Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / Inspection & Qualification / HSS bracing (lateral frames)
- - By jwright650 (*****) Date 11-15-2019 17:01
I'm not sure why I'm all of sudden hung up on this but...
Field welding the HSS tubing to the gusset plate(fillet welds). Use Table 6.1 or Table 9.16?
Looking through Clause 9 where the main focus seems to be on T, Y, and K joints, I don't see how this fillet welded joint fits into this acceptance criteria other than the use of HSS sections for the bracing.
Parent - - By SWN1158 (***) Date 11-15-2019 17:52
It's my understanding that Clause 9 is strictly tubular... i.e., tube to tube. I use 6.1 for anything not 100% tubular.
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 11-19-2019 12:09
Scott,
Even the Commentary (thank you Al for mentioning the Commentary) leaves you in the dark regarding the scope of Clause 9 and where do you break the line between using Table 6.1 or Table 9.16. Off shore drilling platforms being primarily made of tubular sections seems to have driven the desire to split out the tubular section to Clause 9.
I'm going to take your approach and leave Clause 9 right back there where it belongs.
Parent - - By SWN1158 (***) Date 11-19-2019 13:44
I agree.
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 11-19-2019 17:05
I've been listening to some very … um... charged.. discussions about this type of scenario lately.

Lets say you have a square or rectangular tube (HSS) to be welded to a base or connection plate. 

If the orientation is anything but horizontal, with the plate flat, the welder is going to be changing "position" in the production of the weldment right?  ….  Won't this be the case even if the HSS is rotated ?     Those corners are simply not going to remain in the same position, except in the horizontal orientation.   This applies to fillets, CJP's and PJP's does it not ?

I think the letter of the law would require 6GR if you chase each clause in progression, and that seems in my judgement to be massive overkill...  But that's how it reads to me.
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 11-19-2019 23:38
I think they over reached trying to bust out Clause 9 from the standard structural welding code. If they want to apply it to offshore rigs, that's fine, maybe they should take that out of D1.1 altogether and give it it's own D1.X code.
Parent - By SWN1158 (***) Date 11-20-2019 15:22
Maybe add it to the Farm Code ?
- - By 803056 (*****) Date 11-16-2019 15:12 Edited 11-16-2019 15:27
Maybe I'm not understanding what your question is John?

Are you referring a typical detail that entails cutting a slot longitudinally in the HSS to "swallow" the gusset plates? If that is the case, I believe the commentary may clarify the situation. Refer to Figure C-4.1

Is the following sketch what you are asking about?

Al
Attachment: HSS-PlateConnection16-Nov-2019Model1.pdf (10k)
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 11-16-2019 22:40
Yep, that's the bracing connection that I'm having the question about.
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 11-17-2019 02:15
In my opinion, Section 9 doesn't apply to the fillet welds joining the gusset to the tube, whether it is welded in the field or the shop has no bearing.

Al
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 11-17-2019 12:33
In my report I was referencing that the field welding was acceptable and in accordance with AWS D1.1,  Table X.X Visual Acceptance Criteria...., just wanted to reference the correct Table.
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 11-17-2019 15:33
Interesting you limit the criteria to Table 6.1. How do you handle those items listed in Clause 5, such as convexity, overlap, you know what we refer to as weld profile, fit-up, etc.?

Al
Parent - By jwright650 (*****) Date 11-17-2019 22:59
No limits, Fig 5.4 is also considered.  It's not split up into tubular and non-tubular like the Visual Acceptance Criteria is.
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 11-18-2019 12:42
:)
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 11-18-2019 14:00
Just shows my ignorance of the 2015 edition of the Farm Code. I have yet to include it in any of the project specifications I've worked on. Let's hope the committee pulled their head out of their neither region in the 2020 edition.

Just saying.

Al
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 11-18-2019 15:47
Reads pretty much the same all the way back to 98  :)
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 11-18-2019 16:08
That's a crying shame. I had hoped they would eliminate the acceptance of welding on oily, greasy, and weld surfaces. :confused

Clearly, delayed cold cracking is a myth in the mind of a few key committee members. There's no need to revise my edition of the Farm Code, it lives on!

Al
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 11-18-2019 16:32
Heh...

I meant that the Table 6.1 reference to clause 5 for profiles reads the same back in 98
Parent - By 803056 (*****) Date 11-18-2019 18:47
What about the clause pertaining to cleaning?

Al
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 11-19-2019 12:04
Correct Lar, weld profiles have been part of the visual acceptance criteria for ages. However they did make Fig 5.4 ridiculous in that what was once 1 page and easy to read and comprehend(when trying to  explain to the welder why something needs to be corrected) is now 4 pages of pictures and two tables to run through. By the time you find an inside corner fillet weld and run through all of the tables, you have lost the poor guy's attention.
Parent - By Lawrence (*****) Date 11-19-2019 13:32
Ha ha…  And Fig. 5.4 still isn't big enough !    

That's just the nature of trying to cover everything in a code with large scope.

It was recently brought to my attention on one of the forums that a profile for root reinforcement on a CJP welded from one side is not represented  :)
Up Topic Welding Industry / Inspection & Qualification / HSS bracing (lateral frames)

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill