Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Technical Standards & Publications / Underfill
- - By supermoto (***) Date 08-20-2009 11:26
I tried to search for this but I didn't come up with a good answer.  Where does it talk about underfill on a groove weld?  I see where table 5.4 states that it is unacceptable and no more than an 1/8inch reinforcement.

Couldn't find any other references in D1.1 or when I searched on here.  Also somepeople talk about underrun, what is the difference?
Parent - By waccobird (****) Date 08-20-2009 13:48
AWS A3.0 2001 doesn't have under run but a paper I read from Lincoln http://www.jflf.org/pdfs/papers/quality.pdf which is discussing AWS B1.11 Guide for Visual Inspection of welds
on page 11 item 6 says it is an undersized weld.
while underfill  according to A3.0 is A Grove Weld condition in which the weld root or face surface is below the adjacent surface of the base metal and it gives a couple of figures to clarify.
Hope this helps more than it hurts.
Parent - - By BryonLewis (****) Date 08-20-2009 15:33
5.24  Weld Profiles
   5.24.4  Groove or Butt Welds
     Groove welds SHALL be made with minimum face reinforcement unless other wise specified.  Blah, blah, blah....SHALL not exceed 1/8 in height.

Shall be made with....that means there will need to be weld reinforcement.  Which means it can't be underfilled.  And it can't be higher than 1/8.

Figure 5.4 says underfill is unaccetable as you stated.  In an around about way, a hair above flush to 1/8 inch tolerance.

As far as underrun.  A weld that is shorter than stated on the drawing.  A 2 inch weld on the print that's only 1/2 inch long on the material.
Parent - - By waccobird (****) Date 08-20-2009 16:09
BryonLewis said
As far as underrun.  A weld that is shorter than stated on the drawing.  A 2 inch weld on the print that's only 1/2 inch long on the material.
that is a weld that is not in compliance with the symbol
Underrun in my AWS D1.5 2002 states in
6.26.1.7 A fillet weld in any single continuous weld may underrun the nominal fillet weld size specified by 2 mm [1/16 in.]
without correction, provided that the undersize portion of the weld does not exceed 10 percent of the length of the
weld. On the web-to-flange welds on girders, underrun shall be prohibited at the ends for a length equal to twice the
width of the flange
This is not length of weld but size.
Hope this Helped more than Hurt
Parent - - By supermoto (***) Date 08-27-2009 14:28
I had an inspector arguing with me about your allowed 1/32 underfill in groove welds, I thought it had to be a min. of flush.

Can anyone tell me where it states in D1.1 about this issue.

Thanks
Parent - By jwright650 (*****) Date 08-27-2009 14:42 Edited 08-27-2009 14:46
Underfill is just that...underfilled and shows up in the unacceptable profiles at the bottom of Fig 5.4.

Weld was designed to be "X" thick, it must be "X" thick with no more reinforcement than shown in Fig 5.4.

edit: See if he is referring to Clause 5, para 5.24.4 and para 5.24.4.1 referring to Flush "Butt Weld" joints only.
Parent - - By waccobird (****) Date 08-27-2009 15:18
I agree with John, underfill is unacceptable,  one of the clauses mentioned 5.24.4.1 is dealing with flush surfaces and not underfill as such. It is saying that Butt welds required to be flush shall be finished so as not to reduce the thicknesses of the thinner base metal or weld metal by more than 1/32", or 5% of the material thickness whichever is less. I don't think it is talking of underfill but the transition between the base and weld metals for flushness. Hope this Helps more than Hurts
Parent - - By swnorris (****) Date 08-31-2009 14:56
waccobird,

Underrun is mentioned in Table 6.1(6) Undersized Welds, and is in regard to acceptable/unacceptable fillet weld sizes within a given fillet weld length…. “underrun shall be prohibited at the ends of web-to-flange welds on girders for a length equal to twice the width of the flange”. 
Underfill has been defined in a previous post in this thread and is definitely an unacceptable weld profile in accordance with Figure 5.4, but an underfilled groove weld is not necessarily unacceptable.  For example, the required design thickness for the groove weld joint may calculated to be a 0.55" thick plate. The engineer typically rounds up to the next standard thickness, probably a 5/8" thick plate. If the weld is underfilled, the actual thickness of material required could be used as an acceptance basis, rather than D1.1 criteria. However, as we all know, only the engineer can make this determination.
Parent - - By waccobird (****) Date 09-01-2009 12:14
I don't believe You are reading it correctly, In Table 6.1 (6) it is talking of undersized welds. Weld size is not the length it is  profile, the only reason length is mentioned is the percentage of undersized  weld to length is the determining factor in whether the weld is acceptable or not. At the end of your example it is talking of a certain underrun condition that is not acceptable. In My AWS A2.4 in figure 32 it illustrates Specifications of SIZE and LENGTH of fillet Welds. weld size in the definitions is associated with things like throat and leg, not length L in your Table 6.1 is just a letter for the variable specified nominal weld size, not length.
So I believe that the research I did to properly answer the question in the original post is correct you sir should research more.
And last My 1988 edition AWS D1.1 in 8.15.1.7 A fillet weld in any single continuous weld shall be permitted to underrun the nominal fillet weld size specified by 1/16" with out correction, provided that the undersize portion of the weld does not exceed 10% of the length of the weld ...
Hope this Helps more than Hurts
Parent - - By swnorris (****) Date 09-01-2009 12:35
I respectfully stand by my post and I'm not going to get into a discussion to defend my answer.  Maybe you need to carefully read my post again.  Also, I take offense to your "you sir should research more" comment.  Maybe you should research in a more current edition of D1.1, rather than your 1988 edition that you referenced in your last post.
Parent - By waccobird (****) Date 09-01-2009 14:29
Maybe I didn't read your post through correctly. I am sorry for the offence taken by you.
Parent - - By ssbn727 (*****) Date 09-01-2009 15:10 Edited 09-01-2009 15:12
Hi Gents!

WOW!!! In the 1988 edition it wasn't even a requirement to take & pass the overhead portion of the D1.1 qualification... If you passed the vertical back then, you qualified, and if I remember correctly but then again that was quite some time ago, was there even an alternative RT involved with testing the joint as opposed to performing a guided bend destructive test??? Just out of curiosity how many pages were in that 1988 edition of AWS D1.1??? I betcha if the real "Rain Man" had read it once, he could tell you every tidbit and nuance in that version of D1.1 and remember how many pages made up the code book!!! ;)

Hmmm, That was a long time ago waccobird... You're talking to Scott who happens to be one of, if not the funniest participant in here who loves to make everyone laugh in here from time to time. :) :) :) I still repeat some of his web gems at party or othe type of get together and believe me you, they never disappoint in receiving gut wrenching laughter time after time! ;) I mean, just reading his signature makes me want to laugh every time!!! :) :) ;)

He also really knows his structural, and I consider him "top-notch" FWIW ,amongst being most knowledgeable as well as being up to date with AWS D1.1 which for most of the time is his bread and butter... So,maybe you didn't know this prior to discussing this topic and that's understandable yet I'm here to tell you that he deserves just a bit more respect than have given Scott who rarely gets into a debate unless he's absolutely sure he has done his homework! ;) He's probably ticked off that I would even want to defend him, and I don't blame him because he doesn't need any defending! ;) Still I like both of you gents and would hate to see both of you have any long standing animosity over this disagreement you're having in this thread. :( :( :(

Anywho, before I completely insert my foot in my mouth any further, I'm just going to say this... Hmmm,
( Must be having another brain fart from breathing all of those recycled farts when I was deployed on patrols? ;) )
What was it that I was gonna say??? :) :) :) Oh yeah!!! Now I remember!!! ;)
"Dios Te Bendigas a los dos siempre!" Translation: May God bless both of you always! ;) :) :)

Respectfully,
Henry
Parent - - By waccobird (****) Date 09-01-2009 15:45
Henry Thank You for trying to calm the waters. I was a little gun shy and didn't read through.
The 1988 AWS D1.1 is dog eared and ragged,  last index page is 369. I think my 2008 last page is 534.
Thanks again Henry I will try to be more thorough before my next post and use more understanding.
Parent - By supermoto (***) Date 09-03-2009 18:00
Well ok then.  Too many people take offense on here.  Posts or emails are a lot of time taken the wrong way.

Either way it is all very good information.
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Technical Standards & Publications / Underfill

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill