By Spencer O.

Luke

Feature

Reviewing Welding Procedures

Heres a look at some of the mistakes commonly found in Welding Procedure Specifications and how to avoid them

A competent review of welding procedures is an essential safeguard that can help ensure production welding (e.g., by the fabricator, contractor, subsuppliers, and erector) is in compliance with the requirements of the construction code and any additional requirements imposed by a contract specification and applicable industry standards. Imagine the consequences if any of the following occurred: Grade 91 (9Cr-1Mo-V) piping for critical steam service was welded with B3 consumables (2Cr-1Mo). Austenitic stainless steels for corrosive service were welded using plain carbon steel welding consumables. Piping or vessels for cryogenic service were welded with a welding procedure qualified without the required Charpy impact tests. Gas tungsten arc welding occurred using an argon/oxygen shielding gas mixture. ASME code work took place using AWS D1.1 welding procedures. These are just a few examples of glaring errors found during welding procedure reviews. The list of errors (and omissions) goes on and on from minor, inconsequential errors and typographical errors to major critical errors. Just because a Welding Procedure Specification (WPS) or Procedure Qualification Record (PQR) has been certified by the manufacturer or contractor as being in conformance

with code requirements, does not mean that is actually the case. In some instances, nothing could be further from the truth.

Common Mistakes
Experience after many years and reviews of thousands of welding procedures has shown there are a few common mistakes of which both writers and reviewers should be made aware. A large percentage of errors is due to the writer failing to do the following: Proofread the document Do a variable-by-variable code check Fail to ask him- or herself if the procedure makes good welding common sense. Most errors seem to be due to a lack of attention to detail, so heres a quick checklist that will help eliminate a lot of errors. Check the code. Check the contract. Check for special service requirements. Proofread. As with writing any formal document, its advisable to draft the procedure, walk away from it for a day or two or even longer when possible, and then come back to it again and review it for technical content and accuracy. Whenever possible, ask another competent individual to review the document. Also consider asking an experienced welder to look at the procedure.

A review by independent organizations or third-party insurers who have welding experts generally helps to ensure the documents are properly qualified, written, and certified.

Using Software to Write Procedures

Writing procedures using available welding procedure software programs does help ensure that all the required variables are properly addressed; however, the writer may still need to address any special items such as mandatory preheat or postweld heat treatment (PWHT) requirements, and special contract requirements. The person qualifying the procedure still needs to do so using appropriate filler metals and be knowledgeable enough to specify appropriate welding parameters. Before overriding any item within the software program, the user must know whether or not it will violate any code requirement. Its not uncommon to find an electronically produced WPS or PQR (such as created in MS Word or Excel) that was apparently created by modifying another electronic WPS or PQR. The writer duplicated the existing WPS or PQR in order to modify it and generate a new WPS or PQR; however, the person failed to update all the necessary fields. One of the most common errors of this type is where the filler metal on the new WPS

26

Inspection Trends / July 2013

or PQR was changed without updating the base material type (or vice versa). For example, a WPS might incorrectly indicate an E7018 electrode to weld an ASME P-No. 8 (stainless steel) base material. Mechanical test data on PQR forms are often inappropriately duplicated from one PQR to another. This same problem occurs when multiple references to the welding consumables are used on a WPS. For example, a WPS might indicate E7018 on the first page and E8018-B2 on the second page. Always check for multiple references to make sure the consumable classifications are consistent. Using a WPS or PQR form that specifies the consumable classification(s) in only one location on the form eliminates this type of error.

should be increased. When PQRs are corrected or amended, a notation and recertification signature should be added in order to document the correction or amendment. Particular attention should be made to the contractors document control procedures. The same errors identified and corrected on one contract sometimes resurface on submittals for a later contract.

The Review Process

Review of procedures is complicated when insufficient information is provided with the submittal. Its not uncommon to be asked to review a stack of procedures without being provided much other information. It is time consuming for the reviewer to track down contract specifications, materials of construction, identify any special service requirements or applicable industry standards, etc. For professional submittals, the submitter should consider at least developing a cover page that briefly describes the contract, materials of construction, any special requirements, and the assignment of the WPSs. While the review process should ultimately result in procedures that have been accepted, the shop or field CWI should verify the procedures are implemented properly; for example, verifying that the WPS is used only within its qualified limits. Occasionally a contractor will try to sneak through a WPS to weld on base materials the WPS is not qualified for, maybe with the thinking that the WPS is close enough. Fabrication codes generally require contractors or fabricators responsible for welding also to be responsible for qualifying their own welding procedures. In the end, the contractor or fabricator is also technically responsible for the content and accuracy of the welding documents. For reviewers who are not employed by the contractor or fabricator, the review comments should be worded so to avoid giving final approval of the welding documents, in which case the reviewer might be held responsible for

Beware of Outdated or Incomplete Forms

Using incorrect forms leads to errors. For example, if a form for the shielded metal arc welding (SMAW) process is used for the gas metal arc welding (GMAW) process, the writer can easily fail to address shielding gas since there isnt a data field for that variable. Errors occur when outdated or incomplete forms, without data fields for all the required code variables, are used. It is much easier to identify any missing information when proper up-to-date forms with all the necessary fields are used. Always use the latest code edition to qualify a welding procedure unless there is a specific reason to use an earlier edition. Often the code edition year listed on PQRs is a much earlier edition than was current at the time of qualification. Laboratories performing testing should also be requested to use and identify the latest code edition on the report forms. All the pages of a WPS should have the same identification number and the same revision level, and all pages of a PQR should have the same identification number. When WPSs are revised, the revision level

any consequences from oversights in review of the welding procedures. While a reviewer might not always check every variable in a welding procedure, the reviewer and especially the writer should be aware of possible consequences of any oversights. An authorized inspector, for example, might decide that welds produced with a noncompliant WPS needs to be cut out rather than accept the welds as a nonconformance. Verifying that welding procedures are properly qualified, meet contract requirements, and are properly implemented is serious business. In extreme instances, noncompliance can potentially result in loss of life, or rework costs and delays totaling hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars. Commonly, errors are attributed to the submitter or writer of the procedures failing to pay attention to the details of the contract or the particular service requirements. The writer, submitter, and reviewer should always have a basic checklist in mind regarding how welding procedures are written and qualified for the industry they serve. That checklist would vary from industry to industry. A mental checklist might include, for example, contract specification special requirements, specific code restrictions, NACE service, cryogenic service, seismic service, etc. Specific code restrictions might include, for example, mandatory preheat or PWHT requirements found in ASME B31.1. Writing and reviewing a welding procedure based on the base code welding requirements is usually a straightforward task. Making sure requirements of all associated relevant standards are addressed can require much more diligence. When writing a procedure, it is always advisable to use the appropriate code tables and references like a checklist in order to verify that all the necessary code variables have been addressed in the WPS and PQR.

How to Review Procedures

Following is a suggested methodology for reviewing procedures: Inspection Trends / Summer 2013
27

1. Use a common sense approach to identify errors. This step is a high-level review and can commonly be done even without a full variable check between the WPS and PQR. For example, are filler metals appropriate for the base materials being welded, are shielding gases or fluxes appropriate for the welding consumables being used, do welding parameters appear to be correct, is the electrical current and polarity correct, is this a material that requires preheat, is the information believable (for example, GMAW process using ER70S-6 with argon gas shielding recorded on both a PQR and WPS), is it accurate, etc. 2. Perform a detailed check. This step is a detailed check of all welding variables required by the code as well as requirements from other applicable standards. Examples of additional requirements include NACE hardness limitations, Charpy toughness, mandatory fabrication code preheat or PWHT, as well as special filler metal requirements.

Table 1 How to Specify Filler Metal Types ASME P-No. 8 Base Metal Type 304 304L 304H 316 316L 316H Adoption/use of standard AWS WPSs for work under ASME Section IX requirements (ASME IX, Article V): Failure of the contractor to perform and document a demonstration test required by ASME IX, Article V. 300 Series Stainless Steel: Failure to utilize a filler metal as corrosion resistant or as creep resistant as the base material. For example, Type 308 is commonly specified for welding Type 316 base materials. While 308 satisfies ASME Section IX qualification requirements, Type 308 fillers in many environments will not be as corrosion resistant as Type 316 base materials. Note that contractor procedures commonly indicate austenitic filler metals such as ER3xx, F-No. 6, A-No. 8 for welding ASME PNo. 8 base materials. For the reviewer, its not clear what base material type will be welded nor the specific filler metal AWS Classification that will be used. While this may be correct from an ASME Section IX perspective, a preferred, unambiguous way to specify the filler is also by AWS classification vs. actual base material type. For example, commonly assigned filler metals on a WPS could be listed as in Table 1. For welding of stainless steels and high-alloy materials, project specifications typically require purging during welding of single-pass, complete-joint-penetration welds. Welding procedures are commonly submitted, however, without amended requirements for purging. Miscellaneous: Failure to address mandatory code preheat requirements; e.g. ASME B31.1 mandates minimum preheat for some P-No. base materials. AWS Filler Metal Classification E/ER308 E/ER308L E/ER16-8-2 E/ER316 E/ER316L E/ER16-8-2 Utilizing the wrong code edition when specifying PWHT parameters. For procedures qualified for Charpy impact testing, specifying welding parameters that far exceed the allowable heat input range. Unless a welder has been trained to calculate and control heat input, a heat input limitation stated on the WPS may likely be exceeded during production welding without the appropriate welding parameters listed on the WPS. Failure to list the applicable code or testing standards on the PQR. AWS D1.1 Qualifications: Failure to perform or document the required visual examination or radiography examinations on the PQR test coupon. Failure to identify the specific weld joint details on qualified WPSs.

Examples of Common Errors

Following are some omissions/errors commonly identified during reviews. For the GMAW process: Failure to indicate the arc transfer mode (globular, short arc, spray). Where the transfer mode is indicated, parameters such as amps, volts, and wire feed speed will not produce the indicated arc transfer. Welding Positions: Failure to indicate uphill or downhill progression on the WPS or PQR. Interchanging qualification testing terminology on the PQR and WPS, e.g., using 1G, 2G, 3G, 4G, 6G on a WPS instead of F, H, V, OH. Procedure Qualification Tensile Testing: Failure to perform tensile testing in which the specimen(s) represents the full thickness of the PQR test coupon (reference ASME IX, QW-151.1).
28

Conclusion
While writing and reviewing WPSs and PQRs may seem confusing and to require too many steps at first, keep in mind that many common errors can be found simply by making a checklist, proofreading your work, and using some common sense.

SPENCER O. LUKE, P. E., (lukeso@bv.com) is an engineer, Black & Veatch, Overland Park, Kan. He is also an AWS CWI. One of his daily duties is to review welding procedures from companies around the world.

Inspection Trends / July 2013