Agreed. Is there a specific spot in the d1.1 or b31.1 that states this information.

Too much time, for example, to figure out the center of a 223" piece, which is 111 1/2, and begin marking welds, as opposed to making extra welds, especially on multiple pieces? To me, in my humble opinion, it's a no brainer.

The goal of any contractor is to maximize profits while still meeting the minimum requirements of the code, design, and project specifications. Quality control function is to ensure the same and to remove unacceptable product from the productions stream as soon as practical to eliminate or minimize wasted labor on parts or components that will not or do not meet the quality requirements of the project.

There simply is no justification for wasting time, labor, or materials on aesthetics if the component is buried in concrete or not exposed to view once the structure is completed. In this case, intermittent fillet welds are used to transfer loads from one member to another. Generally, the loads are a minor concern, but stiffness, buckling, or angular distortion is a concern. Whether the weld extends to the end of the joint is usually not a structural consideration (consider the function of a pour stop), if it were, the designer would specify welds of a specific size and length at the ends.

I once worked for a manufacturer that essential was pushed to subcontract much of the fabrication to outside contractors to take their internal QC out of the picture. In-house QC would routinely reject any work that had any undercut, any spatter, any visible spatter. None of the blemishes affected the form, fit, or function of the product. The hours spent removing the blemishes that would never be seen and in no way affected the serviceability of the product drove up the cost to the point where the company was no longer price competitive. There was a disconnect between the function of QC and the realities of the code and the marketplace. The company no longer manufacturers the product in-house, all the fabrication is done by subcontractors that have quality control that is more in touch with the requirements of the code and what factors are materially important. There is no need to produce a gemstone when rough aggregate is all that is needed.

Time laying out to precise dimensions intermittent fillet welds translates into time wasted and profits lost. The only concern to the inspector or the welder should be; are the welds of the proper size (recognizing they may underrun the size specified if permitted by the fabrication standard), are the unwelded spaces between increments equal to or less than the calculated value of pitch minus increment length, and are the increments at least as long as specified by the welding symbol.

I use dividers and a fillet gage to check intermittent fillet welds. I select a fillet gage that meets the minimum size permitted by the symbol and then I set the dividers for the minimum increment length. I check the lengths of the increments, disregarding the unfilled craters or cold starts. Next I check the unwelded space between the full sized welded increments. Checking the layout to verify the center to center distance between the increments is a waste of time and effort. The concern is whether the welds are strong enough to transfer the load from one member to another. The presence of acceptable amounts of undercut, spatter, etc. has absolutely no bearing on whether the component will fulfill its function in the completed structure. 

Am I advocating work poor workmanship, shoddy work practices, etc.? No, but I believe one must not expend time and effort on workmanship issues that serve no useful purpose. A well trained QC department in conjunction with a trained design team should recognize when aesthetics are important and when perfection serves no practical purpose. There is a reason the codes include no criteria or definition for “ugly.”

Just my thoughts on the subject.

Best regards - Al