WPS 1

[DCMV]

During an In process inspection of supplier the third party inspector found the supplier using ER70S-6 instead of the WPS specified ER70S-2 filler metal. The supplier agreed to remove the S-6 and reweld with the required S-2. My question is will this be justified NCR on supplier? I know the S2 and S6 have the same F# and SFA # tensil stregth is like 10k difference and then you have the fact of re welding.

 

[stanweld]

These are non-essential variables, assuming no change in A-No and the original PQR used ER70S-2. A new WPS could have been written to specify ER70S-6 without requalification.

 

[DCMV]

Would this warrent a NCR? Not using what the WPS specified.

 

[elyaas]

Dear Vanche, NCR can be issued on supplier for not following the WPS.

 

[SectionIX]

If by 'supplier' you mean the welding contractor, yes, an NCR would be appropriate as they did not follow the WPS. This process breakdown is substantiated by your comment that they agreed to remove the S-6 and reweld with the required S-.

 

[SectionIX]

S-2

 

[stanweld]

An NCR is an ideal way to document the nonconformance, provide the corrective action and document completion of the corrective action.

 

[REGRUMBLE]

E70 S6 does not meet the chemical analysis of A1. E70 S2 or S3 do meet this requirment so there is considerable difference and sice a change in the A number is an essential variable you always need separate procedures for these two wires.

 

[weldtek]

VanChe the issue regrumble refers to stems from the fact that per the consumable specification SFA 5.18 , both Mn and Si can exceed the values permitted for an A1 analysis. In my experience, most manufacturers ensure their products fall withing the specification limits for these elements so they conform to an A1 analysis. You could possibly verify compliance by reviewing the MTR for the filler used.
Similarly E71T-1 and some other classifications within SFA 5.20 for flux core can exceed the limit for Mn imposed by QW 442 for A1, but we use tons of it every year and always get material that meets A1.

 

[REGRUMBLE]

weldtek
Our procedures must be aproved by TSSA and as far as I know they have always taken the stace that because the consumable can exceed the limits imposed by SFA 5.18 the wire is not aproved. Do you specify in your procedure that the MTR for filler metal is inspected and aproved before use?

 

[weldtek]

Yes. I generally handle it by note that says ' Verify by MTR'. Sometimes customer ask for something additional such as an actual MTR for the consumables to be used and something tying it to the work we're doing for them. As I'm sure is true for most companies involved with welding, we don't accept consumables without proper documentation so it's not difficult to comply.
I'm in Texas and have not dealt with TSSA but I have submitted WPS' to other jurisdictions in Canada without issues.