AWS D1.1/D1.1M:2015 WTF

Date 11-25-2015 17:49

Martin,

What I would do is contact Miami and tell them you want a NEW 2015 edition.

I recently got an email that explained the lateness of my edition being due to going to reprint because of printing errors and quality.

Anyone who already has one should check this out and see if they intend to reissue your copy as the first one was apparently of so inferior quality as to justify making hundreds of people wait for their new editions while going back to publishing/printing.

Brent

By 803056

Date 11-26-2015 19:11

The 2015 edition should go back to the committee so they can have a second chance to get their head out of the sand.

Since when is it appropriate to weld over "residual" water, oil, etc.?

This edition is disappointing to say the least.

I don't think the 2015 edition should be used for the CWI program.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Al

By 803056

Date 11-30-2015 18:02

I think someone was handing out "stupid pills" left by the Easter Bunny when they took the vote on welding over oil, grease, paint, and water.

Al :eek:

By Blaster (***)

Date 11-30-2015 20:25

Al I don't have a 2015 edition, any chance you would post the exact wording on that for me?

By 803056

Date 11-30-2015 21:17

I'm on "vacation" this week, so I don't have a copy handy. Maybe someone else can quote you from the actual text.

I was startled when I read it. Flabbergasted is another word that comes to mind.

I've already made a recommendation that the 2015 edition not be used for the CWI open book examination.

I think some serious pushback from the membership is justified in this case.

Al

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 11-30-2015 22:52

I wish people would stop beating around the bush and tell us what they really think. I don't like having to guess at what is going on. Plain old clear English with all the proper adjectives, punctuation, and sentence structure to let us know if it is 'GOOD' or 'BAD'.

So, should we just save our money and boycott the newest edition of D1.1 and tell them we refuse to lower ourselves to such a shameful level of non-professionalism by using an inferior product in the hopes of guessing the quality of public safety concerned structures?

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

By 803056

Date 11-30-2015 23:16

In short, Yes. Save your money and let the committee know that this is unacceptable.

I would definitely let engineers know that it should be boycotted.

The more I think about it the more disturbing it becomes. It is something I would expect to find in the Farm Code. Maybe that's where the idea originated!

Al

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 12-01-2015 00:27

Well, I'm going to end up with one copy because my company is a Sustaining Company. Get all the new editions for 'FREE'.

But, at this point, I'm not ordering any extras. Let's see how much of a disturbance we can make.

So, who would you recommend we start swamping with emails? I'll look up the name in a minute but would the D1.1 committee chair be the person to target? Or someone else?

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

By 803056

Date 12-01-2015 01:21

The Chair of D1, the secretary of D1, and of course Ray Shook.

I just about fell out of my chair when I read the change!

Best regards - Al

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 12-02-2015 11:40

So are you recommending a hold out period to see if AWS will put out a revised D1.1 to make up for all of the shortcomings in the current edition? I haven't pushed our management for the newest copy yet, but at some point I will need it. I hate to spend all of that coin on a book with a bunch of errors in it.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 12-03-2015 23:12

It's not even a slippery slope Al

There is no acceptable amount of water, oil or grease... If it's detectable it should be removed.

I believe the code ought to say "If it's detectable it shall be removed"

This is not about anti-spatter, that was already allowable...

As you said, this new text opens the door to welding over contaminants that in the 2010 edition were forbidden.

By Joey

Date 12-04-2015 03:11

Al

The latest edition says "Welding on surfaces containing residual amounts of foreign materials is permitted provided the quality requirements of this code are met"

I don’t know what all the fuss is about when you have to pre-heat the base metal before welding. We normally practice here the joint fit-up inspection by contractor's QC & TPI before start of welding. When the joint surface condition is not good, our welders will refuse to weld it even the surface is acceptable to the QC. Here we impose penalty to the welder that produced rejectable weld, welder who continuously producing bad weld will be kicked out from the project. I think we should not underestimate the real welder, they know how to produce a good weld. CWI don't produce weld. I have witnessed many time the joint root opening is acceptable to QC but rejectable to the welder. Pipe fitter normally listen to the welder and not to QC during fit-up preparation.
You can't push the real welder to perform welding on surfaces with residual oil, real welder will not weld on wet surface as well, that is a very good reason or alibi for them not to weld...they can past time & relax longer :lol:

.

Joey

By 803056

Date 12-04-2015 03:28

Joey, are you telling me you folks preheat everything regardless of the thickness?

I agree that it is easy enough to use a torch to dry the surface of the base metal, so I see no reason for the code to say it is permitted to weld over "residual" oil, grease, or water.

It can be a big deal when the contractor reads the code and says, "What's the big deal, it is permitted by the code!" Not all contractors are cut from the same cloth.

Best regards - Al

By Joey

Date 12-04-2015 07:04

Al

We do pre heat when stated in WPS, but to use the blow torch to dry the joint surface in the early morning for those misted joints that have been exposed overnight in open yard is a requirement for the welder to start early. There is a helper or fitter doing the drying, welder will just standby around until you make the joint ready for him.

When you are in the project, everybody is busy to complete the job. They have no time to open the code and preach what is written. I find it bookish, nerdy the person who will carry along the code while doing inspection. You can’t rely on the code alone…there is a memo, engineer’s instruction and stringent requirement written in the project specification which may overrule the code.

Best regards
Joey

By lou

Date 12-04-2015 18:39

Joey you are speaking of your companies specific policies, not what occurs on every other project sight around. And your comment about carrying the code is bookish and nerdy all i can say is that if you were the contract CWI and you were on my job site without the applicable code and the project specs you would be removed immediatly.

By 803056

Date 12-04-2015 19:15

Amen to that.

Al

By Joey

Date 12-04-2015 23:49

Lou those documents you mentioned are definitely available on your office table. What I mean is awkward to carry along the code book & use it to argue with someone while doing actual inspection.

By 46.00

Date 12-05-2015 04:20

What? I have never seen an inspector with a full copy of AWS D1.1 or any code with them whilst doing actual inspections? I guess now a days, it is feasible with modern tablets, ipads etc to have a full copy with you but god it would take forever to inspect.

By lou

Date 12-06-2015 18:17

Many CWIs have the code book with them when they are inspecting, you make the suggestion that they are line for line reviewing the code during the inspection, let’s not spiral into some silly exaggeration of the original discussion. Any good inspector reads and reviews the code so often that its literally falling apart. Good inspectors also construct some type of summary of the most commonly used sections of the code and specs they are working with. I for one liked taping notes in the back of a pocket survey book. Unfortunately what I see more often are CWIs who have not looked at the code since they took their exam and never read the project specs. Unless you have an eidetic memory there is no way you are going to know the code requirements off the top of your head, you may think you do and those are the guys that are screwing stuff up. Many poor CWIs “bless” weldments without even breaking out a v-wac or a flashlight. To many times are they used to be the final eyes on a project and no one every questioning their discussion. Then a knowledgeable QA shows up and starts asking why there is a final QC report stating everything is in compliance to the specs and code but we are finding numerous nonconformances ranging from visual quality to distortion to misalignment etc. And when I prompt them as to what the acceptable amount of undercut is and they give me the deer in the headlights look I ask them where’s there code? The response I usually get is;
1. This thing aint goin to the moon!
2. I think the code is to strict.
3. Ive been doing this for 20 years and I know a good weld.
4. I was a welder so I know a good weld, were you ever a welder!? (yes by the way)
5. Our engineer said it was fine
I could go on but the point is, do you have to have the code in your bag at every point of inspection? No but it should be nearby when you are inspecting and you sure as sh*t better produce it when your inspection is being questioned.

By Joey

Date 12-07-2015 00:40

Lou, you don't carry that code book with you during routine inspection, also when you climb on tower, enter the vessel or tank :smile:

Ask 46 if I am correct, I guess he has a lot of field exposure :lol:

By lou

Date 12-07-2015 02:41

Yep, ive done towers, tanks, box girders on inservice bridges, amusment park rides and ship hulls and your right i did not drag the code with me I planned and prepared for what that particular inspection was. If it was during fabrication I had key sections of the drawings shrunk, WPSs copied, acceptance criteria and any unique requirements written down plus any other information i thought i would need because i did not want to crawl into the tank and need something. I made note that a good inspector makes the necessary notes. My point is that the inspector should be educated and prepared with the information needed at hand and dont make assumptions and guesses. Your original comment was that it was bookish and nerdy to carry the code around when doing an inspection and personally im a little perturbed that you think and inspector having the code book infront of them is in someway wrong. Regardless we've skewed away from the original topic. Think about this, you made mention that the steel is preheated according to the WPS, im assuming you mean a prequalified WPS because you can qualify a WPS by test and not use a preheat. But your preheat is directly related to your material thickness because of distortion, residual stresses and hydrogen diffusion rates, so you may not have any preheat requirement, or your preheat may be low enough not to burn off oil or grease or even moisture if your not over the boiling point, nothing says you have to preheat from the A face so your flame could be on the back side or you could be using induction and your weld face could be slattered with oil and now i can be left on. Why can it be left on? Because the code uses "excessive quanities" which is a subjective term and can mean anything, good inspectors will argue that excessive is pretty much anything and contractors will argue that anything over 40 mils is excessive. And who will win? If your a third party QC or an inhouse QC then its whatever the contractor says it is because its completly undefinable. That change in the code has just created a tremendous cluster f.

By 803056

Date 12-05-2015 17:18 Edited 12-05-2015 19:26

Maybe that's why a single copy of D1.1 never lasts more than a year or two. Mine get worn out and falls apart from constant use. Having said that, my copy of the Book of Shame (D1.1:2015) should last forever. I wouldn't take on a job that requires me to inspect to the New Farm Code. Only a client that is a complete idiot would reference the new edition.

I hate to go off on a tangent, but how does one enforce the proper storage of covered electrodes, limited exposure time, necessity of preheat, and then say it is OK to weld on oily, greasy, or wet surfaces? Tell me how we are going to enforce the prohibition about welding in inclement weather?

I can hear it now, "Hell, just wipe of the "excess" with your glove, any residual contamination will burn off with the first bead."

"Don't use those rods, they have been exposed to the humidity in the air and they might introduce moisture into the weld pool!" Wink, wink. But it is OK to weld on damp surfaces! Did the the committee members attend Clown School that day?

I'm telling you "drugs don't work." No more committee meeting in Denver!

Those little brown "smart pill" lying on the ground don't actually make one smarter. Leave them on the ground for the next Jackass.

End of rant, back on track; When I find something that is noncompliant, I quote chapter and verse when reporting my findings. I know the reader isn't going to take the time to look up the code requirements and I know many of them have never actually used or owned a copy of the code. Those are good reasons to include photographs and sketches depicting the nature of the problem.

Writing a report for another inspector isn't the task, writing a report so a "novice" can understand my observations is the task. I like my reports to be written in a manner that even someone with only a basic understanding of welding can understand what I inspected and what my observations were.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

Best regards - Al
AWS D1.1:2015 - endorsed by Alfred E. Newman; "How bad can it be?"

By Joey

Date 12-06-2015 09:57

I think this is the proper forum.
Wish to hear from Mr Newman his response to your thoughts, at least in his personal capacity.

By Joey

Date 12-09-2015 06:29

Maybe the new changes in D1.1 are to allow the use of electrodes recommended by its manufacturer. Examples are:

Lincoln Fleetweld 35LS (E6011)
Quote from Catalogue : Great for making tack welds under Innershield® deposits. 9
DC± Use Fleetweld 35LS with confidence on plated, dirty, painted,
or greasy steel which cannot be completely cleaned. It’s an outstanding stick choice for AC pipe
welding, for applications that require deep penetration, and in jobs where x-ray quality welds are required.

Lincoln Fleetweld 5P (E6010)
Quote from Catalogue "is a great choice for welding on dirty, rusty, greasy or painted steel — especially in vertical or overhead applications. Tolerates galvanized, plated, dirty, painted or greasy steel which cannot be completely cleaned".

However, there are electrode manufacturer like Kobelco which indicated in their catalogue some Tips for better welding, such as Remove rust, oil, grease, and water in the welding groove beforehand because such dirt can cause weld defects like pits and blowholes".

I have yet to find an electrode suitable for wet or damp surfaces.

What about other Code like ASME ? it states ASME VIII UW-30 LOWEST PERMISSIBLE TEMPERATURES FOR WELDING
Quote : It is recommended that no welding of any kind be done when the temperature of the base metal is lower than 0°F
(−20°C). At temperatures between 32°F (0°C) and 0°F (−20°C), the surface of all areas within 3 in. (75 mm) of the point where a weld is to be started should be heated to a temperature at least warm to the hand [estimated to be above 60°F (15°C)] before welding is started. It is recommended also that no welding be done when surfaces are wet or covered with ice, when snow is falling on the surfaces to be welded, or during periods of high wind, unless the welders or welding operators and the work are

Joey

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 12-09-2015 12:49 Edited 12-09-2015 12:55

I think carrying around electrode manufacturers data sheets for stick electrodes to give permission to weld over grease and oil is rather bookish :)

But on a slightly more serious note... Manufacturers data sheets do not invalidate D1.1 code mandates.

And honestly... I see the 2015 *laxity* on surface contaminants such as oil, water and grease to be a far more dangerous error when you think about GMAW/MCAW... Two processes without the benefit of fluxing agents that *might* increase the ability for scavengers and deoxidizers to combine with some of those contaminants in the molten pool... Furthermore, I can think of no scavenging agents in a flux or alloy that combine with and remove or limit Hydrogen in the weld pool, and that is the nut we are really trying to crack in this conversation.

Great lengths have been gone to (since the Northridge, Kobe & Loma Prieta earthquakes) to control hydrogen in weld deposits.... I agree with the faction that thinks the 2015 revisions have made this hydrogen control *in application* considerably more difficult to control, monitor and audit.

I believe the D1 Committee (I sat in on the entire week of April 2015) is trying to move D1.1 away from making commentary on "standard practices"......... This topic of limiting standard practice language was discussed in several different task groups.

Now that I have outed myself... Know this... I do not have a vote on that committee (yet)

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 12-09-2015 22:44

Thanks for the input....traitor...LOL... NOT. Great. We obviously need some good people with application understanding on this committee.

I can't think of a better candidate. Might see if I can join you one of these days. I have been asking some questions and talking to my wife about participating.

Brent

By Joey

Date 12-10-2015 06:53

Bookish people is not bad when you’re in the stage of document preparation. You need to have some source of information to use for reference when you are writing a proposal, preparing your manual, etc.

So far in every project that I’ve been involved, when I’m representing a contractor, we have to submit our QA/QC Manual and inspection & test plan specifically prepared in accordance with project specification before we can start the fabrication work. These QA/QC documents are being offered for approval whether required or not required by customer. The third party inspector / and the owner’s inspector are given a chance to review the contractor’s submission & to give their comments prior to owner engineer’s review & approval.

The comments given by TPI & owner’s inspector are open to discussion and argument during the project meetings. Once the contractor’s QA/QC documents are approved by the owner’s engineer, the fabrication work will start and you will only open the code book when the details or information needed during the actual work are not found inside the QA/QC Manual.

This is our practice, the system we have in Smokey mountain. Surely your domestic system is much advanced than us :grin:

By 803056

Date 12-11-2015 00:23

I wish!

Al :eek:

By Joey

Date 12-11-2015 06:11

Al
I can understand. This is my experience.

When I’m involved in the manufacturing of gas cylinders for DOT as a third party inspector, I had some nasty confrontation with the Americans who were sent in a newly built factory in Smokey to train the local workers. Some came from Connecticut factory, others from Kentucky factory. I remember during that time the Americans were hands-on and could be the best for the assigned job.
The factory manager together with his QC manager both from US told me off that I’m asking too much and accused me of delaying their production works. The project manager brought me inside the meeting room where he called my boss in US for teleconference….fast-forward, the factory manager found out later that cylinders to be manufactured abroad require stringent inspection than those made in US. I did show the specification given to me from DOT and they compared it with their domestic specification.

It was my mistake that I did not check whether the manufacturer has the correct job specification, As TPI it is my duty to verify whether the contractor / vendor possessed the same job specification before I start to carry out my inspection.

After all the hiccups, the QC manager was sent back home and the rest of them become very friendly. I did not stay long in this assignment as I felt the factory work is monotonous. My colleague continued as TPI until the factory relocated in China.

Regards
Joey

By lou

Date 12-17-2015 23:50

Well fortunatly I am in a position that can directly effect policy. My group has recently been given authority to update and revise all USACE guide specifications for steel construction and welding (long time coming) so its just one more add on to a list about arms length. Now if we could only get the contractor to read it.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 12-18-2015 00:32

First, you must remember, some of them can read, it's the comprehension they have problems with.

It is obvious with some of the private interpretations of the various codes that a good many people read the code with their own slant to it.

Brent