×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Lack of Fusion after galvanization

Lack of Fusion after galvanization

Lack of Fusion after galvanization

(OP)
Hello All;

we have noticed many lack fusion welding defects on caisson shoes after galvanization (on white metal). These defects were not detected and UT inspection was passed when these shoes were tested on black metal (before galvanizing). What type galvanization parameters could have caused these defects?

Thanks in advance
Demsha

RE: Lack of Fusion after galvanization

Are you sure these are lack of fusion defects? They could be surface cracks associated or caused by hydrogen embrittlement (delayed cracking) from the welding process. Better look again.

RE: Lack of Fusion after galvanization

(OP)
they are not like hydrogen embrittlement cracks. Photos clearly show defects are at the fusion lines. These defects are much larger than hydrogen embrittlement cracks. I would like to show these pictures, but I cannot attach them. The system is asking link for these photos.

RE: Lack of Fusion after galvanization

Hydrogen cracking would be expected to be at the weld interface or in the HAZ. The area of the weld that is hardest is the likely area to experience hydrogen assisted cracking.

Before the member is HDG, it is subjected to a hot pickling operation that can introduce diffusible hydrogen into the area welded.

Best regards - Al

RE: Lack of Fusion after galvanization

demsha

Your post heading "LOF after galvanisation" is erroneous if NDT (UT and MPI) was suitable prior to galvanisation.

If items were proven to be defect-free prior to galvanisation then I suggest that metengr and gtaw are likely correct and these are not LOF defects.

Of course there is always the possibility that NDT was not done suitably in which case the caisson shoes may have LOF defects.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources