This document discusses research into the effects of porosity on the mechanical properties of aluminum welds. It finds that increasing amounts of porosity reduce weld strength, and that fine porosity can reduce strength as much as larger pores if the total area is comparable. The document outlines methods used to intentionally introduce varying levels of porosity into aluminum alloy welds for testing purposes. Mechanical property test data on the porous welds is presented and compared to data from welds with artificial defects created by drilling and slotting.
This document discusses research into the effects of porosity on the mechanical properties of aluminum welds. It finds that increasing amounts of porosity reduce weld strength, and that fine porosity can reduce strength as much as larger pores if the total area is comparable. The document outlines methods used to intentionally introduce varying levels of porosity into aluminum alloy welds for testing purposes. Mechanical property test data on the porous welds is presented and compared to data from welds with artificial defects created by drilling and slotting.
This document discusses research into the effects of porosity on the mechanical properties of aluminum welds. It finds that increasing amounts of porosity reduce weld strength, and that fine porosity can reduce strength as much as larger pores if the total area is comparable. The document outlines methods used to intentionally introduce varying levels of porosity into aluminum alloy welds for testing purposes. Mechanical property test data on the porous welds is presented and compared to data from welds with artificial defects created by drilling and slotting.
This document discusses research into the effects of porosity on the mechanical properties of aluminum welds. It finds that increasing amounts of porosity reduce weld strength, and that fine porosity can reduce strength as much as larger pores if the total area is comparable. The document outlines methods used to intentionally introduce varying levels of porosity into aluminum alloy welds for testing purposes. Mechanical property test data on the porous welds is presented and compared to data from welds with artificial defects created by drilling and slotting.
i n c r e a s i n g a r e a f r a c t i o n s o f p o r o s i f y in a w e l d c r o s s s e c t i o n r e d u c e s s t r e n g t h , a n d f i n e p o r o s i t y w h e n p r e s e n t in s u f f i c i e n t q u a n t i t y t o c o n t r i b u t e a t o t a l a r e a c o m p a r a b l e t o t h a t o f l a r g e p o r e s e f f e c t s a lo s s in s t r e n g t h a s m u c h a s do l a r g e p o r e s BY J. F. RUDY A ND E. J. RUP E RT AB S T R AC T . T his experimental program considered the effects of porosity in 2014 and 2219 aluminum alloy d-c gas tung- sten-arc welds, the porosity was de- veloped by moisture and/ or hydrogen contamination of helium shielding gas. Porosity with individual pores ranging from 0. 005 to 0. 20 in. in diameter was developed in a continuous pattern in 24 in. long welds. Welds were made in the flat, horizontal and vertical positions on x / 4 and 3 / 4 in. thick material. Pore sizes, shapes, and total amounts were measured on fracture surfaces, and X-ray films; these measurements were related to mechanical properties in the transverse and longitudinal weld axis, for bead-on and bead-shaved conditions. Increasing the area fractions of po- rosity in a weld cross section reduces strength; fine porosity ( < y M t h size), when present in sufficient numbers to contribute a total area comparable to large pores, appears to effect the loss in strength as much as do large pores. Longitudinal axis tests indicate a less significant effect of porosity when some heat-affected metal is permitted in the test cross section. Data are also given for the loss in fatigue strength-life with in- creasing porosity. Mechanical property data from artifi- cially defected (metal removal by drilling and slotting) welds in 2014-T 6 are com- pared with the porous weld data. T he simpler defect geometry of drilled welds allows derivation of simple area loss vs. strength loss relationships, giving quan- titative support to porous weld data gen- eralizations. In the final analysis, strength loss is shown to be directly proportional J. F. RUDY, formerly with the Denver Division of Martin Marietta C orp. . is with General Electric Co.. Eveiidale, Ohio, and E. J. R UPER T is Unit Head, Advanced Manufacturing T echnology. D-^nv^r D'vl- sion, Martin Marietta Corp. , Denver, Colo. Based on paper presented at the AWS 48th Annual Meeting held in Detroit, Mich., during April 24 to 28. 1967. to loss in cross section area. ' C omment is included on methods of obtaining intentional porosity, since these techniques contribute to an understanding of practical causes of porosity as ob- tained in production welding. In t r o d u c t i o n T hi s study addresses the probl em of defining sati sfactory criteria for ac- cept ance or rejection of defects in al umi num welds. T he whole challenge of defining such cri teri a lies in the recogni t i on t hat they cannot be con- sidered i ndependent l y of such factors as the cost or urgency of the items bei ng inspected, t he design requi re- ment of the weld, and the i mpact of the repai r and scrappage alternati ves. : ' * * ' T o clarify these consi derat i ons, it is evi dent t hat t i me-consumi ng and ex- pensive i nspecti on pr odcedur es are not war r ant ed for low cost details that can be t hrown away for a frac- tion of the cost of a very detailed inspection. C onversel y, an appreci abl e effort can be economi cal l y di rected t oward the mor e accurat e assessment and i nspect i on of details havi ng hi gh economi cal value, as are charact eri st i c of l aunch vehicle pr ogr ams. A l so, it is not enough to be able to state t hat a given defect in an expensive fabrica- tion is undesi rabl e. T he pert i nent question is, "Is t hat defect as it exists at t he t i me of inspection mor e or less desirable t han a repai red wel d?" C om- plicating the logic a little mor e, "A r e Fi g. 1Effect of gr avi t y on pore d i s t r i bu t i on. A (t op)hor i zont al wel d macro cross s e c t i on; B (top r i g h t )h or i zont a l wel d X-ray. C (cent er r i g h t )f l a t (down hand) wel d macro cross s e c t i on; D (bot t om r i g h t )f l a t wel d X-ray 322-s I J UL Y 1970 WATER B UB B LEK Fig. 2Schematic of c ont a mi na nt me t e r i ng system Fi g. 3Range of p or os i t y obt a i ne d f or e va l u a t i on, di s pl ay ed on f r a c t u r e sur f aces the properties of the defective weld, as-is, more or less desirable than the properties of the first repair, further degraded by the probability that a second repair will be required, or a third . . . ?" T he acceptance-repair working document must operate in a very complex technical and economic field. As items of production become more complex and expensive, it may be that some industries will have to move away from the concept of adopting a blanket, across-the-board, accept- reject ruling philosophy. As economics justify, it may be well worthwhile to prepare separate documents for welds loaded in separable fashion. T he seem- ingly drastic approach of perform- ing a minor (i. e. , several man-days) program; to provide laboratory sup- porting data for a given defect in a given detail is even justifiable, and has been in fact pursued on occasion by the several companies in the manufac- ture of launch vehicle tankage. T hus, the acceptance criteria of the future may not take the same form as those traditionally found in industry today. T hey may instead take the form of guidelines for analyzing the specific "defect of the day. " In their present form, the data of this paper can best be used in that fashion. S pe- cific wide-ranging acceptance criteria are not derived and presented. How- ever, existing criteria and critiques, and guidelines, whereby more precise and perhaps less convenient criteria can be derived, are presented. Ca u s e s a n d Pr o d u c t i o n o f Po r o s i t y Porosity in any weld involves two stages. T he gas must be introduced. Ta b l e 1 Co n t a m i n a t i o n Me t h o d s Re q u i r e d t o Pr o d u c e Po r o s i t y Le ve l s Te s t e d a t Va r i o u s We l d Po s i t i o n M a t e r i a l a nd l e ve l 2014-T6- 1 /, i n. Le ve l One Two Th r e e Fou r > Fou r 2219-T87-V4 i n. Le ve l One Two Th r e e Fou r >Fou r 2014-T6- 3 / 4 i n. Le ve l One Two Th r e e 2219-T87-7* i n. Le ve l One Two Th r e e Fl a t (80 c f h H.) +20 F d e w p oi nt 5 c f h h y d r og e n +20 F, 25 c f h H. +60 F, 25 c f h H, 30 c f h H c
+20 F d e w p oi nt 5 c f h h y d r og e n +60 F, 25 c f h H,, 30 c f h H c +60 F, 25 c f h Hi, 30 c f h H e
+20 F d e w p oi nt - 2 0 F, 5 c f h Hj +25 F, 20 c f h H, +20 F d e w p oi nt - 2 0 F, 5 c f h H, +25 F, 20 c f h H, s Hor i zont a l (80 c f h H e ) +30 F d e w p oi nt +20 F d e w p oi nt 25 t o 30 Fd e w p oi nt 30 F d e w p oi nt 30 t o 35 F d e w p oi nt 5 c f h Hs +3 F d e w p oi nt 2 c f h Hs +30 F d e w p oi nt
5c f h H 2 +20 Fd e w p oi nt 5 c f h H, +30 F d e w p oi nt 6 c f h H,
45 F d e w p oi nt , 4 c f h Hs +20 Fd e w p oi nt . 5 c f h R. Ve r t i c a l (50 c f h H For y 4 ) (80 c f h H For : ' / 4 ) 2, 3, & 5 c f h Hy d r og e n* 4 c f h h y d r og e n 5 c f h h y d r og e n * Sp or a d i c p or os i t y of va r y i ng s i ze . ?. c f h h y d r og e n one 3, 4, 5 c f h h y d r og e n, one
+20 F d e w p oi nt , 3-5 c f h Hs
+20 F d e w p oi nt +20 Fd e w p oi nt , 3 c f h Hs ; 5 F d e w p oi nt , 3 c f h H ; ; 5 c f h Hs and the gas which is present in the solidifying bead must be prevented from escaping. If either of these con- ditions are absent, a pore-free weld should be produced. C onsidering the escape possibility, gases find escape more difficult as the solidification rate increases, and as the solidification geometry varies such that the upper- most surface is not the last to solidify. In every-day welding of launch vehicle components, neither of these factors can be varied at will in order to reduce the incidence of porosity. Weld travel speed ( < solidification rate) is generally held to a moderate level of approximately 5 to 15 ipm in order to give the welding operator the greatest chance to react to weld bead irregu- larities. Faster welding speeds produce an excessive amount of defective bead before satisfactory corrections can be introduced. Solidification geometry is controlled most effectively by selection of weld- ing position. However, position is se- lected by tooling concept, and cannot be easily changed once the commit- ment is made. Welds produced in the horizontal position, which have as their upper-most boundary the fusion zone of the upper plate, present the worst geometry for gas escape during solidification. Flat welding and vertical welding are both considerable im- provements for allowing gas to es- cape; welds so made do contain less porosity. Horizontal welding also pro- duces a nonrandom distribution of porosity, since buoyancy tends to cause the bubbles to collect at the upper fusion zone rather than to be distributed over the whole width of the weld. T his distribution promotes a plane of weakness; therefore, a given volume of porosity can be expected to exert a greater mechanical property affect on horizontal welds compared to flat or vertical. T his is illustrated by the X-rays and micro cross section of Fig. I. C onsiderations of how the gas is introduced to the weld bead are more complex than escape mechanisms, and the total understanding of the problem is less complete. However, most of the practical causes of gas introduction, W E L D I N G RE SE A RCH S U P P L E M E N T | 323-S I - I I I ' ' I I I I L_ i : $ - s \ < 1 E- f 2 O - U o a - Q O U t i T;Ii Ii Ir ""I Ti r i - - T ouv aamna 1 OHV aOHVT -r o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o i ^j ^ . j i . > > ' O J C O t - L O l f i ^ C O N o o o o ^ t ' J t ^J ,- ' I 1' * ' t ' J ^ . u . o o o o o o o o o 3= UJ 4 HOVi l OA OHV LNaHHiTD OHV A i DaWOHd 324-s ] J U L Y 19 7 0 as determined by empirical problem- cure experiences, appear to depend on moisture or hydrocarbons as the fun- damental cause. Other contaminants such as silicone-containing lubricants and even lead smears have been shown to cause porosity. However, these are not normally present in the practical production problems en- countered. T he most frequent carrier of mois- ture into the welding puddle appears to be surface contamination, either of the metals to be joined or of the filler metal. C ontamination is usually in the form of a hydrated oxide or (in the case of chromate conversion coatings which are introduced for corrosion protection) a hydrated chromate. In recognition of this problem, most procedures for high quality aluminum welding involve extensive surface cleaning steps just prior to welding. T he more reliable of these cleaning procedures are those which involve a non-smearing mechanical removal of the surfaces to be melted as the last preparation, and immediately prior to welding. A n important characteristic of mechanical removal techniques is that no sharp corners or burrs can remain. Such burrs, for reasons which probably have to do with a high sur- face-to-volume ratio, have been noted to cause irregular inclusions, called dross or oxide, in the weld bead. T he porosity caused by inadequate re- moval of hydrated surface contami- nants is also irregular and drossy, as opposed to spherical shapes suggesting gas contamination. T he objective of this experiment was to measure the effects of porosity on mechanical properties of welds. In order to obtain sufficient repetition for statistical validity, means were re- quired for consistent and predictable introduction of porosity into experi- mental welds. T he means chosen for artificial introduction of porosity were centered on moisture and hydrogen contaminants. Weld contamination was first attempted via control of surface of filler metal. A contamina- tion gradient was obtained by each of the following wire treatments applied to a given as-received wire: 1. Alkaline solution cleaned. 2. Baked in air convection furnace at 600 F for 4 hr. 3. Electrolytically charged with hy- drogen. 4. Exposed in boiling water from 4 to 96 hr. 5. Humidity cabinet exposed at 160 Ff o r 4 h r . 6. A nodized with a range of parameters from 5 to 25 amp/sq in. current density, for exposure periods from 1 to 5 min with varying bath temperatures. T hose treatments, which would be expected to introduce moisture con- tamination to the surface (humidity exposure and anodizing) did provide porous welds. Furthermore, the poros- ity patterns obtained were of irregular shape, similar to those found in practi- cal production welding of aluminum. However, these techniques had the disadvantage of inadequate predicta- bility of porosity level. In order to obtain a more predicta- ble sampling of a given porosity level, other more reproducible methods were sought. T he method finally se- lected, by virtue of its predictability and uniform distribution over the whole length of a weld panel, was to meter moisture or hydrogen additions to the inert gas shielding. T his was accomplished with the apparatus shown in Fig. 2. T his plumbing ar- rangement in the inert gas line al- lowed the metering of a portion of the helium through a water bubbler, and back into the main stream. T he vol- ume mixture of "bubbled" vs. "tank" helium provided an effective control of the dew point of the gas. Dew point was measured directly by sam- pling the gas at the port shown, imme- diately prior to entry into the torch. For some levels of porosity it was found necessary to meter some tank hydrogen in place of, or along with, the moisture carrying helium. T hese contamination means were successful in providing a wide range of porosity. T his range is best illustrated in Fig. 3, showing a number of porous weld metal fracture surfaces, arranged with increasing porosity, from right to left. Levels of contamination introduced to obtain porosity for the various al- loy, thickness, and welding position combinations are shown in T able 1. T he first level was generally obtained by metering moisture to a dew point of +20 F. Further contamination was obtained by metering more mois- ture, or mixing hydrogen in with the moisture. A lthough not satisfactorily indicated in T able 1, horizontal welds generally gave more porosity for a given level of contamination than did flat welds. In the opposite sense, it was difficult or impossible to obtain a large amount of porosity at any prac- tical level of contamination for the vertical position. C ontamination with this welding position caused excessive arc instability before introducing ap- preciable porosity, suggesting that the gas escape from a vertical welding puddle is quite efficient. T his system of producing porosity by shielding gas contamination was apparently satisfactory. However, an important undesirable aspect of the porosity pattern became apparent during the analysis of mechanical property change. On attempting to classify porosity patterns, it was noted that shielding gas contamination tend- ed to produce a very large number of very small pores, so frequent and so small that a precise characterization system was difficult. A nother complication of shielding gas contamination is the influence of gas composition on electrical charac- teristics of the arc. In general, the addition of moisture tends to make the arc resistance increase, calling for a higher arc voltage in order to maintain an approximately constant arc length. It was often necessary to reduce current in order to compensate for the more intense arc, holding an approximately consistent puddle and bead shape, for comparable contami- nated and clean welds. Hydrogen con- taminated arcs were somewhat less unstable. C ombinations of contamina- tion introduced complex changes on the arc which defy simple generaliza- Fi g. 5Surface appearance of c ont a mi na t e d 2014 hor i zont al p os i t i on wel ds. A (top l e f t )mi nu s 22 F dew p oi nt (no marked change f r om zero c ont a mi na t i on wel d); B (top r i g h t )h 22 F dew p oi nt ; C (bot t om l ef t )5 c f h H, mi xed t o 80 c t h He; D (bot t om r i g h t ) 0" F dew p oi nt and 15 c f h H 2 (large humps cover large pores) W E L D I N G RE SE A RCH S U P P L E M E N T I 325-s Ta b l e 2 Ty p i c a l Po r e Co u n t s Fr o m Fr a c t u r e Su r f a c e Nu mbe r of pores c ount ed on f r a c t u r e s u r f a c e . P a ne l s p e c i m e n 332- 13 332-2 332-20 v i n. d i a . 23 85 7 Va i n. d i a . 4 8 1 VM i n. d i a . 2 0 4 Vi e i n. d i a . 1 0 0 Va i n. d i a . 3 2 0 'A i n. d i a . 0 0 2 Tot al pore a r e a . Ul t i m a t e Equi v. . % f r a c t u r e area . t e ns i l e '/s i t h s Based on Gr i d i nt er- s t r e ng t h , c ou nt pore c ou nt cept me t h od ks i 181 15. 9 50 30. 1 189 16. 0 65 30. 4 175 15. 4 43 29. 4 ti on. In most cases, combi nat i ons of the cont ami nant s caused less electrical in- stability t han either cont ami nant by itself. S ome compar at i ve ar c vol t age, arc current , and arc length, (negat i ve number s for proxi mi t y, i ndi cate bur- ri ed-arc) are shown in Fi g. 4 as con- t ami nat i on increases from 0 ( t ank gas) up t hrough +2 5 dew point and 25 cfh of hydrogen. Er r at i c arc, and the t endency for t he arc to bury itself deeper unless voltage is i ncreased, is an appar ent out growt h of increased cont ami nat i on. For exampl e, the no- cont ami nat i on arc is burri ed an opti- mum 0. 020 in. with 12 arc volts, while the +2 5 F dew poi nt , 25 cfh H 2 (i nt o t ank He) was errat i c and burri ed an excessive 0. 080 in. despite an i ncrease in arc voltage to 16 v. In addi t i on to arc instability, con- t ami nat i on also had an influence on weld bead surface charact eri st i cs. S everal typical bead surfaces are shown in Fi g. 5 as a function of increasing cont ami nat i on. Low levels of cont ami nat i on produce a rough "gravel l y" surface, while great er levels of cont ami nat i on produce gross dis- tortions in bead cont our. It was neces- sary to avoid the latter probl em as much as possible since it would be difficult, in mechani cal propert y analy- sis, t o det ermi ne whet her vari ati ons were a result of bead shape or porosi - ty itself. We ld in g Co n d itio n s Welds were made in two materials, 2219-T 87 and 2014-T 6. Each materi- al was represented in two thicknesses, 1 / 4 and 3 / 4 in. , and welds were made in flat, horizontal, and vertical posi- tions. Filler metals were 4043 for 2014-T 6 and 2319 for 2219-T 87. Welding was d-c gas tungsten-arc straight polarity with helium (plus contaminant) as shielding gas. For the V4 in. welds, a first pass was made without filler metal, followed by a second pass from the same side with filler metal. T his procedure was changed for vertical welding, where a single pass with filler metal was more satisfactory. For the 3 / 4 in. thick welds, two passesboth with filler wirewere performed, one from each side. Joint preparation was square butt in all cases, with careful mechanical re- moval cleaning procedures to avoid introduction of contaminant by any means other than the intentional shielding gas source. It was desired to use comparable welding parameters for all welds of a given joint design. However, differing shield gas composi- tions necessitated changes in current, voltage, and arc length in order to minimize puddle geometry variation. T he procedure for obtaining con- taminated welds was to start with welding parameters which had been developed for the no-contamination joint. As moisture and or hydrogen was metered in, necessary adjustments in welding parameters were made. T rial welds were given a quick evalua- tion by observation of porosity in a weld fracture. On development of the target contamination level for a given welding condition, final verification was obtained by X-ray, and the neces- sary welds for the testing program were produced. Mechanical properties were measured primarily in tranverse and longitudinal tension, with cursory evaluation of the effects of porosity on fatigue behavior. Effe c t of Porosity on Me c h a n i c a l Pro p e rtie s De f e c t Cl a s s i f i c a t i o n Sy s te m Classification of defects was per- formed both before and after destruc- tive testing. R ather non-specific and arbitrary levels of badness were first assigned by comparing the stepped X-ray standards. Five levels, 0 through 4 from water clear to quite bad, were adopted, as target porosity levels for specimen production pur- poses. A lso, the Martin Marietta C or- porations' classification (Ref. EPS 55406) and the A B MA -PD-R -27A systems were applied before fracture. T he final nondestructive evaluation performed was to measure total pore area in the expected fracture plane, by means of multiple angle X-ray shots. T he more intensive classification of defects was performed by detailed ob- servation of the exposed fracture sur- faces. T his surface presents the most convenient display of the defects which were actually operable in frac- ture propagation. Description of the size-frequency distribution, the loca- tion, and such other derived parame- ters as total area, were obtained. Pre- Fia. fiFracture sur f aces and X-rays g i vi ng pore c ou nt of Table 2 S PEC I E '1Z-2Q 326-s J UL Y 1970 liminary analysis of these data indi- cate that mechanical properties did not depend primarily on such factors as size distribution and location, but appeared to depend on the'summation of the defect area reduction to the fracture surface area. 1 A i n . Tr a n s ve r s e Te n s i o n Re s u l t s T he most promising system for classifying defects, and one which gave a reasonably valid basis for plot- ting defect vs. mechanical properties, was to count the actual frequency and size of pores which appeared in the fracture surface of the failed speci- men. T his procedure may appear un- reasonable since it is not, ol course, a nondestructive test. However, it does provide, by virtue of more precise defect description, a basis for obtain- ing an empirical relationship between defect and behavior. T hree examples of each welding condition-porosity level panel weld were taken representing the highest, lowest, and near-average values of the many tensiles given from the weld. Each fracture surface was examined exhaustively and data of the type illus- trated in T able 2 were obtained. T he particular samples used for T able 2 came from 2014-T 6, l / 4 in. thick, horizontal position, tested with bead on and contaminated to porosity "level 4". T he three fracture surfaces showed defects as tabulated, with fail- ure surfaces and X-rays pictures in Fig. 6. S pecimen number 332-13, for example, contained 23 pores of 1 / 6 4 in. diameter, 4 pores of V32 in. , 2 pores of 3 / 64 in. , 1 pore of V 10 in. , and 3 pores of 3 / 3 2 in. T he term "equivalent Vinths pores" converts the cross sectional area of all the pores listed to the number of 1 / M in. pores which would, by themselves, contribute the same total area. For example, a single Vie '" P o r e c o n " tributes the same area as sixteen 1 , ;4 in. pores, and thus the number of 1 / 18 in. pores is multiplied by 16 to obtain its contribution to the " V M P o r e a r e a equivalents. " Other systems for summing effects of various pore sizes were tried, but the one based on cross sectional area met with greatest success as a tool for predicting mechanical behavior. One shortcoming of this system, as will be evident in analyzing the plotted data (particularly Figs. 7-11), is that pores of size less than V i ; 4 in. were not considered. T his omission, not impor- tant in normal welds, apparently caused a sudden drop in mechanical properties in the low range of meas- ured areas. T he data for the 1 / i in. tranverse welds are plotted in Figs. 7 through 11. It is evident that this classification system is quite successful in providing a well defined locus of points which relate ultimate tensile strength to de- fect description for each plot. T he important conclusion to be drawn from this satisfactory correlation is that the primary control of weld met- al properties is the tola! area of poros- ity in the fracture surface. T his im- plies that the size of the individual pores is not as important as the total area of the pores of all sizes. T he data of T able 2 were chosen intentionally to illustrate this point. T he three welds shown all have ap- proximately the same total pore area, 175 to 189 equivalent l /4ths- T hey also have approximately the same ulti- mate tensile strength, i. e. , 29. 4 to 30. 4 ksi. However, the distribution of pore size among the three samples is quite different. 332-2 has a large number of small pores, while 332-20 has most of its total pore area represented in the two V s in. pores. (T hese two 1 / 8 in. pores contribute 128 of the total 175 sectional area for a given volume of gas. T he following brief geometry ex- ercise shows that, for a given volume ( V) , area (A ) decreases as number of pores (N) increases: 4 V = 5 T r 3 TV where r is pore radius. Solving for r, 3V ' equivalent 4 ths area. ) T hus. despite different pore sizes, similar total pore cross sectional areas result in similar mechanical properties. T his conclusion opposes the idea that small pores are not damaging to mechanical properties. T he statement (tacitly accepted by some existing weld acceptance criteria) that a given volume of porosity is more innocous if broken up into small pores, is also refuted by this observation. In fact, if pore cross: sectional area is the impor- tant criteria, then a pore size is to be desired which gives the least cross 4T T /V A = 7r r 2 N (area A, of great circles through N spheres). S ubstituting for r, xy 2/3 Air N Assuming V is constant, and grouping other constants (K), A = KN 1,S , increasing as N increases. T hus, a given volume of contami- nant gas in a freezing puddle will introduce larger cross section area if it is present in the form of small pores. However, a statistical distribution ar- gument will also operate. T his conclusion that strength loss is a function of fracture plane loss defines the essential requirements of a nondestructive test. A testing and clas- sification system will be more accurate the more nearly it provides a readout which reflects pore area fraction of the (anticipated) fracture plane. T he preciseness of area measure desired must depend on the economic burden or arriving at this measure, relative to T ES T ED WITH BEAD OK A R T IFIC IA L CONTAMINATION COUNTING A LL PORES BY GRID INT ER C EPT (5) (10) ' 1 - 1 - 100 (15) ART1FICAL CONTAMINATION. POR E COUNT (%OF FRACTURE AREA) (20) (25) (30) (35) (40) (45) (50) 200 300 4 00 500 T OT A L PORE AREA FOUND IN FR A C T UR E S UR FA C E. EXPRES S ED IN EQUIVALENT NUMBER OF 1 64" POR ES A* BEAD SHAVED OPEN FILLED S PLIT SHIELD GAS CONTAMINATION' HYDROGEN MOISTURE MIXTURE NONE (A PPLIES T O FIGURES 7 THRU l l ) PORE COUNT (% OF FR AC T UR E AREA) (5) (10) (15) (20) (25) (30) (35) (40) (45) (50) -r- 0 100 200 300 400 500 T OT A L PORE AREA FOUND IN FR AC T UR E S UR FA C E, EXPRES S ED IN EQUIVALENT NUMBER OF 1/64" PORES Fi g. 7St rengt h vs. pore area 2014-T6, f l at we l d , VA i n. transverse t e s t W E L D I N G RE SE A RCH S U P P L E M E N T 327-s BEAD ON A HIGHEST STRENGTH FOR GIVEN PA NEL D NEAR AVERAGE y LOWEST (A PPLIES TO FIGURES 7 THRU 13 50 g * TOTAL PORE AREA FOUND IN FRACTURE S URFACE, EXPRES S ED IN EQUIVALENT NUMBER OF 1/64" PORES BEAD SHAVED I (% OF FRACTURE AREA) (5) (10) (15) (20) (25) (30) (35) (40) (45) (50) TOTAL PORE AREA FOUND IN FRACTURE SURFACE EXPRESSED IN EQUIVALENT NUMBER OF 1, 64" PORES Fi g. 8St rengt h vs. pore area 2219-T87, f l a t we l d , % i n., t r ans - verse t es t pore area by c ou nt 20 B EA D ON (% OF FR A C T UR E AREA) T (5) (10) (15) (20) (25) (30) (35) (40) (45) (50) a E - a 40 3 0 - w T OT A L POR E AREA FOUND IN FR A C T UR E S UR FA C E, EXPR ES S ED IN EQUIVA LENT NUMBER OF 1/64" POR ES B EA D SHAVED (% OF FR A C T UR E A R EA ) (5) (10) (15) (20) (2 5) " ( 30) (35) (45) (50) 0 100 200 300 400 500 T OT A L POR E AREA FOUND IN FR A C T UR E S UR FA C E, EXPR ES S ED IN EQUIVA LENT NUMB ER OF 1/64" POR ES Fi g. 9Strength vs. pore area 2014-T6, h or i zont a l we i d , % i n., transverse t est , pore area by c ount 2* a (% OF FR A C T UR E AREA) (5) (10) (15) (20) (25) - ~ 1 400 1 500 (50) 20 T OT A L POR E AREA FOUND IN FR A C T UR E S UR FA C E. EXPR ES S ED IN EQUIVA LENT NUMBER OF 1/64" POR ES BEAD SHAVED 2* a B EA D ON ! OF FR A C T UR E AREA) ^ ~ T (5) (10) (15) (20) (25) (30)' (35) (40) (45) (50) 40 30 20 OF FR A C T UR E A R EA ) (5) (10) (15) (20) (25) (30) (35) (40) (45) (50) T T 100 200 300 400 500 T OT A L POR E A R EA FOUND IN FR A C T UR E S UR FA C E, EXPR ES S ED IN EQUIVA LENT NUMB ER OF 1/64" POR ES B EA D SHAVED (% OF FR A C T UR E AREA) (5) (10) (15) (20) (25) (30) (35) (40) (45) (50) 0 103 200 300 400 500 T OT A L FOR E A R EA FOUND IN FR A C T UR E S UR FA C E, EXPR ES S ED IN EQUIVA LENT NUMBER OF 1/64" POR ES Fi g. 10Strength vs. pore area 2219-T87, hor i zont al we l d , Vi i n. transverse t e s t , pore area by c ount 0 100 200 300 400 500 T OT A L POR E A R EA FOUND IN FR A C T UR E S UR FA C E, EXPR ES S ED IN EQUIVA LENT NUMB ER OF 1/64" POR ES Fi g. 11Strength vs. pore area 2014-T6, ve r t i c a l we l d , VA transverse t e s t , pore area by c ount 328-s J UL Y 1970 Estimated StarttMresl Repair To Give Eqniv,, . Properties Fi g. 12Series of X-ray st andar ds f or VA i n. wel ds wi t h numbers i nd i c a t i ng f r a c t u r e pore c ount f or each speci men the economic value of the part being inspected. A shortcut attempt to come up with convenient pore fraction area measurements is to work backwards using X-rays of fractures whose pore area has already been measured, as standards for rating other X-rays. For example, an X-ray which looks similar to one of the series shown in Fig. 12 may be assumed to have approximate- ly the same pore fraction as that which was actually counted for the X-ray of Fig. 12. Ratings obtained in this fashion were reasonably success- ful as a basis for predicting mechani- cal properties. If economics justify, however, a painstaking analysis of an individual defect can be performed to obtain an accurate measure of expected pore area which will appear in the expected fracture plane. For example, the two X-rays of Fig. 13 are taken of the same area. T his example is straight- forward and does not require pains- taking mapping of defects. T he straight-on view (Fig. 13, left) illus- trates that the greater part of the porosity is contained in a plane which is normal to the surface of the sheet. On observing this X-ray it is obvious where the expected fracture plane will appear. However, the porosity is so concentrated along this plane (or "line" in the X-ray) that an accurate count cannot be obtained because of superposition. T he angle X-ray (Fig. 13, right) spreads the defect plane out; a pore count can be obtained. T he count from the angle shot divided by the cross sectional area of the weld K g W w u H I * H H 50 40 30 P 20 gives an accurate measure of the total pore fraction area. T his particular X- ray was checked with an actual frac- ture count, and results correlated quite well. How do existing aerospace industry specifications rate as intruments foi predicting mechanical properties? Fig- ure 14 illustrates ultimate strength INDIVIDUA L DA T A POINT S T A KEN A T R A NDOM FR OM C ONT A MINA T ED WELDS . T 1 2 3 POR OS IT Y C LA S S 50 H W H O Z Ed w w w EH W E-> 4 P 40- 30 20 Fi g. 13Example of pore pl acement wi t h i n we l d , possi bl e by m u l t i p l e X-rays 1 2 3 4 5 POROSITY CLASS Fi g. 14Transverse t e ns i l e s t r e ng t h vs. ABMA s c at t er ed porosi t y c l a s s i f i - c a t i on VA i n., bead on and bead shaved, mi xed t oget her W E L D I N G RE SE A RCH S U P P L E M E N T | 329-s ranges found within welds of given classification levels according to A B MA -PD-R -27A . T his specification is rather ambiguous to apply, and has the shortcoming that it appears to place insufficient value on small pores; that is the reason for the lack of correlation between properties and classification. T he very low values un- der Class 1 (the highest quality) were taken from samples which contained large amounts of very fine porosity, as illustrated in Fig. 15. T he same two alloys are treated in similar fashion for various classification levels in the existing Martin Marietta specification, EPS 55406, in Fig. 16. A gain, the ultimate tensile strength scatter for a given classification level is quite broad. T he poor correlation between properties and Martin Marietta's spec- ification is also due to fine porosity. % i n . Tr a n s ve r s e Te n s i o n Re s u l t s T he classification system derived in the foregoing discussion of 1 / i in. welds was repeated for 3 / 4 in. welds. T he major differences in the two thick- nesses was that appreciably lower levels of porosity, in terms of ratio of pore area to fracture area, were ob- tained in the 3 / 4 in. welds. T hus, the range of porosity investigated was 0 to 12% fracture area instead of the 0 to 40% for the V 4 in. welds. However, the summary derived in fashion simi- lar to Figs. 7-11 for the V 4 in. transverse welds, 1 illustrates the same overall behavior. Tr a n s ve r s e Te n s i l e , Ge n e r a l Di s c u s s i o n - Im p r o ve d Are a Me a s u r e m e n t Both the V 4 in- (Figs. 7-11) and 3 / 4 in. transverse tests indicate a de- pendence of mechanical properties on total pore area. T o a first approxima- tion, we would expect this dependency to be linearthat is, a given percent- age area loss should impose a similar UNCOUNTED TOO SMALL Fi g. 15Very fi ne "u nc ou nt e d " pores as di spl ayed on f r a c t u r e surf ace and X-ray of ve r t i c a l p os i t i on wel d wi t h H : c ont a m i na t i on, 2219, VA i n. X5 percentage of strength loss. T his as- sumes no strengthening or stress riser effects. However, the data show a strength loss that appreciably exceeds area loss. T his anomaly requires some discussion. T hat the percent strength reduction should be in direct proportion to the percent area reduction caused by the presence of the flaw, has been verified by artificial flaws in Martin Marietta C orporation (Denver) report C R - 64-198, "Weld R epair and Inspection Procedures. "-' T he technique of this study was to remove metal (introduce artificial flaws) from thcweld bead by drilling, as shown in Fig. 17. For most of the work, the hole diameter was 1 / i the tensile specimen width, thus allowing a simple conversion from drill penetration percent to percent area loss; 50% drill penetration equals 25% area loss, etc. Data from these experiments are presented in Fig. 18. T he heavy, straight line plots the A strength pro- portional to A area expectation. It can be seen that the actual data fall close to this plot, but real drilled weld strengths are slightly less than pre- dicted. However, the difference be- tween linear plot and actual data are much less for Fig. 18 than Figs. 7-11; further, the difference between actual and theoretical can be rationalized by considering the influence of bending, illustrated in Fig. 19. T his plot com- pares drilled hole strength vs. linear area loss strength for four different conditions. T he first condition illu- strates the relationship when area has been removed by the relatively shal- low drill hole, only 20% of depth. Here, actual strengths fall 10 to 15% below predicted strength. T he next plot pair for 40% drill depth shows a closer relationship between predicted and acutal, while the 60% and through-drill data show superposition of actual and prediction data. T he mechanical difference between shal- low holes and the through holes lies g
r a , - t H > EH H < EH J P 50 4 0 - - 3 0 - 20 POR OS IT Y NUMBER a g EH CO _ . M ^ O H I O H H W EH <
5 5 0 - - 40' 30 20 T r 2 3 4 5 POR OS IT Y NUMBER Fi g. 16 Transverse t e ns i l e s t r e ng t h vs. Ma r t i n Ma r i e t t a 's st andards, VA i n., bead on and bead shaved, mi xed t oget her 330-s J ULY 1 9 7 0 Fig. 17Typical 2014-T6 d r i l l e d s t a t i c t e ns i l e s p e c i me n, VA i n. fl at bot t om hol es: A (t op l e f t )s p e c i me n before t e s t i ng ; B (top r i g h t )t y p i c a l f a i l u r e p a t t e r n; C (bot t om l e f t )f a i l u r e cross sect i on on 20% d e p t h ; D (bot t om r i g h t )f a i l u r e cross s ec t i on on 60% dept h in the elimination of bending stresses for the through hole. T hese data, along with similar data from other plots, are replotted on Fig. 20 for nine different hole diameter to specimen width ratios. For the plot of DI(W-D) = 1 , a through hole (100% hole depth) constitutes a 50% loss in strength. T his prediction is borne out; the 0 depth and 100% depth data are as expected. However, the real data do not connect these points with a straight line, but deviate in the nonconservativeweaker than predicteddirection. T he difference between the straight line and the real data is maximized for the shallow holes, as would be expected of a bending effect. T he plot of Fig. 21 illustrates an- other aspect of strength loss caused by porosity defects. T he real data show 50- , no effect out to approximately 15% loss in area. From 15 to 30%, the strength loss appears to be coincident with a linear plot which passes through the zero defect ordinate at approximately 38 ksi. However, the as-welded strength of 6061-T 6 is only 32 ksi. T he typical fracture location at the 32 ksi strength level is, however, not in the weld metal but removed from the weld metal, out into the overaged heat affected zone. T hus, the data indicate that the intrinsic strength of the weld metal is 38 ksi, and that this zone loses strength in direct proportion to its loss in area, finally becoming the weaker link when its strength under-matches the over- aged zone; this shifting of the weaker link occurs when the weld metal strength (as degraded) becomes less than 32 ksi. T he conclusion from these hole drilling data is that, ignoring bending effects, strength loss is directly propor- tional to the loss of load carrying area. Why do the drilled hole samples show a strength reduction proportion- al to the pore area, to a first approx- imation, while the porosity data of Figs. 7-11 indicate a much greater strength loss? T wo answers seem pos- sible: 1. T he contamination used to ob- tain porosity causes strength reduclion by other mechanisms. 2. A rea loss due to porosity was M/Y&r'r~ >-3 W H O H m 20 co 1" LINEAR AREA LOSS PR EDIC T ION * 1/4" HOLES 3/ 8" HOLES A 1/2" HOLES 10 1 1 1 1 r - 20 30 40 50 60 % DEPT H OF WELD REMOVED BY DRILLING 1 1 P - 10 20 30 % WELD CROSS S ECTION REMOVED BY DRILLING Fig. 18Strength of welds with metal removed by drilling - 1 70 W E L D I N G RE SE A RCH S U P P L E M E N T 331-s incorrectly estimated by restricting the fracture surface count to include only those pores over V^t h in diam- eter. An improved method of pore area estimating, by grid intercept, supports the latter. T he grid intercept method is illustrated in Fig. 22, showing X10 photographs of fracture surfaces for data X and Y of Fig. 7, top. S uperim- posed on these fracture surfaces is a rough grid, with 36 interceptions be- tween lines A to F and 1 to 6 for Fig. 22A , and 42 (A to F, 1 to 7) for Fig. 22B . A method described by C heever et al 3 states that the number of inter- cepts which fall over a pore (obvious example, D-4 in Fig. 22A ), divided by the number of total possible intercepts, is the porosity area fraction. Careful counting gave 20 pore intercepts for Fig. 22A (point X, Fig. 7) and 18 for Fig. 22B (point Y) . C onverting to porosity, point X has 2 0 / 8 6 = 57%, and point Y has 1 /4 2 = 4 3 %. S imilar recounts for all data of Fig. 7 gave the plot of strength percent vs. pore area as shown as "all pores" in Fig. 7. T his is a very important plot, since the raw data now show good correlation with the expected, propor- tional area-loss relationship. T he third (middle) plot of Fig. 7 is for porosity which was obtained under production welding conditions without intentional contamination; it was not characterized by large numbers of small pores. For example, the frac- tures of Fig. 23 show porosity that was obtained in normal production welding. T he panels were pre- production checkouts to verify weld- ing procedures; these did contain porosity which was found, by later investigation, to have been a result of a combination of inadequate cleaning procedures and hydrated chromate surface. T hese fractures show the readily discernible flaws, surrounded by solid metal which does not contain a background of additional indiscerni- ble flaws. T he "real weld" plot ( + ) of Fig. 7 obeyed the area loss principle better than the artificial contamination plot. T his shows that a more accurate meas- ure of flaw area was obtained by cA S - /~ LINEAR AREA LOSS PR EDIC T ION DR ILLED 20% THROUGH 0.5 1. 0 ! - 5 2. 0 2. 5 3 0 INCREASING HOLE DIA MET ER W^TJ Fi g. 19Plot of s t r e ng t h loss as hole becomes larger, f or each of f our hole d e p t h s . Shal l ow holes show par t ur e f r om area loss p r e d i c t i on. Be nd i ng ef f ect s woul d be maxi mi zed wi t h shal l ow holes 3. 5 greater de- 332-s J UL Y 1970 100 40 50 60 70 % HOLE DEPTH Fig. 20Summary pl ot of st r engt h vs. hole d e p t h , i l l u s t r a t i ng be nd i ng ef f ect s pore counting of fractures which did not contain unusually fine porosity. T his argument concludes that pore area measurementwhen adequately accomplishedis the valid predictor of tensile properties. T he data of Fig. 20 indicate that bending stresses might require consid- eration if the pore is near one surface. However, this effect could be offset by allowing bead build-up to remain. Lo n g i t u d i n a l Te n s i l e Te s t Re s u l t s S ummary plots for ultimate tensile strength, with the load parallel to the direction of welding, are given in Fig. 24 for the V 4 in. thickness. Insuffi- cient porosity was obtained for the 3 / 4 in. specimen, on a percentage of cross sectional area basis, to provide a meaningful plotting range. However, the "clusters" which were obtained all show a strength which exceeds 40 ksi, averaged over the whole width of the tensile specimen. A similar statement can be made about elongation in this specimen, measured parallel to the direction of welding in the presence of appreciable Haws. Measured elongation in two in- ches exceeds 5% regardless of porosi- ty up to the highest levels produced, compared with a no-defect elongation of 16%. Fa t i g u e Re s u l t s R eturning to the drilling removal data 2 reproduced in Fig. 25, a pro- portional strength fall off is indicated for 10,000 cycle life, initiating at 75% of the zero defect static load for 2014-T 6. T his indicates that stress raisers associated with non-crack flaws do not exert an important influence on fatigue life; load bearing area still appears to be the controlling cri- terion. R eplotting the weld porosity data of Fig. 26 as the dotted line on Fig. 25 shows a similar slope, but the strength of the actual porous welds are consid- erably lower than the strength of the drilled welds. Once again, the best explanation appears to lie in the diffi- culty of measuring real pore area. Solv- ing for a correction factor of approx- imately X5 from Fig. 7, pore count vs. grid intercept moves the weld porosity plot of Fig. 25 up close to the 75% drilled hole data. In f l u e n c e of Oth e r De f e c t s During the course of the program, non-gaseous porosity defects were en- countered in limited number. Several comments can be offered on each. Dross and Oxide Inclusions. T hese, as opposed to a gas inclusion, were e nc ount e r e d in s ever al no- c on- tamination specimens. However, it was never found to any great extent. When found in sizes of approximately 1 i;i to 3 ,,_, in. in a 1 4 in. trans- verse tensile specimen, its influence on transverse tensile strength was unde- tectable. In fact, in a given panel represented by 6 to 16 tensile speci- mens, the specimen containing such dross was never the lowest strength of the group, compared to its "water LINEAR AREA LOSS PREDICTION BASED ON C A LC ULA T FD WELD MET AL STRENGTH 20 2* %WELD AREA REMOVED BY DRILLING Fig. 21Effect of i ncreased d r i l l i ng of 6061-T6 wel ds, showi ng del ayed i nf l u e nc e of pseudo por osi t y wh i l e f r a c t u r e c ont i nu e s t o favor non-wel d met al (heat -af f ect ed zone) path W E L D I N G RE SE A RCH S U P P L E M E N T 333-s 7 6 5 k 3 J 1 - i i ^ - l M ^ 1 D i Fi g. 22Fracture sur f aces of porous we l d s ; g r i d is super i mposed to a l l ow measure of pore area per cent by: (Dore i nt er- c e p t s )/(t ot a l i nt e r c e p t s ) x 100 = pore area per cent . P (l e f t )p oi nt X (Fi g. 7), 57%; B (r i g h t )- clear" parallels. Dross, when not ex- posed to a surface of the specimen, exhibited satisfactory fatigue life. However, the dross did act as a fa- tigue starting point. Lack of Penetration. S everal speci- mens showed lack of penetration in the 3 / 4 in. thickness due to difficulties in obtaining adequate penetration in the vertical welding position. Several comments can be made which are of interest concerning this defect. Most importantly, it exerts a marked influ- ence on the ability of the weld to withstand a transverse load. C oupled -poi nt Y (Fi g. C ODE 7), 43% 60 W H E CO w w :| 50. 40- ^ 30 B EA D ON B EA D S HA VED FLA T HOR IZ . V:- (% OF FR A C T UR E A R EA ) (12. 5) (25) (37. 5) "I L -| (50) d^tWWXftr _ _ t Q l I ! _ . ^ ^ H j i ' 'spR j I 1 | "}*: &L .- : H> *; '' :4 s ' 9 - - 1i r 1 i r 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 T OT A L POR E A R EA FOUND DM FR A C T UR E S UR FA C E EXPR ES S ED IN EQUIVA LENT NUMB ER OF 1/ 64" POR ES W EH g w K EH CO H w H
EH J P 6 0 _ A 50 40. 30 (%OF FR A C T UR E A R EA ) (12. 5) (25) (37. 5) (50) Fi g. 23Nat ur al l y oc c u r r i ng porosi t y in p r od u c t i on we l d . Note size and d i s t r i bu - t i on of pores 1 1'-i 1" 1 h r 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 T OT A L POR E A R EA FOUND IN FR A C T UR E S UR FA C E EXPR ES S ED IN EQUIVA LENT NUMB ER OF 1/64" POR ES Fig. 24Summat i on of l ong i t u d i na l u l t i m a t e t e r s i l e s t r e ng t h p l ot s vs. f r a c t u r e pore area f or VA i n. l ong i t u d i na l t e ns i l e t e s t i ng 334-s J UL Y 1970 30 20 STATIC STRENGTH, AREA LOSS PREDICTION (R EF: FIGURE 18) X= l / 4 " DIA. HOLES 0 = 3 / 8 " DIA. HOLES A = 1/2" DIA. HOLES, MEAN VALUE FOR NO FAILURE. MEAN VALUE FOR NO FAILURE. MEAN VALUE FOR NO FAILURE. PORE COUNT MOVES UP TO 75% / LINE IF ADJUSTED FOR / ACCURATE PORE COUNT Z FATIGUE %REDUCTION, LINEAR TO NO ' DEFEC T VALUE OF 75% STATIC STRENGTH r~ 10 20 30 40 50 % DEPTH REMOVED BY DRILLING 60 70 I 1 1 1 1 - 10 15 20 25 30 % WELD AREA REMOVED BY DRILLING OR BY POROSITY Fig. 25Loss of s t a t i c s t r e ng t h (Fi g. 18), d r i l l e d wel d 10,000 c y c l e f a t i g u e s t r e ng t h , and porous wel d 10,000 cycl e f a t i g u e st r engt h (Fi g. 24), as f u nc t i on of area loss. The t i r e e r e l a t i ons h i p s are l i near wi t h area, bu t porcus wel d dat a are lower t h a n expect ed with this is the observation that in no case was this defect detected radio- graphically; it was only detected on cross sectioning of the weld panel for tensile testing, or on the fracture sur- face. T his defect also has great influ- ence on fatigue behavior. Longitudinal load behavior, such as found in a girth weld in a pressure tank, is not influenced to a measurable extent by lack of penetration (LOP) . T his is not a surprising observation, since the LOP lamination is parallel to the direction of loading and would not be expected to restrict the load carry- ing ability. However, this argument is not recognized in the assessment, in existent aerospace criterion docu- ments, of LOP for a longitudinal stress orientation. One instance of lack of fusion, a defect similar to LOP, behaved in similar fashion in longitu- dinal tensile testing. T hus, it appears that a worthwhile gain can be realized if criteria are written to recognize the direction of major stress application Discu ssio n In considering the data which relate expected mechanical properties to the porosity in aluminim welds, it is neces- sary to recognize that the alternative to accepting the porous weld is either repair or scrap. T he scrappage alterna- tive becomes less attractive, if not statistically close to impossible, as launch vehicle tankage increases in size. Figure 27 is a plot of reduction in tensile strength with increasing num- ber of repairs in 2014-T 6 welds. It is necessary to consider the probability of multiple repairs because repair welding is not always successful the first time. R ecent production experi- ence indicates that V 4 ol first repairs are unacceptable and must be re- paired again; 1 / 2 of these second repairs are unacceptable, and approx- imately 2 / 3 of the third repairs are unacceptable. T hus, there is consider- 10' , 6- 100, 000 J . u < o 10, 000 able risk that the repaired welds will ultimately be lower in mechanical properties than the defective weld which was initially rejected. By comparing Fig. 27 with Fig. 7 it is possible to equate properties of porous and repaired welds. It is inter- esting to note that a third repair (Fig. 0 2 5 , 0 0 0 PS I S T R ES S LEVEL D 20, 000 PS I S T R ES S LEVEL A 15, 000 PS I S T R ES S LEVEL V 10, 000 PS I S T R ES S LEVEL NOT E: C IR C LED SYMBOLS R EPR ES ENT DEFEC T S IN A DDIT ION T O POR OS IT Y. S OLID S YMB OLS A R E 2219. 1?% 18% %AREA LOS S 24% :o % +- 56% 42% _1_ . 1 1 i 0 10 20 :30 40 50 50 T OT A L POR E A R EA FOUND IN FR A C T UR E S UR FA C E, EXPR ES S ED IN EQUIVA LENT NUMB ER OF 1/64" POR ES Fi g. 26Fatigue l i f e vs. f r a c t u r e pore count f or VA i n. ma t e r i a l . Al l oys and p os i t i ons are mi xed W E L D I N G RE SE A RCH S U P P L E M E N T 335-s IDEAL MEAN CURVE 2. 33 - SIGMA LIMIT 3. 00 - SIGMA LIMIT 4 5 6 7 NUMBER OF R EPA IR S Fi g. 27Weld s t r e ng t h vs. number or repai rs on 2014-T6 a l u m i nu m , VA i n. t h i c k st ock 27typical strength of 36 ksi) has the mechanical properties equivalent to a weld which has sufficient porosity to be well outside of standards of acceptability, that is, to a weld con- taining 25 to 35 area % porosity. T hus more damage may be done by repair than is repaired by it. A nother aspect of practical applica- tion of the general rule of percent strength loss equaling percent area loss, is consideration of the denomo- nator in the area loss fraction. In a uniaxial tensile specimen the denomo- nator is- simply the area of the tensile specimen. In a real pressure vessel the incremental or base line area is not so straightforwardly assigned. T hus di- rect use of strength loss predictions should be verified on real part, or simulated part destructive tests prior to use. Co n c l u s i o n s T he experience in fabricating the porous 2014-T 6 and 2219-T 87 alumi- num specimens and the mechanical property evaluations of defective welds, suggest the following conclu- sions: 1. T he loss in transverse tensile strength in the weld metal in alumi- num welds is proportional to the loss of sound metal area in the plane of the expected fracture. T his statement was derived from data with essentially spherical (no sharp corners) pores. 2. Longitudinal tensile testing shows less detrimental effect from porosity than does transverse tensile data. For many purposes defects can be largely overlooked when the major load is parallel to the welding direc- tion. 3. Fatigue life, transverse tension- tension loading, also shows a linear degradation in stress to fail at given cycle life, this reduction being propor- tional to area loss in the fracture plane. 4. Porosity obtained in horizontal position welding is more damaging to mechanical properties than other posi- tions because the pores are not ran- domly distributed throughout all pos- sible fracture planes, but are instead favorably situated in a given plane which is normal to a transverse load. This becomes a plane of weakness. 5. Pore location, except as in 4 above, has little effect on strength- area loss relationship. Excessive con- centration near one surface of the bead (most likely the top) can impose a bending component which amplifies the stress somewhat. An artificial de- fect specimen, in which the entire defect was contained in a surface layer 20% of thickness in depth, re- duced the strength by less than 10% of the linear prediction value. 6. Measuring area loss, as the in- put to the strength loss prediction, is difficult to do nondestructively, but can be accomplished with careful mul- tiple X-ray procedures provided that (a) the pore density is not too high, and (b) the individual pores are not too small ( < y 6 4 in. ). 7. Size distribution of pores does not effect the strength loss-area loss relationship. Small pores, if present in sufficient numbers to influence the area loss, will reduce strength ac- cordingly. 8. Moisture and/or hydrogen me- tered to the shied gas provide an ef- fective means of producing a predict- able amount of porosity. However, side effects in arc stability, are tem- perature and jet action, and in bead surface, are encountered. Acknowledgements A cknowledgement is given to Mar- shall S pace Flight C enter, NA S A , for sponsorship of this program as part of an overall effort to improve aluminum welding, and for permission to publish these results. Particular appreciation is expressed to Messrs. Earl Hasemeyer and R. Hoppes: MS FC Project Officers whose helpful comments kept the program properly oriented. References 1. R upert , K. J. . and R udy. J. F. . "A nal yt i cal and S t at i st i cal S t udy on the Effects of Porosi t y Level on Wel d Joi nt Per f or mance". MS FC C ont r act NA S 8 11335. Fi nal R epor t . March 1966. 2. Mar t i n Mari et t a C orporat i on (Denver) R epor t C R -64-198. "Wel d R epai r and In- specti on Pr ocedur es " . S ept. 1964. 3. C heever, D. L. . Kammer . P. A . . Mon- roe, R . E. . and Mar t i n. D. C . "Wel di ng B ase Metal I nvest i gat i on", proceedi ngs MS FC A l umi num Weld Devel opment C om- plex Meet i ng. J anuar y 19. 1966. -Jutli See page 340-s regarding the presentation of technical papers at the AWS or& . . . 52nd A nnual Meeting in San Francisco during April 26-30, 1971. 336-s J U L Y 1 9 7 0