The Practical Welding Engineer

The
Practical
By J. Crawford Lochhead
and Ken RodgerV
American Weltflng Society

550 N.W. L e J l B Road
The Practical Welding
Engineer
BY
J. Crawford Lochhead
and
Ken Rodgers
Brown and Root McDermott
Fabricators, Ltd.,
Inverness, Scotland.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
American Welding Society

550 N.W. LeJeune Rd.
Miami, FL 331 26
https://www.facebook.com/groups/WeldersGroup/
Copyright American Welding Society
Provided by IHS under license with AWS
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale
International Standard Book Number: 0-87171-620-8
American Welding Society, 550 N.W. LeJeune Road, Miami, FL 33126
O 2000 by American Welding Society.
All rights reserved.
Text edited by Tim Heston.
Printed in the United States of America
The American Welding Society is not responsible for any statement made or opinion expressed herein. Data
and informationdeveloped by the authors are for informational purposes only and are not intended for use with-
out independent, substantiating investigation on the part of potential users.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Table of Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Chapter 1: Contracts and Role of the Welding Engineer ................. .i

Commercial Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Dealing with Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Chapter 2: Selection of Welding Processes, Equipment. and Consumables 13

Welding Process Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Equipment and Consumable Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Chapter 3: Weld Procedure Qualification ........................ 25

Assessing Weld ProcedureRequirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Routine Mechanical Tesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
SimpleChecks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Fracture Mechanics Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Test Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Chapter 4: Production Welding Control ............................... 43

Defect Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Welder Training and Qualification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Useful Aids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Consumable Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Production Weld Test Pieces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Chapter 5: Estimating and Reducing Welding Costs .................... 67

Estimating Welding Costs ................................................. 67
Reducing Welding Costs ................................................. 72
Chapter 6:Practical Problem Solving ................................. 83

WhatisaProblern? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Chevron Cracking in Submerged Arc Welds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Low Toughness in Selt-Shielded Flux Cored Arc Welds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Cast-to-CastVariability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
MagneticArcBlow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Elimination of Postweld Heat Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Fitness for Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Chapter 7: Common Defects and Remedial Actions .................... 101

Cracks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Profile Defects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Volumetric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Incomplete Fusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Some Additional Informationon SolidificationCracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Chapter 8: Oxyfuel Cutting, Arc Air, and Electrode Gouging .............125

OxyiuelCuiiing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Air Arc GouginglCuting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Electrode GougingKutting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Appendix I: Recommended Reading ................................. 133

Appendix II: Useful Tables, Formulas, and Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .135
Index ............................................................ 149
Copyright American Welding Society iii
When we, the authors, decided to write this book, we had a definite aim in mind
- to present a “practical” approach to the application of welding theories.
Over recent years universities and colleges have recognized the previous lack of
attention paid to the welding fraternity and subsequently greatly improved teaching
capabilities and lecture contents. As a result, the modem engineer is well versed in
basic metallurgical behavior; he is aware of the application of electronic wizardry to
modem equipment; fracture mechanics is not just an obscure theory but a practical
everyday tool; and, modem materials and consumables have apparently eliminated
many of the problems of the past. What the modem welding engineer lacks is the
knowledge of how to apply this knowledge in a practical sense. What we have
attempted to write is basically a distillation of almost 60 years (between the two of
us) of hard-gained realism in heavy engineering fabrication.
The basis of the book is therefore an assumption that the reader is already knowl-
edgeable of basic welding and metallurgical theory. He is most likely a metallurgist,
materials science or mechanical engineering graduate who, during his or her univer-
sity career has stumbled, or been fortuitously directed, into the welding field. It is
obviously a biased view, but in the opinion of the authors, welding is one of the most
exciting fields available to a young graduate. It is both vibrant and dynamic with new
avenues to be explored becoming available on a regular basis. Synergic gas metal arc
welding and inverter power sources, electron and laser welding, magnetic-impelled
arc butt-joint welding (MIAB), robotic welding, and diffusion bonding are careers in
themselves. It is difficult to identify another discipline where the range of possibili-
ties are as diverse, broad, and exciting, and where the potentials for exploration and
discovery stretch enticingly into the future.
However, enough of such esoteric digressions. This book was not written from
that approach. It is intended to present the inexperienced welding engineer with some
“sage” advice on some of the pitfalls awaiting in the hard commercial world that
awaits. Be under no illusions; it is not sufficient to be the best theoretical welding
engineer in your company. You must know how to apply that knowledge in an almost
“street-wise’’ manner.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Welding is regarded by many employers as a “black art.” Some of this reputation
has been due to welding engineers camouflaging their inadequacies, or uncertainties,
with professional jargon. Telling one’s employer that the problem is one of “cracking
initiated in a highly tensile stressed region of hard martensite or body centered cubic
microstructure of poor crack resistance surrounded by material of similar sensitivity
to crack propagation into which atomic hydrogen has diffused, and that until the dif-
fusion rate is beneficially altered the problem will persist,” is not clear. Telling him
that you have identified the problem to be “one of delayed hydrogen cracking and that
increasing the preheat temperature by 25°C will resolve it” will undoubtedly raise
your standing in the company - unless you have an enlightened employer who asks
you why you didn’t recognize that a higher preheat was necessary in the first place.
The book is entitled “The Practical Welding Engineer.” We hope you find it to be
practical. We also hope that, although you may not totally or even partially agree with
its contents, you find it readable and interesting.
Good Reading
J. C. Lochhead and K. J. Rodgers
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the following personnel for their assistance in the
execution of this work.
T. Clement and M. Dorricott, Managing Directors, Brown & Root Highlands
Fabricators Ltd.
D. J. Wright, Managing Director, Brown and Root McDermott Fabricators, Ltd.
I. G. Hamilton, Consultant (for general advice).
Dr. W. Welland, for assistance with run-outístub length information.
Mrs. Patricia Vass and Claire Lochhead, for general secretarial assistance.
All other suppliers of photographs, tables, suggestions, etc.
The authors would also like to thank Training Publications, Ltd., Watford, England,
for permission to use data and Figures 8.1-8.9 and 8.11-8.13 extracted from Module
Manual F10 of the General Welding and Cutting for Engineering Craftsmen manual.
Permission is not transferable.
Copyright American Welding Society vi
Contracts and the Role
of the Welding Engineer
This may appear to be a strange starting point for a book intended to assist a weld-
ing engineer. However, it must be appreciated at an early stage that, as is common
with most disciplines, decisions based on technical judgments must be tempered with
economic awareness. In general, there can be several possible solutions (and hence
several possible costs) for any one problem. The principle behind every commercial
venture is to make a profit, and the welding engineer must always remember that what
leaves the factory gates is what pays his wages. It may leave in a timely manner, and
it may be of the finest quality; but it also must be profitable.
Commercial awareness usually is presented as an unessential part of the welding
engineer’s discipline. This thinking is misguided because in most fabrications weld-
ing plays a primary role of cost containment. If it is not right, either technically or
commercially, the company’s profitability will suffer. This is an aspect that still is not
sufficiently recognized by many companies and engineers.
This chapter will deal with two aspects in some detail - commercial awareness,
and dealing with specifications.
1.1 Commercial Awareness

This section is not intended to be a detailed study of the commercial management
of a project. It is intended simply to make you, the welding engineer, aware and appre-
ciative of the key links and actions in the chain of events that will ensure your com-
pany is fully compensated for everything it does for a client -or, conversely, receives
everything it is paying for as a client.
The following subjects will be discussed:
1. What is commercial awareness?
2. Making a profit.
3. The key elements of a contract.
4. Ensuring the company is fully compensated (or receives a full ser-
vice).
5. Variations and claims.
In all of these elements there are fundamental points applicable to the welding
engineer, regardless of the size of the company in which he operates. They may not
be instantly recognizable under the descriptions given. However, they will exist in
some form, and the welding engineer should play a leading role in all these aspects.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
2 The Practical Welding Engineer
1.1.1 What is Commercial Awareness?

In simple terms, commercial awareness is the need for everyone to carry out their
work in such a way that the company makes a profit.
This means that
estimates for welding should be constructed on the basis of sound
judgments and well-defined logic,
everything should be done right the first time and completed in the
most cost-effective and economic manner, and
everything possible should be done to maximize revenue and
reduce expenditure.
These objectives can be achieved only if the welding engineer is fully aware of his
role and of the cost and planning parameters that control his functions.
1.1.2 Making a Profit

Profit is the lifeblood of any company. The essential ingredients that will ensure a
company makes a profit are
a good cost and price estimate,
a good plan,
an ability to manage both people and work efficiently,
quality (get it right the first time),
safety (bad practices cost money),
cost-effective execution of all work, and
maximizing revenue (i.e., ensuring that the company is paid in full
for everything it does).
1.1.3 Key Elements of a Contract

The seven key elements of a contract are
1. the tender (i.e., the bid),
2. the plan,
3. the scope of work,
4. purchasing,
5 . subcontracting,
6 . measurement and evaluation of the work, and
7. contractual obligations.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Contracts and the Role of the Weldno Engineer 3
On first impression, the welding engineer may perceive that few of these aspects are
applicable to him. This is erroneous. In fact, the welding engineer should have a fun-
damental role in every phase of the contract from the preparation of a tender to the
fulfillment of the last contractual obligation; and greater emphasis on this role should
be undertaken by the conscientious engineer. The seven key elements presented above
will now be described briefly.
The Tender
The key elements of a tender (i.e., the bid) that form the criteria against which the
job will be measured are
specifications,
drawings,
scope of work,
procedures,
resources,
methods, and
price.
The tender describes the criteria and assumptions upon which the work is priced
and planned, and it establishes the base from which all changes will be measured.
Therefore, it is of paramount importance to define clearly the data and assumptions
used in compiling the price and plan. In addition, it must be made clear that if the
assumptions are wrong, or if they are not acceptable to the client, then there will be
an effect on the price, or the delivery date, or both. All factors and calculations used
in compiling the price and plan must be clearly recorded and retained throughout the
life of the contract. Remember, they will form the basis for any cost adjustments
resulting from changes.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
The Plan
The plan describes how, when, and where the work will be carried out, as well as
the resources to be used. There are many instances when the time allowed by a client
for the tender period is very short, and the information relating to the scope of work
and deliverables is incomplete. This combination of factors complicates the develop-
ment of a comprehensive plan. Nevertheless, the aim should be to develop an accu-
rate plan that represents the way the work is intended to be carried out. The plan is the
base from which the effect of all changes will be measured, and this includes self-
induced changes.
The Scope of Work

In an ideal situation, the work would be executed strictly in accordance with the
original plan and cost estimate. In the real world, however, this rarely happens -usu-
ally because the work is insufficiently defined at the time of the tender. It is important
that the people who are responsible for executing the work are fully aware of how the
work was planned and costed, so they can operate within their parameters or can iden-
tify and notify change to the same. The identification and notification of changes is
the most important link in the chain of events that leads to payment for the effects of
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
changes.
Purchasing
Cost-effective purchasing is a key factor in successfully executing a contract. At the
tender stage, delivery dates and prices for all required materials should be obtained.
After the contract is awarded, it is important that materials are procured in accordance
with the needs of the production department - that is, in accordance with the plan
and within the quoted prices. Additionally, if items such as new welding machines or
consumables are necessary for the job, sufficient notice should be given by the weld-
ing engineer to the relevant departments to obtain adequate quotations. Any relevant
purchase lead-times also must be included in the plan.
Subcontracting
Regardless of the size of the subcontract. the rules are the same. The subcontract
must
o clearly define the scope of work,
o specify the dates for deliverables to the subcontractor,
o agree to a schedule for completion, and
o specify the services to be provided (if any) to the subcontractor.
Subsequent changes in specifications given to the subcontractor should be mini-

mized. If this is unavoidable, any effects must be properly monitored. It is the respon-
sibility of the welding engineer to ensure that all necessary approvals of the subcon-
tractors’ welding procedures, etc., are made on time; otherwise, claims for conse-
quential delays are likely to appear on his desk.
Measurement and Evaluation of the Work

There are a number of ways of measuring the work, but the two most common are
lump-sum pricing with a schedule of rates, in which only variations
are measured; and
lump-sum pricing based on a bill of quantities, and a schedule of
rates, in which all of the work is measured.
The work is measured from the drawings, and all changes that flow through draw-
ings should be picked up in that measurement. Of course, the increased work result-
ing from a change to drawings would be picked up in a subsequent re-measure and
valued at the schedule rates, and the effect of the increase on the schedule would war-
rant a claim for extending the duration of the contract.
Contracts and the Role of the Welding Engineer 5
Changes initiated by means other than drawings are the subject of variation orders,
for example,
changes in specification,
changes in timing, and
changes in design after work has been completed.
Generally, such changes would be measured as an effect on the cost of labor, equip-
ment, and facilities and would be priced accordingly - not on the basis of the sched-
ule of unit rates.
Contractual Obligations
The major contractual obligations that affect the performance of the work are:
execution of the work in accordance with drawings and specifica-
tions;
execution of the work in accordance with the schedule, unless it can
be proven that this has been prevented by factors beyond the com-
pany?s control;
provision that work is free from defects (noting that, even where
work has been inspected and/or certified, the manufacturer is liable
for any defects that may be found subsequently; and, while a con-
tractual obligation extends through to the end of the maintenance
period, a common-law and/or moral obligation extends far beyond
that date);
appreciation that approval of drawings, method statements, weld
procedures, etc., do not relieve the company from contractual oblig-
ations;
appreciation that inspectors and certifications by certifying authori-
ties do not relieve the company from contractual obligations; and
knowledge that, in cases where the client causes disruption or delay
to the progress of the work, the contractor has an obligation to min-
imize the effect of the same, provided such mitigation does not add
to its cost.
1.1.4 Ensuring the Company Is Fully Compensated

The welding engineer can make a significant contribution toward ensuring identifi-
cation of the company?s full entitlement. The re-measurement of quantities of work
and the monetary evaluation of variations issued by a client are generally straightfor-
ward. The difficulties arise with
changes that affect the progress of the work,
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
the cumulative effect on the schedule of a number of changes that,

individually, may have little of no effect, and
the introduction of changes late into the schedule.
There is no easy method for identifying or quantifying the above types of changes.
However, there are two basic rules that assist in carrying out this identification and
qualification:
Each employee must be fully aware of, and be fully conversant
with, their individual scope of work, its budget and schedule, and
how their work fits into the overall plan.
When a change occurs to that scope of work andor schedule,
whatever the cause, then the individual concerned must immedi-
ately notify the project manager of change and ensure that its
effects are quantified.
In the evaluation of schedule and cost effect of all changes, the following actions
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
will make the task simpler and more productive:

Identify the change as early as possible;
notify relevant personnel and/or the client;
quantify the schedule and cost effects as soon as possible and with-
in a prescribed time;
keep the client informed of the effects; and,
request the client’s instructions on recovery measures.
1.1.5 Variations and Claims

The quality of the presentation of a variation request, or claim, can have an impor-
tant bearing on the amount the contractor will be paid.
A sloppy presentation will indicate either lack of knowledge on the subject or lack
of confidence in any entitlement to be paid, and it will be treated accordingly by the
client. Good presentation will maximize the payment.
The presentation should be well prepared and built up systematically from the con-
tract base, and it should clearly detail all effects of the change. All backup documen-
tation should be clearly referenced and attached to the variation request. It will be
much easier to achieve a high-quality presentation if all involved parties pay attention
to the actions previously described.
While there is often the temptation to take shortcuts on the preparation of variations,
this is usually counterproductive. By good preparation and good presentation, the
welding engineer will help the client to pay his company its full entitlement -and on
some occasions, perhaps more.
Three main factors therefore emerge, all essential when dealing with commercial
aspects:
Keep good and explicit records,
be vigilant, and
think profit.
The foregoing was a general summation of the relevant commercial aspects in
which a company welding engineer should be involved during a project. However,
there is one very important function in particular that deeply involves this individual
- dealing with specifications. Section 1.2 will discuss this aspect in detail. Many
other facets also relevant to commercial success - welding costs, choice of equip-
ment and consumables, assessing procedure requirements etc. - are dealt with in
subsequent chapters.
1.2 Dealing with Specifications

International codes and specifications often vary with respect to the degree of legal
influence they carry. Similar variation exists internationally in the administration of
such codes and practices. In some countries there is an inspectorate -that is, a board
of inspectors - that makes rulings on the interpretation of the code, approves the
design, and carries out physical inspections during construction. In other countries
(the U.K., for example) there is no government-approved inspectorate; instead, an
independent authority is generally appointed by the purchaser to inspect on their
behalf.
In such a disparate legal and political environment, the only safe procedure is to
work according to the code specified. However, there is no logical reason why speci-
fications and codes related to welding fabrication should be exempt from rational and
critical scrutiny, with the intent of obtaining cost reductions. Of course, the impor-
tance of welding to the overall integrity and reliability of a fabricated component must
not be understated; but, by the same token, the specified requirements for materials
and for finished weldments should not be regarded as sacrosanct edicts carved in
stone. This awareness is especially pertinent when considering a client’s individual
specifications that supplement a national code. Such additional requirements usually
come about in one of two ways: from individuals who choose to incorporate certain
objectives through personal experience and prejudice; and from a committee seeking
to achieve the highest common denominator acceptable to all (i.e., the most rigid
interpretation). The cost implications of the second approach are usually severe.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
One natural consequence of supplemental contract specifications is that, more often

than not, they tend to place overly heavy emphasis on “how-to” rather than simply
specifying what is required. In other words, they are not performance driven. If a
given material is sufficient to achieve the desired results, then the welding engineer
should be allowed to use it, whether it is alloy steel or chewing gum. Ultimately, such
an approach could result in a welding specification comprised of just two tables: One
specifying the base material and weld metal properties; the other specifying any non-
destructive examination requirements.
Nevertheless, great care must be taken in assessing the implications of any contract
specification out of the ordinary. Particularly important is the stage of negotiation at
which this assessment is carried out - i.e., has a contract actually been placed, or is
it still at the bid stage? If the latter, then mitigating the apprehension of the client must
be the foremost consideration. Sound judgment must be used in deciding which con-
tract specifications will have serious cost implications and which are merely advanta-
geous to avoid, but not serious enough to jeopardize a contract award. Two convenient
means can be utilized in exercising this determination. These may be labeled
Exceptions to the Specijìcation and Clarifications to the Specijìcation, and they can
be easily written directly into the tender. Two other possibilities exist, but these will
be explained in more detail later.
Exceptions to Specification
The Exceptions category should be avoided if possible, or at least restricted to those
few major items where the specification demands are virtually impossible to achieve
economically. The reasons for making such exceptions must be clearly identified. A
common example would be a requirement to maintain preheat until a certain percent-
age of the weld volume has been completed. A simple illustration of this would be
rolling a tubular section in the manufacture of a pressure vessel or offshore rig. It is
very common for the rolling contractor to tack and root weld the longitudinal joint of
the rolled cylinder when it is still in the rolls, then to transfer it later to a welding sta-
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
tion. Maintenance of preheat throughout this process is not practicable, and abandon-
ing this requirement can be justified based on the success of past practice. Indeed, the
argument of successful past practice is a very persuasive one and should be used
whenever possible.
Clarifications to Specification
Clar$cations to the Specification can be a subtle method of identifying what are
really exceptions. These are basically in-house or preferred interpretations of sections
of the specification that are unclear or ambiguous. Obviously, the interpretation most
practical for the welding engineer will be preferred; but, on occasion, it is advisable
for the engineer also to consider foregoing the preferred interpretation and applying
the less-convenient one. In the latter instance, when a significant cost can be attrib-
uted directly to the client’s preferred or anticipated interpretation, then it should be
noted specifically in the tender. If the client’s perceived benefit does not outweigh the
additional cost, then a reversal of opinion will likely be forthcoming.
As mentioned previously, there are two other useful tactics that fall outside of the
above classifications. One is to include a passing general statement in the tender that
would leave an open door for future compromises on the requirements of the contract.
No client likes to see pages of alteration to his specification, especially if much of it

is relatively minor; but a convenient phrase, such as, “there are in addition a number
of items on which we would welcome discussion,” can tentatively gloss over an indef-
inite number of exceptions and clarifications. Further discussion is often delayed until
after the contract award; or, alternatively, such discussion can be deferred until the
post-contract period and slowly advanced to the client under the guise of engineering
queries. Small modifications in the specification to avoid changes in production activ-
ities or welding practices can be swept up rather informally by this approach without
irritating the client.
In addition, exceptions, clarifications, etc. - although they are common practice -
can reflect negatively upon the client; and it may be worthwhile, especially in pre-ten-
der negotiations, to offer options. Although usually designed to suit the fabricator,
these options also should convey to the client that acceptance of such will be advan-
tageous to him either technically, economically, or otherwise. Consequently, these
should be presented in a logical and structured fashion with client benefits clearly
stressed.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Monitoring Production
There is a very common pitfall of which the welding engineer must be ever mind-
ful when dealing with specifications. It is the assumption that his interpretation of a
client’s specification, if it is against the company’s practice, will be applied in pro-
duction when a tender becomes a contract. Ideally, the welding engineer’s responsi-
bilities with respect to specifications will be defined loosely enough to permit his
feedback throughout the company’s departmental structure. Generally, it is better (and
safer) for the company to allow this sort of follow-through on a contract, rather than
assume that it will be covered by some other department.
Of course, the responsibility of the welding engineer principally will be with those
points in the specification dealing directly with welding activities. However, there can
be instances outside of the engineer’s day-to-day responsibilities in which other
departments rely on his guidance. If, for example, the engineer is aware of recent
changes in welder qualification requirements, it is his obligation to convey this to oth-
ers, regardless of departmental responsibilities, to ensure that the contract is executed
correctly.
In every industrial setting, engineers face process-control problem areas, and the
welding engineer is no exception. Therefore, all specifications should be compared to
the last contract and examined for changes. Never assume that the specification is
identical just because the client is the same. Likewise, never assume that different
clients will interpret the same specification in a similar manner.
Examples of such potential problem areas are:
Material Weldability -Is the steel identical to that supplied for the
last contract, or should new weldability tests be carried out?
1O The Practical Welding Engineer
D = Max. depth relative to the surface, typically 1.O, 1.5 or 2.0 mm.
S = Max. space (center to center) between indentations through heat-affected
zone (HAZ), typically 0.5 mm or 0.75 mm (may vary with location in sur-
vey).
1. The higher the value of S the fewer the indentations made and the less risk
of encountering a “hard spot.”
2. The value of D will affect different welds in different ways depending on the
weld interface shape.
3. Generally higher loads provide an averaging effect and decease the risk of
reporting “hard spots.”
4. Some surveys ask for additional impressions (shown as dots above) fol-
lowing the weld interface. This type of survey will increase the risk of
reporting high values due to the increase in the number of impressions
adjacent to the maximum hardness zone.
FIGURE 1.1 -ASSESSING HARDNESS SURVEY REQUIREMENTS FOR

--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
STEEL WELDMENTS
Different manufacturers can supply to the same specification using

different routes, resulting in wide weldability differences.
Hardness Surveys -Are the test locations and test loads similar to
those previously used? Small changes to these details can change
the values obtained. Some typical survey requirements are illustrat-
ed in Figure 1.1.
Impact Tests - Are the acceptance values and test locations the
same? Are the test temperatures specified the same?
There are numerous other examples, and the welding engineer should, at the very
least, draw up a mental checklist of such potential pitfalls.
Having identified the differences, what should be done about them? One option
would be simply to identify them as exceptions or clarifications, as shown previous-

Contructs and the Role of the Welding Engineer 11
ly; but, obviously, it would be better if they were not. A preferable option, if it were
possible, would be to carry out in-house testing to ascertain'the effects of the change
on the cost and time of production. Possible testing methods might include simple
repeat hardness surveys, or bead-on-plate trials to examine effect of preheathardness
levels. These need not be extensive or expensive, but the results can reaffirm confi-
dence in accepting a specification.
A final word of caution is extended here regarding the interpretation of suppliers'
typical data (consumable or weldability data, and the like), and the relevance of this
data to specification requirements. Do not assume these values are minimum or even
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
average values; in fact, they are more likely to represent typical good results from
tests carried out under ideal conditions. In cases where such typical data are close to
your minimum specified requirements, take great care to avoid assuming responsibil-
ity for aspects of a specification that may prove to be technically unachievable. Such
assumptions may lead your company to penalties for failing to attain specified
requirements, with all the commercial implications such failures carry.

Selection of Welding Processes,
Equipment and Consumables
In this chapter it has been assumed that the welding engineer has a basic theoreti-
cal knowledge of the various welding processes. There are many worthwhile books
available on this subject (see recommended reading), so no attempt will be made here
to provide detailed information on welding processes. However, as a memory aid,
Table 2.1 lists the main processes likely to be encountered. Some of the advan-
tageddisadvantages pertaining to each are also identified.
2.1 Welding Process Selection

The “ideal” welding process is that which achieves the minimum specification
requirements at the minimum cost; and, although the selection of a process for a given
welding application is seldom scientific or precise, it always requires careful judge-
ment. Moreover, the approach to process selection should be sufficiently thorough to
ensure balanced judgment. There are several aspects to be considered, and a careful
assessment of each in turn should be undertaken by the welding engineer in close
association with production personnel. The main factors to be considered are shown
in Table 2.2. These factors address quality (a contractual obligation) in conjunction
with resources and cost (both related to profitable operation).
The correct process choice, therefore, is the best compromise between resources
and cost, which also satisfies quality. Each of these aspects will now be discussed in
more detail, but a summary of the selection method is given in Figure 2.1.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Specification Requirements
The fabrication specification is the first and most important step in selecting a
process. At this stage the engineer must establish what is required -in terms of joint
type, mechanical properties, nondestructive examination (NDE), etc. - not only for
the particular joint in question, but also for the overall effect of welding on tolerances,
where these could influence the approach to a particular fabrication problem. Clearly,
the specified requirements represent a fixed point in the process selection exercise,
and, unlike the many other factors concerned, a compromise is not acceptable in terms
of the minimum quality demanded by the specification. Therefore, it is the duty of the
welding engineer to ensure the process, or processes, accepted at this initial stage are
capable of meeting all specification requirements. A list of typical points for consid-
eration at this stage is given below. These at least should be questioned mentally and
assessed by the welding engineer prior to his decision.

14 The Practical Welding EIIQ¡neel
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
--
roe
m
rom
m mz
$ m
m m
z
m N
$ m
- m
TABLE 2.1 -WELDING PROCESSES

Selection of Welding Processes, Equipment and Consumables 15
"p-
il:U
J
I-
FIGURE 2.1 - PROCESS SELECTION METHOD

--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Mechanical properties: tensile strength, impact toughness,

higMow temperature properties, etc.
NDE perjormance: visual only vs. volumetric; technique speci-
fied, acceptance levels, etc.
Special features: dimensional tolerances, surface finish, etc.
Weldability (i.e., special material requirements): ferrous vs. nonfer-
rous, dissimilar or reactive metal, etc.
Limited selection per speci3cation: Does the specification limit
process choice directly? They often do.
Consumable availability: choice limited by availability of suitable
consumables
Practical Constraints
Within this category are found the many and varied aspects of a fabrication method
that can influence the choice of welding process. It is therefore necessary to establish
the overall manufacturing sequence ahead of, or at least in parallel with, any decision
on welding methods. For example, the initial selection stage may have identified three
processes - shielded metal arc welding (SMAW), flux cored arc welding (FCAW),
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
and submerged arc welding (SAW) - as suitable for a simple fillet weid. Yet, it
quickly becomes evident that SAW is not suitable if the component happens to be fab-
ricated in a sequence that places this fillet in, say, the 3G position. The meclianical
properties inherent in certain combinations of processes and consumables for various
welding positions also must be considered at this stage. For instance, if low-tempera-
ture impact properties are not important, then a particular self-shielded FCAW con-
sumable could be used for 3G uphill welding, whereas if impact properties are criti-
cal [ 11, downhill welding or even another process may be required. Other factors -
such as accessibility, fitup, type and standard of weld preparation, etc. -can all influ-
ence the suitability of the welding process chosen. Similarly, other environmental fea-
tures such as indoor (shop) vs. outdoor (site or field) fabrication have a major influ-
ence on process choice, particularly with respect to the suitability of gas shielded
processes.
FACTOR GOVERNED BY
Quality Specification
Resources Practical constraints
Functional constraints
cost Economic factors
TABLE 2.2 -WELDING PROCESS SELECTION

Functional Constraints
Unlike the previous considerations, this group contains a number of intangible fac-
tors as well as tangible and straightforward problems. The more easily recognizable
areas to be considered are
availability of equipment;
availability of personnel and skills;
availability of services such as gas, power, water, air, etc.; and,
availability of shop space.
Each of the above items will influence the choice of welding process - either
directly via the total unsuitability of available resources, or indirectly via the addi-
tional cost of providing suitable resources. As such, these aspects are dealt with rela-
tively easily during the selection of a welding process. More difficult is the assess-
ment of the sometimes-less-tangible constraints imposed on the selection decision,
such as
utilization of personnel (i.e., if there are a number of skilled welders
from another project available on a part-time basis, economic factors
may demand the use of such personnel),
capacity of individual work stations (i.e., there may be existing pro-
duction bottlenecks to be avoided), and
overall time savings (Le., there is little point in welding a compo-
nent faster unless the total production time is reduced as a result).
Economic Factors
If all other factors are equal, the final choice of welding process should be made on
the basis of production costs.
An assessment of costs, however, involves many interrelated factors, some of which
already have been mentioned. It is important to consider costs on the basis offinal
cost, not on the basis of individual process costs in isolation. Thus, if a group of
skilled shielded metal arc welders were available for an average of 10 hours per week
(surplus to the requirements of another project), then it may be worthwhile to utilize
SMAW for a particular application rather than the nominally more productive FCAW
or SAW.
Similarly, it may prove more economic to choose a less productive welding process
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
to achieve some other desired feature (e.g., surface finish), where the additional time
spent welding the component can benefit overall production costs by reducing machin-
ing or dressing operations later. Careful consideration should also be given to the mer-
its of mechanization or automation; since, despite the major productivity benefits, the
potential payback is highly dependent upon the degree of utilization in the plant. As a
result, what may be a good investment in a production line environment (high utiliza-

78 The Praciical Welding Engineer
tion) .may prove excessively expensive in a mixed fabrication shop (low utilization),
despite any improvement in the welding time for the item in question.
2.2 Equipment and Consumable Evaluation

General Principles
The evaluation of new equipment, or altemative consumables, can sometimes form
a significant part of the welding engineer’s function, although this obviously depends
on the type of business in which the engineer is employed and, in some cases, only if
sufficient time is available. Nevertheless the importance of a good evaluation system
should be recognized by all. As a starting point, the following questions should be
posed:
Why is the proposed evaluation being carried out?
What are the key points of interest?
If the answer to either of the above cannot be identified positively, then it is likely
that the proposed evaluation is either premature or unnecessary, and of little benefit to
you. It is very important to identify in advance the main factors of interest and not
allow good salesmanship by your supplier to lead you into receiving a demonstration
of only the best features of the equipment or consumable. These are of little value
unless they are also what you require. Another point worth remembering is that by the
time your evaluation is complete and your “technical” choice has been made, it may
then be too late to obtain the best commercial deal with your supplier. It is therefore
a good general practice to obtain quotations or pricing information at an early stage,
particularly in situations where competitive products are being assessed.
For both consumables and equipment, there are two general reasons leading to a
need for assessing new or alternative products, namely,
alteration of existing practice, e.g., replacement plant or consum-
ables, and
introduction of new practices, e.g., replacement of SMAW by semi-
automatic welding.
Each of the above require a different treatment. In the first case, where there will be
no change in working practices, the comparison to be made should be straightforward.
Here, existing equipment and consumables will form a benchmark against which the
performance of the new product can be measured. It is still important, however, to
approach the evaluation methodically. For this reason a checklist, or score sheet of
some form, can introduce a degree of objectivity. This aspect will be discussed in
more detail later. In the second case, the evaluation can be twofold in that the equip-
ment and consumables are not only being evaluated against competitive products, but
also against existing practice in terms of productivity, NDE performance, etc. This sit-
uation can lead to problems, and it is better to keep both of these aspects separate.
Although this may be difficult, it is important to avoid situations where a product is
being condemned on the basis of a requirement related to an existing practice, which
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Selection of Welding Processes, Equbment and Consumables 19
may not be relevant if the overall working practices are changed. There is no doubt-
ing the fact that the availability of capable welding equipment and consumables will
affect the decision-making process in relation to changing working practices.
However, unless only one specific consumable or piece of equipment is potentially
suitable, the process decision can be made based on generic information. Having
made the decision in principle to change working practice, then the equipment or con-
sumable assessment can be carried out against clearly defined target requirements.
Equipment Assessment
As mentioned above, it is worthwhile to establish a checklist against which both
your requirements and equipment performance can be judged. This will differ, obvi-
ously, for different types of equipment; nevertheless, the following lists are offered as
examples dealing with two distinct applications.
Power Source Checklist
Type of current (AC or DC).
o Polarity (electrode positive or negative).
Pulsing facilities (peak current range, background current range,

frequency range, synergic capability).
.
Programmability (e.g., preset facilities).
8
Process capability (Shielded metal arc, submerged arc, gas metal

arc [GMA], flux cored arc, and gas tungsten arc welding [GTAW]).
.
Interchangability with existing plant (e.g. spares).
8
Power input requirements (power limitations, single-phase, three-

phase, type and availability of fuel for generator engine).
Energy consumption (i.e. efficiency).
.
Duty cycle.
Ancillary equipment required (wire feeders, high frequency units,
etc.).
Availability, cost, and ease of servicing.
Orbital Gas Tungsten Arc WeldinP Unit Checklist
Type of head (direct pipe mounting vs. track mounting).
Power source and programmer (pulsing mechanisms, programming
systems, level and number of programming steps possible for given
current, voltages, wire speed, travel speed).
Pipe size capacity.
Ability for interchange of heads.
Head facilities (wire positioning facility, wire drive on head, exter-
nal arc-length or arc-voltage control, gas lens, water-cooling facili-
ties, electrical and thermal protection, general ruggedness).
Head access limitations.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Length of interconnects.
Number of passes possible on continuous operation.
Headtrack clamping methods (Le., automatic vs. manual centering,
arc voltageílength monitoring mechanisms, etc.).
Previous industrial experience.
Availability, cost, and ease of servicing.
Availability of machining facilities for weld preparation.
Necessity for orbital welding (possible options such as rotation of
component, etc.).
The above examples are intended to illustrate the advisability of an objective
approach to equipment assessment and purchase; they should not be regarded as ideal
checklists. The ideal checklist is the one outlining your requirements in detail.
Consumable Assessment
The selection and assessment of consumables depends very much on the application
range in view. For instance, there is little value in assessing the positional welding
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
capability of a filler metal if the intended use is exclusively for flat-welding-position
fillets. Obviously, there is a need to match the assessment to the application. Having
established the target application(s), the assessment of any consumable provides two
main areas for evaluation, namely,
operability, and
weld properties.
Each of the above features is examined differently -that is, “operability” is a judg-
ment affected by the welder’s ability and bias, whereas “weld properties” normally
will present a well defined target that may or may not be achieved. The only compli-
cation regarding weld properties is that these are influenced by the detailed weld pro-
cedure used. It is recommended, therefore, that you incorporate the recommendations
of the consumable manufacturer regarding specific techniques in any evaluation
involving a property assessment. If these recommendations are impractical, or limit-
ing (but necessary), then this factor in itself could eliminate a consumable from fur-
ther consideration.
Operability, however, is of equal importance; there is much to be said for a product
that has “welder appeal.” Ease of use normally will translate into fewer defects and
better productivity, so operability should be an important consideration in any evalu-
ation. Given that operability can be a subjective assessment, it is worthwhile to estab-
lish a score sheet covering the various aspects of operability that should be addressed.
An example of such a score sheet is shown in Figure 2.2. This is a particularly useful
tool when evaluating manual-process consumables. Another consideration is to hear
reactions from several welders, because opinions often vary. In terms of general
approach, the first action would be to identify a number of consumables that meet the
mechanical and chemical analysis requirements of the weld “on paper.” Having estab-

CONSUMABLE ASSESSMENT SHEET
Electrode: Welding Current: DC o ACO Amp:

Power Source: Special Tests:
Joint Prep: Welder:
Welding Position: Date:
EVALUATION OF WELDING CHARACTERISTICS

Score* Comment
Arc Action:
Striking/Re-Striking o
o
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Weld Root Stability
Fill & Cap Pass Stability 0
Slag Action:
Control o
Removal o
Fume Emission O
Coating Stability o
Deposit:
Shape/Profile o
Spatter O
Total: o
General Comments:
*Scale: 10 = Excellent 8-9 = Above Average 6-7 = Average û-5 = Below Average
FIGURE 2.2 -SAMPLE SCORE SHEET FOR CONSUMABLE ASSESSMENT

lished such a list, samples can be obtained and used for simple operability tests. These
should be designed to suit your intended application (e&, for SMAW on a fully posi-
tional pipe weld using a butt joint, a simple test involving the filling of a shallow
groove in a 5G- or 6G-positioned pipe would suffice).
The best two or three products can then be assessed further on the basis of full weld
procedure tests to establish required properties. The “operability” factor obviously can
mean different things for different processes; examples of what should be considered
for shielded metal arc welding are given below:
Deposition efficiency.
Coating type (basic, rutile, iron powder, etc. -choices may be lim-
ited by specification).
Electrode application range (current and polarity, positional limita-
tions per available resources and applications, etc.).
Electrode operability (factors to be considered and “scored”
include arc action [strikinghestriking, root stability, and the stabili-
ty of the cap pass]; slag action [control, removal, fume emission,
coating stability, etc.]; and deposit [shape and spatter]).
An example of an evaluation code that incorporates many of these features in
greater detail is shown in Figure 2.3.
For processes employing a bare wire electrode, there is seldom a need for an “oper-
ability” type of assessment on the wire consumable, since these usually are ordered
according to an analysis specification. Other processes, especially those that involve
a flux, can be treated in a fashion similar to the SMAW scenario described above. For
all welding processes, including SMAW, a further consideration in many industries is
the level and type of consumable-handling practices required to meet and maintain
low weld-metal hydrogen values. As this can have cost implications and affect the
preheat levels required, it is a factor that also must be considered before the final
choice of a consumable.
References
[i] Rodgers, K. J., and Lochhead, J. C. 1987. “Self shielded flux cored arc welding
- the route to good toughness.” Welding Journal 66(7): 49-59.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

EVALUATION CODE FOR TEST WELDING

SLAG REMOVAL OVERHEATING
1. Slag very difficult to remove. Any overheatingtendency is shown by indicat-
2. Slag difficult to remove ing approximately how many mm of the elec-
3. Slag cover is whole and remains on bead trode remains at the point when overheating
but can be removed with normal de-slagging effects are noticed.
method for the type of electrode, ¡.e., wire WELD BEAD APPEARANCE
brushing, use of chipping hammer, etc. Two numbers are used here. The first
4. Slag cover remains on bead but is loosened describes bead shape in a V-Joint as follows:
up by cross cracking and is easy to remove. 1 Convex (high peaks)
5. Slag is self-releasing. 2 Convex (very high peaks)
Auxiliary Code 3. Flat
SS Large areas of slag remain on bead after 4. Concave
de-slagging. A second number is used to describe bead
S Small areas of slag remain on bead after surface smoothness (¡.e., solidification ripple
de-slagging. pattern) as follows:
Sp Slag particles 'fly o f f during cooling. i.Ripples coarser than normal for the elec-
h addition to 4 if the slag loosens in one trode type.
piece with light de-slagging. 2. Normal ripple pattern.
+ used when comparing two electrodes 3. Ripples finer than normal for the electrode
where the difference between them is not type.
great enough to shift from one main code Note: A n additional "+"may be added to differentiate
to another. between two relatively close electrodes.
SPATTER COATING BRITTLENESS
1. More spatter than normal for the type of The electrode is bent over a 150-mm-diam-
electrode. eter pipe, and a scale of 1-5 is used to
2. Normal spatter. describe the effect on the coating.
3. Less spatter than normal for the type of elec- 1 =very brittle 5 =very ductile
trode. RE-STRIKING
Note: The above may be augmented by a "+"to differ- For those electrode types where this proper-
entiate small differences between two electrodes. ty is of interest, restriking is tried 5, 10, and 30
ARC STABILITY seconds after the arc is extinguished. Welding
1. Less stable than normal for the type of elec- time before the arc is extinguished is about 10
trode. seconds. If the electrode re-strikes then the
2. Normal stability appropriate box is marked with X.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
3. More stable than normal for the type of elec- COMMENTS

trode. Any special observations are noted here,
Note: The above may be augmented by "+s''if there is e.g., porosis: slag removal on root side, if elec-
a tendency for the arc to extinguish, or "+n" if there is trode gives unusually much or little fume, if the
a tendency for the electrode to "stick or "íreeze." coating breaks off around the arc, if the slag
characteristics change during a test series run,
if the arc column is stable in the joint, etc.
FIGURE 2.3 -SAMPLE EVALUATION CODE

Chapter 3
Weld Procedure Qualification

A major part of any welding engineer’s job is the assessment, initiation, qualifica-
tion, and reporting of weld procedure tests, and the engineer’s performance in this
area has considerable financial implications. Significant cost penalties can result if he
should fail to identify completely the specified requirement, choose consumables that
prove inadequate for the function intended, or fall short of completing the proposed
weld procedure qualifications within the production program requirements. The fol-
lowing sections discuss various finite stages to be observed during the welding pro-
cedure qualification process.
3.1 Assessing Weld Procedure Requirements

During the bidding or pre-contract stage, drawings and specifications must be exam-
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
ined carefully to assess the number of tests that will be required, taking into considera-
tion the thickness ranges, the material groupings, the heat treatment conditions, and the
welding positions. If there is sufficient time, this initial assessment should be circulated
among managers in other appropriate disciplines -such as planning, quality assurance,
and, especially, production - for comment and feedback. Cognizance should be taken
of any restricted-access conditions or equipment limitations; and, where necessary,
alternative procedures should be proposed. Insomuch as an initial procedure-require-
ment estimate is seldom sufficient to accommodate client alterations, changes in fabri-
cation methods, and other unforeseen factors, it is a good rule of thumb to overestimate
by 10 percent when establishing budget requirements. Of course, this “contingency mul-
tiplier” could be increased or reduced depending on the engineer’s level of confidence
in, or familiarity with, the type of work being bid.
Having established the initial procedure test requirements, the engineer preparing
the bid should determine whether any of the proposed procedures can be considered
suitable for acceptance by virtue of being “prequalified.” Confusion can arise between
the casual use of the terms “prequalified” and “previously qualified.” A prequalified
welding procedure specification is defined in ANSIIAWS A3.0-94 - Standard
Welding Terms and Definitions as “a welding procedure that complies with the stipu-
lated conditions of a particular code or specification and is therefore acceptable for
use under that code or specification without a requirement for qualification testing.”
(author’s emphasis).
In some cases, prequalification may relate to the use of code-approved procedures
(e.g., AWS Dl.l), but it can equally relate to situations where previously qualified
procedures (satisfying all current requirements) are the only allowable means of pre-

qualification. This assumes, naturally, that the relevant national or client specification
permits prequalification, and that the proposed material is sufficiently similar to that
on which the previous tests were performed. Even so, the engineer might consider
testing a limited number of specimens to reassure both himself and the client that the
materials are worthy of prequalification. Qualification is a significant factor in the
cost of most fabrications; therefore, one must take advantage of prequalification
whenever permissible. This is why engineers often will specify a desired procedure in
terms of more than one process, each of which is prequalified separately; or, they will
combine the results of several procedures into a single “hybrid” procedure, which can
then be offered (with supporting data) for consideration by the client as being pre-
qualified.
At this point, one could deliberate the extent to which the engineer may apply the
strategy of substituting specified procedures with prequalified procedures. For instance,
it may be that certain specified procedures differ from existing qualified procedures in
only minor details -e g , number of specimens, location of hardness tests, etc. Should
the prequalified procedure be discounted? - not necessarily! In the interest of cost
reduction, many clients will accept such procedures, especially if the rest are qualified
as originally specified. However, the engineer must have enough familiarity with the
client to win his confidence, as this action presumes a good deal of faith in the engi-
neer’s judgement. Offering alternatives is an easy way to avoid cost-inflating specifica-
tion details, particularly when they impact procedure qualification requirements. The
engineer can always offer a small amount of additional testing once the bid is accepted.
This can be a useful tactic in persuading the client to accept his recommendations.
Finally, when the information at hand is inadequate to fully establish welding pro-
cedure requirements, the welding engineer must be prepared to recognize this during
the bidding or pre-contract stage. Two strategies are available to the engineer in this
event. First, he can assume, from background knowledge and experience, what type
and number of procedure tests are likely to be required; then, these can be listed and
identified to the prospective client as the total number upon which the price has been
established. Second, an average price per individual test plate can be calculated; this
figure can then be inserted into the bid document, leaving the final price subject to
change. Most clients favor the former method, not surprisingly, as they prefer to have
at least some knowledge of what the ultimate figure will be.
Planning a Test Program

At this stage, the number of prequalified procedures should be removed from the
pre-contract list of procedures to be tested, and the welding engineer should subse-
quently engage other departments, as necessary, in the preparation of a qualification
test program. Priorities must be established as early as possible so that the required
procedure will be qualified, reported, and accepted by the client as far in advance of
the production starting date as possible. Seldom will a program run 100-percent
smoothly; so, a time cushion should be included to allow for possible rewelding due
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Weld Procedure Qualification 27
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
6 b
r
O
P
O
I- I-
?i 3
O
O
w w
J
2
2
93
E !i
m
m
!i
o- t
-I
d
> Y
-1 -I
w W
r Ed
z
U
2 N
Y Y
m cl
zm 3
Y
3
s 3
m
M N

28 The Pracfical Welding Engineer
to nondestructive examination (NDE) or mechanical test failures. Regardless of the

number of times a procedure has performed satisfactorily in the past, statistical laws
guarantee that there will be a failed result eventually, and Murphy’s Law guarantees
this result will occur at a critical time. Figure 3.1 illustrates a typical weld procedure
summary sheet identifying most of the relevant points mentioned in this section.
Assessing Test Material Costs

The quantity of material required must be considered carefully, since additional
costs can result from underestimation as well as overestimation. A modest overesti-
mate, however, is preferable to an underestimate that results in embarrassing program
delays. The foremost requirement is to provide sufficient test material for conducting
all required mechanical tests plus an allowance for retests. The importance of this
extra allowance should not be discounted, as there are few experiences more frustrat-
ing than having to rerun entire procedure tests for lack of a few extra millimeters in
the original test piece.
In estimating the amount of weld required for mechanical test purposes, it is nec-
essary not only to list the number of tests to be taken (making an allowance for
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
retests), but also to identify the amount of material required per individual test piece.
Also allow for the wastage of material due to machining or cutting. This issue is best
discussed in advance with the testing facility performing the mechanical tests: the
testing facility can often provide useful guidance on overall material requirements for
individual weld procedure tests. As a simple illustration, consider the following cases:
A pipe butt joint weld procedure qualification on small-bore pipe
(say, 1 in. [25 mm] or less) - here, several individual butt joint
welds may be required to obtain the tests needed for one weld
procedure qualification.
A thick plate (say, 2 in. [50 mm] or greater) butt joint weld involv-
ing Charpy impact testing at several locations. In this case, impact
specimens for weld root, mid-thickness and the cap pass subsur-
face usually can be machined from a single through-thickness slice
at a particular location: hence, the total length of weld required
may be less than for some thinner plates.
The importance of having some spare procedure test material should not be
ignored: but the cost of providing redundant test samples must be taken into account
as well, since the cost of a procedure test program can quickly escalate. Remember
that the largest single expense item in a welding test program is often not the materi-
al, but labor. If all procedures in a weld procedure qualification program were based
on manual welding processes (e.g., shielded metal arc welding [SMAW]), any major
over-allowance on the amount of weld required could prove very costly. Conversely,
for automatic and mechanized welding (e.g., submerged arc welding [SAW]) the cost
of welding a 6-ft-long (2-m) test plate may not be significantly higher than welding a
3-ft (1-m) test plate; and, in this case, a provision for additional test material would
be relatively inexpensive. In all cases, a common-sense approach should prevail. A

10- or 20-percent allowance for potential retests should be adequate for all but the
most problematic of procedure tests.
Making the Test Welds

Once the procedure test requirements are established, the material identified and
sourced, and the test program finalized, then actual welding of test samples can begin.
The foremost consideration here is that qualification of procedures should simulate
the actual site conditions as closely as possible, using production equipment and pro-
duction welders whenever and wherever circumstances permit. There is no benefit in
qualifying a test piece under ideal conditions, using specially trained welders with bet-
ter-than-normal equipment. This will only invite trouble later, in production - when
welds are rejected during inspection or, worse, when they fail during mechanical test-
ing. Welding parameters used during procedure qualification should be logged for
every pass, so that the subsequent welding procedure instruction or operating sheet
may be derived based on realistic working ranges for the main parameters.
The importance of simulating production conditions may seem obvious, but it is not
always observed in practice. Consider, for example, the use of a temper bead tech-
nique to obtain acceptable heat-affected zone (HAZ) hardness levels in alloy steels.
While this can be achieved
under strictly controlled
conditions (such as during a
procedure test), it is often
impossible to guarantee -
or even measure -in a pro-
duction environment,unless CONTROLLED SEPUENCE FOR CAP PASS : LAST BEAD MUST NOT BE ADJA-
CENT TO BASE PLATE, BUT NO OTHER CONTROL IS EXERCISED.
extensive provisions are
made to supervise the oper-
ation. If specifically
required for particular appli-
cations, any cap-pass
sequence method to be used
should be clearly stated and
agreed upon with the client.
Figure 3.2 illustrates the dif-
ference between a true tem-
per-bead technique and a
simple, controlled cap-pass
sequence. The latter method, JEMPER BEAD: LAST BEADS MUST NOT BE ADJACENT TO BASE PLATE; ANO. A
DEFINED OVERLAP BETWEEN BEADS IS SPECIFIED, AS ESTABLISHED BY EXPER-
although sometimes effec- IMENT. (DIAGRAM ABOVE REFERS TO DIMENSION NOTOVERMPPED).
tive in reducing HAZ hard-
nesses, cannot be relied FIGURE 3.2 -COMPARISON BETWEEN
CONTROLLED CAP-PASS SEQUENCE AND TEMPER
BEAD TECHNIQUE
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

upon in this capacity unless subjected to the level of control inherent in m e temper-
bead techniques.
On completion of its welding, and prior to being machined for test purposes, the
test plate should be subjected to the same NDE, heat treatment, and other postweld.
operations planned for the production welds. If the weld fails at this stage (i.e., after
NDE), any further action should be confirmed between the welding engineer and the
client. It may be still possible to utilize the test plate if the defects found were welder-
induced and unlikely to affect mechanical performance of the joint. Otherwise, a new
procedure test may be required. In this case, however, the cause of the original NDE
failure should be considered; and, if appropriate, the procedure should be changed
prior to rewelding.
3.2 Routine Mechanical Tests

The extent of mechanical testing during procedure qualification will depend on the
particular application, the appropriate national standards, client specifications, etc.
This section is intended to provide an overview of mechanical testing, its relevance,
and control. No attempt will be made to discuss specific standards or to provide
detailed test methodology. Rather, the more common weld procedure test require-
ments will be examined, and a number of simple checks will be recommended for use
by the welding engineer in assessing both test-house capability and test results. A key
point is that all unusual results should be queried (if only mentally), as it is from such
results that most experience is gained. Such queries often can lead to a potential pro-
duction problem being identified at an early stage, and consequently prevented.
Macro-Examination
The purpose of a macro-specimen is twofold: to provide an overall view of the met-
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
allographic appearance of a weld, and to provide a cross section that can be examined
for weld defects, etc. This specimen can be either a section that samples the weld in a
typical or pre-specified location, or a section taken to investigate some particular
problem or aspect of the weldment.
Given the considerable amount of information that can be gained from simple
macro-examination of a weld, one must question why the humble “macro” is so often
underrated. With a detailed knowledge of the welding process, one can gain from the
macro-specimen a means of establishing whether or not the weld was completed with-
in the stated parameters. An example of such a use is given in Chapter 4.
In addition, a simple bead count and bead placement check can quickly establish
the accuracy of the written weld record for the procedure test in question. In pro-
duction tests, placing a limit on the total number of beads, or the bead count per unit
length of the weld interface, can help ensure that production welds are comparable
to procedure test welds.

Aside from the merits of macro-examination, remember that this method is intend-
ed to be performed with minimal, if any, optical magnification (commonly xlCLx20
maximum), and care should be taken in assessing any apparent defects discovered at
higher magnifications. Also, if a specification requires examination at a particular
magnification, use it.
Hardness Survey
A hardness survey, normally performed on the specimen taken for macro-examina-
tion, is a common requirement of weld procedure tests. The function served by the
hardness survey will vary according to the application. Probably the most widely
known application relates to identifying the maximum HAZ hardness in
structural/pipe steels, as this is regarded as a good indicator of the risk of encounter-
ing HAZ hydrogen cracking. In other applications, such as hardfacing, the hardness
survey is important with respect to wear resistance; and, in this case, minimum hard-
ness criteria will be specified.
In terms of testing technique, the three main factors to be aware of are choice of
load (commonly, Vickers Diamond 10-kg load is specified), calibration of equipment,
and accuracy of placement for indentations. The last-mentioned factor is particularly
important with respect to many steel fabrication specifications in which keeping
below the maximum HAZ hardness is the main objective. Here, indentations are
required to be within, say, 0.5 mm of the weld interface and positioned at intervals of
0.5 mm on a traverse through the HAZ. This requires accurate placement of the inden-
tations; and, as this can have a marked influence on the results obtained, the indenta-
tion location should always be checked in such cases, with particular attention paid to
any unusually low hardness values reported. For most structural steel applications, a
macro-specimen employing a Nital (i.e., 10- to 20-percent Nitric acid in Methanol)
etch is a long-established and normally acceptable practice for delineating the weld
zones. However, some specifications call for the use of dendritic etches using, for
example, a saturated solution of picric acid with a wetting agent (SASPA-NANSA),
which delineate the fusion boundary more clearly, and also assist in locating the hard-
ness indentation. The relative appearance of both types of etches on similar steel weld
samples is shown in Figures 3.3(a) and 3.3(b), respectively. The use of such special
etches should be governed by need rather than routine, since they require a consider-
ably better standard of preparation (typically polished to a 1-micron finish) and there-
fore involve more time and cost. In addition, the SASPA-NANSAetch has been found
to be unsuccessful when examining some self-shielded flux cored arc welds.
On some materials, such as certain stainless steels and nickel alloys, the sample
preparation can influence the result obtained in a hardness survey due to the forma-
tion of a work-hardened surface layer. Awareness of this probability should govern
any assessment-of unusually high hardness values reported in these materials. Also,
on these materials, avoid severe preparation methods such as heavy grinding or
milling. It is best to prepare samples by progressive, light surface-grinding passes
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

directly on the as-cut surface of the specimen. Although time-consuming,this method

is usually successful; if not, the use of other methods, such as electrolytic techniques,
may be worthwhile considering.
On some types of welds, particularly single-pass welds in steel, it is possible to get
significant hardness variations along the length of the test piece; this is probably due
to slight variations in heat input, heat buildup, etc. In such cases, higher hardness val-
ues are often found near the start of the weld. In these circumstances, use additional
sampling for information purposes - particularly in a situation where the maximum
hardness levels reported are approaching any specified limits.
Micro-Examination
Micro-examination is rarely a
requirement in weld procedure tests,
except in cases where it can influence
the serviceability of a component, and
where discontinuities must be detected
prior to their effect being noticed via
other, more routine tests. Micro-exam-
ination procedures may include ferrite
testing - that is, measuring ferrite
levels, which are known to affect
solidification cracking, sigmatization
potential, and corrosion properties in Nital Etch (HAZ Region)
some stainless steels. Corrosion resis- x 500
tance testing is an alternative, non- (0)
optical form of micro-examination.
As with macro-examination, micro-
examination should be carried out only
after the specimen has been correctly
prepared, and always at an appropriate
magnification. The information that a
micro-examination can provide for the
welding engineer is more
likely to be worthwhile in situations
such as failure investigations, investi-
gations of poor mechanical test perfor-
mance, etc. - where a detailed metal-
lurgical assessment of the weld and SASPA-NANSA (HAZ Region)
HAZ is often invaluable. x 500
(b)
-
FIGURE 3.3 ETCHES OF SIMILAR STEEL
WELD METALS
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Tensile Testing
The type of tensile test specimens used are variable and are normally governed by
the application of a national standard or client specification. Within the scope of weld
procedure testing, these fall into two main categories, namely,
all-weld tensile tests (those in which only the weld metal is tested),
and
transverse or cross-weld tensile tests (those in which the complete
weld cross section, including adjacent base material, is tested).
The significance of the tensile test is readily apparent, inasmuch as the information
generated has a specific design relevance to the strength of a component or structure.
By pointing out this relevance, it is sometimes possible to have results that are slight-
ly outside of specification accepted -presuming, of course, that one checks with the
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
design or structural engineer responsible. Often, the tensile test performance is pre-
dictable, and any sudden departure from expected results is worthy of investigation.
For instance, an unusually high or low result could indicate a problem with material,
specimen location, specimen identification, etc.; such factors should be checked
before retesting.
The specimen location within a weld can influence tensile values obtained as a
result of dilution effects on the weld metal analysis. This is demonstrated in
Figure 3.4, which shows the effect of specimen typeAocation on results obtained in a
typical structural-steel weld. In the case illustrated in diagram (a), the all-weld tensile
result is shown to be affected by its “through thickness” location. This is associated
with small, compositionaldifferences between the sample close to the root (more dilu-
tion) and the sample close to the final layer of the weld (less dilution).
Diagram (b) shows a similar example taken from an actual procedure test. Here,
because of the limited capacity of tensile testing equipment, the initial transverse ten-
sile test was carried out as a series of overlapping specimens (an acceptable practice).
The results obtained were marginally outside of the specified minimum ultimate ten-
sile strength (UTS) and therefore deemed unacceptable by the client. Then, it was
noted that previous all-weld tests performed on the same weld were acceptable, and
that the transverse sample taken toward the root side of the weld was also acceptable.
For the retest of this weld, it was decided to have a full-section tensile test performed
at a different test establishment - where machine capacity was not a factor, and a
fully acceptable retest could be obtained. This example is worth remembering, partic-
ularly when, as in this case, it is known that the weld metal strength is marginal. In
general, the use of a full-size specimen should be beneficial in such situations.
Another test result warranting caution would be any unexpected increase in the
yield stress or yield stressAJTS ratio. Again, this could be indicative of a material
problem or simply an error in calculation; but, it could be the result of incidental cold
work due to improper handling of the test material. An example of the effect of pre-
vious cold work, or pre-straining, is shown in Table 3.1.

Yet another notable tensile-test feature in steel weldments would be the appearance
of “fish eyes” on the fracture surface, as shown in Figure 3.5. Attributed to the pres-
ence of hydrogen, these are sometimes noted on welds made with cellulosic/rutile
SMAW electrodes. They also occur occasionally on some self-shielded flux cored arc
welds, particularly if tested in as-welded conditions. They should not be considered as
defects; but, if noted on welds made with a low-hydrogen process, they are worthy of
investigation (e.g., verifying that correct consumables were used).
Bend Testing
Bend tests are essentially qualitative in nature, and so they do not generate data of
direct relevance in engineering terms. The bend test is, however, a widely specified
(and cheap) test -both as a part of weld procedure qualification and, more often, as
a requirement in welder qualification tests. Although crude, the bend test is good at
DATA FROM A RANGE OF AS-WELDED SELF-SHIELDED FCAW TEST PLATES
Description Yield Stress Nlmm’ UitimaeTensile Strength Nimm’

FL = FINAL LAVER 405-455 485555
R =WELD ROOT 444-485 52û-551’
(a) Varlobillly due Io All-Weld Tensile Lowtion
DATA FROM A HEAVY SECTION SELF-SHIELDED FCA WELD (POSTWELD HEATTREATED)

SPECIFIED MIN. UTS = 450 Wmm’
Description UltimateTensile Strength Nimm’
FL E FINAL LAVER 439,442
M = MID 442,445
R =WELD ROOT 483,483
F e FULL SECTION 478,402,482
(b) Varlablllty due IO Transverse Tensile Dimensions
FIGURE 3.4 - EFFECT OF TENSILE TEST SPECIMEN TYPE AND LOCATION
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

highlighting the presence of

weld defects, and it gives a
general indication of weld
metal ductility.
One situation where more
care is required is that involv-
ing a weld metal significantly
overmatched or under-matched
in tensile strength compared to
the base material, and similarly
for transition welds involving
quite different materials. Such
situations can have the effect of FIGURE 3.5 EXAMPLE OF "FISH EYES" -
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
concentrating the strain in the

lower strength zone, resulting in a failure not necessarily indicative of poor practice. In
the former case (weld metal), the preferred solution would be to select a weld con-
sumable more closely matched in tensility. In the latter case, a slight offset of the ful-
crum position can sometimes provide a more representative test.
Impact Testing (e.g., Charpy Tests)

The impact test, particularly the Charpy V-notch test, is widely used in materials
where toughness properties are important. In structural steels, the test is usually carried
out at a specified temperature, often -40°C or F; and it provides useful (although only
comparative) data on the fracture toughness of the material tested. Unlike the crack tip
opening displacement (CTOD) test, which is conducted to provide a direct measure-
ment of fracture toughness, the impact test does not provide a value of direct engi-
neering significance; rather, it produces a relatively cheap and simple way by which
materials can be compared against each other over a range of temperatures. After
impact testing, and by comparison against historical data, the material can be judged as
safe, or otherwise, in terms of fracture toughness.
~ ~
CONDITION YIELD STRESS Nlnnm2 UTS Nlnnm' YSAJTS

As Received (AR) 363 536 0.68
AR + 2% Pre-Strain 406 553 0.73
AR + 5% Pre-Strain 500 569 0.88
AR + 10% Pre-Strain 583 608 0.96
TABLE 3.1- EFFECT OF PREVIOUS COLD WORK

In weld procedure tests on steels, it is normal practice to test both the weld metal
and the heat-affected zone. In the latter case, the positioning of the notch is impor-
tant; and, close attention must be paid to this point, as moving the notch by as little
as 0.5 mm can often have a dramatic effect on the results obtained. Therefore, the
notch locations should be checked by etching individual specimens to ensure that the
correct locations have been taken. A similar procedure should be adopted prior to
notching Charpy specimens to ensure correct notch location. Notch profile and test
temperature also must be closely controlled. Despite its simplicity, the Charpy test is
one that requires close attention to detail in order to achieve reliable results.
Otherwise, the unpredictability associated with impact testing of welds (particularly
H u s ) will be so chronic, it will leave the welding engineer seeking divine inter-
vention.
3.3 Simple Checks

Any test performed is of little value if the competence of the testing facility (whether
in-house or independent) is questioned. The welding engineer may sometimes be in a
situation where a review or witnessing of weld procedure tests is required, possibly at a
subcontractor’s premises. In such a situation, the simple checks mentioned in Table 3.2
can be useful for establishing a good level of confidence in the tests being undertaken.
Subject Check
Equipment Calibration Verify that all pieces of equipment are uniquely identified
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
and traceable to current calibration certificates.
Test Piece Identification Verify how incoming test pieces are identified, and that
identification is maintained during machining.
Recording of Results Verify that all relevant data are recorded, and are previous
data retrievable?
Tensile Tests Spot check dimensions, particularly those relevant to
cross section.
Impact Tests Spot check notch profile and review methods used by test
house. Check machine zero and specimen alignment.
Also check bath temperature (where applicable) just
before and/or during testing.
Micro/Macro-Examination Check that a representative sample has been taken. Verify
that macro corresponds to weld records, and check
opposite (unprepared) face for obvious defects.
Hardness Survey Check indentation locations. Also check load used.
Results Query any unusual results (see previous text).
TABLE 3.2 - SIMPLE CHECKS

The checks presented in Table 3.2 are not intended to provide the requirements for
a comprehensive quality or technical audit of a testing establishment; rather, they are
provided so the welding engineer may conduct checks at an individual level, easily and
informally. Any grossly unacceptable practice highlighted by such checks would, how-
ever, warrant a much more detailed assessment under formal guidelines.
3.4 Fracture Mechanics Test

The tests noted thus far in this chapter form a basis for routine weld procedure qual-
ification testing in most industrial fields and have been the norm for many years.
However, in some situations (e.g., nuclear industry, offshore structural fabrication, pres-
sure vessel fabrication, etc.) there is an increasing demand for more data on fracture
toughness properties - enough so that full consideration of fracture safety can be built
into the design of a structure at an early stage. The Charpy impact test, as already dis-
cussed, is an excellent ?comparator? in terms of fracture toughness; however, this test
does not provide data of direct engineering relevance in terms useful to the designer. For
data that can be used in such a manner, the crack tip opening displacement (CTOD) test
must be carried out (usually at the design minimum temperature). In extreme cases, full-
scale load-to-fracture testing or wide-plate fracture toughness testing may be required.
The CTOD test is, however, the test most widely applied to welds. This test is fully
Standard Subsldy
Dimension Speclmen Specimen
WIDTH W
THICKNESS B = 0.5W B-W
NOTCH THICKNESS N
EFFECTWE NOTCH LENGTH m
EFFECTIVE CRACK LENGTH a
FIGURE 3.6 - CRACK TIP OPENING DISPLACEMENT SPECIMEN

(REFER TO STANDARD BS 7448 FOR DETAILS)
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

described in various national standard, and a specimen form is shown diagrammatical-

ly in Figure 3.6.
Normally, the CTOD test is performed on the full section thickness of the weld. The
test can be applied either to the weld metal using a notch placed at the centerline, or
to the HAZ at a preselected location. The most commonly specified location for HAZ
testing in steels is the coarse-grained HAZ adjacent to the weld interface. Remember,
however, that this idea assumes such location represents the lowest toughness zone. A
specific feature of this type of test when applied to HAZ testing is the criticality of
accurately placing notch and fatigue cracks, since an error of just 0.25 mm can make
a very significant difference to the values obtained. For this reason, HAZ-CTOD data
must be supported by metallurgical examination reports on the broken specimens to
confirm that the fatigue crack tip has indeed sampled the microstructural zones tar-
geted. A good explanation of such examinations is now provided in various standards
[3]. The necessity for accurate notch placement influences the overall approach to
such a test program; and, while the testing facility technician must inevitably play a
major role in the success of targeting specific microstructural areas, his chance of suc-
cess is greatly affected by the standard of weld supplied for the test.
Two forms of CTOD testing are relatively common, namely,
through thickness notch specimen, and
surface notch specimen.
When testing the through thickness notch specimen, commonly carried out on a
single-bevel butt joint weld, it is important that the weld interface be kept reasonably
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
straight so the notch can sample as many areas as possible in the specified microstruc-
ture. This often means that additional precautions must be taken during welding, such
as controlling wire-to-wall position in submerged arc welding to ensure that the weld
interface remains straight. However, some might argue that, even with extra precau-
tions, this method may not produce a .test representative of production conditions.
When a fully representative sample is demanded, the surface notch approach can be
taken; but, this method can be expected to produce a high number of microstructural-
ly invalid test pieces (often in excess of 50 percent), which can become prohibitively
expensive. Another approach is described in other literature [l, 21, based on “search-
ing” for the zone of minimum toughness. The methods above, however, are those nor-
mally specified.
Another use of the CTOD test is with respect to weldability testing for the qualifi-
cation of material supply routes. This is now a fairly common requirement for offshore
structural fabrication activities, obligating the steel supplier to provide fracture tough-
ness data for all thickness ranges and heat input ranges to be applied during fabrication.
Often, by presenting such data, the fabricator can avoid extensive CTOD testing as part
of the weld procedure requirements. However, when reviewing such information (sup-
plied, for example, by the steelmaker), ask the following questions:
Is the data recent and does it reflect current steel chemistry and pro-
duction routes?

Weld Procedure Bualifcation 39
How independent was the data?

Were the welds performed by a steelmaker or by a fabricator? Are
they representative of fabrication practices?
Are all results reported? (Beware of data reporting only averages, as
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
this can hide poor minimum values.)

Any assessment the welding engineer makes regarding the overall acceptability of
a material must take into account the above factors, as well as purely technical aspects
regardless of whether the data is viewed from the specifier’s or the fabricator’s view-
point.
Fracture toughness testing of this type remains the exception rather than the rule,
and it will not be required in the majority of weld procedure qualifications undertak-
en. Even so, the welding engineer should make himself aware of the potential for such
tests. The ability of the CTOD test to provide information of direct relevance to the
designer can sometimes be advantageous to the welding engineer faced with, say, pro-
cedure testing, or production-stage Charpy impact test failures. In such situations,
resorting to a fracture toughness test can sometimes satisfy the client that the weld is
“fit for purpose.” Another use of CTOD testing is to justify as-welded fabrication. For
instance, by demonstrating good as-welded fracture toughness, the avoidance of
expensive postweld heat treatment is sometimes possible (see the section on CTOD,
titled Fracture Toughness Justification, in Chapter 6, page 98).
3.5 Test Failures

During procedure testing, it is almost inevitable that the welding engineer will be
faced with test failures. Whether these are NDE rejections or mechanical test failures,
such failures immediately raise several questions. For example:
Can the cause of the failure be identified?
What impact, if any, will the failure have on production programs?
Can the procedure test be “salvaged” via retests and/or negotiation
with the client?
Is a complete rethink of the proposed welding procedure required?
In a well organized operation, the answer to the second question above should be
known in advance, and the amount of time available to the welding engineer prior to a
production requirement will obviously affect the way in which a failed procedure test
should be approached. For example, if the production need is not immediate, then there
may be time to fully assess the reason for the failure and take the required actions in
due course. However, if there is little time to spare (or, indeed, the procedure is already
late), then the welding engineer can expect little praise for providing an “ideal” solu-
tion to the problem in a week or two. A solution in this case is required immediately.
In a time-sensitive situation, the engineer must act quickly to obtain a qualified pro-
cedure in the shortest possible time. This may not be the best or most productive weld

procedure, but a better solution can always be adopted later. In this type of situation,
it is usually advisable to generate options. For instance, if your instinct tells you that
it is possible to convince your client of a procedure’s fitness for purpose, then by all
means pursue this course of action. In the meantime, however, rerun the procedure
with a different weld preparation, consumable, or whatever is suspected to be the
source of the initial problem. Delays to production are far more costly than an extra
weld procedure test. So, do not waste time waiting for the answer to your first option;
it may be negative.
When presented with a test failure, it is important to establish the cause of the fail-
ure as soon as possible - or, at least, to rule out all non-causal factors. The cause
may be attributable to human error, equipment malfunction, a metallurgical problem,
or simply an unsuitable procedure. If the problem is traceable to the equipment used
or to the welder (e.g., porosity related to an equipment malfunction or slag inclu-
sions), then it is usually possible to get the procedure accepted on the basis of
mechanical properties alone - possibly with the proviso of satisfactory NDE per-
formance on the first production weld. Such occurrences should not be regarded as
indicative of poor weld procedures, provided of course that the slag inclusions were
not related to some adverse geometrical feature or access problem that made the
weld unusually difficult to accomplish.
The engineer’s reaction to failed mechanical tests should be governed to some
extent by previous experience. If the procedure test was utilizing previously proven
technology with respect to the consumables, then the f i s t thing to check is the source
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
and quality of the materials and consumables. At this stage, it is also worth checking
whether the same batches, casts, etc., were used in production -especially if serious
doubts are arising as to their acceptability.
Finally, it is necessary for the engineer to examine clearly the nature of the failure
to eliminate the possibility of simple errors such as incorrectly located specimens,
inaccuracy in notch location (impact tests), etc. Even if such a problem is found, the
fact remains that a failed result was obtained, and this cannot be ignored.
Nevertheless, close examination is required to establish where the problem lies, both
technically and contractually; because, if the failure is related to HAZ or base mate-
rial, then it may be your client’s problem (e.g., if the material was free issued or from
a contractually specified supplier). This in itself does not solve the technical problem,
and it does not absolve the welding engineer from his responsibility to solve the prob-
lem; but it may affect who pays the cost of rerunning weld procedures and, more
importantly, of delays in production. Contractual responsibilities must, therefore, be
borne in mind. A simple decision tree is shown in Figure 3.7 to illustrate the various
points noted and actions advised. Note that Figure 3.7 is not intended to provide a
fully comprehensive list of questions. The engineer must consider additional ques-
tions as necessary.

r I
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
FIGURE 3.7 - FAILED TEST PLATE DECISION TREE

References
[i] Rodgers, K. J. 1988. Heat-Affected Zones -A Fabricator’s Viewpoint. OMAEA
88, Paper 903.
[2] Private communication of original idea, Tad Boniszewski.
[3] American Petroleum Institute standard RP-2Z, Preproduction Qualificationsfor
Steel Plates for OfSshore Structures, 3rd Edition, 1998. Washington D.C.: American
Petroleum Institute.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Chapter 4
Production Welding Control

--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Production welding control is undoubtedly the sharp end of the welding engineer’s
involvement in any production environment. It cannot be emphasized enough that for
manual and semiautomatic applications, and to a lesser extent for machine welding
processes, the welder is the most important factor in controlling weld quality. No mat-
ter how good the welding procedure appears on paper, or how advanced the consum-
able or equipment may be, if the welder is not properly instructed, or controlled, the
chances of a poor weld resulting from his work increase dramatically. For example, if
the welder feels what he is doing is incorrect, or if the fume from the electrode is caus-
ing problems, or if the equipment seems awkward or wrong, then the welder will
prove that your procedure led to poor quality.
To help the welder produce good quality welds, there are several factors that must
be continually monitored and controlled. These are listed below in the order of impor-
tance to a welding engineer, then subsequently examined in detail.
1. Defect analysis
2. Welder training/qualification
3. Supervision
4. Useful aids
5. Consumable control
6. Production tests
4.1 Defect Analysis
This may appear to be a peculiar placing for this topic. However, unless the weld-
ing engineer is aware of what the problems actually are, he can make little progress
in rectifying them. Many companies benefit from the availability of a defect analysis
system. The usual format is one in which percent defect is expressed as defect length
divided by weld length. This may be further divided into linear or volumetric defects.
The use of weld length as an overall measure is simple to apply but lacks the effect of
volume. Consequently it has no absolute meaning, so take care in interpreting such
data - especially when a large amount of fillet welding is included in the overall
total. In this instance, a problem with a high defect rate on full penetration butt joint
welds could be easily masked.

Should the engineer be fortunate enough to be able to relate percent defect to indi-
vidual weld procedure (again, a format greatly desired and becoming increasingly
common), then a strict analytical routine should be applied to determine the cause(s)
behind the defect levels being achieved.
The defects will, in general, be induced by one or more of the following:
geometry,
equipment,
consumable,
procedure, or
operator.
A preliminary determinant can be the type of weld. Fillet weld defects are most
likely to be linear, caused by one or any combination of the following: cracking,
undercut, poor surface profile or overlap. With butt joints, one must ascertain if the
defect is linear or volumetric in order to help pinpoint the reason.
Presuming the defect can be identified, the causes listed in Table 4.1 can be exam-
ined. However, there are a number of other reasons for defects that should also be
examined in conjunction with those listed.
Geometry Related
The welding engineer must ask this basic question: Was the weld preparation suit-
able for the particular application? That automatically raises further questions.
Did the welder have sufficient access or vision?
Was the bevel angle too steep for adequate fusion?
Was the root opening too tighvwide?
Was the nose too thick or too thin?
If the weld preparation was such that gouging was specified prior to
second-side welding, was the backgouge too shallow?
Was there too small a radius at the weld root?
Do not assume, for instance, that if a backgouge depth of 8-10 mm (minimum) is
called for, this will always be what is needed. In reality this range will, more often
than not, need to be extended usually upward to, say, 15 mm. An examination of the
weld procedure preparation and careful consideration of the location of the reported
discontinuity often gives clues.
If geometry is thought to be the basic cause of the discontinuities, then the neces-
sary remedial action can be taken. This may be re-preparation, relocation of the work-
piece to increase welder accesshision, or even use of simple depth gauges and pro-
files to ensure more accurate backgouging.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Production Welding Control 45
Welder Related
The main welder-induced faults are listed in Table 4.2. Other causes more difficult
to pinpoint are also possible. These include misuse of the procedure where, for exam-
ple, a welder may utilize a larger gauge of electrode at an early stage where the weld
preparation is unsuitable. (Indeed, he may simply be new to the process or particular
technique.) Another aspect not to be overlooked is familiarity with the particular con-
sumable itself. In this case, communication, trust, and rapport with the welder is of
Welder or Shop Floor Problem Procedure Problem

--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Porosity Dirty base metal or consumable Incorrectchoice of consumable or

Wrong arc length or poor technique gas shielding
Excessive moisture in weld area Wrong preheat, Contaminatedbase
metal
Tungsten improper Inter-run cleaning Joint access too restrictive,

inclusions Current too highhungstentoo small preparation problem
Poor technique
Joint positioned incorrectly
Use of damaged electrodes
Inadequate Welding outside procedure Insufficientheat input

Fusion incorrect eiectrodeitorchposition Poor joint design
Weld pool running ahead of arc Wrong choice of gas shielding
Inadequate Welding outside procedure Wrong joint geometry

Joint Incorrectelectrodes Insufficientheat input
Penetration Positioning or poor technique Incorrectelectrode diameter specified
Poor joint fitup Incorrectbackgougespecified
Incorrect backgouge
Weld metal Poor fitup Joint rigidity not allowed

Cracking incorrect consumable handling for in choice of preheat
Welding outside procedure Consumable choice and dilution effects
Poor technique - crater cracking Contamination from base material
Balanced welding and/or backstep
or block welding required
HAZ incorrect preheat used Incorrectconsumable specified

Cracking Incorrectconsumable used Wrong preheat specified
Welding outside procedure Known base material problems not
Contamination due to poor cleaning properly catered for in weld procedure
TABLE 4.1 -
TYPICAL DEFECTS AND CAUSES

overwhelming importance. Many a welding engineer has spent an inordinate amount

of time investigating “red herrings” given to him by a welder with something to hide.
Changes in manual or semiautomatic electrode wire from one supplier to another,
or even within the same manufacturer’s range, can cause problems. A welder can
become accustomed to the handling characteristics of one particular consumable; this
can be at variance with another manufacturer’s assumed “equivalent” electrode.
Material Related
Base materials being welded are less common sources for discontinuities, but nev-
ertheless warrant investigation. The usual assumption is that what is supplied is cor-
rect regarding type, condition, microstructure, properties, etc. This is not always the
case. Plate, forging, casting, and piping manufacturers have been known to produce
out-of-specification products. Cracking can result from material having higher carbon
contents than specified. Discontinuities located by ultrasonic examination have been
traced to a large grain size that, according to the specification, should not be there.
High carbon piano wire has even been erroneously supplied as C-Mn wire for sub-
merged arc welding with disastrous results for the weld metal.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Another material-related phenomenon is that of magnetism. During working of

carbon and low-alloy steels (by gouging, grinding, or at an even earlier stage of mate-
rial manufacture), the component to be welded can gain residual magnetism. If high
enough, this can manifest itself in the form of “arc blow.” This problem may also have
other sources related to the welding current itself. It is usually encountered when
using direct current (DC) and can result in incomplete fusion, porosity, and excessive
spatter (see Chapter 6).
Overview
The overwhelming conclusion in defect analysis is that the welding engineer must
have, if possible, no preconceived ideas. The problem should be approached with an
open mind, not accepting the approved or obvious without question. The variability of
discontinuities and the many reasons for them require the welding engineer to inves-
tigate each instance comprehensively so that the actual reason for the discontinuity
may be ascertained. Only then can the proper remedial actions be implemented.
From a practical and managerial position, it always provides satisfaction to reach
a definitive conclusion, but do not forget that this is not always possible. No true engi-
neer should be afraid to state that the reasons for a problem are not completely under-
stood. Indeed, the solution may be a combination of factors that will never be satis-
factorily explained.

4.2 Welder Training and Qualification

The training andor qualification of welders plays a vital role in the success of any
fabrication business. Ultimately, the quality of the weld depends on the welder - an
obvious but often forgotten fact. The various national codes for the qualification of
welders provide a means by which a welder’s ability to reach a nominal quality level
can be assessed. The ability of a welder to pass any national code requirement is, how-
ever, no guarantee that he meets your requirements. Often the best, and possibly the
only, good reason for requiring a welder to undertake qualification to a national code
is that this is a specification requirement. The welding engineer and supervisory staff
must identify whether or not this requirement is the only test required, and, if not,
what other practical training or workmanship testing is necessary. National codes and
standards must be observed, but unless it is known that these effectively cover your
needs, they should always be regarded as a minimum. Along with recognizing any
need for additional practical training, the whole question of welder education, or
instruction, should be addressed thoroughly.
Good communication between the welding engineer and the welder can play an
important role in achieving an optimum quality level. In too many cases, communi-
cation is restricted to the welding procedure only. Recognize that the weld procedure
is only a limited set of welding instructions to be followed by the welder who, unfor-
tunately, is often given little, or no, say in what is specified. Many problems with weld
procedures could be overcome simply by discussing the proposed parameters with a
skilled welder whose opinion can be invaluable in many practical circumstances. No
critical weld should be undertaken unless there has been discussion with the welder to
ensure that he understands the quality requirements and has had the opportunity to
comment on the procedure. In cases where the welder’s advice is ignored, he will
invariably prove the engineer wrong, resulting in a high defect rate. The welder is
more likely (unconsciously, at least) to respect an engineer who values his expertise;
the welder will soon recognize the value of mutual respect. Consequently the welder
will be more likely to accept changes to previously standard practices that the engi-
neer may be forced to introduce to meet specification requirements.
Also remember that while the weld procedure documentation required by national
codes is necessary, it may be useful and appropriate in some cases to provide welders
with simplified procedure data in the form of a readable pocket-sized card. This would
contain the minimum of data required and only basic working parameters. The advan-
tage here is that the welder will always have the procedure information at hand - a
key to quality assurance. Easy reference should also reduce the likelihood of working
outside procedure parameters.
Additional instructions given to welders can take many forms, from a casual con-
versation or an informal seminar, to the provision of written instructions to supple-
ment weld procedures. Regardless of the method, the important feature should be the
provision of all relevant information to the welder in a format he can understand and
accept. There is little point in presenting a welder with a highly technical explanation
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

of heat flow, critical cooling rates, microstructural effects, etc., when all that you wish
to ensure is correct preheat. The following statement is suggested as an adequate
explanation for this specific requirement:
“The faster a weld cools, the harder and more brittle the metal
will become and the more likely it is to crack. Preheat is used
to slow down the rate of cooling. The preheat stated on the
weld procedure has been chosen to suit the material and it is
important that this preheat is correctly applied.”
Type of Discontinuity Main Causes

Porosity Poor welding technique
Incorrect setting
Lack of cleaning
Electrodes not dried
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Slag Inclusions Poor welding technique

InsuffMent interpass cleaning
Tungsten Inclusions Welding current too high
Electrode contamination
Incomplete Fusion Poor welding technique
Current too low
Welding speed too high
Incomplete Penetration Poor arc control
Current too low
Welding speed too high
Root opening too narrow
Excess Penetration Poor arc control
Current too high
Welding speed too low
Root opening too wide
Undercut Poor welding technique
Current too high
Underfill Insufficient weld layers deposited
Arc Strikes Poor welding technique
Crater Cracking Poor welding technique
Incorrect termination of the welding arc and/or
shielding gas
TABLE 4.2
WELDER INDUCED DEFECTS AND CAUSES

Production Weldin0 Control 49
In some circumstances, even just a simple, highlighted statement can suffice, such
as “Preheat prevents cracking.”
Some argue that the welder does not need to know, for instance, why a particular
preheat is used; in strict terms this may be true. However, it is probably also true that
more attention will be paid to detailed requirements where an appreciation of the need
for such requirements exists; this should benefit quality levels overall.
Similarly, a useful approach to reducing defect levels is to ensure that welders and
other shop floor personnel are fully aware of the consequences of their particular oper-
ations - for example, how the standard of fitup or machining can influence weld dis-
continuities, or the importance of pre-weld cleaning on porosity, or interpass cleaning
on avoiding slag inclusions. This introduces the principle of self-inspection whereby
the welder is the first person with the opportunity to judge the visual acceptability of
a weld. By empowering the welder to make this judgement, the company should reap
benefits, establishing a principle of pride in workmanship.
Actual samples illustrating these points to the welder provide an excellent com-
munication technique. Given a piece of hardware demonstrating, for example, that
welding in the uphill position instead of downhill can produce large beads and hence
poor notch impact values, will make the point in a more memorable and meaningful
fashion than mere words on a weld procedure.
The welder should be made aware of the main discontinuities encountered in weld-
ing and, specifically, any discontinuities known to be prevalent in the particular com-
ponents or material being welded. A typical list of such discontinuities can be pro-
duced for general reference, and those shown in Table 4.2 are offered as an example
(together with the causes relevant to the welder). The main causes of discontinuities
are in many standard textbooks, but these should be augmented by any specific
knowledge from past experience. No matter how good a textbook seems, such books
cannot be expected to cover all situations. It may be.that for a particular procedure or
process, the parameters are particularly critical.
A good example is the self-shielded flux cored arc welding of offshore structural
steels. Here, the requirement for good, low-temperature toughness properties effec-
tively restrict the type of weld procedure that can be used, despite that “defect-free”
welds can be produced over a fairly wide parameter band [i].In such situations, it is
even more important that the welder be well informed to ensure that he does not
unwittingly “improve” production by increasing deposition rate, thereby causing
problems with weld metal toughness. In just such a case, strict control over weld
travel speed was required; this was monitored via relationships established with bead
width (Le., controlled bead width = controlled travel speed = good toughness). An
example of how strict this requirement had to be is given in the section of this chap-
ter discussing production tests (see Production Weld Test Pieces, page 60).
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

4.3 Supervision
The supervision of welded fabrication encompasses many aspects of shop floor
management, Within the concept of this book, however, only the technical supervision
of welded fabrication is relevant. Company structures of course vary considerably,
and although ideally all personnel should be committed to producing the maximum
output at an acceptable quality level, sometimes the interests of production manage-
ment and technical management will appear to be in conflict. The interchange of ideas
between the production supervisory staff and the welding engineer can assist in min-
imizing such conflict. It does this by ensuring that, as in the case of welders, supervi-
sors are fully aware of the requirements of the weld procedure and their associated
specifications. Supervisors must also be aware of the consequences of not adhering to
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
procedure and specification. Production supervision by its nature, of course, will
always tend to be more concerned with maximizing output. While technical instruc-
tions and specification rules should not be ignored or broken, you can assume they
will be given their most liberal interpretation. This will also apply to the welding pro-
cedure and any general welding instructions that the welding engineer may issue. For
this reason, it is important that all such requirements are both justifiable and extreme-
ly clear.
The relationship between the welding engineer and the welding supervisor is cru-
cial. The engineer may, in some situations, be totally reliant on the supervisor for the
implementation of specific requirements. At the same time, the supervisor represents
a first-hand source of information on problems occurring on the shop floor, thus pro-
viding an opportunity for early correction.
The next section in this chapter on “Useful Aids” provides guidance on some meth-
ods that can enhance shop floor control. Knowledge of such gadgetry to supervisors
is worthwhile in itself. As a general rule, individuals will be less likely to ignore
requirements when a means of checking them (and the knowledge that checks are car-
ried out) is available. Thus, if a welder knows that spot checks on weld parameters are
carried out he is more likely to ensure he will be working within procedure limits.
Similarly, the availability (and visibility of use) of contact pyrometers, or a range of
temperature-indicator crayons, should significantly improve the application and main-
tenance of preheat levels.
Good supervision, however, need not and should not involve constant checking of
such detail. If the communication of ideas between the engineer, the supervisor, and
the welder is functioning properly, then less time will be needed for such routine
checks and more time will be available for addressing real problems. It is becoming
more common in certain industries to allow a suitably trained supervisor to perform
formal visual acceptance of completed welds. The main criteria here are the needs for
appropriate training and qualification. Companies operating such practices have
quickly realized benefits from less waiting time on the shop floor and greater pride in
workmanship. Empowering the work force to be responsible for quality rather than
trying to “inspect quality ” can be shown to increase both productivity and quality [2].

4.4 Useful aids

There are various methods by
which production welding control
can be enhanced with simple tools
and gauges, often at relatively low
cost.
Standard Workmanship
Examples FIGURE 4.1 -
Exhibiting a typical component, STANDARD WORKMANSHIP EXAMPLE
or section of a component, in the
workplace that demonstrates the required weld quality in terms of, say, fillet size or
surface finish can sometimes be extremely helpful. Although this would not be appro-
priate or necessary in most situations, it can prove a worthwhile exercise in applica-
tions where production is regularly affected by disputes regarding quality. Such an
example is shown in Figure 4.1.
Weld Replicas
As an alternative to the above, and especially useful on large projects involving
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
many work fronts, there are methods available by which accurate epoxy replicas of
weld surfaces can be produced. These
lightweight samples are then available to
both fabricator and client inspection per-
sonnel as necessary. One method for pro-
ducing these replicas is described below.
At the procedure qualification stage, the
fabricator and client should select a sam-
ple from the procedure test that will form
the basis of either a ?typical? or a ?worst
acceptable? weld profile or surface fin-
ish. A block containing this portion, ide-
ally about 6 in. (150 m)long (in weld
direction) and trimmed to provide about
1-2 in. (25-50 mm) of base material
adjacent to the weld, would be removed.
This block would then be placed in a
suitable container and a silicon rubber
compound cast around it. After curing,
this component would be separated from
the block to leave a silicon rubber mold,
or ?negative,? of the weld sample. As
FIGURE 4.2 - WELD REPLICAS many replicas as required could then be

weldment has been carried out to
achieve a certain profile.
Arc Monitoring'
While there are some sophisticated arc monitoring equipment packages available,
care must be taken to balance the expense of providing a measurement and the need
for, and usefulness of, the data provided. If the tool required is intended as a means
for the welding engineer, or supervisor, to ensure that the welders are working within
the specified procedure tolerances, then simple hand-held meters or tong testers may
be all that is needed. If, on the other hand, a detailed record with printout or graphi-
cal display is required, then the equipment needed will be considerably more expen-
sive and probably less flexible.
Where detailed monitor-
ing of this nature is
required by specification
(for example, in some
nuclear applications), a
monitoring system can be
included in a purpose-built
power sourcekontrol unit.
Also, a number of suitcase-
or briefcase-sized portable
monitoring packages are
capable of printing out cur-
rent, voltage, and wire feed
speeds, as well as providing
such ancillary functions as
temperature monitoring and
heat input calculations
(Figure 4.4). The availabili-
ty of such Portable equip- FIGURE 4.4 - PORTABLE ARC MONITORING PACKAGE
ment, although not recom-
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

mended for full-time recording of data, does provide the welding engineer with some-
thing very useful. Now he has a method by which clients can be convinced (by
demonstration) of details about which they may otherwise have been reluctant to
accept, e.g., the consistency in operation of a particular piece of equipment, the abil-
ity of welders to work to strict tolerances or weld parameters, etc.
Remember, however, that any such equipment should be calibrated and that the
methods employed to calibrate production equipment and measuring equipment
should be the same, or at least the differences should be understood. A good example
of this last point refers to a well-known “suitcase” measuring piece of equipment that
records the true mean AC current. This, however, gives an 11 percent lower value than
the RMS (root mean squared) current value displayed in most standard welding plant.
It is obvious that in the wrong hands such equipment identifying an apparent “error”
could lead to disaster. The importance of understanding what is being measured
should not be underestimated. Also note where the monitoring unit is connected, as
this may not necessarily be the same position as the metered reading on the welding
equipment (especially in relation to welding voltages where voltage drops can affect
readings). Once again, care is required in evaluating any data produced.
Gauges
Gauges come in many forms, but fall essentially into two categories:
those used by inspection personnel and others for actual measure-
ment, and
those used by the welder to measure progress, check workmanship,
etc.
The first category is to a large extent self-explanatory and will not be discussed in
detail here. These would include items ranging from accurate dimensional survey
tools to simple goho-go gauges. The gauges of more immediate interest here are
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
those used on the shop floor by the welder. These should ideally have the following
characteristics:
easy to use,
inexpensive, and
no more accurate than necessary.
The types of gauges that fall into this category would be simple fillet-size gauges,
backgouge depth and profile gauges, a steel ruler, root opening gauge, torch flow
meters, etc. A point worth noting is that it seems that some of the best and simplest
gauges in this group have been those supplied as promotional aids by consumable sup-
pliers. It may at first appear that some of the items mentioned (for example, a ruler)
are unworthy of note. However, the situation where welders are asked to produce a
certain size or length of fillet, and are then left to judge this by eye, is probably rather

~

--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
common. In this case,

the welder is likely to
err on the “safe side”
by producing more
weld (and hence more
cost) than required. It is
thus to everyone’s ben-
efit if the welder and
other shop floor per-
sonnel are provided
with the ancillary tools
necessary for the work
at hand. This does not
mean that every welder
should be issued an
expensive gauge that
measures everything
(usually slowly); it is
usually better to only -
FIGURE 4.5 GOOD GAUGES AT A SMALL COST
use a tool made for a
specific required task.
Such gauges can usually be made with even limited machining facilities; and,
although best made in metal, in some situations a wooden gauge would suffice (par-
ticularly if intended only for short-term use). A few typical examples are shown in
Figure 4.5.As can be seen, the unit cost of some of the items shown is minimal.
Use of Stub Lengths

The use of electrode stub lengths to assist in shop floor monitoring of the shielded
metal arc welding (SMAW) process is a somewhat arbitrary, yet very useful tech-
nique. It is a simple process for which the rules can be quickly derived during the
qualification of procedure tests.
Study of SMAW procedure qualification test data will show that there is a very
strong inverse relationship between current and melt-off time, and that these two will
compensate for each other almost perfectly for any given electrode size (for example,
if heat input was calculated using an arbitrary constant voltage, then a constant power
per unit length of electrode will result). Also, any increase in arc voltage will result
from an increased arc length leading to greater heat losses by radiation, so that the
changes in arc voltage do not themselves contribute to changes in melt-off rate.
The consequence of this conclusion is that the only parameter that needs to be mea-
sured to detect heat input variations is the pass length.

The Significance of Heat Input

Welding procedure tests, especially on high-strength, high-toughness steels used
for offshore constructions, generally have two main technical objectives: to demon-
strate the weldment has adequate toughness, and that the heat-affected zone (HAZ)
has acceptable hardness. Tensile and bend tests are also included in destructive test-
ing requirements, but these are relatively unaffected by variations in heat input.
Since hardness in the HAZ is governed by cooling rate, the two key factors in the
procedure test are the preheat or interpass temperature and the heat input. A low heat
input will increase HAZ hardness but will rarely have any other adverse effect on the
mechanical properties of the weldment. The minimum acceptable heat input for the
level of preheat selected is, therefore, a key parameter and, for SMA welding, is
reflected in the maximum acceptable electrode pass length.
Weld microstructure, and therefore toughness, is also governed by cooling rate; but
in this case, the adverse changes tend to result from slow cooling. Procedure tests can
again be used to determine the maximum acceptable heat input for the preheat select-
ed, which defines the minimum acceptable SMAW electrode pass length.
Establishing Pass Length Limits [3]

Historically, it has been common for SMA welding procedure tests to be run almost
independently of the proposed welding procedure specification (WPS). The welder
was presented with the test joint in the prescribed position and told to weld it. If all of
the tests passed, then everyone was happy; and, although the way in which the test
weld was made was often scrupulously recorded, no one seriously believed that all
other welders making production welds to that procedure number would actually weld
exactly the same way.
This approach has a variety of unfortunate consequences. Since the heat input may
vary significantly from one pass to another, no one can be quite sure of the properties
developed by any given heat input, so it is not clear how essential variables limiting
changes in heat input (whether directly, or in terms of the number of passes to com-
plete a given weld groove area) should be implemented. And if someone does estab-
lish a technically justifiable way of defining pass length ranges, any determined
inspector will be able to find welders depositing passes outside these limits.
A change of approach was recently introduced on some offshore fabrications in the
United Kingdom where the welding procedure test was used to establish and justify
pass length limits, rather than being some token point of reference that bears no obvi-
ous relationship to the limits applied. To achieve this, it is essential to explain to the
welder performing the test that this is not intended to represent a way a production
weld would be made. Consequently, test welders should be told that the entire plate
has to be completed using pass lengths within 10 percent of the figure defined in the
WPS; if it is not, it will be discarded and a new one will be welded by someone more
skilled.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

The choice of pass length selected by the welding engineer becomes critically
important, since a whole series of tests would normally be run using the same para-
meters. The “minimum” pass length is chosen to represent a value slightly shorter
than any production welder is likely to use. Again, because of the number of test
plates, it is essential that the weld metal be suitable for this heat input, so it is impor-
tant to establish this fact -by changing consumable if necessary -before any major
testing program begins. Similarly, the “maximum” pass length is chosen to represent
a value slightly longer than any production welder is likely to use. Since the property
at risk here is the HAZ hardness level, the critical parameter is the preheat level for
this pass length.
To avoid undue difficulties for the test welder, the selection of pass length limits is
combined with the selection of welding position, so that the long pass length tests are
performed 2G and the short pass length tests 3G. It is assumed that all welds in either
1G or 4G (or indeed, 5G or
350 6G) will use pass lengths
within these limits, and so
there is no justification for
300 separate tests in these posi-
tions. This approach has
been condensed in some
250
specifications into a
200
‘‘,‘ ‘. requirement simply to qual-
ify standard procedures in
the 2G and 3G positions to
150
Diameter l-7 cover all other positions.
One concession to
normal production welding
is permitted - variable
stub lengths. Again, asking
the welder to work to a con-
1O0 stant 50-mm stub length
could put an unnecessary
additional strain on his con-
50 centration, so the stub ends
should instead be collected
for each pass. Knowing the
total length of the pass, the
50 1O0 150 number of electrodes used,
Stub Length (mm) their original lengths, and
the total length of the stub
FIGURE 4.6 - MONITORING CHART FOR A TYPICAL ends, it is possible to calcu-
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
80166 TYPE 4-MM-DIAMETER ELECTRODE late the length of electrode

used per unit length of weld.

From this figure, the pass length to be expected with a nominal 50-mm stub is estab-
lished. Applying the 10 percent tolerance to this “full pass” value also avoids the risk
of a single minor aberration producing a rejected plate. (Note that in monitoring pro-
cedure tests, reporting the results relating to only one electrode in each pass is now
common practice.)
If the welding engineer has done his job correctly, all of the mechanical tests will
pass, and these limits on pass length will have been validated. More importantly for
production welding, all of the production welders will naturally work within these
limits.
This welding procedure test will normally provide data for more than one diame-
ter of electrode, and a series of graphdelectrode size can be produced.
Production Weld Monitoring

by Pass Length 350
If the pass length is the only
parameter to be measured, the
supervisor/inspector can choose 300
his welder after the arc has been
struck, and can then approach
the welder on completion of the
250
electrode. Only two measure-
ments are necessary: the length E
of the pass, and the length of the E
Y
c
stub end remaining. Because the 200
C
pass length limits have been al
1
established on the basis of length c
3
of electrode per unit length of 150
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
weld, it is possible to construct 3

K
monitoring charts that define
these limits for any length of
1O0
stub.
Different charts, one from
each electrode diameter, can be
50
developed, as shown in Figures
4.6 and 4.7. In these diagrams,
the dotted lines represent the
“normal” range that would result 50 1O0 150
from the parameters quoted on a
WPS. The bands labeled Stub Length (mm)
“Caution Welder” cover the 10 FIGURE 4.7 - COMBINED MONITORING CHARTS
percent tolerance permitted on FOR TYPICAL 8016G TYPE 3.25-MM AND 5.0-MM
these limits to both the welder DIAMETER ELECTRODES

58 The Prucficu/ Welding Engineer
being assessed and procedure welder. Although welding within these bands will pro-
duce acceptable results, any welder found welding within the “Caution” zone should
be appropriately advised, and the welding engineer should also be warned that his
chosen limits may prove to be non-conservative. If a production welder is discovered
welding within the “Quarantine” zone, then the resultant weld will require either
removal or qualified acceptance subject to a review by the welding engineerklient,
etc. This is because the properties of these more extreme welding parameters have not
been established. Figure 4.7 shows that two electrode sizes can be conveniently dis-
played on a single chart if the limits do not overlap.
This approach has the added advantage that, if the welder is aware of the supervi-
sorhspector’s presence and breaks his arc early to avoid monitoring, the weld length
he has already completed can still be assessed. This may sound as if the object of the
exercise is to catch welders doing the wrong thing, but it is not. If the welding engi-
neer has chosen his test parameters correctly, all welders will be working within them
as a result of their natural techniques. The production monitoring exercise then
becomes a far more convincing way of demonstrating to the client that the procedure
test results really do represent the properties of production welds.
Limitations of Approach
It is unlikely that a welder will use a single electrode diameter, either in production
or in a procedure test, so separate limits (and separate charts) will need to be estab-
lished for each size in use. The welding engineer may be ill-advised enough to believe
that he should specify different pass-length limits in different parts of the weld; this
causes complications. This is definitely not recommended in the root pass, since pass
length here is heavily dependent on fitup. As such there is likely to be significant vari-
ation - even for a single welding position. This is not considered a major drawback
as the root pass of a single-sided weld is unlikely to affect the mechanical properties
measured in the procedure test and a root pass in a double-sided weld is likely to be
removed by gouging.
4.5 Consumable Control

To achieve good welds, the consumables used must be both correctly issued (iden-
tifiable and traceable) and in the correct condition (clean, baked, free of rust, etc., as
applicable). The responsibility for consumable control will lie predominately with
production supervision and welders themselves. However, the welding engineer
should always ensure that the controls being exercised are sufficient and that the
supervisors and welders are made fully aware of the importance of such control.
Identification and traceability of consumables, of course, are not a major problem
while the consumables are in the suppliers’ packaging. It is when smaller quantities
are issued to the shop floor that problems may arise. Packaging may be damaged and
identification lost, especially if any unused consumable is not returned to correct stor-
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

age immediately. The only acceptable rule in such situations is: i f i n doubt, throw it
out.
Depending on the industry involved, the traceability of consumables may or may
not be a significant requirement. Where traceability is required, then the stores system
must be designed to accommodate this, with all issues and returns of consumables
requiring close control. It is also important that, where required, all necessary con-
sumable certification is checked prior to issue of materials to the shop floor. Most con-
sumable manufacturers will have an adequate system for identifying consumables,
such as the typical systems that follow:
Submerged arcfluxes: Every bag or container marked with type and

batch.
Solid wires and flux cored wires: External packaging and individual
coils of cored wire (spooled) marked with type and batch.
Shielded metal arc welding (SMAw) electrodes: External packaging

marked with type and batch. Individual electrodes should be marked
with type as a minimum.
Solid wire (straight lengths) for gas tungsten arc welding (GTAV:
External packaging marked with type and batch. Some manufacturers
also roll mark individual wire lengths with batch number.
If due care is taken, the use of the wrong consumable should be easily avoided.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Mix-ups do occur, however, and this could lead to major problems in a mixed fabri-
cation area. Use a color coding system as an additional precaution by paint-marking
the ends of electrodes or wires in a readily identifiable manner. This ideally should not
be required, but conditions are seldom ideal. This and other small expenditures may
save considerably more if serious problems are avoided.
Equally important is the condition of the consumable. It is only through correct
storage and treatment that consumables can be delivered to the welder in the correct
condition. The manner of handling the consumables will obviously depend on the type
of product in question. For solid wire products, the main requirement is simply to keep
the product clean and dry to avoid contamination with dust, rusting, etc. More control
is required on flux-containing products such as submerged arc fluxes, manual elec-
trodes and flux cored wires.
While some products require only storage under clean, dry conditions, there are
others, such as basic low-hydrogen electrodes and fluxes, that require additional
treatments to ensure the product reaches the welder in its correct low-hydrogen con-

60 The Practico1 Welding Engineer
dition. For electrodes, this would normally involve a regime of electrode baking (typ-
ically 300-35O0C), electrode holding (typically 120-15OoC), and direct issue to
welders in heated quivers (approximately 70°C). Most importantly, recognize that
once a practice has been established, it must be strictly enforced; again, some form of
audit on the operation of the system should be regularly carried out. In some situa-
tions, it is also sensible to carry out hydrogen determinations on product samples
taken from shop floor level on a random basis.
The introduction (c. 1990) of EMR (extra moisture resistant) fluxes, electrodes,
and packaging is a fairly recent, but now well established, development in terms of
low-hydrogen consumables. For SMAW electrodes, this offers the possibility of issu-
ing electrodes directly to the welder in the supplier’s packaging with a guarantee of
achieving very low weld metal hydrogen (-4mL/lOO g) values over fairly prolonged
shop floor periods, typically 10 hours. Note that any electrodes returned to the issue
store after the 10 hours must be baked and handled as per the regime noted above to
ensure weld metal hydrogen values are kept low.
This is achievable through the use of improved binders, and also through the intro-
duction of specialized packaging systems. These systems are designed to eliminate
moisture pickup, thereby maintaining the electrode in the condition it was manufac-
tured. Such systems can be based on either vacuum packing or the use of atmospher-
ic control within the packaging.
The treatment of submerged arc fluxes, particularly the fully basic agglomerated
types, requires special attention. This is necessitated by the often rapid deterioration,
in terms of moisture pickup, which can occur if conditions are not correct. These types
of flux are usually either used straight from the newly opened packaging, preheated,
or baked before use. In each case, problems can occur. If used straight from bag or tin,
establish that the manufacturer’s packaging is both intact and designed to deliver the
product in a usable condition. If preheated or baked, the control over this operation
must ensure that both the temperatures used and the times at temperature are ade-
quately monitored. Otherwise, it is possible to increase the moisture content of a flux
while in the oven if the flux is handled incorrectly. It is beneficial to ensure that the
consumable supplier has been made aware of and has approved the handling tech-
niques employed; also, have this recorded for the purpose of informing your clients.
4.6 Production Weld Test Pieces

It may be surprising to find this section relegated to that of least importance in
terms of production welding control. This is because such tests are “after the event,”
whereas the preceding notes refer to actions that should help ensure that production
tests do not become a problem area - or, indeed, justify their avoidance.
In many industries, it will be a specification requirement to provide production test
pieces for mechanical testing. The frequency of such tests is usually based on either
time (e.g., one test per day/week) or by production quantities (e.g., one per 50 m of
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

weld, per vessel). The principal objective of production tests is usually to demonstrate
that specified mechanical properties are being consistently achieved in the production
environment. In either case, the most important points for the engineer are that the test
is correctly identified, traceable to a known production quantity or unit, and correctly
carried out. The last point may seem strange considering that by definition a produc-
tion test should be fully representative of production performance. However, while
achieving this is simple in the case of a longitudinal joint weld where the production
test piece can be an extension of the actual production component, this cannot always
be assumed in cases where a separate test piece must be set up. Here, two extremes
are possible, both of which are wrong:
The test piece is given a level of detailed attention far beyond nor-
mal production and as such is not representative.
The test piece represents a “nuisance” to production. As a result it
is not completed correctly, leading to potential failures, again not
representative of production.
A production test encompasses both a check on the welder and on the welding con-
sumables. However, periodically such tests can also highlight problems with base
materials that previously may have been missed. An example will be given later.
It is important to be able to identify the production quantity against which the pro-
duction test can be referenced. This should be straightforward, but it has been known
for production departments to produce a ‘run’ of test pieces. Beware; if one of these
fails, the acceptability of a much larger production quantity may be cast in doubt.
Dealing with Production Weld Test Failures

The failure of a production weld test is (we hope) a rare occurrence, but one which
will place the welding engineer in the limelight - or, more likely, at the whipping
post. The first reactions from production could be something like:
Why did you choose that consumable?

Why did you change the weld parameters?
What are you going to do about the problem?
There are many more typical comments usually in more descriptive, colorful lan-
guage, but probably the only valid question is: What can be done?
The first thing to establish is the nature of the failure (e.g., welding discontinuities,
mechanical properties, etc.) and identify and arrange associated production welds to
be quarantined pending investigation. All relevant information must be generated
quickly, and it is important that a strategy is established regarding the approach both
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

to the technical investigation and to satisfy the client as to the acceptability of the
overall production run. Identification of the problem may not always be straightfor-
ward, and a few examples of problems that have occurred in the past are given later
in this section. Satisfying the client organization can depend upon their perception of
the problem, the urgency of their need for the component in question, and the rela-
tionship and trust previously established with the client on prior work. Obviously,
there will be occasions where a production test failure must result in materials being
scrapped - but this should always be a last resort.
The following are typical cases of production test failures highlighting three dif-
ferent causes.
Example 1: Performance-Related Failure
In this example, a semiautomatic self-shielded flux cored arc

welding procedure had been subjected to a routine production test
and failed due to low weld metal impact properties. The procedure
used was well known to be sensitive to parameter variations. A
minor complication was that the particular batch of consumable
used had been reported as giving wire feed problems during the
period preceding the failure. The questions to be addressed are,
therefore, the following:
Was the wire batch satisfactory and was the wire feeding
problem in any way related?
Was the equipment operating properly?
Was the production test welded within production parame-
ters?
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
What could be done to convince the client of the accept-

ability of associated production components?
It was quickly established by trial that both items 1 and 2 were

noncontributory. The wire feeding problem had been related to tests
on new equipment, and the equipment used for the production test
had been fully checked and found to be working satisfactorily.This
was important since, although any problem found may have helped
to explain the problems occumng, it would also call into question
all similar production equipment. The indications were, therefore,
that the problem was related to the actual weld procedure used.
Given that the weld exhibited no immediately obvious indications
of poor practice, and the usual assurances from production person-
nel were obtained, it seemed unlikely that positive proof of any poor

practice could be obtained. However, despite that at first glance the

macroscopic examination of this weld appeared normal, close
examination and comparison with a previous “good” weld yielded
interesting results.
It was noted that the average layer of thickness was higher in the
weld giving the low impacts; this corresponded to a reduced amount
of inter-layer refinement. By using a simple technique, the macro-
scopic examination can also provide confirmation of incorrect prac-
tice via a calculated actual deposition or fill rate and the corre-
sponding theoretical rate.
From Macroscopic Examination (see Figure 4.8)
1. By direct estimate, estimate area “A,” Le., area of original

weld preparation excluding root face and reinforcement
(DI.
2. Convert unit “A” to a volume per unit length of weld
(cmVm).
3. Count number of passes corresponding to area “A.”
4. Calculate average volume of weld deposited per bead per
unit weld length (cmVm).
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
FIGURE 4.8 - MACROSCOPIC EXAMINATION
From Manufacturers and/or Previous Data
5. Predict deposition rate at nominal current used (kgíh).

Convert this to a volume deposition rate via density rela-
tionship (cmVmin).
6. Based on specified procedure travel speed, calculate range
of arc time per bead per unit weld length (min/m).

7. From the above, calculate predicted range of volume of

weld deposited per bead per unit weld length (cmVm).
Now, if the weld from which the macroscopic examination was

sampled was completed within parameters given in the weld proce-
dure, the value derived in Step 4 should fall within the range pre-
dicted by Step 7. Obviously the above technique is not precise, but
where a large “error” is found, it would provide a reasonable point-
er to the problem encountered. In the particular case involved here,
such a technique was used to establish that the travel speed was
about 20 percent below the minimum of the range specified. The
fault, therefore, lay with the welder in this case, but it remained a
problem to convince the client of the acceptability of the associated
product. This was done by performing crack tip opening displace-
ment (CTOD) tests on the failed production test plate and demon-
strating that, even in this condition, the weld metal was fit for pur-
pose on a fracture toughness basis.
Example 2: Material-Related Failure
This case relates to a major base material problem discovered

purely by chance due to a production weld test. On testing the par-
ticular weld involved between a pipe and flange, it was found that
the flange HAZ impact properties were very poor. Immediate inves-
tigation of the problem showed it was unrelated to welding, but
caused by the incorrect heat treatment of externally supplied (and
certified) flange materials. Further investigation of other flanges
highlighted this to be a widespread problem. Resolution of this
problem involved on-site metallography on previously welded
spool pieces with many subsequent complete rejections, or repeat
heat treatments required at considerable expense and inconve-
nience. Although not a feature that could be easily controlled or pre-
dicted by the fabricator or welding engineer, this example serves as
a useful warning: Do not place too much trust in cert$cation, espe-
cially i f problems become apparent.
Example 3: Consumable-Related Problems
In the previous pages of this chapter, an emphasis was placed on

checking consumable certification prior to issue to the shop floor.
This, however, does not guarantee elimination of consumable-relat-
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Production Welding Control 6 5
ed problems. An example of this is the submerged arc welding of

offshore structural steels using a basic agglomerated flux. There is
evidence available that for a given wire chemistry, different process
applications can give significant differences in results. It has been
known that residual elements can play a major role in the optimiza-
tion of weld metal toughness. Among these elements, nitrogen is
detrimental and, for that reason, has been limited to around 100ppm
or less in consumable specifications. However, whereas using a
wire with 100 ppm nitrogen has yielded acceptable results when
using conventional single or tandem submerged arc procedures with
and without iron powder additions, the same wire has resulted in
poor impact properties when employed with a narrow-groove weld-
ing technique. The mechanisms involved in such a case are complex
and this example is included merely as a warning. When employing
any new practices, it should never be assumed that all the “old”
rules apply. Be ready for surprises.
These examples highlight typical production failures. They also reinforce the fact
that such results do not always reflect poor production practice, as only the first such
example proved to be the case. Having investigated a problem, the client must be fully
satisfied as to the acceptability of the product to avoid scrapping valuable production
components. Some investigative approaches have already been examined. In addition,
the following can be considered:
1. Assess the production batch on a “fitness-for-purpose” basis (eg.,

in offshore construction, the design may permit a different impact
or crack tip opening displacement (CTOD) test temperature for
components below the waterline; fabrication specifications often
specify the more stringent above-waterline conditions as a general
requirement).
2. Can the properties be recovered by heat treatment?
3. Can the property requirements be relaxed? (See 1 above)
4. Can additional test pieces be produced to demonstrate a potential
“one off’ effect in relation to failure? Often previous data can be
used to support such an argument.
5. Can test pieces be taken from an actual production component to
satisfy the acceptability of that production run?
6. In the case of impact test failures, can fracture toughness tests be
utilized? (See 1 above.)
This list represents common approaches. However, every problem tends to have its
own individual solution that may be a combination of approaches covering more than
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

one of the above. In addition, the cost element must always be considered. It may be
cheaper to scrap a number of components rather than to recover them. While this will
not always be an acceptable option, it must always be considered. This is especially
true where any additional required testing is likely to be extensive.
References
[i] Rodgers, K.J. and Lochhead, J. C. 1987. Self-shielded flux cored arc welding -
the route to good toughness. Welding Journal 66(7): 49-59.
[2] Lochhead, J. C., and Rodgers, K. J. 1997. The Welding Paradigm. London:
International Conference on Joining and Welding for the Oil and Gas Industry, The
Welding InstituteDBC U. K. Conferences, Ltd.
[3] Based on an original methodology by Dr. W. Welland.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Chapter 5
Estimating and Reducing Welding Costs
I
l There are many reasons for requiring an estimate or evaluation of welding costs,
e.g., in bidding for work, or the evaluation of new or alternative methods. It is also
clear that to reduce welding costs you must fist identify and understand them.
5.1 Estimating Welding Costs
There are several approaches to the estimation of welding costs, some specific to
the company methods involved, some making a detailed assessment, others only a
rough estimate. Regardless of the particular methods used, remember that the accura-
cy of the result is dependent on the accuracy of the input data. Where a rough estimate
is all that is necessary, it may be possible to utilize published non-company data; but
where a more accurate estimate is required, some measurement of achievable, or pre-
viously achieved, performance particular to your company is essential. In all cases,
the following factors should be considered in the most convenient unit:
labor cost, including overhead (unit cost/unit time);

operating factor (OF), where OF = arc timehotal time;
joint completion rate, i.e., unit weldunit time;
consumable cost per unit weld (deposited); and
total weld quantity.
From these, the total weld cost can be obtained as follows:
labor cost x total weld quantity
total weld cost =
operating factor x joint completion rate
+ total consumable cost
Labor Costs
Labor cost is the unit cost per unit time (e.g., $/hour) for a welder. It should include
all the overhead costs associated with the operation as determined by the normal
accountancy practices of the organization involved.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Operating Factor
The operating factor is the ratio between the arc time and the total time spent by a
welder in completing a joint. This factor is crucial to the costing exercise, since any
change in the factor used has a proportional effect on the costs predicted. By defini-
tion, the operating factor will always be less than 1.O, since a value of 1.O would imply
continuous welding. The operating factor is higher on automated or semiautomated
processes and lower on manual processes. The range [ 11 of typical operating factors
for various processes is shown in Figure 5.1. When considering operating factors,
understand that different fabrication shops may achieve vastly different operating fac-
tors for essentially similar work. In Figure 5.1, a higher operating factor indicates a
well-organized andor better-equipped shop. Site construction applications will, by
their nature, produce lower operating factors than, say, an equivalent (in welding
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
terms) shop application. For example, the shop welder should spend considerably less
time getting to the workstation; fixturing may be better, more automatic welding
equipment may be available, and handling facilities are normally better.
Joint Completion Rate

This factor can be expressed in a number of ways, the choice of which may best be
made by the individual fabricator. Any of the following data can be used, provided the
same unit quantity is used when estimating total job content.
Deposition rate (lbhour, kghour, etc.) - The quantity of weld

metal deposited per unit arc time.
Volume $11 rate (in.3/hour,cm3/hour, etc.) - The volume of weld
metal deposited per unit
Mechanization Raises Operating Factor arc time.
Linear com-
pletion rate (inhour,
ftlhour, d o u r , etc.) -
The length of weld com-
pleted per unit arc time.
This method is most suited
to single-pass welds such
as simple fillets, because
other weld types such as
butt joints are influenced
O IO 20 30 40 50 80 70 80 DO 100 by joint thickness.
FIGURE 5.1 - EFFECT OF MECHANIZATION ON ‘Ost
OPERATOR FACTOR
~- The consumable cost should be
From Welding Handbwk,Vol. 1, ûth Ed., American Welding Society, Miami,
calculated to the same unit quantity
Fla. as used in the above example, i.e.,

Estimating and Reducing Welding Costs 69
consumable cost per unit weld weight, volume, or length. There are essentially two
components of consumable cost to consider:
1. cost of consumable as purchased (e.g., per unit weight of electrode), and
2. cost of consumable as deposited ( e g , per unit weight of deposit).
The first of these two items is identifiable from purchase invoice data, but the sec-
ond must either be estimated by trials, or, more commonly, by using a deposition effi-
ciency factor from the consumable supplier. The deposition efficiency factor is
defined as follows and gives a measure of spatter loss, slag loss, stub losses, etc.:
weight of weld metal deposited í unit time

deposition efficiency factor =
weight of consumable used unit time
Typical values [i]for the various arc welding processes are given in Table 5.1, but
it is usually better to obtain specific product data from the supplier. For gas shielded
processes, the cost of supplying the shielding gas should be considered separately; the
same goes for the cost of the flux for the submerged arc process. For the submerged
arc process, the amount of flux consumed to produce the welding slag is typically near
the same weight as the electrode consumed. However, this 1:1 ratio is never likely to
be achieved in actual flux usage records, due to spillage losses, etc. As an approximate
guide, a ratio of between 1.5:l and 2: 1 should be used for estimating purposes (assum-
Filler Metal Form and Process Deposition Efficiency (%)*

--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Covered electrodes
SMAW - 14 in. long 55 to 65
Bare solid wire

SAW 95 to 99
GMAW 90 to 97
Flux cored electrodes

FCAW 80 to 90
* Includes slub Ias.

SMAW = Shielded Metal Arc Welding; SAW = Submerged Arc Welding; GMAW = Gas Metal Arc Welding; FCAW = Flux
Cored Arc Welding
TABLE 5.1 -
DEPOSITION EFFICIENCY FOR WELDING PROCESSES AND FILLER
METALS
From Table 8.10, Welding Handbook, Vol. I, 8th Ed., American Welding Society, Miami, Fla.

ing a fairly good flux recycling regime is in operation). If no flux recycling is carried
out, the flux consumption is more likely to be between 3: 1 and 4: 1.
Total Weld Quantity

This is the total amount of weld for which the cost estimate is being made. This can
be calculated in various forms as listed below. The unit used to measure total weld
quantity should have the same basis as that used for the joint completion rate.
Weld Volume - Calculate the total weld volume by measuring the

weld length and multiplying the cross-sectional area of the joint
preparation, making allowances for reinforcement, root openings,
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
backgouging, etc., where applicable.

We2d Weight -As above, converting to the weld weight by multi-
plying by the density of the weld metal.
Weld Length - Measured from drawings (see note under linear
completion rates made under joint completion rates).
Related Costs
None of the above items specifically deals with related costs, such as equipment
investment costs, costs of repairs and rework, etc. These must always be considered,
and it may depend on the individual fabricator’s accountancy practices as to how these
costs are identified within the above general methods. Equipment costs can be built
into the labor cost as part of the overhead cost; an allowance for repairs, etc., may also
be dealt with in this way. Another method used is the combination of the operating
factor, repair cost, etc., into an overall joint completion rate based on welder hours
(not arc time). This combined rate would be based on similar previously measured
work. The important point to note is that, regardless of how the estimate is made,
recognition of the various points indicated must be included in some form.
ExampIe
Estimate the welding cost for a 1-m-long, 50-rnm-thick mild steel

test plate using a single-V (45-degree groove angle) joint prepara-
tion. All welding to be completed using the shielded metal arc weld-
ing (SMAW) process.
Item 1 - Labor cost: $30/hour

Item 2 - Operating factor: 0.35 (measured from previous
work)

Estimating and RedUChQ Welding Costs 71
Item 3 - Joint completion rate: 1.7 kghour (from manu-

facturer’s data)
Item 4 - Consumable cost: $lO/kg (from purchase data);
deposition efficiency = 0.65 (from consumable
manufacturer’s data)
Item 5 - Total weld quantity (see estimated weld deposit
weight below)
weld length = 1,000 mm (1)

estimated cross section of weld = [area of weld body]+ [area of weld reinforcement]
[
= t x t x tan:] +3t
[
= (50)2x (tan;)] + [(3)x (50)]
= 1,186 mm2 (2)
where t = plate thickness and x = groove angle. The allowance for reinforcement
assumes a “nominal” bead height of 3 mm and a final layer width equal to plate
thickness - accurate enough for this type of estimate.
estimated weld volume = [Eq. 11x [Eq. 21
= 1,000 mmx 1,186 m2
= 1,186 cm3 (3)

densiîy of steel = 7.85 g I cm3 (4)
estimated weld deposit weight = [Eq. 31 x [Eq. 41
= 9,3 10 g or 9.3 1 kg
Therefore, for the weld weight of 9.310 kg above, the consumable cost is
9.31 kgx $15.381 kg= $143.19
labor cost x total weld quantity

total weld cost = + total consumable cost
operating factor x joint completion rate
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
- $30/hx9.31 kg
-
0.35x1.7 kgl h
+
= $469.41 $143.19
= $612.60

5.2 Reducing Welding Costs

There are many ways of reducing welding costs. These fall into three main cate-
gories that, for the purpose of this section, will be termed direct, indirect, and design.
A direct method is one that is either controlled by the welding procedure or is close-
ly associated with the weld procedure. An indirect method is any other method influ-
encing the overall welding performance and, hence, cost. A design method is simply
one through which the designer can introduce useful cost savings using intelligent
design. A few examples of methods falling into these definitions are listed below.
Direct Methods (i.e,, via the weld procedure)

Change from a manual process to a semiautomatic or automatic
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
process.
Introduce mechanization, robotics, etc.
Change type of consumable used, e.g., to a higher recovery version.
Use high deposition techniques, e.g., multi-wire submerged arc
andor addition of metal powders to submerged arc welds.
Use of reduced angle or narrow-groove weld joint preparations.
Reduce defect levels.
Indirect Methods fie., via services, etc.)

Improve fixturing.
Improve work environment.
Improve consumable issue practice.
Better utilization of facilities ( e g , availability of lifting equip-
ment).
Train personnel (refer to Chapter 4).
Design Methods (i.e., at the design stage or with designer’s consent)

Joint type - make optimum choice in terms of service require-
ments and costs.
Build method and welding access - ensure that practical con-
straints are recognized.
All three methods are capable of yielding considerable cost reductions. The direct
methods are more often those associated with the welding engineer whose detailed
metallurgical and welding process knowledge is needed to evaluate these features.
Compare these to the indirect methods where there is often little need for specialized
welding knowledge; many of the problems can be more closely identified with pro-

duction engineering. For all indirect methods, there is essentially one common aim -
to maximize the arc time recovered from a welder or welding station.
It would be a mistake to ignore the indirect route to reduced welding costs based
on a possible lack of detailed knowledge. Even if the welding engineer is not capable
of providing a detailed solution, he should at least be capable of highlighting the need
for a solution. The best solution will normally be achieved by close cooperation
between production engineers and welding engineers, both contributing their own
specialized knowledge.
Remember that while the indirect methods are too often ignored, they are capable
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
of producing significant benefits. As shown in the previous section, any change that
improves the operating factor produces a proportional change in costs.
Cost reduction by changes to the detailed design generally improves with, and
results from, previous experience. Familiarity with production methods and shop floor
practices is essential to appreciate how relatively minor changes in design can have
major effects on costs. However, discussions to achieve this aim must take place as
early as possible, preferably during preproduction activities. Design engineers require
time to check calculations and change drawings (and overcome prejudices). Time may
also be required to convince clients and inspecting authorities as to the merit of such
proposed changes.
Some of the methods noted above will be expanded slightly, highlighting some of
the potential pitfalls of cost reduction exercises rather than providing specific recom-
mendations.
5.2.1 Direct Methods
Change from a Manual Process to a Semiautomatic or Automatic Processes

A change of this type would normally be expected to yield significant benefits.
These benefits would come as a result of two main features:
There is often (but not always) an associated increase in deposition

rate with a change in process.
There is usually a significant increase in the operating factor asso-
ciated with increased mechanization.
The above factors, although usually very persuasive regarding the potential for
change, must not, however, be taken in isolation. There are other points to consider
before assuming that any predicted benefits are indeed achievable. For example, if the
process change proposed forms only a minor part of the overall workload or relates

only to sporadic business, then the additional costs in buying equipment and qualify-
ing procedures and personnel, etc., may not be justifiable.
The degree of automation available will be a major factor regarding the potential
for improvement, as discussed in more detail below. The introduction of semiauto-
matic methods, while achieving a less dramatic increase in the operating factor (refer
to Figure 5.1), is normally within the reach of all fabricators given that the capital
expenditure required is usually modest in comparison with more extensive mecha-
nization or automation proposals.
Introduction of Robotics
In many respects, this is a natural extension of the above discussion, and there is
again a need for a careful approach to such proposed changes. The potential gains
identified by comparing the operating factors such as those given in Table 5.1 are
only achievable if a higher operating factor can indeed be realized. There would be
little point in committing considerable amounts of capital to the introduction of mech-
anized SAW (e.g., column and boom or tractor machines) to replace manual welding
if, for the particular application, this involved an additional setup time, thus vastly
reducing any other benefits achieved. In general, the more organized and consistent
the throughput of work, the more scope there is to achieve benefits via increased
mechanization of automation. The simple diagram in Figure 5.2 illustrates this idea.
The intended message is simple. Utilize the potential of increased automation to
its full extent, but always judge each case in detail (on its own merits), since there are
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
undoubtedly benefits in retaining what may seem to be dated manual practices in

some situations.
Change of Consumable
As a welding engineer, you will be continually offered alternative consumables as
direct replacements within existing practices. These may be offered on the basis of
reduced cost, better properties, higher productivity, etc. Guidance has been given in
Chapter 2 on how to assess such offers. The most important factor when considering
a change is that the welding engineer knows exactly what he requires and does not
Production Line Type of Work

Repetitive
Robotic -Automatic -Mechanized -SemiauIomatic -

Manual
FIGURE 5.2 - DEGREE OF MECHANIZATION

allow a short-term price gain, or the availability of enhanced (but possibly over-spec-
ified) properties, to dictate the change. The main factor to remember is that reduced
consumable costs, and any gain obtained through reduced consumable costs, could be
quickly erased by higher defect rates, increased weld cleaning, procedure requalifica-
tion costs, etc. The main reason for changing consumables within existing practices
are listed below.
Problems with an existing consumable (either technical or supply
problems).
Improved productivity (via better finish, improved deposition rate,
etc.) - A particularly good example of this is that the requirements
for consumables to be used for fillet welding should not necessari-
ly be confused with those chosen for butt joints. Weld bead contour
and toe profiles are often the most significant features with respect
to fillet welds; here, rutile consumables may be preferred to basic
low-hydrogen kinds. In many cases, a higher deposition rate elec-
trode or process may also be worthy of consideration.
Improved properties required, e.g., to meet increased specification
demands.
Consumable cost - As with all cost-related questions, all aspects
of a proposed consumable change should be considered carefully
prior to making a change. Only overall quality and production costs
should be of importance in the final analysis.
The Use of High Deposition Rate Techniques
The previous sections referred to the use of mechanization and automation mainly
as a means of achieving higher operating factors and hence improved productivity.
Productivity improvements can also’be achieved by utilizing a higher deposition rate
process, causing little or no change to the operating factor. For example, in submerged
arc welding, it may be possible to introduce a double- or triple-wire method to replace
a single-wire application and, in doing so, reap considerable productivity improve-
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
ments. However, simply multiplying by the number of wires used would not give an
accurate view of the productivity improvements achievable. There is often some
trade-off in terms of operating factor or procedure restrictions that would not be
reflected in such a simple assessment.
Remaining with submerged arc welding, it is also possible to utilize equipment
delivering a metered quantity of metal powder to the weld. By doing so, it is possible
to achieve a higher deposition rate with no significant increase in heat input or major
change to working practice (Le., almost “consumable cost” weld metal). This method
has been widely used for offshore structural fabrication [2,3] but obviously depends
on the availability of suitable metal powder consumables. Similarly, the use of flux or
metal cored submerged arc wires and process options, such as long stickout welding,
can enhance the deposition rates of submerged arc welding [4,5].

Other high-deposition-rate methods worthy of consideration include electroslag

welding (both in its conventional form for welding in a butt joint and as a strip
cladding technique), submerged arc strip cladding methods, hot wire gas tungsten arc
welding (GTAW), etc.
Plate Thickness
(percentages)
25 mm 75mm 150mm
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Single-V-groove weld, 50 degrees groove angle 1O0 100 100
Single-V-groove weld, 45 degrees groove angle 89 89 89
Double-V-groove weld, 50 degrees groove angle 50 50 50
Narrow-groove weld (1 9 mm) (e.g., SAW) 124 50 26
Narrow-groove weld (1 O mm) (e.g., GTAW, GMAW) 76 27 14
TABLE 5.2 - COMPARATIVE WELD VOLUMES

Reduced Weld Volume
This mainly applies to butt joint welding applications and introduces the concept
of narrow-groove welding. Narrow-groove techniques, however, are not the only
method to reduce weld volumes. A change in joint preparation to a reduced bevel or
groove angle, an increased root face or a change from a single-V to a double-V prepa-
ration can all have significant effects on weld volume. Table 5.2 shows the compara-
tive weld volumes of a number of different joint preparations at three thickness lev-
els.
In each case tabulated, the comparison is made with a single-V-groove, 50 degrees
groove angle preparation and should be regarded as a rough approximation only.
Clearly, major reductions in weld volumes are achievable by using a narrow-groove
joint preparation on thicker sections, and, in addition, the 11 percent reduction in vol-
ume for a very simple 5 degrees reduction in weld groove angle is highlighted. This
last point identifies the benefits of good workmanship in all applications showing that
accurate bevel cutting to the lower end of a tolerance range can effect a useful savings
with little or no additional expenditure. Although the measured volumes indicate
apparently massive benefits for narrow-groove processes on thick sections, these
should be treated with some caution since weld volumes should not be examined in
isolation. The respective deposition rates and equipment costs must also be considered
before any final judgment. For example, if narrow-groove submerged arc welding
(SAW-NG) (single-wire, approx. 6-8 kghour deposition rate) is compared with tan-
dem wire submerged arc welding with iron powder additions on a conventional V
preparation (deposition rate approx. 20-22 kghour), then the material thickness at

which a break-even point is reached in terms of welding time between 80-100 mm

(assuming single unit operation).
Therefore, unless the introduction of such a process also provides some other over-
riding benefit, it would not be economical to employ SAW-NG in the above compar-
ison unless the thicknesses involved were in excess of 100 m.Obviously, the thick-
er the section the more favorable the SAW-NG route would become. In addition, the
use of narrow-groove practices often involves major capital expenditure on both
welding equipment and machining facilities. Again, the emphasis must be placed on
thoroughly examining each particular case. In fact, SAW-NG equipment is in use
where one welder operates three welding stations simultaneously - a feature dra-
matically reducing this break-even point above. Hence, there are undoubtedly many
situations where narrow-groove processes provide an appropriate avenue to reduced
costs; in some situations, however, such a change would result in few, if any, benefits
and could in fact be uneconomical when overall costs are considered.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Reducing Defect Levels
Areduction in defect levels is an obvious route to reduce welding costs and is men-
tioned here merely to reinforce this point. Rectification and rework cost several times
more per unit weld volume than the original work, and even a small reduction in
defect levels can achieve useful savings [ 6 ] .This topic is discussed in more detail in
Chapter 4.
5.2.2 Indirect Methods
As noted earlier, an indirect method of reducing welding costs is one not directly
related to, or applied via, the welding procedure. Indirect methods could vary from
items totally removed from the workstation, e.g., improved coffee-making facilities
(reducing welder downtime), to items crucial to the working practice but not specific
to welding, e.g., availability of cranes. In fact, anything that will enable or encourage
the welder to produce more arc time will have beneficial effect on the operating fac-
tor (and hence costs), provided of course that the expense of making this improvement
is not prohibitive. A few of these methods are discussed below.
Improved Fixturing
The availability of jigs and fixtures, their suitability for the job, and their ease of
use, among other things, all have major bearing on welding efficiency. All time the
welder spends setting up a workpiece, or assisting in such operations, could be regard-
I ed as lost production. Obviously there will always be some time spent on such oper-
ations, but the aim should be to minimize this whenever possible. Such problems need

not involve complex situations. For example, in a general fabrication shop where the
product varies, there will be little opportunity for employing standard jigs or auto-
matic clamping devices. There may, however, be scope for standardizing on a range
of standard strongbacks, pre-cut run-odoff blocks, and the like. While these may not
be obvious ways of improving operating factor, they can prove to be beneficial in
some instances.
Improvement is gained through a better planned operation with such apparently
nonproductive operations carried out either by less costly manpower or, alternatively,
by the welder during periods of “slack” time. The benefit comes by reducing the time
needed by the skilled operative while “productive” work is in progress. Other equip-
ment worth considering include positioners, turning rolls, indeed, anything that
reduces time spent on repositioning workpieces.
Another simple example can be found in the attachment of electrical preheating
bands. These are often attached using magnetic clamps - a very sensible approach in
many situations. However, consider a very large component that requires preheat to
be maintained over a wide area for a prolonged period. Here, clamps would necessi-
tate a considerable equipment investment due to the numbers involved. A simple solu-
tion could be the use of nails (2-3 mm diameter) attached by a capacitor discharge
method and bent to hold the heat-
application. The greater the stan- FIGURE 5.3 -

dardization and the higher the A NAIL HOLDS A HEATING PAD IN PLACE
volume of work, then the greater
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
the need for such an approach. Such methods vary from standard (manually fixed)
jigs, through pneumatically operated jigs, to combined jigs and welding equipment
that essentially automate the whole operation. An example of the last-mentioned
would be an automatic machine for the production of I-beams. Here, although the
weld procedure may be similar to that used on, for example, a simple tractor unit, the
overall welding operation will be much more efficient due to the higher operating fac-
tor obtained. Again, however, the benefit must be weighed against the capital cost of
such equipment, and this would only be viable for major producers of such beams.

Esfimofing and Reducing Welding Costs 79
Working Environment
There are two ways of looking at working environment:
1. meeting regulatory requirements regarding health and safety; and

2. maximizing the “comfort” of the work force.
While there can be no disputing health and safety requirements, all too often little
regard is placed on matters beyond these requirements, Le., the comfort-level of the
work force. Surveys [7] indicate that when welders have been asked to rank the most
negative aspect of their work, the list is typically as follows:
1. Fume/smoke
2. Dust
3. Monotony
4. Heat (generally from high air temperature, not arc radiation)
5. Physical strain.
Any competent welding engineer should appreciate the factors listed and make
changes to reduce their effect. This can often be achieved with little cost and mini-
mum alteration to working practices.
Obviously the statement “maximize the comfort of the work force” must be taken
in the context of a working environment, since real comfort should be reserved for the
home. However, simple steps like providing a chair for operations that can be per-
formed from a sitting position would reduce operator fatigue and should produce ben-
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
efits.
There are some foremen who would be horrified by the above suggestion, but if
that same chair is not provided, the welder will most likely waste time arranging the
work and/or adjacent planks and scaffolding to improve his lot. Similarly, in many
welding operations, the use of preheat can result in inhospitable welding environ-
ments, e.g., working in a confined space within a preheated vessel. Here, any addi-
tional ventilation and/or insulation will help.
In an extreme case where the tolerable time the welder can spend at a given loca-
tion is, say, only 5 min, then even an increase of a minute of two represents a signif-
icant improvement. The working environment should not therefore be regarded pure-
ly as a set of safety regulations. It should go further than that; all ways of encourag-
ing the welder to safely spend more time doing the job he is paid for should be
explored. Often, necessq improvements come at little cost, while also (though infre-
quently recognized) improving the operating factor. Reject rates may also be reduced,
thus giving additional cost savings.

The availability of tools will, for the purpose of this discussion, be included in
working environment. If items such as grinders, hammers, etc., are not readily avail-
able and close to the work, then considerable time can be lost in either fetching such
items from a store or waiting for someone else to finish using them. Restricted tool
issue can be a false economy and should be addressed carefully. Often, the hidden cost
of lost production can outweigh the visible cost of tool purchase.
Consumable Issue Practice

The consumable issue practices used in the fabrication industry will vary from site
to site depending on the type of work involved, the standards involved, the level of
traceability required, etc. Again it may not be an obvious area for improved operabil-
ity factor, but in a situation where many welders are involved and a large quantity of
correctly processed electrodes must be issued and recorded at the start of a shift, then
any reduction in the time required to achieve this can affect the operability factor sig-
nificantly. Obviously it is better to employ a single clerk to service many welders than
to have welders spend additional time on this activity. In this particular area, there is
a relatively recent introduction offering the potential for significant improvement.
This involves the introduction of EMR (extra moisture-resistant) electrodes and pack-
aging systems that, by obviating the requirement to bake electrodes (basic types), can
significantly simplify consumable handling and issue practices, leading to savings.
Package bar codes offer the potential for computer-based recording of issues, thus
enhancing both stock control and traceability.
The objective of all consumable handling methods should be to get consumables
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
in the correct condition to the welder at his place of work with the minimum of fuss
and lost time. Anything that assists in the above should improve the operability factor
and help to reduce welding costs. Every 10 minutes spent by the welder on consum-
able issue represents approximately 2 percent of a welder’s standard working day. A
few welders will even spend 30 minutes or more doing this per shift - the consum-
able storage area is a good place to talk.
5.2.3 Design Methods

Joint Type
It is not the intention here to discuss the detailed design of welded joints, but rather
to highlight how this aspect can influence welding costs, both favorably and
adversely.
A good example of this is the design of fillet welds. Unfortunately, the design engi-
neer will often specify a specific minimum fillet size for no reason other than past
practice. A change from an 8-mm-leg-length fillet to a 10-mm-leg-lengthfillet may
not be crucial or even required in design terms, but it can have significant effects for
the welding engineer in most situations. It is extremely difficult to consistently

achieve a 10-mm leg length in a single pass (even using large-gauge electrodes), so a
multipass procedure will be needed. This will often require a minimum three-pass
technique to maintain an acceptable weld profile. In addition, the end result will prob-
ably be a vastly overcompensated 10-mm leg length, requiring additional interpass
cleaning. Discussion with the designer to ensure he is aware of such costs can prove
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
very beneficial.
A separate issue regarding fillet welds, but connected to the above, is the often gen-
eral requirement of compensating for a root opening resulting from a poor fïtup. In
general fabrication, a zero root opening cannot be guaranteed unless machined sur-
faces are specified or a fixture is utilized. For example, code requirements often
require that a 2-mm root opening must be compensated for with a 2-mm addition to
the leg length. Thus, a minimum 6-mm specified leg length becomes an 8-mm leg
length in practice. Similarly specifying an 8-mm leg length can lead to the need for
multipass welding as an actual 10-mm leg may be required. The design engineer must
3 mm Root ODening* Zero Root ODening*

Tested in shear 252 : 272 240 : 227
Tested in tension 339 : 384 300 : 341
*Maximum load to failure (kN)

Note:Shielded metal arc fillet weld: Self-shielded flux cored arc fillet weld (using
E701 8-6and E61T8-K6consumables, respectively). The results of these tests
indicate that, despite similar (uncompensated) leg lengths, the strengths of the
open root fillets were higher than those from a closed root in this example.
TABLE 5.3 -
WELD STRENGTHS OF 100-MM FILLET WELD WITH 6-MM LEG
LENGTH.
again be made aware of this point and asked to pay particular attention to the specifi-
cation of fillet welds around these sizes.
From the welding engineer’s viewpoint, it is sometimes permissible to use weld
penetration to compensate for leg length. It also may be possible in some circum-
stances to demonstrate that adequate fillet weld strength has been achieved without
weld leg length compensationby performing a simple test program. The results shown
in Table 5.3 were obtained in a simple test of this type based on a 100-mm length of
fillet weld in each case. This is a particularly useful exercise where the amount of fil-
let welding is high and a change from single- to multipass welding would have major
cost implications.
Other important aspects of weld joint design are the specification of partial pene-
tration welds rather than full penetration welds and designing for “buildability,” e.g.,

82 The Practico/ Welding Engineer
taking access and fabrication sequences into consideration. Although many of the
aspects may not be under the direct control of the welding engineer, it is important that
you, as a welding engineer, make every effort to inform the designer of such problems
and of the advantages obtained by considering all of these factors.
Build Methomelding Access

As mentioned previously, your familiarity with your company?s procedures, tech-
niques, equipment, and skill availability can lead to productive design changes.
Design can (and should) be altered to suit manufacturing methods provided you are in
early communication with the design engineer. The design engineer generally would
not be familiar with such details and consequently will (or should) rely on your guid-
ance and assistance in assessing any such situations. Intimate knowledge of these
resources and a willingness to challenge historical or conventional wisdom to benefit
your company?s profitability are the best requisites pertaining to design changes.
The above examples represent only a few of the areas where welding costs can be
reduced. The intended message of this chapter as a whole is to encourage a broad view
of welding costs, not simply of deposition rates, etc., which can often be misleading.
The only cost that is important is the overall cost, which can be affected in many dif-
ferent ways. Therefore, as a welding engineer, you must always be conscious of costs
and the cost implications of your decisions. Always try to look at the overall opera-
tion costs - not just at welding procedures in isolation.
References
[i] Connor, L. P. (ed.). 1987. Welding Handbook. Vol. 1, 8th Ed. American Welding
Society, Miami, Na.
[2] Rodgers, K. J. and Lochhead, J. C. 1987. Submerged arc welding metal powder
additions, productivity and properties. Welding Journal 66 (10): 21-27.
[3] Fraser, R., et al. 1982. High deposition rate submerged arc welding for critical
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
applications. Int. Con$ Offshore Welded Structures. London, U.K.

[4] Lochhead, J. C., and Rodgers, K. J. 1997. The Welding Paradigm. London:
International Conference on Joining and Welding for the Oil and Gas Industry, The
Welding InstituteABC U.K. Conferences, Ltd.
[ 5 ] Lochhead, J. C., and Bews, R. O. 1998. The use of mechanised and latest cored
wire technology in the construction of a 32,000-ton production jack up. International
Conference, Exploiting Advances in Arc Welding Technology.
[6] Lochhead, J. C., and Rodgers, K. J. 1999. Weld Defects - Considering the Big
Picture. Welding Journal 78( 10): 49-54.
161 Sundin, J. 1990. Work environment for welders. Svetsen. Special issue.

Practical Problem Solving
Problem solving is perhaps the welding engineer’s most interesting task. Here, he
is called upon to be the “Columbo” of his company. The solution of welding problems
requires a combination of theoretical knowledge, practical experience, and, on occa-
sion, intuition. Problem solving can be both most rewarding and extremely frustrat-
ing.
6.1 What is a Problem?

A typical dictionary definition states that a problem is “a matter which is difficult
to deal with or solve” or “is a question set for solution.” Welding problems certainly
fit the above general definitions, but numerous alternative views pop up from time to
time.
A good reason for a vacation.

Time to find a scapegoat.
Time to change the specification.
While any of the above (or other similar views) may well come to mind, it is much
more productive and interesting to regard welding problems as opportunities.
An opportunity to learn.
An opportunity to improve practices.
An opportunity to display your worth to your employer.
The last item above leads to the question: Would your employer need a welding
engineer if no welding problems were likely? Welding problems, in this sense, are the
lifeblood of the welding engineer’s profession, and although your main function
should always be aimed at preventing problems, there will always be a need for
prompt and efficient reaction to welding problems as they arise.
This chapter outlines five specific examples of welding-related problems and also
introduces a general “fitness for purpose” concept that offers an alternative solution
to many problems. It is hoped these will provide an insight into problem-solving in
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
general, as well as providing some specific guidance on the topics discussed.

The following will be examined:
chevron cracking in submerged arc welds,

low toughness in self-shielded flux cored arc welds (FCAW-S),
magnetic arc blow.
postweld heat treatment (PWHT) avoidance, and
cast-to-cast variability,
6.2 Chevron Cracking in Submerged Arc Welds

Chevron cracking in submerged arc welds (SAW) in carbon, medium- and low-
alloy steels is a kind of weld metal cracking generally recognized as being a form of
hydrogen cracking [i],although other mechanisms have been proposed [2]. The name
chevron cracking relates to the typical appearance of this kind of crack - roughly V-
shape (further information on this point is given in Chapter 7). While regarded as a
problem mainly in submerged arc weld metals, it is also possible to encounter this
general form of discontinuity in shielded metal arc welding (SMAW). Chevron crack-
ing, once found, is often difficult to deal with because of its several potential causes.
However, treating this discontinuity simply as weld metal hydrogen cracking identi-
fies the main causal features (similar to heat-affected zone [HAZ] hydrogen cracking).
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Presence of hydrogen.
Presence of stress, i.e., restraint.
Time.
Note that the technique employed for the nondestructive examination (NDE) of
welds - particularly of submerged arc welds - should be designed with chevron
cracking in mind. Due to the orientation of chevron cracks in submerged arc welds,
they could be missed unless an ultrasonic testing (UT) scan, designed for their detec-
tion, is incorporated. Chevron cracking has mainly been associated with welds in
materiais more than 50 mm thick, but cases are known in thicknesses as low as 22
mm. Additionally, chevron cracking is a delayed form of cracking, normally not
appearing until 12 hours after cessation of welding. Allow at least 24 (or, more com-
monly, 48) hours prior to the required nondestructive examination.
Detection
The ultrasonic technique for detection of chevron cracking involves the use of a
45-degree probe, scanning longitudinally along the surface of submerged arc welds or,
alternatively, along the finished surface of manual or semiautomatic welds. As it is

Practical Problem Solving 85
most unlikely that chevron cracking will occur in processes other than SAW, the
requirement for additional NDE is normally ignored for these procedures.
This scan is carried out as a supplement to other scans, specifically to locate dis-
continuities lying in the transverse plane of the weld. The 45-degree probe is utilized
because chevron cracks present a reflecting face within the range of 30-50 degrees to
normal. Conventional scans from either side of the weld surface will not resolve such
discontinuities for two reasons:
1. A transverse planar discontinuity will not present a reflecting

surface of sufficient magnitude to produce a signal response.
2. The major dimensions of such discontinuities lie in a different
plane to the ultrasonic beam and will not reflect a signal response
to the transducer, even if the probe is angled in such a way that
a proportion of the sound energy impinges upon this dimension.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Hydrogen
The presence of hydrogen cannot be treated in precise quantitative terms since
there is no specific value that will result in chevron cracking. The problem of chevron
cracking is usually associated with basic agglomerated submerged arc fluxes that, due
to their mode of manufacture, are hygroscopic and will increase in moisture content
unless stored and handled properly. This, therefore, presents one main area of inves-
tigation if chevron cracking is found, i.e., consumable handling practices. One diffi-
culty is that, because you will be investigating a problem that occurred some days (or
even weeks) previously, it may not be possible to assess the state of consumable han-
dling at the time of welding with any confidence.
Here, it is necessary to rely on your judgment of the normal practices involved. Are
consumables routinely abused? Are they always rigorously applied? Are they ade-
quate? These questions identify the extremes possible and can often provide useful
guidance. Regardless of what handling practice was actually specified, the following
points are worth considering:
Is the chevron cracking an isolated occurrence or have many dif-

ferent welds been affected over a period of time? If the latter,
then the chance of the problem being consumable related (and
perhaps “batch” related) is greater. If the cracking is an isolated
occurrence, then although the consumable may still be a causal
factor, this will be difficult to establish; other factors may well be
the cause.
Is the flux used straight from the bag or is it preheated or baked?
If preheated or baked, the procedure must be carried out careful-
ly to proven and established practices. It is possible to achieve an
even higher moisture content in a flux after heating if the baking

ovens are not well designed and properly used. Baking ovens
should have heating elements passing through the charge, not
just enveloping the charge. The time in the oven should also be
carefully controlled to ensure all flux charged is brought to the
temperature specified. Remember that flux is a good insulating
medium and does not allow rapid heat flow.
If flux is used from the bag and a problem occurs, check the as-supplied moisture
level. It helps if you can relate the figures obtained to previous data since the “accept-
able value” will vary from application to application. An ideal moisture value is zero,
and for guidance, a O. 1 percent moisture level could be considered high and possibly
problematic in some situations.
Flux handling and flux condition are possibly the most likely potential sources of
a chevron cracking problem, but do not assume it is the only cause. In a high-volume
fabrication area using the same flux in a number of differing situations, it is difficult
to blame the flux if only a limited proportion of the work is affected, Le., if the prob-
lem occurs only on one thickness or at one welding station. Although the flux could
still be the main contributory factor, other aspects should be examined, such as pre-
heat or local flux storage problems (e.g., roof leaks). Flux recycling can also result in
a local (or, indeed, general) pattern. A number of commercially available units use
compressed air for transporting the flux within a recycling system. Should this air
become contaminated in any way, either by oil or water, then potential carry-over into
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
the flux is likely.

In terms of the effect of hydrogen, another significant aspect is preheat. Again, this
is via the effect of preheat not only on weld microstructure (via the cooling rate), but
more importantly on the rate at which hydrogen will diffuse from the weld.
Production personnel will seldom admit to using low preheat, but rest assured it
can be a common occurrence. Remember that in SAW preheat plays an important role
with respect to weld metal cracking; in some cases weld metal cracking - not HAZ
requirements - will dictate preheat levels. Experience shows that attempts to reduce
preheat levels for SAW have resulted in chevron cracking. This doesn’t mean estab-
lished levels cannot be reduced. It only indicates a need to take extreme caution.
Restraint
As with the effect of hydrogen, the degree of restraint necessary for chevron crack-
ing to occur has never been accurately established. With chevron cracking, most
cracks are often located within the top one-third of the thickness. This would indicate
that tensile loading is a very relevant feature; it also indicates that, in general, the
greater the thickness, the greater the chance of chevron cracking. There is very little
that the welding engineer can do to alter these particular parameters. However, the fol-
lowing example illustrates that, occasionally, beneficial changes to existing practices
can be arranged.

f .Weld
location
u
FIGURE 6.1 -ANNULAR STIFFENER WELD
This particular example, illustrating the combined effect of restraint and preheat,
relates to an occasion when radially oriented chevron cracking was experienced in
joints between cylindrical cans and external annular plate stiffeners, as shown in
Figure 6.1. In the initial manufacturing procedure, the cylindrical shell was preheated
from the outside, but the stiffener plate was not directly heated. The resultant stress
pattern was analyzed as follows:
The can was modeled as an infinitely long, thin elastic cylinder with an
axisymmetric radial line load acting outward on the cylinder at the weld
interface. The external stiffener was modeled as an annular plate with a radi-
al load acting on the inner radius. The thermal description of the setup is that
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
after the two components had been welded together, the cylinder cooled by
a stated amount relative to the disc. If the two components had not been
welded, this would have resulted in a radial gap at the weld interface, calcu-
lable from the free contraction of the cylinder.
The radial force required, therefore, was that which was sufficient to
close the gap by outward deformation of the can and inward deformation of
the plate. The circumferential stress in the weld was found from analysis of
the disc.
In essence, this indicated that when the can preheat was withdrawn, after
welding or at some intermediate stage, the shell would tend to shrink in

88 Tße Practical Welding Engineer
diameter during cooling, but the external plate would remain at the original
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
diameter. The resulting strain discontinuity across the weld would develop
radial stress in the joint leading to a circumferential stress along the weld
interface.
The calculated radial and circumferential stresses were shown to be sig-
nificant in relation to the yield strength of the material. From the analysis, it
was obvious that any temperature differential at the beginning of the cooling
phase from the preheat temperature would lead to significant stress. This
would be alleviated if the external stiffener was preheated to match the can
temperature. In addition, if the stiffener preheat was removed first, then com-
pressive strain would be produced in the weld joint during cooling.
A revised preheating method based on the above analysis was developed
and no further cases of chevron cracking occurred on this particular item.
Summary
To summarize (and oversimplify), regarding the problem of chevron cracking, the
following actions are advised:
Examine the ultrasonic examination report and agree with the

NDE operator on the location of the representative and typical
discontinuity signals.
If in any doubt, take a sample for macroscopic examination -
check that you are indeed dealing with chevron cracks.
Check the condition of the flux - has it been storeaandled
properly? Take samples and analyze for moisture.
Is the problem associated with one batch of flux or one storage
site? If so, isolate the source immediately pending further inves-
tigation.
If the flux is heated, ensure the thoroughness and correctness of
the practice used.
Check the preheat utilized. Was specified preheat adequate?
Compare with past practices. Contact the consumable manufac-
turer. If the consumables appear correctly supplied and utilized,
increase the preheat for subsequent work.
Check that correct welding procedure and consumables were
indeed used.
If SMAW consumables were used, obtain samples of the same
batch number and carry out hydrogen tests. Check consumable
handling procedure.
As a general rule: Reduce hydrogen reduce the problem. -

Practical Problem Solvino 89
6.3 low Toughness in Self-Shielded Flux Cored Arc Welds

This example relates to a specific problem faced by the offshore fabrication indus-
try in the early 1980s. With increasing demands on low temperature toughness prop-
erties (typically 36 J at 4 0 ° C or F), it soon became apparent that the existing practice
of using self-shielded flux
cored (E61-T8-K6 type) I I
wires in the uphill mode
was extremely inconsistent
when examining impact
data at -4O"CF. The
details of one major inves-
tigation into this problem
are presented elsewhere
[3]; for the purpose of this
discussion, only the salient
features will be highlight-
ed. The macroscopic spec-
imen shown in Figure 6.2
shows a satisfactory weld
made with the consumable
in the vertical position
using an uphill technique
with a weave.
This technique is per-
fectly satisfactory in most
situations and would prob-
ably be regarded as the
preferred method of apply- FIGURE 6.2 - A SELF-SHIELDED FCAW UPHILL WELD
ing such consumables.
Unfortunately the low temperature toughness of this weld, as shown in Table 6.1, was
not sufficient to satisfy the needs of the industry. Given the particular benefits of the
process in terms of adaptability and productivity, other procedural methods were
examined in effort to retain the technique's use. Two main possibilities existed given
that the lower toughness could be related to the relatively high proportion of unrefined
weld metal resulting from an uphill weave technique.
Test Temp. Heat Treatment Absorbed Energy
(OC) Condition Position (Jouies)
-40 As-welded cap-pass weld, centerline 29, 14, 1 18: Ave 54
Mid-weld, centerline 92,114, 18: Ave 75
Root weld, centerline 8, 14, 12: Ave 11
TABLE 6.1 - CHARPY V-NOTCH IMPACT TESTS ON AN UPHILL FCAW-S PLATE
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Use stringer beads - downhill, no weave.

Use a wide weave - uphill with controlled layer thickness.
Both methods are successful in improving toughness. With production welding,

however, only one of the above techniques could be easily controlled; this, in many
ways, was the key to the problem. If the wide-weave method was introduced into a
production situation, it would be very difficult to control given that a wide-weave
bead can be produced with very thick layers using a block weave; this would be con-
trary to what is required (i.e., thin layers with a high degree of refinement). On the
other hand, a stringer-bead technique is by its nature self-limiting and results in a weld
metal microstructure providing more consistent and better impact properties. The
need for the strict control resulting from a stringer bead technique was necessary in
this case.
It is worth noting that weld metal refinement is often a factor when investigating
low toughness results with other processes and consumables.
6.4 Cast-to-Cast Variability

The generally recognized use of the term “cast-to-cast variability” relates to the
variable penetration behavior exhibited (Figure 6.3) by different casts of nominally
identical materiais under a constant set of welding conditions - that is, the variabil-
ity is due to the material. It is a problem most commonly associated with stainless
steels, although not necessarily limited to them.
Cast-to-cast variability is one of the few welding-related problems the welding
engineer has little control over, especially at the point of occurrence. It is a problem
that has been widely recognized during the last 20 to 30 years [4] and about which
many wide and varied hypotheses have been promoted.
It is not the intention of this book
to discuss the merits of the various
proposed causes other than the gen-
eral cornent that in the authors’
experience, the only one to date that
could be confirmed [5] at a practical
level was that proposed by Heiple
and Roper [6]. They related this
variability to convection currents in
the weld pool generated by the
effect of temperature on surface ten-
sion. This effect was influenced by
the presence of surface-active FIGURE 6.3 -
CAST-TO-CAST VARIABILITY
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

solutes, such as oxygen and sulfur, the levels of which were important. In the partic-
ular example referenced above [ 5 ] , it was found that casts of 316-type stainless steel
with a sulfur content of 0.001-0.002 percent (Figure 6.3, left) behaved drastically dif-
ferent from one with a sulfur content of 0.010 percent (Figure 6.3, right). The transi-
tion in behavior between the two levels was predicted as being around the 0.005 per-
cent level.
The following general observations are relevant:
Cast-to-cast variability should be recognized as a potential prob-

lem, especially with stainless steels.
The problem is usually more prevalent (or more likely to be rec-
ognized) in automatic welding applications and, in particular,
automatic gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW) equipment.
Other than by either cast-matching or by allowing procedure
variations, little can be done in a practical sense to alleviate cast-
to-cast problems. In other words, do not expect a cure - con-
centrate on managing the problem.
It is important, however, to correctly diagnose cast-to-cast variability -often high

on the list of abused excuses. If cast-to-cast problems are thought to be a problem,
consider the following checks:
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Perform bead-on-pipe/plate tests using standardized welding

conditions over a number of casts of material. If no difference in
penetration or width-to-depth ratio is noted, then cast variability
is not the problem.
Repeat the above exercise on a single cast of material. If differ-
ences in penetration are noted, cast-to-cast variability is not the
problem (or not the only problem).
In considering the possibility that the problem under investigation may be cast-to-
cast variability, you must also consider other causes of variable penetration, such as
variable power output,

variable shielding gas supply,
variable arc length, and
inconsistent tungsten sharpening.

The above and other factors must be ruled out prior to diagnosing cast- to-cast vari-
ability, if for no other reason than that most of the other causes are curable. Having
established that cast-to-cast variability exists, consider the following possible problem
management methods:
Match components to be welded within a cast or within a group

of casts of similar behavior.
Agree to a relaxation of procedure tolerances to allow some vari-
ation in parameters. Note that in extreme cases exhibiting a high
width-to-depth ratio (i.e., very low penetration), increasing the
current level can often have little effect on penetration depth.
Gather as much evidence of the problem as practicable to pre-
sent to your client. Only by doing so can you expect the cooper-
ation that you need.
If the methods noted in the first two items prove unsuccessful,
consider more drastic changes to the weld procedure, such as
shielding gas, pulsing, etc., although in severe cases the likeli-
hood of success is limited.
Consider the use of activated fluxes. These have been shown to
influence the degree of penetration during gas tungsten arc
welding.
If all else fails, consider either re-sourcing the materials giving
the problem, or, if feasible, carrying out a manual weld to
replace an automatic weld. If either option is used, there will be
obvious and significant commercial implications; these options
should be used only as a last resort.
6.5 Magnetic Arc Blow

In many cases, this problem
Icurrent
may not even be brought to the
welding engineer’s attention.
Unless it is severe, the welder
may persevere with the problem
until, either by luck or by creat-
ing a bridge within the weld
preparation, the phenomenon
decreases to a more acceptable
level.
The phenomenon of magnetic
arc blow occurs [ll, 121 when a
welding process involving an
electric arc (generally direct cur- FIGURE 6.4 -ARC BLOW
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

rent) is carried out in the presence of a magnetic field and disruption or distortion of
the arc results. The disruption can be a consequence of the magnetic field produced
by the arc itself or by the interaction with any magnetism persisting in the steel. The
magnetic field causes the arc to be deflected, as shown in Figure 6.4, and behave in
an often unpredictable and erratic manner. In some very severe cases, the arc may be
completely extinguished. Typical discontinuities resulting from such arc instabilities
include slag inclusions, porosity, and incomplete fusion.
Magnetism, of a level to cause arc blow when welding, can result from two sepa-
rate sources that may be additive. The steel, as supplied, may possess its own residual
magnetism; also, the welding current will induce a magnetic field surrounding the
component during welding.
Considering the former source - residual magnetism - this may have a number
of possible origins.
The steel has solidified in a magnetic field at the steel mill.

The component has been lifted with a magnetic clamp.
Magnetic particle inspection has been performed.
The component has been stored near a magnetic field or left in a
north/south direction sufficiently long for magnetism to build up
from the earth’s magnetic field. The latter point may be particu-
larly relevant to pipelines.
The component has been exposed to a magnetic field during man-
ufacture, e.g., from welding.
The second source of magnetism leading to arc blow is where it arises during weld-
ing. Here, no magnetic field can be measured on an unwelded section, but during the
welding process, the current causes the resultant magnetic field. This effect will
increase with higher currents and can be influenced by the shape of the component
and earthing arrangements.
As a guide, there are few problems with low magnetic fields of 20 gauss or less.
Between 20-40 gauss, arc instability can be observed, whereas fields greater that 40
gauss can create definite arc blow. These values assume a “facility to measure,” but
this is often not available. A simple test uses iron filings that, if attracted, indicate a
magnetic field and, therefore, a potential for trouble. A severe collection of filings is
obviously an indication of a severe problem. The shape and depth of the weld prepa-
ration influences the magnetic effect on the arc. It will be more pronounced in deep
and narrow preparations; root runs will also be more affected until “a bridging”
affects, minimizes, or alters the magnetic effect.
Having identified arc blow as the problem, the welding engineer has a number of
options in order to eliminate, or at least reduce, the problem to acceptable limits.
These are indicated below in order of severity, available resources, and expense.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

1. Use an AC power source in preference to DC.

2. Alter the electrode angle or use a backstep welding sequence as
shown in Figure 6.5.
3. Reposition the current cable and earth return points or use two
workpiece leads connected between the power source and different
positions on the component.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
4. Demagnetize the component by using an alternating magnetic field

generated by an alternating current (AC): Utilize the largest avail-
able AC power source, wrap the welding cable around the work-
piece, apply a high current for a short time (say, 30 seconds), then
reduce the current to zero. This should be repeated, increasing the
number of wrapping turns and reducing current levels for each fur-
ther sequence.
5. Use a proprietary demagnetizing unit comprised of a gaussmeter
feeding all relevant data to a power unit into which is connected a
heavy-duty demagnetizing cable, arranged on the workpiece.
6.6 Elimination of Postweld Heat Treatment

Postweld heat treatments (PWHT) to reduce residual stress levels have been a com-
mon practice in many industries for years. A suitable heat treatment operation can
sometimes have additional benefits, such as a reduction in peak hardness values, an
improvement in weld metal
I A
properties, or a lowering of
any adverse effect of a welding
process on the mechanical
properties of the heat-affected
zone (HAZ). I
However beneficial these
effects may be, there are situa-
Weld
tions where PWHT can, and
Direction’ Progression
should, be avoided wherever
possible, especially where the
practicality of performing the
operation is virtually insur-
mountable. Note that the use
of heat treatment avoidance
techniques are dictated by an
overall assessment of the situ-
ation; for example, should
stress corrosion be an influ-
encing factor, then a heat treat- FIGURE 6.5 - BACKSTEP WELDING TECHNIQUE

ment to provide stress relief and to reduce maximum hardness levels may be a com-
pulsory requirement.
Normalizing of Electroslag Welds

In most cases, electroslag welds are refined by a normalizing treatment (see Figure
6.6[a] and 6.5[b] illustrating welds in the as-welded and normalized conditions,
respectively). This treatment enables the weld to be ultrasonically examined to a
greater sensitivity; it also greatly improves the notch ductility of the weld metal.
However, the welding engineer, when exam-
ining the potential techniques available for
the welding of thick sections, should not dis-
m i s s electroslag welding simply because of
this normalizing treatment. Extremely fast,
this technique is ideally suited for the welding
of thick sections. Unless a problem occurs
during the welding operation (e.g., wire feed
problems or loss of slag pool), the weld
integrity is virtually guaranteed. The welding
engineer’s main question should be: What are
the property requirements? If notch ductility
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
is not an essential feature, then normalizing of

the electroslag weld is probably not required.
Such a principle has been adopted in the con-
struction of winding barrels for the turbine As-Welded Condition
indusîry.
(A)
Conversely, should the fabrication require
enhanced notch ductility values (at, say,--lO
to -2O”C), a double normalizing treatment
can be examined. This generally causes fur-
ther improvement of the impact properties of
the weld.
Buttering
Buttering is “a surfacing variation in
which one or more layers of weld metal are
deposited on the groove face of one member
that is to be welded to a dissimilar base metal.
The buttering provides a suitable transition
Normalized Condition
weld deposit for subsequent completion of the
butt joint.” [7] (BI
The use of buttering to avoid postweld heat
treatment in steel structures relates to the abil- FIGURE 6.6 ELECTROSLAGWELDS-
96 Tite Practical Welding Engineer
ity to avoid high HAZ hardness in the subsequent butt joint. This is achieved via the
use of a buttering consumable that will not transform in the final HAZ to produce
martensitic constituents. The HAZ from the buttering operation must itself be con-
trolled by PWHT, but this can be done piece meal, and ail final assembly welds can
be carried out and left as welded. The technique can also be applied to situations
where, for example, one side of a transition weld was in a material that could suffer
deterioration during any subsequent PWHT. For example, certain stainless steels con-
taining high femte levels could, under some circumstances, “sigmatize” with conse-
quent serious impairment to properties.
The use of previously stress-relieved, buttered weld preparations is perhaps the
most common technique to avoid subsequent PWHT. A number of weld metal types
may be used for the buttering material. One type frequently applied is the InconelB
family of consumables. Here, the buttering layer is welded to the fabrication requir-
ing PWHT at a thickness
sufficient to contain a new
Component Requiring
weld preparation and sub-
Postweld Heat
sequent HAZ. The but- Treatment
tered section is nonde-
structively examined, heat
treated, then prepared for
the final butt joint welds,
which are not subject to Weld Buildup -
PWHT (Figure 6.7 illus- Buttering
trates the sequence of
events).
The requirement to
kL
Inspect, then Postweld Heat Treat
examine volumetrically
the buttering before
PWHT may itself pose
problems. If this is done
by radiography, consider-
able difficulty can be
I
experienced in the subse-
quent interpretation of the I
films caused by the X-
rays scattering at the edge
of the preparation. One
solution to this problem is
to make a complete butt
joint weld between pairs
( Final As-Welded I
Assembly Weld
of components using the
buttering consumable, FIGURE 6.7 -WORKING WITH BUTTERED SECTIONS
nondestnictively examine,
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

repair if necessary, and finally PWHT the subassembly. The butt joint weld can then
be parted and a new preparation made for the final assembly weld. Figure 6.8 illus-
trates this sequence.
Buttering with ferritic electrodes can also be a potential solution to overcome the
problem of high HAZ hardness. In this instance, the component could be of a hard-
enable alloy or high-carbon steel; the buttering deposit would use low-hydrogen elec-
trodes of a composition giving the desired levels of strength within the final butt joint
after PWHT, but not producing a high hardness in the final HAZ. The buttered com-
ponent would be subjected to PWHT, then the closing weld would be carried out using
the same low-carbon ferritic electrodes. To overcome any potential discontinuity
problems in the buttered layer prior to the PWHT, sufficient buttering must again be
applied to allow, in this case, for an ultrasonic test.
Temper Bead
The temper bead technique is
a fairly well known method for I I
Components Requiring Postweld Heat Treatment
controlling HAZ properties. It
can sometimes mean that
PWHT, when conducted to
J-
achieve hardness criteria, can be
avoided. Only a brief summary
of the method is given here (see
J-
Set Up for Butt Joint Weld
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
also Figure 3.2, page 29).

It is essential that the HAZ L - 1
caused by the first weld bead is
tempered by the subsequent
bead. Trials must be conducted
J-
Make Butt Joint Weld Using Buttering Consumable
Inspect
by the welding engineer on his
particular consumables and
welding practices to ascertain
J-
the degree of bead overlap
required and the tolerances for
this overlap.
J-
Postweld Heat Treat Butt Joint Welds
Generally, this tolerance is

not great. So, the control I
I
Split Butt to Produce Buttered Components
required during production
welding to ensure correct over- J-
lap is such that the technique
should only be used as a last
resort, not on a large scale. It is
Final As-Welded Assembly
also important not to confuse
this technique with a simple cap- FIGURE 6.8 - USING A BUTTERING CONSUMABLE

pass sequence control that, while offering scope for reduced HAZ hardnesses, cannot
be relied upon unless strictly controlled and therefore definable as a true temper bead.
The use noted above relates mainly to reducing HAZ hardness levels, but the princi-
ple can also be applied in butt joint welds to produce a maximum tempering effect
throughout the weld [SI by combining controlled layer grinding and/or bead place-
ment. This approach eliminates the need for PWHT and has particular relevance to in-
service repairs where PWHT may be impractical.
Vibratory Stress Relief

A technique to avoid PWHT - seldom occurring to the welding engineer - is
vibratory stress relief (VSR), or vibrational conditioning [9, 101. VSR uses high force
exciters to induce localized plastic flow into a component at room temperature.
Although the nominal applied strains are elastic, local regions of high residual stress
are elevated above the yield strength of the material, and the consequential plastic
flow causes redistribution and concomitant reduction in these internal stresses.
In practice, a vibrator is attached to the structure, energized, then scanned very
slowly from zero through the entire range of the vibrator. The structure is monitored
during the operation. When a resonant frequency is indicated, the vibration continues
at that level for several thousand cycles. After each dwell period, the frequency is
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
increased until some other natural resonant level is noted. Two or three repeats are
generally required to achieve satisfactory stress redistribution.
Take care, however, when considering the use of this technique. Where metallur-
gical improvements are necessary (e.g., relating to brittle fracture or stress corrosion
cracking), then thermal treatments will most likely be necessary. Nevertheless, a gen-
eral improvement in dimensional stability is usually observed, and, for this reason, the
process is particularly applicable to large welded components or castings that require
machining to very close tolerances.
Fracture Toughness Justification

The use of crack tip opening displacement (CTOD) data to justify the avoidance of
stress relief is increasingly apparent in the offshore fabrication industry, relating to the
production of jacket and deck structures for the oil industry. The basis of this permit-
ted route to as-welded fabrication lies in the ability to demonstrate that the welded
structure has sufficient fracture toughness in the “as-welded‘’ condition to accommo-
date the design loading and residual stresses locked into the structure during fabrica-
tion. It is normally required that such demonstration of good “as-welded’’ fracture
toughness is demonstrated both for the weld metal and for the HAZ at the thickest sec-
tion employed in the fabrication.

6.6 Fitness for Purpose

The majority of modem fabrication codes, such as those from the American
Welding Society (AWS) or American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME),
specify nondestructive examination acceptance levels. These codes, defining accept-
able weld flaw defect sizes, have been derived from a combination of good engineer-
ing and working practices, and experience. They are therefore arbitrary and do not
relate to the joint’s fitness-for-purpose condition; in other words, these codes do not
tell whether a specific location of a particularly sized and particular kind of defect
affects the service integrity of a welded joint.
For this reason, an alternative based on the “fitness-for-purpose” approach, which
involves a fracture mechanics assessment, is now used. Essentially, the approach pro-
vides a basis for stating that a weld defect may be acceptable and, therefore, does not
need to be removed, provided that conditions causing failure are not attained within
the design and service life of the component.
Fracture mechanics assessment, which has been incorporated into some recent
standards (e.g., British Standard 7910 [replacing PD 64931, available from the
American National Standards Institute), can now be calculated on computer.
Commercially available packages, such as Crackwise from The Welding Institute,
now can calculate critical flaw dimensions with varied geometries, such as surface-
breaking, embedded or through thickness.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Fracture mechanics assessment is now accepted engineering practice and has been
utilized in offshore construction, power generation, pipelines, pressure vessels,
bridges, and in many other structures. It has been used to assess the significance of
defects, define life extension and change-of-service applications, and determine if
postweld heat treatment is required. (See section on fracture toughness justification,
page 98.)
The practical welding engineer should be aware of the potential behind fracture
mechanics and be prepared to utilize it wherever possible - either proactively (for
example, to encourage designers to relax existing requirements), or reactively (as a
solution to an existing defective condition or problem). Removing defects from welds
is expensive; postweld heat treatment is also expensive; therefore, time spent using a
computer program -possibly eliminating PWHT and possible defects -is time well
spent.

1O0 The Pmctical Welding Engineer
References
[ i ] Wright, V. S . 1978. Chevron cracking in submerged arc welds. The Welding
Institute Int. Con$ Trends in Steels and Consumables for Welding, Nov., 581-602.
Paper 38.
[2] Tuliani, S . S . 1976. A metallographic study of chevron cracks in submerged arc
weld metals. Welding Research Znt. 6 (6): 1 9 4 6 .
[3] Rodgers, K. J. and Lochhead J. C. 1987. Self-shielded flux cored arc welding
-the route to good toughness. Welding Journal 66 (7):49-59.
[4] Lucas, W. and Eardley, J. A. 1981. Effect of cast to cast material variations in
TIG welding literature review. Welding Inst. Report 168.
[5] Rodgers, K. J. 1983. A study of penetration variability using mechanized TIG
welding. The Welding Institute Int. Conf. Effects of Residual Impurity and Micro-
alloying Elements on Weldability and Weld Properties. Paper 2: 2-1 to 2-8.
[6] Heiple, C. R. and Roper, J. R. 1982. Mechanism for minor element effect on
GTA fusion zone geometry. Welding Journal 61 (4): 97-s to 102-s.
[7] Metals Handbook, 9th Ed.: Vol. 6, Glossary 3. Materials Park, Ohio: ASM
International, 1983.
[SI Albeny, P. J. 1981. Simple test reveals level of two layer refinement. Welding
and Metal Fabricator 49 (9): 543-547.
[9] Parlane, A. J. A. 1977. Vibrational stress relief. The Welding Institute Research
Bulletin. pp, 339-342.
[lo] Claxton, R. A., and Saunders, G. G. 1976. Vibratory stress relief. Metallurgist
and Mat. Technol. 8(12): 651-656.
[ i 11 Blakely, P. 1988. Magnetic arc blow -causes, effects and cures. Metal Constr.
20(2):58-6 1.
U21 Anon. 1990. What a blow. Welding Inst. Oct., p. 7.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Chapter 7
Common Defects and Remedial Actions
It is both a
boon and a bane
to the practical
welding engineer
that a relatively
large number of
defect types can
be observed in a
welded structure.
No matter how
good the engi-
neer’s procedure
may be, there are
too many vari-
ables, e g , equip-
ment, consum-
ables, and, most
of all, “the
welder,” to con- A - Incomplete groove-face fusion; B - lamellar tearing;
struct the perfect C - poor profile; D - slag inclusions; E - undercut
fabrication. The FIGURE 7.1 -WELD DEFECTS
most that the
competent welding engineer can hope to achieve is to minimize the occurrence of
such defects and, once discovered, rapidly diagnose and correct them with remedial
actions.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
This chapter identifies the more common types of defects that can occur in a weld-
ed steel structure, how they may be recognized, and typical remedial actions. The list
is not all inclusive, but it has been many years since any new phenomena have been
discovered (e.g., lamellar tearing and chevron cracking). The problems that follow are
not new but are generally the old favorites, albeit recycled under a new guise.
Figure 7.1 is an exceptional illustration of five individual defect types, the nature
of which are described below. It is an example of what poor technique, poor material
choice, and poor control can produce.
The faults illustrated in Figure 7.1 are identified as follows:
A. Incomplete groove-face fusion (see section 7.4)

B. Lamellar tearhg (see section 7.1.2)

C. Poor profile (see section 7.2.8)
D. Slag inclusions (see section 7.3.5)
E. Undercut (see section 7.2.11)
The defects discussed are identified within four main headings: cracks, profile, vol-
umetric, and incomplete fusion.
To assist the welding engineer in dealing with these defects, they have been
defined, their causes identified, and remedial actions proposed. Whenever possible
macro/micro-photographs of physical samples, or sketches thereof, have been used to
illustrate the individual defect.
7.1 Cracks
Five types of cracking can be found
in steel weldments.
Hydrogen cracks - chevron.
Heat-affected zone hydrogen
cracks.
Lamellar tearing.
Reheat cracks.
Solidification cracks (includ-
ing crater cracks).
The f i s t was discussed in the previ-
ous chapter. The next four are discussed
below. xl
7.1.1 Heat-Afîected Zone

Hydrogen Cracks
Characteristics
Heat-affected zone (HAZ) hydrogen
cracks (toe or underbead cracks) are dis-
continuities originating in a heat-affect-
ed zone due to high internal stresses
combined with a susceptible microstruc- x 400
ture and the presence of hydrogen. This
is shown in Figure 7.1.1. FIGURE 7.1.1 - HYDROGEN TOE CRACK
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Identification of Common Defects and Remedial Actions 103
Causes
Hydrogen is diffused into a hardened heat-affected zone.'The level at which crack-
ing can occur is influenced by the following factors:
Increasing section thickness
Too high residual stresses.
Increasing carbon equivalent.
Too low a heat input.
Insufficient preheat.
Poor consumable handling (i.e., contaminated or not dried).
Remedial Actions
The foremost activity is to reduce the hydrogen level retained within the weld
metal by doing the following:
Use low-hydrogen consumables (properly handled).
Remove contaminants.
Increase hydrogen diffusion time by increasing preheat level or
soak time, or both.
Increase heat input.
Postweld heat treat.
7.1.2 lamellar Tearing
Characteristics
These are discontinuities caused by the progressive cracking, under tensile loading,
of inclusions within the base metal. The inclusions are approximately parallel to the
plate surface and not generally associated with the heat-affected zone, although in
some cases the defect may initiate from a HAZ toe crack. Figure 7.1 (page 101) illus-
trates this type of defect.
Origins
Presence of thin layers of nonmetallic inclusions parallel to the
plate surface. Thermally induced strain causes through-thickness
stresses that result in these inclusions linking up.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

104 The Practico1 Welding Engineer
Remedial Action
Use of steel grades (usu-
ally designated Z quali-
ty) with high through-
thickness ductility (>35
percent reduction of
area).
Redesign of weld joint
to reduce through-thick-
ness strain.
Longitudinal Section with Cracks Circled (x 1)
(a)
7.1.3 Reheat Cracking
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Characteristics
This defect can be located after a
postweld heat treatment of a low-
alloy weldment, e.g., 2.25 percent
Cr, 1 percent Mo. The cracking is
transverse to the weld metal and of
an intergranular nature with respect
Intergranular Cracking (x 400) to the prior austenite grain structure,
(Etch SASPAINANSAINITAL) where these prior austenite grain
(b) boundaries are extremely "decorat-
ed" with segregates. Figure 7.1.3(a)
FIGURE 7.1.3 - REHEAT CRACKING illustrates the general nature of the
cracking, which is relatively small in
size. Figure 7.1.3(b) shows the intergranular nature of the cracking and decoration of
the prior austenite grain boundaries.
Origins
Cracking of this nature is generally associated with relatively high levels of resid-
ual elements in the weld metal. Such residuals, and levels likely to cause cracking,
are phosphorus (0.025 percent), copper (0.25 percent), tin (0.30 percent), and arsenic
(0.55 percent).
Remedial Action
Removal of the defective weld metal and tighter control of the
analysis of the welding consumables.

7.1.4 Solidification (Centerline) Cracks
Characteristics
These are cracks created when the weld material, while still hot, yields plastically
due to high internal stresses. This usually occurs along the centerline.
Figure 7.1.4(a) shows a typical example occumng on the fist side of a double-
sided weld that has propagated from the unfused root face at the weld root up through
the center plane of the columnar grains of the as-deposited bead.
Figure 7.1.4(b) clearly illustrates that the cracks had originated at the weld root and
propagated along the center plane of the as-deposited columnar bead. Figure 7.1.4(c)
illustrates the inter-columnar nature of the crack. This was etched in the SASPA-
NANSA (a saturated solution of picric acid with a wetting agent) etchant to reveal the
solidification pattern rather than the transformation structure. (See Figure 3.3,
page 32).
approx. x 6.5 x 60
(b) (cl
FIGURE 7.1.4 - SOLIDIFICATION CRACK
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Origins
High bead depth to width ratios (>2: 1).
High carbon, sulfur (hot shortness) and phosphorus contents.
Decreasing Mn/S ratios.
Contaminants.
Inadequate filling of craters at the end of the weld runs (in this
instant, the defect is more commonly known as crater cracks,
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
although these can propagate to zones outside of the filled crater).

For additional information on solidification cracking, see section 7.5 (page 122).
Remedial Actions
Identify the pertinent cause, then apply the appropriate remedial action. For exam-
ple,
adjust parameters to obtain better depth-to-width ratios (aim for
l:l),
use lower residual element base materials andor consumables,
clean joint faces,
use backstepping technique to eliminate craters, or
use slope-out device.
7.2 Profile Defects

As the name indicates, these are imperfections in which the weldment has failed to
meet some predetermined physical dimension or surface acceptability. Eleven such
imperfections can be identified.
1. Arc strikes (7.2.1).
2. Excess distortion (7.2.2).
3. Excess reinforcement (7.2.3).
4. Incomplete root penetration (7.2.4).
5. Misalignment (7.2.5).
6. Overlap (7.2.6).
7. Overpenetration (7.2.7).
8. Poor profile (7.2.8).
9. Root concavity (7.2.9).
10. Spatter (7.2.10).
11. Undercut (7.2.11).

7.2.1 Arc Strikes
Characteristics
Arc strikes are caused by arcing between the electrode, the electrode holder, or the
workpiece lead clamp, and the workpiece. The results are areas of fused metal with
associated heat-affected zones that may or may not contain cracks. Note that if the arc
strike has been caused by a copper contact tip or cable arcing onto steel, then serious
contamination defects can result (see section 7.3.6, page 119).
Origins
Poor or missing insulation on electrode holder or torch.
Loose current return (workpiece lead) clamp.
Poor access to work.
Careless practice.
Remedial Actions
Correct insulation.
Maintain current return clamping system.
Improve access.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Train welders.
7.2.2 Excess Distortion
Characteristics
Excess distortion is an imperfection whose occurrence can seldom be predicted
unless the work is of a repetitive nature. It occurs when welded members are physi-
cally outside acceptable predetermined dimensions relative to one another, usually at
the end of the welding operation. It is also an imperfection that can be recognized to
be occurring during the welding operation; steps can be taken at this intermediate
stage to minimize or eliminate this problem.
With respect to this imperfection, recommendationsfollow on how to minimize or
rectify the situation:
Methods to Minimize Distortion

Restrain the welded joint either by jigging or the use of strongbacks.
Preset the plates to counter movement.

--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Use balanced welding (equalize weld runs on either side of the weld
joint).
Use special welding sequences
- Backstepping.
- Intermittent backstepping.
Minimize (where possible) number of weld runs.
Keep weld sizes to a minimum - do not over-weld.
Ensure good fitup; avoid large root openings and misalignment.
Rectification of Distortion
Use of force -Force usually is permitted (without the simultaneous
application of heat) provided that a preset level of strain is not
exceeded.
Use of heat treatment -If used at an intermediate fabrication stage,
this reduces the peak stress levels (i.e., produces more even disbib-
ution of stress) and hence reduces distortion caused by these
stresses.
Use of heat line bending - This is permitted in some cases, but
often only where the method has been qualified by destructive test-
ing. The workpiece temperature is usually controlled to a preset
maximum using temperature-indicating crayons or infrared pyrom-
eters. Particular attention needs to be taken with steels, such as
quench and tempered steels, where the temperature reached may
have a significant effect on properties.
7.2.3 Excess Reinforcement
Characteristics
Most welding codes, whether of national or client origin, will specify a maximum
cap-pass height for a weldment, e.g., 3 mm. This allows both an aesthetically pleas-
1 EXCESS
FIGURE 7.2.3 - EXCESS REINFORCEMENT

Identification of Common Defects and Remedial Actions 1O9
ing and a better designed transition between the base metals being welded (a sudden
joining and stress-raising “hump” is avoided). In addition, this restriction assists in
producing more economic weldments by eliminating additional man-hours adding
unnecessary weld metal.
The difference between an acceptable cap-pass height and excess reinforcement is
sketched in Figure 7.2.3.
7.2.4 Incomplete Root Penetration
Characteristics
Incomplete penetration of weld metal into the
root of a joint. Figure 7.2.4 illustrates its features.
Origins
Current too lowhigh.
Irregular wire feed.
Preparation too narrow.
Too large electrode for joint preparation. FIGURE 7.2.4 -
Root face too thick. INCOMPLETE ROOT PENETRATION
Root opening too small.
Wrong polarity.
Mismatched joint.
Incorrect electrode angle for joint configuration.
Arc length too high.
Poor techniques.
Stickout too long.
Insufficient cleaning on second side.
Remedial Action
The necessary corrective action(s) follows the identification of the cause, e.g., cor-
rection of parameters, re-preparation of joint configuration, etc.
7.2.5 Misalignment
Characteristics
This profile imperfection occurs when the abutting members of a weld joint rela-
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
tive to one another are outside a specified maximum permissible level. Figure 7.2.5
illustrates this imperfection.

1 1o The Practical Welding Engineer
FIGURE 7.2.5 - MISALIGNMENT

Origins
Poor fitup/assembly.
Out-of-roundness/flatness of the base metal.
Remedial Action
Prevent by using better preparation, fabrication, and assembly tech-
niques.
Pre-survey of base metal.
Rectify via localized dressinglmachiningif permissible.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
7.2.6 Overlap
Characteristics
Overlap is basically a lack of surface fusion at the toe, or root, of the weld. It is
caused by the weld metal fíowing onto the base material surface without fusing to it.
Figure 7.2.6 illustrates this imperfection.
Origins
Poor manipulative tech-
nique.
Excessive weaving.
Too low arc energy.
Too low travel speed.
Incorrect positioning of
workpiece.
Remedial Actions
Identification of the perti-
nent cause and subsequent
correction.
FIGURE 7.2.6 -OVERLAP

7.2.7 Overpenetration
Characteristics
The penetration of the root bead is excessive, resulting in unacceptable protrusion.
Figure 7.2.7 illustrates this feature.
FIGURE 7.2.7 - OVERPENETRATION
Origins
Excessive root opening.
Welding current too high.
Travel speed too low.
Poor welder technique.
Root nose too thin.
Remedial Actions
Use of correct parameters.
Improvement of welding technique.
Improvement of joint configuration.
Can sometimes be reduced by changing the welding position.
7.2.8 Poor Profile

In most instances, poor profile has a bumpy or ragged appearance; the weld sur-
face does not flow in an aesthetically pleasing manner. This feature is evident in
Figure 7.1.
Origins
Poor technique.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

1 12 The Practical Welding Engineer
Poor positional behavior of electrode.

Incorrect parameters, particularly current/voltage/speed.
Remedial Actions
Improve welder training.
Consumable with better positional characteristics.
Optimize parameters.
7.2.9 Root Concavity

Also known as underwashing, this imperfection occurs as a shallow groove at the
root of a weld in a butt joint. Figure 7.2.9 illustrates this feature.
Origins
Excess back-purging gas pressure.
Effect of gravity on a ?wide? root bead.
Can be influenced by weld preparation, especially with automatic
gas tungsten arc welds.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Remedial Actions
Restriction of back-purging gas pressure.
Optimize parameters to improve weld root shape.
Change from V to J preparation (automatic gas tungsten arc welds).
7.2.10 Spatier
Characteristics
Spatter is defined as small droplets of weld metal thrown clear of the weld pool that
may or may not be fused to the adjacent base metal. While not a ?defect? in the sense
of affecting weld integrity, spatter produces a poor appearance and increases subse-
FIGURE 7.2.9 -ROOT CONCAVITY

Identification of Common Defects and Remedial Actions 1 13
quent cleaning costs - particularly on items requiring finishing treatments such as

painting, plating etc.
Origins
Arc length too long.
Current range too high.
Incorrect polarity.
Magnetic arc blow.
Contaminated, damp, or poor-operability consumables.
Incorrect electrode angle.
Poor gas shielding.
Remedial Actions
Use of correct parameters.
Elimination of arc blow.
Improvement of technique.
Use better consumables and/or improve consumable storage
practice.
7.2.1 1 Undercut
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Characteristics
This defect is an irregular groove usually found at the weld toe in the base metal
or in previously deposited weld metal. An example of the latter is illustrated in Figure
7.1, and typical forms of this defect are sketched in Figure 7.2.11.
Origins
Excessive weaving.
Too high current, travel speed, or electrode size.
Incorrect shielding gas.
Remedial Actions
Identification of pertinent cause, then corrective action, e.g., correct
parameters, better manipulative techniques, etc.

I 14 The Ploctical Welding Engineer
FIGURE 7.2.1 1 - UNDERCUT

7.3 Volumetric
Characteristics
Seven types of defects have been identified within this category. These imperfec-
tions are usually not surface breaking. With respect to copper inclusionskontamina-
tion (7.3.6), this can also be manifested as a crack defect, but it is included here as this
is not always the case.
1. Crater pipes (7.3.1).
2. Restart porosity (7.3.2).
3. Uniformísurface porosity (7.3.3).
4, Elongated Porosity (7.3.4).
5. Slag inclusions (linear and isolated) (7.3.5).
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
6. Copper inclusionskontamination (7.3.6).
7. Tungsten inclusions (7.3.7).
7.3.1 Crater Pipes
Characteristics
These are depressions due to shrinkage at the end of a weld run where the heat
source was removed. Figure 7.3.1. illustrates this feature.
Origins
Combination of interrupted deoxidation reactions and the liquid-to-
solid volume change.
Often associated with porosity.

FIGURE 7.3.1 - CRATER PIPES

Remedial Actions
Improve weld termination techniques.
Use slope-idslope-out current decay devices.
Use runoff blocks.
7.3.2 Restart Porosity
Characteristics
This is a very localized defect normally occurring in manual or automatic arc weld-
ing at the start of the weld run. It happens as a result of delay in the establishment of
suitable fluxing and shielding reactions at the start of the weld run due to nonequilib-
num temperature conditions. Figure 7.3.2 illustrates this feature as it would appear on
a radiograph.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Origins
Ineffective filling of weld craters.
Poor technique.
FIGURE 7.3.2 - RESTART POROSITY
Remedial Actions
Use run-odrunoff blocks to contain the defect.
Pay greater attention to starthestart manipulative techniques.

7.3.3UnifornVSurface Porosity
Characteristics
These are voids, or pores, distributed fairly uniformly throughout a weld run. They
are generally equiaxed and result from gases formed during reactions in the weld pool
being trapped as the weld metal solidifies. In surface porosity, these pores break the
weld metal surface. The extent of porosity is generally defined by the number of pores
noted per 10 cm of a radiograph (weld only).
Extensive > 100 t
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Scattered < 100 t to > 25 t

Sparse < 25 t to 3 t
Very sparse < 3 t
where t is the weld thickness in cm.
Figure 7.3.3 illustrates the pattern of extensive uniform porosity as it would appear
on a radiograph.
Origins
Porosity can generally result from one or more of the following. The more obvious
causes marked (*) should be eliminated first.
Damp flux or electrode coating. *
Contaminated surfaces. *
Welding current too lowhigh. *
Insufficient flux/gas coverage. *
Drafty conditions. *
Damaged electrode coating.
Loss of, or contaminated, gas shielding.
Gas flow too high.
Water leakage (in water-cooled unit).
Contaminated consumables.

Arc too long.

Incorrect weaving technique.
Incorrect or insufficient deoxidant in consumable or base
metal.
Excessive travel speed.
Excessive sulfur in consumable or base metal (surface
porosity).
Remedial Actions
The necessary corrective action(s) follows the identification of the cause, e.g., de-
greasing, correcting of gas shield, replacement or drying of consumables, improve-
ment of technique, etc.
7.3.4 Elongated Porosity
Characteristics
Elongated porosity (or tunneling) defects are elongated, or tubular, voids with cir-
cular cross sections typically running along the axis of the weld. They are formed by
gas entrapment that occurs as the weld metal solidifies; they may appear as a single
entity or in groups. Figure 7.3.4 below illustrates the cross section of such elongated
porosity (length around, 7 cm) in a narrow-groove gas tungsten arc weldment.
Elongated porosity can sometimes appear in an extensive chevron pattern.
Origins
Incorrect welding variables,
particularly travel speed.
Surface contaminants.
Joint geometry (e.g., opening
between the vertical member
of a T-joint welded from both
sides).
Remedial Actions
Ensure pre-weld cleanliness.
Eliminate susceptible joint
configurations.
Correct travel speed.
FIGURE 7.3.4 - ELONGATED POROSITY

--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

7.3.5 Slag Inclusions (linear and Isolated)
Characteristics
These are slag particles, or other foreign matter, trapped during welding. The irreg-
ular nature of the defect differentiates it from a gas pore when examined radiograph-
ically. Slag inclusions can often be associated with, and have related causes, to incom-
plete fusion defects. A linear slag inclusion is generally considered a more serious
defect than isolated inclusions, which are often disregarded within acceptance criteria
unless multiple. Figure 7.1 (page 101) illustrates typical slag defects.
Origins
Slag inclusions generally result mainly from one or more of the following causes.
Those marked (*) should be eliminated first.
Poor manipulative technique causing loss of slag control (shielded
metal arc welding, self-shielded flux cored arc welding).*
Inadequate cleaning between runs (shielded metal arc welding, sub-
merged arc welding, self-shielded flux cored arc welding, gas
shielded flux cored arc welding).*
Electrode too large (shielded metal arc welding).*
Presence of mill scale andor rust.*
Slag flooding in front of arc caused by work position (shielded
metal arc welding, submerged arc welding, self-shielded flux cored
arc welding).
Travei speed too low (shielded metal arc welding).
Arc too long (shielded metal arc welding).
Variation in welding speed (shielded metal arc welding).
Welding over irregular profile (shielded metal arc welding, sub-
merged arc welding).
Voltage too low (submerged arc welding).
Poor bead positioning (shielded metal arc welding, submerged arc
welding).
Poor joint configuration (shielded metal arc welding, submerged arc
welding).
Remedial Actions
The necessary corrective action is dependent on the identification of the cause, e.g.,
better inter-run cleaning, better manipulative technique or positioning, etc.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Identiíication of Common Defects and Remedial Actions 1 19
7.3.6 Copper
Inclusions/Contamination
Characteristics
This particular defect occurs
when copper has been accidental-
ly introduced to the weld pool.
The resultant effect is weld metal
cracking or penetration of the cop-
per into the grain boundaries of
the steel. Figure 7.3.6 illustrates
copper contamination due to the
brazing of anode attachments
directly onto a C-Mn pipe.
Origins
touching9and FIGURE 7.3.6 - COPPER CONTAMINATION (X 5)
especially arcing, of the
contact tip on the weld
preparation groove faces.
Loss of, or the melting of, copper contact tips.
Transfer by abrasion andor arcing from clamps, cable etc.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Remedial Actions
Avoid contactlarcing.
Complete removal of contaminated area. This must be excavated to
a depth ensuring removal of any zone affected by grain boundary
penetration. In severe cases, metallurgical examination by local
etching may be required to establish this.
7.3.7 Tungsten Inclusions
Characteristics
Tungsten inclusions occur when tungsten has been accidentally introduced into the
weld pool. As this can only result from the use of the gas tungsten arc welding process
- inherently free from slag inclusions - assume that any inclusions found are tung-
sten residue. In addition, tungsten is a denser material than steel and most other com-
monly welded materials and thus shows as light areas on radiographs, often having an
angular shape.

Origins
Poor technique allowing electrode to touch.
Incorrect polarity.
Disintegration of electrode during welding.
Using thoriated electrode for AC.
Current too high for electrode diameter.
Remedial Action
Avoid accidental contact between tungsten electrode and pool.
Use correct polarity, grade, and size of electrode to suit application.
Tungsten inclusions are often disregarded if small and are treated
similarly to porosity in terms of defect acceptance.
7.4 Incomplete Fusion

Characteristics
This type of defect, although planar in nature, has been separated from the “crack-
ing” category as this defect generally relates to procedural or technique problems, Le.,
it is not of a metallurgical nature. Incomplete fusion occurs in these typical locations:
between adjacent runs in a multipass weld (incomplete inter-run
fusion);
between the weld and base metal and at either (or both) side(s) of
the joint configuration (incomplete groove-face fusion); and
at the root of the weld configuration (incomplete weld root fusion).
Figure 7.4 illustrates these defects.
Origins
Poor manipulative techniques.
Contamination of weld surface.
Arc length too short.
Travel speed too fast.
Current too low.
Incorrect inductance setting.
Incorrect work position resulting in molten metal flooding ahead of
arc.
Incorrect weld preparation.
In addition to the above, the following are particular to the root condition:
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

/dentifieation of Common Defects and Remedial Actions 121
Incomplete Inter-Run Fusion Incomplete Incomplete

Groove-Face Weld Root
Fusion Fusion
(See Figure 7.1)
FIGURE 7.4 - INCOMPLETE FUSION

Too large an electrode diameter.
Excessive root face.
Undersized root opening.
Remedial Actions
Identification of cause(s) and application of specific corrective action(s) improve-
ment of parameters, joint setup, etc.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

122 The Prucficul Welding Engineer
7.5 Some Additional Information

on Solidification Cracking
The tendency for weld metal solidification cracking is critically dependent on the
weld metal composition. Several probability formulae have been included in the lit-
erature.
For example,
HCS =
c (s+P + S A 5 + Ng0) x 1000
3 M n + C r + 2 (Mo+V)
UCS = 230C* + 190s + 75P + 45Nb - 12.3Si - 5.4Mn - 1 [2]

(* C values below 0.08 percent should be taken as equal to 0.08 percent)
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
where HCS (hot cracking susceptibility) and UCS (units of crack susceptibility) are
indices of crack susceptibility.
The effect of C levels and M d S ratios is illustrated graphically in Figure 7.5 [3].
0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16

Carbon Content
FIGURE 7.5 - EFFECT OF C LEVEL AND Mn/S RATIO

References
[il Bonomo, E 1972. Sulfur-induced solidification cracking in low alloy steel weld
metal deposited from basic low hydrogen electrodes. Welding Research International
2(4): 1-28.
[2] Bailey, N., and Jones, S.B. 1978. Solidification cracking of ferritic steels during
submerged arc welding. Welding Journal 57(8) 217-s to 231-s.
[31 Lancaster, J. E 1992. Handbook of Structural Welding, Cambridge, U.K.:
Abington, p. 207.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Chapter 8
Oxyfuel Cutting, Arc Air, and Electrode Gouging

The practical welding engineer should have at least a working knowledge of three
other processes: oxyfuel (oxygen fuel gas) cutting, arc air gouging/cutting, and elec-
trode gougingkutting. They are obviously the opposite of welding or joining process-
es. However, they are crucial to the welding industiy, often going hand-in-hand with
a welding process. Despite their close association with welding, they are processes
that the welding engineer tends to learn by accident.
The following is intended to assist the welding engineer to gain a working knowl-
edge of the processes, and to be able to offer practical advice regarding their applica-
tion.
8.1 Oxyfuel Cutting

This process, popularly known as burning or flame cutting, is widely used to cut
straight lines and shapes, and to produce a variety of edge profiles on plates, pipes,
and sections. Figure 8.1 illustrates the components of two typical torches. The process
operates via the removal of metal by a chemical reaction between oxygen and hot
material. The preheat flame is used to raise the surface temperature of the metal to the
temperature at which this chemical reaction can take place. The heat from the resul-
tant reaction melts the material, which is blown from the cut by the oxygen jet. By
moving the torch across the workpiece, a continuous cutting action can be achieved.
The cutting responses of the process is very dependent on the material being sec-
tioned. It is very good in mild, low-carbon, and low-alloy steels. If used to cut stain-
less steels, it is necessary to add a flux, or metal powder, to the cutting oxygen stream;
even then, a relatively poor quality cut is achieved. The process is not at all suitable
for any nonferrous material.
Two terms used in the process, kerf and drug, are illustrated in Figure 8.2; their
relative significance in the process is outlined below.
8.1.1 Kerf
Kerf, defined as the width of the cut, is a function of the oxygen jet dimensions,
type of tip, speed of cutting, and the flow rates of both the cutting oxygen and preheat
gases. Because of these factors, the width of the kerf increases as the material thick-
ness being cut increases.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

CUTTING
nD TIP NUT,
~ E E - T U B E
DESIGN
/CUTTING
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
OXIGEN
FIGURE 8.1 - TYPICAL PREMIXING-TYPE CUTTING TORCH (LEFT), AND TYPICAL TIP
MIX CUTTING TORCH (RIGHT).
From Welding Handbook, Vol. 2 , American Welding Society. Miami, Fla.

Oxyfuel Cutting, Arc Air and Electrode Gouging 127
8.1.2 Drag
The drug is the distance of the lag

between the most distant part of the cutting
stream and the position nearest to the torch
tip. Zero drag occurs when the oxygen
stream enters and exits the kerf along the
axis of the tip. As the drag width increases,
or moves into reverse, there is generally a
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
loss in quality.
FIGURE 8.2 - KERF AND DRAG 8.1.3 Problem Solving

From Welding Handbook, Vol. 2, American Welding
Society, Miami, Fia. The following sketches, together with
the relevant conditions and descriptions, are intended to assist the welding engineer in
assessing the quality of any cuts produced by the oxyfuel process when used in a
machine mode. Recommendations to
rectify the various faults follow.
Correct Cutting
In a correct cut (Figure 8.3), the
top of the cut is sharp and clean, and
the drag lines are almost invisible,
producing a smooth side. Oxide is FIGURE 8.3 -CORRECT CUTTING
easily removed, the cut is
square, and the bottom edge is
clean and sharply defined. Drag
lines should be vertical for pro-
files. A small amount of drag is
allowed on straight cuts.
Cutting Speed Too Slow FIGURE 8.4 - CUTTING SPEED TOO SLOW
Because of melting, the top
edge has become rounded
(Figure 8.4). Gouging is pro-
nounced at the bottom edge,
which is also rough. Scale on Top and bottom
the cut face is difficult to
remove. To rectify, traverse at
recommended speed; increase FIGURE 8.5 - CUTTING SPEED TOO FAST
the oxygen pressure. Figures 8.3-8.5 from Module Manual FIO of the General Welding and
Cutting for Engineering Craffsmen. Training Publications, Ltd., Watford.
England. Reprinted with permission.

Cutting Speed Too Fast

The top edge may not be
sharp; there is a possibility of
beading (Figure 8.5). To recti-
fy, slow down the traverse to
the recommended speed; leave
the oxygen pressure as set.
FIGURE 8.6 - PREHEAT FLAMES TOO HIGH
above Work
Excessive rounding and
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
melting of the top edge (Figure

8.6). Undercut has been caused
by the oxygen stream opening ? FIGURE 8.7 - PREHEAT FLAMES TOO CLOSE
I
out. To rectify, adjust the

standoff distance between the Rounded edge,
nozzle and the plate.
Preheat Flames Too Close to

Work slag
Heavily beaded and round-
ed top edge, otherwise of good
appearance (Figure 8.7). To FIGURE 8.8 - PREHEAT FLAMES TOO LARGE
rectify, correct the standoff dis-
tance by raising the nozzle to
the recommended height.
Preheat Flames Too Large

Due to excessive heat, the
preheat flame has caused the
top edge to melt and become FIGURE 8.9 CUTTING OXYGEN -
rounded (Figure 8.8). The kerf PRESSURE TOO HIGH
tapers from just below the top
Figures 8.6-8.9 from Module Manual FIO of the General Welding and
edge to the bottom of the cut Cutting for Engineering Craftsmen. Training Publications, Ltd., Watlord.
England. Reprinted with permission.
face. To rectify, set a preheat
flame as recommended; use the correct nozzle at the recommended gas pressures.
Cutting Oxygen Pressure Too High

The edge has a regular bead. The kerf is wider at the top with undercutting just
beneath it (Figure 8.9). To rectify, set the oxygen at the recommended pressure. Note

Oxyfuel Cutting, Arc Air and Electrode Gouging 129
that on thinner steel, high oxygen pressure can cause a taper cut likely to give the
impression that the cutting machine is set incorrectly in relation to the plate.
process is dependent upon

a number of variables,
including the following.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Correct Gouging
In a correct gouge
(Figure 8.11), the groove
is
of uniform width
and depth;
free of oxide and
scale, both in the
groove and
surrounding plate;
and \ I /

Gouging Nozzle Held at Incorrect Angle

A groove of varying width and depth caused by holding the gouging nozzle at the
wrong angle (Figure 8.12):
Too steep an angle increases depth and removes too much metal.
Too shallow an angle gives a superficial gouge.
Incorrect Nozzle Alignment

A shallow groove with heavy oxide deposits (Figure 8.13) is caused by failing to
present the gouging nozzle axially in line with the direction of gouging, due to
working too quickly,
using incorrect gas pressures, and
using incorrect nozzle.
8.3 Electrode Gouging/Culting

Special-purpose manual metal arc electrodes are available for the arc grooving,
cutting, and piercing of ferrous and nonferrous metals.
Metal-arc cutting with such electrodes occurs as a result of melting and removal of
metal along a desired line of travel using an electric arc struck between the workpiece
and a special covered electrode. The electrode coating is specifically designed to
concentrate a forceful and penetrating arc;
stabilize the arc and
prevent its extinc-
tion; and
blow the molten
metal and dross
away with a posi-
tive jet of gases.
The above criteria are
carefully balanced to enable
the operator to maintain a
high degree of control. The
physical properties of the
coating ensure it decomposes
more slowly than the melting
rate of the core wire, which
results in the formation of a
I
'
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
deep cup 3-5 mm deep at the

tip of the electrode. This
FIGURE 8.12 GOUGING NOZZLE HELD-
AT WRONG ANGLE
ensures the Operation Of the From Module Manual FtO of the General Welding end Cutting for Engineering
arc within that space without Craftsmen, Training Publications. Ltd., Watford. England.
Reprinted with permission.

Oxyfuel Cutting, Arc Air and Electrode Gouging 13 1
causing any short circuits, even

when the electrode is inserted
into holes during piercing, or in
tight openings and grooves. The
insulating properties of the coat-
ing prevent side arcing.
For situations with difficult
access, a cutting and gouging
flux-covered electrode has dis-
tinct advantages over the car-
bon-arc and oxygen-cutting
processes because it can be
manipulated in very confined
spaces.
Cutting
Metal sheet and plate up to I
10 mm thick can be metal-arc FIGURE 8.13 - INCORRECT NOZZLE ALIGNMENT
cut with ease* The From Module Manual F10 of the General Weldmg and Cutting for
should be held at a shallow Engineering Craftsmen. Training Publications, Ltd , Watford, England
Reprinted with permission
angle of about 15 degrees to the
surface of the plate, as shown in Figure 8.14.
With thicker plates, an up-and-down motion should be made in the direction of
thickness so that the molten metal and slag may run clear of the cut, as shown in
Figure 8.15.
FIGURE 8.14 -CUTTING
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Direction of Travel
FIGURE 8.15 CUTTING THICKER PLATES -

GroovingIGouging
The force of the arc removes the molten metal by pushing it out in front of the
groove while a forward-and-backwardmotion is applied, as shown in Figure 8.16.
Where possible, the workpiece should be inclined so that the molten metal can run
free under the force of gravity. Such electrodes can be used to gouge out any faulty
weld metal deposit without the need for special cutting and grinding tools.
Metal-arc cutting is f -\
widely used for cutting
holes into piping for subse-
quent welding of branches
and connections. The
process is particularly
effective in cutting, goug-
ing, and piercing metals
and alloys that are difficult
to machine, such as armor
steel, air and deep harden-
ing steels, stainless steels,
cast irons and hard, or
work hardening, deposits.
Direction of Travel ’
FIGURE 8.16 -GOUGING
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Recommended Reading
Journals
Welding Journal, Miami, Ha.: American Welding Society.
Welding and Metal Fabrication, Redhill, U.K.: Argus Business Media, Ltd.
Welding in the World, International Institute of Welding, New York, N.Y.: Pergamon Press.
Books
Anderson, T. L. Fracture Mechanics: Fundementals & Applications. 2nd. Ed. Boca Raton,
Na.: CRC Press, Inc., 1995.
ASM Handbook, Vol. 6, Materials Park, Ohio: ASM International, 1993.
Boniszewski, T., Self Shielded Arc, cambridge, U.K.: Abington Publishing, 1992.
Castro, R., and deladenet, J. J., Welding Metallurgy of Stainless and Heat-Resisting Steels,
New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press, 1975. (Out of Print)
Colangelo, V.J. and Heiser EA., Analysis of Metallurgical Failures, 2nd. Ed. New York, N.Y.:
John Wiley and Sons, 1987.
Davies, A.C., The Science and Practice of Welding, 10th Ed. 2 vols. New York, N.Y.:
Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Gray, T. G. E , and Spence, J, Rational Welding Design, London, U.K.: Butterworths 1982.
Kou, &Welding Metallurgy, New York, N.Y.: John Wiley and Sons, 1987.
Lancaster, J. E, Handbook of Structural Welding, Cambridge, U.K.: Abington Publishing,
1992.
Handbook of Case Histories in Failure Analysis, 2 vols. Materials Park, Ohio: ASM
International, 1992-93.
Pickering, E B., Physical Metallurgy and the Design of Steels, 4th Ed. New York, N.Y.:
Applied Science Publishers, 1996.
The Procedure Handbook of Arc Welding, 13th Ed., Cleveland, Ohio: The Lincoln Electric
Company, 1995.
Welding Handbook, Vol. 2: Welding Processes, 8th Ed. Miami, Fla.: The American Welding
Society, 1991.
Welding Handbook, Vol. 5: Engineering Costs, Quality, and Safety, 7th Ed., Miami, Fia.:
American Welding Society, 1984.
Welding Handbook, Vol. 1: Welding Technology, 8th Ed. Miami, Fla.: American Welding
Society, 1987.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Appendix II
Useful Tables, Formulas, and Diagrams

A. Useful Tables Page
1. Hardness Equivalent 136
2. Stress Conversion 137
3. Temperature Conversion 148
B. Formulas
l a & b. Carbon Equivalents 140

2. Electrode Basicity 140
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
3. Electrode Consumption 140

4. Heat Input 141
5. Thickness vs. Yield Stress 141
C. Diagrams
1. Iron Carbon 142
2. Nelson Curves 143
3. Schaeffler and DeLong Diagrams 144
4. WRC-1992 Diagram 145
5. Electrode Classification 146

736 The Placiical Welding Engineer
A. Useful Tables
1. Hardness Equivalent
~~
Brinell Brinell Vickers Rockwell

Dia ,Hardness Hardness C Scale Equiv. Equiv. Equiv.
Impression Number Number Hardness R R Rm
mrn HB HV Number Ton%? k
gfk
nf Wmm2
2.50 (601) 640 57 - - -
2.55 (578) 615 56 - - -
2.60 (555) 591 54.5 - - -
2.65 (534) 569 53.5 - - -
2.70 (51 4) 547 52 - - -
2.75 (495) 528 51 - - -
2.80 (477) 508 49.5 - - -
2.85 );!;( 491 48.5 1o1 160 1569
2.90 474 47 98 155 1520
2.95 429 455 45.5 95 150 1471
3.00 415 440 44.5 92 145 1422
3.05 40 1 425 43 88 139 1363
3.10 388 41 O 42 85 134 1314
3.15 375 396 40.5 82 129 1265
3.20 363 383 39 80 126 1236
3.25 352 372 38 77 121 1187
3.30 34 1 360 36.5 75 118 1157
3.35 33 1 350 35.5 73 114 1118
3.40 32 1 339 34.5 71 111 1089
3.45 31 1 328 33 68 107 1049
3.50 302 319 32 66 104 1020
3.55 293 309 31 64 101 990
3.60 285 301 30 63 99 97 1
3.65 277 292 29 61 96 94 1
3.70 269 284 27.5 59 93 912
3.75 262 276 26.5 58 91 892
3.80 255 269 25.5 56 89 873
3.85 248 261 24 55 87 853
3.90 241 253 23 53 84 824
3.95 235 247 22 51 81 794
4.00 229 241 20.5 50 79 775
4.05 223 235 - 49 77 755
4.10 217 228 - 48 76 745
4.15 212 223 - 46 73 716
4.20 207 218 - 45 71 696
4.30 197 208 - 43 68 667
4.40 187 197 - 41 65 637
4.50 179 189 - 39 62 608
4.60 170 179 - 36 57 559
4.70 163 172 - 35 55 539
4.80 156 165 - 34 54 530
4.90 149 157 - 32 51 500
5.00 143 150 - 31 49 481
5.10 137 144 - 31 49 481
5.20 131 138 - 30 47 461
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
5.30 126 133 - 29 46 45 1

5.40 121 127 - 28 44 431
5.50 116 122 - 27 43 422
5.60 111 117 - 26 41 402
5.70 107 113 - 25 39 382
5.80 103 108 - 24 38 373
The figures in parenthesis require a "modified" Brinell test, ¡.e., a tungsten carbide ball is required where the
Brinell hardness value exceeds 450,
HB to HV and HV to HRC conversions are based on E.140, by the American Society for Testing and Materials.

Appendix II - Useful Tables and Diagrams 137
2. Stress Conversion
tonvln.' kgVmnP Wmnf IMn.' tonMn.' kgVmnf Illrmm' IMn:
1 1.6 15.4 2240 50 78.7 772.2 112000
2 3.2 30.9 4480 51 80.3 787.7 114240
3 4.7 46.3 6720 52 81.9 803.1 116480
4 6.3 61.8 8960 53 83.5 818.5 118720
5 7.9 77.2 11200 54 85.0 834.0 120960
6 9.5 92.7 13440 55 86.6 849.4 123200
7 11.0 108.1 15680 56 88.2 864.9 125440
8 12.6 123.6 17920 57 89.8 880.3 127680
9 14.2 139.0 20160 58 91.3 895.7 129920
10 15.7 154.4 22400 59 92.9 91 1.2 132160
11 17.3 169.9 24640 60 94.5 926.7 134400
12 18.9 185.3 26880 61 96.1 942.1 136640
13 20.5 200.8 29120 62 97.6 957.5 138880
14 22.0 216.2 31360 63 99.2 973.0 141120
15 23.6 231.7 33600 64 100.8 988.4 143360
16 25.2 247.1 35840 65 102.4 1004 145600
17 26.8 262.6 38080 66 103.9 1019 147840
18 28.3 278.0 40320 67 105.5 1034 150080
19 29.9 293.4 42560 68 107.1 1050 152320
20 31.5 308.9 44800 69 108.7 1066 154560
21 33.1 324.3 47040 70 110.2 1081 156800
22 34.6 339.8 49280 71 111.8 1097 159040
23 36.2 355.2 51520 73 115.0 1127 163520
24 37.8 370.7 53760 74 116.5 1143 165760
25 39.4 386.1 56000 75 118.1 1158 168000
26 40.9 401.6 58240 76 119.7 1174 170240
27 42.5 417.0 60480 77 121.3 1189 172480
28 44.1 432.4 62720 78 122.8 1205 174720
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
29 45.7 447.9 64960 79 124.4 1220 176960
30 47.2 463.3 67200 80 126.0 1236 179200
31 48.8 478.8 69440 81 127.6 1251 181440
32 50.4 494.2 7 1680 82 129.1 1266 183680
33 52.0 509.7 73920 83 130.7 1282 185920
34 53.5 525.1 76160 84 132.3 1297 188160
35 55.1 540.5 78400 85 133.9 1313 190400
36 56.7 556.0 80640 86 135.4 1328 192640
37 58.3 571.4 82880 87 137.0 1344 194880
38 59.8 586.9 85120 88 138.6 1359 197120
39 61.4 602.3 87360 89 140.2 1375 199360
40 63.0 617.8 89600 90 141.7 1390 201600
41 64.6 633.2 91840 91 143.3 1405 203840
42 66.1 648.7 94080 92 144.9 1421 206080
43 67.7 664.1 96320 93 146.5 1436 208320
44 69.3 679.5 98560 94 148.0 1452 2 10560
45 70.9 695.0 100800 95 149.6 1467 2 12800
46 72.4 710.4 103040 96 151.2 1483 2 15040
47 74.0 725.9 105280 97 152.8 1498 2 17280
48 75.6 741.3 107520 98 154.3 1514 2 19520
49 77.2 756.8 109760 99 155.9 1529 22 1760
1O0 157.5 1544 224000
For 101 or greater, add 100 measurements to number adding up to desired measurement (e.g., for 111, add mea-
surements for 100 and l l ) .

3. Temperature Conversion Table

Numbers in the center (bold) column are those to be converted. Refer to the left
column (under "'Cy')to convert to Celsius, the right (under to convert to
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
"OF')
Fahrenheit. "C = %("F-32),"F= %"C+ 32.

b c
-17.8 O 32 i3.9 57 i34.6 1 1 5.6 240 464
-1 7.2 1 33.8 14.4 58 136.4 121.1 250 482
-16.7 2 35.6 15 59 138.2 126.7 260 500
-16.1 3 37.4 15.6 00 140 132.2 270 51 8
-15.6 4 39.2 16.1 61 141.8 137.8 280 536
-1 5 5 41 16.7 62 143.6 143.3 290 554
-14.4 6 42.8 17.2 03 145.4 148.9 300 572
-1 3.9 7 44.6 17.8 64 147.2 154.4 31O 590
-1 3.3 8 46.4 18.3 65 149 160 320 608
-12.8 9 48.2 18.9 66 150.8 165.6 330 626
-12.2 10 50 19.4 67 152.6 171.1 340 644
-1 1.7 11 51.8 20 68 154.4 176.7 350 662
-11.1 12 53.6 20.6 69 156.2 182.2 360 680
-1 0.6 13 55.4 21.1 70 158 187.8 370 698
-1 o 14 57.2 21.7 71 159.8 193.3 380 716
-9.4 15 59 22.2 72 161.6 198.9 390 734
-8.9 16 60.8 22.8 73 163.4 204.4 400 752
-8.3 17 62.6 23.3 74 165.2 210 410 770
-7.8 18 64.4 23.9 75 167 21 5.6 420 788
-7.2 19 66.2 24.4 76 168.8 221,l 430 806
-6.7 20 68 25 77 170.6 226.7 440 824
-6.1 21 69.8 25.6 78 172.4 232.2 450 842
-5.6 22 71.6 26.1 79 174.2 237.8 460 860
-5 23 73.4 26.7 80 176 243.3 470 878
-4.4 24 75.2 27.2 81 177.8 248.9 480 896
-3.9 25 77 27.8 82 179.6 254.4 490 914
-3.3 26 78.8 28.3 83 181.4 260 500 932
-2.8 27 80.6 28.9 84 183.2 265.6 51O 950
-2.2 28 82.4 29.4 85 185 271.1 520 968
-1.7 29 84.2 30 86 186.8 276.7 530 986
-1.1 30 86 30.6 87 188.6 282.2 540 1004
-0.6 31 87.8 31.1 88 190.4 287.8 550 1022
O 32 89.6 31.7 89 192.2 293.3 560 1040
0.6 33 91.4 32.2 90 194 298.9 570 1058
1.1 34 93.2 32.8 91 195.8 304.4 580 1076
1.7 35 95 33.3 92 197.6 31 O 590 1094
2.2 36 96.8 33.9 93 199.4 31 5.6 600 1112
2.8 37 98.6 34.4 94 201.2 321.1 01O 1130
3.3 38 100.4 35 95 203 326.7 620 1148
3.9 39 102.2 35.6 96 204.8 332.2 630 1166
4.4 40 1 04 36.1 97 206.6 337.8 640 1184
5 41 105.8 36.7 98 208.4 343.3 050 1202
5.6 42 107.6 37.2 99 21 0.2 348.9 660 1220
6.1 43 109.4 37.8 1O0 212 354.4 670 1238
6.7 44 111.2 43.3 110 230 360 680 1256
7.2 45 113 48.9 120 248 365.6 690 1274
7.8 46 114.8 54.4 130 266 371.1 700 1292
8.3 47 116.6 60 140 284 376.7 710 1310
8.9 48 118.4 65.6 150 302 382.2 120 1328
9.4 49 120.2 71.1 160 320 387.8 730 1346
10 50 122 76.7 170 338 393.3 740 1364
10.6 51 123.8 82.2 180 356 398.9 750 1382
11.1 52 125.6 87.8 190 374 404.4 760 1400
11.7 53 127.4 93.3 200 392 41 O 770 1418
12.2 54 129.2 98.9 210 41 O 41 5.6 780 1436
12.8 55 131 104.4 220 428 421.1 790 1454
13.3 50 132.8 110 230 446 426.7 800 1472

3. Temperature Conversion Table (Cont.)

'C 'F 'C 'F 'C 'F
432.2 81o 1490 771.1 1420 2588 fil0 2030 3686
437.8 820 1508 776.7 1430 2606 1115.6 2040 3704
443.3 830 1526 782.2 1440 2624 1121.1 2050 3722
448.9 840 1544 787.8 1450 2642 1126.7 2060 3740
454.4 850 1562 793.3 1460 2660 1132.2 2070 3758
460 860 1580 798.9 1470 2678 1137.8 2080 3776
465.6 870 1598 804.4 1480 2696 1143.3 2090 3794
471.1 880 1616 81O 1490 271 4 1148.9 2100 381 2
476.7 890 1634 815.6 1500 2732 1154.4 2110 3830
482.2 900 1652 821.1 1510 2750 1160 2120 3848
487.8 910 1670 826.7 1520 2768 1165.6 2130 3866
493.3 920 1688 832.2 1530 2786 1171.1 2140 3884
498.9 930 1706 837.8 1540 2804 1176.7 2150 3902
504.4 940 1724 843.3 1550 2822 1182.2 2160 3920
51 O 950 1742 848.9 1560 2840 1187.8 2170 3938
51 5.6 960 1760 854.4 1570 2858 1193.3 2180 3956
521.1 970 1778 860 1580 2876 1198.9 2190 3974
526.7 980 1796 865.6 1590 2894 1204.4 2200 3992
532.2 990 1814 871.1 1600 291 2 1210 2210 4010
537.8 1O00 1832 876.7 1610 2930 1215.6 2220 4028
543.3 1010 1850 882.2 1620 2948 1221.1 2230 4046
548.9 1020 1868 887.8 1630 2966 1226.7 2240 4064
554.4 1030 1886 893.3 1640 2984 1232.2 2250 4082
560 1040 1904 898.9 1650 3002 1237.8 2260 4100
565.6 1050 1922 904.4 1660 3020 1243.3 2270 41 18
571.1 1060 1940 910 1670 3038 1248.9 2280 4136
576.7 1070 1958 915.6 1680 3056 1254.4 2290 4154
582.2 1080 1976 921.1 1690 3074 1260 2300 4172
587.8 1O90 1994 926.7 1700 3092 1265.6 2310 4190
593.3 1100 2012 932.2 1710 3110 1271.1 2320 4208
598.9 1110 2030 937.8 1720 3128 1276.7 2330 4226
604.4 1120 2048 943.3 1730 31 46 1282.2 2340 4244
61O 1130 2066 948.9 1740 3164 1287.8 2350 4262
615.6 1140 2084 954.4 1750 31 82 1293.3 2360 4280
621.1 1150 2102 960 1760 3200 1298.9 2370 4298
626.7 1160 21 20 965.6 1770 3218 1304.4 2380 4316
632.2 1170 2138 971.1 1780 3236 1310 2390 4334
637.8 1180 2156 976.7 1790 3254 1315.6 2400 4352
643.3 1190 2174 982.2 1800 3272 1321.1 2410 4370
648.9 1200 21 92 987.8 1810 3290 1326.7 2420 4388
654.4 1210 2210 993.3 1820 3308 1332.2 2430 4406
660 1220 2228 998.9 1830 3326 1337.8 2440 4424
665.6 1230 2246 1004.4 1840 3344 1343.3 2450 4442
671.1 1240 2264 1010 1850 3362 1348.9 2460 4460
676.7 1250 2282 1 O1 5.6 1860 3380 1354.4 2470 4478
682.2 1260 2300 1021.1 1870 3398 1360 2480 4496
687.8 1270 231 8 1026.7 1880 3416 1365.6 2490 4514
693.3 1280 2336 1032.2 1890 3434 1371.1 2500 4532
698.9 1290 2354 1037.8 1900 3452 1376.7 2510 4550
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
704.4 1300 2372 1043.3 1910 3470 1382.2 2520 4568

710 1310 2390 1048.9 1920 3488 1387.8 2530 4586
715.6 1320 2408 1054.4 1930 3506 1393.3 2540 4604
721.1 1330 2426 1060 1940 3524 1398.9 2550 4622
726.7 1340 2444 1065.6 1950 3542 1404.4 2560 4640
732.2 1350 2462 1071.1 1960 3560 1410 2570 4658
737.8 1360 2480 1076.7 1970 3578 1415.6 2580 4676
743.3 1370 2498 1082.2 1980 3596 1421.1 2590 4694
748.9 1380 251 6 1087.8 1990 3614 1426.7 2600 4712
754.4 1390 2534 1093.3 2000 3632 1432.2 2610 4730
760 1400 2552 1098.9 2010 3650 1437.8 2620 4748
765.6 1410 2570 1104.4 2020 3668 1443.3 2630 4766

B. Formulas
la. Carbon Equivalent C.E.
Purpose: This value is calculated to estimate the susceptibility of steel to cold crack-
ing in the HAZ.
There are several equations proposed for calculating the carbon equivalents. Two
are identified below.
CE=C+-+Mn C r + M o + V +-Ni+Cu%(BS5135)U.K.andEurope
6 5 15
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Mn Si Ni Cr Mo V
CE = C+ - + -+ -+ -
5
+-
4
+-
14
6
% (WES 3001) Japan
24 40
lb. Carbon Equivalent for Cracking Susceptibility Pcm

Purpose: As for CE, but in combination with other factors, this is used to predict
preheat temperatures.
Si Mn Cu Ni Cr Mo V
Pcm=C+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+SB % (WES 3002)
30 20 20 60 20 15 10
2. Electrode Basicity Index
Ca0 + MgO + Ba0 + SrO + K,O + Li,O + CaF, + (MnO+ Feo)

B (Bas. Index) =
SiO, + 0.5(Alzo, + Tio, + ZrO,) 2
3. Electrode Consumption Formulas

DxAxL
W=
Efficiency
where W = Weight of electrode/welding wire required (kg)
D = Density of weld metal (kg/m3).Approximate metal density of a steel (0.06% C
and 0.4% Mn) is 7780 kg/m3at 20°C.
A = Cross-sectional area of joint to be filled (mZ)
L = Length of joint (m)
Efficiency = Efficiency factor for various welding processes used,
i.e.,l.O = 100 percent efficient.

Appendix II - Useful Tables and Diagrams 14 1
Typical efficiency factors are

shielded metal arc welding = 0.65,
gas tungsten arc welding = 1.00,
gas metal arc welding = 0.95,
submerged arc welding = 1.00
metal cored wires = 0.95 .
(see also Chapter 5, Table 5.1, page 69)
4. Heat Input Formula

ExIx6O
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
J=
v x 1000
where,
J = Heat input in kJ/in. (or kJ/mm)
E = Arc voltage in volts
I = Welding current in amperes
V = Arc speed, in./min (&min)
5. Thickness vs. Yield Stress

If one grade of steel is replaced with another of a higher yield stress, the change in
plate thickness achieved is expressed by the following relationship:
where,
T, = thickness of higher yield stress plate material
Ti = thickness of original plate material
Rz = minimum yield stress of higher yield stress material
Ri = minimum yield stress of original plate material

C. Diagrams
1. Iron Carbon Equilibrium Diagram
Fe-Fe3C SYSTEM
OC
2 3 4 5 --``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
CARBON CONTENT, wt. %
2. Nelson Cume Diagram

To improve the resistance of steel to hydrogen attack, the two main alloying ele-
ments most commonly added are molybdenum and chromium. The most widely held
theory regarding hydrogen attack is that atomic hydrogen dissolved in the steel reacts
with iron carbides to form methane. If sufficient pressure of methane is generated, fis-
suring of the steel can result.
Safe operating limits of temperature and pressure for CrMo steels have been estab-
lished, and these are indicated on the Nelson curve diagram. If the operating temper-
ature and hydrogen partial pressure fall below or to the left of the line for the alloy,
then freedom from hydrogen damage is expected. At high temperatures indicated by
the broken lines, surface decarburization results.

Appendix Il - Useful Tables and Djagrams 143
Hydrogen partial pressure, MPa abs

3.45 6.90 10.34 13.79 17.24 20.7
O F 1500 800 OC
1400
700
6.OCr-0.5Mo steel
_------I
600
~ I 2.OCr-0.5Mo steel
400
Carbon steel
400
300
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Hydrogen partial pressure, Ib/in.2 abc

Safe Operating Limits of Temperature and
Pressure for Cr-Mo Steels (After Nelson)
Diagram as per American Petroleum Institute standard 941, Steels for Hydrogen Services at Elevated
Temperatures and Pressures in Petroleum Refineries and Petrochemical Plants, 5th Edition, January 1997.
Reprinted courtesy of the American Petroleum Institute.
NELSON CURVES
3. Schaeffler, DeLong, and WRC-1992
The Schaeffler and DeLong diagrams both relate the microstructural constitution of
chromium-nickel based stainless steels to composition. Chromium, molybdenum, nio-
bium and silicon are grouped as ferrite formers, while nickel, carbon and manganese
are grouped as those elements that promote austenite formation. In the case of the
DeLong diagram, nitrogen is included in the latter category.
The Schaeffler Diagram is most commonly used to predict the approximate
microstructure and hence resistance to hot cracking in manual metal-arc weld metal.
The diagram can be applied to mixed and dissimilar welding. To apply the diagram,
it is necessary to know
the composition of the undiluted weld metal,
the composition of the base metal(s), and
the dilution and the proportion of base metal in the final weld.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

~~ ~
APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY OF
.15c AUSTENITE REGION FOR
003% MIN FOR ALL STEELS WRoUGHT MATERIALS
36 EXEFTWHERENOTED / \
SILIWN: 03W MIN
THROUGHO.10 FOR HK;

Cr STEELS. EQUALTO
CASAUSTENITE
O 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Creq = XCr +%Mo+ (1.5 x %Si) + í0.5x %I%)
THE SCHAEFFLER DIAGRAM

FERRITE NUMBERíFN)
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Creq=%Cr +%Mo+ (0.7x%Nb)
THE WRC-1992 DIAGRAM
The following may be used as a guide to the dilutions that can occur with shielded
metal arc welding (SMAW):
Root run or square butt joint with root opening 30 f40%
,MAW{
Single run fillet or normal cladding 20 f30%
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Gas tungsten arc welding dilution varies from 30 percent for normal butt joint, and
fillet welds up to 100 percent for autogenous root runs. Gas metal arc welds usually
give 2 0 4 5 percent dilution, while submerged arc gives 30-50 percent. Fill passes of
multi-run welds can range from O to 45 percent, depending upon the process and the
exact position of the run.
The DeLong diagram was developed as a result of the growing use of the gas-shield-
ed welding processes. These are more prone to variable nitrogen pickup by the weld
metal than the shielded metal arc welding process. The diagram is shown with a larg-
er scale focus upon that area in which the majority of austenitic stainless weld metals
lie. It is used specifically to predict the ferrite content of weld metals in which the
nitrogen has been established by analysis. It is applicable to the majority of welding
processes; note, however, that nitrogen content can vary with welding conditions and
gas shielding efficiency.

More recently, the Welding Research Council’s diagram (WRC- 1992) has been
developed and is generally considered more accurate, especially for grades such as
duplex stainless steels.
Section III of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code (NB-
2433) allows the use of both the DeLong and WRC-1992 diagrams to predict ferrite
content, preferably expressed as the Ferrite Number (FN), which differs from the pre-
viously used Ferrite Percent only above about 8 FN. Where nitrogen is not actually
measured, the code permits the use of the following assumed values:
shielded metal arc, gas tungsten arc, and submerged arc welding:
0.06 percent
gas metal arc and gas shielded flux cored welding: 0.08 percent
Self-shielded flux cored welding: 0.12 percent
4. Electrode Classification
Mild Steel Electrodes

The method of classifying electrodes is based on the use of a four-digit number, pre-
ceded by the letter “E’ for “electrode.” The fist two digits designate the minimum
tensile strength of the weld metal (in 1000 lb/in.*) in the as-welded condition. The
third digit indicates the position in which the electrode is capable of making satisfac-
tory welds. The fourth digit indicates the current to be used and the type of flux coat-
ing.
For example, the classification of E7018 electrodes is derived as follows:
E7018 = Metal arc welding electrode
Em18 = Weld metal UTS (ultimate tensile strength) 70,000 1b/h2
E7018 = Usable in all positions
E7018 = Basic-type coating with iron powder AC or DC
The detail of the classification is shown below.
First and second digits

E 6ûxx: As-welded deposit, UTS 60,000 lb/in.’ minimum, for E
6010, E 6011, E 6012, E 6013, E 6020, E 6027 UTS
E 7ûxx: As-welded deposit, UTS 70,000 lb/in.’ min for E 7014,
7015, 7016,7018, E 7024 and E 7028
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Appendix Il - Useful Tables and Diagrams 147
Third and fourth digits

The third and fourth digits indicate positional usability and flux coating types.
Em1 O: High-cellulose coating bonded with sodium silicate; deeply
penetrating, forceful, spray-type arc; thin, friable slag; all-position-
al; DC electrode positive only.
E m l l : Similar to ExxlO, but bonded with potassium silicate to per-
mit use on AC or DC electrode positive only.
Exxl2: High rutile coating, bonded with sodium silicate; quiet arc,
medium penetration; all-positional; AC or DC electrode negative.
Eml3: Coating similar to Exxl2, but with addition of easily ionized
materials and bonded with potassium silicate to give steady arc on
low voltage supply; slag is fluid and easily removed; all-positional;
AC or DC electrode negative.
E m 1 4 Coating similar to Exxl2 and Exxl3 types with addition of
medium quantity of iron powder; all-positional; AC or DC.
E m 1 5 Lime-fluoride coating (basic, low-hydrogen) type, bonded
with sodium silicate; all-positional; for welding high-tensile steels;
DC electrode positive only.
E m 1 6 Similar coating.to Exxl5, but bonded with potassium sili-
cate; AC or DC electrode positive.
E m 1 8 Coating similar to ExxlS and Exxló, but with addition of
iron powder; all-positional; AC or DC.
E m 2 0 High iron oxide coating bonded with sodium silicate; for
welding in flat or horizontalhertical (HV) positions; good X-ray
quality; AC or DC.
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Index 149
access to joints, 82 claims, 1

air-jet efficiency, in cutting, 129 codes, 108. See also specifications
all-weld tensile tests, 33 for fracture toughness, 99
annular stiffener weld, 87-88 communication, engineer and welder, 47-49
arc air gougingkutting, 129-130 about procedure tests, 55
arc blow, 92-94, 113 compensation, 1, 5-6
arc monitoring, 52-53 conflict of interest, 50
arc stability, 23 consumables. See also electrodes
arc strikes, 107 availability of, 16
arc time, cost of, 68 changing, for costs, 74-75
automated processes, cost of, 68 coating brittleness, 23
automatic processes, cost of, 73-74 color coding, 59
automation, degree of, 73-74 control of, 58-60
COSt Of, 67,68-70,75
backgouging, 44 evaluation of, 18-22
backstep welding technique, 94, 106, 108 in defect analysis, 44
baking ovens, 86 issue of, 80
bare wire electrode low hydrogen, storage, 59-60
bead appearance, 23 metal powder, 75
bead contours, 75 nitrogen in, 65
bend testing, 34-35 operability of, 20
bevel angle, 76 organization of, 59-60
bid. See tender problems with, 64
block weave, 90 properties of, 20
BS 7910,99 storage of, 58-60
budgets, estimating, 25 traceability of, 58
burning. See oxyfuel cutting contracts, 1, 2-5
buttering, 95-97 obligations of, 2, 5
planning for, 3
cap-pass sequence control, 97-98 purchasing, 2 , 4
carbon equivalent formulae, 140 subcontracting, 2, 4
cast-to-cast variability, 90-92 tender, 2, 3
centerline cracks, 105-106 copper inclusions, 114, 119
Charpy V-notch test, 35-36 corrosion resistance testing, 32
chevron cracking, in SAW, 84-88
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

I 50 The Practicaí Weiúing Engineer
crack tip opening displacement (CTOD), 35, 37- fracture mechanics tests, 37-39
39,64,65,98-99
cracking susceptibility formula, 140 gas shielded processes, cost of, 69-70
cracks, types of, 102-106 gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW), 19, 145
crater pipes, i 14-115 cast-to-cast variability in, 91
craters, 115 gauges, 53-54
cross-weid tensile tests, 33 geometry defects, 44
cutting oxygen pressure, 128 groove angle, 76
grooving. See electrode gouging
D1.l, 25
defect analysis, 43-46 hardness equivalent table, 136
defects. See weld defects hardness survey, 31-32
DeLong diagram, 144 hardness surveys, 10
deposition efficiency factor, 69 heat input formula, 141
deposition rate, in calculating costs, 68 heat input, significance of, 55
discontinuities. See also weld defects heat line bending, 108
chevron cracking, 84-88 heat treatment, 108
communicating to welder, 49 heat-affected zone (HAZ)
from arc blow, 93 hardness of, 29, 31, 55, 56, 96
hydrogen cracking, 31 hydrogen cracking in, 31
in micro-examination, 32 in CTOD, 38-39
transverse planar, 85 in impact testing, 36
distortion, excess, 107-108 in micro-examination, 32
drag, 127 in temper bead technique, 29-30
heating pad. See fixturing
electrode basicity index, 140 high deposition rate techniques, 75-76
electrode gouging/cutting, 130-132 hot cracking susceptibility (HCS), 122
electrodes. See also consumables hot-wire gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW), 76
angle, 94 hydrogen cracking, 31
bare wire, 22 hydrogen cracks, in HAZ, 102-103
cellulostic/rutile, 34, 75 hydrogen, in chevron cracking, 85-86
classification of, 146-147
coating, 23 impact tests, 10, 35-36, 65
diameter, charts for, 56, 57 incomplete fusion, 46, 120-121
ferritic,buttering with, 97 incomplete root penetration, 109
low-hydrogen, 75 international specifications, 7
re-striking, 23 iron carbon equilibrium diagram, 142
SMAW rods, storage of, 59
solid GTAW wire (straight lengths), 59 joint completion rate, 68
stub lengths, 54 joint type, costs, 72, 80-82
electroslag welding (ESW), 76
normalizing, 95 kerf. 125
equipment assessment, 19-20
etches, dendritic and nital, 31.32 labor, cost of, 67
lamellar tearing, 103-104
ferrite testing, 32 linear completion rate, 68
filler metal. See consumables low-alloy steels, cutting, 125
fish eyes, 34,35 low-carbon steel, cutting, 125
fitness for purpose, 99
fixturing, 77-78 macro-examination, 30-31
flame cutting. See oxyfiel cutting macroscopic examination, FCAW, 63
flux cored arc welding (FCAW), 16,31,34, 49, manual processes, cost of, 68,73
84, 118 material mechanical properties, 16-18
low toughness in, 89-90 material weldability, 9
test procedures, 62-63 mechanical tests, 30-36
flux recycling, 86 bend testing, 34-35
flux-covered electrode, gouging with, 131 hardness survey, 31-32
fracture mechanics. See fitness for purpose impact testing, 10, 35-36
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Index 151
macro-examination, 30-3 1 rods, storage of, 59

micro-examination, 32 root concavity, 112
tensile testing, 33-34
mechanized processes, cost of. See automated SASPA-NANSA, 31,32
processes schaeffler diagram, 144
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
micro-examination, 32 shielded m e G arc welding (SMAW), 16, 17, 18,

mild steel, cutting, 125 22, 28, 54,55, 118, 145
misalignment, 109-110 costs of, 70-71
M d S ratios, 106, 122 procedure tests for, 55
moisture level, in flux, 86 single-pass welds, 32
monitoring production, 9-1 1 slag inclusions, 118
by pass length, 57-58 slag removal, 23
multiwire welding, 75 solidification cracks, 105-106, 122-123
spatter, 23,46, 112-113
narrow-groove welding, 65, 76-77 specifications, 7-1 1
nelson curve diagram, 142-143 clarifications to, 8
nickel alloys, 31 exceptions to, 8
nital etch, 31, 32 international codes, 7,47
nondestructive examination (NDE), 13, 16, 18, national codes, documentation of, 47
28,30,84, 99 stainless steel alloys, 31
nozzle, cutting, 130 Standard Welding Terms and Definitions, 25
stress conversion, 137
offshore fabrication,justifying pass lengths in, 55 stringer bead technique, 90
overheating, 23 stub lengths, 54
overpenetration, 111 variable, 56-57
oxyfuel cutting, 125-129 subcontracting, 2 , 4
submerged arc strip cladding, 76
partial penetration welds, costs, 81-82 submerged arc welding (SAW), 16, 28, 38.75,
pass length (SMAW), 55-58 118
pipe butt joint weld procedure, 28 fluxes, storage of, 59
poor profile, 111-112 narrow-groove, 77
porosity, 46 without iron powder additions, 65
porosity, elongated, 117 suppliers, data from, 11
porosity, restart, 115
porosity, uniformísurface, 116-117 temper bead technique, 97-98
positioners. See faturing temperature conversion table, 138-139
postweld heat treatment (PWHT) tender, 2, 3
elimination of, 94-99 tensile loading, 86
power sources, 19 tensile testing, 33-34
selecting to avoid arc blow, 94 fish-eyes in, 34
preheat, 49 test failures, 39-42
preheat flames, in cutting, 128 test plates, 26, 30
preheating bands, 78 test programs, 26-28
prequalification procedures, 25-26 test welds, 29-30, 31
material costs, 28-29 material costs, 28-29
production monitoring, 9-11 techniques, 3 1
by pass length, 57-58 yield stress, in test welds, 33
production time, 17 toe profiles, 75
profile defects, 106-113 tool issue, restricted, 80
profit, 1, 2 total weld cost, equation, 67
purchasing, 2 , 4 transverse tensile test, 33
tungsten inclusions, 119-120
qualification test program, 26,28 tunneling. See porosiq, elongated
turning rolls. See f i t u r i n g
reheat cracking, 104
reinforcement, excess, 108-109 ultimate tensile strength (UTS), 33
replicas, weld, 51-52 ultrasonic testing, buttering for, 97
residual magnetism, arc blow, 93 ultrasonic testing, of SAW, 84-85

152 The Plactlcal Welding €ngineer
undercut, 113-114 weldability, 9, 16-18

units of crack susceptibility (UCS), 122 welder access, 44
welders
variation request, 6 communicating with, 47-49
vibratory stress relief, 98 supervision of,50
volume fill rate, in calculating costs, 68 training and qualification of, 47-49
volumetric defects, 114-120 welding costs, estimating, 67-71
welding costs, reducing, 72-82
weave technique, FCAW, 89-90 welding procedure specification (WF'S), 55,57
weid bead appearance, 23 welding processes
weid porosity, 46 constraints of, 16.17
weid cracks, types, 102-106 consumable availability, 16
weld defects. See also discontinuities economic factors, 17-18
analysis of, 43-46 electroslag welding (ESW), 76
arc strikes, 107 normalizing, 95
copper inclusions, 114, 119 flux cored arc welding (FCAW), 16, 31, 34,
crater pipes, 114-115 49,84, 118
excess distortion, 107-108 low toughness in, 89-90
geometry-related, 44 gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW), 19, 145
hydrogen cracks, in HAZ, 102-103 cast-to-cast variability in, 91
incomplete fusion, 46, 120-121 hot-wire gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW),
incomplete root penetration, 109 76
lamellar tearing, 103-104 material weldability, 16-18
material-related, 46 pass length (SMAW), 55-57
misalignment, 109-110 production time with, 17
overpenetration, 111 selection of, 13-18
poor profile, 111-112 shielded metal arc welding (SMAW), 16, 17,
porosity, elongated, 117 18, 22.28, 54.55, 118, 145
porosity, restart, 115 Costs of, 70-71
porosity, uniform/surface, 116-117 procedure tests for, $5
profile, 106-113 submerged arc welding (SAW), 16,28,38,
reheat cracking, 104 75, 118
reinforcement, excess, 108-109 fluxes, storage of, 59
root concavity, 112 narrow-groove, 77
slag inclusions, 118 without iron powder additions, 65
solidification cracks, 105-106 wire, storage of, 59
spatter, 46, 112-113 working environment, 79-80
tungsten inclusions, 119-120 workmanship example, 5 1
undercut, 113-114 WRC-1992 diagram, 145
volurnehic defects, 114-120
weld cracks, types of, 102-103 yield stress, 33
weld metal cracking, 86 yield stress formula, 141
welder-related, 45-46
weid failure, material related, 64
weld geometry defects, 44
weld iength, 70
weld metal cracking, 86
weid microstructure, 55
weid procedure requirements, 25-30
prequalification procedures, 25-26
test programs, 26-28
weld procedures, 27
pipe butt joint weid qualification, 28
weld replicas, 51-52
weid test failures, dealing with, 61-66
weid test pieces, 60-66
weld volume, 70, 76-77
weld weight, 70
--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

--``,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---


The Practical Welding Engineer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Practical Welding Engineer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The

American Weltflng Society

American Welding Society

Printed in the United States of America

Chapter 1: Contracts and Role of the Welding Engineer ................. .i

Chapter 2: Selection of Welding Processes, Equipment. and Consumables 13

Chapter 3: Weld Procedure Qualification ........................ 25

Chapter 4: Production Welding Control ............................... 43

Chapter 5: Estimating and Reducing Welding Costs .................... 67

Chapter 6:Practical Problem Solving ................................. 83

Chapter 7: Common Defects and Remedial Actions .................... 101

Chapter 8: Oxyfuel Cutting, Arc Air, and Electrode Gouging .............125

Appendix I: Recommended Reading ................................. 133

J. C. Lochhead and K. J. Rodgers

1.1 Commercial Awareness

1.1.1 What is Commercial Awareness?

1.1.2 Making a Profit

1.1.3 Key Elements of a Contract

The Scope of Work

o specify the dates for deliverables to the subcontractor,

o agree to a schedule for completion, and

o specify the services to be provided (if any) to the subcontractor.

Subsequent changes in specifications given to the subcontractor should be mini-

Measurement and Evaluation of the Work

1.1.4 Ensuring the Company Is Fully Compensated

the cumulative effect on the schedule of a number of changes that,

will make the task simpler and more productive:

1.1.5 Variations and Claims

1.2 Dealing with Specifications

One natural consequence of supplemental contract specifications is that, more often

No client likes to see pages of alteration to his specification, especially if much of it

FIGURE 1.1 -ASSESSING HARDNESS SURVEY REQUIREMENTS FOR

Different manufacturers can supply to the same specification using

Copyright American Welding Society

Copyright American Welding Society

2.1 Welding Process Selection

Copyright American Welding Society

TABLE 2.1 -WELDING PROCESSES

Copyright American Welding Society

FIGURE 2.1 - PROCESS SELECTION METHOD

Copyright American Welding Society

Mechanical properties: tensile strength, impact toughness,

TABLE 2.2 -WELDING PROCESS SELECTION

Copyright American Welding Society

Copyright American Welding Society

2.2 Equipment and Consumable Evaluation

Copyright American Welding Society

Pulsing facilities (peak current range, background current range,

Process capability (Shielded metal arc, submerged arc, gas metal

Power input requirements (power limitations, single-phase, three-

Copyright American Welding Society

Copyright American Welding Society

CONSUMABLE ASSESSMENT SHEET

Electrode: Welding Current: DC o ACO Amp:

EVALUATION OF WELDING CHARACTERISTICS

FIGURE 2.2 -SAMPLE SCORE SHEET FOR CONSUMABLE ASSESSMENT

Copyright American Welding Society

EVALUATION CODE FOR TEST WELDING

3. More stable than normal for the type of elec- COMMENTS

FIGURE 2.3 -SAMPLE EVALUATION CODE

Copyright American Welding Society

Weld Procedure Qualification

3.1 Assessing Weld Procedure Requirements

Copyright American Welding Society