Contact US

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!

*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

Qualifying GTAW Fillet Weld on 6061-T6 Studs

Qualifying GTAW Fillet Weld on 6061-T6 Studs

Qualifying GTAW Fillet Weld on 6061-T6 Studs

I'm trying to figure out what testing is required by the AWS D1.2 (2014) code for qualifying a WPS for studs fillet welded to sheet using GTAW process.

In Clause 6, section 6.1.2, it states "aluminum studs may be applied by fillet welding using the GTAW process provided the following conditions are met: The WPS used is qualified in conformance with Clause 3, Qualification of WPSs and Personnel."

We don't have an existing WPS, so we need to qualify a new one. And even if we did, how would that be translated to a stud application? The problem is that Clause 3 only distinguishes fillet welding for plate, pipe, and tubing, so I don't know exactly what I am supposed to be following in Clause 3 for my studs. Even the requirements for macro-etch in Clause 3 are distinguished as being for "plate and pipe."

Any insight would be appreciated. Thank you.

RE: Qualifying GTAW Fillet Weld on 6061-T6 Studs

A stud is similar in procedure to a small diameter pipe.

RE: Qualifying GTAW Fillet Weld on 6061-T6 Studs

Thanks Ron. That's what I feared.

If I'm understanding Clause 3 correctly, a qualified pipe fillet weld WPS is not limited by pipe size as an essential variable. It seems odd to me that you can translate such a WPS across all pipe sizes, as penetration to or beyond the apex of the joint (without blowing through your part) will be vastly more difficult for a very small "pipe" (e.g. a 3/16" stud) than for a larger one. Anyway, I can't disagree-- I had the same interpretation initially. I think in a sense it doesn't add much value to the qualification in the stud application, given the distinct joint properties.

Thanks again.

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! Already a Member? Login


Low-Volume Rapid Injection Molding With 3D Printed Molds
Learn methods and guidelines for using stereolithography (SLA) 3D printed molds in the injection molding process to lower costs and lead time. Discover how this hybrid manufacturing process enables on-demand mold fabrication to quickly produce small batches of thermoplastic parts. Download Now
Design for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM)
Examine how the principles of DfAM upend many of the long-standing rules around manufacturability - allowing engineers and designers to place a part’s function at the center of their design considerations. Download Now
Taking Control of Engineering Documents
This ebook covers tips for creating and managing workflows, security best practices and protection of intellectual property, Cloud vs. on-premise software solutions, CAD file management, compliance, and more. Download Now

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