AWS D1.1 - Identifying WPS/PQR Parameters that Require EOR Approval

[ntrb28]

Is there a clean, simple way to identify what WPS/PQR parameters deviate from AWS D1.1 when submitting to your customer for Engineering approval?

Does a list or reference guide exist, showing all instances where EOR approval IS required, per the code?

This is specific for AWS D1.1 but I am also asking the same question for D1.2 & D1.6.

 

[gtaw]

It is usually addressed in the project specifications.

I would question any Owner that didn't include a provision to review and approve of the WPSs that will be used for production. The reason is simple, many WPSs are simply wrong or incomplete.


Best regards - Al

 

[DekDee]

ntrb28

"Is there a clean, simple way to identify what WPS/PQR parameters deviate from AWS D1.1 when submitting to your customer for Engineering approval?"

If you deviate from the requirements of AWS D1.1 how can your WPS/PQR be qualified in accordance with AWS D1.1 ?

If I have misread your question - my apologies,
Cheers,
DD

 

[ntrb28]

"If you deviate from the requirements of AWS D1.1 how can your WPS/PQR be qualified in accordance with AWS D1.1 ?"

We have a library of WPS's that are part-specific, and deviate from the code in one area or another (preheat temps, base material groups etc). They had been approved at the time, for that specific part. If I want to use them for another weldment, how do I identify to the Engineer, which parameters deviate from the code?

The notion is that we do not want to write, and qualify, part-specific WPS/PQR going forward- and rather, use existing WPS with the Engineer's approval to do so.

 

[SectionIX]

There is no reason to write a part specific WPS unless your Company requires that to be the case.

If you are using a prequalified WPS, Table 3.8 in AWS D1.1 lists the Prequalified WPS variables; If you qualified through destructive testing, Table 4.5 lists the variables that would require requalification.

Having said that, just because a relevant WPS has been approved by your organization, it does not mean it is a valid, compliant welding procedure, as GTAW pointed out. I wish I had a dime for every WPS I reviewed that had been in use for(fill in the blank)years and found to be non-compliant to the relevant code.

 

[gtaw]

It is interesting to see how "group think" can justify many silly decisions. Just because four or five people sitting around a table think they can circumvent or ignore a contract requirement doesn't make the requirement disappear.

I sit in on many discussions regarding welding issues and how to solve discrepancies between code or contract requirements. The arguments used to justify poor decisions is like listening to four year olds confirming the existence of the Easter Bunny. One wonders how they ever finish their primary education. It is as if they read the words, but they can't or will not comprehend what they read. I call it selective reading and selective comprehension.

"But that's how we've always done it and no one complained before!" I can't begin to count the number of times have I heard that statement at "group think" sessions.

Best regards - Al