D1.1 Specs.

Rick · Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:29 am

Hi everyone,
Ok so im getting ready to start testing my class for D 1.1 Cert. 3/8" plate open v groove. I looked thru the forums to see if i could find my answer to no avail.
I did a test coupon to show my class and the weld looks real funny and im thinking its cause the gap is so wide. Im wondering if there is a weld size limit to the D 1.1, width and highth.
I will try to upload a picture.

UPDATE
Ok so i cant get a pic up. (Sorry) But the weld looked like i was doing figure 8's high on the sides it almost looks like i did a weld up each side.
Any way i fixed that problem and have a nice flat weld now, just nipped the sides and slowed down in the middle and also turned wire feed up.

However the weld width is about 7/8" wide. Is this too wide? It looks really big.
3/8" plate ,60° bevel , root opening was 0 , root face about 3/16 (didnt measure that).
17.4v 184wfs on root and back weld, turned up to 208wfs on cover pass.

Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:58 am

Hi there,

I had a look through an electronic copy of this code that I "found". Man thats a big sucker, 540 odd pages. Anyhow, all i could find on max butt weld sizes is a reinforcement height of max 1/8 or 3mm. Nothing on max width. But my brain exploded shortly after that. somewhere around pg 390.

My weld test in Australia stated that max width is 3mm or 1/8 outside the edges of the prep. Not a bad rule i reckon.

hope this helps.
Mick

RedIron881 · Fri Apr 06, 2012 9:51 am

General rule of thumb in my book is the weld width should be no more than twice the thickness of the thinnest material being welded. Not sure what the D1.1 spec is on that but that's what D17.1 (aerospace) is. Sorry this might be a little late but hope that helps for future reference.

rankamateur · Wed May 02, 2012 8:28 pm

We just went through a round of tests at work. One inspector told me it was a maximum of 1/8" past the edge of the bevel, another just told me if I flip up my hood, blush and look embarrassed, it's too big. I am not sure if either of these is correct, as one of our welders went waaay past the outside of his bevels and it passed visual anyway.

hippyengineer · Sat Jan 26, 2013 9:44 am

On a prequalified PJP weld as described, the minimum weld size should be 3/16" and the maximum weld size "need not exceed the thickness of the thinner part joined". See table 3.4 and figure 3.3 for the single v groove weld. Hope this helps.

Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:07 pm

I've not encoutered a spec on the maximum width of a weld, though in a flux-core structural test, I encountered a limit for the individual bead width. It was a 1" plate test with backing, and the cap stringers could not exceed 5/8". I never asked what specification they were using, and it could have been their own WPS.

Steve S

Ultralow787 · Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:31 pm

I was always told that the maximum bead width (for a weave) was 3/4". If it was over that, then a split weave should be used. This was with SMAW, not GMAW like what you are using. I guess the reasoning behind a SMAW maximum width of 3/4" is the risk of slag inclusions?
I don't have a particular specification or section to quote either!

mahi · Mon Oct 07, 2013 6:30 am

Thanks guys this info really helped me out, it didn't take very much heat at all to weld this stuff. 65 amps was a bit on the hot side I dropped down to around 50-55 amps and it welded perfect... This is on a 1" coupon. And I'm blowing a hard purge as well(as hard as I could go without blowing out my root pass)... Again thank you and any other info would be greatly appreciated!!

Mon Oct 07, 2013 6:22 pm

mahi wrote:Thanks guys this info really helped me out, it didn't take very much heat at all to weld this stuff. 65 amps was a bit on the hot side I dropped down to around 50-55 amps and it welded perfect... This is on a 1" coupon. And I'm blowing a hard purge as well(as hard as I could go without blowing out my root pass)... Again thank you and any other info would be greatly appreciated!!

Sounds like a TIG weld...

Post in the wrong topic?

lazerbeam · Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:34 pm

You are usually limited to 1/8" outside of the original groove and 1/8" above the surface of the base metal. If I read correctly you are using 0" root opening and 3/16" land. That sounds like it will be tough to put your root pass in and be at least flush on the back side. It has been my experience that this is a tough test to pass with GMAW short circuit. Let us know how it goes.

Tue Oct 08, 2013 1:29 am

Im thinking some kind of semi intelligent spam bot, Otto.

Mick

Tue Oct 08, 2013 6:13 pm

I tend to agree, Mick.

It was close enough to let it pass for a minute or two... My guess is if we let it go a few days, we'll not hear again, but after accidentally removing a real person once, I'm more cautious about immediately booting things that aren't "obvious" spam.

Steve S

Tue Oct 08, 2013 6:29 pm

Hey,

when it seems flat out weird , i can it straight away.

This guy is a little weird, so lets let him stay for a little while, but have the chopper ready. lol

jwmacawful · Tue Oct 08, 2013 6:58 pm

weldin mike 27 wrote:Hey,

when it seems flat out weird , i can it straight away.

This guy is a little weird, so lets let him stay for a little while, but have the chopper ready. lol

i feel like i missed something here. what's going on??

Tue Oct 08, 2013 7:07 pm

jwmacawful,

It's about Mahi's first and only post, earlier in the thread. It's either badly misplaced, or a spambot, but makes enough sense to belong in the TIG forum if that's what it was intended for.

Since it's not obviously spam or other abuse of the forum, we're going to wait and see whether Mahi is a legitimate member.

I was hoping discussing his post would prompt a reply from him.

Steve S

jwmacawful · Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:38 pm

Otto Nobedder wrote:jwmacawful,

It's about Mahi's first and only post, earlier in the thread. It's either badly misplaced, or a spambot, but makes enough sense to belong in the TIG forum if that's what it was intended for.

Since it's not obviously spam or other abuse of the forum, we're going to wait and see whether Mahi is a legitimate member.

I was hoping discussing his post would prompt a reply from him.

Steve S

10/4

lazerbeam · Tue Oct 22, 2013 9:15 pm

Hey guys, I wanted to get this back to the top because of some questions that have come up in my classes.

Are you working from WPS for GMAW structural steel? I am asking because GMAW short circuit is not allowed in any of the pre-approved procedures in D1.1.

If someone did go through the procedure qualification for GMAW-S and then wrote a WPS, I would like to get a copy of at least the WPS to share with my classes.

I also have my students do test plates with GMAW just to test their skill level and I was wondering if the AWS ever approved GMAW-S for anything over 3/16".

Thanks,
Kevin

Tue Oct 22, 2013 9:30 pm

I can't give you specifics, but the AAR approved a WPS for GMAW-S.

You can't do GMAW in other than flat position without short-circuit.

I can't fathom AWS not having a coverage for this; ASME has short-circuit MIG in the boiler code. MIG root, FCAW out is a common boiler test.

Steve S