American Welding Society Forum

Topic slag inclusion clarification. By 803056 Date 06-06-2016 22:11

Table 6.1 is not all inclusive. Any inspector that hangs his future on table 6.1 without considering the visual criteria provided elsewhere in the code has a relative short future in the field of inspection.

Consider the following:

Clause 2 Design includes:
a) dimensional criteria for plus and slot welds.
b) criteria for checking the size of a fillet weld in a lap joint with regards to establishing the edge of the member.
c) hold back requirements.
d) end return requirements.
e) interrupting welds on opposite sides of a common plane.
f) removal of backing and weld tabs.
g) when members and how members of different thicknesses and widths must be transitioned.

Clause 3 Prequalification includes:
a) shape/contour of back gouges on the second side.
b) tolerances for prequalified groove details.
c) maximum root openings permitted without correction for members joined with fillet welds.

Clause 5 Fabrication includes
a) requirements electrode storage and exposure times (SMAW low hydrogen electrodes).
b) preheat and interpass temperatures.
c) WPS must be followed when making the weld.
d) heat input control for Q&T steels.
e) backing requirements, i.e., backing must be continuous and when more than one piece is joined to make a continuous backing, they must be CJP.
f) location of the weld in accordance with approved drawings.
g) mill induced defects (laps, seams, laminations).
h) acceptance criteria for laminations.
i) roughness requirements for thermal cut surfaces.
j) reentrant corners.
k) tack weld requirements.
l) Assembly tolerances.
m) separation between the underside of the groove and backing.
n) corrective actions for excessive root openings.
o) tolerances of stiffeners, compression members, etc.
p) Weld profiles including cracks, overlaps, face reinforcement, etc.
q) repairs of typical defects including slag inclusions.
r) arc strikes.

I will agree that the New Farm Code includes no criteria for slag inclusions. Interesting. Could the inspector show you in the code where the discontinuity containing the slag was unacceptable?

How could it be that the New Farm Code does not include any criteria for slag inclusions?

Best regards - Al

Topic LN-25 help needed By welderbrent Date 08-08-2015 03:10

Tywoodby,

WELCOME TO THE AWS WELDING FORUM!!

Now, to business:

First, that machine should have a small gauge wire coming from it that usually has a small spring clamp to attach to the item being welded. That is in addition to your normal work lead/clamp, and electrode/gun.

Second, as Allan mentioned, that electrode will ALWAYS be HOT. Power to it all the time. If you don't hit the trigger to start the wire feed before getting a short stickout from the tip too close to the work it will flash back to the tip and arc out every time. Keep the tip back a little and hit the trigger to start the wire feeding and let it push itself into the work. Try to do this ahead of where you want the puddle to start then pull it back and weld over top of the arc strikes that are in the weld area so they are not a problem. Or, use run off tabs.

Third, that particular LN 25 more than likely will not run well on a machine that is not constant voltage. D1.1 says they must be CV anyway but many older units are not. I had a SA300 that was not. And if the gas engine is not running really good it will surge pretty bad. Impossible to weld good.

Just my two tin pennies worth.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

Topic CWI Part B Retest By welderbrent Date 08-07-2015 03:35

Joey,

WELCOME TO THE AWS WELDING FORUM!!

Hope you aren't one of the Joey's already a regular here but lost their password, lot's of that going around lately.

Anyway, so, since when is spatter (splatter) a discontinuity on any piece, plastic or steel? If this is about the CWI exam plastic molds for the Part 'B' portion, I don't recall anything that would have been asked or answered that way. There is at least one arc strike on one sample. And read the VT Acceptance/Rejection criteria very carefully. It is not the same as Table 6.1 from D1.1. Especially the last item which is on arc strikes.

But, spatter? Cleaning of welds in Clause 5.30.2 Cleaning of Completed Welds deals with the issue of slag, spatter, and other cleaning to be done. It is the responsibility of the welder after completing each weld deposit. But, it is NOT a discontinuity. Not in real welding or on the exam samples.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

Topic Does anyone know what kind of material this is?? By 803056 Date 05-10-2015 14:30

You could be right, but the "tack welds" in the photographs are not what I would expect to see if one used carbon steel filler metal on aluminum.

A cut with a file on the arc strikes will provide a clue as to the hardness. If it is very hard, i.e., the file doesn't cut the arc strike you have evidence of the hardness. Very hard - cast iron, soft - cast steel (lower carbon).

I'm still waiting to hear what the sparks looked like when the casting was prepared. That will also give a clue as to what the material is.

No one has mentioned checking the casting with a magnet. Is it iron based?

Without knowing the material, it is a crap shoot.

Best regards - Al

Topic Construction aids on b31.3 piping By aevald Date 05-01-2015 23:09

Hello Brent, "arc strikes and a weld properly made to attach fitters aids", that's where I was essentially going with my comment. I believe that is also where Al was at with his comments regarding having the proper WPS etc. covering how these items are to be included/utilized in this case. Willy-nilly attachments could cause more harm than good in some instances and I hope that isn't the case here. Best regards, Allan

Topic Construction aids on b31.3 piping By welderbrent Date 05-01-2015 22:59

Now, I'm going to take a moment and make a clarification: There is a HUGE difference between arc strikes and a weld properly made to attach fitters aids, safety attachments, or any other items deemed necessary by the contractor. As an inspector hopefully you are still AWS active and noticed an article a short time back on 'Protected Zones'. The same principles apply. There are very few places you can not put a proper weld and then remove it later.

But, rely heavily on your applicable code and Job Specifications especially as to your responsibilities as a TPI.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

OOPPSS: WELCOME TO THE AWS WELDING FORUM!!

Topic Construction aids on b31.3 piping By 803056 Date 05-01-2015 18:39

It is my personal opinion that if the code does not contain specific prohibitions, the practice of temporary attachments are permissible provided they are welded in accordance with the appropriate WPS. I would expect the contractor's WPS or QC manual to address the issues with provisions for the deposition of the welds securing the attachments and the removal of the attachments. Like anything in this world, there are contractors that would have given the issue some though and addressed the concerns in detail. Other contractor with less experience, less expertise, no so much.

As an inspector, your actions should be supported by the applicable code rather than your personal opinion. If you can't not hang your hat on a specific code provision, don't get involved unless there is an obvious problem, i.e., arc strikes, undercut, sharp notches, etc. Even then, you should be able to cite a specific code provision as the basis of your actions.

That doesn't mean you can't have an off the record conversation with the contractor to let your concerns be known.

Best regards - Al

Topic Construction aids on b31.3 piping By aevald Date 05-01-2015 17:39

Hello blindeman, I am not an expert in B31.3 piping by any means so take this for what it's worth. If "arc strikes" are a no no in this application then I would be very leary of items being " welded to " the spool. They will obviously remove these upon completion but can you judge whether there has been any detrimental results from these "temporaries" when this is done. That would be my only concern, but as I said, I am not an expert in B31.3. I am sure that others can more thoroughly address your question and will await their replies. Good luck and best regards, Allan

Topic Arc Strike and "Soundness" By Superflux Date 02-04-2015 20:16

I have been personally witness to an Industrial catastrophe back in 1978 that killed 3 and made it to the 3 (back then it was ABC, NBC and CBS) National Network Evening News. After that, I developed a hobby interest as it were of reading up on other disasters from around the world: Seveso, Italy (major dioxin release from a soap plant that could be converted to make Agent Orange), Kyshtym, Russia (quite possibly worse than Chernobyl and led to the downing and capture of Cptn. Francis Gary Powers), the Boston Molasses Flood (in 1919) and dozens of others.
What I found was that the vast majority of these incidents did not happen due to a single failure. But were in fact the result of multiple issues that independently had minimal opportunity to wreak havoc. The same could be said for personal injury accidents in the work place.
Will a single arc strike (arc burn) cause a catastrophic event??? Highly unlikely in my opinion.

Though not per AWS D1.1, API 1104 (20th ed.) A.5.3, Tables A-2 and A-6 do have some rigid definitions of what is acceptable. Due to this, most company specs have simplified it by prohibiting arc burns and require the area cut out. This severe spanking usually results in termination of the welder (2nd time or "3 strikes you're out") who very soon modifies their technique and gets that bad habit corrected.

It is a sore subject for me as I see it as blatant poor craftsmanship, laziness and lack of personal pride in performance (as in take some initiative; grind, weld finish cleaning it up so it doesn't look like you did what you did!).
Left unchecked, this often decays into the area in and around of the weld looking like metal pooping hens have roosted over it.
At this point, now it has become a hazard to the durability of the finished product!

The item in the attached foto was only tacked. The welder was not done arc scratching it! I think I have deleted many pics from various gigs so that the lack of evidence would protect the guilty.

Attachment: SAM_0002.JPG (94k)

Topic Arc Strike and "Soundness" By welderbrent Date 02-03-2015 18:27

Another aspect of this occurred to me that I feel is worth mentioning. I'm going to preface it this way:

Ever try to tear a phone book in half? With your bare hands? And a pretty good sized one like for Portland, OR? You see this kind of stuff on tv and other media but do you know the dynamics of how it is actually done and that most anyone in here can do it? We used to do this with the Sears catalog at Christmas time, yes, the big one in the 60's and 70's. So, go ahead, grab it and start pulling and see what you can do. Not much. BUT, take it and bend it with as sharp of a crease as you can put from the edge inward. Then, to make it easier, go the opposite direction and do it again. You should be thinking, hey, that's how you tear a sheet or two of paper and get a straight line. Yep, only more pages at a time. And the better the crease, the easier it is to tear. Same with the phone book. It will still take some good work and even working of the pages when you go to tear it but once you get a little tear started it goes easier and easier until you have it totally torn in two.

Now you are saying, 'so, what does this have to do with arc strikes?' Well, while overall I concur with the idea that many of our structural materials are very forgiving and many of the applications are just not 'worth' going overboard or 'overemphasizing' arc strikes and the idea of having to do MT on them in absolutely every situation there is one more thing to consider that is not written into the code.

If I have a beam going into an area with an arc strike on the web it is not nearly as apt to be a problem as a beam going into the same area with an arc strike on the edge of the flange. If there is any kind of stress riser, ie notch, overlap, undercut, arc strike etc right on the edge of a beam it will be multiple fold worse than the same discontinuity on the web of the member.

Now, multiply that with going into the SFRS (Seismic Force Resisting System= the critical areas for resisting and transmitting forces from earthquakes) compared to no earthquake consideration and you start to get situations where arc strikes become definite considerations.

Again, this is not really a consideration for the inspector, he should inspect every part the same per the applicable code and Contract Documents. But, there should still be watchful eyes that understand different areas of concern. That is where the Protected Zone comes into play as well as Demand Critical welds and other factors.

The code and special inspection requirements are up to the engineer. But they have latitude to alter because only they really have a handle on exact conditions applying to the work at hand. Our codes are to minimum standards but they get more rigid as conditions dictate and are then also up to the engineer to alter as they see fit to make the building as sound as necessary.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

Topic Arc Strike and "Soundness" By fschweighardt Date 02-03-2015 17:44

Arc Strikes on compressed cylinders is fairly serious, BUT those things are made from CrMo steel, with a good bit of carbon (maybe .3%?). The interested reader can figure hoop stress on one of those things, and add in low cycle fatigue (from filling them up) and it turns into a big deal.

Topic Arc Strike and "Soundness" By welderbrent Date 02-03-2015 16:15

I would like to throw one more research example into this while stating that I think we are really both headed the same direction, I just choose to be a little more conservative in my personal preferences, MAYBE. Hard to tell exactly how you and I would address the same discontinuity on the same member on the same job going to the same location since we have never had to.

Now, the example, as to real life scenarios and research, when I started a job over two years ago that involved Sideplate connections for the moments and CA (San Diego in this case) requirements. The fabricator and Sideplate had gotten together and welded a mock up that then got sent to labs in CA that set it all up and did awesome tests to simulate earthquake action and how the joints, welds, steels would stand up to the stresses actually placed upon them. You should have seen that assembly when it came back. It was very telling on how the ends of welds are critical, as well as certain other discontinuities and weld profiles. Sideplate has included specific criteria for the completion of their jobs in the Job Specifications because of these tests. Anyone who has worked with Sideplate on a job knows what I am referring to. And their requirements are backed up by this testing. Some of the little things that will cause failure may surprise you but overall what you are saying is very true, about the flaws that are acceptable such as porosity, etc.

Structural welds do not have to be perfect. Not on a building and not on a piece of equipment and not even on a nuke job. But, each one does have it's own specific areas of special attention. Undercut that would not effect the nuke may be critical to premature failure on a Log Stacker. Porosity that would result in a leak would not be a problem on a high rise even in LA. Etc.

And as a result, inspectors need to be just as careful as anyone about how they let their own past experiences and knowledge, or lack thereof, affect their view of the code and it's application on the job at hand.

Back to Lawrence's question and my personal opinion from this, I don't think the US requirements, the AWS codes, or our job as inspectors is wanting/lacking because MT is not required in the states on arc strikes after it has been ground per D1.1 requirements. I don't know that it would really be needed for 95% the structural jobs to have MT done on arc strikes as part of the Job Specs. After all, the average building built to D1.1 is less than 10 stories in height and not in an earthquake zone.

I do stress that we at least do our job as detailed by D1.1 and try not to miss arc strikes getting at least ground down and VT done to do due diligence making sure there is no cracking or undercut or other discontinuities requiring attention because of the arc strike.

Always comes back to the engineer being able to decide if a particular job may need more inspections required than the codes dictate. They should know at what point the minimum standards of the applicable code are adequate or not. Goes way beyond my pay grade.

HEY, you have been awfully quiet after starting all of this Lawrence.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

Topic Arc Strike and "Soundness" By js55 Date 02-03-2015 14:29

46,
Yeah really.
Look at the charpy curve.
What you have is a material that had extremely low ductility even at 125deg F.
125deg!!!!!
At 125F this material was moving well into the lower shelf of energy.
In other words, the material was schyt.
I've tested Grade 91 better than that. DBTT on Grade 91 is somewhere around 80deg or so. Maybe a little lower or a little higher. And its entirely martensite. Or is supposed to be.
The vessel was also almost 1 1/2" thick which should then have been heat treated, and it wasn't.
The Code makes very clear that the possibility of brittle fracture of the material is to be considered during hydrotesting. This clearly was not done.
So again, engineering.
I'm not arguing that there aren't times when concern for arc strikes is warranted. I am arguing that such extreme examples do not argue for a blanket requirement.
And far from disputing my point your article actually confirms it since there were other VERY important circumstances that were as contributory as the arc strike itself without which the failure would not have happened.

Topic Arc Strike and "Soundness" By js55 Date 02-03-2015 14:11

Blaster,
Yeah, I was a little too, 'enthusiastic' with my critique.
But I think the main thing is to separate the concept of cracks from arc strikes. They are not the same.
The martensitic discontinuity has received a lot of discussion pertaining to arc strike metallurgy. However, martensite is not always a problem just because it is martensite. There are alloys that are intended to be entirely martensite. And many more that are intended to be at least partially so.

Topic Arc Strike and "Soundness" By js55 Date 02-03-2015 14:08

Brent,
My main point is that the philosophy behind the 'leniency' of requirements for arc strikes is simply engineering and empiricism.
It is the same reasoning behind the fact that we don't build everything out of super titanium, or 10" thick.
The same reasoning behind 5% or 10% radiography.
The same reasoning behind allowing flaws in welds such as slag, porosity, or insufficient penetration, all of which could be proved to cause a premature failure in a testing regime.
It is the same reasoning behind Section I not requiring radiography at all under 16" pipe in some circumstances.
The same reasoning behind broadening the qualification range of procedure or performance variables.
The same reasoning behind P-No.'s.
The same reasoning behind VT only in D1.1. Except of course for that one paragraph on transverse cyclic stress.
The same reasoning behind Boiler Code not having much in the way of VT.
The same reasoning behind allowing PT or MT when volumetric could be used.
The same reasoning behind B31.1 having no requirements for CVN's AT ALL.
Bottom line the Codes are full of these engineering and empirical 'leniencies'.
Are they always right?
Certainly not.
And it is certainly valid to argue each case individually as you are doing here.
I have no problem with that. And in some cases you might even find myself arguing for greater stringency.
But in this case I think the weight of evidence favors the requirements as they are.

Topic Arc Strike and "Soundness" By welderbrent Date 02-03-2015 00:16

Interesting. Don't see a reference to arc strikes but still interesting. Have heard of them going off when pressurized with bad rust out of the cylinders and other items. There was fear of Acet tank walls getting too thin from improper transport and storage by so many for so long that they replaced a good part of the nations stock.

BB

Topic Arc Strike and "Soundness" By welderbrent Date 02-02-2015 23:00

JS,

I know your education and experiences far surpass those of myself. There are many here of whom I stand in great awe (very seriously).

I also know that, compared to many other materials, the majority of carbon steels in use for structural jobs are indeed very forgiving when it comes to discontinuities of any kind, including arc strikes. Add to that, the over engineering of structures and we have a built in safety factor anyway.

I also am not trying to say that a great multitude of building failures, even in earthquake zones, have taken place and that those which have can be directly attributable to arc strikes. On the contrary, for the amount of disregard that I have seen on the part of welders and inspectors to correct arc strikes even to the requirements of the existing codes, I think it supports your 'forgiving' nature support of carbon steels. Our buildings have done pretty well all things considered.

The point is, arc strikes DO leave more of an effect on carbon steel materials than people are giving them credit for. AND, the AISC and D1.1 codes do deal with them. I personally believe it is incumbent upon both welders and inspectors to at least give them the attention the code calls for and not be so apathetic as I believe many are concerning them. That is the main purpose of my personal testing and article submitted. Draw attention to something that I don't feel should be so disregarded off hand.

I have always been a person who took responsibility to extremes. Ask my wife and children, especially the son who still works with me. But, when it comes to inspections, I try to be very realistic. I don't play god and force my own will and interpretation and desires on others. Let the codes speak for themselves. But at least follow what is there. And, as stated previously in the article as well as here, what I choose to do in my LITTLE fab shop in no way obligates anyone else to do the same. I can do things that would really cost LARGE fabricators. Doing what I consider to be a proper fix to an arc strike does not cost me nearly what it would others. Two things make it worth it TO ME: 1) cosmetic appearance for general contractors who definitely see every part that I put up which effects my local reputation, and 2) a feeling of peace and safety that allows me to sleep soundly at night because I went out of my way to insure the safety of others.

I personally would like to see the codes require MT on arc strikes. Why? Mainly because I think it would cut down on the number of them we see because people would get upset about the cost of 'reinspection' which should be put on the backs of the fabricator/erectors not the owner/client/engineer. They would make their people be more careful. It really isn't that difficult. It is caring and craftsmanship instead of care-less-ness.

Is that going overboard? Maybe so, but where do we draw lines? The way it stands they get totally ignored way too often. The more they get ignored and left the more potential there is for a catastrophic failure at some time. If Canada has deemed it important enough to add requirements should we follow suit? Not just because they did, no. But is there some far better research out there than my little experiment that would lead a person to take a little more care? Maybe. Worth looking into.

I think part of what you and I are looking at as well is how each of us views the usage of the term 'overemphasized'. I think with a good many things many of us inspectors, and yes, I do include myself here, tend to overthink certain items. We all have pet peeves. I try not to make any ONE thing a pet peeve. It is welder and inspector attitudes that I prefer to take exception to. If the code deals with it we should do no less while also not requiring more. Does that make sense? I hope so.

Enough from me.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

Topic Arc Strike and "Soundness" By js55 Date 02-02-2015 21:57

Brent,
We can say lots of thing that happen in labs. But the simple fact is, the laxity of the codes pertaining to arc strikes is based upon a lack of evidence that there is a problem in the real world with certain forgiving materials such as carbon steels.

Topic Arc Strike and "Soundness" By welderbrent Date 02-02-2015 16:54

The material was A36 Flatbar. Not cuts in this case but still made so that the direction of roll would have been correct if used for a weld coupon.

I would not say there was NO plastic deformation prior to the fracture, but, it was very minimal. I have been looking for my pictures. I have changed computers since the time that was done and my article was written but they should have been on my 'passport' (external harddrive/storage device or whatever term correctly describes this thing).

I kept the experiment very simple. I used FCAW and SMAW to create the arc strikes. I did not get 'consistent' ones in order to do a real standard comparison analysis. For my purpose to show how it takes a very small discontinuity to cause failure it was sufficient. It was not my intent to do research that would be code altering. Just to show welders and inspectors how inaccurate it is to say 'It's only an arc strike! What's the big deal?'

And in the article, in other comments, and in this thread, I have always said we can't make anyone go beyond the applicable code.

What is interesting to me, is that discontinuities are not more stringently mentioned in D1.8. Most all items revert to D1.1.

Some comparisons that are covered: intermixing of filler metals (when 1 is FCAW-S), inter-pass preheat (max 550°F), K-area weld free zone, Demand Critical welds, Protected Zone, Supplemental Welder Qualification (for bottom flange at beam flange to column flange moment connections welded through a weld access hole), FCAW Electrode storage and exposure, to name a few.

Most engineers will require the removal of run off tabs but not very often do they require the removal of backing bars. Most would be difficult to do without doing more damage than good. The use of the additional fillet weld on the main member side of the backing bar for stress transferal has apparently been determined to be the safest, best procedure in most cases. AND, you would be right, weight is not really a consideration here.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

Topic Arc Strike and "Soundness" By 803056 Date 01-31-2015 20:58

Interesting. I have not worked on any projects requiring D1.8, so I make no claim to be conversant with those requirements. I'm actually surprised to hear that D1.1 does not include more stringent criteria for arc strikes.

Engineers learn a little more with each major earthquake. As is the case with much of life, there is a cost associated with the benefit of new code provisions (building, fabrication, or welding codes). There has to be a major benefit to offset the cost of any new requirement. If one cannot justify the cost of the new requirement, it will not be included in the new revision of a code. Regardless of the talking heads, cost is a major issue that is considered when considering more stringent code reguirements.

What is the benefit versus the cost associated with removing all undercut, all backing bars, etc.? In the case of aircraft the cost of additional inspection and more stringent acceptance criteria is offset by weight savings and increased safety. Such expenditures are not justified in the construction of a steel framed building. It is more cost effective to increase the size of the structural member when constructing a steel frames building. The safety factor use for aircraft design is 10% (so I've read) compared to the safety factor used in steel construction that can be 150% or more. Steel cables for elevators enjoy a 10 to 1 safety from what I've been told.

Intersting that a couple of your samples fractured without any plastic deformation. Was it a plain carbon steel or a high strength low alloy steel used for your experiment? I would suspect the steel had a relatively high carbon equivalent for that to be the case. I've bent welded samples with undercut (within acceptable limits) without failure. I bent the ASTM A36 test samples in anticipation they would fracture. Surprise, no fracture and no cracks. I'm going to have to find some time and make a few samples using different base metals to see how they respond. To hear they fractured without some plastic deformation is surprising to me. However, even with a slight load applied, the yield point is reached rather quickly. Should there be a small crack, fracture mechanics tells us the stress concentration is a multiple of the unit stress of the cross section. The closer the ratio of YS/TS is to unity, the less ductility the base metal has. The lower the ductility, the more likely the sample will fracture during the bend test. That is why most welding standards permit the use of a larger bend radius for higher strength base metals.

Maybe John can join the discussion and share more details of his experiments with us.

So, again, what was the base metal specification and the minimum specified YS and TS used for the experiments? Inquiring minds want to know.

If we can't discuss these matters with each other, how are we to learn? What better place to discuss these matter than here in the Forum? We haven't had a good discussion for a good while.

Best regards - Al

Topic Arc Strike and "Soundness" By welderbrent Date 01-31-2015 19:57

So, a couple of points as addressed by you,

Two of my samples fractured completely without any 'bending' of the coupon. The minute stress was applied they just broke right along the arc strike. Now, both were more of a multiple arc strike as when a welder may 'stick' the electrode and when pulling it loose gets a 'drag' series of arc strikes or during striking of the arc miss the weld area and get multiple arc strikes in one area. But, there was no bending to speak of before failure occurred. Overall, I see your point and it is well taken as to the difference between showing ultimate material condition and application in practical use failures.

D1.8 does not deal with arc strikes. Neither, according to my search function, does AISC 341-2010 Seismic Design Manual. Only D1.1 as far as codes go so D1.1 is the governing document as to how they are handled.

And both of us have stated the same thing on multiple occasions, that being only what is stated in the applicable code and/or Contract Documents is to be enforced by us. And it appears your view of D1.1's statement of grinding and reinspecting for soundness is the same as mine in that that statement alone does not mandate MT examination of the area. Only a visual inspection unless the engineer has stated otherwise in the original Contract Documents.

One more note of interest, it is becoming more and more common to see backing bars left in place. It is even dealt with within the codes referenced here. Some have a 5/16" fillet weld to the main member as well as the CJP weld they were there to back up from the other side. Code claims that is all that is needed to dissipate the stress risers sufficiently for seismic activity. This is not for all locations. But many that used to require removal can now remain.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

Topic Arc Strike and "Soundness" By 803056 Date 01-31-2015 18:37

Regions that experience seismic activity are subject to conditions and loads that can exceed the yield strength of the base metal causing plastic deformation to occur. Some of the design details currently used are designed to force yielding to occur in the member, not the connection. Older designs didn't have that feature; as a result the connections are subject to overload, deformation, and possibly brittle fracture. Moment connections, when designed properly, using the proper materials form a plastic hinge, thereby accommodating the deformation to a limited extent without failing in a brittle manner. Poor design details, the use of welding techniques and filler metal that exhibit poor notch toughness, backing bars and/or weld tabs left in place (which act as stress risers), etc. can reduce the connection’s ability to form a plastic hinge and can experience brittle failure when subjected to overloads caused by the movement of the structure during an earthquake.

The probability of brittle failure is promoted where there are discontinuities that can intensify stress. Sharp notches, changes in geometry, incomplete fusion, backing bars, weld tabs, etc. are typical discontinuities that intensify stress and can amplify the potential of brittle fracture. The structural welding code, i.e., D1.1, is supplemented by D1.8 when the construction is in seismically active areas. D1.8 has additional restrictions that are imposed on the construction to improve the probability the structure will withstand the forces induced by an earthquake. The design, materials of construction, additional restrictions on welding materials and techniques, tighter acceptance criteria, etc. are all intended to improve the probability of survival of the structure and those that occupy the structure in the event of an earthquake. That isn't to say the structure will not sustain damage and it isn't to say the building will not be condemned after the event, but the probability of a catastrophic collapse are substantially reduced. Once the beam has yielded beyond a certain amount, once the beam has deflected beyond a certain limit, once the connection has formed a plastic hinge and experiences yielding beyond a certain limit it is considered to have failed from an engineering stand point.

The samples with arc strikes that both you and John tested most likely exceeded the yield point of the base metal (were the samples permanently deformed when the gross cracking was first noticed?) and would have exceeded the limits of what would be considered a structural failure. The tests clearly demonstrate the arc strikes have a detrimental effect on the structural integrity of the structure in the event of an overload. The presence of an arc strike could be the trigger of a structural collapse rather than a structural failure that leaves the structure damaged, but intact in the event of a major event such as an earthquake.

Any discontinuity is going to adversely affect the performance of a connection subject to overloads, cyclic stresses, or any condition that results in gross yielding of the weld or HAZ. Those discontinuities that are notch like tend to be viewed more critical that those that are rounded. An arc strike that has a hard, brittle HAZ and small cracks is going to be more detrimental than spherical porosity. Discontinuities that can initiate cracks or cracks that can propagate have stringent acceptance criteria invoked by the applicable code.

It is the published criteria that we as inspectors must enforce. Granted, I do look very closely at notches, tack welds outside the weld, and arc strikes very closely to ensure there are no visible cracks. The arc strike blemish must be removed and reinspected. However, there is nothing in D1.1 that says anything more than visual examination of the area must be performed.

What does D1.8 say about the removal of an arc strike and the method of reinspection?

Best regards - Al

Topic Arc Strike and "Soundness" By 803056 Date 01-31-2015 13:05

John Wright's experiment as described in the Forum and by Brent's article in Inspection Trends provides some useful insight on the damage an arc strike can do to the mechanical properties of low carbon steel. The arc strike does clearly cause metallurgical changes to the localized area defined as an arc strike.

The demonstration John described, i.e., subjecting a sample containing an arc strike to a guided bend test, is very useful in explaining the damage caused by an arc strike to a welder. However, a steel structure is never going to be subjected to loads that are going to strain a member to the degree the guided bend test does. The guided bend test described by AWS D1.X for plain carbon and low alloy steels with YS of 50 ksi or less is on the order of 20%. The only time a steel structure will experience that degree of yielding is in a failure, i.e., beams on the ground and twisted into pretzels.

There is little chance for crack propagation in a static structure without an accompanying overload. Connections generally are design to operate in the elastic range of the material used, usually within the range of 40% (shear) or 60% (tension) of the specified minimum yield strength of the steel. The point being, they do not go "plastic" unless there is a "failure", so the material used for the connection is not going to experience plastic deformation approaching that of the guided bend test.

That places the arc strike into the realm of "workmanship" and "aesthetics", rather than a damaging defect such as a longitudinal crack or incomplete fusion. There is no reason to allow someone to beat on a member with a sledge hammer and there is no reason to accept the practice of dragging the electrode across the work piece. It is simply poor practice and poor workmanship. Generally speaking, cracks are not permitted by the welding standard. It is not uncommon to discover very small cracks in or around the arc strike, thus, any cracks should be removed. The blemish is unsightly. I would not want my new car to have dings in the body nor do I expect fabricated steel to look like it has been fabricated by a crew of uncaring gorillas.

The story shifts gears if the connections are subject to fatigue. The fatigue addressed by AWS D1.X is for conditions where the allowable design stress is below the minimum specified yield strength of the construction materials. The code does not address low cycle fatigue. It is recognized that cracks of any kind are prone to propagation when subjected to changes in the magnitude of the load or complete load reversals. The arc strike, even if there are no visible cracks, represents a metallurgical notch, a localized stress riser, that tends to initiate cracks. Thus it is reasonable to require the arc strike and the accompanying HAZ to be removed.

The provisions included in a code/standard are the minimum requirements that have been agreed to by a consensus of the committee members. The minimum requirements of the standard become a contract requirement when it is referenced by the project specifications or in the case of buildings, when the standard is referenced by the legal statue. The Engineer has a responsibility to the Owner to include additional restrictions or additional requirements when the welding/fabrication standard isn't explicit or simply doesn't address issues that concern the Owner. If the Engineer or the Owner requires arc strikes to be removed and checked with NDE other than or in addition to VT, it should be addressed by the project specification or drawing notes. The method of repairing sites where arc strikes have been removed should also be addressed. In other words, if the removal of an arc strike results in a reduction in base metal thickness, how much base metal thinning is considered to be too much and what is the acceptable method of repair? It should be addressed by the Engineer before the project starts.

In any event, it should not be the Verification Inspector, i.e., the TPI that determines when or how the arc strike gets repaired. That is a discussion that should take place between the Engineer and the contractor. Once the methodology has been agreed to, the VI/TPI's responsibility is to ensure the contractor does what has been agreed to.

Best regards - Al

Topic Arc Strike and "Soundness" By js55 Date 01-30-2015 19:32

I was just going to say that the CWB makes a point of segregating to cyclic service. I think concern over arc strikes on carbon steel has been overemphasized.
The other thing is, if we are concerned about untempered martensite there is nothing in the codes that would require testing to reveal such.

Topic Arc Strike and "Soundness" By SCOTTN Date 01-30-2015 17:39

With regard to the AISC, the question of whether arc strikes needed to be removed was included in FAQ’s posed to engineers a few years ago. The response….

“In Statically Loaded Structures (1), arc strikes need not be removed, unless such removal is required in the contract documents. However, in Cyclically Loaded Structures (2), arc strikes may result in stress concentrations that would be detrimental to the serviceability of such structures and should be ground smooth and visually inspected for cracks. This topic is discussed in (at the time) AWS D1.1:2004 Section 5.29.

Statically Loaded Structures (1) Structures subject to loading that characteristically is slowly applied and removed, as would be typical in building, sign, and tower structures; dead, live, wind and similar loads are generally considered to be static.

Cyclically Loaded Structures (2) Structures subject to loading that is applied and/or removed at a rate that cannot be considered to be static and require consideration of fatigue, as would be typical in bridge structures and crane runways.

Topic Arc Strike and "Soundness" By Lawrence Date 01-30-2015 15:50

What is meant by "checked to ensure soundness?"

This is what D1.1 2010 says:
5.29 Arc Strikes
Arc strikes outside the area of permanent welds should
be avoided on any base metal. Cracks or blemishes
caused by arc strikes shall be ground to a smooth contour
and checked to ensure soundness. (emphasis mine)

This is what CWB W59 says:
5.14 Arc strikes
Arc strikes outside the area of permanent welds should be avoided on any material. When they occur in
cyclically-loaded structures, the surface of the arc strike should be lightly ground and checked for
soundness using the magnetic particle inspection method.

I cannot find any examples of "soundness" being checked by visible inspection. The D1.1 commentary does not lend any help that I can see.

I like the way the Canadian Structural standard speaks to this... Not that I want to do the extra work of MT, but at least there is solid direction that can be followed.

I suspect that cracks and untempered martensite are the risks.... MT will find a crack, but not a hard spot :( So confused.

How do you all deal with this?

Topic backgouge preheat By welderbrent Date 12-19-2014 15:39

I'm not answering for Henry, he is more than capable.

In my opinion, the inspector can't ENFORCE that. We can't MAKE a fabricator or erector go beyond the code. But, we can have a talk with lead people and try to explain the nature of the D1 code as being a MINIMUM standard of requirements.

Then, using items as Henry has sited with references to back up the position one can make his case for REQUESTING and SUGGESTING that the contractor go above and beyond. But we can't enforce. Usually not even wise to write a report that says the fabricator did not do something that is not mandated by code. But, we can say in a report what they did that went above and beyond to let the engineer know they have found a contractor sincerely interested in quality and safety of the final product.

Example: (not meaning to toot my own horn) If you read my example in IT of my personal research on arc strikes, I use that often and find some real co-operation with many welders and their lead personnel and QC staff for handling arc strikes more carefully and at the very least getting them ground down as the code mandates instead of leaving them and saying 'It's only and arc strike'. I recently encountered an inspector who became a QA inspector after having been in a shop for years. During a discussion one evening on swing shift he read my article and said 'I know this article, I used it in training sessions at the shop I used to be at.' He just hadn't put the name together and realized I had written it, but the point was that people are using it and it does make a difference when people can see that going above and beyond has benefits so that after I have the knowledge that the way I used to do it is really questionable and that there is a better way, those who truly care, go the extra mile and sleep better at night.

Just my two tin pennies worth.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

Topic Certification Questions By welderbrent Date 12-17-2014 15:09

UUMMM. I thought I answered that in the wording of my last post, I don't think you could call it 'NORMAL'. But, it does happen and way too often.

Part of the question becomes how you want to define 'Testing Facilities'? If you mean ATF's, then it would be very uncommon. But still happens. Too little training of personnel at SOME of them. Hopefully they get it caught and taken care of at any audits. BUT...??? Who knows.

But, are you also including one man operation CWI's who qualify welders to make their living when you say 'Testing Facilities'? Then the numbers go up in my personal opinion and experience.

Now, there is a third class, Testing Companies who have a lot of good and expensive equipment and people who do everything from soils, to concrete, to welding, to ... you name it. They test it. RT, UT, MT, PT, Macro etching, bending, pulling, they do it. Most of them have very good reputations. They can make mistakes. They do hire new people and sometimes the learning curve lets less than perfect results happen.

If you want numbers, ratios, percentages, NOPE, can't and won't even try to GUESS. All I can say is IT HAPPENS. And once is too often in a perfect world. But even the codes acknowledge a less than perfect work environment. Look at arc strikes. They are to be avoided. Reference an article I wrote in IT about them a couple of years ago. The codes tell us how to deal with those occasions when the less than perfect happens. It does not strictly prohibit and make rejectable every piece that this happens to. If it did, we would never complete a building.

Bottom line, I would say, PLAINLY, IT IS NOT NORMAL. But, it happens.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

Topic Working Conditions 2 By welderbrent Date 11-24-2014 00:44

Zack,

WELCOME TO THE AWS WELDING FORUM!!

What burn mark are you talking about? Is there something in one of Robert's pictures that you are asking about?

Are you talking about arc strikes? Separate from this thread and just have a question of your own?

What do you mean by "burn mark"?

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

Topic A36 not heat treatable? By Lawrence Date 10-10-2014 19:14

Down and dirty.

A36 is low carbon (comparatively) because of this precipitation hardening is not going to happen.. Untempered martensite is possible (although uncommon) as exemplified by arc strikes, where rapid quenching can leave a small embrittled area.

It can also be carburized (case hardened) There are a million search links that give various techniques to do this with water, oil and air.

Also look up Iron Carbon diagram.

Topic The Best Picture By Cumminsguy71 Date 10-06-2014 00:13

Arc flash rated rope, arc flash rated harness. Rope is even pretty darn resilient to grinder strikes! Hit it once with a cut off wheel, didn't even leave a mark!

Topic Vertex angel (GTAW) less or more give good penetration By Lawrence Date 09-29-2014 12:55

The pic I posted was posted because it looked cool and I made a joke with it... Nothing more... Was making no point at all and I don't even remember where I stole that pic from... Someplace on the internets :)

The image I posted was in my opinion "obviously" a HF arc on a workpiece that did not have a work lead connection... so the HF plasma danced around prettily for a picture (while searching to complete a circuit for the welding current).. Could have been on a fingernail for all that it matters.

All this blather about spirals and straight lines... About blunted points vs non blunted points must be put in a frame of reference in my opinion.

General "MANUAL" steel or stainless GTAW of thicknesses greater than .063 and any decent power supply made in the last 25 years will produce good/great arc starts with HF and a pointed electrode. Most newer machines are pushing between 70-85 open circuit volts and any HF that crosses the gap will pull the current down and make a solid arc start.   As long as the prep provides longitudinal striations the arc is going to jump just fine; whether absolutely straight or spiraled.

The only time a difference in included angle and spiral vs straight striations, is going to be pronounced in application/bead profile is going to be on very thin gage metal or automated GTAW where AVC (adaptive voltage feedback) controls Z-axis (arc length) In these cases the taper and end prep can be pretty important if consistency is what you are after.

If you look at a needle sharp tip prep under magnification it will look rough... Arc strikes tend to transfer those rough bits of tungsten across the arc and into the puddle, which can be trouble for RT... This is magnified as the starting arc current is increased....   For example that needle sharp point may make a much softer arc start on a 10 amp weld with a 1/16 or .040 tungsten electrode... But that same tip prep on a 90 amp start might blow some of the rough tip away into the puddle.

Moral of the story... The practices outlined by manufacturers for tip prep are true; however, the dogmatic rejection of small imperfections in tip prep for most manual GTAW is going a bit overboard in my opinion.

I think the larger issue for most manual GTAW is threefold.
1. Continuing to use a tungsten electrode that has been contaminated (laziness)
2. Overheating electrodes or using the wrong sized electrode... One size does not fit all.
3. Poor arc starts related to low current for large electrode diameter... One size does not fit all.

Topic Please Help! TIG weld 17-4H1025 bending failure By Plasma56 Date 07-01-2014 02:17

Hey Michael.
I know this post is old but I have something to add for your concideration.

You have recieved some very good advice to date and after reviewing all that has been mentioned as the posts progressed I noticed 2 additional images #3347/#3352 of broken bend test coupons which cause me to write.

It's not hard to pass a bend test.

But it is hard to understand how the effects of welding prevent that from happening.
Those coupons showed a weld that in simples terms wouldn't stretch evenly. The images suggested a lacking of uniform ductility in areas of the weld and HAZ areas if I correctly matched the # of the pics to what it is I'm attempting to offer in explaning my thoughts.

Ductility, the ability of a metal to bend and stretch without breaking is all the bend test shows? I may be over simplifying things?
If an origional unwelded strip of metal was bent and passed what ever die was used to make the bend, then the test is to get a welded coupon to do the same is it not? Done right there is a good chance it will.

My simple answer, your coupons broke because some areas of the weld metal, adjacent HAZ material changed, became tougher, harder and seemingly less ductile during the welding process? Why? With no offense intended, because of how they were welded.

The process of GTAW seemingly is at your disposal as well a lab of equipment. I think your problem is one as previously mentioned a welding skills issue. You do show a very good understanding of what you need to do, a good degree of skill to do the task, however as some welders have mentioned you have a few issues and while small they need to be addressed. So really it then becomes one of education as to why your not passing the bend test if seemingly you should by your skill level in handling a torch?

If you took that torch head, clamping it into a track radiograph in-place of a cutting torch, you would have a mechanical device that would allow for consistent speed and a consistant and variable way of arc length control. Do that on a few samples and when your left with adding rod as the variable you'll see quick enough the problem and my thinking on the matter.

I think your arc length, the distance your Tungsten electrode is held off the plate, is excessive when welding. For a number of reasons this happens, but to create visibility comes to mind as the #1 reason. Your WPS indicates a 3/4" nozzle, 1/8" tungsten.

I'll hope to explain the basis of this opinion by saying the greater the arc length held when doing the weld, the greater the voltage (yes that depends on power source), typically lowering amperage ( again power source), causing your weld and base metal to be less heated, and the filler metal/ weld surface more fluid. The filler metal is liquid and runny rather then thicker and sluggish.
Don't missunderstand my meaning, it's heating, but more broadly on the surface rather than imparting into the base material.
Take a flash light, turn it on against a wall, then slowly pull it away.
I'm sure there is something educational in that to be learned? But if the light was a flame, what works better for setting the wall on fire? I think close/tighter to the wall but this is of course my opinion on how I see your welding issue. Closer it it the less of a flame required?

Your bead shows a lot of fine ripples, with a slight spreading of the weld pool. That suggests a steady consistant travel speed. A low current and longer arc slows the process down while building enough heat to get things to melt and flow with some manipulation. Add a drop, blend it out.
The appearance of a weld tells a bit of information but the more information a person has the less they guess when offering solutions.

You don't mention the degree of angle your tungsten is ground to a point. It as well this has an effect on arc length/arc column pattern profiles, penetration profiles, amperage required, effecting voltage as well. A simple variable that effects heat input, heat loss, speed of travel, penetration profiles. No one mentioned torch inclination, that can cause excessive distances in arc length. Tilt the torch, tilt your head? To often the torch wins.

Throw in the variable of an .045" Rod size to the ability of the welder to feed it preventing over heating or high interpass temps while welding, then heat and cooling of the weld pool and debate of the subject of ductility is again worthy of mention.

They say a large single pass is assumed to be more ductile a deposit than a multi pass weld. In theory, a hot wet thinly welded root pass followed by a heavy fill and two thin cover passes could be a recipe for trouble. Then again, a root that is placed with the thought of good fusion would cool slower, and fill slightly more penetrating less, following this thinking more is less and less is better in current. Your not trying to penetrate through the depths of unbeveled material in the quest for good fusion. It hold little value but to extend the HAZ. I don't think the problem was as much excessive amperage, but the appearance of it being too excessive because voltage is flaring with arc length and the filler rod not chilling the puddle enough.

Adding a filler rod and the speed at which a welder can do it is a reflection on his abilities and makes a difference in how hot the weld pool gets, how quickly it cools. In concideration of all the other variables, the choice of rod size has an effect on the heating and cooling of the weld pool so this does offer the possibilty of affecting the mechanical properties, changing or resulting from welding.
Your using .045" diameter filler. Got to feed a lot of that wire size to consistantly build a weld, fill a joint and control heat in put in the process.
I hope my offering and explaination are of some value?

But passing a bend test isn't rocket science or that hard, but again, understanding why it failed is.

When I ask myself why a weld isn't ductile enough to pass a bend test I have to think what causes toughness and hardness?
So...what was the problem? Welding Technique? Maybe...but it is an old post and with my spin on it may hold a degree of validity?

But I really don't know, I didn't see a reply explaining to me what the answer was? So I offer this as my guess for your concideration if your reading my late posted reply.

I also think, done properly the root should pass the bending.
After all, that metal just has to be ductile enough to stretch as the root doesn't have a notching effect with the over lapping/collar design of the joint surfaces and seemingly will support it self as it's pressed through the die if properly centered.
I'll offer up in thinking differently,somewhere between between penetration and fusion is melting a solid to a liquid. A root pass failure could result from excessive penetration into the base materials and with poor mechanical characteristics in this HAZ area having resulted from excessive arc length heating of adjoining material surfaces, on cooling, this material might be displaying increased toughness, weld hardness with less ductility or uneven ductility through the material. Some metal stretches, some holds firm, some gives excessivly while some resists and "we" wonder why it broke? Poor welding technique will cause this and elevated arc lengths fall under techniques.

Controlling the arc length when welding allows for the welding current to be stabilized to a value for control purposes when welding.
The heating, melting, filling, and cooling cycles a spectrum of characteristics to the metal so if variations in arc length occur, one could accept the outcome may not be as desireable or consistant and that will effect a bend tests out come.

If you don't concider the value of all the variables making up this relationship, you limit your ability to control the out come.
From a welding perspective you don't see it mentioned but arc length is a perception of depth skill. Most welders would say the number one to learn how to control, as well the variable that practice over comes in difficulty.

There is lots that can be said when discussing this problem. I only offer up my simple theory of arc length for concideration.
It's educational value however limited, hopefully offers a simple solution at it's basic level.
Your bent broken coupons while disappointing, keep showing improvement! Things are looking up.

I would hazard to guess that with a small gauged press you might hear a change to the sound of the coupons pressing into the die, I liked that part on test day. I called it the pinch a turd spectrum. Aaaaaggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhh oh my fire truck that hurt... Or... sploooooosh sweet relief. Looking at the weld, it's size, shape and profile, it was never so much a question would they pass, but how they would sound. Some days some get lucky.
That's a bend test for you.

And in giving a shout out to those dedicated gentlemen who post regularly to the site, thank you guys. It's alot of work typing a response and some of you have such great minds with a much clearer ability to simply put to print what some struggle to express.
With understanding, please be gentle. I'm of a simpler mind.
Correct me if you find me to be off in my thinking, we are here to help and I have been wrong before.

Michael... you must have welded up quite a few by now and I'm left to assume almost a year later, your getting a lot of practice in? As far as things go, has practice made perfect? Have you been sucessfull in your attempts in bending those coupons?

The information you posted was regardless of the out come, wonderful to digest.
I liked the pictures.
I like pdfs.
I like learning from others.
Three strikes I'm out.
Regards.

Topic EXAM CWI By welderbrent Date 06-24-2014 00:12

Bill,

No books up for grabs, I keep all my materials for reference.

Now, there will be questions out of all ten modules of the WIT book. There are 150 questions total and that is the Part A ('A' stands for the air space between your ears; it is a closed book general knowledge test). Sure, we all know lots of information that is not included in the test. The trick is knowing what will be there and what won't and then having the ability to choose the correct answer and some of them are worded really ....tricky. I know, there are no trick questions on the exam. Baloney, every question is a trick question. That's the beauty of multiple guess exams and the way they are worded to check your comprehension skills, knowledge of the topic, and thoroughness when looking at the answers.

Part B (Bogus Book test for the hands on practical exam). If you think you know which information to ignore in order to only study what you need, go ahead. Your guess is as good as any one else's. Read the Part B that is available as a free download and get used to the layout. Note the distinct differences between it and D1.1. Don't go by memory, it is NOT the same as D1.1. For example, look at it's idea of the Table 6.1, your criteria for acceptance/rejection. At the bottom it says arc strikes are prohibited. That is not what D1.1 Table 6.1 says. Nor, Clause 5.29. Bottom line: PAY ATTENTION.

Part C (Codebook, open book exam). Get familiar with your chosen code and know where different items are. Preheat chart, Prequalified welds, WPS's, PQR's, etc. You will mainly be interested in Clauses 3-6 but there is at least one question from 1,2,7, and 8 as well. Know the scope of each clause and you will more easily analyze the questions as to where to go to find the required answer. And read the answers carefully. There may be more than one correct, but one is more correct/complete.

Good luck. Just go through it all. There is no such thing as too much knowledge or information.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

Topic stinger v By Paladin Date 04-25-2014 01:03

What possible advantage would an uninsulated electrode holder have? When would you need it?
Seems to me an uninsulated holder is just begging for an arc strike.
One thing I don't like about the Duro holder. It will sometimes arc out just hanging it by the handle.
Arc strikes, who needs them?
Floyd

Topic A Good One For The "Big List Of Excuses" By ssbn727 Date 04-07-2014 18:12

I agree with you completely Superflux! :wink:

Many, many moons ago I was working for GD @ Electric boat in "Rotten" Groton, Connecticut as a shipyard welder... Back in the day, in order to become a welder/mechanic 3rd class, we had to qualify welding with a mirror w/magnet assembly and it was bend tested after passing VT... If you passed both, you were qualified but, the certification was EB's and you couldn't take it with you if you decided leave...

I remember that we had to get referred to the South yard welding school for a 2 week "vacation" from the Boats and without them knowing I was already qualified when I was in the service before going to work @ EB so, to me it was a vacation as were most of the other "vacations" I had when qualifying for this or that... :grin:

I mirror welded with 2 mirrors many times in many of the boats whether they be LA attack, Trident/Ohio boomers as a "hanger banger" and in some very unique locations and situations and repairing too many bad welds regardless of their location... Without the luxury of moving anything that was obstructing access or my view to the weld deposit or repair location... On a handful of occasions I welded with 3 mirrors and whether it was 1 or 3 mirrors, I always had an apprentice that would connect or disconnect my stinger lead to the welding cable I used that was strung into the boat from outside where the 8 or 12 packs (welding power sources) were located...

We later came up with an on off switch to power on & off the stinger (We used twist lock electrode holders) in order to position the electrodes properly just before ignition and to power off so that we could safely remove the "spent" stubs without leaving some nasty arc strikes that would ruin any job... I also came up with a rig that was an electrode holder attached by a clamping mechanism to a moveable elbow and telescopic arms for jobs that were too inaccessible and could not be reached with a broom handle alone...

It has been claimed that the conversion to modular new shipyard construction has virtually eliminated the need for "mirror" welding yet every now and then I'll see an advert for a mirror welder... Now that may be true about new construction but, repairs will always be needed after extended operations and they're not going to move stuff in order to access whatever needs to be repair welded... So it's a good bet that mirror welders are still in high demand @ the various shipyards in the USA as well as many power plants also.

Many, many times the use of my right hand was necessary to get the job done and if anyone refused to do so, they would lose their whatever class welder/mechanic status from that day on and become reclassified as a welder/apprentice until they could prove otherwise by welding everything, everywhere with which ever hand the was necessary to in order to complete the job ticket...

Because I was a leftie/southpaw, I was very much in high demands to perform repairs on the various boats so I was designated as a "rover" and I was well taken care of by the many supervisors I worked with especially after work when I caught up with them in one of the 2 bars that were next to the main gate with many complimentary rounds by them for getting the job done where many before me failed to do so but at least gave it their best shot in attempting to complete a critical repair weld or any number of pipe hangers that had to signed off by a certain date in order to stay on time with their schedules... Those days are long gone and I know that I could NOT do that type of work even if I was healthy @ my age but it was fun while it lasted! :grin:

Respectfully,
Henry

Topic WPS vs Code By 46.00 Date 01-24-2014 23:27

They are ugly welds.............! Not only was undercut present, what about the Arc Strikes and the excessive weld reinforcement (Cap) height? Do they not use run on/run off tabs where you are on plate test pieces?

Usually, when a stipulation is made as regards how wide a weave is allowed with a given electrode, it is mentioned on the WPS. Almost always this is a contract specific requirement and so usually will be above and beyond any code paragraphs.

1/8" x 3 is roughly 3/8" x 2 is nearly 3/4"! Plus a lee way for spillage or 'wash' and you have an inch to play with! This should easily be achievable on the thickness of plate given a standard joint configuration. The fact that the welders felt their welds were presentable to you in that state, says it all. You did right in showing them the highway!

Topic Table 6.1 Crater cross section By welderbrent Date 10-08-2013 21:16

Jordan,

I don't like taking guesses without certain information, though I do it way too often and that is when I really get into trouble.

Parts were rejected by who? An outside inspector? The customer? A government authority?

We are assuming from your title and area of question that this is to be compliant to D1.1. So, this is structural work?

I don't believe you have stated either way, so are they fillets or groove welds?

Hold on because here I go with some of that low information supporting worthless statements of personal opinion: some inspectors get burrs under their saddles for a particular issue; they are single issue inspectors way too often. Either arc-strikes, undercut, undersized welds, unequal fillet weld legs, overlap, etc. will be their one hang up. The sad part is those who are single issue inspectors usually don't even know how to properly apply their one area of pet peeve. So, they go marking up everything they can that even resembles their pet peeve and then go out and brag about how they really laid it on that fabricator/erector for doing such shoddy work.

Per a conversation in another thread, I have seen so many who go way beyond the applicable code in calling out repairs on undercut. They don't even know how to correctly interpret the code and how it applies to the job at hand. The same goes for overlap and...crater cracks and/or undersize fillets at the stop of the weld. It is not that the weld was terminated improperly, but, because the stop area is smaller in cross section than the rest of the weld the inspector doesn't like it. Though he can't prove why. And just because it is smaller than the rest of the weld does not mean it is rejectable. The question is, is it undersized from the plans and per Table 6.1 for undersized Welds (which notice implies the application of fillet welds which we don't know for sure)?

Just my two tin pennies worth.

Have a Great Day, Brent

Topic Slag tracks versus Silicon Islands / Oxides By ssbn727 Date 07-26-2013 19:42

46.00, I want to bring to your attention regarding the first link you posted as it seems to open up to blank pages for some reason or another... :eek:

So, you may want to review what you posted. :smile:

Now as far as the following paper you're referring to;The author's name is: *Jan Rau of Dockweiler AG, An der Autobahn 10, 19306 Neustadt-Glewe, Germany... The conference may have been held in San Francisco but, the Author most likely either is German or is affiliated with the above mentioned German address/entity. :eek:

I apologize to Js55 for not adding his name also as one of my favorite voices of reason in this forum and there's no way one cannot overlook his many contributions to this forum especially all welding matters related to topics found within the scope of ASME also. :cool:

I also apologize for not including Superflux within my previous list as well... It's always refreshing to read about your experiences abroad as well as overall...
And when I used to have an affinity for alcohol, we would have probably had some pretty outrageous times tying one on if we ever got together back in the day! :eek:

It's always a pleasure to read about your travels as well as your own out of the box takes and experiences on solving certain technical situations. :cool:

Brent, you have come a long way "Grasshopper" and, I applaud you for your efforts to become a more knowledgeable by questioning what you didn't know previously therefore, resulting in acquiring such knowledge and comprehension of whatever topic that was being discussed in here... Such a passion and desire to understand any topic as well as contributing from your own experience as well as your own knowledge base confirms that that you're no longer where you were when you first started to post in here many moons ago...

In fact, it shows me at least, just how far you have progressed as well as your determination to continually educate yourself more by keeping such an open mind as well as the willingness to ask questions when unfamiliar with certain topics and your excellence in retaining the subject matter... I for one, consider you as one of the most informative individuals in here when it's a D1.1 or a D1.5 or seismic discussion taking place, and I was proud to read your recent article in Inspection Trends covering Arc Strikes...

I guess what I'm attempting to express to you Brent is that you do contribute just as much as anyone else in either of our lists also!
So you stand amongst Giants as well my friend! :lol:

Respectfully to most,
Henry