American Welding Society Forum
Just a quick question, I've created my first pWPS, and would like to know if there are more experienced eyes that would like to review this (paid or not). Being new to the game, I want to make sure that I'm building good habits.
Today, I've built this pWPS step by step following every line in D1.1:2010 Clause 3. Being no fool, I know there may be some common pit-falls that I unknowingly have fallen into. As well, perhaps there are some formatting tips that those in the auditing field prefer seeing. (Ex. Are the examples given in D1.1 Annex N the easiest form for an auditor?)
P.S. Do contracts on an individual basis exist like this in the real world?
Its interesting, others may have a different experience, but in 30 years I have NEVER been asked about a pWPS by any auditor. Not ASME, API, AISC (QMS), ISO nor any customer I have ever had. And quite honestly I think they are an anal retentive waste of time and absolutely useless. They are something that paper pushing rules people invented as something else to ostensibly comply with.
Let the fun begin.
So are you doing a preliminary prequalified WPS? If so, I don't see that you are gonna get much value out of it. When I run a Clause 4 WPS, and is a little outside the norm (real thick, Preheat, PWHT or something like that), I'll have a paper version out by the machine, and if all goes well, that data gets typed into a nice form. In my experience, most D1.1 qualified by welding procedures can be typed up and welded out, and they will pass just fine, if you select reasonable parameters.
All that being said: Ill ask one that gets missed a lot, if you have shielding gas, is it IAW A5.32:2011?
Just post the damn thing and you will get plenty of comments
I noticed you had a Max pre-heat listed. This pre-heat restriction in clause 3 of D1.1 is for ASTM A 709 Gr HPS70W... You listed your steel as ASTM A 709 Gr 50.
Also, in your test illustration sheet, you have tolerances listed on the bottom for the groove angle and the root opening... I don't think those tolerances are allowed for test assemblies.
I also just noticed you have listed on your test assembly sheet that visual acceptance will be to table 6.1 and it should be to 126.96.36.199 (See 4.20.1 (1)).
I have a MAX inperpass temperature...it's the highest temp stick I have in house. Else wise, I haven't found a standard in d1.1 declaring a max interpass temp. Any clarification to help here?
I'll have the tolerances removed. good point! And awesome catch on the acceptance criteria! Thank you terribly much so!
D1.1 does not contain limits on inter-pass temperatures. That is to the discretion of the engineer and/or fabricator.
Having said that, under the D1.8 Seismic Supplement there is an upper limit: 550°F. Generally when I write a WPS I ask some questions and inform my customer what and why I am doing it and I include a 550°F max inter-pass. That way it is good for both D1.1 and D1.8 applications and you don't need duplication.
Under most circumstances they won't be going that anyway and under most circumstances it is WISE NOT to go over that anyway. So, I include it. It is on all of my WPS's for my welding shop as well. Yes, that means it needs at least some due diligence to PROVE that I'm not going over my stated max but that is not really a very difficult thing to do.
Don't base your max temp on something as basic as "it's the highest temp stick I have in house." If that is a 700° or 1100° temp stick you are asking for problems. Even if it isn't in the code.
He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent
Thank you for the details Brent! I need to start branching out into my understanding of other standards for sure.
Like Brent said, there is no pre heat or interpass limits in D1.1 for the material you listed. I pointed it out because it seemed like an unnecessary limit to list.
Looks pretty good. One thing I like to do is, in the "Welding Parameters" section, include an additional line for "optimum" settings along with the line that lists the allowable ranges. I've had many welders in our shop tell me that this is very useful.
That's a great idea...once I play around with it and get some feed back I'll include that. Thanks!
I'll take an opposing position to what I've seen posted in this thread.
I always develop a PWPS to define the variables long before the welder even knows he will be welding a test assembly.
Then again, my clients are located throughout the US and in some cases overseas. I don't have the luxury of being on location to make changes on the fly. Usually materials have to be purchased in advance with the appropriate CMTRs. The grooves have to be prepared in advance. The proper filler metals have to be ordered and again, appropriate CMTRs for the filler metal must be provided by the manufacturer. I usually order directly from the FM manufacturer to eliminate handling (and possible mix ups) by third party vendors. In some cases a fixture has to be fabricated to hold the components in proper alignment while they are being welded and to provide proper shielding on the opposite side of the joint.
The requirements of what must be done to qualify the WPS differs from one welding standard to another. Developing the PWPS is a formal approach to reviewing the code requirements, reviewing the material requirements, ensuring all the essential and non- essential variables are given proper consideration, and it provides a means of communicating with everyone what is needed to qualify the WPS.
Who might need the information? Let consider the following:
Purchasing - they need to know what material need to be purchased. They need to know what to order, i.e., base metal, filler metal, shielding gas etc.. What supporting documentation must be provided by the supplier, i.e., CMTRs for the base metal and the filler metal, and in the case of the base metal, they need to know the size of the coupons if they are provided cut to size. In the case of the filler metal, they need to know the diameter, the product form, i.e., rod or spool, weight of the spools, and quantity to order, etc. Let's not forget to order the correct shielding gas and correct purge gas.
Manufacturing - they need to know the requirements for the groove if they are going to prepare the coupons in advance. They will need to know what is being machined so they can have the proper cutting tools on hand. They need to know the dimensions of the groove preparation, i.e. bevel angle, depth of bevel, etc.
They also need to check that the proper welding power supply is available and that it is in good operating condition. They need to verify the proper guides, drive rolls, liners, guns, contact tips, etc. are available.
Schedules need to be checked to verify a welder is available to weld the test coupon. Is the welder scheduled for a vacation? Is there time in the schedule or are production demands going take precedence over testing?
Preparing to qualify a welding procedure or welders involves more planning and logistics when performing the qualifications at a remote location or a client's facility that is located in a different city, state, or country. If the qualification effort is entirely in-house, the planning and logistic may not be as involved. However, when one must travel to the client's site it becomes very expensive to sit around while the "right" material is located, it is discovered the proper shielding gas hasn't been delivered or isn't available locally, or the wrong drive rolls are on the machine and it take two days to "overnight" the correct drive rolls or contact tips. The list of what can go wrong is as long as my arm.
I find it is best to preplan, order the materials in advance, and verify everything is in order and on hand before getting on the airplane and flying half way across the country. The goal is to reduce the likelihood of delays in the qualification effort.
Developing a PWPS is an important part of qualifying a WPS. It simply a part of planning what has to be done and it minimizes miscommunication between the different parties that play a role in the qualification process.
It is no different that studying a road map before setting out on a trip. There are some people that simply jump into their car and point it in the right direction. If one is simply driving across town, that approach may be fine. However, if you are driving cross country and you are not familiar with the terrain, it might be beneficial to study a map to see what route is the shortest, what route includes a toll road, whether there is an interstate or whether one will be driving on secondary roads. It is also nice to know what accommodations are available unless one prefers to sleep on the back seat.
Just my thoughts on the subject.
During the past week I have been doing some research based upon a statement by a company that we are considering doing a project with about essential variables and a multitude of WPS's being required. During that research I was looking through The Professional's Advisor on Procedure Qualification Variables as well as B2.1 Specification for Welding Procedure and Performance Qualification. I found information there as well as I believe in the Commentary for D1.1 that lines up very well with what Al has advocated.
Do you have to do it that way? Well, what are you trying to accomplish? If your program is only for show then 'No', do whatever you want. But, if you are truly trying to prove that the job can be completed in a particular fashion and end up with information that will allow you to produce a WPS that will actually give the welders a good guideline, or recipe, then 'Yes', you need to do it that way.
Just my two tin pennies worth.
He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent
Thank you for this response, great detail and examples. I'm glad to hear that the strategies that most appeal to me are shared by others much more invested in the field.
My comment above on the gas is more of a procedural thing as you do the work, but still, do you have A5.32 gas?
its a requirement in the code
Trying to get my employer to purchase said document. I'm also missing D1.1:2015, B2.1...don't know how they expect me to do everything they request of me with this much resistance.
Slightly off topic, but I thought "sustaining members" got the whole darned library?
If I read it correctly I believe you can have one of two options. One option being the library which you mentioned. The other being 10 additional memberships: (These 10 memberships are in addition to the 10 you already get with Sustaining Company membership. So you would receive 20 memberships in total. (A $980 value).
My company isn't involved enough to make this plausible but in my opinion the eLibrary is the better option.
That is correct, I speak as a Sustaining Company Member. Getting the Library was well worth the cost. And, then as long as you keep it up, which is half as much money per year as the first year, you not only get 10 memberships but you get the updates to any code that comes out. When D1.1 or 1.5 come out that is quite a savings.
As my company is not that large, I give away several memberships each year and then ask them to pay $XX to continue with me. Overall, most of my membership expense is paid by those receiving a membership plus I pay mine and my 2 employees and then get all the updates for free. Works out well.
Check out the cost, it is not bad for all that it includes.
He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent
Perhaps I misunderstood the whole jist. I'll have me some coffee and reconsider.
Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill