542373,
When welds that are on opposite sides are tied together, such as the example shown in Figure 2.8, there is the potential for "notching" at the sharp edge of the flange.
If the weld all around symbol is shown on the design drawing, the EOR can actually override the structural code, but don't assume this is the case. Things get overlooked or missed from time to time on design drawings, or from design drawings to shop drawings, and I've always believed that when there are discrepancies between design criteria and code requirements, it is the responsibility of the fabricator, who should be knowledgeable enough to recognize these discrepancies, to ask for a clarification from the EOR. Most are very receptive and appreciative, regardless of their answer. Even though the EOR and the fabricator are sometimes working for two different companies, both are still members of the project team and really should work closer together.
swnorris nailed what I would suggest. I have come across this often. Because this is an "Engineering" requirement, it should be referred to same. Though not in accordance with D1.1, the inspection of this item must be based upon the documentation provided. If a conflict exists among various documents, request clarification.
I have seen the welds approved many times in situations where paint or other coating could affect appearance etc.
Gerald
By 542373
Date 09-02-2009 19:22
thanks for your reply Gerald: If you had to hang 2 beams under a floor opening to support a vertical run of pipe would you weld 2 or 4 flange to flange sides? Have you heard of weld with the beam?
thanks for your input...fig 2.8 shows un-tied ends; so i disagree with you. Pg 45 in my book shows the over-heads welded but not tied-in. I told the pipefitter supt. this-he's omitted the over-heads for 30 years "weld with the beam" I am ignorant of 'weld with the beam' is it in D1.1?
542373,
I realized that the ends are not tied together in Figure 2.8. I was just trying to use Figure 2.8 as an example of when the practice of tying welds together is unacceptable. Another example would be the detail of Figure 2.6. This could be a bottom chord truss tee with diagonal angle bracing. Same condition as 2.8 if the weld is shown to be all around.
I don't understand what you mean when you say weld with the beam or weld the over head, unless you're referring to welding across the thickness. The terminology you've mentioned is not in D1.1 as far as I know.
It's understood that by not tying these welds together, undercut and unacceptable melting of edges is avoided, but if the drawing shows weld all around, someone can't just arbitrarily not tie them together without EOR approval.
By 542373
Date 09-01-2009 15:30
thanks for your reply. If the 2 members shown in 2.8 were wide flange beams and the weld all around is shown you'd have 4 un-tied welds. Fig 2.8 shows 1-flat and the 2- hidden line segments (what i'm calling over-heads) Join 2 beams, one on top of the other, 90 degree or x orientation, 'weld with the beam' was represented as some code for omitting the over-heads-making only 2 of 4 top-to-bottom flange welds. I think that the don't tie in ends (2.8 specification) is misinterpreted to mean weld with the beam, or omit the over-heads.
