The January edition of our Welding Journal has an article on the changes contained in the new D1.1-2015.
I read the whole thing but was largely interested in what they would have to say about Clause 5 and cleanliness. I believe I have a better understanding of what they were TRYING to accomplish but with the wording usage and purpose of preventing hydrogen cracking I still disagree with the way it came out.
I will see if I can get the link attached here for those who have not received this yet.
http://go.aws.org/wjJan2016He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent
By welderbrent 
Date 12-24-2015 03:01
Edited 12-24-2015 03:52
So, I finally got my copy of the new, latest, greatest, fantastic, amazing, flawless...??? Well, maybe I better stop before I get in over my head... D1.1:2015.
Looking over the main clause in question, Clause 5.14.1, 5.14.2, 5.14.4, 5.14.4.1 in my opinion the catch phrase of the day is in 5.14.4.1 "Welding on surfaces containing residual amounts of foreign materials is permitted provided the quality requirements of this code are met." (emphasis mine)
So, looking over this clause, the Commentary on this clause, the article in the Welding Journal explaining some of the reasoning behind their choice in this change, and hearing from many others about this, I believe I understand what they were attempting to accomplish. But, when I look at the wording they ended up with I have a hard time accepting this change because it goes way beyond the stated purpose of the change. At least to me.
Hydrogen cracking does not appear to be considered and all the other changes that will not be evident when a weld is completed as porosity or other issues will be. This statement about the quality requirements of the code being met is an automatic NO when looked at honestly by any competent CWI.
So, who is going to get upset the most when the arguments start and some contractor tells us they are allowed to weld over residual amounts of oil, grease, water, or other hydrocarbon based materials and we tell them 'the welds don't meet the requirements of the code for quality'? Who will win? It's obvious they can't meet the quality requirements because of hydrogen they have now introduced into the welds. But they say, the code allows it.
AWS has placed us in a no win position. How do we prove it prior to some building coming down around the ears of a few hundred people? Prior to many of us being retired and gone from the trade?
This battle was fought for years and took a stand with quality of electrodes and storage of those electrodes, preheat and interpass temperatures, cleanliness of the materials within a specified distance of the weld, preapproved welding parameters, preapproved grades of material, and several other factors.
And now they have given up the whole thing. I can just see the seminar instructors trying to justify the teaching on metallurgy when they get to this and say some things have to be done one way but when it is all said and done you can weld over water, oil, grease, and other hydrocarbon producers. This makes sense how?
Obviously our jobs are not very important after all. Just invoke the Farm Code because you don't need us with codes like this.
I'll bet the fabrication and erection corporations left this revision meeting with smiles ear to ear. What a giant step backwards in QC and public safety.
He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent
On a positive note: I like what they did with Fillet Welds in Clause 3.9 and Figure 3.5 making it totally clear that fillet welds in T-joints are pre-approved and need not have a PQR prior to writing a WPS.
Thanks to several here on the forum I was able to present a very good case to some CWI's who conceded they understood my position but still did not believe that T-joint fillet welds were pre-qualified.
Now it is not open for debate, if you can't understand English, just look at the picture.
Brent
It sounds like you are slowly swinging my way with your assessment of the revised requirements on surface preparation.
I have written to our good friend Mary Ruth, an editor of the Welding Journal. I hope my comments on the up coming revision of the Farm Code finds their way into the Welding Journal. Don't forget to return your ballot and any recommendations for additional provisions for the new edition.
I wanted to copy the revised provisions word for word from D1.1 and add them to the Farm Code, but that would open the way for a claim by the D1 Committee that I plagiarized their fine work. It seems to be such a good fit as written. I did change the wording, but I believe I managed to retain the spirit and context of D1.1's intent.
After reading the new edition I find it hard to believe the D1 committee expects anyone to take their work seriously. I thought codes were developed with the intent of safe guarding the general public. I guess that preconceived notion is out the window.
None of the explanations I've heard or the commentary can justify the changes on surface preparation. "It is too difficult to quantify." It is a lame excuse that holds no water.
"It is a consensus standard." That may be true, but the consensus of ancient world was the world was flat and the universe rotated around the earth.
It is a race to the bottom of the crap pile. Next will be changes in the proper storage of low hydrogen covered electrodes. The new provisions can be lifted directly from the 2002 edition of the Farm Code. The wording in the 2002 edition of the Farm Code will be a nice fit with the 2020 edition of D1.1.
One can only hope no one actually adopts this edition. One can only hope the combined intelligence of other code bodies will consign this edition to the scrap heap of history.
Public safety; clearly not foremost on the minds of the folks sitting on the D1 committee. I would be embarrassed to have my name listed on the inside cover.
As for your thought that this may have originated by the fabricators sitting on the D1 committee, I would have to say I think you are probably correct, but I have no personal knowledge that is the case. I haven't read anything on this Forum that would indicate you are wrong.
I will make an observation regarding third party inspectors; fabricators and contractors hate the notion of having someone in their facility looking over their shoulder. They have done everything possible to keep TPIs out of their facilities. Consider for a moment the "certified fabricator" program, it is a clear attempt to exempt the fabricator from TPI oversight. It is fortunate for everyone that the Building Codes didn't bite that hook, line, and sinker. Let's hope they see this edition of D1.1 for what it is.
Just my personal thoughts on the subjects.
Merry Christmas everyone.
Al
Al, Brent
ok
I see your points
but I will count beans here (Merry Christmas flux)
as the fab shop or field person
welding over any substance costs me $$$$
ie paint it in the shop, to weld over it in the field and repaint it
costs more $$$$
I have left out personal pride and ego here
ie that is my work, look at how good it is
none will like this
but sounds to me more like Inspectors and Engineers
who want to tell everyone how much they know
when they can not pass basic metallurgy in high school
let alone complex welding metallurgy, involving chemistry and physics
just my thoughts and it is IMHO
Merry Christmas to all
sincerely,
Kent
Interesting thoughts Kent, but it doesn't take an advanced knowledge of metallurgy to put these thoughts together especially after the metallurgy teaching at the CWI Seminar which is taught specifically to back up all the code applications for electrodes, welding procedures, cleaning of materials, and everything else they teach to get you past the exams.
Brent
By kcd616 
Date 12-28-2015 05:52
Edited 12-28-2015 10:40
In one of the previous discussions another poster mentioned that the 2007 edition of A2.4 for Welding Symbols was referenced in Clause 1.6 instead of the newer 2012 edition. Why?
Only thing I can see is that in the 2012 the place designators have been changed. Now, while they are only place holders, in order to totally comply with A2.4 as it applies to all AWS code publications there are many changes that would need to be made in the D1.1-2015. Such as Clause 2.3.5.1 and 2.3.5.3. Not to mention a good number of Figures in 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, etc.
Now that would mean there could be no laziness and lots of diligent research and change.
Brent
You forgot to mention mathematics also Kent.