Repair welding requirements per D1.4?

By 803056

Date 04-14-2011 13:58

Read the requirements for yourself. It isn't a case of interpretation, it is a case of doing what it says to do.

Al

By alumtig (**)

Date 04-14-2011 14:27

thank you for your response, I have read it and I appreciate that you took the time to add your thoughts to my question. have a wonderful day. I will continue to research until I have found a definative answer which is what I need. :lol:

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 04-14-2011 15:12 Edited 04-14-2011 15:19

D1.1 has specific directions for crack removal...see AWS D1.1:2010 Clause 5.26.1.4

edit: my copy of D1.4 is out of date...can't help with that, sorry.

In the past whenever we had anything with a crack to be repaired, we gouged the crack out (along with 2" extra on each end of the crack) down about half thickness of the material, welded that side back up, flipped the piece over and gouged back through to sound material, then reweled and used NDT to verify that the crack was gone.

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 04-14-2011 16:27

Alumtig

I too have seen crack repair performed from one side, (first side re-welding performed, and then the other side removed re-tested and re-welded), with steel repairs. In those cases, MT was used to verify crack removal on both sides of the repair. I did not agree with this process, because the code required complete removal. However, Before I wrote an NCR, I consulted with a member of the D-1 Committee, and he said it would probably be OK because MT was used on both sides of the repair to assure complete removal. He did agree with me that the Code required complete removal before re-weld.

In the case of Aluminum and Austenitic Stainless steel however, MT would not be used. If you comply with the repair paragraph 4.20.5.4, in D1.4 (2003), NDT is required to determine the extent of a crack. It also requires you to completely remove all traces of penetrant and developer prior to weld repair. In my opinion, it might be impossible to remove all penetrant, unless the entire crack is removed. Drying out the penetrant by the heat of welding or preheat would not count as removal "in my opinion". So, In the case where penetrant was used, I would also require the entire crack to be removed.

Joe Kane

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 04-14-2011 19:57

Okay, I have a question based upon all responses but mainly Joe's: (Hypothetical situation LOL :twisted:

)

If I weld a joint per D1.1 that has the joint called out as a Double V Groove weld with backgouge (B-U3b to be exact for demonstration purposes, I have nothing currently resembling this nor an axe to grind in my past). I weld the first side, flip my part, backgouge by grinding, weld the second side.

QA comes along and finds discontinuity, crack, that qualifies as rejectable, marks the part for repair. Now, D1.1, 5.26 says, as John's procedure indicates, remove crack and two inches beyond. It also says to remove without substantial removal of base metal. Removal may be done by machining, grinding, chipping, or gouging in a manner that prevents nicks or gouges to adjacent weld metal or base metal.

So, if the original weld was put in from both sides with backgouging and I have to keep material removal to a minimum for a repair, doesn't it seem that the best procedure would be to remove one side, clean and weld it, then roll and do the other side making sure the crack is completely removed before the second side is rewelded?

The Commentary, I know it isn't part of the Code, states that it is not the intent of the Code to give the Inspector authority to specify the mode of correction. Does this apply to deciding rather to weld only from one side?

Now, I suppose, this could also mean you can do it from both sides but would have to remove all the metal to create a new double v groove and then clean all surfaces and then begin the welding as though it had never been welded in the first place. But from a time/cost and quality standpoint it appears it would be most efficient to gouge the first and re-weld, then roll only once to get to the second side and gouge, clean and re-weld.

Does the Code actually prevent the one side at a time procedure? It would appear not with Joe's comments, I just would like some clarification.

I know with the OP's inclusion of D1.3 & 1.4 I am not totally in line with the original question, but I think it is still applicable.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 04-15-2011 20:09

Welderbrent

First - I want to say that the repairs done in building fabrication to D 1.1 were supposed to be done in accordance with 5.26.3, & 5.26.1.4, which required "Engineers Approval", and removal of the crack and base metal for 2 inches beyond each end of the crack.

I normally worked inspecting Bridge fabrication, where adherence to Code rules and State Specifications is strictly enforced, and all repairs are done in accordance with an "Approved Procedure" for that particular defect. That "Approved Procedure" might also specify the WPS and the evacuation and inspection details.

On the three occasions that the through thickness crack repair issue occurred in building fabrication, the contractor was not forced to get approval from the Engineer, despite the Code Requirement. My only recourse was to issue an NCR, which would open a huge can of worms. I objected to the procedure that the contractors used, but dropped my protest after the EOR declined to take up the issue. My objection was still noted in my reports, and the response of the EOR.

I did not believe my objection to the contractors procedure was interference in "Means and Methods". It was my duty to assure compliance with the contract specifications, the AISC Specifications, and the Building Code (Which incorporated the D 1.1 Code into law by "Reference"). His failure to get EOR approval, produce an approved procedure, and to recognize the severity of a crack defect, was, to me, non-compliance. However, the D 1.1 Code is not very specific as to how the EOR approves repairs.

To me it is unreasonable to assume that you will be able to detect the entire crack if you weld over some of it. I have been told that the crack face, when along intergranular grain boundry planes and more importantly when cutting transversly through grains, can act as crack nucleators in the newly deposited weld if the crack planes are not removed. (Note; I have never done any research on this, and only know what I have been told by a noted Metallurgist.) I Do know that it is possible for weld shrinkage stresses to pull a crack so tight that it will no longer be detected by Yoke type dry powder MT and even by Solvent removable can type PT. To me, this might mean that welding one side then the other could generate new cracks that might not be detected until failure in service.

One of the reasons we have basic metallurgy included in the CWI exam, is so that the inspector can apply some basic common sense and perhaps recognize when a discontinuity or defect is not adequately spelled out in the Code. This does not make me or any other inspector an expert on any subject, but I hope it makes me and every other inspector a "Reasonable and prudent person".

Your statements; "It also says to remove without substantial removal of base metal. Removal may be done by machining, grinding, chipping, or gouging in a manner that prevents nicks or gouges to adjacent weld metal or base metal. "

and; "...to keep material removal to a minimum for a repair". This is mentioned in Paragraph 5.26, Etc. referring to weld metal repairs where weld removal is indicated, but it does not apply to "Cracks", which are covered in paragraph 5.26.1.4, which DOES specify additional base metal removal.

With Aluminum, where PT is normally used to determine the extent of cracks, and the complete removal of cracks, I would become quite militant about this position even to the extent of direct confrontation with the EOR.

I hope this clarifies my position on this subject.

Joe Kane

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 04-15-2011 22:39

Joe,

Thanks for the time and clarity of your answer. Please note, I was not challenging your previous response in any way. I was trying to make sure I understood your answer as applied to the Code and then to a slight shift from the OP to my question.

I understand too that there is differences both in the inspection, especially PT & MT, of Alum, high strength steels, and others compared to standard structural grade steels such as A36, A992, 572, etc.

I note also, there is a difference in how one removes the material where the repair is to be made. For the intent of my part of this discussion, if one is to concentrate upon A992 Wide Flange beam for a D1.1 applicable structure and a crack is found that requires repair, I personally would do so with air arc. I feel I run air arc very well and am able to see a crack until it disappears either down to good metal or beyond the ends. At that point that can be verified with a NDE process to prove the crack has no part remaining.

I know that if the repair were ground out, and especially on a material such as alum, you could fill/seal the crack so it could quite possibly avoid further detection. That is also a consideration even on structural steels.

One of my Welding Procedures that I submit at the beginning of a job is a complete Repair Procedure with backgouge specifically for cracks with a written detail of how it is to be handled. I generally apply this only to minor repairs even with the EOR previous approval. If we run into something that I determine to be beyond a normal minor discontinuity we notify the General Contractor and the EOR. If we find something in the base metal rather than in the weld, rather from HAZ or totally separate from a weld area, we notify the GC & EOR. I try to get certain items clarified when at the beginning of a job so I know when everyone wants the job to be in a 'Holding' pattern to determine what happened and how to fix it. I have generally viewed my inspections jobs the same way. I try to deal with various possibilities before they happen so as to not hold things up. I believe that is one of the things discussed in the WIT books as well as by seminar instructors as to an advantage welders can have when they become inspectors. They know certain problem areas. They try to handle the situation before it becomes a repair problem.

My comments and quotes to the minimal removal were basically to reinforce what I believe to be common sense as well as code guidelines for repair areas. It is terrifying to me when I see huge areas removed to be re-welded. The added stresses from all the added heat and material is not good. But I also felt that 5.26 & 5.26.1 were generally applcable to all repairs as that is what the section is dealing with. From there it goes into more detail as to specific repairs in 5.26.1.1, 5.26.1.2, etc.

Thanks again for your time.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 04-16-2011 02:11

Brent

I read your initial disclaimer and realize that you weren't challenging my opinion in an adversarial way. Perhaps you commentary quote about the inspectors duties was a little "in your face", but I am used to that. Thank you for that disclaimer.

My copy of D 1.4 is 1998,and has nothing about "Repair of cracks" in it. So, I am sorry I could not answer the OP's question with reference to the latest and greatest D 1.4.

As for the OP's reference to D1.3,I couldn't find anything in D 1.3, 2008.

I sent Alumtig a private Message further explaining my position after the first reply.

In my position ad Third Party Inspector, I often have duties to the client, that really are not in the traditional CWI Job Description, including; Paint inspection, Heavy Equipment hours and usage, Weather observations, Facility Audits, and Monitoring and reporting about schedule problems. I was once required to "Rat out" the Radiographer to the Public Service Commission!!!

Joe Kane

By qcrobert (***)

Date 04-15-2011 16:25

First of all, are you welding to AWS D1.4 Reinforcing Steel Code?

If so then D1.4 section 9.6.3 stating the crack must be removed completely prior to welding, this is what you have to do.

Reason being is that you might not fully expose the extent of the crack by just grinding from one side and then grinding the other side. That particular crack may be both longitudinal and transverse therefore the crack shall be completely removed before any welding.

Hope this makes sense,
QCRober

By waccobird (****)

Date 04-15-2011 16:50

qcrobert
You Nailed it.
Marshall