Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / AWS D1.6 1999 essential variables new
- - By M.L. (*) Date 02-05-2003 13:17
After reading a little further into this code I found a table in the prequalifictions section 3 table 3.1 that gives me some ranges for prequal. Can I use this for qulifying a joint under section 4 for essential variables? If anybody can answer this that would be great.
Parent - - By mhslfab (*) Date 02-07-2003 15:13
In the past I have also used table 3.1(D1.6) to specify parameter ranges on the WPS. Section 4.1.4 states "A written, qualified WPS establishes the allowable ranges for essential varibles." The only electrical range specified in section 4, the procedure qualification section, is found in Essential Veriable Table 4.1S and is stated as an increase of more than 10% beyond the specified amperage range. When following the code to qualify a procedure to section 4, there is no link or reference to Table 3.1.
Can anybody heip?
Parent - - By M.L. (*) Date 02-11-2003 15:39
I dont think that anybody else really has an answer to our question eh!
Parent - By DGXL (***) Date 02-11-2003 16:54
The tables you guys have referenced from D1.6:1999 are for different purposes.

Table 3.1 provides the tolerances for prequalified WPS's - or the parameter range for the variables noted within the table. Anything outside of this range would require the generation of a new prequalified WPS (or modification of an existing WPS).

Table 4.1S is for weld overlay's. This is applicable if you are doing overlays (which you have not stated).

Table 4.1 provides tolerances for essential variables - or the range for parameters for WPS's that are qualified by testing. Anything outside this range requires re-qualification of the WPS.
Parent - - By rpoche (*) Date 02-12-2003 00:41
I do not have D1.6 and this info is D1.1 so if I am off base forgive me.

You are attempting to qualify a joint which is not pre-qualified. Therefore you establish the parameters necessary to properly weld the joint with a written WPS & PQR and also pass NDT and Destructive testing as required. Then if the joints passes VT, NDT/Destructive and you decide to change the essential Variables beyond the limits as per D1.1 Table 4.5, the joint must be requalified. Start Over. And most likely prior to using this joint in production the Engineer will want to place his/her blessings on it.
Parent - - By M.L. (*) Date 02-12-2003 10:53
Thank you for your input but I also have a call into the AWS to speak to an engineer for the purpose of this question. But I do have one more question for you. I have a weld joint to quailify under D1.1 2002. The joint is a 10 ga butt onto a 3/16" backing bar with about a 1/8" gap that is not a CJP tubular conection with backer but a CJP non tubular connection. According to this code there really isnt any way to qualify this particular weld joint or am I not reading into the code enough.Any help on this would be greatly appreaciated.

Have an excellent day.

Parent - - By rpoche (*) Date 02-12-2003 14:29
You may want to check out this in D1.3 which covers sheet/strip steels "which are equal to or less than 3/16". I don't see your exact application as a Pre-Qual (different thickness) so Section 4 will likely need to be followed for a WPS/PQR.

What is this joint for?

Parent - - By M.L. (*) Date 02-12-2003 14:44
The joint is for cladding a large piece of industrial ducting. besides the standard in wich the customer requires the welding to be done is to D1.1.
Parent - By rpoche (*) Date 02-12-2003 20:41
You may request a D1.3 acceptance from your customer.

Per D1.1 the code is not intended for Steels less than 1/8" thick. When base metals thinner than 1/8" thick are to be welded, the requirements of D1.3 should apply.
Parent - - By M.L. (*) Date 02-12-2003 11:09
I think I just answered my question in the essential variables it states that you need to re-qualify for the purpose of the omission but not the inclusion of backing or backgouging. If I have been qualified to weld a 10Ga plate CJP from one side only then this would allow me to do so would it not.
Parent - - By DGXL (***) Date 02-12-2003 23:31
Please refer to AWS D1.1:2000, 1.1.1(2).
"...conformance with the applicable provisions of this code (D1.1) shall apply".

It is not uncommon to cross over between multiple codes nor is it prohibited (unless a contract, engineer or owner says so).

By the way, help us all out and give us a decimal or metric equivelant to 10 gage, I don't have a table with me (how thick is it?)
Parent - - By M.L. (*) Date 02-13-2003 10:38
Sorry 10 ga is .1345
Parent - - By DGXL (***) Date 02-13-2003 15:04
0.1345" would fall under the realm of the D1.1 with a minimum thickness: 1/8" = (3 mm) = 0.125".
Parent - - By rpoche (*) Date 02-13-2003 16:11

This is an interesting post. D1.3.98 Section 1.1 states "This welding code covers arc welding of structural sheet/strip steels, including cold formed members which are equal to or less than 3/16" (0.188) in nominal thickness."

Doesn't this overlap with D1.1??

Parent - - By DGXL (***) Date 02-13-2003 17:15
These codes do overlap by design. The old 198X Structural Steel code used to have a 3/16" limitation. The code was revised specifically so they did overlap. However, The intended use of the codes would be as follows (how I interprete them anyway):

The D1.1 is for applications w/structural member to structural member.
The D1.3 is for applications w/sheet steel to sheet steel, or sheet steel to supporting structural member.

I would not consider the thickness by ML to be sheet steel as his application would apply (as a cladding material). The owner (or the engineer) may designate any acceptance criteria for the weldment.

Again, it is not uncommon for the designer, owner or building official to specify D1.1 for the criteria (I have used the D1.1 acceptance criteria for D1.2 aluminum weldments).
Parent - - By rpoche (*) Date 02-13-2003 18:03

I agree with you on this and it seems interpretation can easily be misunderstood. One reason for recommending this to ML was for the Qualification aspects ie: NDT/bend tests etc. In the fabrication industry we normally exclude gage materials or materials less than 3/16 from the bid process, and still end up doing it. If I was pursuing this matter in actual practice, I would RFI the EOR for acceptance of D1.3, if the EOR felt the WPS/PQR per D1.3 was sufficient for the application it would save a lot of time and money versus the D1.1 Section (4) qualification requirements.

I appreciate your comments, they are very educational. And I do wish it would quit raining so I could get back to work.


Parent - - By DGXL (***) Date 02-13-2003 19:04
We need the rain. Go watch TV. Better yet count how many Peterbuilt trucks have floated by the window in the last 48 hours.
Parent - By jwright650 (*****) Date 02-13-2003 19:32
I hear all that is coming our way but in a mixed bag form.
John Wright
Parent - By jwright650 (*****) Date 02-13-2003 20:19
Over on another post there is some info on "Wet welding"!(since you are having so much rain)
Parent - By rpoche (*) Date 02-13-2003 13:37

D.1.1 (2) ... conformance with the applicable provisions of this code apply...

I may be unclear on this, but it appears this would be the case if D1.1 and D1.3 were both named in the specifications thus D1.1 would take precedence specifically were < 1/8" material is welded to structural sizes covered under D1.1.

In M.L.'s case an RFI to the EOR for approval of the use of D1.3 joint qualifications may be a viable solution.

Any ideas??

Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / AWS D1.6 1999 essential variables new

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill