I guess I'm basing my theory on the description of "any 12 inches". And, if so, under that clause, wouldn't, couldn't, or shouldn't undercut be deemed a linear discontinuity limited to a maximum length of .250" regardless of depth or location or accumulated length? I guess I could be answering my own question here, but, I take it this way. If you need to have an accumulated length of two inches in any twelve, both weld toes have to be combined in order to get an accumulated length, why shouldn't the length of each weld toe be considered when acquiring those twelve inches?
This is the edited part, I keep wanting to call you either Charlie or Carl for some reason, am I screwed up on that, or are any of those actually your name?-Wayne
Wayne,
I would agree with you on the both weld toes being combined to get an accumulated length, and I could agree with you on counting each toe as part of the 12".(but I won't for the time being :) ) The way I have always done it and seen it done is counting the Layer as the weld, a 12" weld has 24" of weld toes, I think we would agree on that! The part I don't agree on is counting each toe as a seperate weld. I do realize that on a 1-3/4 inch weld, you do have almost 2.5 iches of weld face, and each toe would be a different weld pass, but they are all still in the same layer, which I take to be a single weld.
I would like to hear how the experts are seeing this (Not that I don't consider you an expert yourself). I am open to change if I have been doing it wrong!
Regards, Carl (that answers your last question :) )
Carl, Please. My name and the word expert should never be used in the same paragraph. I agree with you all the way around, and the weld length probably should be considered as the sum of all its parts, but it is an interesting way to look at it. In looking back at the whole thing, a person really could get carried away in breaking down the weld length if considering both weld toes. I feel a more concise definition of "in any 12 inches" wouldn't hurt either. Each leg height of a fillet weld is measured indepently of the each other, so, If one leg is short by 1/16" and the other leg is a 1/16" longer, you can't average the two out and say, "well, I still have the required weld area". I'm not arguing any point here, pro or con. I just thought it was an interesting way to look at it at the time I wrote it. Well, I must go earn my keep for the day. Stay safe. Wayne
Wayne,
I agree it is an interesting way to look at it. But it does seem like it would allow 2 times what the code intended. maybe I'm wrong. but I gotta admit, I never even looked at it the way you mentioned. and it did get me thinking about it.
As for being an expert, aren't we all in one way or another, Even if it is in BS'n :)
Have a great day!
Carl