I am working as a resident inspector on a project, and found several WPS/PQR that are out of criteria to D1.1 table 4.5 for essential variables. The WPS (GTAW) list gas flow rate at 42 cfm, (20 l/min). The PQR supporting it lists gas flow rate at 25 cfm, (12 l/min). Per D1.1 table 4.5, +50/-20%, it requires re-qualification. This WPS and PQR are 5 years old, and the manufacturer wants to simply change the WPS to meet the PQR. I have rejected this idea and manufacturer states it is an error on the WPS. Again 5 years old documentation with no other evidence. My contention is re-qualify....
All other things being equal, why would you insist they spend the money to requalify when you could just write a new WPS and make the gas flow read from 20-30 cfm? 5 years old is not a big deal if they are still doing the same work, same materials, etc. They paid for it for that application, just change the WPS. It's a lot cheaper and meets the requirements.
Have a Great Day, Brent
It was qualified outside the limits of the code. The test result could very likely be different if tested to what the actual WPS says.
When you say 'the PQR that supports the WPS', that says to me that you are referring to a WPS that was written for production purposes off of the tested and approved PQR. That means that it can be thrown away and write a new one that is within the variables of the approved PQR which would only require a change in gas flow requirements. Since the PQR was tested with gas flow at 25 and you have a range of +50% to -20% you would be within the variables to write the gas flow at 20-30 cfm.
Now, maybe I am misunderstanding what you meant and you are referencing a WPS that was written for the purpose of giving the welder direction for the sample. So, when they recorded the actual flow for the PQR it was different. Off hand I'm not sure that would be an issue. Once the PQR sample has been tested and approved it becomes your baseline if all readings were monitored and recorded properly. Then you write your production WPS's off of it. You can issue several with various values as long as they are within the boundaries of the essential variables.
I also could be miscommunicating what I am trying to say. So, just my two tin pennies worth.
Have a Great Day, Brent
What you say makes perfect sense, BUT, for 5 years the welding has supposedly been conducted following the WPS, with "supposedly" those variables, per D1.1 production welds must follow the WPS. The PQR which was tested was tested to different variables. Don't you think testing to the past 5 years of welding would be a prudent step to take or are codes just something that is written and not followed, and manufacturers simply change numbers and magically meet the code??
Oh by the way, they pay for nothing, my client pays for everything and are over charged.
OOOHHH,
WELCOME TO THE AWS WELDING FORUM!!
Have a Great Day, Brent
Sir may I know why you rejected my 5yrs old documents?
The use of earlier edition is allowed in our contract spec.
Is it a violation to revise my WPS to meet the specific values in PQR?
Before you say rejected, I need to receive your non-conformance report
. Let me know at which clauses of the spec or codes I did not comply
.
Hoping for your kind consideration.
~Joey~
Please see my response to Mr. Welderbrent
wgaryr,
I think you may be getting a bit too involved here.
It is absolutely none of your business what a company has been doing with their WPS/PQRs for the last 5 years.
You are the resident inspector on a project and they have submitted the WPS/PQRs to you for review - review them and then comment on them - accept them or reject them.
The only thing that is non compliant is the WPS - as Brent said just write a new WPS and get on with it.
If they write a new WPS with 20 - 30 cfm that is fine, you just have to ensure they are following that requirement - if you then catch the welders using 42 cfm, then it is time to start jumping up and down
Regards,
Shane
Why jump up and down then, they are using that now, with no evidence (PQR), that, that range was ever qualified. A contractural requirement by the way.. It seems to me that the code and contract requirements, can be ignored for some things I guess, but not others. Really confusing.
wgaryr,
Now you are confusing me.
Who are you working for as the Resident Inspector - the client or the contractor ?
If you are the clients inspector you or your companies Welding Engineer should have reviewed and approved the WPS/PQR before the contractor struck an arc on your project.
Based on what you have stated the WPS should have been rejected as it did not comply with the code allowed range based on the PQR.
The contractor writes another WPS that is in compliance with the PQR and then they are allowed to start welding.
Your job is then to ensure they are welding in accordance with the approved WPS.
"Why jump up and down then, they are using that now, with no evidence (PQR), that, that range was ever qualified. A contractural requirement by the way.. It seems to me that the code and contract requirements, can be ignored for some things I guess, but not others. Really confusing."
Why are you allowing them to continue welding if they do not have an approved WPS - either approved by you or your companies Welding Engineer ?
Regards,
Shane
Same question I was coming to Shane, who does he work for? To me, when he calls himself a 'resident inspector' I took it to mean he worked for the contractor/fabricator. But at the moment I'm not sure.
And to me, either way, for the ongoing work, all they need do is write a WPS lining up with the essential variables from the PQR. Then, with an NCR on the work already started for his project, if it has already started, then let the engineer decide if he will accept work previously completed, maybe with some additional spot tests of some kind.
He keeps referring to work done for the past 5 years. Unless that work was on his project, SO WHAT! It has no bearing on where he is at to my thinking. All water under the bridge and only applicable to the customers whose jobs they worked on. If they have been bought off, just pray that a little more gas flow didn't do anything besides give them better shielding and/or maybe wasted some gas and cost them some money. As long as the PQR fits his current jobs specs and requirements then just write a proper WPS for it and get rolling accordingly.
Yes, the codes are to be followed Wgaryr. They are there for a reason. The questions really are, 1) who do you represent; 2) at what stage is the job in; and 3) do you understand your job specifications?
You can't technically go back and qualify a procedure for work already completed. If the engineer says that that is how he will accept it then you can go there. But that is not your call no matter whose inspector you are. Your immediate concern is to get the job requirements in compliance from right now. Testing a new PQR is not the way to accomplish that, just write a new WPS off of the existing PQR.
Have a Great Day, Brent
WelderBrent,
Resident Inspector.
What I've found concerning postings for hiring for this job title is contracting companies that don't want to pay perdiem for TPI and are seeking locals.
As opposed to an "in house" or direct hire employee of the facility.
Never heard it termed like that before. When I do local erection inspections it is as a Special Inspector. When I go into a shop for the customer/engineer it is as a TPI/outside/Special Inspector. Most of my jobs are in shops for out of state customers so they don't have to pay for someone's travel, lodging, food, etc. Still never been called a 'Resident Inspector'.
But thanks for explaining that. So he is probably not an in house inspector.
But, what that shop has done for the past 5 years is still not relevant to him or his current job unless they have been working on his job for that long. Even then, just change it for everything going on forward and see what the engineer says about past work. Seems odd that no one else caught this item for 5 years if they have been on his job that whole time.
Have a Great Day, Brent
This could be a sticky situation.
Let's not forget the big picture, which is that WPS are written to define variables in which were proven to reliably reproduce compliant welds as performed in a PQR.
Essential variables are based on functions performed during a PQR that if altered out of range may affect weld integrity.
If you're seeing that welds already made have been performed outside of the variable range of a PQR, there is reason to believe those welds may not be suitable to meet design requirements.
In this case, a new PQR should be performed within the parameter ranges actually used to verify existing weld integrity.
If the new PQR fails, then the welds made with those parameters are rejectable.
If the new PQR is acceptable, then the welds made may be acceptable and a new WPS written to match.
Ultimately, it's the EOR's responsibility to accept or reject this situation.
The Inspector's responsibility is simply to notify the EOR of conformant / non-conformant situations, which is best remembered in order to avoid liability issues.
If I were the Engineer, and the new PQR passed, before accepting the welds I would require an additional document review of all procedures and weld inspection requirements to see if this was a simple mistake or indicative of a more broad range of inattention to code/quality requirements by the Contractor.
If you're checking PQR and WPS validity before the job starts, which is how it's supposed to work, then a new PQR does not have to be performed, rather a revised WPS with the correct essential variable ranges can be issued.
Good Luck,
Tim Gary
If the work is being performed in accordance with AWS D1.1, the WPSs and supporting PQRs do not wear out, they do not spoil, they do not lose their flavor, and they have no expiration date.
The PQR can be used to support a new WPS to a later revision of the code or the WPS can be revised to make a correction or to meet new code requirements provided the limitations of the permissible ranges are not violated. This can be required when the F numbers of the filler metals are changed. This is happening in some cases as I type this response. The filler metal specifications for GMAW and FCAW are being revised, one is complete and being marketed as I type.
The two new filler metal specifications are A5.34 and A5.36. The A5.34 will incorporate A5.18 and A5.28. The metal cored electrodes are not included in A5.34. The metal cored electrodes are moved to A5.36 which will incorporate A5.20 and A5.29. This will necessitate the revision of WPSs for GMAW and FCAW. The contractors are not required to requalify the WPSs, it is simple a revision in most cases.
PQRs are usually cast in stone once they are qualified and properly documented. Due to the change in filler metal specifications it is permissible for the contractor to edit the PQR to list the new filler metal specification. Personally, I would strike out the old filler metal specification with a single line and write in the new filler metal specification, initial and date the PQR and continue on with my life. By the way, if metal core electrode is used, the welding process has to be changed to FCAW. The changes would be taken care of in the same manner as the listing of the filler metal specification.
The job responsibilities of the resident CWI/Inspector are defined by the Engineer if the CWI is acting as the Verification Inspector. If the CWI is the Contractor's Inspector the responsibilities are more fully defined by the code and supplemented by the employer. With the assumption that the CWI is the Verification Inspector, he should report back to the Enginee, the individual who is responsible to resolve nonconformancies. The Engineer can take steps to have the contractor correct the situation or he can accept it as is and go on with his life. The Verification Inspector's job is to report discrepancies to the Engineer. The VI is the Engineer's eyes and ears on the project; The VI has no authority to require corrective actions without the Engineer's blessing. The VI is not the arresting officer, prosecutor, judge, or jury. The Verification Inspector observes and reports to the Engineer.
As for the shielding gas range listed on the WPS, bring it to the Engineer’s attention. He is given the responsibility to review and approve WPSs under the auspices of D1.1. It is his responsibility to decide if the WPSs need to the revised or if any other corrective action is needed. He may ask for the VI's opinion, but the responsibility is still the Engineer’s to accept, reject, to accept as is, or require the contractor to do corrective work.
The VI can accept the Engineer’s decisions or find a different job if his decisions are so horribly unjustified the VI cannot live with them. It happens. I have made that decision, i.e., I left the project because I did not want my name associated with the goings on of the project.
Before I forget; is the contractor using the maximum gas shielding flow rate listed by the current WPS? If not, is the flow rate within the accepted range if it was listed correctly? In other words, if the contractor insists on using the maximum flow rate that is beyond the premissible range based on the flow rate recorded on the PQR, then there is a concern. If the maximum flow rate is needed to weld, then I agree that a new WPS using the higher flow rate must be qualified. If the flow rate being used by the welder is within the acceptable ranges based on the flow rate recorded on the PQR, correct the flow rate on the WPS and reissue it as a revision and continue with the work. As for rejecting work already completed, it is nonconforming only if the contractor is exceeding the permitted flow rate based on the flow rate recorded by the PQR. The Engineer must make make the final call if the flow rate is too high.
Best regards- Al
I think you are right "CFH" is what all of my flow meters have on the glass....along with the metric counterpart on the reverse side.
