Farm Code

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 04-26-2016 18:32

I don't know about reading between the lines, but clearly you can read.

Anybody who can read should note that there is a conflict in the clauses you cited.

Anybody who can weld, should note that welding over the items listed 5.14 (in any amount) should not be countenanced by sound engineering practices.

Anybody who has taken note of the decades of the science, testing, blood, death, and catastrophic failure that have compelled SMAW electrode, FCAW and SAW flux controls related to hydrogen will find 5.14 to be more than troubling.

Yet there it is in black and white in the Big Red Book.

Somebody really ought to bring this up :)

By Trackergd (**)

Date 04-26-2016 19:15

I did! To David McQuaid in person, no less :grin:

By js55

Date 04-27-2016 12:25

OK. I'll bite on this one.
First, what is meant by 'residual' material? It seems to me that this word needs clarification. A clarification that might go a long way towards calming some of the hysteria around this issue.
Second, does not residual material, if included in the weld, cause rounded indications?
Third, what research does show is that rounded indications of significant size included in the weld are absolutely harmless to the viability of the weld in consideration of tensile and bend regimes. This is why rounded indications are treated differently in ALL code acceptance criteria, as opposed to planar or crack type defects. In fact, they have been shown to often increase the strength of welds through triaxial stress fields.
Fourth, I could argue that 'residual' material would not cause 'significant' inclusions nor significant rounded indications.
Conclusion, perhaps a reconsideration of the mechanical and metallurgical reasoning behind this allowance is in order.

By Trackergd (**)

Date 04-27-2016 13:47 Edited 04-27-2016 14:19

I had the opportunity last month to have dinner with David McQuaid, AWS President and former D1.1 Chair. Of course I "took one for the team" and used the opportunity to ask him directly about Clause 5 changes. His answer did not clarify things much in my mind, although I now understand what the "intent" of the committee was.

For example, it seems in California (and other humid locations) when you go to weld on a bridge, the State Inspectors, Engineers, etc... take a white rag and wipe down the joint. If they get any red or orange on the white rag, welding cannot proceed and everything must be cleaned again...and of course rust bloom is immediate. At issue is the definition of "residual". The committee felt that if they relaxed things a tad, "common sense" would prevail. "As long as the quality of the weld is not affected" was his answer. They did not anticipate that anyone with a sound mind would be advocating welding on piles of rust, steel dripping with oil or a few layers of paint. I, for one have difficulty with "residual" and err on the safe side. If I see any oil, paint or rust, I consider it being more than residual. What worries me is what is welded over that I cannot see at the time of visual inspection.

He did tell me that he was unaware of any significant displeasure over the changes and he would take a look at the situation to see if a "clarification" was in order. I gather he does not review this forum.

My suggestion would be for every AWS Member and CWI to email Mr McQuaid directly at davidlmcquaid@comcast.net and Allen Sindel, D1 Chair (I think) with a request for clarification, keeping in mind that effective points of disagreement and polite language go a lot further than sarcasm and harsh wording. Just my two cents...

By 522029

Date 04-27-2016 18:20

My thought is that if "common sense would prevail" there would be no need for a change in the first place because, common sense would prevail.

Griff

By TimGary (****)

Date 04-27-2016 18:54

Any time a non-measurable requirement is put in a code or specification, common sense winds up going right out the window, to be replaced with - "My interpretation is...."

Tim

By js55

Date 04-28-2016 16:53

White glove inspectors, in my opinion, fall into one of three categories.
1) Stupid
2) Azzhole
3) Inexperienced (i.e., scared)

By Superflux (****)

Date 04-28-2016 17:59

Actually, looking at your list, I'm leaning towards a combination of any 2 or ALL 3.

By js55

Date 04-28-2016 18:30

All inspectors start out with some degree of #3.
Those who are also #1's usually end up as #2's.
However, there are some intelligent #2's.
The intelligent #2's mostly end up as QA/QC Managers.

By Superflux (****)

Date 04-28-2016 20:00

Hmmmm...
Very interesting and a quite logical evolution

By Trackergd (**)

Date 05-04-2016 09:33

Not all QC/QA Managers are #1's or #2's. Some started as welders, fabricators and machinists and climb their way to that position, going to college at night and dragging their tired butt into work the next day.... and even come into work (unpaid) on their own time to help the second shift welder/fabricators with problems. Not that on occasion and with an abundance of negative stimulation, I can't be an Azz.... :razz:

By Cumminsguy71 (*****)

Date 04-28-2016 15:26

"Residual Material" I suppose can be left up to the person on the site, the welder? What is considered more than residual? Is there a maximum/minimum?

Some guys I've seen welding on some of the structures I frequently work on would call a surface coated in galvanized paint "Residual" because they can weld over it faster, get done faster, make more money faster than having to actually remove the paint to bare metal.

I've learned about Shall and Shall not over the years and by no means am I a inspector but seems to me that this one word leaves a lot of huge openings for interpretation.

Luckily though, all of the blueprints I have seen specify in the welding notes that all material will have the galvanized coating removed anywhere from 1/2" to 2" from the area to be welded. They however are going by AWS D1.1. Will the residual rule now be followed??

Interesting reading

By Trackergd (**)

Date 05-04-2016 09:21 Edited 05-04-2016 14:58

"Residual Material" I suppose can be left up to the person on the site, the welder? What is considered more than residual? Is there a maximum/minimum?"

And that is the million dollar question. It appears whomever I ask, I get an answer that is elusive as the term "residual".

The dictionary definition is: "remaining after the greater part or quantity has gone". One could take that literal definition to absurd extremes.

If I had to make a WAG, residual will remain undefined in D1.1 until a bridge, tower or building comes crashing down and the forensic analysis of the welds shows that one or more welds failed due to the presence of "residual" contamination and the whole ball of wax ends up being debated in a courtroom.

So in the end, you are left with two choices, reject any welds where you can detect "residual" surface contamination, or NDT the daylights out of every weld to ensure that the "weld quality has not been affected". That decision is guided by how liable you wish to be, and how much you value your signature, stamp and reputation.