Seeking advice on the weld evaluation of composite panels
Thread Content
I would like to ask: regarding the weld assessment for composite panels, is it necessary to conduct assessments for both single-sided welding and double-sided welding in terms of coverage, or is it sufficient to perform one of them only? Are there any differences in important factors or supplementary elements between these two forms, which is why they are not interchangeable? The two groove types are based on Table B1 and the drawings in 47015. At present, I only have the specifications for the leftover material on the product: 16 (Q345R) + 3 (S30408). 2. If single-sided welding is used, argon gas, manual welding, and back shielding are generally employed. I was wondering whether the high energy of submerged arc welding has an impact on the clad layer and the transition layer, and whether this surfacing process using submerged arc welding is appropriate Thank you!
This post was last edited by wanlirn on 2021-4-29 at 09:38. 1) For the second option, where the thickness is below 12, it’s possible to proceed without leaving any gaps; use welding material for the base layer, clean the surface of the clad layer to a depth of 2–3 mm from the base layer, and then complete the process with a transition layer and a cover layer. 2) In the case of submerged arc welding, when the thickness of the base layer is above 16, we use this method as well, and we’ve never encountered any problems resulting from high welding current. 3) Essentially, single-sided grooving is the same as double-sided grooving; one approach involves grooving after cleaning the surface, while the other involves grooving first – cleaning the surface is still necessary in both cases. It mainly depends on the thickness of the plate and the welding conditions in our factory. 4) Based on your description, using chlorine welding, manual welding, and submerged arc welding for single-sided grooving, I don’t think the quality of the clad layer can be guaranteed. Our company would never dare to use such a welding process; cleaning the surface is essential for the clad layer. Below is our company’s evaluation of clad plates – for thicknesses above 16. As far as I remember, there are no products with a base layer thickness below 16; perhaps the explosion welding process doesn’t work well with too thin layers. Our company only uses this method
Thank you for your help every time. The actual situation here is that we are working with the first composite panel of its kind. Our management has manufacturing experience, and they proposed a V-groove welding technique to our welders. I’m the one who does the welding, but I don’t have any experience in this area. But I reviewed the relevant materials and suggested a double-sided groove; for the weld evaluation, I referred to the book \"Guidelines for Welding Procedure Qualification,\" and there was a suitable example that could also be applied to the product. Since they proposed a V-shaped groove, it was difficult for me to object. I thought I would try conducting a weld evaluation for a V-shaped groove to see if the radiographs would pass (which seems not very reasonable). The information available online mostly refers to double-sided grooves; single-sided grooves are only mentioned briefly as an option. Now I understand from your explanation: if the root is cleaned and then the surface is covered on the product, then the weld evaluation for the double-sided groove is considered to be covered. Also, the welding assessment for your factory is quite clear – it includes SMAW+SAW. In my case, I only have this one sheet of material with a thickness of 16+3 mm; the requirement for the actual product cover is SAW, so I need to conduct a combined welding assessment for the base layer on this sheet of material. But with a plate thickness of 16, it’s not very convenient to obtain 5 mm impact specimens. I have currently determined the groove shape (see attached diagram); could you take a look at it for me?
This post was last edited by wanlirn on 2021-4-29 at 13:16. It’s fine; chemistry, physics, and biology are sufficient
The question is clear, and the answer is precise!