Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / ASME Codes / WPS review
- - By jarsanb (***) Date 02-11-2013 18:18
Reviewing a contractor submitted WPS and I'm going to reject it. It's been in use by contractor and last revision was in 1997.
Process: SAW
Joints: Square, Vee, Double Vee, Repair, Fillet
Backing: Yes
Backing Material: Weld Metal (no other description)
PQR shows a double Vee groove and the root was backgouged. No other welding processes listed or referenced WPS/PQR's. Very reputable contractor. I reject probably 90% or more of the procedures I review but I am by no means anal. Almost all rejected procedures have been in use by contractors on other projects. Reason I am returning as Revise & Resubmit for this one is as follows:
"No clear direction/lacking info for Backing Material"
One inquiry to ASME IX on nonessential variables reads -
"Question:  Are all-encompassing terms acceptable when addressing nonessential variables in a WPS (e.g, for backing, “with or without”, for root spacing, “unlimited”)?

"Reply:  Section IX does not specify how nonessential variables are to be addressed; however, the terms must provide direction to the welder/welding operator for making production welds to Code requirements"

Question: Am I missing something? I do not enjoy holding up production by rejecting procedures that have been in use for years but how can you list backing material as weld metal and have the only process listed as SAW with a root spacing of up to 1/4" on single Vee groove welds?
Parent - By 803056 (*****) Date 02-12-2013 00:46
Seems rather unlikely the contractor can weld a joint with a 1/4 inch root opening with no backing for the weld on the first side if they are using SAW.

What may be "legal" per ASME Section IX may not be "doable" on the shop floor.

Al
Parent - - By Joey (***) Date 02-13-2013 02:08 Edited 02-13-2013 03:01
Question: Am I missing something? I do not enjoy holding up production by rejecting procedures that have been in use for years but how can you list backing material as weld metal and have the only process listed as SAW with a root spacing of up to 1/4" on single Vee groove welds?

The weld metal you mentioned could be a “backing weld” which is backing in the form of a weld, the purpose is similar to baking bar or back gouging.
Your main interest is to determine the weld thickness made of SAW minus the backing weld thickness. A WPS qualified using a test coupon with backing in the form of weld is also qualified to weld with backing bar or back gouging.

If your weld production requires one side welding without backing, then you will need to know the applicable WPS for the root pass which is appropriate for the 6mm root gap (1/4”). This WPS is not necessarily to have a combination of two welding processes.

Be careful with the reputable companies, they are not s****d. When the project is delayed, they will use your bad call as scapegoat. When there is an independent expediter, it might be reported that the delay was due to incompetency of the client inspector or 3rd party. This will lead to termination /or replacement :lol:

~Joey~
Parent - - By Shane Feder (****) Date 02-13-2013 06:26
Joey,
I think you might have misunderstood the question.
I think jarsanb is aware that backing can be weld metal - weld one side with a 0 mm root gap, turn it over, backgouge and you are then welding with the weld metal as your backing.
But, it is SAW with a 6 mm (1/4") root gap - SAW will just fall through that root gap and you will have molten metal all over the floor.

jarsanb,
What root gap was the PQR qualified with ?
Cheers,
Shane
Parent - - By 46.00 (****) Date 02-13-2013 07:05
I think we can all agree that the general internet is the last place to have engineering decision making moments! Misunderstoodness is rife on this forum!
ASME allows multiple WPS to make a welded joint? Without jumping down my back, what if the company had say a GTAW WPS for depositing root run (which would then become 'Backing') I know one run would probably be not enough but you get my drift?
I guess, I would be asking if their were additional supporting WPS before rejecting?
Does that make sense?
Parent - - By Shane Feder (****) Date 02-13-2013 07:16
46.00,
IMHO, no.
PQRs can be combined to form a WPS but all essential variables must be noted and process is definitely an essential variable.
You cannot submit two different WPSs (eg. 1 x GTAW and 1 x SAW) and state that is how you are going to weld the joint.
There is no problem at all with taking a GTAW or SMAW PQR and combining it with a SAW PQR to give you possible WPSs - GTAW/SAW or SMAW/SAW.
However the processes you intend to utilise for the joint must be listed on the WPS and as noted above the only process being utilised on this joint is SAW,
Cheers,
Shane
Parent - - By 46.00 (****) Date 02-13-2013 07:28 Edited 02-13-2013 07:45
Shane, Do you reject 90% or more of submitted procedures?
I guess I'm trying to say something is missing here?
Parent - - By Shane Feder (****) Date 02-13-2013 07:49
46.00,
Unfortunately - yes.
However in saying that most projects use a system in Australia that classifies a document in various stages of acceptibility.
Examples
C1 - Reviewed and Accepted, Manufacture may proceed
C2 - Reviewed and accepted as marked. Revise & resubmit. Manufacture may proceed.
C3 - Reviewed and returned. Correct and resubmit. Manufacture may not proceed.

C2's are generally typos or small mistakes that do not affect the integrity of the document.

When it comes to PQRs/WPSs I do not get a lot of C1's,
Cheers,
Shane
Parent - By 46.00 (****) Date 02-13-2013 08:07
You mean you really reject over 90+% of your contractors procedures on submission ? WOW!
Last job I was on in UK, I think we were around 40% mark and we were getting some real bad feed back because we were not making it clear what was required!
Parent - - By jarsanb (***) Date 02-13-2013 14:29
I appreciate the further discussion. Shane, I follow the same process as you have explained here (C1,C2,C3) where C3 was issued in this case. I'll clarify issue a bit. For this particular project, one procedure was submitted. Only one. This procedure was qualified with a double Vee groove using SAW utilizing a root opening of 1/16 inch and backgouged. Qualified joints per procedure include Square, Single V, Double V, Repairs and Fillets. Root opening range is listed as 1/4 inch max. Actual assembly that will be fabricated utilizes Single V groove welds. No backgouging will be possible. I understand more than one procedure could be used for the purpose of weld metal backing. My issue is - no other procedures were submitted. And since there is only this one SAW procedure, I am rejecting the notion that this procedure can accomplish all variables listed.

46.00
Unfortunately, I do reject a high percentage. Many times the procedures cover all aspects of the particular code but the non essential variables are bogus. Or AWS references for filler metal/flux are incorrect. Just yesterday I returned a FCAW procedure as Revise and Resubmit. Variables listed: Spray Transfer, 1/16 inch diameter electrode, 300 to 375 amps, 28 to 31 volts with a Contact-Tube -To - Work- Distance (CTWD - not electrode extension) of 1/4 to 1/2". If they indeed follow the requirements of this procedure as written then we will see this contractor on here asking about "why am I getting worm holes in my cover pass"? Now I guess one could review and accept this procedure because all variables are covered and applicable materials and thickness ranges are correct. I don't want to have any questions about the quality of product that comes through our doors.
Parent - - By Joey (***) Date 02-14-2013 03:30
jarsanb
You mentioned that this a very reputable contractor but having more than 90% rejection of WPS. That’s amazing, how this company become very reputable, what kind of QA/QC Dept they have? If I’m working for Client (owner), I will immediately stop reviewing the WPSs once I knew the first batch of document submitted was substandard / not in order. I will call for meeting with the QA/QC Manager and will suggest them to take back their WPSs and review properly their submissions. If no improvement, I will raise the matter to higher management. Just imagine when you have 90% rejection, your working life as Inspector will not be easy when the contractor’s QA/QC system is lousy.
Everyday, you go back to your hotel….frustrated:confused::sad:, tired of telling this and that…not happy with the contractor’s action,...…etc etc..
How can you relax and enjoy your bloody ice cold beer after work?.

~Joey~
Parent - By Shane Feder (****) Date 02-16-2013 10:00
Joey,
Kumusta ka ?
I think you have been around too many Australians ?
Besides, what's wrong with a San Miguel or 3,4,5..... ?
Cheers,
Shane
Parent - - By Joey (***) Date 02-13-2013 09:14
Sorry Shane, I will disagree with you on this "You cannot submit two different WPSs (eg. 1 x GTAW and 1 x SAW) and state that is how you are going to weld the joint.As long as the WPSs are qualified...why not?
Parent - - By Shane Feder (****) Date 02-13-2013 12:36
Joey,
My apologies, you are correct.
I have never seen it done before and wonder how the welders are going to interpret it (if you have a GTAW or SMAW WPS with 4 runs how do you communicate to the welder you want 1 run only with the remainder done with a separate SAW WPS ???)
Regards,
Shane
Parent - - By 46.00 (****) Date 02-14-2013 02:08 Edited 02-14-2013 02:12
It is quite common on some of the jobs I've been on especially with welds that are multi process.I am surprised you have never encountered this practise before.
Parent - By Shane Feder (****) Date 02-16-2013 09:57
46.00,
Have been in the game 32 years now, 15 as a pressure pipe welder and 17 as a Welding Inspector (Oil Refinerys, LNG processing, petro-chemical etc) and I have never seen two WPSs submitted for one joint - that is pure laziness.
As you are well aware the WPS is a guideline for the welders - if you want a multi process joint you write a WPS combining the two qualified PQRs you have and the new WPS shows the welder exactly what you want - eg. two runs GTAW with remainder SMAW.
Hypothetically we have two WPSs - both on 6" Sch 40 (7.1 mm WT) - one is full GTAW and the other is full SMAW.
Give the two WPSs to the welder and what have you got - a bloody nightmare.
Does he put the root in with GTAW or SMAW ?
Does he put only one run GTAW and then switch to SMAW and possibly blow through his root run ?
Does he just decide he doesn't feel like using a grinder so he will weld the whole 300 nb (12.7 mm WT) with GTAW ?

Well let's write a work instruction so the welder knows exactly what we want - hang on, isn't that what a WPS is for ?

I found out this was acceptable via an interpretation and that is why I apologised to Joey - however, I personally do not agree with it and I am glad I have never been put in the position of having to to decide if it is acceptable or not.
Regards,
Shane
Parent - By Joey (***) Date 02-14-2013 02:36
Shane,

The actual sequence of beads will normally appear in the PQR. It does not need to be available to the welder.
ASME IX or D1.1 suggested format for WPS does not indicate that you have to draw the required welding sequences on joint details, unlike BSEN 288.

When welding foreman / & supervisor are needed in production welding, these people must responsible to give proper direction to the welders for making acceptable welds. They must be continually alert for evidence of welding works not complying with WPS.

Regards
~Joey~
Parent - - By Joey (***) Date 02-13-2013 09:09
Shane,

I think you’re referring to back weld (weld deposited at the back of single groove).

I envisage that you are qualifying a SAW procedure with weld metal as a backing. The test coupon has been prepared with a weld metal on the root. The root had been welded earlier without your presence. You measure the gap as 6mm. The thickness of test coupon - groove depth = SAW weld size. To me, I’m not interested to know on how the backing weld was made, which is not part of the test. This procedure with backing weld is able to support your production weld that requires welding with back gouging or backing plate.

~Joey~
Parent - - By Shane Feder (****) Date 02-13-2013 12:13
Joey,
Read the OP.
It is not a single groove - it is a double Vee groove with single process - SAW.
If the first run of SAW was welded with a 0, 1 or maybe even 2 mm root gap it would fine.
When it is turned over and backgouged the weld metal of run 1 forms the backing for run 2.
However, the WPS we are talking about calls for a 6 mm root gap.
Have you had much experience with SAW ?
Try putting an SAW run in with a 6 mm root gap and you will end up with a bunch of molten metal on the floor,
Regards,
Shane
Parent - - By Joey (***) Date 02-14-2013 02:48
Shane

OP states the following:
Joints: Square, Vee, Double Vee, Repair, Fillet
Backing: Yes
Backing Material: Weld Metal (no other description)

I've assumed the WPS is referring to single V because backing is required.

I had long experienced with SAW since I was a young boy as a working student...I'm a flux sweeper :neutral:

~Joey~
Parent - - By eekpod (****) Date 02-14-2013 11:26
Well because the OP is referencing all those different joint configurations, all with a 6mm root opening, maybe that's the problem.
If he split them up some would work with a 6mm ro with backing, but the double vee won't unless it has a backing, and who would use a metal backing on a double vee anyway? then you would have to air arc it out. We would use ceramic so it could be pulled/ chipped right out and cleaned up.
My point I'm trying to make without looking up the specifics of each joint RO tolerance, is that too many different joints called out with the same parameters.
JMO
Chris
Parent - - By jarsanb (***) Date 02-14-2013 13:42
Thank you all for the input. I didn't really read any hard opinions or interpretations of something that was overlooked. In fact, the confusion over the vagueness reinforces my decision that there just isn't clear direction for production.
Parent - - By bert lee (**) Date 02-16-2013 05:56
is this wps acceptable to you when the actual work have the backing strip installed for vee groove or fillet welding for built-up beams??
Parent - By jarsanb (***) Date 02-16-2013 21:29
Companies (both owners and contractors) which are required to weld to a certain code or standard for the work they are doing have to develop WPS's and qualify welders via testing of whatever section and criteria is applicable. Many companies develop these procedures by addressing each variable individually as they scroll through the applicable section(s). Each variable, be it Essential, Non-essential or Supplemental when required, tells it's own story and can meet the intent of the applicable code or standard for that individual variable. Unfortunately, when all these variables are added up many times they tell a completely different story.

When I review a welding procedure it is very easy to determine the intent of its creator. Were they developing these procedures because the code says they have to or was it developed to control quality/operations which is the whole intent of having to address these variables in the first place? Rarely do I see procedures written to address the latter.  Basically they say, "we're going to weld it, we're going to use this process or any combinations of processes, and we're going to let the welder decide how he wants to do this". Why have ranges that are outside of the manufacturers recommendations or list variables that are not consistent with other variables? If I use the low range here and the middle range there and the high range here and it becomes impossible to weld that particular application, does that procedure meet the criteria of the applicable code?

For example, since we're in the ASME section:
QW-100.1 A Welding Procedure Specification (WPS) is a written document that provides direction to the welder or welding operator for making production welds in accordance with Code requirements.
QW-100.1 The purpose for qualification of a WPS is to determine that the weldment proposed for construction is capable of providing the required properties for its intended application.

Now addressing your question of would I accept this procedure as written if backing strips were used in production? Absolutely not. And I would hope no one would or why do we even use codes/standards.

QW-200.1
(c) Changes to the WPS. Changes may be made in the
nonessential variables of a WPS to suit production requirements
without requalification provided such changes are
documented with respect to the essential, nonessential, and,
when required, supplementary essential variables for each
process. This may be by amendment to the WPS or by use
of a new WPS.

What I don't read is, " This may be by amendment to the WPS or by use of a new WPS or by any other means the manufacturer or contractor see's fit".
- By 803056 (*****) Date 02-21-2013 16:00
This is an interesting thread. I assume it deals with a WPS qualified in accordance with Section IX, but no construction code is identified.

I have long stated that an ASME allows the contractor to write a WPS that meets the code requirements and still cannot be used to deposit a sound weld. This thread is a perfect example. There is nothing in the code that would serve as a basis of rejecting the WPS as written. The root opening is a nonessential variable. There is nothing in ASME Section IX that says it has to be "doable."

There are a couple things going on here that I would question. The first obviously is the allowable root opening of 1/4 inch. I believe many of us are in agreement that it is unlikely the contractor could successfully use SAW to weld a groove with a ¼-inch open root unless some kind of backing is used. The WPS states the groove is backed with weld metal. There is no description of how the backing is deposited. So, there is no root opening in this case if the weld is already partially complete, i.e., someone at some point in time deposited weld in the groove to act as backing. Who, what, or when is not defined. It is simply magic and perfectly acceptable per Section IX.

The problem is that only one WPS was submitted. Rather than rejecting the existing WPS, would it be better to request more information; such as, “How is the root welded?”

Thank you “Lord” for ASME. It provides endless hours of entertainment and hours of gainful employment for many of us. 

It is fun to poke fun at ASME, but it like any other code delineates the minimum requirements that must be met. The position taken by the code is that the individual tasked with developing a WPS (or any other procedure for a controlled process) is knowledgeable of the process and the controls required. The problem is that the person thrown to the wolves is often ill prepared to do the task they are assigned to. Even when the person that is responsible for developing WPSs is knowledgeable, they may not be the individual that is assembling the document package that is delivered to the customer. In this case the individual that is tasked with reviewing the document package for the customer, i.e., the WPS and the supporting PQR, may not receive the entire package, i.e., additional WPSs that would complement the WPS for SAW.

I wish I could remember all the cases where someone in sales did not provide the customer with the latest revision of a WPS or the new WPS with the appropriate supporting PQRs, etc. The customer then reviews the wrong or out dated welding documents and forms the opinion that the contractor is a babbling idiot. 

Best regards – Al
Up Topic Welding Industry / ASME Codes / WPS review

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill