Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: Grade 50 Steel Designation

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

AWS D1.1 - 2000 now covers ASTM A992 material.  Coincidentally I just check
today with our fabricators and they say A992 for wide flanges is not a problem.
However they are somewhat hesitant for use any grade 50 material for angles,
channels, and plate due to the fact they have to keep this material segregated
for proper usage and tracking procedures.

Thomas Hunt, S.E.
Duke/Fluor Daniel

"Crosier, Jeffrey" <croser(--nospam--at)> on 05/01/2000 12:33:18 PM

Please respond to seaint(--nospam--at)

To:   "'seaint(--nospam--at)'" <seaint(--nospam--at)>

Subject:  RE: Grade 50 Steel Designation

I suggest checking the AISC website, I went through this same thing several
months ago and changed our notes to read "ASTM A572 grade 50 with special
requirements per AISC technical bulletin #3, dated March 1997."  The reason for
all this as I recall is that AWS had not updated their spec to include welding
of A992 material.  There was a good paper included in the AISC website.

Jeff Crosier, S.E.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ritter, Mike [mailto:mritter(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2000 11:20 AM
To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)'
Subject: Grade 50 Steel Designation


We typically put a note on our drawings that says steel (WF shapes) are
to be ASTM A572, Grade 50.  However, we recently had a peer reviewer say
that we should probably specify ASTM A992.

I spoke with a contact at a local steel fab shop, and he said that the
992 is probably more readily available, but is no less expensive than
the 572.  The 992 is the "dual certification" steel.

Any comments?  What do you guys specify?  Is there a reason to specify
one over the other if we're getting 50 ksi either way?

Thanks in advance,

Michael D. Ritter, PE