No offense to anyone group, but Al makes some very good points.
If it's an essential variable, or a required supplementary variable, somewhere at some point in time a risk was identified, or actual failure(s) were noted and for that process the remedy was inserted in the code.
One emerging problem that I've noted is that the people who understood why those items made their way into the code are getting fewer and fewer as they retire and go their merry way leaving behind a legacy of code that no one is left to understand. It's gone from "this is why" to "it just is".
"if you say, out of error, put a #6 cup on your GTAW WPS and your welder inadvertently grabs a #8?" Probably doesn't make a damn bit of difference for that instance.
But somewhere, sometime, in a specific instance, it may have mattered or it could just be an engineered safety factor.
Point of it is, an inspector has a code to work to, and that code is what covers their ass and yours. I think the difference between going 65 mph, and 70 mph is well within a safety factor, but by law, it's 65 and no matter how ridiculous I think it is, it's still the law. Traveling for 30 years you may not ever have a problem, but the one time and place where that small difference mattered, it can be the difference between life and death.
At the end of the day, It's the one time you roll the dice, with the odds in your favor, that the odd ball chance rears it's head, and that little bit of "play" in the code made the difference. At such a time, (space shuttle, Marriott motel, plane crash after crash, building collapses and numerous other historical disasters) It matters and made the difference between life and death. We have just witnessed another such event.
Inspectors, engineers, welders, we all get complacent when everything works out fine. It's not the one that went well that matters, with 1,000,000 to 1 odds, sooner or later that 1 will rear it's ugly head, and when it does, any audit that shows a none conformance with the relevant code will screw all concerned even if it was not the deciding factor in the failure at hand.
If the code doesn't make sense, write an inquiry, get it changed, there are avenues for that, but taking matters into your own hands is a sure way to get screwed in the long run.
Ordinarily, I wouldn't disagree with either of you and perhaps maybe it's just a matter of what we've each been exposed to. In my personal experience, a WPS is RARELY used as a stand-alone document... it's normally supported by drawings, specifications and so forth. Further, again in my own experience, the welder is often supported by either a supervisor, inspector or an engineer on some levels. So, when I put "P1, Group 1 or 2" materials on my WPS, of course I don't expect the welder to understand what a P-Number or group number is... but then too, there are probably at least 100 P-Number 1 materials listed in QW-422... would either of you suggest that I reiterate all those P1, Groups 1 and 2 materials in a separate matrix for the welders use? Or, would you suggest I list each and every material I've authorized on an amendment each time a deviation in material specification is encountered? i.e., A516, Gr. 60 is listed in the WPS but now a new job comes in and I want to use my WPS for A106, Gr. B? I guess my point is simply that we can make a WPS so "all-inclusive" (if required) that it would be overly complicated for the "average" welder to have a clue in how to apply. So, that's where I'm coming from, not that it makes a hill of beans difference in the grand scheme of things.
Gerald,
To say that becasue something is listed as a variable means that at some point in time it was a response to a failure is just wrong.
The proof of this is that AWS and ASME in some instances vary their emphasis on such. Is AWS's concern with gas shielding flow rate based upon some failure somewhere? Is ASME irresponsible in disagreeing? Or is gas flow rate somehow more important to structural steel welds than pressure piping?
And as for items finding their way into the code, seems to overlook how many requirements actually find their way into the code. To say that it is, de facto, based upon failures would overlook the fact that in the great majority of requirements either included or excluded there is often profound committee disagreement. Are those on one side or another somehow less informed than the others? Are they more irresponsible? Are they ignoring some obvious evidence of failure?
And I fail to understand the concern for a welder concerning himself with joint designs when in the great majority of cases this is decided long before it ever even gets to him.
And wheres the evidence of failure to justify segregating a compound 37/10 bevel from a straight 37? Certainly not lost in the fog of time.
I think you've taken what I've said wrong. On the gas flow question note my comment "probably doesn't make a damn bit of difference".
There are a lot of things in the codes that doesn't make any sense to me. However, These items did show up in one or the other code for a reason.
Codes are derived from analysis (variety of engineering disciplines), case history of failures, Standard engineering good practice and many other factors.
What I was saying was in regards the potential for inadvertant problems by trying to insert your own idea of what is right an wrong in regards to the code by unilaterally
taking the parts you agree with and pushing aside the parts you do not.
Whether or not you agree with the code, doesn't relieve the inspector from inspecting to it, Nor does it relieve the welder from working to it.
An inspector/welder must apply the code as is, per procedure without insertion of personal belief, except where an engineer has altered it to fit a specific need and purpose. Otherwise, as said the code is worthless to one and all.
If you disagree with any given point in the codes, then follow the inquiry and intent forums for getting it changed.
How many times have the situation been in reverse? When the welding effort is protected by the code from an inspector trying to insert his or her own idea of what is right and wrong? I can't see any case history of a welder or engineer coming forth based on complaints of being covered and protected by the code from an over zealous inspector.
Bottom line is, it cuts both ways. Everyone plays by the same rule book. If you don't like the rule book, get it changed.
Speaking for myself, but I believe jon would agree, I agree with you Gerald. We can't pick and choose the code requirements we will comply with. And I don't. If you disagree, take it up with the committee. I know for a fact that ASME meets four times a year and not only welcomes but encourages participation of non committee members, and values their input. You might be surprised to find how many committee guys agree with you.
On the other hand, it must be kept in mind that the codes are not the Bible(though they certainy have legal jurisdiction), they are not carved in stone, they do not represent all the wisdom that is available to the industry, and they do not intend on replacing sound engineering judgment. Committee work is often messy. And sometmes what comes out of it is not always the sum of the wisdom of its participating parts.
Gerald,
"I think you've taken what I've said wrong."
Quite often I think that despite our debating on fine points and details, or sometimes even on bigger issues, there is greater agreement that often appears.
In the end, we're all here because we care. Perhaps the most important step.
May have, and I agree that the codes cannot encompass the breadth knowledge available. However; even in saying so, the venue for questions and changes has been put in place a long time ago to address those things either not totally agreed upon at first, or simply that have never occured until a specific time and event. For the later thats where sound engineering comes in, for the things clearly addressed, thats where the shalls, wills, requires, verbage comes in. The good practice, should, could, may, and other words of that nature are built in as well for squirm room.
Yes that is the most important step. There are few enough these days that care.
Jon, like you and js55, we use a generic WPS to capture many of the non-essential variables that are recurring from procedure to procedure.
My initial response was what I would call technically accurate. How to define the joint configuration is up to each company, just as long as the information is formally available to those that need it.
I will agree with Al that there are instances when the applicable construction code may specify more detail. Our approach has been to issue addenda or a project specific WPS.
I find the practice tedious at times, bordering on a waste of time chasing paper; but when the spec calls for it and the third party wants it, there is not much room to wiggle. However, I agree with everything you say on this topic.
BTW - attached to out general WPS is a spreadsheet of the typical materials by P number that we routinely encounter. Our list is only two pages long. It obviously doesn't cover everything, but it takes care of 75% of what we do.
What does seem to be historically true is that those who received their earlytraining in AWS tend to think bevel configuration is critical, those who received their early traingin in ASME tend to de-emphasize it. And there are many other instances. You can almost determine a persons early training by their opinion on variables.
And if I may add something else, I do not believe that either jon or myself, though jon is well capable of speaking for himself, intend that an inspector should not enforce the code, a WPS, or other specified documentation. The argument, at least from my perspective starts earlier than that stage. The inspector most definately should enforce. He has no other choice or responsibility.
But the fact remains that many many times in my experience an auditor or an inspector has attempted to enforce something that is not only NOT required by code but most blatantly demoinstrates his ognorance of that code. Even to the point of insisting upon a code interpretaiton when I sat right there in the committee meeting and participated in the arguments for or against when the requirement was established.
Yes to all.
My favorite was our 6010/7018 WPS reviewed by a third party. It went like this:
Him: You haven't specified the flux composition in the filler metal section.
Me: It is listed as NA because you don't have to for this WPS.
Him: No, you need to list "cellulosic" for the 6010.
Me: No, that line is only used to list the flux in the event the WPS is for SAW.
Him: Well, I always insist it is filled out for cellulosic electrode, or I don't approve the WPS.
Me: OK.
It is easier at times to just give in than to fight the good fight.
Charles,
And that is exactly the crap I discussed in another post. I hear ya.
I recently had a client get his WPS rejected by a customer WE because he used min and max on his WPs instead of minimum and maximum for PH and IP. Seriously.
Gerald,
I will agree with you 100% that we are losing a lot of wisdom as these great old guys retire or leave us. It is a true loss.
Al,
"Do you really mean that the welder can weld a 1 inch thick plate with a square groove prepration using a 3/32 inch diameter electrode at 200 amps?"
I might turn the amps down a bit. :>)
In all seriousness, I think this example leads to a whole lot more serious questions than just WPS compliance and welder capability.
Is the engineering department actually asking that this be done?
Is there no questioning by the manufacturing or QC departments of a such a design?
Or, is engineering or manufacturing supervision actually leaving bevel configurations up to the welders?
Do you actually believe that insisting upon a more robust bevel definition in the WPS is going to solve this companies issues?
Do you believe that any amount of additional requirements placed in the code or enforced by an inspector is going to remedy this company's ignorance of sound engineering judgment?
Did not the ultimate customer do a review of the plant? The engineering practices? Manufacturing specifications? WPS's? PQR's?
Al, here is where I go to war. If I have written a WPS and have the PQR that backs up the WPS, then no matter what you or any other inspector thinks. it is a good WPS.
You stated "Don't write a WPS that mearly "meets the code". I can write a WPS that meets every code requirement that is totally useless to the welder. The ranges listed on the WPS should be appropriate for the thickness of the material and the diameter of the electrode being used, etc.
Do you really mean that the welder can weld a 1 inch thick plate with a square groove prepration using a 3/32 inch diameter electrode at 200 amps? Your WPS says he can weld all grooves with any electrode between 3/32 and 1/4 inch in diameter from 0 to 350 amps. After all, the electrode diameter, ampeage, voltage, etc. are nonessential variables. Don't get me started on "how helpful the code is" to people that are not welding engineers."
Well a WPS is a guideline. It is designed to cover a wide range of thickness, joint configuration and member shape. If I have a WPS what sayes I can make that weld and a PQR that backs it up, you bet your hard hat, that weld can be done! A well written WPS will allow a manufacturer to weld A36 or A106 using the same WPS. If I am welding 1/2 inch A36 and need to install a standard wall A106 nozzle, do I need two WPS? I know inspectors who sell their experience in writing WPS's. They write a LOT of WPS' s. They would sell the manufacturer on needing two procedures. And I have see that.
If you have a manufacturer who is truly interested in making quality products, you will see welders who know where and how to use WPS AND PQR's. If the manufacturer is not interested in quality, I dont care how well written a WPS is, it is toilet paper. The welder is just one part of the picture. If you taught a class of 30 welders who have been welding 20 plus years using ASME Section IX and did not know what P numbers are, and how/where to use them, the COMPANY they work for is PI$$ poor. And their Quality Control manager needs to be run off today!
BABRT's
I knew my post would get some blood boiling and some good discussions going!
I view the requirements of Section IX and the other codes (AWS, ASME, API and the like) to be the minmum requirements that have to be meet. A client typically hires a consultant because the necessary expertise is not avilable in-house. Its the consultant's duty to analyize the problem, be it a welding problem, doumentation problem, or QC/QA problem and work out a solution that is in the best interest of the client. Many times the solution involves providing training for the client's personnel to enlighten them in those areas or on subject they don't understand.
Many of the WPSs that I see might just a well say, "weld here." They are too general and provide little if any direction to the welder. All too often the writter of the WPS forgets that the welder may not have the support of an engineering staff. Many small shops that are doing the actual fabrication do not have the supporting infrastructure that a large corporation has. It is not all that uncommon to have the client in one country, the engineer in another, the detail drawings done in yet a different country, while fabrication is performed in some distance location. Shane's posts and the problems he encounters on a daily basis comes to mind.
I'm not in favor of listing every possible material specification contained in B2.1, ASME Section IX, or AWS D1.X. However, it is resonable to list the material specifications and product forms the welder is likely to encounter in that shop. Likewise, it is reasonable to list the groove details appropriate for the work being performed (as required in many construction code sections such as B31.1). Again, the corporate "welding engineer" or the hired gun should be taking into consideration the issues and the particulars of the client and the project when developing the WPS and supporting documents. I would say the ability to write a "usefully" document package is what separates the good engineer/inspector from the exceptional.
The true test of the documentation provided to the client/welders is whether it is used by the client's personnel or does it collect dust sitting on a shelf. A WPS (docment system) that provides no specific direction that simply meets the code is going to collect dust. Part of the service provided to the client should include showing them how the documentation is to be incorporated into their manufacturing system. The "client" can include other in-house departments if the welding documents are developed by in-house personnel.
To do a proper job, you have to know the client so that you can meet the code requirements (the minimums) and the client's needs (which may go beyond the code requirements).
One of my current projects involves a small piping shop that hired a consultant to help them develop a QC program and to document their welding procedures and supporting PQRs. The QC manager said the paperwork was dropped off at their door by FedEx with no explanation, support, or help in implementation. The QC manager said, "What do I do now? I don't know what half of this means!"
Since I was the third party inspector and try to stay at "arms length", I recommended they send a couple of key people to some training classes offered by AWS or ASME.
Again, my position is and has been that the welding documents are not written for the benefit of the expert that is doing the writing, they are for the benefit of the end user that isn't welding expert.
Gotta run, I have a job in NYC this weekend and I have to get an early start.
Best regards - Al
if a wps was understandable i would use it. mostly i have to waste my time and others within the chain of command to get an answer to my questions. i would love it if the wps that i receive made my job easier. someday maybe ill get one of those type. as an end user of the wps they are never explanatory they are always confusing limited info to cover someones ass so they can complain later as to why we(welders) did something the way we did. give us the info and we use it. give us a convoluted mess and we don't, cause if you want to get management pissed off, waste time trying to understand what the wps is really stating. and i quote "what are you doing why isn't that welded yet"?
i appreciate that there are some of you engineers and others that write the wps are trying to make them more user friendly. i really applaud this thread.
most of the time the people that write the wps dont even know what they mean by the stuff they write they just put it there because it is "code". they have no idea how it will be applied
now i just go online to the manufacturers to get welding parameters or come here and are bosses ever happy when your online looking things up instead of burning rod,
darren
AAmen.
As a welder, I've seen many WPSs that were probably written by the same "person" that wrote the one's you're using (or not). I found them to be just as useless. Most WPSs are written by people that have never had to use them or they have never actually welded. It's like designing car without ever having to drive one. Come to think of it, maybe that's what's wrong up in "Motor City". How come it took the Japanese automakers to figure out the Americans needed a cup holder in their cars? Sorry, I digress.
What you left out Darren was that most WPSs are crammed on to a single page with a font size impossible to read without a magnifying glass and a strong light. CAn you say, "user friendly"?
As you suggested, many are probably written to simply cover someone's butt and that's probably where they'll see the most use, in the "lue". Ok, maybe the spelling incorrect, "bathroom", is that better?
But, as I say, their ignorance is my profit. The company doesn't provide the welder with the information needed and they complain if the welder takes time to find the information. Thank God for the "brainiacs" in management. Without them, my business would flounder. Sometimes I feel like a janitor cleaning up the mess after they've made their executive decisions.
Sorry if I offended anyone tasked with developing WPSs. It isn't easy to write a good welding document. It takes time to do properly.
I have to run, my eyes are squinting and my brain isn't fully functional. Now that I'm not as young as I once was, it takes me couple of days to recover from a 23 hour day of UT inspection. What does it mean when the lttle spike goes up off the screen?
Best regards - Al
If I may offer a little fly in the ointmet here. I call it the 'cart before the horse' syndrome. Very popular with auditor types.
If I have a welder that needs to look at a piece of paper to tell him where to set his machine to weld on a specific alloy, I'm not sure I want him on that alloy. Let's face it folks, there is a quite definate range of current and volts that will work. Welders, I say welders, know this.
And please, this is not an argument to eliminate WPS's. They indeed are necessary. But I think in most instances (most I say-not all-hence, their importance) we exaggerate their importance.
There is important information that can be gleaned as far as exceptions are concerned. PH's, heat inputs, PWHT's and such that can be critical. But gas flow rates? Volts and amps? Is there really that big of a difference between the workable volts and amps of, say a 3/32" SMAW electrode for SS' or nickels (if you can't keep it lit, your way too cold-if the rod turns orange and sags on you like a shoe string your way too hot-thats a start)? Carbon steels or CrMo's? I say most assuredly not.
Again, if I have a welder that needs help finding his current for a critical nickel alloy, he ain't welding on it as far as I'm concerned. Let me train you awhile before I turn you loose on it. This is true Quality Control.
Let's take look at AWS prequal WPS's to help illustrate my point.
Is there a minimum current for SAW? What is the max? Table 3.7 says 600A for a single wire(1000A for fillets-unlimited for groove caps). And yet, Table 4.5 says + or - 7% or you have to rewrite your WPS. That's all. Just rewrite.
What?
You can't go from a viable minimum (not even stated) to a viable maximum (per Table 3.7)without writing a stack of WPS's.
And I've had auditors and CWI's tell me that if I write the parameters on a single piece of paper and yet fit the parameters to either thicknesses or fillet sizes and such, they will reject it. You have to have a seperate piece of paper for each application range.
I have difficulty figuring out how, perhaps 5 pieces of paper or more, have any great influence on the viability of weldment. It appears as though the only real difference between AWS and ASME (which doesn't determine V/A ranges-not even for impact regimes) is that AWS makes you write more paper, and the fact that with AWS the welder needs to be able to recite the diversity of WPS numbers in use.
Again, true Quality Control is not in the paper, its in the understanding of the people involved. Yet so many are obsessed with paper. The problem is not if your paper is in order, the problem is making sure the information is in some way getting to the people on the floor that need it. A WPS facilitates this, but is too often overemphasized.
OK Henry, I did it in one post. :>)
AUTHOR, AUTHOR!!!!!!! A standing ovation!!!!!!!
Hello gentlemen, I see responses here in this thread that certainly echo the frustrations of many "welders", I term it this way because generally the individuals that are truly welders will always perform their welds within the correct parameters of a WPS without ever seeing one. Why, because they have an understanding of how specific wire types, gas combinations, rod classifications, and the like are supposed to be run and used and what their applications are or should be. In the event that something new comes along that the welders haven't been exposed to before, is where I see the real application of WPS's. If one hasn't been exposed to something before then they need to have some information and ideas on the proper applications and requirements to use a process successfully. In most cases any process has to be qualified to prove that it will work and that it can be applied to a process. That is the basis for documentation and the paper trail to support it. Reading the various posts on this thread has definitely exposed all of these points and just proves out these various issues. Enjoying it all. Regards, aevald
Hi Jeff!!!
Miracles do happen, and with you - more often than usual!!! :)
Respectfully,
Henry
Henry
LMAO!!!
According to my wife its a miracle I can maintain a coherent thought. But don't listen to her.
jeff
Henry,
Are you calling me a posting prostitute(<----for the lack of the proper word)?...Hehehehe!
