I'm mostly a D1.1 guy - I've got a D1.6 question myself, but I'll give you my 2 cents.
Based on the note I'd agree that 1/8" is the minimum thickness qualified, but assuming that you are referencing the D1.3 sheet steel code I'm not sure that can be used for stainless.
I feel like I might be in the same boat. D1.3, like D1.1, allows for "other base metals" as long as the WPS is qualified per Clause 4 "and such other requirements as prescribed by the Engineer". But, I have a customer that is welding 16 gauge 304 tubing (for a structural project) and his customer wants them certified to D1.1. D1.3 doesn't cover tubing and D1.6 doesn't cover 16 gauge. When I queried the AWS bookstore for tubing, I was shown the API 1104. To me, qualifying the thickness is more important than the shape so I'll probably qualify the welders to D1.3. Any thoughts?
The thought first off is that a customer that is doing stainless 16 gage tube to stainless structural thicknesses and wants a D1.1 and D1.3 code adherence/certification, they may not be a very well informed customer.
Or is the 16 ga stainless being joined to carbon steel structures?
Two possible alternatives for this confusing scenario might be:
AWS D9.1 (Easy PQR's) multiple alloys
AWS B2.1 PQR's for all the work... Pretty universally accepted means to meet AWS D-code requirements.
If you are going to use D1.1 or D1.3 for stainless work... Be very sure your engineering authority is competent and has vetted the whole project.
My thoughts on the 2nd customer are aligned with yours. I think they may have pulled D1.1 out of the air because it was familiar or it seemed to suit their needs after a brief Internet search. As far as I know, the entire structure is 304. There's square tubing and 304 sheets involved, and I believe all fillet welds. I guess I want to make sure I can use the fillet weld test results on the tubing. When welding tubing to sheet steel, is the sheet steel considered a supporting member even if it's the same thickness? My customer only inquired into welder qualification - they didn't mention procedure qualification. I need to ask them more questions. Thanks for the response. It definitely got the juices flowing.
By 803056 
Date 07-02-2014 11:42
Edited 07-02-2014 11:44
The structural codes address a multitudes of subjects other than how to qualify the WPS. The code also addresses matching filler metals, allowable stresses, etc. The thickness limitations can be waived by the Engineer/Owner in cases where it is appropriate to do so. Questions regarding deviations from the code should be addressed through the Owner or his representative. In some case it may be a matter that wasn't foreseen by the designer. It may involve more than a simple yes or no type response. In some cases the Owner refers to the specific code as a mechanism to qualify the WPS or the welder or both, but one never knows until the question is asked.
I used to use AWS B2.1 for many applications, but that was before the ASME philosophy took over the committee. Now, B2.1 is a rehash of Section IX and it omits many of the essential variables found in AWS D1.1. In my humble opinion, I favor the approach taken by AWS D1.X welding codes for qualifying WPS and welders. Generally speaking, AWS D1.1 provides a well defined approach to qualifying the WPS with the exception of how the fillet welds are to be qualified. The qualification of fillet welds is a two step process. First qualify the fillet welds using the T-joint to establish the welding parameters needed to produce a sound weld of the appropriate size. Then qualify the WPS with a grooved plate using the parameters established with the T-joint. The grooved assembly is necessary to verify the mechanical properties are developed, i.e., tensile strength, etc.
The bottom line is more information, i.e., more specifics, is needed to respond in an intelligent manner. There is always more to the story that a simple sentence or two can convey. Like Paul Harvey says in his radio show; "Now for the rest of the story!"
Best regards - Al
