Thickness Range, Borrowed PQR, and a Missing Continuity Entry
During a final records audit on a completed two-span girder package, the inspector finds three things. First, the WPS used for the web CJP groove welds states a qualified base-metal thickness range up to 3/4 in, but the webs are 1 in. Second, the supporting PQR is a photocopy of a procedure qualified by a different fabricator, and the test report pages are missing. Third, the welder continuity log has no entries for one welder for an eight-month period, although the foreman says "he was here the whole time." The girders have already been shipped, painted, and erected.
1. Characterize each of the three findings: what code requirement is engaged, and how serious is each?
Read the worked answer
1. Thickness exceedance. The WPS was written around a qualified range ending at 3/4 in; production is 1 in. Thickness is an essential variable in procedure qualification, so the WPS does not cover the welds that were made. This is the most serious finding because it goes to the adequacy of every web groove weld in the package, and it cannot be cured by paperwork - it is resolved by qualification testing at the production thickness and by evaluation of the affected welds.
2. Borrowed PQR without test data. A WPS must be supported by a PQR that documents the test, the variables, and the results. A photocopy with no test report pages is not traceable and cannot be shown to cover the essential variables. Whether one fabricator may rely on another's qualification is secondary; the missing test data alone means the support is not demonstrable.
3. Continuity gap. D1.1's validity provision is triggered when a welder has not used a process for an extended period (on the order of six months). An eight-month gap with no records means qualification may have lapsed, making welds struck after the lapse procedurally nonconforming. The foreman's verbal recollection is not a record.
2. Can the package be accepted now? Set out what the inspector should do and what the fabricator must produce.
Read the worked answer
No. The inspector should not sign a final acceptance on this package, and should not attempt to reconstruct compliance from memory or from the foreman's statement.
Inspector actions:
- Issue a written nonconformance listing all three findings, identifying the welds and welders affected by member and weld identification.
- Notify the EOR and owner in writing, including the fact that the members are already erected - that changes the cost and access of any examination, not the obligation.
- Withhold the final inspection report or mark it clearly as not representing acceptance.
What the fabricator must produce:
- Procedure qualification at the production thickness (1 in) for the process and position used, with complete PQR test records, then a revised WPS reflecting the qualified range.
- Either complete, traceable PQR documentation with the fabricator's acceptance of responsibility, or a new qualification by the fabricator.
- Evidence establishing which welds were made after any lapse in welder qualification, and requalification of that welder.
- A proposed examination and repair plan for the affected welds, for EOR approval.
Final acceptance then rests on the EOR's evaluation plus the completed qualification and examination records - not on a signature alone.
3. The fabricator's project manager says, "The inspector signed the daily reports, so the company owns this." How should the inspector respond, and where does responsibility actually sit?
Read the worked answer
Daily inspection reports record what the inspector observed; they do not transfer the fabricator's compliance obligation, and they do not convert a nonconforming weld into a conforming one. Signing a daily report that notes welding in progress is not a certification that the WPS covered the thickness.
Responsibility splits three ways:
- Fabricator. Owns code compliance: WPS qualified for the work, PQRs complete and traceable, welders qualified and their continuity documented, and the work executed to the qualified procedures. Producing records on request is part of that obligation.
- EOR. Owns the acceptance decision on any deviation and any engineered evaluation of affected welds; the inspector cannot waive essential-variable requirements.
- Inspector. Owns verification and honest reporting: observing, comparing to the code and contract, documenting findings promptly, and escalating rather than silently resolving. If earlier daily reports missed the thickness discrepancy, the correct response is to say so in the nonconformance, not to let the record stand unchallenged.
The inspector should put that division in writing in the response, keep a copy in the file, and continue to document - because the dispute is now about records, and records are exactly what the file must be able to settle.