I guess you did not read all the post
I did state it is in a procedure to have the fillet tested and approved by a Level III, reviewed and approved by the engineer, this procedure is part of the contract documents so contracturally it would be required theres the basis for doing it, the engineer sanctioned and required it.
so that is why we are doing it, not beause I want to, even though I agree with the engineer. But at least I tried to accomadate my employer. No one has presented any information substanciating that a "fillet is just a fillet" and what has been provided does tend to support my train of thought, at least in my mind.
As far as code clarity, i feel it doesn't exist. I say it matters and you say it doesn'ts, so where (now remember I want chapter and verse) does it clarify the issue. The simple question is, if the reinforcing "fillet" when applied to produce the required design weld size in a PJP weld, is it part of the design weld?? if the fillet was not in place would the PJP be acceptable?? No because the throat would be low, if the fillet is added would not the fillet require the same quality level as the groove becuase it is an essential part of completing the weld. You need it to make the weld joint complete but do you let it have lack of fusion, lack of penetration and cracks below the visible surface???? so what good would it be to require the fillet to maintain the throat and allow other discontinuities, not visible, to exist in an intrinsic portion of the weld????
read 2.6.4 and lok at Annex A, you tell me why it's not just a fillet.
I guess my point is, it is part of the PJP because it is required to make the efective weld therefore when the job specs require UT on PJP and CJP welds it would be included simple it's part of the PJP weld..
Richard,
I didn't say code clarity is not important. I said its not the issue your dealing with.
You have established that the EOR has required UT of a fillet. Section 6 Part F only deals with Grooves. So now 6.1.1 kicks in. And again, you have a contract clarity issue. Not a code clarity issue.
And let me add this, your fillet is not part of the the PJP weld. This is semantic confusion. The fillet is a fillet, and is part of the weldment system that accomodates the design stresses. That weldment system consists of a PJP groove weld and a fillet weld.
Its essentially the same thing as O-lets in piping. You have a groove weld and a fillet weld combination. Both are critical to the design stress intended. In fact, in piping its even tougher to distinguish because you have to contact the O-let manufacturer to tell you where one actually ends and the other begins. Nobody does that so most o-lets end up looking like mini volcanoes.
why, you need it to complete the weld?
you are skirting the issue, answer the questions in the post.
comment on 2.6.4 and annex A, convince me, you haven't yet.
when I was in piping and vessel work the entire weld of 'O-lets" when required to be tested was tested.
Richard,
On a side note, i was wondering what your acceptance criteria is for UT of a fillet?
simply the requirements of the groove, since it is a part of the effective groove weld
you guys keep seperating the two welds explain to me why?? the one would not be without the other. what am I missing???
We don't seperate them, AWS does, AWS A3.0. Just because they are used together in a total weldment does not mean one disappears (see O-lets above). And your EOR has to provide you with the acceptance criteria because AWS D1.1 does not address it. Section 6.1.1.
And I would go further, if you are assuming groove acceptance criteria you, and the EOR, are in violation of the code. The EOR is required to supply that criteria.
By jwright650
Date 06-19-2008 18:29
Edited 06-19-2008 18:45
Yup...you use the largest right triangle that fits with the fillet weld to figure the theoretical fillet weld (see Figure 5.4 on page 208) and then you use the groove prep minus 1/8" to figure your theoretical PJP weld size(for theorectical weld size see Figure3.3 for actual weld sizes see 4.10.2 and 4.8.4.1)...anything more is a bonus that the engineer didn't count on(extra cushion to the safety factor).
or does it, if it is weld metal to complete the required groove effective weld size then it's part of the groove
still again comment on 2.6.4, annex A show me in annex A where the two are seperated.
Show me in A3.0 where a PJP and a fillet are the same thing. :)
As an engineer, you might be able to use both weld types to get the calculation you need,.....
but as an inspector, you have to see them as seperate welds so that you can verify that they meet the minimums to be acceptable. If not, how do you verify the weld is sufficient and or acceptable?