How is this rejected in D17.1 PHOTOS included!

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 08-19-2015 19:59

Well, That appears to be a groove weld. Though maybe not by design, however the portion exhibiting penetration through the edges of one member is a fillet reinforced groove weld in a tee joint.

Some of the pictures exhibit undercut/underfill on the vertical member that I am pretty sure exceeds the limits of table 7.1.

If the weld is only specified as a fillet weld but exhibits the properties of a groove weld then it is difficult to pin that down however I think the engineering authority would be the person entity to cosult if you are unsure how to proceed.

"Suck Back: as you mention would be classified under Face or root underfill as listed in table 7.1 pg 34 which refers to groove welds only. (Not just butt joints!)

Of course I am by no means the authority on this code however the above thoughts would be on my mind should I be presented with a weld as shown in the pictures.

Have a great day.

Gerald Austin
Greeneville Tn

By MRWeldSoCal (***)

Date 08-19-2015 20:11

This is supposed to be a FILLET weld yes. No joint prep, no single bevel, no weld reinforcement.

Under cut does not exceed the limit due to the fact that the entire 2F fillet does not have continuous undercut which would only have to be more than .002" for rejection.

The suck back as well as the fact that the entire tub base metal has been over consumed by the weld is where I am having trouble.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 08-19-2015 20:03 Edited 08-19-2015 20:15

Let's look at it this way:

1. Why would you want that to pass?

2. That is clearly the vertical member is thin plate.. What is the stated fillet size?

3. Once you have determined the fillet size put a gage on the fillet

3a. Now observe the reduced cross sectional thickness of the vertical member of the assembly above the stated fillet leg.

3b. Reject for undercut beyond limitations for a Class A, B, or C weld.

4. Also can reject for excess fillet size I would hazard to guess.

Would you want that mess holding you above the clouds at 45,000 feet ?

Tell us more about the project.... Thin and Thick plate dimension? Process? GTAW electrode size? Material type? Heat sink? One of those things actually appears to have multiple passes if the macro reads true.

By MRWeldSoCal (***)

Date 08-19-2015 20:13 Edited 08-19-2015 20:15

I couldnt agree with you more, but I need to quote the D17.1 for rejection. I wouldnt want to hang from a ski lift on something like! this!

Check above I filled in a little more. Its from a 2F tube to sheet. I see this all the time and I need to find the exact way to address it.

On most of the pieces we get, they are fine in some spots and like this in others. So the .002 for a complete length doesnt apply and they clear the undercut on the face but the suck back is just crazy, or the base metal is completely gone.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 08-19-2015 20:37 Edited 08-19-2015 20:42

Let's draw them a picture

The undercut is certainly beyond the individual maximum depth

The weld size is certainly above whatever maximum allowable you wish to calculate.

By MRWeldSoCal (***)

Date 08-20-2015 15:49

Ok Lawrence,

I see the light now. I got it. I was trying I guess to find a way to link the suck back itself but yes there are other means by which to reject it that are also a product of the suck back anyways. So it all goes the same place. I am not more wise from this and hopefully other will be too.

J