Allan,
I believe you interpreted the thread correctly (though I haven't looked), but that isn't an official interpretation of the code.
Hello Allen;
That was one person's interpretation of D1.1. However, I simply refer to Table 3.7 (D1.1-2006). The table and the restrictions have been listed in similar tables in previous editions of D1.1 for as long as I can remember. The discussion has been the same for just as long.
I guess this is where common sense and experience as a welder and as an inspector comes into the picture. Due consideration must also be given to whether the person is representing the contractor or if the individual is a third party inspector. The contractor should place limitations on the width of the weave if there is a reason to do so. The third party inspector should be reading the code and applying it as it is written, without interjecting their personal bias.
We can all list examples of "where things have gone wrong" or "I did this and it worked". The code is based on a good number of years of experience, both good and bad. It represents "industry's best practice", and while I don't necessarily agree with every word of the code, I try to apply it with an even hand without interjecting my personal bias.
As a contractor, if there is a reason to limit the width of the individual weld bead, then by all means do so, but don't say the code limits it.
I'm am not advocating wide weaves of unlimited width, but I don't impose my own restrictions on contractors that is doing the actual work unless there is a heat input requirement or some other restriction imposed by the approved WPS. I do reject welds that are both stringers or weaves if they don't meet the code imposed profile requirements or some other code requirement that justifies rejecting the weld. Some welders can run wide weave beads and others can not. Skill still plays an import part in our chosen field.
Best regards - Al
Hello Al, and thank you for the comments and clarifications. As you say, interpretation can certainly vary and as a result differences in opinion and interpretation can definitely alter perceptions of correct and incorrect practices. Best regards, Allan
By CWI555 
Date 07-14-2008 15:53
Edited 07-14-2008 16:08
It may not be explicitly stated, however; it was clear that the intent was not to weld over solidified slag. Yet there are no definitive restrictions.
It's my interpretation that the code contradicts itself. For reference of intent and direct statements: 06 D1.1 paragraphs; 5.25, 5.4.4, 5.25.1.1, 5.25.1.2, and the more important one
5.30.1 where it states the following "Before welding over previously deposited metal, all slag shall be removed and the weld and adjacent base metal shall be cleaned by brushing or other suitable means. This requirement shall apply not only to successive layers but also to successive beads and to the crater area when welding is resumed after any interruption."
In the first sentence, it doesn't say bead, or layer, it says "deposited metal". Looking to other sections of the code the intent is clear to me that it was never intended to weld over solidified slag. Even for plug welds in 5.25 it states "the slag covering the weld metal should be kept molten until the weld is finished"
To Jeff, therefore I do consider this a code requirement. Someone may try to argue to the contrary, but I would ask them to show me in the code where welding over solidified slag is allowed. They cannot, because it is not there. On the contrary, there are multiple direct and indirect references to not allowing it.
If I had to answer for one or the other position, I at least have something in writing in the code to back me up. There is nothing anywhere in the code for weave or otherwise stating it's ok to weld over slag. Especially in light of the words used. If it was AWS intent to allow a 2" weave in which the slag would solidify before the next successive layer, they a.) need to take out para 5.30.1, and b) specifically state so.
There are welders who can do it, and welders who cannot, it is dependent on skill level. How do you write a code with such a subjective variable? In the world of common sense, those welders who can should be able to, those who cannot should not be allowed to, so how do you cover them both?
This is where I consider the code to contradict itself. It doesn't specifically limit weave, but it does specifically forbid welding over solidified slag. The two conditions and contradicting each other.
I'll stick to my interpretation on this until obama invites rush limbaugh over for dinner and they both sing the praises of the NRA or AWS changes the code one.
If there is something in writing in the code that specifically allows the slag, I would very much like to know what and where for future reference.
Regards,
Gerald
From my experience from use and from the testing that we've done, topside, wet and hyperbaric, stringers are stronger and more attractive, but that's my two cents.
