, ,..

,
.,
.!,
!. ’,’
,!!,
j, ‘1
18
\ -.
I -,
~, ,“ ,,
,’ ‘1
t,”
‘, SER@L NO. SSC-46 )~
,, .’
1,
1’

,(’,
1“
‘1 COPY, No> ‘IJ’
,,, l’” ,. :’
1,
‘1,”
,- ,- .,
I
FINAL REPoRT
1.
,’ ,,

‘, ()~’ .{
‘,1 .,
1’

EVALUATION OF SHIP WELDING PROCEDURES

,’
BY DIRECT EXPLOSION TESTING
,, ,’- ‘, ,,
,’ ,/ by.. “
,’
‘,!’
,,-, ,,
,, ‘@ S. MIKHALAPOV 1-
I
,/
1-
~etalhmgical Rese+rch and Development,’ Comp~ny, Inc.
,, Under Bur&aq “of Ships Contract NObs-53383 ‘ ,
,“::. 1,-’
“.. 1,’ /’1. (Index No. NS.011-067) ‘
,,’
\
‘,!
., .,,
.’
,,
1’,’ /,
,,’ ,.
,“, II
1,

.,, ‘,!
.. .
.....:,,:
..
‘\
I “:..: .. ,,
,.. .,,J “. ,! ,’ ,~

... .,
,-,,-
SHIP STRUCTURE COMMITTEE
,. Con;ened, by
.: 1 The ~c:etary, of the Treasury
,,. .
,.. ..” .,
,’.
1’
,,
. ,.,

‘, ,’
j,
l.,

l“.-
,, ,.,
I
,.
!,
‘,
II I ,.
:,, ,’ .1
,’
.’
,,
,,.
..: ,,’
)
I

“. .- .. ,,
.1 MEhif3ERAGENCIES --~HIP +.TRUC’&W COMMITTEE
:.., ,, ,. ..’
‘, ,.
!“..-::
-,
/,EUREAU OF SHIPS. DEPT. or NAVY
!)
mi~mAw SEA TRANSPORTATION s~uvrc~, DEPT. OF NAVY
[’ I
UNITED STATES ; COA8T gUiRD, TREASURY DEFT. ‘
!,

MA.RITIMr ADMIMI$7RATION. DEPT. OF ,,COMMZRCE ,

>.

, AMERICAN’ WhEAU OF’ SHIPPlyG

J ‘,
1: ;I, ,,- ,’
,.
,., ,
I ,,
,,
1 1!
!,,
,, / /,

,,
‘,. ,
,,
,’

,, 1, .’
/,
,1

,s
‘1
f,
‘1 ,.
,’, AUGUST 31, 1951 , ,’ ,,,
‘1 ,’
,’ ,’
1 ,,
,!’ ) ’.:’:,;’,,’
I
. . . .. .. . . .. . ..—. .. —.. —- L.. ...1.-
~)
<:1’. –
 SHIP STRUCTURE COMMITTEE

August 31, 1951

MEMBER AeENcLwh ADDRESS CORRESPONDENCE To:

BUREAU OF SHIPS. DEPT. OF NAVY SEeRETARV

MILITARY SEA TRANSPORTATION SERVICE. WEPT, OF NAVY SHIP STRUCTURE COMMITTEE

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, TREASURY DEPT, U. S. COAST GUARD HEADQUARTERS

,.. MARITIME ADMINISTRATION. DEPT. OF COMMERCE WASHINGTON 25, D. C.

AMERICAN BLIREAU OF SHIPPING

Dear Sir:

Herewith is a copy of the second Report on the

investigations using the I’DirectExplosion High-Energy
bading T~stl~,by G. S. Mikhd.apov. These investigations
are being conducted at the request of the Ship Structure
Committee. This Report together with the first Report
(MC-43, March 15, 1951j, covers the work done up to
.... January 1951.

Any questions, comments, criticisms or other

matters pertati-ingto the Report ;hould be addressed to
the Secretary, Ship Structure Committee.

This Report is being distributed to those in-

dividuals and agencies associated witihthe work reported.
It is hoped that the information presented will prove
useful.

Yours sincerely,

$ff~
K. K. COWART
Rear Admiral, U. S. Coast Guard
Chairman, Ship Structure
Committee

-.
 -
.
The Navy 3epartm@nt %&’@ugh the W@5u df 8M.vs “is &@trilX&itig ?Itis .‘ “
report for the SHIP STRUC~V@ -Q40MMITW.to.those~agencies and indivMuq2s
who were actively associated ,w$th.
.,the This report reprqsent~
rqs~a,rc~;wcIY.’,Ic.
results of part of the research program ’’conductedunder the Ship Structure
Committeels”directive l%o ~mprov~.tie hull.struc@res of “shipsky an exten-
sion of knowledge pertaining.,to’’design,
mqteria,lti,andmetho@.,
of fqabrica-
tionrt. . >(,,
., # !
.? ,,

The distribution of this report is as follows~

Ship Siru&ure Committee

ConY No. 1 - Rear Admiral K. K. Cowart. USCG - Chairman

CO;;NO. 2 - Rear Admiral R. L. Hicks,O~*N~ (Ret.) Maritime Administration
Copy No. 3“+ Rear Admiral E. W. Sylvester, USN, Bureau of SbipS
Copy No. 4 - Capt. W. N. Mansfield, USNR, Military Sea Transportation Service
Copy No. 5 - D. P. Browm, American Bureau of Shipping

Ship Structure Subcommittee

Copy No. 6 = Capt. E. A. ~right~ U31?,Bureau of Shipsj Chairman

copy No. 7 - Comdr’~,-E.,A.G~+ant~, USN, !W1.lltarySeaTransportation Sertice
Copy No, $ C- Coxitr~-D.B”jHenderson, USCG, U.S. coast Guard Hcadqumters
copy No* 9 - Lt. Comdr. M.>N+ P. Hi&amp, USN, Eru’eauofSk@s
copy No. 10 “-’Lt. Comdr. E. L. Perry3 USCG, U. S, Coa~t Guard Headquarters
copy No* 11 - W. G, Frede.r:lgkjMaritime Admini::’Fw].ticm ,,
copy Ncl.1.2- Hubert Kempei; Military Sea Transpnltation Service ““
,1.
Copy No. 13- M. 3. Lehich, American Bureau of Shipp.lng
Copy No. 14 - L. C. Host, American Bureau of Shipping
Copy No. 15 - E, M. MacCutchson, Jr., Bureau or Ships
copy~om 16 - V. L. Russoj Maritime Adndnlstration ~, ,. 1,. ,
Copy No. 17 “- Finn JonaasenY Liaison Representat~vpg WC’
copy No. 18 - E. H. Davidson> Liaison Representative, AISI . ‘ ~
copy No. 19 - Il.P. Gerhart, Lia@on Representative, AISI ,’ ~, :
copyND* 20 - Wm. Spraragen, Liaisop,Representative,NRC
copy.No. 21 - J. M. Crowley, Office ”ofNaval Research, Alternate Membe# ‘ ‘
Copy No. 22 - Charles Hoch, Military Sea,Transportation Service, Alternate Mere.
COPY NO. 23 - W. E. Magee, U.S. Coast Guard} Alternate Member
COPY NO. 24 - J. B. Robertson, Jr., U.S.,Coast Guard, Alternate l@qber
copYm. 25 - John Vasta, Bureau of Shipsj Al@rnate lkh~er
Copy No. 26 - Edward Wenkr David Taylor Model Basin, Alternate’Member
.:

U. S. Army . ‘.

copy No. 27- Vatertown Arsenal Laboratory.,Attq: J&’Wall&’:

. .
‘
.. . .
,.
,.,.
..

.-
 -’li’-
U. S. Navy ,
Copy No. 28 = Chief, Bureau of Ships, Navy Department
COPY NO. 29- Capt. R. H. Lambert~ USN, Philadelphia D?avalShipyard
Copy Noa 30 - Capt. C. M? Tookej USN, Long Beach Naval Shipy%md
Copy TJo*31- Comdr. H. G. Bowen, USN, Code Re-3~ Bureau of Ordnance
COpy NO.,32- Comdr. R. S. Mandelkorn, USN~ Portsmouth Naval Shipyard
Copy l!o.33- A. AmiFiki~, Bureau of Yards and Docks
Copy No. 34- A. G. Bissell, Bureau of Ships
copy No. 3’5- J. W. Jenkins, jhreau of Ships
COpy NO. 36- Carl Hartbower~ Naval Research Laboratory
copy No. 37- Noah Kahm, }JewYork Naval Shipyard
Copy No. 38- A. S. Marthens, Bureau of Ships,
Copy No. 39 Y 0. T. Markke, Naval Research Lalmratory
copy No. @ - W. E. McKenzie, Metallurgical Branch, Naval Gun Factory ‘
copy Ko.”41 - J. E. McCambridge, Industrial Testing Lab., Phila. Naval Shipyard
copy No. 42 - N. E. Prorrtisel,
Bureau of Aeronautics
copy”No. 43 - Naval Research Laboratory
copy No. &!+” Naval Research Laboratory, Mechanical Section
copy No. 45” Naval Research Laboratory, Metallurgical sGCtiOZl
Copy NO. .46- Post Graduate School, U. S. Naval Academy .,
Copies No. 47 and 48 - U. S. Naval Engineering Experiment Station ..’
.,
Copy No. 49 - New York Naval Shipya~dP Material Laboratory
Copy No. 50 - Industrial Te~ting Laboratory ,,
Copy No. 51 - Philadelphia Naval Shipyard
,’ -.
copY No. 52 - San Fran@.sco Naval Shipyard
copy Nb.53 - David Taylor Model Basin, Attm Library ,
Copies No. 54 and 55 - Technical Librarg, Bureau of Ships, Code 364

U. S. Coast Guard

COPY NO. 56- Capt. R. B. Lank? Jr., I?SCG

copy No. 57 - Capt. H. C. Moore, USCG
Copy no. fi$- Capt. G. A: Tyler, USCG
copyN& 59 - Testing and Development Division
cupyNoe 60 - U. S. Coast Guard Acade~, New L@idon

U. S. Maritime Administration

copyNoc 61- Vice Adm. E. L. Cochrane, USN (Ret.)

CopyNo. 62 - E, E. Martinsky

Committee on Ship Steel

copyl’& 63 - P. E. Kyle, Chairman

Copy No. u“ C. H. H&ty, Jr. - Vice Chairman
Copy No. 65- W. M. Baldwin, Jr.
Copy rlo.66- C. S. Barrett
COpy NO. 67 - R. M. Brick
COpy NO. 68- S. L. Hoyt

—.. .. .—
 Committee on Ship Ste@ (Continued)

copy-Nom 69- M~ W. Lightner

-*
,.
Copy No. 70- R“ F“ ~de~
Copy No. 71- T. S. Washburn
-:
Gopy No. 17- Finn Jonassen - Technical Director
,’ ,,..=,..
COpy NO. 72 - ‘Q ‘“ ‘cNutt - ‘ecbial ‘ecret~
Copy No. 7~- A. Muller - Consultant ..,.,
,,.. .“:,
“., .....
.....
..’
Membazs of pr~ject Adtiso~Comittees.SR-9~, SR-99, SR*l@~ -
SR-108, SR-109, SR-11O and SR-1.11(not Iistedelsewhere) ,
. ,-
,1..

copy,&o:v4 - & H. Aborn ,.

.’.,
Copy no. 75 * E. A. Andersori ‘ ~
copy No. 76 - L.C. Bib@ - ~
Copy No. 77 - Morris Cohen. : ,. .
Copy No. 7$ - W.C.El.lisI ; : ,.”’ .’.
copy No. 79 - M*Genmmer, I ‘ ,. ~ .
cOpy NO. 80 - M. F. Hawkea ,.,~
Copy No. $1 - W. F. Hess. .,,
Copy No. 82 - ..
W-.R. Hibbard, Jr.
Copy No. 83 - C. E. Jackson ~ ~
GopyNo. 84- J. R. Low, Jr.
CopyNo. ~5 - H. W. Fi8rCe ..! ~.,., ... .
Copy NO. ~6- W. A.31eiph ..:. ,,
Copy No. 87 - C.E. Sims ~. :.:.
,, ,,. ,...
,.
Copy No. 88- R: D. stout ,“”:.
~,” ,: ,:.”,
,,
.:..;-,, ., :,,. ,.
copy No. @ - J ;G. Thompson
copy No. 90 - 5. G. Johston, Welding ReaeHrch Co~cil,’Liaison ‘“-:
Copy No. 91 - W. H. Wooding, Philadelphi&Naval Shi~ard
..
,.,,! ., .,,
.,
CAttee on R~sidud;Stress’es ““
..,,. .,,,
!.
,. ‘,.
~ ,
,Po&.vo*,92 - J,.’
+, IO&n,Chairmsn ,,.
COpy NO. 65 - W. M. Baldwin, Jr. . . ‘ ““
,Copy Na. 93 - Paul Ffield:.i I : * ‘ .: ‘ . ‘
copy No. % - LeVan Griffis “ ..~” ‘ “; “
CopyNQ. 95 - K. Heindlhofer
..’, ,.
COpy NO. 96- Da@el Rosenthal
,~”
Copy No. 17” Finn Jonassen - Technical Director
.,..
COpy~Os 72 - J. E. McNutt - TechnicalSec=tary
1 .“:,
Representatives of American Iron and Steel’Iristitute “
Committee on Mantiacturingfioblem. .
~..: ,’.,
Copy r{o.97 - C. M. Parker, Secreta~, GeneralTeahnical”Committe6 AXSI
.
Copy No. 76- L. C. Bibb@r, U. S. Steel-Co. i !~+. ‘-
copy No.:&’- C. H. Herty, Jr.~ Bethlehem Stasl Co. , ~ ~ ‘ “
Copy nom 9~ * E. C..Smith. Renublic Steel Corn.
 ,,, ”.’
-iv-
.,

Welding Research Council

copy No. 99 - C. A. Adams copy No, 101 - LaMotte Grover

copy No. 100- Harry Boardmm Copy No. 20 - Wm. Spraragep

copy No. 102,-Douglas Whitaker, Chairmap, National Research Council

Copy No. 103 -C. R. Soderberg, Chairman, Div. Engineering& Industrial Res.,NRC
copy No. 17 -Finn JonasBen, Tec~ical Diiector, Committee on ship steel
copy No. 104 -G.S. ~hlapov, Investigators Research Project SR-120
Copy No. 105 -SOT. Carpenter, Investi~ator, Research Projects SR-98ct~dSR-11~
copy No. 65 -w, M. Baidwin$-Jr., Inv=stigator$ Research-Projects,SR-99jSR-111
copy No. 106- L, J. Ebert, Investigator, Research Project’SR-9$1 ‘ ‘
copy No. 107 -L. J. Klingler,-Investigator,Research Project SR-99 ,“
Copy No. 1~8-C. B, Voldrich, Investigator, Research Project SR-100 .
Copy No. 109 -P. J. Rieppel, Investigator, Research Project SR-1OO ,
copy No. 110 -M. L. Williams, Investigator, Research Project SR-106
copy No. 1.11-L, R. Dale~ Investigator, Research Project SR-106
copy NO* 112 -G. L. Kluge~ Investigator, Research Project SR-106 .
copy No. 113 -M. R. Meyerson, Investigator, Research Project SR+106 ~~
copy No. 70 ‘R. F. Mehl, Investigator$ Research Pruject SR-108 ~ ,
copy No. 67 ‘R. M. BrickY Investigator, Research Project SR-109 ,.
copy No. 1~-C. H. Lorig$ Investigator, Research Project SR-11O
copy Na, 115-E. W. ~uppiger, Investigator, Research Project SR-11.3 .
copy No. 116-E. R. Ward, Investigator, Research Project SR+13 ...
Copy No. 117 -Carlc Riparbelli, Investigator, Rssearch Project SR-113
copy No. 27 HJg F. Wallace’~Investigator, ReSearch Project SR-lu
copy No. 118-R. A. Hechtman51nvesti~ator, Research Project SR-119 :
Copies No. 119 and 120 -Army--Air Mate~ial fiommand,Wright Field
Copy No. 121- Clarence Altenburger, Great Lakes Steel Co.
COPY NO. 122 - J. G. Althouse; Lukens Steel Co.
copy No. 12~- T. N. Armstrong, The International Nickel Co., Inc. .
copy No. 124 - British Shipbuilding Research Association, Attm J. ‘C.Asher,Sec.
Copy No. 125 - S. Epstein, BethlehemSt
eel Co. ,.
Copy No. 126- A. E. Flanigan, University of California
COpy NO. 127 -l?. Jo Harris, Jr+, Metallurgical Adviso~ Board, NRC
Copies l,2SthrOugh 132 -E.G. Hill, British Joint Services Mission (Navy Staff)
Copy lfo.133 - 0. J. Horger, Timken Roller Bearing Co.’
Copy No. 134- L. R. Jackaon, Battelle Memorial Institute
Copy No. 135 - K. V. King, Standard Oil Co. of California
copy No. 136 -E. P. Klier, Universi~ of Maryland
Copy No. 137 ‘W. J. Krefeld~ Coltibia Utiiversity
Copy No. 138 - R. C. Madden, KaiseT Co., Inc.
Copy No. 139 - NACA, Attn: Materials Rese’archCoordination, Nafy Dept.
copy No. 140 -N. M. Newmark, University of Illinois
Copy No. lQ - E. Orowan, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
COPY NO. 14Z -W.G. Perry, RN, British Joint Serdces Mission (NavyStaff)

. .—
—
 Copy No. 1.43 - Walter Rambsrg, National Bureau of Standards
Copy No. ~ - L. J. Rohl, U. S. Steel Co.
Copy No. 145-- W. P. Roop, Swarthmore College
Copy No. 1.46- H. A. Schade, University of California
Copy No. 1.47- Saylor Snyder, U. S. Steel Co.
copy No. l@ - E. G. Stewart, Standard Oil Co. of N. J.
Copy No. 149 - R. G. Sturn, Purdue University
copy No. 150 - A. R. Troiano$ Case Institute of Technology
Copy l?o.151 - R. W. Vanderbeck, U. S. Steel Co.
copy No. 152 - T. T. Watson, Lukens Steel Co.
COPY NO. 153 - Webb Institute of Naval Architecture
Copy No. 154 - Georges Welter, Ecole PolyteclzniqueInstitute
COPY NO. 155 - L. T. Wylys Purdue University
COPY NO. 156- Division of Metallurgy- National Bureau of Standards
Copy No. 157 - Transportation Corps Board, Brooklyn, IV.Y.
Copies No. 158 through 162 - Library of Congress via Bu. of Ships, Code 324
COpy NO. 163 - C. A. Zapffe, Carl A. Zapffe Laborato~
COpy No. 164 - File Copy? Co@ittee on Ship Steel
Copies 165 tbrmgh169 - Bureau of Ships

copy No. 170 -

copy No. 171 -
copy]bm 17’2-
Copy No. 173 -
Copy No. 174 -
copy No. 175 -
copyNom 1’76-
Copy No. 177 -
copy No. 178-
Copy No,.179 -
Copy No. 180 -
copy No. 181 -
Copy No. 182 -
Copy No. 183 -
Copy No. 184 -
Copy No. 185 -
Copy No. 1% -
Copy sio.187 -
Copy l?o;1~~ -
copy No* 189 -
copyNo* 190 -
copy No. 191 -
COPY NO. 192 -
Copy No. 193 -
CopyNom 194-
copy Iso.195 -
COpy NO. 196 - .
Copy No. 197 -
copy No. 198 -
copy No. 199 -
-. copy No. 200 -
(Total Copies -200 )

—.
 ‘.
FINAL
------ REPORT
-----

EVALUATION OF SHIP TELJIY-GPROCEDURES

—.

DI.3ZCTlQG?L~IOl”TTJSTING
-...

COVERI~IGl;;OiRK
PERFORLED

rml

-,

.——
—- -—.. - .-
 FOREWORD

The research described in this report was sponsored and financed

by the ShiFStructwe Committee and carried out under Contract NObs-

53383 with the Bureau of Ships, Department of the Naw. The work

was conducted under the general supervision a~d directicn of the

Ship Structure Sub-Committee.

The author wishes to express his appreciation to Dr. Finn Jorassen,

Technical Director, Committee on Ship Steelf Capt. R. H. Lambert, USU,

and ]J!essrs. MacCutcheon of the Bureau of Ships

C. A. Loomis and E. 1~1.

for their assist~nce and advice.

The views and opinims expressed in this report are those of the

author and do not necessarily represent the views of either the Ship

Structure Committee, the Committee on Ship Steel, or of the Department

of the Navy.

G, S. Mikhalapov

-+,

--.———-—— -.
 .- .

EVALUATION OF SHIP (JILDINGPROCEDURES

BY DIR.LCTMXPLOS1ON TNTING

BY

G. s. MIKHAI@ov

MLTALLURGICAL RESMHCH & DEVLLOPKFNT WiwiJNKY,INC.

Bureau of Ships Contract NObs-53383

Index No.NSQil-067

INTRODUCTION
.
The investigation described in this report is a direct contir.uationof
.,

work conducted
,. for the Ship Siructure Committee under Wreau of Ships Contract

NObs-5@L64 and described in “reportSS(3-43. (1) ‘

It will be reuenhered thai the latter investigation was undertaken

prtiarily in an attempt to obia~~ an indication of whether the type of welding

electrodes used in joi.tingship plate had an apprecia-de effect on the notch

toughness of the finished joint, and that the data obtained strongly suggested that

this was the case. Specifically they indicated that the use of the lQW hydrogen,
. . . ..
low alloy electrode A.3 type E-10Q16noticeably improved performance of joints of

ship
,. plate, as compared to the performance when the joints were welded with
.“
E-601O electrodes; the improvement was far greater im case of a full ykilled
. , . . ...
steelthan.in,,case of a semi-killed steel. It also suggested that joints made
,. ...”.”
bymulti.pass submerged arc process are greatiy superior to those ,madewith
,,
E-+OLO electrodes.
,, A number of questions immediately arise concerning the

probable causes of these improvements in performance, for instance, whether

the reduction of hydrogen in the arc atmosphere or the alloy content of +1.0016

electrode are of greater importance and whether improvement produced by the

—.— ..-—.
—... .—
 -2-

multi-pass submerged arc prooess would be exhibited if more common two-pass

procedure was used. In addition other pertinent questions arise concerning

the relative effects of other variables b welding procedures, such as inter-

,
pass temperatures, preheat$ peening, stress reliefj etc.

Accordingly, the ~hip Structure Committee directed further exploration >

of the relative effects of different welding procechiresan tlienotch toughne~s

of the welded joint as determined by the direct explosion test as follows:

1) Deter@ne notch toughn&s “of’welded joints of a semi-killed and of a

fully killed steel ~hen welded with ~

a) Class E-W16 electrodes, .

,,
b) Submerged arc proce$s, using two passes, one from each side.

2) Obtain a g&eraL itication of the relative effects on the notch

toughness of welded joints of a full lykilledsteel, of the
foliowing fzctors:

a) p~eheat of 150° F.

b) ,
interpass temperature

c) low temperature stress relief

d} peening of all weld passes

~~iETHOD
OF IIWESTIGATION
.?
In order to permit a direct comparison ’witin”thd’results
of tne previous

investigation of ship plate$ the glates used weke taken frow the same twd heats
.,
of A.B.S. Class Band Class C“sieel ’used in’the previous investigation. The

mechanic~’ ~roperties and chemical analyses of these steels are desctijbed”ih

Report SS&43 (1) and are reproduced for convenience below in Table 1+ “ It will

be remembered that the Class B steel is sem&i&lled while the Class C ‘steelis
:,
silicon-killed with aluminum added for”ftie grain.
,, ,..

.,

>,,

-— —
 .. - 3-

TABLE I

Composition and mechanical properties of the 11~ thick ship Flate used.

Code AQ AP
AM Class B++
—x$—--
Mn “71 .72
Si .05 Q.
g~2
F .010 .015
s .030 3G33

35,2C0 i+o,200
60j 9G0 69,800
27* 6 24.0

Tinejoint preparation was in general stiilar to that used in the previous

investigation,,as follows:

600 double V, 5/32” root opentig, O root face~

root pass made with 5/3211electrode, chipped out to sound metal

and welded with 3.passes on each side using l/41feiectrode. A

total of seven passes.

.,
Joint 2. Submersed arc weld. 9Q0 double V, 5/1611 root face~ G root
—,.—-
opening welded with Linde Grade 70-12QC0 melt and, 3 Jlasses

of’l/@l electrode Linde No{,36 from each side for a total of

six passes:

Joint 3~ bub,mer~edarc welso 90° dcuble V,.5/16t1root tace, O.root open-

filgwelded with Linde.Grade 70-i2X200 m“dt and, 1 pass of 3/1611

electrode Linde I?o.36 from each side for a tots of two pas~eso

4 conplete series of 15 specimens were made on both AQ or semi-killed, and

on.AP or fully killed steels using Grade E-70L6 electrodes, Haraischfeger type

7&IA-2, with an interpass temperature of 200- 225° F, a condition identical to .

+ dethlehenSteel Co.
,-,, ++++Lukens Steel Co.

L. — .-.—
 -k-

one used in previous tiv~stigations. In addition a complete series of 15

specimens were made on AQ or smi~i.lled steel by the 2-pass submerged arc

process with an interpass temperature again held at 200- 225° F.

,.
1~ sets, of 3 specimens each, &e ~repared on type AP or fully killed
,-
steel using E“-7016electrodes, E-601O electrodes, and 2 pass and 6 pass sub-

fiergedarc process, and the following conditions of preheat3 interpass tempera-

tures and post-weld treatment:

A- Items 7Z8,16,22- No preheat & 70° F interpass temperature - Nopost-weld

treatment.

B- “ 9,10,1?,22 - 150° F preheai & 150° F interpass teMfJf3rdUr~- No

,.
post-weld treatment.
+;
c- “ LL,18,23 - 150°F preheat & i~ximm interpass+~+temperature
- No
post-weld treatment.
,’
l)- “ 12,13,19,24- No preheat & 70° F interpass temperature - low temperature.
stress relief.

E+&- II 14,20,25 - No preheat & 70° F interpass temperature - every pass

peened while hot.
.,
F- Item15 - Submerged arc 6 pass, using Linde No. LO rod (2Z Mm. & .5% No)
and 150° interpass iximperature. NP pos>weld treatment.

G- ‘1 26- hianualweld with E-10016 electrode. No preheat & 70° interpass

tempe~ture. Complete thermal stress relied at 11$O” F., f“wnace
cooled.

Low temperature stress relief was performed by representatives of the Linde

Air Products Co. and consisted of heating two broad bands, one on each side of

the weld to approtiately 400° F. while keeping tine weld itself under 100?F.

Beoause of desirability of stress relieving a full size weldment~ items 12, 19,

24 were each fabricaimd by juining two pieces lf!~i

x 54’1to form a 361!x 5411weld-

which was then stress relieved. The three specimens were .oxygen’
cut from

weldment?

Not attempted on welds of joint No. 3 type,

Next pass started as soon ae possible after previous pass completed, so .-.
that the interpass temperature reaches a maximum value,

‘— —.
 -5-

All specinens were radiographer and four specimens were found to exhibit

lack of root penetration. These specimens were discarded and new specimens were

prepared in their stead. All specimens -de of semi-killed steel with.type

E-7016 electrodes exhibj.tedvarying degrees of porosity. Of these, five .’

specimens were considered as having an excessive amcunt of par?siiy,,while the

porosity of the remaining ZO were considered to be withia acceptable limits.

Peening consisted of three to five passes over each layer of welded metal
,,
immediately after its deposition, using a medium weight (#3) chipping hamner

afida tool haling an approxhately rectangular face 5/16’1x 3/411.

The eighteen sets of thrae identical specimens welded with conditions

A to E were all tested at 10~ while the two $et$ welded ~~ithconditions

G and H were t~sted at -40° T in an endeavor to obtain an appro~ate indication

of the relative merits of the procedures the~”represented. The method of testing

of these specimens is given in Table 11.

IL .-——
 -6-

.
TABLE 11
,’

Liethodof-testing 3 identical specimens at one teq~erature.

Submerged Arc Specimens:

ht. Specimen 2nd Specimen 3rd Specimen

560s. I
(if no fracture !joog. (
380go ( (if fractured 4L”og.
‘(’ [if no fracture 320g. ~ ‘
(if fractured ‘ (
260g. ( ~~
(
(if fractured 2oog.

E-7016
—.— syecimen
(if no fracture joog.
(if refracture 41+og. (
320ge ( (
{.” (if fractured 380g.

(if no fracture 260g.

(
(if fractured 2oogo (
(if fractured Uog.

E-601o
——— s~ecimen
..
(if no fracture 360g,
(if no fracture (
u%. ( 320ga [
( (if fractured 280g*

( (if no fracture 2oog ●

[if fractured l@* (

(
(if fractured 12Qg.

—.
.,_ .——.
 ,.
-?-

In order to minhize the eftect of ti’~e

location of each specimen in the

ori~inal “2201r
x 7211stieel.
plates on the results of the tests, an attempt was

made to secure random selections of the three specimens comprising each welding

-. condition to be,studied, as follows: 96 specimns were j?reparedfromtwo Lukens

Stedl Plates 22Gt1x 721!and marked consecutively as irdicated on Figure 1 and 2.

Seventeen sets of 3 numbers each were then selected at r~dom from the 96 numbers,

each set constituting an item of welding ’conditions.

Uxception was made of the specimens-intended for low temperature stress

relief treatment, which had to be made for 3 consecutive ‘specimens,since it

appeared doubtful that complete stress relief cofid be ~rcomplished on l@~ x

lWi s~eci.mens. Howewel-,in one welding condition (Item P-uJ 6 gass union

melt) stress relief was attempted on 1811x lS:lsLpecimensO

DISCUSSION
-—-— OF’RESUI,Td

The results of the i~vestigation are reported in tabular form in Table

111 and in graph form in Figure 3. In accordance with previous analyses,

fracture is said Lo have occurred when the crack length exceeds 9 inches. For

P~rPoses of comparison SQme of the data reported previously (1) are reproduced

on Figure 3. Figu~~s 4 and 5 sh~~ t~~e ~elatio~ betk~eenapplied energy and

deformation produced at room temperature for the Class B and Class C steels res-

pectively$ using data reported herein and previous results; these further Con-

firm stilar relations reported before (1).

In examimirig Figure 3 it will be seen that Little difference in performance

Wtists between Z-1OOI6 and &7016 electrodes when used Ior joining fui.ly-killed

steel, whereas on semi-killed steel, E-7016 electrode appears to actually out

perform E-lCO16 electrode at temperatms”below 40°F.” It would thus appear that

the mai~ benefit of this type of electrode is derived from tlie ty~e of coating

used rather than from the alloy content of the weld metal.
on exsmining the relative performances of 2 and &pass union melt welds the
two pass appears on the first glance to be superior to the &pass at 10° F.

— .-.
 -8-

TABLE 1X1,

Summary of Perfo~*manceof”’pilot.
tei.tsat 10% - based on tests of 3 identical
specimens made from l!!fully killed steel with variaua welding’procedures,

Highest Lowest
Item No. ~~eldingProcedure Charge Charge
No Fracture Fracture

2-Fags,,U.jj,
- 70° Int.T. 380 440

., 9 II II
150° Prh$.& Int.T. 3s0 440

12 !! 11
70° Int. T.-LTSR .200 260

8. 6-PasslJ.M. ~,,70°1nt. T~ ,. 200 260

10 II II .15C)9Prht~& I@.T,.
. 3$0 ,!+~o

u II II 150° Prht.-li~ax.Int..
T. 380 l+l+o

13 11 !1 YO” Int. T.-LTSR.

,. 200

14 11 1! II II TI FeeOed 120 . 200

21 E-’7OI6- 70° Int. T. 326 3$0

22 It 150° Prht.& Intp.T. 260 320

23 tt 150° Prht.-Mx.Intp.T4 “ 360” LJ+o

24 II 70° Int.”T.-LTSR 200 Z&

25 w !! II II Peened
140

%6010 - 70° Intpm T- 120

,. 17
tl 1500 Frht& ,Intp. T. 120

18 11 150° J?rht.-Lax.Intp.T. no”, 160 ~

19 II 70° Intp. T.-LTSR 120

20 II II II
11 ?eened MO 160
Tested at -40° F.

AP 15 @ass U.M. .5fi ]JiO

liod-150°Prht. & in.t@T.120 160
.,
26 . E-10016-~0% Intp.T-1150° Th.S.R. 200 ~o
?’

. .

—. .- .—
 -9-

This is hard to understand unless the coolimg rate of thetwo-pass weld is

substantially lower than that of the &pass, even though the titerpass

temperature’of the 6-pass weld wasmaintatied at 200-225° F. Even then the

effect of the cooling rate must be far greater than could be expected iu low

carbon s’teel* There is howewer another possible.explanation. Ref@rr@tO

report SSC-43 it will be seen that the lGW perfOr~nce of the ~-pas$ ~ion

melt at 10° F was”established on the basis of fracture of one.spectien only

(Q-3-12) which fractured at320 gins. Howewer, the X-ray of this specimen

showed incomplete root penetration for about 4 inches in the middle of the

specimenj and it is possible that this defect lowered the performance of the.

specimen even though the fracture did not follow the path of,the defect.

Additional data will have to be obtained before the relative nerits of

2 and 6pass union melt welds can be evaluated accurately. However in any

case the performance of two pass union melt joints of li~thick mild steel

plate did not appear to be inferior to that “ofsix pass union melt. Furthermore

performance of 111thi..ck
plate ofsemi=kiAled steel when welded with 2 pass union

melt is very much better than whenw.elded with any ,Ofthe manual electrodes

tested. .,

In analyzing the results of the pilot tests .it becomes apparent that

evaluation based on performance ofo”nly three specimens is nd wery satisfactory.

Actually otiy one specimen is tested at anywhem.near a critical charge and

accordingly evaluationof a particular condition studied is based on performance

of only one specimen. ,’ ‘.,,

In reviewing these pilot’series as a whole the first and probably most

important observation is that none of.the variations of preheat and inter~

pass temperatur~s ad of post:weld treatments tried, (with possible wception

.... of furnace stress relief) have resulted in any significant improvement in

,, .’
 -m-

performance. Furthermore several of the procedures tried resulted in actual

deterioration of performance.

. Another significant trendwhich appears reasonably consistent isthe

dependence of performance of the fiuished jotit on the rate of coolfig ~f

the weld. l~ithoil~ =ception factors which could he reasonably expected to

slow down cooling of the weld improve the performance, while those which

speed.up the cooling affect the performance adversely.

One exceptitinis the caseof joints welded with E-7016 electrodes and

with 150° preheat and interpass temperature, which appear to be infericr to

similar joints.welded without preheat and with ~~” interpass temperature,

and also inferior to E-?016 welds made with 150° preheat and maximum interpass

temperature and to E-7016 welds made with 200-~Z5° interpass tem~erature. In

temperature welds
other words “performancesof 70° interpass aud 150° illterpass’

appear to be reversed.

Another unexpected result is the relativel~ p~or performance of umion-

melt and E-7016 joints treated after welding by the low tcxiperaturestress

relief method and by peeningo Although it is possible t~iatthese treat:nents

are of little benefit to a welded joint it is hard to rationalize any

possibility of their deti‘mental effect. However it ~~:ust

be noted that in

case ot peenedwelds ill passes including the last were peened and a

possibility thus exists that the Last ”pass could have been appreciablywork

hardened if the peening has been unduly severe. It must be also noted t~iat

since the low temperature stress relieved specimens were fabricated by

weldtig together two platies18’1x 5i+11into a 36TIx 5&11.weMment, they were

sibjected to greater restraint during welding.which might have al?fected

adversely the properties of the weld even though the residual stresses were

subsequently relieved by the treatment. Tests.will be made on joints of

which all’passes except the last were peened.

 -1.1-

The fact that both peening and low temperature stress relief appear to

have little if any effect on E-601o welds may possibly be explained by the

fact that at 10° F th~se welds fail with very lowenergy absorption and ~iith

.7 no detectable plastic flow and any deterioration of performance is harder to

detect at that low leve$.

As could be expected specimens stress relieved at 1150° F performed in

a superior manner at -40° F though their performance at that temperature

was still only half as good as that of prime plate. Nevertheless this still

represents a 100% tiprovement over non-furnace-stress-relievedwelds.

CONCLUSIONS

The following tentative conclusions appear to be pertinent on the

basis of’the data ~btained to date.

1) Notch sensitivity of welded joints made -withtype E-7016 electrodes

appears to be no greater than that of “weldedjoi~t made with w1oO16

,.
electrodes.

2) Notch sensitivity of ‘weldedjoints made with 2-pass union melt

processappears to be no greater than that of welded joint made

with &pass @on melt process.

3) Data obtained with tne pilot t~sts appear to be inconclusive and

additional tests appear to be necessary before valid conclusions

can be drawn from theu.

4) The performance of welded joints of ship-quaiity steel is signifi-

cantly affected by many of the possible variables in the methods of

fabrication, such as type of electrode, joint design, welding procedure,
etc. ,.

5) The data reported herein further substantiate the relationship between

applied charge and depth of the resulting dish reported in SSC-43.
REFLi?L1iCES
(1) G.S.h2Jchalapov,‘fEvaluation... Test,il Ship htructure Committee Report
SSC-43, March 15, 1951.

L–.. . .— .-
 -12-

APPEINDIX .. “,
,’
performance of l!’thick ‘,~elded
bteel Plate (AP-Fully killed,
similir to Abb Clas$”Ci Steel; AQ-semi-~il16d, ABb class B hteel)
,-

:heldingProcedure I)epth
$mp, Charge of Dish, titent of
~ F Gms ●
——inch Fracture

2-pass U.}i.- 200° F 69 300 1.93 None

tl- II II II ?0 420 2*42 It .
1! 1! II II 70 500 2.6$ II

!1 II 540 2 pieces
II [1 g 580 3 “.
{1 II 12 1s0 1.2 None
!1 II It II 14 260 1*65 11
II tI II II u 340 2*~2 :t,.:.
11 11 II II 12 420 2.2’5 .!1
II 11 II ‘11 12 500 2.50 Ii
IT II 11 II -40 I!@ 01
●
It
11 II II II
-38 60 ‘ *O2 tl
II t! II 1!
60 Fine cracks
“44
.. back Ody
II It It
-I!+o 80 -. 4 pieces
II ‘ II II
-40 5 11
Ii-7o16 - 200°F Intp. ‘r. 69 ;% 2.04 None
U lf 11 11
68 330 2.09 II
tt ;1 If 11 69 350 2.16 1!
1! 11 tl &
11
350 2 pieces
H II 11 II
69 38Q 3 11

11 t! ‘ H II
12 “ MO None
II 11 II 11
200 .5 pieces
1! tt tl . E 240
II
4 “
11 11 !! !1
-40 60 *O3 None
II t! tl t! -J!+o 80 36” crack,
back only
II II 11
72 280 1*B None
If II !!
g 2$0 1.S-4 tt
11 It !1
280 1.80 tl
II tt II
71. 320 1.98 1?
II 11 11 ‘
71 320 2 pieces

..
++ Specimen exhibited maximum acceptable porosity

%k !t II
unacceptable 11 .
.. .,
.

., .>
,, ,:., ,.
.,., .. . ,,

—. —. ..-
 -13-

depth
Spec. No. ielding Procedure Temp. Charge of Dish, &tent of
o F. Gms. inch Fracture
/ 2 pieces
AP-6-1 E-7016 - 200° 380
9 lt It 1! II
;: I!+40 2.23 None
11 II 1! 11 It 68 440 2.27 11
(++ If t! f! II
69 470 * 2 pieces
1~+ It It II II
69 500 2 1!
14 II II II
9 320 1,71 None
15 !1 II 1!
360 1.90 t!
7 II tl f!
2 380 1.93 ‘t
,2 It 11 !!
13 409 2.04 II
.4 II z! !t !1 400 3 pieces
1! 11 ,: 1!
-4: 60 .06 None
‘3
12 !! 11 11 11
“a 80 ●O4 11

5 1! !1 It
-38 80 crack,ti crdy
8 II
-U 80 It II 11
13 1!
-LL2 100 L pieces “
AP-7-13 2-pass U,U. - 70° Intp. Ta iO 380 1.90 None
74 rt II It 71 II If 10 440 ~ pieces
26 11 11 II It tl rl 9 500 11
%86 & “ “ It t? II 10 200 None
25 11 IT 11 !! tl n 10 5 Pieces
11 11 lT 1! 11 n 11 yo 7 “
9~~2 2- “ M 150° Prht.& Intp.T. 9 380 1.87 None
55 11 :1 lt i! II !f 11
10 440 8 pieces
28 11 u 1! II II II
9 500 7 “
10-57 6- “’” “ “ II u 380 1*82 None
7 tl II II It !1 11 10 440 8 pieces .+
18 11 II 71 It It 1! 10 500 7 “
n-47 II ‘ II tl !1 II ijax.Intp.T. U 380 l=8e None
63 If !! 11 II fl f! II 1!
10 440 k piecei,
89 1! 1! II 11
11 500 -. ~ 1, ,
12-3 Ze !J: ::70~ Int~.T~-L’2SR 11 200 None
1 11 ,,
II ;! It ft II II
10 7 pieces
It
2 II tl 1! 11 1! II
10 ;~ 7 ‘1
13-5 & “ “ “ “ “ “ 10 200 ‘5 “
172 It II II II il 11 11
10 260 j!,
II 11
59 II !1 II II H
380 5 “
14-51 t! U II 1! tl l!peell~d
E 200 _ l$fl
crack-backcnly
29 tl II 11 !! II II 11
9 260 L pieces,+
7$ !1 if H 1! II 11 10 3$0 !7 “
15-4 L “ “ -*5 Mr,rod-150° F.
Intp.T. -40 120 .49 None
79 M II fl !1 If II II II
-40 160 4pieces
II !! 1! II II
67 11 11 11
-40 200 5 “

+ Specimen exhibited maxhm acceptable porosity

—— . ... . —. —.
 -14-

Depth
Spec..No. :.;elding*.Pr
ocedure Temp. Charge of Dish, Extent of F
., OF
-— ~ Gals
“ inch
—— Fracture
-—
,, ,,
AP-1+82. E-601o - ~00 F. I@. T. 11 L20 4Ttcrack-back
70 t! 11 II II 10 160 4 pieces
53 II II 11 II 9 240 -“ !1
17-9 ~~ 150° Prht.& Intp.T. 11 MO ; “
39 1! II n II II 10 ml ; “
6 11 II 11 II 11
10 2f@ 11
M3-60 !1 II It ],l!- !1 11 11 120 :56 None
$8 !1 11 11 lr 1! II
10 160 4 pisces
1 !1 ~ !1 1! !1 !1
10 240 L “
lg-~ ~~ ‘j’oQ..F Intp.T.LTSR l-l 120 2 “
.2 It Il. , 1! It H
U 160 ; “
!1 il ,+ II 11 !1
m 240 tt
20-.? 11 ,t:J,l, II
“ P.eened 120 .60 None
66 II tl . .. II :1, , N
i: 160 ~ pieces
24 1! II II If H
10 lr
21-17 E-7016 “. “ “ .10 3% 1;69 none
’55 n !1. 11 II ,10 380 6 pieces
41 11 II\ !1 H 11 440 6 II
22-/+0 H 1500 Prht.& Intp.T. 10 200 None
& m it ;,n !1 , u
11 240 11

56 ir n
n u N
11 320 4 pieces
23-el H n Max. n n
‘~ 1!3 320 1*67 None
@ II !r !1 II tl n
9 380 1.84 None
10 rt II II II II n
440 7 @eces
24-1 n 70° Intp.T,-LTSR 1: 200 None
n 11 n t] n 11 260 6 pieces
; n n tt KI FI 10 320 6 “
25-$4 w II n ‘rPeened ~o 1!
It tr .tl tt t}
4.4 ; 200 i “
27 n It n Ir rl
9 320 5 “
26-37 E-1001611 “ H 1150°Til.S.R.-40 200 .96 ljo~e
49 n n H It n ‘t -& 240 7 pieces
95 u rl tt ?1 tl n -~o z~o 9 “

.-—. . --- — ...—

—
 P-26.49 P-16-53 P-IO-57 P-19-61 P21-65 P- -69 P- -73 P-19-77 P-23-81 P- -85 P-II-89 P-24-93

k
o

z P- -50 p-[2-
54 P-12-58 P- -62 P-20-66 P-16-70 P-7-74 P-14-7 8 P-16-82 P-B-86 P- -90 P- -94
L
c1
z
k

z :
w P-14-51 P-9-55 P-13-59 P-II-63 P-15-67 P. -71 P-19-75 P-15-79 P- -83 p- -87 p. .91 p-26-95 >
1-
2 0
LL +
v k
P- -52 P-22-56 P-18-GO p-~2-64 P- -6.9 P-13-72 P- -6 P- -60 P-,2 5-84 P -18-88 P-8-92 P- -96 ~

48 sPEcl ME Ns-ld’x18°

AP (cLAss C) STEEL

FIG. I

33
3.r& ,
P-13-5 P-17-9 P-7-13 P-21-17 P- -21 P-8-25 P-14-29 P- -33 P-2 6-37 P-2 1-41 P- -45

z
P- -2 P-17-6 P-23-IO P-24-14 P-IO-18 P- -2.2 P- 7-26 P- “30 P- -34 P- -38 P- -42 P- -46 –
L
o

3
P- -3 P-Io-71P- -II 1P- -151P-20-19 P- -23 P-25-27 P- -31 P- -35 P-17 -39 P- -43 P-II-47
P
1-
0
m

P-1 5-4 a. 20.24 p. 9.28 p. 9.32 p. .36 p.z 2.40 p.25-44 p. 23.48

48 SPECIMENS –18”X 18i’

AP (CLAss c) STEEL

FIG.2

STEEL WELD ELECTRODE

AQ SUBM, ARC- .JOINT 2

AQ SUBM. ARC-JOINT 3

AP MANUAL E-10016

AQ MANUAL E- 10016

AP MANUAL E–7016
AQ MANUAL E-7016

-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
TEMPERATURE-” F

FIG.2. EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE ON MINIMUM ENERGY TO

FRACTURE WELDED SHIP PLATE ONE INCH THICK
 +

,d
.a g
x+ /

SYMBOL
—
o
—
LEGEND

WELD

PRIME
ELECTRODE

PLATE

P @ MANUAL E-6010
,1
al E-7016
/
● II
E-ioo16

4 SUBM.ARC -JOINT 2
,1 II ,,
3

: “ “ “ 3 (SSC-43)

o J
Lo 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
DEPTH OF 15-INCH DIAMETER CUP - INCHES

FIG.4. EFFECT OF APPLIED ENERGY ON SPECIMEN

DEFORMATION - ROCIM TEMPERATURE TESTS ON
AQ (CLASS B) STEEL

700

600

n
500

~ 400
cc
<
x LEGEND
v
SYMBOL ELECTRODE
~ 300
D PRIME PLATE
>
: ❑ E-6010
o
m E-7016
I 200
n E-10016
G
m
ld ❑
5 100

0
0 0.5 1.0 1,5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

DEPTH OF 15-INCH DIAMETER cUP - INCHES

FIG,5. EFFECT OF APPLIED ENERGY ON SPECIMEN

DEFORMATION - ROOM TEMPERATURE TESTS ON AP
(CLASS c) sTEEL

— —.– .– .-