AWS 5.17 about Welding Access Hole
AWS 5.17 about Welding Access Hole
(OP)
Hello, guys, I am a Graduate engineer based in the UK and currently working in China for one power project. The problem I am facing now is about "Welding Access Hole" at Fillet Welded Shape component as shown in Figure 5.2 on AWS. According to AWS 5.17, "Fillet welds shall not be returned through weld access holes", which I take the concerns are about causing cracks probably(correct me if I am wrong here). But the current circumstance in my case is "returned-fillet welds through the access hole" will be more reliable in terms of less possibility of causing cracks. Due to the short of knowledge and experience, I could not find any standard or code supporting this procedure. Any direction or suggestion from you guys will be highly appreciated. Many thanks.





RE: AWS 5.17 about Welding Access Hole
Hg
Eng-Tips policies: FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: AWS 5.17 about Welding Access Hole
Do apologise for confusion caused in my post. Actually only small number pieces have been done with returned welds through the holes but I am wondering will procedure be allowed in reality, even against some rules from .
Benny
RE: AWS 5.17 about Welding Access Hole
Did you mean to list D1.1 Structural Welding Code/Steel perhaps?
Best regards - Al
RE: AWS 5.17 about Welding Access Hole
Yes, you are right, the question is from AWS D1.1 for Structural Welding Code - Steel, chapter 5.17 for the welding access hole.
Regards
RE: AWS 5.17 about Welding Access Hole
The bridge welding code requires the weld in the area of the access hole to be a complete joint penetration groove weld to minimize the stress riser.
Best regards - Al
RE: AWS 5.17 about Welding Access Hole
As far as I know, running the web-to-flange fillet welds out onto a runoff tab and then putting in the access hole afterward with no further welding is in accordance with code--and it's standard practice for Texas, which probably does more of these than any other DOT.
If one does the welding after the hole is put in, one needs to balance the questions of potential undercut with the wrapped weld, the poor fatigue detail of the transverse portion of the weld, the lack of seal if the welds are not wrapped, and the potential undercut if the welds are run all the way out to the edge of the hole, not wrapped, but not held back sufficiently.
AWS D1.1 and the AISC steel design manual have some recommended details for welding access holes. Benny, if you think your particular case is such that the non-recommended detail will be better than the recommended detail, only you (or your design engineer, if that is not you) can make that judgement. The codes list what is commonly a better detail, for most applications.
Hg
Eng-Tips policies: FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: AWS 5.17 about Welding Access Hole
Do appreciate the comments provided from you. I shall go for a check with the standards for bridge welding.
Hgtx,
I am not in charge of the design yet (hopefull someday soon), but I could fully understand what you mean about the problem and the way to account AWS in real design work. Thanks a lot for your direction.
Regards,
Benny
RE: AWS 5.17 about Welding Access Hole
I was involved recently with a bridge where the fabricator put in access holes where the designer had not called for them (a question of fabrication sequence) and the designer decided that it was better from a fatigue standpoint to hold the welds back 1/4" (5-6 mm) from the edge of the hole than to wrap the welds around the hole, but also better to leave the welds wrapped where the fabricator had already done them than to go grinding them out. But that was a very specific situation. Yours will be different. (For starters, it's not a highway bridge under truck loading.)
Hg
Eng-Tips policies: FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies