Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / Inspection & Qualification / When is a fillet weld undersize
- - By QA666 Date 08-29-2007 13:54 Edited 08-29-2007 15:02
Governing Code: AWS D1.5 Bridge Welding Code. I am being given the argument that a fillet weld is not undersize till it is 1/16" under the required size and that a 1/4" fillet weld should be measured with a 3/16" fillet weld gauge and is only "undersize" if it is 3/16" or below.

My understanding is that anything under the required size up to 1/16" is "undersize" and you are allowed to be "undersize" for up to 10% of the weld length. Not you are only undersize when you are a 1/16" under the required size. Comments anyone?
Parent - - By hogan (****) Date 08-29-2007 13:58
maybe it has worked for them in the past, but i would not accept that reasoning
Parent - - By swnorris (****) Date 08-29-2007 14:12 Edited 08-29-2007 14:17
Assuming you're referencing D1.1, you're partially correct.  If the weld is 3/16" or less, the allowable decrease in size is 1/16" or less.  If the weld is 1/4", the allowable decrease in size is 3/32" or less.  If the weld is 5/16" or greater, the allowable decrease in size is 1/8" or less, but in no case should this tolerance exceed 10% of the length of the weld.  Also, there are further restrictions regarding undersize web to flange welds on girders at their ends for a length that is equal to twice the width of the flange.  I agree with hogan.  Why don't you get this person to show you the statement in the code that will support his claim? 
Parent - By QA666 Date 08-29-2007 14:31
Sorry I did not reference the governing code which is AWS D1.5
Parent - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 08-29-2007 14:44 Edited 08-29-2007 14:46
I have used the next smallest gage to show someone that the weld was WITHOUT A DOUBT 1/16" undersize. As far as D1.1 requirements, its not in there. Some companies may produce products NOT in accordance with any code or may have alternative acceptance criteria for a project or certain components. In some cases I have seen stiffeners that are designed as stitch welded. If a customer requires them to be seal welded to prevent rust bleed out, undersize welds up to 1/16" were allowed.
Parent - - By Bridgeman69 Date 08-29-2007 20:43
AWS D1.5-2002 section 6.26.1.7 A fillet weld in any continuous weld may underun the nominal fillet weld size by 1/16" without correction, provided that the undersize portion does not exceed 10% of the length of the weld.

That being said if you have a 24" weld length and your were required to have a 5/16" fillet ,fyou could accept a 1/4' fillet for 2.4" of the length.
So tell the Fabricator or Erector that the "Enginner" would need to approved anything past 10% of the undersized fillet lenght.
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 08-30-2007 03:04
What he said! 9.21.1.7 says it all.

Al
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 08-30-2007 13:57
Am I given to understand correctly that one of the arguments in this thread is that an inspector has the right to unilateraly require a criteria more stringent than the code requires and then justify it by the fabricators inability to find the paragraph in the code that supports the lesser standard?
Parent - - By QA666 Date 08-30-2007 16:19
Interesting comment. Please explain where the Inspecor is requesting something that is not in the code?
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 08-30-2007 16:35
I thought that too....I was hoping Jeff would clarify his question/assumption some, because I didn't follow his assumption fully. I didn't read that the inspector was asking for tighter criteria than the code, but quite the contrary.

ie. 1/4" fillets are specified and his inspector is saying that they should be checked with a 3/16" gage because he thinks that they are allowed 1/16 undersize without any mention or respect to the length of the weld.....well, they are allowed by code to be 1/16 undersized, but only for up to 10% of the length.
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 08-30-2007 17:07
My post was an attempt at clarifying Scott and Hogans comment about either not accepting it, or requiring the fabricator to point out where in the code it allows the practice of undersizing welds, which as Scott clarified, it does.
Clearly I didn't do a good job of my attempt.
The original post had stated that the fabricator had said "X" about undersized welds, and Scott clarified that it was indeed true to a certain extent, so the idea is that undersized welds are allowed under certain circumstances and therefore the inspector has no justificaiton for rejection as long as undersizing is within code limitations and recognizing the 10% limitation of weld length.
The original post never clarified whether the undersizing was full length or <10%, though IMO, it did 'imply' the fabricator was arguing for full length undersizing, which of course is rejectable, and the inspector justified in doing so.
Parent - - By swnorris (****) Date 08-30-2007 17:12 Edited 08-30-2007 17:14
js55,

Some of the field inspectors around here couldn't find their ass if they had both hands tied behind their back, but they spout out these ridiculous requirements and then we have to find something in the code to prove to them that we either don't have to do it, or that we can do it.  Otherwise, he'll shut down the welding.  An inspector the other day asked one of our erectors to show him a PQR for stainless to stainless, and we had to prove to him that he didn't need one because it's prequalified.     
Parent - By CWI555 (*****) Date 08-30-2007 17:51
To all,

There is the reverse of this situation that happens frequently as well. Production will do something outside the code, and if the inspector calls them for it, Production will say "prove it". Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. If your going to question the inspector and make them "prove it", then you must be willing to be reciprocal.
I had a production manager tell me one time that my job was to catch them if I could, but if I didn't to bad.

This idea of "proving" is going about it the wrong way from both sides of the fence. If the contractor/erector doesn't know the code they are building to, they have no business building to it, if the inspector doesn't know the code they are inspecting to, they have no business inspecting to it.

I'll bounce interpretations off of various inspectors and in here, but in the real world, if it's not in black and white I won't say anything. Which is really frustrating. What defines "good workmanship" as found in multiple codes and specs like API 620, ASTM 312, etc. Those things are subjective to say the least, and in this day and age of minimalism, squirm paragraphs like "good workmanship" are next to worthless, and can hang either the erector or the inspector or both depending on the situation.

No one wins when practicing the "prove it" method in the end. At some point in time, if "prove it" shows one or the other party doesn't know what the code says on a regular or even semi regular basis, that person needs removed.

D1.1 is the antithesis to that when it comes to fillet sizing. It is clear what is and is not acceptable. Production will say "well whats the real quality impact?" as an argument.
It doesn't make a damn what the quality impact is to the inspector, they are not the engineers, they didn't design the damn things, they are given specific criteria to work with and should not and cannot vary one way or another from it. If a specific situation is overkill for "fitness for purpose" then the engineers, designers, etc who specified the code criteria need to change that criteria. It is neither productions place, nor QA/QC's place to do so.
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 08-30-2007 18:05
LMAO w/ scott!!
My misunderstanding I suppose.I thought you were making jus tthopposite type of statement, speaking form an inspeciton point of view and then requiring fabrication personnel to give you the code statement from which they speak. Not that this is in an of itself a bad thing, fabricaiton personnel should understand the code, but inspection should not impose more stringent requirments just becasue fab people can't find the azz with both hands code wise. My mistake.
Did I misunderstand from the beginning by assuming the first post was stated from the perspective of fab people trying to argue the fillets were OK?
I'm kinda messed up here I think.
Parent - - By QA666 Date 08-30-2007 18:36
Just to add something to clarify the initial question. The issue is that I am being told (AWS D1.5)that if a weld is 1/32" under the required size this is acceptable for its entire length as it's not "undersize" till it is a full 1/16" under the required size then the 10% kicks in.

My stand is that as soon as it is under size whether just 1/32" or the full 1/16" allowed you are then subject to the 10% rule. Comments?
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 08-30-2007 19:51
QA666,
You are correct. As soon as you are undersized (any dimension) the 10% kicks in.
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 08-30-2007 19:58
To say that the 10% only applies to that particular dimension exactly is, well, just silly. So you can be undersized all the way if you are less than the 10% relationship size. 10% max right at the related size. And no length in excess of that related size.
A little thought would realize how impossible such a requirement would be to impose in reality.
I may soon need a new prescription for corrective lenses but even I can see that bull@#$%@ a mile away.
Parent - - By Bridgeman69 Date 08-30-2007 21:35
I can't believe this Topic is still be debated. CWI555 you are right on target. I can only assume js55 is a Fabricator trying to vent his frustration about what is and what is not required. AWS D1.5, Enginners, and Designers can not and should not be overruled by an Inspector.
The requirements states and I will repeat "AWS D1.5-2002 section 6.26.1.7 A fillet weld in any continuous weld may underun the nominal fillet weld size by 1/16" without correction, provided that the undersize portion does not exceed 10% of the length of the weld."

I quote js55 "Some of the field inspectors around here couldn't find their ass if they had both hands tied behind their back, but they spout out these ridiculous requirements and then we have to find something in the code to prove to them that we either don't have to do it, or that we can do it.  Otherwise, he'll shut down the welding.  An inspector the other day asked one of our erectors to show him a PQR for stainless to stainless, and we had to prove to him that he didn't need one because it's prequalified."

"One of our erectors" must mean he's a Fabricator. I can only hope that the Inspector you quoted didn't not say he would shut down the welding down, but more likely said he would have to write a 'NCR or Defiency report'.  And since js55 has not indicated what code he's working to his answer could be incorrect. More likely the Inspector asked for a "WPS" and as in most cases none is available at the jobsite.   

And as far as not finding thier asses how would you know ? Did you follow them to the john you pervert !!!

Spouting out ridiculous requirements by an Inspector again assumes they are Not a requirement. And from my last count I don't know of to many Inspector who would last in an Industry driven by production. Go tell the people that were on the Bridge in Missouri that you don't want to follow the CODE>
Parent - - By hogan (****) Date 08-30-2007 22:15
i thought that bridge was built to code. that was not the issue
Parent - - By Bridgeman69 Date 08-30-2007 22:31
Hogan, I thought we were on the same side. I looked at your first response "maybe it has worked for them in the past, but i would not accept that reasoning".,and I thought you were right on target.

But now I'm confused. Isn't this all about the CODE and the interpretion of same. Original question: "Governing Code: AWS D1.5 Bridge Welding Code.I am being given the argument that a fillet weld is not undersize till it is 1/16" under the required size and that a 1/4" fillet weld should be measured with a 3/16" fillet weld gauge and is only "undersize" if it is 3/16" or below. " Please help me understand your post saying "i thought that bridge was built to code. that was not the issue"

Some Inspector's in the Bridge Code fracture easily.
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 08-31-2007 01:29
Let's really muddy the water and throw in a 1/16 inch root opening on top of the weld that undersized by the 1/32. The 1/4 inch weld, with a 5/32 throat is now only has a 5/32 inch leg with a ....! Screw it, put on an extra thick coating of high viscosity paint and ship the damn thing!

It's a good thing we use a healthy safety factor, that' what they're for,  and we round up and not down! Wait, wait, don't tell me, we do round down if it's less than, ....., give me a minute, I saw it in a book once.

You just have to love it!

Bes regards - Al
Parent - - By QA666 Date 08-31-2007 10:23
Thanks for all the input guys.
We seemed to get off the question a little.  However, I believe we are all on the same page in this forum. What I am hearing is the weld is "undersize' when it is below what is specified (whatever thet might be up to 1/16") and then the 10% kicks in.

The argument that a weld is not "undersize" till it ia a full 1/16 under the required size is just plain wrong.

Does everyone agree on this?

Again thanks for all the input you guys.
Parent - - By swnorris (****) Date 08-31-2007 11:02 Edited 08-31-2007 11:24
Bridgeman 69,

Those are not js55's remarks you were quoting.  They are my remarks, and I stand by by them.  Let me reiterate.  With regards to actual code requirements, some of the inspectors that I have dealt with over the years haven't got a clue.  In fact, some are so clueless, if they were stripped naked (oops, that's the pervert in me coming out), soaked in clue musk, and they did the clue dance in the middle of a field of horny clues at the height of clue mating season, they still would not have a clue.
Parent - - By Bridgeman69 Date 08-31-2007 12:49
Hogan,

Sorry. I did review your quotes and I totally agree with everthing you said.

Agreed there are some unreasonable inspector just as there are unreasonable people.

But the question presented by QAQ666 can only be answered right or wrong quoting Hogan "maybe it has worked for them in the past, but i would not accept that reasoning "
I respect the comments of Hogan, 803056, QA666, jwright650, js55, pipewelder_1999, and CWI555. These gentlemen are "Inspectors" with a capital "I"

It is my opinion the only person that seems to disagree with you is (swnorris) he is obviously a Fabricator who will follow the CODE when it suits him.

SWNORRIS,

You are right and probable will alawys be right in your own mind. Can't reason with an irrational person

Parent - By swnorris (****) Date 08-31-2007 12:53
I'm not even going to dignify those remarks with a response.  Oops.  I just did.
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 08-31-2007 13:55
Scott,
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!  That's hilarious!!!  Can I use that???
I love this site!!!!
Parent - - By waynekoe (**) Date 08-31-2007 19:15
You could use the arguement that its not overtime until the whole hour has been reached and not the first 45 minutes.
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 08-31-2007 19:40
Please make posts to the apropriate message board:
http://aws.org/cgi-bin/mwf/board_show.pl?bid=36

Signed

Management

PS:  This is your break time isn't it?
Parent - By ssbn727 (*****) Date 09-01-2007 05:47
Oy Vey!!!

Management???
Of What??? Your mind???
ROTFLMFAO!!! Thanks for the chuckle Larry! :)

Respectfully,
henry
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 08-31-2007 13:50
Bridgeman69,
Thanks for the chuckle this morning. Uh, might wanna go back and reread the thread before spouting, though I do happen to agree with scott in the quoted instance that began your tirade.
Parent - - By swnorris (****) Date 08-31-2007 14:42
js55,

Use it as you find the need.  I whip it out every chance I get, (but never in the perverted sense that I have been accused of in this very thread).

Bridgeman69,

If you go back and read my very first response, you'll find that it is in line with what everyone else agrees on.  Also, I am a fabricator, but I can assure you that we follow D1.1 and the other applicable codes to the letter.  Peoples lives are at stake and we do not cut corners with the products we fabricate.  I was merely pointing out that some of the inspectors try to impose their personal preferences, etc. on us and cannot support them with any code references, or even worse, they'll try to twist the wording of the codes around in an effort to try and justify the point they're trying to make.  And yes, our erectors have been threatened to be shut down by these types of inspectors who think they know the codes, when in reality they don't.  All they're doing is just bullying our erectors into thinking they'll be shut down if they don't do exactly what the inspector tells them to do.  If we're not in compliance, we'll take care of it, but if we are in compliance, leave us alone and let us do our job, rather than just messing with us because you have a little authority and you've let that authority go to your head.  I have a real problem with inspectors or people in general who try to use their authority in that manner.       
Parent - - By Bridgeman69 Date 08-31-2007 15:46
Again, I find my self in an embarrassing postition. swnorris you are right. I'm not embrassed because you are right by because I misread you post.

I think we pretty much all agree that QA666's interpretation of the Code on this particular question is correct.

Where I started getting off on a tangant was the statement about "Inspectors" in general. I agree that there are inspectors who don't have a clue. They are the ones who should stop, look and listen at Fabricators and Erection that have done a particular work in the past. But I quess, where I had the problem was that I don't want to be lumped in with that type of an inspector.

That being said it looks like eight out of eight respondands agree with QA666.
And I might at least one of the respondants were (as we inadvertently found out) a Fabricator with high moral fiber. Given a chance will to vent like we all do at times.
Parent - By HgTX (***) Date 09-04-2007 21:37
Can I agree too or is voting closed?

Hg
Parent - - By ssbn727 (*****) Date 09-04-2007 23:46
Hi Bridgeman69!
Did you ever feel like a "." in a one thousand page book??? That about sums it up. :) :) :)

Respectfully,
Henry
Parent - - By Bridgeman69 Date 09-13-2007 23:32
No but I bet you do
Parent - By ssbn727 (*****) Date 09-14-2007 00:41
Hi Bridgeman69!

Well then, "Weldcome to the club!!!" ;)
Do'nt worry, it does'nt last long!!! :) :) :)
The feeling - that is. ;)

Respectfully,
Henry
Up Topic Welding Industry / Inspection & Qualification / When is a fillet weld undersize

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill