Excessive weld repair D1.8 demand critical

Date 10-20-2014 19:57

I'm not sure your going to get a definate answer, its quite a vague question!

I'm on vacation at the moment so do not have D1.8 to hand. I can not recall a definite figure under the D1.8 supplement. Neither can I recall one under D1.1 which D1.8 references!

Most times these acceptance levels for the # of attempted repairs are set by contract specifications, approved by the Engineer and will be dependent on a multitude of factors such as material, size/type of defect and application of heat treatment if required.

By SCOTTN

Date 10-21-2014 14:07 Edited 10-22-2014 13:21

I think the applicable codes are silent on this matter, and as Glyn has said, the limitations on repairs are typically set by job specs. I would think that this would especially be the case for repairs to demand critical welds. We know that repeated cutting and re-welding of the same weld increases changes in the HAZ, and at some point, this will adversely affect the joint and the base metal. As far as I know, the amount of times that these types of repairs can be made is still debatable.

Here's a link to a related Welding Journal article, which was co-authored by one of this forums great contributors, Giovanni Crisi....

Edited notes:

Correct link:

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/aws/wj_201202/index.php?startid=25

Incorrect link was http://www.aws.org/cgi-bin/mwf/post_add.pl?pid=262688

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 10-21-2014 21:29

Wow! SCOTT, did you actually read that article? I ask this because every time I try to open it I end up in a reply page... So I did a search on any of Giovanni's posts and the answer was: "user doesn't exist" Could it be that all of that knowledge and experience has been lost because someone pushed his buttons one time too many? Hmmm I wonder who that person could have been... It's a sad day to know that all of those years of participation in this forum as well as all of that experience and knowledge has completely disappeared because someone didn't show Professor Crisi the respect he certainly deserved... A sad day indeed...

http://www.aws.org/cgi-bin/mwf/forum_search.pl?words=&user=Giovanni+Crisi&board=0&field=body&min=&max=&order=desc

The one good thought out of this unfortunate discovery is the fact that I still have his address in Sao Paulo, Brazil as well as his phone number so at least I can still keep in touch with him... I'm going to try calling him to find out why he just decided to totally deactivate his account in here and maybe I could convince him to come back and tell us all who was the jerk that pushed his buttons one time too many.

Respectfully,
Henry

By SCOTTN

Date 10-22-2014 11:10

I did read the article, and my apologies for posting the incorrect link.

The article is in the February 2012 Welding Journal. Here's the correct link:

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/aws/wj_201202/index.php?startid=25

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 10-22-2014 13:48

http://www.aws.org/cgi-bin/mwf/forum_search.pl?words=&user=G.S.Crisi&board=0&field=body&min=&max=&order=desc

Last post was in Jan of this year.

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 10-22-2014 23:44

Thanks John... Man, I don't know why but, for some reason or another, I tried to look up Giovanni's posts and every time I tried by clicking the link that Scotty posted, I would end up in an empty reply page... So I decided to look him up and upon doing so, I would end up @ a page that stated: "User does not exist."So I tried again just to make sure that I wasn't making a mistake but sure enough, the same sequence of events like I described happened again and again... After realizing that I wasn't doing something wrong, I decided to post what happened to my attempts @ locating Professor Crisi in here...

This news for me at least has made my day and I thank you John for sorting whatever it was out... Professor Crisi's posts over the years along with his contributions in here were a joy for me to read and I always look forward to his posts every time I would check if there was anything new posted... However, I would sometimes get a little irked at first whenever he would start a post with: "In my days as an Erector Engineer etc., etc.," and yet after reading this opening statement many times over the years, I would chuckle a bit after he would post another one and realizing that many, many interesting experiences he shared in here and some of them - in fact most of them were indeed fascinating...

He is also the kind of person who would give you the shirt off his back and yet, a true stalwart in not accepting any BS from whomever decided to mess with him at times in here... A stand up guy in my book! Once again thanks for clearing this up. :grin:

Respectfully,
Henry

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 10-23-2014 00:23 Edited 10-23-2014 00:27

Along with Scott's link to the article, here are links to the conversations that took place here on the forum:

https://www.aws.org/cgi-bin/mwf/topic_show.pl?tid=29958

And:

http://www.aws.org/cgi-bin/mwf/topic_show.pl?pid=249967 (I would read this one first).

Read both carefully and take the cautions seriously but it is indeed a good article and worth the read to see what has been done on a limited basis to show how many times these repairs may be able to be made.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

edit: the good Professor is indeed missed here. His experiences, education, knowledge, and application coming from a South American (though still true and not his only perspective) point of view was very enlightening. A very knowledgeable, kind, generous gentleman in all regards.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 10-21-2014 17:31

Mark,

Glyn and Scott are correct, neither D1.1 nor D1.8 set any limits to the number of repair procedures that can be applied to any one specific joint/location.

Can you give us any other info as to what has sparked this query? Field or shop application? Welding process? Type of rejectable indication/discontinuity? Welder qualified to D1.8? (you know that is only for the bottom flange when welded through the weld access hole of a beam flange welded to a column flange right? All other welding requires the welders only be qualified to D1.1 regardless of the work being to D1.8 at the seismic frame. Not all work on a seismic job is 100% governed by D1.8 especially the supplemental testing requirement.)

But, to your question, no, there is no limit in the codes to the number of repairs. The only limitations are to the approved repair procedures the company should have submitted along with all other welding procedures. In that case, they may have limited themselves even if the contract documents do not specify repair procedures and number of repairs. Repair WPS along with a written procedure is common practice in structural fabrication though often overlooked.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

By Pipeslayer (**)

Date 11-12-2014 14:26

Sorry for taking so long to reply. It does not give a definitive number of times a repair can be made, correct. So it works both ways in being we haven't gone to far, but you don't know that you haven't either. CJP weld completely gouged 12 plus times, for deflection, bad bead sequence, and cracks. The last was a linear crack the entire length. I suspect metal chemistery has changed?

By SCOTTN

Date 11-12-2014 15:02

As previously posted, repeated cutting and re-welding of the same weld increases changes in the HAZ, and at some point, this will adversely affect the joint and the base metal. With regard to going too far with repairs or not, if it were me, and since the codes are pretty much silent on the subject, I would have submitted an RFI a while back, asking the engineer what, if any, limitations he/she would place on repairs. If the EOR is not made aware that there have been multiple repairs and at some point in the future, a failure occurs, what then? Submit an RFI and let the EOR make that decision.

By js55

Date 01-12-2015 17:07

Understanding that this is an old thread I wished to add that the number of acceptable repairs will depend greatly on the material. If it is, for example, SA-36, its essentially a who cares, since being hot rolled there is little damage that can come from welding. In fact, there will most likely be grain refinement from welding. If you are talking SA-516 that's a different issue. Its fine grain material.
However, as Al indicated the issue becomes most acute for CVN regimes.
For most carbon steels in non CVN applications I wouldn't worry about it too much. Keep in mind that multiple repairs are much like multiple pass welds.
We overthink these thing sometimes.