I am happy to see we have a scholar responding to this question. An expert in the interpretation of English as used by the Americans that wrote the D1.1 Structural Welding Code/Steel. I just hope we are using the same edition.
While I am no scholar nor do I proclaim to be an expert in the use of D1.1, I do believe there is some twisting of the Ass' tail to derive a few of the interpretations of D1.1 that I am reading.
AWS D1.1 gives the Owner, through their Engineer, considerable latitude when it comes to code provisions. The Engineer can add to, supplement, or exclude certain provisions. When said additions, supplements, or exclusions are invoked by the Engineer, they must be included in the project specifications.
We do not privy to the contract documents that are involved, so we do not know what the fine print has to say about this project. We cannot be sure anything written in this thread has any bearing with regards to the project since we don't know if the Engineer did a good job or a poor job defining the terms and conditions that apply.
Use of the English language can be very muddied when it has been mutated over many years as it has. If the language was as clear and precise as we would like it to be there would be no need for lawyers. Clearly that isn't the case because the number of lawyers outnumbers the number of doctors in America.
I do believe the 2010 edition of AWS D1.1 structural welding code is clear that only those materials listed in Table 3.1 can be used for a prequalified WPS. Rather than simply quotig a portion of a sentence, it may be useful to cite the entire sentence. In this case the clause that applies is 3.3 Base Metal/Filler Metal Combinations - "Only base metal and filler metals listed in Table 3.1 may be used in prequalified WPS. (For qualification of listed base metals and filler metals, and for base metals and filler metals not listed in Table 3.1, see 4.2.1.)"
An exception to the requirements of clause 3.3 is allowed in clause 3.4 Engineer's Approval for Auxiliary Attachments when approved by the Owner's representative, i.e., the Engineer.
Further reading directs the user to Table 3.8 that list the welding variables that must be included in the prequalified WPS. Item 3) lists the base metal group number derived from Table 3.1 as one of the many variables that must be included by the prequalified WPS.
To take a step or two backwards to reread clause 3.1 may be of some use, "In order for a WPS to be prequalified, conformance with all of the applicable requirements of clause 3 shall be required."
Reading one or two clauses or one or two sentences from a single clause, without reading the entire clause and all the referenced clauses, tables, and figures can be misleading. It has been my experienced that a minority of contractors have developed a strange ability to read only those portions of the code that support their skewed view of what the code requires. I have coined the phrase, "Selective reading ability." It seems to describe the ability of those few contractors to twist the intent of the code to suit their purposes.
If there is a question regarding the use and application of AWS D1.1, it is the Owner's Engineer that has the authority to provide the final decision and judgment. If the contractor disagrees with the Engineer regarding the meaning or intent of a code provision the contractor can submit a request for an official interpretation from the AWS D1 committee. Only they, the D1 committee, are authorized to issue an official interpretation on the intent and use of the code.
A review of official interpretations of AWS D1.1 does not produce any questions regarding the use of materials not listed in Table 3.1 for prequalified WPSs. I would assume that would infer the question has not been an issue in the past. It could be that most contractors do not have a problem understanding the intent of clause 3 or the difference between a listed base metal and one that is not. However, in the current market and considering the fact that there is a good portion of our work going overseas, there is no doubt somewhat of a language barrier that comes into play. Again, my position is that when a question arises, it is the Engineer, i.e., the Owner’s representative, that has the authority to make a decision whether to accept the unlisted base metal or to require the WPS be qualified in accordance with clause 4 of AWS D1.1.
It can prove to be very costly for the contractor to forge blindly ahead and assume a material not listed in Table 3.1 can be considered a prequalified base metal. This would be especially true if American English is not the native language of the contractor involved. It is better to ask the question first than to discover at a later date a blunder has been made. Expensive lessons are valuable if the company survives the financial repercussions.
When in doubt, as the Engineer for clarification.
Best regards - Al
