if just macros and fracture... How to you record the required mechanicals ?

I don't disagree with what you are saying. My experience as an expert witness and 30 plus years as a CWI/SCWI has instilled an extra measure of conservatism. I've seen the results of things gone wrong and it is never pretty.

My very first consulting gig was to train welders how to weld aluminum because it was clear, they lacked the skills required to pass the performance test. Arriving on the site I noticed they were not using the correct filler metal for the alloy they were welding, AA 6061-T6. I asked for their PQRs and of course they were not available. They had never tested the combination, they just assumed that because the welds didn't crack while being welded, it was perfectly fine. It wasn't until they attempted to pass the bend test that things went south. Who was blamed? The welders of course.

I believe it is a common oversight made by a number of welding standards. Many standards allow the CJP grooved plate assembly to qualify the WPS for both grooves and fillets. However, in many cases, if anyone actually monitors the welding operation, welders go outside the parameters listed by the WPS (based on the parameters established for groove welds) when depositing small fillet welds or large single pass fillet welds. All too many people turn a blind eye to the situation, after all, it is only a fillet weld. In the case of ASME, the individual writing the WPS can expand the range of the welding parameters at will because they are considered to be nonessential variables unless notch toughness is invoked. However, by extending the range of the parameters, the WPS losses validity when the welder can no longer produce acceptable welds using the full ranges listed.

Just my opinion which is worth exactly what you pay for it.

By the way, I can sleep with ease regardless of what the contractor does. I get paid very well by the plaintiff when things do go bad. However, I would rather the defendant be someone I don't know. 

"But that's the way we've always done it. We never had a failure before!"

"Have you ever tested it before?"

"Well no, but ..."

Case won. Now to liquidate the corporate assets and pay the award to the plaintiff.

Best regards - Al

I began this thread to determine the PQR testing requirements per D1.2 for WPS development.  My initial inquiry reflected my best understanding of the code requirements and the advice and opinion of contributing members was sought to either confirm or redirect my understanding.  The obligation for due diligence includes the responsibility to seek out expert opinion in contractual matters that require clarification.  There is also a legal recognition that reliance on expert opinion confers a delimitation of liability.  So that no one may be damaged by relying on opinion expressed in this thread or put under hardship by relying on those expressed opinions which may be incorrect, unsustainable, unfounded, without basis or unsupported by the correct administration of the code I undertook steps to seek confirmation of the opinions expressed by Mr. Moore in his responses to this thread.

In order to do that I contacted four [4] testing laboratories with both regional and national presence.  In order to maintain as un-prejudicial and unbiased assessment of my requirements I asked the following question: I am seeking to establish a WPS for a project that includes an aluminum pedestrian railing that falls under D1.2 jurisdiction.  By design all welds will be fillet welds.  What are the testing requirements for a PQR to establish a fillet weld WPS?

Every single one of the four [4] laboratories contacted and with whom I spoke directly to their supervising CWI told me the required testing for fillet weld PQR development was 1] Visual 2] Two [2] Macros 3] Fracture test or fillet weld bend test.

Since due diligence is not always the burden some make it out to be I sought additional confirmation or rebuttal by posing the same question, in the same manner, to two separate CWIs with whom I have no personal or professional relationship with beyond their capacity as consultants and experts able to provide their service in the required accomplishment of testing administration and documentation.  Both CWIs responded that the above referenced PQR testing was what the D1.2 code required.

Not completely satisfied that my responsibility had been fulfilled at the top level of code administration I contacted AWS directly and was put in touch with the technical support person for D1.2, again asking exactly the same question in exactly the same language.  His response was exactly the same as responses referenced above.

Over the weekend I reviewed D1.2, taking notes and reaching the decision my initial understanding, confirmed at every level of expert inquiry was correct notwithstanding Mr. Moore's assertions to the contrary.  Still, recognizing Mr. Moore's long earned consideration as an expert on the forum it seemed an obligation to pose Mr. Moore's assertions to the representative of AWS D1.2 technical support for either confirmation or rejection.  I re-contacted them and posed the following question:  It has been asserted by an AWS CWI of many years experience that the D1.2 code requires bends and tensiles in order to establish the mechanical properties and meet the requirements of D1.2 fillet weld PQRs in order to develop a D1.2 WPS.  Mr. Davis stated that was incorrect, reiterated his earlier statement of the above referenced testing requirements and voluntarily offered to email me his response with his permission to publish it here.

I am taking the time to write this posting in order to help clarify what I think are some misperceptions expressed in this thread.  There is a legal term called "plain" reading.  It is a doctrine which essentially says that a doctrine [law, statute, legal document] is to be read literally, that is, it is only the words of the document that can be evaluated from a legal perspective.  It holds within this doctrine that the intent of the document can only be discerned by the words it uses when read by a reasonable person, speaking the native language and where technical terms beyond common parlance are defined.  It is a centuries old doctrine from the 1600s and was first introduced to limit and prevent judges from legislating by interpretation or opinion.  The exception to the doctrine are most completely addresses in the legal term "the rule of mischief" which is in place to prevent a legal absurdity.  Wherein Mr. Moore may choose to interpret the D1.2 code as is his right in private, in order to make an affirmative assertion that his interpretation is correct it would need to pass the standard of a "plain" reading.  Having given D1.2 a "plain" reading to the best of my ability [it's actually an acquired skill and more difficult than might be imagined], and having that "plain" reading of the D1.2 code requirements for PQR testing confirmed by the highest level of code administration I feel I have satisfied my obligation to seek out clarification from expert opinion and may henceforth rely on it.

One of the associated lines of discussion during this thread has been Mr. Moore's speculative assertions of my impending and inevitable, legal, financial and moral ruin which was in due course gleefully cheered on by the sycophantic blubbering's of certain respondents.  All of which is premised of course on Mr. Moore's interpretive opinion of D1.2 and which does not concur with or find support in the consensus of experts at least as qualified to make these decisions as those  who make them on an internet forum.  The inevitable inference being that my reading of the code and planned course of action was at best a corner cutting, insufficient, self serving, slovenly avoidance of my responsibility to be measured by no less a standard than gross negligence.  My 14 year record of unblemished transparency as a contractor without a single instance of claim, defect or suit notwithstanding I think the basis for Mr. Moore's dire predictions, based as they are on an interpretation of D1.2 that does not concur with the administers of the code nor the opinion of the expert community at large may most judicially be regarded as hyperbole.  Any damage done to my reputation by the implications of Mr. Moore's assertions are easily enough dispelled by my thick hide and the stronger assertions of established expert opinion.

Approximately a year or two ago in June of 2013 or 2014 [I would need to look up the thread] when preparing to qualify a PQR for a subsequent Vertical Down ER70S6 GMAW WPS for fillet welds to be used on a steel pedestrian railing using all pre-qualified materials, and planning to use Figure 20 [I seem to recall] as our test sample to include 4 macros for qualification, all of which was confirmed as what was required by the CWI administering the testing and documentation I made a similar inquiry to the forum. That PQR, WPS and subsequent Welder Qualification Record were accepted by the EOR of that project as well as the Senior Supervisor of Fabrication for the DOT.  No guided bend test, tensile test or groove weld test was ever asked for or required.  By Mr. Moore's current assertion it might be concluded that not only had I violated the code requirements, far worse I put the public in danger with my work by not producing mechanical test samples demonstrating the strength of the welds produced.  All of the work done on that project was relentlessly inspected from shop drawings to final coatings and installation.  Because of the occasional absurdities of civic government it was at times necessary for me to employ a consulting structural engineer [for example to provide calculations which allowed us an 8" concrete post embedment rather than the 11" concrete post embedment called out in contract documents or a section modulus stating that 1 1/2" schedule 40 A500 pipe met or exceeded the 1 1/2" schedule 40 A53 called out in contract document- which it does  by 20% due to A500 chemistry].  The railing was built to IBC 2009, and while not having a copy of that standard in front of me, I recall the requirement for the railing to resist a 200 pound concentrated load at most.  The material surely would pass muster by all engineering standards.  But what of the welds made to build the railings?  The welds produced by a fillet weld WPS that did not include Mr. Moore's required mechanical testing?

As it turned out not more than 2 weeks after completion of the subcontract and final release of responsibility one of the citizens of the municipality took it upon themselves to drive their vehicle into a section of the railing at the top of a sloped, curved section that guarded a parking lot entry [there is a large senior population in this small town- it happens].  Needless to say a replacement section was going to need to be re-ordered.  When I went out to inspect and field measure I examined the welds for damage.  It was only a visual assessment but there were zero apparent fractures or weld failures just a lot of badly deformed steel pipe.  To try to finish this small and admittedly un-scientific appraisal, I felt vindicated of any doubt expressed prior to PQR development as well as the general consensus that Vertical Down welding procedures are insufficient for structural applications across the board.  In some applications [pedestrian guard rail for example where sufficient strength can be achieved and where distortion is the real element of surprise] as well as having been qualified to an AWS D1.1 Vertical Down, 5p all the way out, 6G pipe Qualification undertaken for a another contractor some years ago for use on large bore water transmission lines that was subject to root and face bends all of which passed satisfactorily.

To hopefully provide some minor amusement in this long winded scree, the good [senior] citizens of the municipality are up to there old tricks.  One of them chose to charge that railing again with her vehicle a week ago.  A road worker watched her drive right into it [it's a good 15 foot steep incline into a parking lot being guarded].  Granted, it was probably being driven slowly [she's old] and likely an economy sized vehicle [who can afford gas on Social Security] but as before, not only did the railing prevent a catastrophic occurrence [even with our calculated but reduced 8" concrete embedment's] but close examination doesn't show the slightest indication of weld fracture or failure.  Got the call from DOT for another replacement.  And I can swear in a court of law I am neither hiring theses pensioners to provide us both a supplementary source of income or that I have the least trouble sleeping in peace at night.

And Mr. Moore, you're an educated, knowledgeable and well spoken individual.  If your going to sling terms like "wannabee" or imply negligence I would ask you do so with more discretion.  The bottom line is of course you are not necessarily incorrect in your interpretation of how things should be done in a perfect world.  Socrates understood the value of consensus as do I.  But it is my obligation contractually to meet the specifications of the contract which means abiding by the applicable codes as defined by those that create them.