Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Field welding

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Actually, I would say that the "inspected" vs. "uninspected" strength of
masonry has not really disappeared.  It is still there, just that we no
longer permit uninspected masonry...there is ALWAYS some level of
inspection.  So, it is not that the "premise" has been dismissed, it is
just that we have decided that we always want inspection.

This is not the same for welds, typcially.  It is rare to have all welds
inspected (at least fillet welds).  Now, this is true for shop and field
welds, so the 50% reduce in question for welds is not a matter necessarily
of inspect vs. uninspected.  I would rather view it as more controlled
environment (where it is more likely to have controlled things like
temperature, etc and where it is more likely that things like electrodes
will be stored properly) vs. less controlled environment.

Personally, I think the 50% reduce for field welds is a waste.  But, I am
not gonna critize an engineer for using it...that is there choice.  I am
sure that there are things that I might do that other engineers would
consider a waste.

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI


On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Bill Polhemus wrote:

> dave lowen wrote:
>
> > Permissible welding stresses shall be taken as only 50% of normal
> > allowable stresses when welds are performed in shop.
> >
> Just a fly-by comment:
>
> (I think you meant to say "only 50% ... when welds are performed in the
> FIELD")
>
> Whatever the case, I don't think this "50% strength" provision is justified.
>
> This sort of thinking--that when we're "careful" we can take full marks,
> but if no one's watching we'll just reduce the allowable--seems to have
> passed into oblivion (ex.: The "inspected" vs. "uninspected" strength of
> masonry).
>
> Either it's done right or it's not allowable, PERIOD.
>
> I think you ought to simply refer to the AWS for welding, period, and
> put the onus on the fabricator and erector. Require them, for example,
> to submit weld procedures and related documentation to the Engineer
> during Shop Drawing review--this is likely covered at length in the
> current AWS, of which I do not currently have a copy, so refer to that
> document and to AISC Code of Standard Practice for correct wording.
>
> IMO, we engineers in our various guises on code and standard writing
> committees have come up with standard procedures to which we may refer
> in our drawings. I'd rather do that than perpetuate an arbitrary
> requirement that we might have copied over as tow-headed youths from
> some older engineer whose best days were fifty years ago.
>
> Used to, they had to rely on their own, accumulated, INDIVIDUAL knowledge.
>
> No longer.
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********