Does AWS D1.1 require a formal nonconformance report for rejected welds?

AWS D1.1:2025 requires that rejectable conditions be documented and that any corrective welding be performed under a qualified WPS by a qualified welder. A formal NCR process is not mandated by name, but it is the practical means of satisfying the code's requirements for disposition and re-inspection — and most owner contracts and AISC certification programs require it explicitly.

Who can authorize a weld repair after a rejection?

Repair authorization authority depends on the rejection type and contract terms. Fabricator QC management can authorize routine repairs — grinding out a surface defect, re-welding an undersized fillet — when the repair WPS is established and the rejection is within normal production scope. Repairs involving design-critical welds, repeated rejections at the same location, or structural cracking typically require engineering review before corrective action begins.

Can the welder just fix a rejected weld without issuing an NCR?

No. Performing corrective welding before issuing a nonconformance report and obtaining repair authorization is uncontrolled rework. The rejection must be documented, the cause identified, the repair method approved, and the post-repair inspection result recorded. An owner's inspector or AISC auditor who discovers a repair weld with no NCR record treats it as evidence of an ineffective quality system.

What happens if a repair weld also fails inspection?

A second rejection at the same location is a red flag requiring escalation. Document the second rejection on a new NCR linked to the original. If the repair approach has failed, a different corrective method must be proposed and reviewed — potentially including engineering involvement to assess whether the base metal, joint geometry, or procedure itself is the root cause.

Weld Nonconformance Reports: Documentation and Repair Authorization

When a structural weld is rejected, the NCR process determines whether the repair is controlled or chaotic. Here's the AWS D1.1 nonconformance documentation sequence for fab shops.

A rejected weld is a quality event. How a fabricator documents, dispositions, and resolves that rejection determines whether the quality system is in control or merely reacting. Under AWS D1.1:2025, rejected conditions must be documented and corrective action must be qualified and traceable. A rejection handled as an informal conversation between the welder and the foreman — with no paper trail — is a systemic deficiency that will surface in any serious audit.

This article covers the nonconformance report (NCR) process for structural welds: what triggers one, what it must contain, how repair authorization works, and how the documentation chain closes.

What Triggers a Nonconformance Report

An NCR is initiated whenever a weld — or the conditions surrounding a weld — is found to be rejectable under the applicable acceptance criteria. Common triggers include:

Visual rejection: undercut exceeding AWS D1.1 limits, crack (any crack is rejectable — there is no allowable crack size in structural welds), unacceptable weld profile, inadequate weld size, surface porosity beyond the permitted density
UT or RT rejection: a volumetric indication exceeding the acceptance criteria in AWS D1.1 for the applicable structure category and weld type
MT or PT rejection: a linear indication or relevant rounded indication exceeding the surface NDE criteria
Procedural rejection: discovery that the weld was deposited under conditions not covered by the WPS — wrong process, out-of-range amperage, position not covered, welder not currently qualified — even if the deposited weld metal appears visually acceptable

That last category is often overlooked. A procedurally deficient weld is a nonconformance even if UT shows no indication. The documentation must reflect both the procedural deficiency and whatever NDE disposition was applied to assess the weld metal quality.

For acceptance criteria by NDE method, see UT acceptance criteria for AWS D1.1 structural welds and RT acceptance criteria for AWS D1.1 structural welds.

What the NCR Must Contain

A complete nonconformance report gives any qualified reviewer — the QC manager who wasn't present, the owner's inspector, the AISC auditor — enough information to understand what happened without interviewing anyone.

At minimum, an NCR for a rejected structural weld should capture:

Identification:

Project name and number
Member or piece mark
Joint or weld identification (weld number, location reference, or drawing callout)
Date of discovery

Rejection description:

The rejectable condition observed — be specific (e.g., "linear surface crack, 3/4 in. long, at tow of E-7 fillet weld at column flange" rather than "crack found at weld")
The acceptance criteria reference that defines the condition as rejectable (e.g., "AWS D1.1:2025 visual inspection acceptance criteria")
The inspector name, certification level, and signature
The NDE method and technique used if the rejection was found by volumetric or surface NDE

Cause assessment:

Probable cause of the rejection: inadequate preheat, incorrect electrode, travel speed deviation, joint fit-up deficiency, base metal condition, or other identifiable root cause
Evidence supporting the cause assessment (preheat log, WPS parameter comparison, fit-up record)

A surface-level cause field that says "poor workmanship" is not useful. The cause assessment should be specific enough to inform a corrective action that prevents recurrence.

Repair Authorization Before Any Work Begins

Before any corrective welding starts — before the welder picks up a grinder — there must be a written repair authorization. This is the quality control gate between rejection discovery and corrective action.

The repair authorization documents:

The NCR number it responds to
The proposed repair method: excavation extent, repair WPS to be used, position and process for the repair
Who approved the repair method and whether engineering review was required
Any special conditions on the repair (additional preheat, post-repair NDE requirements, hold point before backfill)

Who authorizes? Routine repairs — removing and replacing an undersized fillet, grinding out a surface porosity cluster within the base metal margin, re-welding a crack in an accessible location — are typically within the fabricator QC manager's authority. Repairs involving through-thickness cracking, repeated failures at the same joint, or any condition where the structural adequacy of the connection is in question require the engineer of record's review before corrective action begins.

The owner's contract may impose additional constraints on repair authorization. Some specifications require owner or special inspector concurrence before any repair is performed on a load-path weld. Read the contract before defining the authorization matrix in your QC plan.

For guidance on what qualifies as a repair WPS and what it must contain, see repair weld WPS documentation under AWS D1.1.

Repair Methods Under AWS D1.1

The repair method must be specified in the authorization and must be performed under a qualified WPS. AWS D1.1:2025 recognizes several methods for correcting rejectable conditions:

Grinding: Surface discontinuities — undercut, surface porosity, arc strikes — may be corrected by mechanical removal (grinding) provided the remaining base metal thickness remains within design requirements and the ground area blends smoothly into the surrounding surface. Grinding alone does not add weld metal; it removes material, so the application is limited to conditions where the discontinuity is genuinely surface-only.

Excavation and re-welding: For internal indications found by UT or RT — porosity clusters, slag inclusions, incomplete fusion — the repair requires excavating the defective region, verifying the excavation by visual or NDE, and re-welding under a repair WPS that covers the excavated geometry, position, and process. Excavation to sound metal is confirmed visually or by MT/PT before the repair weld is deposited.

Complete joint removal: For severe or through-thickness cracking, or for a weld where the geometry of the deposited weld cannot be remediated, the corrective action may be complete weld removal and re-welding. This is the most time-consuming option, but it is sometimes the only one that can return the joint to full structural qualification.

The repair WPS must cover the repair scenario — the position the joint is being repaired in, the process being used, and the base metal thickness and group. A shop that tries to perform a repair using a WPS qualified only for flat-position groove welding on a joint that is now in a fixed vertical position has an unqualified repair on its hands.

Re-Inspection Requirements

Every repair weld must be re-inspected. The method and extent of re-inspection are specified in the repair authorization and must be at least as rigorous as the original inspection that found the rejection.

If the original rejection was found by visual inspection, re-inspection includes VT after repair. If the original rejection was found by UT, the re-inspection includes UT of the repaired area — using the same acceptance criteria as the original. If the repair involved weld removal and re-welding, re-inspection covers the full weld length, not just the excavated zone, because repair welding changes thermal history and residual stress state throughout the adjacent weld metal.

Re-inspection results — accepted or rejected — are recorded on the NCR, referencing the re-inspection report. If the repaired weld passes, the NCR is closed with documentation showing: rejection, repair authorization, repair performed, re-inspection passed, inspector sign-off, and date of closure.

If the repaired weld fails re-inspection, a new NCR is initiated for the second rejection, linked to the original. A pattern of repeated rejections at the same joint triggers a root cause review — the corrective action isn't working, and the authorization process must escalate.

Closing the NCR and Filing Records

The NCR is closed only when re-inspection has confirmed acceptance. The closed NCR, together with the repair authorization, the re-inspection report, and the original rejection documentation, forms the complete nonconformance file for that joint.

NCR records are project quality records and should be retained with the same discipline as WPS and welder certification documents. An owner's inspector or auditor reviewing the project file should be able to pull the NCR for any repaired joint and trace the full sequence from discovery through accepted closure.

The NCR log — a summary of all open and closed nonconformances by joint — gives QC management a running view of rejection rates by welder, by process, or by joint type. Patterns visible in the NCR log often point to training needs, procedure problems, or equipment issues that individual NCRs don't reveal in isolation.

Integrating NCR Tracking Into Your Quality System

For shops running digital quality management, NCR workflows should be linked directly to the WPS and welder certification records — so that a rejection on a specific weld automatically pulls up the WPS, the welder ID, and the applicable acceptance criteria without manual cross-referencing.

The audit-packet export available to Pro and Shop subscribers on this platform assembles project documentation including WPS records, welder qualification matrices, and NDE documentation into a structured packet — the kind of complete traceability record that an engineer of record or AISC auditor expects to see when reviewing a structural steel project.

Rule library based on AWS D1.1:2025; verify against your governing edition.