Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Technical Standards & Publications / UT Scanning of Base Plates
- - By ftorre (*) Date 05-05-2009 23:54
I am currentlly in a debate over the requirements of D1.1 concerning the scanning of base plates over a certain thickness. My question is simply this... Does D1.1 have a mandatory requirement that states base plates MUST be scanned ultrasonically if they are over a certain thickness? If so, where exactly can that be found in the latest edition of D1.1? Thanks for any help you guys can give me.
Parent - By fbrieden (***) Date 05-06-2009 02:36
Please, no offense, but can't you research that information yourself in D1.1 2008?
Parent - - By hogan (****) Date 05-06-2009 13:04
I am also a little surprised that someone who is a CWI and level III in UT would be asking this question.
Parent - - By ftorre (*) Date 05-13-2009 14:00
Perhaps I was not clear in my initial post, for that I apologize. I am well aware that no such requirement exists within the parameters of AWS D1.1. As stated in my post, I was debating this issue with someone who insisted that it did in fact appear in AWS D1.1. So on the off chance that I had made an oversight or misinterpretation of the code, I decided to ask the community. As expected, I confirmed what I already knew. For those who responded in a professional and helpful manner....thank you. For the others, please do not abuse the forum system. This is a place for helpful advise and direction. Remember, there may be some people out there that do not know as much as you, so let's not point fingers, but rather help. If you do not have a helpful response, it's better to  not post anything. I would think an "educator" would understand this. Thanks again to those that were helpful.
Parent - By HgTX (***) Date 05-13-2009 22:39
I agree, you were not in the least bit clear in your initial post that you were already well aware that no such requirement exists.  Why on earth should we assume that if you ask, "What does D1.1 say about X and where do I find that provision?" that you are "well aware" of the answer already?  That's playing games with us, which is far more abusive of the forum system than legitimately pointing to someone who apparently has a dismaying level of ignorance that, well, they show a dismaying level of ignorance?  Okay, you were just *pretending* to have a dismaying level of ignorance...I don't want to have to assume that every poster asking a question is just pretending not to know the answer.  I prefer to think they're taking an honest approach to us.

I think you owe some people here an apology for calling them abusive and implying that they were unprofessional.

Hg
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 05-06-2009 20:16 Edited 05-07-2009 13:00
I usually find the Lam Scan requirements in the job specs.  Some specs call for anything over 1.5", others spell out 2" and thicker. Some specs only require the columns with full pen shaft to base plates to be scanned for Lams prior to welding the base plates on.

About finding this mandatory requirement in D1.1....No, it's not there, at least I'm not aware of it for fillet welded base plates.

Now if these base plates are full pen to the column shaft then D1.1:2008 paragraph 6.26.5 will make scanning for Lams mandatory, regardless of thickness.

edit: the reference to 6.26.5 is only true if the full pen joints are required to be UT'd.
(We UT everything full pen here at our shop and forget that not all shops will UT, unless it is required)
Parent - - By kipman (***) Date 05-07-2009 12:44
John,
D1.1 requires scanning of the base material prior to angle beam scanning of the weld solely for the purpose of detecting reflectors that would interfere with the angle beam scan.  See 6.20.4 and 6.26.5.  D1.1 does not require scanning of base material for the purpose of detecting discontinuities that could be detrimental to the intended service of the weldment.
Mankenberg
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 05-07-2009 12:55
I agree 100% Kip, but lams will interfere with your interpretation and calculations when you find an indication with shear wave, so if you don't scan for lams first, you may mis-interpret where something is. That was my intent when I said that for full pen joints that are to be UT'd, the L-wave scanning for lams becomes a neccessity. I think we are on the same page, didn't mean for it to sound the way it did....LOL(that's what I get for speed typing when I really didn't have the proper time to look up the paragraph that I quoted)
Parent - - By eekpod (****) Date 05-14-2009 13:28
suppose its not a base plate?  how about a stiffiner or a doubler plate?
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 05-14-2009 13:37
You should still scan for lams before your angle beam inspection, regardless.
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 05-18-2009 11:44
John and Kip, as usual, are on the mark about checking the base metal with straight beam before angle beam testing.

Clause 6.26.5 Extent of Testing is the clause that requires testing the base metal for laminations prior to performing shear wave testing. The code limits UT to the minimum 5/16 inch thickness up to about 8 inch thickness. There are other techniques that can be employed with the Engineer's blessing for other thicknesses.

Clause 6.20.4 Base Metal states that laminations, cracks, lamellar tears, etc. in the adjacent base metal must be reported to the Engineer.

Of course I am paraphrasing the clauses, so I would recommend you read the applicable sections of AWS D1.1 for the complete details of the requirements.

Best regards - Al

Parent - - By DGXL (***) Date 05-22-2009 19:21
ftorre:
1.) You have entered "The Clique"

2.) I'm sure I'll get flack for this reply, but so be it.
The first couple of responses were were BS, regardless of who posted them.
Funny the same individuals are always sharp shooting the posters credentials or knowledge and replying with less than technical replies.

3.) This original post asked a legitimate question and as usual, some of the Clique members replied in their usual hypercritical fashion.
Why not provide the person with help like you people do with other Clique members in lieu of slamming the person looking for professional help??

4.) The IBC/UBC and AISC Steel Construction Manual have always required scanning base metal >1.5" that are subject to through-thickness shrinkage stresses.
This is a building code requirement, not a D1.1 clause.

5.) You have entered The Clique...

I've watched a few good posters leave the forum over the years for the same reason.
screw this gig
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 05-22-2009 20:16
I apologize if our responses didn't pass muster with you DGXL. I though the responses from Kip and John were exactly what the poster was looking for.

For the record, next time you are kind enough to respond with useful information, as you have, it would be helpful to list the code or standard and the specific clauses you are referencing so we can verify the information is correct. As I've said many times, the information you receive is only as valuable as what you pay for it. Always check the references.

If the information received isn't what you are looking for, there are other places to search it out.

Happy Memorial Day.

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By DGXL (***) Date 05-25-2009 19:31
Dear Clique member 803056:
Made no reference to those you did.
Not surprised of your reply either, clique members always defend each other.
I forwarded this thread to non forum users for feedback.
Oddly enough they saw the same tone in the first two replies that I did.
The big dissapointment is one of those replies came from the AWS person.

Here is an example of what I noted: http://www.aws.org/cgi-bin/mwf/topic_show.pl?pid=150839;hl=

For the record;
"I am also a little surprised that someone who is a SCWI and welding consultant would be asking this question."
"Please, no offense, but can't you research that information yourself in IBC/UBC and AISC manual?"

Similar posts as other clique members.
Don't feel good, does it?

I was not looking for info, ftorre was.

My younger Bro just came back from Afghanistan minus one hand.
Then I have to pay respect to those who did not come back.
Finally, the tower crane dude in the next unit is having a BBQ, I'll have a burger.
"Pass the mustard."

Happy Memorial Day to all our Vets! 
Parent - - By CWI555 (*****) Date 05-25-2009 22:14 Edited 06-07-2009 16:57
Al is a lot of things, but he's no "clique" member. For that matter, I don't know that there are any on this site.

Whats odd are your choice of words. Been reading selinsky's rules of engagement have you?

"Dear Clique member 803056:"
"Not surprised of your reply either, clique members always defend each other."
"I forwarded this thread to non forum users for feedback.
Oddly enough they saw the same tone in the first two replies that I did.
The big dissapointment is one of those replies came from the AWS person."

"For the record;
"I am also a little surprised that someone who is a SCWI and welding consultant would be asking this question."
"Please, no offense, but can't you research that information yourself in IBC/UBC and AISC manual?"

Similar posts as other clique members.
Don't feel good, does it?"

Which rules apply to these statements?
______________________________________
RULE 2: "Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don't address the "real" issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)

RULE 3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity's very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

RULE 10: "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive." Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.

RULE 11: "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Never let the enemy score points because you're caught without a solution to the problem.

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
_______________________
Hmmm It would seem most of them. I will let the reader decide.

I have had disagreements with Al, all which handled in a civil manner. I don't personally care what your beef is, but that you have one is evident. Nothing forced you to read it, nothing forces you to stay, nor did anything force you to comment on the thread as a whole.

If there were cliques as you say, I would damn sure not be ashamed of being in Al's clique. He's one of the most level headed, intelligent, and honest men on this forum. He's also not afraid to hand you your arse in a polite way when you make a wrong statement. If this bothers you, then I suggest you go back to reading and find some other tactic.
I for one would take Al's best guess over your psuedo intellectual BS approach anyday of the week.

BTW, Selinsky would disown you for such a vague and transparent attempt.

post note: selinsky is short for saul alinsky. Some apparently didn't understand that when it was initially posted.
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 05-26-2009 10:59 Edited 05-26-2009 11:02
Points to consider:

You can't please everyone.

Some people aren't interested in answers.

There are times when we all need to vent. Why not here amoungst friends?

Some posts are best ignored.

I hope you enjoyed your holiday and paid respect to those that serve our country.

Best regards - Al
Parent - By jwright650 (*****) Date 05-26-2009 14:16
Glad that I missed all the drama, hope it's now over and done with. I'm hoping everyone has shaken hands and gone on about their bizniz.

The campground where my Mom and Dad are volunteering this Summer had a very nice Memorial Service to honor those who have served our country. Very touching visuals and ceremony, great crowd in attendance for such a small campground.
Parent - By metal_monger Date 06-19-2009 20:30
Sorry I missed this one. Obviously DGXL has had his feelings hurt in the past. What a pitty
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Technical Standards & Publications / UT Scanning of Base Plates

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill