Quick Question: D1.1 New Edition...not here yet.

Date 10-14-2015 16:54

I'm sure someone might know a more definite answer but as far as what I'm doing in my shop is referring to the contract documents.

Every contract I see says one of three things. This is paraphrased.

1. Fit up and weld per D1.1(2010)

2.Fit up and weld per D1.1 Latest edition

3. Fit up and weld per D1.1(2010) or latest edition.

I would imagine sometime later this year it's going to be more popular where customers are going to catch wind and the 2015 edition will be requested. Right now it's still in between for my company at least.

Also I haven't revised a QC manual since we haven't purchased the new standard. It still says the shop fits and welds per the 2010 edition and customers are still accepting that.

That's my opinion at least. I could be off in left field.

By Bowler_Hat (**)

Date 10-14-2015 17:53

Our customer documents here say, "The following documents shall form a part of this specification to the extent specified herein. Unless otherwise indicated, the latest issue shall apply." I'm guessing...yes?

By msharitt (**)

Date 10-14-2015 18:18

If I saw that on a document I would say that unless they specified 2010 then the 2015 is the latest edition. 2015 is technically fully released for sale to the public so I think that makes it the latest.

By WeldinFool (**)

Date 10-14-2015 23:21 Edited 10-15-2015 14:57

Yes, AWS D1.1:2015 has been officially released and supersedes the 2010 version.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 10-14-2015 23:45

So, do one of you guys have the newest, latest, greatest D1.1- 2015?

Just because they are taking orders and are 'officially' available does not make them the latest applicable code. I ordered mine two months ago when I renewed my Sustaining Company Corporate Membership but nothing yet.

You are at one of those timeline points that it truly doesn't matter if you use 2010 or 2015. In fact, I would be more comfortable remaining with the 2010.

Brent

By WeldinFool (**)

Date 10-15-2015 14:55

Yes, we purchased a copy of the 2015 version as soon as it was available (digital version) and are in the process of evaluating how the changes will affect our current welding program.

By In Tension (**)

Date 10-15-2015 16:54

I've also already been questioned by a 3rd party because the clause number I referenced from the 2010 edition didn't match his awesome 2015 edition. We have "latest edition" noted on all of our drawings. I ordered a hard copy later that same day but it won't be here for another month, more or less.
Have you found any changes yet that affect your program?

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 10-15-2015 23:42

The problem with that scenario is that even with just a couple of changes you can't inspect to the newest edition when the engineering was done 2 editions back and approved to be built that way. Those changes would create a great disturbance in the force and cause delays and revisions and modifications to structural members already built. Some projects cover 2 or 3 edition dates of codes. That would really be frustrating.

Again, laziness on the part of cut and paste engineers. I would submit if I started the fabrication and/or erection under the 2010 then that was the latest then and the applicable throughout the duration of the job. Otherwise, the TPI can pick up all the costs associated with me altering and/or delaying the job while awaiting a slough of RFI's.

I like to look through the General Structural Notes and the Job Specifications Books pretty close. There are usually overriding clauses that will refer you back to the code used during engineering.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

By WeldinFool (**)

Date 10-16-2015 18:23

The changes that will affect us the most (so far) are the new filler metal classifications for MCAW, GMAW, and FCAW. We have WPS for FCAW and GMAW that refer to the old AWS classifications, do we now have to re-write our WPS to reflect the latest and greatest? What other documentation will now be outdated? Still working on this...

The front section of the new standard has a very good summary of what has changed from the 2010 version, this is a great help.

And Brent, as usual your comments are spot on, just remember that not everyone on this forum is a TPI, so we tend to look at these things a little differently than you. Your perspective is a great help, thank you!

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 10-16-2015 23:15

I understand but thank you for the reminder.

And I know some people get really anal about things that they don't really understand the implications of. Actually, it's more of a zeal for things, if they were anal it would be with more understanding of proper applications. Such as inspectors that think the minute the new code book comes out that it applies to all work no matter what stage of development it is in.

One must also be careful of the terms used: supersedes, takes precedence over, etc. It really only replaces as implemented by engineers and local building authorities.

But, remember too, Just My Two Tin Pennies Worth.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

By aevald

Date 10-16-2015 19:51

Hello Brent, our "2015" just showed up today, I had ordered it 9/18, took a while for it to make it through the maze I guess. Best regards, Allan

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 10-16-2015 23:19

Thanks Allan. I will hold out hope. I ordered mine about the first of Sept and it's not here yet.

Actually, I didn't order it, I told them what I wanted when they sent my order form for free documents because my company is a Sustaining Corp Member. But really, 6 weeks so far?

I have seen excerpts and a powerpoint that goes over some of the changes, but don't have my own.

Brent

By aevald

Date 10-17-2015 06:20

Youch Brent, does seem more than ridiculous when you're looking at a delay like that. I guess they figure they've got you over a barrel..... and they do. Best regards, Allan

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 10-17-2015 17:03

Better and simpler put than my ramblings but exactly what I have been trying to say.

Thank you Al.

Brent

By 803056

Date 10-17-2015 19:02

This was driven home early in my career while working on a nuke. The project had been in the works for something like ten years when I arrived on-site. I didn't understand why they were using codes that were ten years old. They explained how it works and it made sense when you think about it. Can you imagine the problems that would arise if they had to change the design every time a new code was released? No two codes ever come out at the same time, so there would be a never ending list of design changes and revision that would be released. The projects would never be finished.

Al

By aevald

Date 10-17-2015 19:27

The only real caveat to this AL, would have to be the Northridge Quakes. I remember being in the middle of a structural job and having to back-up and reconfigure almost everything that had been produced to that date. Realize this is an extreme example, yet on the same note when good ole "safety and well being" are at stake that's certainly a smart move. I might imagine that "some" of the nuke stuff might have qualified along these lines as well. Best regards, Allan

By 803056

Date 10-17-2015 20:47 Edited 11-06-2015 21:43

You are correct, but when a change is made, the contractor is entitled to extra compensation.

Best regards - Al

By aevald

Date 10-17-2015 23:02

Absolutely, and in our case they definitely compensated us. Regards, Allan

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 10-18-2015 15:29

Allan and Al have added some very good points for consideration.

In light of which it is important to realize that, as Weldin Fool points out, it depends upon ones job and application of the code. An in house inspector and the design teams are free to make any changes at any time during the process, BUT, monetary compensation is a consideration for work already awarded according to a specific set of plans already approved for fabrication. And especially if some of the parts are already completed but are ones that need to be altered regardless of reason. Not the fabricators problem.

But all levels of the fabrication/erection team; owner, engineers, fabricators, erectors, AND INSPECTORS, need to know how the process works. It is not up to some uppity TPI to MANDATE everything change just because the newest version of D1.1 just came out. Not his job. Not even his job to point out these things to the engineer. Everything moves on as it was under the existing codes when the work was awarded as that was the 'latest edition' at the time. It is the engineer's responsibility to keep up with structural changes issued by AISC and AWS and see if there is anything they want to change. And most of them have heard about the changes before they even get published in our code books.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 11-04-2015 11:59

Allan, re: "Northridge"
At my old employer,while I was their QC manager, I noticed a mention of BOCA and the FEMA 350 documents on a project we had in PA. I started looking into these FEMA 350 docs to see what was required of us, and holy cow did we get an eye opening. I started highlighting all of the changes that our shop would need to incorporate to be in compliance with these docs and we realized pretty quickly that we, nor any of the other contractors on that job had enough money in for all of that. After I called and asked the EOR about this, he quickly backed up and basically told me that one of his buddies had similar specs written on another project on the West coast and he thought that it would add a bit more quality into his project, so he included them. He relaxed a lot of the requirements except for the erector. So, the erector was effected the most due to requalifying all of his welders, and writing new welding procedures and establishing new methods to meet all of the criteria spelled out in the FEMA 350 docs.

All of this came about shortly after Northridge. Now we have AWS D1.8 that helps guide us through this vs trying to use those old FEMA docs.

By aevald

Date 11-04-2015 18:50

Thanks for those comments John, it was and likely is, pretty much exactly as you laid it out in your post. It was an eye-opener for me too at the time. I was working part time for these folks and teaching full time, as is still the case some of the time now. I feel fortunate to be able to keep a pulse on industry through my continued involvement. Thanks and regards, Allan

By Superflux (****)

Date 11-06-2015 03:29

I had to do a moment frame under FEMA 353 on a gig back in 2007 for a Naval Hospital in Sandy-Eggo. It sukt... As with all things federal, it was a difficult read to say the least and say it politely.
I feel your pain!