Weld access hole

Date 03-12-2010 10:59

DAYANARA
I am not sure I understand, maybe there is more information needed to answer correctly?
Is the drawing calling for a complete all around CJP to the base plate including the web.
But to do a CJP on the column base plate I am visualizing you would need weld access
holes in the web at both flanges to allow for back-gouging and then weld-out.
If it is just the flanges requiring CJP then you would at least need access for the backing bar.
Just some thoughts to add to your question.
But I have had to fill in a may of rat holes,(slang term) to do CJP on a base plate.
Good Luck Sorry I could't understand thequestion
Marshall

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 03-12-2010 12:52

Marshall,
just a side note:

I would suggest to "not" fill in the rat holes with weld metal, but rather (if AESS) to fill in with body putty or something similar. Studies have proven that it is not a good practice to fill those rat holes. Our in-house Engineer was involved with those studies by the AISC and he strongly opposes that practice.

By Bob Garner (***)

Date 03-12-2010 17:09

One consideration is that this column is built-up from plates and is not a W section so you won't have any problems from the "k" zone. I seem to recall, that was the reason not to weld-in the rat holes. But with built-up colums, there is no "k" zone.

It's not unusual to CJP the flange welds but when the engineer specifies CJP for the web also, I wonder if the engineer is "copping" out and just doing a conservative design. From an engineering standpoint, CJP web welds have bad cost to benefit ratios. (I'm and engineer and unfortunately, a lot of us take (or have to take) the easy way out.)

Bob G.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 03-12-2010 17:49

Bob,

[quote]this column is built-up from plates and is not a W section so you won't have any problems from the "k" zone. [/quote]

Thankyou for that correction,

You are right, I read too quickly and assumed we were talking about a rolled section.
My apologies to the OP and Marshall.

By DaveBoyer (*****)

Date 03-13-2010 02:22

Not to hijack the thread, but for the benifit of Us country boys, what is the "k" zone?

By aevald

Date 03-13-2010 21:57

Hello Dave, I'll try to give my take here, although if I am wrong I'm sure that there will be a barrage of corrections. It is considered as the point where the center of the top or bottom beam flange and the end of the web connect in a beam in it's cross-section. A wide-flange beam would have 2 K-zones, one at the top of the beam and one at the bottom. I'm sure there are many more technically and grammatically correct ways to describe this, yet I have given a very minimal description. Best regards, Allan

By DaveBoyer (*****)

Date 03-14-2010 04:20

Thanks Allan, that is what I thought they were talking about, but I wasn't sure.

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 03-14-2010 04:27

Interestingly enough, I am working with EEMUA-158 which took AWS D1.1 (at least in part) as a start point for development. EEMUA-158 was developed primarily for structural platforms in the North Sea, off the coast of the UK. The environmental conditions are extremely harsh in the north sea and our design engineers here in Kazakhstan INSIST on having access holes "restored" or "patched" if they exceed a certain size. I've sent Commentary from AWS D1.1 to the designers on a number of occasions but to no avail. I certainly agree in most cases they don't need to be patched or restored in most instances but bow to local "experts" and technical specifications. :(