Welding Procedures 9

[Downhand]

Can a contractor use another contractors weld prodcedure?
What if they get permission from the local governing body?

 

[Guest102023]

No.
That should not happen. Or has it already?

 

[Downhand]

No it has not happened.

 

[connectegr]

This should not happen. Standard welding procedures can be purchased from AWS or developed by a CWI. AWS has copyright requirements. When I prepare a welding procedure it is intended for use by my customer only.

http://www.FerrellEngineering.com

 

[Eddycurrentguy]

In general, the answer is 'no', but they could use the same welding procedure if both contractors are owned by the same parent corporation. This was not inplied, but is added for clarification.

 

[gtaw]

I find it interesting that the AWS structural codes and ASME B&PV code generally makes it the responsibility of contractor, manufacturer, fabricator, or installer to develop their own WPSs. The usual way per ASME is to qualify the WPS by testing and document the test results using the PQR. AWS structural codes allow either prequalified WPSs if certain conditions are met or those WPSs qualified by testing in a manner similar to ASME.

The part that I find "funny" is that you can "buy" the license from AWS to use one of their Standard WPSs so you don't have to qualify the WPS by testing. The user merely demonstrates the SWPS can be implemented by performing what is essentially a welder qualification test.

If it is OK to use someone else's WPS, that is AWS' SWPS, for a price, why isn't it acceptable to use a WPS that was qualified by a different contractor? OK, add the provision that the user must accept all responsibility for it just as you would if you purchased the license from AWS.

If it is acceptable for AWS to sell a welding procedure specification and it is acceptable to either an AWS structural welding code or ASME, why isn’t it acceptable for anyone to sell a WPS if it is properly backed up with a PQR? There is a real ethical problem with this practice.

I’ve been involved with projects where the contractors utilized the AWS SWPSs and I was not impressed by the documentation or the results. Based on my experience, I usually will not permit the use of AWS SWPS on my projects. The reasoning is pretty simple; the welding documentation submitted by the contractor is my first indication that the contractor has someone on staff or someone that can be called upon for welding expertise. If the contractor purchases a SWPS, it is a strong indication the contractor doesn’t have the where-with-all or technical expertise to handle anything other than minor welding. On projects that involve a level of expertise above that of a backyard welder, I expect the contractor to provide me with WPS that are either prequalified or qualified by testing. If the documentation is correct, the contractor has provided me with a level of confidence that they understand the technology and the code requirements. If the documentation is not correct I then know that the contractor does not have the level of expertise needed and bears closer monitoring.


Best regards - Al

 

[stanweld]

gtaw,
I strongly concur.

 

[connectegr]

As a CWI and engineer, I frequently write or update WPS's for fabricators or erectors. IMHO my CWI stamp on the WPS, is the same as the PE seal on a design calculation. These documents are not to be used by other parties without my written permission. I am certain that my E&O provider will agree. This is clearly stated in my engineering sub-contract, similar to the copyright requirements for AWS SWPS's. I understand the concerns with AWS SWPS procedures. But, they do represent the most general applications, which are most common in structural steel.

http://www.FerrellEngineering.com

 

[DVWE]

gtaw,

You do in fact make some very viable points. However, you must look at what SWPSs entail. They are only used for very common materials, such as carbon steel and some stainless steels, and very common welding processes, such as SMAW. Welding of these materials has been done since the dawn of time obviously.

The problem I see with selling or using someone else's WPSs is in fact the experience that may not go along with them. I would say this may be acceptable for materials which there are currently existing SWPSs available for, but what about materials that aren't? I would be strongly opposed to someone selling a WPS for low-alloy steel to a fabricator that has no experience welding it, and further, an SWPS is not available. To me, that is one of the main reasons why codes state that the manufacturer shall be responsible for their own WPSs.

 

[gtaw]

I am not in favor of AWS or anyone selling WPSs whether they are prequalified or qualified by testing. My point is that it seems to be self-serving and hypocritical for AWS to say they can sell SWPSs but no one else can qualify a WPS and sell it to another party.

You make a valid point that the base metals covered by the AWS SWPSs have a long history of successful use. The same can be said of the prequalified WPSs permitted by AWS D1.1 and AWS D1.6.

There are valuable lessons to be learned when a company puts down cold hard cash to weld a test coupon and subject it to the regiment of tests required by the codes. Those lessons are not learned when the WPS is purchased.


Best regards - Al

 

[stanweld]

It has been my experience over the past 37 years that our welding suppliers and subcontractors, who employed welding procedures written and qualified by consultants or solely purchased from the AWS, have not provided the required welding supervision and quality control to have met our engineering specification and Code requirements.

Unfortunately, the author(s) of those procedures have not assured that their procedures are actualy implemented in production. As a result, added supplier surveillance and increased trouble shooting has been required to rectify welding errors. Because the eyes of the consultants or the AWS are not present during production, essentially, the "the blind are leading the blind."

 

[DVWE]

I am not in favor of AWS or anyone selling WPSs whether they are prequalified or qualified by testing. My point is that it seems to be self-serving and hypocritical for AWS to say they can sell SWPSs but no one else can qualify a WPS and sell it to another party.

gtaw, I completely agree. Point taken.

 

[Duwe6]

Another point: AWS allows Pre-Qualified WPS's. Fill in the blanks, start welding. An SWPS without the $$.

 

[Guest102023]

Very good points, gtaw, you have captured my sentiments exactly.

AWS pre-qualified WPSs at least require demonstration of a nominal level of welding knowledge. But who is filling these in, and who is reviewing them? Partly rhetorical questions: the answer to both is 'not a welding engineer/technologist'.

I am veering into another topic here, but (i) too many QA/QC managers feel they are qualified because they have observed a lot of welding; and (ii) fabricators are extremely averse to spending even a little money on welding engineering expertise (and think they can 'handle' it).

 

[Guest102023]

The only ASME 'exception' in my neighbourhood (TSSA) is that some union halls are permitted to qualify procedures and welders, I think for jobs/organizations who use them intermittently and don't have the wherewithall. Maybe some Ontarian with better knowledge of this could expand on this thought.