Hello C;
You didn't list which edition of D1.1 your using, so I used D1.1-2004 which is referenced by the most recent edition of the AISC Steel Construction Manual. Oops, I just reread your post and I see you reference the 2006 edition. Sorry. And they did increase the weld size for GMAW and FCAW-G. I don't believe for one minute that either GMAW or FCAW-G is going to produce deeper joint penetration than SAW. Another case of politics in action.
The attached sketch should help decipher the requirements.
Since the maximum size weld is a function of R and assumes the weld is filled flush with no additional allowance for weld reinforcement, a weld that is slightly less than flush would be acceptable provided the maximum weld size isn't required by the drawing. For instance: The tube wall is 1/2 inch, the radius is 1 inch, the maximum weld size is 1/2 inch for a flare bevel weld joining two HSS lying side by side as in my sketch. If the drawing specifies a 3/8 weld, then the weld can be 1/8 inch less than flush. At least that's how I interpret the restrictions of table 2.1.
In your case, the maximum weld size for the flare V would be 5/8R or 5/8 inch as you stated. If the weld is 1/8 under flush, then the weld size would be 1/2 inch as you stated.
Now, if the referenced code is 2006, you are correct. If an earlier edition is referenced by the purchase order or by the building code, you're wrong because the codes have changed. I don't know what edition of AWS D1.1 you are using in your neck of the woods. Here, in my New England state, we are bound to the "88" edition for ASD or "2000" for LRFD. So I would be correct for my local jurisdiction. Another case where the inspector can't assume the latest edition of D1.1 automatically applies.
The contractor can always demonstrate the ability to produce larger welds if they want to jump through the hoops.
Best regards - Al
My last post revealed which edition of D1.1 I am working to.(2006)
Table 2.1 lists for Flare bevel welds welded with FCAW-g that the effective size is 5/8 R thats where the 5/8 R came from!
since these are tube to plate and tube -T connections the flare V grooves wouldn't apply.
I still cant find in D1.1 where it says flare bevel weld sizes should be the tube thickness.(the EOR says it does, and having him tell me where would be another 3 days down the road)
So taking what the EOR says about flare bevel size being the tube thickness(1/2"), and the R is 2 times the thickness of tube(1") leaves the simple math of 5/8 of 1" = 5/8" if filled flush. and since I only need 1/2"(according to EOR) I should be ok with 1/8" underfill.(if I am interpreting this right)
gotta go, one of our machinists just got her arm wrapped around a spindle! looks bad
Edit: I will have to wait till i get home to see your Autocad dwg. I dont get that luxury at work!
If you use any of the following: BTC-P10, BTC-P10-GF, B-P10-S, the joint is to be welded flush per note "l"....."Weld size (E) shall be based on joints being welded flush", unless the EOR allows something else. Also, In the actual joint details, the T3 weld is the same dimension as the base metal thickness T1...at a minimum. See the table underneath the joint detail. It indicates that T3 is the same as T1 min., which is the minimum base metal thickness.
I've always wondered where people got the idea that a flare-bevel groove weld should be the material thickness. For the BTC-P10 joints, T3 is the base metal thickness of a member of a T-joint; it is not the weld size.
As stated above, in D1.1:2006 the minimum weld size (E) is 5/16r or 5/8r (depending on process) for a prequalified flare bevel groove weld joint detail and for rectangular tubing r is defined as 2t.
Respectfully,
I agree. You are correct.
It would be the BTC-P10-GF
Thanks for taking the time to make the drawings Al, The second sketch is the same as the one in question, and our contract calls for the latest edition of d1.1
but, since we are using FCAW-g the 5/16 would be 5/8 (and I don't see either where SAW would give less penetration). I guess I was interpreting it correct, after i started getting in to it!
I still don't see where D1.1 states that a flare bevel weld size is the tube thickness(the EOR stated that it does!). but it does state it in his companies quality manual, which I just got yesterday.
It also shows flare bevels filled flush with a fillet and 3/8 radius. and I was quick to tell them that their drawings state to use the latest edition of D1.1 OR their quality level 2(which is the manual I just received) and they cant change the rules when the job is already in the machining stage!
anyway, I got it all ironed out and appreciate all the help on this one!
It is a daunting task to be a fitter/welder one month and a CWI/project manager the next that has to have all the answers!
Welcome to our nightmare, as Alice Cooper would say, LOL :-) :-)
Sometimes it is not the ones that think your cert is not worth the paper it it written on, it is the ones that think you should know everything right off the top of your head as soon as you are certified.
It is all part of the job, you are doing, and will do, fine.
John
I know what you mean, the shop foreman has been at the company for 35 years, Ive been there 3 yrs, and he asks me stuff only the EOR can answer, each time I tell him I don't answer engineering questions, hours later he asks different , but the same questions,lol 6 months ago when I was fitting, I would ask him the same questions, now that I got my cert, I am supposed to know it all!
One of the biggest issues facing welders, supervisors, etc. are the engineers who recieve little if any weld training and don't understand how or why or when.
When an engineer specifies a PJP weld it should always be accompanied by a weld size placed in parentheses. Almost every engineer that I know and work with thinks the weld size of a PJP or CJP weld is measured across the face not through the throat. If there is no weld size on a flare bevel weld I would fill it flush but at the same time a flare bevel without a size could be anything.
Today's engineers need further training and/or an in-house weld engineer to review all the drawings and point out mistakes.
I have a little experiment I like to do with engineers. I get them in a room for training and then send one of them out. I then ask the remaining engineers to come up with a plan for the guy when he returns, jumping jacks, push ups whatever. Then when he comes back we give him a "drawing" with only part of the info, like jacks, push etc.
He of course says what is this it makes no sense. At this point the I say something like, What's wrong not enough information? And then go into a spiel about communication and the drawing as a communication tool.
One of my favorite engineerisms is, "I figured manufacturing could figure out what I meant".
I guess they think manufacturing employs phsycics for this purpose. lol
Look at me bashing my own kind! I guess it's the welder in me!
thats exactly the problem i get!
just today I was looking at a drawing from Boeing company, building a fan box or someting of the sort, all welds inside the box, guess we need to find a disposable welder that will weld himself inside. and then trust him to do his own inspection when he finishes!
ROTFLMFAO!!!! My brother, that is a good one. :-)
John
Just remember most engineers learn about welding the same way most welders do; OJT.
Al
Al,
It is pretty much the same with CWI's. I know you are aware of the issues with having a new # on a card, unless a guy just aquired the "S". Everybody has to start somewhere.
John
Why has nobody mentioned table 3.4 in D1.1. 3.4 is minimum PJP sizes based of material thickness. Are flare bevels groove welds not considered PJP,s? If so, one could simply subtract those values, found in table 3.4, from those found in 2.1. Am I wrong? No need to fill flush just because size is not indicated.. If somebody could tell me if I'm wrong or not... That would be great
Forum
