I am finding that I will be writing some WPS's and PQR's here shortly from codes ranging from D1.1, D1.2, D1.6 and D17.1.   I use the B2.1 often to organize my procedures.  I wanted to use the WPS and PQR format they have on the site for a 17.1 Procedure but the paperwork says "tested in accordance with the requirements of AWS B2.1/B2.1M" 

Now, though it is written to and for 17.1 where can I imply that when I write these procedures?

The format paper work on the B2.1 is much cleaner to me and I would rather use it. 

I understand that B2.1 is a standard not a code itself, Just want to know where I plug in the Code it is written to.

Thanks everyone

Jordan

I used to use B2.1 extensively , but that was before the committee became so heavily influenced by ASME Section IX. Don't get me wrong, it isn't that I hate Section IX, far from it. The problem is that the format of B2.1 may not include all the welding variables of the code you are working with.

A contractor can use any format they find useful for their application provided all the essential/nonessential variable are recorded or address as per the welding standard invoked by the customer. Even the use of the words essential and nonessential can be confusing because AWS D1.1 doesn't speak of nonessential variables.

I have written on several occasions regarding the matter of the dangers of "cross pollination" when working with multiple welding standards. It can become very confusing to the person using the WPS or to the person reviewing the WPS and supporting PQR when one attempts to mix and match several welding standards. I find it best to keep the documentation separate, i.e., write a separate WPS for each of the welding standards used. Likewise, write separate PQRs for each welding standard used. Just an added point of clarification, it does not mean the contractor has to qualify several test coupons, i.e., one for each welding standard. The trick is to carefully select the base metal specification and/or use base metals that are dual certified. However. the data recorded on each PQR must use the terminology applicable to the specific welding standard. As an example, I find it undesirable to list the base metal as M1, P1, S1 on the same document (WPS/PQR). Likewise, F numbers are the same for covered electrodes, however, AWS D1.1 does not use F numbers for GMAW, SAW, or FCAW. Therefore I prefer not to see F numbers for FCAW/GMAW listed on the WPS or the PQR for D1.1 applications. The situation is similar for A numbers. D1.1 does not use A numbers, so they should not be listed on the WPS or the PQR.

There are ways around the problem of listing the variables for several different welding standards on a single WPS or PQR, but as I said, it can be confusing for a person trying to use them or reviewing the documents. In my case, I am often tasked with reviewing the contractor's submittals. The document package submitted is what I use as a basis to form an opinion regarding the contractor's technical competence. I assume the contractor is technically competent if the documentation is properly developed and if it correctly addresses all the essential and nonessential variables. If the technical competence is not available in-house, at least the contractor has access to someone that can provide them with proper direction when help is needed. This is an important consideration because it is a precarious practice for the Owner or the third party inspector to provide the contractor with "consulting services". That can be interpreted as interfering with the contractor's responsibilities to determine the ways and means of construction. It makes the Owner or the third party responsible should something go wrong. 

When the contractor lists variables that do not apply to the specific standard invoked, the individual reviewing the documents is forced to wonder whether the contractor understands the differences between the different codes. If the WPS lists "All P1, M1, and Group 1" the reader should be concerned because the materials listed in B2.1 as M1 are more inclusive than either Section IX P1 materials or D1.1 Group 1. RED FLAG!

My suggestion for anyone new to writing WPS or recording data on a PQR is to develop a format that includes all the essential and nonessential welding variables for each of the welding standards their company uses. The list of variables will be very extensive, but in today's world of computers; word processors and spread sheets, this should not present a problem. When writing the WPS or recording the data, entries not needed can be deleted with a simple keystroke or two.

The certifying statement should list the welding standard that is applicable. It is rare that a properly written WPS or PQR meets several different welding standards without listing variables that simply are not applicable. Again, there are no A numbers in D1.1; the A number should not be listed on a WPS intended for use with D1.1. Not all the base metals included in B2.1 are applicable to ASME Section IX, so the inclusion of all  "M1" or "All M1 and P1" base metals is simply not correct if the WPS applies to Section IX.

Do not forget to have the contractor sign and date the WPS, PQR, and WPTR. I cannot recount how many times I have had clients call me and say, "The prequalified WPS you wrote for us was rejected by the Engineer!"

The first question I ask them is, "Did you remember to sign and dated the WPS before submitting it to the Engineer?"

Typically there is a long pause and I hear, "Where was I suppose to sign it?"

To which I respond, "Right where the red 'SIGN HERE' sticker is located."

"Oh."

One last thing, have a copy of the applicable welding standard when qualifying a WPS, writing a WPS, or qualifying a welder. I find it amazing and ridiculous when I encounter a person developing welding documentation that does not have their own copy of the standard. If the contractor/consultant/CWI/SCWI cannot afford to purchase a copy, they cannot afford to do the work.

Best regards - Al