Remote WPS review and PQR review against the code you work to

The service is built for fabricators and contractors in the United States, Canada, the UK, Germany and across Europe, and for anyone supplying to a client who works to a different code than their own shop. Everything runs online, so your location is irrelevant. DEHAAS is an independent welding consultancy with no interest in selling extra qualifications or new test coupons.

Why a welding procedure review pays off

Welding documents are often rejected when the job is already scheduled. The client's inspector notices that the thickness range on the WPS exceeds what the PQR supports, or that a welder's certification has lapsed because the process has not been used for months. At that point every correction costs days, and sometimes a new test coupon.

An independent welding procedure review before submission brings those issues to the surface. Cross-border work is where most problems arise: an ISO qualification is submitted for an ASME project, or a client specification adds impact test requirements that the original qualification never covered. We check the individual documents and whether they form a consistent package.

How the remote review works

• Upload: send us the WPSs, the PQRs or WPQRs with laboratory reports, the welder qualification records and, where relevant, the material test reports.
• Intake: we confirm the governing code and edition, plus any additional requirements in the client specification.
• Review: a specialist checks every document variable by variable against the code and the supporting qualification.
• Report: you receive a clear list of findings, a verdict per document and the recommended corrections.

You can also put an initial question to the online DEHAAS Welding & Quality Assistant. Formal conclusions are always reviewed by an experienced specialist.

Codes we review against

For ASME Section IX we check essential, supplementary essential and nonessential variables, base metal P-Numbers, filler metal F-Numbers and A-Numbers, and the ranges the PQR genuinely supports. For AWS D1.1 we verify whether a WPS can legitimately be treated as prequalified or needs qualification by testing.

For EN ISO 15614-1 we review the range of qualification, the material groups to ISO/TR 15608 and the chosen level 1 or level 2. For welder certification to ISO 9606-1 we look at the range of qualification and the six-monthly confirmation. Our article on ASME IX versus ISO 15614-1 explains the differences between the two systems.

Welder certification: ASME IX, AWS D1.1 and ISO 9606-1

A sound procedure is only half the story. Your client also wants evidence that the welders doing the work are qualified for exactly that combination of process, position, thickness and diameter. Under ASME IX the record is the welder performance qualification, or WPQ, while in the US it is commonly called welder certification. Under ISO 9606-1 it is a welder qualification certificate with its own range of qualification.

Validity rules differ between systems. ASME IX and AWS D1.1 qualifications lapse when a welder has not used the process for more than six months. ISO 9606-1 requires six-monthly confirmation and revalidation by one of the methods set out in the standard. We check that each qualification matches the WPS the welder works to, and that continuity is properly documented.

What the PQR review report contains

• A verdict per document: accepted, accepted with comments, or rejected.
• Missing or incorrectly recorded variables, such as heat input, preheat or PWHT.
• WPS ranges that fall outside the coverage of the PQR or WPQR.
• Test results compared with the acceptance criteria of the code.
• Coverage of the welder qualifications for positions, thicknesses, diameters and processes.

For each finding we state whether an editorial correction is sufficient or whether a supplementary test or new qualification is needed, so you know the most economical route straight away.

Second opinion after rejection by a client or inspector

If a procedure or welder qualification has already been rejected, we assess whether the rejection is supported by the code text. Comments are sometimes based on a different code, an outdated edition or an internal client preference that never made it into the contract. In that case we prepare a technical response with clause references, so the discussion with the inspector is about facts.

If the rejection stands, we identify the shortest route to a valid package. Sometimes that is an addition to the existing record, sometimes a new procedure qualification is the only sound option.

Common findings

• A PQR listing intended ranges instead of the values actually measured during the test.
• No heat input recorded, while the client specification requires impact testing.
• A WPS referring to a superseded revision of the PQR.
• A thickness range or filler metal on the WPS that the qualification does not cover.
• Welder qualifications without documented continuity or confirmation.

For a refresher on how the documents relate, read our article on the difference between a WPS and a WPQR.