I would rcommend you contact the owner's representative and ask for clarification of the project requirements.

Typically, unless the fabricator took exceptions to the project specifications at the time the bid was accepted and the owner granted the exception, the project specifications stand.

You didn't state what the project was. Are you fabricating a structural steel frame for a building, a piece of machinery, etc? If the project entails structural steel for a building, there are state laws, i.e., building codes, that require adherance to the requirements (not guidelines) of D1.1. The state building code will also state which edition of D1.1 is applicable (the latest revision of D1.1 in not usually required by the state's building code).

If the material being produced is a manufactured product, it may be covered by the Underwritters Laboratories or other organization. That is, it is considered a "manufactured item" and there may be exceptions to the requirements of D1.1 permitted. Again, your client or their representative should be able to answer your concerns.

I approach my inspection assignments with several basic concepts in mind:
1) I inspect based on the project specifications (including approved drawings and referenced standards).
2) I am the eyes and ears of the client and their design professional. I report anything I find suspect. I don't necessarily reject an item, but I do report the discrepancy.
3) When performing QA, I insist on reviewing the fabricator/manufacture's quality control program to verify they are performing the required inspections and tests. In other words, I want to see inspection reports that were completed by the fabricator/manufacturer's QC personnel. I also verify the QC personnel are qualified and certified in accordance with the QC manual or written practice. Do they have a written practice for NDT personnel?
4) I ask a lot of questions. I address them in writing to the fabricator/manufacturer and/or the design professional when I have a question.

Every job has its own requirements. You have to understand what those requirements are. The scope of your work and the job requirements should be documented in the purchase order, project specification, or maybe the "Statement of Special Inspections" (building code requirement). Ask questions and insist on answers in writing. People have short term memories when things start to go awry.

Do you have a system of reporting discrepancies and a way to track corrective actions? When you report a discrepancy, do you cite the applicable code section or drawing requirment that is in conflict? A good method of reporting will save you at a later time when memories fail.

This doesn't answer your particular questions because only your client or their design professionals have those answers.

Good luck,

Al

I guess CONVEXITY is not supposed to apply to groove welds because every definition I have found refers to fillet welds with the exception of my old Websters dictionary. I have been wrong many times before but if the approved drawings have a convex symbol I will not accept a flush or below profile.

From your screen name, it sounds like you are a CWI representing the owner or engineer?

It looks to me like the CWI you spoke with either doesn't know D1.1 and contract requirements very well, or is trying to give you a snow job.
AWS A2.4-98 article 4.6.1 says "Groove welds that are to be welded with approximately flush or convex faces shall be specified by adding the flush or convex contour symbol to the welding symbol.

AWS A3.0-2001 defines convexity as "The maximum distance from the face of a fillet weld perpendicular to a line joining the weld toes". That speaks of fillets, not grooves, but the accompanying figures help to define what is meant by convexity. A convex groove face is also known as reinforcement but that is not defined in A3.0. When not listed as a standard term in A3.0, a dictionary helps with definitions.

It is possible to have a convex groove face along with some undercut. Guessing from the 1:4 taper requirement, I would think the maximum allowable undercut would be 0.010" (primary member).

The fact that the required taper is 1:4 instead of 1:2.5 should clearly indicate that the person who put that note on the design drawings meant exactly what it says. Any deviation from that should require approval. Notice that sometimes the shop drawings are slightly different from the design drawings. If there is a difference the owner should have approved the change.

The Contractor's "standards" for acceptance criteria would only apply if the owner agreed to that in writing. (It's highly doubtful that you will ever see that happen.)

It is possible that owner could select section 6 of D1.1, and pick selected parts from other sources to "invent" a new spec for a specific job. (Remember the CWI Practical Exam code book.) But that too is highly doubtful. Plus you stated that D1.1 and parts of D1.5 have been referenced. To me that means the entire D1.1 applies, along with the referenced portions of D1.5. In case of conflict between the two, I would go with the more stringent unless and until directed differently by the owner.

In the most respectful and professional attitude I could manage, I would ask that other CWI to explain his positions in writing (I don't think you will see that either), and I would talk to the owner or engineer about the matter. I would not accept welds that do not comply with all parts of D1.1 unless I had the alternative criteria in writing with the owner's approval.

If someone told me the things you mentioned, I would keep a close eye on everything, because either A) they don't know what they are doing or B) they know what they should do and are choosing not to.

Most of all, I wouldn't fight the battle. You don't have guns big enough but the owner does. Just be as fair and objective as you can in your reporting and let others deal with it.

Chet Guilford