Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Technical Standards & Publications / How to exam multiples cap pass according to Table 6.1?
- - By S. WINAI (**) Date 11-08-2012 09:48
Table 6.1 (4) weld profiles. Weld profiles shall be in conformance with 5.24.
5.24.3 Groove Welds. Groove weld reinforcement shall comply with table 5.9, table 5.10. Weld shall have a gradual transition to the plane of the base metal surfaces.

Question. How to exam multiples cap pass irregularity according to Table 6.1. if some of  cap pass( cover bead pass) is Hi-Lo. the both side of cap pass is high5 mm and center 3 to 4 mm. Let said if  weld reinforcement not exceed  5 mm. (Pls view file attach.) this weld profile consider accept or reject?  Or how much offset Hi-Lo should be allow by AWS D1.1?

Thank for u advise.

Winai
Attachment: Hi-Locappass.pdf - Hi-Lo cap pass (18k)
Parent - - By eekpod (****) Date 11-08-2012 11:54
If I understand your question, you are asking if the lower weld cover pass area (H) in your diagram is acceptable versus the higher passes on either side.

I have had this on a rare occasion and as long as the lower area is above the surface of the plate or at least flush I have let it go. 
This is not an ideal situation as you'll need to watch for a "notch effect" where the toes of the weld meet each other.  Depending on the height of the weld, I have had them deposit another pass to "fill the valley" to give it an even cover pass, but watch your maximum cover pass thickness, you can't exceed it.
Parent - By S. WINAI (**) Date 11-08-2012 13:25
Thank Chris,

yes this is my question!most of the time i saw inspector ask the welder to do repair, by grinding to remove the higher pass then 3 cover pass it become 1 pass instead.i think this is unnecessary grinding job. Yes if deposit another pass to "fill the valley" to give it an even cover pass this cover will case exceed limit.

winai
Attachment: weldexcessgrindingremove.pdf - remove by grinding (15k)
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 11-08-2012 12:40
The problem is not dimension "h" in your diagram....the problem is the entire cap has more than the acceptable reinforcement allowed per Figure 5.4(A) and Table 5.10schedule A
Parent - By eekpod (****) Date 11-08-2012 13:28
I was wonderong about that, but didn't have the energy or time to convert metric to US, and also didn't have the code near me to look up what the english equilivent of 1/8" is officially in the code.  I know your not supposed to convert, your supposed to use the values as given.
Parent - - By S. WINAI (**) Date 11-08-2012 13:39 Edited 11-08-2012 13:52
Hi John,

D1.1 2010  reinforcement allowed per Figure 5.4(A) and Table 5.10schedule A  is a 3/16 in(5 mm) if base metal thickness more than  1 in(25 mm) and the dimension "h" in my diagram is one of my question too! "h" the offset between higher and lower cover pass. how much can allow?

thanks

winai
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 11-08-2012 15:00
AWS has no criteria for ugly.

Since you referenced AWS D1.1-2010; the maximum reinforcement is dependent on the thickness of the two members being welded. The thicker member governs if different thicknesses are joined.

As long as the lowest weld bead is at least flush with the adjacent base metal surface and the maximum reinforcement is equal to or less than the maximum permitted, the weld is accepted assuming all other criteria has been met.

You might want to note that the profile requirements are less stringent than what was customary in previous editions. Ugly is good per the 2010 edition. There are no limitations or requirements for the convexity or reinforcement of adjacent weld beads. Ropey beads: OK, hills and valleys: OK, looks like side by side turds: OK as long as the individual beads are at least flush, but not in excess of the maximum reinforcement. Workmanship: something that has joined the dinosaurs. Now we can accept those ugly welds!

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By electrode (***) Date 11-08-2012 16:49
"Workmanship: something that has joined the dinosaurs".

***** <-- 5 Stars.
Parent - - By welderbrent (*****) Date 11-08-2012 18:06
Sounds like a new addition to A3.0.

Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - By jwright650 (*****) Date 11-08-2012 19:43
Brent you are right....no mention of "workmanship" in AWS A3.0:2010
Parent - By WeldinFool (**) Date 11-08-2012 19:38
Yup, just went through this with a shop that we subbed out some of our welded parts to. When I asked them to at least grind down and blend their repairs (which were many, they're still working out the bugs on their robotic welding programs), they asked me to show them where in the D1.1 code it specified such a procedure. Luckily, their owner was sympathetic to our cause (these parts are for a very picky European customer) and agreed to go over and above what is required by the code. From now on, we will specify our expectations over and above the structural code before the job begins, and get it in writing!!
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 11-08-2012 15:15
Your dimension "h" does not include the other weld bead(s). The dimension from the base material to the highest part of the cap is what is important(weld reinforcement) and it cannot exceed the dimensions given in Figure 5.4 and Table 5.10 for the thickeness of materials that you have....I think you mentioned a thickness of more than 1" in your reply, so use the line in Table 5.10 that is appropriate for that thickness.

Keep in mind that you need to measure the full height of the weld bead(s) above the base material (not just your dim "h")and grind any excess weld material off to get within the allowable limits of reinforcement, if required.
Parent - - By eekpod (****) Date 11-09-2012 11:18 Edited 11-09-2012 11:29
I would agree with everything that has been said here.
It's true D1.1 doesn't acct for ugly welds, just make sure if they don't have undercut, overlap or lack of fusion at the toes.
And definitely make sure you are measuring the entire cap height, not just one bead that is already on top of another bead.
I use a Bridge Cam Gauge becasue it can do alot of measurements and is easy to use and carry around.

Last thing there had been discussion in the past on this forum as to what to do when the cap/ weld height exceeds the height dimension.
Of course we have them grind it off to meet the code, but there is some who believe the intent of the code is to keep that from happening in the first place (to not exceed the max. height) so you don't have to grind it off.  Which is ideal and should be strived for.  Basically if you can train and inform the welders that as they weld don't exceed the 1/8" or 3/16" dimension so they won't have to grind it.  You may not be in that type of situation to be able to do that, as some of us in the fab shops are.
Good Luck
Parent - - By eekpod (****) Date 11-09-2012 11:41
I think we answered his question, time for me to hijack this post.

Comparing 2008 to 2010 D1.1
I'm used to maximum reinforcement being 1/8" from 5.24.4 in the 2008 code.
I see in the 2010 Table 5.10 schedule A it can be 1/8" for up to 1", 3/16" for 1" to under 2" and 1/4" for over 2" material.
That seems like a big change from what it used to be.

Any thoughts as to why so much more allowed?
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 11-09-2012 12:17
I'm not sure...maybe they figured out that it really doesn't matter, the extra weld metal is not going to hurt.

IMHO, it is just a waste of time and materials to mound it up because it can't be counted in the design calculations for the joint.
Parent - - By welderbrent (*****) Date 11-09-2012 13:26
To me it often indicates poor welding underneath and I give that welder more attention for a while to see what is going on. 

It also adds stresses which concerns me especially if on Seismic jobs.  Going to have to see if that is considered when you add D1.8 and/or AISC Seismic. 

Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - - By S. WINAI (**) Date 11-09-2012 14:17
Hi, Thanks for all input.

I post and ask this question.coz i need more advise.I've notice or saw some inspector they will accept and don't need to grind.But some wont accept it.(sounds its ugly weld.so just grind to make more nice looking). thats what i understand! Grinding to remove the top of the weld reinforcement does nothing to decrease the sharpness of the notches at the weld toe.

Thanks again,

winai
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 11-09-2012 20:34
You just described what we call "flat topping.” The code doesn't address the issue of the reentrant angle formed at the weld toe. I guess the code committee was at a loss for the right words to use in the code.

Generally, "flat topping" is not encouraged. The only thing you can hang your hat on is "Welds shall have a gradual transition to the plane of the base-metal surfaces." (Excerpt from clause 5.24.2, D1.1-2010)

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By newinsp (**) Date 06-22-2013 12:23
I took an online course last year, from an AWS approved site, and it gave a reentrant angle of 135 degrees.  I was wondering where they came up with that until I read the (D1.1) commentary C-2.21.6.6, and figure C-2.9.  It talks about grinding the individual weld passes down but still leaving 'canyons' in between. 

My question is, wouldn't the groove weld profiles (D) given in 5.4 apply?  The fillet weld profile (E) that has a small 'canyon', with less than the 135 degree reentrant angle, is unacceptable.
4.9.1.1 (3) weld profiles shall conform to Figure 5.4.  My opinion is that since there are no canyons shown in the profiles for the groove welds that they would not be acceptable.

Respectfully,
Rick
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 06-23-2013 00:42
Hello Rick;

First, let's be clear that the clause you cited, C-2.21.6.6 applies to structures that are cyclically loaded and where fatigue is an issue. It does not apply to the majority of structures fabricated per AWS D1.1.

I don't know what on-line course you took, but I see nothing that references the angle 138 degrees in D1.1.

Let's also verify what edition of D1.1 you are using.

Al
Parent - By newinsp (**) Date 06-23-2013 13:56
Hi Al!

If you don't mind, I'll send a PM.
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Technical Standards & Publications / How to exam multiples cap pass according to Table 6.1?

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill