I know we have discussed this subject until we couldn't stand to read one more opinion, but I'm going to stir up the mud again.

From my own experience, the wide weave isn't going to be a problem unless the base metal is sensitive to heat input, it is quench and tempered, subject to low temperature and is required to meet impact requirements, and/or some other heat treatment specifically used to control the grain size.

While D1.1 allows weave beads, some members of this forum have very strong opinions and biases on the use of weave beads and the maximum width of the weave bead.

The requirements of D1.1 are more conservative than some other codes we encounter. However, there are situations where the contractor/fabricator must be more conservative than D1.1 in order to ensure consistent results on the shop floor or in the field.

As a third party inspector, my task is to verify the requirements of D1.1 are observed. The limitations for the width of the weave bead is restricted for some processes based on welding position, etc. However, it doesn't mean that every welder can produce acceptable results without consideration for the electrode diameter, position, amperage, and level of skill. There are other clauses in D1.1 that must be met in order for the weld to be accepted. If the inspector observes problems with the weld profile, overlap, undercut, porosity, slag inclusions, etc., then the welding process is either out of control or the welder lacks the skills required to use the WPS. That is the inspector's signal to ask questions and to reject the welds based on the fact they do not meet the applicable acceptance criteria. If the welds meet the acceptance criteria and the limitations of D1.1 are not exceeded, the welds are accepted regardless of the third party inspector's personal biases or preferences.

It is not the third party inspector's job to tell the contractor what to do or how to do it. If the contractor wants the welders to use 1 inch wide weave beads and it doesn't violate the limitations of bead width, layer thickness, etc. listed by the applicable welding standard or code, that's their prerogative. The inspector's task is to reject those welds that do not meet the acceptance criteria of the welding standard.

In-house QA/QC has a task that may differ from that of the third party inspector. Typically the in-house QA/QC has input in how the welding process is controlled. They are often tasked with writing the WPS and other process control documents. If the in-house QA/QC person sees that the process needs tighter controls, it is often their responsibility to revise the welding documents to reflect those needs. If it is clear that the welders can not produce sound welds using a wide weave technique, it is prudent to place limitations on the width of the weave based on the electrode diameter, position, or other controlling parameters.

It is not the third party inspector's prerogative to require the contractor/fabricator to yield to their personal preferences. Their task is to evaluate the welds based on the acceptance criteria and limitations imposed by the welding standard. In some cases where a working relationship has developed between the third party inspector and the contractor, helpful suggestions are welcomed by the contractor. Often this is not the case and the third party inspector's well intended opinion or suggestion is nothing more than salt on an open wound. In other words, helpful advise from the third party inspector is not welcomed and it is best for the inspector to keep their nose out of the contractor's business.

I, for one, am very hesitant to offer any advice to the contractor even if it is requested because all too often it comes back as a "kick in the butt". There are plenty of consultants the contractor can hire that are more than happy to help solve problems and it keeps the third party inspector/contractor relationship intact. The third party inspector should not become part of the problem.

End of Al's daily rant.

Best regards - Al