AWS D1.1 new Clause 9 3

[WP23]

AWS D1.1 2015 new Clause 9.
Previous versions of D1.1 Table 4.2 (2. Test on Pipe or Tubing). Previous wording was "Nominal Plate, Pipe or Tube Wall Thickness Qualified, in". The new 2015 version reads "Nominal Pipe or Tube Wall Thickness Qualified, in". The word Plate is missing, is this an oversight and is Plate still qualified when a pipe coupon is used?

Thanks
wp23

 

[gtaw]

It is not an oversight. Clause 9 only addresses tubular connections. As such, clause 9 is self contained and address design, materials, qualification, and fabrication requirements for tubular connections. Think of it as a mini-code for tubular construction.

Qualification for connections that utilize plate materials would be qualified in accordance with clause 4.

Best regards - Al

 

[WP23]

Thank you

 

[cjgrass]

Al- I have a follow up question to this- in the past in order to qualify CJP API 5L X65 pipe to ASTM A572Gr50 plate for pile caps for example we would roll 1/2" A572 plate to match 8 5/8"ODx0.500"X65 pipe. So if pipe no longer qualifies plate how would you qualify a scenario such as this? Even if it's not considered a tubular connection X65 doesn't come in plate.

 

[gtaw]

I looked in my copy of D1.1-2015, table 4.11, and in the right hand column "Qualified Dimensions" it lists " Nominal Plate, Pipe, or Tube Thickness". Table 9.14 includes the same, but with different footnotes. Both table are for welder performance qualification.

Generally, a plate welded to a tubular is not a tubular connection. Tubular to tubular, i.e., a butt joint, T,K, or Y connections consisting of tubular members, are addressed by Clause 9.

Best regards - Al

 

[WP23]

I contacted AWS and they admitted that the word PLATE had been mistakenly omitted from TABLE 9.10. AWS will publish an errata addressing this omission soon.

Thanks

 

[cjgrass]

Thank you, sorry for not being more specific, i was talking about wps qualification to table 9.10.

 

[ssbn726]

Thanks for the update on that WP23. I ran into that just a while ago. I figured it had to be an oversight of some kind, but didn't see it in the errata yet.