Section IX to D1.1 WPQ's

Date 08-24-2010 16:46

If you qualified your welders to ASME SEction IX, they don't necessarily meet AWS D1.1. Your ASME WPSs will be lacking as well. Some of the essential variables listed by AWS D1.1 may not be addressed by your ASME procedures.

Consider the visual inspection requirements of Section IX - VT is nearly nonexistant. there is no criteria for profile, reinforcement, undercut, overlap, etc. in Section IX. The acceptance criteria provided by Section IX for guided bend tests are similar, but not the same.

I could go on, but the customer is really in the driver's seat on this one.

Best regards - Al

By MBSims

Date 08-24-2010 23:35

We use ASME IX welding procedures and welder qualifications for structural welding in power plants. The technical basis is in paragraphs 4.1.1.2 and 4.1.2.1 in D1.1.

4.1.1.2 WPS Qualification to Other Standards.
The acceptability of qualification to other standards is
the Engineer’s responsibility, to be exercised based upon
the specific structure, or service conditions, or both.
AWS B2.1.XXX-XX Series on Standard Welding Procedure
Specifications may, in this manner, be accepted for
use in this code.

4.1.2.1 Previous Performance Qualification. Previous
performance qualification tests of welders, welding
operators, and tack welders that are properly documented
are acceptable with the approval of the Engineer. The acceptability
of performance qualification to other standards
is the Engineer’s responsibility, to be exercised
based upon the specific structure, or service conditions,
or both.

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 08-25-2010 02:32

I agree with Marty. After all, a weld doesn't know whether its on a garbage bin or a space shuttle, it's only us that know or care. As long as mechanicals are similar or adequate (and proven) it makes litrtle difference.

That said, on my last Project I always tried to watch for differences in code and tried addressing both circumstances when qualifying new WPS, (if one had more restrictive criteria I went with tighter rather than looser).

In the end I just wrote in our welding program manual that all WPS would be qualified to ASME IX and would be permitted to be used for structural applications (D1.1, etc). That manual was reviewed by literally dozens of auditors and customers in the nuclear power industry and naturally ASME for stamp applications and we never had any objection.

By waccobird (****)

Date 08-25-2010 09:03

jon20013
That is what I do for AWS D1.1 & D1.5 work, qualify to the more stringent and write paper trail for both. I haven't had any complaints either.
Marshall

By 803056

Date 08-26-2010 12:35

Your line of reasoning was convincing right up to the point where you said you qualify the welding procedure in accordance with ASME. ASME Section IX: No RT or UT required, little visual acceptance criteria, looser acceptance criteria for guided bend tests, how can you possibly say a WPS qualified to ASME Section IX meets the requirements for a WPS that has to qualified by testing per AWS D1.1? That’s like a pimp selling a 40-year old whore as a virgin. It works with some country bumpkins.

Your argument fell apart soooo quickly.

All too many engineers have little understanding of the differences in welding standards or welding for that matter, it scares the hell out of me.

Then again, their lack of knowledge is what keeps me gainfully employed, so keep them in the dark, and feed them BS so they will thrive. Their mistakes are what keep us busy finding solutions to their dilemmas. The fact that you got "buy in" to your line of reasoning isn't reassuring in the least. They (corporate lackeys) are looking for the "cheap" way out, not necessarily the best solution. When someone disagrees, they are not a “team player” and are tossed out of the group. There is a name for that type of group interaction, but it escapes me for the moment. I’ve seen it come into play in numerous corporate meetings.

I remember attending a meeting with a client and several of the corporate officers. It had something to do with qualifying welders and what was proposed was absolutely against every code requirements known to man. I told them they could not do what was being proposed, but they continued their conversation along the lines of what I said was improper and unethical. I finally stood up on my chair and said, “I know I’m short and it may be difficult to hear what I have to say, but if you insist on doing what you propose, tell me now so I can pack up my gear and move on to a client that has some integrity!”

Their response was, “Do you know how much this contract is worth to your company? Are you really willing to walk away?”

I told them I could be packed up and ready to leave before they had my property pass printed, but yes, I would walk away if they did what they had proposed to do.

I prevailed and the WPSs were properly qualified and the welders, all 32 of them, were qualified in accordance with the welding standard.

Integrity, it ain’t easy, but isn't that why they hire us?

Best regards - Al

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 08-26-2010 13:15

Al, I'm really a bit shocked actually. Ask this, what is the intent of a PQR? The correct answer is to prove the mechanical integrity of the weld. Mechanical integrity is proven by mechanicall testing, not by NDE. I agree NDE can be a good thing, so we don't chose a spot that may contain defects when laying out the mechancals but beyond that, NDE adds little, if any value to a PQR (in my opinion).

Agreeing that bend testing may be more restrictive in one standard as opposed to another, both AWS and ASME are pretty liberal in their criteria, again just an opinion.

As for visual, well if the Engineer accepts a poor visual PQR then shame on him (or her).

Welds are welds, as I said they don't know if they're on a garbage bin or a space shuttle. Both have significantly different needs but that's what keeps us employed.... and we've had that discussion about codes allowing engineering judgment before.

Very sad to say, your statement "Their mistakes are what keep us busy finding solutions to their dilemmas" is very disheartening. What dillemas are you referring to, exactly?

By 803056

Date 08-26-2010 13:39

Did I read your response correctly?

The purpose of performing NDT is not so the contractor can pick and choose where to remove the specimens for mechanical testing. NDT, in conjunction with guided bend tests, is used to verify weld soundness. NDT is performed to verify the weld is free of objectionable discontinuities.

ASME Section IX is one of the few welding standards in the industrialized world that does not require NDT, i.e., either UT or RT, as part of the qualification process.

As for some of the problems brought on by poor engineering and poor engineering judgment due to a lack of knowledge about welding, they are regaled here in the forum on a daily basis.

Don’t misunderstand my comments. I hold you in high esteem. I look forward to reading your posts because you demonstrate your knowledge of welding and code in each of your responses. This one caught me by surprise. I cannot fathom how anyone that is conversant with both AWS and ASME truly believes that a WPS qualified to ASME Section IX meets the requirements for qualifying a WPS per one of the AWS welding codes.

Had you said that qualifying a WPS per Section IX is “better than a sharp stick in the eye,” I would have agreed with you. ;)

Best regards - Al

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 08-26-2010 15:10

I suppose this is just a healthy case of agreeing not to agree! :)

I do have an additional comment about "As for some of the problems brought on by poor engineering and poor engineering judgment due to a lack of knowledge about welding, they are regaled here in the forum on a daily basis."

Having been a member here for just a few years, it's my opinion that there are very, very few Welding Engineers in our Forum and much of the "poor engineering judgment" stems from those who are absolutely properly qualified welding inspectors, but misinterpreting engineering issues.

Don't worry Al, that response was NOT directed towards yourself, I also hold you in high regard and enjoy reading your posts!

By 803056

Date 08-26-2010 15:37

Hey, that's the fun part of this Forum! It is the disagreements that make it interesting to read.

I don't believe anyone, myself included, is spared any jabs from our "friends" now and again! My wife has spent more than a few evenings pulling arrows out of my backside because of something I wrote. I believe it is called "Friendly Fire."

If we agreed on everything there would be no "learning" and we could just as well spend our time watching TV or reading "US" magazine. :(

I am the first one to admit that I have a lot to learn and this Forum is an eye opener for learning what other folks in our community are thinking and hold to be "Truths."

ASME the same as AWS, Haaa, Haaa, Oh my God, Haaaaa! ;)

Best regards - Al

PS at least I can still crack myself up! ;)

By js55

Date 08-26-2010 20:30

Weld soundness, unless you are dealing with something brand new, exotic, and untested borders on, some would say even more than that, mixing performance issues with procedure issues. Procedure issues are predominantly mechanically based.
This is the philosophy of ASME and I happen to agree with it.
If you are stupid enough to impose slag or lack of fusion in say, a stainless steel qualifcation, you have already violated the spirit of the ASME code by not practicing sound engineering judgment. First by not understanding at least a range of parameters that should be utilized by doing your due diligence, and then by choosing an incompetent welder to make your qual.
I think the philosophy of AWS is one geared more towards idiot proofing but also, AWS doesn't distinguish performance from procedure issues near a clearly as ASME does.
The other thing is, D1.1 relies exclusively on visual examination other than for certain cyclic services and ASME imposes more stringent NDE in construction(exclusive visual in ASME is the exception not the rule-for example Cat D in 31.3)-it doesn't even exist in Section III except for supports in subsection NF). So it seems AWS is emphasizing the qual stage and ASME the construction phase to determine weld soundness.
Which philosophy is better seems to depend on where you have spent the bulk of your professional career. :)

By 803056

Date 08-26-2010 21:12 Edited 08-26-2010 21:25

I see your point. Following that logic I should ignore the fact that a test plate in my possession has several transverse cracks in the weld, as revealed by RT, and only extract samples from those areas free of cracks to prove the mechanical requirements have been met. Clearly the transverse cracks are due to welder incompetence and have nothing to do with the nature of the dissimilar metals being joined or the filler metal the contractor selected. All is good provided I can find enough "good" areas to produce the test pieces to perform the required bend tests and reduced section tensile tests.

Do you really subscribe to that philosophy?

Sorry, I cannot buy into it. If the test plate cannot pass RT, it is an indication there will be problems during production. I subscribe to the philosophy that it is best to discover and correct problems during the qualification process rather than wait until production has started. I do not lay all the production problems at the feet of the welder and declare him incompetent.

You may have a point in your statement that AWS is attempting to make the process idiot proof. I believe the current buzz word is "error proofing." That is not a bad thing in my view. Good engineering judgment is like common sense. It is not all that common. All too many engineers have little training, if any, during their college years and depend solely on the School of Hard Knocks for their welding education. AWS and numerous other welding standards recognize the problem and attempt to rectify the shortcomings by providing guidance to the novice as well as the seasoned practitioner. I often say that the AWS structural welding codes are cookbooks that provide directions on how to produce good welds. I like that philosophy.

Do not get me wrong. I like the approach ASME takes and it works if the engineer is competent in the technology of welding. The problem is that there are few "welding engineers" plying their skills in industry. Many of the "welding engineers" I encounter have little background in welding. Their titles are bestowed rather than earned.

I am reminded of what an associate once told me when I was new to the field, "Al, when was the last time you had dinner with your doctor?"

"I've never had dinner with my family doctor." I replied.

"Why not?" he asked

"I only see my doctor when there is something wrong." I said.

"Exactly, and only those clients that are experiencing welding problems call on us. Those companies that have an engineering staff that is competent in the field of welding do not need our services." he responded.

So very true. There are thousands of companies making good welds every day. I only get called in when they experience welding problems. It tends to give me a biased opinion about the competency of industry as a whole. That being said, I still like the cookbook approach offered by the AWS structural codes. It does cut into my business, but I say I am most successful when my customers no longer need my services. My job is to give them the resources they need so they do not need me.

Best regards - Al

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 08-27-2010 14:25

Al,
I am responding to your post on 26/8/10 at 13.39 in case this ends up in the wrong place (again).

With all due respect I disagree totally with your statement and have to side with Jon on this one.
What are we looking at with a PQR - the mechanical "soundness" of a weld based on the variables used during the welding of the test coupon. We are not looking at the welders ability to perform a sound weld.
QW 100.1
Welding procedure qualification establishes the properties
of the weldment, not the skill of the welder or welding
operator.

If you have a 6" long weld and you radiograph it and you have 5" of sound weld then you have 5" that is acceptable for mechanical testing. The 1" of unacceptable weld must be due to the welders ability - if 5" is acceptable with the variables used how could you say the PQR failed due to "discontinuities" ? LOF, Slag Inclusion, Porosity etc, etc - if you have 5" without this discontinuity then it is the welders ability that has caused the 1" of discontinuities.

This is your statement,
"The purpose of performing NDT is not so the contractor can pick and choose where to remove the specimens for mechanical testing. NDT, in conjunction with guided bend tests, is used to verify weld soundness. NDT is performed to verify the weld is free of objectionable discontinuities."

Sorry Al but it is exactly why you perform RT if you should choose.

This is from ASME IX
QW-202 Type of Tests Required
QW-202.1 Mechanical Tests. The type and number of
test specimens that shall be tested to qualify a groove weld
procedure are given in QW-451, and shall be removed in
a manner similar to that shown in QW-463. If any test
specimen required by QW-451 fails to meet the applicable
acceptance criteria, the test coupon shall be considered as
failed.
When it can be determined that the cause of failure is
not related to welding parameters, another test coupon may
be welded using identical welding parameters.
Alternatively, if adequate material of the original test
coupon exists, additional test specimens may be removed
as close as practicable to the original specimen location to
replace the failed test specimens.

Radiography at your own option is a perfectly normal procedure to find a clean (free of discontinuities) area to perform mechanical tests.
Regards,
Shane

By 3.2 Inspector (***)

Date 08-29-2010 08:13

I disagree....
I will respond when I am sober ^^

3.2

By 3.2 Inspector (***)

Date 09-02-2010 01:37

Shane,

Took a while to sober up.....sure you know how it feels :)

I would argue that if you only had 5" of sound weld on a 6" test piece your parameters might be a bit off.
So everytime you followed this procedure (granted it passed) you would end up having 16% defects - your PQR did not verify you could make 100% sound welds with these welding parameters..

I am very well aware that a PQR and a welder qualification test are 2 different things, with a different purpose.

I my mind it should be obvious that a PQR must be free of defects.

3.2

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 09-02-2010 15:22

3.2,
Sorry, I disagree totally with your statement.
The purpose of qualifying a WPS is to produce a document that will give guidelines that will ensure sound weld repeatability. This is achieved by welding and testing a coupon that forms the basis of your PQR.
Hypothetically, I am welding a 6" Sch 80 PQR test coupon and someone opens the door and and a gust of wind comes through and blows the argon away. I have a large non compliant gas pore shown by RT in the weld but all the mechanicals and everything else passes.
Are you honestly saying that that PQR fails ?

"I would argue that if you only had 5" of sound weld on a 6" test piece your parameters might be a bit off.
So everytime you followed this procedure (granted it passed) you would end up having 16% defects - your PQR did not verify you could make 100% sound welds with these welding parameters.."

Based on your theory above someone would have to open the door allowing a gust of wind in every time a pipe weld was being performed ?????

I do not agree with the requirement by some codes (thank god ASME doesn't) for UT /RT testing but I can see the reasoning behind Als comment regarding transverse cracks.
Regards,
Shane

By 3.2 Inspector (***)

Date 09-02-2010 16:31 Edited 09-02-2010 16:54

It's fine....lets all be happy that you are not working for a governing body ^^
And why the hell would I let a test being made in windy conditions pass, when I will not let production welds made in wind pass?

3.2

EDIT: Ehm....LOOOL

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 09-03-2010 03:48

3.2,
The point I am trying to make is why should a PQR fail based on welder error ? Or outside influences (gust of wind, someone pushing trolley over argon hose, mains power surge or drop etc etc) ?
If a welder welds 5" of perfectly good weld and then for whatever reason changes his electrode angle for the final 1" and gets lack of sidewall fusion do you fail the PQR ?
What has electrode angle got to do with parameters ?
The mechanical testing of the 5" of weld all pass thus proving if those parameters are followed via the WPS then a sound weld is probable.

Lets put two welders side by side doing the same PQR qualification plate using exactly the same parameters.
One lays 6" of perfect weld and one lays 5" of good weld but has 1" of defects.
How can you fail the PQR when it is clearly the welders ability that has caused the defects ? (not including transverse cracking in this statement)
Regards,
Shane

By 3.2 Inspector (***)

Date 09-03-2010 04:23

Shane,
Of course I can see your point(s) and you argue for them very well. I am not able to argue just as good in english......
From MY point of view a PQR test is to see it you can make metallurgical acceptable welds with the used parameters - so far we agree :)

But the philosophy is also to see if the parameters used will be able to produce acceptable welds in the production, the WPS, which will be written based on the PQR will most likely be used to make "free from defect" welds.

If already you have defects dring welding of the test (for whatever reason) chances are that you are doing something wrong.
From a practical point of view it would be very difficult to determine why the lack of fusion happened during test welding, you could say it was because the welder slipped his hand, I would say he used to low amps. and that the parameters are wrong, I could also say that the mechanical test are worthless because with the parameters used you are not able to produce sound welds again and again.

For you to make sound welds you would need more power and this will affect the mechanical properties.

I hope the above makes sense :)

3.2

By MBSims

Date 08-26-2010 23:54 Edited 08-27-2010 00:24

I'm somewhat offended by your suggestion that this is not an ethical or sound practice. I can qualify a welding procedure that can be used to build a nuclear reactor to ASME Section IX, but it is not appropriate for structural steel? Hogwash! D1.1 is one of the most difficult to follow "standards" ever written. On one hand, the majority of welding is considered "prequalified", but if I want to do something slightly different that is not already prescribed in infinite detail I have to qualify it in every position known to man using every possible test method. Overkill and unnecessary waste! There is nothing in the quoted paragraphs that suggests the alternate code has to provide requirements fully equal to D1.1 in every regard as you imply. The structures we deal with are all statically loaded nontubular structures. As the engineer of record, the quoted paragraphs imply that the responsibility is on us to determine whether qualification to a different "standard" will provide a level of quality suitable for the application. It's called "fitness for purpose". We do work to ASME, API, AWS, AWWA, and other standards and picking one standard removes a lot of potential for missing subtle differences that have no substantial impact on a welder's ability to produce sound welds. With the exception of ASME, the choice of "standards" is left to us and the use of any AWS standard is simply a choice of convenience and not mandatory. We still use D1.1 for workmanship and inspection requirements.

There is no lack of knowledge here, only a willingness to use one's brain to understand our specific needs and make an informed decision.

Edit: I do agree with your point that a ASME IX test can not be used to write a D1.1 welder performance qual, which was the original poster's question. The two test criteria are different. However if one chose to perform testing under both codes simultaneously, I see no reason that both ASME IX and AWS D1.1 WPQ could not be written. My suggestion is to pick one code instead.

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 08-27-2010 01:32

Marty, you said it more clearly earlier about performance quals., if I am the responsible engineer, I MAY accept ASME IX performance at MY discretion. Yes, I know the words don't say it EXACTLY that way, but it is an accepted within the industry. And spot on Marty "We still use D1.1 for workmanship and inspection requirements."

4.1.2.1 Previous Performance Qualification. Previous
performance qualification tests of welders, welding
operators, and tack welders that are properly documented
are acceptable with the approval of the Engineer. The acceptability
of performance qualification to other standards
is the Engineer’s responsibility, to be exercised
based upon the specific structure, or service conditions,
or both.

PS: Al, your point about transverse cracking just reinforces what Jeff said.

By 803056

Date 08-27-2010 03:59 Edited 08-27-2010 04:21

It seems as though I have succeeded in rubbing a raw nerve or two. Good.

Things have been way too quiet around here! I knew this would get some action going. Throw a dart or two at Section IX and watch the sparks fly!

D1.1 gives the "Engineer" the latitude to stray from the requirements imposed by D1.1. The decision to accept alternate acceptance criteria, design assumptions, qualifications, etc. must be carefully considered by the Engineer. In this case the Engineer has special meaning, i.e., the Engineer represents the owner. However, I have seen situations where engineers have strayed into unfamiliar waters and their customers paid the price, in one case, with the lives of two workers.

The saving grace of AWS is that the base metals listed in D1.1 are tried and true. For the most part they are relatively easy to weld if the cookbook recipe is followed. Those base metals without a history of successful use have to be qualified by testing. The system of prequalification eases the burden of having to test every known combination of base metals considerably. The chances are good that the materials selected for a structural application in any powerhouse is already a prequalified base metal and with a little savvy on the engineer’s part, exempt from testing. Simply write a prequalified WPS and make sparks fly.

You came through with some good points and described when accepting qualifications to other welding standards make sense from an engineering point of view. That is why we have engineers,The fly in the ointment is that the engineer has to understand the implications of what is proposed as an alternative to the code requirements. I had a situation where a fabricator proposed the use of alternative UT acceptance criteria. The Engineer almost accepted the proposal until I pointed out that the area of the (acceptable) reflector was six times larger than that permitted by AWS D1.1.

To accept ASME qualifications as being "good enough" may be true enough for some situations, but to say qualification to ASME requirements is equivalent to qualification to AWS requirements, I cannot buy into that argument. The bottom line is that it is the owner's prerogative (through his Engineer) to accept deviations from the contract documents and code requirements. The fabricator, erector, contractor, etc. does not have the authority to unilaterally modifiy the requirements of the code.

"D1.1 is one of the most difficult to follow "standards" ever written." Hogwash! How hard can it be to design a big chunk of metal, hollow out the middle, toss in a couple of fuel rods, call it a reactor vessel, and light up a state? Have you worked with some of the Navy welding standards? Now they are something to deal with! ;)

It has been a good day. I got the juices running and a good thread came from the effort. Thanks fellas.

Best regards - Al

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 08-27-2010 06:16

Al, hopeful to put this disagreement to conclusion: "the engineer has to understand the implications of what is proposed as an alternative to the code requirements."

Obviously, this goes without saying. Whether I'm working on a structural job, piping job or vessel job, I / we have to consider the mechanics of the materials with respect to the loads / forces / connections / joints. I'm most certainly not qualified to make all of those determinations by myself but have to involve other discipline engineers (Civil, Structural, Mechanical, Process, etc). There's are a myriad of considerations. (Yes, believe it or not, some of them even consider quality issues and ASSUMED defect factors).

Those "other" discipline engineers make certain calls which are within their areas of expertise. I look more specific at things like tensiles and if required, hardness, macros, impacts, corrosion tests, etc. Bend testing, while required by both ASME IX and D1.1 seem a bit redundant to me. Omer Blodgett wonderfully described bend testing as "a poor mans tensile test." It is what it is and until such time that the Committee's agree to remove it in favour of tensiles, it shall remain and be done.

To be sure, volumetric quality could play a crucial role in the pass / fail of a PQR, but these issues would also be evident when mechanical tests are performed. They are not inherent to material properties if a good selection is used but instead are performance related. If the "engineer" selected an alloy that didn't match and God forbid, transverse cracking occurred as a result then that engineer's judgment is what should be questioned, materials don't lie and are inherently stupid by themselves! :) That's why we focus more on the mechanical properties during qualification but rely more heavily on NDE in construction / fabrication.

If the mechanicals prove themselves adequate for intent, then the major concern becomes the ability of the welder.

It's clear from this discussion you view issues from a quality perspective while many of us view them from an engineering perspective. Your thoughts are welcome and the vast majority of your points are worthy when considering quality perspective, they're just on a different thought process than those of the engineer. It is the engineer who take responsibility, quality simply follows the direction provided by the engineer. Rest at ease my friend, there may be plenty of idiots out there, but there's also a few of us that know our stuff! :)

By js55

Date 08-27-2010 11:11

WOW ! ! !
This is all really good.
And I wish I had time to address some points at this juncture but alas, I am heading out to Charleston today.
I will however take a longer look at points made and offer my two cents at some point. Sorry jon, no fat lady singin yet.
Suffice it to say that when I see a thread with Al, Jon, and Marty involved I know it will be well worth a serious peruse and perhaps force me to put on a serious thinking cap if I am to keep up.

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 08-27-2010 13:52

And I suppose needless to say when I see a post from Jeff it's probably over my head but a damned interesting read! lol!!! <Just as I wrote that, I had a very strong missing of Chuck Meadow's>.... Funny, no matter how old we get we still love our Mentor's from the past. I owe an awful lot to Chuck.

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 08-27-2010 13:53

Al,
The OP made no mention of AWS "qualified" WPSs - he said his ASME IX procedures were in line with the requirements of pre qualified WPSs.

"Our ASME WPS for the process we need is inline with the Pre-Qualified AWS WPS."

Your response
"how can you possibly say a WPS qualified to ASME Section IX meets the requirements for a WPS that has to qualified by testing per AWS D1.1?"

I realise you were responding to Jons post but Jon made no mention of what his WPSs were - pre-qualified or qualified,
Regards,
Shane

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 08-27-2010 13:55

What is going on ?
I reply to Al way back in post number 4 or 5 and it ends up as about posting 17 or 18.
Not even relevant.

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 08-27-2010 14:02

Shane, the WPS I was referring to were fully qualified by mechanical tests in accordance with ASME IX even though the work at hand would have allowed me to use AWS prequalified WPS. With all respect to AWS D1.1, I really don't care for using prequalified WPS unless the wortk is of truly minor consequence.

I'd love to see this conversation turn to AWS B2.1 SWPS.... then we would have some really good comparisons, lol....

By 803056

Date 08-27-2010 14:26 Edited 08-27-2010 17:49

I realize I stretched (to the limit) the comments made by Marty, Jeff, and Jon. I was stirring up the muddy bottom to get a good conversation going. I think we succeeded in doing just that.

As I said, it has been way too quiet around here. We need to get something worthwhile going.

SWPS! What a crock!

A WPS written by an engineer is usually a waste of good paper as far as the welder is concerned. Now, a WPS written by a person that understands what the code requires and what the welder needs to know, that is an interesting read. Unfortunately most WPSs are written by engineers, for engineers; usually miss the mark entirely from the end user's (the welder's) prospective. I can see where many engineers would have a difficult time writing a useful WPS, most have never struck an arc anywhere other than in the lab if their college/university offered such facilities. Sorry fellas, I couldn't resist the overwhelm urge! There is a little devil in me that just has to pop up every once in a while. ;)

I can understand the engineer's desire to eliminate the human factor from the qualification process, but it is a fact of life. If the process depends on a human to operate, the human element has to be factored in. You made the point that AWS (and other welding standards) have attempted to “error proof” the development of welding procedures. You are absolutely right. I view that as an attempt to minimize problems in production. That is a good distinction to make between ASME and AWS welding standards. A welding procedure that doesn't consider things like access, groove design, position, etc. and how it affects the welder's ability to deposit a sound weld is going to have a high probability of production problems. A problems in production usually involves very expensive repairs, missed schedules, and profits that evaporate when the carbon arc electrodes come out. Some engineers may take the attitude that production is not their problem, but that is just one thing that separates a good engineer from the crowd of mediocre engineers. I have worked with both, and I would much rather work with the engineers that considers all aspects of the problem; technical, ease of implementation, production issues, cost, quality, etc.

Best regards - Al

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 08-27-2010 15:11

Al,
Agree totally with your last post but for a slightly different reason.

"A WPS written by an engineer is usually a waste of good paper as far as the welder is concerned. Now, a WPS written by a person that understands what the code requires and what the welder needs to know, that is an interesting read. Unfortunately most WPSs are written by engineers, for engineers; usually miss the mark entirely from the end user's (the welder's) prospective.

We are working to AWS D1.1 and D1.5 in Thailand and as we are using a Japanese steel we have had to qualify a huge amount of WPSs.
Unfortunately they are all in English and not one of the Thai welders can read english.
My boss is happy, our client is happy and the MDR will look great but the true reason for qualifying and writing the WPSs is lost - where are the guidelines for the welder if he can't even understand the WPS,
Regards,
Shane

By 803056

Date 08-27-2010 17:32

Boy, someone forgot the point of the WPS. They are not very useful to the welders if they cannot read them.

There is nothing prevent the contractor from translating the WPSs into the language the welders can read.

Best regards -Al

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 08-28-2010 00:22

Al,
My apologies.
Your comment regarding transverse cracks is a valid point that I had not considered when writing my reply.
Hope you and the rest of the guys have a great weekend.
I'm off to Sin City (Pattaya) for a spot of "socialising"
Regards,
Shane

By 3.2 Inspector (***)

Date 09-02-2010 01:45

Then why don't you stop the work?

3.2

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 08-28-2010 00:50

Now, on your points above, we are in total agreement! The true intent of the WPS has been lost completely in our time and absolutely agreeing with Shane as well regarding language.

By 803056

Date 08-28-2010 02:58

That's what I like to see, common ground!

I have to pack my bags and my test gear tonight for a weekend job.

I've told my wife many times, "It isn't just another job, it is another adventure."

I'll be checking a tie rod in a press for suspected cracks. It's just an 18-inch diameter shaft that's 40 plus feet long, or there abouts.

I'll know more tomorrow when I see the beast and have a go at it.

The kicker is the decision to drive for eight hours or to fly a round-about for 5 hours. I'm lazy so I'll opt for the two leg flight.

Best regards - Al