Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Ugly Welds 1
- Thread starter LAB01
- Start date
-
1
- #2
EdStainless
Materials
And after that decide if these are loaded enough to really be concerned.
If so then some localized grinding would be needed to see if there is any base metal fusion in some of these.
The long welds don't look too bad.
That end looks like it was done backhanded with no looking.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, consulting work welcomed
If so then some localized grinding would be needed to see if there is any base metal fusion in some of these.
The long welds don't look too bad.
That end looks like it was done backhanded with no looking.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, consulting work welcomed
One thing we run into sometimes in the vessel/tank industry, is that people have an existing item, and want to go back and certify it to meet some standard. Only the standard mandates how it is built, how it is welded, how it is inspected, and there's no way to certify that after it's all been done.
In your case, first question is whether you're responsible for actually determining the adequacy of those existing welds. If so, that might involve some grinding, or taking samples, testing, etc, and could be rather an involved inspection/testing program.
Or if that's beyond the scope of your work, then you can calculate average sizes and go from there, assuming what is there is "good".
The problem with "ugly" welds is that you also don't know how, or how properly, they were welded other than the ugly. If someone's welds look that, they may not know one rod from another, never heard of pre-heat, etc., no telling.
In your case, first question is whether you're responsible for actually determining the adequacy of those existing welds. If so, that might involve some grinding, or taking samples, testing, etc, and could be rather an involved inspection/testing program.
Or if that's beyond the scope of your work, then you can calculate average sizes and go from there, assuming what is there is "good".
The problem with "ugly" welds is that you also don't know how, or how properly, they were welded other than the ugly. If someone's welds look that, they may not know one rod from another, never heard of pre-heat, etc., no telling.
Lomarandil
Structural
maybe somebody will remember the wording of what Duane Miller used to say.. something about pretty welds not being good, and ugly welds not being bad, but either is a good indication.
They can be an indication about the care a welder puts into his work. I generally spec AESS 3 welds for visible connections as a quality control issue just to at least make the welds look like they are properly executed.
-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates
-Dik
-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates
-Dik
BridgeSmith
Structural
On that type of connection, we never weld the end of the angle, since the welds along the edges are adequate to develop the needed strength. I agree with EdStainless - check the required capacity against the 'good' welds along the edges, and see if you can ignore the end weld.
- Thread starter
- #8
Isn't the end weld stiffer so it will take load first? I feel like there's a design issue here I can't quite remember.
The longitudinal welds also look unbalanced, which is perhaps intentional, or somebody drew it up "weld-all around" and didn't bother.
Is this connection subject to fatigue?
Regards,
Brian
The longitudinal welds also look unbalanced, which is perhaps intentional, or somebody drew it up "weld-all around" and didn't bother.
Is this connection subject to fatigue?
Regards,
Brian
Brad805 gave the answer you need. I practice in Canada, so this work would be governed by W59-18. A properly executed weld requires visual inspection by the welder. How'd they do that without cleaning the weld? You can't judge the quality of the weld with the slag there. I don't know where you practice, but if there is an established welding code almost certainly it requires the weld to be cleaned.
If this is a structural connection on my project, I'm rejecting a weld like this 100% of the time, until it is at least cleaned and inspected. I don't care if the design load is 10 lbs. If I needed a weld there, it needs to be a proper structural weld. I tend to be more on the liberal side of accepting altered conditions - I look hard for justifications and solid rationale for leaving existing conditions as they are. But for this you would be setting a precedent for bad quality on structural connections...very slippery slope.
dik, I've been reading your replies on this forum for over a decade now. I have about as much anonymous internet respect for you as you can get...but with all due respect, specifying AESS 3 to ensure "welds are executed properly" is nuts and not gaining anything. This is a good summary of the difference in AESS levels: [URL unfurl="true"]https://www.aisc.org/why-steel/architecturally-exposed-structural-steel/[/url]. I know you practice in Canada; the welds need to be per W59. Different AESS levels won't (or shouldn't) impact the structural quality of weld. If the erector/fabricator is not capable or producing a basic structural weld, specifying tighter erection tolerances and more grinding of welds won't help any.
If this is a structural connection on my project, I'm rejecting a weld like this 100% of the time, until it is at least cleaned and inspected. I don't care if the design load is 10 lbs. If I needed a weld there, it needs to be a proper structural weld. I tend to be more on the liberal side of accepting altered conditions - I look hard for justifications and solid rationale for leaving existing conditions as they are. But for this you would be setting a precedent for bad quality on structural connections...very slippery slope.
dik, I've been reading your replies on this forum for over a decade now. I have about as much anonymous internet respect for you as you can get...but with all due respect, specifying AESS 3 to ensure "welds are executed properly" is nuts and not gaining anything. This is a good summary of the difference in AESS levels: [URL unfurl="true"]https://www.aisc.org/why-steel/architecturally-exposed-structural-steel/[/url]. I know you practice in Canada; the welds need to be per W59. Different AESS levels won't (or shouldn't) impact the structural quality of weld. If the erector/fabricator is not capable or producing a basic structural weld, specifying tighter erection tolerances and more grinding of welds won't help any.
I agree totally... but by spec'cing AESS 3, it simply requires a little better level of care which reflects on the welder.
It has nothing really to do with strength. I just think that a minimum level of weld to that quality (not overly high) will be slightly better than one without this qualification.
-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates
-Dik
It has nothing really to do with strength. I just think that a minimum level of weld to that quality (not overly high) will be slightly better than one without this qualification.
-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates
-Dik
- Status
Similar threads
- Question
- Locked
- Question
