WPS Woes

Date 04-15-2005 03:07

Donnie:
Ask the party who submitted this doc. where the provisions for this WPS apply in the Code and Specification.

I would not have recommended anything. I would straight up reject it per AWS D1.1:2004, 6.3.1.

By swnorris (****)

Date 04-15-2005 10:35

Hi Donnie,

I agree with you both. The GTAW process is approved per D1.1, but it is not a prequalified process. Stainless is not a prequalified base metal per D1.1. It should be an interesting answer when you ask what prequalified criteria in D1.1 the author referred to, when he deemed the WPS to be prequalified.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 04-15-2005 11:55

I too would like to see how they were planning to pull off this one as prequalified per D1.1.
John Wright

By CHGuilford (****)

Date 04-15-2005 21:33

Not that you need my input but I have to agree with all so far.
Sounds like the contractor is making the attempt to comply but hasn't read or understood the requirements.

Chet Guilford

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 04-17-2005 07:57

Hi Donnie!

It reads like they're trying to pull a fast one to me (just my opinion) by stating it's GTAW, prequalified and referring to both D1.1 & B2.1 in their WPS... You're Absolutely correct!!!

Like DGXL mentioned, just flat out reject it and explain to them why you did so with the appropriate documentation to support your decision.

Respectfully,
SSBN727
Run Silent... Run Deep!!!

By dlmann

Date 04-19-2005 18:23

Update: I appreciate the advice by all. Outages are very hetic as you know. This WPS was rejected with the comment “show where the provisions of the code are met”. The submitting contractor had used a third party to prepare this WPS. The third party justifies the WPS by saying B2.1-84 allows an employer to write a Specific WPS from the Standard WPS listed in B2.1, provided that the Standard WPS is referenced on the WPS (example: B2.1-1/8-227:2002) or is attached to the Specific WPS. The third party used Standard WPS B2.1-1/8-227:2002 to write the WPS submitted to us (copied it). I looked at B2.1-98 and did not see this provision. I was in a hurry so I may have missed it.

I do not think this is audit proof yet. Even if the Standard WPS is attached/referenced, it is still being touted as a pre-qualified WPS per AWS D1.1. I also do not think that the use of a Specific WPS is being applied properly. The contractor wants to use this as an all-purpose WPS to weld just about anything CS-SS. With all the effort to justify this by the third party, and the compliance standards we have to maintain, the contractor should just go ahead and procure a Standard WPS.

Regards, Donnie Mann

By DGXL

Date 04-19-2005 18:49

Donnie:
1.) What is the nature of the weld in question?
(Is the criteria D1.1 or B2.1?)

2.) If B2.1, the specification does allow the use of "Standard WPS's" provided someone from the company using the SWPS accepts responsibility by signing and dating these records.
(B2.1-84, 2.3)
(B2.1:1998/2000, 2.2)

3.) What are the specific alloys joined & filler used?

4.) A change in M number requires re-qualification per B2.1.

5.) Lot's of info still required to assist you. Here in CA, we don't get the luxury of using a "Silver Bullet" (SWPS), everything has to be tested by the contractor. While the semantics of whether or not prequalfied per D1.1, a SWPS can be used per B2.1 if all requirements of B2.1 and the SWPS are satisfied. (See number 1 above)

By dlmann

Date 04-19-2005 19:24

DGXL:
1.) Even though it is CS to SS, our site specification references D1.1 for qualification and inspection as the criteria.
2.) We do not mind using "Standard WPS's" for any of our welding when permitted by code (ASME included). However, WPS’s have to be in compliance.
3.) The item welded is a SS 309 life support air hose pass-through, welded to a carbon steel A36 doorframe, filler metal ER309 bare. It allows a person in a fully encapsulated protective suit to enter a toxic area with pinching off his air hose.

What this problem is all about is a third party prepared a WPS for a contractor from a Standard WPS and is presenting it as a pre-qualified per D1.1 and B2.1. The contractor does a lot of work on site and has a lot of future welding to do. We need to make sure this is right and prevent any non-compliance issues.

Regards, Donnie Mann

By DGXL

Date 04-19-2005 20:14

Hi Donnie:
Interesting post to begin with.

"our site specification references D1.1 for qualification and inspection as the criteria" If D1.1 is the criteria, then all of the provisions of this code applies. D1.1:2004, 4.1.1.2 permits the use of SWPS's, provided the Engineer approves such action.

I do not have copies of any of the SWPS's issued by AWS, however I would be inclined to permit work if the contractor remains within the range of the scope of qualification noted in the SWPS. In other words, if within the same material and filler metal groups, essential and nonessential variables, position, thickness, etc., then let sleeping dogs lie.

Keep the forum updated. Good post.