Okay, I have a question based upon all responses but mainly Joe's: (Hypothetical situation LOL
)
If I weld a joint per D1.1 that has the joint called out as a Double V Groove weld with backgouge (B-U3b to be exact for demonstration purposes, I have nothing currently resembling this nor an axe to grind in my past). I weld the first side, flip my part, backgouge by grinding, weld the second side.
QA comes along and finds discontinuity, crack, that qualifies as rejectable, marks the part for repair. Now, D1.1, 5.26 says, as John's procedure indicates, remove crack and two inches beyond. It also says to remove without substantial removal of base metal. Removal may be done by machining, grinding, chipping, or gouging in a manner that prevents nicks or gouges to adjacent weld metal or base metal.
So, if the original weld was put in from both sides with backgouging and I have to keep material removal to a minimum for a repair, doesn't it seem that the best procedure would be to remove one side, clean and weld it, then roll and do the other side making sure the crack is completely removed before the second side is rewelded?
The Commentary, I know it isn't part of the Code, states that it is not the intent of the Code to give the Inspector authority to specify the mode of correction. Does this apply to deciding rather to weld only from one side?
Now, I suppose, this could also mean you can do it from both sides but would have to remove all the metal to create a new double v groove and then clean all surfaces and then begin the welding as though it had never been welded in the first place. But from a time/cost and quality standpoint it appears it would be most efficient to gouge the first and re-weld, then roll only once to get to the second side and gouge, clean and re-weld.
Does the Code actually prevent the one side at a time procedure? It would appear not with Joe's comments, I just would like some clarification.
I know with the OP's inclusion of D1.3 & 1.4 I am not totally in line with the original question, but I think it is still applicable.
Have a Great Day, Brent