Inspector Wants to Override WPS

Date 03-07-2008 02:09

Maximum bead width??? The two statements are contradictory

1.)"I went and looked at the WPS and it says OK"
2.)"He claims we will have to exceed the maximum bead width"

You haven't stated what code your working to, so I'll give it to you by Section IX:07
QW-253
has a change in diameter as a non-essential variable (QW-404.6)
a change in diameter > 1/4" is a supplementary essential variable. Meaning it will not typically apply unless impact testing was required and or code/spec
I don't think that last one will apply given your talking about going to to 5/32".

> Heat input under QW 409.1 is a supplementary essential variable. Again, the same clause for impact testing and or code/spec

QW 409.1
(a) Heat input [J/in. (J/mm)]

Voltage * Amperage * 60
over
Travel Speed [in./min (mm/min)]

(b) Volume of weld metal measured by
(1) an increase in bead size (width * thickness), or
(2) a decrease in length of weld bead per unit length
of electrode

Therefore, if he has a leg to stand on, it will only be in that the volume of weld metal is increased/bead size increase.
That has to be in the procedure qualification record the WPS was developed from.
But again, it's a supplementary essential variable, and only applies if impact testing was required, or the referencing code or spec makes it an essential variable.

So depending on what the PQR states as defined by referencing code/spec, he may or may not have a leg to stand on.

However;
"I don't care, I'm overriding the procedure. Y'all ain't putting slag in MY weld!"
That statement was completely out of line, and unqualified. If in fact the WPS allows it and does not conflict with the requirements of the code/spec then it shouldn't matter. As for putting slag in, I fail to see where that comes from.

I suggest being careful on this one. He sounds like he's got an attitude to me. Even if he is correct in regards to the heat imput concern listed above, thats a piss pour way of going about letting you know, and definetly a BS statement in regards to the slag.

My opinion for what it's worth,
Gerald

By ZCat

Date 03-07-2008 02:41

Sorry if I was unclear, Gerald, I was the one who checked the WPS, it said SMAW diameters 3/32-5/32. The inspector said the WPS wouldn't show rod size at all, I don't think he's even looked at it. I don't know where he got the bead width thing, the WPS only gives a 4-10 IPM travel speed range, nothing about width in there at all. We're building a power plant, BTW, so it's boiler code piping.
I think he's a little out of his depth, to tell the truth. He's an ex-boiler tube welder, so he probably doesn't have much experience with the bigger stick rods. Plus, if he doesn't know what's in the WPS, I seriously doubt he's been studying the PQR's. hehe

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 03-07-2008 03:45

ZCat,
Agree totally with Gerald, the guys attitude sucks!!
However, it may pay to tread carefully. This is not a third party inspector coming in to your workplace, this is your employers delegated inspector and as such I think he is within his rights to instruct you to weld with a certain size electrode irrespective of what the WPS allows. I personally cannot see any problem in increasing the electrode diameter on 20" pipe.
Just my opinion.
Regards,
Shane

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 03-07-2008 04:01

I would tell him you'd like to discuss jointly with the Welding Engineer. In my opinion, the Inspector cannot override the WPS.

By Superflux (****)

Date 03-07-2008 07:01

Ahhh... the all knowing arrogant QC guy... My way or the hiway... Diplomaticaly, go to your foreman and let him know (unless it's you yourself that has been putting slag into Mr. QC's welds) so he can go on the front lines and take the flack for the QC dept holding up production. By the way, CWI status has no bearing on ignorance. I've known plenty of CWI's that have cornered the market on ignorance. Yea, it sorta sux... many of us are competitive and have enough pride in our abilities to be the fastest and bestest and want to set jobsite records for most production with least (0) failures.

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 03-07-2008 07:50

Yeah, we're probably all being a bit more "politically correct" in our responses than what we'd actually say in person. Fortunately there's a moderation in the Forum that prohibits obscenities...

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 03-07-2008 11:59

Jon,
With all due respect, I don't think he is overriding the WPS.
Surely, overriding is doing something outside what is allowed by the WPS, this is actually stating they will use a particular diameter electrode and no greater (within the limits of the WPS.)
To me there is too much unknown in this posting to be able to give a definitive answer.
Is there a company Welding Engineer or is this bloke the senior welding person on site ? If he is then surely he can make any decision he likes within the constraints of the WPS no matter how harebrained they may seem.
Do we know the abilities of ZCat and his fellow welders ? (No disrespect intended ZCat)
A lot of welders I know will try and put in as much metal as they possibly can so will always try and increase the diameter of the electrode regardless of possible negatives but if I have any doubts about their abilities I will restrict them to 3.25mm max electrode size.
An example, a PQR is qualified on 6" Sch 40 using 3.25mm 7018s and a WPS is written based on this PQR allowing 2.5 to 4mm (I think that is 3/32" to 5/32") electrodes. Then that WPS is used for welding a 2" butt weld and the welder wants to fill and cap with 4mm, that is ludicrous but it is acceptable to the WPS.
I am not in any way condoning this guys lack of knowledge or p.ss poor attitude but surely if he is the senior welding person on site then he calls the shots ? (No matter how stupid)
Regards,
Shane

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 03-07-2008 12:47

No problem Shane, was simply responding to ZCat's posting, as written. I personally have no idea if the inspector was in fact overriding the WPS or not, but that's what ZCat said and as stated, I have to stand beside what I said. If my WPS permits use of 5/32 electrodes (and on 20" heavy wall, I think it might be an appropriate application... then I surely don't want QA or QC coming in after the fact and saying it can't (or shouldn't be done). There's a balance one has to walk when engineering; that between quality and production. Now, if this were a smaller diameter, lesser wall thickness, I may well agree with the inspector. Anyway, it's just up for discussion, people write, we respond, whether those people posting say it precisely correct will never be known.

Hope your good buddy! We might be off to God Zone soon to see about buying a home in the Wairapa.

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 03-07-2008 13:11

Thats Wairarapa Jon,
I see you are going to have fun with the Maori place names.
The locals will love you if you remember that Wh at the start of a name is actually an F not a W sound. So Whangarei is actually pronounced Fangarei.
Good luck and have a great time,
Cheers,
Shane

By Jim Hughes (***)

Date 03-25-2008 13:01

Jon,
I agree. We can only respond to what ZCAT posted. I will say this though, I have intervened in situations like this for the very same reasons. (concern for IF and slag) I have not allowed the use of 5/32 LH70 because we were busting x-rays and yes, for the most part seemed to be on the bottom of the pipe. For what ever reason the welders could not handle the 5/32. I would not call it overridding the WPS as much as it was not wanting to have more repairs. We went back to using 1/8" electrodes and the film cleaned right up. I have been on jobs that the welders were using 5/32" electrodes and it was not a problem and good x-rays backed that up. Maybe this inspector has seen the same thing and it concerns him. I think the best approach is to let them use it and montor it and if the visual inspections are good and the film is good then the welders have proven that they can handle the electrode. I think this is a very reasonable approach and has worked for me in the past.

Jim

By Joey

Date 03-07-2008 16:26 Edited 03-07-2008 16:31

let me analyze...

20" heavy wall want to start using 5/32" E7018

---I guess its a 20" pipe sch 160 (50mm thk) using 4mm dia electrode E7018 (for root pass) ; I also guess..it's a butt joint-CJP

using E7018 of 4mm dia is a risky for root pass of butt joint -CJP without backing strip..welder must be highly skilled to make perfect penetration. I would rathrer ask for approved WPS of GTAW process for root and hot passes...before the use of E7018 (or E7016)
However, if SMAW must be the choice...then, I would suggest using Kobelco LB52U (E7016) of 2.6mm dia for root & hot passes.

Anyway, if you are 100% sure that its OKAY to start using 5/32" based on approved WPS (if I remember, there is a tolerance of
+/- 1mm for actual electrode size used in PQR)..........then you should ask the in house inspector to issue the NCR or stop work order otherwise continue your work and ignore him., don't argue...just say issue us an NCR and we'll stop work.

Regards
Joey

By js55

Date 03-07-2008 16:51

With the information provided thus far there is no basis for an NCR. Where is the NC?
I think Gerald and Jon's advice about diplomacy is sound, but as I understand this situation he has no leg to stand on.
Inspectors DO NOT have the authority to impose arbitrary standards upon manufacturing.
I'd take it to the welding engineer as jon has stated.

By js55

Date 03-07-2008 16:58

If the WPS says 5/32 and this guy is the 'senior welding guy' then the idiot, and he is an idiot, judging by his comment about rod sizes not being on the WPS, a WPS that if he is the senior welding guy he would have ostensibly written himself. If he didn't write the WPS and is not the senior welding guy then tell him to take it up with the senior welding guy becasue he has NO AUTHORITY to limit rod size. If he is the senior welding guy then why did he put 5/32 in his WPS? See above.

By js55

Date 03-07-2008 17:00

Of course, don't call him an idiot. My use of it is just for rhetorical impact. :)
See jon and gerald above.

By swnorris (****)

Date 03-07-2008 18:18

An idiot is someone who walks into McDonalds and asks how many chicken nuggets come in a four piece box. No, wait. That was me. Never mind.

By js55

Date 03-07-2008 18:57

Scott,
Yeah, but the kind of idiot ZCat is dealing with is the kid behind the counter telling that you can't have 4 in the 4 pack, you can only have 3, that it doesn't say anywhere that there is supposed to be 4 in the 4 pack even though you've read it, and yumpin yiminy he ain't gonna let you have 4 in HIS 3 pack.

By Joey

Date 03-07-2008 18:26 Edited 03-07-2008 18:34

ZCat should request for NCR from their in house inspector...IF this in house inspector wants them to stop the welding work for using the 5/32" electrode.

Having NCR...ZCat and his welder can take a rest and drink coffee and talk about NBA or Soccer games....while waiting for the boss to close out the NCR.

do you think its a good advice js55? :=)

Regards
Joey

By js55

Date 03-07-2008 18:37

Joey,
I understand your point as a method to force the issue in a documentably ligitimate way. And is valid. It would be interesting to read what such a bogus NCR would say.

By Kix

Date 03-07-2008 20:09

Start taking to long on each joint and blame it on the 1/8" electrodes. I'd say "boss I could get these done in half the time if I could run 5/32". I bet he'd go looking to get done whatever he needed to get done so that you could use those 5/32" rods to make him and his welders look good. Or you will find out why you can't use the 5/32 from your boss after he goes out diggin. Next time he comes climbing up your scafold, ditch all the 5/32" and leave a bunch of 1/8" stubs on the floor. Sit on a bucket and eat a candy bar because your energy is low and wait for him to leave.;-) Unless he gives you proper reasoning behind his madness I'd run em.

By js55

Date 03-07-2008 20:43

"Becasue I'm the mommy thats why", does not get it done for me.

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 03-07-2008 21:46

Guys,
We are unanimous that there is nothing wrong with using a 5/32" electrode on 20" pipe.
We are unanimous that the guy appears to be an idiot.
The point I am trying to make is that if he is the senior welding person on site he can tell you to stand on your head and weld the butt and if you value your job you had better do it. After all is said and done he is the employer.
How many of you over the years have been instructed to do something by a superior and known it is stupid but done it anyway, just to see the look on his face when it fails ?
Regards,
Shane

By js55

Date 03-07-2008 22:03

Shane,
If the WPS does not address welding position as 'All Positions' then I would say that standing on your head would constitute overhead welding and would then for sure be a violation of the WPS.
:)

By ZCat

Date 03-08-2008 00:27

This turned out to be a pretty humorous thread. :) He is not the Senior Welding guy, the Senior guy is not on the job all the time, this guy is like the Sr's proxy or something.

The 5/32 rods were not meant to be used on the root, we are TIG welding the root and hots.

Anyway, today I asked him what the deal was, why we couldn't use the 5s.

He says: ''Oh, you can use them, you just can't use them on the bottom.'' haha, try finding that in the procedure.

I told him I had no problem with that, hadn't planned on using them dead on the bottom, don't like all that fire falling on my hands, anyway.

He ain't a bad guy, just in a little too deep.

The project manager and the GF are leaning on him pretty hard, I believe. They are ready to ax him if he gives them half a chance. This is not the first run in he's had with them.

By Stringer (***)

Date 03-08-2008 00:49

The term "my weld" sort of waves the crazy flag for me. More experience needed.

By Superflux (****)

Date 03-08-2008 19:59

QC is oftentimes a delicate balance of how to be proactive, and when to be reactive. Proper implementation and enforcement of proceedures and wisdom concerning those pesky bothersome ( dear God Please don't let this come back to haunt me!!!) judgement calls.
Not being there to witness both sides of the scenario, we in this forum can only advise based on the information given. Reading between the lines and passed experiences, I'd have to agree with stringer on the "my weld" indicating a disproportionatly exhaulted view of self worth on the QC guy. It is stated in the opening pages of the AWS Welding Inspection book that an inspector's duties do not include needlessly holding up production. A friend once told me that the best method of revenge one can exact on superiors is to do exactly as told. If they are truly incompetent and driven by pride, it will catch up to them and often with spectacular results ( we can only hope to be witness to such events ). I still say let middle and upper management deal with him (but I would definately light the match on this fire) and after he gets some more experience ie. run off a couple of QC jobs he will either learn the ropes or go back to being (and he probably is top shelf material) a tube welder.

By HgTX

Date 03-10-2008 20:41

Oh, I dunno...I walk into the fab shop and ask them what the hell they just did to "my" girder. Then again, I represent the Owner.

"Because I'm the mommy..." Hah. I am *so* stealing that line. I've never liked that line of argument either.

Hg

By jmdugan10 (*)

Date 03-11-2008 15:33

My thought is that if it is in the WPS you can use it; however you said this was a power plant. If the piping is outside the boiler that should be B31.1. If it is inside the boiler that would be section I. I haven't looked at either code in a while and I may be shooting in the dark here so somebody correct me if I'm wrong. Section VIII has nothing to do with what your dealing with but I was just searching through it and ran across UCS-56(f)(4)(a) that addresses maximum bead width of four times the electrode diameter. This was in alternatives to PWHT in carbon steel and low alloy vessel repairs. B31.1 or section I may have a similar restriction. If this guy is an engineer, 510, or 570 there may be something to what he is saying even if his communication skills are lacking.