What weld metal ?

By 803056

Date 07-02-2009 03:47

Are you in-house QC or a third party inspector representing an owner?

Best regards - Al

By Nanjing Date 07-02-2009 12:12

doubt if it will make the slightest difference

By js55

Date 07-02-2009 12:50

Nanjing is right. Metallurgically and mechanically there seems very little to worry about. Proceduraly however there is a real problem.
You are right in deciding the practice must stop.
If they wish to use the wire they need to qualify it.
ER70S-6 is quite close to SFA 5.17 EH11K.
One more suggestion. I wouldn't make the WPS brand specific. I would use the SFA classification.

By R McLead (**)

Date 07-02-2009 16:54

Thanks for the input; I agree with you the problem is they should have been following the WPS. If there was a change needed they should ask for one before taking it upon their selves to disregard it. I know neutral flux adds little to no alloy but it depends on the definition of little. I did not know what this combination was doing to the weld metal I am not a metallurgist. I believe that if there is a question, the question must be answered before continuing. In this case, the AWS filler metal specification is A5.18 for GMAW and A5.17 for SAW. I also agree The WPS should not be brand specific unless there is a need to be so.

Rey

By 803056

Date 07-02-2009 13:33 Edited 07-02-2009 14:18

The difference is who Ray needs to inform of the discrepancy and how to get it corrected. If he works for the contractor he will have to address the issue with the person that is responsible for developing the WPS and the supporting PQR(s) and upper management if he isn't satisfied with what is going on. If he is a third party inspector, he has to go to the "owner" so the problem can be handled through the proper channels. It isn't the CWI that has the authority to approve or disprove the welding documentation, that lies with the Engineer per AWS D1.1. The authority given to the CWI by the code is very limited. He observes and reports his findings in most instances and any communication should be handled through the Engineer.

Lincoln's product literature says the 960 is a neutral flux that is compatible with the L61 filler metal. The combination is recommended for mild steel. That brings up the question: what is the alloy being welded? The combination meets the F7A2-EM12K-H8 AWS classification. It produces a tensile strength of 75 ksi, yield strength of 61 ksi, elongation of 32%. I assume the data is for all weld metal. Ray might want to check the Lincoln label on the box to see if the FM is classified under more than one AWS/ASME classification. I've encountered this on more than one occasion, i.e., filler metal used with GMAW is classified as such, but also classified as SAW filler metal. So, check the box label if it hasn't already been done.

If the existing welding being performed is acceptable or not depends on the applicable code, if any. If AWS D1.1 is applicable, it is the Engineer's responsibility to address the situation once the CWI makes his concerns known. The alternatives available to the Engineer are to rewrite/revise the WPS (and qualify the procedure if necessary) or require Production to follow the existing WPS.

I would also ask, "Where is QA/QC?". They have a roll to play in this scenario. Perhaps the CWI, Ray, in this case is "QA/QC", in which case the situation must be also bought to the attention of "management, i.e. the owner if this is a small operation.

A little homework on Ray's part in preparation of going to management is well advised. Make sure he has all the information needed to substantiate his position.

There is little additional advice to be offered without knowing all the details of the WPS and what is being welded to what requirements, i.e., what edition of the code, base metal specification, joint details, whether CVN is a requirements, what is the application, etc. Having bits and pieces of information simply leads everyone down a country road without a map.

Best regards - Al

By R McLead (**)

Date 07-02-2009 15:30

To answer your earlier question I am the in house inspector and also in the QC department of the corporation made up of 3 companies with manufacturing plants associated with each company. In this instance the material involved is A36 plate, the WPS states L61 wire with 960 Flux. The AWS standard in use is D14.3:2005.
I have been given the task and the authority by upper management to assure compliance and correctness of welding procedures and process, improve weld quality and work directly with the engineering group to reduce weld related failures. I report directly to Engineering Group Manager and the Quality Manager.

Rey

By 803056

Date 07-02-2009 16:35 Edited 07-02-2009 17:27

Hello Rey;

Now I understand how you fit into the picture.

If you want to make feathers fly, simply reject everything produced by the boys on the SAW line. That always gets a quick response and maybe a pink slip for you. A little research on your part first would probably be the better route to take.

Have you checked the labels on the boxes to see if the filler metal is certified for both GMAW and SAW? Check the labels on the filler metal boxes to see if they are dual certified by looking for multiple A5.XX or SFA5.XX numbers and see if there is more than one classification listed.

Check to see what the purchasing department is specifying in their purchase order. The FM should be rejected by incoming receiving if it isn't what was ordered. If it is being specified incorrectly, have it corrected at the purchasing level. You can use AWS A5.01 for guidance for the proper way to specify and order the filler metal as well as the flux. To someone in purchasing, wire is wire, it all looks the same to them. If a salesman says, "one snake oil is as good as the other but it costs less", purchasing will jump at the chance to save a few pennies every time. The accountants love to reduce inventory and purchasing loves to simplify their lives by reducing the number of part numbers to order and inventory. I can hear it now, "But our supplier told us they were the same!" Maybe yes, maybe no. You may have to instruct them what is to be listed by the purchase order to ensure the right "stuff" is ordered. In my mind, a review of the purchase orders is a QC function, so I wouldn't expect anyone to be offended by you asking to see the purchase orders.

Somewhere along the line a decision was made to buy the substitute FM. Someone had to order it or say yes to the substitution. You have to present your case to the proper individuals and provide justification for a change to their normal operations. No doubt you will be stepping on someone's toes, there will be bruised feelings, so make sure you've done your research as to why the FM in use isn't the equal to the FM listed by the WPS. You may find that a revision to the WPS is all that is required, the way purchasing handles ordering FM has to be changed, or someone on the production floor made the substitution and because the welds didn't crack immediately, people simply assumed it was OK. Yours is a task to educate people and to change the direction of a large slow moving ship, no easy task.

Get authorization to spend the money needed to qualify the WPS using the filler metal used by the welder for production. Let management decide whether they want to spend the money to qualify the procedure or whether they want to purchase the FM specified in their WPS. The cost of qualifing the procedure may be justified by the cost savings for the FM.

Best regards - Al

By R McLead (**)

Date 07-02-2009 17:56 Edited 07-02-2009 19:49

I did check the labels of the filler metal box it only listed AWS A5.18. What was interesting was a stack of the specified filler metal on the shelf for his supplies the company buys both. It is not my intent to make feathers fly but regain control on the anything goes mentality. Examples; the other day I found a welder using ER70S6 wire on a Stainless Steel application thus again supervisor knew and chose to use it even with the correct wire in stock. This list goes on and on such as SMAW application 3G preformed Vertical down with the specification vertical up. My only goal is to do what is right for the company’s customers and the company itself. I do not rubber stamp inspections or audits it is what it is I report the facts as I find them. I try to be impartial and as fair as I can be but I am bound to what is in WPS and standard in use as well until WPS it is changed or it can be proven incorrect. It is important to note I also am one of the ISO auditors as well for the company. I have a big chunk of my life wrapped up in this company I started as a production welder years ago and I have grown along with the company and have seen many of the changes along the way.

By bozaktwo1 (***)

Date 07-02-2009 16:57

Institutionalized nonconformance syndrome. Gotta love it.

It sounds like you're going to have your hands full. If your operation is certified, say AS9000 or ISO 9000, there could be quite a bit of trouble there. Not to mention potential product liability if a joint fails, even if the root cause is not traceable to the filler used. I do not envy you, as I have had a few run-ins with our welders here for much of the same. However, my case was less focused; a true case of a sweep-it-under-the-rug culture. It seems that you have management in your corner; that's good, because they are probably going to have to get involved in this. The folks who say it's always been done that way are very difficult to persuade. They're afraid of change and can't see any reason to put forth the effort to improve the process.

I wish you good luck, sir. Please, keep us updated on this one.

By R McLead (**)

Date 07-02-2009 18:00

Thanks, The Company is ISO certified and there were observation found in the last audit along with nonconformances.

Rey

By 803056

Date 07-02-2009 19:32

It sounds like you have your work cut out for you. It is difficult at times for someone, such as yourself, that has moved up the corporate ladder. Some people still remember you when you were a welder and they can't adjust to the transition you made from a production worker to a staff position.

It can be very difficult to change corporate culture that has developed over a period of years. The attitude of, "this is how we've always done it," is persistent and difficult to overcome without strong management support. I've seen situations were staff changes were required because the individual involved couldn't or wouldn't adjust to the changes that were required.

I've had situations where clients have ignored repeated warning and didn't act until their customer (military) simply rejected all their work and performed a major audit on their operations. They were barred from bidding government work until the got their act together. Everything that I had told them came to pass and each of the issues I bought to their attention were findings during the government audit. As a matter of fact, it was one of the findings of the government audit; the fact that management had not acted to correct the findings of my internal audits. It took nearly two years of effort to get the situation completely turned around and headed in the right direction. It was an expensive lesson for my client. Needless to say, they now pay close attention to my audit findings and advice.

Good luck, I hope you prevail in your efforts to correct the situation.

Best regards - Al