Question:
The company that I work for makes a single pass
circumferential weld , on which at the tie-in on the weld completion, there is
a minor tendency for a open pore in the weld crater.
Investigation into this reveals terms such as a pinhole,
blowhole, fisheye, or crater pipe are used to describe this condition.
Historically, we have filled the crater and pore with weld
metal and sent the product on for a paint application. More recently ,
the practice of filling the pore area with a non-metallic high temperature
sealant has occurred.
Our Engineering department deems this weld discontinuity as
a cosmetic issue only, and thereby has authorized the usage of the sealant.
We use the principles of the AWS D1.1 code. In the 2010
version , the Commentary Paragraph C-5.28 states that if all inspections of
weld and base metal have been completed and accepted prior to
application,
a nonmetallic filler or mastic may be used for cosmetic
reasons. Is the above application consistent with the intent of this
paragraph in the commentary, or is it referring to something different?
Hi (Name removed as promised),
I
can’t tell you how good it makes me feel that you would explore the Commentary
to learn more about the codes intent. That’s what the Commentaries all
about.
Your
interpretation is correct on the use of fillers in this situation. If
your Engineers have deemed this discontinuity to be considered acceptable, then
the use of fillers is a good way enhance the look of this surface, and Yes, you
are still within the guidelines of AWS-D1.1
I
recently implemented this same repair at a local manufacturer. Their “old
way” of doing business was to take a Mig gun to these pinholes and “Zap” weld
into them. Their repair was taking a perfectly acceptable discontinuity
and turning it into an Arc Strike. A big no-no in the wonderful world of
welding.
I’m
glad you opted for the “Bond-O” over the “Arc Strike”. Good call and good
luck.
PWC
