Contradiction?

Date 04-14-2007 14:31

A good question. The requirements in 3.7.3.2 apply to weathering steels (such as A588) and are more restrictive that Table 3.7. But, I don't see a difference between the ability to produce a sound single pass fillet weld in weathering steel compared to any other Group I or II steel. This appears to be strictly a color matching effort. Here's what the Commentary says:

The use of filler metals other than those listed in
Table 3.3 for welding ASTM A 588 steel (used in bare,
exposed applications) is allowed for certain size singlepass
fillets (related to welding process), as shown in
3.7.3. Here, the amount of weld metal-base metal admixture
results in weld metal coloring and atmospheric corrosion
characteristics similar to the base metal.

By Kaveh Date 04-15-2007 06:25

Thanks Marty; That's a really good answer !

By js55

Date 04-18-2007 15:33

Now this could certainly be aninteresting discussion. Should a minimum safety standard such as AWS D1.1 even get involved in code determinations for color matching or corrosion properties?
I would argue that if this is indeed the intent that they have overstepped their mandate.

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 04-18-2007 20:20

WOAH There!!!! Where is it written that the D 1.1 is a minimum "SAFETY STANDARD"?

By js55

Date 04-18-2007 20:51

Thats essentially what all mechanical, municipal, state, and civil, etc., codes are about. Thats why they historically have stayed clear of aesthetic and corrosion related issues, the occasinal transgression notwithstanding. Their intent is to ensure the mechanical viability of the structure or design intended, or in other words the safety of either human occupancy or proximity.

By js55

Date 04-18-2007 21:04

Perhaps we have a semantic dispute but in the end what is all the engineering, analysis, traceability, testing, and verification all about? Protecting the lives of human beings.

By MBSims

Date 04-19-2007 00:38

Don't get me started on how ridiculous a standard D1.1 has evolved to... Standards for nuclear reactors are less stringent than D1.1. They need to stick to addressing weld soundness and get less hung up on minutia.

By js55

Date 04-19-2007 13:22

Marty,
Having spent a great deal of time working to Section III and being a relative newcomer to D1.1, I can testify to how astonished I am at discovering exactly what you have related. Nuke codes are not so difficult to understand. Traceability is the biggest headache with nukes. Beyoind traceability Section VIII can often be considered more comprehensive than Section III, and Section IX more confusing. D1.1, I feel has them all beat, and could easily turn into a monster, and in some ways is already. I see AISC going the same route, or at least the enforcement through the auditing process. Thats why I commend minimalist wisdom, seemingly absent in ASIC, not completely lost in AWS, yet more pronounced in ASME.