Hi All,
I am looking to expand our WPS library at work and I came across this question.

Code: AWS D1.1 2020
Process: GTAW

I do not see anything in clause 6 Part B specifically stating that qualifying a WPS for a CJP groove weld will qualify a fillet weld. However, 6.12.1 states "Qualification of a CJP WPS in accordance with Clause 6 shall qualify PJP groove welds conforming to Figure 5.2 provided the essential variables for the qualified CJP WPS are within the limits listed in Tables 6.5 and 6.6 (when applicable).”

That being said, qualifying a CJP would give us a PJP. Going further down my rabbit hole, 6.12(4) states “Any PJP qualification shall also qualify any fillet weld size on any thickness.”

My question is, would this justification hold water If the goal was to use A PQR for a CJP groove weld to write a WPS for a fillet for AWS D1.1?

Reviving this old thread because I'm interested in y'alls interpretation of this.

I qualified A871-65 material using metal-core GMAW spray transfer and a CJP Single V-Grv with backing in the 1G position. 

I later developed PJP WPSs referencing the PQR by welding test coupons, in the 1G position, and etching them to verify penetration depths, however I did not document additional PQRs for the PJP WPS(s), I only welded the coupon, did the visual macro-etch level evaluation to verify adequate penetration, then documented the parameters and joint configuration in a WPS only.

Based on Table 6.1 because the original PQR was welded in the 1G position it only qualifies PJPs, and fillets, in the flat position, but I also need horizontal fillet welds qualified and captured.

What I did originally was weld a T-joint fillet weld soundness test per figure 6.15 and executed a macro-etch evaluation.  Seeing that the results were acceptable and that I had not exceeded my maximum heat input from the original PQR (CVN testing is also required) I documented a 1F, 2F WPS for the fillet welds on A871-65 to A871-65 and we welded on. 

A 3rd party has not said anything about the PJP WPSs that I documented, but because the fillet weld WPS refers to the original PQR only they say that the fillet weld procedure is not properly qualified for 2F welding and that I need to have a PQR that documents the 2F T-joint that I welded that states that the macro-etch was acceptable.  This, coupled with the original CJP PQR, would then qualify 1F and 2F per Table 6.1. 

The missing component is a documented "Pass" on the 2F macro-etch... but... if this is the case... I should also have additional PQRs for each of the PJP WPSs that were developed from the parent CJP WPS.  #(*&%#^%$_%# procedures anyway!!

Is it necessary to document the macro-etch results on a PQR or could a statement be added to the WPSs such as; "Qualified per D1.1:2020 Clause 6 Part B."?

Can't wait to hear some thoughts on this.  Thx in advance.