Inspection Journal

July 2010 / Vol. 13 / No.
www.aws.org
Inspection in the Shipbuilding Industry Understanding Convexity Changes to AWS D1.1
EPOCH 600
ULTRASONIC FLAW DETECTOR
Economical Size, Quality Performance

The EPOCH 600 Digital Ultrasonic Flaw Detector combines Olympus industry leading conventional flaw detection capabilities with the efficiency of a highly portable, intuitive instrument. The EPOCH 600 is an exciting new addition to the Olympus flaw detector product line, incorporating quality flaw detection features for any level of user. Compact and rugged, weighs only 1.68 kg (3.72 lb.) Vibrant full VGA sunlight viewable display PerfectSquare tunable square wave pulser Intuitive user interface EN12668-1 compliant Digital high dynamic range receiver Digital ltering enhances signal-to-noise ratio Two hardware congurations: - Adjustment Knob (designed for IP66 rating) - Navigation Pad (designed for IP67 rating)
EPOCH 600 and EPOCH 1000 Series
For worldwide representation visit www.olympus-ims.com info@olympusNDT.com

For Info go to www.aws.org/ad-index
Vol. 13 / No. 3
Features
11
23
27
Lessons Learned in Shipbuilding Inspection by B. Halverson / Shipbuilding historically has been one of the industries that advances welding and inspection / 11
Cover photo: Fabricating the USS Freedom, the first Littoral Combat Ship, brought changes to the quality system at its builder, Marinette Marine Corp. (Photo courtesy of Lockheed Martin Corp.) INSPECTION TRENDS (ISSN 1523-7168) is published quarterly by the American Welding Society. Editorial and advertising offices are located at 550 NW LeJeune Rd., Miami, FL 33126; telephone (305) 443-9353. Printed by R. R. Donnelley & Sons Co., Senatobia, Miss. Subscriptions $30.00 per year for noncertified, nonmembers in the United States and its possessions; $50.00 per year in foreign countries; $20.00 per year for noncertified members and students; $10.00 single issue for nonmembers and $7.00 single issue for members. American Welding Society is located at 550 NW LeJeune Rd., Miami, FL 33126-5671; telephone (305) 443-9353, Periodicals postage paid in Miami, Fla., and additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Inspection Trends c/o American Welding Society, 550 NW LeJeune Rd., Miami, FL 33126-5671.
Readers of Inspection Trends may make copies of articles for personal, archival, educational, or research purposes, and which are not for sale or resale. Permission is granted to quote from articles, provided customary acknowledgment of authors and sources is made. Starred (*) items excluded from copyright.
A Summary of Revisions in the New D1.1:2010, Structural Welding Code Steel by J. L. Gayler and D. D. Rager / The most significant changes from the 2008 to the 2010 editions of D1.1 are described / 15 Essential vs. Nonessential Variables by A. J. Moore Jr. / The author details the differences between essential, nonessential, and supplementary essential variables / 20 What Is This Thing Called Convexity? by R. L. Holdren / A method is proposed that will give inspectors a way to better assess and determine the acceptability of convexity / 23 Visual After the Fact Welding Inspections by B. A. Bosworth / A lack of special welding inspections offers the potential for quality problems, and safety and liability issues / 27
Departments
Editors Note................................6 News Bulletins.............................8 Mail Bag ....................................10 Just The Facts.............................14 The Answer Is ............................32 Mark Your Calendar...................34 Print and Product Showcase ......36 Advertiser Index ........................40
AWS MISSION STATEMENT

The mission of the American Welding Society is to advance the science, technology, and application of welding and allied processes, including joining, brazing, soldering, cutting, and thermal spraying.
Inspection Trends / Summer 2010
By Mary Ruth Johnsen Dear Readers,
Editors Note
Publisher Andrew Cullison cullison@aws.org Editor Mary Ruth Johnsen mjohnsen@aws.org Associate Editor Howard Woodward woodward@aws.org Associate Editor Kristin Campbell kcampbell@aws.org Production Manager Zaida Chavez zaida@aws.org Senior Production Coordinator Brenda Flores bflores@aws.org National Sales Director Rob Saltzstein salty@aws.org Advertising Sales Representative Lea Garrigan Badwy garrigan@aws.org Senior Advertising Production Manager Frank Wilson fwilson@aws.org Subscriptions Representative Edalia Suarez esuarez@aws.org
I hope you received a pleasant surprise when you got your first glimpse of this issue as you drew it out of your mailbox. As you can see, Inspection Trends has been completely redesigned and Im really excited about the changes. Inspection Trends has had the same look since its inaugural issue in the summer of 1998, so it was time for an update. The AWS Marketing Department loaned the services of its talented graphic designer Willie Chinn, who created the new design, and then Zaida Chavez, production manager of Inspection Trends and Welding Journal, tweaked the pages to make them easy for us to work with. My thanks to both of them. I believe Chinn created a design that is clean and contemporary. In addition, weve increased the size of the type so it will be even easier to read. One of my favorite parts is the new IT logo. Many readers, and certainly the staff of the AWS Publications Div., already referred to the magazine as IT. Chinn took that idea and ran with it. The new logo is not only used on the cover and table of contents pages, but introduces and ends each feature article and department. Content mostly remains the same. Youll find all your long-time favorites such as The Answer Is, Print and Product Showcase, and Just the Facts. Ken Erickson has been answering questions for The Answer Is since the first issue; Kip Mankenberg joined him shortly thereafter. Lyndsey Deckard came on board in 2001, first writing the Exam Bank column and now Just the Facts. Im grateful for their dedication and expertise. You will find some new content in the redesigned Inspection Trends, however. I had the good fortune recently of speaking with the participants in a nine-year recertification class. They told me that we should have more code-related information in the magazine since you all are the folks who work with the codes. In this issue, youll see an article by John Gayler and Don Rager that summarizes the revisions in the 2010 edition of D1.1, Structural Welding Code Steel. For those of you who are AWS members, youll see the same article in the July Welding Journal. We dont usually run the same content in both publications, but I thought the information in this article to be so important it should get the widest audience possible. (And if youre a CWI, but not an AWS member, you really should consider joining; Im convinced youll find the benefits youll receive will make it worthwhile.) Also, starting with this issue, Ill be running official interpretations, as well as any errata, to the AWS codes. Youll find these sprinkled throughout the magazine, usually after the end of a feature article or regular department. I hope you like the changes to Inspection Trends. If you do or dont Id appreciate hearing from you. Contact me at (800) 443-9353 ext. 238 or mjohnsen@aws.org Mary Ruth Johnsen.
American Welding Society 550 NW LeJeune Rd. Miami, FL 33126 (800/305) 443-9353 Copyright
Copyright 2010 by American Welding Society in both printed and electronic formats. The Society is not responsible for any statement made or opinion expressed herein. Data and information developed by the authors of specific articles are for informational purposes only and are not intended for use without independent, substantiating investigation on the part of potential users.
Inspection Trends / July 2010
AWS Certified Welding Fabricator

For Those Who Manage To Have The Highest Quality
Establish standard communication systems Reduce nonconformances Increase customer satisfaction Increase productivity Reduce costs
and much more. Welding fabrication requires that its resources, procedures and personnel be held to strict standards in order to meet customer requirements. The AWS Certified Welding Fabricator program recognizes those companies that can show they have implemented a quality system for their welding fabrication activities. Companies of all sizes can benefit substantially by making a commitment to quality and take the steps necessary to attain AWS Certified Welding Fabricator status. Call today for more information (800) 443-9353, ext. 448 or visit www.aws.org/certification/CWF for additional information and all program documents.
News Bulletins
AUT Specialists to Inspect Fayetteville Express Pipeline
AUT Specialists, LLC, Montgomery, Tex., has been awarded spreads 3 and 4 of the Fayetteville Express Pipeline by Willbros Construction, Houston, Tex. The company specializes in automated ultrasonic testing of girth welds in the construction phase of oil and gas pipelines. The 185-mile-long natural gas pipeline will originate in Conway County, Ark., and terminate at an interconnect with Trunkline Gas Co. in Panola County, Miss. It is a joint venture between Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., and Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. The Willbros work includes 120 miles of 42-in. pipeline with wall thicknesses ranging from 0.555 to 0.888 in. It originates near Bald Knob, Ark., and ends at the Trunkline interconnection. The project is expected to be completed in October. order to obtain the specific information needed. The companys underwater surveys and inspections are approved by all the main classification societies in lieu of drydock for preselling inspections, as well as inspections of collision damage, fouling conditions, pre-drydock conditions, hull plating conditions, weld joints, and paint conditions. They provide information in real-time using closed-circuit TV, photography, nondestructive examination equipment, and diver physical inspection surveys. In our current economic climate shipowners, operators, and managers are increasingly looking for ways to save money and keep their vessels at sea more days, said Will Abbott, Hydrex U.S. operations manager. Certified inspection divers doing UWILD inspections can save the ship from drydocking for 3 to 6 months to 212 or up to 5 years.
Xiris Appoints Sangen as Japanese Distributor for Tube Inspection Products

Xiris Automation, Inc., Burlington, Ont., Canada, recently named Sangen Corp. as the exclusive distributor of its products for the tube and pipe industry in Japan. The immediate focus will be on the WI2000p postweld inspection system used to detect quality issues related to the welding process. Xiris specializes in optical quality control, developing Tetsuya Andoh (left), general manager, machines that can Sangen Corp.; and Cameron Serles, see with the president, Xiris Automation, Inc., are ability to detect, shown following the naming of Sangen recognize, and as the Japanese distributor of Xiris interpret quality products. defects in manufactured goods.
Underwater Inspection Extends Intervals between Drydocking

Hydrex LLC recently performed an underwater inspection of a tanker in the port of Tampa, Fla. The company
A Hydrex. diver performs an underwater inspection of a tanker in the port of Tampa, Fla. performed a closed-circuit video class inspection of the entire ship below the waterline including the rudder and pintle. The underwater inspection was in lieu of drydocking (UWILD) to extend the drydock interval as required by classification societies. The inspection was directed and recorded by a ClassNK surveyor in a workstation set up on the Hydrex work boat that included a video recorder, HD TV, and communications box. The equipment was set up to display the inspection for the surveyor and to direct and communicate with the diver in
Laboratory Testing Expands Hardness Testing Capabilities, Renews Nadcap Accreditation

Laboratory Testing, Inc., Hatfield, Pa., recently expanded the capabilities of its metallography lab by adding a Struers DuraScan hardness testing system that handles both micro- and macrohardness test applications. The system handles test samples up to 5.5 in. in diameter
A metallography technician at Laboratory Testing, Inc., uses the companys new Struers DuraScan hardness testing system.
and 10 in. high. The metallography lab generally performs microhardness testing on metal samples, but other materials may be tested on a case-by-case basis. Recently, the company was audited and reapproved by the Performance Review Institute (PRI) for Nadcap
continued on page 39 For info go to www.aws.org/ad-index
ASNT Fall Conference & Quality Testing Show
Houston is It! 2010

Houston is the energy capitol of the world; Houston is the birthplace and leading center for nanotechnology and commercialization; Houston is home to NASAs Johnson Space Center, operations for the Space Shuttle and Space Station programs; Houston is aviation, aerospace, energy, petrochemical, biotechnology, information technology, and nanotechnology. And, this is why Houston is It for the largest annual nondestructive testing conference, ASNTs 2010 Fall Conference & Quality Testing Show.
Houston is It! Dont miss F all Conference! R egister at www.asnt.org. Save $100; register by Register by 15 October 2010.
George R. Brown Convention Center, Houston, Texas USA 15-19 November 2010
For info go to www.aws.org/ad-index
Mail Bag
Reader Questions Why Some Dont Use Welding Procedure Specifications
I read with interest the article titled What Are Welding Procedure Specifications by Albert Moore in the Spring 2010 issue of Inspection Trends. I know manufacturing companies in (my) area that do not use Welding Procedure Specifications (WPSs), their welders are not qualified to any code, and their welders inspect their own welds. How can these companies get away with this type of practice? Is it legal? Is it not unsafe? Where is the quality control? Nelson Morales Certified Welding Inspector Hobart Institute of Welding Technology Troy, Ohio There is tons of steel fabricated by contractors who are not bound by any legal requirements. Many contracts do not reference a specific welding standard, so the contractors are free to do as they please (and they do). I have reviewed a number of project specifications, purchase orders, etc., that stated the welds must meet firstclass workmanship standards. I do not know of any welding standard that has defined first-class workmanship standards. I have also read all welds to be in accordance with AWS, with no reference to a specific AWS welding standard or code. Once again, the contractor is free to do as he pleases. It is incumbent on the customer to properly specify the welding requirements. It is no different from a person buying a new car. The customer should tell the salesman what kind of car is needed with as much detail as possible. If the customer simply says he wants a car, the salesman can give him any car on the lot and has met the criteria of it being a car. I was on a project once where the contractor told the steel erector that he better have four welding machines on the job site the next morning or he was fired. The steel erector showed up with four brand-new welding machines, dropped them off, and drove away. The contractor turned to me and said, I told him I wanted four welding machines. There they are. I should have been more specific. The moral is that you do not get anything unless you ask for it. A properly written specification is essential to getting what is required. Albert J. Moore Jr. AWS Senior Certified Welding Inspector Vice President, Marion Testing & Inspection, Canton, Conn.
10
By Bruce Halverson
Feature
Lessons Learned in Shipbuilding Inspection
Quality control and inspection for producing the first Littoral Combat Ship, USS Freedom, began with the shipyards craftspeople. (Photo courtesy of Lockheed Martin Corp.)
Quality control in the shipbuilding industry has evolved from inspections at the end of the process to each craftsperson understanding the contracts quality requirements
Shipbuilding has historically been one of the industries that advances our knowledge of materials, welding, and inspection. From the early days when steam boilers were placed aboard vessels to power paddle wheels, or when the demands of World War II required a fleet of Liberty Ships for carrying cargo, experience has taught us that standards need to be written to avoid loss of life and property. After boiler explosions took many lives on steam-powered vessels, rules were written for the control of design, materials, and safety relief valves. Welding rules for shipboard boilers and piping also evolved. The United States Coast Guard Marine Inspectors enforced these rules until recent times, when the task was transferred to the American Bureau of Shipping Surveyors. The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) investigation shortly after World War II of Liberty Ship catastrophic fracture failures resulted in advancements in design, materials, and welding Inspection Trends / Summer 2010 11
Fig. 1 The SS Esso Manhattan broke in half at midship due to a complete brittle fracture of the hull envelope. Many welding rules and codes, as well as inspection systems, can trace their roots to the lessons learned from Liberty Ships such as this one. methods. The facts, as reported in the 1946 USCG report, assigned about two-thirds of the root cause of brittle fractures experienced by 1500 of the Liberty-class ships, including T2 tankers, to design details and lack of toughness or fracture resistance in steel plate materials. One-third was attributed to welding deficiencies that propagated brittle fractures in plate at low temperatures. Today, however, the majority of the general public believes welding was responsible for all of the failures. As inspectors, we must be diligent about checking design flaws, material certifications, and welds to ensure a safe vessel for the mariners. All three areas play a role in fabrication and must be correct to ensure safety. Remembering past failures and applying the lessons learned from them are critical to inspectors in every industry. Looking at the past design of quality systems can also help us in our present day assignments to avoid repeating costly errors. Relying on one trained inspector has drawbacks with regard to both quality and cost.
good way to fail in the modern business world. Many leaders in the field have written books and manuals on quality. Analysis by these experts has yielded a new approach over the years. What has evolved is our present-day system of quality control and quality assurance to ensure product quality and safety. Redundant inspections and audits have proven highly effective. The shipbuilding industry has followed the same path to produce modern commercial and military vessels in a cost-effective manner. The proliferation of standards after the Second World War installed formal controls on designs, base metals, and welding. The U.S. Navy, Coast Guard, and American Bureau of Shipping led the effort at that time and many of those standards still exist today in updated rules, military standards, or codes. Commercial shipbuilding standards were less restrictive but still gave a level of design safety to ensure that mariners had reliable hulls and equipment to weather the storms Mother Nature invariably sends in their path. The baseline of shipbuilding knowledge as recorded in our standards has to be applied during the building process to ensure safety is maintained.
become very costly if not properly planned for. Producing the quality required for the cost allowed dictates that an inspector for each production step or line is a sure way to fail in business today. The modern approach in shipbuilding starts at the level of each individual worker. It is critical that individual craft workers not only know how to use the tools of their trade, but also how to inspect the work they do in real-time. They are the front line in the battle to achieve economic success for the entire process. Correcting deficiencies early in the process ensures success overall. Many do not understand the integration of quality control and quality assurance into the entire shipbuilding process. That is because most people only consider the formal inspection at the end as a quality step because that is what is visible when the customer or regulatory body is in attendance. They havent considered the entire process.
A Step-by-Step Procedure
In truth, if done properly, quality control starts with the worker on the job. The next step in the process in modern yards is to have the Manufacturing Department employ a quality control operation by the lead person or supervisor to check 100% of the work. When that step is completed successfully, it is then passed to the quality assurance inspector who checks the performance of Manufacturings quality control efforts. This step is intended to be an audit operation. When that step is successfully completed, the regulatory body and customer representatives are called out for a formal inspection. When the formal inspection is completed, the assembly can progress to the next phase of construction. In most yards, these inspection points are at predetermined milestone events, such as panel construct, module construct, and final erection in the hull for structure. Piping systems, machinery installations, and electrical distribution systems are also inspected at predetermined stages of completion. Redundant inspections ensure defects are caught early and corrected immediately.
It Starts with the Workers

Many of those who tour a shipyard are amazed to learn that it all starts out as flat plate, structural shapes, and pipe. Through the efforts of many skilled craft workers, these raw materials end up as a finished vessel that sails away and becomes a home for the crew. Each vessel, whether commercial or military, is a selfcontained, self-supporting floating city when at sea. Everything from propulsion and electrical power to personnel accommodations and sewage treatment is contained in the vessel. Inspection plays an important role in the shipbuilding process from start to finish. Being cost effective is a key to survival in the shipbuilding industry today. The application of standards as written in the contract for the ship can
The Evolution of Quality Systems

After World War II, quality control was well defined. General practice was to put an inspector at the end of each process line to sort the good from the bad. There is little debate that that was instrumental in raising the quality of products. However, we know now that attempting to inspect quality into a product at the end of a process is a 12 Inspection Trends / July 2010
In a shipyard, record keeping is critical for the inspector. The records must be compiled and maintained as the hull is built, so documentation exists to prove required testing and inspections were successfully accomplished. The true final inspection is during the sea trial period where the ship is put through planned tests while underway to confirm operation and safety of the crew under actual conditions, including hard turns and emergency stop demonstrations.
The Modern Management Approach

Now that the process has been briefly described, it is worth discussing the modern management approach at most shipyards. For example, Marinette Marine Corp. has adopted ISO 9001:2008, Quality Management Systems Requirements, as a framework for the entire organization to ensure not only a quality product, but a successful business. While the document gives general requirements for the framework of the system, each company must determine the exact details in its own written manual. It should be pointed out that this document drives many companies through the same quality control and quality assurance approach that Marinette Marine has used to produce both commercial and military ships. It has taken time and an investment in training to mature this quality system.
rules. The companys top management directed this approach with the understanding that a learning curve would be encountered, but the end results would pay benefits in the long run. The approach of educating each craft worker to know the inspection standards has proven to be a wise investment. Time and the results obtained from production of USS Freedom have proven the merits of that program. The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is a new class of vessel for the U.S. Navy. The term littoral means shallow water; it is designed for missions in shallow seas. Think of it as a 378-ft-long, scaled-up jet ski with 120,000 hp and four water jets for propulsion. It is as maneuverable as a jet ski, but carries lethal firepower and the most up-todate electronics. At the time of the writing of this article, USS Freedom has accomplished four drug interdictions, in which more than five tons of cocaine were seized, including chasing down one go-fast boat with her speed alone. Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor; if youd like to know more about the Littoral Combat Ships multimission capabilities, visit www.lmlcsteam.com.
submerged arc welding process all contributed to the failures. But even with the failures, the Liberty Ship program was judged a success. Without the many Liberty Ships to supply the U. S. and Allied forces overseas, the war may have lasted far longer. Only two operational Liberty Ships survive today as a memorial to those who served aboard and to the many who did not return. Because of the large number produced, a meaningful database was established to set rules for materials, design, and welding methods. We owe a debt of gratitude to these ships and the personnel who studied the problems. Welding rules or codes in particular can trace their roots in many industries to the lessons learned from the Liberty Ships. When you inspect welds in any industry each day, take a moment to remember where the knowledge base started to ensure reliable and safe fabrications. As inspectors, we need to be ever mindful of the lessons learned from the Liberty Ship failures.
BRUCE HALVERSON (Bruce. Halverson@us.fincantieri.com) is quality assurance manager, Marinette Marine Corp., Marinette, Wis., a division of Fincantieri Marine Group. He is a Life Member of AWS and first qualified as a CWI in 1978. He has held ASNT Level III since 1979 and maintains current certifications in RT, UT, PT, and MT methods. His experience includes 43 major ship hulls up to 1000 ft in length for commercial and military customers. He is a member of the AWS D3 Marine Welding Committee and has recently coauthored articles on friction stir welding of littoral combat ship aluminum structures.
What the Past Has Taught Us

Looking back at the heritage of modern shipbuilding, it is important to realize the dependability and knowledge for safe operation were gained at a cost. President Franklin Roosevelt directed the building of Liberty Ships to support the war effort. They were all welded because riveting was determined to be too labor intensive and slow. During the period from 1939 to the end of the war in 1945, 2710 Liberty Ships were built. By 1945, the average build time had been reduced to 42 days per vessel. A few were still in construction or on order at the close of the war. Figure 1 shows the SS Esso Manhattan, a T2 Liberty tanker, one of about 12 that experienced a complete brittle fracture of the midship hull envelope. Designs with sharp notches, materials with little fracture resistance at low temperature, and defects produced by the new
The Littoral Combat Ship

Five years ago, Marinette Marine embarked on building the first Littoral Combat Ship, LCS 1 USS Freedom (see lead figure). At the same time, the company kicked off a worker education process to empower each craft worker with knowledge of the actual contract quality requirements because the ships were to be built under new American Bureau of Shipping Naval Vessel Rules. Welders, for example, not only had to pass their plate and pipe qualifications, but also had a full day of classroom training and a written test to pass to prove knowledge of the ABS
Errata A5.14 AWS A5.14/A5.14M:2009, Specification for Nickel and NickelAlloy Bare Welding Electrodes and Rods The following errata have been identified and incorporated into the current reprint of this document. Page 7, Table 1: Changed Ti content from 0.04% maximum to 0.4% maximum for AWS Classification ERNiCrMo-21. Inspection Trends / Summer 2010 13
By Lyndsey Deckard
Just The Facts
Who Is the Engineer?

I was manager of quality for the prime contractor on an automated people mover system at a major airport several years ago. The system ran on an elevated steel-fabricated guideway welded in accordance with AWS D1.5, Bridge Welding Code. Much of the welding was fracture critical. D1.5 requires backup bars on welds transverse to the direction of computed stresses to be removed after welding and the joint ground smooth (Ref. D1:2008, Clause 3.13.3). The design of the guideway was a boxed beam that precluded access to backing after welding. The Engineer of Record (EOR or Engineer) reviewed the joint design and stated that the backup bars could remain in place a significant contradiction to the code. Now you may be asking yourself, Can the Engineer do that? The answer is yes, the Engineer has that authority. Certified Welding Inspectors should not think that the codes are carved in stone and not subject to change on a given project at the written direction of the Engineer. This issue is addressed in each code individually, but always with the same conclusion. In D1.1/D1.1M: 2010, Structural Welding Code Steel, it is addressed as follows: 1.3.1 Engineer. Engineer shall be defined as a duly designated individual who acts for, and in behalf of, the Owner on all matters within the scope of the code. 1.4.1 Engineers Responsibilities. The Engineer shall be responsible for the development of the contract documents that govern products or structural assemblies produced under this code. The Engineer may add to, delete from, or otherwise modify, the requirements of this code to meet the particular requirements of a specific structure. All requirements that modify this code shall be incorporated into contract documents. The Engineer shall determine the suitability of all joint details to be used in a welded assembly. The Engineer shall specify in contract documents, as necessary, and as applicable, the following: 1) Code requirements that are applicable only when specified by the Engineer. 2) All additional NDT that is not specifically addressed in the code. 3) Verification inspection, when required by the Engineer. 4) Weld acceptance criteria other than that specified in Clause 6. 5) CVN toughness criteria for weld metal, base metal, and/or HAZ when required. 6) For nontubular applications, whether the structure is statically or cyclically loaded. 7) All additional requirements that are not specifically addressed in the code. 8) For OEM applications, the responsibilities of the parties involved.
LYNDSEY DECKARD (Deckard@ pbworld.com) is Quality Manager of the Vehicle Division of Parsons Brinckerhoff Transit & Rail Systems, Inc. He is an AWS Senior Certified Welding Inspector, an ASQ Certified Quality Auditor, and a member of the AWS Certification Committee, Examination Question Bank Subcommittee, and Ethics Subcommittee.
Official Interpretation D1.1 Structural Welding Code Steel Subject: Cleaning of Completed Welds Code Edition: D1.1:2006 Code Provision: Subclause 5.30.2 AWS Log: D1.1-06-I17 Inquiry: 1. Is brushing intended to sweep away loose slag particles lying on the weld after slag removal, or does it mean wire brushing? 2. Is there a requirement to remove weld smoke residues? 3. What other suitable means were considered when this wording 14 Inspection Trends / July 2010 was added in D1.1:2006? 4. Is complete removal of tightly adherent spatter required for VT? 5. Is complete removal of tightly adherent spatter required for MT? Response: 1. Cleaning of completed welds is to be accomplished by any cleaning technique that prepares the surface for visual inspection or other NDE required. The contractor/fabricator determines which means and methods will achieve this result. 2. No. 3. See Response 1. 4. No. 5. No, unless it will interfere with particle mobility in the area of interest. (See ASTM E 709, referenced in AWS D1.1 Subclause 6.14.4.)
By John L. Gayler and Donald D. Rager
Feature
A Summary of Revisions in the New D1.1:2010, Structural Welding Code Steel

Poised to go on a five-year publication cycle, the 2010 Code has some significant changes explained
The AWS D1 Structural Welding Committee Chair Duane Miller announced in his editorial in the March 2010 issue of the Welding Journal that D1.1 would move to a five-year publication cycle. This will be the first time since 1986 that D1.1 will not be published on a two-year cycle. Aside from this significant change in publication frequency, the D1.1:2010 edition has several other changes that the Structural Welding Committee feels the industry will welcome. Described here are the most significant changes from the 2008 to the 2010 editions of D1.1. Some explanations and rationale behind a few noted changes are also included.
Fig. 1 Groove weld profiles inside corner joints.
Understanding a New Table

The most noticeable change that most users of the code will see in the 2010 edition is the addition of a new table in the prequalification section. The new table, Table 3.8, lists which variables must be included on a prequalified WPS, and how changes beyond certain parameters would require a new or revised WPS to be written. Subclause 3.6 introduces the new table, and users of the code will notice that this subclause no longer references Clause 4, Table 4.5, for the requirements and the ranges for amperage, voltage, travel speed, and shielding gas flow rate. The code also
Fig. 2 Groove weld profiles in T-joints.
15
Weld Profiles
Probably the next greatest change in the code is the redrafting of the wellknown weld profile figures, Figure 5.4. The number of illustrations has been increased to better clarify what weld profiles are required in different types of weld joints. A new table accompanying the redrawn figure lists weld profile dimension requirements, such as weld reinforcement and allowable convexity. These requirements are categorized into four schedules (Schedule A, Schedule B, Schedule C, and Schedule D) in the new table as a means to separate different criteria depending on the type of weld and type of weld joint to be welded. Along with redrafting these figures, the code committee has made slight modifications to the codes requirements such as larger weld reinforcement is now permitted for welds in thicker members. By expanding Figure 5.4, the code now shows specific weld profiles for groove welds in corner and T-joints, shelf bars, and welds between butt joint welded members of unequal thickness. Some of the new weld profiles are shown in Figs. 14.
Fig. 3 Fillet weld profiles for outside corner joints.
includes commentary on the new Table 3.8 that helps clarify many open questions on prequalified procedures and explains how to use the new table. Code users should be aware that some of the prequalification ranges of the four variables mentioned previously have also been revised with the establishment of this new table. In addition, specific ranges have been placed on other variables not required in previous editions of the code such as wire feed speed and submerged arc
welding electrode parameters, to name two. The listing of the other variables in the new table is not a change in the requirements of previous editions of the code in writing a prequalified WPS, rather they are a clarification that changes to those variables require writing a new or revised prequalified WPS. It is the Structural Welding Committees consensus that reorganization and consolidation of the instructions on how to establish a prequalified WPS will assist code users.
New Thermal Cut Roughness Requirements

Also of note is the elimination of specific thermal cut roughness values as given in previous editions in Subclause 5.15.4.3 and measured to the requirements of ASME B46.1. Now, the new thermal cut roughness values are tied solely to the comparison samples found in AWS C4.1, Oxygen Cutting Surface Roughness Gauge. The requirements in previous code editions have been deemed overly prescriptive, and the code committee thought it appropriate to change the requirements to a comparative standard.
Access Holes and Beam Copes

Requirements for weld access holes and beam copes are revised in this edition. Weld access hole
Fig. 4 Typical shelf bar details.
16
dimensions have been modified, and mandatory minimum and recommended maximum depth dimensions of access holes have been set to prevent those that are unnecessarily deep or that are too shallow. The new code also permits a smaller radius on reentrant corners in connection material and beam copes, as the 1-in. (25-mm) radius requirement of previous codes is not supported by research and is excessive for many connection details. Beam copes in galvanized sections must now be ground to bright metal to reduce the possibility of cracking. Preheating before thermal cutting of beam copes and weld access holes in heavy shapes is now mandatory to reduce the formation of a hard surface layer and the tendency to initiate cracks.
Revised Backing Requirements

The code committee has revised the requirements for backing, found in Subclause 5.10, to allow for discontinuous backing in some limited statically loaded hollow structural steel (HSS) applications. There are limiting factors including diameter and wall thickness of the HSS shape that control when noncontinuous backing may be permitted, and there are, of course, a few code exceptions to these limitations.
added as a prequalified material in Group II of Table 3.1 and Group B of Table 3.2. ASTM A1043 Grades 36 and 50 have been added to Table 4.9. A new subclause under 3.13 (CJP Groove Weld Requirements) has been added to clarify that only steel backing is considered prequalified for nontubular welds made from one side only. The use of material other than steel for backing in a one-sided nontubular weld may be used if qualified by test in accordance with Clause 4 (Qualification). The code clarifies by revisions to 4.35.3 that if an existing qualified WPS is to be used for applications requiring impacts but CVN tests were not done during the initial qualification of that WPS then a procedure test plate needs to be performed but only impact tests are required to be run. The other tests associated with a WPS being qualified by test, having been completed during the original WPS Qualification need not be repeated.
Additional commentary has been added to emphasize that the ultrasonic testing (UT) acceptance criteria shown in Tables 6.2 and 6.3 have been established within specific testing parameters and that using testing equipment or procedures, such as transducers of a different size or angle shown in these tables, may invalidate the results.
Other Changes
The code no longer requires the Type 1 IIW UT Reference Block; any of the IIW type blocks may be used. Cracks or bursts in headed studs are now covered in detail, and the maximum length of these cracks has been established. A definition for tubular has been added to Annex K along with a revised definition for pipe. Annex N, Form N-3 (ESW/EGW) has been completely revised. Some guidance has been added to the introductory page of the commentary to assist users in distinguishing commentary on code from items supporting commentary. The words thorough fusion have been changed to complete fusion in Table 6.1 (visual acceptance criteria) to match the terminology used in AWS A3.0, Standard Welding Terms and Definitions. Many other changes, mostly minor, have been made to this new edition of the D1.1 Code. The new foreword has a comprehensive but succinct list of all changes. Most changes are also identified in the published code by underlined text or vertical lines in the margins of the page.
Stud Size
A 38-in. (10-mm) stud size has been added to the code, and the tolerances on existing stud sizes have been revised to allow manufacturers to produce products that comply with both international and American standards. These tolerance changes do not adversely affect the physical or mechanical properties of the studs.
Prequalification and Qualification

Under Subclause 3.3, the matching and undermatching table has been revised to clarify that a filler metal chosen for joining a combination of two different strength base materials need only match either of the two materials for the selection to be considered matching. Likewise, undermatching was clarified to mean a selection of filler metal whose strength is less than either of the base metals being joined. The requirements of Subclause 3.7.3 have been expanded to include all weathering steels, not just ASTM A 588. ASTM A 709 HPS50W has been
Commentary on ESW, EGW, and UT

New commentary on electroslag and electrogas welding (ESW and EGW) has been added as assistance to users in implementing these welding processes. Also, commentary to alert users when applying ESW and EGW on quench and tempered steels, thermomechanical control processed steel, and precipitation hardened steels subjected to cyclic loading applications has been added. Both potential and current users of these processes should read through the new commentary to better understand potential pitfalls and possible remedies suggested there.
JOHN L. GAYLER (gayler@aws.org) is director, national standards activities, American Welding Society, Miami, Fla. DONALD D. RAGER (ddrager@ragerconsulting.com) is president, Rager Consulting, Inc., Coles Point, Va.
17
By Albert J. Moore Jr.
Feature
Essential vs. Nonessential Variables

CWIs must review the applicable welding standard to determine which welding parameters are defined as essential, nonessential, and supplementary essential variables
This article is the second in a series aimed at helping you understand the concept of Welding Procedure Specifications (WPSs), how to write them, and how to use them. This article defines the differences between essential and nonessential variables. Article three will cover qualifying a WPS by testing, and article four will help you write a WPS that, in the authors words, will do more than collect dust. If you look at the label on any food item candy bar, cookies, box of brownie mix you will see a list of ingredients. The label does not provide the quantity of each ingredient, but it does list the ingredients in order of the greatest to least amount used. It would be impossible, based solely on the information provided on the label, to duplicate the exact recipe the manufacturer used. The welding documents some contractors provide are a lot like the label on a box of brownie mix. They list only the basic information needed to meet the applicable code, but fail to list important information the welder needs to replicate the test weld. What information should be included in the welding documentation? What information is helpful, but not crucial, to making an acceptable weld? Volunteers who sit on the committees that develop our welding codes and standards have been discussing this subject for many years. They have agreed on common language and basic definitions, but they do not necessarily agree on the content of the WPS or how the WPS is to be qualified.
Welding variables that are critical to making acceptable welds are categorized as essential variables. Welding variables that do not have a profound influence on the mechanical properties of the weld or those that are associated with the skills of the welder are categorized as nonessential variables. What is an acceptable weld? One definition is a weld that meets the minimum requirements of the applicable welding standard. The minimum requirements would include mechanical properties such as tensile strength, ductility, and soundness. The welding standard may invoke notch toughness requirements when service conditions, such as low-temperature applications, require toughness. There is not just one welding standard that is suitable for all applications. Different service conditions and applications require different welding standards. Each welding standard has unique requirements for qualifying welding procedures and welders, as well as different fabrication requirements to satisfy those service requirements. While space limitations prevent us from exploring every possible welding variable, we can look at several variables that play an important role in the deposition of sound welds. In this article, we will categorize welding variables as essential or nonessential using the definitions in the next paragraph. A word of warning: make sure you review the requirements of the applicable code or standard when qualifying or documenting a welding procedure, because no two standards are in full agreement when it comes to categorizing every welding variable as
either an essential or nonessential variable. Note, that as we said previously, essential variables are those that have a significant influence on the mechanical properties, such as tensile strength and ductility. Nonessential variables are those that do not have a significant influence on tensile strength or ductility of the completed weld. Also, those variables that are dependent on the welders skills to make a sound weld are classified as nonessential variables.
Essential Variables
Base Metals One of the first factors to consider when making a weld is the base metal or metals to be joined. Some base metals are easily welded, some are more difficult, and others are downright ornery to weld. Base metals are grouped as ferrous or nonferrous metals. Ferrous metals can be further classified as low-carbon, medium-carbon, high-carbon, high-strength low-alloy, and high-alloy steels, as well as ferritic stainless, martensitic stainless, austenitic stainless, duplex stainless, and precipitation-hardened stainless steels. The nonferrous metals include alloys of aluminum, copper, nickel, titanium, and many more. Some of the nonferrous metals are further classified as refractory or reactive metals. Welding standards usually group the base metals into families that have similar chemistry and weldability. ASME groups the various base metals by P- or S- numbers. AWS B2.1, Specification for Welding Procedure and Performance
20
Qualification, uses M-numbers and NAVSEA S9074-AR-GIB-010/248 uses Snumbers to group the base metals. A change from one P-, M-, or S-number group to another affects the mechanical properties; therefore, base metals are classified as essential variables. Welding Process A welding process must be selected once the base metal is known. Not all base metals can be easily welded with every welding process that is in use. Welding standards list the welding process as an essential variable. If you change the welding process, but nothing else, the chances of obtaining a sound weld with the required mechanical properties will be in question. Consider what happens if we change from the gas metal arc welding process to the shielded metal arc welding (SMAW) process. That change would require a change in the type of filler metal, a different power supply, and a switch from a welding gun to an electrode holder. In addition, shielding gas is no longer required. As you can see from the example, a change in the welding process can involve several changes associated with the welding process. Once the base metal and the welding process are determined, a suitable filler metal may have to be selected. The filler metal must be compatible with the base metal and the welding process. Filler metals are typically grouped by an Fnumber based on chemistry, flux type (if a flux system is used to shield the molten weld pool), and ease of use if it is a SMAW electrode. A change from one F-number to another will usually result in a change in chemistry and mechanical properties. Imagine a switch from an F-6 (low-carbon steel) filler metal to an F-3X (a copperbased alloy) filler metal. Even if the base metal and the welding process have not changed, the mechanical properties surely will since iron and copper do not play well with each other. The F-number is an essential variable. Joint Design Joint design usually falls into the nonessential variable category. The mechanical properties of the completed weld are not dependent on the groove
design. Switching from a V-groove to a bevel groove is not going to change the mechanical properties of the weld. However, there are times when a change in the groove detail will affect the properties of the welded joint. Consider a joint between dissimilar base metals. The two base metals have different alloy compositions and different mechanical properties. The completed weld is a composition of both base metals and the filler metal used. The exact composition of the weld (and its mechanical properties) are dependent on the volume of base metal mixed with the volume of filler metal in the molten weld pool. Lets examine a weld joining a sheet of carbon steel (ASTM A36) to a sheet of stainless steel (ASTM A240 Type 304 alloy). The weld joint is a square groove detail that is joined with a single weld bead. A 309 filler metal is typically used for this combination of base metals. The completed weld may consist of 40% carbon steel, 40% stainless steel, and 20% filler metal. Now consider what happens if the groove design is changed to a V-groove. The completed weld now consists of 15% carbon steel, 15% stainless steel, and 70% filler metal. The alloy composition of the completed weld has been changed and a corresponding change in the mechanical properties of the weld can be expected. ASME Section IX and AWS codes use the A-number to define the chemistry of ferrous weld deposits. A change in the Anumber results when there is a change in the chemistry of the weld. A change in weld chemistry will result in a change in the mechanical properties, therefore the Anumber is an essential variable.
variations in the arc length maintained by a skilled welder will result in minor fluctuations in arc voltage. A minor change in voltage is not going to affect the heat input or the chemistry of the weld deposit sufficiently to dramatically alter the mechanical properties. Therefore, as we have defined it, voltage is a nonessential variable. Welding Amperage Turning once again to the SMAW example, welding amperage for a given electrode diameter is restricted to a narrow range. If the welder increases amperage above or below the manufacturers recommendation, the welding arc becomes unstable and an unacceptable weld results. Welds that meet the mechanical properties of the applicable code can be expected if the welder uses the electrode within the amperage range the manufacturer recommends. In this example, amperage is a nonessential variable. Travel Speed An increase or decrease in the travel speed has little effect on the mechanical properties of the weld assuming voltage, amperage, and the other variables remain unchanged. For a given electrode diameter, the travel speed is largely dependent on the melt-off rate of the electrode, which is a function of the amperage. The welder can use a weave bead or stringer bead technique. Either technique can produce a sound weld with the mechanical properties the code requires. Since a change in travel speed does not profoundly affect the welds mechanical properties, travel speed is a nonessential variable. In review of our discussion, a change in an essential variable has a profound effect on the mechanical properties of the weld, while a change in a nonessential variable has little effect on the mechanical properties of the completed weld.
Nonessential Variables
The welder controls some variables that have little impact on the mechanical properties of the completed weld. Assuming the welder is skilled, as demonstrated by his or her passing the welder performance test, variables such as arc voltage, amperage, and travel speed typically have little effect on the chemistry or mechanical properties of the weld. These are usually considered to be nonessential variables. Arc Voltage Using SMAW as an example,
Supplementary Essential Variables

Thus far, we have not broached the subject of notch toughness. Notch toughness adds a new element to the problem of developing welds with suitable properties. Supplementary essential Inspection Trends / Summer 2010 21
variables are those variables that must be considered when notch toughness requirements are invoked. Ferrous metals such as the carbon and high-strength, lowalloy steels are the base metals most affected by low service temperatures. Carbon and low-alloy steels are divided into P-, M-, and S-numbered groups, which are further divided into groups that are only considered when notch toughness requirements are invoked. Filler metals take on a more important role in meeting notch toughness requirements so the electrode classification and possibly the manufacturer are classified as supplementary essential variables. Heat input is a factor in determining notch toughness. Voltage, amperage, and travel speed are important considerations in determining heat input (designated as Q). Q is a supplementary essential variable, thus voltage, amperage, and travel speed must be controlled within specified limits.
requirements of various welding standards have been tweaked to meet specific service requirements. Each welding standard defines essential, nonessential, and supplementary essential variables differently. Therefore, to properly develop welding documentation, the CWI must first review the applicable welding standard to determine which welding parameters are defined as essential, nonessential, and supplementary essential variables. Welding documents have to properly address the three types of variables in order to serve as the foundation of a successful welding program.
Errata C5.4-93 ANSI/AWS C5.4-93, Recommended Practices for Stud Welding The following errata have been identified and incorporated into the current reprint of this document. Page 3, Paragraph 1.2.1: Change from currency to current in third sentence. Page 19, Table 8: Last entry under Stud Base Diameter in inches, change 01.000 to 1.000. Page 23, Table 10: Under Shielding Gas Flow, CFH heading, change 1 to 15. Page 23, Table 10: Under Shielding Gas Flow, liter/min, heading, change 57.1 to 7.1.
Summary
It is important to remember that the
ALBERT J. MOORE JR. (AMoore999@comcast.net) is vice president, Marion Testing & Inspection, Canton, Conn. He is an AWS Senior Certified Welding Inspector and an ASNT ACCP NDT Level III. He is also a member of the AWS Certification Committee and the Committee on Methods of Inspection of Welds.
22
By Richard L. Holdren
Feature
What Is This Thing Called Convexity?

An approach is suggested that would provide inspectors with a method to better assess and determine the acceptability of convexity
Convexity is defined in AWS A3.0:2010, Standard Welding Terms and Definitions, as the maximum distance from the face of a convex fillet weld perpendicular to a line joining the weld toes. Figure 1, which is adapted from Fig. 25B of A3.0:2010, illustrates this dimension. Red arrows have been added to show this dimension at the location where a measurement would be made. It also illustrates the inherent difficulty visual welding inspectors face in the assessment of convexity, i.e., the dimension is referenced from a hidden (or imaginary) line. This would be akin to a requirement to measure the size of a bolt by measuring its radius. While convexity is easy to observe and measure in cross section, the visual welding inspector is severely challenged in terms of assessing this condition and determining its acceptability according to common industry standards when only the weld face is accessible. In simpler terms, convexity is a condition found only in a fillet weld with a convex profile. An analogous dimension in a groove weld would be weld reinforcement height. Most codes provide visual weld acceptance criteria for convexity in terms of a simple linear dimension; however, as noted above, this dimension is measured from a hidden line. Therein lies the challenge for the visual welding inspector. Many codes provide acceptance criteria for this discontinuity, with AWS D1.1, Structural Welding Code Steel, being the one most prominent in the United States. The other structural welding codes published by the American Welding Society deal
Fig. 1 Convex fillet weld.
with convexity in approximately the same manner as D1.1. Table 1 provides a sampling of fillet weld convexity requirements from various industry standards. While there certainly is no consensus among the various standards for the permissible amount of convexity, virtually all of them specify a maximum dimension for the geometric condition. That dimension, however, is virtually immeasurable, as indicated previously. So, the welding inspector is at a severe disadvantage when asked to evaluate this discontinuity during the course of visual examination. Specification of quality requirements in such a fashion is considered irresponsible. There needs to be a better means of evaluating this discontinuity, but before an alternate approach is proposed, its important to better understand what impact convexity has from a structural, or performance, standpoint. At first glance, convexity appears
to be a benefit, since it represents an increase in the fillet weld cross section, or throat. Convexity represents the difference between the effective and actual throat of a convex fillet weld. In a correctly designed structure, fillet welds are intended to only transmit loads in shear, where the shear stress is transmitted through the weld throat. Consequently, the greater the amount of convexity, the greater the shear plane cross section, and therefore, the greater the load-carrying capacity of the fillet weld. The issue, however, relates to the direction in which the loads are applied. If the loads are applied parallel to the weld axis, the increase in weld cross section due to convexity is indeed a benefit. Should the fillet weld lie transverse to the applied stress, however, convexity represents a geometric discontinuity due to the stress concentrations created at the weld toes. This geometric discontinuity is even more critical when the primary Inspection Trends / Summer 2010 23
Table 1 Convexity Requirements from Various Welding Standards Standard AWS D1.1:2006 Category Statically and cyclically loaded structures (5.24.3) Statically and cyclically loaded structures Statically and cyclically loaded structures Statically and cyclically loaded structures (5.14.2) Tubular structures Class 1 (5.14.4, Table 5.5) Tubular structures Class 2 (5.14.4, Table 5.6) Fillet weld face (6.1.1.4) Quality of Welds Visual Inspection (6.26.1.4) Welding Profiles (10.7.1) Quality of Welds Fillet Welds (9.5.5.1) Joint Class I through VI Requirement For face width (W) 516 in. 116 in. maximum convexity (C) For 516 in. < W < 1 in. 1 8 in. maximum convexity (C) For W 1 in. 316 in. maximum convexity (C) For measured leg size (L) 516 in. 116 in. maximum convexity (C) For 516 in. < L < 1 in. 18 in. maximum convexity (C) For L 1 in. 316 in. maximum convexity (C) Maximum convexity (C) = 0.07 face width (W) + 0.06 in. Maximum convexity (C) = 0.07 face width (W) + 0.06 in. Maximum convexity (C) = 0.15 largest specified leg size (S) + 0.06 in. Maximum convexity (C) = 20% of theoretical throat Faces of fillet welds shall be flat or slightly convex. Maximum convexity (C) = 0.07 face width (W) + 0.06 in. Maximum convexity (C) = 0.1 actual fillet weld size (S) + 0.03 in. Maximum convexity (C) = 0.1 actual leg size + 0.06 in. For face width (W) 516 in. 116 in. maximum convexity (C) For 516 in. < W < 1 in. 18 in. maximum convexity (C) For W 1 in. 316 in. maximum convexity (C) Maximum convexity (C) = 0.1 actual (or longer) leg size + 132 in. General Note: Maximum convexity (C) = 0.07 face width (W) + 0.06 in. For face width (W) 516 in. 116 in. maximum convexity (C) For 516 in. < W < 1 in. 1 8 in. maximum convexity (C) For W 1 in. 316 in. maximum convexity (C) For face width (W) 516 in. 116 in. maximum convexity (C) For 516 in. < W < 1 in. 18 in. maximum convexity (C) For W 1 in. 316 in. maximum convexity (C) 116 in. to + 316 in. from line drawn toe to toe Reentrant angles > 90 deg Fillet and fillet reinforced welds shall be essentially flat (116 in. to + 316 in. of a line drawn toe to toe). Welds shall be free of sharp irregularities between weld beads and shall blend smoothly and gradually with the base metal at the weld edges without exceeding the undercut (4.2.16) or reentrant angle (4.2.19) limits of this specification. 4.2.19 Reentrant angle. The angle formed between the base plate and the toe of the weld and the angle formed between adjacent beads of a weld must be 90 deg or greater. = toe reentrant angle 90 deg 110 deg 150 deg = toe reentrant angle 90 deg 100 deg 110 deg
AWS D1.1:90
AWS D1.1:85 AWS D1.2:2003
AWS D1.3:98 AWS D1.5:2002 AWS D14.1:2005 AWS D14.3:2005 AWS D14.4:2005
AWS D14.6:2005 AWS D15.1:2001
Weld Surface Conditions (7.4.1) Weld Profiles Fillet Welds (13.4.1)
AWS D17.1:2001
Figure 6.1 Acceptable and Unacceptable Weld Profiles Shape of fillet weld face (7.4.4) Shape of fillet weld face (8.2.3) Shape of the weld face (4.2.1)
MIL-STD-1688A MIL-STD-1689A MIL-STD-2035
ISO 5817(a)
No. 1.12, Incorrect weld toe groove welds Quality Level D Quality Level C Quality Level B No. 1.12, Incorrect weld toe fillet welds Quality Level D Quality Level C Quality Level B
ISO 5817(a)
(a) Welding Fusion-welded joints in steel, nickel, titanium and their alloys (beam welding excluded) Quality levels for imperfections
24
stresses are transverse to the weld axis, and the structure is loaded in a cyclic (fatigue) manner. So, the critical issue is the resulting reentrant angle at the weld toes, which defines the degree of stress concentration. Consequently, if the goal is to judge convexity in terms of its effect on the structural performance of a fillet weld, a better approach would be to limit the reentrant angle at the weld toes rather than the amount of convexity present. Not only does this more directly address how a weld performs in service, reentrant angle is a geometric condition that could be more easily measured by the welding inspector. In fact, go/no-go gauges could be developed to aid in a more efficient and effective measurement of the condition. Figure 2 shows various combinations of convexity and reentrant angles in fillet welds. The illustrations shown in Fig. 2 are drawn approximately to scale to show how much convexity might be present and the weld still be considered acceptable in terms of the current requirements in AWS D1.1 and several other codes. The -in. weld size has an actual face of just over 516 in., so the maximum permissible convexity is 18 in. In both cases, the amount of convexity is acceptable, but the reentrant angles at the weld toes are less than 90 deg so these welds would be considered unacceptable due to overlap. Another issue with the bracketed approach to defining permissible convexity, i.e., a given amount of convexity for a range of face widths, is the fact that the same amount of convexity produces dramatically different reentrant angles. In the current D1.1 system, theoretical face widths from 516 to 1 in. relate to fillet weld sizes from to 1116 in. Figure 3 shows the same amount of convexity (18 in.) as in Fig. 2A, but in this case, the fillet weld size is 1116 in. It is obvious here that, not only is the convexity acceptable, the weld is free from overlap. Comparing Figs. 2A and 3 shows that assignment of a specific amount of convexity for a range of fillet weld sizes can result in dramatically different stress
concentrations at the weld toes. While the intent of this article is to point out the deficiencies in most of the currently employed systems for limiting convexity in fillet welds, both from a geometric and inspection standpoint, it is realized that requesting such a dramatic change in the approach will not result in any immediate changes in the standards. Before providing what I believe to be a viable solution, Id like to present a description of a technique that can be employed, with available gauges, to measure the amount of convexity present in a fillet weld. It must be pointed out that such an approach is theoretical, and measurements are based on nominal fillet weld sizes. It does, however, provide the inspector with a better approach than just eyeballing the weld profile and making a judgment. Since AWS D1.1 is generally considered to be the dominant standard for structural welding, the example below is based on the current AWS D1.1 requirements for convexity.
Method for Measuring Fillet Weld Convexity

AWS D1.1 Limits. The limitations on convexity are shown in Table 2 (from Fig. 5.24 of AWS D1.1:2006). The permissible amount of convexity is based upon the fillet weld face width, or width of individual weld bead, either of which is difficult to measure. Once the face width is determined, the permissible convexity is then per Table 2. Measurement Technique This technique utilizes trigonometry to determine the theoretical dimensions and then uses a fillet weld gauge normally employed for measurement of concave fillet weld profiles to make the actual
Fig. 2 -in. fillet welds with acceptable convexity per AWS D1.1.
measurement. This example is for a specified -in. (6-mm) fillet weld. Refer to Fig. 4 for the nomenclature used in the calculations. Calculations. Per the geometric properties of a triangle: T1 = 0.707 0.25 in. T1 = 0.18 in. T2 = T1 + 0.13 in. T2 = 0.31 in. L2 = T2/0.707 L2 = 0.31/0.707 L2 = 0.44 in. (716 in.) A 716-in. concave fillet weld gauge
Table 2 Determining Permissible Convexity Face width or width of individual weld bead, W
5
Maximum permissible convexity

1 1
W 16 in. (8 mm) 16 in. < W < 1 in. (25 mm) W 1 in.
16 in. (2 mm) 8 in. (3 mm) 3 16 in. (5 mm)
25
Table 3 Dimensional Limits for a Range of Fillet Weld Sizes Fillet weld size, in. Theoretical face width, in. Permissible convexity, in. Concave fillet weld gauge or fillet weld throat gauge to be used to measure convexity 0.28 (~932) 0.43 (~716) 0.49 (~12) 0.55 (~916) 0.61 (~58) 0.68 (~1116) 0.80 (~1316) 1.02 (~1) 1.14 (1964) 1.27 (~1)
16 5 16 3 8 7 16 5 8 7 8 1
0.27 0.35 0.44 0.53 0.62 0.71 0.88 1.1 1.2 1.4
1 1
16 8 1 8 1 8 1 8 1 8 1 8 3 16 3 16 3 16
requirements to both production and inspection personnel. AWS D1.1 has used this type of approach for limits on undercut; however, the requirement falls short because there is no stipulation that the designer designate which welds are transverse to the applied stress and which ones are parallel. It should be designated in the tail of the symbol so the inspector has all the information necessary to perform his/her job effectively. Fig. 3 Acceptable convexity in a 1116in. fillet weld per AWS D1.1. Fig. 4 Use of a concave fillet weld gauge to approximate the amount of permissible convexity.
Proposed Solution
1. Rather than controlling fillet weld profile by specifying a dimension for convexity, specify limits for the reentrant angle at the weld toe. 2. Provide different limits for different loading conditions so the toe angle can be specified according to the expected service conditions.
can be used to approximate the amount of convexity permissible for a -in. fillet weld (as shown in Fig. 4). Table 3 summarizes the dimensional limits for a range of fillet weld sizes and what concave fillet weld (or fillet weld throat) gauges can be used to measure convexity.
The Proposed Solution

Having laid this foundation, the important aspect of this exercise is to provide some viable solution to allow the designer to stipulate the necessary fillet weld profile for a given weld based on the expected loading conditions and to provide the inspector with a means of judging the result in a more effective and accurate manner.
I believe the solution is the approach put forth in ISO 5817, Welding Fusion-welded joints in steel, nickel, titanium and their alloys (beam welding excluded) Quality levels for imperfections. With various classes available to the designer, convexity requirements for different loading conditions can be specified quite easily. This can be done on a weld-by-weld basis, so those welds subject to more critical loading conditions can be specified as Class B, for example. Other welds whose loading conditions deem them less critical can be assigned Class C or D status. This differentiation could be included in the tail of the welding symbol so the designer could very easily dictate the specific weld
RICHARD L. HOLDREN, P.E. (dick.holdren@atcwelds.com), is vice president, Engineering and Quality, Applications Technologies Co., Columbus, Ohio, and an AWS Senior Certified Welding Inspector.
26
By Brad A. Bosworth
Feature
Visual After the Fact Welding Inspections

Welding inspectors need to be aware of the liability issues they may face when asked to perform inspections late in the building process
A lack of special welding inspections offers the potential for quality problems, life safety issues, and liabilities. The intent of this article is to provide a reference tool for Certified Welding Inspectors, owners, engineers, architects, building officials, building department staff inspectors, and other design professionals. of the California Building Code (CBC) or Section 1704.2.2 of the International Building Code (IBC). This process must be completed prior to any welding being performed. It is from this information that the building official makes the decision whether or not to approve a fabricator and waive the requirement of shop welding inspections for that specific project. Generally, most building departments throughout California do not approve fabricators. Therefore, the owner or owners representative must provide shop welding inspections. These inspections must be performed by qualified inspectors who have demonstrated competence, to the satisfaction of the building official, for inspection of the particular type of construction or operation requiring special inspection. During the permit approval process, the owner or his agent is required to employ the special inspector under Chapter 17, Section 1701, of the CBC or Section 1704 of the IBC. The registered design professional is responsible for preparing a statement of special inspections and submitting it to the building department. The purpose of this document is to inform the building department that a special inspection agency or special inspectors have been retained to perform all required special inspections for the project. This letter is usually required to be submitted before the building permit is issued, and includes the scope of the inspection, a list of inspectors and their certifications, and, when requested, the inspectors rsums. In some instances, the individual inspectors must successfully complete an interview with the building department in order to obtain approval to perform special inspections in their jurisdiction.
The Inspection Issue

What constitutes an approved fabricator? There seems to be some confusion about this issue. It is commonly assumed that as long as a welding fabrication shop is AISC certified or is licensed by an agency such as the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety, it is exempt from shop welding inspections. This simply is not the case. Actually, it is the building official for the jurisdiction in which the project is permitted who has the authority to approve the fabricator. For consideration of approval, the fabricator must submit his or her quality information to the building official as required by Section 1701.7
Where the Problem Begins

When shop or field welding for a permitted project is performed without the required inspection, we face the issue of visual after the fact welding inspections. When this situation occurs, the special inspection agency usually receives a frantic call requesting the services of a welding inspector. Sometimes this involves situations
Fig. 1 Sample of a visually acceptable single-pass fillet weld with poor fitup and lack of effective weld to one member. (See Fig. 2.)
Fig. 2 Sample cross section of a single-pass fillet weld with poor fitup. Notice the lack of effective weld to the vertical member.
Fig. 3 Sample single-V-groove weld plate showing acceptable weld profile, yet the weld has been slugged. (See Fig. 4.)
27
Fig. 4 Sample of cross section of single-V-groove weld plate with rebar slugged weld.
Fig. 5 Sample of visually acceptable multipass fillet weld with poor fitup and a slugged and bridged root opening that has been welded over as an example. (See Fig. 6.) report stating whether the work requiring special inspection was, to the best of the inspectors knowledge, in conformance to the approved plans and specifications and the applicable workmanship provisions of this code. The IBC requires a similar statement under 1704.1.2, Report Requirements. When limited after the fact welding inspections have been performed, this statement cannot be made because the special inspector was not afforded the opportunity to perform all of the required inspection tasks. Following is a list of tasks that cannot be verified after the fact. The inability to verify any one of these tasks, let alone all of them, could result in catastrophic failure of a welded structure. They are part of the inspectors duties and responsibilities and are outlined not only by the building codes, but by the American Welding Society Codes D1.1, Structural Welding Code Steel, D1.3, Structural Welding Code Sheet Steel, and D1.4, Structural Welding Code Reinforcing Steel. Positive material identification prior to fabrication (CBC and IBC) Verification of welding procedures and Welding Procedure Specifications (AWS D1.1, D1.3, and D1.4) Verification of welder certifications and positions qualified (AWS D1.1, D1.3, and D1.4) Verification of welding process, electrode, and electrode storage (AWS D1.1, D1.3, and D1.4) Weld joint fitup (AWS D1.1, D1.3, and D1.4)
Fig. 6 Sample of the backside view of a visually acceptable multipass fillet weld with poor fitup and a slugged and bridged root opening.
where weeks of welding have been performed, or even entire projects have been completed, where no call has been made for welding inspections. The contractor or responsible party assumes the problem will be easily resolved by simply having a welding inspector come out and do a quick visual inspection of all the completed welds and provide a report that will satisfy the building department. This is where the problems begin. Yes, a welding inspector can, in most cases, conduct an after the fact limited visual inspection of completed welds. The inspector can provide a limited report to protect himself or herself and the inspectors employer from liabilities for not performing the inspections in conformance with the codes. The inspector may even be able to make the statement or statements that the welds meet the minimum visual requirements of the AWS D1.1, D1.3, or D1.4 welding codes and appear to conform to the proper size, length, and locations as shown on the project plans. However, without committing the crime of perjury, the inspector cannot provide a report to the building official stating that the welds were performed and inspected in accordance with the California Building Code, the International Building Code, and the approved project plans or construction documents as applicable. The following statement is required under CBC, Section 1701.3, Duties and Responsibilities of the Special Inspector: The special inspector shall submit a final signed
Inspection of multipass fillet welds, and partial-joint-penetration and complete-joint-penetration groove welds (AWS D1.1) Assembly practice (AWS D1.1, D1.3, and D1.4) Observation of the welding (AWS D1.1, D1.3, and D1.4) Welder, welding operator, and tack welder performance (AWS D1.1, D1.3, and D1.4). The integrity and quality of the welds cannot be positively verified without performing all required welding inspection tasks. Even though the overall appearance of the welds may meet all of the visual acceptance criteria, it cannot be assumed that they meet the minimum quality requirements of the code or minimum design requirements specified on the approved project plans. Without being able to verify the actual weld joint fitup prior to welding, there could actually be existing root openings in excess of that allowable by the welding code or even welds that have been slugged and welded over. Excessive root openings in fillet welds or slugging a weld to close a gap or fill in a weld joint generally results in an inadequate, ineffective weld size that could affect the design performance of the structure. These types of situations are usually a result of poor workmanship and are commonly found where welding has been performed without inspections. Workmanship like this creates a condition where the visual appearance of the completed weld may appear adequate in size but in actuality results in a severe lack of effective
28
weld to the connected members Figs. 16. When welding inspectors are retained and directed to perform a limited after the fact visual inspection, and note in their report the limitations related to performing such an inspection, the liability will fall on those who accept the limited reports.
Erratum D15.1 D15.1/D15.1M:2007, Railroad Welding Specification for Cars and Locomotives The following erratum has been identified and incorporated into the current reprint of this document. P. 109, Table 11.2, footnotes c, e, and g need to be moved over to p. 110, Table 11.3.
Conclusion
An owner, owners representative, contractor, architect, engineer, building department inspector, or building official should be aware of all limitations including potential quality problems, life safety issues, and liabilities that may occur when asking for or accepting after the fact welding inspection reports. The building authority and designated inspectors and design professionals should pay close attention to the wording of the written reports. More often than not, the reports will be exclusionary and will not contain the minimum code-required statement. In these situations, ask yourself, Do I want the liability? References 1. California Building Code. 2001. Chapter 17. 2. International Building Code. 2006. Chapter 17, Structural Tests and Inspections. 3. AWS D1.1/D1.1M:2008, Structural Welding Code Steel. Miami, Fla.: American Welding Society. 4. AWS D1.3/D1.3M:2008, Structural Welding Code Sheet Steel. Miami, Fla.: American Welding Society. 5. AWS D1.4/D1.4M:2005, Structural Welding Code Reinforcing Steel. Miami, Fla.: American Welding Society. BRAD A. BOSWORTH (bradb@technicon.net) is manager of Special Inspections, Materials Division, Technicon Engineering Services, Inc., Fresno, Calif. He is also an AWS Certified Welding Inspector.
Trade up from a competitors NDT CR system (or ACR) to a NEW HPX-1 and get $15,000 in Industrex Products FREE.
Products
Upgrade and Save

Carestream NDT developed the KODAK INDUSTREX HPX-1 Digital System with you in mind! Its the rst computed radiography system built from the ground up to meet the needs of the non-destructive testing industry. With this special offer to upgrade your current system, we are making it easier than ever for you to own latest in high-tech NDT equipment! Investing in new technology that is cost-effective makes you more productive and more competitive, and thats what makes your company more successful. Contact your KODAK INDUSTREX sales representative today to schedule a demo and learn more about our Upgrade and Save special promotion.
Industrex
www.HPX-1.com
Carestream Health, Inc. Rochester, N.Y. 14608 Carestream Health, Inc. 2010. Kodak and the Kodak trade dress are trademarks of Kodak used under license.
Exclusive manufacturer of Kodak INDUSTREX Products
29
By K. Erickson and C. Mankenberg
The Answer Is
The Society is not responsible for any statement made or opinion expressed herein. Data and information developed by the authors are for specific informational purposes only and are not intended for use without independent, substantiating investigation on the part of potential users.
Q: Can ASME Section IX welder

qualifications be used and accepted on AWS D1.1 projects?
A: The American Society for

Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and the AWS D1.1, Structural Welding Code Steel, are separate, stand-alone codes. D1.1 usually will be referenced for structural applications, and the ASME Code will be referenced for pressure piping and pressure vessels. Welder qualifications for each project need to be administered and documented to the referenced code and standard. There are many parameters for which AWS and ASME overlap, but the welding procedure specification (WPS) to which each welder has tested needs to address the applicable code(s) that the WPS and welder will be qualified to upon successful completion.
as welding codes, working with welding inspectors, evaluating welds, and even understanding welding documents. Having a local CWI present this information to the students and answer questions would also be very informative. You might look into joining your local AWS Section as it may offer some Section meetings that cover some of this information. I have hired out and contracted for many CWIs over the last 25 years. CWIs who began as welders and have been brought up through the industry seem to adapt easily to this environment and interact favorably with the welders performing the work. Any training or program that would increase the welders knowledge and working relationship with the CWI would benefit both parties.
Q: My company just won a job

where we have to build watertight tanks out of stiffened steel plate. The spec requires that we do vacuum box testing of the tank boundary welds. It also requires that we qualify the procedure; basically, we have to prove that it can find leaks. Its my job to write the procedure and get it qualified. I dont have any problems with the vacuum boxes, gauges, setup, etc., but Im having a hard time figuring out how I can prove it all works. I need a leak for that and were trying to avoid those. Any ideas?
Q: I have just completed a tenmonth entry-level welding course. Upon completion, I took a basic 1G shielded metal arc welding plate test. The inspector who oversaw this test was talking about many things that were foreign to the students such as PQRs, WPSs, welding defects, and measuring of welds. Does AWS offer any type of training for either novice or experienced welders on interfacing with inspectors in the field?
discontinuities that could be encountered), you should be able to construct what you need. For example, you can make up a small assembly out of two small pieces of Plexiglas or steel plate. Put them together in the appropriate joint configuration (butt, T, corner, lap, etc.) and join them by an appropriate method (gluing or welding). The next part is important. You need to leave an unglued or unwelded area, and it is important that this area is about the same size as the typical flaw size you have estimated. You now have your leak. Obviously the assembly has to be large enough for the vacuum box to fit completely, but you also want to make it small enough to be portable. By placing the vacuum box on this assembly and pulling a vacuum, you can demonstrate to your client that the procedure will find leaks due to through-thickness discontinuities of the size that could be found in actual production welds. A bigger benefit, though, is that if the leak size is truly representative of what you could find in production, you can use this assembly to fine tune your procedure by adjusting the negative pressure, the concentration of bubbleforming solution, etc., until you get the setup that gives you the best bubble formation. You then plug this information into your procedure.
A: (By Ken Erickson) Thanks for the

question. I am glad to receive feedback from student welders entering the welding industry. From my knowledge, AWS does not offer training on this subject that is geared toward welders. I believe it would be beneficial if the educational institutions that offer welding courses would encompass some credit hours toward topics such
Q: I am a CWI working for a testing

company where I cover a lot of fab shops, both large and small. In one of the smaller shops (a pretty good outfit overall) there is a welder who is just not that good, wont take advice, and gives me a hard time whenever I find something wrong with this persons work. I am out of patience, and Im thinking about
A: We would first ask the client who

may have a specific idea in mind on how to qualify the procedure. If you cannot or do not want to turn to the client, there is something else you can do. Based on some things you should already know (the joint configurations, the welding processes to be used, and
32
disqualifying this welder, which is allowed by paragraphs 4.1.3.1 and 4.32 of AWS D1.1:2008. The owner of the testing lab I work for is advising against this, though he is backing me up and telling me to do what I feel is right. What is your opinion?
A: You should disqualify a welder only

as a very last resort. Whenever you publicly call into question the quality of a persons work (and disqualifying someone will make it public very quickly) the person will probably take it badly, their employer may take it badly, the persons coworkers will take it badly, etc. Instead of solving the problem and making life easier for yourself, it may instead make life more difficult. The words you use to describe the issue indicate to me that emotions may be getting in the way of a satisfactory solution to this issue. We do not know any of the parties involved here, so we cannot make any
judgments as to the character of the people involved or as to the dynamics of the relationships, but we think it would be best if you proceed under the assumption that like most people, this welder wants to do a good job. If that is so, then based on your description of your inspection results, what this welder needs is improvement. The best way to achieve this is with some form of positive correction, not something punitive. Simply having this person take another test, which is what is required by the code provisions you cite, would not provide this correction and would therefore likely be seen as punishment. Whats worse, it may be seen as punishment for something unrelated to weld quality, and were sure youd agree that is to be avoided. We recommend that you first involve the shop supervisor, voice your concerns using objective language, and make a recommendation that the welder receive appropriate training or
instruction. We suggest you have this discussion with the welder present. Provide only constructive criticism and offer to help in whatever way you can in order to be part of the solution.
Inspection Trends encourages question and answer submissions. Please mail to the editor (mjohnsen@aws.org). KENNETH ERICKSON is manager of quality at National Inspection & Consultants, Inc., Ft. Myers, Fla. He is an AWS Senior Certified Welding Inspector, an ASNT National NDT Level III Inspector in four methods, and provides expert witness review and analysis for legal considerations. CLIFFORD (KIP) MANKENBERG is a construction supervisor for Shell International Exploration & Production, Houston, Tex. He is an AWS Senior Certified Welding Inspector and an ASNT National NDT Level III Inspector in five methods.
Phoenix DryRod ovens: Trusted by welding inspectors since 1951
-Recognized industry-wide since 1951 -Safety yellow color enhances visibility -Wire Wrapped heating element provides uniform heat within oven chamber -Optional calibrated thermometer -Union made in the U.S.A.
Phoenix DryRodovens. Dont risk weld cracking, porosity, spatter and costly rework.
414.973.3400
www.dryrod.com
33
Mark Your Calendar

37th Annual Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation (QNDE). July 1823, Marriott San Diego Mission Valley, San Diego, Calif. Sponsored by QNDE Programs and organized by the Center for Nondestructive Evaluation at Iowa State University. Contact Heidi Long heidil@cnde.iastate.edu; www.cnde.iastate.edu/qnde/qnde.html. 10th International Conference on Quantitative Infrared Thermography (QIRT 2010). July 2730, Universit Laval, Quebec City, Canada. Contact quebec@gel.ulaval.ca or qirt2010.gel.ulaval.ca. 11th EPRI Balance-of-Plant Heat Exchanger NDE Symposium. Aug. 911, Stevenson, Wash. Contact: Kenji Krzywosz, EPRI, (704) 595-2596; kkrzywosz@epri.com; my.epri.com. NDE/NDT for Highways and Bridges: Structural Materials Technology (SMT) 2010. Aug. 1620, New York LaGuardia Airport Marriott, New York, N.Y. Contact American Society for Nondestructive Testing, (800) 2222768, or www.asnt.org. N FABTECH. Nov. 24, Georgia World Congress Center, Atlanta, Ga. Contact American Welding Society, (800/305) 443-9353, ext. 462; or visit www.fabtechaws.com. ASNT Fall Conference and Quality Show. Nov. 1518, George R. Brown Convention Center, Houston, Tex. Contact American Society for Nondestructive Testing, (800) 2222768 or www.asnt.org. 8325, or visit www.lincolnelectric.com. Positive Material Identification Seminars. Topics covered will include basics of X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis, APRI RP 578, and recommended PMI procedures. For more information or to register, contact Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., at www.niton.com/News-and-Events. EPRI NDE Training Seminars. EPRI offers NDE technical skills training in visual examination, ultrasonic examination, ASME Section XI, UT operator training, etc. Contact Sherryl Stogner, (704) 547-6174, e-mail: sstogner@epri.com. Nondestructive Examination Courses. A course schedule is available from Hellier, 277 W. Main St., Ste. 2, Niantic, CT 06357, (860) 739-8950, FAX: (860) 739-6732. NDE Training Courses. GE Inspection Technologies offers training on topics such as eddy current, digital radiography, and remote visual inspection. For the complete schedule, contact (866) 243-2638; www.geit-info@ge.com; www.ge.com/inspectiontechnologies. Preparatory and Visual Weld Inspection Courses. Oneand two-week courses presented in Pascagoula, Miss., Houston, Tex., and Houma and Sulphur, La. Contact Real Educational Services, Inc., (800) 489-2890; info@realeducational.com. Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors Training Courses and Seminars. For complete course listings and schedules, call (614) 888-8320, or visit www.nationalboard.org. CWI/CWE Course and Exam. A ten-day program presented in Troy, Ohio. Contact Hobart Institute of Welding Technology (800) 332-9448; www.welding.org; hiwt@welding.org. T.E.S.T. NDT, Inc., Courses. CWI preparation, NDE courses. On-site training available. T.E.S.T. NDT, Inc., 193 Viking Ave., Brea, CA 92821; (714) 255-1500; FAX (714) 255-1580; ndtguru@aol.com; www.testndt.com. NDE Training. NDE training at the companys St. Louis-area facility or on-site. Level III services available. For a schedule of upcoming courses, contact Quality Testing Services, Inc., 2305 Millpark Dr., Maryland Heights, MO 63043; (888) 7700103; training@qualitytesting.net; www.qualitytesting.net. CWI/CWE Prep Course and Exam and NDT Inspector Training Courses. An AWS Accredited Testing Facility. Courses held year-round in Allentown, Pa., and at customers facilities. Contact: Welder Training & Testing Institute (WTTI). Call (800) 223-9884, info@wtti.edu, or visit www.wtti.edu.
Educational Opportunities
NDE Classes. Moraine Valley Community College, Palos Hills, Ill., conducts publicly offered and customized NDE classes in PT, MT, UT, RT, Radiation Safety, and Eddy Current to ANSI/ASNT-CP-189, ATA-105, and NAS 410 standards, as well as API 510 exam prep and weld inspection. For more information, contact (708) 974-5735; wdcs@morainevalley.edu; morainevalley.edu/NDE. Welding Certification Prep Course. Prepares candidates for the AWS Certified Welding Inspector (CWI) seminar and examination. This one-week class will be offered during the weeks of July 19 and Oct. 11. Contact Lincoln Electrics Welding School at (216) 383-8325 or visit www.lincolnelectric.com. AWS CWI Seminar and Exam. Lincoln Electric is a host site for the AWS CWI seminar and examination. The seminar is taught by an AWS instructor and covers how to reference AWS codes, examine welds, and prepare for the CWI exam on that following Saturday (proctored by AWS). Offered on July 2531 and Oct. 1723. Contact Lincoln Electrics Welding School at (216) 38334 Inspection Trends / July 2010
AWS Certification Schedule

Certification Seminars, Code Clinics and Examinations
Application deadlines are six weeks before the scheduled seminar or exam. Late applications will be assessed a $250 Fast Track fee.
Certified Welding Inspector (CWI)

LOCATION SEMINAR DATES EXAM DATE
Certified Welding Supervisor (CWS)

Miami, FL New Orleans, LA Phoenix, AZ Orlando, FL Milwaukee, WI Los Angeles, CA Sacramento, CA Kansas City, MO Cleveland, OH Louisville, KY Denver, CO Philadelphia, PA Chicago, IL San Diego, CA Miami, FL Charlotte, NC San Antonio, TX Bakersfield, CA Rochester, NY Portland, ME Salt Lake City, UT Seattle, WA Corpus Christi, TX Pittsburgh, PA Houston, TX Minneapolis, MN St. Louis, MO Miami, FL New Orleans, LA Anchorage, AK Nashville, TN Tulsa, OK Long Beach, CA Newark, NJ Portland, OR Roanoke, VA Cleveland, OH Miami, FL Corpus Christi, TX Atlanta, GA Dallas, TX Sacramento, CA Spokane, WA St. Louis, MO Los Angeles, CA Houston, TX Syracuse, NY Reno, NV Miami, FL Corpus Christi, TX
EXAM ONLY Jul. 11-16 Jul. 11-16 Jul. 18-23 Jul. 18-23 Jul. 18-23 Jul. 18-23 Jul. 25-30 Jul. 25-30 Jul. 25-30 Aug. 1-6 Aug. 1-6 Aug. 8-13 Aug. 8-13 Aug. 8-13 Aug. 15-20 Aug. 15-20 Aug. 15-20 EXAM ONLY Aug. 22-27 Aug. 22-27 Aug. 22-27 EXAM ONLY Sept. 12-17 Sept. 12-17 Sept. 12-17 Sept. 19-24 Sept. 19-24 Sept. 19-24 EXAM ONLY Oct. 3-8 Oct. 3-8 Oct. 3-8 Oct. 3-8 Oct. 17-22 Oct. 17-22 Oct. 17-22 EXAM ONLY EXAM ONLY Nov. 14-19 Nov. 14-19 Nov. 14-19 Nov. 14-19 EXAM ONLY Dec. 5-10 Dec. 5-10 Dec. 5-10 Dec. 5-10 Dec. 5-10 EXAM ONLY
Jul. 15 Jul. 17 Jul. 17 Jul. 24 Jul. 24 Jul. 24 Jul. 24 Jul. 31 Jul. 31 Jul. 31 Aug. 7 Aug. 7 Aug. 14 Aug. 14 Aug. 14 Aug. 21 Aug. 21 Aug. 21 Aug. 21 Aug. 28 Aug. 28 Aug. 28 Sept. 4 Sept. 18 Sept. 18 Sept. 18 Sept. 25 Sept. 25 Sept. 25 Sept. 25 Oct. 9 Oct. 9 Oct. 9 Oct. 9 Oct. 23 Oct. 23 Oct. 23 Oct. 28 Oct. 30 Nov. 20 Nov. 20 Nov. 20 Nov. 20 Dec. 4 Dec. 11 Dec. 11 Dec. 11 Dec. 11 Dec. 11 Dec. 18
Minneapolis, MN Miami, FL Norfolk, VA
Jul. 19-23 Sept. 13-17 Oct. 4-8
Jul. 24 Sept. 18 Oct. 9
CWS exams are also given at all CWI exam sites.
Certified Radiographic Interpreter (CRI)

Miami, FL Miami, FL
Jul. 26-30 Oct. 18-22
Jul. 31 Oct. 23
Radiographic Interpreter certification can be a stand-alone credential or can exempt you from your next 9-Year Recertification.
Certified Welding Sales Representative (CWSR)

Miami, FL Indianapolis, IN Atlanta, GA
Aug. 25-27 Sept. 22-24 Nov. 2-4
Aug. 27 Sept. 24 Nov. 4
CWSR exams will also be given at CWI exam sites.
Certified Welding Educator (CWE)

Seminar and exam are given at all sites listed under Certified Welding Inspector. Seminar attendees will not attend the Code Clinic portion of the seminar (usually first two days).
Senior Certified Welding Inspector (SCWI)

Exam can be taken at any site listed under Certified Welding Inspector. No preparatory seminar is offered.
Certified Robotic Arc Welding (CRAW)

LOCATION WEEK OF: CONTACT
9-Year Recertification Seminar for CWI/SCWI

San Diego, CA Orlando, FL Denver, CO Dallas, TX Miami, FL
Jul. 12-17 Aug. 23-28 Sept. 20-25 Oct. 4-9 Nov. 29-Dec. 4
NO EXAM NO EXAM NO EXAM NO EXAM NO EXAM
Wolf Robotics, Ft. Collins, CO Genesis-Systems, Davenport, IA ABB, Inc., Auburn Hills, MI Genesis-Systems, Davenport, IA Genesis-Systems, Davenport, IA Genesis-Systems, Davenport, IA Genesis-Systems, Davenport, IA Genesis-Systems, Davenport, IA Genesis-Systems, Davenport, IA Wolf Robotics, Ft. Collins, CO Genesis-Systems, Davenport, IA Genesis-Systems, Davenport, IA ABB, Inc., Auburn Hills, MI Genesis-Systems, Davenport, IA Genesis-Systems, Davenport, IA Genesis-Systems, Davenport, IA Genesis-Systems, Davenport, IA Lincoln Electric, Cleveland, OH ABB, Inc., Auburn Hills, MI Genesis-Systems, Davenport, IA Genesis-Systems, Davenport, IA Genesis-Systems, Davenport, IA Genesis-Systems, Davenport, IA ABB, Inc., Auburn Hills, MI Genesis-Systems, Davenport, IA Genesis-Systems, Davenport, IA
Jul. 19 Jul. 26 Aug. 2 Aug. 2 Aug. 9 Aug. 16 Aug. 23 Aug. 30 Sept. 13 Sept. 13 Sept. 20 Sept. 27 Oct. 4 Oct. 4 Oct. 11 Oct. 18 Oct. 25 Oct. 25 Nov.1 Nov.1 Nov.8 Nov.15 Nov.29 Dec. 6 Dec. 6 Dec. 13
(970) 225-7736 (563) 445-5688 (248) 391-8421 (563) 445-5688 (563) 445-5688 (563) 445-5688 (563) 445-5688 (563) 445-5688 (563) 445-5688 (970) 225-7736 (563) 445-5688 (563) 445-5688 (248) 391-8421 (563) 445-5688 (563) 445-5688 (563) 445-5688 (563) 445-5688 (216) 383-8542 (248) 391-8421 (563) 445-5688 (563) 445-5688 (563) 445-5688 (563) 445-5688 (248) 391-8421 (563) 445-5688 (563) 445-5688
International CWI Courses and Exams
Please visit http://www.aws.org/certification/inter_contact.html

For information on any of our seminars and certification programs, visit our website at www.aws.org/certification or contact AWS at (800) 4439353, Ext. 273 for Certification and Ext. 455 for Seminars. Please apply early to save Fast Track fees. This schedule is subject to change without notice. Please verify the dates with the Certification Dept. and confirm your course status before making final travel plans.
For current CWIs and SCWIs needing to meet education requirements without taking the exam. If needed, recertification exam can be taken at any site listed under Certified Welding Inspector.
AWS 2010
CER1324-07
Print and Product Showcase

Long Scopes Available for Industrial Videoscopes objects such as heat exchangers, boiler tubes, tanks, and pumps in power plants and petrochemical facilities. The two IPLEX systems weigh 3.9 kg including the lithium-ion battery and feature an LCD monitor built into a main operating unit that is 64 mm wide excluding the handle. They produce high-quality JPEG still images and MPEG-4 movies that record directly to a removable USB flash drive. Olympus NDT www.olympus-ims.com (781) 419-3900 Coating Thickness Instruments Designed for the Marine Industry The DUALSCOPE FMP40 is a hand-held coating thickness-measuring instrument designed with applicationspecific settings to meet the requirements of SSPC-PA2, IMO PSPC, and others. It offers 100 application memories, up to 20,000 readings in up to 4000 blocks, and is available with an integrated Bluetooth interface for easy data transmission to a PC. A large selection of accurate, interchangeable probes with a wide measurement range are available for the FMP series of gauges. They can measure coatings that are thin, thick, or soft; duplex, marine, and fireproof coatings; and coatings applied to bridges, water tanks, vessels, and other steel structures. Fischer Technology, Inc. www.fischer-technology.com (860) 683-0781
The 10-m-long scopes now available for the companys lightweight IPLEX LX and IPLEX LT industrial videoscopes work well for applications requiring visual testing of deep or difficult-to-reach areas. The longitudinal stiffness of these ruggedly built, 8.5-mm-diameter scopes allow them to be easily pushed deep into
36
www.worldspec.org
Portable TOFD Scanner Offers High Sensitivity
with the companys Pocket UT battery-powered, hand-held full C-scan acquisition system, the TOFD scan can be displayed, stored, and measured in terms of height, length, and position. MISTRAS Products & Systems Div./NDT Automation www.mistrasgroup.com (609) 716-4000 Automated System Performs Liquid Penetrant Testing
YOUR AWAITS...
CLASSROOM
The companys portable time-offlight diffraction (TOFD) scanner positions two angle beam transducers facing each other to transmit and receive the diffraction of the ultrasonic waves generated so the user can view the weld quality quickly. Uses include examination of heavy wall thickness welds on pressure vessels. The unit features high probability of detection, a hand-held magnetic wheel scanner, touch screen operation, auto data file saving, and easily adjustable probe center separation. Results can be displayed in several languages. Used
The Automated Liquid Penetrant Inspection System incorporates a Cognex CCD camera with software to inspect parts or surface defects in both the base metal and welds. The system has been utilized for inspection of weld integrity of internally clad piping. Defects appear as contrasting dye spots. These indications form when the penetrant wicks out of the defect into the developer. The PC-based system uses a graphic user interface that allows realtime machine vision throughout the inspection process. The automated equipment is expected to reduce
Don't pay for travel or accommodations for intense one week courses...ever again
Fully online NDT training to meet global standards!
Register today and save $100 dollars instantly.

Enter aws59c2 in the discount code box
37
inspection errors, increase productivity, and provide detailed datalogging. ARC Specialties, Inc. www.arcspecialties.com (713) 631-7575 Resonant Acoustic Method System Offers Fast Test Rates The companys Nondestructive Testing Resonant Acoustic Method (NDT-RAM) system uses vibration to detect flaws without the need for part preparation. It can identify internal and external flaws due to cracks, voids, heat treating, dimensions, porosity, and nodularity, as well as missed manufacturing process. Test rates are as fast as one part per second, making it useful as an automated test system for high-volume applications. The NDT-RAM technology is based on LanSharc hardware. The Modal Shop, Inc. www.modalshop.com (800) 860-4867
Borescopes Feature Built-in Cameras
Built-in Fan Keeps UV Inspection Lamp Cool
Each of the 18 models of Hawkeye Pro rigid video borescopes feature a built-in CCD camera. The borescopes include the companys patented e2 endoGRINs lenses, three viewing options, easy image capture, and complete portability. They come in five diameters from 1.85 to 7.2 mm and in lengths from 7 to 37 in. When used in conjunction with the optional portable video monitor or a computer, image and video capture can be done at the touch of a button. Gradient Lens Corp. www.gradientlens.com (800) 536-0790
The Spectroline FC-150 ultrahigh-intensity UV inspection lamp features a built-in fan that reduces operating temperatures and prevents the lamp from becoming too hot to handle. The lamp features a lightweight head and contoured pistol-grip handle that is located at the balance point of the lamp, so it can be held comfortably for long periods. It comes with an 8-ft power cord and UV-absorbing spectacles. The lamp delivers a nominal steady-state UV-A intensity of 4500 W/cm2 at 15 in.
38
Its 150-W Built-In-Ballast bulb does not need an external transformer and has an average rated life of 5000 h. The FC150X model features a 20-ft power cord. Spectronics Corp. www.spectroline.com (800) 274-8888
News Bulletins
continued from page 9
Official Interpretation Re: A5.5, A5.18, A5.20, A5.28, A5.29 A5.5/A5.5M:2006, Specification for Low-Alloy Steel Electrodes for Shielded Metal Arc Welding A5.18/A5.18M:2005, Specification for Carbon Steel Electrodes and Rods for Gas Shielded Arc Welding A5.20/A5.20M:2005, Specification for Carbon Steel Electrodes for Flux Cored Arc Welding A5.28/A5.28M:2005, Specification for Low-Alloy Steel Electrodes and Rods for Gas Shielded Arc Welding A5.29/A5.29M:2005, Specification for Low-Alloy Steel Electrodes for Flux Cored Arc Welding Subject: Filler metal impact testing at a temperature lower than specified Question: For the filler metal specifications listed above, is it the intent of the committee that filler metal classification testing to demonstrate conformance to a specified minimum acceptable level for impact testing, i.e., minimum energy at specified temperature, can be met by testing and meeting the requirement at any lower temperature? Response: Yes; however, the actual temperature used for testing shall be listed on the certification documentation when issued.
accreditation in Materials Testing and ISO/IEC 17025. Metallographic evaluation of fusion welds and welder/welding operator qualifications, and ICP mass spectroscopy were added to the scope of the accreditation at renewal. PRI/Nadcap is PRIs industrymanaged program for special processes in the aerospace industry. Accreditation is in accordance with SAE Aerospace Standard AS7003.
commercial aircraft. The five-axis, multielement immersion systems feature phased array technology and provide increased speed and single-pass coverage of the components.
Ford Goes Global with Quality Data- Management Software

QMC, LLC, Auburn Hills, Mich., recently executed a global license agreement with Ford Motor Co. for its CM4D product quality validation software. The agreement supports Fords efforts to expand its quality processes globally. Known within Ford as Web-based data management, the CM4D software captures as-built quality information collected during manufacturing processes by various measurement devices, adding transparency to the entire vehicle quality process, from the prototype phase through launch and into production. In 2002, Ford implemented the software across its North American assembly and stamping facilities to track and analyze quality data. Fords quality successes over the past several years are well known, said QMC Partner Jeff Perry. The Ford team has done a world-class job implementing the CM4D technology for maximum impact at an enterprise level. We are honored to be a part of their success story, and proud that Ford has seen fit to take this next step with us and deploy the technology across its other regions.
Konica Minolta Opens Web Site for Color and Light Measurement Products
Konica Minolta Sensing Americas, Inc., Ramsey, N.J., recently established an online shopping Web site for its color and light measurement products. Instruments and their accessories can be viewed and purchased at www.shopkmsa.com.
MISTRAS Delivers Dual Ultrasonic Immersion Systems

MISTRAS Group, Inc., Princeton Junction, N.J., recently delivered two carbon composite inspection ultrasonic immersion systems to HITCO Carbon Composites, Inc., a provider of composite aerostructures and materials located in Gardena, Calif. The identical 25-ft systems are being used for inspection of composite components manufactured for new
39
Advertiser Index
American Society of NonDestructive Testing . . . . . . . . .9, 22 www.asnt.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .800-222-2768 AWS Certification Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7, 35 www.aws.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .800-443-9353 AWS Convention Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18, 30 www.aws.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .800-443-9353 AWS Member Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10, 36, 38 www.aws.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .800-443-9353 Carestream Health, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 www.hpx-1.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .877-865-6325 FABTECH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .OBC www.aws.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .800-443-9353 Flawtech, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 www.flawtech.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .704-795-4401 G.A.L. Gage Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 www.galgage.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .269-465-5750 Iris Inspection Services, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 www.iris-inspection.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .800-940-1471 NDT Seals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 www.ndtseals.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .800-261-6261 IFC = Inside Front Cover IBC = Inside Back Cover OBC = Outside Back Cover Olympus NDT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IFC www.olympusNDT.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .781-419-3900 Phoenix International, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 www.dryrod.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .414-973-3400 Sakura of America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 www.sakuraofamerica.com/industrial .800-776-6257, ext. 113 Thermo Fisher Xcientific/Niton Analyzers . . . . . . . . . . .IBC www.thermo.com/niton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .978-670-7460 World Spec Online NDT Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 www.worldspec.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .877-506-7773
Visit Our Interactive Ad Index: www.aws.org/ad-index
Business Cards
Construction Technical Services 16350 Park Ten Place, Suite 238 Houston, TX 77084 Steven T. Snyder Technical Manager
AWS-SCWI, ASQ-CQA, ASNT NDT Level III, CSWIP-AUT-PA
Committed To Service
Office: 281-578-6810 Email: ctsi7@swbell.net
Cell: 504-931-9567 Web site: www.ctsisite.com
40
2010 Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. All trademarks are the property of Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved.
The worlds #1 handheld PMI tools.
Thermo Scientific Niton XRF analyzers are the leading handheld analyzers available today for rapid and accurate positive material identification (PMI). Lightweight and ruggedly built for virtually any environment or weather condition, they deliver exceptionally accurate elemental analysis and alloy grade identification in seconds.
The all-new Thermo Scientific Niton XL2 joins the Niton XL3 and our family Visit www.thermoscientific.com/niton for more information or contact us at 1 800-875-1578 or +1 978-670-7460.
of handheld XRF analyzers. Speed, accuracy, value either way, you gain the advantage.
Moving science forward

For Info go to www.aws.org/ad-index
ALL THE TOOLS YOU NEED. ALL IN ONE PLACE.
North Americas Largest Metal Forming, Fabricating, Welding and Finishing Event
When it comes to getting the tools you need to improve productivity, increase prots and nd new ways to survive in todays competitive business environment, nothing compares to FABTECH. One week, one convenient location, one opportunity to keep your business on the cutting edge.
REGISTER TODAY: www.fabtechexpo.com
NOVEMBER 2-4, 2010

GEORGIA WORLD CONGRESS CENTER | ATLANTA, GEORGIA

Inspection Journal

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Inspection Journal

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

July 2010 / Vol. 13 / No.

Inspection in the Shipbuilding Industry Understanding Convexity Changes to AWS D1.1

ULTRASONIC FLAW DETECTOR

Economical Size, Quality Performance

EPOCH 600 and EPOCH 1000 Series

For worldwide representation visit www.olympus-ims.com info@olympusNDT.com

AWS MISSION STATEMENT

Inspection Trends / Summer 2010

By Mary Ruth Johnsen Dear Readers,

Inspection Trends / July 2010

AWS Certified Welding Fabricator

Xiris Appoints Sangen as Japanese Distributor for Tube Inspection Products

Underwater Inspection Extends Intervals between Drydocking

Laboratory Testing Expands Hardness Testing Capabilities, Renews Nadcap Accreditation

Inspection Trends / July 2010

continued on page 39 For info go to www.aws.org/ad-index

ASNT Fall Conference & Quality Testing Show

Houston is It! 2010

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

Inspection Trends / Summer 2010

Inspection Trends / July 2010

Lessons Learned in Shipbuilding Inspection

It Starts with the Workers

The Evolution of Quality Systems

The Modern Management Approach

What the Past Has Taught Us

The Littoral Combat Ship

Just The Facts

Who Is the Engineer?

By John L. Gayler and Donald D. Rager

A Summary of Revisions in the New D1.1:2010, Structural Welding Code Steel

Fig. 1 Groove weld profiles inside corner joints.

Understanding a New Table

Fig. 2 Groove weld profiles in T-joints.

Inspection Trends / Summer 2010

Fig. 3 Fillet weld profiles for outside corner joints.

New Thermal Cut Roughness Requirements

Access Holes and Beam Copes

Fig. 4 Typical shelf bar details.

Inspection Trends / July 2010

Revised Backing Requirements

Prequalification and Qualification

Commentary on ESW, EGW, and UT

Inspection Trends / Summer 2010

By Albert J. Moore Jr.

Essential vs. Nonessential Variables

Inspection Trends / July 2010

Supplementary Essential Variables

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

Inspection Trends / July 2010

What Is This Thing Called Convexity?

Fig. 1 Convex fillet weld.

AWS D1.1:85 AWS D1.2:2003

AWS D14.6:2005 AWS D15.1:2001

Weld Surface Conditions (7.4.1) Weld Profiles Fillet Welds (13.4.1)

MIL-STD-1688A MIL-STD-1689A MIL-STD-2035

Inspection Trends / July 2010

Method for Measuring Fillet Weld Convexity

Maximum permissible convexity

W 16 in. (8 mm) 16 in. < W < 1 in. (25 mm) W 1 in.

16 in. (2 mm) 8 in. (3 mm) 3 16 in. (5 mm)

Inspection Trends / Summer 2010

The Proposed Solution

Inspection Trends / July 2010