1.  “Welding process and position of welding missing; fails AWS D1.1, 2.3.5.1 PJP Groove Welds. Shop drawings shall indicate the weld groove depths ‘S’ needed to attain weld size ‘(E)’ required for the welding process and position of welding to be used.”
  a.  I read this as only needing to write the “S” and “(E)” (depending on the process/position used) in the weld symbol. The reviewer reads it as requiring both the “S” and the “(E)” values as well as requiring the process and position to be used. I understand that specific PJP welds per Figure 3.3 call out differing “S” values depending on the process/position of welding; however, I don’t see a requirement to place the “S” and the “(E)” and the process/position for CJP welds despite having similarly varying “S” values depending on the process/position of welding.

  Is it required by code to place the process and/or position of welding on the shop drawings?

Response:
The contractor responsible for the welding must provide direction to the employees that will be performing the fabrication. The detailer is the individual tasked with providing much of the direction needed by the workers doing the work. Simple short cuts taken by the detailer can save the detailer several seconds of his valuable time, but it can cost the fabricator many hundreds of dollars if not thousands of dollars in delays when the requirements are not clearly specified. Workers on the production floor are not mind readers. They do not know what the detailers intent was if the drawings are not clear. The few extra minutes spent by the detailer on providing complete clear information will pay dividends in the form of fewer delays, fewer RFIs, and reduces the chance the workers will misinterpret the fabrication requirements.

Welding is considered to be a controlled process. It isn’t left to the welder to decide which welding process or WPS is applicable. There are different means of conveying the information to the welder. One method is to select a prequalified joint detail from those depicted in either figure 3.3 or 3.4. The joint designation, e.g., C-U2a-GF for instance, defines the welding process as either GMAW or FCAW and it defines the joint details. The joint designation is placed in the tail of the welding symbol. The joint is defined as a CJP in the example. The detailer, in my opinion, should include all the pertinent information to the welding symbol and leave nothing to chance. The detailer should not list the generic joint designation in the tail and expect the workers to reference D1.1 to determine what the groove angle, root opening, etc. are supposed to be.

A2.4 states that when only the depth of the groove is indicated the minimum weld size must be equal to the depth of preparation. That fails to take into consideration the added requirements of the construction code, i.e., D1.1. The code states that if the groove angle is less than 60 degrees, the weld size is assumed to be 1/8 inch less than the depth of preparation (per side). It is not the worker's responsibility to know the code; it is the detailer's responsibility to provide the worker with all the information necessary to meet the requirements of the code.

In the case where the joint is a PJP, the contractor (by means of the detailer) must specify the welding process as well as the joint detail, e.g., BTC-P5. In this case the welding process is SMAW. In this case the groove angle is less than 60 degrees, thus the weld size is 1/8 inch less than the depth of the bevel. Both the depth of bevel and the weld size must be listed by the welding symbol. Failure to list both leaves the welder and the inspector in the dark regarding whether the detailer was smart enough to factor in the need to increase the depth of the bevel in order to obtain the correct weld size. Call it professional courtesy and professionalism if that smoothes ruffled feathers. Call it good practice.

As a third party inspector, I interpret welding symbols that only shows the depth of preparation to be CJP. It is the conservative, safe way to interpret the welding symbol. Many fabricators have company policies in place that specify all welds as CJP unless both the depth of preparation and weld size is specified.

Regarding position; most shop welding is done in either the flat or horizontal positions. There are instances where the welding position has an effect on the weld size or the required Z-loss. This is the case with flare bevel, flare V, and skewed joints. In those cases the detailer must take into consideration the welding position. If the detailer assumes the worst case, he can indicate his assumptions in his calculations that are provided to the Engineer.

A quick comment on welding symbols is in order. Standard welding symbols are sufficient for the majority of welds required. However, there are certain weld types for which there are no standard welding symbols. The skewed joint is just one such weld type. A weld in a skewed joint that is less than 80 degrees is no longer described as a fillet weld in D1.1. As such, the fillet weld symbol is no longer appropriate. A detail/sketch of the weld joint defining the dihedral angle between the members, the leg lengths, and the Z-loss if applicable is a much better way of defining the welding requirements. The contract drawings provided by the Engineer only define the effective throat. It is the detailer’s responsibility to translate the effective weld throat into the dimensions (leg, throat, Z-loss, etc.) needed to produce a completed weld with the required size. The dimensions must be the dimensions the welder can use to deposit a weld of proper size and dimensions the inspector can use to verify the weld is the proper size. All too many times I am forced to used drawings where the dimensions have no direct correlation to the dimensions needed by the workers on the production floor. The welder should not be forced to use a calculator to derive the dimensions needed to actually fabricate the part or assembly. I back charged my engineering/design department for the production time lost when my layout people had to calculate dimensions or ask for assistance from engineering to actually layout a part. The department head laughed it off the first time, but the second time it wasn’t a laughing matter when it was demonstrated that it cost our department nearly a quarter million dollars of lost productivity because the detailers were not doing their job. 

  2.  “Use of PJP BTC-P10-GF requires that weld size be calculated per AWS D1.1, 3.12.2.1. (3) The PJP square groove weld B-P1 and flare-bevel groove welds BTC-P10 and B-P11 minimum weld sizes shall be calculated from Figure 3.3. Submit calculations as part of drawing submittal”
  a.  The reviewer is constantly placing this statement on our submittal responses where we show a flare-bevel groove weld. I have a 5”x5”x0.375” HSS tube with a 0.25”x10” plate placed flat along one 5” side and extends past the edges of the HSS. I call out a (3/8”) flare-groove weld symbol as calculated per this joint detail in figure 3.3. The exact figure when using the calculation given is act 0.351625”, so I rounded up to the next 0.0625”.

Is it required by code to show the actual calculation either on the shop drawings or on a piece of scratch paper?

Response:
No, the code does not require the calculations to be shown on the drawing. However, it is common practice to provide the Engineer with a copy of the calculations so the weld sizes can be verified by the Engineer. 

  3.  “Weld symbols fail AWS A2.4, 5.4 Break in the Arrow, 5.4.1 Groove Welds. When only one joint member is to have a bevel-groove or a J-groove or both, the arrow shall have one break and point toward that member (see Figure 6). The arrow need not be broken if it is apparent which member is to have the bevel- or J-groove (see Figure 7). It shall not be broken if there is no preference as to which member is to have the bevel- or J-groove. A broken arrow need not be used for joints in which combined welds are to be specified and it is apparent which member is to be beveled.”
  a.  The contract documents show an arched W10x33 section sitting atop a flat concrete surface, with the centerline of the arch approx. 2’ below the surface of the concrete. The arched beam section is split into two halves at the centerline and is specified to be CJP welded in the field. On my shop drawings, I show the joint and all the dimensions/parts that are around the joint along with the weld symbols. The weld symbols (B-U5a – double-bevel groove weld) are shown with more than one break in the arrow line, so that I don’t have multiple lines crossing other lines (which leads to confusion in my mind).

  Is it acceptable to show a weld symbol with more than one break in the arrow line?

Response:
It is not common practice to have the arrow zigzagging every which way. Clarity should be the goal. Too many zigs and zags can be confusing.

  4.  “Curved surface stud welding is not pre-qualified in AWS D1.1, 7.6, Examples of stud applications that require tests of this section are the following: (1) Studs which are applied on non-planar surfaces or to a planar surface in the vertical or overhead positions.”
  a.  I have shown on the shop drawings a stud welding to a piece of angle-iron at the radius section between the legs; it’s an embed angle for a door frame. The weld symbol simply states the size of the weld stud, the quantity and the pitch.

  Is it required by code that I specify whether or not a process is pre-qualified?

Response:
You are the fabricator’s detailer. The welder takes his direction from your drawings. They should provide the welder with all the information required to properly fabricate the member that is depicted. As noted before, welding is a controlled process. It is not left to the welder to select a welding process. That is management’s responsibility. You represent management.

In this case, the stud cannot be welded to the inside radius unless you demonstrate your equipment can do so, i.e., the procedure must be qualified as described in Clause 7. The alternative is to weld the studs using SMAW or other prequalified welding process with a low hydrogen electrode as described in Clause 7. The size of the fillet weld is dependent on the material thickness and the diameter of the stud. Use the larger of the welds required by Table 5.8 or 7.2.

This Engineer is doing you a favor by providing you code references to help you correct your omissions. 

You might consider taking the one day AWS D1.1 review course offered to people studying for the CWI examination. The issues you have raised are typically addressed in the presentation. Better yet, consider taking the entire CWI review. There is a plethora of information presented that would be very helpful to someone that is relatively new to AWS D1.1 and welding in general. You can send me a personal message for more information.

Bear in mind that I am expressing my opinions on the subjects. There will be several other opinions presented here that may very well differ from what those I have expressed.

Best regards – Al