Table 6.1

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 04-02-2014 15:08 Edited 04-02-2014 15:16

5.26.1.3 Incomplete Fusion, Excessive Weld Porosity,
or Slag Inclusions. Unacceptable portions shall be
removed (see 5.26) and rewelded.

5.30.2 "Cleaning of Completed Welds. Slag shall be removed
from all completed welds,..."

If the slag were removed, what would you see ?

Annex K.... Yes this does speak to Table 6.1 (2) in my opinion.
"*fusion-type discontinuity. Signifies slag inclusion, incomplete
fusion, incomplete joint penetration, and
similar discontinuities associated with fusion."

Slag is rejectable because it should not exist on a finished weld.... If there is slag, the weld is not finished.

If it cannot be removed, it should be treated/measured as a discontinuity and rejected if non-compliant.

Further semi related reading:

See how UT characterizes "slag" when it is not/cannot be removed ?

S8. Weld Discontinuity
Characterization MethodsS8.1 Discontinuities should be characterized as follows:
(1) Spherical (individual pores and widely spaced
porosity, nonelongated slag)
(2) Cylindrical (elongated slag, aligned pores of
porosity, hollow beads)
(3) Planar (incomplete fusion, inadequate joint penetration,
cracks

EDIT: PS

Cold lap = Overlap, and is covered in 6.1 (4) Weld Profiles linked direct to 5.24 and figure 5.24

Same with lack of fusion... It's all linked from Table 6.1 to 5.24 & table 5.24

That's the fact Jack !

By js55

Date 04-02-2014 15:12 Edited 04-02-2014 15:17

I would argue you do not have grounds for rejection of slag based upon Table 6.1.
The problem is that AWS A3.0 treats them as different defects. So IMO you cannot 'interpret into' them a conflation of definition.
You can reject however, based upon 5.26, as Lawrence posted.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 04-02-2014 15:17

Table 6.1 can't be applied until slag is removed :)

By js55

Date 04-02-2014 15:21

Lawrence,
I don't see where 6.1 can be applied at all. That is an interpretation into.
I do not see where it says that Table 6.1 is applied once slag is removed.
IMO that would have to be covered in a VT procedure or manual. The Code does not give authority for that evaluation.
On the other hand, you don't need 6.1. 5.26 makes it clear. You fix it all.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 04-02-2014 15:29

Eh?

6.9 Visual Inspection
All welds shall be visually inspected and shall be
acceptable if the criteria of Table 6.1 are satisfied.

By js55

Date 04-02-2014 15:32

Lawrence,
So?

By Richard Cook (**)

Date 04-02-2014 15:27

All, Annex k substantiates, fusion type discontinuities, if you have slag entrapment opened up with grinding or found with MT then I see 6.1 applying, as defined by D1.1 (2) can be applied.
The slag conditions discussed is dealing with surface conditions such as spatter, my issue is slag inclusions, or slag entrapment conditions.

By js55

Date 04-02-2014 15:31 Edited 04-02-2014 15:43

Richard,
The argument is academic in a sense. You have grounds for rejection, just not Table 6.1. There is no language that I see that gets you there. You just can't say that slag is incomplete fusion because it suits your purpose. Otherwise the segregation of definitions in A3.0 becomes irrelevant.
Also, Annex K cannot substantiate anything. It is NOT part of D1.1.
AWS A3.0 IS part of D1.1 by reference in para 1.3. And there is no definition of 'fusion type discontinuity' in 3.0.
Not to mention that a discontinuity IS NOT a defect necessarily.
For slag as a discontinuity to become a defect you would need to go back to 5.26.
Its like wiping your azz with a hoola hoop.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 04-02-2014 15:59 Edited 04-02-2014 16:03

I think I see where you are comming from.. But;

"You just can't say that slag is incomplete fusion because it suits your purpose."

Slag is non-metallic D1.1 welds are metallic... If there is a big non-metallic "thing" where weld metal should exist, weld metal and base metal are not completely fused....

I suppose it is acedemic and I wonder why 6.1 is making us work so hard

Edit:

Thanks JS for the discussion... I appreciate your way of looking at things... I can see that I am making an effort to make sense out of the code rather than just obeying it.

By fschweighardt (***)

Date 04-02-2014 16:27 Edited 04-02-2014 16:32

AWS 3.0:2010
Inclusion:
"Entrapped foreign solid material, such as slag, flux, tungsten, or oxide"

Slag Inclusion:
"A discontinuity consisting of slag entrapped in weld metal or at the weld interface"

Weld Metal:
"Metal in a fusion weld consisting of that portion of the base metal and filler metal melted during welding. See also mixed zone and unmixed zone."

Weld Interface (partial)
"The boundary between weld metal and base metal in a fusion weld,"...

Base Metal:
"The metal or alloy being welded, brazed, or cut. See also base material and substrate."

Incomplete Fusion:
"A weld discontinuity in which fusion did not occur between the weld metal and the fusion faces, or the adjoining weld beads. See Figure B.29. See also complete fusion."

Per AWS D1.1:2010 Table 6.1 (2)
"Complete fusion shall exist between adjacent layers of weld metal and between weld metal and base metal"

If a "slag inclusion" (or any other type of "inclusion") or any "incomplete fusion" is present and dectectable visually, either in the "weld metal", or the "weld interface" that would not be considered COMPLETE fusion.

Ergo, rejectable based on VT

By js55

Date 04-02-2014 16:36

Fred,
You have a serious gap in your extended syllogism.
You artificially bridged from slag to fusion as did the OP and Lawrence.
The ergo conclusion does not follow from the premises based upon a close review of Code language.
You have to interject your opinion and/or interpretation to make the quantum leap.

By js55

Date 04-02-2014 16:43

Fred,
In other words nowhere in any quote pertaining to slag does it mention fusion.
An nowhere pertaining to fusion does it mention slag.
You try to tie it in with the last paragraph.. But that's not from the Code.
Annex K could do it, but its not Code either.
And even from a standard practice point of view they are ALWAYS treated differently.
The only reason we are making the effort to conflate them is because of the problem that has arisen.

I remember radiographers artificially calling slag inclusion incomplete fusion because incomplete fusion was rejectable no matter what, whereas slag inclusion had an allowance.
They didn't want their calls to be questioned.

By js55

Date 04-02-2014 16:48

One other point to be emphasized. If slag is simply a specific form of a generic fusion then why have it defined separately in A3.0 at all?
Why not just call slag inclusion a non standard term for incomplete fusion?
The effort to conflate the terms leads to a glaring illogic and impracticability.

By js55

Date 04-02-2014 16:32

I had forgotten about 5.26 until you posted it. That should be enough for the OP to get his result.
I think it odd the way D1.1 addresses this issue. Maybe slag should be a part of 6.1. But its not.
I also think from a logical point of view you are dead on. Slag will cause incomplete fusion. It has to.
But the Code does not let us treat it that way that I see.
Still, and I emphasize this, this is all academic in that slag is rejectable per 5.26.

However, don't you just love howevers, not to throw another fly into the ointment other than perhaps stimulating good debate.
What exactly gets us to a determination of slag in 5.26?
There is no reference to a particular NDE method.
It hangs out there like a piece of ripe fruit without a tree.
It is out of place.
If Table 6.1 is the sole referee for rejectable VT indications then, technically speaking, slag is not rejectable AT ALL based upon visual referencing, and the OP's opposition CWI is ultimately correct.
In other words, what connects VT to 5.26?

By 803056

Date 04-02-2014 20:55

I would love to get into this one, but my protest continues.

Al

By Joey

Date 04-10-2014 07:11

You mean like fasting? How long?

By 803056

Date 04-10-2014 13:04

I know of one fellow that went 40 days and 40 nights.

Al

By SCOTTN

Date 04-02-2014 21:04

It's not in Table 6.1 but it's removal is required. Among other things, how can the weld size be verified if the slag isn't removed? How can the crater be verified to be filled to the specified weld size, and be checked for crater cracks if the slag isn't removed? What about verifying whether undercut, underfill, and overlap exists without slag removal? The welder has to remove it in order for the visual acceptance criteria in Table 6.1 to be applied. The commentary also supports this, to prevent the inclusion of slag in any following bead AND to allow for visual inspection. I won't inspect any welds until the welder removes the slag.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 04-03-2014 11:17

Scott,
Now that I've been inspecting field work for awhile, I see that welders in the field (for the most part) do not like to chip slag. Now I don't mind chipping some slag from time to time, but I'm wondering how they(as the first inspector) can determine whether the welds that they just placed are acceptable or not, before moving on to weld the next joint? I've had help from our customers when I ask them if they want to pay me to chip slag or have the guy whom they have already paid do that work...I usually don't have any further problems for the remainder of that job.

By ctacker (****)

Date 04-05-2014 01:39 Edited 04-05-2014 01:46

I just write in my report and tell the contractor the welds are not ready for inspection, and tell them why.
Clause 1 lists requirements for fabrication and erection:

5. Fabrication. This clause contains general fabrication
and erection requirements applicable to welded steel structures
governed by this code, including the requirements for
base metals, welding consumables, welding technique,
welded details, material preparation and assembly, workmanship,
weld repair, and other requirements.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 04-03-2014 11:29

>I had forgotten about 5.26

How about 5.30 Weld Cleaning, 5.30.1 In-Process Cleaning, and 5.30.2 Cleaning of Completed Welds?

5.30.1 In-process cleaning.
Before welding over previously deposited metal, all slag shall be removed and the weld and adjacent base metal shall be cleaned by brushing or other suitable means. This requirement shall apply not only to successive layers but also to successive beads and to the crater area when welding is resumed after any interruption. <snip>

5.30.2 Cleaning of completed welds
Slag shall be removed from all completed welds, and the weld and adjacent base metal shall be cleaned by brushing or other suitable means. Tightly adherent spatter remaining after the cleaning operation is acceptable, unless its removal is required for the purpose of NDT. Welded joints shall not be painted until after the welding has been completed and the weld accepted.

EDIT*...I should read better, Lawrence has already covered these points.

By SCOTTN

Date 04-03-2014 11:34

Exactly. Just because it isn't a Table 6.1 requirement, it's still a requirement. I assume the creators of Table 6.1 didn't add it there because it's indicated elsewhere, and it's a no brainer anyway. How can a welder or an inspector verify conformance to Table 6.1 if the WELDER doesn't remove the slag..... "Yes, doing your job is part of your job".

By js55

Date 04-03-2014 12:00

Lets not confuse slag covering with slag inclusion.

By SCOTTN

Date 04-03-2014 12:09

With all due respect, I'm not the one who is confused. Slag covering and slag inclusion are obviously not the same thing. My responses have nothing to do with slag inclusion and they are based on Richard Cook's remarks "another long time CWI wants to argue "slag" is not rejectable because it is not in the table I'm pretty sure I'm right but the individual is in a position that creates headaches for me, and there is not any "clear" direct black and white for me to substantiate my position, that I have yet to find".

There is most definitely clear and direct black and white requirements that slag be removed, it's just not in Table 6.1, but as I said, it's a no brainer that it has to be removed.

By js55

Date 04-03-2014 12:18

Maybe you're a little confused. :)
You open your post with mild indignation at what I posted, and then end it with complete agreement at what I posted. :)

By SCOTTN

Date 04-03-2014 13:29

The only post of yours I'd previously read is the one that said let's not to confuse slag covering with slag inclusion. My posts make absolutely no mention of slag inclusion, which is an entirely different thing. I only addressed the original post that stated "slag" is not rejectable". I've had time to look at your other posts. On one you'd said “You can reject however, based upon 5.26, as Lawrence posted”.

Lawrence’s reference to 5.26 was

5.26.1.3 Incomplete Fusion, Excessive Weld Porosity, or Slag Inclusions. Unacceptable portions shall be removed (see 5.26) and rewelded.

How can you verify and/or reject anything, including unacceptable portions of a weld, incomplete fusion, excessive weld porosity, overlap, excessive concavity, excessive convexity, craters, fillet weld size, cracks, etc. without first removing the slag? That's the basis of my responses. That, and Lawrence's reference to 5.30.2 "Cleaning of Completed Welds. Slag SHALL be removed from all completed welds,..."

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 04-03-2014 12:13 Edited 04-03-2014 12:29

Here I am extrapolating and "interpreting" again.

Let's go with js55's paradigm that "slag" does not exist in the context of table 6.1

There is no slag !

I don't care if it's an inclusion or a covering.....

If it's open to the surface we look at it because it's 6.1 territory.... But there is no slag!!!

Still, there may be a disruption in the weld profile (6.1 {4} ) caused by the presence of the object who's name we cannot speak !

The disruption may most certainly have a negative effect on complete fusion (6.1 {2} )

The disruption may most certainly be measured between adjacent layers of weld metal and between weld metal and base metal.

Forget the slag... look at the base metal, the weld metal, the voids, the disruption of complete fusion/penetration,,,,, Measure it for compliance.

Or just scamper back to 5.24 and 5.30

By js55

Date 04-03-2014 12:15

Another point, this is very similar to a debate I had recently with Gerald on VT in the Boiler Code, a person whom I consider extremely knowledgeable on Code pertaining to NDE.
A very close reading of it does not reveal what we all have a tendency to assume. We make quantum leaps of practicality. We inherit habits of thinking. I am as guilty as anybody. Does not mean its wrong or bad, just that's its not Code. We have to constantly be on guard against too quick assumptions.
The problem is easily fixed, once we recognize it, by closing the gap in a procedure or manual, depending, (I am not fond of putting too much in a manual).
Its certainly easier than getting the Code to change.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 04-03-2014 12:24

Heh....... I just had a knife fight with a.... um.... sort of 4th party TPI who said something along the lines of:

1. There is zero porosity allowed on my jobs

2. Your shop drawings don't say if the welds are supposed to be convex or concave, but I've been welding for 25 years and concave welds are weak and I will reject every one of them I see, unless you can show me approved drawings calling for concave profiles.

3. I don't need a fillet gage !

4. Can I borrow your fillet gage?

5. The code says....

6. Can I borrow your code book for a minute?

By js55

Date 04-03-2014 12:30

Lawrence,
Are you trying to evolve the discussion into the Table 6.1 piping porosity ambiguity? :)

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 04-03-2014 12:31

I'm afraid I won't touch that one with a ten foot cluster :)

By js55

Date 04-03-2014 12:32

LOL!!!

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 04-03-2014 12:33

+1....

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 04-03-2014 12:38

Lawrence,
Don't you hate that?

Now that I'm on the field side of inspection and doing some 3rd party stuff...I try to keep those things in mind.

I remember how I hated when a guy came to look over our work and didn't have drawings in hand(that I had previously sent ahead of time) and he started pointing out undersized welds(similar pieces had different sized welds), nor tools to perform the inspections, or reference materials(code books) when they had objections to our work.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 04-03-2014 12:23

If 5.30 isn't adhered too there certainly could be slag inclusions...isn't that the point to avoid rework or rejection of welded materials?

By fschweighardt (***)

Date 04-03-2014 14:41 Edited 04-03-2014 16:47

Well I ducked out for a few hours, and this thread had gotten big on me.

Back to my original premise, If we can visually detect anything that is not complete fusion (slag, flux, tungsten, or oatmeal) it would seem to me that this violates the requirement in table 6.1. It would be helpful if an inclusion was specifically listed as a form of incomplete fusion, but it does not appear to be that way.

Departing from the code a bit, for me, complete fusion is just exactly that, 100% fusion. if there is anything other than weld metal in there, and it is solid (to qualify as an inclusion rather than porosity), is represents less than 100% fusion, which means less than complete fusion, which (to me) means rejectable per 6.1

By fschweighardt (***)

Date 04-03-2014 16:48

Crap, that seemed way more coherent when I typed it.

By Superflux (****)

Date 04-03-2014 17:00

Just my 2 cents in pictures.
Without how slag removal, how could I have rejected this weld? And yes, the weld IS uglier than a pound of pigeon poop on a Porsche.
Also, this had supposedly been VT'd and as you can see Contrast paint had been applied and MT performed.
Yes, I vehemently rejected the VT and MPI Reports. I really wanted to go into one my famous 13-1/2 minute soliloquies. However, the staff speaks little English and I even far less of the prevailing indigenous languages.
Was I wrong to make a 6 man crew scour the entire assembly with chipping hammers and wire wheels?

Attachment: SAM_0007.JPG (115k)

Attachment: SAM_0004.JPG (151k)

Attachment: SAM_0010.JPG (175k)

By js55

Date 04-03-2014 18:00

Fred,
I got it OK. But I do that too.
However, I have yet to see anything in the code that says that slag inclusion is incomplete fusion or vice versa. And if it is, why use the term slag inclusion at all?
If that is the case clearly the existence of slag is irrelevant. It would simply be incomplete fusion that happens to have slag in it. Now this may have good sense to it, (especially in light of the fact that many times when you grind down to what RT has determined is a slag inclusion, there is no slag-it has vaporized I suppose) but its not Code.
The consensus seems to be moving in the direction that 6.1 doesn't get you there. But that it is not needed. Unless I read the posts wrong.

By Richard Cook (**)

Date 04-08-2014 12:41

what about Annex K defining "fusion type discontinuities" as used in D1.1??

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 04-08-2014 12:50

Jeff is going to hang his hat on the statement written below the title of Annex K regarding Annex K not being part of AWS D1.1

By Milton Gravitt (***)

Date 04-08-2014 13:01

John it also states that it is included for informational purposes only. Some times John you should use common sence I think. Don't you.

M.G.

By Milton Gravitt (***)

Date 04-08-2014 12:54 Edited 04-08-2014 13:05

Woody hit the nail dead on the head. Annex K: Signifies slag inclusion,incomplete fusion,incomplete joint penetration and similar discontinuties associated with fusion. Fusion-type Discontinuity You might not reject the part but it needs repaired.

M.G.

By js55

Date 04-08-2014 13:30

John is right. I will hang my hat on it. :wink:

Informational is not grounds for Code rejection.
Informational is exactly what it says it is.
And again, why even call slag slag. Just call it fusion if we are going to make this argument and the problem goes away. Except the Code did not do that. The Code operates off of the A3.0 definition that we are dealing with two distinct indications. As we all do.
Common sense Milton. :wink:

By js55

Date 04-08-2014 13:39

And so yet another question generated from all this tail chasing. Why is it radiography standards will vary based upon an interpretation of an indication being slag or fusion?
This is no small thing.
What we seem to be overlooking here is that in our desperation to resolve this particular deficiency we are creating some absurd results. From now on do we reject allowable slag because we have chosen to call it incomplete fusion?
Common sense. :wink:

By js55

Date 04-08-2014 14:46 Edited 04-08-2014 14:49

In fact, lets eliminate porosity as well since it is a failure of coalescence due to the presence of gas, in the exact same way that a slag inclusion interferes with coalescence.
We may argue that slag is closer to incomplete fusion than porosity, especially in this context, but there is a counter argument.
The reason incomplete fusion is never allowed is because it is a planar discontinuity with sharp terminating edges that can initiate cracks. The reason slag inclusion has an allowance is because it is more rounded than planar and does not have sharp crack initiating terminations as does incomplete fusion. Which is exactly the same logic for the porosity allowance.
In other words, if you are going to argue that by default any insufficient coalescence is incomplete fusion you have thereby not only circumvented the definitions in A3.0, but all logic, common sense, and decades of welding practice.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 04-08-2014 14:36

Don't need to call it slag

If the profile of the weld/base metal is disrupted 6.1 is still applicable.

Like a dog with a bone. :)

By js55

Date 04-08-2014 14:50

Lawrence,
So sayeth the Lord. :smile:

By Milton Gravitt (***)

Date 04-08-2014 14:59

I'm with Lawrence on this one it may not need to be reject but it needs to be repaired or fix because complete fusion SHALL exist between adjacent layers of weld metal and base metal.

M.G.