Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Technical Standards & Publications / Detail weld question
- - By kungfoodude (*) Date 10-10-2013 23:59 Edited 10-11-2013 00:13
Is the following weld an intermittent fillet weld as defined by AWS and therefore subject to the Figure 5.4 profile requirements? I am working at a very production oriented facility with a very long history of quality related problems and they are claiming that all fillet welds need only be "inspected for the effective length of the weld" and anything outside of the detailed length is not required to conform to the acceptable profile requirements. To me, this seems to be a gross misapplication of the 5.24.2 "Exception for Intermittent Fillet Welds." Am I and the other inspectors here incorrect in our code interpretation?



Edit: This is a plan view of angle iron which is welded to flat plate. Please forgive the less-than-stellar bitmap I created.
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 10-11-2013 13:28
Typically a symbol for an intermittant fillet weld would contain information including weld length and pitch (center to center distance) so that the welder can hit his mark...

Welcome to the Forum Kung Fu !
Parent - By kungfoodude (*) Date 10-11-2013 16:19
Yes, that is all of our argument here, it is not detailed as an intermittent fillet weld.

Thanks for the welcome, I hope I can learn a lot of the more experienced guys in here.
Parent - By kungfoodude (*) Date 10-11-2013 16:53
I want to thank you all for your responses and help in this seemingly "simple" matter. It seemed like a pretty clear-cut issue to me but it has grown into more of a battle than I would have ever imagined.
- - By 803056 (*****) Date 10-11-2013 15:34
The correct response is dependent on the welding standard invoked by the customer.

The other issue is the use of proper welding symbols. The sketch doesn't appear to be correct per AWS A2.4 if the intention is to specify an intermittent fillet weld.

Al
Parent - By kungfoodude (*) Date 10-11-2013 16:27
That's basically our argument, is that at the bare minimum it is an incorrectly detailed weld. However, they have re-written a procedure to state that any unacceptable profiles(other than undercut) outside of the "effective length" of the fillet weld(which they give an example of as, "If it is detailed as a 1" fillet, only 1" of the fillet is required to be inspected"). They also are applying this "definition" that they have come up with to every fillet weld that is made on these modules.

We have done a tremendous amount of research through D1.1, 2.4, 3.0 and in some interpretation documents to make our case that they are misapplying 5.24.2 to the overall detriment of the quality program. I just want to ensure that we are correct in our understanding and interpretation because this is probably about to become a very, very big ordeal.
- - By SCOTTN (***) Date 10-11-2013 16:35
An intermittent weld as as defined by AWS D1.1 and A3.0 is a weld in which continuity is broken by recurring unwelded spaces.  Your detail shows a single 1" fillet weld on one leg of the L and a single 1" fillet weld on the other leg of the angle...... i.e., two separate welds on two separate sides (two separate L legs) that having nothing to do with each other, and thus, not an intermittent weld in my opinion.   To me, the continuity is not broken because there are no recurring welds/recurring unwelded spaces on either leg, but the effective length of both welds must be a minimum of 1".
Parent - By 803056 (*****) Date 10-11-2013 16:40
Nicely put.

Al
Parent - - By kungfoodude (*) Date 10-11-2013 16:50
Exactly. And they further give clear pictorial examples of this in A3.0.

This is the argument we have been making over and over. I know it sounds like a very simple issue that anyone should be able to discern from reading the AWS documents but we have the QA Manager, QC Manager and two NDE Level III's trying to convince(to the point of "retraining everyone") every inspector here that any fillet weld that isn't the entire length of the joint(ie, has a detailed length) is an "intermittent fillet weld."
Parent - - By SCOTTN (***) Date 10-11-2013 17:17
With all due respect, it sounds like the QA Manager, QC Manager and two NDE Level III's need to be re-trained.  Although it seems pretty cut and dried, I'd suggest getting an official interpretation from AWS, which should close the issue.
Parent - - By welderbrent (*****) Date 10-11-2013 18:03
In about three years if they are lucky, wouldn't you say Al? 

Don't expect a quick answer to a technical official interpretation.  But, Miami does have someone on staff, I have to look his name up again, who will answer most questions but it is not an official interpretation.

Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - - By kungfoodude (*) Date 10-11-2013 19:40
Even if it isn't an official interpretation, I would love to have someone at AWS "unofficially" chime in. Especially if it were perhaps on a conference call in front of these guys.
Parent - By Superflux (****) Date 10-11-2013 20:40
Total FAIL!
Completely un-interpretable from my perspective.
Seriously, I would not have a clue as to how to enforce QC on this.
Parent - By ctacker (****) Date 10-12-2013 05:49 Edited 10-12-2013 05:55
A much faster source is MSC (Modern Steel Construction, AISC). Awhile back I sent a question in that was asked in here about faying surfaces and paint. After I answered the question, I still wanted to be 100% sure, so I shot off a question to MSC and  I got an answer in  week or so, and the question was published in last months edition of MSC.

http://www.aws.org/cgi-bin/mwf/topic_show.pl?pid=247481;hl=faying%20surface

Edit: May not be an official interpretation, but it may change some minds.
- - By 803056 (*****) Date 10-11-2013 20:38 Edited 10-11-2013 20:42
The Structural Committee is notoriously slow with issuing official interpretations, but I completely sympathize with their plight.

The committee is probably the largest of all the committees at AWS. The short form of explaining the mechanics of how an interpretation is rendered goes something like this; the majority of the members at the subcommittee level must come to a consensus agreement, then the main committee, then TAC must agree to the interpretation. If there is a disagreement at any level, it is bounced back to the subcommittee and the process is repeated until all involved can agree to the interpretation.

A recent interpretation to one of my questions took five years to be rsolved by the D1 committee. However, the interpretation will cause fabricators and inspectors alike to reconsider past practices. I can easily understand how certain sectors could have taken a strong stand in opposition to the final interpretation. I can easily see the interpretation going through several iterations before the final interpretation was rendered. However, if I didn't ask the question, it would have never been addressed and there would always be those among us that would question the intent of the current provision.

I expect the next edition of D1.1 will include a revision that incorporate the interpretation that was handed down.

An opinion voiced by a member of the committee or the Secretary of the committee is not binding. Such verbal or written communication is just one person’s position or understanding of the code’s intent. Such opinions typically solves few problems. Until an interpretation is forth coming from the committee, the Engineer (representing the Owner) is the arbitrator on matters to the meaning of a code provision.

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By kungfoodude (*) Date 10-11-2013 21:05
Perhaps we can kick this up the ladder to the design authority and get a response more quickly.
Parent - - By Superflux (****) Date 10-11-2013 21:15
kungfoodude,
Go for the jugular.
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 10-11-2013 21:54
The design authority is a term used by D17.1.

The Engineer is the person tasked with the responsibility in the structural welding codes.

Al
Parent - - By kungfoodude (*) Date 10-12-2013 01:17
In this case, I have a relatively direct line to issue a Request of Information from the design authority(which in this case is a higher authority than even the client). Should I pursue this as an option or am I jumping to far ahead in the process? Most of our engineering support is coming from the fabrication facility, making it a somewhat dubious option in my opinion.
Parent - - By welderbrent (*****) Date 10-12-2013 01:46
I have to agree with the general consensus here, the weld symbol does not indicate an intermittent weld.  It is two separate welds of 1/4" fillets by 1" long.  The entire length of the weld must meet the criteria of the code in order to ensure soundness.  It would be nice to see a photo of the actual part this concerns.

My worthless opinion is that you are jumping to far if you go clear over your client's head.  Besides, while there are usually certain authorities that may have the ability to force the issue of compliance to the applicable code, the client for the project should be your main consideration.  The client and their representative, usually an engineer, is the proper channel to pursue before trying to reach the perceived top of the chain. 

Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 10-12-2013 01:53
There is a protocol to follow for most of the questions and issues that arise on a project, but there are instances where it becomes necessary to bypass the middleman when they are unresponsive or when they are unreasonable.

I had such a situation once where I had to bypass the welding engineer at one of the larger ship yards because the engineer was being totally unreasonable. The Navy agreed with my position, but I didn't make any friends by not following protocol.

Al
Parent - By gastonM (**) Date 10-28-2013 22:05
I am a inspector, ergo, i have no capacity to reason. But let me add a feeling (always thinking in static load, if service conditions are different, intermitent fillet welds are detrimental). If an engineer put the integrity of an structure at risk considering the resistance of the starts and stops of intermitent fillet welds: "his brain went on vacation" and if a QC manager, indicates  production to repair any start or stop, he has serious problems to conserve his job. The start and stops are detrimental for mechanical resistance of welds, so there are weld tabs, but they are used in CJP when the section of weld is needed to work at 100%. If i look a fillet break test, i see a little portion that fail prematurely at the ends (no more than a leg), then breaks the rest of the bead simultaneously through its throat. Its good practice to make 2" minimun lenght , intermitent fillet welds.

Regards

Gastón.
Parent - - By kungfoodude (*) Date 10-12-2013 16:23
I would love to be able to show a picture of the welds but they are rather sensitive about picture taking for this project(could possibly land me in jail, or fired at the minimum).

It is an interesting chain of command here, actually. I work for the fabricator, the client is a utility company and there is an overall design authority which is a separate company. It is a very large nuclear project, so the NRC also has a say. Given this structure, it isn't uncommon to have almost no interaction with the client and get information from the overall design authority.
Parent - - By welderbrent (*****) Date 10-12-2013 16:43
Well now some things are making a little more sense (or 'non-sense'). 

I understand why pics would not be a good idea. 

I still think you need to be careful about how you pursue this up the chain of authority (not sure anyone is in command). 

How many levels of this chain have been involved in this discussion so far? 

Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - - By kungfoodude (*) Date 10-12-2013 19:50
As of now, the QC's are butting heads with the fabrication "Quality" management and the utility company is aware of these issues(they actually are siding with us). However, the fabricator management doesn't seem to care what the customer's opinion is(which is mind boggling to most of us). The design authority is, as of yet, unaware of this specific issue.

I should mention that basically every one of these companies involved in this are currently suing each other.

The main concern of the inspectors here is getting a quality product to deliver to the client but we feel that our management is pressuring us to let issues slide by to meet schedule demands.
Parent - By Milton Gravitt (***) Date 10-12-2013 22:40
I have got prints before that where in minutes might not mean nothing but just a though ,but I have seen some crazy symbols and not really anything in A2.4.

                          M.G.
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Technical Standards & Publications / Detail weld question

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill