Thank you Niekie...good suggestion...I'd completely spaced out and overlooked the ability to hardness test each spot. I think you are right on the MT too...UT may not be the best. I intially thought MT, but since we have a groove weld, flat, with a slight convex profile, we thought there might be value getting a look just under the surface...given my observations about the tacks themselves (discussed in the following post on this thread.)

The builder is grinding the tacks, albeit not as neatly as I'd like (lots of blue spots)...I think I'll take your suggestion back to the P.E. for discussion, in morning.

regards
Mike

Thanks Ron, You don't sound abrasive...I appreciate the critical review.

I'm the A&E's (designer's) field inspector...and we also have a field inspection responsibility on the prospective Owner's behalf...so that's who we are to ask. The project P.E. thought it an odd practice and the gut reaction was that it warrants investigation and perhaps a higher degree of NDE.

I think your question about "long established procedure" is the one that best characterizes our concern and response...our first observation was that an unusual procedure, at least in our experience, was in progress. Tacking a strongback onto the SAW seam and then jacking on it to straighten the seam isn't something we normally see, so we are asking the question...not necessarily prohibiting the practice or rejecting the weld. I think the thing that has my "alert" on the most though is the fact that this doesn't exist in any procedure, either approved for the project or proffered by the builder after the fact. Indeed, the approved SAW procedure is for another filler entirely, albeit closely related, (I believe--still investigating that)...I start getting nervous with variations, even the smallest, when the builders don't keep me in the loop. I think too, we might have been less suprised if the crew had been tacking directily onto the A-36 plate as opposed to the clearly sound SAW seam. Seams and butts in shell and deck on ships warrant special care and attention, at least from the old school they did, so I felt it important and odd enough to ask. I think it might be an occasional occurence, but I just haven't seen it widespread...all my inspections are domestic U.S. though, so your point about "around the world" is well taken.

Thank you for the other point you make about the non-distinction between E70 wire and 7018 stick...when I was thinking about hardness, I was thinking more in the context of what the E70 would do under the impetus of heat from the SMAW process...it is a question in my mind how the E70, with its .5% Mo constituent, will respond to the quick cooling of the tack...then how that plays on the mechanics of the seam as a whole with a change in hardness every 2 feet on the seam and in a matrix across the entire A36 plate field...I may be off base there. I agree with your thought on the prospects of A36 changing much...not gonna' happen...can I say that with the E70 too?

I think more importantly though, my concern was the use of the SMAW process over the sound SAW bead...I was thinking there was a greater likelihood of introducing H2 and other gas producing contaminants, in what has now become at HAZ in the crown of the SAW bead. (For the sake of discussion, I don't think the LoHy rods are being baked so I think there is a fair chance H2 is present...and after inspecting the tacks that were snapped off I noted wide spread indications of gas pocketing throught he entire cross section of the tack...could this likewise now exist just under the crown of the previously sound SAW bead?...still checking) Mindfull that this is a strength deck on a ferry, subject to cycling loads, I envisioned a small discontuity intiating a crack in SAW weld under the influence of the cycling loads...

So, I'm asking the question. And thank you for the feedback.