Weld on weld 2

[Weldinspect]

Our contractor finished a bridge and his electrical department welded a non structural piece to suport electrical conduits right on a CJP on a 2" element of the structure. We ordered to cut off that new piece, can we request an NDT supported on AWS or AISC?

 

[connectegr]

The original CJP should have received a UT inspection. The added weld may have created a stress riser. Was the weld under load? Stress risers can create and propagate cracks. The additional weld will create a heat affected zone, which may result in a brittle crack. I am not aware of an AWS requirement that the weld be retested. There may be an AASHTO requirement for fatigue loaded welds.

I believe your concern is reasonable.

http://www.FerrellEngineering.com

 

[gtaw]

The weld on weld is not a bad thing. Think of a multiple pass weld. That is nothing more than one weld bead deposited on another. The potential for a problem is that the initial weld was made following a written WPS that was either prequalified or qualified by testing to verify the filler metal was compatible with the base metal, the proper preheat was used, etc.

It is dubious at best to believe the hanger was welded with the same level of scrutiny. Was a written procedure followed? Was the welder qualified? Was the hanger welds inspected once they were completed? You can see where this is going?

It is up to the owner to determine if the hanger is acceptable in the present state. The contractor that made the initial welds met his obligation once the owner (most likely a third party inspector representing the owner) accepted the welded joint. Anything done to the completed weld after the fact is beyond the original contractor's control. If there is a question on the quality of the hanger, the location of the hanger, welding to an existing weld, etc., it it is the owner's responsibility to get the issues resolved to their satisfaction.

As the owner, I would request the hanger be relocated; the weld ground to the original condition and some NDT, perhaps a liquid penetrant test performed after the area is ground smooth. I would also perform an acid etch after the penetrant test (not before because the acid entrapped by a crack can adversely affect the penetrant test results) to ensure the HAZ from the hanger is completely removed.

The owner should approve the new hanger location and the welding documents, i.e., WPS and welder performance test records, reviewed before the replacement hanger is welded in place.






Best regards - Al

 

[Weldinspect]

We ordered to uninstall the new welded piece, but mu wonder is if we as supervisors can request the constructor to perform and NDT acording to the standard.

The welder on the second weld was qualified, what it was not is the procedure, (I can´t say for example if the electrodes on the second weld were dry or not). I worry about contamination of the first weld, so I believe it is somebodys responsability to NDT...

 

[Ron]

Weldinspect...I would agree that the area should be ground and NDT done to check influence or anomalies. GTAW gave procedure/sequence for penetrant testing and etching that is appropriate.

While it is probably not going to show anything significant, it is a good CYA procedure and documents a changed condition that occurred outside the approval process.

Relocate the bracket.

 

[HgTX]

What does the code you're working to say about unauthorized welding? I work to D1.5, which is pretty clear that no welds can be made that isn't shown on the drawing. At that point, any resolution comes under nonconformance handling, and we're no longer talking just about code requirements, we're talking about "what do we need to do so that the customer does not reject this nonconforming part?" Once you have a nonconformance whose resolution is not explicitly addressed in the code, the customer can set their own terms for what they want to buy. It sounds like in this case you are the customer.

If what they did can't really be considered a nonconformance, then you might have to be prepared to pay to do what's right--and what's right is what others have advised and what you would like to require.

Hg

Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376

 

[gtaw]

In the case of a bridge, the owner is typical the DOT for the state involved or some other quasi-government agency. That why I used the term "owner" in my response

Best regards - Al

 

[Weldinspect]

I don´t have AWS D1.5 but I was sure this weld wasn´t right, thank you avery one

 

[Weldinspect]

Also the bridge wasn´t designed acording to D1.5, so only D1.1 aplies