Maximum Weave Width

By hogan

Date 11-16-2007 17:54

d1.1 doese not limit pass width for smaw. if you were to limit it, it would still be in conformance with aws

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 11-16-2007 17:58

Seabass

You can make your prequalified WPS requre a specific weave width...

You can even limit it to stringers...

What you cannot do is make your WPS controls less strict than the code limits.

Just make sure the special test conditions on your WPS are communicated up front to the welders and are within the limits of the code.

By Seabass (*)

Date 11-16-2007 18:14

Lawrence,

Thanks for the response. I just implemented AWS qualification testing into our adult welding program. I had to make sure that testing is being done by the book.

By woodsaw Date 11-17-2007 23:41

Seabass,
7/8 of an inch is to much of a weave in my opinion . I would limit it to 3 times the electrode or wire diameter. What adult program are you teaching?

By ctacker (****)

Date 11-18-2007 03:01

I'd like to know how you run 1/16 wire and hold a 3/16 width.

By woodsaw Date 11-18-2007 03:39

I did not say the weld width would be 3/16, I said only weave 3 times the wire diameter.

By 803056

Date 11-18-2007 15:04 Edited 11-18-2007 15:21

Based on what?

I've seen a lot of welds that have served their intended purpose for many years that exceed your 3X limitation, so why arbitrarily make limitations that may or may not serve a purpose. Why not insist that the welder be suspended upside down while hanging by his or her knees? That would more closely approximate some of the welding conditions than the 3X weave limitation!

That really sounds silly doesn't it, the hanging by your knees part is what I'm referring to. However, some of the restrictions I have heard sound almost as silly if there isn't a justifiable reason for them.

If the welder is working on a material that is sensitive to heat input or if the nature of the electrode/flux system is such that a weave width limitation is justifiable, then the limitation should be imposed, otherwise the limitation serves no useful purpose. In my opinion, the welder qualification test, when possible, should replicate the materials and conditions expected in production. When the manufacture qualifies their own welders, they should keep that in mind to minimize the chance of placing unqualified welders on the production line. It is easier and less costly to provide the necessary training in the "weld booth" than it is to detect and repair bad welds on production components. When I use the term "cost", I'm not simply referring to direct cost in dollars, I also include the impact on delivery schedules, customer satisfaction, the company's reputation as well as other intangible aspects such as the moral of the welders and the corporate culture that develops when unqualified welders are placed in production.

Best regards - Al

By woodsaw Date 11-18-2007 16:15

Based on my experience and opinion. I have never agreed with the use of the monster weave. Why is a grinder used on the job but not on the test?

By ZCat

Date 11-18-2007 16:18

I like a wide weave in the right circumstance. 2 stringers way down in a bevel is a slag trap waiting to happen.

By Seabass (*)

Date 11-18-2007 21:21

Zcat,

We test with 1" plate. By the time some of my students are at their cover passes, they want to put an almost 1 ½" wide weave down. I am training them to run a split weave on the last two layers of their joint. I have definitely seen some ugly weaves in my recently.

By Stringer (***)

Date 11-26-2007 03:02

I always felt that part of the 'challenge', which is in no way specified by AWS or any other organization, is to put a uniform weave without undercut, excess reinforcement, or underfill. On a D1.1 vertical one inch plate test with a quarter inch gap you'll certainly get a weave greater than one inch. Done right, it will pass and this is not a difficult test. Al is spot on commenting that starts and stops are part of the task. Stringers are for the horizontal and overhead positions (for this particular test). I have not seen side by side weaves with the possible exception of shipyards. For some really extreme examples of weaving check out some old offshore platforms. Done with 5p and not low hydrogen, of course, these are some of the best looking welds you'll ever see.

By ZCat

Date 11-26-2007 03:20

We welded two 48" 90's together in the fab shop once, welded with Short Arc Mig all the way out with a one bead cap, it was at least 2 inches wide and pretty darn slick, surprisingly enough. I had it pretty hot by the end, maybe I slipped out of short circuiting mode, I don't know.

By fbrieden (***)

Date 11-26-2007 03:37

Testing welding ability or grinding ability?

By CWI555

Date 11-26-2007 04:17

You know what they say, a bad welder makes a good grinder

By CWI555

Date 11-26-2007 04:11

Al,

I don't hold to the unlimited weave width theory for D1.1.

In 5.4.4

"Welds which have been stopped at any point in
the weld joint for a sufficient amount of time for the slag
or weld pool to begin to solidify may be restarted and
completed, provided the completed weld is examined by
UT for a minimum of 6 in. [150 mm] on either side of the
restart and, unless prohibited by joint geometry, also confirmed
by RT."

Which btw is a very often overlooked sentence. There are a lot of welds out there that should have been Ut'd/Rt'd

Then there is this paragraph

"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."

Therefore there is an inherent limitation on weld weave. You have two choices:

1.) Weave to your hearts content and UT and RT the weld
2.) Restrict your weave to the point that the concurrent layers do not walk over solidified bead.

considering the example in hand, 7/8ths of an inch, you'd have to travel 1 3/4" to get back to
where you started. If you can do that fast enough to prevent running over already solidified slag
then there is no problem, if not, then you have to go to points 1 and 2 above.

If I prepare a procedure, the time/distance without slag solidification is measured and clocked, and
therein is the code based restriction of weave width. (Assuming there is no RT or UT).
That distance will vary depending on travel speed heat etc, but there is in fact a finite limit in D1.1.

My take on it for what it's worth.
Gerald

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 11-26-2007 13:25

Hey Gerald,

Some good points regarding the slag freezing etc. Is there any evidence that indicates a wide weave over the thin solidified slag on the leading edge of a puddle causes or increases the chance of trapped slag?

This is apart from the "code requirements" you stated above which do not prohibit weaving in which the code has already allowed. It is my feeling that one of the leading causes of slag in completed welds is bead contour and NOT the slag that remains on a properly contoured bead. Of course my estimation is solely based on observations of welding performance tests I have observed and welds I have made. The energy used to melt slag in my opinion would be much less than what is required to melt steel. Often times a bead that required a large abount of effort to remove the slag is a bead with convexity or undercut that prevents the arc from melting the underlying metal due to the sharp notch formed by the bead shape at the toe of the weld.

It is my opinion that the statement in 5.4.4 says what it says. Its context is in relation to ESW/EGW. It indicates two conditions that must exists, freezing slag and stopping of welding. If the logic of the paragrph were applied to smaw it would be hard to put a root in with xx10 electrodes using a whipping technique or even a fill or cap pass using a whipping technique.

5.30 does require previously deposited weld metal to be cleaned and I agree with that requirement fully in conditions requiring code compliance.

The width of the bead has little to do with anything in my opinion when using SMAW. I have seen beads with greater heat input used filling up a joint than the faster thin weave bead put over it as a cap. As mentioned before, the stringer bead has some advantages when it comes to length of bead vs length of plate. This is very evident for this people that seem to think a 3/32" rod is good for a 3/8" plate.

On conditions in which heat input is a concern, travel speed should be controlled and not witdth of weld. In many cases those are related however I am pretty sure I can make what appears to be a stringer with too much heat input when filling a groove joint.

I am sure there are some cases in which controls above and beyond the code are justified. As an inspector I try not to get into that. As a welder, I want to know why.

Have a good day

Gerald
http://weldinginspectionsvcs.com/

By CWI555

Date 11-26-2007 16:30

Contour does play a large roll in it. When I first came across that years ago, I spent some time running beads to get an idea what is a realistic value for this.
As you say, a pour contour does have a definitive effect on trapping slag or not. However; It is still possible to trap slag even with a proper contour.

At the end of the day, I try to stick to the intent of the code. Even the best welder cannot control the contour perfectly all the time. Therefore it is
wise to stick to the intent and statements of the code, and a bad idea to try and burn the slag out no matter how good a welder you are.

The basic problem is, with a weave that is to wide, the previous layer is solified before you can get back to where you started, and therefore your
in violation of 5.30 at that time.

I don't think a weave limitation based on solidified slag is to restrictive.

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 11-26-2007 18:09

I see your point.

It would just be very restrictive with fast freeze cellulose electrodes and would eliminate the abilty to whip the rod as is a common and manufacture recommended practice.

By CWI555

Date 11-26-2007 22:11

Thats one of the considerations that should be made when designing the joint. "very restrictive with fast freeze cellulose electrodes "

Regards,
Gerald

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 11-27-2007 03:42

I don't understand. Does that affect the whipping of a cellulose electrode? With D1.1 welding, would you prohibit a welder or procedure from whipping the electrode on root, fill or cap passes ?

By CWI555

Date 11-27-2007 06:10 Edited 11-27-2007 09:21

I don't impose my own opinion, only that of the code. I understand where your trying to go with that, but i am not biting. If you don't like the code, I would suggest writing a technical inquiry, or a code interp question to the relevant D1.1 committee. I didn't write the code, I only do my best to adhere to it as written. With D1.1 there is always the opt out as owner engineer for a project your working. However; if I am on a project as TPI and it's not been specifically addressed, I will go to the letter of it, regardless of others "opinions" or my own opinion. That's just how it is. The engineer wants to change it, and it's bought off in contract docs, that's another story. Any inspector who tries to make up their own criteria from opinion and ignores the requirements of the code is asking for trouble.

If I am wrong, show me the paragraph where it states so. I am willing to learn something new like anyone else.

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 11-27-2007 12:43

OK. I really wasn't going anywhere. I have just never seen anything relating bead width, slag freeze times etc to the welding technique being used. The code clearly indicates that there is no limit on bead width for SMAW. There is absolutely no statement indicating a requirement related to the time it takes for slag to freeze. Molten slag which is part of the weld is always in contact with solidified slag during the process.

Your previous statement referred to a paragraph that I am highly confident was only to be applied to EGW/ESW.

The whole idea of freezing time seems difficult to control. You would have variables such as dwell time/width/speed of travel/Amperage/Voltage/Joint Configuration/Preheat/Interpass/Electrode diameter/thickness and probably a few others that would each interact with each other causing a different set of parameters to be written for each major change in conditions.

I could for example weave wider on 1/4" material than I could on 1/2" material because the 1/2" has a greater ability to conduct heat away. A joint that had cooled to 70 deg would have to have a "narrower" weave than one that was at 550 when capped.

I agree with the "go to the letter of it statement". I was going nowhere except to ask how you would address the issue with fast freeze rods and whipping. This is a common technique used with thos rods and I cannot see how you would address that using this information you stated above.

This is a great place to learn and we all have things to learn. I have come across a few code disagreements before. I always enter into them with an open mind hoping to understand where I am wrong.

As far as what the code says in my opinion.

1) It does allow for unlimited bead width for SMAW .
2) It does require cleaning of individual beads/passes.
3) It does not address the freezing of slag during manipulation of the electrode.

An individual whom I have great respect for once said. "Any inspector who tries to make up their own criteria from opinion and ignores the requirements of the code is asking for trouble." And I agree that he is correct.

Have a nice day.

Gerald

Like you I am willing to learn. I feel individual companies have the right and duty to go above and beyond the requirements of the code in situations in which they see fit. Many of the things you stated above merit thought. I am just not seeing the requirement to limit bead width with SMAW. I do see situations that occur in real time in which I may suggest restricting bead width.

By CWI555

Date 11-27-2007 23:46

There is no statement one way or another for weld weave. It's not addressed. Therefore it neither directly limits it, nor directly allows it.
I have seen excessive weaves create slag inclusion. I've also seen welders who can do it without any inclusions.
As for the intent of 5.30 I am absolutely confident that it is not limited to EGW/ESW.

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

Whens the last time you saw EGW/ESW create a crater area.
electroslag welding (ESW). A welding process that produces
coalescence of metals with molten slag that
melts the filler metal and the surfaces of the workpieces.
The weld pool is shielded by this slag, which
moves along the full cross section of the joint as welding
progresses. The process is initiated by an arc that
heats the slag. The arc is then extinguished by the
conductive slag, which is kept molten by its resistance
to electric current passing between the electrode and
the workpieces. See also electroslag welding electrode
and consumable guide electroslag welding.

If anything, those two processes would be "excluded" from this sentence, especially in the last one, where the arc is extinguished by the slag and keep molten by it's resistance.
How are you going to have beads in that? They only application that process has in that sentence is if the process is stopped for any reason.
In short there is no way it only applies to EGW/ESW.

It shall not, however, restrict the welding of
plug and slot welds in conformance with 5.25.

The last sentence in the paragraph is a specific exclusion. For these welds, it would be near impossible to avoid welding over slag. Therefore a specific exclusion was written for those two incidences. That is also a clear statement of intent. Don't weld over solidified slag "Except" in these two incidences.

An argument could be made based on the definition of a pass/bead. If you'll note the previous information, I never agreed with unduly restrictive requirements.
However; in saying that, the intent of not welding over slag is absolutely clear to me.

As you mentioned, you've seen problems in real time with this, so have I. Telling the welder after they've started to restrict weave to whatever measure is not right either.
That's a moving target for the welder, and sure to piss em off, as it would me if I was in their shoes (which I have been). If it's to be done it has to be done on the front side.

In short, the code is clear to me, don't weld over solidified slag.

In a perfect world, all the craft would be professionals and each one would be cleaned. However; when is the last project you worked where each and every one of them were quality consciences? Those projects are getting rarer by the day, if they even exist any more.

One thing I will do, is follow the inquiry trail to put it to bed one way or another. If I am being to strict, then I want to know about it now rather than later. For the time being, I have verbage in the code that reads to me as a restriction. I will error on the side of caution every time when faced with that situation.

Thats my two cents worth on the subject.

Regards,
Gerald

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 11-28-2007 04:03

The paragraph I was referrring to that had been referenced before was In "5.4.4". I agreee that 5.30 applies to all processes.

By js55

Date 11-28-2007 14:47

While 5.30 does apply to all processes, 5.4.4 does not. This is unambiguous.

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 11-28-2007 15:11

Thats what I had indicated previously. One other issue I have just thought about is how is all slag removed when using a trailing electrode with SAW ?

Gerald

By js55

Date 11-28-2007 15:32

Gerald,
Now thats a fun question. And should probably generate a continuing thread.
The multi electrode SAW I've been exposed to were all actually part of the same puddle (hence, the popularity and necessity of using AC-or Tiny Twin type applications) so that issue was not probelmatic.
But I suppose if the slag has cooled then some form of mechanical deslagging needs to be imposed or a procedure qualfied that the EOR will waive the requirment for.

By CWI555

Date 11-28-2007 21:20 Edited 11-28-2007 21:24

I don't believe that particular issue is covered in the code. It should be, but conventional logic I don't believe will work in that instance.

By js55

Date 11-28-2007 22:17

Gerald,
I think you're right. I don't think the code had multi elctrode SAW's in mind with the deslagging requirements.

By js55

Date 11-28-2007 22:18

I stand corrected.

By CWI555

Date 11-26-2007 03:21

umm for 1/16th wire, 3x would be 3/16

By Seabass (*)

Date 11-18-2007 20:56

woodsaw,

I teach at a local community college in upstate NY. It's a 450 hour adult night program. Our welding program is for economically disadvantage adults. It's a great opportunity for someone in a dead end job to start over and learn a great trade. Absolutely enjoy every minute of it.

By TRC

Date 11-18-2007 21:56

Hey Seabass, I assume the only thing these students are going to see is a test plate that is 6 or 7 inches long. If this is the case and they aren't allowed to grind then they need to be concerned with getting from the bottom to the top without stopping. If they are weaving to the point that they can't transverse the coupon without stopping then they will have porosity on the stop and starts. It could add up to a busted coupon- Ted

By 803056

Date 11-19-2007 04:46

If they can't make a weld with stops and starts without porosity they need more time in the booth.

Al

By 803056

Date 11-26-2007 14:51

I don't write the code and I try not to twist the code to agree with my personal preferences. I try not to apply requirements that are not applicable to the work being performed.

With that in mind I don't see how you can take a paragraph that applies specifically to electroslag and electrogas welding and apply it to shielded metal arc welding.

I differentiate between a weld pass and a weld bead using the definitions found in A3.0. The weld pass is the act of traversing the length of the weld joint from points A to B. The weld bead is the weld deposited in or on the joint after the weld pass is completed. The definition you cite, 5.30.1 uses the term "bead" which is after the pass is completed. Likewise, the commentary uses the term "bead", indicating the weld pass is completed.

Table 3.7 is pretty clear about what is considered to be prequalified and it does impose limits on weld bead width where the committee feels it is appropriate. Limits are imposed on the width of welds made using SAW, GMAW, and FCAW processes. There are no limits placed on SMAW.

Weld size and the thickness of weld layers are a different story. There are limitations imposed for the process and welding position used.

I would take strong exception to your position if you were to impose them on a fabricator and you were rejecting welds made with SMAW because the width of the bead exceeded your personal preferences.

From a practical standpoint, if the width of the weld bead did encourage the formation of slag inclusions, it would be very apparent in the welder performance qualification tests I've witnessed and tested in the last twenty five years. I've not seen any correlation between the two. My observations are the welder's skill and proper interpass cleaning of the weld "bead" does correlate with the presence or absence of slag inclusions.

I am not an advocate of using wide weaves over stringers. I do not believe wide weaves can be used indiscriminately. There are reasons to limit heat input on certain materials, such as quench and tempered steels, aluminum, and other materials that are time at temperature sensitive. The limitations on the width of the weld bead are then dependent on heat input calculation and interpass temperature, not my personal preference.

I do see a practical limit to the width of a weld bead that is dependent on the welder's skills. When I place limits on the width of production welds, it is usually based on what I observe during the qualification of the client's welders, the equipment used, the size and type of welding electrodes used, position, the welder's preferences and the type of product being welded. I may place limitations on the width of a weld bead if it is obvious that the majority of the welders limit their weaves to some dimension. The limitation is to promote consistency of the weld appearance when appearance is a criterion that has importance, such as when the welds will be seen and judged by the consumer. I "sell" the width limitation for what it is, for the sake of appearance and consistency, not because it is a code imposed limitation.

Best regards - Al

By 803056

Date 11-28-2007 03:27

To quote a good friend, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it wear a bikini."

Al