How often can joints be cut and rewelded in low carbon stl?

Date 03-03-2012 04:20

Hi!

I never asked for or expected apolgies, but for those that offered them, I'm sure they are taken in the manner offered :smile:

Thank you!

As a self confessed 'dullard' I am honoured to be recognised as such! I'm not so sure about being classed as one with all the 'educated dullards' on this site, of which there are quite a few! However, if this gains the peace, I am willing to accept being the 'scape dullard'.

I still do not feel the need to publish any sort of research paper in order to enable me to post critical or complimentary comments on those posters that have, is this going to become mandatory? I'm sure I read something about 'comments good or bad' in the OP post? I am very sorry if I appeared 'uncouth' in my critique of Giovanni's paper! I thought 'Peer Review' was a part of submitting thesis?

In my humble opinion, I am more than willing to be educated by anyone who I perceive to be more knowledgeable than myself of a subject(of which many are on this site, regards welding)! Arrogance goes hand in hand with great knowledge for most people in history! Including several members on here :wink:

More to the point, the sign of Great Knowledge is to admit when you are wrong! Rarely does this occur, I have found! Alas, I am really good at admitting wrongness, but don't have the 'Great Knowledge' to go with it!

I really miss Chuck, he was a real gentleman with all the knowledge in the world!

Just to point out to the 'royalty' of this forum, there is a block list available which will block out responses from people you don't like! I would suggest you use it if you only want to hear all the positive comments about yourselves and your posts!

By DaveBoyer (*****)

Date 03-03-2012 04:45

I guess scince I mentioned publish, I need to answer to this.

I don't feel that one has to be published to have an opinion.

HOWEVER since not particularly constructive criticisim comes so easy for some people, I offered up the challange to that individual to do a better job than Giovanni did, get it published, and stand the review process themself.

You mention what a gentleman Chuck was, I miss Him too. If it wasn't constructive, HE didn't post it.
I never met Him, but I am sure He was a better man than Me in many respects.

As to being a nobody in the welding world, I am not ashamed of it, I come here to learn.

By electrode (***)

Date 03-03-2012 10:36 Edited 03-03-2012 15:19

46.00,

well done.

I also want to say thanks to Mr John Wright for the apologies stated - even though unnecessary, since I wasn't hurt by what's been said. However, I came to the decision to delete everything that I had to say on the OP and please believe me, I was considering a while before posting this.

A newbie, active at least, to this forum, I simply found it rude how nantong was treated. To me namely, I must repeat myself, he is an exception, having a rare ability. That is, to get to the point, straight and concise. Simply put - someone, able to call a spade a spade without the need to fill two additional pages with hollow phrases.

Anyway, I guess nantong has rest his case already on this - more than understandable, when reading male bovine excrement such as: "...you sound like one of the educated idiots who has pissed me off for 40 years".

You know, I devoted the effort to trawl through the amount of posts and comments nantong has dropped here all along.

And I must admit. I couldn't find anything that dramatic, justifying the offending approach chosen by some of the forum fellow members. As he posted: "Gents, it is well noted that none of you attempted to address any of the technical issues I raised."; the reaction was: "I haven't read the article but did read your disrespectful post above and you do have serious "technical issues." This again raised nantong's answer: "Before you start making comments get a hold off the report and read it otherwise you cannot make any input."

Understandable? Absolutely, to me.

And he also said something quite valuable: "I do no not care if Crisi has written here for twelve years, that means nothing to me."

He is right - of course he is! It shouldn't mean anything, neither the title the OP bears, nor the amount of time the OP is active, nor the number of comments he'd posted in this forum. I seem to understand, and here's no offence intended, that a few among the 3rd stage level fellows have gained their 'diamonds', amongst others of course, also for posting smilies or single word comments. So what. If this is ok - let it go. I don't care.

To me hardly understandable however. Is there eventually some sort of subtle 'bigotry' noticeable herein? For instance I could find comments in the forum such as: "Stop being such a cheap bastard and take another test. Pay for it with your own money, and get them in your name."

Answered by: "Wow! That's taking em out to the ol woodshed there. Maybe he isn't a cheap bastard.. Maybe he is a poor bastard."

Causing:

"Did I whip ass a little too hard?", finally causing the answer: "I love you ...".

Strange? No way, since I could learn: "There is an acceptable way to disagree and there is an unacceptable way to disagree."

You know, it was also nice to learn all these funny martial terms such as "toss hand grenades"; "hit with some of the shrapnel"; bleed from the grenades we elect to toss"... I couldn't consider nantong a warrior - as yet. Oh dear, what ridiculous!

Anyway, and please note, this is the point in time where myself is becoming extremely serious - it proves a severe difference to me, when it comes to welding. Reading an article, not an advert, in one of the world's most respected welding trade journals that leaves me confused is, to say the very least, a serious issue.

A brief excerpt of what's been written in the "report":

Page 25 / 2nd column: "The bevels were hand made with an oxyacetylene torch and then cleaned with a grinding disk".
Page 25 / 3rd column: "Oxyacetylene cutting was chosen".
Page 25 / 3rd column: "The intention was to reproduce as closely as possible the real conditions existing in practice.".
Page 26 / 2nd column: "The bevel was cut with an oxyacetylene torch and cleaned with grinding disk".
Page 26 / 2nd column: "The bevel angle was 60 deg which we considered acceptable...".
Page 26 / 2nd column: Brazil is a tropical country and welds were never made at a room temperature of less than 25°C.".
Page 27 / 2nd column: "The average grain size of the heat affected zones were not significantly different from the base metal. That is due to the fact the sizes were not measured in the region immediately next to the weld bead...".
Page 27 / 3rd column: "The research demonstrated that the cutting and welding operation in the same region can be performed safely at least six times on low carbon steel.".

So, again. No information on welding parameters, no information on heat input measurement, no information on welding procedure (stringer bead- weaving-technique), no information on the arc mode generated, no explanation on the decision to choose a 60° bevel, even though a 45° would have proven better for Impact testing (BTW the 'why' was excellently described by nantong), no further constraints on the "conclusion"; by e.g. explicitly defining the trial boundary conditions again(!). Instead of that. Generalisation, repetition, rambling - or as likely you would use to say - ranting.

No. I would have expected somewhat more from "four Professors" dealing with such an extraordinary intricate topic. Again. I do appreciate both time and effort Prof Crisi et al. have devoted to even deal with this interesting topic. But as some have said already, it seems too important and too interesting to just provide such a generalised and simplistic view.

You know. I remain hopeful, nevertheless. Since I could read some of the questions I would have asked as well, but coming from 803056 who was saying: "Could this experiment been done differently?" Even though I tend to disagree with his assumption of using a Gleeble, the question asked is wonderful. So why not incorporating such an idea into the article instead of tripple repeating that an oxyacetylene torch was used for cutting?

Or, "They could have used an electrode meeting a different classification had they chose to do so. Would changing the experiment altered the test results?".

Good point! Go ahead. Could that alter the experimental results?

However, as long as the document is due of the minimum data which I, at least, expect from an AWS Welding Journal technical article* (written by individuals showing the highest education level), as long it will be difficult to answer these questions.

That, amongst others, was the reason for me, to 100% agree with nantong and you, 46.00.

BTW wouldn't it make sense that the OP finally provides us with his appreciated feedback? Such as, yes, I seem to recall it was nantong also, already requested?

I suppose that would help all of us, to rest this case here finally!

*) By the way, the same journal provides a very positive article in this respect. "Ten Signs You're Ready for an Automated Plasma Retrofit" beginning at page 34. That supplies technical data and facts making it possible to everyone to replicate the results.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 02-28-2012 15:36

Professor,

Thank you again for your time and efforts. Many things have been covered here. TO ME, one of the main things is how each of us applies this information you have provided to our own individual application. The code I use will definitely influence how I look at your tests and results. I hope I have learned something from all the posters who participated in this thread thus far.

At the same time, I think once again we have to take care in such a mode of communication that we not take offense where none may have been intended. Communications can be so fragile even face to face, and even more so when we can't hear voice inflections, see facial expressions, etc. And, for myself, sometimes my fingers out run my brain (and that's pretty hard as slow as I type). I also see the positive aspect of how passionate and protective we all are concerning our chosen PROFESSION. There are many PROFESSIONALS here. But we come from many different backgrounds. Education, country, line of work, code application, etc. I am also encouraged by our defense of one another, though with two sides we have a skirmish going that could end up being destructive instead of constructive. Constructive criticism is a good thing. Professionalism, politeness, kindness, patience, tolerance are all good things. Rudeness, arrogance, pride, selfishness, etc are not usually very positive in relationships.

TO ME, your study showed many things that can apply in so many ways. It left room for improvement and for further experimentation. But it is a good starting point. I can see areas for easing the minds of those doing repairs to heavy equipment. Breaks often occur in the same location, though often because of improper procedures or lack of use of good procedures. Stresses needing to be dealt with differently than originally engineered cause the same area to get repeated repairs. So, how often can the steel in question be repaired? I don't believe the D14 codes deal with this issue, just as many of the other codes do not deal with it. It is then left to the EOR on the job in question who often responds with less than perfect resources and tries to apply old wives tales to the job at hand. Or applies procedures dictated by another code to a job where they truly don't apply.

I appreciate Al's comments upon review of your article. That is not to disregard the others, many of who do have some valid concerns, at least as it applies to their application. It was noteworthy to me that this was not presented as a 'Technical Paper' for publication. All readers of the Welding Journal and the Inspection Trends have been encouraged to submit articles for publication. I see nothing in your article that would cause the AWS editorial staff to reject it's publication. Only the encouragement to GO FURTHER. I remember one of the first things that got my attention on this forum. It was some limited PERSONAL research that John Wright and Al Moore were talking about in a thread. After some research of my own, some testing of my own, I posted my first post and asked a question in an old thread. It got a response from those involved that influenced me and my activity on this forum ever since. Hopefully your article and your participation on this forum and especially with this thread will do the same thing. If it brings about more research by independent labs, college researchers, or any one else then it has indeed accomplished much. It often takes a spark of interest, which has been ignited by this question coming up so often on this site, to ignite someone to action. Then, that action brings others who have access to continue the research in other areas. Most of us would be very hard pressed to afford ALL the research to follow this up to it's COMPLETE conclusion. And then, the time and resources to take it to all the various committees and organizations to effect the wording in the codes to which it applies.

I hope you and your fellow professors as well as your students have learned much from the total procedure you carried out. I hope none have been discouraged with the hijack of your intended request with our emotional distractions. I hope this chases no one away from participating here. I have learned things from even some of the more disagreeable amongst us.

You and your fellow professors took the bull by the horns and started something that no one else had BOTHERED to spend the time, money, and/or resources to do. And I thank you. I would agree with many others that it is not complete in that we need others to continue with testing in each code area. Hopefully this debate will spark just that.

GENTLEMEN, I do appreciate everyone on this forum. I know we are all passionate about our individual arenas of welding. I know we have our friends who we will defend to the end. I feel that more is accomplished with kindness than the methods we see all around us in our current world where if someone disagrees with you they are worse than scum and to be totally discredited. Politics is just one example. The way our whole world has become intolerant of the positions and opinions of others is very disturbing. I would hate to see that kind of attitude destroy the spirit of sharing of knowledge and experience that this forum allows, supports, and was intended to create.

I thank you for taking the time to read this as well as your time in participating here.
Have a Great Day, Brent

By 46.00

Date 03-03-2012 04:24

welderbrent,

Well said!

By nantong (**)

Date 03-03-2012 13:52

welderbrent, so much flannel. keep to the initial topic. Give comment on Crisi's paper technically.

A lot of writing but no technical input.

By electrode (***)

Date 03-03-2012 16:04 Edited 03-04-2012 22:06

Dear Professor Crisi,

I was asked by the system whether I would have a good reason for answering on such an "old" question. Hopefully, I do have.

So much was said and done here concerning your request and it was I as well, who had some concerns on the report published in the WJ.
However, there is no offence intended by myself, and, even though I can only speak for myself, I suppose this to be the case also with everyone else who had answered.

I do appreciate the work and effort you and your co-workers have put into this attractive and most interesting topic. However, I do honestly have some problems, especially with the, forgive me, simplistic conclusion, supplied in the journal.

Thus I have tried to prepare a conclusion draft based upon what I could read - and the way it did affect me. That is, based upon my very personal impression arising from the article published. Kindly read as follows.

An experiment was conducted on the affect of repeated heating cycles induced by Gas Metal Arc Welding on low carbon steel grade ASTM A 283 Grade B, showing a wall thickness of ~ 9.5 mm (3/8 inch). The specimens material investigated, showed following chemical composition in wt%:

» C = 0.122
» Mn = 0.35
» Si = 0.013
» P    = 0.04
» S    = 0.014

The filler material chosen was a high quality brand wire electrode (1.2 mm in diameter), processed applying 75% Ar + 25% CO2 shielding gas, showed the following chemical composition in wt%:

» C = 0.06 – 0.15
» Mn = 1.40 – 1.85
» Si = 0.80 – 1.15
» P    max. 0.035
» S    max 0.035

The following conclusions can be drawn from the investigation:

1. The welding position was ‘1G’ (manually performed). Further welding details (number of layers, stringer- or weaving technique, interpass temperature) were no subject of investigation.
2. Welding velocity constancy monitoring was no subject of investigation.
3. Exact determination of experimental weld parameter setup was no subject of investigation.
4. Determination of gas flow rate was no subject of investigation.
5. Experimental setup (jig or clamping conditions, heat sinks, etc.) was no subject of investigation.
6. Time of interruptions between welding, gouging and re-welding were no subject of investigation.
7. Determination of residual stresses was no subject of investigation.
8. Hardness profile determination was no subject of investigation.
9. Determination of root gap width and penetration ratio was no subject of investigation.
10. Ultimate tensile strength was increased by approximately 5% vs. the parent metal, beginning with the first section welded and remaining approximately constant up to the last section.
11. Elongation was found decreased > 50% vs. the parent material, beginning with the first section welded and remaining approximately constant by up to the last specimen section.
12. Impact strength was found decreased by ~ 40% vs. the parent material.
13. Changes in ultimate tensile- and impact strength, as well as elongation, are suggested due to the fact that the welds were neither submitted to post weld heat treatment nor to any precautions taken for slow cooling after welding.
14. Root gouging was consistently performed using a triangular file.
15. Face- and root bending tests were satisfactory in all cases. Cracks were found in some specimens but did comply with ASME Code Section IX, paragraph QW-163. No further investigation was conducted on crack initiation causes.
16. The average grain size of the heat affected zone (HAZ) was found not significantly different from that of the base metal. This is suggested due to the fact, that no grain size measurement was performed in the region immediately next to the weld bead.
17. The influence of heat input upon grain size and microstructure was no subject of investigation.

Hence - and here we approach nantong's style to keep it straight and concise (hopefully):

A parent material, having the thickness and chemical composition as stated above, using a filler wire having the chemical composition as stated before, is suggested to be, respectively, manually GMA-welded or re-welded, six times in position 1G, at approximately 25°C ambient temperature, applying 75% Ar + 25% CO2 as the shielding gas, and having an approximate ‘hand made’ joint bevel angle of 60° using an oxyacetylene torch and additionally grinding the bevel. It needs to be considered a triangular file is to use for root gouging. It needs particular consideration that the welding velocity was no subject of investigation. It needs particular consideration that the experimental welding parameter setup was no subject of investigation. It needs particular consideration that heat input measurement was no subject of investigation. It needs particular consideration that interpass temperature was no further subject of discussion. It needs particular consideration that the dimensions of cracks, found through root- and face side bending tests did comply with ASME Code Section IX - paragraph QW-163, but crack initiation causes were no further subject of investigation. It needs particular consideration that the 60° bevel joint configuration supplies only limited evaluation on impact toughness, due to the fact that the specimen comprises weld- and parent material and only limited heat affected zone material**. It needs particular consideration that heating cycle monitoring was no subject of investigation.

As you will notice. This no comment "in favor or against it". This is just one comment, or, my very personal perception of what I could read in the WJ.

Sincere regards.

**) according to the assessment of 'nantong' at: http://www.aws.org/cgi-bin/mwf/topic_show.pl?pid=228093#pid228093.

Edit: Did correct a typo.

By nantong (**)

Date 03-04-2012 04:26

Electrode, very well put, very professional.

By electrode (***)

Date 03-04-2012 08:11

nantong,

I surely appreciate your comment.

S.N. Anyway. I guess, I'm doomed.

By 803056

Date 03-04-2012 22:45

If I were to write a synopsis of the comments made in this thread it would be; "keep it professional."

Clearly it is possible to make comments known without being offensive. Many of the points made are valid. No one denied that.

If there is something constructive to be said, the comments are welcome.

As I've said in the past, I've made my share of mistakes. I'm sure I'll make more in the future.

Best regards - Al

By nantong (**)

Date 03-05-2012 12:09

If I were to write a synopsis of the comments made in this thread it would be; "keep it professional."

Clearly it is possible to make comments known without being offensive. Many of the points made are valid. No one denied that.

Al in view of your comments above does that mean you now agree that you agree with me and others that the the report is flawed? Others as many have mentioned feel threatened now by vitriolic comments directed at me because they have too found fault with Crisi and others report.

I am pretty hard-nosed when it comes to commenting as I have said I work in industry not in research, I have to get the answers right first time. I do not care about derogatory comments about me but when I see people who agree with me on this subject writing responses which are intended to smooth things over to protect them from isolation makes me upset. In particular "ëlectrode" wrote an excellent summary to Crisi's report but no one paid one piece of real attention to what he wrote. I think the first 5 or 6 responses to Crisis's report was "very good, very enlightening etc" now we are saying it is simplistic.

Let me tell you something, Crisi maybe a professor in some subject, but it is certainly not as a welding engineering in my opinion.

I do not know where electrode or 46.00 come from but please do not isolate them as they side with me on this issue. They seem to be young and apologize for what they write when they disagree with the old stream of this forum

I am still surprised Crisi has not responded.

By nantong (**)

Date 03-05-2012 12:43

If I were to write a synopsis of the comments made in this thread it would be; "keep it professional."

Clearly it is possible to make comments known without being offensive. Many of the points made are valid. No one denied that.

Al in view of your comments above does that mean you now agree that you agree with me and others that the the report is flawed? Others as many have mentioned feel threatened now by vitriolic comments directed at me because they have too found fault with Crisi and others report.

I am pretty hard-nosed when it comes to commenting as I have said I work in industry not in research, I have to get the answers right first time. I do not care about derogatory comments about me but when I see people who agree with me on this subject writing responses which are intended to smooth things over to protect them from isolation makes me upset. In particular "ëlectrode" wrote an excellent summary to Crisi's report but no one paid one piece of real attention to what he wrote. I think the first 5 or 6 responses to Crisis's report was "very good, very enlightening etc" now we are saying it is simplistic.

Let me tell you something, Crisi maybe a professor in some subject, but it is certainly not as a welding engineering in my opinion.

I do not know where electrode or 46.00 come from but please do not isolate them as they side with me on this issue. They seem to be young and apologize for what they write when they disagree with the old stream of this forum

I am still surprised Crisi has not responded.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 03-05-2012 14:10

I thought Electrode's response was good. No comments may not mean that people diddn't pay any attention.

(one word beyond a last word)

By electrode (***)

Date 03-07-2012 22:01

"I am still surprised Crisi has not responded."

So, am I.

By electrode (***)

Date 03-10-2012 17:59

nantong,
forgive me, returning to this topic and here, especially, to your last expression; i.e., being surprised that no response was heard yet. As one can see, this is still the case. Hence, I was thinking whether I would be criticised impudent to come back. On the other hand, I wouldn't care about that, honestly speaking. I was reading through all the marvellous comments and posts again. As a consequence, I would definitely endorse, if all questions asked, and these were not only coming from ourselves, would be appropriately dealt with. What I'm asking myself. What was the OP actually considered for, if not even for discussion and learning? Professionality was, reasonably, requested to be kept in one post. Great, it would prove to me, if this request would be generally acknowledged.
Strange, really strange... to say the least.

By 46.00

Date 03-11-2012 07:08

Hi!
electrode, I see Prof Crisi has posted on other threads since his OP on here, so I am not expecting a quick reply to this thread! That is his MO apparently! I think this is a dead subject at the moment, unless Prof Crisi decides to comment on the critique against his research!

By electrode (***)

Date 03-11-2012 07:28

"I think this is a dead subject at the moment..."

I see and understand*.

Thank you, 46.00!

*) A pity though. The topic is a good and important one, in my eyes.

By 46.00

Date 03-11-2012 07:51

Hi!

I agree, this is a very important subject and worthy of investigation and research! It would be nice to achieve a consensus on a way forward with this initial research to enable a dedicated paper on the subject!
Prof Crisi has started an interesting subject and I hope he is not absent from further discussion!

By nantong (**)

Date 03-11-2012 11:27

I think we should step back and reconsider the subject topic

"How often can joints be cut and rewelded in low carbon stl?"

It would be great to know a simple answer to this question, 3 4 5 6 7, how many times?

Crisi stated that there is very little information on this subject.

Does this not immediately invoke the question "Why?"

As has been previously stated there is no simple answer. Materials and consumables are complex made by so many different manufacturers with different approaches and considering the amount of variables involved and service conditions there can be no simple answer to the question posted.

in my opinion it would be erroneous to draw a conclusion from this article that it is acceptable to repair low carbon steel six times as a general statement.

In industry your two best friends are your your consumable manufacturer and your steel manufacturer. In the case of carrying out multiple repairs to the base material the first port of call is your steel manufacturer. They have a massive amount of weldability data.

Crisi will not respond on this subject so I think this topic is concluded.

By electrode (***)

Date 03-11-2012 12:25

nantong,
I must admit.
More than once you proved a rare ability; i.e. striking a chord with me.
Hence, let me quote yourself on this, saying:

"Very well put, very professional!"

By G.S.Crisi (****)

Date 03-12-2012 19:51 Edited 03-12-2012 20:23

Reply from G.S.Crisi

Gentlemen,
I was waiting for of all comments to end before putting my reply. To be honest, I could have never imagined that our article (our, because I'm just one of the four authors) was going to start such a long and enthusiastic exchange of comments and opinions. I have just printed the whole thread, that resulted in 31 printed A4 pages. An A4 page is a little bit longer and a little less wide than the sheets used in the USA.

I wish to thank all of you that have posted your opinions, whether in favor of the article or not. All of your comments were welcome. As I said since the beginning, I wasn't expecting only favorable opinions; rather, I was sure that someone was going to disagree, which actually happened. I believe I'm an open minded man, so I'm interested in knowing opinions that are different, or contrary, to mine. Who want to hear only opinions in favor and don't accept opinions against them are the dictators. Hitler, Stalin and Mao Tse Tung are good examples.

The purpose of our research was to be a starting point and encourage the development of other researches with other materials and welding methods. This we said at the end of the article, if you remember. A Chinese gentleman, whose name was Mao Tse Tung (the same I mentioned above) said that a long run starts with the first step. Based on that theory, he conquered China in 1949 (whether for the best or for the worst, that's another story) which demonstrates that the theory was right.

We gave the first step, we will probably give another one doing a research with some other material. Not inmediately, tough, because in this moment I'm busy with a research on recovey of nickel by ion exchange from nickel plating plants effluents. Nothing to do with welding, as you see.

How can I be sure that ours was the first step? Because before sending the article to Welding Journal for evaluation I posted a question on the AWS Forum and the result was that none of its frequentors knew about a research on the matter.
I must confess that I have given just a quick look to the answers that have been posted after my invitation to comment on the article. I was waiting for the thread to exhaust. As I said before, I've just printed 31 pages and will read them carefully in the next days.

Best regards to all and each one of you
Giovanni S. Crisi
Sao Paulo - Brazil

By 803056

Date 03-06-2012 05:33

I didn't say the points you (or others) made were incorrect. The thrust of my response regarding your comments (and several others) was there are constructive comments and there are offensive comments. The latter does little in advancing one’s position. You can provide a plethora of knowledge, but it will only serve it’s intended purpose if people respect what you have to offer. You and I are not that different. You and I, as well as most of the regulars that participate in the forum, do so because we can offer useful advice based on our experience as well as education. The trick, or art, depending on your perspective, is to provide useful information and comments in a manner that will be received as constructive and helpful.

We have several people that have earned their poor reputations not because they had no knowledge to offer, but because they seemed to enjoy offending others. Little attention is paid to anything they have to say as a result. There are several people that post in the forum that I have chosen to ignore as a result of their past posts. It is rare that I elect to respond to their posts.

I have been accused of practicing "snow shovel diplomacy" on occasion. I like to think I've learn that it isn't always the best approach to take when trying to provide a gentle nudge to get someone to move in a different direction. When a gentle nudge isn't getting the job done, the snow shovel still has its place in a discussion, but should be reserved for fitting occasions.

Best regards - Al