Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Technical Standards & Publications / Quick question of the forum regulars
- - By jwright650 (*****) Date 10-25-2011 12:44
Would you call it a violation of Clause 5.22.1..if the fillet weld root opening is larger than 3/16" on a 3/4" thick plate so the welder used a backing weld, then backgouged from the front side to sound metal and rewelded? (this is allowed on 3" and thicker sections, but what about 3/4" thick?)

I feel like we are giving the customer a better weld than is required by the drawing(ie Full pen vs Fillet)....but I also have a TPI onsite.

Situation:
I have a pipe column with a plate that was cut wrong. The plate required a hole to be cut in it and the plate is then slid up the column to the proper location and welded. Problem occurred when the welder/fitter cut beyond his chalk line and created a root opening that is too large.
Parent - - By welderbrent (*****) Date 10-25-2011 12:49
John,

Without D1.1 in front of me to look, doesn't Clause 5 have a provision for building the area up with the proper filler before actually welding the joint?  Couldn't a couple of passes be used to reduce your gap so that a proper weld could then be made without losing your part and the time into it already?  Couldn't take any longer than doing a full pen, or at least almost full pen because of the current fit up situation.

Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - By Shane Feder (****) Date 10-25-2011 12:55
John,
Don't have access to D1.1 at the moment but if the CJP was performed in accordance with a qualified or prequalified WPS there should be no problem,
Cheers,
Shane
Parent - By TimGary (****) Date 10-25-2011 13:31
So if this joint is designed to be a fillet weld, are you without the engineer's permission changing the whole are part of the joint to a full penetration bevel?
If so, are your welders certified to do this? Remeber with or witout backing is an essential variable.
If the Eng. OK's it and your welders have the proper certs, then you're OK, IMHO...
In order to avoid what may become a long drawn out discussion that would hinder production, I would rather cut a new plate, or repair the existing plate using buttering or layering welds in order to rebuild the required joint configuration.

Tim
Parent - - By 99205 (***) Date 10-25-2011 15:32
After reading Clause 5.22.1 and the associated Commentary C5.22.1, it seems that the code is trying to address a loading issue.  It does give guidance on adjusting root opening by various means.  That guidance is only for the heavier members due to the difficulties in bringing thicker members into alignment.  Personally I would redo the plate.
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 10-25-2011 16:04
Thanks for the replies guys...I would like to redo the plate to avoid trying to contact the engineer(shipping schedule will be impacted)...but the offending plate was cut, slid onto the column(actually several plates for several connections, only one with the larger root opening and it was only on one side for about 3" long on the circumference of the pipe). So I'm stuck with trying to repair and keeping within the code requirements at the same time. The plate is trapped due to all of the other connections that were welded ahead of time. Once the plate was slid up onto the column it became trapped by all of the other connections.
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 10-25-2011 21:18
I would submit a detail of the "corrective" action taken to the Engineer to keep him in the loop. I agree that what has been provided may surpass what was specified by the structural drawing, but the Engineer is responsible for reviewing and approving all joint details once the fabricator has completed the detailed shop and erection drawings (refer to D1.1-2008, clause 1.4.1, 4th sentence). I don't believe the Engineer will have any heart burn over the change in detail since it doesn't involve a reduction in allowable stress. The shear on a CJP groove weld is the same as for a fillet weld (refer to table 2.3).

At the very least, you need to provide the Engineer with data supporting the fact that the resulting weld is at least as good as that originally specified by the detailed drawings. What you described, a backing weld, followed by back gouging and welding should be sufficient to satisfy the Engineer that the weld is at least as good as the original fillet weld specified. However, it may be advantageous to provide the Engineer with UT data to confirm the back gouge operation and subsequent welding does meet the acceptance criteria for CJP.

Keeping the Engineer in the loop is required by D1.1 and it is good politics. Engineers know fabrication errors are going to happen. It eases their mind if the fabricator provides them with a "fix" and the necessary information, i.e., calculations, to make an informed decision whether the "fix" is adequate for the intended service and load conditions. After all, corrective work is the responsibility of the fabricator, but the Engineer must approve all repairs and corrective action. It is allways bad politics to wait until the third party reports the nonconformance.

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 10-26-2011 10:46
Thanks Al,
Yeah I will submit the change to the EOR just for his FYI.
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 10-26-2011 11:09
Emailed the EOR with a detailed sketch of what we did for his record, and copied the onsite TPI so he would have a copy also.
Parent - By eekpod (****) Date 10-28-2011 10:45
Could'nt what the welder did be considered building it up? he just did it in place as opposed to having the plate out of the way.
Yes the bigger than 3/16" gap doesn't meet code.  Yes you are allowed to butter it up to bring it to within tolerance.  Normally that is done when the parts are seperated, but it sounds like in your situation they were assembled when they were buttered.
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Technical Standards & Publications / Quick question of the forum regulars

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill