I have a few questions. I have been over ridden in a rejection that and I would like to hear your input. Below is the link to the sample.
---------->
http://imgur.com/a/5gbgeSo the samples are supposed to be .025 vertical and .050 for the bottom of the plate on this T-joint fillet weld. Now the top .025 plate isnt the same thickness all the way to the root. I have listed the thickness along the the side of two different samples.
I had a few discrepancies here. If I was to just judge it based off the 10% lack of root fusion both samples are rejected. I was over ridden based on the idea that since there are different thickness toward the end of the sheet that I was to measure .025 at the thinnest part and add the rest of that "thickness" that isn't really there. When I add the thickness that isn't physically really there then it "consumes" the the rejected area and I was told that that Is how I have to look at it. I don't feel this is right. It went from being rejection for LOF in 6 of 8 samples to now be passable. The top photo is how i was told to "judge" a macro sample. I just cant seem to jump on board with that idea.
Second question:
As for judging concavity. There needs to be an even right triangle to measure the largest size the weld can be with excessive concavity. What is hard to grasp is that when you measure the 10% and you have a concave surface the code only asks you measure to the leg in the direction of the LOF. Even though the weld itself might not even meet the weld size in due to that profile. I was hoping someone can clear this up for me. Not everything is a straight line when I comes to this. Especially if the thickness varies and that calls are made based of 1.5T for minimum weld size as well.
to see what D17.1 says Figure 5.12 B, as well as Figure 7.1 for profile
J Maxwell