Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / D1.1 code question
- - By jwright650 (*****) Date 03-25-2004 17:39
I have seen a detail that calls for CJP welds at the four flat sides of a 8 x 8 x 1/2 square tubing to a base plate, and PJP at the four radius corners.

My question is ..... 1) Does this violate the code in AWS D1.1:2002 Paragraph 2.7.2 by not being full pen completely around the tubing?
or 2) Am I reading more into this than is necessary? There is no comment on para. 2.7.2 in the Commentary section of the code.

John Wright

My feeling about this is to cut a 1/4" off the tubing and bevel the end to a 45 and put a continuous backing bar fitted to the inside profile of the tubing and it would be full pen all the way around.(better than detailed, but more costly due to more preparations).

Parent - - By swnorris (****) Date 03-25-2004 21:36
John,
As you probably know, a lot of detailers do not follow the D1.1 code. I see it all the time. The first thing I always check is to see what is shown on the design drawings. My experiences are that the design drawings are usually correct and the detailer simply shows the wrong weld symbol. If the CPJ/PJP combination is shown on the design, you may want to contact the EOR and plead your case. I'd say that the detail in question is in violation the code, because I don't think your application would apply to the exception of 2.7.2 since the elements are not built up members. Also, the detail wouldn't apply to 2.7.3 which addresses acceptable intermittent PJP welds when the welds are used to transfer shear stress, but because this is a base plate, the joint is not in shear. I agree with you to use a 1/4" root opening, a 45 degree bevel around the outside tube profile with a continuous back up bar on the inside profile (BU-4a).
Parent - By jwright650 (*****) Date 03-26-2004 00:19
Due to the detailer being in a time zone on the other side of the globe, I just instructed the fitter to go ahead with my plan of using the TC-U4a all the way around. I figured if I have to UT the joint, I won't need to watch for the partial pen corners.
John Wright
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 03-29-2004 11:42
swnorris,
I think in my application, there just isn't enough distance around the corner to transition from a CJP to PJP and back again to CJP. I was re-reading this paragraph, and it seems if the engineer wanted this type of transition, there would have to be a sufficient distance to accomplish the transition, in other words, I need roughly 2" to transition from CJP to PJP in this 1/2" thick material, and then I need another 2" to transition back again to CJP. Needless to say, I don't have 4 linear inches in those corners to make the transition of at least 4 times the weld size(material thickness) from a depth of zero to full thickness and back again. What are your thoughts about this?
John Wright
Parent - By bmaas1 (***) Date 03-29-2004 15:02
Hi John,

Your right. This joint sounds like more trouble than it's worth. I think I would do it the easiest way possible, submit an ncr and ut the entire joint.

Brian Maas
Parent - - By bmaas1 (***) Date 03-25-2004 23:45
I think this would be a good question to pose to AWS for clarification. I think to be considered intermitant there should not be a considerable change in joint design or orientation, ie going from full pen to partial pen then back. My take on a prohibited full pen grooves weld would be a full pen joint 12 inches long with 2 inches welded on each end and 2 inches in the middle or a intermitant flare groove weld.

Just my 2 cents worth,

Brian J. Maas
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 03-26-2004 00:32
Brian,
I think I am mis-applying the paragraph, like swnorris stated.
John Wright
Parent - - By - Date 03-26-2004 00:56
Mr. Wright,
My guess is that somebody actually thought about this, or had a bad experience in the past, and is trying to avoid the additional welder qualification requirements for square tubulars - ref 4.26(6) in the code.
Mankenberg
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 03-26-2004 01:05
Kipmank,
Thanks for your thoughts, you may be correct in that the engineer had something in mind about the welder quals or either he/she did not need to develope the whole area of the tubing to accomplish his/her calcs.
John Wright
Parent - - By TimGary (****) Date 03-26-2004 13:23
Hi John,
Many years ago, when I was a Fitter for GMP and was fitting beveled square tube columns to a deck for a fp weld, I was instructed to only tack the corners, because the corners couldn't be UT'd. That way the tacks wouldn't be in the welder's way.
I'm not saying that this procedure is correct, but perhaps that was what the detailer had in mind?
Is that true, that the corners can't be UT'd?

Tim
Parent - By jwright650 (*****) Date 03-26-2004 14:34
Hi Tim,
I don't have a written UT procedure perse' for checking tubular connections, but I check them anyway. I feel I can get a pretty good look at the corners by angling the transducer and using multiple legs or wedge angles to cover most of the root. A simple sketch kept fairly to scale will help reveal any locations within the corner that might not get seen by the sound path. I don't have any rejection criteria to use, so when I find something, I have been getting the welder to remove it regardless of size. Yes, a tack in the corner could most likely be found. My UT inspection is more for a "peace of mind" that is OK when it leaves the shop rather than being required by contract. The owner (of the building being fabricated) is responsible for the shop and field inspection, if it is in the contract, an outside inspector will pay us a visit and do their own inspection even if I have already looked at it.
John Wright
Parent - By jwright650 (*****) Date 03-26-2004 16:03
Tim,
Maybe somebody else that is more experienced in UT than I can give us a definite answer about the specifics of UT'ing the corners of the tubing and the proper techinques required to evaluate the joint?
John Wright
Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / D1.1 code question

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill