{"id":4062,"date":"2026-05-12T02:37:15","date_gmt":"2026-05-12T02:37:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/zxweldingrobot.com\/?p=4062"},"modified":"2026-05-12T02:37:15","modified_gmt":"2026-05-12T02:37:15","slug":"structural-welding","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/zxweldingrobot.com\/es\/blog\/structural-welding\/","title":{"rendered":"Soldadura estructural en 2026: una gu\u00eda de c\u00f3digo, procesos y automatizaci\u00f3n para fabricantes de acero"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Structural welding stands at the convergence of three pressures in 2026: a dramatically updated code (AWS D1.1:2025), a labor force hell-bent on automating faster than they did with FCAW in the \u201980s, and a steel industry currently de-GA-ing, 50% re-shoring, and scoffing at foundations workers. This guide is written for the people who really own those decisions: fabrication shop owners, weld engineers, quality managers, new equipment buyers; not for the high school student considering a welding career.<\/p>\n

By the conclusion of this article you will,\u2014understand what was modified in the AWS D1.1 between the 2020 and 2025 releases, -determine the welding process best suited to any service\/purpose, -place robotic structural welding in context, identify where it is applicable & where it is not, -identify the parameters AWS D1.1 demands in 2026 for procedure qualification & inspection, and -know the immediate 12\u201324 month market and regulatory landscape.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Quick Specs \u2014 Structural Welding (2026 Snapshot)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Governing code (US)<\/td>\nAWS D1.1\/D1.1M:2025<\/a> \u2014 Structural Welding Code, Steel (2\u00b3rd edition, 5-year revision cycle)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Primary base metals<\/td>\nASTM A\u00b36, A572 Gr. 50, A992; A913 Gr. 80 added in 2025 (Group V)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Common field processes<\/td>\nSMAW (stick) and FCAW-S (self-shielded flux-cored)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Common shop processes<\/td>\nFCAW-G, GMAW (solid + metal-cored), SAW<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Inspection (D1.1 Clause 8)<\/td>\nVT mandatory; MT, PT, UT, PAUT per contract documents<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Welder qualification<\/td>\nAWS D1.1 Clause 6 \u2014 by position (1G\u20134G groove, 1F\u20134F fillet)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Robotic adoption<\/td>\nGlobal robotic welding market $10.44B (2025) \u2192 $11.49B (2026), CAGR 9.94%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

What Is Structural Welding?<\/h2>\n

\"What<\/p>\n

The welding of load carrying members of steel structures – columns, beam, trusses, plate girders, bridge members, and details of connection – to a code regulating design, qualification, fabrication, and examination is structural welding. In the United States AWS D1.1\/D1.1M, Structural Welding Code – Steel, published by the American Welding Society is the code. Codes for other materials are ASTM AWS D1.2 for aluminum, D1.3 for sheet steel, D1.4 for reinforcing bar, AASHTO\/AWS D1.5 for bridges, D1.6 for stainless, D1.7 for aluminum sheet.<\/p>\n

This distinction is significant because some welded steel is not code-specified structural steel. While a handrail bracket and a moment resisting beam-column connection are both welded on steel, only the latter is covered throughout by D1.1: the weld procedure, the welder, the joint detail, the filler metal, the inspection, and the records.<\/p>\n

The scale makes sense. A non-trivial percentage of that 1,884 million tonnes recorded by the World Steel Association<\/a> in 2024 as being global crude steel in 2024 had to eventually finish up as welded structural members for buildings, bridges, refineries and power stations, which can be said to be the product of every one of those welds.<\/p>\n

For the typical American fabricators, it is generally like this: Contract documents require a building code (say IBC); the building code in turn in turn requires AISC 360 for steel design; the AISC360 again refers to AWS D1.1 for welded connections; D1.1 then refereed AWS A5 series specs for filler metals and ASTM for base metals. Screw up any of those layers and the connection was non-conforming even if the puddle appeared pretty.<\/p>\n

AWS D1.1:2025 \u2014 Code Changes Steel Fabricators Need to Know<\/h2>\n

\"AWS<\/p>\n

AWS D1.1 is on a five year revision schedule, and AWS D1.1\/D1.1M:2025 23rd edition replaces AWS D1.1:2020. These 2025 changes were larger than cosmetics. They include design side strength calculations, requirements for prequalified WPS, preheat distances, inspection acceptance, and stud welding.<\/p>\n

Here is the practical summary that most shops will need.<\/p>\n

What changed in AWS D1.1:2025 vs 2020?<\/h3>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Area<\/th>\nAWS D1.1:2020<\/th>\nAWS D1.1:2025<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Design strength (Clause 4.7)<\/td>\nAllowable Stress Design (ASD) only<\/td>\nASD + Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) added; Table 4.3 lists available strengths<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Filler metal classification<\/td>\nReferences to AWS A5.36 throughout<\/td>\nAll A5.36 references removed (specification was withdrawn); electrodes remain classified under A5.18, A5.20, A5.28, A5.29<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Shielding gas (Clause 5.6.4)<\/td>\nUnclear which gases qualify for prequalified WPS<\/td>\nDefines Oxygen Equivalent (OE = %O\u2082 + 0.5 \u00d7 %CO\u2082); production gas must comply with electrode manufacturer’s OE limit<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Preheat distance (Clause 7.6.2)<\/td>\nExtend max base metal thickness in all directions, no less than 3″<\/td>\nFor t<1.5″: at least 2\u00d7 thickness. For t\u22651.5″: at least thickness, no less than 3″<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Discontinuity geometry (Clause 8.10.1)<\/td>\nDefinitions of linear vs rounded not explicit<\/td>\nLinear = length > 3\u00d7 width; Rounded = length \u2264 3\u00d7 width or irregular<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
NDT personnel certification (Clause 8.14.6)<\/td>\nGeneral reference to employer practice<\/td>\nTwo explicit routes: employer-based per ASNT SNT-TC-1A or ANSI\/ASNT CP-189; third-party per ANSI\/ASNT CP-9712, CAN\/CGSB-48.9712, or ISO 9712<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Stud welding (Clause 9)<\/td>\nTypes A, B, C<\/td>\nType D added \u2014 deformed wire\/bar per ASTM A706\/A706M Grade 60; tension test 125% of minimum specified yield<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
New base metal<\/td>\nA913 Gr. 70 in lower group<\/td>\nA913 Gr. 80 added to new Group V in Table 5.6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

The code’s inclusion of the LRFD approach is a novelty. Essential assumptions concerning dead-to-live load ratios and structural reliability are the same, if not identical, to that derived from ANSI\/AISC 360 over the last few decades. To attain targeted reliability, adjustment to the AISC 360 LRFD strength reduction factors might be undertaken.<\/p>\n

\u2014 Travis Green, Tom Schlafly, Mike Gase, AWS D1Q Subcommittee on Steel Structures, AWS Welding Journal<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Some shop-oriented implications for 2026: 1. If a WPS references AWS A5.36, it will need to be revised to one of the other remaining A5 specs in time to avoid triggering requalification by other critical variables. 2. Shops doing thin-section structural work (less than 1.5 inches) will be able to heat a smaller perimeter when using the new preheat distance requirement, meaning less torch time, less fuel cost, and faster ramping up of weldments once preheat no longer bottlenecked production.<\/p>\n

Common Welding Processes for Structural Steel<\/h2>\n

\"Common<\/p>\n

Five welding processes account for the lion’s share of structural fabrication tonnage. There is a justifiable niche for each one given environment, joint geometry, material gauges and labor cost structure. A correct answer is not just “go with the same process”.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Process<\/th>\nAWS Class<\/th>\nDeposition<\/th>\nPosition<\/th>\nBest for<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
SMAW (Stick)<\/td>\nA5.1, A5.5<\/td>\n~3 lb\/hr<\/td>\nAll<\/td>\nField repair, short welds, mobility<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
FCAW-S (self-shielded)<\/td>\nA5.20, A5.29<\/td>\n5\u20138 lb\/hr<\/td>\nAll<\/td>\nOutdoor \/ windy field welding<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
FCAW-G (gas-shielded)<\/td>\nA5.20, A5.29<\/td>\n8\u201312 lb\/hr<\/td>\nAll<\/td>\nShop welds on mill scale, mixed-skill operators<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
GMAW (solid + metal-cored)<\/td>\nA5.18, A5.28<\/td>\n6\u201314 lb\/hr<\/td>\nAll (solid: limited out-of-position)<\/td>\nClean shop welds, no slag, robotic cells<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
SAW<\/td>\nA5.17, A5.23<\/td>\n15\u201360+ lb\/hr<\/td>\n1F, 1G primarily<\/td>\nLong, continuous, multi-pass welds (I-beams, plate girders)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

A few exceptions that the table does not support. all of most AWS 7018 stick electrodes that are the welding workhorse of structural SMAW are H4 (4ml\/100g of deposit). all of the self-shielded FCAW wires are H8 or greater, no H4 in self-shielded chemistry. If a field specification would require H4, this would normally be for SMAW with low hydrogen electrodes, not FCAW-S.<\/p>\n

There is one kind of semi-shielded wire, however, that needs its own discussion. Metal-cored wiresare really GMAW wires (no flux, easier cleanup like solid wire), but they deposit like FCAW (high deposition). A wide weld pool is more forgiving of mill scale than solid wire, and allows more operator variability.<\/p>\n

For a shop that has a range of welder skill levels, this is the most operator-forgiving high-deposition choice.<\/p>\n

\ud83d\udcd0 Engineering Note<\/strong><\/p>\n

Table 5.1. for prequalified WPS ( Welding Procedure Specification ) submission under AWS D1.1:2025 is now split into separate process groups (SMAW,SAW, GMAW\/FCAW). It is also divided by mode of operation (non-short circuit, pulsed transfer mode). Limit on maximum weld profile is also added.<\/p>\n

Ensure your current prequalified procedures are audited against this new table before blindly carry-over from 2020.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Field vs. Shop: How Application Drives Process Choice<\/h2>\n

\"Field<\/p>\n

The biggest expense in any welding operation is the labor. Every moment an operator spends not depositing weld metal (changing electrodes, repositioning, grinding, waiting on preheat, etc) comes at the company paid at the full burdened rate. In fact, for structural steel, process selection is primarily a question of productivity.<\/p>\n

This matrix, overlaid with application, makes apparent the two factors that determine cost: location (field verses shop) and state space (production vs mobility).<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/th>\nField<\/th>\nShop<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Production-dominant (long welds, stationary operator)<\/td>\nFCAW-S<\/strong> \u2014 high deposition, wind-tolerant, no shielding gas to lose<\/td>\nSAW<\/strong> or FCAW-G<\/strong> \u2014 highest deposition rates, slag managed at fixed station<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Mobility-dominant (short welds, repositioning, mixed access)<\/td>\nSMAW<\/strong> \u2014 portable, simple, familiar to most welders<\/td>\nGMAW with metal-cored<\/strong> \u2014 no slag, fast restart, tolerant of mill scale<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

Three specific givens from the real Hobart Brothers comparison show the productivity big game. A 1\/8″ SAW solid wire at 100 wfs, 30 V, 650 A has a travel speed of 22″ per min. for a given target weld size. Same size diameter wire run as metal cored at 150 wfs (same 30 V, 650 A) gets 27.5 ipm. to make the same weld\u2014+25% travel speed, -25% heat input. On a 40′ girders seam, that’s about 10 fewer minutes of arc time per weld and less distortion to straighten out in the field.<\/p>\n

\n
\u2714 When stick wins<\/strong><\/p>\n