When a CWI is hired at a new fab shop, the existing WPS and PQR records need a thorough review. Here is a structured audit checklist to find problems before the owner or AHJ does.
A newly hired Certified Welding Inspector walks into a fab shop with an inherited stack of WPS binders, a drawer of welder qualification records, and an immediate production schedule. In an ideal world, the predecessor left a clean, current, thoroughly tested program. In practice, most CWIs inherit something messier — a mix of solid records and quiet time-bombs. The time to find the problems is before you sign your name on an inspection record, not after an owner's inspector or AHJ auditor finds them first.
This article gives you a systematic approach to auditing an existing WPS and PQR library under AWS D1.1, organized by the questions that matter most and the red flags that signal deeper problems.
Start with Scope: What Does Production Actually Need?
Before reviewing a single WPS, document what the shop fabricates. Walk the floor. Talk to the project manager and lead welder. Note:
- Base metals in use: A36, A572, A992, A500 HSS, A913, or something more exotic?
- Processes on the floor: SMAW, GMAW, FCAW-G, FCAW-S, SAW — and is anything mechanized or automated?
- Joint types and positions: All fillet? CJP groove? Overhead production work?
- Special requirements: CVN testing, seismic demand-critical designation, AISC 341/358 compliance, AISC certification?
Build a matrix of what base metals × processes × positions production actually requires. Your audit then asks one question: does a valid WPS and PQR exist for each cell in that matrix?
Step 1: Check the Index and Coverage Map
A well-run shop keeps a WPS index that cross-references each WPS to its supporting PQR(s) and lists the qualified base metals, processes, thickness range, and position coverage. If no index exists, build one as you go — it becomes your deliverable to management showing the audit was thorough.
For each WPS, confirm:
- WPS number and revision are current. A WPS on Rev A that was updated by hand without changing the revision number is a document control problem. Compare the body of the document to the WPS revision log if one exists.
- Supporting PQR is attached or on file. A WPS without a traceable PQR is unsupported. Prequalified WPS under Clause 4 do not require a PQR, but every variable must fall within the prequalified limits — check them.
- The PQR is signed. The Responsible Welding Engineer or CWI who certified the PQR must have signed it. An unsigned PQR is incomplete. Confirm the signatory held the appropriate credentials at the time of testing.
Refer to our primer on understanding the relationship between WPS, PQR, and WPQ if any of these documents are being confused with each other in the shop's filing system.
Step 2: Verify Essential Variables
Pull three to five WPS at random from active production and compare each stated essential variable to its supporting PQR. Common failures include:
Thickness range overstated. AWS D1.1 Clause 6 limits the qualified thickness range based on the test plate thickness. If the PQR test plate was 3/4 in. and the WPS claims unlimited thickness on the high end for a groove weld, that claim is wrong unless the WPS is prequalified and meets all Clause 4 criteria.
Position coverage assumed instead of tested. A PQR run in the flat position qualifies flat and horizontal (for fillet welds). It does not automatically cover vertical or overhead. Check that any vertical or overhead production welding has a PQR that included 3G/3F or 4G/4F testing.
Process change not requalified. Shops sometimes switch from SMAW to FCAW-G on a given joint type without issuing a new WPS backed by a FCAW-G PQR. Each process is a separate essential variable — the two are not interchangeable under the same WPS.
Filler metal substitution. A WPS that specifies E7018 SMAW but production is running E7018-1 H4R needs to be checked. In most cases this is permissible under D1.1:2025 Table 6.6 because the classification change meets the minimum strength level, but the WPS should acknowledge the actual electrode being used. If the shop silently swapped in an unlisted filler, that is a different problem requiring attention.
See WPS essential variables versus nonessential variables for a reference list of what triggers requalification.
Step 3: Audit the PQR Test Records
For each PQR, pull the actual test records — not just the certified summary page. Confirm:
Test plate dimensions were sufficient. The PQR test plate must meet the minimum dimensions in AWS D1.1 Clause 6 for the number and type of specimens required. A plate that was trimmed before testing and left insufficient material for the required guided bend and tension specimens is nonconforming.
Specimens were tested in the correct orientation. Face bend, root bend, and side bend specimens have specific orientation requirements. Check the test report for specimen orientation, not just "bend test: pass."
Testing laboratory is qualified. The mechanical testing lab should be ISO 17025 accredited or otherwise qualified. A shop that ran its own guided bends on improvised tooling without third-party verification has an unsupported PQR.
CVN specimens included when required. If the project specification, owner's contract, or the base metal grade invokes CVN supplementary essential variables (AWS D1.1:2025 Table 6.8), PQRs that predate that requirement may not include CVN data. When CVN-tested production welds are ongoing, the supporting PQRs must include CVN specimen results. A CVN gap is a significant finding that requires immediate attention.
Our article on guided bend test requirements for AWS D1.1 PQRs covers the specimen geometry and pass/fail criteria in detail.
Step 4: Review Welder Qualification Records
The WPQ file is often the most neglected part of an inherited program. For each welder currently in production:
Is the WPQ current? AWS D1.1 Clause 6.4.1 requires that a welder who has not used a process for more than six months must requalify. A welder who went on leave or was assigned to non-welding work for an extended period may have lapsed qualification. Check the last certified weld date against today. If the shop has no tracking system, this is a systematic vulnerability.
Does the WPQ process and position match production? A welder qualified by a single 3G SMAW plate test is qualified for flat, horizontal, and vertical SMAW positions, but not overhead, and not for GMAW or FCAW. If that welder is running overhead FCAW production, the qualification is inadequate.
Is the WPQ signed by a CWI? AWS D1.1 requires that welder performance qualification testing be witnessed or certified by a CWI or Responsible Welding Engineer. Unsigned or witness-free WPQ forms are nonconforming.
Step 5: Check Prequalified WPS Against Clause 4 Limits
If the shop relies on prequalified WPS (no supporting PQR required), audit each one against the Clause 4 prescriptive limits in detail. The most common prequalified WPS failures:
- Preheat below the Clause 4 minimum for the base metal group and thickness combination.
- Filler metal not on the prequalified list for the specified process. The allowed lists are process-specific; an electrode that is prequalified for SMAW is not automatically prequalified for FCAW-G.
- Joint geometry outside prequalified limits. Root opening, groove angle, land dimension, and backing specifications must all fall within the Clause 4 tolerances. A WPS that claims prequalified status for a joint geometry it modified from the standard detail is not prequalified — it requires PQR support.
- FCAW-S listed as prequalified. Self-shielded FCAW is not eligible for prequalified WPS status under AWS D1.1 for structural welds (it requires qualification by testing). If a prequalified WPS shows FCAW-S, flag it immediately.
Step 6: Document Your Findings and Create a Remediation Plan
After completing the audit, produce a written summary for management categorized as:
- Deficiencies requiring immediate stop-work (production is ongoing under an unsupported or clearly deficient WPS).
- Deficiencies requiring short-term correction (WPS is technically adequate for current production but has documentation gaps that will fail an audit).
- Items to monitor (minor administrative gaps with no immediate production risk).
For each deficiency, identify the remediation path: new PQR testing, revised WPS, requalification of welders, or administrative correction. Give each item a target completion date.
A WPS and PQR management platform can help structure this remediation by tracking WPS status, qualification coverage, and welder continuity in one place — particularly useful for shops that want to avoid the same audit surprises on AISC certification renewal.
What to Do When You Find a Serious Gap
If the audit reveals that ongoing production is supported by no valid WPS at all, or by a WPS with fundamental deficiencies such as a missing PQR or unqualified essential variables, the correct path is:
- Stop new production welding in the affected joints immediately.
- Notify shop management in writing with a clear description of the deficiency.
- Contact the engineer of record on active projects to discuss disposition of welds already made.
- Initiate expedited PQR testing if the WPS can be salvaged with testing, or develop a conforming WPS from scratch.
No CWI wants to shut down a production floor on their second week. But signing inspection records for welds made under a deficient WPS — or ignoring known deficiencies — creates professional, contractual, and personal legal exposure that no production schedule is worth.