D1.5 Stringers or weaves! That is the question

Date 03-13-2010 16:27

Have you performed a thorough review of the applicable sections of D1.5?
And have you found any language that addresses this issue?

By jahiw44 Date 03-19-2010 19:17

I have been looking but can not find anything. I have also asked a CWI and his answer was weaves are not allowed but has not returned any imformation as to where to find it in the code book. Any help from any others would be great! Thanks, Jimmy Hyden Ironworkers Local #44, Cincinnati, Ohio

By aevald

Date 03-19-2010 19:35

Hello jahiw44, try using the search function of the forum here and you'll likely find plenty of information on this very topic. As I have observed, just about all of the welding codes skirt this question, you might see statements that go something like this: weld metal shall not be applied over solidified slag, or something to that effect, in other words if you are weaving and any of the weld metal is now passing over any solidified slag this would be considered a no-no. In other instances, they somewhat elude to limitations by specifying layer thicknesses, note: layer thickness and not bead size(width wise anyway). I have read of other verbal specifications that will indirectly elude to weaving and bead sizes, but not necessarily give specifics. A bit more for your consideration. Best regards, Allan

By 803056

Date 03-20-2010 17:40

The use of weave beads and stringers is addressed by way of heat input. When a WPS is qualified by testing and the heat input envelop is determined, the heat input equation includes the term "travel speed" in the denominator. The use of stringers results in higher travel speeds and lower heat input. The use of weave beads results in lower travel speeds and higher heat inputs. Provided the required test results are attained, the width of the weave is not limited. However, high heat input usually results in lower toughness vaules. As a result, the fabricator will establish the maximum width of the weave bead by determining the maximum heat input that will yield acceptable tests results.

In those cases where toughness is not a concern, the width of the weave has little influence on meeting the minimum mechanical properties such as tensile strength and yield point unless a high strength low alloy or quenched and tempered steel is used. Even with the high strength low alloy steels that are hot rolled, the high heat input welding techniques will typically meet the minimum tensile and yield strength requirements. High heat input will generally reduce the mechanical properties of the HAZ when welding Q&T steels, as a result the width of the weave bead is often limited by the fabricator when welding Q&T steels.

I am not aware of any code requirement that limits the width of the weave bead to 2, 3 or 4 times the diameter of the core wire as often quoted to me by untold numbers of inspectors. I've been treated to many lunches by these "experts" when I bet them lunch that it isn't in the code as they suggest.

Best regards - Al

By Blaster (***)

Date 03-20-2010 22:18

I tested a guy once about 7 or 8 years ago, well actually I test him 3 or 4 times. It was a 1" plate vertical with 1/8" 7018.

He ran stringer beads as that is what he claimed he was taught in school some years prior to be the way to go. If I recall he had an AA in welding. I checked on him a couple of times as he was welding and his beads looked great. They were flat, straight, and he was filling the groove very evenly. His cover was nuts on. He worked at a decent pace (given he was only using 1/8" electrode) and the all the weld looked quite nice going in.

When I bent the coupons there were several spots that opened up from lack of fusion. He retook the test several times, failing in the same way each time. I had suggested using a different technique, which I use, where much higher current is used and the rod is alternately pointed pretty aggressively into either bevel face when down in the groove, and then switching to a two bead weave for each layer starting from about 5/8 of the way out, again pointing the electrode into a bevel face when either working the left or right side.

At the time I was surprised to see stick beads with such a nice profile peeling off like poorly done short circuit MIG. Up to that point, lack of fusion was not a discontinuity I had readily associated with good looking stick beads. Since, I have seen this a few more times with other welders running stringers.

This welder couldn't let go of the fact that "stringers were better" as he had been told and taught for years. After he failed the 3rd or 4th time, I asked if he wanted to go again. He told me he was done with welding and was going to go back to his old profession.

On another note, modest weaves can be put in prettty thin and flat if the current is up. This allows the welder to move quite a few inches per minute along the joint, even thought the weld may be wider than a stringer.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 03-22-2010 14:06

Possibly poor bead placement for adjacent passes? I've see poorly placed stringers fail as you described because the stringers didn't overlapp each each other enough. They were just placed almost side by side rather than fusing into the previously placed pass. They will surely fail between each of the stringers if they are not fused together.

By 3.2 Inspector (***)

Date 03-21-2010 03:31

Depends on which code you read :)

3.2

By jahiw44 Date 03-21-2010 17:07

have been reading awsd1.1 and d1.5, structural steel and bridge welding code respectfully.

By 3.2 Inspector (***)

Date 03-22-2010 03:26

nice

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 03-22-2010 14:08

3.2,
Which code(s) do you see this referenced in?

By 3.2 Inspector (***)

Date 03-23-2010 15:18

Sorry for my late reply.

Heat input is calculated from the weld travel speed (see clause 19 of EN 1011-1 : 1998). When weaving with
manual metal-arc welding, the weave width should be restricted to three times the diameter of the core rod.

Taken from EN 1011-2, Welding – Recommendations for welding of metallic materials – Part 2: Arc welding of ferritic steels.

I am well aware that En 1011-2 is not the code, which we discuss in this thread, my comment was more meant as a general note.

3.2