AWS doesn't have a standard procedure spec for that combo.

I wonder if it's possible in theory to have an online searchable bank of company-qualified procedures with their supporting PQRs. Would people voluntarily post their procedures, and would the codes allow others to use them? Also, would people be too concerned about having some potential liability if they shared their WPSs?

Ross
AWS Marketing

Kix

I would not recommend a SWPS or anyone elses WPS for Short circuiting Transfer.  As a process the ability put in sound weld metal from one welder to another, and one welding machine to another is non-existent.  I think you should qualify your own WPQR.  That way, if it fails you get to learn what you are doing wrong.  This will not be available to you if you use someone elses WPRQ and WPS.

With the AWS SWPS's, the testing has been done (multiple PQRs supporting each one) so you don't have to qualify the procedure or do any testing (except the welders, of course) as long as you adhere to the procedure variables.

Bozaktwo

This is your opportunity to get procedures qualified with no preheat for tack welds and even no preheat for production welds. 

I agree with your rationale entirely.  Plus, you then have WPSs that most inspectors and engineers will not argue with.  You will also see that the travel speed limitations in the Code are not realistic.

However, I urge you to remember that your Charpy Impact values will not be valid unless each pass is deposited at the same speed.

As a welder it didn't make sense to require every contractor to qualify welding procedures for materials that are welded on a regular basis using the same tried and true welding processes and filler metals.

As an inspector, I have come to the conclusion that contractors should qualify their own procedures. I've seen every boneheaded mistake possible made over and over again because the contractor does not appreciate the complexity of welding. Simple things like proper cleaning, proper groove design, proper storage of electrodes, and the list go on. It is amazing how fast they learn when they start spending time and money on the qualification exercise. The learning curve is impressive after they fail once or twice. In the beginning, they have all the answer and rarely do they ask questions or listen to advice if it is offered. After spending a few thousand dollars on failed qualification attempts their ears grow to gigantic proportions and they start paying close attention to the little details they were warned about at the beginning of the exercise.

Most of the welds that get rejected are due to very basic causes that are easily remedied or would not have occurred if the contractor maintained rudimentary welding discipline.

We all learn by doing. There is no better teacher than pain. The pain can be physical, mental, or in the case of contractors; financial, the end result is that we learn quicker when there is pain involved. We are less likely to repeat the same mistake if we learned the lesson by active involvement.

Unfortunately, most people do not appreciate the complexities of welding by simply reading a book or reading a WPS. They assume that a little surface oxide, or the simple substitution of one base metal for another, let's say A53 substituted for A106 for an elevated temperature application as an example, is not going to have any repercussions. Another example listed in another thread; A105 flange materials substituted for SA105 flanges for a pressure vessel application. Why keep low hydrogen electrodes in an oven that is kept at the proper temperature all the time? We save money by turning the oven off over the weekends. Why keep the spool of aluminum filler metal covered? How dirty can shop air be? I could list examples of silly mistakes and assumptions manufacturers make for the next several days.

Large corporations regularly use mock-ups of new products to work out manufacturing issues. The qualification of the welding procedure is nothing more that a form of a mock-up of the required weld. Why is it so difficult for some people in management to understand the value in producing mock-ups of the welds they will be using in production? Is it the words we use? Would it be better to use the word "mock-up" instead of "qualification"? 

As an inspector, it is easy to become cynical because it's easy to remember the things that go wrong. But cynicism is what keeps us alert and looking for the mistakes that will cause problems further along in the manufacturing process. The qualification of the welding procedures is one step that can be used to eliminate a lot of future welding problems. The purchase and use of SWPs is one more missed opportunity for the manufacturer to develop in-house technical expertise. It's a red flag for the cynical inspector.

Best regards - Al