Ugly welds 2

[bb29510]

Is there anything in aws 1.1 on ugly welds?

ICC Master Special Inspector, Structural Masonry, Reinforced Concrete, Soils, Structural Bolted Joints, Structural Welding, AWS CWI D1.1

 

[jagad5]

Not familiar with that particular standard. It has been my experience that ugly welds are not necessarily weak and pretty welds are not necessarily strong.

Doug

 

[metengr]

What is your definition of ugly and you can decide for yourself. Undercut, porosity, weld spatter.....................

 

[robyengIT]

AWS D1.1/D1.1M 2006 paragraph 5.24 Weld profiles and associated fig. 5.4

 

[racookpe1978]

What is the function and purpose of the final product?

For example, weld spatter does NOT affect strength, but weld spatter on a handrail affects function (it hurts and cuts hands using the handrail!) so it is unacceptable.

If the product cannot be sold, loses sales because of looks or appearance or function (bad paint adherence or inability to add powder coating successfully due to holes and overlap) and "lumpiness" then - YES - "ugly matters" ....

 

[gtaw]

There is no criteria for "ugly."

Accept/reject decisions must be made on the criteria provided by th applicable welding standard.

Best regards - Al

 

[Duwe6]

Take a look at the weld profile example sketches. Most ugly welds have unacceptable profile - usually overlap and excessive reinforcement. Grounds for rejection.

Keep in mind that the definition of a 'Gorilla weld' is big, fat, ugly and strong. Very few ugly welds are weak; however most ugly welds fail to meet D1.1 profile requirements. And maybe 1/4th of the welders producing ugly stuff will fail an on-demand welding test. If you are the Inspector-of-Record, CWI or not, you have the right to demand that a welder retest "right now, right here" if his/her work is suspect. Not proven to be all bad, just reasonably suspect.

 

[21121956]

Hello everybody:

In the American Welding Society Online Forum, for a reason that I can not explain, it is not possible to open the files shown in the thread

http://www.aws.org/cgi-bin/mwf/topic_show.pl?tid=33241.

I am posting a dropbox link containing the photos that originally were depicted in that thread. Pay attention to the billboard that is supported by these welds.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/00ejcoevb0jkhon/AAD1-q05Lf66ZdKiekNkpXsGa

El que no puede andar, se sienta.

 

[21121956]

Hello everybody:

Here I am sending the file using ENGINEERING.com



El que no puede andar, se sienta.

 

[Duwe6]

Photos 2 thru 4 are cause to have these welds removed completely and rewelded; also the welder should be either disqualified, or required to immediatly test on a 3G coupon [that he/she is pretty certain to fail ]

Don't leave dangerous garbage like this unrepaired. It's a ballpark!

 

[gtaw]

Those are not ugly welds. They simply do not meet AWS D1.1 on so many levels.

Al

Best regards - Al

 

[kingnero]

This is a classic example of where the "farm code" needs to be referenced.

Thanks again gtaw, for sharing this code with us (

http://eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=359518

)

 

[tbuelna]

As far as I could tell from looking at the pictures, the welds were not supporting any kind of structure. They were simply welds connecting small pieces of tube and angle.

The welds shown were definitely "ugly", and were substandard by any definition. The welds obviously lacked proper surface preparation, and were contaminated by surface corrosion and paint. The welds also lacked sufficient penetration and fusion at the joints, and exhibited significant amounts of gas porosity.

Anyone familiar with welding processes knows when a weld looks right and when it doesn't.

 

[gtaw]

An ugly weld is like an ugly woman. I might not know how to define ugly, but I sure as heck recognize it when I see it!

Best regards - Al