1" unlimited thickness qualification

Date 07-11-2015 15:04

Brent, you and I are on common ground on many subjects relating to welder qualification and other subjects relating to welding. I agree that the cost of qualifying a welder should not break the bank. Welder qualification on a project by project basis is the best means of separating the half-assed welders from the real welders. The cost of qualification is a fraction of the cost of repairing a connection on a project when one considers the cost of preparing the joint, welding the joint, inspecting the completed weld, determining if it is better leave the weld "as is" or to remove and reweld the connection, removing the weld, preparing the joint a second time, welding it a second time, and reinspection the weld a second time. This doesn't consider the consequences of repeating the process a third time!

As for accepting previous qualification, that is the Engineer's responsibility. When asked, I review the documentation to see if it correct. If it is incorrect, for any reason, I have no choice other than to question whether there are other inconsistencies in the performance test that I may never know.

As for ATFs, I have never accepted the certification cards currently issued by AWS. They are incomplete. They do not even list whether the welder used backing or whether the weld was made without backing. It will be worse is the new QC47 ever sees the light of day.

Cost, if one thinks welder qualification is expensive now, "you ain't seen nothing yet."

I also agree that the Engineer/Owner can impose any restrictions or requirements they see fit to impose as long as they are included in the project specification or request for quotation. The contractor is entitled to recoup any costs for welder qualification that are not addressed in the project specification.

I have no problem with a third party looking over my shoulder, but they better be able to back up their concerns or position based on provisions included in the project specification or on code requirements.

Gotta go.

Best regards - Al

By aevald

Date 07-11-2015 22:50

Hello Brent, I know, "took awhile" to respond to what you have posted here. Upon reading your post and those of others, I have a bit more to include, although much of it may have already been said under different phrasing. When I test welders for the WABO certification process I am directed to limit my testing to the methods and layout for testing that WABO has determined to be representative of their position relative to code requirements. There is a bit of wiggle room within their specifications (and sometimes a lot) and as well AWS, ASME, and a host of others offer varying degrees of latitude as well.

Due to these parameters, I test welders and determine whether or not they will receive a certification card based on the achievement of a "minimum" level of performance. Some of these folks are absolutely amazing with the skills that they demonstrate, others are absolutely at the "minimum" level. I CANNOT differentiate these levels in the certifications that they receive through our process. The paperwork that I forward to WABO does contain very small areas in it where you could assess differences, yet these really mean very little outside of that. If you are an employer and a perspective employee shows up with one of our cards there is no way to tell from which end of the spectrum they come. So to me, that is the justification for the "NEED" to perform additional in-house testing prior to hiring or employing these individuals on the job.

Some of the discussions that I have read in this thread essentially reinforce the simple facts that once actual work is being performed that the parameters for welder performance can vary widely and often due to contract imposed additional requirements. I also believe that a "certified" welder is not always properly qualified to perform the work. So what's the answer? that's likely the $1,000,000 question here.

Any sort of training, education, certification, that is done anywhere will always be suspect of it's completeness, rigor, content, and any number of other things. Geographical location, area industry, and any number of other things can also influence the opinions of the fitness of a certification and whether it will meet the requirements/needs for a particular skill set or application.

One area where I do feel that some positive progress has been made has to do with the application of FCAW certifications and how they apply to FCAW-S and FCAW-G welding processes. Many codes allow for qualification with FCAW-G to work for both gas-shielded and self-shielded processes or vice-a-versa, they also include the allowed use of any tubular wire designation. Seismic applications of Flux-cored wires has changed some of that a bit, at least in field applications. If your responsibility as a welder is going to include the welding of seismic connections or other components of a bridge or building that fall under seismic code requirements and if the process used will be a self-shielded flux-cored wire you will be qualifying with that exact combination. I believe that the specificity of this is important and likely a similar approach should be included in a number of other cases that are around.

Well enough of my rambling, look forward to other opinions and conversations. Best regards, Allan

By 803056

Date 07-11-2015 23:30

Ramblings, rants, call it what you may, it is all good stuff.

As a CWI, welding consultant, engineer, etc. one must keep in mind that we are often the person others depend on to make sure the job is done correctly and efficiently. The CWI is often the Engineer's eyes on the job. CWIs are not the enforcers, but act through the Engineer, exercising their responsibility to make sure the contractor meets the requirements of the design, project specifications, and the applicable code.

The welder performance qualification is there welder's opportunity to demonstrate his or her skills and ability to produce a sound weld by following a WPS. The WPS must be valid, i.e., it must be capable of producing the mechanical properties. The welder is expected to follow the WPS. The CWI is expected to verify the welded coupon meets the minimum requirements of the applicable code. If the coupon passes the requisite test regiment, the welder is "qualified" as able to meet the minimum weld quality specified by the code.

Having said all this, it is still incumbent on the employer or the Owner to take what ever additional steps deemed necessary to protect their interests and to ensure the quality standard is met. If the Owner deems it is necessary to test welders on-site, it is fair and reasonable as long as the requirement is incorporated into the project specifications. If the employer feels it is prudent to test new hires, whether or not they have been previously qualified, it is the employer's prerogative.

I hire tradesmen that can produce documented evidence they have passed a qualification test previously, but I always test them before turning them loose on my projects. Yes, there is some grumbling, but I do weed out those individuals that have weak skills. Where necessary, I do train the welders before testing them. On a recent project where I used FCAW-G in all positions, each welder (previously qualified using FCAW) was offered an opportunity to be "trained" using the specific FCAW electrode, following my WPS and then tested. Of the 43 welders, 37 passed, but only 24 were actually put to work as welders. The remaining welders were used in supporting rolls. We installed roughly 30,000 pounds of one inch thick steel plate and deposited in excess of 3500 pounds of weld in ten days. Every weld layer of the CJP groove welds were tested using MT. There where no cut-outs required. The welders were well qualified for the work and the results spoke for it's self. At a cost of 1.5 million dollars a day in lost revenue (while the machine was down for repairs), the cost of rejected welds and rework was simply not tolerable. The cost of training and qualifying the welders on-site was well worth the time and money spent. It was much less than the cost of one lost production due to a delay caused by a rejected weld that would have been excavated, rewelded, and reinspected. In short, the cost benefit of the additional training each welder received to ensure they understood what was required, the elimination of costly repairs, and eliminating the "welder wannabes" paid off handsomely.

Best regards - Al

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 07-12-2015 01:01

I sure wish more employers would see the value of that and trust our judgement (once said trust is earned of course, such as yours) to help them implement such systems. It is interesting how many see us as the enemy instead of part of a team that when properly utilized improves profits and productivity, not to mention the end product safety factors for whatever it's intended function.

Brent

By Cumminsguy71 (*****)

Date 07-16-2015 10:43 Edited 07-16-2015 10:53

"You must use their chosen lab no matter how much it costs."

I couldn't agree more. Price gouging, something we all have witnessed at the gas pumps or other places. Some of us are not million dollar companies and when comparing an AWS accredited facilities price with the "clients chosen lab" there is a substantial difference in cost, not to mention other expenses to get to the chosen facility.

I am currently dealing with a situation that calls this "specific lab" out. My AWS paperwork is only good for starting fires or wiping my backside. However, an accredited AWS facility near my house, several hours, is not capable or acceptable in their eyes. I do not know this facility from Adam but AWS recognizes it as a trusted testing facility to monitor the tests and perform the tests to the letter of the code and procedures. The only difference is the cost of the test and the loss of income to the "chosen lab". If any accredited testing facility was acceptable I could see how not being able to test every welder in the country in this particular field would hurt their bottom line. To me that is a little suspicious, maybe it's just me but can't help but think that the client has a brother in law or some other relation that owns the lab. That's just my conspiracy theory side kicking into action though.

When I am on a jobsite and the inspector asks for my paperwork I hand them WPS and WQT which I carry in the truck at all times. During my recent education my file is going to get a little thicker apparently. I've had inspectors on jobs watch me for awhile to make sure I actually knew what I was doing but in three years every inspector has walked up on the job, said, "looking at the welds here I don't think there is going to be a problem".

In what I am doing the only way to weed out the "burn it out with 6010 downhill" guys and the "just burn out the galvy" guys is to go out on the job and catch them doing it then throw their arse off the job forever. Retesting a guy to your identical prequalified procedures in your "selected lab" will not guarantee that the guy who does not want to grind will not be using 6010's to "burn it out". It will also not prove that they can weld, to some extent, and will not prove they have any ethics to follow the notes in the engineered prints. Testing a half arse welder in a shop and he is trying his hardest to put down the weld to pass. Get them back out in the field and a s__t welder is still a s__t welder.

I'm the guy some contractors probably don't like but they do like that I pass every time. I carry my cordless grinder and if the galvy is not removed properly or at all I grind it as the engineer has specified. I don't carry a rod sack full of 6010's because that rod is not allowed on these jobs for one and second, not buying the whole "burn it out" theory.

Because I don't have the $2500-6000 laying around to pay for these prequalified procedures and tests at the elite lab, which would only cost me $500, a tank of diesel and one day of down time to test I'm sure I am being black balled as the guy who can't pass the tests. I have passed two 3g's and a 4g in the last three weeks at an accredited facility I have never been to before.

I was told by a representative of the owning company that "we're looking for guys like you that take pride in your work" but apparently this is not the case because I'm just one guy, a micro company without a huge budget and the cost of the basic simpleton tests versus the annual income from actually working on their equipment is not cost effective for my company.

I have heard it all, guys tell me they run downhill with the FCAW, they don't grind and "burn out" the galvy, run downhill with the FCAW for smaller welds cause it's faster and a host of other things. I tend to stick to the do it right, uphill only as specified but here I am, "looked out" over excessive costs. A simpler solution would be to actually have somebody on jobs to monitor that things were being welded properly during the actual work but I'm just a dumb welder/mechanic. Cost, yeah, it would cost but testing at the special lab paying for the owners new Ferrari and beach house will not ensure that the guy running FCAW downhill, burning thru galvy is going to stop because he was tested by your elite testing facility.

My apologies, think I touched on some of the content posted by others but do believe I have gone off on a slight rant!

Shawn

By 803056

Date 07-16-2015 13:38

The owner has the right to specify anything he feels is appropriate to ensure his quality standards are met. All's fair if you were informed of the situation when you quoted the project. As long as it is a level playing field, that is, as long as everyone has to test at the "approved", there is little reason to complain. Your pricing should include the cost of retesting to the customer's specific requirements.

As for accepting the tests administered by an ATF, I wouldn't accept them either. The ATF may meet the specific code such as D1.1, but they probably let the welder grind every weld bead deposited. After all, grinding isn't prohibited by D1.1. One bead deposited, grind half of it out and deposit the next, grind out half and continue. I've taken plenty of tests as a welder where that was exactly how they passed their test. Sorry, that is the fella I would rather see on someone else's job, not mine.

Based on twenty plus years as a welder, I always include a requirement that the welder test on the job site (if possible) so I can see if he has the skills and work ethic I need to ensure the welding is proper.

Good luck my friend. I feel your pain, but I understand the customer's concerns. As for using the testing lab specified, I also understand that. Pricing, can't say much about that, but I know I'm going to make a day's pay when I'm testing a welder. I don't know too many operators that work for $200 or $300 per day. It doesn't matter to me whether I'm testing a welder or consulting for a Fortune 500 corporation, I have bills to pay just like anyone else. I don't do it as a "nonprofit."

Best regards - Al

By Cumminsguy71 (*****)

Date 07-16-2015 14:50

That's what I figured Al. Just had to vent. Oh definitely. I do these tests and they might as well bend the heck over cause I've got a Louisville slugger fixin' to plunge deep. Hourly is going up, daily and bids will all skyrocket uncontrollably. :grin:

Probably just throw out stupid numbers off the top of my head!! Ok, just kidding on that but there will definitely be increases.

Quoted several and was unaware of the new standards until a few weeks ago, this just a few weeks before it was implemented. Don't think I'm one of the guys in the loop for some reason, but always seems to be like that. First to show, last to know.

I understand what you're saying about testing on the jobsite but we have inspectors show up for "Precon" meetings then the afore mentioned "hacks" weld like they are supposed to. Once all the official folks have fled the heat or cold, it's game on sort of speak.

I hope for the best in their attempts but have a feeling they are peeing up a rope.

By 803056

Date 07-16-2015 15:13 Edited 07-16-2015 20:02

Like I said, I feel your pain and understand what you are up against.

You have the basic paperwork in hand, so, include a line item in your quote for additional testing required by the customer.

I have no problem reimbursing the cost of testing if the welder has paperwork that is correct and proper. That includes a means of documenting continuity. If the paperwork is correct, it is a good indication the company that tested the welder have their ducks in arrow and there is a good probability the test was conducted properly. If the paperwork indicates the joint detail used was a B-U2a I know the lab has their head up their butt and is clueless. The paperwork is rightfully rejected.

Anyway, I know what you are up against, but at the same time you can appreciate the Owner is simply attempting to separate the wannabees from the real McCoys.

Best regards - Al

By Cumminsguy71 (*****)

Date 07-16-2015 19:59

Are you a clairvoyant? B-U2a joint designation called out on wps. Will have to investigate and see if I can figure out what that is now!

Oh yeah, I'm with the owner. I've seen things that would make your toes curl and you just think, wtf?? I just can't bring myself to do some of the things. Guess I just keep thinking I'll get caught and have to reweld or not get paid. Besides, doing it right the first time is so much easier and reliable. Besides that, they are paying for it to be done right so why not proceed that way.

Thanks for the input Al!

By 803056

Date 07-16-2015 20:16

If you think about it, the Owner is ensure folks like you do the work and the "wannabees" are given the bum's rush before they get on to the job site. Once on the job, there is still a third party inspector overseeing the work.

I can't disagree with your position that there are those individuals that are only interested in the paycheck and do whatever they think they can get away with when no one is looking. They are usually destined to a short career. They are discovered sooner or later.

As one of my foremen told me years ago, "Son, your reputation gets to the job site long before you do. Your reputation is all you have in this business. No one can destroy your reputation faster than you can, so do what you can to protect it."

I did my best to do every job like my family's lives depended on my welds. It meant that I had to go head to head with a few foremen, but I tried to do in a way that gave them a graceful way out. Nothing shortens the job like committing job suicide by making the foremen look like a fool. It must of worked because I was rarely out of work and when I was, it was usually for a very short time.

Best regards - Al

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 07-17-2015 01:36

Just for the record, this goes back to my hijack a few posts back and they are really Johnny come lately about telling everyone what their expectations and requirements are especially the part about the CWI's needing to inspect BEYOND D1.1 Table 6.1 acceptance/rejection criteria but it isn't in the welding or inspection drawings, notes, contract documents. They are having meetings with those who want to be on their lists for welders, inspectors, and other trades and telling them verbally but it has not shown up in writing anywhere.

You might want to check your insurance as well. Some of these companies are wanting $2mil + another $2mil umbrella on gen liab, workers comp, job site hired auto, and for us Prof Services. Kinda spendy but we'll see. I'll be cutting it back if the additional work doesn't pan out.

It was an interesting meeting with all the CWI's present telling them they could not be expected to just tell welders to correct a weld because they didn't like the looks of it. There has to be some form of standard for everyone to follow or it is just so much TP like Shawn's weld certs. :lol:

Gotta go.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

By Cumminsguy71 (*****)

Date 07-17-2015 10:30

That's interesting Brent. You're right, have to have some guidelines. One inspector might look at it and his idea of "looks bad" might be different then another guys. An inspector straight out of college might look at a weld at 300 feet for example and since he has never struck an arc in his life does not know what is involved while hanging from the seat of your britches with 20mph winds. Whereas an inspector with 20 years under his belt, a welder of days gone by would recognize the location, the objects in the way, wind speeds etc. Leaving it to their discretion without guidelines would muddy the waters it seems.

If that were the case I would be a complete a-hole. I've seen things that would make your toes curl on looks alone, as we all have, but when I think about what the code allows I think to myself, no undercut, consistent....ok, consistently ugly but as Superflux said, "pretty is not part of the code". I checked out one for a client, unofficially of course and the guy had small pinholes. According to D1.1 he was ok but told the client I was no CWI and just going from what I read. I would have ground it out and fixed it myself.

Seems like it would have to be in writing somewhere. Verbally it don't seem like it would hold water but if you didn't hold to it then you're off the job. If you're not telling the contractors about it and they are using D1.1 as the guidelines then they are being set up for disaster. I work with several clients that pay to have an inspector come out and look at the welds before the official final inspection. If the inspector they hire is going by D1.1 criteria and passes everything then say you come out using the secret handshake inspection method then they could fail. Causing the inspector the contractor hired to look bad because he was going by the set standards.

At least the CWI's stood up and said how they felt! I don't like how it looks is also not in D1.1, not that I've seen. If I get hit on something I always ask why. Rare but it happens to us all. I don't want to come off as an a-hole to the inspector but always curious but I usually don't let on that I have no life and read the code book either.

Jeez, I wouldn't mind running into some of you guys somewhere, I bet we could babble on for hours about stuff!!

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 10-06-2015 01:16

Now that I'm back in the routine, I was probably pretty close to you in our recent trip Shaun. Just didn't have time in the schedule to add in any more stops. And my wife was patient enough with the business part of this working vacation. I would not have been wise to add more business. Darrell and I made lots of contacts.

We just came through the whole Gulf region, up the east coast to northern VA, then across to IN after getting as far north as OH, then back west and south to AZ. Arkansas and Tennessee were the only states that got missed coming through this time. 17 states and 3 of them twice; TX, NM, and AZ. And, we were out of country for 3 days (not Cuba nor Mexico). Have to take all possibilities into account when trying to keep busy. John's making me jealous with all his exotic adventures. Good thing we all had our passports with us.

Anyway, enough of this hijack. Sorry I didn't have time to meet up.

Brent

By Cumminsguy71 (*****)

Date 10-06-2015 14:55

That's cool Brent. I was out near you a month or two ago in Utah, New Mexico and practically drove thru Stan's front yard in Oklahoma and didn't have a chance to stop and see him either. Think I could have spit and hit his house!! Scheduling and time caused me to miss both.

By Cumminsguy71 (*****)

Date 07-17-2015 10:04

All valid points Al and I do agree with the owner. Nothing chaps my backside more than going out there and putting down some fine looking welds and the other guy's welds look like he is strung out on wacky weed, had to many beers and has epilepsy to boot. What's a guy supposed to do about that though. I've got my work to contend with, have my business to run after burning rod all day, my bills to pay, work to schedule so I can't be the policeman for the hacks of the welding industry.

Further conversations and it looks more like an approved welders list. Not actually anything to do with AWS WPS and WQT's. That is more understandable than actually retesting for AWS again. Now I just have to figure out one more thing. A client offered to pay for the testing but I don't know if this would transfer between clients. In the AWS world that's a big no, but this is just a list of welders so not sure. If not I have worked the cost down to around $1000 by just doing FCAW. So, a little more feasible. Just wish I knew about this 6 months ago, not three weeks ago!!

All is well, just do what you have to do I guess. Thank you for the input, always good to have level headed folks to chat with while the Irish blood cools down!!

By KBNY

Date 10-01-2015 15:02

Hello,

I read through this forum a lot and generally follow along pretty easily. I was tripped up by your comment...

"If the paperwork indicates the joint detail used was a B-U2a I know the lab has their head up their butt and is clueless. The paperwork is rightfully rejected."

I'm confused about this. I've always thought it was proper to reference the prequalified joint when writing up a prequalified WPS. Could you clarify what your statement is addressing?

Thank you,

kb

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 10-01-2015 16:30

I'll take a crack at this and say that the thrust is that performance qualification test assemblies need to be based on the drawings found in clause four and nothing else.

Any old prequalified joint cannot be used for "performance" qualification testing.

By KBNY

Date 10-01-2015 17:22

Performance qualification testing still needs to follow a qualified welding procedure and the prequalified joint B-U2a could be used as a basis for performance testing.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 10-01-2015 23:55

The argument is that the test assemblies are the only test assemblies that shall be used for D1.1 performance qualification testing.

Where is you code validated justification to use B-U2a ?

By 803056

Date 10-02-2015 04:36

You are right on track Lawrence.

Most of the AWS' structural welding codes have standardized tests assemblies as depicted by the figures in the clauses dealing with qualification (the clause numbers do change from code to code). The test assemblies depicted may fall within the parameters of a prequalified groove detail, but the tolerances permitted by the prequalified grooves may not comply with the figures used for qualification. The qualification test specifies a root opening of 1/4 inch. There is no plus or minus as permitted by the prequalified joint detail. The groove angle is 45 degrees. Again, there is no plus or minus tolerance as permitted by the prequalified groove detail. So, the test record should record the specific figure listed (Figure 4.AB per AWS D1.1-2010 for example), not a prequalified groove detail.

How many times have we seen "D1.1" listed where a WPS is suppose to be listed? The last I looked, D1.1 was a code, not a WPS.

If the lab can't fill in the blanks of the test record properly, why would I expect them to conduct a valid welder's test?

As always, I am expressing my opinion. Others may disagree, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Best regards - Al

By KBNY

Date 10-05-2015 12:51

Ok... I understand citing the test figure in the WPS. Does that WPS need to be qualified by testing?

By KBNY

Date 10-05-2015 13:15

I have my test WPS's written as prequalified since the set up falls within the prequalified range. I do not apply the tolerances of the prequalified joint though. My confusion is the qualification of that test WPS. I've always referenced the prequalified joint because the test figure falls within the prequalified parameters.

If I'm citing the test figure, can I still have the WPS written as prequalified since it falls within a prequalified range?

By 803056

Date 10-05-2015 20:53

The WPS can be prequalified. You are correct that the figure may fall within the parameters of the prequalified joint detail, but the tolerances of the prequalified detail do not apply to the welder qualification.

Al

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 10-06-2015 01:01 Edited 10-06-2015 01:20

KBNY,

Since 4 of your first 5 posts are right here and you just signed up as a member of the forum:

WELCOME TO THE AWS WELDING FORUM!!

So, a little slow on the uptake here as I just got back from a 2 1/2 week working vacation, what an oxymoron.

Clauses 4 and 3 can be a little confusing. Especially when putting Welder Performance and Welding Procedures together in Clause 4. Make sure you take careful notice of the divisions as you go through the Clause.

Now, hopefully this will clarify a bit, you can test a welder to absolutely anything you want. BUT, to qualify your welders to D1.1 Clause 4 Part C, 4.19-4.33 which will take you to Tables 4.10 and 4.11 you will need to use Figures 4.21, 4.22, 4.32, 4.32, as directed from Table 4.11. (a couple of others are there but these are the main ones.)

These are the tests for welder qualification to be qualified TO AWS D1.1 specifications.

And, you need to have a WPS that the welder works to while qualifying that conforms to those Figures. And, it is a pre-qualified joint.

If one is not concerned about the technical aspect of being qualified to D1.1 then you can test your welders to any joint you wish in order to prove they can perform the work being required of them. BUT, this is normally done AFTER they are qualified to D1.1 Clause 4 using one of the Figures mentioned in Table 4.11 and the text of Clause 4. And YES, you need a WPS either way.

Normally, the WPS's conform to Clause 3 which shows how a WPS meets qualification as a Pre-Approved/Qualified procedure. If, your procedure does not meet the conditions of Clause 3 then it must first get tested using the PQR process in Clause 4 Part A, 4.2-4.18. Then, once the testing is complete and you have all the reports in hand you write your WPS from the PQR test results and you now have a WPS approved by testing.

Just because a joint meets the Prequalified conditions does not mean you can test your welders to it and then claim they are qualified to AWS D1.1. They must have been qualified through the Clause 4 Part B system.

So, test the welders to Clause 4 Table 4.11 first. This will have them testing to Figures 4.21,31,32,30, etc most often and others on occasion. Then, have them do any test you want to confirm ability to do your work. Use a WPS for this joint.

Next, get all your WPS's established using prequalified ones as much as possible from Clause 3 requirements.

Finally, get any approved by testing PQR's done that you need using Clause 4.2-4.28 and then write your WPS's from them. The welders really only need to be qualified to the original test per Clause 4. Then they can weld any joint that is prequalified or approved by testing. But, you can also test them to other joints to prove they can do it.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

By KBNY

Date 10-07-2015 13:27

Thank you so much for the warm welcome. And thank you Al and Brent for the clarifications.

Al, I see now I read your original comment the wrong way... You said it was incorrect for the joint designation to be listed as B-U2a, and I interpreted that as you saying the WPS could not be backed up by that joint detail. Set me into a panic that I may have misunderstood things all this time.

All good!

By ctacker (****)

Date 10-02-2015 04:02 Edited 10-02-2015 04:06

Performance qualification testing still needs to follow a qualified welding procedure and the prequalified joint B-U2a could be used as a basis for performance testing.

You can use B-U2a for the basis of performance qualification, but you would spend a lot more money qualifying it as a WPS. You would have to test it as a PQR.
Clause 4.2.2 & 4.19.3 clarifies it pretty good.

Carl