It isn't a case of the third party inspector saying the weld is 1/64 inch undersized. To do so would be a mistake a novice inspector would make. The inspector determines if the weld is conforming or it is nonconforming. Simply put; it doesn't meet the acceptance criteria of the drawing or the applicable welding standard. It is then left to the Engineer to determine if the undersized weld meets the intended service requirements of the project.

The abbreviation for inspector (other than the Authorized Inspector) is not spelled "GOD." The inspector simply reports his findings to the Engineer or the client. The work meets the requirements of the approved drawings and applicable welding standard or they are simply nonconforming.

It is interesting to note that I rarely encounter welds that are nonconforming for one reason. If the welds are running undersized, there are usually other problems as well. That is why it is important to evaluate all of the attributes and to note all nonconformances. While the undersized weld may meet the service requirements, the fact that there are unfilled craters, missing welds, unauthorized welds, arc strikes, etc. may be more of a detriment than the fact that it is undersized.  

The welding inspector, whether he or she is a CWI or not, serves as the client’s eyes and ears on the project. The completeness and accuracy of the written report is what the Engineer or the client uses to judge the work being inspected. The final decision to accept or to reject work is not left to the contractor. It is the Engineer or the client that makes the final decision to accept or reject the work. That responsibility may be delegated to the inspector by the Engineer or client, but that responsibility shouldn’t be an automatic assumption.

It is all in the “Word Smithing” of the report. If the inspection report is well written, there is little chance the Engineer or the client will allow the nonconforming welds slip through. 

If the concept is difficult to understand, think of it this way; You and I agree that I will pay you $100.00/hour, but when I hand you your check you discover I only paid you $99.00/hour. Somehow, even though you work with a contractor, I don't believe you would be inclined to say, "Close enough." as you skip merrily off to the bank to cash the check.

Best regards - Al

JOE

YOU ARE RIGHT!!!!!! However your sarcasm on this subject is somewhat unwarranted.

It is not feasible to measure the size of a Fillet Weld to 1/64 of an inch.  It is not feasible to measure a Fillet Weld to 1/32 Inch.  Even measuring to 1/16 inch can result in esoteric arguments as to where the actual "toe" of the fillet weld begins.  The toe run-out profile could lead to endless arguments.

However, the OP asked if the weld was undersized for 1/64 of an inch for greater than the allowable length, would the weld be rejectable.  ????? My answer is; undersized is undersized.  If the length of the undersize weld is greater than the acceptance criteria allowance, In this case. D 1.1, the weld is rejectable.   Of course, the Engineer will probable agree to accept the weld.  It is up to the Fabricator to RFI the Engineer and ask for acceptance.  It is the duty of the Inspector to either accept or not accept the weld based on acceptance criteria, and the inspector's job description! 

My answer about using a Digital Micrometer, indicates that I have the tools to meet or even escalate the battle, if there is a challenge to my finding.  Such a finding of 1/64 inch, even though it would be correct, WOULD probably result in my removal from the job. 

Most of the time, in good companies,  the Shop QC inspectors will agree when you show that some weld is non-conforming, or at least defend their disagreement in a reasonable manner.  Here, some judgement, or "Backing Off" on the TPI side may be in order.  However, I have run into many Fabricators, who are basically just criminal organizations, where the only inspection that gets performed is the TPI QA inspection!   

A good example of where this kind of "Micrometer Measurement" argument makes more sense, is in the 0.010 Inch undercut limitation on transverse tension welds.  A Bridge Fabricator, building "Fracture Critical" bridge girders,  argued that he was using a G.A.L. "V-WAC" Gauge, and the undercut he measured was OK. I told him he had to use another Gauge, like the WTPS Gauge.  I took out an Optical Comparator, and showed him that the graduations on the "V-WAC Gauge were thicker than 0.032 Inch, and I said that his determinations based on that Gauge were totally B-O-G-U-S!   Measurement with the "V-WAC" gauge was as accurate as using the "Fingernail Scratch" method!   I was using the "WTPS" Gauge, which is one of the proper tools available for measuring the 0.01 Inch undercut. I also know that there are other factors in measuring such small undercut depth on a transverse bridge weld, with the "WTPS" Gauge, and some empirical judgement is still involved.  However, when the pissing contest continued, I escalated by bringing out my G.A.L. Micrometer Depth Gauge, with the bridging attachment. Here, digital Macro Photos come in handy!

Joe Kane

Yo Joe just a lil tip....anyone using that "black line" to judge a fillet weld is asking for trouble....they should be using the other bladed side of the gage where the gage is a go/no-go type of gage and takes the inspector out of the question.....see light under that blade and it's undersized  -end of story....none of this trying to convince whether it is at or below the "black line".