We had parts rejected for craters at the end of some welds. Now these are tiny dimples not craters, and they are above the cross section for that size of weld that is required. The "craters" are practially smooth as the welds themselves. Is any form of crater unacceptable? where is crater defined as to how deep or concave the center is? I know you can just tap the top with a rock to smooth it out, but for technical reasons im confused.
Thanks
Jordan
Are you sure that they weren't reject due to cracks in the crater or something else?, because if they measure the correct fillet weld size, then they are full enough to be acceptable.
No cracks at all, and yes they all match weld size, these are not craters like a quick release off the trigger and it makes a pin point depp in the center.
Hello Jordan, I am going to take a shot at this. For "some" crater terminations I believe that how they terminated is more the issue than necessarily fullness or actual size. I am meaning that if the "dimple" in the center of the crater has been formed by cooling from the outside of the crater to the center and there is not continuity through the thickness (no lack of fusion) of the material at the point of this puddle freeze then I could see it as rejectable. I took the long way around the horn and probably haven't described this adequately. If I cross-sectioned one of these crater/dimples I might find that there is a "hole or funnel" going through the complete thickness or at least to depths that would be deemed unacceptable. Just a few thoughts for your consideration. Good luck and best regards, Allan
I understand what you are saying, and no if you were to cross section these there wouldne be a "funnel" or "horn" shape from a pin point outward. They are just lightly cratered, like a slow release of the pedal on some GTAW aluminum. but we are talking FCAW-G here. Just trying to paint a picture
Do you have any pictures, Jordan? As always, a picture is worth a thousand words. See if you can provide some here and likely you might get just the explanation/justification that you need to either contest these rejections or understand their basis and this particular inspectors analysis. Best regards, Allan
MRWeldSoCal,
A crater per se does not need to be defined in this context. We are dealing with cross section profile ONLY. aevald is correct. This is a performance issue that HAS to be addressed to produce PROPER PROFILE. Dimple, zit, gadget, doohickie, it don't matter what you call it. Cross section is well defined. Read, heed follow without deviation.
So where are these "dimples"??? It's not a crater? Then WTF is it? FWIW, "dimple"... this is NOT a standard term. If the indication cannot be defined, and is beyond dimensional specs... REJECT!!!!!
I know you can just tap the top with a rock to smooth it out... Well, then they should have grabbed a rock and "tapped the (F) out of it" before you were called in to assess the damage.
The solution is simple.
I think I "see" the problem and they are not performing a proper crater fill technique. Zap or back drag....
Jordan,
I don't like taking guesses without certain information, though I do it way too often and that is when I really get into trouble.
Parts were rejected by who? An outside inspector? The customer? A government authority?
We are assuming from your title and area of question that this is to be compliant to D1.1. So, this is structural work?
I don't believe you have stated either way, so are they fillets or groove welds?
Hold on because here I go with some of that low information supporting worthless statements of personal opinion: some inspectors get burrs under their saddles for a particular issue; they are single issue inspectors way too often. Either arc-strikes, undercut, undersized welds, unequal fillet weld legs, overlap, etc. will be their one hang up. The sad part is those who are single issue inspectors usually don't even know how to properly apply their one area of pet peeve. So, they go marking up everything they can that even resembles their pet peeve and then go out and brag about how they really laid it on that fabricator/erector for doing such shoddy work.
Per a conversation in another thread, I have seen so many who go way beyond the applicable code in calling out repairs on undercut. They don't even know how to correctly interpret the code and how it applies to the job at hand. The same goes for overlap and...crater cracks and/or undersize fillets at the stop of the weld. It is not that the weld was terminated improperly, but, because the stop area is smaller in cross section than the rest of the weld the inspector doesn't like it. Though he can't prove why. And just because it is smaller than the rest of the weld does not mean it is rejectable. The question is, is it undersized from the plans and per Table 6.1 for undersized Welds (which notice implies the application of fillet welds which we don't know for sure)?
Just my two tin pennies worth.
Have a Great Day, Brent
Brent,
Yes sorry it is to D1.1 and it is 3/8 fillet welds. I can see some things being questionable here and some just opinion perhaps. The customer rejected them, but also they emphasized that even though it is to code, they want the welds to look "pretty" . Its one of those middle man jobs where someone never touches the parts takes them from the customer, then drops them to us, we do the work then they get middle manned back. Then the guys with black sharp toed loafers come in and say "now im not an inspector or a welder for that matter but i need these to look prettier". My guys meet code and they do the best they can honestly. Some just dont have that "pretty" flawless style. I think they are pushing the cosmetic aspect of it, that is the middle man, to show THEY can provide flawless welds to their customer. Even though like I said the code is reached. I also understand the customer gets what he wants, but I feel they are putting us through the ringer.
Yeah, that's what I thought, someone just wants what they want.
Codes don't designate 'Pretty' nor 'Ugly', but people do.
Now, Pics aren't the best, but from the first one I would say the 'crater' could possibly be filled a little more. It may indeed meet specs, but it has a definite fall off in size from the rest of it.
Easiest way to do that, if I understood your process correctly, is to reach the end, stop welding for about 1 second and hit it again with a little burst. That should fill it in and yet look like one continuous weld with a little practice by the welders.
Have a Great Day, Brent
here is one of the welds... many with this crater
Now the edge tie ins needs a bit more weld on them I know, thats what the other marks were for. But the word crater was all over these for what you see in the photo.
When the welder gets to the end of the run, he needs to pause for a second, but don't let the color completely disappear and then drag back about an inch or whatever size puddle he's carrying.
MRWeldSoCal,
You've said that although your customer acknowledged that they meet code, the welds were rejected because they want them to look pretty. I assume your company had project specs that required welding to be in accordance with AWS D1.1, which it sounds like is being met. If they wanted the welds to look pretty, the project specs should have indicated this special treatment for welds. Even if the project specs indicated that welds meet AESS requirements, Standard AESS allows exposed welds to be visually acceptable if they meet D1.1 requirements, except exposed plug and groove welds cannot project more than 1/16 above the surface. Also, per AESS, finishing of welds is not necessary unless such treatment is required to provide for clearance.
Simple-If welds meet code acceptance criteria, which you and the TPI say they do, rework and charge client accordingly! Easy money! Looking at pictures, they look fully acceptable to AWS D1.1!
Topic American Welding Society Services / Technical Standards & Publications / Table 6.1 Crater cross section
