How do you turn actual PQR values into a variable review?

Use a three-column comparison

Attach a page or report locator to every copied value. Keep original units and avoid silent conversions at qualification boundaries. If multiple PQRs contribute, link each WPS segment and condition to its source.

Review in an order that catches dependencies

1. Lock the basis: governing edition, PQR date/edition, WPS route, process, weld type and whether contract CVN applies.
2. Copy actual values: record each process’s filler, diameter, current, voltage, speed, transfer/equipment mode, gas, temperature, deposit and sequence only where documented.
3. Check coverage dimensions: qualification test method, position, base-metal pair, thickness, groove/backing and applicable Tables 6.1–6.5/10 provisions.
4. Apply Table 6.6: compare each proposed change with the correct process column and row. Respect threshold direction, units, footnotes and “each diameter” or other qualifiers.
5. Add Table 6.8 where CVN applies: review its supplementary variables in addition to Table 6.6. Also check heat input, interpass, PWHT, filler and other related clause requirements when relevant.
6. Set the WPS: choose a production range inside the evidence-supported intersection. State the actual operating combinations so incompatible endpoints are not implied as every possible combination.

Why code thresholds are not copied into WPS ranges

Tables 6.6 and 6.8 identify changes that trigger requalification under specified conditions. Those thresholds do not replace the PQR’s actual recorded values or establish a new value where the record has none. They also do not override other essential variables such as position, thickness, material combination, joint configuration or test type.

For example, the PQR may record one travel speed. The applicable Table 6.6 limit can help determine whether a proposed change crosses a requalification trigger, but the WPS still needs a traceable value and a supported operating range. A single test value does not automatically become any symmetric minimum/maximum range.

Similarly, GMAW transfer mode, gas changes, polarity, current type, process-specific speed or voltage thresholds must be judged in the applicable row. Table 5.5’s Clause 5 operating tolerances do not apply to a PQR-qualified WPS.

CVN adds a second variable layer

Where contract requirements require CVN qualification, Table 6.8 supplements the Table 6.6 review. Among its changes are base-metal group, CVN-qualified thickness, filler classification, maximum interpass, PWHT range, heat input, vertical bead form and pass arrangement, subject to the exact process columns and notes.

Do not infer a CVN requirement from the filler classification alone. Confirm contract/design requirements and the actual PQR test condition/results. If CVN applies but its supporting records are absent, classify the CVN coverage as unknown or unsupported rather than assuming it.

For applicable Table 6.8 PWHT changes, the PQR qualification test must experience 80% of the total holding time; that total may be applied in one or more cycles. This is a qualification-test condition, not authority to invent the production cycle.

Use “no trigger found” carefully

If a proposed change does not cross a listed Table 6.6 trigger, that alone does not prove coverage. Confirm PQR actual values, all other Table 6.6 general variables, Table 6.8 when applicable, test branch, material pair, joint and production target. Record the conclusion as “no identified requalification trigger in reviewed variables” only after those checks.

See also WPS revision versus requalification, multi-process PQR review and missing evidence classifications.

Code basis and limits

This guide follows AWS D1.1/D1.1M:2025 base edition plus the registered July 28, 2026 base-edition errata; AMD1 is not included. The contract edition governs each project. Review the actual PQR, supporting test reports, applicable table notes and project requirements before issuing a production WPS.

Primary provisions: Clause 6.7–6.8, applicable Tables 6.2–6.8, and special process or joint provisions as identified above. References describe the review method; they do not replace the purchased standard or establish that a particular PQR passed.

Read the edition and errata basis.