Well, this is back to the top, and getting ugly. After a HEATED debate with the customer yesterday, it seems this will end up in court. The customer has failed to provide any pictures of the actual MT indications on the parts in question. They claim the paint was removed, but again not supporting pictures. I have repeatedly asked for the contact information from the testing house, but have nothing. All I want to do is talk to them as the "third party's" involved about the indications they found and discuss the test further.
I did find a print later revision that called out D14.1. This later revision also had additional welds placed on the back side of the plate that failed. This shows that someone later did see this joint as a problem. After getting that code and reviewing, one thing stuck out. Page 7, section 6 states "Intermittent groove welds are not permitted on primary welds". When I brought this up to the customer, they said the joint was a "butt" weld and this did not apply. When I pulled out the supporting AWS joint diagrams that showed this joint as a flare bevel groove weld, the meeting turned sour. The print calls this a 1-3 intermittent fillet weld, and based on the load applied, it is a primary weld.
In the end, my customer is not accepting responsibility for the failures as they are a result of design flaws that clearly violate the code specified in a later print revision. Thanks to all of you for your insight. I can see my next post on this will be titled "I NEED HELP IN COURT".
Have a good day!
Mark
I hope you with held payment. Keep us posted.
My experience is that it is a common mistake that detailers/engineers specify fillet welds when in fact flare bevel or V-grooves welds apply. The other problem I encounter is that the designer/engineer expects the flare bevel and flare groove welds to fuse to the point of contact where the "groove angle" is zero. A major opps on the designer's part.
I make it a point to differentiate between those joints where a fillet weld is appropriate, a skewed joint where a "standard fillet" will not be possible and the "Z-loss" has to be considered, and the flare grooves and the limited weld size obtained when I teach course for inspectors, welders, or designers.
Perhaps if the designers had been aware of some of the issues you point out, you and they would not be having the heated discussions you are writing about.
Still, design issues aside, I would be interested in the possiblity of welding quality issues if GMAW short circuting was used in the fabrication of the weldments. Let's hope the issues can be resolved before the courts get involved.
Best regards - Al
Thanks Al. My customer did have 2 parts that we saved because of dimensional issues, so prior to the meeting I just spoke about I tested them. The first part I mechanically loaded as it sees in service until failure, and as expected it failed from the root along the HAZ, and also from the root out to the face. The second part I cross sectioned each weld and did cut/ etch. The C/E showed very good fusion and weld size on all welds. When this was presented in the meeting, they were less that receptive to its validity. I think we showed a very strong case against the "Poor Welding" accusation, which added to the frustration of my customer's customer. They were less than "Professional" during the entire process.
By 803056 
Date 03-16-2007 15:55
Edited 03-16-2007 16:32
Been there, done that.
That's why I like to include photos in my reports and I like to bring samples (when they are available) to the dog and pony show. The attendees might not like what they see, but it's difficult to argue the point when the proof is presented. Even if the photos show the paint wasn't removed ;-)
Here's a photo of a penetrant test performed to better photograph a crack that otherwise would not have shown in the photograph. I presented this at a meeting several years ago after a contractor insisted there was no way any of "their" welds could be cracked or have overlap. Several other photos, some of which were of magnetic particle indications (paint intact) were presented as well. The yelling came to a sudden stop and the repair work got underway the next morning.
Sorry fellas, I don't intend to step on any toes or ruffle any feathers with photos of unorthodox NDT techniques. As I've said before, they're just tools. On occasion I have been known to use a wrench as a hammer when a hammer wasn't handy. Then again, I don't claim to be an expert mechanic.
Good luck - Al
Let us know if you need help
