Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Introduction
Background
A significant amount of research has
been conducted on the static tensile
properties of welded butt joints in structural steel and aluminum. The most prevalent research has made use of welds
containing various discontinuities such as
inadequate joint penetration and porosity; however, little has been done to
characterize the behavior of fillet welds.
(The Appendix highlights the significant
findings of the pertinent literature on
welded butt joints and fillet welds.)
MAX. SHEAR
STRESS PLANE
22.5
WELD
Experimental Approach
A specimen typical of commonly used
fillet (shear) welds but also providing ease
in measuring the mechanical properties
of interest was required. The specimen
type chosen (Fig. 3) had four fillet welds:
t w o multiple pass welds located opposite
each other at one end and t w o single
pass welds containing clustered porosity
at the opposite end.
A strain-gaged prototype specimen
was pulled in tension to failure early in the
test program to assess the specimen
behavior. The strain gages indicated that
no significant bending strains occurred,
thus assuring that loading was transmitted
in shear.
The fillet weld specimens were careful-
I.O"
DISCARD
T
4.0"
_SA*.U2_
_ >
I4.0"
_ X J
-ROLLING
DIRECTION
DISCARD
-I2.0'
(THREE PASS)
o.75" r
"T
-I2.0"-
GMAW N 5 ^ i k _
]^75
\
\
^2.0*I 1-2.0"*
U
4.5
3/8
t)
V
Fig. 3 Dimensions of fillet weld specimens and blanks. SI conversion factor: I in. = 25.4 mm (or 2.54 cm)
200
GOVERNING DEFECT
POROSITY OTHER
180
s,
.*-
ST
SW
MOO
1s
IOOO
H
CO
140^
900
mWill-'
800
A*.
rlTITlrt^'
f [P
N||
700
S 100
K
IL
600
<
Fig. 4 Fillet weld dimensions for throat (T), legs (S1 and S?) and fracture width (W)
F/g. 5 (right) Relationship between shear strength
and percent cluster porosity on the fracture surface
80
w
500
I .60
400
<
300
40
DESIGN SHEAR STRESS (AWS 171)
200
100
10
15
20
Specimen Design
Test Results
Weld length,
Si,
s2,
T,
TN,
w,
FW1CP-0
FW2CP-0
102.6
102.9
9.7
9.7
9.9
9.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
7.9
9.9
FW3CP-0
FW1CP-1/4
FW2CP-1/4
FW1CP-1/2
FW2CP-1/2
FW1CP-1
FW2CP-1
103.9
100.6
103.4
103.6
101.6
98.8
101.9
9.7
9.7
11.7
9.7
11.7
9.7
11.7
9.9
9.99
11.2
9.9
11.2
9.9
11.2
6.9
6.9
8.1
6.9
8.1
6.9
8.1
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
7.9
9.9
8.6
9.9
FW1CP-2
FW2CP-2
FW1CP-3
FW2CP-3
FW1CP-4
FW2CP-4
101.1
101.6
101.6
99.8
102.4
102.9
11.7
11.7
10.9
10.9
11.7
10.9
12.2
11.2
10.4
10.4
12.2
10.4
8.4
8.4
7.6
7.6
8.4
7.6
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
9.9
No failure
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
Specimen number
Specimen
number
FW3CP-0
FW2CP-0
FW3CP-0
FW1CP-1/4
FW2CP-1/4
FW1CP-1/2
FW2CP-1/2
FW1CP-1
FW2CP-1
FW1CP-2
FW2CP-2
FW1CP-3
FW2CP-3
FW1CP-4
FW2CP-4
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Ultimate
load, kN
1116
1374
1268
1312
1428
1161
1415
1352
1330
1566
1659
1072
1076
1561
1116
sTa
MPa
SNa
MPa
Swa
MPa
793
976
891
952
850
818
856
997
803
925
976
693
707
910
712
793
976
891
952
1077
818
1014
997
952
1125
1192
773
786
1112
792
691
692
633
676
716
712
721
792
676
803
547
559
790
563
FS T
3.70
4.56
4.29
4.45
3.97
3.82
4.00
4.66
3.75
4.32
4.56
3.24
3.30
4.25
3.33
FSw
3.70
4.56
4.29
4.45
4.71
3.82
4.74
4.66
4.48
5.26
5.57
3.61
3.67
5.19
3.33
3.23
3.23
2.95
3.16
3.34
3.33
3.37
3.70
3.16
3.75
FSN
2.55
2.61
3.69
2.63
Radiogra phic
acceptability
(porosity only)
c
A-1
A-1
A-1
U-All d
A-1
U-AII
A-1
U-AII
U-AII
U-AII
U-AII
U-AII
U-AII
U-AII
U-AII
Area enclosing
porosity (fracture
surface), cm 2
Porosity
(fracture
surface), %
Porosity
(radiograph),
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.06
0.58
0.00
1.68
4.06
1.42
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.66
0.33
2.92
0.0
9.83
20.67
7.27
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.3
2.0
0.0
7.5
12.0
5.0
8.0
10.0
7.0
15.0
12.0
2.84
14.47
3.55
17.87
ST, S N , and Sw are ultimate shear strengths o n measured throat (T), nominal throat (T N ). and measured fracture w i d t h (W).
FST, FSN. and FSW are the factors o f safety (Ret 12).
Acceptable in accordance with Standard I. MIL-R-1 M 6 8 (ORD).
Unacceptable according to all standards.
GOVERNING DEFECT
POROSITY OTHER
5.0
3.0,_
The type and amount of weld discontinuities present on the fracture surface
and x-ray radiographic inspection results
are given in Table 3. The amount of
porosity considered acceptable according to MIL-R-11468 (ORD) (Ref. 4) is
based on the largest pore, its total
enclosed length, average size, and average distance between pores.
Using these criteria, five of the 15
specimens were rated acceptable. The
ASME radiographic standard in the Boiler
and Pressure Vessel Code (Ref. 6) is
based on pore size distribution. The same
five specimens, which were acceptable
according to the military specification,
also met ASME standards; the other specimens were rated unacceptable, because
they exceeded the allowable pore area
or distribution.
The fracture surface shown in Fig. 8
illustrates the type of fracture observed in
many of the fillet weld specimens containing cluster porosity. In regions of
sound weld metal, the fracture path was
generally inclined at an angle (5 to 25 deg)
from the tensile axis a region where a
tensile stress component was present
and the fracture surface was smooth and
10
15
20
Fig. 6 - Relationship between safety factor and percent cluster porosity on fracture
surface
.20i-
50
Conclusions
1. The results indicated that the design
shear stress specified in the AWS Structural Welding Code - S t e e l (D 1.1-82) for
fillet welds is overly conservative. Factors
of safety for sound fillet welds ranged
from 3 to 4.5.
2. Cluster porosity in amounts up to
10% had no effect on shear strength.
Clustered porosity levels greater than this
reduced the shear strength in proportion
to the amount present; in amounts up to
20%, however,
the
strength
still
exceeded the design strength levels specified in AWS D1.1.
3. In some instances, secondary (planar) discontinuities in the fillet welds
PORTION TOUCHING
COVER PLATES
.18 .16 -
40
PLANAR FLAWS
I4
ul
.
- .30
CLUSTER POROSITY
..<>-
z
.08
.20
.10
DEFECT-FREE AREA,
SILKY SMOOTH
5 .06
s
E
.04
CENTER PLATE
UJ
o
j _
.02
10
J_
12
J_
14
16
_1_
_L
18
20
22
LOADING DIRECTION
PERCENT POROSITY
Fig. 7 Deformation
surface
at fracture
vs. percent
cluster porosity
on
fracture
Specimen
number
FW1CP-0
FW2CP-0
FW3CP-0
FW1CP-1/4
FW1CP-1/4
FW1CP-1/2
FW2CP-1/2
FW1CP-1
FW2CP-1
FW1CP-2
FW2CP-2
FW1CP-3
FW2CP-3
FW1CP-4
FW2CP-4
.16 cm
.30 cm
.48 cm
.64 cm
18
Planar discontinuities,
Linear
Planar discontinuities,
Linear
Planar discontinuities
27
14
16
14
Planar discontinuities
Planar discontinuities
Linear
13
None
20
Flat, irregular
Smooth, excl. porosity (23 deg)
Smooth, excl. porosity
Flat, LOF (13 deg)
Irregular, LOF
Smooth, excl. porosity (17 deg)
Flat, then irregular
Smooth, excl. porosity (20 deg)
Other discontinuities,
location
.04 cm
31
10
16
17
12
14
Planar discontinuities
Linear
None
Planar discontinuities,
Linear
Planar discontinuities
Planar discontinuities,
Linear
Large lack of fustion
(LOF)
Large LOF
Planar discontinuities
Linear
(a) All discontinuties projected on weld longitudinal axis and the individual summed.
(b) A acceptable, Uunacceptable.
(c) Radiographic inspection spec. MIL-R-11468 (ORD). Width of weld taken to be nominal weld size, i.e.. 0.% cm. A-l, II, or III denotes acceptable according to Standard I, II. or III, respectively.
Recommendations
1. The safety factors of transverse fillet welds should be reduced for static
service applications by increasing the
Fig. 9 Failure of transverse fillet weld which is relatively free of internal Fig. 10 Example of cluster porosity and associated fracture surface
discontinuities
Discontinuity
length, mm
Summation' 3 '
Largest
discontinuity
Acceptability
based on
other
discontinuities' 6 '' <c)
Acceptability
based on
governing
discontinuities'15'
9.6
3.8
A-lll
A-lll
A-l
A-l
38.1
25.4
U-AII
U-AII
63.5
38.1
U-AII
U-AII
1.3
1.3
A-ll
U-AII
76.2
38.1
U-AII
U-AII
1.3
1.3
A-ll
A-ll
1.3
0.8
A-ll
U-AII
1.3
0.8
A-ll
U-AII
A-l
U-AII
U-AII
1.5
0.8
A-ll
U-AII
25.4
25.4
U-AII
U-AII
31.2
31.2
U-AII
U-AII
1.3
0.8
A-ll
U-AII
4K07801ADK1.
b e h a v i o r b u t w e r e unable t o define a
critical discontinuity size. Their results also
s h o w e d a rapid decrease in ductility as
the a m o u n t of p o r o s i t y increased; little
loss in strength w a s n o t e d .
Fillet Weld Research
References
2. American Welding Society. 1982. Structural welding code. AWS D1.1-82, section
3.6.
3. Lawrence, F. V., Jr., and Cox, E. P. 1976.
Influence of inadequate joint penetration on
tensile behavior of A514 steel welds. Welding
Journal 55(5): 113-s to 120-s.
4. Department of Defense. 1951. Radiographic insepection; soundness requirement
for arc and gas welds in steel. Military specification M1L-R-11468, ORD.
5. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. 1974. Boiler and pressure vessel code.
Section III, subsection NB-5320 and section VIII,
appendix IV.
6. American Society for Testing and
Materials. 1975. Mechanical testing of steel
products. Specification A370, part 31.
7. American Welding Society. 1982. Structural welding code- steel. AWS D1.1-82, table
9.3.1.
8. Lundin, C. D. 1976 (December). The
significance of weld discontinuities: a review of
current literature. WRC bulletin no. 222. New
York: Welding Research Council.
9. Pense A. W., and Stout, R. D. 1970.
Influence of weld defects on the mechanical
properties of aluminum alloy weldments. WRC
bulletin no. 152. New York: Welding Research
Council.
10. Lawrence, F. V., |r., and Munse, W . H.
1973 (February). Effects of porosity on the
tensile properties of 5083 and 606 I aluminum
alloy weldments. WRC bulletin no. 181. New
York: Welding Research Council.
11. Green, W . L, Hamad, M. F., and
McCauley, R. B. 1959. The effects of porosity
of mild steel welds. Welding lournal 17{7).209s to 306-s.
12. Bradley, I. W., and McCauley, R. B.
1964. The effects of porosity on quenched
and
tempered
steel.
Welding
Journal
43(9):408-s to 414-S.
13. Lawrence, F. V., |r., Radziminski, |. B.,
and Bruzic, R. W . 1971. The effect of porosity
of the static tensile behavior of high strength
structural steel weldments. Civil engineering
report no. UILU-ING-71-2024. Urbana: University of Illinois.
14. Honig, E. M jr., and Carlson, K. W.
1976. Tensile properties of A514 steel buttjoints containing cluster porosity. Welding
lournal 55(4): 103-s to 107-s.
15. Higgins, T. R., and Preece, F. R. 1968.
AWS-AISC fillet weld studylongitudinal and
transverse shear tests. American Institute of
Steel Construction reports.
16. Higgins, T. R., and Preece, F. R. 1968.
Proposed working stresses for fillet welds in
building
construction.
Welding
lournal
47(10):429-s to 432-s.
17. American Institute of Steel Construction. 1969. Specification for the design, fabrication and erection of structural steel for
buildings. Table 1.5.2.1.
18. Cox, E. P. 1977 (Feb.). The effects of
base metal notch orientation and acuity and
weld porosity on the dynamic tear toughness
of A514F steel. U.S. Army Construction Engineering Laboratory technical report M-201.
19. Cox, E. P. 1977 (Sept.). The effects of
weld porosity on the fracture toughness of
A514F steel. U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory interim report
M-227.