Thursday, September 27, 2012

Cracks or Laminations, they can't be both


In evaluating a FCAW weld cross section to AWS D1.1:2010, the weld engineer has asked that the CJP groove weld be evaluated by for PJP. This is a requirement that the weld engineer has asked for.
The Macro weld cross section as evaluated, revealed anomalies in the base material (A36), see photo. In the cross section the base material shows laminations. Under higher magnification the laminations (or tearing/crack) in base material are confirmed.
The laminations have to be considered a Crack and rejectable per and the weld engineer’s requirement, correct?

Leave it to me to be the dude that disagrees with the engineer.
Breaking my first "cardinal rule" of weld inspection (CR-1: Never evaluate a weld from a photo), the anomalies you've noted are not in the weld. Nor are they (with the exception of one) in the H.A.Z. (heat affected zone). Nor do they run in a direction which would suggest a welding related problem.
If you have concluded that these are laminations (Dye-Pen [PT] would confirm) they would not be included in
These laminations should be evaluated per the material specification of the base material (ASTM A36). That should be the criteria used to determine acceptance.
On the other hand, the beauty of being the "Engineer" is that your word is final. So if you're asking me, I say this weld is acceptable and the laminations should be evaluated per ASTM A36, but you go with whatever the Engineer determines.


Unknown said...

Those who are located in Alaska earn a mean salary of $55,200 in a year while the ones situated in Hawaii get $51,380. Welders who are hired in California have a yearly pay check of $39,000 while those working in Florida make $35,000. Welder Salary

Unknown said...

Then, when you go to replace the broken pipe, you'll need a thread reversing joint to attach to one of the joints the old pipe attached to.

metal fabrication and welding

Jon Sigurdsson said...

This is a very informative post!
Thanks for sharing this