American Welding Society Forum
Please excuse my poor drawing, the piece I have isn't as extreme as the picture. D1.1 2010 A36, 045 flux cored wire. As an in-house inspector at the end of the day I have the authority to reject a weld if I don't feel it is to shop standards. Which is what I'll be doing this time but I want to ask if anyone can help back this up per D1.1?
"T" joint 1/2" fillet weld 3 pass flat with 045 flux cored wire is what we're going for. From my experience it's fairly simple root, then 2 cap passes. To myself it's always been common sense that the 2 cap passes fully cover the root. Then I ran across this.
I can see all passes including the root. The toes of the cap passes bring it to the proper size. The only way I can find where I could reject it per code would be if I check the concavity of the weld and it failed. If it falls within table 5.10 is there anywhere I can reject it per the code? Thanks I hope there is enough there to give an idea.
It looks like profile and concavity are most likely acceptable since you mentioned that your drawing is more extreme than the actual welds in question. To address the issue of bead placement and sequence, I have several customers that have in-house procedures with examples... like this one below.
I like how that's drawn out. I may have to implement something similar. I've never run into this while I was welding I just done it how I was taught. All I have found that it could reject it per code is the concavity of it. Thanks
If a multipass weld is required to produce the required weld size, it seems unlikely the weld you describe would have the required throat. Your description would indicate the weld is concave thereby resulting in an undersized throat dimension. It is also possible that the legs are too long to measure with a standard fillet gage. You may have to resort to making a gage with the appropriate throat dimension and adequate clearance for the fillet weld legs.
As the in-house inspector, you do not have to base your decision solely on the code requirements. There are workmanship issues that are not addressed by the code. The code provides the minimum requirements that must be met. You can impose more restrictive requirements if the issue relates to workmanship. Basically, if the weld doesn't look good, but it meets the letter of the code, it can still fall below "good workmanship" practices.
Envision if you will a full size single pass fillet weld. Then the welder adds an other bead right at the toe of the full size fillet weld. The weld meets the size requirements, there is code requirement that has been violated, but the weld looks like a goose just crapped on the joint. That's a workmanship issue. The inspector would normally require the welder to remove the excess weld for the simple reason of aesthetics.
Best regards - Al
Ghee Al, when I first saw this I thought that maybe you were inferring that the "Mickey Mouse" term might apply here (the gauge in the sketch looked like MM ears). Sorry guys I know that this doesn't apply to the original question but I just couldn't help myself. I also agree that the term "minimum" doesn't restrict what can be enforced in inspection all the time. Best regards, Allan
Actually, I like it, Mickey Mouse Welds. It sounds appropriate.
By the way, thanks Electrode for helping me resize the sketch.
I have to wrap up for the day fellas. I have to fly out to Las Vegas for the week. Time to pack for the trip.
Needs to be in the Farm Code with Al's drawing describing it.
Enjoy Vegas Al, haven't been there for a while. Always something going on though. Best regards, Allan
Thanks your the replies. I originally did reject the weld as far as aesthetics. After I measured them some did fail per concavity. Overall it's just poor workmanship as stated.
I have made up drawings that show proper cross sections of multi pass welds and distributed them around the shop. Maybe this will help the welders. At minimum they'll know what it should look like when it's finished to know if there's is comparable.
Thanks again for the help.
SS 410 to CS WPS is done. is it agian required to have SS 420 to CS. Plz reply...
Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill