WPS Validity

Date 08-07-2008 13:49

Not everyone has the same ability to control the variables as much as they would like to ( or feel is important ). At my shop I have WPS' written for each filler. I also monitor amp/volt daily. Usually multiple times a day. The machines are set to my calibrated meters. They are not set of the machine readout. When a welder needs to switch to another process, for any reason, they will have me check there settings. All welders have two machines in there area. One for GMAW metal core (can switch to GMAW solid wire if needed) and one for FCAW-self shielded. All welders have a shop manual that includes fillet weld wps' for the 3 processes. Prior to jobs/drawings being issued to the shop, wps' are attached to each dwg that has other than fillet welds. I decide what process will be used for each joint and supply the appropiate wsp to be used.

By Stephan (***)

Date 08-07-2008 19:16

hogan,

most excellent!

Thanks a lot for this comprehensive and very informative response!

Best regards,
Stephan

By bozaktwo1 (***)

Date 08-07-2008 17:01

Things here are a little more simple than that, even. I write WPS for general work using M-numbers and F-numbers, and for each part number dependent upon the controlling specification and the need to qualify the procedure. Some of my WPS' are very specific; you can only use them for the specified parts. Others are more general, such as the one for all M-1 steel using F-6 fillers. In each case, the essential variables are spelled out in black and white, and that's where the welder needs to set up at. I perform surveillance and from my years of being on the other end, I can pretty much tell by listening if something's not right with the settings. The greater the demand for precision, the greater the frequency of surveillance. 99% of the work we do here is D1.1 and D1.2 with GMAW, so life is mostly pretty easy. I don't care what power sources the welder is using, as long as it meets all the requirements of the controlling specification and the WPS which was written using that specification. However, in my shop we have machines which are specifically set up for process, so there are no changes such as that to deal with.

By Stephan (***)

Date 08-07-2008 19:35

bozaktwo1,

a heartfelt thanks to you as well.

I see.

There are - compared with what hogan has posted - slight differences in the procedure but nonetheless you have found a way to guarantee the quality-optimum for the field you're working in, just as hogan did.

Very interesting!

You know, to be honest and at least as I interprete it, both you as hogan have described excellently how important either the checking (quote hogan) "... At my shop I have WPS' written for each filler. I also monitor amp/volt daily. Usually multiple times a day." (unquote) or "surveillance" (quote) "... I perform surveillance and from my years of being on the other end, I can pretty much tell by listening if something's not right with the settings. The greater the demand for precision, the greater the frequency of surveillance." (unquote) is.

This - so my impression - does fairly point in the same direction as described by Joe Kane ("If you were in a Nuclear plant, the settings would be checked three times from next week by three different inspectors").

The more I was surprised as I have read Sberry's post where he described that no one ever checked his machine in nuclear applications.

Even that was the reason for my humble considerations and that I have asked the question at all.

Once again thanks! Your response is highly appreciated!

Stephan

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 08-08-2008 02:00

Stephan

I have never actually worked in a Nuclear plant. I was going to at one time, and received instructions from the man that was hiring me, as to how I was to conduct the welder qualification testing. I was in another plant to investigate a Code of Ethics Violation. There I was told about the three levels of inspection. I also had aquaintences that were the chief welding inspectors for the CON-ED Nuclear Power plant in Buchanan NY, who described three levels of inspection.   I had some friends who welded on the now defunct Shoreham Nuclear Power Station on Long Island.   I was told about inspection procedures at those locations. Since then I have also been told about a plant in Arizona, where the welders assistant is the inspector in the morning, and in the afternoon, the morning welder becomes the assistant. The morning assistant now becomes the welder, and the morning welder now becomes the inspector.

Still, I was also surprised to read Sberry's reply.

As a traveling third party QA inspector, I run into all kinds of shops. Some are Sh*t Holes that do terrible schlapmacharbeit and others do really fine work with real QC and professional supervisors. Doing QA Inspection work at Hogan's shop sounds like it would be a dream job. I have only been to three shops that really were top notch, thoroughly professional operations.

At most shops, I have had to complain and fight to have the QC inspector come out and verify the parameters. I actually have my own calibrated clamp meters and even a good data logger, but I will not do the QC checks, even if I have already checked and know the welder is out of parameters. The company QC inspector is required to perform the checks and ensure that his welders are within parameters. It is amazing how many times in a day I find the welders welding out of parameters. I have also caught welders welding with the wrong Flux and the wrong electrode, and sometimes more than once is a day!

The last "really top notch" plant I was in, was Greiner Manufacturing in Mount Joy Pennsylvania. I still had some problems, but they corrected them without fighting about it, lying or trying to cover things up. Last year, I put them in for the AWS "Image of Welding Award", and they won it.   They were surprised that I was the one to recommend them for it. Hey! They deserved it! They had a thoroughly top notch, professional operation there, with real QC and real QA departments. They practiced quality workmanship all the time. They are also an ASME Shop. I would recommend them for any job. In Canada, I was at the CANAM Structal Shop in Quebec. I had some problems there on three "Fracture Critical" bridges, but they worked them out. They were also a top notch company with thoroughly professional management, QA and QC inspection. I would recommend them for bridge work.

In many other places, the shops are inexperienced in Code work, and they don't have a clue as how to do the work to the code and pass inspection. They are not trying to get away with anything, but they are overwhelmed when the third party inspector shows up and starts quoting "Chapter and Verse" code rules to them.   They are usually going to loose money on that project.

Other places I call SWIAR Welding, or SWIAR Bridge (Shoddy Workmanship Is A Rule). They are usually big and entrenched and masters of non-compliance with the code provisions. I have to fight with them every day to get things done correctly. They will usually "step over a dollar to pick up a dime" in those kinds of shops.

Joe Kane

By 803056

Date 08-08-2008 04:52 Edited 08-08-2008 05:00

I have seen companies that use very detailed welding procedures and others that have very general WPS that cover a broad spectrum of welding jobs.

In the United States each manufacturer is responsible for the product they manufacture. Every owner is responsible for the equipment, machinery, and activities that take place on their property. Each manufacturer and each owner has a responsibility to minimize risk and cost associated with the failure of what they sell to the public or equipment they own.

Companies, like individuals, have personalities and corporate cultures that often mimic the character of top management. Some are risk takers and some are risk adverse. The risk is usually associated with, "what are the costs associated with failure." The greater the risk, the greater the financial impact, or the more risk averse a company is, the greater the number of controls used to minimize the risk.

A company that produces a product that poses little risk to life or limb or low dollar value is not likely to impose stringent controls on how the part or component is manufactured. Conversely, a product that inherently poses a risk to life or limb or is of a high dollar value typically has very stringent controls imposed on the manufacturing process. Compare the quality control systems imposed by a small job shop that is manufacturing miscellaneous steel to the quality control systems of a company manufacturing medical devices or aircraft.

My experience is that companies that produce welded fabrications of low dollar value or pose a low risk typically have WPSs that cover a wide range of materials, wide range of welding parameters, joint details, etc. (if they have any to begin with). A company that fabricates projects with high dollar value or pose a high degree of risk tend to have WPSs that may be very specific. In some cases they may have a WPS for each component. This carries over to owners that have high value equipment or where the risk associated with unexpected break downs can not be tolerated. For instance, bridges are high value pieces of equipment that pose a high risk to its owner. As a result, the owners (state DOTs) typically insist that the fabricator have good quality control systems, ndt systems, and a system of WPS that address the requirements, materials, etc. associated with that specific bridge project.

When a bridge is being fabricated, it is common practice for the DOT (department of transportation) to require welder performance tests be witnessed by a third party. The procedures may have to be qualified for that specific project and again, a third party witness must be present for the entire process. Separate WPSs are often written for each weld type or joint type in addition to the normal essential variables such as process, shielding gas, etc.

I have several clients that require specific WPSs be developed for each welded repair of major components on capital equipment. The WPS for the repair include details on the sequence of operations from the beginning of the repair to the completion of the repair including when inspections are to be performed and the type of testing to be performed. In essence the WPS become the router/traveler.

The job of the consultant is to write a WPS that fits the needs of the client. No two clients are the same and it follows that it is rare that any two clients have the same needs or WPSs. Maybe that explains my aversion to the "canned" WPS programs that are available, they take the approach that "one suit fits all". That's not usually the case.

Best regards - Al

By Stephan (***)

Date 08-08-2008 13:02

Joe and Al,

friends, please allow to strongly thank hereby both of you!

Wow!

These very detailed insights and personal experiences were a true pleasure to devotionally read!

I guess now I understand rudimentarily how it actually works.

And, what's quite similar important (at least for me :-)), what sense is buried behind creation, approvement and finally the periodically and accurate control of a detailed WPS.

Together with what hogan and bozaktwo1 have generously posted now everything makes sense to me. Also the slight "differences" between hogan's and bozaktwo1's way's to generate and control their WPS's are now excellently understandable by what Al has posted when he says: "... No two clients are the same and it follows that it is rare that any two clients have the same needs or WPS's...".

Of course...

The highly dynamical impacted constructions (bridges,...) the manufacturers you are working for as a third party QA inspector are producing, are surely much more "critical" (in the best sense of the word) compared with even "lower quality level" parts (no offense intended).

Or to speak with Al again:

"Compare the quality control systems imposed by a small job shop that is manufacturing miscellaneous steel to the quality control systems of a company manufacturing medical devices or aircraft...".

Hmmm, and I guess I'm able to imagine how hard this must be for you sometimes, when "fighting" these daily fights with the companies who - as you said - "... don't have a clue as how to do the work to the code and pass inspection."

However, the better it is that greatly experienced experts like you, Joe, and Al and many others who understand what a WPS does really stand for, are on the road day by day to get things running in a proper way!

I have heard several times that the United States of America are the most experienced nation in the world with steel constructions. Easily imaginable when having a look upon the infinite number of steel bridges and skyscrapers. :-)

This certainly however, wouldn't surely be the case if not people like you and the others would work hardly for making this possible.

And finally...

Together with all the experts within the companies like hogan and bozaktwo1 or those ones you and Al have spoken about respectively, there is hope that the "SWIAR Welding" shops will dissapear some day - or at least may dissapear in a great amount.

Once again, thanks a lot for your most excellent responses!

Best regards,
Stephan

By js55

Date 08-08-2008 19:28

Stephen,
A WPS is in essence a minimum 'standard' (please don't beat me up over AWS definitions of the term 'standard'-I use the term generically here) by which those variables numerated by governing code bodies are required to be addressed. And the WPS also allows a traceability in which a Quality Control system can determine if that minimum standard is being followed in production.
The other thing is, pertaining to your thoughts on power sources, though there is some disagreement (substantial in some cases) as to what should be considered essential variables, supplementary variables, non essential variables or even addressed at all, and to what extent, the folks that sit on these committees are some really smart folks.
They religiously use mountains of research data, and years of emperical in-service data, not to mention their own experience, to determine the importance of particular variables and what level they will be addressed. Though the results of consensus can be quite messy.
The two counterbalancing criteria are safety and economics. So lets take your power source example. The name brand or type of power source for common fusion processes is not generally even required to be addressed. If this is a problem, where is the problem? Do you have data that supports this could contribute to failure?
And remember, we are not talking about just changes in properties, an often used argument. We are talking about changes in properties that could contribute to the weldment not achieving its minimum strength standard, or whatever mechanical property. I mean, who gives a rats pituti if the tensile strength changes from 78ksi to 73ksi when the MSTS is 70ksi, or for that matter 60ksi, as is the case with many carbon steel or low alloy weldments. Its great for welding engineering types like us to yammer about it over beers and demonstrate how many hours we've spent reading tech articles till our eyes are bloodshot and our wives are threatening divorce, but are we really going to impose what might possibly be expensive requiremnts to address it if it is determined to not threaten the viability of the product?
The other things is, each supplier is certainly welcome to impose more stringent requirements is they wish to do so, and also absorb the costs. But this isn't an argument for code revision.
Hope this helps.

By Stephan (***)

Date 08-08-2008 21:52 Edited 08-09-2008 07:30

Jeff,

blessed I am, getting that kind of responses from the best ones of the best ones!

Quote: "Its great for welding engineering types like us to yammer about it over beers and demonstrate how many hours we've spent reading tech articles till our eyes are bloodshot and our wives are threatening divorce..." (unquote).

To repeat: "Jeff... YOU ROCK!!! (where do you know this situation from that exactly???) :-)

I strongly guess that you are right - as usual!

But you know, all these information coming from all of you. All these papers you're talking about (I ask for mercy Henry!!!). All these presentations coming from these "...really smart folks...". All the theoretical data making the tiny brain spinning around and making one think that 24 hours a day is much too little to just getting only an approach of everything one wants to learn. All this and much more I have forgotten to note here - but I know you'll certainly know it as well :-) - drives one to ask those questions.

Of course, it's right what you said when stating:

"... but are we really going to impose what might possibly be expensive requirements to address it if it is determined to not threaten the viability of the product?"

But on the other hand...

When I read something about "Centerline Cracking of 304L" and I know that even these phenomena aren't clarified entirely by today, although one has heard and read tons of information on this. And founded on all the research results and investigations one should normally presume it won't happen anymore - but, independently of all of that - it occurs again and the material shows a fracture. Or when I read what has come from Joe Kane, dealing with the conditions - and importance(!) - of a Welding Procedure Specification in the field of "nuclear welding applications". And I can read that there are - even though a WPS is a "minimum standard" - (isn't actually every technical "standard" a "minimum standard" :-)) significant differences in how "accurate" a WPS is weighted, even by the one who can understand what it actually stands for (honestly I didn't know that until I could read all of your brilliant explanations :-)). And all the personal experiences - thanks God for that - by all the discussions about "How can you guarantee that 1 meter wire feed speed per minute is really 1 meter wire feed speed per minute?" or "How can you guarantee that there is really only 1 droplet per 1 pulse which is the basis for your heat input calculations?" or... "How can you guarantee that the welding process does not deteriorate the mechanical properties of the base material we want to weld?"

All this and much, much more it is what drives me until... yes, until my "...eyes are bloodshot", I have to yammer again to not getting my beauty sleep :-) and finally my wife doesn't deign a look at me again (she knows that I'm crazy :-)).

And you know what? And this is meant as a truly honest and most respectful compliment Jeff. I guess you are driven by the same, may be ridiculous, but, extraordinary appealing forces :-)!

However, and this is the truth! It is always a great honor and my greatest pleasure to talk to you and to learn from you!

And although the base- and filler materials we are talking so often about do withstand the greatest impacts even though they have no clue of that we are discussing about them, although a meter/minute ain't always a meter/minute and although there are certainly very often 2 (or more) droplets per 1 pulse detached from the wire electrode's end. Independently to all of that. It is always a great pleasure for me answer your kind statement:

"Hope this helps!"

with a sound and clear:

"Yes it does! Thank you Sir!"

My best regards to you!
Stephan

EDIT: Just wanted to add - I like Joe Kane's term "schlappmacharbeit"! :-)

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 08-10-2008 09:11 Edited 08-10-2008 09:15

All right Stephan!
I'll try to be as gentle as I can so while I'm at it, I'll keep it simple... It's a "recipe" that works, and if followed properly - the end result is consistent, and optimal in quality. :)

I can't resist in posting a few links to give you some more perspectives regarding WPS's so here goes...

http://www.key-to-steel.com/Articles/Art77.htm

http://www.thefabricator.com/ShopStrategies/ShopStrategies_Article.cfm?ID=1066

http://www.gowelding.com/wp/wps.htm

http://www.gowelding.com/wp/wps1.html

http://www.welding.org/newsletters/fall2002/why.html

http://www.twi.co.uk/content/jk38.html

http://www.twi.co.uk/content/jk39.html

That's enough for now!!! ;)
After all - you did ask for mercy - didn't you??? :) :) :)
I hope you know I'm only joking here. ;) ;) ;)

Respectfully,
Henry

By Stephan (***)

Date 08-10-2008 10:00

Henry my friend!

As I said once. How blessed I am to receive the responses from the greatest ones of the greatest ones!

Hmmm...

"After all - you did ask for mercy - didn't you???"

Yes I did!! :-)

And before I dart at the papers and links you have attached so kindly, please let me express my heartfelt thanks to you again!

And most I liked your wonderful explanation of what a WPS does really stand for:

"It's a "recipe" that works, and if followed properly - the end result is consistent, and optimal in quality."

That's a definition that even I could understand!! :-):-):-)

Thanks a lot for that, Sir!

My best regards,
Stephan

By Stephan (***)

Date 08-09-2008 14:21

Jeff,

please let me add something to my yesterday's reply to you.

Thanks to METARINKA I have "discovered" for the very first time in my life "youtube" and I must admit, this impresses me very much!

However, to keep the long short.

There I have found something what might express in the closest approach how I feel, when I am considering about and busying myself with welding (the most fascinating science in the world :-)).

Just wanted to add and share this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lytxafTXg6c&feature=related

:-):-):-)

Best regards,
Stephan

By 803056

Date 08-09-2008 20:57

That's the state I'm in, confusion.

Best regards - Al

By Stephan (***)

Date 08-10-2008 08:52

Ouuooh...

C'mon Al! :-)

Everybody else but not you!! :-):-):-)

The only reason I could imagine that it were so, is that you have read my posts! :-)

Best regards and all the best to you,
Stephan

By Tommyjoking (****)

Date 08-09-2008 21:23

I want to contribute just a "little food for thought" based on what I have seen in the trenches. A WPS is a great thing properly done, but it is absolutely no more valuable then used toilet paper if it is not enforceable. I mean to say that a qc authority must actually enforce it with a hands on approach to expect and have success. As per posts above, physically checking machine parameters. Otherwise its the ole "we always done it this way, don't worry it will work, screw the inspector what does he know." The ONLY time I witnessed procedures followed to the letter (by more then three welders), was in ASME work on boliers (and the qc had firing authority!!). I don't mean to throw mud but its the truth (even in aerospace work). So that tells me the employer and customer in a LOT of cases are not getting what they paid for......if you want it done like you want it done....spend the money on the QC and give them what they need and ask for. NDT will only insure that certain defects are not present (sorry but its true)....right now it cannot absolutely guarantee the weld was done at this temp, with this rod, with this much gas, cleaned in this way. So its up to you guys doing the QC to make sure us welders are doing it how you told us to do it.

I get seriously aggravated when I see guys take "shortcuts", but I have come to realize the only way I will save myself the aggravation is to work alone everyday and just worry with what I am working on.

Great post, great subject and its really important!
Tommy

By Stephan (***)

Date 08-10-2008 09:42

Hi Tommy!

First off, thanks a lot for your - as ususal - excellent input!

Very good and above all, very reasonable points!

You know, there was - at least in my eyes - another great discussion just a few days ago in the forum (http://www.aws.org/cgi-bin/mwf/topic_show.pl?pid=108382#pid108382).

There, especially, two very appreciated fellows - the first one was is an outstanding welder and the other one is an outstanding NDE-expert - had a fantastic discourse about codes, quality, productivity (Git R Done) etc.

This discussion had a great and particularly sustaining impact on myself due to showing the two inseparable sides of the same medal. On the one, the welding itself being performed by a highly expertised and qualified welder and on the other, the responsibility of even that one who has - even as well by his extraordinary experience - to accomplish what you have so terrifically stated as you said:

"NDT will only insure that certain defects are not present(...)"

Both of those have - at least in my humble understanding - spoken the same language.

Why? Since the first one has made a predication which I like very much and I would like to quote hereinafter as well:

"Crazy = you get what you pay for? Yes, I "get er done", because I can. To code, to xray specs, to uv specs, to bend/shear specs, but most importantly to my own specs..............(...)"

Everything starts with the very own personal attitude of each one who is welding - i.e. the welder him- or herself, respectively - and ends finally with the attitude of that one who has to have an "eye" upon what's been carried out by the welder - i.e. the NDE responsible.

And I mean there is the great difference between the "SWIAR" shops (acc. to Joe Kane) and welders, and those ones which are proving autonomy day by day, by creating, surveying and following WPS's which are tailored for even the level of manufacturing the one is working on.

At the end of the day, if I understood correctly what all of you appreciated fellas have responded and explained, the WPS is just one - but nonetheless a crucial - link in a chain which achieves its strength only by the fact, that everybody who is "using the chain for carrying a great load" is aware of what he or her is doing and what his or her responsibility is.

You Tommy, if you allow me to say this, have proven your responsibility exactly the same way as all the other great people did, who have responded to this my humble question of what a WPS is truly worth, by saying:

"(...)I get seriously aggravated when I see guys take "shortcuts", but I have come to realize the only way I will save myself the aggravation is to work alone everyday and just worry with what I am working on.(...)".

And it's good to know that, when I' ll have to do a business trip next time and will take a seat in an Aircraft! :-)

Thanks again and best regards,
Stephan

By Tommyjoking (****)

Date 08-15-2008 14:31

HI Stephan!

How have you been my good friend?!! I have been so busy with my hobbies and work I have not been around to read as much. Thanks for the link as that was a very good read.

QOUTE: "Everything starts with the very own personal attitude of each one who is welding - i.e. the welder him- or herself, respectively - and ends finally with the attitude of that one who has to have an "eye" upon what's been carried out by the welder - i.e. the NDE responsible."

Maybe so but I would go one further and say it ends finally in the lap of the management in charge of the project....poor decisions at the highest levels can highly effect the end result at ground zero imho.

Best Regards to you Stephan
(have a great day)
Tommy

By Stephan (***)

Date 08-18-2008 10:34

Hey Tommy!

First off, sorry for the late reaction.

However, thanks for asking!

I'm trying to be well and I hope the same for you my friend*!

Thanks a lot for your - as always - kind response!

May I cite you?

"... it ends finally in the lap of the management in charge of the project....poor decisions at the highest levels can highly effect the end result at ground zero imho..."

I'd like to humble agree with you...

You know in regard to this we do have a proverb in Germany which is called:

"Der Fisch beginnt am Kopf zu stinken!", and the Estonians should call it (no no it's not Klingon :-)): "Kala läheb haisema peast!"

Don't know if I may translate it correctly into the English language but most probably one could translate it by:

"The fish starts smelling at the head!" :-)

So thanks again and my very best regards to you as well!
Stephan

* I've read that you are having some troubles currently. That's a great pity! But as I have read as well, many of the best colleagues have given some very wise hints to solve the problem. And I am sure for 100% that you'll do right to entirely solve it! I wish you well, Tommy!