PJP land

Date 04-09-2009 13:20

In my experience there is no requirement to weld the end of a PJP weld. I believe that when the code is talking about termination it is in regard to fillet welds(AWS D1.1 2.8.3(06)) Also, D1.1 2.7.4 addresses the weld tap removal.

By Bert70

Date 04-10-2009 06:57

As hogan mentioned, and to the best of my knowledge, there is no code requirement to wrap the end(s) of a PJP joint.

Regarding corrosion - If corrosion is a design concern there will be specific direction in the design drawings/ specifications addressing this condition, and would therefore also address fillet and PJP joints welded from one side as well.

Regarding "weld termination" - Section 5.31.1 of the D1.1 also discusses this topic. The weld termination needs to be sound. This may or may not require weld tabs, which may or may not require removal (see hogan's reference above).

Regarding cracking potential - This is taken into account in the type of applied stress during design.

-Bert

By mbrcic Date 04-10-2009 11:08

thanks to both Burt and Hogan, I guess my logic was not logical at all. If you only new what a tizzy the question created you would probably laugh. I do not assume engineers take all aspects into consideration. What suprised me the most, I guess, was how many "seasoned vets" could not say they have ever even noticed the "condition", I suppose it is the result of the Nuclear Trident Sub world (it could not be left to chance, it was cut back and welded to represent the weld called out by the plan). Thanks again, God Bless, and Semper Fidelis, or, as we in the Navy said...Semper Gumby...always flexible!!!

By Bert70

Date 04-11-2009 07:55

mbrcic,
From one bubblehead to another, there is nothing wrong with your logic. It was also a huge transition for me when I left M-Div (yes I am an F'n Nuke) and the NAVSEA 150-1500 et al behind and started inspecting structural steel. Once I realized that the groups of engineers, manufacturers, and fabricators developing the D1.1 code over the last 70 years (at that time) have done a very good job of ensuring steel structures have a long and safe service life without unnecessary or overbearing requirements, my career got a little easier. At least now when I ask myself, "does that look right?" I don't go past the D1.1 code requirements to my old SubSafe QA mentality (well not always :) ).

-Bert

By mbrcic Date 04-14-2009 13:42 Edited 04-14-2009 13:54

Thanks for your words of wisdom. It is easier to hear from one that comes from a same mentality. Something, I pray, I never do is, stop asking questions because it makes someone squirm or, say, "...it's always been done that way" or, "...there's SUCH a big safety factor built into this thing..." I was damn near run out of Electric Boat because I was exposing "issues" that hindered their "milestones" and required "differals" that carried into and past the delivery date....I am afraid I can't operate in society, and I am sincere and sorry to say so. Currently, I answer to a man that held the position I have been handed, I have exposed the "iniquities" of the boob by bring to light the findings. He is not man enough to just say, "good catch, it must've slipped by me" instead he bashes me and discredits me beyond belief. How can he get away with it, because the "state" WANTS to believe him, then they can play golf and take trips (boondogles) on taxpayers dime and without having to actually DO anything....I've said too much.....dynasg
PS Bert, did you ever patrol with a Rob Scrimger or Randy Riegler ? (both 70's Chiefs, and highly respected)

By Bert70

Date 04-28-2009 07:58

mbrcic,
Sorry for the delay in response and sorry to hear about your working environment. I wish you the best there.

Regarding Chiefs Scrimger and Riegler; their names do not ring any bells. I served on the USS Tunny - SSN 682 (COMSUBRON ONE), and USS Helena - SSN 725 (COMSUBRON SEVEN). I also served shore duty at Squadron One and Seven and NSTCP. All in Pearl between '93 and '98.

-Bert

By HgTX

Date 05-05-2009 18:32

There is also the viewpoint that wrapping the weld can create a stress/fatigue problem. In the U.S. bridge industry, wrapping welds is not only not required but is considered a no-no. (In Europe, wrapping is routine. I guess the moral is don't mix and match design codes and welding codes from different countries.)

The only way you'd have a problem with stress flow across that land is if you're pulling across the joint--and if so, a little bit of wrapping at the end won't save you. The weld has to be able to handle it.

Hg