Welding Procedure Qualification Records documentation.

Date 11-12-2014 09:51

In reality, some contractor will say the test reports are no longer available, or missing. Some will say the PQR have the endorsment of TPI from ABS, DNV and why you can't trust them. But you as reviewer noticed the tensile strength values are too high for SA355 materials, :confused:

you start to imagine....was there a mistake in reporting the values, or was the mistake a mix up of test coupons? There are no redeeming clues or artifacts available to resolve this mystery, but the PQR certainly is invalid until the mystery is resolved :sad:

By 803056

Date 11-12-2014 14:31

Actually, the WPS as well as the PQR are invalid until the questions are found. How about any welders that were qualified to the WPS?

Until the PQR, WPS, and WPTRs are reconciled the entire house of cards are suspect. The PQR is the foundation of the welding program if the WPS is founded on the PQR (prequalified WPSs are clearly exempt). If the foundation is weak, the entire structure is weak an my eventually collapse if the PQR is "lost" or invalidated.

In the case of AWS D1.1, the ultimate responsibility for the review and approval lies at the feet of the Engineer. He/She may delegate that responsibility, but the Engineer is still the person that is responsible.

Best regards - Al

By Joey

Date 11-13-2014 01:03

When reviewing a Wellder performance qualification, items to check include:
a. Welders name and stamp number.
b. Welding process and type.
c. Identification of WPS used for welding test coupon.
d. Backing (if used).
e. P-number(s) of base metals joined.
f. Thickness of base metals and diameter if pipe.
g. Filler metal SFA number.
h. Filler metal F-number.
i. Consumable insert (if used).
j. Deposited thickness (for each process used).
k. Welding position of the coupon.
l. Vertical weld progression.
m. Backing gas used.
n. Metal transfer mode (if GMAW).
o. Weld current type/polarity (if GTAW).
p. If machine welded—refer to QW-484 for additional values required.
q. Guided bend test type and results, if used.
r. Visual examination results.
s. Additional requirements of the construction code.
t. Testing organization identification, signature, and date.
u. X-ray results if used.

Source : Inspector's handbook.

By 803056

Date 11-13-2014 02:37

The inspector's handbook is a good source of information, but one should always review the applicable code when reviewing welding documents. Each code defines the essential variables and nonessential variables. They differ from one code to the next.

Al

By Joey

Date 11-14-2014 02:09

How about any welders that were qualified to the WPS?

Is it relevant to find out if the PQR is valid or invalid during the time of welder performance test?
When you engage a TPI solely to qualify your welders, you may need not necessarily provide the PQR. WPS without the PQR is enough.
Even though the PQR was found to be invalid after the welder performance test is done, you can't automatically say that the welder test is also invalid unless there is a major changes made on WPS that applies essential variables.

By 803056

Date 11-14-2014 04:13 Edited 11-14-2014 04:22

I believe it is standard practice, i.e., a code requirement per ASME and AWS, to qualify the welder in accordance with a WPS. If the WPS is invalid, the welder performance test does not stand.

If the WPS is founded on a PQR that is invalid, the WPS does not stand. If the WPS is prequalified, but it is incorrect, the welder performance test is invalid.

How can one say that the WPS is valid if the PQR the WPS is founded on is incorrect or even falsified? Either the PQR is valid or it is not. It does not matter why the PQR is invalid. It could be that the F-number is recorded incorrectly. The A number recorded is incorrect. The contractor could have falsified the parameters that were recorded, i.e., the PQR was pencil whipped! Either the PQR is correct or it is not. If it is not, the WPS is invalidated. If the WPS is invalid, the welders qualified to that WPS are void as well.

Simplified, the arguments I have used in this response were the basis of a recent legal case that my client won. I showed the welder qualifications were invalid due to the errors they contained. My argument was that if the data entries were wrong, how could one accept the tests were administered properly? If the welder performance test reports were not correct, none of the welds complied with the code and thus none of the welds were acceptable per the building code.

The lawyer's next question was whether it would be permitted to test the welders after the fact.

My response was, "How many clients were you allowed to represent before you passed the Bar Exam?"

His response was, "Point taken. I'll advise my client to settle."

It is simple logic. The same logic used in high school geometry when one has to write a proof of a theorem. If a single step in the proof is wrong, the entire proof fails.

Best regards - Al

By Joey

Date 11-14-2014 05:27

But it is not always necessary that the welders must be qualified in accordance with any particular WPS before he/she can start the production welding.

There are many instances that the welders are qualified in one WPS but also qualified to weld using another WPS (e.g. welder qualified in carbon steel using GTAW also qualified for welding of stainless steel using the same process, Welder qualified using E7018 also qualified using E6013). In reality, the contractor may have already the qualified welders before qualifying the WPS.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 11-14-2014 05:05

Great points Al.

Joey,

While it is true you can take a welder's qualification test, pass, and then weld to most any WPS that the company hands you (in other words, you are not restricted to welding only to the same WPS you tested to) it is also true that you must test to a valid, code compliant written welding procedure to qualify as a welder. In order to be valid and code compliant it must meet all the code specified essential variables and conditions as lined out in the applicable code.

I can use a WPS that is pre-approved to qualify my welders, or I can use one from a PQR. But, if the one drawn up from a PQR turns out to be invalid because there is a mistake on either the PQR or the WPS then, as Al stated, the welder qualification is not valid.

For most of us, that wouldn't really be a big thing. I have so many qualification records/certifications in the same process but to different codes, WPS's, positions, etc that I am probably still good anyway, just not to the specific qualification that was tested at that time.

Hope I didn't muddy the waters. Just my two tin pennies worth.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

By Joey

Date 11-14-2014 05:37 Edited 11-14-2014 06:05

Brent

But you can retest your PQR to make it valid without revising the WPS, whicht was used during the welder performance test.

When conducting welder performance test, as a TPI you don’t care on whether the WPS given to you has a valid PQR. As far as you know, the WPS given to you is the approved WPS to be used as reference during the test. If the WPS need to amend to achieve passing results in PQR, then you have to consider reviewing the welder certificates issued earlier to find out on whether there are parameters affected by essential variables.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 11-14-2014 06:43

I'm going to answer this way, yes, but not always. It will depend upon several factors about a particular job and how the engineer specified welder qualifications, what they were qualified to, and what he approved for use on his job.

The WPS form has a space for the PQR number that the WPS is off of. If they don't work together, wps is outside the acceptable parameters of the PQR etc, then the
WPS is no good and any welder certs from it are no good.

Look, I gotta go. Midnight here and dealing with the issues in my other post is wearing on me. Not thinking very straight.

Brent

By 803056

Date 11-14-2014 14:12

Quite the contrary; if a new test plate is welded, the new PQR must be assigned a unique identifier, thus the WPS must be revised to reflect the new supporting PQR.

The PQR is not subject to revision once it has been reviewed and accepted. Up to the point of acceptance, it can be corrected, i.e., spelling, etc., but it cannot be modified by entering different welding parameters than those originally recorded.

I had an incident many years ago where my client was qualifying a procedure for aluminum. The shielding gas was suppose to be argon, but the welder used helium because he thought it was better. The welder bought in a tank of helium and hid it behind a column. The bottle of argon was place beside the welding machine for all to see. He adjusted the flow meter to the proper flow and had the inspector record it. However, the helium tank was connected to the welding machine without anyone's knowledge. The PQR was reviewed and approved for argon since it was the shielding gas recorded by the PQR. When the subterfuge was discovered, the WPS was voided, as were all the welder qualifications, and all the product completed using the falsified WPS.

I suppose one could argue the point the WPS was valid because it passed the requisite tests. However, one must consider the paper trail that would also have to be addressed. The WPS, the welder qualifications, the inspection reports indicating which WPS was used, the approval letters from the government agency that reviewed and approved the falsified documentation. The fact that it was a deliberate act of subterfuge, malfeasance, fraud, cannot be ignored.

The point must be made that even if it was an honest mistake nothing would change. The ramifications of the error would require that a new procedure be qualified, reviewed and approved, a new WPS would have been required, the welders would still have to be requalified, and the work completed would still have to be rejected and replaced. Consider; the PQR was not a valid (it was welded with helium) and WPS was no longer valid (it listed argon), the welders were qualified to a WPS that was not supported (they used argon), the work completed was welded using argon following a WPS that was not valid. The house of cards crumbles. Does it really matter that the PQR was falsified deliberately or if the incorrect entries were honest mistakes? The ramifications are the same.

The welder that took it upon himself to bring in the helium should have been fired, but being the owner's nephew he was saved from the noose. It was a deliberate act on the welder's part that should have been sufficient grounds to dismiss him. It cost the client dearly because the procedure had to be requalified, a new WPS developed, the welders had to be requalified, new product had to be manufactured, and the client had to go to his client and tell him what had happened.

The rules of the game are stringent for a reason and the repercussions can be severe.

In the event of a failure, where property is damaged or someone is injured, the repercussions can involve huge monetary awards for damages.

Best regards - Al

By Joey

Date 11-14-2014 16:11

If you recall, our story is to retest the PQR which found to be invalid. Why need to come out with a new unique reference no when the earlier PQR is consider null?
You need not to re qualify the welders just because you assigned a new unique identifier. You will only requalify the welder when there are major changes made in your WPS which are essential variables. Assigning a new unique PQR ref # is not essential variable.

By 803056

Date 11-14-2014 17:35

So, in short, you are taking the position that it is perfectly acceptable to qualify the welder to any WPS. The WPS need not be qualified, nor prequalified, nor correct. As long as there is a heading that states the piece of paper is a "WPS."

Interesting position. It isn't one that I can support, but then again, we often march to a different drums. In this case I venture to say the drum that is a little out of tune, but it is still a drum. No one says we have to agree on every subject.

Best regards - Al

By js55

Date 11-14-2014 18:34

There is a lot of gray in this discussion and to my knowledge the Codes do not address this issue. And I have always been of the opinion that if the Codes do not address it EXPLICITY, then it IS NOT a requirement.
Having said this perhaps there is a middle ground depending upon what your manual says and what is the cause of invalidity.
The approach I would take is to re-qualify the procedure, write it using the exact same variables. And then the new procedure could be the same as the old procedure. I would write an NCR to address the issue and disposition it as having re-qualified the procedure stating that none of the essential variables have been changed.
If you get into the idea that ALL of your welders have to be re-qualified you slip into what may be at best bankrupting, and at worst, impossible.
What if the WPS is 10 years old?
What if the welders are no longer employed?
What if they no longer exist?
Do you then invalidate every weld they made in the last 10 years and start cutting welds apart?
I will not dispute that re-qualifying welders is cleaner in appearance but I do not see that this is a requirement.
I do not know this for sure but somehow I suspect this very subject has come up in Code meetings and wisely left alone.

By 803056

Date 11-14-2014 21:58

I have been involved in a situation similar to the one you mention, i.e., the welder is no longer employed by the contractor.

The project was a new nuke plant and I was one of many welders that welded rebar to the embed plates used in the foundation. As it happened, the contractor didn't follow the testing protocol. The rebar was buried beneath several feet of concrete by the time the problem was discovered. The resolution was that all the welders involved had to be requalified by the contractor. Interestingly, the requalification took place a couple of years after the work was completed.

Unanswered is what would have been the resolution if one of the welders had passed away or refused to retake the performance test.

Life would be so much easier if one followed the rules.

Best regards - Al

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 11-15-2014 07:06

Was the plant Millstone unit 2 or 3 in Waterford, CT. by any chance?

By 803056

Date 11-15-2014 14:45

You guessed it.

Fortunately, none of the welders failed the test. We had to weld #18 bars to opposite sides of a plate. Then the assembly was pulled in a tensile testing machine.

Everyone passed the test before welding on the project, but we were suppose to take the test again after X number of welds were completed. Then the number of welds were doubled before we tested a third time. The number of welds doubled again before we were retested for the forth time. I believe it was the forth requalification test that was overlooked by the contractor. If you cannot pass the test after welding X^4 joints, you probably never would have passed the first test.

The train is getting up to speed and everything is shaking. Its tough to read the computer screen when it is shaking. I'm headed to Annapolis to teach a course this week. Its a six hour train ride, but it is about the same as a flight and about the same price. The view from track level is better than at 25,000 to 30.000 feet. I guess I can safely say my tea is shaken, not stirred.

Best regards - Al

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 11-15-2014 15:07

By js55

Date 11-17-2014 20:38

This is so true.

By Joey

Date 11-15-2014 15:35

So, in short, you are taking the position that it is perfectly acceptable to qualify the welder to any WPS. The WPS need not be qualified, nor prequalified, nor correct. As long as there is a heading that states the piece of paper is a "WPS."

Sir, to me as TPI merely engaged to qualify the welders, it is acceptable to qualify the welder to any WPS without PQR attached as long as this was given by the customers.

Previous Performance Qualification. Previous performance qualification tests of welders, welding
operators, and tack welders that are properly documented are acceptable with the approval of the Engineer.
The acceptability of performance qualification to other standards is the Engineer’s responsibility, to be exercised
based upon the specific structure, or service conditions, or both.

Sir, if you believe on the above statement, which is more important to you? 1) to review the welder certificate to ensure the data are applicable to the current WPS being used or
2) to review the old PQR to ensure the WPS used to qualify the welder is in order.

If the welder certificate is in order but the contractor could not produce the PQR of the WPS used during qualification test, will you reject the welder certificate? Please note that everything is in order complete with welder continuity records except that the PQR is missing.

By 803056

Date 11-15-2014 16:47 Edited 11-15-2014 21:49

It all depends on the defined scope of work.

If the task is to review the welding documentation (delegated by the Engineer or Owner), then my review includes all documentation including the supporting PQR (if not a prequalified WPS), the WPS, and the welder performance test reports.

As a TPI, if I am retained to qualify the welders, I do review the WPS and when a supporting PQR is listed by the WPS, I include it during my review.

If my task is solely to review the welder performance test record to verify it is complete and correct, my review is limited to that one document. However, I routinely request supporting documentation, i.e., the WPS to verify the welder was working within the listed variables. That being said, the review cannot be performed without reviewing the requirements of the applicable welding standard, project specification, and in some case, the applicable construction code (think ASME) to verify no additional restrictions have not been invoked (think B31.3 high pressure fluid service where RT evaluation of the welder's test coupon is not permitted).

My reviews may very well be more involved that what you are routinely required to do. I am usually called in after something has gone terribly wrong. I am usually preparing for legal proceedings and looking for weaknesses in the documentation. Even if I am not working on behalf of a lawyer, I approach every job, every report, and every test record with the thought that eventually I will have to present or defend it in court.

Cases can be lost when there are mistakes in the documentation. That is what I am hired to do; tear the opponent's paperwork apart to identify weaknesses or mistakes.

I make more than my share of mistakes, but I try to make an effort to eliminate as many mistakes as possible and I make an effort to ensure all the requirements of the welding standard, construction code, and project specification are met.

If I have caused you to be uncomfortable, I have succeeded in my efforts to cause you to take pause and consider whether you have performed your due diligence to ensure all the requirements of the code have been met. The complications that arise after a mishap are costly and time consuming to all the parties involved regardless of the major roll or minor part played in the project.

As I stated previously, a resent case was lost by the defendant because I was able to show the welders were not qualified to perform the work. The welders were qualified to AWS D1.1 using GMAW in the vertical position. Given the process was GMAW; the welders must have been using short circuiting transfer (pulsing – no listed on the test report) when they qualified in the vertical position. The WPTR did not list a WPS and when queried, the fabricator produced a WPS for fillet welds indicating the electrode was E70S-2, the shielding gas was 100% CO2, and the parameters were in the range expected for short circuiting transfer mode, but the WPS stated it was prequalified. The actual production welds had slag inclusions (no silicon island, but real honest to goodness slag inclusions extending from the weld face to the root). We have two serious issues, the misstatement that the WPS was prequalified and the welders were not qualified to use a welding process that utilized a flux shielding system. The short of it is that the welders were not qualified, the WPS was not prequalified and all the welds failed to meet the requirements of AWS D1.1. Crash and burn. The document review was done in stages, beginning with a review of the WPTR. The initial review resulted in more questions and requests for additional documentation. All of this was done during the discovery stage of the legal proceedings.

I didn't answer your question directly, so now I will attempt to do so. My review of the WPTR may lead to additional questions depending on the applicable construction code and welding process. When GMAW is involved, I check the WPS to verify the parameters and shielding gas are reasonable for the transfer mode listed. If the transfer mode is short circuiting, I do ask for the PQR to verify the WPS is properly qualified. I check the applicable construction code to see if the WPS is required to be qualified for notch toughness and PWHT. If the construction code is ASME B31.3 and the fluid service is "high pressure," I check to see that the contractor did qualify the WPS by testing (SWPS are not acceptable). While neither notch toughness or PWHT is an essential variable for welder qualification, the WPS must be valid if it is to be used for welder performance qualification. All the codes I've worked with requires the WPS to be qualified; either as a SWPS, a prequalified WPS, or a WPS that is qualified by testing. A procedure that has not meet one of the three conditions listed is not considered a WPS unless the applicable welding standard permits qualification via a mock up (recognized and utilized by the aerospace industry).

Best regards - Al

By Joey

Date 11-17-2014 02:55 Edited 11-17-2014 02:59

Al,

I’m lucky not to encounter such complicated situation like yours even though the places that I’ve worked are not so developed compare to your working place (US). The selection of contractors is a vital process in construction projects. Improper selection of contractor may lead to many problems during work progress that includes bad quality of work, progress delay etc.

A wise contractor will not bite to the request of TPI for review of so many documentations to get their old welder performance records accepted. Perhaps, they might ask for the checklist first and compromise later if they find the list of documents requested is excessive. Or they might opt to send the welders for requalification test instead of producing those very old documents that are no longer easy to get.

Your experience is uncommon here. Ours are not so extreme and so far we don’t have any catastrophic consequences related to welding inspection.

Thanks for sharing.

~Joey~

By 803056

Date 11-17-2014 04:20 Edited 11-17-2014 09:15

My very first job as a paid welding consultant involved a client that requested some welder training. The problem: 32 welders could not pass the welder qualification test. The solution: train all 32 welders to weld aluminum. My customer asked the question, "Can you weld aluminum?" My response: "Sure, that's all I've ever done."

Upon my arrival and after receiving instruction from my client, I set up the first welder to assess his skills. Was the problem one of welding technique, a failure to sufficiently preclean the base metal before welding, or was there a different problem? As one would suspect, there were several minor issues that needed to be addressed. First and foremost was the selection of the filler metal.

As the welder drew filler metal from the storage cabinet, I asked him why he was using that particular filler metal? He responded, "That's what our WPS calls for."

"No one is ever going to pass the required bend test using that combination of filler metal and base metal." I told him and at that point I stopped the test.

I proceeded to start asking their engineers a few questions starting with, "Where is your PQR that supports this WPS?"

"What is a PQR?" was the response.

The problem was not the cleaning or the welder's skill. It was the simple fact that they had never qualified the WPS by testing a sample to verify the filler metal and the base metal were compatible. Thus, the WPS was not valid. They could have saved themselves a lot of time and money had they qualified the WPS and of course to do that, they needed someone that understood the mechanics of developing a WPS.

Do I ask for the supporting PQR before beginning to test the welders? In short, "Absolutely." I take very little for granted. Until I see a supporting PQR (when it is required by the applicable welding standard), I suspect everything. All too often the welder is assumed to be deficient in welding skills when they fail to pass the test or their production welds fall short. Before I lay the problem at the welder's feet, I check the paper trail as part of the root cause analysis.

I've also encounter a similar problem with GMAW and FCAW. Contractors/fabricators are quick to blame the welder's skill set (or the lack there of) when the reject rate begins to climb. All too often I find that the parameters listed by the WPS are not supported by their PQR. The same can be true with the prequalified WPS, that is, the parameters are not consistent with the transfer mode specified or in the case of FCAW, they are not consistent with the manufacturer's recommendations. I don't assume the WPS is correct until I've reviewed it and verified the welding parameters are reasonable. In some cases I am forced to permit the welders to weld a few samples and show the client where the problem lies. Once the problem is verified a new WPS is developed and the problems melt away.

I was called in on one project where the reject rate was around 40%. The welding involved a high rise building with welded moment connections. Again the problem was identified by the contractor as "poor welder’s skills." I spent the first day watching the welders and I quickly noticed each welder was using different welding parameters. I also noticed that there was no WPS for the welders to use. Each welder used parameters that “felt good” to him.

The solution involved writing a WPS that listed a narrow range of welding parameters. I set the machines, retested the welders, used the parameters I set during production, and the reject rate dropped to less than 5% for the entire project (including the original 40% reject rate).

I just completed a repair job where I tested 43 welders. 37 of the welders passed using the parameters that I specified. Most of the welders had not used FCAW in any position other than flat, so each welder was “trained” and tested with the parameters that I preset. They were not allowed to adjust the machines. Likewise, once production started, the permitted range for voltage, wire feed speed, and electrode extension was very limited and the parameters were checked several times during each shift. The repair involved the installation of about 35,000 pounds of one inch thick plate and about 3000 pounds of weld deposit. Every weld layer was subjected to magnetic particle testing with no welds rejected. The installation of the plates and welding was completed using 24 welders in 11 days. The reason so many welders were qualified was to ensure that if a welder did not show up there was someone to take his place immediately. The ground crew (consisting of qualified welders) were responsible to change F.M. spools, gas cylinders, prepare the plates, hoisting, etc. The welding was performed in the horizontal, vertical, and overhead positions. From start to finish, including the training of the 43 welders, testing, and the actual welding took 26 days. Each welder had a copy of the WPS, which they posted next to where the welding was done.

The best compliment I heard was, “Finally, an inspector that can actually show me how to weld.”

Best regards - Al