First, I did a search on unegual legs, but didn't quite find what I was looking for. This print calls for 1/4" weld, this weld is way over size (but not rejectable?). Weld is on a the inside of retainer on a pin head. Retainer A572 GR50 3/8" pin is 3" 4140. Pre & post heat good to go. Actual weld size is 3/8" one leg, other leg is .5" and concave, this pin is welded in positoner & rotated, Still ok to D1.1? This to me is a case of way over the limit of down hill showing the loss of effective/actual throat, and possibly lack of fusion, inwhich I need to cut & do an ecth test to verify. Am I on the right track?
Dick
That's more than just unequal leg size. As for that part, the leg lengths are based on the largest right triangle that can be inscribed within the fillet weld cross section. Be careful not to insert opinion here, that usually goes badly for an inspector.
By dick 
Date 08-04-2015 23:50
Edited 08-05-2015 06:40
CWI555 Legs sizes are actual, giving me the right triangle. I should have said, I suggest an ecth test, instead of the need (or giving my opinion {thanks for correcting me}) to do the test, to determine proper fusion.
Thanks for your help!
Still learning
Dick
Dick,
Now, first I am wondering, are you a TPI or in house?
If you are a TPI it is your job to observe and report. If the engineer/customer thinks there is a problem it is up to them to ask for further investigation/proof that all is well. Not our job to just start cutting parts and doing etch tests.
Now, if you are in house that is another story. I would be curious as to if my guys were accomplishing something the way it should be and giving them an example that their procedure was not meeting the product specifications by their methods.
But that would be for fusion to the root of a fillet weld and not really any thing to do with unequal leg lengths. The way I read your description it does not sound like the legs are really a problem, but lack of fusion to the root may be.
Concave fillet welds are in many ways better than convex as far as reducing stress risers at the toes of the welds. They can be more of a problem to measure though especially in some circumstances. And, it is harder to do get good fusion to the root if running slightly downhill and hot to where you get a good looking concave fillet but it is not structurally sound.
He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent
Brent thanks for your help also! I goofed up bad as I was recommending an ecth test instead of the need to do one. I am trying to relay a message of concern for quality. This was an observe and report on a spot check. This procedure wasn't to specs, Lack of fusion was my concern, due to down hill.
Thanks for your guidance CWI555 & Brent!
Hopefully this helps explain this situation.
If not please let me know.
stellar
Dick
If I am reading this correctly, the weld was made using downhill progression on a vertical weld. If that is the case, there is good reason to question the weld. It is not compliant with AWS D1.1 clear and simple unless both the WPS and welder were qualified using the same.
There is also good reason to suspect incomplete fusion in the root of the fillet weld.
Best regards - Al
Hang with me. Pin is in positioner and rotated, if welded at 6:00, welded in flat position, if welded at 3:00 vertical down position turning ccw. It appears to be welded in the 4:00 position (washed out ) leading me to have concerns of fusion and effective throat issues. (NONCOMPLIANT)
Does this help?
Sorry for the confusion!
Dick
Yes that helps. I defer to Al's response in light of that.
Right,
No need to cut, etch and measure until *after* you have reviewed the written WPS.
1. Is the WPS downhill?
2. Is the WPS supported by PQR?
3. Have a look at the PQR to see if it properly supports the WPS.
If anything answer is "NO" Time to report a non-compliance up the chain.
Wow. I was picturing between the 12 and 1 o'clock position but on the downhill side.
That changes everything. Definitely a downhill weld and needs to be looked at differently.
Brent
