inspector and he will just provide information to the welding engineer who will sign off the PQR.
Regards,
Shane

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 08-21-2010 04:10

Once upon a time I would have agreed with Jeff, but have softened in the later years and now believe a pWPS should be used. It is, as everyone has suggested, only guidance to the welder so he doesn't have to make decisions that may be contrary to the hopes of the engineer. In a perfect world the engineer would be standing along side the welder and giving guidance anyway, but nothing is perfect! :) Make that 2 cups of coffee please?

By js55

Date 08-24-2010 11:18

I appreciate how everyone believes I live and work in a perfect world.
Sure doesn't feel like it. :)

By 803056

Date 08-21-2010 04:11 Edited 08-21-2010 04:14

If no forethought is needed, if the test witness wants to babysit while the plates or pipe is cut from stock, if the witness is going to stand around while all the materials are gathered for the welding of the test piece, the PWPS may not be required.

In ASME world that may be the rule rather than the exception. However, when the WPS being qualified is something that involves a little planning, a little preparation is in order. That is all the PWPS is, a work sheet listing what materials are needed, the size of the plates, what edge preparation is required, what welding parameters will be used, etc. I find it very useful to send the client an advanced copy of the PWPS so they know in advance what materials have to be ordered and prepared before my arrival from the airport. I find that doing so can shave a week or two off the time I have to spend at my client's facility.

If the person witnessing the PQR is clueless about the welding process and plays no active roll in planning, preparation, and execution, I can see where the need or the utility a PWPS serves would be beyond their comprehension. After all, in such situation the majority of the responsibility falls on the shoulders of the welder. Should something go wrong, it is easier to blame the welder for failing to foresee all the inevitable details that need attending to and any inadvertant delays caused by not having the proper shielding gas on hand, the correct filler metal of the proper diameter on hand, wrong material cut to the wrong size, grain orientation being parallel to the axis of the groove rather than perpendicular to the axis of the groove, need I continue?

Best regards - Al

By js55

Date 08-23-2010 20:49

The idea of organizing materials prior to a visit certainly expands the definition of PWPS beyond anything I would have imagined. Organizing materials doesn't even have anything to do with a regular WPS. Some instruction for preparation, cutting, thcikness, and traceability may be a good thing but to argue its somehow a PWPS is stretching it a bit. And even though I do these things, and have been successful without a PWPS, since I don't list those things on an offical WPS and cannot find them in either ASME or AWS as variables for WPS's, I see no need to list them on a PWPS either.
Somehow when I conceive of a PWPS I conceive an instruction to a welder similar to the standard understanding of an offical WPS.
And my point was I do not need to write these things down since I will be there.
I have verbal communication skills, some have commented, some might think otherwise, and I usually try to pick welders who have verbal comprehension skills as well. At least equivalent to say, Mr. Ed. This way I do not need to search for brown paper bag material. :)

It seems that the argument is, the more we water down and broaden the definition of PWPS the more handy it becomes. OK.
I suppose then if I email to my material guy that I want 1/2" thick SA-36 material cut in two pieces of 6" X 12" and want it delivered to a weld station with heat numbers recorded I have disputed my own argument and therefore stand corrected. :)
Maybe I've had too much coffee.

By bozaktwo1 (***)

Date 08-27-2010 20:24

While I can see both sides of this issue pretty well, I would like to take a moment to remind everyone that in the end, before either PQR or WPS, there is a customer with two pieces of steel and no clue as to how they are to be joined in order to attain the desired result. We don't all need an engineer to provide this information, but there's an old saying that I carry close always: If you didn't write it down, it never happened. Welding is a science first and foremost, and we the scientists must perform experiments to support our various hypotheses (i.e. will it work or won't it). Naturally, the amount of preparatory work to be performed is dependent on the criticality of the joint being welded. More critical=more prep=more experimentation to determine the optimal welding control parameters, thus reinforcing your customer's confidence in the weld. I have performed simple PQRs without first writing anything down, but these are almost exclusively for joints and materials with which I am intimately familiar (which might be three or four :) . So being the windbag that I am, to summarize, I think it's potentially a huge mistake to begin a PQR without first writing down at least the basic goal of your endeavor.

By js55

Date 08-23-2010 20:58 Edited 08-23-2010 21:02

Shane,
I think my position is quite reasonable. And I would evidence that by the fact that Jon at one time may have been sympathetic to the position. Though we have yet to establish Jon's reasonableness credentials. :)

You are right, the code does not mandate, and I doubt any time soon they will move in that direction but it has been creeping its way into auditor evaluations and customer requirements to my shagrin (or chagrin-I don't remember-maybe I need a Pre spell check procedure).
I, like Ron, have enough documents to deal with.

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 08-24-2010 12:22 Edited 08-24-2010 12:26

Jeff!!!! "Though we have yet to establish Jon's reasonableness credentials." Here I always thought I was one of the more reasonable morons in this place, lol!!!

I believe what you will see in the coming years is many similarities between Euro / ISO Standards and ASME and when looking into the Euro / ISO Standards you'll see pWPS are required. I don't know when it will happen but it's coming. Love it, Hate it or couldn't care less it will get here.

Even within AWS, just looking at B2.1 you'll notice it's looking like almost a mirror of ASME IX, and that's not a bad thing. One day, certainly NOT in my lifetime, we'll have a set of "reasonably" uniform standards on a global level. (P/S: Thanks again to Walt and all the US Technical Advisory Group for ISO/TC 44/SC10; Unification of Requirements in the Field of Metal Welding Members!).

Whew, that's too heady stuff this late in the afternoon.

By RonG

Date 08-21-2010 16:51

Paralysis by Analysis or visa versa.

It’s really ironic the way things work out some times. It’s a growing madness, as is the case where I work.

In order to do anything, we first must have a Route tag (detailed work instructions).

That requires a “Technical writer” that will gather pertinent information from all concerned parties (Engineering, material management, purchasing, etc..) to author a “Route tag” which he then passes on to production control.

Production control confers with the schedulers and after several meetings it will be fitted with a schedule and then said Route tag will be given to the supervisor in the shop.

After several more meetings to re-adjust the schedule the supervisor will then bother to read the Route tag and immediately take it back to the Engineer and calmly explain to him how inadequate his understanding of the welding processes are as well as how the rest of the world works.

The Engineer will re-evaluate his position and how badly he wants to get this done and will accept or refuse any help offered but he or his appointee (usually from QC) will still end up out on the shop floor with a clip board and Amp probe (tong type) recording parameters while the welder welds the coupons and a PQR is born.

The irony is in the constant uproar over how the union disables management and drives up the cost of production.

The constitution of the AFofL-CIO in so many words tells its constituents they are obligated to help create work for their brothers by refusing to work overtime thus making management hire more of the brothers. Right?? I don’t thing so,,, most beg for over time. But that’s what it says anyway.

On the other hand, management in bowing to the pressures of little things like ISO, OSHA and CFR (as if they had an option) create so much paper work (computer jockeys) the ratio of Non-producers to Production personnel is totally out of proportion.

I love my job it’s like being in a TV sit-com every day and I get to add to the confusion at will.

By swnorris (****)

Date 08-22-2010 03:30

To answer Buser's question....

What comes first, chicken or egg?

The rooster

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 08-22-2010 05:43

And the Hen getting together in order for the Hen to lay the EGGS - FOR CRYIN OUT LOUD ALREADY!!! SHEESH!!!

I now know how the AFLAC (Al sorry for the Advertisement! ;) ) Duck feels when he's trying to make a point! ;)

Btw, Does anyone know what "Ischcabibble" means??? ;)

Respectfully,
Henry

By waccobird (****)

Date 08-22-2010 15:17

Henry
I think it is spelled with a k, urban slang for, no worries, dont worry,Who cares?
Is that the one.
God Bless
Marshall

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 08-23-2010 05:06 Edited 08-23-2010 05:27

Hi Marshall!

It was a "loaded' question...

You are correct in using the letter "K" when spelling out the name of the person (Ish Kabibble (January 19, 1908 – June 5, 1994) was a comedian and cornet player. Born Merwyn Bogue in North East, Pennsylvania, his family returned to Erie, Pennsylvania a few months after his birth.) who "coined" the term from an older song derived from a mock-Yiddish expression, "Ische ga bibble?", which was purported to mean "I should worry?", prompting a curious (and perhaps not coincidental) association of the comedian with the "What, me worry?" motto of Mad's mascot, Alfred E. Neuman.

While this derivation has been widely quoted on the Internet and elsewhere, the expression "ische ga bibble" is not Yiddish and contains no Yiddish words at all.[2] However, there is a Yiddish expression, "nisht gefidlt," meaning "it doesn't matter to me," from which the term "ish kabibble" may derive.

My spelling of the slang term only personifies the meaning of the word by not worrying about how it's spelled, or it's usage. ;)

Influence:

Kabibble's distinctive black hair in a bowl cut, similar to that used by Three Stooges member Moe Howard, is said to have been an inspiration for the hairstyle worn by Jim Carrey's character in Dumb and Dumber. Some maintain that Jerry Lewis lifted his comedic persona and look from Ish Kabibble, making an otherwise identical character more manic than Ish Kabibble's earlier presentation.

The name "Ish Kabbible" was used for a hoax student supposedly enrolled at Princeton University in the 1950s.

In 1985, the character's name was used as a plot device on the animated series The Thirteen Ghosts of Scooby-Doo. On this series, Scooby and the gang, along with an animated spoof of Vincent Price, are in search of the Amulet of Ish Kabibble.

In the TV show M.A.S.H., Alan Alda's character "Hawkeye Pierce" several times refers to Ish Kabibble. Once he asks who he and Trapper John should drink to - MacArthur or Ish Kabibble? Another time he refers to Ish Kabibble and his All Girl Orchestra and refers to him as part of a dream.

In the TV show Green Acres, Sam Drucker sells "Ish Kabibble" kazoos.

All in the Family: In the "Cousin Maude's Visit" episode, Maude refers to how the name "Ish Kabibble" used to make Archie Bunker laugh. ;)

The origin of Merwyn Bogue's stage name, Ish Kabibble, can be traced back to the 1913 novelty song "Isch ga-bibble" and this 1915 cartoon postcard, which displays a spelling (Ish Ka Bibble) almost identical to that used by Bogue. Between the song and the card, in 1914, Harry Hershfield introduced his character Abie Kabibble in his comic strip Abie the Agent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ish_Kabibble

Respectfully,
Henry

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 08-23-2010 19:32

Very interesting Henry. I often wondered what word derivation you had. I couldn't find it in the dictionary but hadn't taken the time to do a deeper search.

Hope things are going well with you. At least as well as could be expected.

Have a Great Day, Brent