American Welding Society Forum
AWS D1.3-98 denotes a low-hydrogen control for sheet steel to primary supporting members. Does this mean:
A.) Low-hydrogen electrodes are required for supporting members >1/4"?
B.) Low-hydrogen electrodes are to be stored and atmospheric exposure limits are in accordance with the requirements of this provision?
D1.3:89(older version) Paragraph 1.1.1 states "When sheet steel is welded to primary structural members, the provisions of the latest edition of ANSI/AWS D1.1, Structural Welding Code--Steel, shall also apply(e.g., adequate preheat, low hydrogen electrodes, etc.).
Is this what you are trying to prove/disprove?
If so, I would say that it means both #1 and #2.
You need a 98, this paragraph was revised.
The purpose of my post is I am getting conflicting interpretations of this provision. Hoping to get other opinions from those who use this code regularly.
I interpret it as stating that when low-hydrogen electrodes are specified, the storage of these electrodes only matters if the primary steel is greater than 1/4". I guess they are not worried about the hydrogen on steels less than 1/4". D1.1-02 refers all steels less than 1/8" fall under the D1.3 code. The D1.3-98 covers sheet steel up to 3/16"
Hi DGXL; both statement's are true, if you are using SMAW process, but, GMAW, can't get any lower hydrogen then that.
where does it state that if a base metal is <1/4" it has to be welded with low-hydrogen electrodes?
I read 188.8.131.52 as requiring low hydrogen control for welds to primary structural members over 1/4" and that electrodes are subject to the mentioned storage conditions WHEN lo-hy is required.
For sheet steel welds to structural that is NOT considered a primary member, OR is a primary member 1/4" thick or less, 184.108.40.206 applies. Meaning the electrodes must meet A5.1 or A5.5 but could be a non- low hydrogen type. Those electrodes would not require storage conditions as listed in 220.127.116.11 unless you choose to use lo-hy, which requires ovens and all that per A5.1 and manufacturer's recommendations.
As you guys can see, this is what I am dealing with at the present time on one of my projects, more input is highly welcome on this code provision.
I will state my opinion (for what it's worth) tomorrow. I hope I get more hits from the forum.
Well, I guess no on else is going to take a stab at this one and was hoping to get more opinions.
My interpretation of this provision of the Sheet Steel code is that this paragraph pertains to SMAW electrode storage & exposure limits when supporting primary structural members are >1/4" in thickness.
It does not require the use of lo-hi when supporting members exceed 1/4". The reason for this post was there are several interpretations going around, and I think all of them are incorrect.
Thanks to those who replied.
I am with you DGXL.....go get em
Not to be argumentative, simply that the density factor of my brain increases by the end of the week...but I don't see how you conclude lo-hy is not required when primary members exceed 1/4" thick.
I read the overall 1.4 section as allowing other processes to be used, so you don't HAVE to use SMAW.
The commentary to 18.104.22.168 acknowledges that other electrodes may be suitable but must comply with A5.1 or A5.5 when SMAW is used, whether lo-hy or not.
But 22.214.171.124 restricts 126.96.36.199 in that when SMAW is used, IF the primary member is thicker than 1/4", lo-hy SMAW electrodes must be used, and with storage under listed conditions.
So..maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying. Could you explain this further?
I think section 188.8.131.52 applies only if the engineer specifies low hydrogen electrodes. And the storage of these electrodes only applies of the primary material is < 1/4".
If the engineer does not specify low-hydrogen electrodes, then 184.108.40.206 does not apply.
Section 1.3.1 list the approved processes. GMAW-S is an approved process that is not low hydrogen. I havent found anywhere that states that this process or any other is not allowed on a primary member <1/4".
So here is a question for you that may help the debate. If GMAW-S, FCAW, GTAW, and SAW are approved processes should you even pay attention to section 1.4.4? (since this section is Electrodes for Shielded Metal Arc Welding)
If your answer to this is NO then we are allowed to weld on a primary member <1/4" using a non low-hydrogen process.
If we are allowed to weld with other processes (NON Low-Hydrogen) on primary members <1/4" then why would SMAW be an exception?
Hope this helps
I disagree that 220.127.116.11 applies only if the engineer specifies lo-hy. Section 1.4 is there to give the customer and the contractor latitude in what to weld with. If the contract doesn't specify a process, the contractor chooses which to use and submits that to the engineer. The engineer might allow only SMAW with lo-hy but if that wasn't part of the bid, it will be an extra cost.
I do agree that GMAW-S is listed as an approved process and that there doesn't seem to be a thickness limitation for it's use.
But to answer your question, GMAW, FCAW, GTAW, and SAW electrodes are low hydrogen. FCAW could absorb moisture if not stored properly but usually is not a problem. SAW flux must be dry (not necessarily stored in an oven) but I wouldn't want to use SAW for welding thin guage materials anyway, nor would I use it in the field. GTAW is too labor intensive for production welding. So that leaves GMAW, FCAW, and SMAW for the usual choices. If I were in a windy environment, I would want to use SMAW for welding, especially considering wire feeders are awkward to handle for erection purposes. In a shop, I would use GMAW or FCAW.
Of all the approved processes, SMAW is most likely to absorb moisture. So it makes sense to me that hydrogen control applies to SMAW but not the other processes. I presume the >1/4" limit is there because thicker metal cools more quickly which gives hydrogen less time to diffuse out. And not many structural members 1/4" and under are identified as primary members anyway, although they certainly could be.
The commentary C18.104.22.168 states the A5.1 and A5.5 specifications cover mild steel and it is possible to produce satisfactory welds with electrodes of many types. However (further stated) some electrode classifications work better on spot welds and some better on fillet etc.
22.214.171.124 only seems to require A5.1 or A5.5 electrodes be used if SMAW is used.
126.96.36.199 (subset of 188.8.131.52) requires special treatment of the electrodes having low-hy covering.
My take on this :) that the process(s) is not limited to SMAW and if SMAW is specified 184.108.40.206 will apply and "if" Lo-hy is used then 220.127.116.11 will apply for primary members > 1/4" thick. I don't see where SMAW requires Lo-Hy only 5.1 or 5.5 electrodes.
I feel the commentary also allows for latitude due to the type of weld to be applied ie. fillet, arc spot or arc seam.
To all who took the time to respond:
I am retracting my above comments and I am now requiring the contractor to:
A.) Use an E7015, E7016 or E7018 to weld (or tack weld) the decking to the HSLA steel beams and girders.
B.) Qualify all welders (and tack welders) in a Group F4 SMAW electrode.
It is very late and I am very tired.
Will explain when I can see again,
Thanks all and C'YA.
I agree with you, that's what I've been saying (or trying to).
Thank you again Chet,
Please note I did not ignore your post, just holding my cards until I was sure (I think).
My interpretation is based upon the following:
1.) AWS D1.3-98, Table 1.1, Note 1 denotes "Low hydrogen electrodes shall be used when required by ANSI/AWS D1.1-98 (in our case).
2.) AWS D1.1-98, Table 3.1 requires low-hy for A 572 Grade 50 which is the specification for all of the beams/griders on our project. The Engineer of Record concurs with my interpretation and he is now requiring the low-hy for the project.
3.) Both codes require welder performance qualification (for SMAW) to be within the F4 group. ref: AWS D1.3-98, Section 4, Part C and AWS D1.1-98, Section 4, Part C (Table 4.11).
Once again, your post did not go unheeded nor did any of the others.
Someone has to do the work to pay the bills here and I also travel often for business. So, sometimes there may be a lag before I respond. Sometimes weeks.
There was a comment in another post by John Wright about "reading more in to the code" from what is actually specified. Sometimes I can get multiple interpretations of the same code provision depending on many factors. Thanks for adding to my confusion John [ ;-) ]
Once again, to all who took the time to brainstorm this one, thank you.
My thanks to you DXGL,
I never did feel neglected. I understand that God, family, and work take precedence over internet playtime. I have to say, I really appreciate topics that make me dig a little, keep 'em coming.
Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill