Many, many years ago, AWS A2.4-76 dropped a note from the sketches used for intermittent fillet welds. Prior to 1976, the sketches included a note that the intermittent fillet weld started with a increment (or segment) at one end of the joint and terminated at the opposite end of the joint with another increment. If necessary, the increment length could be increased to accommodate the requirement. Clearly, I'm paraphrasing, so don't beat me too badly.
I wrote a letter to the committee chairman and pointed out that the new sketches in A2.4 must have omitted the note requiring that the welds start and stop at the ends of the joint.
The reply I received (from one of my past professors) basically said: "Hey dumb ass, A2.4 is not a workmanship standard. The welding symbol is to be interpreted as follows; the length of the weld specified is to be considered the minimum length required, the size specified is to be considered as the minimum weld size required, and the maximum unwelded space between adjacent weld segments is not to exceed the pitch minus the segment length. If the engineer wants a weld at both ends of the joint, they have to be specified separately from the intermittent fillet weld, and if the spacing and length of each weld segment is a concern, then they too should be specified and dimensioned separately and the intermittent fillet weld symbol would not be approprite."
So, I have always looked to the applicable code to provide workmanship requirements and the welding symbol as the minimum requirements for weld size and length. The code specifies the workmanship requirements, such as allowing the fillet weld to run undersized, root openings within allowable limits, etc. If the workmanship portion of the code does not apply restrictions, who am I to make up my own? That is not to say the company can't impose more restrictive workmanship requirements than the code.
The bottom line is, a continuous fillet weld that has the correct size meets the reuirements of the intermittent fillet weld symbol based on the criteria provided by the A2.4 committee chairman. I don't believe I would like to see such a situation from a productivity or distortion standpoint, but as an inspector, it does meet the requirements of the intermittent fillet weld symbol as interpreted by the guidelines provided by the A2.4 chairman. Does it matter if the weld segments are exactly diagonally opposite when staggered intermittent fillet welds are specified or directly opposite each other if chain intermittent fillet welds are specified? No, if you base your answer on the interpretation I got from the committee chairman in 1976.
It will be interesting to see the latest revision of A2.4 to see if additional clarification was deemed necessary.
Best regards - Al