Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

Register Log in
  • Congratulations waross on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Use of a company's WPS by contractor 10

Status
Not open for further replies.
Raikwar

Raikwar

Mechanical
May 16, 2007
6
US
Hi guys,

I work for company 'A', and I have seleted our own (company 'A') WPS for our project. Due to time constraints we had to subcontract the production welding to a contractor.

Is it acceptable (per AMSE &/or AWS) to hire a contractor, qualify their welder to company 'A' WPS & use company A WPS for the production weld.

Thanks for your time & help.

Regards
PK
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

Sort by date Sort by votes
Raikwar,

What materials are you welding on?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Following are the combination of materials for weldments

API 5L Gr. X65 PSL2 to A860 Gr. WPHY65
A694 Gr. F65 to A860 Gr. WPHY65
A694 Gr. F65 to API 5L Gr. X65 PSL2
AISI 8630 -0065S to API 5L Gr. X65 PSL2
Super Duplex 2507 to Super Duplex 2507

All butt-welds.

Regards,
PK
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Wow, that's quite the list.

I'm not familiar with the API and Netherlands codes as you have listed. So I wouldn't want to give you bad advice there.

Whatever material combinations you are using to build to the ASME B31.3 code, you could use a common WPS as Ballbearing1 has suggested above, assuring it meets all the requirements listed in B31.3.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Raikwar,
If you are working to B31.3 Chapter IX (K) my statements above are not applicable.
Section K specifically prohibits qualification by others.
Regards,
BB
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I can see why. Chapter IX - High pressure piping. No doubt about it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
B31.3, 328.2.2. Clear your proposal with the end user, or their representative, by demonstrating that both parties - your company and the subcontractor - have satisfactory control of the situation within both of the QA systems and that both parties are fully amenable to the arrangement. That way you can override the stated restrictions in the aforementioned clause. It's all about quality assurance with clear responsibilities, not blindly following a code. In essence, all you are doing is hiring welders if they have to qualify and execute the work under your QA system. I don't think any code would stop you hiring welders!

Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I could not disagree with you more, SJones.

First of all, even B31.3, 328.2.2 gives clear and concise restrictions about the clause. If you do not meet all the requirements thereof, then there is no doubt that you cannot apply that clause. Period.

Any code is established such that if you choose to build to it, the rules within must be followed. They are established for a reason, and I can guarantee you it is not to be "blindly followed".

DVWE: "Why didn't you hydro that vessel?"
SJones: "Because if I did, then I would be blindly following the code. Trust me, I know I don't need to."

Boom.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
300 (b) 1.

So then, what is the reason for the prevention of transfer of WPSs? Quality? Legal liability? Certainly not engineering.

Why then is there also an 'Interpretations' process if one must blindly follow the Code?

Read my proposal and work out who, ultimately, is the manufacturer, fabricator, or erector.

Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
sjones,
Raikwar has stated he is working to B31.3 (K) which as noted is High Pressure Piping.
Section K328.2.2 Procedure Qualification by Others states " Qualification of welding procedures by others is not permitted."
I don't think any "interpretation" is needed to understand the meaning of that statement.
Regards,
BB
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Again, the point is missed. I ask once more: who is the 'manufacturer, fabricator, or erector' in the scenario that started the thread?

Come on - open your minds and get out of that box!

Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
So then, what is the reason for the prevention of transfer of WPSs? Quality? Legal liability? Certainly not engineering.

Yes, yes, and you are completely wrong about engineering.

Why then is there also an 'Interpretations' process if one must blindly follow the Code?

You don't blindly follow a code. You either follow the rules, or you don't. If along the way, you need interpretations made, that can be done too.

Read my proposal and work out who, ultimately, is the manufacturer, fabricator, or erector.

They could be all the same organization, three separate entities, or several (sub-contracted) entities. Either way, the code says that each is responsible for his own work. How much clearer can it be?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DVWE,
Archie Bunker would say, ' you're throwing pearls in the wine'.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
As I write this there is a case where a contractor is using welders qualified to the owners welding procedure to weld on Al Pressure Vessels. All this is being done under the watchful eye of the owner's QC Group with concurrence of the contractor's and owner's AI.
This is occurring because the equipment is located on the owners site and the welding quality is being controlled and verified by the owner on site.

We have done this for as long as I've been involved with welding and there has never been any question. I agree that in most cases the contractor normally will qualify a procedure to where he is welding solely under his own banner. In fact the above mentioned contractor is in the process of qualifying a procedure to match the one he is now welding under. The owner will conduct the required tests for the contractor. We have done this many times for contractors.

As I've mentioned many times before we do all the QC of any welding on site and any testing of welders. If a contractor's welder hasn't welded on material for us in the previous 6 months he is required to requalify/certify to his ability to weld.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
What do the codes say that the original poster is building to? That's all I have to say.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
They say "the OWNER of a piping installation shall have overall responsibility for compliance...and for establishing the requirements for design, construction, examination, inspection, and testing". So, just to take it back round again: if Company A is the Manufacturer, Fabricator, Erector and the Owner expects the work to be performed under Company A's quality system (highly likely for the Dutch sector of the North Sea) and Company A simply hires Company B's welders and says to the Owner "I'm hiring Company B welders to work under my quality system is that OK?" The Owner has two options.

Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
SJones,

I believe we are under two different sets of assumptions here, based on your last post and what unclesyd has posted.

There is a difference between hiring sub-contracted welders, which Company A still has responsible operational control of the production welding, and sub-contracting the entire welding operation to Company B, in which case Company B now has responsible operational control of the production welding. Therefore they (Company B) now is responsible for their own WPSs.

I am under the assumption of the latter. And I believe you are under the assumption of the former. In which case I can agree with you on.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

naquib
  • Locked
  • Question
WPS Qualification AWS D1.1 2020, Box to Box WPS Sample
Replies
0
Views
67
naquib
naquib
deepu78
  • Locked
  • Question
WPS & PQR approval
Replies
2
Views
67
david339933
david339933
nabeel3
  • Locked
  • Question
Multiple Electrodes in a WPS
Replies
1
Views
58
gtaw
gtaw
Marshall Clark
  • Locked
  • Question
Prequalified WPS for 3G/4G
Replies
0
Views
41
Marshall Clark
Marshall Clark
Goose123
  • Locked
  • Question
When Is New WPS Required? AWS D1.5
Replies
4
Views
72
Goose123
Goose123

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top