The sequence of operations may be your problem.

Drop the factor of 1000 and all the fudge factors. I don't know where or how the inspector is deriving those factors. Do the math, get the answer in terms of J/inch. The number will be pretty impressive. Now divide by 1000 to get the answer in terms of kJ/inch.

We did a heat input post a few weeks ago, didn't we?

Best regards - Al

I suppose that Al did already make the fundamental point.
Likewise I'm sure that you are certainly right with what you say.

Not having the second sight I'm afraid to be unable to understand why the inspector's dealing this way with this subject.
One explanation, to me, might be that he's trying to set some meaningful (whatever that is) frame of minimum and maximum points for those values required to compute "heat input".

Not aware which GMAW principle you employ - CV or pulsed GMAW(?) - maybe the inspector does set these values to cover the dynamics of the latter. To be honest, however, the values themselve nonetheless appear quite arbitrary to me or generalising rather, based perhaps on his own made experience.

GMAW-P, as well as low power constant voltage process modes, e.g. short arc, interrupted in their (arc) regularity by short circuits or similar 'perturbations' are hardly calculable using the "regular heat input" approach. But continuing this here would certainly end up in a philosophical discussion.

Anyway, I suggest to have gained some experience in scientific "arc measurement" methodologies.
From that I dare to claim that - almost - everything in (arc) welding depends on statisitics or average values - simply because of being highly dynamic or non-linear. And, in my experience, the higher the data output accuracy requirements to meet the "worse" (i.e. complex) it gets to represent reality.

That being said and necessarily confessing to have absolutely no experience with producing WPS's complying with AWS (US) codes; I nonetheless cannot see some real contradiction between yours or Al's opinion and the inspector's one. At least near to the bottom line.

Actually, the inspector is doing nothing different than yourself, see the embedded image.
However, assuming that you're employing a CV mode (spray transfer?) while assuring your contact tube to work distance (CTWD) to remain constant, then, the inspector should provide arguments for his approach. Then, in my opinion, the noise measurable along the distance welded per minute should prove negligible. I.e. your process conditions should prove virtually stationary or "constant".

On the other hand. If you're employing spray transfer and your welding sequence is joined by tangible CTWD variation then, as frequently discussed on this forum, some measurable variation in current is likely to occur which again may affect "heat input". Then however, these variations shall need specific quantification before putting them as factors in your WPS.

Hence, if the inspectors is relating to average values (as in the JPEG embedded), then he could easily follow your approach, because of representing even these average values between minimum and maximum.

In my opinion there are - at least - 3 different options left hence, finally:

1. You're using CV spray mode maintaining CTWD and travel speed constant through welding. Thus no minima/maxima in voltage, current and travel speed are expectable, hence the 'regular' approach appears reasonable or justifiable.

2. You're using CV spray transfer mode and variations occur during the welding sequence in current, voltage and travel speed. Then - according to your inspector - these variations should fit in the frame determined by himself. Otherwise, they would require accurate evaluation before stating them as correlation factors in your WPS.

3. You're using GMAW-P. Then, in my eyes, neither the 'regular' nor the inspector's mathematical approach would point you towards reasonable and reliable "heat input" values.

Difficult to advise anything here to cut the Gordian knot, but maybe you could show the inspector that - actually - you and him are on the same page of the same book, having a "different" approach though to read it.

Otherwise I would suggest the inspector should prove on where these specific values do come from. And if both he really stands his ground on this and in case of employing CV spray transfer, well, then he should sign his name under the assurance that (explicitly for his 2nd approach) 261 Ampere and 18.6 V at simultaneously increased travel speed will lead to the same results vs. those values set by yourself. 

I'm not sure wether all that can contribute in answering your question(s) or whether I am simply missing something fundamental here. If so, I'm always more than willing to learn and being corrected is not as bad as it maybe sounds.

Anyway, quite interesting thread and I would be glad if you could finally share the subject's outcome.

Exactly who does this inspector work for? Is there some contract influence? This isn't passing the smell test.

Is this fellow a CWI by any chance?

There are methods of handling CWIs that like to make up their own rules.

Al

Woody,

I'm with Al here, at least I think so. 

If he is saying his is coming from the code, and you are saying yours is from the code, there is a pretty easy and obvious way to show all parties concerned who is right.  Open up the code and show them what you are going by.  Not just on paper, use that code book that he SAYS his formula comes from. 

Just my two tin pennies worth.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day,  Brent

Richard;

Thank you again for posting this interesting subject and sharing the "final" status.
As you say: "...this was the second time this issue has come up in the past 5 years."
I'm afraid that issues similar to yours may occur even more frequently in the future.
There's a load of confusion noticeable when it comes to "heat input" and its "correct" meaning and interpretation.
At least in my experience, and as long as not linked to a any specific code.
To my knowledge even ISO has - understandably - lost the overview meanwhile and right now is devoting effort to achieve reliable clarification.

By the way, and no harm intended here in any respect, but Lincoln itself is not entirely innocent in causing this confusion.

Regards.