Do Prequalified WPSs require AWS Stamp & Signature?

By Fritz Date 08-06-2008 19:22 Edited 08-06-2008 19:32

Thanks again to the reponders of my last inquiry. Now for something new ..

A regional California State OSHPD (Office of Statewide Health Planning & Development) District Structural Engineer (DSE) has been making corrections to WPSs submitted, after review by Project Architectural and Structural Consultants, and has been writing corrections on WPSs along with notes that they are 'required to be submitted with AWS Stamps & Signatures'. Some of the corrections are silly; DC+ correcting DCEP callouts, the corrections to meet welding parameters shown on the Filler Metal Certificate of Conformance and the correction to show documentation for Amperage/Voltage settings, +/- 10%.

This DSE has been making the 'AWS Stamp & Signature' comment on all submitted WPS's, > regardless if WPSs are Prequalified <.
It is something completely new in my 12 years of working in Healthcare, Division of the State Achitect (Schools), Public Works, GSA etc ...

Back in January I oblidged by paying a CWI to stamp our Prequalified WPSs (to expedite) and asked on my re-submit cover where the stated requirement originated. I also cited AWS D1.1 Annex N (Informative) Preface "for informational purposes only" along with sections N1 and N2 for Prequalified WPSs. I figured the stated 'requirement' could originate from some new or arcane OSHPD requlation. Needless to say I got no response to the source of his stated requirement upon receipt of our approved procedures.

This process has been repeated for various contractors since, and once again on one of my jobs. The delay and expense caused by his requirement to re-submit for approval is in question. Our certifying City of Los Angeles Senior Building Inspector also knows of no such requirement for Prequalified WPS.

My only conclusion is that it is an arbitrary requirement worthy of petiton.

Here are my questions:

#1> Is there a stated requirement to Stamp and Sign a PREQUALIFIED WPS anywhere in AWS D1.1? <

#2> The Electrode Manfacturer's (Lincoln Electric) Certificate of Conformance is a Qualification Record to establish the Physical Properties of the Filler Metal, not the Procedure parameters to be used for custom tailored WPSs, right?

I interpret documented Preheat and Amperages relating to a 1" thick steel plate Groove Weld subject to a standard AWS Face-Bend test, so it seems silly that the documented parameters should be applied to say, a Fillet Weld T-Joint using 3/16" plates? lol

Your assistance is appreciated.
Thanks.

By hogan

Date 08-06-2008 19:45

I would look to your job specs for this type of issue.

By Fritz Date 08-06-2008 20:03

Job Specifications list no such requirement and references D1.1 conformance only.

By hogan

Date 08-06-2008 20:14

those are commen requirements for CALTRANS work and they like to be picky

By Fritz Date 08-06-2008 20:39 Edited 08-06-2008 20:41

Is there any written precedence for these 'requirements' (AWS stamp & sig for prequalified WPS).
Anything otherwise appears to be arbitrary and not reflective of contractural obligations.
I have no problem with picky critiques, as long as they have merit.

By hogan

Date 08-06-2008 21:23

Like I mentioned this requirement is common for CALTRANS and is located in the standard plans and special provisions. Also, some of the work requires the fabricator to pass an audit and become qualified to perform work. The requirement for yearly wps, pqr, and welder certification signed by a current cwi included in them.

By MBSims

Date 08-06-2008 21:29 Edited 08-06-2008 21:32

#1 - There is no requirement in D1.1 for application of the CWI stamp or CWI signature on the WPS. There is a requirement in 6.3 for the "Contractor's Inspector" to "review" prequalified WPS's to ensure they meet the prequalified welding requirements in Section 3 and Section 5, and the contract documents (drawings, specifications and contractual conditions). Application of the stamp or signature is one way to show this has been done, but it could also be documented on a letter or inspection report for each contract:

6.3.1 Prequalified WPS. The Contractor's Inspector
shall make certain that all prequalified WPSs to be used
for the work conform with the requirements Section 3,
Section 5, and the contract documents.
6.3.2 WPSs Qualified by Test. The Contractor's Inspector
shall make certain that all WPSs qualified by test conform
with the requirements of Sections 4 and 5, and
contract documents.

#2 - The welding material certificate of conformance is only provided to show conformance with the AWS A5.x specification for the electrode classification when required by the Engineer per 5.3.1.1. It is not intended to be used to provide the manufacturers recommended current range of 5.3.1.2. The manufacturer's published literature showing recommended amperage settings for each electrode size is sufficient to meet 5.3.1.2.

By trapdoor (**)

Date 08-07-2008 02:44

Sounds to me like someone is trying to pass the buck (to some degree). I have seen engineers on OSHPD jobs want WPS's for every single joint.

By Fritz Date 08-08-2008 19:10

Thank you very much!

By eekpod

Date 08-08-2008 19:57

Fritz
See Section 4.6 Preperation of WPS. I don't see it mentioned.

Then refererance Annex N on page 337. N1 "The WPS's and PQR's are to be signed by the authorized representative of the Manufacturer or Contractor".
Now the sticky wicket is Annex N isn't technically part of D1.1, it's included for informational purposes only, but in this case conflicting purposes.
Honestly it makes sense if there signed, but in this electronic age, its tough to actually "sign" it with a signature, that's why I just type in the name. But you have a hardball on the other end who wants to play rough, so I would suggest that you officially put the request in writing and submit to AWS.
Good Luck
Chris

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 08-09-2008 01:36

Fritz

I am on the AWS Certification Committee. In our July meeting aquestion concerning of the use of the CWI stamp came up and It was agreed, as we have said in the past, that the use of the "CWI Stamp has no legal significance." This type of question has come up often in the last ten years.

One reason we didn't do away with the stamp, is because many of the customers want CWIs involved in WPS writing operations, WPQR Testing, and weld inspection. We think that the stamp should be used when contractually required. However, It is not an "Engineers Seal", it is just "Eyewash". If your customer wants it to be used, your CWI should use it. If you stamp off Welder Performance paper work with a CWI stamp there is a certain comfort zone inferred by the reader. The same with WPQR paperwork, and possibly with WPSs.

Many DOTs require the stamp and all of them mark up WPS wit repairs and require re-submittal after correction, or approve as noted just like drawings.

OSHPD and DSA are just like the DOTs. They want the contractors to have CWIs on staff and to be actively involved in welding operations.

I have been told to use my stamp on paint inspection reports! I argued that my CWI credential did not qualify me to do paint inspection. They didn't care what paint inspection credentials I had, I had to be a CWI to do paint inspection for them.

DSA wants you to be a CWI to inspect bolting operations in their schools. They also don't recognize the ICC Special Inspector Credentials. You have to be a CWI.

Bottom line for me is also that if a state agency wants to require a CWI credential for some operation, the AWS is all for it.

Joe Kane

By Richard Cook (**)

Date 08-13-2008 13:31

Allthough the stamp is not a seal of approval it is a "symbol" of qualification of an individual and a program that is recognized to meet the minimum standards for most industries. It gives the Engineers a level of comfort and understanding that some one with the right credentials has reviewed and found the Specifications to meet the requirements of the job.

I recognize that all CWI's are not necessarily "qualified" but it is more of a symbol of the program and process of which one obtains the certification. It more or less provides others that understanding that the individual is not just placed in the position, but has some abilities to review and recognize conditions and concerns in the material under review.

Allthough it is not required I think it's a good idea. I think all companies should have a CWI on staff if they use any joining process, but I'm an idealist.

By 803056

Date 08-14-2008 02:10

I agree if they have the bolting endorsement for bolted joints, riveting endorsement for riveted joints, Elmer's glue endorsement for sticky joints...............

Best regards - Al ;)