Welding

Inspection

Robert E. Shaw, Jr.

Author
obert E. Shaw, Jr. PE is president of the Steel Structures
Technology Center, Inc. (SSTC).
The SSTC focuses on technical
education related to the design,
fabrication, erection and inspection of steel-framed structures.
The firm's practice also includes
consulting services in steel construction practices and quality. Mr.
Shaw is a graduate civil engineer
from Rose-Hulman Institute of
Technology, he began his career
in the steel construction industry
in 1973.
Mr. Shaw is the Author of the
Structural Bolting Handbook, on
testing, installation, inspection
and use of bolts in steel structures. He is also the editor of the
Steel Inspection News, a bimonthly newsletter on steel construction
and inspection. Mr. Shaw is currently updating the Commentary
to the AWS D1.5-96 Bridge
Welding Code. For the SAC Steel
Project, he serves as lead guideline writer for In-Process
Construction Inspection. Mr.
Shaw is consultant to the Lincoln
Arc Welding Foundation serving
as editor to update Design of
Welded Structures, by Omer
Blodgett. He authored
"Fabrication, Erection and Quality
Control" for the textbook, Steel
Design Handbook-LRFD Method.
He developed and serves an
instructor for the two-day ICBO
course on "Structural Steel
Inspection and Field Practices",
and is principal instructor for the
FHWA course on High Strength
Bolts for Bridges.
Mr. Shaw's involvement with
the AWS Structural Welding
Committee includes the Main
Committee and Subcommittees
on Strengthening and Repair,
Design, and Seismic Welding
Issues. He was recently appointed to the AISC Specification Task
Committees, TC7 on Welds and
TC8 on Bolts, and serves on the
Research Council on Structural
Connections.

Before founding the SSTC in

1990, Mr. Shaw served the AISC
as associate director of education
(1986-1990) and as regional engineer (1981 -1986). Before joining
AISC, Mr. Shaw was sales engineer for the Mississippi Valley
Structural Steel Division of Bristol
Steel and Iron Works.

Summary
roject specifications for the
inspection of steel buildings
have often been stated in general
terms, such as "inspect in accordance with the Code." usually citing AWS D1.1, the AISC
Specification for Structural Steel
Buildings, and the Applicable
building code. More specific
instruction is required to define
and delineate the tasks of welding
inspection assigned under quality
control (QC), the responsibility of
the fabricator or erector, and quality assurance (QA), the responsibility of the owner or the owner's
representative, often the engineer.
Specific contract provisions
regarding quality requirements
and inspection are needed in
many areas, including: filler metals certifications and toughness;
contractor inspection for welding
personnel, welding procedure
specifications, welding equipment,
filler metal and joint fix-up, tack
welds, and preheat; inspection
during welding for procedure control, interpass temperature, and
visual inspection; inspection after
welding including post-weld heat
treatment and nondestructive testing; ultrasonic testing methods
and acceptance criteria; and weld
acceptance criteria appropriate to
the structure.
The provisions of the AWS
D1.1-98 Structural Welding CodeSteel, as-well-as other recommendations regarding welding
inspection, will be discussed.

37-1
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

Welding Inspection
R. E. Shaw, Jr., PE
1

Steel Structures Technology Center, Inc.

Novi, MI 48375

INTRODUCTION
Welding inspection requires much more than looking at a completed weld or performing some nondestructive
testing. Visual inspection before, during, and after welding is necessary to provide reasonable assurance that
the weld will have the desired properties and quality. Nondestructive testing may be used to supplement visual
inspection.
Welding inspection is broken into four components, each with a specific role and list of tasks:
Project prewelding inspection
Inspection prior to welding
Inspection during welding
Inspection after welding.

PROJECT PREWELDING INSPECTION

Welding personnel
Prior to the contractor (fabricator or erector) undertaking the fabrication and fitup of parts for welding, an
evaluation of the contractor's welding personnel is necessary. AWS D1.1 section 6.4, as well as the building
codes, clearly calls out the requirements for the inspection of welding personnel qualification. Welders (who
manipulate the electrode by hand), welding operators (who set up equipment to perform welding
automatically), and tack welders must all perform specific tests of welding skill to prove their ability to weld
using a given process, in a given position, in a given thickness range, and in some cases using a given class of
electrodes (for SMAW). Written documentation of the tests conducted on each and every person welding on
a project must be available to the inspector. Verify that the contractor has the staff qualified in accordance with
AWS D1.1 section 4, Parts A and C, to make the welds required for the project.
Welding procedure specifications
The existence of a written, adequate welding procedure specification (WPS) for each of the welds to be made
on the project is required, and clearly required under both AWS D1.1 section 6.3 and the building codes. A
checklist of the weld joints, positions, thicknesses and planned processes for the welds required for project
completion is a useful tool to facilitate this review. Although the contractor is responsible for the quality of
their own welds, it is important to review the procedure to determine if they are rational and fall within
prequalification limits. If the WPS is prequalified, the procedure need not have been fully tested in accordance
with AWS D1.1 section 4, but still must produce a quality weld. If the WPS is not prequalified, it must be
supported with a Procedure Qualification Record (PQR) that documents the weld joint and welding parameters
used to prepare the WPS. Prequalified WPSs should be reviewed for adequate heat input, reasonable travel
speeds, and a rational relationship between electrode size and weld size. Some experience and training, as well
as reference materials such as manufacturer's literature and recommendations, is needed to perform such a
review.

37-3
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

The inspector's role in reviewing WPSs was changed in AWS D1.1-98. In D1.1-96, the inspector's role per
AWS D1.1 section 6.13.1 is stated:
"The Inspector shall review all WPSs to be used for the work and shall make
certain that the procedures conform to the requirements of this code."
In D1.1-98, section 6.13.1 states:
"The Inspector shall verify that all WPSs have been approved by the Engineer
in conformance with 4.1.1."
Note that Section 4.1.1 requires the Engineer's approval of WPSs qualified by test, but does not require the
Engineer's approval of prequalified WPSs. The subject of review and approval of WPSs is currently under
review by the AWS D1 committees, and may be changed yet again for the D1.1-00 code.

AWS D1.1 contains no provision requiring qualification of welding procedures to document the resulting
toughness of a weld using a given steel, filler metal and welding procedure. Such toughness may be required
in certain seismic applications in building applications. Such tests are required for all but the lower-strength
Shielded Metal Arc Weld (SMAW) procedures under the provisions of the AWS D1.5 - Bridge Welding Code.
The toughness achieved in the actual weld will be dependent upon the structural steel, welding materials and
the welding procedure used. The variability of toughness based upon variations of welding procedures or
parameters has not been clearly established, but is being investigated under a SAC Steel Project research effort.
For special project requirements, requirements for WPS testing, or PQR's, for welds demanding toughness may
be added to project specifications by the Engineer.
Welding equipment

Welding equipment must be in working condition and capable of providing the voltage, current, travel speed,
polarity and other conditions of the WPS. Gauges and controls must be checked to ensure their accuracy within
a reasonable tolerance for the process and procedure selected. Such inspection is required in AWS D1.1 section
6.3.2, but the frequency of such equipment checks is not mandated in D1.1. As a guideline, AISC Quality
Certification requires that equipment checks be performed on at least an annual basis for building work. The
AWS D1.5 - Bridge Welding Code requires checks of welding equipment every three months.
Welding materials controls
For filler metals and fluxes to properly perform, they must be properly stored. Under AWS D1.1 section 5.3.2,
low hydrogen Shielded Metal Arc Welding (SMAW) electrodes must be supplied in an undamaged

hermetically sealed container, or else baked dry at a very high temperature, depending upon type, prior to use.
They must also be continuously stored in rod ovens maintained at or above 250F (120C). After removal from
the rod storage ovens, their exposure to the atmosphere must be limited to relatively short periods of time, as
stated in Table 5.1, depending upon the electrode type and strength level, and in some cases, ambient
temperature and humidity.
Similarly, under AWS D1.1 section 5.3.3, Submerged Arc Welding (SAW) fluxes must be received in
undamaged bags, or else dried prior to use. Opened bags must be maintained with removal of the top one inch
(25 mm) of exposed flux on a daily basis. Electrode wires such as those used for Flux Cored Arc Welding
(FCAW), Gas Metal Arc Welding (GMAW), and SAW must be kept protected to prevent rust and dirt on the
wire from fouling the wire feeders and adding impurities to the weld. FCAW wires may absorb a limited
amount of moisture over time, but not enough to adversely affect performance. When FCAW wires will not
be used in production for an extended period, it is adequate to simply store the wire in a closed plastic bag to
reduce moisture absorption. Rod ovens are not required for FCAW wire. More specific storage requirements
for FCAW wires apply for fracture critical bridge components under Section 12 of AWS D1.5.

It is imperative for the inspector to verify that the contractor has the equipment and systems in place to properly
store and control the filler metals and fluxes to be used.

37-4
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

The inspector must also verify that the fabricator has an adequate system in place to maintain identification and
control of the materials to be used. Standard fabrication practice requires that the fabricator maintain
identification of a piece of steel by steel grade only. It is not a requirement to maintain traceability of a
particular piece to a specific heat of steel. If such a requirement is required by the Engineer for particular
elements of the project, the fabricator must have and implement a system for maintaining the required level
of traceability and documentation. In addition to the main structural steel materials, controls must also be in
place for welding materials. Traceability to a particular lot of welding material is not a requirement, unless the
Engineer specifies such traceability as a part of contract documents for special applications.
INSPECTION PRIOR TO WELDING

After it is verified that the contractor has in place the necessary controls for materials, welding personnel, and
welding procedures, and has properly functioning welding equipment, it is then appropriate to allow the
contractor to proceed with fabrication. However, several items require inspection prior to striking the welding
arc to the steel. The AWS D1.1 specification is not specific as to who performs this inspection, but simply

states that such inspection shall be performed.

AWS D1.1 recognizes both the fabrication/erection inspector and the verification inspector. In section 6.1.2.1,
it states that:
"Fabrication/erection inspection shall be performed as necessary prior to assembly,
during welding, and after welding to ensure that materials and workmanship meet the
requirements of the contract documents."
Verification inspection is performed at the prerogative of the owner. It may be assigned by the owner to the
contractor.
The reliance upon the fabricator's and erector's quality control program for such inspection, and the reliance
on outside quality control inspection to perform such functions, must be clearly defined in the contract
documents. The use of hold points at particular stages and / or for particular joints may be and should be a part
of project specifications.
Several factors affect the quality of the completed weld, and many of these items are controlled before the root
pass is begun. The condition of the steel must be suitable for welding. The joint must be properly fit up and
within tolerance. Tacks must be of adequate quality. Preheat must be applied to thicker members, or when the
steel temperature is below specified values.
Condition of steel for welding

Under AWS D1.1 section 5.15, the steel itself must be clean, free of moisture, loose or thick mill scale, rust,
existing coatings, oil, grease, and any other material that would be detrimental to the quality of the completed
weld. Some welding processes, such as GMAW, require higher levels of cleanliness than others. Many of these
items contribute hydrogen to the heat affected zone (HAZ), increasing the risk of HAZ cracking. The use of
anti-spatter compounds and weld-through primers should be checked prior to welding to verify that the
manufacturer's recommendations are being followed.
Joint fit-up

Groove welds must be proper configured, within specified tolerances. A proper root opening is necessary to
provide adequate access to the root. Too narrow a root opening may lead to incomplete penetration, and too
wide a root opening may lead to root throat shrinkage cracking. The proper groove angle is also needed. Too
narrow a groove may lead to root access problems and a lack effusion at the root or along the groove face. Too
wide a groove angle contributes to excess shrinkage and distortion, an increased risk of lamellar tearing, as well
as increased time and welding expense. Groove weld fit-up tolerances are provided for prequalified groove

37-5
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

joints in Figures 3.3 and 3.4. For other groove welds, Figure 5.3 provides limits.
Fillet welds must also meet fit-up tolerances, or the root quality may be compromised and the effective leg size
of the fillet weld reduced. Per AWSD1.1 section 5.22, gaps at the root up to 1/16 inch (1.6 mm) are permitted
without correction. Gaps over 1/16 inch (1.6 mm) must be corrected by increasing the weld leg by an amount
at least equal to the gap. Gaps over 3/16 inch (5 mm) are permitted in limited cases and require special
consideration.

Tack welds
Tack welds must be of adequate quality to permit quality welding over them, and not be of excessive size to

interfere with the deposit of the root pass. However, tack welds must also be of adequate size to resist weld
shrinkage stresses and part distortion as the welding is being performed, or cracking of unwelded tacks may
occur. Welding over cracked tack welds will lead to cracks in the finished weld.
Welding environment

If the above conditions are met, then the welder should begin preparations for welding. However, there are
several environmental factors that could adversely affect the quality of the completed weld. Wind or drafts can
blow away shielding gas, leaving an arc exposed to atmospheric gasses and the resultant pickup of excessive
levels of these gasses, of particular note hydrogen and nitrogen. Gas-shielded welding processes such as
FCAW-G, GMAW, GTAW and EGW, have a code-specified wind speed limit of 5 miles per hour (8
kilometers per hour) in AWSD1.1 section 5.12.1. However, the common self-shielded processes of SMAW,
FCAW-S, SAW, and ESW have no codified speed limit, only that high wind velocities are not acceptable. A
general rule of thumb is that a wind speed of 25 miles per hour (40 kilometers per hour) is the upper bound
for welding using these processes. Generally, at these wind velocities, the puddle will move in the wind or the
SAW flux will be blown away.
Welding in the rain or snow is prohibited because the moisture present will result in unacceptable welds and
excessive hydrogen levels. Damp surfaces must be dried prior to welding, but the need for heating torches to
"get the water out of the steel" is a fallacy and is not necessary.
Excessively cold temperatures should be avoided. AWS D1.1 section 5.12.2 prohibits welding when the
ambient temperature is below 0F (-18C). At this temperature, the welders may be too cold to properly
manipulate their electrodes, the welding equipment may not function properly, and the steel itself may cool at
a very high rate even after preheating. The 0F environmental temperature limit should not be confused with
the 32F (0C) steel temperature limit for welding. A steel temperature below this second limit requires raising
the temperature of the steel using preheat to at least 70F (21C), found in Table 3.2 Note 1. For Table 3.2
category 3 steels, a 50F (10C) minimum temperature applies.
The use of tenting or other enclosures may be used to avoid or reduce these environmental problems.
Joint preheat

Preheat is to be applied to the steel joint prior to welding thicker steels and highly restrained joints. The
minimum amount of preheat on a prequalified basis is provided in AWS D1.1 Table 3.2. However, additional
preheat may be advisable with high restraint conditions or poor weldability steels, or to further reduce the risk
of lamellar tearing. The use of AWS D1.1 Annex XI may assist in this determination. Preheat must be
measured 3 inches (75 mm) away from the joint, unless the steel exceeds 3 inches (75 mm) in thickness, in

which case the preheat is measured a distance equal to the thickness away from the joint. Preheat is typically
measured with temperature indicating crayons, surface temperature thermometers, or infrared devices. After
adequate preheat has been supplied and verified, the first pass must be promptly placed before excessive
cooling has taken place.

37-6
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

INSPECTION DURING WELDING

Welding procedures

As the welding is being performed, it is imperative that the welding procedures selected for use on the joint
be followed. The welding personnel must have a copy of the WPS readily available, actually use the procedure
as given, and have equipment capable of accurately providing the required welding parameters. It is not
necessary to measure voltage and current as welding is being performed, but this is sometimes required by
some project specifications to serve as a WPS reminder and as documentation that the WPS has been followed.
Interpass temperature

Maintenance of the interpass temperature as the weld is completed is vital to joint performance. The heat of

welding may be adequate to maintain the preheat / interpass temperature as the joint is welded, provided the
cleaning and visual inspection of each pass is rapid enough. However, it is often necessary to add heat from
an outside source to maintain the required temperatures. It has also been shown that the toughness of completed
joints may be adversely affected by excessive preheat and interpass temperatures. The combination of welding
heat with the slower cooling rate caused by excessive preheat / interpass temperatures may lead to excessive
grain size with detrimental effects. Any applicable limits should be stated in the WPS. Verifying the interpass
temperature is as important as verifying the preheat temperature.
Interpass visual inspection

AWS D1.1 section 6.9 requires that each weld be visually inspected by the contractor. Section 6.6.1 also places
responsibility for visual inspection on the contractor. This visual inspection may be made by the welding
personnel themselves. Such visual inspection should be on each pass of weld, again the responsibility of the
welder. Failure to maintain good pass quality, such as bead profile, can lead to access problems and a lack of
fusion. Failure to properly clean each pass leads to slag inclusions and a subsequent lack of fusion. Visual
inspection of each pass of groove weld or fillet weld is rarely required or performed by an inspector other than
the welder, whether the inspector be the contractor's fabrication / erection inspector or a verification inspector.
In order to waive such separate visual inspection and rely upon the welder, one must be assured that the welder
has the proper skills, procedures and materials for welding. This is a key reason for project prewelding
inspection.
INSPECTION AFTER WELDING

Post-weld heat treatment

The use of post-weld heat treatment (PWHT) is sometimes specified for highly restrained joints with thick
materials. PWHT may assist in the accommodation of weld shrinkage stresses by softening the region, and also
provides additional time for the migration of hydrogen from the heat affected zone. The application of PWHT
is not an AWS D1.1 requirement, nor is it specified under AWS D1.5, and therefore must be specified in the
contract documents, if desired. To be fully effective, PWHT must be performed immediately upon completion
of the welding. The application of heat and control of cooling, if any, should be monitored by the inspector.

Visual inspection and NDT

After the weld has been completed, a final visual inspection is necessary to confirm that the weld size, location
and quality conform to the project specifications. It must also be verified that no unspecified welds have been

added without the approval of the Engineer.

Visual inspection is cited in AWS section 6.9, which refers the user to Table 6.1, the Visual Inspection

37-7
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

Acceptance Criteria. Criteria on cracks, fusion, craters, profile, size, undercut, and porosity are provided. Other
visual inspection items such as arc strikes and weld cleaning (surface slag) are covered in the Fabrication
section of D1.1, in sections 5.29 and 5.30 respectively.

For certain joints and welds, nondestructive testing may be required. Beyond visual inspection, the common
NDT methods of dye penetrant testing (PT), magnetic particle testing (MT), ultrasonic testing (UT), and
radiographic testing (RT) may be specified. The model building codes require certain levels of NDT,
particularly UT, for certain joints in seismic moment-resisting systems if located in high seismic regions or are
used in designated critical structures.
The final stage of inspection is the completion of the paperwork. AWS D1.1 sections 6.5.6 and 6.5.7 describe
the record-keeping required of the inspector. Such records include welding personnel qualifications and WPS
qualification. For the actual work piece inspection, the inspector must make a mark or use an identifying
symbol on the workpiece, or have an otherwise acceptable written record of the inspections performed.

NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING
Ultrasonic testing (UT)

Ultrasonic testing has been the method of choice for groove weld inspection for many years. UT relies upon
the transmission of high-frequency sound waves through the steel and weld. The transducer sends ultrasonic

pulses into the steel, through a couplant, that travel at a known speed and at a predetermined angle. Should no
discontinuities be present, the signal will be reflected back to the transducer, or on to another receiver, from
the back side of the part. Should a discontinuity be present, the discontinuity will reflect some of the signal
back to the transducer earlier than the back side reflection is expected, and this is observed and monitored on
the UT unit's display. Through manipulation of the transducer, measurement, and interpretation of the signals
on the display, the nature, size, location and orientation of the discontinuity can be determined.
UT is most sensitive to planar discontinuities such as cracks, laminations, and lack of fusion. It is less sensitive
to rounded volumetric discontinuities such as porosity. Slag inclusions can be readily detected with UT.
Recent evaluations of existing projects in seismic regions have identified that existing UT practices may be
inadequate for the complete inspection of older-style beam-to-column moment connections. Interpretation of

the UT response has been inconsistent and difficult when examining the root area of the beam flange groove
welds when backing bars are present. Although techniques have been used to improve the accuracy of
examination in this area, these techniques have rarely been used effectively in the field. Other problems in the
UT of beam-to-column moment connections include the interference of the beam web at the bottom flange,
the interference of the groove face in the use of first-leg scans, and the apparently rare use of second-leg and
Face B or Face C scans to overcome such interferences. Current practice for seismic work calls for the removal
of the backing bar at the bottom flange and the placement of a reinforcing fillet, in part to improve the quality
of the UT evaluation. The other issues must be incorporated into standard inspection practice. The SAC Steel
Project has research underway into enhanced UT techniques that should improve the reliability of such
inspections.
Additional testing may be warranted for particular items of structural steel. Prior to welding moment-resisting
joints subjected to high restraints or at risk of lamellar tearing, the use of straight beam ultrasonic testing (UT)
in the immediate vicinity of the weld is suggested. This would detect laminations or severe inclusions in the
vicinity of the weld region, which could lead to structural failure.
The adequacy and toughness of the K-region of rolled shapes straightened by the rotary straightening process
has recently been called into question. A specific test or provision to address the risks of welding in this region

has not been implemented, as research is ongoing into the performance of the K-region area. It is suggested

37-8
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

that the region be carefully inspected for cracking if welds have been placed near the region.
The ultrasonic testing acceptance criteria tabulated in D1.1 are based upon several assumptions and
simplifications, rather than the true nature of the weld discontinuity and its effect upon joint and weld
performance. The use of AWS D1.1 Annex K, or an adaptation of the American Petroleum Institute's RP-2X,
Recommended Practice for Ultrasonic and Magnetic Examination of Offshore Structural Fabrication and
Guidelines for Qualification of Technicians, is a suggestion for critical ultrasonic examination.
Radiographic testing (RT)

Radiographic testing has been the second method of choice for the examination of groove welds. Considerably
more expensive than UT, RT also creates safety concerns regarding radiation exposure of the technicians and
personnel working in the area. One of the benefits of RT, however, is the permanent photographic image made,
with verification of testing quality through the use of image quality indicators, or IQI's.
RT is limited in application to butt joints. Corner joints and T-joints require special techniques and multiple

images that make the method unwieldy, and therefore UT is used for these joints. RT is best at detecting
volumetric discontinuities such as porosity and slag inclusions, and surface or penetration problems such as

undercut, lack of penetration or underfill. Very tight cracks may be missed, particularly when oriented parallel
to the radiographic energy, and laminations and tight cracks that are oriented perpendicular to the radiographic
energy may also be missed. As a general guideline, joints that are examined using RT should also be examined
using UT to find those discontinuities missed by RT.
Penetrant testing (PT)

Dye penetrant testing is a method for enhanced visual inspection, particularly helpful in areas that are difficult
to visually inspect because of surface roughness, such as flame cut edges, or because of access. The surface

of the weld is cleaned very carefully, then a liquid penetrant containing dye is applied to the surface. A dwell
time is provided to allow the penetrating liquid to be drawn into surface discontinuities such as cracks and
porosity. The liquid is then carefully removed from the surface, with the liquid still present below the surface
in any discontinuities present. A developer is then applied to draw the penetrant back to the surface, making
indications in the developer either with the contrasting dye or under ultraviolet light. The developer is then
removed and the area more carefully examined.
PT may be affected by the quality of cleaning prior to dye application, as well as other innocuous surface
profile problems such as undercut, overlap and very rough surfaces. No subsurface discontinuities are detected
using PT.

Magnetic particle testing (MT)

Magnetic particle testing may be performed using prods or a yoke to induce a magnetic field into the steel and
weld. Discontinuities present will disrupt the magnetic flux present. Magnetic particles are applied to the
surface of the area to be inspected. The interruption of the magnetic flux will cause the particles to collect at
the discontinuity. The appearance of these articles is then interpreted by the MT technician, and a permanent
record can be obtained by the use of clear adhesive tape.
MT is capable of detecting surface and near-surface discontinuities of various types. The depth of detection
depends upon the type and power of equipment used, but can be as shallow as 1/8 inch (3 mm) or as deep as
5/16 inch (8 mm). Inspections orienting the equipment, and thus the magnetic flux, in perpendicular directions
are necessary for complete examination. Cracks and other planar discontinuities are most readily detected, with
volumetric discontinuities less evident.

37-9
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.

WELD QUALITY ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

Traditionally, inspectors and engineers have used the quality criteria as provided in AWS D1.1 for the required
level of quality for a project. However, AWS D1.1 quality criteria are based upon the quality achievable by
a qualified welder, not based upon the needed quality to carry the application of a load. The use of alternate

acceptance criteria by the Engineer has long been suggested and permitted by D1.1, as stated in section 6.8.
However, the Engineer rarely has the experience and research data to establish or justify such criteria. The

documents that have been available to the engineering profession have dealt specifically with static applications
or fatigue applications. Examples of such documents include Electric Power Research Institute Document NP5380, Visual Weld Acceptance Criteria, a basic and understandable criteria for the visual reinspection of
existing structural welds. A second, more comprehensive, but also more complex document is the British

Standards Institution PD 6493:1991, Guidance on methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in fusion
welded structures. This document is internationally recognized as the leading acceptance criteria for welded
structures. Other information that may be helpful to the Engineer include Welding Research Council Bulletin

295. Fundamentals of Weld Discontinuities and their Significance. WRC Bulletin 311, Assessment of the
Significance of Weld Discontinuities: Effects of Microstructure and Discontinuities upon Fracture

Morphology, and IIW/IIS-SST-1157-90, IIW Guidance on Assessment of the Fitness for Purpose of Welded
Structures - Draft for Development.
Little information has been available specifically oriented to seismic applications and the loading rates and
strain rates delivered to the joint under such events. The SAC Steel Project has research underway to develop
a usable set of alternate acceptance criteria for weld quality specifically applicable to seismic loading.

CONCLUSION

The need for a high level of quality is obvious when constructing steel structures, especially in seismic regions
and in critical joints. Outside quality assurance is needed to verify the adequacy of the fabricator's or erector's
quality control program and to supplement the contractor's internal quality control efforts as needed. The
Engineer must provide specific inspection criteria defining the roles of QA and QC, as well as the structural
and quality demands for the structure.

37-10
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.