Welding Procedures with Revisions

[ISDQAQC]

Reviewing a contractor's welding procedures, I find the following;

The WPS number is listed and with a revision 2. The accompanying PQR will show the WPS number "but" with Revision 0. The WPQR will list the WPS but "no" revision is shown.

Per ASME Section lX, Article ll, QW-200 (c) states changes may be made in the nonessential variables of a WPS to suit production requirements without requalification "provided" such changes are documented with respect to the essential, nonessential and whdin required, supplementary essential variables for each process.

Would such change be noted on the WPS with a bullet or Asterisk, or, do I comb through the WPS to find the change. Thank you in advance for any assistance provided.

 

[metengr]

The WPQR does not need to reflect the current revision of the WPS used in the original procedure qualification. Multiple WPQR's can support a single WPS.

 

[ISDQAQC]

Thank you very much metengr, might I ask further;

Having only revision two of the WPS, should I concern myself with changes made of the original WPS (rev 0)? Again thank you for responding, as you can see I have not gained proficiency in these procedure related reviews.

 

[weldstan]

You should not concern yourself with looking at a previous revision. Make sure that the WPS meets the Code ad is properly supported by the PQR. Revisions to nonessential variables are common place. Also nonessential variables have been added to a number of processes over the years and WPS need to be revised to comply.

 

[JStephen]

The WPS is supported by one or more WPQR's, not the other way around. They don't have to be written at the same time, and an entirely new WPS can be written using an older WPQR. In this case, it doesn't really matter what the original WPS said, or what other WPS's based on it might have said.

Note that revisions might include trivial items, might be corrections, etc. For example, a while back, we found one of our WPS's called for pre-heat in a range where it wasn't actually required, so that was revised.