Aws It 201007

Inspection in the Shipbuilding Industry
Understanding Convexity
Changes to AWS D1.1
www.aws.org
July 2010 / Vol. 13 / No. 3
Cont ents | Zoom i n | Zoom out Search I ssue | Next Page For navi gat i on i nst ruct i ons pl ease cl i ck here
Cont ents | Zoom i n | Zoom out Search I ssue | Next Page For navi gat i on i nst ruct i ons pl ease cl i ck here
For worldwide representation visit www.olympus-ims.com info@olympusNDT.com
EPOCH 600 and EPOCH 1000 Series
EPOCH 600
ULTRASONIC FLAW DETECTOR
Economical Size, Quality Performance
The EPOCH 600 Digital Ultrasonic Flaw Detector combines
Olympus industry leading conventional flaw detection capabilities
with the efficiency of a highly portable, intuitive instrument.
The EPOCH 600 is an exciting new addition to the Olympus flaw
detector product line, incorporating quality flaw detection features
for any level of user.
Compact and rugged, weighs only 1.68 kg (3.72 lb.)
Vibrant full VGA sunlight viewable display
PerfectSquare
tunable square wave pulser

Intuitive user interface
EN12668-1 compliant
Digital high dynamic range receiver
Digital ltering enhances signal-to-noise ratio
Two hardware congurations:
- Adjustment Knob (designed for IP66 rating)
- Navigation Pad (designed for IP67 rating)
For Info go to www.aws.org/ad-index
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
THE WORLDS NEWSSTAND
Previous Page | Contents | Zoom in | Zoom out | Front Cover | Search Issue | Next Page
T R E N D S
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
_______________
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
___________________
_________
Mr. Ms. Mrs. Dr. Please print Duplicate this page as needed
Last Name______________________________________________________________________________
First Name___________________________________________________________M.I.________________
Title_________________________________________________Birthdate __________________________
Were you ever an AWS Member? YES NO If YES, give year_____and Member # ____________
Primary Phone ( )____________________ Secondary Phone ( ) ____________________
FAX ( )______________________________E-Mail ______________________________________
Did you learn of the Society through an AWS Member? Yes No
If yes, Members name:_________________________________ Members # (if known): ______________
From time to time, AWS sends out informational emails about programs we offer, new Member benefits, savings opportunities and
changes to our website. If you would prefer not to receive these emails, please check here
Type of Business (Check ONE only)
A Contract construction
B Chemicals & allied products
C Petroleum & coal industries
D Primary metal industries
E Fabricated metal products
F Machinery except elect. (incl. gas welding)
G Electrical equip., supplies, electrodes
H Transportation equip. air, aerospace
I Transportation equip. automotive
J Transportation equip. boats, ships
K Transportation equip. railroad
L Utilities
M Welding distributors & retail trade
N Misc. repair services (incl. welding shops)
O Educational Services (univ., libraries, schools)
P Engineering & architectural services (incl.
assns.)
Q Misc. business services (incl. commercial labs)
R Government (federal, state, local)
S Other
Job Classification (Check ONE only)
01 President, owner, partner, officer
02 Manager, director, superintendent (or
assistant)
03 Sales
04 Purchasing
05 Engineer welding
20 Engineer design
21 Engineer manufacturing
06 Engineer other
10 Architect designer
12 Metallurgist
13 Research & development
22 Quality control
07 Inspector, tester
08 Supervisor, foreman
14 Technician
09 Welder, welding or cutting operator
11 Consultant
15 Educator
17 Librarian
16 Student
18 Customer Service
19 Other
Technical Interests (Check all that apply)
A Ferrous metals
B Aluminum
C Nonferrous metals except aluminum
D Advanced materials/Intermetallics
E Ceramics
F High energy beam processes
G Arc welding
H Brazing and soldering
I Resistance welding
J Thermal spray
K Cutting
L NDT
M Safety and health
N Bending and shearing
O Roll forming
P Stamping and punching
Q Aerospace
R Automotive
S Machinery
T Marine
U Piping and tubing
V Pressure vessels and tanks
W Sheet metal
X Structures
Y Other
Z Automation
1 Robotics
2 Computerization of Welding
AWS MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION BOOK/CD-ROM SELECTION
(Pay Only $25... up to a $192 value)
A free local Section Membership is included
with all AWS Memberships.
Section Affiliation Preference (if known):
NOTE: Only New Individual Members are eligible for this
selection. Be sure to add $25 to your total payment.
ONLY ONE SELECTION PLEASE.
New Member Renewal
NOTE: Dues include $18.70 for Welding Journal
subscription and $4.00 for the AWS Foundation.
PAYMENT INFORMATION (Required)
AWS STUDENT MEMBERSHIP
Domestic (Canada & Mexico incl.)..................................$15
International ......................................................................$50
TOTAL PAYMENT..............................................................$________
Application Date:
Payment can be made (in U.S. dollars) by check or money order (international or foreign), payable to the American Welding Society, or by charge card.
Check Money Order Bill Me
American Express Diners Club Carte Blanche MasterCard Visa Discover Other
Your Account Number Expiration Date (mm/yy)
Signature of Applicant:
Office Use Only
Check # Account #
Source Code IT Date Amount
Two-year Individual Membership Special Offer: applies only to new AWS Individual Members. Discount Publication
Offer: applies only to new AWS Individual Members. Select one of the six listed publications for an additional $25; International
Members add $75 ($25 for book selection and $50 for international shipping); Multi-Year Discount: First year is $80, each
additional year is $75. No limit on years (not available to Student Members). Student Member: Any individual who attends
a recognized college, university, technical, vocational school or high school is eligible. Domestic Members are those students resid-
ing in Norh America (incl. Canada & Mexico). This membership includes the Welding Journal magazine. Student Memberships
do not include a discounted publication. International hard copy Welding Journal option: applies only to
International AWS Welder Members (excludes Canada and Mexico). Digitized delivery of WJ is standard
Company (if applicable) __________________________________________________________________
Address ______________________________________________________________________________
Address Cont. __________________________________________________________________________
City__________________State/Province________Zip/Postal Code _____________Country ____________
Who pays your dues?: Company Self-paid Sex: Male Female
Education level: High school diploma Associates Bachelors Masters Doctoral
NOTE: This address will be used for all Society mail.
4 Easy Ways to Join or Renew:
Mail this form, along with your payment, to AWS
Call the Membership Department at (800) 443-9353, ext. 480
Fax this completed form to (305) 443-5647
Join or renew on our website <www.aws.org/membership>
NOTE: This data will be used to develop programs and services to
serve you better.
PROFILE DATA
ADDRESS
SPECIAL OFFER FOR NEW AWS INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS TWO YEARS FOR $135 (a $25 savings)
$135
P.O. Box 440367
Miami, FL 33144-0367
Telephone (800) 443-9353
FAX (305) 443-5647
Visit our website: www.aws.org
Member Services Revised 12/12/08
Jeffersons Welding Encyclopedia (CD-ROM only)
Design and Planning Manual for
Cost-Effective Welding
Welding Metallurgy
Welding Handbook (9th Ed., Vol. 3)
For more book choices visit
www.aws.org/membership
PLUS... Get a popular welding publication for only $25 ($192 value)
SAVE $25
(New Members Only)
ONE-YEAR AWS INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP ................................$80
TWO-YEAR AWS INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP ............................$160
New Member? ___Yes ___No
If yes, add one-time initiation fee of $12 ..................................................................................$__________
International Members add $50 for optional hard copy of Welding Journal (note: digital delivery of WJ is standard) ............................$50
Domestic Members add $25 for book selection ($192 value), and save up to 87%............ $__ ___ __
International Members add $75 for book selection (note: $50 is for international shipping) ..$__ ___ __
(Note: Book Selection applies to new Individual Members only Book selections on upper-right corner)
TOTAL PAYMENT.....................................................................................................$___________
Learn more about each publication at www.awspubs.com
{
(Optional)
(Optional)
(Optional)
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
Vol. 13 / No. 3
Features
11 23 27
Lessons Learned in Shipbuilding Inspection
by B. Halverson / Shipbuilding historically has been one of the industries
that advances welding and inspection / 11
A Summary of Revisions in the New D1.1:2010, Structural Welding
Code Steel
by J. L. Gayler and D. D. Rager / The most significant changes from the
2008 to the 2010 editions of D1.1 are described / 15
Essential vs. Nonessential Variables
by A. J. Moore Jr. / The author details the differences between essential,
nonessential, and supplementary essential variables / 20
What Is This Thing Called Convexity?
by R. L. Holdren / A method is proposed that will give inspectors a way to
better assess and determine the acceptability of convexity / 23
Visual After the Fact Welding Inspections
by B. A. Bosworth / A lack of special welding inspections offers the
potential for quality problems, and safety and liability issues / 27
Departments
Editors Note................................6
News Bulletins.............................8
Mail Bag ....................................10
Just The Facts.............................14
The Answer Is ............................32
Mark Your Calendar...................34
Print and Product Showcase ......36
Advertiser Index ........................40
Inspection Trends / Summer 2010 5
Cover photo: Fabricating the USS Freedom,
the first Littoral Combat Ship, brought
changes to the quality system at its builder,
Marinette Marine Corp. (Photo courtesy of
Lockheed Martin Corp.)
INSPECTION TRENDS (ISSN 1523-7168) is
published quarterly by the American Welding
Society. Editorial and advertising offices are located
at 550 NW LeJeune Rd., Miami, FL 33126;
telephone (305) 443-9353. Printed by R. R.
Donnelley & Sons Co., Senatobia, Miss.
Subscriptions $30.00 per year for noncertified,
nonmembers in the United States and its
possessions; $50.00 per year in foreign countries;
$20.00 per year for noncertified members and
students; $10.00 single issue for nonmembers and
$7.00 single issue for members. American Welding
Society is located at 550 NW LeJeune Rd., Miami,
FL 33126-5671; telephone (305) 443-9353,
Periodicals postage paid in Miami, Fla., and
additional mailing offices.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to
Inspection Trends c/o American Welding Society,
550 NW LeJeune Rd., Miami, FL 33126-5671.
Readers of Inspection Trends may make copies of
articles for personal, archival, educational, or
research purposes, and which are not for sale or
resale. Permission is granted to quote from articles,
provided customary acknowledgment of authors
and sources is made. Starred (*) items excluded from
copyright.
AWS MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of the American Welding Society
is to advance the science, technology, and
application of welding and allied processes,
including joining, brazing, soldering, cutting,
and thermal spraying.
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
Dear Readers,
I hope you received a pleasant
surprise when you got your first glimpse of
this issue as you drew it out of your
mailbox. As you can see, Inspection Trends
has been completely redesigned and Im
really excited about the changes.
Inspection Trends has had the same
look since its inaugural issue in the
summer of 1998, so it was time for an
update. The AWS Marketing Department loaned the services of its
talented graphic designer Willie Chinn, who created the new design, and
then Zaida Chavez, production manager of Inspection Trends and
Welding Journal, tweaked the pages to make them easy for us to work
with. My thanks to both of them.
I believe Chinn created a design that is clean and contemporary. In
addition, weve increased the size of the type so it will be even easier to
read. One of my favorite parts is the new IT logo. Many readers, and
certainly the staff of the AWS Publications Div., already referred to the
magazine as IT. Chinn took that idea and ran with it. The new logo is
not only used on the cover and table of contents pages, but introduces
and ends each feature article and department.
Content mostly remains the same. Youll find all your long-time
favorites such as The Answer Is, Print and Product Showcase, and
Just the Facts. Ken Erickson has been answering questions for The
Answer Is since the first issue; Kip Mankenberg joined him shortly
thereafter. Lyndsey Deckard came on board in 2001, first writing the
Exam Bank column and now Just the Facts. Im grateful for their
dedication and expertise.
You will find some new content in the redesigned Inspection
Trends, however. I had the good fortune recently of speaking with the
participants in a nine-year recertification class. They told me that we
should have more code-related information in the magazine since you
all are the folks who work with the codes. In this issue, youll see an
article by John Gayler and Don Rager that summarizes the revisions in
the 2010 edition of D1.1, Structural Welding Code Steel. For those of
you who are AWS members, youll see the same article in the July
Welding Journal. We dont usually run the same content in both
publications, but I thought the information in this article to be so
important it should get the widest audience possible. (And if youre a
CWI, but not an AWS member, you really should consider joining; Im
convinced youll find the benefits youll receive will make it
worthwhile.) Also, starting with this issue, Ill be running official
interpretations, as well as any errata, to the AWS codes. Youll find
these sprinkled throughout the magazine, usually after the end of a
feature article or regular department.
I hope you like the changes to Inspection Trends. If you do or
dont Id appreciate hearing from you. Contact me at (800) 443-9353
ext. 238 or mjohnsen@aws.org Mary Ruth Johnsen.
Inspection Trends / July 2010 6
Editors Note
By Mary Ruth Johnsen
Publisher
Andrew Cullison
cullison@aws.org
Editor
Mary Ruth Johnsen
mjohnsen@aws.org
Associate Editor
Howard Woodward
woodward@aws.org
Associate Editor
Kristin Campbell
kcampbell@aws.org
Production Manager
Zaida Chavez
zaida@aws.org
Senior Production Coordinator
Brenda Flores
bflores@aws.org
National Sales Director
Rob Saltzstein
salty@aws.org
Advertising Sales Representative
Lea Garrigan Badwy
garrigan@aws.org
Senior Advertising Production Manager
Frank Wilson
fwilson@aws.org
Subscriptions Representative
Edalia Suarez
esuarez@aws.org
American Welding Society
550 NW LeJeune Rd.
Miami, FL 33126
(800/305) 443-9353
Copyright
Copyright 2010 by American Welding Society in both
printed and electronic formats. The Society is not
responsible for any statement made or opinion expressed
herein. Data and information developed by the authors of
specific articles are for informational purposes only and
are not intended for use without independent,
substantiating investigation on the part of potential users.
_____________
_____________
_____________
__________
____________
___________
_________
____________
___________
___________
_____________
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
News Bulletins
AUT Specialists to Inspect Fayetteville Express
Pipeline
AUT Specialists, LLC, Montgomery, Tex., has been
awarded spreads 3 and 4 of the Fayetteville Express Pipeline
by Willbros Construction, Houston, Tex. The company
specializes in automated ultrasonic testing of girth welds in
the construction phase of oil and gas pipelines.
The 185-mile-long natural gas pipeline will originate in
Conway County, Ark., and terminate at an interconnect with
Trunkline Gas Co. in Panola County, Miss. It is a joint
venture between Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., and Kinder
Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. The Willbros work includes
120 miles of 42-in. pipeline with wall thicknesses ranging
from 0.555 to 0.888 in. It originates near Bald Knob, Ark.,
and ends at the Trunkline interconnection. The project is
expected to be completed in October.
Underwater Inspection Extends Intervals
between Drydocking
Hydrex LLC recently performed an underwater
inspection of a tanker in the port of Tampa, Fla. The company
performed a closed-circuit video class inspection of the entire
ship below the waterline including the rudder and pintle. The
underwater inspection was in lieu of drydocking (UWILD) to
extend the drydock interval as required by classification
societies.
The inspection was directed and recorded by a ClassNK
surveyor in a workstation set up on the Hydrex work boat
that included a video recorder, HD TV, and communications
box. The equipment was set up to display the inspection for
the surveyor and to direct and communicate with the diver in
order to obtain the specific information needed.
The companys underwater surveys and inspections are
approved by all the main classification societies in lieu of
drydock for preselling inspections, as well as inspections of
collision damage, fouling conditions, pre-drydock conditions,
hull plating conditions, weld joints, and paint conditions.
They provide information in real-time using closed-circuit
TV, photography, nondestructive examination equipment, and
diver physical inspection surveys.
In our current economic climate shipowners, operators,
and managers are increasingly looking for ways to save money
and keep their vessels at sea more days, said Will Abbott,
Hydrex U.S. operations manager. Certified inspection divers
doing UWILD inspections can save the ship from drydocking
for 3 to 6 months to 2
1
2 or up to 5 years.
Xiris Appoints Sangen as Japanese Distributor
for Tube Inspection Products
Xiris Automation, Inc., Burlington, Ont., Canada,
recently named Sangen Corp. as the exclusive distributor of
its products for the tube and pipe industry in Japan. The
immediate focus
will be on the
WI2000p postweld
inspection system
used to detect
quality issues
related to the
welding process.
Xiris specializes
in optical quality
control,
developing
machines that can
see with the
ability to detect,
recognize, and
interpret quality
defects in
manufactured
goods.
Laboratory Testing Expands Hardness Testing
Capabilities, Renews Nadcap Accreditation
Laboratory Testing, Inc., Hatfield, Pa., recently
expanded the capabilities of its metallography lab by adding
a Struers DuraScan hardness testing system that handles both
micro- and macrohardness test applications.
The system handles test samples up to 5.5 in. in diameter
A Hydrex. diver performs an underwater inspection of a
tanker in the port of Tampa, Fla.
Tetsuya Andoh (left), general manager,
Sangen Corp.; and Cameron Serles,
president, Xiris Automation, Inc., are
shown following the naming of Sangen
as the Japanese distributor of Xiris
products.
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
and 10 in. high. The metallography lab generally performs
microhardness testing on metal samples, but other materials
may be tested on a case-by-case basis.
Recently, the company was audited and reapproved by
the Performance Review Institute (PRI) for Nadcap
A metallography technician at Laboratory Testing, Inc., uses
the companys new Struers DuraScan hardness testing
system.
2010 Houston is It!
ASNT Fall Conference & Quality Testing Show
Houston is the energy capitol of the world; Houston is the birthplace and
leading center for nanotechnology and commercialization; Houston is home to
NASAs Johnson Space Center, operations for the Space Shuttle and Space
Station programs; Houston is aviation, aerospace, energy, petrochemical,
biotechnology, information technology, and nanotechnology. And, this is why
Houston is It for the largest annual nondestructive testing conference, ASNTs 2010
Fall Conference & Quality Testing Show.
Houston is It!
Dont miss Fall Conference!
Register at www.asnt.org.
Save $100; register by
Register by 15 October 2010.
George R. Brown Convention Center, Houston, Texas USA 15-19 November 2010
For info go to www.aws.org/ad-index

continued on page 39
_____________ _____________
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
Mail Bag
Reader Questions Why Some Dont Use
Welding Procedure Specifications
I read with interest the article titled What Are Welding
Procedure Specifications by Albert Moore in the Spring
2010 issue of Inspection Trends. I know manufacturing
companies in (my) area that do not use Welding Procedure
Specifications (WPSs), their welders are not qualified to any
code, and their welders inspect their own welds. How can
these companies get away with this type of practice? Is it
legal? Is it not unsafe? Where is the quality control?
Nelson Morales
Certified Welding Inspector
Hobart Institute of Welding Technology
Troy, Ohio
There is tons of steel fabricated by contractors who are
not bound by any legal requirements. Many contracts do not
reference a specific welding standard, so the contractors are
free to do as they please (and they do).
I have reviewed a number of project specifications,
purchase orders, etc., that stated the welds must meet first-
class workmanship standards. I do not know of any welding
standard that has defined first-class workmanship
standards. I have also read all welds to be in accordance
with AWS, with no reference to a specific AWS welding
standard or code. Once again, the contractor is free to do as
he pleases. It is incumbent on the customer to properly
specify the welding requirements.
It is no different from a person buying a new car. The
customer should tell the salesman what kind of car is needed
with as much detail as possible. If the customer simply says
he wants a car, the salesman can give him any car on the lot
and has met the criteria of it being a car.
I was on a project once where the contractor told the
steel erector that he better have four welding machines on the
job site the next morning or he was fired. The steel erector
showed up with four brand-new welding machines, dropped
them off, and drove away.
The contractor turned to me and said, I told him I
wanted four welding machines. There they are. I should have
been more specific.
The moral is that you do not get anything unless you ask
for it. A properly written specification is essential to getting
what is required.
Albert J. Moore Jr.
AWS Senior Certified Welding Inspector
Vice President, Marion Testing & Inspection,
Canton, Conn.
______________
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
Shipbuilding has historically been
one of the industries that advances our
knowledge of materials, welding, and
inspection. From the early days when
steam boilers were placed aboard
vessels to power paddle wheels, or
when the demands of World War II
required a fleet of Liberty Ships for
carrying cargo, experience has taught
us that standards need to be written to
avoid loss of life and property. After
boiler explosions took many lives on
steam-powered vessels, rules were
written for the control of design,
materials, and safety relief valves.
Welding rules for shipboard boilers and
piping also evolved. The United States
Coast Guard Marine Inspectors
enforced these rules until recent times,
when the task was transferred to the
American Bureau of Shipping
Surveyors.
The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)
investigation shortly after World War II
of Liberty Ship catastrophic fracture
failures resulted in advancements in
design, materials, and welding
Feature
By Bruce Halverson
Quality control and inspection for
producing the first Littoral Combat
Ship, USS Freedom, began with the
shipyards craftspeople. (Photo
courtesy of Lockheed Martin Corp.)
Lessons Learned in Shipbuilding Inspection
Quality control in the shipbuilding industry has evolved from inspections at the end of the
process to each craftsperson understanding the contracts quality requirements
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
methods. The facts, as reported in the
1946 USCG report, assigned about
two-thirds of the root cause of brittle
fractures experienced by 1500 of the
Liberty-class ships, including T2
tankers, to design details and lack of
toughness or fracture resistance in steel
plate materials. One-third was
attributed to welding deficiencies that
propagated brittle fractures in plate at
low temperatures. Today, however, the
majority of the general public believes
welding was responsible for all of the
failures.
As inspectors, we must be diligent
about checking design flaws, material
certifications, and welds to ensure a
safe vessel for the mariners. All three
areas play a role in fabrication and
must be correct to ensure safety.
Remembering past failures and
applying the lessons learned from them
are critical to inspectors in every
industry. Looking at the past design of
quality systems can also help us in our
present day assignments to avoid
repeating costly errors. Relying on one
trained inspector has drawbacks with
regard to both quality and cost.
The Evolution of Quality
Systems
After World War II, quality control
was well defined. General practice was
to put an inspector at the end of each
process line to sort the good from the
bad. There is little debate that that was
instrumental in raising the quality of
products. However, we know now that
attempting to inspect quality into a
product at the end of a process is a
good way to fail in the modern
business world.
Many leaders in the field have
written books and manuals on quality.
Analysis by these experts has yielded a
new approach over the years. What has
evolved is our present-day system of
quality control and quality assurance to
ensure product quality and safety.
Redundant inspections and audits have
proven highly effective. The
shipbuilding industry has followed the
same path to produce modern
commercial and military vessels in a
cost-effective manner. The
proliferation of standards after the
Second World War installed formal
controls on designs, base metals, and
welding. The U.S. Navy, Coast Guard,
and American Bureau of Shipping led
the effort at that time and many of
those standards still exist today in
updated rules, military standards, or
codes.
Commercial shipbuilding
standards were less restrictive but still
gave a level of design safety to ensure
that mariners had reliable hulls and
equipment to weather the storms
Mother Nature invariably sends in their
path. The baseline of shipbuilding
knowledge as recorded in our standards
has to be applied during the building
process to ensure safety is maintained.
It Starts with the Workers
Many of those who tour a shipyard
are amazed to learn that it all starts out
as flat plate, structural shapes, and
pipe. Through the efforts of many
skilled craft workers, these raw
materials end up as a finished vessel
that sails away and becomes a home
for the crew. Each vessel, whether
commercial or military, is a self-
contained, self-supporting floating
city when at sea. Everything from
propulsion and electrical power to
personnel accommodations and sewage
treatment is contained in the vessel.
Inspection plays an important role in
the shipbuilding process from start to
finish.
Being cost effective is a key to
survival in the shipbuilding industry
today. The application of standards as
written in the contract for the ship can
become very costly if not properly
planned for. Producing the quality
required for the cost allowed dictates
that an inspector for each production
step or line is a sure way to fail in
business today. The modern approach
in shipbuilding starts at the level of
each individual worker. It is critical
that individual craft workers not only
know how to use the tools of their
trade, but also how to inspect the work
they do in real-time. They are the front
line in the battle to achieve economic
success for the entire process.
Correcting deficiencies early in the
process ensures success overall. Many
do not understand the integration of
quality control and quality assurance
into the entire shipbuilding process.
That is because most people only
consider the formal inspection at the
end as a quality step because that is
what is visible when the customer or
regulatory body is in attendance. They
havent considered the entire process.
A Step-by-Step Procedure
In truth, if done properly, quality
control starts with the worker on the
job. The next step in the process in
modern yards is to have the
Manufacturing Department employ a
quality control operation by the lead
person or supervisor to check 100% of
the work. When that step is completed
successfully, it is then passed to the
quality assurance inspector who checks
the performance of Manufacturings
quality control efforts. This step is
intended to be an audit operation. When
that step is successfully completed, the
regulatory body and customer
representatives are called out for a
formal inspection. When the formal
inspection is completed, the assembly
can progress to the next phase of
construction. In most yards, these
inspection points are at predetermined
milestone events, such as panel
construct, module construct, and final
erection in the hull for structure. Piping
systems, machinery installations, and
electrical distribution systems are also
inspected at predetermined stages of
completion. Redundant inspections
ensure defects are caught early and
corrected immediately.
Fig. 1 The SS Esso Manhattan broke
in half at midship due to a complete
brittle fracture of the hull envelope.
Many welding rules and codes, as well
as inspection systems, can trace their
roots to the lessons learned from
Liberty Ships such as
this one.
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
In a shipyard, record keeping is
critical for the inspector. The records
must be compiled and maintained as
the hull is built, so documentation
exists to prove required testing and
inspections were successfully
accomplished. The true final
inspection is during the sea trial
period where the ship is put through
planned tests while underway to
confirm operation and safety of the
crew under actual conditions, including
hard turns and emergency stop
demonstrations.
The Modern Management
Approach
Now that the process has been
briefly described, it is worth discussing
the modern management approach at
most shipyards. For example,
Marinette Marine Corp. has adopted
ISO 9001:2008, Quality Management
Systems Requirements, as a
framework for the entire organization
to ensure not only a quality product,
but a successful business. While the
document gives general requirements
for the framework of the system, each
company must determine the exact
details in its own written manual. It
should be pointed out that this
document drives many companies
through the same quality control and
quality assurance approach that
Marinette Marine has used to produce
both commercial and military ships. It
has taken time and an investment in
training to mature this quality system.
The Littoral Combat Ship
Five years ago, Marinette Marine
embarked on building the first Littoral
Combat Ship, LCS 1 USS Freedom
(see lead figure). At the same time, the
company kicked off a worker education
process to empower each craft worker
with knowledge of the actual contract
quality requirements because the ships
were to be built under new American
Bureau of Shipping Naval Vessel
Rules. Welders, for example, not only
had to pass their plate and pipe
qualifications, but also had a full day of
classroom training and a written test to
pass to prove knowledge of the ABS
rules. The companys top management
directed this approach with the
understanding that a learning curve
would be encountered, but the end
results would pay benefits in the long
run. The approach of educating each
craft worker to know the inspection
standards has proven to be a wise
investment. Time and the results
obtained from production of USS
Freedom have proven the merits of that
program.
The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is
a new class of vessel for the U.S. Navy.
The term littoral means shallow water;
it is designed for missions in shallow
seas. Think of it as a 378-ft-long,
scaled-up jet ski with 120,000 hp and
four water jets for propulsion. It is as
maneuverable as a jet ski, but carries
lethal firepower and the most up-to-
date electronics. At the time of the
writing of this article, USS Freedom
has accomplished four drug
interdictions, in which more than five
tons of cocaine were seized, including
chasing down one go-fast boat with
her speed alone. Lockheed Martin is
the prime contractor; if youd like to
know more about the Littoral Combat
Ships multimission capabilities, visit
www.lmlcsteam.com.
What the Past Has Taught Us
Looking back at the heritage of
modern shipbuilding, it is important to
realize the dependability and
knowledge for safe operation were
gained at a cost. President Franklin
Roosevelt directed the building of
Liberty Ships to support the war effort.
They were all welded because riveting
was determined to be too labor
intensive and slow. During the period
from 1939 to the end of the war in
1945, 2710 Liberty Ships were built.
By 1945, the average build time had
been reduced to 42 days per vessel. A
few were still in construction or on
order at the close of the war. Figure 1
shows the SS Esso Manhattan, a T2
Liberty tanker, one of about 12 that
experienced a complete brittle fracture
of the midship hull envelope. Designs
with sharp notches, materials with little
fracture resistance at low temperature,
and defects produced by the new
submerged arc welding process all
contributed to the failures. But even
with the failures, the Liberty Ship
program was judged a success.
Without the many Liberty Ships to
supply the U. S. and Allied forces
overseas, the war may have lasted far
longer. Only two operational Liberty
Ships survive today as a memorial to
those who served aboard and to the
many who did not return. Because of
the large number produced, a
meaningful database was established to
set rules for materials, design, and
welding methods. We owe a debt of
gratitude to these ships and the
personnel who studied the problems.
Welding rules or codes in
particular can trace their roots in many
industries to the lessons learned from
the Liberty Ships. When you inspect
welds in any industry each day, take a
moment to remember where the
knowledge base started to ensure
reliable and safe fabrications. As
inspectors, we need to be ever mindful
of the lessons learned from the Liberty
Ship failures.
BRUCE HALVERSON (Bruce.
Halverson@us.fincantieri.com) is quality
assurance manager, Marinette Marine
Corp., Marinette, Wis., a division of
Fincantieri Marine Group. He is a Life
Member of AWS and first qualified as a
CWI in 1978. He has held ASNT Level III
since 1979 and maintains current
certifications in RT, UT, PT, and MT
methods. His experience includes 43
major ship hulls up to 1000 ft in length for
commercial and military customers. He is
a member of the AWS D3 Marine Welding
Committee and has recently coauthored
articles on friction stir welding of littoral
combat ship aluminum structures.
Errata A5.14
AWS A5.14/A5.14M:2009,
Specification for Nickel and Nickel-
Alloy Bare Welding Electrodes and
Rods
The following errata have been
identified and incorporated into the
current reprint of this document.
Page 7, Table 1: Changed Ti
content from 0.04% maximum to
0.4% maximum for AWS
Classification ERNiCrMo-21.
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
___________________
____
Just The Facts
I was manager of quality for the
prime contractor on an automated
people mover system at a major airport
several years ago. The system ran on
an elevated steel-fabricated guideway
welded in accordance with AWS D1.5,
Bridge Welding Code. Much of the
welding was fracture critical.
D1.5 requires backup bars on
welds transverse to the direction of
computed stresses to be removed after
welding and the joint ground smooth
(Ref. D1:2008, Clause 3.13.3). The
design of the guideway was a boxed
beam that precluded access to backing
after welding. The Engineer of Record
(EOR or Engineer) reviewed the
joint design and stated that the backup
bars could remain in place a
significant contradiction to the code.
Now you may be asking yourself,
Can the Engineer do that? The
answer is yes, the Engineer has that
authority. Certified Welding Inspectors
should not think that the codes are
carved in stone and not subject to
change on a given project at the written
direction of the Engineer.
This issue is addressed in each
code individually, but always with the
same conclusion. In D1.1/D1.1M:
2010, Structural Welding Code
Steel, it is addressed as follows:
1.3.1 Engineer. Engineer shall
be defined as a duly designated
individual who acts for, and in behalf
of, the Owner on all matters within the
scope of the code.
1.4.1 Engineers Responsibilities.
The Engineer shall be responsible for
the development of the contract
documents that govern products or
structural assemblies produced under
this code. The Engineer may add to,
delete from, or otherwise modify, the
requirements of this code to meet the
particular requirements of a specific
structure.
All requirements that modify this
code shall be incorporated into contract
documents. The Engineer shall
determine the suitability of all joint
details to be used in a welded
assembly.
The Engineer shall specify in
contract documents, as necessary, and
as applicable, the following:
1) Code requirements that are
applicable only when specified by the
Engineer.
2) All additional NDT that is not
specifically addressed in the code.
3) Verification inspection, when
required by the Engineer.
4) Weld acceptance criteria other
than that specified in Clause 6.
5) CVN toughness criteria for
weld metal, base metal, and/or HAZ
when required.
6) For nontubular applications,
whether the structure is statically or
cyclically loaded.
7) All additional requirements
that are not specifically addressed in
the code.
8) For OEM applications, the
responsibilities of the parties
involved.
LYNDSEY DECKARD (Deckard@
pbworld.com) is Quality Manager of the
Vehicle Division of Parsons Brinckerhoff
Transit & Rail Systems, Inc. He is an AWS
Senior Certified Welding Inspector, an ASQ
Certified Quality Auditor, and a member of
the AWS Certification
Committee, Examination Question Bank
Subcommittee, and Ethics Subcommittee.
Who Is the Engineer?
Subject: Cleaning of Completed
Welds
Code Edition: D1.1:2006
Code Provision: Subclause 5.30.2
AWS Log: D1.1-06-I17
Inquiry:
1. Is brushing intended to
sweep away loose slag particles lying
on the weld after slag removal, or
does it mean wire brushing?
2. Is there a requirement to
remove weld smoke residues?
3. What other suitable means
were considered when this wording
was added in D1.1:2006?
4. Is complete removal of tightly
adherent spatter required for VT?
5. Is complete removal of tightly
adherent spatter required for MT?
Response:
1. Cleaning of completed welds
is to be accomplished by any cleaning
technique that prepares the surface for
visual inspection or other NDE
required. The contractor/fabricator
determines which means and methods
will achieve this result.
2. No.
3. See Response 1.
4. No.
5. No, unless it will interfere with
particle mobility in the area of
interest. (See ASTM E 709,
referenced in AWS D1.1 Subclause
6.14.4.)
Official Interpretation D1.1
Structural Welding Code Steel
By Lyndsey Deckard
_______
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
The AWS D1 Structural Welding
Committee Chair Duane Miller
announced in his editorial in the March
2010 issue of the Welding Journal that
D1.1 would move to a five-year
publication cycle. This will be the first
time since 1986 that D1.1 will not be
published on a two-year cycle. Aside
from this significant change in
publication frequency, the D1.1:2010
edition has several other changes that
the Structural Welding Committee feels
the industry will welcome. Described
here are the most significant changes
from the 2008 to the 2010 editions of
D1.1. Some explanations and rationale
behind a few noted changes are also
included.
Understanding a New Table
The most noticeable change that
most users of the code will see in the
2010 edition is the addition of a new
table in the prequalification section.
The new table, Table 3.8, lists which
variables must be included on a
prequalified WPS, and how changes
beyond certain parameters would
require a new or revised WPS to be
written. Subclause 3.6 introduces the
new table, and users of the code will
notice that this subclause no longer
references Clause 4, Table 4.5, for the
requirements and the ranges for
amperage, voltage, travel speed, and
shielding gas flow rate. The code also
Feature
By John L. Gayler and Donald D. Rager
A Summary of Revisions in the New
D1.1:2010, Structural Welding
Code Steel
Poised to go on a five-year publication cycle, the 2010 Code has some significant
changes explained
Fig. 1 Groove weld profiles inside corner joints.
Fig. 2 Groove weld profiles in T-joints.
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
includes commentary on the new Table
3.8 that helps clarify many open
questions on prequalified procedures
and explains how to use the new table.
Code users should be aware that some
of the prequalification ranges of the
four variables mentioned previously
have also been revised with the
establishment of this new table. In
addition, specific ranges have been
placed on other variables not required
in previous editions of the code such as
wire feed speed and submerged arc
welding electrode parameters, to name
two. The listing of the other variables in
the new table is not a change in the
requirements of previous editions of the
code in writing a prequalified WPS,
rather they are a clarification that
changes to those variables require
writing a new or revised prequalified
WPS. It is the Structural Welding
Committees consensus that
reorganization and consolidation of the
instructions on how to establish a
prequalified WPS will assist code users.
Weld Profiles
Probably the next greatest change
in the code is the redrafting of the well-
known weld profile figures, Figure 5.4.
The number of illustrations has been
increased to better clarify what weld
profiles are required in different types
of weld joints. A new table
accompanying the redrawn figure lists
weld profile dimension requirements,
such as weld reinforcement and
allowable convexity. These
requirements are categorized into four
schedules (Schedule A, Schedule B,
Schedule C, and Schedule D) in the
new table as a means to separate
different criteria depending on the type
of weld and type of weld joint to be
welded. Along with redrafting these
figures, the code committee has made
slight modifications to the codes
requirements such as larger weld
reinforcement is now permitted for
welds in thicker members. By
expanding Figure 5.4, the code now
shows specific weld profiles for groove
welds in corner and T-joints, shelf bars,
and welds between butt joint welded
members of unequal thickness. Some
of the new weld profiles are shown in
Figs. 14.
New Thermal Cut Roughness
Requirements
Also of note is the elimination of
specific thermal cut roughness values
as given in previous editions in
Subclause 5.15.4.3 and measured to the
requirements of ASME B46.1. Now,
the new thermal cut roughness values
are tied solely to the comparison
samples found in AWS C4.1, Oxygen
Cutting Surface Roughness Gauge. The
requirements in previous code editions
have been deemed overly prescriptive,
and the code committee thought it
appropriate to change the requirements
to a comparative standard.
Access Holes
and Beam Copes
Requirements for weld access
holes and beam copes are revised in
this edition. Weld access hole
Fig. 3 Fillet weld profiles for outside corner joints.
Fig. 4 Typical shelf bar details.
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
dimensions have been modified, and
mandatory minimum and
recommended maximum depth
dimensions of access holes have been
set to prevent those that are
unnecessarily deep or that are too
shallow. The new code also permits a
smaller radius on reentrant corners in
connection material and beam copes, as
the 1-in. (25-mm) radius requirement
of previous codes is not supported by
research and is excessive for many
connection details. Beam copes in
galvanized sections must now be
ground to bright metal to reduce the
possibility of cracking. Preheating
before thermal cutting of beam copes
and weld access holes in heavy shapes
is now mandatory to reduce the
formation of a hard surface layer and
the tendency to initiate cracks.
Revised Backing
Requirements
The code committee has revised
the requirements for backing, found in
Subclause 5.10, to allow for
discontinuous backing in some limited
statically loaded hollow structural steel
(HSS) applications. There are limiting
factors including diameter and wall
thickness of the HSS shape that control
when noncontinuous backing may be
permitted, and there are, of course, a
few code exceptions to these
limitations.
Prequalification and
Qualification
Under Subclause 3.3, the matching
and undermatching table has been
revised to clarify that a filler metal
chosen for joining a combination of
two different strength base materials
need only match either of the two
materials for the selection to be
considered matching. Likewise,
undermatching was clarified to mean
a selection of filler metal whose
strength is less than either of the base
metals being joined.
The requirements of Subclause
3.7.3 have been expanded to include all
weathering steels, not just ASTM A
588. ASTM A 709 HPS50W has been
added as a prequalified material in
Group II of Table 3.1 and Group B of
Table 3.2. ASTM A1043 Grades 36 and
50 have been added to Table 4.9.
A new subclause under 3.13 (CJP
Groove Weld Requirements) has been
added to clarify that only steel backing
is considered prequalified for
nontubular welds made from one side
only. The use of material other than
steel for backing in a one-sided
nontubular weld may be used if
qualified by test in accordance with
Clause 4 (Qualification).
The code clarifies by revisions to
4.35.3 that if an existing qualified WPS
is to be used for applications requiring
impacts but CVN tests were not done
during the initial qualification of that
WPS then a procedure test plate needs
to be performed but only impact tests
are required to be run. The other tests
associated with a WPS being qualified
by test, having been completed during
the original WPS Qualification need
not be repeated.
Stud Size
A
3
8-in. (10-mm) stud size has been
added to the code, and the tolerances
on existing stud sizes have been
revised to allow manufacturers to
produce products that comply with
both international and American
standards. These tolerance changes do
not adversely affect the physical or
mechanical properties of the studs.
Commentary on ESW, EGW,
and UT
New commentary on electroslag
and electrogas welding (ESW and
EGW) has been added as assistance to
users in implementing these welding
processes. Also, commentary to alert
users when applying ESW and EGW
on quench and tempered steels,
thermomechanical control processed
steel, and precipitation hardened steels
subjected to cyclic loading applications
has been added. Both potential and
current users of these processes should
read through the new commentary to
better understand potential pitfalls and
possible remedies suggested there.
Additional commentary has been
added to emphasize that the ultrasonic
testing (UT) acceptance criteria shown
in Tables 6.2 and 6.3 have been
established within specific testing
parameters and that using testing
equipment or procedures, such as
transducers of a different size or angle
shown in these tables, may invalidate
the results.
Other Changes
The code no longer requires the
Type 1 IIW UT Reference Block; any
of the IIW type blocks may be used.
Cracks or bursts in headed studs
are now covered in detail, and the
maximum length of these cracks has
been established.
A definition for tubular has
been added to Annex K along with a
revised definition for pipe.
Annex N, Form N-3
(ESW/EGW) has been completely
revised.
Some guidance has been added
to the introductory page of the
commentary to assist users in
distinguishing commentary on code
from items supporting
commentary.
The words thorough fusion
have been changed to complete
fusion in Table 6.1 (visual acceptance
criteria) to match the terminology used
in AWS A3.0, Standard Welding Terms
and Definitions.
Many other changes, mostly
minor, have been made to this new
edition of the D1.1 Code. The new
foreword has a comprehensive but
succinct list of all changes. Most
changes are also identified in the
published code by underlined text
or vertical lines in the margins of
the page.
JOHN L. GAYLER
(gayler@aws.org) is director, national
standards activities, American
Welding Society, Miami, Fla.
DONALD D. RAGER
(ddrager@ragerconsulting.com) is
president, Rager Consulting, Inc.,
Coles Point, Va.
____________________
___________
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
________________________
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
Feature
By Albert J. Moore Jr.
This article is the second in a series
aimed at helping you understand the
concept of Welding Procedure
Specifications (WPSs), how to write them,
and how to use them. This article defines
the differences between essential and
nonessential variables. Article three will
cover qualifying a WPS by testing, and
article four will help you write a WPS that,
in the authors words, will do more than
collect dust.
If you look at the label on any food
item candy bar, cookies, box of brownie
mix you will see a list of ingredients.
The label does not provide the quantity of
each ingredient, but it does list the
ingredients in order of the greatest to least
amount used. It would be impossible, based
solely on the information provided on the
label, to duplicate the exact recipe the
manufacturer used.
The welding documents some
contractors provide are a lot like the label
on a box of brownie mix. They list only the
basic information needed to meet the
applicable code, but fail to list important
information the welder needs to replicate
the test weld.
What information should be included
in the welding documentation? What
information is helpful, but not crucial, to
making an acceptable weld? Volunteers
who sit on the committees that develop our
welding codes and standards have been
discussing this subject for many years.
They have agreed on common language
and basic definitions, but they do not
necessarily agree on the content of the
WPS or how the WPS is to be qualified.
Welding variables that are critical to
making acceptable welds are categorized as
essential variables. Welding variables that
do not have a profound influence on the
mechanical properties of the weld or those
that are associated with the skills of the
welder are categorized as nonessential
variables.
What is an acceptable weld? One
definition is a weld that meets the
minimum requirements of the applicable
welding standard. The minimum
requirements would include mechanical
properties such as tensile strength, ductility,
and soundness. The welding standard may
invoke notch toughness requirements when
service conditions, such as low-temperature
applications, require toughness. There is
not just one welding standard that is
suitable for all applications. Different
service conditions and applications require
different welding standards. Each welding
standard has unique requirements for
qualifying welding procedures and welders,
as well as different fabrication requirements
to satisfy those service requirements.
While space limitations prevent us
from exploring every possible welding
variable, we can look at several variables
that play an important role in the deposition
of sound welds. In this article, we will
categorize welding variables as essential or
nonessential using the definitions in the
next paragraph. A word of warning: make
sure you review the requirements of the
applicable code or standard when
qualifying or documenting a welding
procedure, because no two standards are in
full agreement when it comes to
categorizing every welding variable as
either an essential or nonessential variable.
Note, that as we said previously,
essential variables are those that have a
significant influence on the mechanical
properties, such as tensile strength and
ductility. Nonessential variables are those
that do not have a significant influence on
tensile strength or ductility of the
completed weld. Also, those variables that
are dependent on the welders skills to
make a sound weld are classified as
nonessential variables.
Essential Variables
Base Metals
One of the first factors to consider
when making a weld is the base metal or
metals to be joined. Some base metals are
easily welded, some are more difficult, and
others are downright ornery to weld. Base
metals are grouped as ferrous or nonferrous
metals. Ferrous metals can be further
classified as low-carbon, medium-carbon,
high-carbon, high-strength low-alloy, and
high-alloy steels, as well as ferritic
stainless, martensitic stainless, austenitic
stainless, duplex stainless, and
precipitation-hardened stainless steels. The
nonferrous metals include alloys of
aluminum, copper, nickel, titanium, and
many more. Some of the nonferrous metals
are further classified as refractory or
reactive metals. Welding standards usually
group the base metals into families that
have similar chemistry and weldability.
ASME groups the various base metals by
P- or S- numbers. AWS B2.1, Specification
for Welding Procedure and Performance
Essential vs. Nonessential Variables
CWIs must review the applicable welding standard to determine which welding parameters
are defined as essential, nonessential, and supplementary essential variables
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
Qualification, uses M-numbers and
NAVSEA S9074-AR-GIB-010/248 uses S-
numbers to group the base metals. A
change from one P-, M-, or S-number
group to another affects the mechanical
properties; therefore, base metals are
classified as essential variables.
Welding Process
A welding process must be selected
once the base metal is known. Not all base
metals can be easily welded with every
welding process that is in use. Welding
standards list the welding process as an
essential variable. If you change the
welding process, but nothing else, the
chances of obtaining a sound weld with the
required mechanical properties will be in
question. Consider what happens if we
change from the gas metal arc welding
process to the shielded metal arc welding
(SMAW) process. That change would
require a change in the type of filler metal,
a different power supply, and a switch from
a welding gun to an electrode holder. In
addition, shielding gas is no longer
required. As you can see from the example,
a change in the welding process can
involve several changes associated with the
welding process.
Once the base metal and the welding
process are determined, a suitable filler
metal may have to be selected. The filler
metal must be compatible with the base
metal and the welding process. Filler
metals are typically grouped by an F-
number based on chemistry, flux type (if a
flux system is used to shield the molten
weld pool), and ease of use if it is a SMAW
electrode. A change from one F-number to
another will usually result in a change in
chemistry and mechanical properties.
Imagine a switch from an F-6 (low-carbon
steel) filler metal to an F-3X (a copper-
based alloy) filler metal. Even if the base
metal and the welding process have not
changed, the mechanical properties surely
will since iron and copper do not play well
with each other. The F-number is an
essential variable.
Joint Design
Joint design usually falls into the
nonessential variable category. The
mechanical properties of the completed
weld are not dependent on the groove
design. Switching from a V-groove to a
bevel groove is not going to change the
mechanical properties of the weld.
However, there are times when a
change in the groove detail will affect the
properties of the welded joint. Consider a
joint between dissimilar base metals. The
two base metals have different alloy
compositions and different mechanical
properties. The completed weld is a
composition of both base metals and the
filler metal used. The exact composition of
the weld (and its mechanical properties) are
dependent on the volume of base metal
mixed with the volume of filler metal in the
molten weld pool.
Lets examine a weld joining a sheet
of carbon steel (ASTM A36) to a sheet of
stainless steel (ASTM A240 Type 304
alloy). The weld joint is a square groove
detail that is joined with a single weld bead.
A 309 filler metal is typically used for this
combination of base metals. The completed
weld may consist of 40% carbon steel, 40%
stainless steel, and 20% filler metal. Now
consider what happens if the groove design
is changed to a V-groove. The completed
weld now consists of 15% carbon steel,
15% stainless steel, and 70% filler metal.
The alloy composition of the completed
weld has been changed and a
corresponding change in the mechanical
properties of the weld can be expected.
ASME Section IX and AWS codes use the
A-number to define the chemistry of
ferrous weld deposits. A change in the A-
number results when there is a change in
the chemistry of the weld. A change in weld
chemistry will result in a change in the
mechanical properties, therefore the A-
number is an essential variable.
Nonessential Variables
The welder controls some variables
that have little impact on the mechanical
properties of the completed weld. Assuming
the welder is skilled, as demonstrated by his
or her passing the welder performance test,
variables such as arc voltage, amperage, and
travel speed typically have little effect on the
chemistry or mechanical properties of the
weld. These are usually considered to be
nonessential variables.
Arc Voltage
Using SMAW as an example,
variations in the arc length maintained by a
skilled welder will result in minor
fluctuations in arc voltage. A minor change
in voltage is not going to affect the heat
input or the chemistry of the weld deposit
sufficiently to dramatically alter the
mechanical properties. Therefore, as we
have defined it, voltage is a nonessential
variable.
Welding Amperage
Turning once again to the SMAW
example, welding amperage for a given
electrode diameter is restricted to a narrow
range. If the welder increases amperage
above or below the manufacturers
recommendation, the welding arc becomes
unstable and an unacceptable weld results.
Welds that meet the mechanical properties
of the applicable code can be expected if
the welder uses the electrode within the
amperage range the manufacturer
recommends. In this example, amperage is
a nonessential variable.
Travel Speed
An increase or decrease in the travel
speed has little effect on the mechanical
properties of the weld assuming voltage,
amperage, and the other variables remain
unchanged. For a given electrode diameter,
the travel speed is largely dependent on the
melt-off rate of the electrode, which is a
function of the amperage. The welder can
use a weave bead or stringer bead
technique. Either technique can produce a
sound weld with the mechanical properties
the code requires. Since a change in travel
speed does not profoundly affect the welds
mechanical properties, travel speed is a
nonessential variable.
In review of our discussion, a change
in an essential variable has a profound
effect on the mechanical properties of the
weld, while a change in a nonessential
variable has little effect on the mechanical
properties of the completed weld.
Supplementary Essential
Variables
Thus far, we have not broached the
subject of notch toughness. Notch
toughness adds a new element to the
problem of developing welds with suitable
properties. Supplementary essential
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
variables are those variables that must be
considered when notch toughness
requirements are invoked. Ferrous metals
such as the carbon and high-strength, low-
alloy steels are the base metals most
affected by low service temperatures.
Carbon and low-alloy steels are divided
into P-, M-, and S-numbered groups, which
are further divided into groups that are only
considered when notch toughness
requirements are invoked. Filler metals take
on a more important role in meeting notch
toughness requirements so the electrode
classification and possibly the manufacturer
are classified as supplementary essential
variables. Heat input is a factor in
determining notch toughness. Voltage,
amperage, and travel speed are important
considerations in determining heat input
(designated as Q). Q is a supplementary
essential variable, thus voltage, amperage,
and travel speed must be controlled within
specified limits.
Summary
It is important to remember that the
requirements of various welding standards
have been tweaked to meet specific service
requirements. Each welding standard defines
essential, nonessential, and supplementary
essential variables differently. Therefore, to
properly develop welding documentation,
the CWI must first review the applicable
welding standard to determine which
welding parameters are defined as essential,
nonessential, and supplementary essential
variables. Welding documents have to
properly address the three types of variables
in order to serve as the foundation of a
successful welding program.
ALBERT J. MOORE JR.
(AMoore999@comcast.net) is vice
president, Marion Testing &
Inspection, Canton, Conn. He is an
AWS Senior Certified Welding
Inspector and an ASNT ACCP NDT
Level III. He is also a member of the
AWS Certification Committee and the
Committee on Methods of Inspection
of Welds.
Errata C5.4-93
ANSI/AWS C5.4-93,
Recommended Practices for Stud
Welding
The following errata have been
identified and incorporated into the
current reprint of this document.
Page 3, Paragraph 1.2.1:
Change from currency to
current in third sentence.
Page 19, Table 8: Last entry
under Stud Base Diameter in
inches, change 01.000 to 1.000.
Page 23, Table 10: Under
Shielding Gas Flow, CFH heading,
change 1 to 15.
Page 23, Table 10: Under
Shielding Gas Flow, liter/min,
heading, change 57.1 to 7.1.
__________________
____________
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
Convexity is defined in AWS
A3.0:2010, Standard Welding Terms
and Definitions, as the maximum
distance from the face of a convex
fillet weld perpendicular to a line
joining the weld toes. Figure 1, which
is adapted from Fig. 25B of A3.0:2010,
illustrates this dimension. Red arrows
have been added to show this
dimension at the location where a
measurement would be made. It also
illustrates the inherent difficulty visual
welding inspectors face in the
assessment of convexity, i.e., the
dimension is referenced from a hidden
(or imaginary) line. This would be akin
to a requirement to measure the size of
a bolt by measuring its radius. While
convexity is easy to observe and
measure in cross section, the visual
welding inspector is severely
challenged in terms of assessing this
condition and determining its
acceptability according to common
industry standards when only the weld
face is accessible.
In simpler terms, convexity is a
condition found only in a fillet weld
with a convex profile. An analogous
dimension in a groove weld would be
weld reinforcement height. Most codes
provide visual weld acceptance criteria
for convexity in terms of a simple
linear dimension; however, as noted
above, this dimension is measured
from a hidden line. Therein lies the
challenge for the visual welding
inspector.
Many codes provide acceptance
criteria for this discontinuity, with
AWS D1.1, Structural Welding Code
Steel, being the one most prominent
in the United States. The other
structural welding codes published by
the American Welding Society deal
with convexity in approximately the
same manner as D1.1. Table 1 provides
a sampling of fillet weld convexity
requirements from various industry
standards.
While there certainly is no
consensus among the various standards
for the permissible amount of
convexity, virtually all of them specify
a maximum dimension for the
geometric condition. That dimension,
however, is virtually immeasurable, as
indicated previously. So, the welding
inspector is at a severe disadvantage
when asked to evaluate this
discontinuity during the course of
visual examination. Specification of
quality requirements in such a fashion
is considered irresponsible. There
needs to be a better means of
evaluating this discontinuity, but before
an alternate approach is proposed, its
important to better understand what
impact convexity has from a structural,
or performance, standpoint.
At first glance, convexity appears
to be a benefit, since it represents an
increase in the fillet weld cross section,
or throat. Convexity represents the
difference between the effective and
actual throat of a convex fillet weld. In
a correctly designed structure, fillet
welds are intended to only transmit
loads in shear, where the shear stress is
transmitted through the weld throat.
Consequently, the greater the amount
of convexity, the greater the shear
plane cross section, and therefore, the
greater the load-carrying capacity of
the fillet weld.
The issue, however, relates to the
direction in which the loads are
applied. If the loads are applied parallel
to the weld axis, the increase in weld
cross section due to convexity is indeed
a benefit. Should the fillet weld lie
transverse to the applied stress,
however, convexity represents a
geometric discontinuity due to the
stress concentrations created at the
weld toes. This geometric discontinuity
is even more critical when the primary
What Is This Thing Called Convexity?
An approach is suggested that would provide inspectors with a method to better assess and
determine the acceptability of convexity
Fig. 1 Convex fillet weld.
Feature
By Richard L. Holdren
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
Table 1 Convexity Requirements from Various Welding Standards
Standard Category Requirement
AWS D1.1:2006 Statically and cyclically For face width (W)
5
16 in.
1
16 in. maximum convexity (C)
loaded structures (5.24.3) For
5
16 in. < W < 1 in.
1
For W 1 in.
3
AWS D1.1:90 Statically and cyclically For measured leg size (L)
5
16 in.
1
loaded structures For
5
16 in. < L < 1 in.
1
For L 1 in.
3
AWS D1.1:85 Statically and cyclically Maximum convexity (C) = 0.07 face width (W) + 0.06 in.
loaded structures
AWS D1.2:2003 Statically and cyclically loaded Maximum convexity (C) = 0.07 face width (W) + 0.06 in.
structures (5.14.2)
Tubular structures Class 1 Maximum convexity (C) = 0.15 largest specified leg size (S) + 0.06 in.
(5.14.4, Table 5.5)
Tubular structures Class 2 Maximum convexity (C) = 20% of theoretical throat
(5.14.4, Table 5.6)
AWS D1.3:98 Fillet weld face (6.1.1.4) Faces of fillet welds shall be flat or slightly convex.
AWS D1.5:2002 Quality of Welds Visual Inspection Maximum convexity (C) = 0.07 face width (W) + 0.06 in.
(6.26.1.4)
AWS D14.1:2005 Welding Profiles (10.7.1) Maximum convexity (C) = 0.1 actual fillet weld size (S) + 0.03 in.
AWS D14.3:2005 Quality of Welds Fillet Welds Maximum convexity (C) = 0.1 actual leg size + 0.06 in.
(9.5.5.1)
AWS D14.4:2005 Joint Class I through VI For face width (W)
5
16 in.
1
For
5
16 in. < W < 1 in.
1
For W 1 in.
3
AWS D14.6:2005 Weld Surface Conditions (7.4.1) Maximum convexity (C) = 0.1 actual (or longer) leg size +
1
32 in.
AWS D15.1:2001 Weld Profiles Fillet Welds (13.4.1) General Note: Maximum convexity (C) = 0.07 face width (W) + 0.06 in.
For face width (W)
5
16 in.
1
For
5
16 in. < W < 1 in.
1
For W 1 in.
3
AWS D17.1:2001 Figure 6.1 Acceptable and For face width (W)
5
16 in.
1
Unacceptable Weld Profiles For
5
16 in. < W < 1 in.
1
For W 1 in.
3
MIL-STD-1688A Shape of fillet weld face (7.4.4)
1
16 in. to +
3
16 in. from line drawn toe to toe
Reentrant angles > 90 deg
MIL-STD-1689A Shape of fillet weld face (8.2.3) Fillet and fillet reinforced welds shall be essentially flat (
1
16 in. to
+
3
16 in. of a line drawn toe to toe).
MIL-STD-2035 Shape of the weld face (4.2.1) Welds shall be free of sharp irregularities between weld beads and shall
blend smoothly and gradually with the base metal at the weld edges
without exceeding the undercut (4.2.16) or reentrant angle (4.2.19) limits
of this specification.
4.2.19 Reentrant angle. The angle formed between the base plate and the
toe of the weld and the angle formed between adjacent beads of a weld
must be 90 deg or greater.
ISO 5817
(a)
No. 1.12, Incorrect weld toe = toe reentrant angle
groove welds
Quality Level D 90 deg
Quality Level C 110 deg
Quality Level B 150 deg
ISO 5817
(a)
No. 1.12, Incorrect weld toe = toe reentrant angle
fillet welds
Quality Level D 90 deg
Quality Level C 100 deg
Quality Level B 110 deg
(a) Welding Fusion-welded joints in steel, nickel, titanium and their alloys (beam welding excluded) Quality levels for imperfections
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
stresses are transverse to the weld axis,
and the structure is loaded in a cyclic
(fatigue) manner.
So, the critical issue is the
resulting reentrant angle at the weld
toes, which defines the degree of stress
concentration. Consequently, if the
goal is to judge convexity in terms of
its effect on the structural performance
of a fillet weld, a better approach
would be to limit the reentrant angle at
the weld toes rather than the amount of
convexity present. Not only does this
more directly address how a weld
performs in service, reentrant angle is a
geometric condition that could be more
easily measured by the welding
inspector. In fact, go/no-go gauges
could be developed to aid in a more
efficient and effective measurement of
the condition. Figure 2 shows various
combinations of convexity and
reentrant angles in fillet welds.
The illustrations shown in Fig. 2
are drawn approximately to scale to
show how much convexity might be
present and the weld still be considered
acceptable in terms of the current
requirements in AWS D1.1 and several
other codes. The -in. weld size has an
actual face of just over
5
16 in., so the
maximum permissible convexity is
1
8
in. In both cases, the amount of
convexity is acceptable, but the
reentrant angles at the weld toes are
less than 90 deg so these welds would
be considered unacceptable due to
overlap.
Another issue with the bracketed
approach to defining permissible
convexity, i.e., a given amount of
convexity for a range of face widths, is
the fact that the same amount of
convexity produces dramatically
different reentrant angles. In the
current D1.1 system, theoretical face
widths from
5
16 to 1 in. relate to fillet
weld sizes from to
11
16 in. Figure 3
shows the same amount of convexity
(
1
8 in.) as in Fig. 2A, but in this case,
the fillet weld size is
11
16 in.
It is obvious here that, not only is
the convexity acceptable, the weld is
free from overlap. Comparing Figs. 2A
and 3 shows that assignment of a
specific amount of convexity for a
range of fillet weld sizes can result in
dramatically different stress
concentrations at the weld toes.
While the intent of this article is to
point out the deficiencies in most of the
currently employed systems for
limiting convexity in fillet welds, both
from a geometric and inspection
standpoint, it is realized that requesting
such a dramatic change in the approach
will not result in any immediate
changes in the standards. Before
providing what I believe to be a viable
solution, Id like to present a
description of a technique that can be
employed, with available gauges, to
measure the amount of convexity
present in a fillet weld. It must be
pointed out that such an approach is
theoretical, and measurements are
based on nominal fillet weld sizes. It
does, however, provide the inspector
with a better approach than just
eyeballing the weld profile and
making a judgment. Since AWS D1.1
is generally considered to be the
dominant standard for structural
welding, the example below is based
on the current AWS D1.1 requirements
for convexity.
Method for Measuring Fillet
Weld Convexity
AWS D1.1 Limits. The limitations
on convexity are shown in Table 2 (from
Fig. 5.24 of AWS D1.1:2006). The
permissible amount of convexity is
based upon the fillet weld face width, or
width of individual weld bead, either of
which is difficult to measure. Once the
face width is determined, the permissible
convexity is then per Table 2.
Measurement Technique
This technique utilizes
trigonometry to determine the
theoretical dimensions and then uses a
fillet weld gauge normally employed
for measurement of concave fillet weld
profiles to make the actual
measurement. This example is for a
specified -in. (6-mm) fillet weld.
Refer to Fig. 4 for the nomenclature
used in the calculations.
Calculations. Per the geometric
properties of a triangle:
T
1
= 0.707 0.25 in.
T
1
= 0.18 in.
T
2
= T
1
+ 0.13 in.
T
2
= 0.31 in.
L
2
= T
2
/0.707
L
2
= 0.31/0.707
L
2
= 0.44 in. (
7
16 in.)
A
7
16-in. concave fillet weld gauge
Fig. 2 -in. fillet welds with
acceptable convexity per AWS D1.1.
Table 2 Determining Permissible Convexity
Face width or width of individual weld bead, W Maximum permissible convexity
W
5
16 in. (8 mm)
1
16 in. (2 mm)
5
16 in. < W < 1 in. (25 mm)
1
8 in. (3 mm)
W 1 in.
3
16 in. (5 mm)
B
A
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
can be used to approximate the amount
of convexity permissible for a -in.
fillet weld (as shown in Fig. 4).
Table 3 summarizes the
dimensional limits for a range of fillet
weld sizes and what concave fillet weld
(or fillet weld throat) gauges can be
used to measure convexity.
The Proposed Solution
Having laid this foundation, the
important aspect of this exercise is to
provide some viable solution to allow
the designer to stipulate the necessary
fillet weld profile for a given weld
based on the expected loading
conditions and to provide the inspector
with a means of judging the result in a
more effective and accurate manner.
I believe the solution is the
approach put forth in ISO 5817,
Welding Fusion-welded joints in
steel, nickel, titanium and their alloys
(beam welding excluded) Quality
levels for imperfections. With various
classes available to the designer,
convexity requirements for different
loading conditions can be specified
quite easily. This can be done on a
weld-by-weld basis, so those welds
subject to more critical loading
conditions can be specified as Class B,
for example. Other welds whose
loading conditions deem them less
critical can be assigned Class C or D
status. This differentiation could be
included in the tail of the welding
symbol so the designer could very
easily dictate the specific weld
requirements to both production and
inspection personnel.
AWS D1.1 has used this type of
approach for limits on undercut;
however, the requirement falls short
because there is no stipulation that the
designer designate which welds are
transverse to the applied stress and
which ones are parallel. It should be
designated in the tail of the symbol so
the inspector has all the information
necessary to perform his/her job
effectively.
Proposed Solution
1. Rather than controlling fillet
weld profile by specifying a dimension
for convexity, specify limits for the
reentrant angle at the weld toe.
2. Provide different limits for
different loading conditions so the toe
angle can be specified according to the
expected service conditions.
Fig. 3 Acceptable convexity in a
11
16-
in. fillet weld per AWS D1.1.
Table 3 Dimensional Limits for a Range of Fillet Weld Sizes
Fillet weld size, in. Theoretical face width, in. Permissible convexity, in. Concave fillet weld gauge or
fillet weld throat gauge to be
used to measure convexity
3
16 0.27
1
16 0.28 (~
9
32)
0.35
1
8 0.43 (~
7
16)
5
16 0.44
1
8 0.49 (~
1
2)
3
8 0.53
1
8 0.55 (~
9
16)
7
16 0.62
1
8 0.61 (~
5
8)
0.71
1
8 0.68 (~
11
16)
5
8 0.88
1
8 0.80 (~
13
16)
1.1
3
16 1.02 (~1)
7
8 1.2
3
16 1.14 (1
9
64)
1 1.4
3
16 1.27 (~1)
Fig. 4 Use of a concave fillet weld
gauge to approximate the amount of
permissible convexity.
RICHARD L. HOLDREN, P.E.
(dick.holdren@atcwelds.com), is vice
president, Engineering and Quality,
Applications Technologies Co.,
Columbus, Ohio, and an AWS Senior
Certified Welding Inspector.
___________________
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
A lack of special welding
inspections offers the potential for
quality problems, life safety issues, and
liabilities. The intent of this article is to
provide a reference tool for Certified
Welding Inspectors, owners, engineers,
architects, building officials, building
department staff inspectors, and other
design professionals.
The Inspection Issue
What constitutes an approved
fabricator? There seems to be some
confusion about this issue. It is
commonly assumed that as long as a
welding fabrication shop is AISC
certified or is licensed by an agency
such as the Los Angeles Department of
Building and Safety, it is exempt from
shop welding inspections. This simply
is not the case.
Actually, it is the building official
for the jurisdiction in which the project
is permitted who has the authority to
approve the fabricator. For
consideration of approval, the
fabricator must submit his or her
quality information to the building
official as required by Section 1701.7
of the California Building Code (CBC)
or Section 1704.2.2 of the
International Building Code (IBC).
This process must be completed prior
to any welding being performed. It is
from this information that the building
official makes the decision whether or
not to approve a fabricator and waive
the requirement of shop welding
inspections for that specific project.
Generally, most building departments
throughout California do not approve
fabricators. Therefore, the owner or
owners representative must provide
shop welding inspections. These
inspections must be performed by
qualified inspectors who have
demonstrated competence, to the
satisfaction of the building official, for
inspection of the particular type of
construction or operation requiring
special inspection.
During the permit approval
process, the owner or his agent is
required to employ the special
inspector under Chapter 17, Section
1701, of the CBC or Section 1704 of
the IBC. The registered design
professional is responsible for
preparing a statement of special
inspections and submitting it to the
building department. The purpose of
this document is to inform the building
department that a special inspection
agency or special inspectors have been
retained to perform all required special
inspections for the project. This letter is
usually required to be submitted before
the building permit is issued, and
includes the scope of the inspection, a
list of inspectors and their
certifications, and, when requested, the
inspectors rsums. In some instances,
the individual inspectors must
successfully complete an interview
with the building department in order
to obtain approval to perform special
inspections in their jurisdiction.
Where the Problem Begins
When shop or field welding for a
permitted project is performed without
the required inspection, we face the
issue of visual after the fact welding
inspections. When this situation occurs,
the special inspection agency usually
receives a frantic call requesting the
services of a welding inspector.
Sometimes this involves situations
Feature
By Brad A. Bosworth
Visual After the Fact Welding Inspections
Welding inspectors need to be aware of the liability issues they may face when asked to
perform inspections late in the building process
Fig. 1 Sample of a visually
acceptable single-pass fillet weld with
poor fitup and lack of effective weld to
one member. (See Fig. 2.)
Fig. 2 Sample cross section of a
single-pass fillet weld with poor fitup.
Notice the lack of effective weld to the
vertical member.
Fig. 3 Sample single-V-groove weld
plate showing acceptable weld profile,
yet the weld has been slugged. (See
Fig. 4.)
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
where weeks of welding have been
performed, or even entire projects have
been completed, where no call has
been made for welding inspections.
The contractor or responsible party
assumes the problem will be easily
resolved by simply having a welding
inspector come out and do a quick
visual inspection of all the completed
welds and provide a report that will
satisfy the building department.
This is where the problems begin.
Yes, a welding inspector can, in most
cases, conduct an after the fact
limited visual inspection of completed
welds. The inspector can provide a
limited report to protect himself or
herself and the inspectors employer
from liabilities for not performing the
inspections in conformance with the
codes. The inspector may even be able
to make the statement or statements
that the welds meet the minimum
visual requirements of the AWS D1.1,
D1.3, or D1.4 welding codes and
appear to conform to the proper size,
length, and locations as shown on the
project plans. However, without
committing the crime of perjury, the
inspector cannot provide a report to the
building official stating that the welds
were performed and inspected in
accordance with the California
Building Code, the International
Building Code, and the approved
project plans or construction
documents as applicable.
The following statement is
required under CBC, Section 1701.3,
Duties and Responsibilities of the
Special Inspector: The special
inspector shall submit a final signed
report stating whether the work
requiring special inspection was, to the
best of the inspectors knowledge, in
conformance to the approved plans and
specifications and the applicable
workmanship provisions of this code.
The IBC requires a similar statement
under 1704.1.2, Report Requirements.
When limited after the fact
welding inspections have been
performed, this statement cannot be
made because the special inspector was
not afforded the opportunity to perform
all of the required inspection tasks.
Following is a list of tasks that
cannot be verified after the fact. The
inability to verify any one of these
tasks, let alone all of them, could result
in catastrophic failure of a welded
structure. They are part of the
inspectors duties and responsibilities
and are outlined not only by the
building codes, but by the American
Welding Society Codes D1.1,
Structural Welding Code Steel,
D1.3, Structural Welding Code
Sheet Steel, and D1.4, Structural
Welding Code Reinforcing Steel.
Positive material identification prior
to fabrication (CBC and IBC)
Verification of welding procedures
and Welding Procedure
Specifications (AWS D1.1, D1.3,
and D1.4)
Verification of welder certifications
and positions qualified (AWS D1.1,
D1.3, and D1.4)
Verification of welding process,
electrode, and electrode storage
(AWS D1.1, D1.3, and D1.4)
Weld joint fitup (AWS D1.1, D1.3,
and D1.4)
Inspection of multipass fillet welds,
and partial-joint-penetration and
complete-joint-penetration groove
welds (AWS D1.1)
Assembly practice (AWS D1.1, D1.3,
and D1.4)
Observation of the welding (AWS
D1.1, D1.3, and D1.4)
Welder, welding operator, and tack
welder performance (AWS D1.1,
D1.3, and D1.4).
The integrity and quality of the
welds cannot be positively verified
without performing all required
welding inspection tasks. Even though
the overall appearance of the welds
may meet all of the visual acceptance
criteria, it cannot be assumed that they
meet the minimum quality
requirements of the code or minimum
design requirements specified on the
approved project plans. Without being
able to verify the actual weld joint fitup
prior to welding, there could actually
be existing root openings in excess of
that allowable by the welding code or
even welds that have been slugged
and welded over. Excessive root
openings in fillet welds or slugging a
weld to close a gap or fill in a weld
joint generally results in an inadequate,
ineffective weld size that could affect
the design performance of the
structure. These types of situations are
usually a result of poor workmanship
and are commonly found where
welding has been performed without
inspections. Workmanship like this
creates a condition where the visual
appearance of the completed weld may
appear adequate in size but in actuality
results in a severe lack of effective
Fig. 4 Sample of cross section of
single-V-groove weld plate with rebar
slugged weld.
Fig. 5 Sample of visually acceptable
multipass fillet weld with poor fitup
and a slugged and bridged root
opening that has been welded over as
an example. (See Fig. 6.)
Fig. 6 Sample of the backside view
of a visually acceptable multipass fillet
weld with poor fitup and a slugged and
bridged root opening.
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
weld to the connected members
Figs. 16.
When welding inspectors are
retained and directed to perform a
limited after the fact visual
inspection, and note in their report the
limitations related to performing such
an inspection, the liability will fall on
those who accept the limited reports.
Conclusion
An owner, owners representative,
contractor, architect, engineer, building
department inspector, or building
official should be aware of all
limitations including potential quality
problems, life safety issues, and
liabilities that may occur when asking
for or accepting after the fact
welding inspection reports. The
building authority and designated
inspectors and design professionals
should pay close attention to the
wording of the written reports. More
often than not, the reports will be
exclusionary and will not contain the
minimum code-required statement. In
these situations, ask yourself, Do I
want the liability?
References
1. California Building Code. 2001.
Chapter 17.
2. International Building Code.
2006. Chapter 17, Structural Tests and
Inspections.
3. AWS D1.1/D1.1M:2008,
Structural Welding Code Steel.
Miami, Fla.: American Welding
Society.
4. AWS D1.3/D1.3M:2008,
Structural Welding Code Sheet
Steel. Miami, Fla.: American Welding
Society.
5. AWS D1.4/D1.4M:2005,
Structural Welding Code
Reinforcing Steel. Miami, Fla.:
American Welding Society.
Erratum D15.1
D15.1/D15.1M:2007, Railroad Welding Specification for Cars and
Locomotives
The following erratum has been identified and incorporated into the current
reprint of this document.
P. 109, Table 11.2, footnotes c, e, and g need to be moved over to p. 110, Table
11.3.
Carestream Health, Inc. Rochester, N.Y. 14608
Carestream Health, Inc. 2010. Kodak and
the Kodak trade dress are trademarks of Kodak
used under license.
Upgrade and Save
Exclusive manufacturer of Kodak INDUSTREX Products
Industrex
Products
www.HPX-1.com
Carestream NDT developed the KODAK INDUSTREX
HPX-1 Digital System with you in mind! Its the rst
computed radiography system built from the ground up
to meet the needs of the non-destructive testing industry.
With this special ofer to upgrade your current system,
we are making it easier than ever for you to own latest in
high-tech NDT equipment! Investing in new technology
that is cost-efective makes you more productive and
more competitive, and thats what makes your company
more successful.
Contact your KODAK INDUSTREX sales representative
today to schedule a demo and learn more about our
Upgrade and Save special promotion.
Trade up from a
competitors NDT CR
system (or ACR) to a
NEW HPX-1 and get
$15,000 in Industrex
Products FREE.
BRAD A. BOSWORTH
(bradb@technicon.net) is manager
of Special Inspections, Materials
Division, Technicon Engineering
Services, Inc., Fresno, Calif. He is
also an AWS Certified Welding
Inspector.
_______________
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
The Answer Is
Q: Can ASME Section IX welder
qualifications be used and accepted
on AWS D1.1 projects?
A: The American Society for
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler
and Pressure Vessel Code and the AWS
D1.1, Structural Welding Code
Steel, are separate, stand-alone codes.
D1.1 usually will be referenced for
structural applications, and the ASME
Code will be referenced for pressure
piping and pressure vessels. Welder
qualifications for each project need to
be administered and documented to the
referenced code and standard. There
are many parameters for which AWS
and ASME overlap, but the welding
procedure specification (WPS) to
which each welder has tested needs to
address the applicable code(s) that the
WPS and welder will be qualified to
upon successful completion.
Q: I have just completed a ten-
month entry-level welding course.
Upon completion, I took a basic 1G
shielded metal arc welding plate test.
The inspector who oversaw this test
was talking about many things that
were foreign to the students such as
PQRs, WPSs, welding defects, and
measuring of welds. Does AWS offer
any type of training for either novice
or experienced welders on interfacing
with inspectors in the field?
A: (By Ken Erickson) Thanks for the
question. I am glad to receive feedback
from student welders entering the
welding industry. From my knowledge,
AWS does not offer training on this
subject that is geared toward welders. I
believe it would be beneficial if the
educational institutions that offer
welding courses would encompass
some credit hours toward topics such
as welding codes, working with
welding inspectors, evaluating welds,
and even understanding welding
documents. Having a local CWI
present this information to the students
and answer questions would also be
very informative. You might look into
joining your local AWS Section as it
may offer some Section meetings that
cover some of this information.
I have hired out and contracted for
many CWIs over the last 25 years.
CWIs who began as welders and have
been brought up through the industry
seem to adapt easily to this
environment and interact favorably
with the welders performing the work.
Any training or program that would
increase the welders knowledge and
working relationship with the CWI
would benefit both parties.
Q: My company just won a job
where we have to build watertight
tanks out of stiffened steel plate. The
spec requires that we do vacuum box
testing of the tank boundary welds.
It also requires that we qualify the
procedure; basically, we have to
prove that it can find leaks. Its my
job to write the procedure and get it
qualified. I dont have any problems
with the vacuum boxes, gauges,
setup, etc., but Im having a hard
time figuring out how I can prove it
all works. I need a leak for that and
were trying to avoid those. Any
ideas?
A: We would first ask the client who
may have a specific idea in mind on
how to qualify the procedure. If you
cannot or do not want to turn to the
client, there is something else you can
do. Based on some things you should
already know (the joint configurations,
the welding processes to be used, and
discontinuities that could be
encountered), you should be able to
construct what you need. For example,
you can make up a small assembly out
of two small pieces of Plexiglas or
steel plate. Put them together in the
appropriate joint configuration (butt, T,
corner, lap, etc.) and join them by an
appropriate method (gluing or
welding). The next part is important.
You need to leave an unglued or
unwelded area, and it is important that
this area is about the same size as the
typical flaw size you have estimated.
You now have your leak.
Obviously the assembly has to be
large enough for the vacuum box to fit
completely, but you also want to make
it small enough to be portable. By
placing the vacuum box on this
assembly and pulling a vacuum, you
can demonstrate to your client that the
procedure will find leaks due to
through-thickness discontinuities of the
size that could be found in actual
production welds.
A bigger benefit, though, is that if
the leak size is truly representative of
what you could find in production, you
can use this assembly to fine tune your
procedure by adjusting the negative
pressure, the concentration of bubble-
forming solution, etc., until you get the
setup that gives you the best bubble
formation. You then plug this
information into your procedure.
Q: I am a CWI working for a testing
company where I cover a lot of fab
shops, both large and small. In one
of the smaller shops (a pretty good
outfit overall) there is a welder who
is just not that good, wont take
advice, and gives me a hard time
whenever I find something wrong
with this persons work. I am out of
patience, and Im thinking about
By K. Erickson and C. Mankenberg
The Society is not responsible for any statement made or opinion expressed herein. Data and information developed by the authors are for specific
informational purposes only and are not intended for use without independent, substantiating investigation on the part of potential users.
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
disqualifying this welder, which is
allowed by paragraphs 4.1.3.1 and
4.32 of AWS D1.1:2008. The owner of
the testing lab I work for is advising
against this, though he is backing me
up and telling me to do what I feel is
right. What is your opinion?
A: You should disqualify a welder only
as a very last resort. Whenever you
publicly call into question the quality
of a persons work (and disqualifying
someone will make it public very
quickly) the person will probably take
it badly, their employer may take it
badly, the persons coworkers will take
it badly, etc. Instead of solving the
problem and making life easier for
yourself, it may instead make life more
difficult. The words you use to describe
the issue indicate to me that emotions
may be getting in the way of a
satisfactory solution to this issue.
We do not know any of the parties
involved here, so we cannot make any
judgments as to the character of the
people involved or as to the dynamics
of the relationships, but we think it
would be best if you proceed under the
assumption that like most people, this
welder wants to do a good job. If that is
so, then based on your description of
your inspection results, what this
welder needs is improvement. The best
way to achieve this is with some form
of positive correction, not something
punitive. Simply having this person
take another test, which is what is
required by the code provisions you
cite, would not provide this correction
and would therefore likely be seen as
punishment. Whats worse, it may be
seen as punishment for something
unrelated to weld quality, and were
sure youd agree that is to be avoided.
We recommend that you first
involve the shop supervisor, voice your
concerns using objective language, and
make a recommendation that the
welder receive appropriate training or
instruction. We suggest you have this
discussion with the welder present.
Provide only constructive criticism and
offer to help in whatever way you can
in order to be part of the solution.
Inspection Trends encourages
question and answer submissions. Please
mail to the editor (mjohnsen@aws.org).
KENNETH ERICKSON is manager of
quality at National Inspection &
Consultants, Inc., Ft. Myers, Fla. He is an
AWS Senior Certified Welding Inspector,
an ASNT National NDT Level III
Inspector in four methods, and provides
expert witness review and analysis for
legal considerations.
CLIFFORD (KIP) MANKENBERG is a
construction supervisor for Shell
International Exploration & Production,
Houston, Tex. He is an AWS Senior
Certified Welding Inspector and an ASNT
National NDT Level III Inspector
in five methods.
-Recognized industry-wide since 1951
-Safety yellow color enhances visibility
-Wire Wrapped heating element provides
uniform heat within oven chamber
-Optional calibrated thermometer
-Union made in the U.S.A.
Phoenix DryRodovens.
Dont risk weld cracking, porosity, spatter and
costly rework.
Phoenix DryRod ovens: Trusted
by welding inspectors since 1951
414.973.3400 www.dryrod.com
For info go to www.aws.org/ad-index For info go to www.aws.org/ad-index
____________
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
q
q
M
M
q
q
M
M
qM
T R E N D S
_________________________________

Aws It 201007

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Aws It 201007

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Inspection in the Shipbuilding Industry

tunable square wave pulser

For info go to www.aws.org/ad-index

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen