To add to the confusion is the fact that we weld to several different welding standards, each with their own requirements.
Not all inspectors, engineers, welders, ....., are created equal. Depending on their experience, each has different acquired knowledge about the particular welding standard they work with. In some cases that knowledge is tribal, meaning that the individual involved never bothers to actually look up the requirements. Instead, they depend on someone telling them what the code requires.
Codes and standards are without a doubt expensive, but one must have access to them and study them to know what is actually required. If one expects to work in the industry as an independent, whether it is as an inspector working in the field or someone that is testing welders in a lab, they have to purchase or steal a copy of the relevant standards. This can get very expensive very quickly especially if working to AMSE B&PV code. Section IX is not a stand alone document. One must review the applicable construction code to see if additional requirements or restrictions have been invoked.
I will take issue with Brent regarding the need for a specific WPS for qualifying welders when working with AWS D1.X structural welding codes and others. Most of the welding standards used by industry requires the welder to follow a WPS when qualifying. However, it can be a WPS used for production welds as long as it covers the variables needed to weld the test coupon. Having said that, I, like Brent, typically have a WPS specifically for the performance test being administered. It reduces the chance the welder will misunderstand what is required. I am in favor of telling the welder exactly what to do, what he can or cannot do while testing, and what the acceptance criteria is. I review everything with the welder before the first arc is struck. There should be no surprises. But, the question wasn't how to organize a testing program.
Back to the question, the welder, once qualified to a particular WPS is qualified for a range of WPSs used for different production work. For instance, ASME Section IX allows a welder qualified on carbon steel using the GTAW process to weld carbon steel, high strength low alloy steel, stainless steel, some copper nickel alloys, and nickel alloys as long as the F number of the filler metal isn't changed. In short the welder is qualified to weld with several WPSs that includes the base metals I listed. Since the P number of the base metal is an essential variable, each of the base metal groups having a different P number will most likely have separate WPSs. If the process is changed to GMAW, all bets are off because the welding process is an essential variable for both welder qualification as well as the WPS.
Best regards - Al
And you did not really take issue with me Al. That needed to be clarified a little because of the way I had worded it. I'm with you on that, but my point was that one was indeed needed for the welding test. That does not mean it is useless anywhere else. I usually give a welder or the company having him tested a copy of the WPS that is used for his test. They can add it to their file of WPS's for use on jobs but no matter what, they now have at least the one the welder tested to and can send a copy to any inspector, agency, or use it in house to test welders to or... use a different one if they so desire.
My post is not intended to mean that all of those WPS's are totally different from each other in their content. They can be different, but they can also be identical as to content/requirements.
My WPS for testing welders is pretty much identical to one I have on file for my shop and field usage as far as SMAW work goes. The object is that there is one as per D1.1 code requirements (As stated by Al as well, and he is more thourough and precise in his wording).
All I meant was, as to application there are three separate categories of WPS's. The problems come when we start crossing those lines without knowing what the boundaries are as to the purpose for the WPS in use. Especially within the areas of Welder Performance and WPQR's. In this forum we often see people asking questions from Clause 4 when they should have been in Clause 3 and visa versa. And also within many of the sub-clauses. We must be very careful in how we are examining any part of the text to make sure it applies in all it's parts.
Have a Great Day, Brent
My third party inspector has brought up 4.22 to reinforce his stand.
Brent, I believe your statement will help me straighten this out.
I like the way you made the separation of the purpose of the 3 WPS's. I see WPS's can be the same, but the application is different.
Kelly
Kelly,
Clause 4 contains the requirements for both welder performance testing and qualifying a welding procedure. The tables and figures within this clause often confuse a good many inspectors. Even seasoned inspectors will occasionally get their wires crossed in there. That is where a good many will try to set boundaries that do not exist, they are applying the wrong table to the application at hand.
I believe this may be part of your problem with your original question. The TPI is attempting to put limits on the welder that would apply to a welder when qualifying a PQR. Those will have exact voltage, amperage, wire size, wire manufacturer, and much more. And, in production, your working WPS is limited to a tight range of variation from what was qualified. If you change the parameters beyond those, you must qualify a new procedure and then any welder working to that must also requalify. Thus, if you had a PQR for a special project and the wire was run with .045, I would agree, to use a .065 a new PQR would need to be qualified and the welder running the test coupons is automatically qualified when it is successfully run. If I were the customer, I would want to see that any other welder working my job could also pass that precise test with the larger wire.
But in everyday normal pre-qualified WPS production that is not necessary.
Have a Great Day, Brent
Brent, as you noted, I didn't say you were wrong, I simply thought a little clarification was in order.
We wouldn't want anyone to start thinking you and I were one and the same person using two different pen names would we?
Best regards - Al
Not much worries about that
. Everyone knows I'm the young handsome one
.
Have a Great Day, Brent
I have to yield on those points.
Best regards - Al
