Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here


AWS d 1.8 versus d.1.1 accept/reject criteria

AWS d 1.8 versus d.1.1 accept/reject criteria

AWS d 1.8 versus d.1.1 accept/reject criteria

my experience with UT examination of structural welds is with AWS D1.1 , I have a client who I have worked for in the past that has a issue that came up on a site , the third party UT examiner rejected a number of full penetration welds based on AWS d1.8 however the project only required the welds meet AWS D1.1 , not being very familiar with 1.8 other than knowing the basic premise, is D1.8 UT accept/reject more restrictive than AWS D1.1 , after being informed of his mistake the third party refuses re-evaluate the welds based on AWS d1.1 he stated no difference in accept/reject between codes . Thanks

RE: AWS d 1.8 versus d.1.1 accept/reject criteria

It should be easy enough to compare the two acceptance criteria by simply looking at the applicable table. However, you didn't tell us whether the connections are required to meet the criteria for cyclic loading or static loaded connections.

I would normally provide a better response, but I'm on the road at the moment and do not have access to the two standards you are asking about. My recommendation is to ask the inspection agency to send you a photocopy of the acceptance criteria they are saying is the same so you can compare them.

Several years ago I had a similar situation where a different inspector performed some UT without asking whether the connections were cyclically loaded or not. He assumed they were statically loaded when in fact the design specified cyclic. If your inspector didn't ask and if you didn't specify the nature of the loads, the test results must be suspect.

Best regards - Al

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close