Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations KootK on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

AWS D1.1 (2010) Prohibited Joints

Status
Not open for further replies.

RInspection

Structural
Jul 3, 2015
2
Hey whats up guys, I've been dealing with this issue for a few days with a shop I've been inspecting at, in AWS D1.1 2010 it states that
2.18 Prohibited Joints and Welds.
2.18.1 One-Sided Groove Welds. Groove welds, made
from one side only without backing or made with backing,
other than steel, that has not been qualified in conformance
with Clause 4 shall be prohibited except that
these prohibitions for groove welds made from one side
shall not apply to the following:
(1) Secondary or nonstress carrying members.
(2) Corner joints parallel to the direction of calculated
stress between components of built-up members
2.18.2 Flat Position Groove Welds. Bevel-groove and Jgroove
welds in butt joints welded in the flat position
shall be prohibited where V-groove or U-groove joints are practicable.


The shop is using the prequalified WPS B-U4b-GF the single sided bevel CJP groove weld has notation c which lists
"cyclic load application places restrictions on the use of this detail for butt joints in the flat position see 2.18.2"
My questions -
Where does it state 2.18.2 that the restriction is designated only to cyclic loading? The joint were using is classified as static.
If the joint is prohibited where practicable wouldn't every Wide Flange and HSS splice be prohibited in beams and columns for single bevel CJP? (Seems as if every beam and column in the structural system has some stress load in one way or another.)
The shop is using a statically loaded wide flange beam splice with the B-u4b-Gf, they say because the EOR approved all of the WPS they can use which ever they want in the splice. My understanding is otherwise, in this situation a double bevel groove weld is practicable, and before bringing this to the EOR and IORs attention to call the shop out I want to get some more insight from what anyone else thinks.

Note: AWS doesn't state in 2.18.2 that its static or cyclic designated prohibitation, but the WPS note classifies as cyclically loaded prohibitation. This is where the shop disagrees with making the joint double bevel.
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

Isn't this in Part C? See 2.13.1 at the beginning of part C.
 
Yes it is. Thank you I guess I way overlooked that one. My problem now is the detailers, 90 percent of the time never classify whether members are cyclic or statically loaded.
 
That information should be noted on the S drawings.

Best regards - Al
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor