American Welding Society Forum
Why is excessive weld reinforcement cause for weld rejection on complete and partial penetration butt and / or groove weldments?
What are the adverse affects that can be caused by excessive weld reinforcement on complete penetration butt and / or corner joint welds?
I've been taught that it is to prevent stress risers. It may be more than that though.
I agree. As explained above, as a piece flexes, the excess weld metal provides a point of stress concentration instead of allowing the stress to be distributed over the full length of a piece. I have had people give me some of the most trouble because I made them grind down that reinforcement that they just put there "to make the weld stronger". Indeed the weld may be stronger, but that is the point because it also becomes a lever point (for lack of a better description). The production foreman butt heads (pun maybe intended) with me recently in my shop over that very issue. He shook his head the rest of the day fretting over having to have someone spend an hour grinding down a bunch of welds. The welders should have known because we have been across that bridge before. Some people only learn the hard way and some never learn.
You could always point to the "Commentary" on your situation with the shop foreman.
See C5.26.1 Contractor Option(repair)
"The code allows the Contractors, at their option, to either repair or remove and replace an unacceptable weld
. It is not the intent of the code to give the Inspector authority to specify the mode of correction."
It's his choice,
Bet he'll choose to grind rather than remove and replace.
Forgive me for asking, but what code is that quoted from? Is that by chance in D1.1? If so, any help finding it in the book would be helpful...as well as what revision you're referring to.
As for excessive reinforcement... what it does is it creates a larger "re-entry angle" which means that the toe of the weld would be a greater stress riser in the event of vibration or other stress occurrance.
In other words, if you take a piece of flat 1/4" plate, then a piece that consists of 2 pieces welded together at a 45 degree angle, the one welded at the angle would be weaker since it has the angle already there to help focus the stress, even from the first occurrance of stress...from then on, it is weakened and even moreso takes the majority of stress.
or another example: If you were to weld a thin bead across a plate, then bend it, most likely it would begin to focus stress at the weld toe. As is't slowly worked back and forth, that spot will weaken and crack (granted, all HAZ issues aside).
Mr. Wright has noted in his post from where that statement comes. It is in AWS D1.1, in the Commentary, at paragraph C5.26.1. It is in the 2004 edition as well as in past editions going back a long way. It has been in the code for a long time.
That's what I thought was the implication, but wanted to verify it. I havn't been able to locate a decent price on a recent copy of D1.1 yet.
thanks for the clarification
Kipmank is right, it's D1.1:2004, however I apologize for not stating the reference fully in my post, I get so used to dealing with D1.1 that I assume everybody knows what code we are talking about.
The production foreman butt heads
The production foreman, butt heads
To comma or not to comma
It really looks good both ways
JW I agree.
Butt head, speaks for itself sometimes. I have to say our production superintendant and the foremen are generally good and I really should not say that about them. They have 30+ years experience which I try to learn from. But the reason I have a job is because there are skills and a body of knowledge I have that they don't have. If they knew everything I know and could do my job, there would not be a need for me here. So we are a team and I try to keep that in mind. I am sure that my name and butt head (or worse) has been mentioned in the same sentence when I am not around (that is because it has been mentioned in my presence).
Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill