Welder's Certification vs. WPS

By Ojferrer Date 09-28-2013 21:58

For a construction project (SMAW Welding per AWS D1.1) we submitted to the Owner a WPS, signed by a AWS CWI. Most welding will be for temporary steel falsework and templates for sheet pile cofferdams, things like that. the WPS we submitted is based on several prequalified joint detais for grove and pipe welds. The figures / instructions were as shown in Fugure 3.4 of D1.1, including for example that the base metal thickness is "U" (unlimited), even though in practice we don´t expect to have to weld anything over 3/4" thick.

We also submitted three Welder's certificates, which indicate clearly the type of certificaton they have and up to what scope. of these, two are for Plate, in positions 3G and 4G, up to 3/4" base metal thickness, and one is for pipe, 6G, also up to 3/4" BMT. These certificates were "approved as noted" by the owner, the note being that the Owner´s welding inspector shall verify the welder´s dexterity by doing some verification tests.

The problem is that the Owner's Inspector says that our WPS is not acceptable because it shows parameters that exceed our welder's certificates, in particular that our welders are certified to 3/4" base metal thickness, and the WPS shows a prequalified joint detail to unlimited thickness. So he wants us to resubmit two new WPS, one for the two welders that are certified for plate, and another for the welder certified for pipe, with the WPS limited to the thicknesses and other parameters that the weoders are certified to.

Our interpretation is that a project can have a general WPS that shows types of joint, or variables such as thickness, that may be encountered on the project, independently of the level the welders are qualified to. You could have a large project with many types of welds, for which you employ many welders with different certification levels, and each can only weld to the level that his own certificate allows; but you only make one WPS that encompases all possible welds you could encounter in a project. If in the future we encounter a situation where we have to make a weld with more than 3/4" base metal thickness, we'll submit and enroll a corresponding certified welder - but we don't have to make a new WPS!

The Inspector's comment / posiiton is that the welder must be certified to make up to the most extreme condition shown in the WPS. But that would mean we have to prepare different WPS for each welder! So he won't test the welders and approve production welding until these revised WPSs are submitted.

We have read carefully our contract and all of AWS D1.1 and believe our interpretation is correct, as we don't see anything that indicates otherwise. Our AWS certified inspector (third party) has the same interpretation. But we could be wrong...

I'll appreciate any comments and opinions on what should be the correct interpretation and dependency between the WPS and the welder's certifications.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 09-28-2013 22:15

May not be the hill you want to die on :)

But it couldn't hurt much to ask the objector to site the code references he is hanging his hat on, while at the same time being prepared to share your reasoning.. If possible with both of you face to face and the code book and contract between you .

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 09-28-2013 23:44 Edited 09-29-2013 00:20

WELCOME TO THE AWS WELDING FORUM!!

I agree with Lawrence on both points. You have to carefully pick your battles. This may not be one you want to get into at the beginning of the job.

Attitude and demeanor mean a lot when appealing to authority. Go into it as humbly as possible and ask questions. Leave your position out of it as best you can. Let them back themselves into a corner by asking very direct questions.

Now, it really doesn't take very long to write new WPS's. And, they don't need to be signed by a CWI. With the ones you already have it would be real quick and easy to write another one with lower thickness limits.

Are you welding on pipe? If not, the welder certified to pipe is also qualified for plate. You don't need a separate wps unless you will be doing some pipe welding.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By 803056

Date 09-29-2013 14:10 Edited 09-29-2013 14:21

Hello All;

I agree that one must pick their battles carefully, but there are times one must stand their ground.

Is this a battle worth fighting?

I guess I would write the new prequalified WPS to placate the on-site CWI, but I would send the testing lab an invoice for the time required to write it. I would cite the applicable clauses for D1.1 that the Owner's Engineer has the right to accept WPSs and welder qualifications. It is not the verification inspector's responsibility nor does he have the authority to reject welding documents approved by the Engineer. If the verification inspector perceives a problem with the welding documents it is the verification inspector’s responsibility to inform the Engineer of the deficiencies, but it is the Engineer's responsibility to either accept the contractor’s documents as submitted or to request revisions.

It would appear this project has a CWI with a "God Complex." He believes he has more authority than is granted by the code. Both the inspector and his employer must understand the limits of their authority granted by AWS D1.1. Unless the project specification or the statement of special inspections assigns or delegates additional responsibility to the verification inspector, the code limits what the verification inspector can do. It may be beneficial for both the lab and the individual involved to read the first part of clause 6 carefully. A hefty invoice will give the laboratory and the inspector good reason to spend a little time rereading AWS D1.1. It is funny how loud and efficient money speaks and gets the full attention of the parties involved.

The verification inspector should inform the Engineer, the Owner, and the contractor of deficiencies found with the work or documentation provided by the contractor. It is the Engineer's responsibility to determine if the deficiencies can be used "as is" "as built", or if repairs or revisions are necessary. The verification inspector has very little authority granted under the auspices of AWS D1.1 to make demands on the contractor to address nonconforming work or documentation. It is the Engineer's responsibility to review and approve or reject non-conformances’ affecting work, product, or documentation.

This conversation is focused on the verification inspector's authority, but the conversation should also include the responsibilities and authority of the testing lab. Many states require the testing lab to employ a registered engineer that has the responsibility to review and stamp reports. I have seen situations where the laboratory's P.E. has accepted nonconforming work, authorized repairs of nonconforming work, etc. without passing the information through to the Engineer or the Owner. That is dicey practice to say the least. In one case the laboratory (their PE) and the contractor decided they didn't have to perform all the inspections required by the code or the statement of special inspections. That laboratory is no longer in business as a result of the PE's actions and the subsequent court case. The code does not grant the laboratory that authority.

Best regards - Al

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 09-29-2013 15:46

I agree 100% Al. My position was stated based upon the simple job of writing a new WPS. Also, the battle needs to be waged in the proper spirit and with the correct authority which is not the inspector but, as you stated, the engineer.

But to expedite the job I would not even get into it with the inspector at this point, but put everything in order on paper and send it to the engineer and who ever else will be effected by the added charges.

I guess I was also playing devils advocate a little... I wanted to see what the OP came back with to Lawrence and my first posts :evil:

Checking out the attitude, spirit, and willingness to proceed decently and in order to handle this by putting the inspector in the position of defending himself and lay everything else aside. It is very unnerving to some of those kinds when you come to them and say something like:

'I just don't see it. Can you show me in the code where you got this and how it applies to our situation? We are trying to get this right and even had other 'experts' help us and you say it isn't correct. But to get it right we need to see what is wrong and how to do it right. Show us please so we can get this going.'

Lay all the burden on them.

But, it must be done without arguing (at least at first) and without telling them how stupid they are. At least this is my procedure. It has served me well from both the fabricators position and the inspector's position. And you know me Al, I have more than once taken up the battle for contractors when other inspectors and/or engineers have made bone head calls about WPS's and WPQR's. Put my job as their on site representative on the line to stand on what I believed and help the contractor through the situation.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By 803056

Date 09-29-2013 23:56

I've been accused of practicing "Snow Shovel Diplomacy" before. Sometimes a snow shovel comes in handy to get through the boney little head.

What to do, what to do.

Al

By Joey

Date 09-30-2013 04:21

I think you should politely ask the Owner Inspector to issue a letter or instruction stating the cause of rejection. Since you have a third party CWI, let your third party to answer the letter. Ensure that your third party is competent and able to provide a good explanation to convince the Owner. I believe you cannot replace the Owner Inspector but your management are able to replace the third party if not effective.

~Joey~

By 803056

Date 10-16-2013 18:12

If the governing standard is AWS D1.1, the WPS could be prequalified and written to cover 1/8 inch minimum to unlimited thickness. The welder could then tested on 3/8 inch thick base metal, in which case the range of thickness qualified to is based on the thickness the welder used. In this case, if AWS D1.1 was the governing standard, the welder would only be qualified to a maximum of 3/4 inch.

If the governing document is still AWS D1.1 or even ASME Section IX, the WPS could be written to include both groove and fillet welds. The welder could use the WPS to weld a fillet break test. Even though the WPS is applicable to both groove and fillet welds, the welder would only be qualified fillet welds.

The WPS could be written to cover welds made in all positions. The welder could use the WPS to weld a grooved test plate in the flat position. The welder's qualification would only be valid for flat grooves and flat and horizontal fillet welds.

The WPS could be written to include structural shapes, plate, and tubulars. Yet, if the welder tests on plate in the vertical position, his qualifications will be limited in scope.

Best regards -Al

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 10-16-2013 19:05

The bottom line is: the welder is mostly limited by his/her Performance Qualification Report on the welding test taken instead of by the WPS. The WPS can cover many applications that the welder is not necessarily qualified to perform. The welder is then limited to weld ONLY the welds that they are qualified to regardless of what the WPS covers for work that can be accomplished.

The contractor/fabricator/erector is not required to write a WPS that only describes welds that the welder is qualified to weld. They are required to make sure the welders only weld the welds they are qualified to weld and are within the parameters of the WPS issued for the work at hand.

Just because the WPS is for unlimited thickness, there is nothing wrong with the welder with a limited thickness qualification welding those welds on the project that are within his qualification range.

Inspectors, regardless of rather they are in house, TPI, engineers reps, CWI or not, need to keep the Welder Performance Qualifications and the Welding Procedure Specifications separated from each other. They are two totally different animals with a very fine line of interaction.

Now, as to your first comment, the welder certified to the WPS already approved, Not Really. They are qualified to the WPQ standards in the Code. Their qualification covers them for most all of the welding to be performed under the WPS's established from the applicable code. But if a company wants to go over and above the code and qualify all the welders per each WPS they can. And, I give welders a written procedure when they take a test with me to see if they can indeed read one and set the right equipment up in the correct manner to meet all the limitations of the applicable code and wps. But, you can qualify a welder without using a WPS, just go by everything in Clause 4 of D1.1 under Performance Qualification.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By 803056

Date 10-16-2013 20:16

Hey Brent, maybe I'm doing something wrong. Maybe you can help me with my quandary.

I'm sitting here looking at AWS D1.1 clause 4.22. It says, "The welding personnel shall follow a WPS applicable to the qualification test required. All of the WPS essential variable limitations of 4.8 shall apply, in addition to the performance essential variables of 4.23." the remainder of the clause doesn't really address my concerns.

Based on the requirements of clause 4.22, it sounds to me as though the welder is required (the verb "shall" is used) to follow a WPS. I take that as meaning the WPS can be prequalified or one qualified by testing. The exception would be when the welder is qualifying the WPS and all the NDE and destructive tests specified by clause 4, Part B are accepted (reference clause 4.19.3).

What am I missing?

Best regards - Al

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 10-16-2013 22:21

I had to re-read my own post a couple of times. Didn't come out right. At least...I presume you are speaking of my last sentence?

What I meant was that you don't need a WPS that is specifically for a welding test as what I had just said I do when welders come to me. The shops I normally deal with have their own wps's already in place that the testing is done to as long as it is within all code specs for pre-approved WPS's and/or has a PQR that it is written off of.

I have one that they use when they come to me without any company WPS's supporting the test. But, you don't need MINE. You can have your own or the company you are working for can provide one.

Did I clear that up or just mess it up? Thanks for pointing out the inconsistency of my statement Al.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By 803056

Date 10-16-2013 22:30 Edited 10-17-2013 13:24

I thought you might have a trick or two up your sleeve that I wasn't aware of.

You have been known to pull a hat trick on occasion. Nothing wrong with that. :cool:

Best regards - Al

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 10-17-2013 01:07

And to complete the proper course of my mistake and the direction of the OP, the employer, when testing his own people, should already have a WPS in place and it was accepted by the EOR. Thus, the welders are tested in house to that WPS using either fillet weld test, if applicable, or bevel/Vee groove with backing test. And they can be tested to either limited or unlimited thickness within the process and operating parameters of the WPS. Depending upon what test they run and how the WPS is worded they are qualified to run at least some welds within the bounds of the WPS or All the welds that would be covered by that WPS.

So, you don't have to write up a WPS just for the test, since you already have one. Nor do you have to write up a WPS for each welder who may only be qualified to do part of the welds. That would be so screwball!! Can you imagine having welders who only did flat fillets, some horizontal and flat fillets, some who only did groove welds flat, some groove welds horizontal, some limited thickness, some unlimited thickness,...etc. You would have to have a dozen different WPS's to cover all the possible welder qualifications. Even for large companies, that would be just plain stupid. Then, the nightmare of being the TPI making sure the right person is welding within HIS own WPS and takes it with him when he changes location and machines. Plus, the added burden on the Engineer approving that many WPS's for a job.

There is an inspector out there who just plain does not have a clue. Stupid is as stupid does; and he is. That is the difference within the inspections circles between Certified vs Qualified. Qualified he is not.

Off soapbox quick. I'm getting in over my head. See what you did!

Have a Great Day, Brent

By 803056

Date 10-17-2013 14:07

The objective has been met. We have a good discussion going on the subject of WPSs!

Brent, you did an excellent job of explaining why the welder can be tested to a general WPS rather than to a specific WPS.

We aren't done yet. I prefer to test welders to a specific WPS specifically developed for testing. In reality, there are only six different performance tests if the discussion is limited to AWS D1.1. Who am I kidding? The contractor may decide to use any one of several base metal specifications, but that is not an essential variable if working within the parameters of D1.1. Likewise, the contractor may elect to use one of several different welding processes and any one of electrode classifications that is compatible with the process and base metal selected. That number of WPSs required multiplies quickly. However, that is why the contractor hires us. That is one of the functions of the CWI. That is to ensure the WPS is applicable to the task.

The reason I prefer a WPS developed specifically for qualifying the welder is to mitigate the possibility of confusing the welder. The specific WPS tells the welder exactly what must be done and what welding parameters are applicable. What's the bevel angle? Look at the sketch on the WPS. What's the root opening? Look at your WPS. What electrode diameter can I use? Look at your WPS. Can I use a weave bead or am I limited to stringer beads? Look at your WPS. A general WPS often is too all encompassing and at times confusing to the inexperienced welder who may be taking a performance test for the first time.

I have worked bridge projects where the Owner, i.e., a state DOT, insists on specific WPSs for every weld type, joint detail, and each project. The requirement applies to multiple projects that are constructed at the same time in the same facility. Each project has to have its own WPSs and supporting PQRs. You are correct in your statement that the number of WPSs can multiply rather quickly, but the goal is to reduce the potential of a welder making a mistake in the selection of the specific electrode type, range of welding parameters, etc. I look at it as job security and I understand the intention is to ensure someone within the organization has the technical competency in the welding craft to review the welding requirements and use due diligence to determine the best means of making the required weld. They do not want the welder making decisions on the fly. I look at it this way; the customer is purchasing a product and they are willing to pay handsomely to have it built to their specifications. Every contractor has the opportunity to quote the project and each must incorporate the cost of developing the WPSs employed. All the contractors know what is required. If they don't, they quote the job at their own peril.

You never know what direction these discussions with take.

Best regards – Al