Adoption of SWPS's

Date 12-06-2012 01:48

I was reading QW-520 where it states:

QW-520 USE OF SWPSs WITHOUT DISCRETE DEMONSTRATION

Once an SWPS has been demonstrated, additional SWPSs that are similar to the SWPS that was demonstrated may be used without further demonstration. Such additional
SWPSs shall be compared to the SWPS that was used for the demonstration, and the following limitations shall not be exceeded:
(a) a change in the welding process.
(b) a change in the P-Number.
(c) a change from the as-welded condition to the heat treated condition. This limitation also applies for SWPSs that allow use in both conditions (e.g., SWPS B2.1-021
allows production welding with or without heat treatment; if the demonstration was performed without heat treatment, production welding with heat treatment is not permitted).
Once heat treatment has been demonstrated for any SWPS, this limitation no longer applies.
(d) a change from a gas-shielded flux-cored wire or solid wire to a self-shielded flux-cored wire or vice versa.
(e) a change from globular, spray or pulsed spray transfer welding to short circuiting transfer welding or vice versa.
(f) a change in the F-Number of the welding electrode.
(g) the addition of preheat above ambient temperature.
(h) a change from an SWPS that is identified as for sheet metal to one that is not and vice versa

Now how do you take that? Is that to mean that once a procedure is demonstrated you can change things like progression or pipe size and all you have to do is write a WPS?

For instance if you demonstrated a 6" schd 80 B106A with E6010 root uphill with E7018 fill and cover then you could be qualified without demonstration on a schd 80 2" B106A with E6010 root downhill with E7018 fill and cover? That doesn't seem to make much sense to me. What am I missing?

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 12-06-2012 04:42

"Now how do you take that? Is that to mean that once a procedure is demonstrated you can change things like progression or pipe size and all you have to do is write a WPS?"

I don't think so.

The term "SWPS" Standard Welding Procedure Specification has a very specific meaning...

You cannot "write" an SWPS They must be purchased.

By pipes

Date 12-06-2012 12:53

Ah....that makes sense. Yeah, I get it. I was mixing terminology. It still seems odd that you would not have to demonstrate a "similar" SWPS. I mean something like progression is a major factor in welder performance.

By js55

Date 12-06-2012 19:22

pipes,
An SWPS is not intended to demonstrate welder performance. It is intended to demonstrate procedure viability.

By pipes

Date 12-07-2012 03:38

Got it...that makes a lot more sense. I was looking at this wrong.

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 12-06-2012 04:43

Sounds as though essential variables are being provided. I wouldn't agree that ANY CHANGES could be made to any SWPS however if similar SWPS are available and within limitations suggested then perhaps demonstration may be avoided.

One of the best articles I've ever read on this subject is by Walt Sperko (current Chair of ASME IX). Visit his website and read this article: http://www.sperkoengineering.com/html/articles/Sage%20Advice%20on%20SWPSs.pdf

By 803056

Date 12-07-2012 03:01

While Section IX, Article V may permit the use of a SWPS, the construction code may say otherwise.

In my humble opinion, SWPSs are only slightly more useful than teats on a bull.

Al

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 12-07-2012 03:20

Well, let's see... seeing as how we must consider the genetics of the matter, if the bull had no teats you could end up with cows with no teats?? :confused:

Where would that leave the poor calf? Not to mention the dairy farmer trying to sell as much milk as possible. :roll:

Same for the saying, 'Worthless as tits on a Boar'. I'd hate to take care of all those piglets because we bred the tits off the old sow.

So, where does that leave us with the SWPS's? Are they more or less useful than the proverbial 'teats'?

Oh my, such a deeply contemplative discussion.

Have a Great Day, Brent

(Yes, I had to do it. Especially to you Al) :lol:

By pipes

Date 12-07-2012 03:37

Very helpful thoughts (teats huh?) HA! Seriously, I have very limited exposure to SWPS's and I'm trying to figure out their place in the scheme of things. I deal almost exclusively with D1 codes and when I do deal with Section IX it has always been straightforward Procedure or Performance Qualifications so I appreciate the insight.

By 803056

Date 12-07-2012 03:43

It is called generating revenue.

Have you ever wondered why it is perfectly acceptable for AWS to sell WPSs based on other people's PQRs, but it isn't acceptable for a laboratory or contractor to sell WPSs and PQRs they have qualified?

Just thinking out loud again.

Al

By pipes

Date 12-07-2012 04:26

I have wondered that for years.

By js55

Date 12-07-2012 14:26

Giving this some thought I actually think the idea of SWPS's fits the philosophy of ASME better than AWS.
AWS in its qualification process has always been worse at confusing procedure with performance variables. And while ASME does this too not as much.
The idea for ASME (who gains no revenue from them as AWS does) is that from a procedural standpoint the materials involved in SWPS's have been welded so often and for so long that as far a procedural, metallurgical, mechanical, material standpoint is concerned there isn't much that can go wrong, as long as you stay within certain well defined parameters, which of course can be debatable. However, with AWS, there is the conflict interest with revenue and the monopoly issue, in which Al is dead on, but also the fact that with AWS injecting more performance variables into procedure quals the SWPS idea seems even more hypocritical.

By 803056

Date 12-07-2012 03:39

Based on that, my Aunt should have balls. :roll:

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 12-07-2012 14:48

UUMMM.... I think I'll quit before I get in too deep.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By pipes

Date 12-07-2012 03:38

That really is a great article, thanks!

By Jovi Zhu (**)

Date 12-08-2012 02:44

Well.....with regard to the SWPSs...... :roll:

When a company spending time and money on how to adopt SWPSs, his competitors might have already developed and qualified their own WPSs with less cost.

By qcrobert (***)

Date 12-08-2012 18:35

Our company has purchased, demonstrated & utilized SWPS's in the past when there was a time constraint.

However one must be very careful to follow the SWPS exactly with no deviations especially when used under a ASME code of construction.

QCRobert

By 803056

Date 01-14-2013 18:28 Edited 01-14-2013 18:31

In every instance where a client has purchased a SWPS from AWS and then attempted to qualify their welders to the SWPS, the welder invariably fails the test. Why, because the range of parameters, including groove angle, are so wide or ill-defined they simply don't work.

Case in point: the last SWPS used by a welder was for carbon steel pipe using GTAW. The welder prepared the pipe as per the groove details provided in the SWPS. Fail. The groove angle was too tight to permit the gas nozzle to get close enough to the root.

Usually after working with the welder to explain how to use the WPS and restricting the range of the parameters used, i.e., reduce the ranges to something more reasonable, the welder can and often does pass the test.

Now for the real question, if the welder cannot use the full ranges permitted by the SWPS, is it really serving its intended purpose? I would venture to say the answer is "no,” unless the purpose of the SWPS is to generate revenue.

Of course this is only my opinion of SWPSs, but then I find many WPSs written to meet the minimum requirements of ASME Section IX fail to provide the welder with sufficient information to set up and deposit code quality welds. Maybe that is why so many ASME welders simply ignore the WPS. There, I’ve said it again. It sounds like a refrain from a song you simply can’t get out of your head.

Best regards - Al