Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / Radiographic Inspection of Fillet Wleds?
- - By smithdos (*) Date 04-03-2003 15:50
My company has taken an aerospace contract in which the welds are all Class "A" per SAE AMS-STD-2219 (formerly MIL-STD-2219)....some parts have fillet welds, and we have to X-Ray inspect them.

It seems to be "common knowledge" that fillets don't X-Ray well, but we are having a hard time finding any documentation that supports this position.

Are there any technical references, research papers, or specifications that specifically state that fillet welds should not be X-Ray inspected?

Parent - - By arcblue (*) Date 04-03-2003 17:21
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but many fillets do get X ray inspection.
The key to avoid rework and otherwise excessive rejection is to get a contract clause or blueprint note to state the width and or length of any unfused root side indications that are allowable. A fillet weld is not immune to weld defects like cracks or porosity but will frequently get rejected for LOF if the root location does not have allowance for lack of fusion on the root. Also not all fillets are “partial pen” , depending on thickness you frequently get full pen and then some but that is a different problem ;)
The Specification for Fusion Welding for Aerospace Applications AWS D17.1: 2001 Section 6.4.3 “ When radiographic inspection of fillet welds is required, the acceptance criteria of the root shall be determined by the Engineering Authority.”
Parent - - By DGXL (***) Date 04-03-2003 17:46
I agree with Arc on several points. I have had fillet welds RT'd when working aerospace. I believe it was for any indication at the root as noted above by Arc. The effective throat was verified by macroetch/macrophotography after the RT. Please note this was performed on relatively thin materials (0.0625").

Have also had to do "CJP" fillet welds which required melt through to the opposite side of the welded joint. Here's where it gets tricky: the melt through had to be uniform and provide a uniform and consistent profile on the other side - a blind joint. These too were radiographed and penetrant tested. Parts were for turbine components.

Do you work with Mr. Riddle?
Parent - By smithdos (*) Date 04-03-2003 18:51
Yes, Alan and I work together.

I figured I'd "tag team" the request for info by posting on the Technical Forum.

We've contected the end user to try to prove the welds are OK, but to no avail. And we will not get relief on the requirement.

We're doing some research/testing to attempt to preclude this in the future, but our quality guy would like to see something in a spec, tech paper, etc.

Parent - - By smithdos (*) Date 04-03-2003 18:52
I neglected to mention material thicknesses.....

.035 to .050 range, fillet welds in the "lap" and "tee" configurations.

Parent - - By DGXL (***) Date 04-03-2003 20:58
Are these welds for procedure or performance qualification?
Or, are these production welds?
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 04-04-2003 12:11
I find this post and the other by Mr. Riddle, interesting. I personally have not had fillet welds RT'd in our shop. I'd be concerned if we could ever pass them on a consistant basis.
Thanks for sharing this info, there is so much to learn in this field.
John Wright
Parent - - By DGXL (***) Date 04-04-2003 14:49
Hey John:
Notice the thickness range(s) discussed. I have never seen anything thicker than about 1/8" having the RT for a T or lap joint. The thickness range dosco metioned was right around where our stuff was radiographed.

Welcome to precision sheet metal.
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 04-04-2003 15:15
I hope we never see anything that thin in our shop. We are not set up for that type of welding. D1.1 covers all our applications. Controlling melt thru is a concern for us on .250" up to .375".
John Wright
Parent - - By arcblue (*) Date 04-04-2003 16:38
I went from a heavy steel fabrication yard where I wrote welding procedures for thick plate (and considered ¼” as sheet metal) to a aerospace shop where the THICK welder qual test plate was .090” (the thin was .030”). A lot of my production parts were .005” material so I can tell you from personal experience that the world of welding is a wide range of attitudes, specifications, expectations and situations. But it is still welding…… The basics are the same.
Parent - - By ALAN RIDDLE (*) Date 04-07-2003 09:29
We are from the same world of welding! I spent 23 years in the electric utility business with the thinnest material we code welded at .180". Came to PerkinElmer about 2 1/2 years ago basically had to "learn" how to weld .025" Titanium, Inconel and Stainless. It is truely a different world but as said,,,,welding is welding. I just wasn't used to using 17 amps to do it!!!!!!!!!!
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 04-07-2003 12:04
Weld with 17 amps?, more like 417 amps. We use 3/32" diam. FCAW wire that requires alittle more heat. Seriously, I'd like to become more familiar with welding thinner materials, not everything has 3 or 4 inch thick flanges. This field has expanded to all sorts of exotic materials and processes in the last few years and there is so much to learn. I like this forum for that very reason, there are always topics of interest on here.
John Wright
Parent - By ALAN RIDDLE (*) Date 04-07-2003 19:11
We use 17 to 25 amps on the average wall thickness components. I qualified procedures using PAW welding Inconel 718 seals, .006" thick at 1.9 amps. Like I said, it is a different world in aerospace compared to ASME.
Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / Radiographic Inspection of Fillet Wleds?

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill