Sorry, I should have mentioned such. I have read the commentary and that in it self supports my train of thought. Allthough 5.16 does not mention loads of any type it's clear in the commentary that there are differences and load conditions would be applicable to the decision making process. So as it is, there is no clear answer except for the EOR, I know that the EOR may dictate changes in the standard, but the bottom line, is this an issue, under these circumstance, a desgn consideration or good shop practice? Bombarding an Engineer with questions is not always the best route when the issue should be handled in house. In our situation design drawings did not dictate radius at these locations, as it did at other locations. The detailers did not include the 1" radius, because in their opinion it was not applicable. It hasn't been applied in all the years I have been in the industry, under these circumstances. The sad thing is the individual has the ear of the Engineer, which the Engineer is swayed by his opinion. I have just been looking for something that might persuade this individual my way, I don't see it being "required" under this condition.
There are times when a repair makes sense even if it isn't required.
Are you interested in having to encounter that same problem time after time or would you like to address it once and have it go away?
Nothing teaches good workmanship practices like having to go back and repair the problem. The more painful the lesson the more likely it won't have to be repeated in the future.
It is a human nature that if you do something wrong, but no action is taken, the bad "behaviour" is reinforced. "Hey, we've been doing it like this for years and no one made us fix it before!"
However, being pulled up short and requiring the repair to be made causes the person to think about the problem and makes it clear that the undesirable behaviour isn't to be tolerated. "I ran into this on my last job. The SOB made us spend ten hours welding and grinding until it was right, I don't want to do that again!" And it's for that reason that I like to follow the policy that "the individual that screwed it up, fixes it up".
You can tell Little Johnny not to put the folk into the socket twenty times. You can even put the folk into the socket so little Johnny can see what will happen if he does. Most likely Little Johnny will roll over laughing as the smoke rises from your hair. However, pain is a great teacher. The little fella will only push the fork into the light socket once if you let him learn first hand what happens when he does.
Best regards - Al
I agree all the way, but his situation would not allow for that scenerio. Those that did not put enough radius are not the ones that will have to repair it. Then if the argument between parties of whether it is required or not is not settled, who pays. My best bet is to get EOR approval, I still do not think I need a 1" radius and the small but obvious radius would suffice, my opinion, I'll let the engineer make the final call. Then if he wants it repaired I'll have solid basis for repair back charge.
Back up info not previously given because I didn't think of it at the time and because I was looking for a clarification of the requirement found in 5.16 with the commentary given in C5.16.
These parts were outsourced and are installed at this point, would be extensive field work at my cost if I can't say yea or nay. It is already practice at our facility to put an acceptable radius, it's programed in the system. So it's off to the engineer.
Thanks you guys, I think we all have the same understanding
Topic American Welding Society Services / Technical Standards & Publications / application of "Reentrant Corner"
