D1.3 Fillet Qualification

Date 04-06-2007 14:45

Section 4.6.2 of AWS D1.3 does not seem to contain any VT acceptance criteria before fracturing of the test samples. Am I overlooking something?
Both 4.6.2.2 (2) (A) and (B) refer to "after bending".
In fact, since both (A) and (B) are subheadings of 4.6.2.2 (2) which refers specifically to sheet to structural members, there doesn't seem to be any criteria for sheet to sheet VT at all exept for (4) which refers only to complete fusion at the root.
Is that it?
This would imply that I have no code justification for rejecting a cracked weld prior to bending. That I would have to wait until bending to justify rejection. But this still only applies to sheet to structural.
I know this sounds nit picky and silly but surely there is something else.
Now don't get me wrong, I would have no intention of accepting a cracked weld, but unless I am overlooking something this really needs to be cleaned up.

By aevald

Date 04-06-2007 16:21

Hello js55, I've got the D1.3-98 Structural Welding Code-Sheet Steel in front of me. On page 35 of this publication there is a section: 6.1.1.1 it states no cracks in the visual inspection portion. This is located in the Production Weld Acceptance Criteria portion of the code, do you feel that this could be considered as a part of the test acceptance criteria as well? I can understand your question, as I read 4.6.2, it definitely refers to cracks after bending and doesn't seem to address visual cracks before bending. Just a thought here. Regards, aevald

By js55

Date 04-06-2007 16:49

Thanks Allen,
If a justification were necessary (and I don't know why that would be the case with cracks especially-but you never know) I would most certainly use this section. I just wish there were more explicit connection language. I prefer codes to be more 'tidy' when it comes to using them as ammunition, so to speak. Like "NO CRACKS EVER".
I've been taking a careful look at D1.3 lately and I thought this oversight could be of importance, even though to us and most others, especially the bulk of posters in here, it doesn't really matter since we wouldn't allow cracks anyway, and I do have explicit language in my Manuals.
But I can see where the gap in explicit criteria could be taken advantage of.
I'm curious as to why the committee would make a point of adding the post bend language. Committees are generally very carfeul about the official language that is used.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 04-06-2007 16:52

We noticed something similar in D1.2

In the workmanship language there are guidelines for inspection of porosity... But RT interpretation only.

No visual inspection language on the topic at all.... At least not that I could squeeze out.

By js55

Date 04-06-2007 17:05

Thanks Lawrence,
Interesting. I'm glad for some confirmation. I thought maybe I was just overlooking something.
An interesting thing too is that almost the entire section of 4.6.2.2 in D1.3 is underlined. So they just made the change in the last Rev. Of course that was 9 years ago.

By hogan

Date 04-06-2007 17:04

i have the same feeling abiut aws D1.4

By js55

Date 04-06-2007 17:08

hogan,
Thats funny. Or maybe not. I've been looking at that one lately too. I have to say the thinking there is strange to me, being an old piping guy. I'm not surprised.