Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Technical Standards & Publications / Faying Surface - Separation
- - By HJLBX Date 06-25-2016 04:00 Edited 06-25-2016 04:20
D1.1/1.1M:2015

5.21.1.1 Faying Surface (p. 174)

"The separation between faying surfaces of plug and slot welds, and of butt joints landing on a backing, shall not exceed 1/16 in."

It depends upon what "landing on backing" means...

Never mind -- I figured it out.  The fit between the faying surface of the backing to the member surface... max. gap between backing and member 1/16 in.

Not like shops that attach wavy, warped, curved backing with gaps that you can see through to China...
Parent - - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 06-25-2016 20:49
I was doing 3rd part inspection at a fabricator and flagged a joint that was presented for fitup in which the detail drawing specified a backing strip. There was none. This picture shows what I was presented with after it was "corrected".

Parent - - By HJLBX Date 06-25-2016 22:48
LOL... it never ceases to amaze me.
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 06-26-2016 02:03
The less they know, the more we make. Their pain is our profit.

I could not help myself, the weld bead in the upper left of the photograph just drew my gaze as if it were magnetic. 

Al
Parent - By ctacker (****) Date 06-26-2016 05:10
The access hole was my magnet :)
Parent - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 06-27-2016 11:06
On this specific project, I was representing an engineering company for a power company. These were SCR's for coal plants. The project specifications were outrageous. There were of course many fabrication issues. The beam copes were a recurring issue. If I remember correctly the bead was a torch gouge of unknown origin.

After the project was over, I was called to the jobsite by the end user project manager to explain why I hadn't provided shipment releases of many of the SCR modules. As the Site PM, My boss from the engineering firm, and the vice president of the fabricator looked on, I pulled out over 100 pages from my inspection database and asked them "what piece are you wondering about". We would locate the piece and I would show them the still outstanding item. After a half dozen or so in which nobody could explain why the issues still existed The fabricator got mad and said HE HAD SEEN ENOUGH after I was asked to show them the penetration in the SCR casing with a visibly cracked weld where a hole had been mislocated, patched, welded, and cracked.

The project as a whole was something. Any spliced stiffeners (1-1/2" or 2" angle) 100% UT.  Panel flatness < 3/8" during trial fit (panels 60+ foot long)and many other things that could have easily been items referred to in D1.1.

The database I made kept track of PO.s, change orders, project specs revs., dwgs revs, inspections, and most importantly ANY conversation I had regarding an inspection item that included the who, what when, and where. Some of these conversations included some discussions with the engineering firm in which they requested I "slack up" a bit and use "my judgement" on items in which there specifications may have exceeded the code (D1.1) .

It was an exciting inspection job to say the least and quite a learning experience as far as how silly things can get on a project.
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Technical Standards & Publications / Faying Surface - Separation

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill