.

Thanks for the reply Lawrence!

While the question appears simple. I'm finding it very frustrating to nail down.
The 2.4.1.4 reference is for mathematically determining the effective size of a FBG weld. The fact that it includes underfilled welds, alludes to that this condition may be acceptable.

The 6.1 visual inspection acceptance criteria does not define underfill, other than to reference that weld profiles shall be in conformance with 5.24, which does not include a detail of flare bevel grooves. (at least in the 2010 version I'm looking at, don't have a 2015 yet).

My interpretation is that if the groove is not filled at least flush to the radius line of the tube, it is an underfill defect. This causes me a lot of trouble as the ASTM tolerance for tube radius dimensions is quite broad, and corner radii not only varies from tube to tube, but on corners of the same tube.

I keep hearing from multiple sources that filling to the radius line is not required, which is making me question my judgement as too harsh, so I'm looking to my peers for clarification.

Thanks,
Tim

Thanks for the comment Gerald.
If I'm interpreting correctly:

The weld is rejectable to AWS D1.1 Table 6.1 visual acceptance criteria for Underfill.
The Engineer can make an exception for this case provided it's documented, with tolerance quantifications, and agreed upon.
If the Engineer were smart, he/she would not make an exception without a qualified weld procedure in hand that represents the exception circumstances.

Sound about right?

Hope you and Sammy are having fun in the snow!

Tim

I have my snowshoes, but someone forgot to put snowshoes on the airplanes!

I might have to take a train back to Connecticut. Last year I was stranded in North Carolina for four days, same reason.

Airplanes, cars, there is a lot of similarities. I've been in airports where a few snowflakes sends them into lockdown mode. And then there's Buffalo where they pack the snow down and take off and land whether it is snowing or not!

It isn't just a job, its an adventure!

Al

The size derived from Table 2.1 is the maximum size the designer can assume unless the contractor qualifies the WPS for larger welds, i.e., more penetration. If the weld size is less than the minimum permitted based on Table 2.1, it can still be accepted if the max. size minus the underfill is at least equal to the size specified by the drawing.

If the drawing specifies the largest size permitted by Table 2.1 and it is underfilled, it is undersized and non compliant. It is up to the Engineer or the designer to determine if it is large enough to be accepted or too small to carry the applied load, in which case it is rejected.

I rarely reject welds that are undersized. I simply report the weld as noncompliant, list the nature of the problem and leave it for the Engineer to make a decision. It is the Engineer's call to determine whether noncompliant welds must be corrected or if they are sufficient for the applied loads. Few CWI have the ability to calculate the size of the weld required and even if they do, they are not the individual that has the authority to say, "Good enough!"

When reporting deficient welds, it is important to provide enough information that the person charged with making the accept/reject decision can make a proper informed decision. An undersized weld is a good example of what I mean. When I report a weld that is undersized, I include the actual size of the weld and the length of the weld, disregarding cold starts or unfilled craters. In many cases if the weld is longer than that specified by the drawings, the undersized weld is still capable of transferring the applied load. If the weld is undersized and no extra length is provided, the weld may be insufficient to transmit the applied loads. Providing the Engineer with all the information is essential for him to make a decision whether to accept the weld "as is" or require the contractor/welder to correct the nonconformity.

There are situations where the weld is simply noncompliant and it has to be repair. That is the typical case when drawings have been reviewed and accepted by the customer. It is more economical to correct the deficiency rather than go through the process and paperwork of getting the noncompliant weld accepted by the customer. After all, there is a reason why we use drawings. If the contractor can't follow the drawing, maybe it is time to consider a different contractor.

In other cases the assembly is designed in-house, fabricated in-house, and delivered to a customer as a completed unit. There may be some flexibility, but still there is a reason we use drawings. Quality Control has a responsibility to ensure the welds meet the drawings. If the problem is one welder, it must be addressed. If it is a problem with the design, then it has to be directed to the engineering department so it can be addressed and the drawings changed.

The inspector's job is to report his or her observations to those that have the authority to institute change. The authority extended to the inspector is dependent on the situation and the circumstances. The in-house QC inspector is probably in the best position to effect a change by either pulling the welder's qualifications if justified or initiating a design change if it is warranted.

The verification inspector's authority and responsibilities are severely limited by the D1.1 structural welding code. The scope of his or her responsibility must be clearly defined by the Engineer and the statement of special inspections. A verification inspector can easily over step the limits of authority delegated by the Engineer and find himself is deep do-do.

Best regards - Al