PreWPS and PQR.

Date 08-25-2011 22:20

Mikeqc1
Testing not to mention the actual test material and time cost money.
If the Company is ok with listing the variables as dictated by the welder and submitting it for testing then by all means you ARE just the witness.
But since the welder is more than likely not going to pay you I would consult the one who will.
They may have reasons for the variable as written on the PQR document it may give them more possible wps's that can be written
Good Luck
Marshall

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 08-26-2011 04:08

Marshall, I think your points are all straight on the money but with respect to Mike's question, I have also been in positions where waiting to consult with someone is not really an option. In this case I would simply document the reasons (if given) the welder strayed from the PRELIMINARY WPS. I capitalize preliminary because it is just that, preliminary.

A few scenario's, it's not uncommon for an "engineer" to develop a pWPS who may not in fact have a clue about welding or it may be that the welder is just going to do it his / her way no matter what the instructions say (in which case should be sacked) or it may be a matter that the welder truly does have a better idea (these are supposed to be the real experts) or it may simply be a matter of filler availability (not really a good reason for varying).

By Mikeqc1 (****)

Date 08-31-2011 22:36

Lets say the test goes down like this, the engineer tells the worlds greatest welder (Just ask him) Weld this test ....Xray quality and low temp requirments, then turns to a CWI and says record all essentials.
by using the data.....and the tested plate.....PQR and WPS documents are generated.

By waccobird (****)

Date 08-31-2011 22:44

Mikeqc1

If they are tested to code requirements that is one way to do it.

Marshall

By Mikeqc1 (****)

Date 08-31-2011 23:03

I do lots of audits and see many different ways of delivering the same documents....some complicated and some simple.
I have also come across a situation concerning SNT-TC-1A and the written practice .

By js55

Date 08-26-2011 11:44

Maybe the welder decided that since the 'preWPS' was written in crayon on a sticky note that there was maybe some flexibility afforded. :razz:

By js55

Date 08-26-2011 11:51

Was the Pre PQR made available to determine if the Pre WPS was in compliance?
I think it incumbant upon an inspector doing his due diligence to review the results of the Pre tensiles and Pre bends in order to verify if the Pre WPS is even in the Pre ballpark. :grin:

By 803056

Date 08-26-2011 15:10

There may be details that we are unaware of, but given the information provided I would be of the opinion that the CWI has the responsibility to ensure the Preliminary WPS is followed in every respect. The paying client has provided the CWI with specific work instructions and the client has every expectation that the work instructions are followed unless there is a safety issue to consider. The latter is not the situation delineated in this post.

The CWI isn't in the position to over ride the decisions made by the customer when specific direction is provided via the Preliminary WPS. Right or wrong, the client gave the authority and the responsibility to an individual to develop the Preliminary WPS. Whether they are competent to develop the Preliminary WPS (or any WPS) is a different question and not germane to this post. Unless the welder is the client that is paying for the services provided, i.e., witnessing the welding of the test coupon, he has no authority to change or modify the directions provided by the Preliminary WPS.

As the client, I would be hard pressed to pay the CWI if the Preliminary WPS was not followed explicitly. There may be a specific reason why the client wanted the test plates to be welding in a certain manner. The purpose of the test and any results obtained are meaningless if that was the case.

It reminds me of the time when we were attempting to weld a 5/32 inch thick austenitic stainless steel plate, type 316 alloy, with a single square groove butt joint. The welder proclaimed that he had 21-years experience as a welder and it could not be welded as a single sided square groove. The client turned to me and said, “He says it can’t be done, what we do?”

I calmly told the client to hire a welder that knew how to weld. The welder’s face turned beet red as he turned back to the welding booth. There was a loud clang as he tossed the plates on to the bench top, a flash of light, and within 10-minutes he returned with the plates welded perfectly.

In another case we were tasked with qualify several welding procedures for aluminum alloys. Toward the end of the program I was not able to be present to witness the welding of the test plate. It was one day that can say I was happy to be absent. The coupon was supposed to be welded using GTAW with Argon as the shielding gas. However, the welder was opposed to using Argon, he wanted to use Helium. He hid the Helium cylinder behind the column next to the welder and connected it to the torch. The Argon cylinder was in plain sight. The individual that witnessed the test assumed Argon was used and recorded the shielding gas as Argon. It was only after the WPS and the supporting PQR was submitted and approved by the government representative that the ruse was discovered. Not only was the WPS and PQR ultimately rejected, but so were all the welder qualification test that were done with the confederate WPS. In addition to the cost and the time lost, it was rather embarrassing to have to tell the client (the US Navy) that the welding documents were falsified.

You really don’t have to spend much time pondering this question to see the ramifications of allowing the welder or the CWI to alter the way a test coupon is welded when specific direction is provided by the PWPS. After all, that is the reason a PWPS is developed so there is no question as to how the test coupon is welded.

Think of it this way; your doctor sent you to the walk-in clinic to get a flu shot and the nurse decided you needed a tooth pulled. Would you, as the customer, be happy with the outcome if you ended up with the flu?

Best regards - Al

By qcrobert (***)

Date 08-26-2011 15:46

...and a missing tooth! :lol:

I agree with Mr. Moore.

The CWI should not have allowed the welder to deviate beyond the limitations of the WPS.

QCRobert

By js55

Date 08-26-2011 18:15 Edited 08-26-2011 18:19

First of all there is no WPS.
Secondly, we do not know as yet where the "PreWPS" came from.
Thirdly, A Pre WPS by its very nature is a format that not only implicitly allows deviation, but is suggestive of its possibility, and is not to be considered a nonconformance, and we should not be talking about it as such. If you have it written as such in your program you might wish to reconsider.
Fourthly, the CWI, as a CWI, has no authority over the development of PQR's and WPS's unless expressly made so in the contract with the PQR also being expressly considered in the contract document AND contract specific. Even as such, the authority would have nothing to do with a CWI status. We have yet to determine such, and I doubt its the case.
Should the welder have deviated? We don't know. Maybe the paramaters provided wouldn't work. Big shocker there.
So, once again, the big thing here that is missing is NOT compliance but communication.
I wold ask, who generated the "Pre WPS", the whole terminology of which makes me laugh, and why wasn't that person there?
Clearly the two stone tablets were provided but Moses was nowhere to be found.

By js55

Date 08-26-2011 18:34

Another point to be made here. Who exactly is the certifying authority for the company? Can't be a 3rd party CWI. I doubt the program allows that. The code sure don't. So apparently there was nobody there to witness and certify the PQR for the company. The decision for variance should have been theirs. The only company witness seems to be the welder and we've decided in rightious indignation to declare his authority invalid. If the OP is the company witness (this hasn't been made clear either, the way I read it) then why is it he doesn't have authority to vary parameters that may not be proper?
So, essentially we have two people involved in a qualification neither of which has authority to certify the PQR or make decisions. Somehow I'm thinkin the variance by the welder is the least of the issues here. We're gonna beat up on the welder. Never mind the serious Code violation.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 08-26-2011 19:46

From the original post:

"but the welder had other plans and used a totally different wire size and parameters."

I don't think it's out of place to savage the welder a bit.

By js55

Date 08-26-2011 20:02

By js55

Date 08-26-2011 20:03

By 803056

Date 08-26-2011 20:06

The line of reasoning eludes me, but that is nothing new nor is it Earth shaking.

Whether the company puts more faith in the welder than the individual that wrote the preliminary WPS isn't the point of contention. At issue is whether the welder has the authority to change the conditions stipulated by the preliminary WPS. I would take the position that the welder is obligated to follow the preliminary WPS unless he is given the authority to make changes by the employer. It would appear that the authority was not bestowed upon the welder in this case.

I could offer examples of situations where I have given the welder his walking papers because he “knew more than the engineer”. Right or wrong, as long as the “engineer” must shoulder the responsibility should anything go wrong, the welder is obligated to follow instructions. Those work instructions can be verbal, hand written on the back of a coffee stained napkin, or a nicely typed PWPS. The welder’s job is unchanged; he is to follow the instructions provided.

The idea of a preliminary WPS is clearly established in AWS B2.1 and is hardly a new concept. As a matter of fact, B2.1 states that the PQR is to be welded in accordance with the PWPS. Judging by the number of ASME members that populate the B2.1 committee I would have to say the concept isn’t foreign to them either.

As to whether it is a code violation to have a CWI witness the welding of the PQR is dependent upon the code invoked by the project specification. In this case I would venture that the CWI is representing the individual that wrote the PWPS. There are many instances where the engineering is performed at a location remote from where the welding is performed. It is not unreasonable to delegate the responsibility for witnessing the welding of the coupon and recording the welding data to an inspector or another individual authorized to do so.

Isn’t it wonderful that world of welding extends a bit further than the pages of ASME Section IX?

Best regards - Al

By Mikeqc1 (****)

Date 08-26-2011 20:41

thanks for your input, i too said that everything should have been documented first.
When you get to visit many different shops you see many different things.

By js55

Date 08-29-2011 12:17

Al,
The line of reasoning is that with the info provided by the OP there was nobody with the authority to certify the qualification for the contractor. The OP didn't state as such. I myself would question the practice of performing a qualification with nobody present with the understanding, expertise, or authority to make decisions at the point of qualification.
As for ASME guys on B2.1 I will defer, however I will mention that the subject of PreWPS's does arrise from time to time in Section IX contexts, though more often after a few adult beverages than during the meetings, but in all cases after some rolling of eyes, pointed sarcasm and the inevitable chicken and egg metaphors, the subject is tabled for far more important issues at hand, like refills. :grin:

I do have to apologize on two counts. Perhaps too great an emphasis on Section IX and an oversite of the critical B2.1 reference. :grin:

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 08-27-2011 21:44

Interesting.

Personally, if I have followed the OP correctly, the task assigned to the CWI was to witness the welding of a test plate per a given WPS provided to the CWI and the Welder by EITHER the fabricator OR the customer/engineer. Regardless of who supplied the PRE-WPS the CWI was tasked in witnessing compliance to the WPS and the welder was tasked with welding a test plate to the WPS in order to find out IF it were a valid perameter to later have further WPS's written from and a job welded per those specifications.

Everyone's job was to see if the PRE- WPS would work. The welder just chose to do his own thing and cost everyone money, time, and confusion. The welder's method may work but that doesn't mean a thing. The customer's method may not have worked but that is not the concern of the welder or CWI. Rather the fabricators leadership or the customer provided that WPS and tasked the CWI and the welder with welding to it to see if it could pass the PQR tests it was not their responsibility to do what ever their little hearts desired.

I would reprimand the welder (if I were fabricator management) and get a new CWI if they had not immediately reported the discrepancy. You could include the various important information to show what the welder had done but it quite possibly won't mean a thing.

I don't follow your other points JS. Maybe I am missing something. I understand that it is possible that in developing a PQR/WPS for a job that the welder may have the experience to say 'I really don't think that will work'. In most of my experience as a welder, owner, and now a CWI, I would take that into account but there still may be good reason to weld it as written up to PROVE rather it will or will not work. Unless the welder presented a very good point that had been overlooked. But it is not the welder's call. The assigned task was to ATTEMPT the acceptable welding of a test plate per a given WPS to establish a PQR. If no one in authority is there, it is their job to follow the WPS as given and let the chips fall where they may when it is tested.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By js55

Date 08-29-2011 12:53

Brent,
I realize I am in the minority here in my criticism of the PreWPS as holy writ (though perhaps the majority opinion turns Al's point about thinking beyond primary backgrounds into a pot/kettle metaphor). I am however in agreement that unless expressly stated as such, the welder should not have varied the qualification paramaters, though in my attempt at humor I suppose I did not convey this very clearly as the conversation developed. My biggest issue with this whole scenario as explained is the absence of expertise/authority on the spot. But that may just be my ASME side talking. The presence of the Ten Commandments is no excuse for there being nobody there that understands what the hell is going on.
I have a little trouble holding the PreWPS as sacred in an industry that allows one to buy WPS's, or take advantage of Article 3. And if the qual is for an alloy of which no prequal exists all the more reason someone with some expertise and authority should have their azz at the qual site.
I mean, if its carbon steel its almost a who cares(thus Article 3), if its a proprietary alloy then somebody needs to be there.

One other thing here that may seem nitpicking.
I realize you probably used the term as shorthand but I might clarify, and perhaps Al will supoort me on this one, there was no WPS to follow. I think the PreWPs was unduly elevated before its time.

By Superflux (****)

Date 08-29-2011 06:09

" Lets say you are given the task to whiteness a PQR plate based off a PreWPS."
Why would YOU decide to deviate from YOUR assigned task? To do anything other than what is stated in the above quotes would be a dereliction of duty. Do you expect to get paid for not performing the job you were hired to do.

" Do you A:
Tell him that’s not what the Pre WPS says and call it a day."
YES if he refuses to follow the parameters given. Take a quick foto of the Wire as installed on the gun to back up your case. AND I'm still charging my minimum callout rate plus report writing time. Sounds like an easy morning to me.

I mean, we all know that Welders are way smarter than those educated idiot engineers, foremen, customers and QC.

By Joey

Date 08-30-2011 11:18 Edited 08-30-2011 11:22

Mikeqc1

Is your job to conduct the test or to witness the test? Which side you supposed to sign? Test conducted by or Test witnessed by :

Many good responses, some are long-winded but no one ask whether there is a need to have a competent supervisor to conduct the test. Imagine, when there is no one assigned to conduct the test and there are three invited CWIs from different organization to witness the production of test weldment, that could be like a Royal Rumble.

I read this para somewhere “ It is not intended that the full range or the extreme of a given range of variables to be used in production be used during qualification unless required due to a specific essential or, when required, supplementary essential variable. The test may be terminated at any stage of the testing procedure, whenever it becomes apparent to the supervisor conducting the tests that the welder or welding operator does not have the required skill to produce satisfactory results.”

The welders or welding operators used to produce weldments to be tested for qualification of procedures shall be under the full supervision and control of the manufacturer or contractor during the production of these test weldments. It is not permissible for the manufacturer or contractor to have the supervision and control of welding of the test weldments performed by another organization.

Here in Smokey, when the task given to you is to witness the test being conducted by a supervisor or a freelance inspector representing contractor, you have no right to stop the test when you are not satisfied with the way they do it. You may abandon the testing site with or without giving your reason. But make sure you have your written report of your observation / and suggestion for review of the person who assigned you the job.

~Joey~

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 08-28-2011 01:30

Jeff,
Firstly my best wishes to all in the "States" who may be affected by Hurricane Irene.

Secondly, it appears that yourself (and others) have an extreme dislike of the concept of pWPS's ? (based on this and previous posts).
Please remember that even though this is the AWS forum there are numerous members from all over the world. With a lot of the codes we work with (BS/EN/ISO/AS/DNV) it is a code requirement to formally prepare a pWPS (not on a napkin) prior to performing a procedure qualification coupon.

Example:
4 Preliminary welding procedure specification (pWPS)
The preliminary welding procedure specification shall be prepared in accordance with prEN ISO 15609-1 or
EN ISO 15609-2.

4 Preliminary welding procedure specification (pWPS)
The preliminary welding procedure specification shall
be prepared in accordance with EN 288-2. It shall
specify the tolerance for all the relevant parameters.

Two DNV standards that I work with (Submarine Pipeline Systems and Offshore Structures) require the pWPS to be approved by the purchaser prior to testing beginning.

I am currently working for the client on the Pluto LNG project (US$14 billion) and we are working to B31.3 - all proposed new procedures must be submitted (pWPS) for approval by our Welding Engineers prior to testing being allowed to start.

It may not be a code requirement (yet) of ASME / AWS or API but it has been a project specification requirement on every project I have been on in the previous 20 years,

Regards,
Shane

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 08-29-2011 03:12

Shane I agree with you.

We are getting much closer to having a universally accepted welding qualification program and that program will very likely take the place of BOTH ASME IX and B2.1. It is ISO-9606 and ISO-3834. Not sure if it'll happen in my lifetime (likely not) but from where I sit this looks like where things are going.

When I first arrived in Kazakhstan I didn't care for the notion of a pWPS. I've now changed my opinion.

It is simply a guide for the welder who will be running the actual PQR coupon. Anyone who has been around any time at can tell you sh*t happens for a variety of reasons. I don't believe the welder opting to change electrode size or even operating parameters had beans to do with anything and the notion of writing an NCR simply smacks of inexperience (sorry for that harsh comment).

By 99205

Date 08-29-2011 03:40

I heard the exact same thing about ASME IX and B2.1 last week. According to the people that are in the know (all had seats on AWS committee's), evolution of those 2 codes may take place around 2015 or 2016. Apparently there is some real work being applied.

By js55

Date 08-29-2011 13:39

Gentlemen,
I would not hold my breath for ASME to ISO'ize. In fact, the last issue of such that was considered by ASME Section IX actually ended in an ISO revision to bring it into alignment with Section IX. And to my knowledge there is nothing on the Section IX agenda to align ASME with AWS or ISO. Though I would defer to our resident IX authority.
Section IX consistently looks to ISO for information but rarely chooses to go that way.
ASME is certainly in the process of trying to better market itself internationally. Emphasis on 'market'. The revision to Section VIII Div 2 is the most recent and comprehensive example. This was actually more format oriented than it was requirement oriented.
Section I is just beginning to have discussions of the same type revision though there is severe, and rather formidable, opposition.

By 803056

Date 08-29-2011 04:02

Let's assume the procedure was supposed to be qualified in accordance with Clause 4 of D1.1-2010. If that is the case, any change in filler metal diameter is an essential variable if FCAW or GMAW is the welding process used.

As stated, there are a lot of reasons changes may be necessary when qualifying a welding procedure, but it isn't the welder's call to make changes unless he is authorized to do so. In this case, the change could involve an essential variable that may have other implication and may affect production in unexpected ways.

Don't get me wrong, there are times when it is reasonable to ask the welder for his opinion. However, it would appear the welder wasn’t given the authority to make changes in this case. In this case there was a PWPS written by an individual given the responsibility for doing so. Unless the change is authorized by the person responsible for writing the PWPS, especially a change that is an essential variable, a change should not be permitted.

Communication is one function of the PWPS. It is a tool used to provide direction to the welder. If the company involved was a small organization, it could have very easily been the owner that wrote the PWPS. I know how I would respond if one of my rouge employees decided to take liberties with written instructions I expected to be carried out.

There are several unknowns that would certainly affect the outcome of the scenario we were given. We can only respond based on what is known. There are exceptions or conditions that would alter my response, but based on the limited information provided, I know how I would respond.

Best regards – Al

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 08-29-2011 05:21

Well, your opinion is of course respected but the OP stated: "no engineer is available for Questions and the welder is ready to go."

Now then, given that the WPS in questin was ONLY a PRELIMINARY WPS I could take the opposite side and say when I came in Monday morning (just for example) and the CWI had stopped the test because there was no engineer available I may not be very happy with that inspector... verify, document, but unless specifically authorized, don't stop work.

Maybe some choice words for the "engineer" who really should have been there too or at least given the inspector some guidance.

By js55

Date 08-29-2011 13:24

Shane,
I do not have an extreme dislike of PWPS's. I have an extreme dislike of treating them as holy writ through codification. I actually use them myself though I don't prostrate myself before them as if a Mandate from Heaven. Inevitable, and required, once codified.
I can understand a control mechanism wherein a customer footing the bill wants to have a review process in place. Done that. I can understand in proprietary alloys a greater control mechanism, done that as well. I can understand in qualifications for corrosive service (2507 duplex for example) a more robust control mechnism. Done that. But I, in general, do not advocate imposing upon an industry as a whole an idea that works well in the most extreme situations. And even when I use them I am there for the qual, or I designate an authority with expertise.
And in the end, if the engineer either delegates an authority of expertise, or gets up off his lazy fat ass himself, just exactly how sacred does this document need to be? The OP explanation here smacks of using the PWPS as a crutch. If it is that dayum important then BE THERE when its qualified.
One other point, if I am qualifying a procedure for general manufacturing I do not think it in a customers perogative to control a WPS I will be using for years after their project is complete, and I do not remember ever experiencing a customer wishing to do so. They will control parameters by specification which is entirely appropriate and well within their perogative.
My basic argument is that there are things to be codified and things to be left to engineering. A PWPS, a good idea, should be left to engineering, since I find it difficult to find an argument that can catagorically state that without a PWPS we have a safety and viability issue. This to me smacks of codification for codification sake. Something I do believe ASME is far superior in avoiding than other governing bodies.

By js55

Date 08-29-2011 12:57

And herein lies an oft irksome problem.
First of all, as the OP stated he does not have the authority to 'shut him down'.
Secondly, if the PreWPS is not programmatical he does not have the authority to initiate an NCR.

By 803056

Date 08-29-2011 16:43 Edited 08-29-2011 17:57

There are so many "what ifs" to this post it is impossible to imagine each and every scenario that could possibly arise.

The value of the PWPS can be questioned, but my experience has been that even a basic carbon steel to carbon steel qualification warrants a PWPS if for no other reason than to establish what is to be welded, what process is to be used, what filler metal, what joint detail, etc. It is a means of communicating to all parties what is required and what is expected. However, my viewpoint is biased by the fact that I am a consultant working with clients that do not have the where-with-all to handle the process with in-house staff. They simply don't have the expertise needed to qualify welding procedures on their own.

I have also worked in situations where the cost and time involved simply made working with a few scratches with soapstone on the welder's bench impractical. It makes sense to sit down and actually plan what has to be done, who is going to fulfill the tasks, when materials will be ready for welding, etc. The PWPS is the Holy Grail once it has been fully developed and it is the primary form of communicating what is needed to all the interested parties. Once the PWPS is in place, it is the road map that is followed and deviations are not generally permitted. The problems that crop up when someone ignores the PWPS can be simply mind boggling and very expensive in terms of time lost, labor lost, and the cost of materials that have to be reordered.

Qualifying a welding procedure can be very expensive and time consuming. Perhaps an extreme example was a procedure that required the casting of an ingot with the specified chemistry and processing the ingot into plate for conducting the qualification test. The cost of the raw materials was on the order of $42K. The plate was 9 inches thick and the number of passes required; let's say it wasn't welded in a single shift. When working in an environment where time and money can cost many thousands of dollars it simply makes sense to take some time to develop a good PWPS.

Even the mundane task of qualifying a carbon steel to carbon steel procedure can involve more than pulling a length of stock out of the rack if traceability is required or if notch toughness is a requirement. A PWPS can serve the function of ensuring the right materials are ordered and on hand when it is time to actually weld the test coupon.

As for the welder determining what he wants to use for filler metal, what welding parameters are to be used, what position the coupon is to be welded in, etc. That "ain't" going to happen once the PWPS has been developed. I will often discuss these matters with the welder beforehand, but very few changes are going to be permitted once the "go ahead" has been issued. There is a reason the PWPS was written and it is going to be followed. There is a reason for the tight range of welding parameters because there are heat input limitation requirements imposed by the applicable welding standard. The sequence of weld bead deposition may be specified because of concerns with base metal dilution.

There are times when no communication between the "engineer" and the welder is required and no PWPS is needed, but I can't think of a good one.

I agree there is no "WPS" at the time the welder welds the test coupon, that's why we refer to it as a Preliminary Welding Procedure Specification. I suppose we could call it a "Jolly Good Guess", but that wouldn't sound very official would it?

Whether the PWPS is required by the welding standard is not at issue. My position is that once the welder is handed a "Jolly Good Guess" I expect him to follow it and I expect the test witness to verify the "Jolly Good Guess" was followed. Part of my reasoning is that in the event the procedure does not pass all the requisite tests, I need to go back to figure out what went wrong. If either the welder did not follow the work instructions or the inspector didn't record the information properly, where do I begin to correct the problem?

Should the inspector "shut down" the welder? The employer hired the CWI to witness the welding of the PQR. I assume that also entails verifying the proper materials were used, the proper thickness was used, the proper joint detail was used, etc. I assume the employer had someone write the PWPS for a reason and with the expectation it would be followed. I assume that all parties involved were aware of what was to be done. I assume the welder had the proper filler metal available, but took the liberty to make a change by using something other than what was specified in the PWPS. We have no way of knowing why the "engineer" wasn't available when the situation arose, but it is clear to me that the responsibility for witnessing the welding of the test coupon was delegated to the CWI. That gives the CWI the authority to discontinue the test once it is discovered the PWPS wasn't followed.

Could the PWPS have been written to include a range of filler metal diameters? Absolutely, in which case there would not have been any question the test could have continued with the welder given the option of which diameter he wanted to use. That option wasn't offered to the welder.

Best regards - Al

By js55

Date 08-29-2011 17:57

Al,
I do not deny the validity of your experience, just that it by necessity leads to the idea that PWPS should be Code imposed.

By 803056

Date 08-29-2011 18:58

Can anyone honestly tell me they would not take issue with an employee disregarding a traveler, drawing/sketch, defined hold point, or other work instruction just because they decided it was in their best interest or the directive was a “waste of time”?

When the engineer is not available, is it permissible for the welder or janitor to change the drawing, traveler, or other work instruction as they see fit?

I believe that is the situation described by this post.

The PWPS; it is a recipe, it is written instructions on how to weld a test piece, it is a tool used to communicate what is required. For the most part it is the engineer's choice whether to employ a PWPS or not. Few welding standards make the use of a PWPS a mandatory requirement.

Whether the PWPS is mandatory or not, when the welder is provided with written work instruction I believe it is incumbent upon the welder to follow it as he would any other written work instruction.

Best regards – Al

By js55

Date 08-29-2011 21:11

Al,
Me thinks you commit that of which you accuse myself.
There is no evidence that the PWPS is a code, contract, or program requirement. Therefore you are imposing B2.1 thinking where it is not justified. There is more to the world than B2.1. :grin:

AND you equate the PWPS with traveler, drawing, defined hold point, or other work instruction that is most likely a defined and written part of the fabrication program (though work instructions are not all that commonly explicit except maybe in nuclear, but then that only serves to reinforce my point) since these are common elements of almost all programs whereas PWPS's are not. You have artificially elevated the PWPS unjustifiably. At least in the context of the OP.
As I stated before a PWPS can be a good tool, I use them, but it is not on the same compliance level as those functions you mentioned if it is not a written part of the program.

By jbndt

Date 08-29-2011 19:07

Gol darn it, Al, you use your tongue prettier than a twenty dollar … Sorry, Blazing Saddles moment!

js55,

Please show me where the OP in either of his 2 posts, cannot shut the welder down …

All of the information needed is in the OP’s initial question.
It’s like reading codes or specs … Don’t read more into it than what is actually there. (Or, ask for an RFI.)

He only gives you TWO options.

“Do you A: Tell him that’s not what the pre WPS says and call it a day.”

As stated, that is what I would do.
I don’t waste time or money (or test plates) …That’s why I get called back.

Jon,

“I don't believe the welder opting to change electrode size or even operating parameters had beans to do with anything and the notion of writing an NCR simply smacks of inexperience (sorry for that harsh comment).”

Excuse me?

It’s not from lack of experience; it’s from plenty of bad experiences...

Putting myself in the OP’s shoes …

I was given a “pre-WPS” (written instructions) and am paid to witness THAT test.
SOP dictates that the welder would be given a copy or, allowed to look at the one in my possession to know how the machine is to be set-up and how the test is to be run.

Now, if this welder believes that he is “Lord God Almighty of the Weld Test Booth” and refuses to follow the written instructions provided by the engineer, HELL yes I’ll write him up … In a heartbeat!

Game Over … HE just wasted the clients’ time and money and, MINE!!

The NCR documents that fact.

Oh, and don’t think that the above attitude doesn’t bleed over into the field …
I busted a welder for using NR-211 on a seismic connection because; NR-232 (the required wire) “is too hard to run ...”

Cheers,
jb

By jbndt

Date 08-29-2011 19:15

Dang it!!

Gotta learn to type faster!!

Cheers,
jb

By js55

Date 08-29-2011 21:01

jbndt,
The OP only stated he was given the task to witness. There was no authority stated in the OP. The OP also did not make clear who exactly charged him with responsibility. If it was a customer third party CWI then he has no authority over programmatical qualifications unless explicitly stated as such in contract docs. His job would be contract compliance. Thats it!!! Another piece of information left out.
So I would submit you follow your own advice about not reading more into what is actually there.
And what SOP? Yours? The OP's. Again you read far too much into the post. He didn't mention any SOP. You did.
And if you are going to write and NCR just exactly what NC will it be reporting? You have no evidence that there is any mention of a PWPS in the Manual, or any qualification procedure, nor even an SOP (your point). So there is nothing to NCR. YOU DO NOT NCR INFORMAL INSTRUCTIONS. And if the PWPS is not imposed by code or by manual or by procedure, (certainly NOT stated as such in the OP-so A G A I N you read too much into the post) it is an informal instruction and no matter how much, whoever, violates it, you do not generate an NCR.

By js55

Date 08-29-2011 21:18 Edited 08-29-2011 21:33

Oh, and one other point here that I would take this opportunity to state even stronger.
If B2.1, or some similar standard, that utilizes a requirement for PWPS is not imposed here then not only do we not have a WPS, as we inadvertently slipped into earlier, we do not even have a PWPS. We have a piece of paper, an informal instruction, a list of parameters or something, that we can essentially call anything we want (I'm partial to Jolly Good Guess or JGG), since there is no governing standard to prohibit.
We can use these terms all we want, but if they are not imposed in written form either by standard or program they ARE MEANINGLESS.
If you don't believe me submit an interpretation to a Code body that does not use the term and see what kind of response you get.

By js55

Date 08-29-2011 21:46

PS;
You don't generate NCR's simply because something or somebody pisses you off.
An NCR is a programmatical process meant to address programmatical issues.

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 08-30-2011 02:25

Damn Jeff!!!

Haven't seen you write so much in years! As before mentioned, the pWPS intent is SIMPLY to provide some guidance to the welder for running a PQR. For those who wonder chicken or egg, how else would one go about qualifying? You can't have a WPS without a PQR (in all codes but D1.1 world) so by what means do you instruct the welder what you want done?

As for Internationalization of ASME IX and other ASME Codes, it's already happening (talk with Walt privately next meeting). For quite a number of years AWS TAG ISO/TC 44/SC10; Unification of Requirements in the Field of Metal Welding have been looking to bring parody amongst the various Euro norms and our little niche in the world. It's getting closer than it's ever been before.

By 803056

Date 08-30-2011 04:15 Edited 08-30-2011 04:26

This subject always stirs up the conversation. It has been a while since the conversation has been this interesting.

I don't believe I have stated in my comments that the PWPS is a code requirement or that it is universally required. I believe I cited AWS B2.1 as a standard that has defined the term PWPS and mandates it use when qualifying a welding procedure. Why this subject causes such turmoil is a little hard to fathom.

Work instructions come in many guises. In smaller shops they are often provided to the employee as verbal commands, soapstone scratches on the welding bench, or in the chicken scratches on the back of an envelope. In larger organizations instructions provided to the employees are usually more formalized. Work instructions are provided to inform the worker what is required of them to meet the employer’s needs. Drawings, travelers, etc. may be formalized when required by specific code required quality control systems or they may be part of a well run organization. In any case, it is not typical that the employer expects the employee to disregard those work instructions without first getting management approval. With the exception of a very small shop, it is rare that the shop employee is given the authority to make changes as they see fit without management approval.

Whether a company decides to utilize a work instruction in the form of a PWPS is typically a management level decision. The decision to alter, modify, make substitutions to a PWP or any work instruction is not typically left to the welder. When changes to the PWPS are needed, they are made by someone with the authority to do so. Except in rare situations is that authority delegated to the shop welder.

Let’s flesh out the scenario a little more than we have in this original post. This is a hypothetical situation. It has little to do with the original post, but it does get to the marrow of the situation. The welder is provided with a “Jolly Good Guess” developed by the “Welding Engineer”. The JGG specifies the material to be SA106, 10 inches in diameter with a wall thickness of 1 inch. Actual mill test reports are available for the materials ordered and provided to the test witness (a welding inspector). The welding process is specified as GMAW using pulsed spray with 0.035 inch diameter ER70S-6. The shielding gas is specified as SG-AC-12%. The position is 6G and the joint detail is a U-Groove with the details of the groove shown by the JGG.

The welder elects to use SA53 of the same diameter and wall thickness. The welder also elects to use GMAW, but he changes the electrode diameter to 0.045 inch and uses ER70S-2. The shielding gas is switched to SG-CA-25% and the voltage and amperage are reduced to the point the transfer mode is short circuiting.

At what point does the process become tainted to the point where it is no longer what the “Welding Engineer” specified? The WE was not contacted because he was out of country on another mission. Does it matter that the welder made the substitutions without approval? Is the object of qualifying the welding procedure simply to determine whether the welded test coupon can pass volumetric NDT, the guided bend tests, and the reduced section tensile tests? Is there another purpose of conducting the procedure qualification testing?

What would be the WE’s response to the welder upon learning of the liberties taken to the JGG provided to the welder? Would it be:
A) “Good job Bob. I appreciate the very fact that you took the initiative to modify the JGG to suit your needs.”
B) “What the hell were you thinking? There’s a reason I spent time and effort developing the JGG for you to follow!”
C) “What’s the difference as long as the NDT and mechanical tests passed.”

Let’s make the situation even more interesting: What the welder and the company’s test witness didn’t know was that the procedure is intended to meet ASME B31.3 high pressure requirements where the heat input needs to be recorded/controlled because the sample is to be tested for notch toughness.

At what point should have the test witness (because there is no code requirement that the test witness be a CWI) called a halt to the welding of the test coupon?
A. When the welder made the material substitution? There were no mill test reports for the SA53. The material specification and group number are supplementary essential variables when notch toughness is involved.
B. When the welder change the filler metal classification? That is a supplementary essential variable when notch toughness is involved.
C. When the welder changed the shielding gas from Argon rich to Carbon Dioxide rich shielding gas.
D. When the welder changed the transfer mode from pulsed spray to short circuiting?

Did the WE have a reasonable expectation his written work instructions, the JGG, would be carried out as he wrote it? Should the WE have to be present to witness the welding of the test coupon considering the JGG included all the information required to properly weld the test coupon considering a welding inspector was present to witness and record the test?

Let me conclude my part in this conversation with the following:

Is the PWPS required by code? It depends on the code, but in general, no, the PWPS is not required. It is simply a tool employed to provide direction to the welder and other parties.

Is the PWPS subject to modification? Yes, if proper authorization is obtained before the work instruction is changed.

Is it reasonable to expect the individual tasked with developing the PWPS is qualified for the task? I would have to believe he is qualified or I would have to question the qualification of every person in the company. The list is rather lengthy but it would include questioning whether the design engineer is qualified for the position, is the QA manager qualified for the position, right up to the CEO.

Few of us expect the welder to have sufficient knowledge of the applicable welding standard (or code) to know what variable can be changed without affecting the validity of the test. That being the case, is it reasonable to permit the welder to modify or make changes to the PWPS without first obtaining approval? Is it prudent to allow the welder to consider the PWPS as merely a guide or should the welder follow the PWPS as it is written? I would take the position the welder should regard the PWPS as written instruction that is to be followed to the letter until such time as an authorized change is secured.

Jon and Jeff; you take the position that the PWPS is for guidance, but you are most likely the very individuals tasked with formulating the PWPS. For an individual acting in your capacity I would expect you to be the authority that could modify the PWPS as needed. Would either of you be comfortable with the welder making changes without your permission?

I believe most of us would conclude the welder had an obligation to follow the JGG and the test witness had an obligation to ensure the JGG was followed. We have no idea what was required in the original post other than a PWPS was provided. I believe the employer had the right to expect the PWPS to be followed as written until such time as the proper authorization to make a change was secured.

And at long last, those are my final words on this post. I'm tired and I have a long day ahead of me.

Best regards – Al

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 08-30-2011 20:04

This thread has indeed been very interesting and informative. To me at least. I think it has some of the best content and level headed disagreements I have seen thus far on the topic.

It helps some of us newer CWI's to understand the application of WPS's and PQR's better when put into a practical application and discussed at length by such respected users with much more experience than some of us will ever get.

Once again I am really thankful for the participation of so many good people who desire to assist others in their education, skill, knowledge, and application.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By js55

Date 08-30-2011 12:24

jon,
Its been interesting and fun. And when challenged (and stirred to respond) Al always has something valuable and worthy to teach us, though of course I don't always agree, and I suppose annoy the crap out of sometimes. :grin:

As for internatioanalization it is of course inevitable, in time. And not a bad thing. However, there is a formidable consensus that it is just an homogenization of standards and other than that of no value. Many brilliant people have spent many years developing systems that, though not flawless, are quite excellent. I know at a recent Section I meeting a comment, from one of the most highly respected gentlemen in attendance was to the effect that our system as it is is not broken why do we feel the need to fix it. And what justification do we have to suppose the other one is better.
And I'll say this as well, having done a cursory review of the ISO/BS/DS/EN etc. system of standards when researching the idea of developing such a system and involving my company in PED it did not take long to realize that there is an extreme perpetuation of standards going on. This is not inconsistent, in my view, with the political climate that is predominant in Europe, though I do not wish to open that can of worms. I also find it interesting that at the same time we are debating the possibility of 'internationalizing' the system of which we argue to internationalize to has an extreme intent of protectionism designed to inhibit that very thing. Again, consistent with current EU politics.
I can tell you as well that I see little evidence that internationalization is taking place on the ASME floor (my previous comments regarding Section IX notwithstanding-though as stated the result went the way of Section IX not ISO) in any profound manner at this time(though I believe there is a task group). My experience is that it is still an undertow. I would always defer to Walt's wisdom considering he would be far far more in touch with immanent discussion than I, and is certainly far more involved in ISO, but perhaps that only makes my point better that it has not seen the light of day to us peons as yet, and when it does it experiences severe opposition.
The other thing is that ASME is undergoing extreme change in other areas, (the two year cycle-elimination of multiple stamps-the complete rewrite of NCA-and many others) so it has enough on its hands right now. I do not believe there is the available resources for this to take place too fast. For cripe sake we've been arguing over the hardness requirements for Grade 91 for two years and the most recent vote deferred again.
PS; if memory serves, and of course I'm old, in the recent issue regarding internationalization of a requirement in Section IX to bring it into greater consistency with ISO Walt actually voted to support the Section IX viewpoint, as did a unanimity of committee members.

By 803056

Date 08-30-2011 20:40

Based on past threads I'm beginning to believe Jon and Jeff chose opposing sides to my position just to get a good discussion going. Its beats some of the television choices offered as entertainment and it is one of the most enjoyable ways to get different perspectives on subjects of common interest. Each of us have experiences that may parallel each other's, but depending on the nature of the work, the codes used, and specific industries involved, the solutions differ. There's no reason to join the fray if there isn't disagreement between the battling parties. There would be little to learn from each other if we all agreed on everything. :cool:

Best regards - Al

By js55

Date 08-30-2011 21:31

Al,
I am always sincere in my opposition, but I will admit that when your involved I am stirred to push the envelope because I will always learn something. And it is always appreciated.
My wife thinks I'm just argumentative.

By 803056

Date 08-30-2011 21:46

Some people have the opinion that it is a mandatory trait for QC/QA and supervisory personnel.

I learned long ago that you learn more when you ask questions than when you answer them, but it doesn't hurt to stir the pot on occasion. You, my friend, excell at stirring the pot and you provide some interesting perspectives that lead to some lively conversation.

Best regards - Al

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 08-31-2011 01:40

Walt published a very interesting article on his web site a couple of years ago regarding the standardisation of welder qualifications.
Basically comparing the pros and cons of British/European versus American (ASME) codes.
I cannot locate it anymore, does anyone remember seeing the same article ?
Regards,
Shane

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 08-31-2011 03:02

Found the article - still very interesting reading, especially the last section,
Regards,
Shane

www.sperkoengineering.com/html/articles/9606%20article.pdf

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 08-31-2011 21:12

This will work better Shane: :eek:

http://www.sperkoengineering.com/html/articles/9606%20article.pdf

Respectfully,
Henry

P.S. I think all of you are NUTS!!! That's probably why I like it here so much. :twisted: