Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / Inspection & Qualification / Undercut
- - By Squanto (*) Date 12-02-2009 17:04
I was just at a site that I failed because of undercut.  The welder went out to the site and just laid a bead of weld over the top of it.  Now they have overlap and the weld profile is jacked.  Except the Annex A about the effective throat and figure 5.4 about weld profiles is there another place I can show the welder that this is wrong and that I can equip him for next time.

Thank you for your help,

Sean
Attachment: IMG_0055.JPG (47k)
Parent - - By waccobird (****) Date 12-02-2009 17:18
Squanto
You are using AWS D1.1?
Clause 5.24 details fabrication / Weld Profiles
Table 6.1 outlines visual acceptance criteria.
and Clause 5.26.1.1 overlap and excessive convexity or reinforcement can be removed.
Clause 5.26.1.2  also
Hope this Helps more than hurts
Marshall
Parent - By Squanto (*) Date 12-02-2009 17:24
No No it helps thank you.

Sometimes you just need reinsurance that you know what the code says and where it is.

Thank you,

Sean
Parent - - By joe pirie (***) Date 12-02-2009 17:26
looks like they welded it way to cold.
the correct way to fix undercut is to weld a bead over it then
if necessary blend with a grinder to achieve desired weld profile.
you can also grind out the undercut as outlined in AWS d1.1 FiG C-8.3.
in my opinion who ever made that weld  repair should be made to requalify
they don't know how to weld!
Parent - - By waccobird (****) Date 12-02-2009 17:36
i agree with you joe
Parent - - By Squanto (*) Date 12-02-2009 19:05
Its like you could read my mind.
Maybe I should go back to welding. 
Ive seen too many poor welding lately.

Thanks for the help and insite.
Parent - - By welderbrent (*****) Date 12-02-2009 20:10
Squanto, I agree with joe and wacco.  Looks like you have a weld that needs repair, again.  Main question would be, which code are you working to?  Wacco asked if it was D1.1 but I didn't see an answer.  Should be able to repair again but may have to be handled differently.  Need to be sure it gets cleanded out down to good base material before just adding more weld over obviously bad weld for the now required repair.

They would definitely still be out of conformance to any code being inspected to the way it is in the picture.

BTW, you appear to be fairly new here (only 5 posts and 3 of them here) so Welcome.  Hope this site has proven helpful.

Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - - By Squanto (*) Date 12-04-2009 20:52
Yes this is to the D1.1 Standard.  Of course this was built in a plant in 2005 and they dont have the original paperwork on this.  Problem is that I've been find a couple of mistakes like this lately.  I was at one that had intermittent Fillets on top of an existing fillet weld. 

Another question while i'm at it.  What welding process at the end of the fillet weld would gouge out the base metal?  I just saw that yesterday.

Thanks guys for all your help.
Parent - By waccobird (****) Date 12-04-2009 21:25
Squanto
Could the welder have stopped short with numerous processes creating a crater?
Marshall
Parent - By Mikeqc1 (****) Date 12-04-2009 22:12
How deep was this undercut?
Did it warrant so much filler?
Why not GTAW?
Parent - By johnnyh (***) Date 12-02-2009 21:42
Run him off.
Parent - - By Mikeqc1 (****) Date 12-02-2009 22:05
That looks like a revenge repair.
I feel that some personality types will repair somthing and do a  SHI* job of it,  so thay can say "see should have left it alone".
now im not saying he did , how could i know that, but that repair is a joke.

MDK
Parent - By CHGuilford (****) Date 12-03-2009 22:13
"Revenge repair"- I like that term.  If the same welder did the repair and the original weld, I would wholeheartedly agree.

With some jobs, the 1st repair on profile discontinuities is no problem.  But the 2nd one becomes a major repair, requiring a procedure, NDE, and owner's approval to make the repair.
Parent - - By HgTX (***) Date 12-04-2009 18:43
I am *so* stealing the "revenge repair" terminology!

Hg
Parent - - By Superflux (****) Date 12-05-2009 02:14 Edited 12-05-2009 02:18
Squanto,
Got a foto? Just a wild guess at the process that gouged the base metal would be poor technique of crater fill/weld termination with a hot FCAW or metal core GMAW. Got an stalagtite with that gouge?

Ditto on stealing the Revenge Repair!

"intermittent Fillets on top of an existing fillet weld."   Well at least one of them was looking at the print. Which one was right???
Parent - - By welderbrent (*****) Date 12-05-2009 21:43
I move we send a collective petition to AWS to include 'Revenge Repair' in the next publication of AWS A3.0, Standard Welding Terms and Definitions.

Who wants to write up the legal definition of the term?  I'm sure some someone here could really put together a good one.

And I agree with Superflux as to the problem of Squanto's last question.  Poor technique at the end of weld bead leaving a crater.  Especially with FCAW, GMAW spray or metal core.  Could be set improperly or just not handled correctly.

Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 12-08-2009 14:36
It will be in the next edition of the "Farm Code.”

Rick, if you are reading this, please add it to the agenda for our next committee meeting.

By the way, sales for the "Farm Code" are up in the Midwest, but have fallen dramatically on the East and West Coasts. We suspect it has been pirated in the Far East. We know it is very popular in those countries judging by the quality of goods shipped by them, but sales of the Farm Code in those countries have suddenly fallen way below expectation. I am meeting with our agents in a small dimly lit bar in a back ally of Hong Kong to see if I can smooze them into giving up the confederates responsible for this treachery.

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By kipman (***) Date 12-08-2009 23:19
Now, now, Al.  As I speak I am in a South Korean shipyard.  I have spent a number of years in these yards as a client's representative.  My professional opinion is that they do first-class work.  I invite anyone to come over and judge for themselves.

That said, I have not worked in any other of the East Asian countries, and therefore I cannot speak to their quality of work.

BTW, please accept my order of the next edition of the Farm Code for home use.

Regards,
Mankenberg
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 12-09-2009 04:35
At last, a sale in the Far East! So that is the accent I heard at the last meeting. I was having a difficult time placing it.

Hell, I have even been mistaken for a Texan several times because of my accent. Nobody admits to coming from Texas! Wait a minute, maybe that was Mississippi. No, it was Maine. Damn, I can never get it straight!

Good to hear from you Kip, but I would not expect an upstanding member of the Forum community to use a pirated copy of the number one construction code used in the Western Hemisphere! Imagine, so many structures owe their being to the Farm Code. Where would we be without it?

I trust everyone appreciates the fact that my remarks are in "good fun" even if they are at someone else's expense. It is the American way!

Speaking of codes, I just received a copy of the new Seismic Supplement to D1.1 this afternoon. It is nearly as thick as D1.1! I have not had time to look it over. It should be interesting.

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By supermoto (***) Date 12-09-2009 11:47
What is the seismic supplement to D1.1?
Parent - By jwright650 (*****) Date 12-09-2009 12:29
AWS D1.8
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 12-09-2009 12:29

>Speaking of codes, I just received a copy of the new Seismic Supplement to D1.1 this afternoon. It is nearly as thick as D1.1! I have not had time to look it over. It should be interesting.


I haven't look very hard at mine either, but we must be talking about two different books...mine is less than 100 pages.

I have a job about to go through the shop that I may have to test my welders with the restricted plate test so they will be qualified to weld the bottom flanges in the shop on short outriggers that weld to the columns or beam to beam connections.
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 12-09-2009 14:31
We're talking about the same document.

I looked it over last night. When I said it was nearly the same thickness I was discounting the D1.1 annexes and commentary, which whittles D1.1 down to about 230 pages give or take a few.

Have you looked at the qualification requirements for UT? You have to detect 20 "flaws" using samples that were radiographed and UT'd by two Level IIIs (they have to agree on the test results)to validate the test pieces. Then there is a rating system that has to be used where the number of correct calls are compared to the number of incorrect calls. There is a few additional tidbits involved, but I'll let you read about them. I can see coordinating the fabrication and validating the samples as being cumbersome.

An interesting supplement to the welding code. I have a older version kicking around here somewhere. Most of the requirements look to be the same or similar, but I haven't actually compared the two yet.

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 12-09-2009 14:46
Thanks for the heads up Al.....I'll have to dig into that book a bit deeper today.
Parent - - By eekpod (****) Date 12-09-2009 16:03
John,
Also watch for the seismic welder qualification, where the actual welder taking the test has to attach the backing bar.  Also how they have to layer their passes, and extend through the weld access hole.  They are not allowed to build up one side of a flange and then the other (which they shouldn't anyway, but now it's official).
Parent - By jwright650 (*****) Date 12-09-2009 16:17
Thanks Chris...I'll have to look at it all later, I have a TPI in the shop at the moment, so I'm showing him where all of the material is that he needs to look at.
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 12-11-2009 20:10
Al, that book is adding some cost that I will be willing to bet that many bidders will miss during the bid of a project with D1.8 invoked.

UT Level IIs, as you pointed out, will have to call their Level III back in to give them additional testing. I've never taken a practical,... "yet",... where there were twenty flaws to be evaluated. Usually just a few test plates with maybe two flaws each.

There is a good deal more mandatory MT/PT of material than in the usual building fabrications. I briefly looked through my MT procedures and it looks like my Level III has me covered when looking at the requirements listed. Some MT inspection must be performed a min of 48 hours after welding.

Intermix CVN testing of different filler metals.

WPS Heat input envelope testing(low and high).

The whole welder qualification deal with the restricted plates and the welder quals are only good for 36 months, even with continuity records. Extensions can be granted by the EOR if the project lasts more than 36 months.

I'm just getting into this, and I have noted this much ^^^ from the brief glance that I took through it a few minutes ago.
Parent - By 803056 (*****) Date 12-11-2009 20:50
Do not overlook the issue of having two Level III agree on the sizes, locations, and nature of the discontinuities.

We do not have to deal with 1.8 on the East Coast too often, but I can see where this would have repercussions on the West Coast.

Best regards - Al
Parent - By kipman (***) Date 12-11-2009 22:37
Hmmm, almost sounds like an oil & gas spec.
Parent - By welderbrent (*****) Date 12-11-2009 22:46
Been following you two talking about this these past few posts.  Somehow I had missed the publication of a new D1.8.  We use it as well as the AISC Seismic quite a bit here in AZ, not for AZ projects as much as doing TPI on projects going to CA, especially LA & San Diego.

The guy I work with is Level III UT, MT & Level II PT.  Going to have to make sure we get this soon to see where we are at.  It appears it will change many of the things we normally have done.

Thanks for bringing these items up.  May save our bacon.

Have a Great Day,  Brent (OH, and Merry Christmas one and all)
Parent - By CWI555 (*****) Date 12-11-2009 23:29
That supplement has went overboard IMHO. But thats alright, we can produce qualified 'flaw' samples for a nominal fee. What I see is $$$$$$$
Parent - - By Squanto (*) Date 12-09-2009 20:24
Sorry not the best photo
Attachment: DSC03373.JPG (175k)
Parent - By mountainman (***) Date 12-11-2009 21:21
It looks to me like they must have had an issue with an upper toe crack ( EDIT, or lack of fusion) after galvy, went ahead and ground a certain depth all the way around the upper leg and layed in some beads over the most visible cracks, then covered er up real good with a lot of cold galv. your mark looks to me like it could be the end of a deep grinder gouge that they didn't completely cover up. I would think that if it was an undercut issue in the very beginning that the bottom leg of the original fillet would show some pretty decent overlap signs, which I don't see. The weld bead to the left of your mark looks to me like there could be 3 subsurface porosity voids especially if the galvy was not completely ground out before running this subsequent bead, a problem that's almost always there if the process was GMAW and insufficient prep was done.

that's what my eyes see.

JJ
Up Topic Welding Industry / Inspection & Qualification / Undercut

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill