The remaining weld looks like it was welded a little cold. It looks like the weld is still there and it failed at the toe/HAZ. If you look at toe between 12 and 1 o'clock you can see the weld looks to have been under-filled or undercut the base metal. Also, in this area the weld has convexity...
The theory of using a solvent moistened rag is to not remove penetrant from any indications. If you were to flush or dip the part there is a chance of removing all penetrant. Typically I will wipe the excess penetrant off with a dry cloth, then with a solvent moistened rag. This will remove all...
There are two main options with this issue when working to AWS. First remove the coating to allow for welding. Second is to qualify a procedure to weld with coating in place.
Ugly is acceptable, as long as it meets the codes visual acceptance criteria. The issue of stress risers is typically covered by this. I usually work to D1.1 or D1.5, but I believe that D14.1 is more conservative(I don't have one handy so I could be mistaken).
The essential variables listed in ASME and the required testing may not be the same as those needed to qualify a WPS in accordance with AWS D1.1 (assuming the conditions of prequalification are not met). The visual acceptance criteria used to evaluated a test sample per AWS D1.1 is different...
I believe that post repair volumetric NDT will relieve almost all concerns regarding to "ugly welds". In my experience, performing NDT for the last 18 years, it is not uncommon to have a weld with an ugly cover pass and be totally clean inside. The only way to tell is be performing the testing.
Here is a link to the NJ requirements for special inspection. Most will require that you demonstrate competence to the building official.
http://www2.iccsafe.org/states/newjersey/NJ_Building/PDFs/NJ_Bldg_Chapter17.pdf
If you have copper contamination it would most likely be evident by cracking. There are a wide variety of ceramic backing material on the market if this is a concern.
Plug welds are there own unique item. As metengr has stated they can be treated like a fillet weld. But there is a lot to be said for the welding procedure. AWS D1.1 (06) C-5.26.5 describes a technique that is much better than the "swirl the electrode" technique, yet both are seen when working...
B16A2,
Looking back at some of my rocaps it looks like my 3/4" bolts tensioned at 200 to 320 ft lb. Not to difficult. As others have mentioned, a cheater bar works good or you can get a multiplier. Both will help, but 200-300 pounds is not that much.
When performing UT of forgings you need to have an appropriate procedure. A technique that is repeatable on parts with known defects or a mock up. Without this there is a good chance you can miss indications. UT (longitudinal) and MT (WFMT) when performed correctly should find any...
Ballbearing1,
I have to agree with HgTX. What you are saying may work as a visual aid. But it is not a correct description of the joint detail. It is non standard. Somewhat like referring to the GMAW process MIG. The majority of people will be able to figure out what it is you are trying to say...
If you are trying to determine the what the origional part was made of then I would suggest PMI.
But it is hard to determine if that is what you are asking. Are you asking how to derermine what the material is or are you trying to determine if a repair has been made?
AWS D1.1 allows the re-baking of lo-hi SMAW electrodes once. See AWS D1.1 (08) 5.3.2 to 5.3.2.4. In my shop if the electrode have been re-baked then I have the exposed end painted orange.
