FEBRUARY 2020

• Additive Manufacturing Update

• Job Shop Management
• The American Welder:
Abrasives and Weld Finishing
PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN WELDING SOCIETY TO ADVANCE THE SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND APPLICATION OF WELDING
AND ALLIED JOINING AND CUTTING PROCESSES WORLDWIDE, INCLUDING BRAZING, SOLDERING, AND THERMAL SPRAYING
February 2020 • Volume 99 • Number 2 CONTENTS
FEATURES
24 Developments in Metal Additive Manufacturing
Learn where research on additive manufacturing is 36
headed — C. Hawk et al.

31 Materials Challenges in the Additive

Manufacturing of Metals
New alloy systems should help additive
manufacturing find greater use — T. A. Palmer

36 Job Shop Perspectives

Industry leaders shared their insights on how
they run their job shops — K. Pacheco and
R. Pascal

THE AMERICAN WELDER

76 Get to Know Your Abrasives Options
Knowing the properties of the various families 76
of abrasives will help you get the best results
P. Carroll

81 Fast, Easy Robotic Grinding

Two manufacturers teamed to help systems
integrators automate grinding and finishing
processes
T. Record

WELDING RESEARCH SUPPLEMENT

39-s Quantitative Weld Quality Acceptance Criteria:
An Enabler for Structural Lightweighting and
Additive Manufacturing
As the competition for achieving structural
lightweighting intensifies, more quantitative
quality acceptance criteria are called for — P. Dong
52-s Steel-Reinforced Polyethylene Pipe: Extrusion
Welding, Investigation, and Mechanical Testing
The effects of welding methods, with and without
preheat conditions, on weld quality were
investigated — C. Tippayasam and A. Kaewvilai
59-s Geometry Dependent Solidification Regimes
in Metal Additive Manufacturing
A simple analytical expression was shown to
accurately predict the transition between
solification regimes — A. Plotkowski

FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 3

DEPARTMENTS
6 Editorial
8 Press Time News
9 Washington Watchword
10 International Update
11 Business Briefs
12 News of the Industry
16 Aluminum Q&A
18 Brazing Q&A
20 Letter to the Editor
21 Product & Print Spotlight
42 Coming Events
OFFICERS
President Robert W. Roth
RoMan Manufacturing Inc.
Vice President W. Richard Polanin
WRP Associates
Vice President Dennis K. Eck
Praxair Distribution Inc.
Vice President Michael A. Krupnicki
Mahany Welding Supply Co. Inc.
Treasurer Carey Chen
Cincinnati Incorporated
Interim Executive Director Ray W. Shook
American Welding Society
DIRECTORS
T. Anderson (At Large), ITW Welding North America
R. Ashelford (Dist. 13), Rock Valley College
T. Brosio (Dist. 14), Major Tool & Machine
D. E. Clark (Dist. 20), DEClark Welding Engineering PLLC
D. A. Desrochers (Dist. 1), Old Colony RVTHS
D. L. Doench (At Large), Hobart Bros. Co.
D. A. Flood (Past President), Tri Tool Inc.
K. R. Fogleman (Dist. 16), Consultant
M. Hanson (Dist. 15), Consolidated Precision Products
L. Heckendorn (Dist. 7)
R. L. Holdren (At Large), ARC Specialties
T. S. Holt (Dist. 18), Tech Corr USA Management
J. Jones (Dist. 17), Coastal Welding Supply
D. H. Lange (Dist. 12), Northeast Wisconsin Tech. College
T. J. Lienert (Past President), T. J. Lienert Consulting LLC
S. Lindsey (Dist. 21), City of San Diego
S. M. McDaniel (Dist. 19), Big Bend Community College
S. Moran (Dist. 3), American Hydro Corp.
R. Purvis (Dist. 22), Purvis Welding Inspection
S. Raghunathan (At Large), Saudi Aramco
H. Record (Dist. 5), Record Tool & Die
K. Shatell (At Large), Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
M. Sherman (Dist. 10), SW&E LLC
L. E. Showalter (Dist. 4), Newport News Shipbuilding
M. M. Skiles (Dist. 9), Consultant
W. J. Sperko (At Large), Sperko Engineering Services
R. H. Stahura (Dist. 6), ESAB Welding & Cutting Products
P. I. Temple (Dist. 11), Welding Consultant
H. W. Thompson (Dist. 2), Underwriters Laboratories Inc.
J. Thompson (Dist. 8), Wallace State Community College
4 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020
44 Certification Schedule
45 Society News
53 Tech Topics
59 Section News
72 Guide to AWS Services
74 Personnel
The American Welder
84 Fact Sheet
89 Classifieds
89 Advertiser Index
WELDING JOURNAL
Publisher/Editor Mary Ruth Johnsen
Editorial
Sr. Editor Cindy Weihl
Features Editor Kristin Campbell
Associate Editor Katie Pacheco
Education Editor Roline Pascal
Peer Review Coord. Lea Owen
Publisher Emeritus Jeff Weber
Design and Production
Production Manager Zaida Chavez
Assistant Production Manager Brenda Flores
Manager of International Periodicals and
Electronic Media Carlos Guzman
Advertising
Senior Sales Executive, Corp. Sandra Jorgensen
Manager, Sales Operations Lea Owen
Subscriptions
Subscriptions Representative Sonia Aleman
saleman@aws.org
MARKETING ADVISORY COUNCIL
(MAC)
D. Doench, Chair, Hobart Brothers Co.
A. Sepulveda, Vice Chair, Hypertherm Inc.
D. Brown, Astaras Inc.
C. Coffey, The Lincoln Electric Co.
D. DeCorte, RoMan Mfg. Inc.
D. Marquard, IBEDA Superflash Compressed
S. Molenda, ESAB Welding & Cutting
M. Muenzer, ORS Nasco
W. Newell Jr., Euroweld Ltd.
N. Schmid, Weiler Abrasives Group
S. Smith, Weld-Aid Products
D. Wilson, Wilson and Associates
C. Chen, Ex Officio, Cincinnati Incorporated
S. Fyffe, Ex Officio, Astaras Inc.
L. Kvidahl, Ex Officio, Ingalls Shipbuilding
T. Lienert, Ex Officio, Consultant
S. Moran, Ex Officio, American Hydro Corp.
R. Polanin, Ex Officio, WRP Associates
R. Roth, Ex Officio, RoMan Mfg. Inc.
R. W. Shook, Ex Officio, American Welding Society
On the cover: Close-up of a model
created in a laser sintering
machine and printed on a metal
3D printer.
aws.org
8669 NW 36 St., # 130, Miami, FL 33166-6672
(305) 443-9353 or (800) 443-9353
AWS Promotes Diversity
AWS values diversity, advocates equitable and inclusive
practices, and engages its members and stakeholders in
establishing a culture in the welding community that
welcomes, learns from, and celebrates differences
among people. AWS recognizes that a commitment to
diversity, equity, and inclusion is essential to achieving
excellence for the Association, its members, and
employees.
Welding Journal (ISSN 0043-2296 Print) (ISSN 2689-0445
Online) is published monthly by the American Welding Society
for $120.00 per year in the United States and possessions,
$160 per year in foreign countries: $7.50 per single issue for
domestic AWS members and $10.00 per single issue for non-
members and $14.00 single issue for international. Not avail-
able for resale in either print or electronic form. American
Welding Society is located at 8669 NW 36 St., # 130, Miami, FL
33166-6672; telephone (305) 443-9353. Periodicals postage
paid in Miami, Fla., and additional mailing offices. POSTMAS-
TER: Send address changes to Welding Journal, 8669 NW 36
St., # 130, Miami, FL 33166-6672. Canada Post: Publications
Mail Agreement #40612608 Canada Returns to be sent to
Bleuchip International, P.O. Box 25542, London, ON N6C 6B2,
Canada.
AWS Claims Policy: All hardcopy editions are shipped
FOB Origin. Publisher reserves the right to investigate and
make a determination on all claims submitted for missing
editions not received by a subscribing member or institution.
Any claim request determined to be valid will be fulfilled with
a digital copy of the edition. Publisher will NOT send any
hardcopy replacement issues for any reason.
Readers of Welding Journal may make copies of articles
for personal, archival, educational or research purposes, and
which are not for sale or resale. Permission is granted to
quote from articles, provided customary acknowledgment of
authors and sources is made. Starred (*) items excluded from
copyright.
Copyright © 2020 by American Welding Society in both
printed and electronic formats. The Society is not responsible
for any statement made or opinion expressed herein. Data
and information developed by the authors of specific articles
are for informational purposes only and are not intended for
use without independent, substantiating investigation on the
part of potential users.
EDITORIAL
Accountability and Accreditation Matter
Accountability is a word that is bandied
about in casual conversation and serious dis-
cussions. But, how is accountability meas-
ured, especially in education? The concept of
accountability has led to major shifts in fed-
eral education policy and in local school dis-
trict politics. One of the methods used to en-
sure accountability in education is program
accreditation.
Generally, accreditation is a nongovern-
mental peer review process that complies
with nationally recognized standards estab-
lished for the practice of accreditation in the
United States. Often, the process has various
objectives depending upon the organization
W. Richard Polanin or program seeking accreditation. For weld-
AWS Vice President ing programs, generally there are four objec-
tives for accreditation, as follows:
1. To hold welding degree programs ac-
countable to the community of stakeholders,
including the welding industry, higher and
secondary education, and students, ensuring
the programs have clearly defined and at-
tainable mission statements, goals, and stu-
dent outcomes appropriate to prepare indi-
viduals for successful employment and con-
tinued education.
2. To evaluate the success of the welding
“As funding program in achieving its mission, goals, and
becomes student outcomes.
increasingly linked 3. To foster continuing improvement in
to accountability, welding programs.
4. To implement and maintain a system of
and as state boards self-evaluation for compliance to industry
of education seek and institutional standards.
national accredita- The American Welding Society (AWS) is
tion for education currently directly involved in the development
programs, the process for two accreditation programs and
accreditation serves as a partner for the development of the
Weld-Ed welding engineering technology ac-
programs offered creditation program. Recently, AWS has be-
through AWS fill the come the lead welding society for ABET (for-
need for accounta- merly Accreditation Board for Engineering
bility in welding and Technology), and it has been developing
education.” the SENSE (Schools Excelling through Nation-
al Skills Standards Education) accreditation
program for the past few years.
Both accreditation programs in which
AWS is directly involved are intended to im-
prove accountability in welding education. It
is not the intention of AWS to dictate the
content or delivery methods but to assure
the stakeholders in welding education pro-
grams have adequate input into the process.
ABET, the largest accreditation organization
in the world, has a long-standing accredita-
tion process that includes a self-assessment,
document audit, and site visit. The process
6 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020
of accreditation requires a determination of
compliance with general student outcomes
that ensure students are adequately pre-
pared to enter the welding industry.
In addition, the ABET process is prescrip-
tive in the number of credit hours required,
the qualifications of the faculty, and the
quality of facilities and student services. As
AWS faces the future, the Education and
Training Committee will be seeking qualified
faculty for curriculum guidance and to serve
as auditors.
The AWS SENSE program (senseonline.org)
began in 1993 with a grant award by the U.S.
Department of Education to develop a series
of standards and a program for the recogni-
tion of welders based on welding perform-
ance and practical knowledge testing. Al-
though the SENSE program has a set of key
indicators (student learning outcomes), each
school may develop or use any curriculum
that covers the welding content and perform-
ance requirements. However, there is no
oversight of program outcomes nor evalua-
tion of preparation for required testing and
data recording. Therefore, the purpose of the
SENSE accreditation program is to ensure
compliance of welding programs with the
general objectives of accreditation.
The Weld-Ed accreditation (weld-ed.org) is
focused on welding programs offering associ-
ate degrees in welding engineering technolo-
gy. Weld-Ed uses elements from both the
ABET and SENSE accreditation processes to
ensure some commonality among programs.
The intent is to minimize the documenta-
tion needed to complete one or more of the
accreditation processes.
Cost is always an important consideration
for all schools. AWS and Weld-Ed are sensi-
tive to the restrictive welding budgets of es-
pecially small schools. Site audit costs are of-
ten the largest expense of accreditation.
Both AWS and Weld-Ed are working on inno-
vative methods to reduce site audit costs,
such as virtual audits or using the school’s
advisory committees.
As funding becomes increasingly linked to
accountability, and as state boards of educa-
tion seek national accreditation for educa-
tion programs, the accreditation programs
offered through AWS fill the need for ac-
countability in welding education.
Partnerships among leading welding edu-
cation organizations is the key to accounta-
bility in welding education. These relation-
ships validate future welding professionals
will be able to successfully join the world. WJ
PRESS TIME NEWS
AddUp, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
to Advance Metal Additive
Manufacturing Tooling Applications
A $2.7-million
cooperative re-
search and devel-
opment agree-
ment between
AddUp Group,
Greenville, S.C.,
a global machine
and solutions
provider for met-
Members of the Oak Ridge National Lab- al additive man-
oratories and AddUp team collaborate to
target the advancement of materials
ufacturing (AM),
processes for metal additive manufac- and the U.S. De-
turing tooling applications. partment of En-
ergy’s (DOE)
Oak Ridge Na-
tional Laboratory (ORNL), Oak Ridge, Tenn., aims to advance
laser powder bed fusion technology for the manufacturing of
metal molds with complex geometries for the tooling industry.
AddUp’s involvement at DOE’s Manufacturing Demonstra-
tion Facility at ORNL centers on the development of industrial
laser powder bed fusion technology, with a focus on the ad-
vancement of metal AM applications for tooling. Through im-
proving the deposition rate within powder bed technologies,
closely controlling the metallurgical processes, and managing
the qualification of steel tooling components, this project is
expected to advance metal 3D printing overall.
ORNL contributes an in-depth understanding of material
properties and process parameters that leverages in-situ data
analytics and advanced machine learning tools.
The agreement focuses on the development of solutions for
the geometric constraints and limitations that impede metal
AM from becoming a widely adopted method of manufactur-
ing for tooling and mass production environments.
This collaborative effort also aims to deliver a technology
capable of improving preexisting processes of manufacturing
conformally cooled molds with optimized mechanical proper-
ties, productivity, and quality for enhanced performance in
high-volume production environments.
Army Introduces Weld Automation for
Next-Generation Combat Vehicles
To prepare for the future battlefield, the Army, Aberdeen
Proving Ground, Md., has defined a concept for its next gen-
eration of combat vehicles. Enhanced survivability will be
enabled by improved designs, materials, and manufacturing
processes.
In addition, to improve the quality of combat vehicle
weldments and reduce fabrication time, the U.S. Army Com-
bat Capabilities Development Command Manufacturing
Technology program funded a project to develop a robotic
manufacturing cell to automate heavy weld operations for
combat vehicles. This cell is equipped with high energy
buried arc welding, which enables high-quality, thick-plate
welds with minimal passes. It also contains a high-capacity,
8 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020
multiaxis positioning
system that can manip-
ulate multiton vehicle
structures into ideal
welding positions.
A benefit of the ro-
botic weld cell includes
reducing welding time
by nearly 80%, which
will help the Army meet
its critical delivery
Recently, the Army outlined a requirements.
concept for its next generation of “The system is opera-
combat vehicles. Enhanced sur-
vivability will be enabled by im-
tional and currently be-
proved manufacturing processes, ing controlled manual-
ly,” said Megan Lynch,
among other factors. (Credit:
Staff Sgt. Jacob Sawyer.) ManTech project officer.
“We are still in the learn-
ing and debugging
phase. Getting to full operational capability will be a process,
but we are on track to get there by FY21 [fiscal year 2021].”
Snead State Receives Grant for
Workforce Development Training
Snead State Community College, Boaz, Ala., has been
awarded $97,931 from a Special Population Training grant
for equipment purchases for workforce development train-
ing. The new training will be integrated into the community
college’s welding technology training program.
The grant will be used for purchasing a robotic welding edu-
cation cell, two Power Wave® C300 advanced process welding
machines, two virtual reality welding machine software up-
grades, and travel for two instructors to receive training. The
class will provide an interactive approach to learning by emu-
lating the real-world use of robotics in production welding.
“The robotic weld training provides students with advanced
manufacturing skills. It’s an opportunity to teach robotics us-
ing equipment implemented in manufacturing and fabrica-
tions facilities. We hope to increase student participation and
engagement with a hands-on training solution,” said Snead
State Workforce Development Director Teresa Walker.
Entries Sought for Trade School
Trade-Up Competition
In its third year, the Trade School Trade-Up Competition
by Channellock Inc., Meadville, Pa., continues to help close
the national skills gap by funding initiatives and tools that
will largely impact America’s future tradesmen and women.
Students in plumbing, HVAC, welding, automotive, and
electrical trades are eligible to participate. The challenge is
to show why your program deserves a classroom makeover.
To enter, get a group together to create a short film show-
casing your skills, and submit it via channellock.com/
tradeup. February 12 is the due date; February 19, the top
three will be announced; February 20–22, voting will take
place through Facebook; and February 23, the winners will
be announced. The cash prizes for first, second, and third
place are as follows: $5000, $2500, and $1000. WJ

Department of Labor Issues Regulatory Agenda
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has issued its latest
Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. It
provides data on regulatory and deregulatory activities un-
der development by all agencies under the DOL, including
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
The activities included are primarily those currently planned
to have an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, a notice
of proposed rulemaking, or a final rule issued within the
next 12 months. Among the items included in OSHA’s Uni-
fied Agenda are the following:
• OSHA is planning to issue a proposed rule amending
the welding and cutting standard in construction to elimi-
nate any perceived ambiguity about the definition of “con-
fined space” that applies to welding activities in construc-
tion. Although the confined spaces standard states that it
encompasses welding activities, the welding standard itself
does not expressly identify a definition of “confined space.”
OSHA will conduct a rulemaking to eliminate any perceived
ambiguity about the definition of confined space that ap-
plies to welding activities in construction.
• OSHA is planning to issue a proposed rule revising its
standards for occupational exposure to beryllium and beryl-
lium compounds in the construction and shipyards indus-
tries. These proposed changes are designed to more closely
align the shipyards and construction standards to the gener-
al industry standard, where appropriate, as well as to clarify
certain requirements with respect to materials containing
only trace amounts of beryllium.
• Based on comments received in response to OSHA’s
May 2019 Request for Information regarding two areas
where modernizing its lockout/tagout standard might bet-
ter promote worker safety without additional burdens to
employers (control circuit type devices and robotics), OSHA
is planning to propose amendments to that standard.
Fair Change Act Becomes Law
Included in the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2020, the federal Fair Chance Act has been enact-
ed. This new law prohibits the federal government and fed-
eral contractors from requesting criminal history informa-
tion from job applicants until they reach the conditional of-
fer stage. There are exceptions for positions related to law
enforcement and national security duties, positions requir-
ing access to classified information, and positions for which
access to criminal history information before the condition-
al offer stage is required by law.
New Space Force Established
The President has signed legislation recognizing space as
a “warfighting domain” and establishing the U.S. Space Force
as the sixth armed service of the United States. It will be posi-
tioned under the U.S. Air Force similar to the way the Marine
Corps is part of the U.S. Navy. Over time, the Space Force
should evolve to become a stand-alone branch of the armed
HUGH K. WEBSTER, AWS WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS OFFICE — Contact the AWS Washington Government Affairs Office at 1747
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20006; email hwebster@wc-b.com; fax (202) 835-0243.
WASHINGTON WATCHWORD
services. The new service will have about 16,000 Air Force
personnel — active duty and civilian — to start. A chief of
space operations will be created to lead the U.S. Space Force.
While this position will report directly to the Air Force secre-
tary, it will also be a full member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Export-Import Bank Reauthorized
Legislation approved by Congress and signed by the Presi-
dent has reauthorized the Export-Import Bank of the United
States (EXIM) for another seven years. As the official national
export credit agency, the EXIM helps finance exports from
companies that have trouble accessing private markets for
trade financing. Included in the legislation are two provisions
that address trade with China. One will support U.S. exports
that compete directly with China’s exporters by providing fi-
nancing that is competitive with the rates and terms offered
by China’s export credit agencies. The second will require U.S.
Trade Representative approval for any transaction over $25
million that relates to a Chinese state-owned entity.
Bill Aimed at STEM Education in Rural Areas
Introduced at the end of 2019, the Rural STEM Educa-
tion Act (H.R. 4979) would authorize federal grants to sup-
port science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM) teachers and educators in rural areas of the United
States. Subjects of these grants would include the following:
• Online STEM education courses to advance innovative
approaches to support and sustain high-quality STEM
teaching in rural schools;
• Providing professional learning opportunities and train-
ing for rural educators; and
• Developing innovative STEM teaching practices in rural
settings.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics,
nine million students in the United States — nearly 20% of
the total K–12 population — attend rural schools, and for
reasons ranging from teacher quality to shortages of re-
sources, these students often have fewer opportunities for
high-quality STEM learning than their peers in urban and
suburban schools.
Bill Would Update Private Activity Bonds
The Modernizing Agriculture and Manufacturing Bonds
Act (H.R. 5422) is intended to update and improve private
activity bonds as a tool for financing by small- to mid-sized
manufacturers. In particular, this legislation would
• Enable small issue manufacturing bonds to support
manufacturers that produce intangible property;
• Eliminate the restrictions on the use of small issue man-
ufacturing bonds for ancillary facilities, such as offices, lock-
er rooms, and cafeterias;
• Increase the maximum bond size limitation from $10
million to $30 million; and
• Repeal the separate dollar limitation on the use of bond
proceeds for depreciable property. WJ
FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 9
INTERNATIONAL UPDATE

PRI and EWF Join Forces to Address Skills “We congratulate Alcoa on their latest ASI certification in
Shortages in the Aerospace Industry Canada. . .The ASI certification of the Baie-Comeau facility
shows their commitment to supporting a responsible alu-
The Performance Review Insti- minum value chain,” said ASI’s Chief Executive Officer Fiona
tute, Warrendale, PA., through Solomon.
its personnel qualification pro-
gram (PRI QualificationSM) and NIMAK Supplies Manual Welding Guns to the
the European Welding Federa- Mercedes-Benz Assembly Plant in Russia
tion (EWF), Porto Salvo, Portu-
gal, have joined forces to facili-
tate high-quality training and
qualifications for professionals
working in aerospace manufac-
turing. Included will be not only
The Performance Review the traditional technologies like
Institute, a global welding and joining, but also
provider of customer- those becoming more relevant
focused solutions de- for the aerospace sector, such as
signed to improve additive manufacturing.
process and product This collaboration will allow a
quality, and the Euro- welding professional with an
pean Welding Federa- EWF diploma to transfer his or
tion, an organization her skills to work in the aero-
dedicated to education,
space industry by completing a
training, qualification,
and certification in the short, sector-specific training Pictured is NIMAK’s manual welding guns in production at the
session without a long training new Mercedes-Benz assembly plant near Moscow. (Courtesy
field of welding and re-
process. of Mercedes-Benz AG.)
lated technologies, have
partnered to combat Aerospace professionals al-
skills shortages in the ready equipped with an EWF Mercedes-Benz, Stuttgart, Baden-Württemberg, has se-
aerospace industry. Pic- qualification will only need to at- lected NIMAK, Wissen, Germany, to provide resistance
tured is an aerospace tend a training module, which welding technology to the automaker’s new assembly plant
professional inspecting will cover the additional aero-
an engine. (Courtesy of in Russia. NIMAK will supply manual welding guns for the
space-specific content. They can required spot welds. These will be used in the production of
Lufthansa Technik.)
then complete the PRI assess- E-Class sedans and, in the future, SUV models.
ment available through the PRI “We are naturally very pleased that we were able to con-
QualificationSM program. New vince our customer ‘Mercedes-Benz’ once again of our high
trainees with no prior EWF qualifications may need to do a product quality, reliability, and flexibility due to the long-
joint training module according to guidelines, followed by an standing and exceptional cooperation so far,” said Carsten
EWF and PRI assessment. If successful, they will receive a Demmer, NIMAK’s product manager responsible for manual
joint EWF and PRI eQualified diploma. welding guns.
The new EWF/PRI qualifications are expected to be avail- The resistance welding technology manufacturer has de-
able this year. livered manual welding guns to various Mercedes-Benz
plants around the world.
Alcoa’s Québec Smelter Receives
Certification from ASI Terves Completes Installation of a Magnesium
Extrusion Press from Italian Manufacturer
The Aluminium Stewardship Initiative (ASI), a global sus-
tainability certification program for the aluminum industry, Terves Inc., Euclid, Ohio, a manufacturer of dissolvable
has certified Alcoa Corp. Baie-Comeau aluminum smelter in metals and elastomers, has completed installation of a
Québec, Canada. 3500-MT extrusion press at the company’s new 11,000-sq-
“From mine to metal, Alcoa is recognized as a sustainabil- ft, H3-classified magnesium metal processing facility. This
ity leader,” said Michelle O’Neill, Alcoa’s senior vice presi- extrusion press from Extral Technology SRL in Italy will ex-
dent of government affairs and sustainability. “This latest pand the company’s magnesium molten metal processing,
ASI certification demonstrates our ongoing commitment to heat treatment, machining, and storage capabilities.
operate in a responsible manner while bringing long-lasting The press, currently configured for 9-in. billets up to 48
value to our stakeholders.” in. in length, is designed to allow Terves to meet its needs
The company now has locations certified to ASI’s Per- for the production of its TervAlloy, a family of patented dis-
formance Standard in Brazil, Canada, and Spain. Additional- solvable magnesium alloys, as well as for full-scale develop-
ly, Alcoa was named the Aluminum Industry Leader in the ment services for new alloys and toll manufacturing of pri-
annual Dow Jones Sustainable Indices. vate label and materials that are difficult to process. WJ

10 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020


Newport News Shipbuilding Christens Aircraft
Carrier John F. Kennedy
Caroline Kennedy, Former U.S. Ambassador and the ship’s
sponsor, christened the aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy (CVN
79) during a ceremony at Newport News Shipbuilding division.
Also pictured (left to right) are Charles Frank Bolden Jr., former
NASA administrator; John Kerry, former Secretary of State;
Capt. Todd Marzano, the ship’s prospective commanding offi-
cer; Tatiana Schlossberg, sponsor’s daughter; Newport News
Shipbuilding President Jennifer Boykin; and Edwin Schloss-
berg, sponsor’s husband. (Photo by Matt Hildreth/HII.)
In a ceremony celebrating the U.S. Navy’s newest nuclear-
powered aircraft carrier and the American hero for whom the
ship is named, Huntington Ingalls Industries, Newport News,
Va., has christened John F. Kennedy (CVN 79) at the company’s
Newport News Shipbuilding division.
Former U.S. Ambassador Caroline Kennedy, the ship’s
sponsor and daughter of President Kennedy, smashed a bot-
tle of sparkling wine across the bow to christen the ship.
During her remarks, she reflected on the first aircraft carrier
named in her father’s honor.
“This ship will represent the ideals he lived by — courage,
sacrifice, and belief in freedom — and it will help make real
his vision of a more just America and a more peaceful
world,” Kennedy said. “I’m so proud to be the sponsor of this
ship and to join with all of you to bring her to life. I look for-
ward to being part of her odyssey and of her extended fami-
ly. Most of all, I hope she will carry my father’s spirit with
her as she sails, his leadership in wartime, his courage in cri-
sis, and his commitment to the hard and steady work of
building peace.”
More than 20,000 guests attended the ceremony, includ-
ing Virginia congressional delegation members U.S. Sen.
Mark Warner and U.S. Rep. Robert C. Scott, who both of-
fered remarks; and U.S. Rep. Elaine Luria. Other speakers in-
cluded former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Adm.
Frank Caldwell, director of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion
Program.
Since the first cut of steel in February 2011, more than
5000 shipbuilders have helped to construct Kennedy, and
suppliers from 46 states across the country have con-
tributed parts, services, and support to production. The car-
rier will be launched into the James River and moved to a
pier where outfitting and testing of the ship’s systems will
continue until the ship is delivered to the U.S. Navy in 2022.
BUSINESS BRIEFS
Pelican Chapter Announces Award-Winning
Construction Projects
The Pelican Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors
awarded construction projects and more at its Excellence in
Construction Awards and Safety Training Evaluation. The
Nicholson Gateway Development construction project (pic-
tured here) by the Lemoine Co. was awarded 1st place for the
General Contractor > Mega-Projects > More Than $100 Million
category.
The Pelican Chapter of Associated Builders and Contrac-
tors, Baton Rouge, La., honored 25 construction projects, 40
companies’ safety practices, and local craft competition win-
ners at its annual Excellence in Construction (EIC) Awards
and Safety Training Evaluation Process (STEP) banquet at
the L’Auberge Baton Rouge.
The award-winning construction projects included the re-
design of the LSU Football Operations Facility, the Nichol-
son Gateway Development, the Falgout Canal Flood Control
Structure, the Comeaux High School Performing Arts Acade-
my, and the Phillips 66 Lake Charles Gasoline Isomerization
Project.
“These construction projects, safety practices, and talent-
ed people exemplify the best of the best in the industry,”
said David Helveston, president and CEO of the Pelican
Chapter. “Construction is one of Louisiana’s strong suits be-
cause of the long-term career opportunities it offers, the
economic activity it invites, and the robust local resources it
utilizes. Each award we present symbolizes the countless
hours and endless dedication that the men and women in
our workforce commit to innovation, quality, safety, and ex-
cellence, ensuring that construction remains a pillar of this
state.”
To view the list of 1st (excellence) and 2nd place (merit)
winners, visit abcpelican.org.
Sutton-Garten Opens New Location in Indiana
Sutton-Garten Co., an Indianapolis distributor of welding
supplies, gases, and dry ice, has opened a new branch loca-
tion in Fort Wayne, Ind. The facility will manufacture dry ice
on site as well as deliver bulk carbon dioxide for beverage
systems and industrial users.
The facility includes a 150-sq-ft showroom of welding
and safety supplies and also rents welding, cutting, and dry
ice blasting equipment. It will serve northern Indiana,
Michigan, and northern Ohio. For more information, visit
suttongarten.com. WJ
FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 11
NEWS OF THE INDUSTRY

Additive Manufacturing Assists in Achieving from NASA for AM research and education.
Guinness World Records and More Milestones Work on this grant is a collaboration between the Navajo
Technical University with the Marshall Space Flight Center
Advanced Manufacturing Center, University of Alabama
Over the past few months, appealing headlines involving
Huntsville, V&M Global Solutions, and Optomec.
additive manufacturing (AM) have included Guinness World
Records, bimetallic rocket engine parts, and additional
achievements. Read all about these news stories below.
• The University of Maine (UMaine) Advanced Struc-
tures and Composites Center received three Guinness
World Records during a ceremony on October 10, 2019, for
the world’s largest prototype polymer 3D printer, largest
solid 3D-printed object, and largest 3D-printed boat. The
event culminated with the 25-ft, 5000-lb 3D-printed boat,
named 3Dirigo, being tested in the Alfond W2 Ocean Engi-
neering Laboratory.

Monsuru Ramoni, assistant professor of industrial engineer-

ing at Navajo Technical University, and his team of students
will be investigating the benefits of additive manufacturing
for space exploration with the help of Optomec LENS for
NASA. Pictured (from left) are Adriane Tenequer, Ramoni,
Aaron Sansosie, Calsey Nez, Elliot Burns, Joshua Toddy, and
Leslie Notah.

The proposed research will focus on characterization of

the microstructure of AM Inconel®-Cu alloy bimetallic parts
in three conditions — as built, hot-isostatic pressing and
More than 250 federal and state officials, business execu- heat treatment, and after a combined hot-isostatic pressing
tives, University of Maine System leaders, and community and heat treatment — to establish the necessary linkages
members witnessed the UMaine Advanced Structures and between microstructure, post processing, dimensional accu-
Composites Center receive three Guinness World Records for racy, and mechanical properties.
the world’s largest prototype polymer 3D printer, largest solid • Pittsburgh International Airport in Pennsylvania
3D-printed object, and largest 3D-printed boat.
and Allegheny County officials have debuted Neighborhood
91, the first development of the Pittsburgh Airport Innova-
tion Campus, a 195-acre business park.
The new 3D printer is designed to print objects as long as
It’s claimed Neighborhood 91, which derives its name
100 ft, as wide as 22 ft, and as high as 10 ft, and can print at
from Pittsburgh’s 90 distinct neighborhoods, will be the
500 lb/h. The printer will support several initiatives, includ-
first site in the world to contain every element of the AM
ing development of biobased feedstocks using cellulose de-
supply chain, from design to production and distribution.
rived from wood resources, and rapid prototyping of civil-
Companies will share infrastructural efficiencies and re-
ian, defense, and infrastructure applications.
sources, including a communal supply of powder materials,
A $20-million collaboration with Oak Ridge National Lab-
oratory will advance efforts to produce new biobased mate-
rials conducive to 3D printing of large, structurally demand-
ing systems. The research will focus on cellulose nanofiber
production, drying, functionalization, and compounding
with thermoplastics.
“This 3D printer is an outgrowth of research we have
been doing for 15 years in combining cellulosic nano and mi-
cro fibers with thermoplastic materials,” said Habib Dagher,
executive director of UMaine’s Advanced Structures and
Composites Center. “Our goal is to print with 50% wood
products at 500 pounds per hour, and achieve properties
similar to aluminum. We thank our congressional delegation
for their support.”
• Optomec, Albuquerque, N.M., a global supplier of
production-grade AM equipment and software, recently Pittsburgh International Airport CEO Christina Cassotis hands
revealed its LENS® directed energy deposition 3D-printed Arencibia president Joe Arencibia a 3D-printed key at an
metal system will be used to print bimetallic rocket engine event announcing the firm as the first tenant of Neighbor-
parts. These will go to the moon in 2024 as part of a grant hood 91. (Photo by Brian Cook/Blue Sky News.)

12 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020

such as stainless steel and aluminum. The site’s first tenant
will be Arencibia, an industrial gas management firm.
Additionally, the University of Pittsburgh is a partner in
the project, focusing on research and development as well as
workforce training for the AM and 3D-printing industries.
• As it reaches its conclusion, the OpenHybrid project
(openhybrid.eu) coordinated by the Manufacturing Technolo-
gy Centre in England has shown the effectiveness of direct-
ed energy deposition AM in a broad set of usage scenarios.
A key aspect is the use of a standardized docking system.
This patented approach, developed by Hybrid Manufactur-
ing Technologies Ltd., provides flexibility and enables new
processing heads to be automatically changed during the hy-
brid AM process. The consortium has also developed two
hybrid platforms for medium and large parts. The flexibility
of the new approach allows powder and wire feedstock to be
processed and the system to be combined with machine tool
as well as large-scale automation platforms.
• Sintavia LLC, Frankfurt, Germany, is co-founding a
trade group for additive manufacturers on promoting envi-
ronmental benefits. The Additive Manufacturer Green Trade
Association will be a noncommercial, unaffiliated organiza-
tion open to any additive manufacturer that meets certain
criteria relating to sustainability of production. For more de-
tails, visit amgta.org.

Xiris Celebrates 30 Years

Xiris, located in Burlington, Ontario, Canada, has recent-
ly marked its 30th anniversary.

FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 13

 Over the years, Xiris has developed inspection systems for
many industries. The company has now reached another
milestone with three decades in business.

Founded by Cameron Serles, the business was initially set

up to commercialize the budding technology of machine vi-
sion. In 1989, most manufacturers were highly skeptical of
the success of using cameras to measure the size or shape of
their manufactured goods; as a result, the first few years
were tough until the technology slowly gained acceptance,
initially in the automotive and semiconductor industries,
then eventually embraced in applications across all forms of
manufacturing and materials processing.
Xiris has developed inspection systems for the automo-
tive, semiconductor, electronics, pharmaceutical, steel, plas-
tics, compact disc, and printing industries. It currently fo-
cuses on supplying fabricators with camera systems for in-
spection and monitoring welding processes.

WPI Researcher, National Labs Aim to Show

Friction Stir Welding can Reduce Vehicle
Weight

WPI Professor Adam Powell, Postdoctoral Fellow Kübra

Karayagiz (center), and PhD Student Qingli Ding prepare to
place welds inside the cyclic corrosion test chamber.

A professor at Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) in

Massachusetts, with national laboratories and a global auto
parts supplier, is testing a new type of welding that may
make the joint between light metal alloys more resistant to
corrosion, including salt spray, leading to future designs of
durable, next-generation metal car joints used in ultralight
car doors and other vehicle body applications.
Adam Powell, associate professor of mechanical engineer-
ing, was awarded a three-year, $1.5-million grant from the
Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Re-
newable Energy’s Vehicle Technologies Office.

14 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020

 WPI is receiving $750,000 while Oak Ridge National Lab-
oratory (ORNL) and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
(PNNL) will split the remainder. Magna International will
also contribute in-kind time and materials.
Powell said the auto industry is seeking to reduce the
weight of cars and trucks while maintaining the lifespan of
a vehicle. One of the ways to do that, he noted, is to use ad-
vanced lightweight materials such as aluminum and magne-
sium alloys. The researchers are testing to determine if fric-
tion stir welding reduces corrosion in aluminum-magnesium
alloy joints. “We’re trying to show that corrosion can be much
less of a problem with this new type of welding,” said Powell.
Magna provides aluminum and magnesium metals to
PNNL, which welds the materials. PNNL then ships the
welded parts to WPI, which conducts corrosion and mechan-
ical testing. WPI sends much of its tested samples to ORNL,
which oversees advanced analysis on the welds.
In the first year, Powell and colleagues will seek to under-
stand corrosion behaviors of magnesium and aluminum
diffusion-bonded joints in the test chamber. In the second
year, they plan to simulate on a computer the corrosion of
friction stir welded joints and mechanical fracture. In the final
year, they expect to make the models much more accurate.
IWDC Members Raise More Than $30,000 to
Support Workshops for Warriors
IWDC, Indianapolis, Ind., a cooperative leveraging the
strengths of its independent welding distributor members
across North America, celebrated its 25th anniversary with
David and Donna Mahoney (left) of Noble Gas Solutions won
the commissioned artwork “Warrior to Welder” during the
Workshops for Warriors live auction at the 25th anniversary
IWDC owners’ meeting. The painting was created by veteran
and artist Gavin Goode (right).
an art auction that generated more than $30,000 for Work-
shops for Warriors, San Diego, Calif. The nonprofit school
trains veterans, wounded warriors, and transitioning service
men and women into advanced manufacturing careers.
“We wanted to do something special and, through gener-
ous vendor partner support, we were able to commission an
artist [Gavin Goode] who crafted a one-of-a-kind oil paint-
ing on steel titled ‘Warrior to Welder,’” said Frank Kasnick,
president and CEO.
“In addition to fundraising, we updated members on
IWDC’s strategic initiatives and received valuable feedback on
our programs during our October 22–24 owners’ meeting held
at Eau Palm Beach Resort, Manalapan, Florida,” added Keith
Werkley, IWDC director of sales and vendor management. WJ
FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 15
ALUMINUM Q&A
Q: As a welding instructor, I have
been seeing more interest lately
in aluminum welding. I know
there are more manufacturers in
my area using aluminum. Do you
know if there is more aluminum,
in general, being used in the
welding industry? And if so, what
may be driving this trend?
A: Often the increased use of alu-
minum for welded components is re-
gional, and I suspect that is what you
are experiencing. A manufacturer es-
tablishes a line of aluminum-intensive
products, such as automotive parts, bi-
cycle frames, boats of all shapes and
sizes, storage tanks, truck trailers, var-
ious types of sporting and recreational
equipment, military and aerospace
components, and numerous other
products.
Is there more aluminum being used
in general? The trend for more alu-
minum consumption is not new, as
can be seen in Figs. 1 and 2. Alu-
minum usage has continually in-
creased over the last 60 years globally,
with the most significant growth in
the last 30 years.
In addition, Table 1 lists some char-
acteristics of aluminum that may be
contributing to an increase usage of
the material in the welding fabrication
industry.
Why are we seeing more
aluminum being used?
Table 1 lists characteristics that
Fig. 1 — The usage of aluminum in the United States in thou-
sand metric tons from 1960 to 2016. (Courtesy of the Alu-
minum Association.)
16 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020
make aluminum attractive for many ap-
plications. Below, I have highlighted the
most relevant to welding fabrication.
Weight (one third that
of steel)
Weight is probably the most obvi-
ous characteristic of aluminum that
makes it appealing for many applica-
tions. With the current drive to reduce
the weight of transportation and, cor-
respondingly, improve fuel efficiency,
aluminum is proving to be an excellent
replacement for steel in many light-
weighting applications. The automo-
tive industry is consistently designing
more aluminum components into
their vehicles, and the aircraft and
aerospace industries continue to take
advantage of aluminum’s excellent
strength-to-weight ratio. Even the se-
lection of aluminum for its excellent
electrical conductivity is often driven
by its light weight, as well as its low
cost, when compared to copper.
Strength (wide range of
strengths to select from)
There are many aluminum alloys to
choose from that range widely in
strength.
The 1xxx series (commercially
pure) aluminums, the lowest strength
series, are generally not used for struc-
tural applications, but for their other
characteristics like corrosion resist-
ance and electrical conductivity.
The 3xxx series (Mn) alloys are
used for some low-strength applica-
Fig. 2 — The usage of aluminum globally from 2004 to 2018.
(Courtesy of the Aluminum Association.)
BY TONY ANDERSON
tions, such as heat exchangers and
road signs.
The 6xxx series (Mg2Si) alloys,
which are moderate strength, are of-
ten used as extrusions in structural
applications.
The 5xxx series (Mg) alloys range in
strength dependent on their magne-
sium content. The 5xxx series alloys
are used in many structural applica-
tions from fuel tanks and float tubes
for pontoon boats to large ocean-going
ships, military vehicles, and liquid nat-
ural gas storage tanks.
Then there are the highest strength
2xxx (Cu) and 7xxx (Zn) heat-treatable
alloys, which are used for high-perfor-
mance sporting equipment, aircraft,
and aerospace applications.
Good Corrosion Resistance
(when compared to steel)
Aluminum has outstanding corro-
sion resistance because of the oxide
film that adheres strongly to its sur-
face and, that if damaged, reforms im-
mediately in most environments. On a
surface freshly abraded and then ex-
posed to air, the oxide film is only
around 1 nm thick. The oxide film,
even at this very limited thickness, is
highly effective in protecting the alu-
minum from corrosion. The oxide film
that develops on aluminum in ordi-
nary atmospheres grows to thickness-
es much greater than 1 nm and is com-
posed of two layers. The inner oxide
next to the metal is a compact, amor-
phous barrier layer whose thickness is
determined entirely by the tempera-
ture of the environment. At any given
Table 1 — Trends for Aluminum Demand
Why is there an increase of aluminum being designed into products?
> Weight — 1⁄3 of steel
> Tensile strength range — 10–90 ksi
> High electrical conductivity — 60% of copper
> High thermal conductivity — 5 times steel
> Good corrosion resistance — adherent oxide
> Resistance to many chemicals — chemical storage
> Has no ductile-to-brittle transition — cryogenic applications
> Toughness — pound for pound will absorb 2x crash energy than typical automotive steel
> Easily extruded
> Weldable and workable — key to fabrication cost
> Priced by the pound — used by the foot
> Easily recyclable — environmentally friendly
temperature, the limiting barrier
thickness is the same in oxygen, dry
air, or moist air. Covering this barrier
layer is a thicker, more permeable out-
er layer of hydrated oxide.
No Ductile-to-Brittle
Transition (low-temperature
applications)
Aluminum alloys offer distinct ad-
vantages over most steels when used
as material for construction of cryo-
genic equipment or for structures that
will experience cryogenic cold.
Many materials when subjected to
these very low temperatures undergo
changes in their physical structure
that severely limit their usefulness in
cryogenic applications. Some metals,
like many steels for example, become
extremely brittle.
Aluminum alloys, however, have an
unusual ability to maintain their duc-
tility and resistance to shock loading
at extremely low temperatures ap-
proaching absolute zero. As tempera-
ture decreases below room tempera-
ture, aluminum’s tensile and yield
strength increases, and the ductility
and toughness of most alloys increase
as well. Even at the lowest test tem-
peratures available, in liquid helium
at –452°F (–273°C), strength remains
high, and ductility and toughness re-
main well above values at room tem-
perature for most alloys.
Extruded Shapes
(manufacturing versatility)
Aluminum alloys can be easily ex-
truded into complex shapes. Some al-
loys, like the 6xxx series, have been
specifically designed to provide high-
quality standard profile extrusions at
minimum cost. Extruded aluminum
components can be custom designed
to assist with manufacturing and con-
struction. The designing of extruded
profiles to aid with fitup and assembly,
and the incorporation of preformed
welding joint preparations, can be very
cost effective if applied correctly.
Conclusion
Aluminum has many characteristics
that make it attractive for many weld-
ed applications. For this reason, I
believe we will see a continued in-
crease in its usage within the welding
fabrication industry. WJ
TONY ANDERSON is director of aluminum
technology, ITW Welding North America.
He is a Fellow of the British Welding
Institute (TWI), a Registered Chartered
Engineer with the British Engineering
Council, and holds numerous positions on
AWS technical committees. He is chairman
of the Aluminum Association Technical
Advisory Committee for Welding and author
of the book Welding Aluminum —
Questions and Answers currently available
from AWS. Questions may be sent to Tony
Anderson c/o Welding Journal, 8669 NW 36
St., #130, Miami, FL 33166-6672, or via email
at tony.anderson@millerwelds.com.
Change of Address?
Moving?
Make sure delivery of your
Welding Journal is not interrupted.
Contact Kim Hugley in the
Membership Department
with your new address at
(800) 443-9353, ext. 262, or by
email to khugley@aws.org.
FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 17
BRAZING Q&A
Q: What filler metal should I use
to braze 2205 duplex stainless
steel?
A: Selecting a filler metal for brazing
requires the consideration of a number
of factors, including the specific braz-
ing process that will be used, compati-
bility with the base metal(s), metallur-
gy of the base metal(s), joint clearance
requirements, brazement service con-
ditions, cost, and availability.
2205 is a duplex (austenitic-ferritic)
stainless steel that is highly alloyed
and processed to produce a balanced
microstructure of approximately 50%
austenite and 50% ferrite. Typical
composition of 2205 compared with
316L is shown in Table 1. This alloy is
selected where resistance to corrosion,
specifically pitting and stress corro-
sion cracking, are required. The steel
also offers the advantages of higher
strength and improved erosion resist-
ance vs. the 3XX series austenitic
stainless steels. The high alloy content
of this material makes the metallurgy
somewhat complicated and, as a re-
sult, the whole brazing process must
be carefully considered.
In this application, vacuum brazing
will be used. Vacuum brazing can be
done with precious metal, copper,
nickel, or a limited number of silver-
based filler metals. Nickel-based filler
metals can be used for the starting
point in this case as they are well suit-
ed for vacuum brazing, offer a range of
options, and are typically compatible
Fig. 1 — AWS standard filler metals ordered by recommended
brazing temperature.
18 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020
Table 1 — Comparison of Typical Stainless Steel Compositions (wt-%) [Refs. 4, 5]
Alloy C Cr Ni
2205 0.020 22.1 5.6
316L 0.019 16.7 10.3
with stainless steels. Nickel-based
filler metals are reasonable in cost and
in most cases have good availability.
To further limit the filler metal selec-
tion, the braze temperature should be
defined based on the metallurgy of the
steel. 2205 duplex is heat treated (solu-
tion annealed) at 1900°–1975°F
(1040°–1080°C), followed by water
quenching. It is desirable to have the
brazing temperature in this range as it
aligns with the standard heat treatment
practices, thus minimizing potential
deleterious metallurgical effects from
the brazing. Heating above 2010°F
(1100°C) may increase the ferrite con-
tent (Ref. 1). If copper filler was a possi-
bility for the service conditions, this
limitation would preclude its use. The
cooling rate from brazing must also be
considered, and will be discussed later.
2205 duplex stainless steel has ni-
trogen with a range of 0.14– 0.20 wt-
% added to the alloy. The nitrogen in
the base metal can react with boron in
the filler metal to form boron nitride,
which will inhibit wetting. If wetting
was not inhibited, the formation of
chromium borides in the base metal
must be considered as they could im-
pair corrosion resistance adjacent to
the braze joint. As a result of these fac-
Fig. 2 — Isothermal precipitation diagram for duplex stainless
steels.
BY PETER DITZEL
Mo Mn Si N
3.1 1.45 0.45 0.18
2.1 1.59 0.38 0.05
tors, nickel-based filler metals with
boron should be avoided.
Figure 1 shows the AWS standard-
ized nickel-based brazing alloys or-
dered by recommended brazing tem-
perature range and the elements used
for melt point suppression. Limiting
the brazing temperature to 1975°F
(1080°C) or below and omitting any
selections that contain boron narrows
the list to five candidates.
The relatively low solidus tempera-
tures of BNi-6, 7, and 12 must be tak-
en into consideration, as the rapid
quenching that is required for metal-
lurgical reasons would impart stresses
on an unsolidified braze filler, which
would likely result in cracking of the
joint. BNi-7 has been reported as be-
ing successfully used for brazing other
duplex alloys (Ref. 2). The remaining
candidates are BNi-8 and BNi-14.
BNi-8 can be excluded for concerns
over corrosion resistance as it does not
contain any chromium, which is key to
corrosion resistance of stainless steels.
BNi-14 is a good candidate as it was
developed for corrosion resistance.
An additional metallurgical-related
process consideration beyond filler
metal selection should be noted. Du-
plex stainless steels are prone to inter-
metallic phase formation due to their
high alloy content. Cooling rate off of
the solution anneal is critical to avoid-
ing these phases. Sigma and chi phas-
es, in particular, will impair the corro-
sion resistance of the alloy. Figure 2 Dear Readers
shows an isothermal precipitation The Welding Journal encourages an exchange of ideas through letters to the editor. Please
diagram for 2205 duplex stainless send your letters to the following address:
steel. According to this diagram, cool- Welding Journal Dept.
ing to below approximately 1500°F Attn: Cindy Weihl
(825°C) within two minutes is re- 8669 NW 36 St., #130
Miami, FL 33166
quired to completely avoid deleterious
phase precipitation. The brazing pro- Items can also be sent via fax to (305) 443-7559 or by email to cweihl@aws.org.
cedure employed and equipment to be
utilized must consider cooling rate to
ensure the corrosion resistance of the
material is retained.

Summary
Filler metals BNi-7, BNi-12, and
BNi-14 should be suitable for brazing
2205 duplex stainless. Testing would be
needed to identify the specific best can-
didate for the application. Corrosion
resistance of the braze joint and base
metal must be considered in the
process development, so corrosion test-
ing would also be advisable in addition
to standard braze joint evaluations. WJ

References

1. Arcelor Mittal Steel. 2016. UR

2205 Duplex Stainless Steel Datasheet.
2. Centeno, D., Carvalho Jr., C., and
Brandi, S. 2000. Brazeablity of UNS
32101 and UNS 32304 lean duplex
stainless steels. Proceedings of the Inter-
national Brazing and Soldering Confer-
ence.
3. International Molybdenum Asso-
ciation. 2009. Practical Guidelines for the
Fabrication of Duplex Stainless Steels.
4. Outukumpu 2205 Code Plus
Two® datasheet.
5. Historical data from material
certifications.

PETER DITZEL (pjditzel@yahoo.com), is a

guest writer for this column. He is principal
engineer, materials and processes, Parker
Hannifin, Gas Turbine Fuel Systems
Division, Mentor, Ohio.
This column is written sequentially by
TIM P. HIRTHE, ALEXANDER E. SHAPIRO, and
DAN KAY. Hirthe and Shapiro are members
of and Kay is an advisor to the C3
Committee on Brazing and Soldering. All
three have contributed to the 5th edition of
the AWS Brazing Handbook.
Readers are requested to email their
questions for use in this column to the
authors, cweihl@aws.org, or send to
their attention at Welding Journal,
8669 NW 36 St. #130, Miami, FL 33166.

FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 19

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Laser-Enhanced Short-
Circuiting Metal Transfer
in GMAW
In the July 2019 issue of the Weld-
ing Journal, an interesting research
paper, titled “Laser-Enhanced Short-
Circuiting Metal Transfer in GMAW,”
caught my attention. The authors
must have had a “great” time collecting
their data. Although there are a great
many questions I would like to ask
them, I’ll settle for just a few concern-
ing the oscillograms in Fig. 10. The
first question is regarding Fig. 10A
(without laser). The jagged appearance
of the voltage trace tells me the power
source had very little inductance, the
arc was fluctuating wildly, or the gas
shielding was inadequate. Normally,
practiced short-circuit gas metal arc
welding (GMAW-S) oscillograms of
voltage, with some circuit inductance,
appear relatively smooth and not with
the wild perturbations in Fig. 10A.
The voltage trace in Fig. 10E is more
like what I would expect to see with
normally practiced GMAW-S.
In Fig. 10B (with laser), although
the authors use the term “negative
pulse of arc voltage,” there are no neg-
ative voltages shown in the oscillo-
grams. The lowest voltages shown are
about 5 V above 0 (positive). Again,
the arc length appears to vary wildly
and with random short-circuit dura-
tion. This seems to indicate a “bounc-
ing metal droplet,” without transfer
for most of the time. A typical surface
tension-dominated transfer cycle
takes about 0.003 s (as is stated else-
where in this paper). In my experience,
surface tension transfer ranges from
0.002 to 0.003 s.
In Fig. 10E (with pulse laser of 75
Hz), the oscillograms of voltage and
amperage approach those I would ex-
pect to see from any decent GMAW-S
constant voltage (CV) commercial
power supply except, in this case, the
“wiggly” look of traces would be ab-
sent with a normal CV power supply.
Therefore, it seems as if there is a lot
of “jiggling” of the liquid metal drop
going on. The jiggling would account
for small irregular variations in arc
length and, hence, the jagged voltage
and amperage traces.
My question is, how much of an
advantage over GMAW-S? When
20 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020
GMAW-S is practiced as recommended
by the equipment manufacturers. Is
there more or less spatter? How
much? Is there more or less penetra-
tion? How much?
A. F. Manz
AWS Fellow
Union, N.J.
Mr. Manz, thank you for your letter.
We are honored that this paper has
drawn your attention and concern. Below
please find answers to your questions.
1. In this research, the power supply
was set in constant current (CC) mode so
the waveform of the arc voltage would
show slight vibrations but was stable
overall. First, the arc length was stable
enough to promise the laser can always
be aimed at the droplet neck position, as
indirectly proven by Fig. 5B. Secondly, the
“wide” and “frequent” fluctuation of the
arc voltage that is of your major concern
is mainly due to the high frequency noises
coupled during the data logging process.
The raw data was shown in these figures
but not filtered. The fluctuations in Fig.
10 look smoother because the time scale
in Fig. 10E is larger and the data point
density is much lower, thus the
noise/fluctuation looks smoother.
2. Apologies for the misunderstanding
caused by the inappropriate use of the
phrase “negative pulse.” Here the nega-
tive pulse represents the arc voltage
falling associated with the occurrence of
short circuit.
3. For Fig. 10B, where the continuous
wave (CW) laser was used, there was no
apparent bouncing metal droplet due to
insufficient drop-pool contact. The laser
effect was pushed and elongated the
droplet to contact the weld pool more
“solidly.” It is beneficial to avoid bouncing
droplets. Since the laser was in CW mode,
the droplet couldn’t always be pushed to
the pool unless it had grown to a certain
size, because the arc length wasn’t set to
be that short.
4. This paper was innovation orient-
ed. Its major worth is to bring a new ac-
tive control method to the GMAW process
but was not trying to use it in practice in
the short term. It does show advantages
over conventional GMAW-S in that exact
one-droplet-per-pulse short-circuiting
(SC) transfer is obtained and the spatter
is much less (as can be seen from the met-
al transfer images). Since this paper was
mainly to show the laser effect on SC
transfer, the penetration difference and
the reduction of spatter were not quanti-
tively analyzed. We have a preliminary
result that the penetration would consid-
erably increase when laser pulse was ap-
plied to the CC GMAW process, since the
current was constant, but metal transfer
frequency was increased, indicating more
heat was brought to the pool by the
droplets.
If you have further questions, please
feel free to contact me. Or we can have a
talk during the AWS Professional Pro-
gram at FABTECH 2020. I usually at-
tend the program every year and can
show you some videos with more
information.
Jun Xiao
Author
Beijing, China
Fishing Boat Capital
“Missouri City Reels in Title of ‘Alu-
minum Fishing Boat Capital,’” in the
July 2019 issue of the Welding Journal,
was a very interesting article, especial-
ly the paragraph containing the sen-
tence . . . “Interestingly, boys who had
worked at something which requires
manual skills — shoeing horses or
playing a musical instrument — often
make the best welders.”
When I was first learning to weld in
the early 1960s, my father was the of-
ficer in charge of the Navy Welding
School at the San Diego Naval Station
and made a similar statement to me
[about manual skills]. My father was a
career naval officer who joined in 1937
and served for 30 years. After World
War II, his specialty was ship repair re-
lated to welding, and he served as offi-
cer in charge of the Navy Welding
School for two, two-year tours. His ex-
perience was that the best gas tung-
sten arc welders he ever saw were
women. This was based on the old sex-
ist attitude that young women (girls)
were always taught sewing starting at
an early age, and sewing takes great
manual dexterity. So not only “boys”
should have been mentioned.
Tony Rangus
AWS Life Member
Garden Valley, Idaho WJ
 PRODUCT & PRINT SPOTLIGHT

Scan Head Enables Metal scan head include a process monitor-

Additive Manufacturing
ing interface along with a fiber adapter
for direct connection of the laser;
ultra-low-drift galvos with digital en-
coders that are regulated via the
newest generation of servo electron-
ics; and optimal mirrors for quality im-
aging and high performance. Addition-
ally, its prefocus configuration with in-
tegrated z-axis allows for scan head us-
age without an F-Theta objective to re-
duce thermal drift.

The compact fiberSYS scan head
optimizes machine assembly and
process times for additive manufactur-
ing applications. For use with multi-
head laser machines, the scan head’s
exterior dimensions and beam-exit
location facilitate maximum overlap
between adjacent scanners. It is con-
figured for control via a real-time clock
board as well as for deflection of mul-
tikilowatt, single-mode fiber lasers.
Additional features of the dust-proof
SCANLAB
scanlab.de/en
(630) 797-2044
Updated Software Facilitates
Quality Control
The Insight Centerpoint™ 10 weld
data monitoring software provides
greater ease of use, faster startup
time, and a shortened learning curve.
Offering guidance and control within
the weld cell, it helps operations detect
missed welds, verify proper weld se-
quences, and ensure consistent weld
quality in manufacturing applications,
such as heavy equipment, agriculture,
and transportation. It offers drag-and-
drop part capabilities when importing
digital assets, customizable theme
slides that apply across all slides, and a
centralized database that allows users
to create parts/jobs from their office
and deploy the updates to the shop
floor without traveling to the weld
cell. Its other features include a report-
ing tool that displays productivity,
quality data, and welder activities; job

FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 21

 tracking records on all activities that
go into the creation of a welded prod-
uct; and a customizable operator
interface.
Miller Electric Mfg. LLC
millerwelds.com
(920) 734-9821
Report Evaluates the
Aerospace Additive
Manufacturing Market
Aerospace Additive Manufacturing —
Market Analysis, Trends, and Forecasts
predicts this market will grow by $2.4
billion at a compounded growth of
21%. The aircraft segment is expected
to contribute healthy gains to this in-
dustry, and is posed to reach $2.3 bil-
lion by the year 2025. The 90-page re-
port also finds the United States will
maintain a 22.6% growth momentum.
Germany will add more than $86.6
million within the next 5–6 years, with
more than $113.5 million worth of
projected demand in this region com-
ing from the rest of the European mar-
kets. In Japan, the aircraft segment is
forecasted to reach a market size of
$164.2 million by the close of the
analysis period. Additionally, China
exhibits the potential to grow at
20.4% over the next couple of years,
adding approximately $408.1 million.
Research and Markets
researchandmarkets.com
(800) 526-8630
Ceramic Discs Remove Metal
at Fast Cutting Speeds
The quick-change Roll-On and
Turn-On ceramic C-PRIME abrasive
discs provide high metal removal rates
at fast speeds for applications on steel,
stainless steel, ferrous, and nonferrous
metals. Its twist-on-and-off attaching
systems allow for rapid disc change,
maximize productivity by minimizing
22 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020
downtime, and eliminate the need for
installation tools. Used for finishing,
grinding, deburring, and blending ap-
plications, the discs have a proprietary
ceramic abrasive grain with a fine crys-
tallized structure that offers longer life
and improved self-sharpening features.
The discs also perform with lower
grinding temperatures and less fric-
tion. The Roll-On discs come in seven
grits ranging from 24 to 120 in its 2-
in. size disc, and six grits ranging from
24 to 120 in its 3-in. size disc. The
Turn-On discs come in six grits rang-
ing from 36 to 120 in its 2-in. size
disc, and three grits ranging from 36
to 80 in its 3-in. size disc.
Weldcote
weldcotemetals.com
(704) 739-4115
Report Posits Growth for the
Operations Management
Software Market
Global Manufacturing Operations
Management (MOM) Software Market
2019–2023 states this market will ex-
perience an increase of $7.445 billion
during the forecast period. The de-
mand for high-quality products from
manufacturing facilities across elec-
tronics, automotive, chemical, and
food and beverages industries is cred-
ited for the market’s growth. Addition-
al factors include the increased need
for operational efficiency to improve
the quality of the manufacturing
process, as well as more investments
in automation and industrial robots.
The 134-page report also states the
automotive market segment will ac-
count for the highest market share in
this industry, with North America
dominating the market due to the
growing adoption of cloud services
and digital platforms by manufactur-
ing industries in that region.
Technavio
technavio.com
(844) 364-1100
Intelligent Calendar Tracks
EHS Compliance
The intelligent calendar for envi-
ronmental, health, and safety (EHS)
compliance allows managers to see all
of their reporting requirements and
 Multiposition Belt Grinder a 2 × 48 in. grinding belt with an 8 × 2
Broadens Contact Options in. contact wheel work surface, a
23⁄4 × 83⁄4 in. removable platen and work
table, and a 70 duro serrated contact
The model wheel. The grinder’s dimensions are
BG248 belt 12 in. long × 16 in. wide × 26 in. high.
grinder offers It is supplied with a single-phase,
multiposition 1
⁄2-hp, and 110-V motor that is totally
contact from ver- enclosed and fan-cooled to produce a
tical to horizon- belt speed of 7200 surface ft/min.
deadlines. It automatically gives tal, plus full-
mangers a personalized, up-to-the- work movement Kalamazoo Industries Inc.
minute view of their entire compliance from left to kalamazooindustries.com
reporting schedule across every facili- right. It features (269) 382-2050
ty. Part of the company’s EHS Suite,
the calendar is synced to federal and
state EHS databases to ensure accura-
cy. Companies currently using spread-
sheets, paper binders, and govern-
ment sites to track and manage EHS
requirements can use the calendar to
understand, manage, and meet their
compliance needs all in one place.

Encamp
encamp.com
(317) 450-4557

Metal 3D Printer Designed for

High-Volume Production

The X1 160PRO™ metal binder jet

3D printer offers high throughput and
large-part production. It produces
high-quality parts in more than six
metals, including stainless steels
316L, 304L, and 17-4PH, as well as
some ceramics. It also provides build
dimensions of 800 × 500 × 400 mm,
delivering 160 L of total build volume,
which is large enough to produce in-
vestment cast parts used in the auto-
motive, aerospace, and defense indus-
tries. Its print speeds can reach 10,000
cm3/h, depending on the print materi-
al. It comes with Industry 4.0 cloud
connectivity and process-linking
capabilities.

ExOne®
exone.com
(877) 773-9663

FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 23

Developments in Metal Additive
Manufacturing
BY CHERYL HAWK, ETHAN SULLIVAN,
An examination of the past, present, and ZHENZHEN YU, AND STEPHEN LIU
future of additive manufacturing research

T
he ASTM F42 technical commit-
tee defines additive manufactur-
ing (AM) as the “process of join-
ing materials to make objects from
three-dimensional (3D) model data,
usually layer upon layer, as opposed to
subtractive manufacturing methodolo-
gies” (Ref. 1). This is a broad defini-
tion that includes different types of
technologies and materials including
polymers, metals, and ceramics. Addi-
tive manufacturing is also known as
additive fabrication, additive process-
es, additive techniques, additive layer
manufacturing, direct digital manufac-
turing, rapid prototyping, rapid manu-
facturing, and freeform fabrication
(Refs. 2–4).
Three Benefits Additive
Manufacturing Brings
Additive manufacturing offers
many advantages over conventional
manufacturing in that it can overcome
some geometric constraints and com-
positional barriers, as well as improve
production time (Refs. 5–10). AM has
the ability to create complex geome-
tries that are difficult to achieve using
conventional methods. Designers also
have the ability to create lighter, more
functional components made of fewer
parts through additive manufacturing
methods (Refs. 11, 12). For example,
the medical field is creating porous im-
plants for bone in-growth to improve
bone regeneration (Ref. 13). In the
aerospace industry, the geometry of
cooling channels for components such
as turbine blades has conventionally
been limited to shapes attainable by
drilling and capping (Ref. 12). These
cooling channels can be designed clos-
er to the walls of a part, which can im-
prove coolant flow and reduce weight.
Multicomponent parts can be made
into one single part without tooling
constraints from traditional manufac-
turing methods (Ref. 11). Traditionally
made from multiple components, fuel
nozzles can be made as a single piece
with additive manufacturing as shown
in Fig. 1A and an Airbus bracket has
been designed with AM to reduce

A B

A Ti-6Al-4V turbine cooling test bed size, measuring

365 × 365 × 320 mm with a complex internal structure, Fig. 1 — Additive manufactured components produced by laser
is able to be additively produced on a Farsoon Technolo- beam melting: A — Fuel nozzle built as one piece with opti-
gies FS421M system in one piece. (Courtesy of Farsoon mized interior channels; B — Ti-6Al-4V Airbus bracket with re-
Technologies.) duced weight (Ref. 14).

24 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020

weight as shown in Fig. 1B (Ref. 14).
The second advantage is the ability
to produce a part in a relatively short
amount of time. Additive manufactur-
ing initiates with the creation of a 3D
model using a computer program that
can be converted to a file format that
calculates the slices taken to produce
the AM component, layer by layer.
These simplifications mean that a
component can be made within hours
or days compared to traditional meth-
ods. Atzeni and Salmi (Ref. 9) found
additive manufacturing can reduce the
time and cost from the design phase to
manufacturing because there is no in-
vestment in designing and fabricating
tooling and fixtures.
The third advantage is the cost sav-
ings because additive manufacturing is
material and resource efficient and has
production flexibility (Ref. 11). There
is less waste in additive manufacturing
because parts are made layer by layer
and require less machining. In addi-
tion, leftover material can often be re-
conditioned and reused. Since additive
manufacturing equipment does not re-
quire additional resources regarding
extra tooling or fixtures, manufactur-
ers can build manufacturing locations
close to customers, reducing the need
for packaging and shipping.
Additive manufacturing is cost ef-
fective for low-volume, high-value
products. The technology cannot fully
compete with conventional manufac-
turing for high-volume production.
There is variability from part to part
and from machine to machine, and
from process to process, which makes
it difficult for high-volume AM pro-
duction. In addition to variability,
adoption of qualification and certifica-
tion has been a challenge in AM (Ref.
2). Researchers such as S. Babu have
focused efforts in qualification of AM
through in-situ process control and ex-
situ characterization and modeling
(Ref. 15).
Applications of Metal
Additive Manufacturing
Due to the design freedom additive
manufacturing processes offer, there
are a wide range of industries imple-
menting these technologies such as
the aerospace, medical and dental, and
automotive industries, to name a few.
Additive manufacturing is helpful in
the aerospace industry because of the
high-value, small-batch components
found in satellites, helicopters, and en-
gines, and the small-batch production
(Ref. 16).
Additive manufacturing has helped
improve the medical field by making
accurate prototypes for surgery prepa-
ration and creating implants unique to
individual patients. Prototypes can be
printed in larger scales from CT scans,
which further helps medical doctors to
accurately and safely identify issues,
before operating on a patient. Additive
manufacturing has also been used to
create custom implants to better fit
patients. The design freedom of AM
potentially allows for an implant to be
denser in regions that require more
strength and that are more porous to
allow for bone adhesion. There is hope
for AM to customize the composition
for flexibility, creating regions near
joints that are more wear resistant,
like using a ceramic, and using more
ductile material toward the core of
the implant.
The automotive industry has also
benefited from additive manufactur-
ing, especially for production of low-
volume luxury and racing vehicles.
Some components made by AM are
engine exhausts, drive shafts, gear box
components, and braking systems
(Ref. 16). Other applications for addi-
tive manufacturing are creating injec-
tion molds, negatives for investment
casting, and for repair of components.
The applications for additive manufac-
turing are likely going to expand as the
technology becomes more accessible
and enhanced.
Historical Background
Rapid prototyping was first intro-
duced in the 1980s with the first
commercialization of stereolithogra-
phy (SLA) developed by 3D Systems
in 1987 (Refs. 17–20). Stereolithogra-
phy uses an ultraviolet laser to cure a
liquid-based polymer resin. Laminated
object manufacturing (LOM) was
patented in 1988 (Ref. 11) and com-
mercialized in 1991 by Helisys (Ref.
12). In LOM, an adhesive is added to
sheet material that acts as a layer. The
sheets are bonded by the adhesive and
a laser is used to cut the shape of the
layer. This process can be used with
paper, plastic, and metals. In 1989, se-
lective laser sintering (SLS) was
patented and became commercially
available from 3D Systems in 1992.
The process uses a high-power energy
FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 25
source to melt small particles to build
a layer. The materials used in SLS are
polymers, metals, ceramics, and glass.
There was much development in ad-
ditive manufacturing during the 1990s
with improvements in the SLA materi-
al systems and also improvements in
technologies to include other materi-
als. In 1992, fused deposition model-
ing (FDM) was patented. This process
extrudes material just above the melt-
ing point so the material solidifies al-
most immediately. Fused deposition
modeling can be used for wax, thermo-
plastics, metals, and ceramics. Three-
dimensional printing (3DP) was devel-
oped by MIT and patented in 1993.
This process uses a liquid binder jetted
onto a starch-based powder. The pow-
der is essentially glued together by the
binder. Many companies employ 3DP
for metal structures and use liquid
metal injection to fill up the porosity
left behind by the binder. In 1997, San-
dia National Laboratories with Pratt &
Whitney developed laser engineered
net shaping (LENS) and licensed this
technology to Optomec. The LENS
process was commercialized in 1998
and a patent was awarded in 2000.
Constant improvements are made in
additive technologies, improving effi-
ciency, unit prices, and expanding ma-
terial systems.
Metal Additive Manufacturing
Technology
For metal additive manufacturing,
there are three main types of process
technologies: powder bed, powder
feed, and wire feed. Each process has
defining characteristics such as mate-
rial, build procedure, build size, build
tolerance, resolution of features, sur-
face finish, etc. (Ref. 21). For example,
powder processes provide higher reso-
lution of features due to the smaller
layer thickness; however, the surface
finish is rougher than a wire process. A
summary of the various metal additive
manufacturing technologies is shown
in Table 1. It is important to note the
process nomenclature is not complete-
ly standardized. Often, these process-
es are named by the manufacturer. For
example, LMD, LENS, and DMD are
often used to describe a similar
process if not the exact same process.
Powder bed additive manufacturing
can employ either a laser or an elec-
tron beam as the energy source. In
general, for powder bed systems, a
Table 1 — Summary of the Metal Additive Manufacturing Technologies*

Technology Process Energy Source Manufacturer

3 Geometry
SLS Laser Matsuura
3D Systems
EOS
SLM Solutions
Concept Laser
Powder Bed SLM Laser 3D Systems
Realizer
Renishaw
Farsoon Technologies
Arcam
EBM Electron Beam Sciaky

LMD Optomec
Powder Fed LENS Laser DM3D
DMD Irepa Laser
EBAM Electron Beam Sciaky

Big Metal Additive

GTA Lincoln
Wire Fed WAAM GMA KUKA
FANUC
EBF3 Electron Beam Sciaky

* Modified content based on Ref. 16.

LASER SCANNER
CHAMBER
ROLLER/RAKE COMPONENT
POWDER
BED
POWDER DELIVERY
SYSTEM
Fig. 2 — A schematic of a laser pow-
der bed system (Ref. 2).
chamber is backfilled with a nonreac-
tive gas such as argon or nitrogen. A
rake rolls a small layer of powder
across the powder bed. The energy
source then scans a pattern over the
freshly raked powder to either sinter
or melt the new layer to the previous
layer. The bed then drops, and a new
layer of powder is raked over the bed
and the process continues until the
component is completed — Fig. 2.
The powder bed system is advanta-
geous as it creates the highest resolu-
tion components and creates smaller
microstructural features. The disad-
vantage to this process is it has strict
size limitations and takes a longer
time to build a component due to the
finer layer size. There are three types
of processes that use this technology:
selective laser sintering (SLS), selec-
LASER Beam Guidance System
Carrie Gas
Lens
POWDER
SUPPLY
DEPOSITON
HEAD
AM DEPOSIT
Fig. 3 — A schematic of the laser pow-
der feed system (Ref. 2).
tive laser melting (SLM), and electron
beam melting (EBM).
Selective laser sintering sinters the
powder together without fully melting
the two layers together. The binding
mechanism involved in SLS can be vis-
cous-flow binding, particle wetting,
solid-state sintering, liquid-phase sin-
tering, and true melting (Refs. 10, 22).
To avoid use of a binder, a low-melt-
ing-point powder is mixed with a high-
melting-point powder (Ref. 21).
Selective laser melting uses true
melting to bond the layers together.
This process improves the quality of a
component such as improved surface
roughness, reduced porosity, and fully
dense components. There is some is-
sue with heat input on dimensional
tolerance and deposit cracking.
Electron beam melting uses an elec-
tron beam as the energy source and re-
quires a vacuum. Hoppers dispense
the powder onto a powder bed that is
then raked over the bed and fully melt-
ed to create the layers of the compo-
nent. Electron beam melting can pro-
duce larger components; however, the
dimensional tolerance is lower than
SLS or SLM.
Powder feed systems employ noz-
zles that direct powder into the energy
source as shown in Fig. 3. The powder
stream converges under the energy
source on the AM component to melt
the powder and form the next layer of
the build (Refs. 23, 24). Just as with
the powder bed system, the energy
sources used for powder feed systems
are laser and electron beam. This sys-
tem can either have 1) a stationary
workpiece and moving deposition
head or 2) a workpiece that moves and
a stationary deposition head. The
processes that operate under powder
feed technology are laser metal deposi-
tion (LMD), direct metal deposition
(DMD), laser-engineered net shaping
(LENS), and electron beam additive
manufacturing (EBAM). In general,
the powder feed processes deposit
larger layer thicknesses and, therefore,
result in larger microstructural fea-
tures and lower resolution than the
powder bed processes.

26 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020


Wire feed Electron beam gun
Electron beam gun
Deposit
Substrate
Fig. 4 — Schematic of the electron
beam wire feed process (Ref. 27).
Wire feed systems use wire as the
material feedstock rather than pow-
der. Wire is fed into the energy source
and melted to create a layer. An exam-
ple of a wire feed system is shown in
Fig. 4. Different energy sources can be
used such as arc, plasma, laser, or elec-
tron beam. Metal wire feed systems
are not yet standardized and so it is
common to turn a welding robot or
electron beam system to operate under
AM conditions. That being said, there
are two types of processes that operate
under the wire feed system, wire arc
additive manufacturing (WAAM) and
electron beam freeform fabrication
(EBF3); NASA-LaRC developed the lat-
ter process. The arc processes com-
monly used for WAAM are gas tung-
sten arc and gas metal arc. Wire feed
systems can deposit material at a
faster rate compared to both powder
processes; however, because the depo-
sition features are so large, there is a
loss of resolution. Due to the deposi-
tion rate, larger structures can be
made compared to the powder feed
processes. In fact, researchers (S.
Williams et al.) at Cranfield Universi-
ty’s Additive Manufacturing program
have successfully commissioned the
world’s largest metal 3D printer, capa-
ble of producing parts up to 10 m in
length (Ref. 25). In 2015, those re-
searchers produced one of the largest
single AM builds, a 6-m-long double-
sided spar, using WAAM (Ref. 26). Oak
Ridge National Laboratory held the
record for a trim and drill tool that
was 17.5 ft.
Many industries and universities are
involved in AM technologies with goals
of improving the relatively young tech-
nology. These include Pennsylvania
State University (PSU), The Ohio State
University (OSU), University of Ten-
nessee at Knoxville (UTK), and many
others. Researchers from these institu-
tions focus on improving AM technolo-
gy for greater utilization in industry.
Some of UTK’s focus areas are opti-
mization of scan strategies and mi-
A B
SiC
Aluminum
particle
separa-
Al4C3 tion
2 μm 100 μm
Fig. 5 — A — Macroscopic cross sec-
tion of an Al MMC build that demon-
strates clustering of the uncoated SiC
particles; B — high magnification of
the SiC cluster showing particle sepa-
ration and Al carbide formation (Ref.
35).
crostructural control through tool path
design (Ref. 28). OSU was awarded as
one of the lead teams chosen by Ameri-
ca Makes to develop qualification meth-
ods related to AM defect generation
(Refs. 29, 30). National laboratories
such as the National Institute of Stan-
dards and Technology and Oak Ridge
National Laboratory have focused on
AM qualification (Refs. 31, 32).
Developments in Additive
Manufacturing at CSM
Additive manufacturing has ex-
panded the design space and made sig-
nificant improvements within many
industries. Yet the technology still has
inherent limitations regarding capabil-
ities and applications. Research cen-
ters around the world are engaged in
R&D activities to improve and over-
come some of these issues. Colorado
School of Mines is also engaged in a
number of research initiatives that ad-
dress the different aspects of additive
manufacturing. The Alliance for the
Development of Additive Processing
Technologies (ADAPT) has focused its
efforts on machine learning and pro-
cessing parameters during the additive
manufacturing process to improve
part quality and characterization of in-
ternal defects in 3D builds. The Center
for Welding, Joining, and Coatings Re-
search (CWJCR) has focused its efforts
on understanding metallurgical factors
that affect the microstructure and
quality of an AM component.
The CWJCR has focused its efforts
on additive manufacturing consum-
ables and microstructural develop-
ment for the various AM technologies.
In the presence of high-energy-density
sources, alloying elements are known
to vaporize during additive manufac-
turing (Refs. 33, 34). During EBF3, sol-
FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 27
Precursor Powders
Post-reaction
Reinforcement
Exothermic Reaction
Fig. 6 — Schematic representation of
the reaction synthesis process. Upon
reaching the reaction temperature, the
precursor components react and pre-
cipitate in situ a new ceramic or inter-
metallic phase.
id or cored wires are typically used.
However, Ti-alloy and Al-alloy builds
are typically off the specified composi-
tions due to vaporization. To mitigate
alloy losses, the CWJCR group pro-
posed to replace the solid (monolithic)
wires with powder-cored wires. With
the proper mix ratio, adding extra al-
loying additions to the powder can
compensate for the alloying losses. To
achieve a Ti-6Al-4V composition in the
final build, the powder-cored wire
should contain 19.5 wt-% Al and 12.5
wt-% V (Ref. 33). The CWJCR is also
investigating development of consum-
ables that could directly deposit metal
matrix composite (MMC) builds. Coat-
ed and uncoated SiC particles were
added to powder-cored wires so that
upon deposition, the SiC particles
would disperse into the Al matrix. Full
dispersion of SiC particles proves to be
a challenge. Figure 5 shows clustering
of the ceramic particles in an alu-
minum matrix. However, coating the
particles in nickel improved dispersion
of the SiC particles (Ref. 35).
To improve MMC dispersion, Ele-
mentum 3D proposed use of a reactive
additive manufacturing (RAM) powder
instead of the SiC particles. RAM uses
the concept of reaction synthesis, a
process in which precursor components
undergo an exothermic reaction and
precipitate in situ new ceramic or inter-
metallic products (Fig. 6), generally on
a much finer scale than the initial size
of the precursor components (Refs. 36,
37). These new particulates then serve
as both the reinforcement phase in the
MMC and as inoculants during solidifi-
cation, resulting in improved mechani-
cal performance of the build while pro-
viding microstructural control and mit-
igation of solidification cracking. The
exothermicity of the reaction synthesis
process also increases wettability of the
reinforcement by the molten metal,
 A

Fig. 8 — Measured oxygen concentration in gas tungsten arc welds made in L-PBF
and wrought 304L stainless steels (Ref. 40).

A B
Fig. 7 — Representative micrographs Fig 9 — A laser spot weld made in the following: A — L-PBF 304L demonstrating
of as-built 304L using the following: A both primary ferrite and primary austenite solidification; B — wrought 304L demon-
— L-PBF; B — LP-DED (Ref. 39). strating only primary ferrite solidification (Ref. 41).

which tends to improve dispersion of
the reinforcement (Ref. 38).
The CWJCR has also focused on un-
derstanding the microstructural differ-
ences that result from various AM sys-
tems. Starting with similar SS304L
substrates and powder feed, 3D print-
ed materials from laser powder bed fu-
sion (L-PBF) and laser powder directed
energy deposition (LP-DED) were
found to be different in terms of mi-
crostructure and mechanical proper-
ties (Ref. 39). Differences in deposit
size and solidification rate of the two
processes were partly responsible for
the differences observed. The cooling
rate for components produced through
L-PBF was two to three orders of mag-
nitude higher than those produced us-
ing LP-DED. The faster cooling rate af-
fects the grain size and the solidifica-
tion mode. Builds produced by L-PBF
exhibited both primary austenite and
primary ferrite solidification, while
builds produced by LP-DED exhibited
larger grains and only primary ferrite
solidification as shown in Fig. 7. These
microstructural differences led to dif-
ferences in mechanical behavior such
as yield strength and strain rate.
Even though AM provides much
greater flexibility in engineering com-
ponent manufacturing, welding is still
expected in the life cycle of these com-
ponents, either in the fabrication of
larger components by joining together
several AM components into a final as-
sembly, or repair of AM components
returned from service. There is little
information available that demon-
strates the welding behavior of various
AM alloy systems.
The CWJCR is conducting research
in the weldability of AM components
with focus on the gas tungsten arc
welding (GTAW) and laser welding be-
havior of L-PBF 304L stainless steel
components. Due to the powder feed-
stock production, additive manufac-
tured 304L components generally have
a high concentration of oxygen. For
GTAW, the high oxygen concentration
affected the welding behavior by
changing the surface tension fluid
flow (Marangoni effect) resulting in
deeper penetration for welds made in
L-PBF 304L (Ref. 40). The difference
in fluid flow behavior is demonstrated
in Fig. 8, where welds made in AM
304L exhibited deeper penetration
and higher concentrations of oxygen,
while the welds made in wrought 304L
exhibited shallow penetration and
lower concentrations of oxygen. The
higher oxygen and silicon concentra-
tions also affected the ductility dip be-
havior of L-PBF samples. For laser
welding of L-PBF 304L, the high oxy-
gen concentration did not affect the
Marangoni flow as it did for welds pro-
duced by GTAW. However, the solidifi-
cation rate is slower for laser welds
produced in L-PBF 304L, which has
caused welds to solidify as both pri-
mary austenite and primary ferrite as
shown in Fig. 9A (Ref. 41).
ADAPT at Mines has focused devel-
opment in real-time sensing and feed-
back control for improved reliability on
AM components, beginning with ma-
chine learning. The group has collected
a large number of data to determine
processing effects on defects such as
porosity and incomplete fusion. They
found that part orientation, part loca-
tion, and the use of recycled powder
have a considerable impact on defect
formation (Ref. 42). This information
can be applied to a machine learning
model in hopes of reducing defect for-
mation in the future and improving
process parameters during the build
process. In their work on microstruc-
ture and mechanical properties of L-
PBF Inconel® 718, ADAPT has found
that AM processing results in slightly
different microstructures compared to
wrought or cast products, which affects
subsequent heat treatment (Ref. 43).

28 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020

As-built Inconel 718 contains nano-
sized oxide and carbide particles that
mitigate grain growth, as well as con-
taining a significant amount of disloca-
tion cell structure that enhances the
strength and elongation.
Future Vision of Additive
Manufacturing
Additive manufacturing has made
its mark in the manufacturing com-
munity, especially for high-value, low-
volume components. The AM process-
es provide design freedoms that have
helped to solve difficult problems and
if the technology can be improved, it
can be used to solve even greater de-
sign problems. New materials need to
be applied in AM, expanding the range
of AM usable alloys and with improved
microstructural control (Ref. 44). For
example, graded structures are being
made through additive methods to
create unique properties at location-
specific regions (Refs. 4, 45). A patent
was awarded to J. Dupont in 2009 for
creation of an additive transition joint
by dissimilar welding that produced a
functional graded composition from
1080 to 316L (Ref. 46).
Other exciting challenges that limit
the technology from reaching its full
potential wait to be overcome. Product
variability from build to build and
from machine to machine need to be
resolved. Researchers at Colorado
School of Mines are aiming at address-
ing this issue so that AM technologies
can produce higher quality compo-
nents with less waste.
With the advancement of 3D manu-
facturing systems and the reducing cost
of these systems worldwide, there has
been a proliferation of small suppliers
racing to build and supply industrial
components. Not every company has
the ability of consistent quality and
product assurance. The performance of
a similar component by different manu-
facturers cannot be easily assured. As
the 3D deposition processes can affect
quality and performance of the product,
standardization (process, products, raw
materials, and so forth) can prove to be
challenging. Many professional societies
and standards organizations are cur-
rently poring over known data and in-
formation to agree on which process pa-
rameters and product requirements to
specify for control. Understanding and
resolution of these issues will further
the potential of AM technologies. Nev-
ertheless, additive manufacturing has
come a long way in the last five decades
and is revolutionizing the modern man-
ufacturing industry. WJ
References
1. ASTM F2792-12a, Standard Termi-
nologies for Additive Manufacturing Tech-
nologies. 2016. West Conshohocken, Pa.:
ASTM Int., pp. 12–14.
2. Frazier, W. E. 2014. Metal additive
manufacturing: A review. Journal of Materi-
als Engineering and Performance 23(6):
1917–1928.
3. Alcisto, J., Enriquez, A., Garcia, H.,
Hinkson, S., Steelman, T., Silverman, E.,
Valdovino, P., Gigerenzer, H., Foyos, J.,
Ogren, J., Dorey, J., Karg, K., McDonald,
T., and Es-Said, O. S. 2011. Tensile proper-
ties and microstructures of laser-formed
Ti-6Al-4V. J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 20(2):
203–212.
4. Guo, N., and Leu, M. C. 2013. Addi-
tive manufacturing: Technology, applica-
tions and research needs. Frontiers of Me-
chanical Engineering Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 215–
243.
5. Ponche, R., Kerbrat, O., Mognol, P.,
and Hascoet, J. 2014. A novel methodolo-
gy of design for additive manufacturing
applied to additive laser manufacturing
process. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.
30(4): 389–398.
6. Muller, P., Mognol, P., and Hascoet, J.
2013. Modeling and control of a direct
laser powder deposition process for func-
tionally graded materials (FGM) parts
manufacturing. J. Mater. Process. Technol.,
Vol. 213, pp. 685–692.
7. Tomlin, M., and Meyer, J. 2011.
Topology optimization of an additive layer
manufactured (ALM) aerospace part. Pro-
ceeding of the 7th Altair CAE Technology Con-
ference, pp. 1–9.
8. Yadroitsev, I., Thivillon, L., Bertrand,
P., and Smurov, I. 2007. Strategy of manu-
facturing components with designed inter-
nal structure by selective laser melting of
metallic powder. Appl. Surf. Sci., Vol. 254,
pp. 980–983.
9. Atzeni, E., and Salmi, A. 2012. Eco-
nomics of additive manufacturing for end-
usable metal parts. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech-
nol., Vol. 62, pp. 1147–1155.
10. Kruth, J. P., Leu, M. C., and Naka-
gawa, T. 1988. Progress in additive manu-
facturing and rapid prototyping. Ann. CIRP
47(I): 525–540.
11. Huang, S. H., Liu, P., and Mokasdar,
A. 2013. Additive manufacturing and its
societal impact: A literature review. Int. J.
Adv. Manuf. Technol., Vol. 67, pp. 1191–
1203.
12. Wohlers, T. 2018. How metal addi-
tive manufacturing will change business:
The impact on product development and
manufacturing. Mech. Eng. Mag. Spec. Rep.,
October, pp. 1–16.
FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 29
13. Gao, C., Wang, C., Jin, H., Wang, Z.,
Li, Z., Shi, C., Leng, Y., Yang, F., Liu, H.,
and Wang, J. 2018. Additive manufactur-
ing technique-designed metallic porous im-
plants for clinical application in orthope-
dics. R. Soc. Chem. Adv., Vol. 8, pp. 25210–
25227.
14. Herzog, D., Seyda, V., Wycisk, E.,
and Emmelmann, C. 2016. Additive manu-
facturing of metals. Acta Mater., Vol. 117,
pp. 371–392.
15. Babu, S. S., Love, L., Dehof, R., Pe-
ter, W., Watkins, T., and Pannala, S. 2015.
Opportunities and challenges of additive
manufacturing of materials: Role of eco-
nomic drivers, automation, process con-
trol, high performance computing and
neutron characterization. MRS Bull.
40(12): 1154–1161.
16. Huang, Y., Leu, M. C., Mazumder,
J., and Donmez, A. 2015. Additive manu-
facturing: Current state, future potential,
gaps and needs, and recommendations. J.
Manuf. Sci. Eng. Vol. 137, pp. 1–10.
17. Wong, K. V., and Hernandez, A.
2012. A review of additive manufacturing.
IRSN Mech. Eng., pp. 1–10.
18. Yan, X., and Gu, P. 1996. A review of
rapid prototyping technologies and sys-
tems. Comput. Des. 28(4): 307–316.
19. Jacobs, P. F. 1992. Rapid Prototyping
& Manufacturing — Fundamentals of Stere-
olithography. Southfield, Mich.: SME.
20. Wohlers, T., and Gornet, T. 2016.
History of Additive Manufacturing.
21. Gu, D. 2015. Laser additive manu-
facturing (AM): Classification, processing
philosophy, and metallurgical mechanisms.
Laser Additive Manufacturing of High-Per-
formance Materials, Springer, pp. 15–74.
22. Kumar, S. 2003. Selective laser sin-
tering: A qualitative and objective ap-
proach. JOM 55(10): 43–47.
23. Mudge, R. P., and Wald, N. 2007.
Laser engineered net shaping advances ad-
ditive manufacturing and repair. Welding
Journal 86(1): 44–48.
24. Hofmeister, W., Wert, M.,
Smugeresky, J., Philliber, J. A., Griffith, M.,
and Ensz, M. 1999. Investigating solidifi-
cation with the laser-engineered net shap-
ing (LENS) process. JOM 51(7).
25. Printing the future — search to
commercialise revolutionary 3D produc-
tion process. 2019. Cranfield University.
[Online. Available at cranfield.ac.uk/case-
studies/research-case-studies/waammat.]
26. Davies, S. 2016. Cranfield Universi-
ty believes they have 3D-printed the
biggest single metal part ever. The Maga-
zine for Design-to-Manufacturing Innovation.
[Online. Available at tctmagazine.com/3d-
printing-news/cranfield-university-believe-
they-have-3d-printed-the-bigges/.]
27. Taminger, K. M. B., and Hafley, R.
A. 2003. Electron beam freeform fabrica-
tion: A rapid metal deposition process.
In 3rd Annual Automotive Composites
Conference.
28. The Bredesen Center – Additive Man-
ufacturing. 2019. The University of Ten-
nessee Knoxville. [Online. Available at bre-
desencenter.utk.edu/additive-manufacturing/.]
29. America Makes announces
awardees of directed project opportunity
on advanced tools for rapid qualification.
2019. America Makes. [Online. Available:
americamakes.us/america-makes-announces-
awardees-directed-project-opportunity-ad-
vanced-tools-rapid-qualification-atrq/.]
30. DOD-funded research collaborative
focused on additive manufacturing defects.
2019. The Ohio State University. [Online.
Available: cdme.osu.edu/news/
2019/06/dod-funded-research-collaborative-
focused-additive-manufacturing-defects.]
31. Additive Manufacturing. 2019.
NIST. [Online. Available: nist.gov/topics/
additive-manufacturing.]
32. Additive Manufacturing. 2019.
ORNL. [Online. Available: ornl.gov/facility/
mdf/research-areas/additive-manufacturing.]
33. Hillier, C. K. 2010. Powder-Cored Tu-
bular Wire Development For Electron Beam
Freeform Fabrication.
34. Mukherjee, T., Zuback, J. S., and
DebRoy, T. 2016. Printability of alloys for
additive manufacturing. Nat. Res. Vol. 6,
pp. 1–8.
35. Gonzales, D. S. 2016. Development
of Metal Matrix Composite Powder Cored
Tubular Wire for Electron Beam Freeform
Fabrication.
30 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020
36. Munir, Z. A., and Anselmi-Tamburi-
ni, U. 1989. Self-propagating exothermic
reactions: The synthesis of high-tempera-
ture materials by combustion. Mater. Sci.
Rep. 20(10): 279–365.
37. Merzhanov, A. G., Karyuk, G. G.,
Borovinskaya, I. P., Sharivker, S. Y.,
Moshkovskii, E. I., Prokudina, V. K., and
Dyad’ko, E. G. 1981. Titanium carbide pro-
duced by self-propagating high-tempera-
ture synthesis — Valuable abrasive materi-
al. Sov. Powder Metall. Met. Ceram. 20(10):
709–713.
38. Nuechterlein, J. 2013. Production
of ceramic nanoparticles through self-
propagating high-temperature sythesis
(SHS) and their introduction into a metal-
lic matrix to form metal matrix composites
(MMC). Colorado School of Mines, Golden,
Colo.
39. Wilson, D. M. 2019. Metallurgical
and mechanical property characterization
of additively manufactured 304L stainless
steel. Colorado School of Mines, Golden,
Colo.
40. Gonzales, D. S. 2019. The effect of
oxygen on the gas tungsten arc weldability
of laser-powder bed fusion fabricated 304L
stainless steel.
41. Hawk, C. 2019. Laser welding be-
havior of laser powder bed fusion additive
manufactured 304L stainless steel.
42. Kappes, B., Moorthy, S., Drake, D.,
Geerlings, H., and Stebner, A. 2018. Mach-
ing learning to optimize additive manufac-
turing parameters for laser powder bed fu-
sion of Inconel 718. 9th International Sypo-
sium on Energy, Aerospace, and Industrial
Applications, pp. 595–610.
43. Gallmeyer, T. G., Moorthy, S.,
Kappes, B. B., Mills, M. J., Amin-ahmadi,
B., and Stebner, A. P. 2019. Knowledge of
process-structure-property relationships
to engineer better heat treatments for
laser powder bed fusion additive manufac-
tured Inconel 718. Addit. Manuf.
44. Sames, W. J., List, F. A., Pannala, S.,
Dehoff, R. R., and Babu, S. S. 2017. The
metallurgy and processing science of metal
additive manufacturing. Int. Mater. Rev.
61(5): 315–360.
45. Unocic, R. R., and Dupont, J. N.
2003. Composition control in the direct
laser-deposition process. Metall. Mater.
Trans. B, Vol. 34B, pp. 439–445.
46. Dupont, J. N. 2009. Graded transi-
tions for joining dissimilar metals and
methods of fabrication therefor. US
2009/0208773 A1.
CHERYL HAWK (chawk@mymail.mines.edu),
ETHAN SULLIVAN, ZHENZHEN YU, and
STEPHEN LIU are with the Colorado School
of Mines, Golden, Colo.
Materials Challenges in the
Additive Manufacturing of Metals
The design and implementation of new
alloy systems will be a key enabler to the
larger-scale use of this approach
A
dditive manufacturing (AM) is
widely touted as an innovative
approach to product design and
fabrication that promises to change
the nature of advanced manufactur-
ing. Many of the superlatives used to
describe the promise of AM come from
the ability of AM processes to fabri-
cate complex geometries and internal
features not possible through tradi-
tional subtractive machining process-
es. On the other hand, the size of the
AM market, while still growing, repre-
sents only a small fraction of the pri-
mary metals production and manufac-
turing markets. Widespread adoption
of the process and the corresponding
displacement of traditional manufac-
turing routes have also not occurred,
owing mainly to the lack of standards
and specifications as well as a lack of
confidence and repeatability over large
volumes.
A History Lesson in
Additive Manufacturing
Up until now, the AM market has
been dominated by polymer-based AM
systems for rapid prototyping to accel-
erate the design process. Over the past
two decades, however, several metal-
based AM processes have been devel-
oped and have become widely available
for larger-volume component produc-
tion, thus expanding the breadth of
AM processing applications. While
there are several solid-state binder jet
AM processes being used to fabricate
parts, most systems in use across both
manufacturing and research enterpris-
es utilize fusion-based powder bed fu-
sion (PBF) and directed energy deposi-
tion (DED) processes. Both techniques
use fine spherical powders or wire
feedstock materials to deposit individ-
ual layers of material to produce the
desired geometries in a layer-wise
build path. This layer-by-layer deposi-
tion process produces a complex series
of rapid heating, melting, solidifica-
tion, and cooling cycles. Such complex
thermal histories produce microstruc-
tures and material properties far
different than those observed in
more traditional wrought or cast alloy
systems.
These thermal histories, while dif-
ferent from those experienced during
wrought processing, are similar to
those observed across a wide range of
fusion welding processes. Depending
on the selection of the energy source
(i.e., arcs, lasers, and electron beams),
a range of different thermal histories
are observed across the weldment and
produce a range of solidification struc-
tures and microstructures formed by
the rapid heating and cooling of subse-
quent passes. As a result, welding mi-
crostructures tend to be very similar
in appearance to those produced by
different AM structures. In many cas-
es, typical welding tools, whether they
be Schaeffler/DeLong or WRC-1992
diagrams or thermomechanical simu-
lators (Gleeble®) or heat transfer and
fluid flow models, are being adapted
and used in the study of AM processes.
Various metal-based AM processing
technologies are increasingly viewed as
an attractive option to move beyond
FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 31
BY TODD A. PALMER
prototyping and into a larger manufac-
turing and repair scale (Refs. 1, 2).
Even though the applications for these
AM processing technologies are ex-
panding, there are fundamental limita-
tions, particularly with respect to ma-
terials, that are hindering their more
widespread use. It is widely accepted in
fusion-based AM processes that for
materials to be AM processed, they
must be easily weldable and not suffer
from typical weld defects, such as so-
lidification and solid-state cracking.
To meet these requirements, prod-
uct specifications require specific cast
or wrought alloy systems commonly in
use for similar applications and in
welded structures. For example, Table
1 provides a summary of common al-
loy systems used in AM processing.
This short list, while not comprehen-
sive, easily covers the vast majority of
alloys currently used in AM processing
and almost exclusively contains alloys
developed decades ago for wrought
processing. In the wrought condition,
these alloy systems have undergone
extensive design optimization to iden-
tify the correct combinations of com-
position and thermomechanical and
heat treatment steps to produce a con-
sistent set of specific microstructures
and properties. Additive manufactur-
ing processing, on the other hand, is
characterized by the application of
rather uncontrolled thermal histories
to a wire or powder feedstock pro-
duced to meet the wrought alloy com-
position ranges.
Since these materials were original-
ly designed for conventional process-
Table 1 — Summary of Commonly Used Alloy Systems for Additive Manufacturing

Material Alloy Form Strengthening Phase Applicable

System (Structure) Processes

A356 (AlSi7Mg) powder/ β-Mg2Si phase • Powder bed fusion

sheet/wire • Directed energy deposition
• Sheet lamination
Aluminum
A360 (AlSi10Mg) powder/ β-Mg2Si phase • Powder bed fusion
sheet/wire • Directed energy deposition
• Sheet lamination

Cobalt CoCrMo powder/wire α-Co with dispersed • Powder bed fusion

carbides (CoC/CrC) • Material extrusion
dual phase • Directed energy deposition

Inconel 625 powder/wire Intermetallic γ’- phase • Powder bed fusion

• Directed energy deposition

Nickel Inconel 718 powder/wire Intermetallic γ’- phase • Powder bed fusion
• Directed energy deposition

Inconel 738 powder/wire Intermetallic γ’- phase • Powder bed fusion

• Directed energy deposition

17-4 powder/wire Austenite (γ-Fe) phase • Binder jetting

• Powder bed fusion
• Material extrusion
• Directed energy deposition

Steel 316L powder/wire Austenite (γ-Fe) phase • Binder jetting

• Powder bed fusion
• Material extrusion
• Directed energy deposition

H13 powder/wire Ferrite (α-Fe)-carbide • Binder jetting

(Fe3C) dual-phase • Powder bed fusion
respectively • Directed energy deposition

Ti-6Al-4V powder/ α/β-phase: mixed • Powder bed fusion

sheet/wire equiaxed and • Directed energy deposition
columnar grains • Material extrusion
• Sheet lamination

Titanium TiAl powder/ γ-TiAl phase • Powder bed fusion

sheet/wire • Directed energy deposition
• Sheet lamination

Commercially powder α-Ti phase • Powder bed fusion

Pure (Grade 2)

ing routes, the significant differences
in the AM processing produce unique
structures and properties. These as-
deposited microstructures can contain
significant alloying element segrega-
tion and nonequilibrium phases typi-
cally not encountered in the corre-
sponding wrought alloy condition
(Refs. 3, 4). The resulting AM products
are then fabricated to a net or near net
shape and typically do not undergo
any postprocessing heat treatments.
Even in cases when these as-deposited
microstructures are subjected to post-
processing heat treatments, they do
not respond in the same way as
wrought products, requiring higher
temperatures and times to reach
equivalent aging conditions (Ref. 5). In
addition, these microstructures and
properties can vary rather significant-
ly with concurrent changes in alloy
heats, powder feedstock properties,
selection of machines, and processing
condition characteristics of different
machines across the same class.
Such large variations in observed
microstructures and properties repre-
sent a major barrier to the eventual
widespread implementation of AM
fabricated components, particularly
for critical structures. Even with the
efforts directed at defining the
process-structure-property relation-
ships for these existing alloys and con-
trolling and adapting processing pa-
rameters, significant challenges still
exist in matching the repeatable prop-
erties and performance obtained
through traditional material process-
ing routes. If the promise of AM is to
be realized, issues with materials need
to be addressed. Instead of trying to
adapt existing materials to new pro-
cessing conditions and not reach an
optimal set of properties, it is more
reasonable to start with a fresh alloy
system and design it to exploit the

32 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020

complex AM processing conditions to
maximize properties and performance.
Given the similarities between the
fusion-based AM processes and weld-
ing, fundamental welding science pro-
vides baseline knowledge for predict-
ing alloy responses to the complex AM
thermal histories and will play a major
role moving forward in the develop-
ment of AM specific alloys.
Challenges of Complex
Processing Conditions
Additive manufacturing processes
offer the unique capability of simulta-
neously producing the material and
component, allowing both complex
geometries and tailored microstruc-
tures or compositional gradients not
possible through conventional subtrac-
tive manufacturing processes to be
produced. This ability to combine ma-
terial and component production,
which originates with the layer-by-
layer manner in which components are
fabricated using AM processes, creates
a more symbiotic relationship between
the design, processing, structure, and
resultant material properties than
might be observed in more traditional
wrought systems. With these wide
ranges of new capabilities, designers
and manufacturers have much greater
flexibility and freedom to pursue new
design spaces to explore unprecedent-
ed component and material capabili-
ties. Process-structure-property rela-
tionships are ubiquitous across differ-
ent processing realms, but they can be-
come even more critical in AM process-
ing when parameters are changed al-
most instantaneously to produce high-
ly unique and anisotropic structures.
While this increased design freedom
is very attractive and can allow for pre-
viously unobtainable designs and prop-
erties, an increased level of complexity
also results. In particular, the proper-
ties of the feedstock materials begin to
play a much larger role in determining
final properties. Currently, there is a
growing use of wire feedstocks in wire
arc additive manufacturing processes.
In most cases, these wires are standard
welding wires and utilize familiar com-
positions and product forms. The re-
sulting component fabrication and ma-
terial properties thus closely resemble
large welded structures. For PBF and
DED AM processes, on the other hand,
the feedstocks are primarily spherical
prealloyed gas atomized powders. It is
Fig. 1 — Photographs of typical metal powder feedstocks used in fusion-based addi-
tive manufacturing processing.
also common to mix different feedstock
powders to create custom materials or
to vary the material composition dur-
ing processing to fabricate high-perfor-
mance, functionally graded materials.
Even though the feedstock powders
are typically assumed to be spherical,
closer examination, as shown in Fig. 1,
reveals complex surface features and
different levels of nonsphericity that
can impact flow and packing. After
processing, the resulting as-deposited
components are nominally fully dense,
albeit with the presence of processing
related defects arising from incom-
plete fusion between passes, keyhole
collapse, and gas porosity. Because
porosity can be a major failure propa-
gation mechanism compromising the
integrity of metal AM parts, as-fabri-
cated additive manufactured compo-
nents may require hot isostatic press-
ing to close pores for fatigue-sensitive
components.
As observed in fusion welding and
other manufacturing processes, the
microstructural and mechanical prop-
erties of AM components are influ-
enced, in part, by the processing pa-
rameters that control temperatures,
thermal gradient profiles, and cooling
rates. These processing variables can
also produce different structures and
properties in feedstock materials with
slightly different compositions, which
in turn impact the physical properties
of the alloy. Recent work has shown
that changes in composition, even
within the specified composition
ranges in austenitic stainless steels,
martensitic precipitation hardened
FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 33
stainless steels, and solid solution
strengthened nickel-based alloys im-
pact the resulting microstructure and
mechanical properties. In the case of
AM fabricated Inconel® 625, measured
strength levels can differ by nearly
25% with small changes in the Fe, Si,
and Ti compositions (Refs. 3–5). As a
result, an in-depth understanding of
the interdependent process-structure-
property relationships between alloy-
ing elements, even minor ones that
might have unknown effects on solidi-
fication and important solid-state
phase transformations, is critical. Giv-
en the complex interactions between
multiple alloying elements, integrated
design approaches are essential to
model these interactions across a
range of processing conditions and to
identify modifications in materials,
processes, and part designs to opti-
mize performance.
Often overlooked is the need for
the development of new specialized
testing techniques for generating AM
part property data that take into ac-
count the complex geometries and
multimaterial combinations that are
possible via AM. In contrast to the es-
tablished protocols of conventional
manufacturing processes, AM process-
es lack sufficient test methodologies
for gathering fundamental data about
the relationships between microstruc-
tural features, AM part properties, and
feedstock material characteristics.
These data are critical to the design of
new AM materials that achieve the de-
sired quality and performance require-
ments of advanced end-use applica-
 ing materials inno-
vation in the AM in-
dustry, technical
gaps and barriers
that constrain the
advancement and
integration of new
materials in additive
manufacturing ap-
plications have been
identified. Because
the material and
parts are created at
the same time dur-
ing AM processes,
component design
and analysis must
become more fully
integrated with ma-
terials selection to
ensure as-fabricated
components deliver
the features and per-
formance required.
Accordingly, inte-
grated design ap-
Fig. 2 — Additive manufacturing materials development proaches are needed
strategic thrust overview. to enable designers
to consider both ma-
tions. New specialized testing and terials and processing parameters as
characterization methods will enable variables that can be adjusted for opti-
materials suppliers to develop new AM mum component design.
feedstock materials with physical and By coupling focused fundamental
chemical compositions tailored for AM materials research simultaneous de-
processes. sign and manufacture is an appropri-
ate path for exploring new materials
Path Forward for AM. By pursuing directed funda-
mental research, the identified knowl-
It is clear that the current genera- edge gaps can be addressed directly
tion of AM materials based on and as part of the larger systems.
wrought alloy compositions have not These activities are organized into five
been optimized to fully exploit AM strategic thrusts, which are ultimately
processing. While the introduction of driven by end-user needs and designed
new materials to the broad AM indus- to result in new and improved applica-
try is expected to drive further innova- tions for AM materials. Figure 2 shows
tion and shape the future competitive- the relationships between the five
ness of U.S. advanced manufacturing, strategic thrusts listed below:
current limitations in knowledge will • Integrated design, which encom-
constrain efforts to efficiently explore passes all other thrusts into design
and develop next-generation materials tools for new AM materials;
customized to the unique processing • Process-structure-property
conditions of additive manufacturing. relationships, the cornerstone of
These materials must not only be opti- material and process development;
mized for AM processing methods but • Part and feedstock testing, which
also be able to produce components is needed to build the data required
with consistent and reliable properties to design new materials and predict
and performance characteristics that performance;
meet or exceed those produced using • Process analytics to better under-
other manufacturing techniques. stand and measure the effect of
To accelerate the design and appli- processes on AM materials; and
cation of new AM materials and feed- • Next-generation AM materials
stocks, a strategy for building the fun- and processes, which will result in ma-
damental knowledge base is needed. jor, longer-term advances in materials
To address the major barriers hinder- and process capabilities.
34 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020
The sophisticated nature of AM
processing approaches carries an in-
trinsically large number of variables,
including processing conditions, mate-
rials composition, and feedstock char-
acteristics. Consequently, a robust un-
derstanding of the complex interplay
among these variables and others is
necessary for determining feasible
manufacturing routes that demon-
strate the value of new AM materials
in end-use applications. Although
many applied research and develop-
ment efforts to advance the state of
AM technologies are currently under
way, successful materials innovation
will require an alignment of efforts
throughout the AM community. Pur-
suing the fundamental research activi-
ties identified in this roadmap will lay
the groundwork for a new generation
of advanced AM materials and
processes that can enhance competi-
tiveness of U.S. manufacturing.
Achieving these advances, however,
will require significant R&D resources
to pursue these activities and an em-
phasis on education and training op-
portunities to build a robust and
skilled AM workforce.
Given the prevalence of fusion-
based AM processes currently in use,
the identification of a surrogate
process for studying and modeling
many of the complex physical phe-
nomena is needed. Fusion welding
provides such a system. There are
many similarities between fusion-
based AM processes and fusion weld-
ing, with both processes producing
similar microstructures and suscepti-
bility to the formation of many of the
same defects. As these fundamental
research thrusts are individually and
collectively addressed, baseline
knowledge across a number of disci-
plines, including thermodynamics, ki-
netics, phase transformations, solidi-
fication, and heat transfer and fluid
flow, will need to be integrated in new
and novel ways. Whereas the funda-
mental welding knowledge will be a
key component in the design and
eventual implementation of new ma-
terials, the lack of traditional geomet-
ric and processing constraints preva-
lent in the study of AM processing
will introduce new challenges. These
challenges will present new opportu-
nities for the use of related welding
knowledge to study these alloy sys-
tems, which also may see eventual use
in more traditional welding and join-
ing operations. WJ
Acknowledgments
Much of this article was based on a
document, titled “Strategic Roadmap
for the Next Generation of Additive
Manufacturing Materials,” highlight-
ing roadmapping activities, which took
place at Penn State University. The
document is available from the author
(tap103@psu.edu). More than 130 ex-
perts took part in the roadmapping ac-
tivities, which were coordinated by
Nexight Group. Additional acknowl-
edgments for organizing the events go
to Greg Dillon, Gary Messing, Tim
Simpson, and Rich Martukanitz from
Penn State; and Jared Kosters, Ross
Brindle, Greg Hildeman, Warren Hunt,
and Lindsay Pack from Nexight Group.
References
1. DebRoy, T., Wei, H. L., Zuback, J. S.,
Mukherjee, T., Elmer, J. W., Milewski, J. O.,
Beese, A. M., Wilson-Heid, A., De, A., and
Zhang, W. 2018. Additive manufacturing
of metallic components — Process, struc-
ture and properties. Progress in Materials
Science 92: 112–224. DOI: 10.1016/
j.pmatsci. 2017.10.001
2. Sames, W. J., List, F. A., Pannala, S.,
Dehoff, R. R., and Babu, S. S. 2016. The
metallurgy and processing science of metal
additive manufacturing. International Ma-
terials Reviews 61(5): 315–360. DOI:
10.1080/09506608.2015.1116649
3. Khayat, Z. R., and Palmer, T. A. 2018. Participate on the
Impact of iron composition on the proper-
ties of an additively manufactured solid so-
AWS Member Network
lution strengthened nickel base alloy. Mate-
Did you know that as an AWS
rials Science and Engineering A 718: 123–134.
member, you can interact with
DOI: 10.1016/j.msea.2018.01.112
other members from across the
4. Zuback, J. S., Moradifar, P., Khayat,
world through the AWS Member
Z., Alem, N., and Palmer, T. A. 2019. Im-
Network?
pact of chemical composition on precipi-
Simply sign in at membernet
tate morphology in an additively manufac-
work.aws.org/home, create a
tured nickel base superalloy. Journal of Al-
profile, then join the discussion
loys and Compounds 798: 446–457. DOI:
by asking or answering ques-
10.1016/j.jallcom.2019.05.230
tions with your peers. Quite of-
5. Meredith, S. D., Zuback, J. S., Keist,
ten, members receive beneficial
J. S., and Palmer, T. A. 2018. Impact of
advice and guidance through
composition on the heat treatment re-
feedback left by participants.
sponse of additively manufactured 17–4
In addition, this site allows
PH grade stainless steel. Materials Science
browsing through discussion
Engineering A 738: 44–56. DOI: 10.1016/
posts, offers the opportunity to
j.msea.2018.09.066
become a volunteer leader, and
provides a resource library.
TODD A. PALMER (tap103@psu.edu) is a
professor of engineering science and
mechanics and materials science and
engineering, The Pennsylvania State
University, University Park, Pa.
FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 35
Job Shop
Perspectives
Eight professionals share insights into running a
successful job shop

36 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020


BY KATIE PACHECO AND ROLINE PASCAL
Pictured is a handrail fabricator fitting up a
guard rail out of 1 1⁄4-in. pipe at Metal Arts LLC,
fabrication shop located in Wichita, Kans.
T
he bedrock of U.S. manufactur-
ing, job shops are defined as a
type of manufacturing system in
which small quantities of a variety of
custom products are made for other
businesses (Ref. 1). The products man-
ufactured by job shops can vary signif-
icantly from job to job, often requiring
a unique setup and sequencing of
a structural and miscellaneous steel
process steps (Ref. 1).
The United States is home to tens
of thousands of job shops (Ref. 2) that
are making the manufacture and fabri-
cation of parts better, faster, and
cheaper than ever before. To learn
more about how they manage their
businesses, the Welding Journal
reached out to seven job shops and
FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 37
one used equipment dealer. The indus-
try leaders who shared their knowl-
edge and expertise for this article in-
cluded D. A. Smith, owner, Smith’s
Welding Works, Garland, Tex.; Shaun
Huibsch, partner — managing direc-
tor, Metal Arts LLC, Wichita, Kans.;
Rob Goncalves, general manager, G2
Metal Fab, Livermore, Calif.; John
Bray, president, Affiliated Machinery
Inc., Pearland, Tex.; Sean Moran, weld-
ing engineer, American Hydro Corp.,
York, Pa.; Robert P. Mudge, president,
RPM & Associates, Rapid City, S.D.;
Scott Lord, president, WesLor Enter-
prises, Lyons, N.Y.; and Jason Yantus,
quality assurance manager, J&J Truck
Bodies & Trailers, Somerset, Pa.
Provide a brief overview
of your job shop.
D. A. Smith, Smith’s Welding Works:
We style ourselves as a custom fabrica-
tion and installation business. That’s
what I’ve done for the last 40-some-
thing years. We do a lot of different
things, like structural steel, and we
used to do a lot of pipe, but we don’t
do it anymore because it’s too hard to
find good pipefitter welders. We do
large, custom homes. We’ve done six
or seven townhouse operations in the
last several years for different builders.
We fabricate and install the structural
steel, and they add two floors on top
of all that. Custom homes have a lot
more steel in them than they used to.
We also do different types of repairs.
One of the bigger things we’ve done in
the last 20 years has been for the HOV
[high-occupancy vehicle] lanes for Dal-
las. They’ve got a big machine called a
zipper that moves the concrete barri-
cades from one part of the highway to
another part of the highway, and we
do a lot of repairs on the parts for the
machine. That’s one of the bigger, on-
going repair projects we do.
Shaun Huibsch, Metal Arts LLC: Met-
al Arts LLC is based in Wichita, Kans.,
and we manufacture structural and
miscellaneous steel (see lead photo).
Our markets include commercial, in-
dustrial, and residential general con-
tractors. Primarily, we serve the com-
mercial and industrial markets. Proj-
ects include K–12 schools, college fa-
cilities, manufacturing facilities, com-
mercial developments, hotels, office
buildings, and many more — Fig. 1.
We have provided steel for customers
Fig. 1 — A welder at Metal Arts LLC, Wichita, Kans., performs
surface finishing on a guard rail that will be used for the stairs
of a local high school. Built out of flat bar, the component is
coated with a black powder before final installation.
Fig. 3 — American Hydro Corp., York, Pa., builds some of the
largest turbines in the world.
Fig. 5 — A welder at WesLor Enterprises, Lyons, N.Y., performs
pulsed gas metal arc welding on a 3⁄8-in.-thick Monel 400®
cone.
38 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020
Fig. 2 — Welders at G2 Metal Fab, Livermore, Calif., join stain-
less steel studs to plate with 5⁄8-in. fillet welds by performing
dual-shield flux cored arc welding using stainless wire.
Fig. 4 — This used dozer face had its outer wings modified to
reduce carry back. An RPM wear liner package was installed
using the company’s manufactured chrome carbide overlay
plate. Shown in the background is the RPM shop in Rapid City,
S.D.
Fig. 6 — At J&J Truck Bodies & Trailers, Somerset, Pa., a robot is
employed to weld the understructure for an aluminum dump
body.
in Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Mis-
souri, Texas, Colorado, and Minneso-
ta. Metal Arts was founded in 1971,
and has changed ownership once, in
2001. Our projects range from several
pounds to 1500 tons.
Rob Goncalves, G2 Metal Fab: G2
Metal Fab has been in the fabrication
industry for 12 years, and our general
manager has 20 years of experience in
welding and fabrication. We fabricate
structural steel and miscellaneous
metals for the industrial sector, and
we work with aluminum, stainless
steel, and carbon steel — Fig. 2.
John Bray, Affiliated Machinery Inc.:
Affiliated Machinery Inc. was estab-
lished on April 1, 1996. We are a used
welding equipment dealer. We buy,
sell, and rent used welding equipment
all over the United States. Most of our
customers are independent welding
distributors. Therefore, there are a va-
riety of customers who use our equip-
ment — from small fabrication shops
to large offshore platform fabricators
to people who just need a welding ma-
chine for their weekend repairs.
Sean Moran, American Hydro Corp.:
American Hydro Corp. was founded in
York, Pa., in 1986 by four engineers —
Selim Chacour, Dr. William Colwill,
John Degnan, and James Nolt — who
recognized that the hydropower indus-
try needed a manufacturer who spe-
cialized in the upgrade and rehabilita-
tion of turbines and turbine compo-
nents. We build some of the largest
hydraulic turbines, pump turbines,
and large pumps in the world, as well
as offer custom solutions in upgrading
and rehabilitating existing hydro
plants, which significantly improve
performance and extend the life of the
units — Fig. 3. Our focus is primarily
on Francis, Kaplan, and propeller-type
turbines, and reversible pump turbines
along with other new turbine compo-
nents, rehabilitation of existing equip-
ment, and/or complete equipment
packages.
Robert P. Mudge, RPM & Associates:
RPM & Associates Inc. was founded in
April 1982. We focus on providing
cost-effective wear solutions for coal-
fired power plants, cement plants, a
variety of mining operations, chemical
processing plants, and more. Typical
products and services include the fol-
lowing: new and rebuilt worn coal pul-
verizer rolls, tables, wear liners, and
journal assemblies; chrome carbide
overlay plate (Fig. 4) in a variety of al-
loys and several different thicknesses
to ensure the proper overlay plate is
available for each application; new and
rebuilt/hardfaced worn coal transport
pipe and elbows and ash handling pipe
spools; and reverse engineering servic-
es utilizing advanced laser measuring
and scanning equipment combined
with CAD software.
Scott Lord, WesLor Enterprises: Our
company has been in business for 33
years and has had three locations. The
first was 3500 sq ft, second was 10,000
sq ft, and our current location is 30,000
sq ft, which we have plans of expanding
by another 20,000 by the end of 2021.
We consider ourselves as a custom man-
ufacturer that specializes in turnkey
projects and short-run production of
material handling equipment — Fig. 5.
Our audience is mainly the salt and ag-
gregate industry as well as the construc-
tion side of the healthcare field.
Jason Yantus, J&J Truck Bodies &
Trailers: J&J Truck Bodies & Trailers
was established in 1958. Our main
product that we produce is dump bod-
ies, both steel and aluminum — Fig. 6.
We also manufacture multiple types
of steel and aluminum trailers and
pressure/vacuum tanker trucks. Our
sister company, J&J Truck Equipment,
is a premier upfitter of mechanic serv-
ice trucks, crane bodies, lubrication
trucks, winch tractors, snow and ice
equipment, and wetline kits. They spe-
cialize in hydraulics and specialty fab-
rication as well.
What software and
equipment do you utilize
in your job shop?
D. A. Smith, Smith’s Welding Works:
In our office, we use a program for all
of our paperwork. We don’t use any
software at all in the shop. We use
MIG, TIG, and stick welders [gas met-
al, gas tungsten, and shielded metal
arc welding machines], and we have
two portable machines set up on a
trailer. We do about 50% shop work
and 50% portable on site.
Shaun Huibsch, Metal Arts LLC: Un-
til recently, our shop operated using
paper drawings and paper cut lists.
Our office, however, utilizes Strumis
software for project management and
FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 39
estimating. In the first quarter of
2020, we will be integrating Strumis
into the shop, with the goal of going
paperless by the end of 2020. Every
workstation and machine will have a
dedicated tablet or computer for inter-
acting with the Strumis software.
Rob Goncalves, G2 Metal Fab: We use
Structural Materials Manager by E.J.E.
Industries to create cut lists. The
equipment we use includes ironworker
and punch, plate roll, tube bender, ver-
tical saw, portable plasma cutters [cut-
ting machines], and several CV welders
[constant voltage welding machines]
for stainless steel, aluminum, and car-
bon steel using gas metal arc welding
and flux cored arc welding processes.
John Bray, Affiliated Machinery Inc.:
The customers we sell to have many
types of equipment, not just welding
machines. Because we are selling to a
large group of different size distribu-
tors most of the time, we don’t actual-
ly visit the end user unless there is a
problem with the machines. A few of
our customers are the end user of the
equipment, so we do get to see what
they are manufacturing.
Sean Moran, American Hydro Corp.:
When visiting our shop floor, individu-
als will see installations of high tech-
nology. These tools help shift more
manufacturing processes to automatic
means. Plasma arc cutting in three di-
mensions and robotic welding provide
results in a fraction of the time. Fiber-
optic communications reduce spurious
signals to machine tools for program-
ing. The computer-driven hot-forming
and numerical machining techniques
developed by American Hydro engi-
neers have resulted in cost-effective
manufacturing — from the initial
wrought plate cutting to the final finish
and dynamic balancing of the turbine.
Robert P. Mudge, RPM & Associates:
RPM employs the following equipment
in our shop: one CNC-controlled over-
lay plate system; two pulverizer roll re-
building systems and two 650-A DC
welders [direct current welding ma-
chines]; one air arc system with
12,000-lb positioner; one stationary
positioner with multiaxis manipulator
and one welding head; one welding sys-
tem used to apply hardfacing to the in-
ner diameter of coal transport elbows;
one portable welding system with two
welding heads used to rebuild worn
coal pulverizer tables; one 4-roll hy-
draulic forming roll; one CNC 5-axis
plasma cutting system; one StingRay
high-pressure parts washing system;
three manual lathes, one manual verti-
cal turret lathe, and one CNC large ver-
tical turret lathe with live spindle; one
manual knee mill and one knee mill
equipped with varidrives; one CNC
horizontal boring mill with 4th axis;
one FARO portable coordinate measur-
ing machine; and one FARO Focus
laser scanning system. RPM employs
the following software: Inventor®, Au-
toCAD®, and Siemens NX for CAD; Es-
prit®, Centroid™ CNC, and Siemens NX
for CAM; SigmaNEST® and OmniBevel
for cutting; FARO® CAM2®, FARO
Scene, Autodesk ReCap™, and Varicut
for inspection/simulation; and Sage 50
and Project Tracker (in-house devel-
oped) for accounting.
Scott Lord, WesLor Enterprises: The
main design software we use is Auto-
CAD Inventor with some drawings in
SpaceClaim. The CAM software we use
for our Amada laser and AKS plasma is
the MTC nesting package. We also
have a large Doosan mill that is pro-
gramed with the Fusion 360™ version
of AutoCAD. Most of our welding
equipment is Miller with a couple of
Lincolns in the mix.
Jason Yantus, J&J Truck Bodies &
Trailers: Robotic welding machines
along with I-Logic and Autodesk® In-
ventor in the engineering department.
A lot of the welding is still performed
using the semiauto MIG [gas metal arc
welding] process.
What do you feel is special
about how your job shop is
run?
D. A. Smith, Smith’s Welding Works:
We do quite a bit of physical work with
not as many men as I used to have be-
cause we’ve gotten smarter with how
we do things. I’ve had as many as 18
men back in the mid ‘90s, and now I
usually run four, no more than six,
men. We don’t fabricate our shape
plate like we once did; we farm it out
to a company where that’s all they do,
so we don’t have the drop that we once
did, and I don’t need the manpower
that I once did. By buying the plates
precut, I get them done cheaper than I
can do them because I’m down two to
three men by not having them on the
payroll. So we’ve gotten smarter about
40 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020
what we do and how we do it. We also
turn down some work. I used to do a
lot of different repairs and fabrica-
tions, but it’s hard to get good-quality
workers that have a craftsmen mind-
set. We’re just not getting the quality
craftsmen we used to get. More and
more, they’re just not trained, so we’ve
had to get smarter with how we fabri-
cate and how we do things.
Shaun Huibsch, Metal Arts LLC: Our
shop is special because of the people.
Our processes are industry standard,
and when we transition to a paperless
shop, our people will still be the driv-
ing force of our company. There are
countless fabricators throughout the
world; the only way to differentiate is
to build an outstanding team, and we
believe we excel at building teams.
Rob Goncalves, G2 Metal Fab: G2 is
special because of our culture. We are a
family-owned company and we en-
deavor to help each employee know
that they are valued by the company,
and that they bring value to the com-
pany. We operate with a spirit of team-
work and cooperation, as opposed to
competing against each other.
John Bray, Affiliated Machinery Inc.:
Because we do get to visit some of the
end users of our equipment, we get to
see everything from a company making
metal fences to the inside of NASA
working on projects for the space pro-
gram. When you visit shops of all differ-
ent sizes, you would be amazed on what
you find that people are building. It
seems a small shop with a good manag-
er can survive longer than the big ones
because of poor management. It isn’t
rocket science as much as applying com-
mon sense without becoming greedy.
Some owners I have known over the
years want to grow their business for
their family to take over, or just to sell it
outright to another company.
Sean Moran, American Hydro Corp.:
American Hydro turbine runners or
pump impellers can be fully designed,
specified, and manufactured entirely
in our office shop. We control the
processes, schedule, and quality, and
our customers benefit with a success-
ful project.
Robert P. Mudge, RPM & Associates:
RPM works off four main principles.
Safety is first and foremost. There has
never been, or ever will be, a job that is
worth someone getting hurt. Quality
comes in second. The best is barely
good enough. Always doing the best
job you can. Production comes in
third. Having good equipment, em-
ployee training of procedures, and ex-
pectations followed with a reasonable
effort. Profit will follow if the first
three principles are adhered to. RPM’s
38-year history is an example and tes-
tament that this philosophy works.
Scott Lord, WesLor Enterprises: In my
opinion, the most unique thing about
our operation is the people who work
here. Most of them have lived in the
area all their lives and are very dedicat-
ed to our organization. We offer good
benefits with a better-than-average pay
scale for the area. We have offered full
health insurance for our employees
(single policy) since the start of our
company. We also have an education
benefit for all of our staff if they
choose to further their knowledge.
Jason Yantus, J&J Truck Bodies &
Trailers: We feel our shops are special
because it allows us to do complete
custom builds from start to finish.
One-stop shopping for dump trucks,
trailers, and service trucks.
What are some key aspects
of a successful, well-run
job shop?
D. A. Smith, Smith’s Welding Works:
Being able to adapt to whatever the
situation requires. You put the cus-
tomer first and you provide a quality
product at a fair price, and you’re able
to respond in a timely fashion to what-
ever the customer wants or needs. If
the job isn’t going quite the way it
should go, you’re able to adapt and fin-
ish it and do it with quality and in a
timely fashion. You have to be able to
think outside of the box and not get
locked in. You have to think, ‘If this
doesn’t work, well, what will work and
what will make it easier and quicker
and still make money?’ And I like to
think that I’ve been able to do that for
the past 50 years.
Shaun Huibsch, Metal Arts LLC: A
successful shop is one where everyone
is on the same page. It’s cliché, but it’s
true. Therefore, communication is
king. One of the core reasons for inte-
grating Strumis software into our
shop in 2020 is to get everyone on the
same page. When everyone can see the
same information, then there are few
chances for miscommunication, and
we all move forward as a team.
Rob Goncalves, G2 Metal Fab: A suc-
cessful, well-run shop should have a
culture of teamwork and cooperation,
with buy-in from all employees on the
company philosophy. Once that is in
place, other key aspects are having
quality shop drawings, good communi-
cation between each department, good
QC procedures, and skilled welders
and fitters.
John Bray, Affiliated Machinery Inc.:
In our business, it seems like the hard-
est part in staying alive in the welding
industry is timing and being able to
manage your business in both the
good times and the bad. We have seen
shops take on work for no profit just
to keep their employees with them.
Like any business venture, there are
reasons why you see one shop last for
decades and another be closed after
just a few years. Where you are located
around the United States can have a
bearing on your success. People say the
Gulf Coast is one of the best places to
find a welding job. There are a lot of
opportunities here with the oil and
gas industries if you are qualified in
your work experience. Thus, you see
one shop close and another open up
just a short distance away. Like any
business, you have to adapt to the
changing times.
Robert P. Mudge, RPM & Associates:
RPM operates under a unique culture
where management, accounting, pro-
duction, engineering, and safety de-
partments communicate very well.
This does not mean we do not have
lively discussions, because we do. But
everyone has a professional respect for
each other’s ideas and perspectives.
Everyone’s goal is to be safe and pro-
vide the best quality and most cost-
effective, not lowest initial cost, prod-
ucts and/or services to our customers.
Scott Lord, WesLor Enterprises: The
key to a well-run shop is clarity and or-
ganization. If everyone knows exactly
what is expected of them and they have
the right tools, materials, and space to
accomplish their task, it all works. Take
one of them out of the equation and
you have inefficiency and confusion.
Jason Yantus, J&J Truck Bodies &
Trailers: Shop organization “flow” and
a quality group of employees.
What is the most difficult
aspect to control when
managing a job shop?
D. A. Smith, Smith’s Welding Works:
The most difficult thing I’ve encoun-
tered is the employees. Getting them
to show up and come to work ready to
work. It’s not always the money; of-
tentimes, the men bring baggage with
them. I’ve talked to several other
shops when I need more help or I need
something, and they say the same
thing. Getting the employees to come
to work and come to work on time,
and be ready to work, it’s harder now
than it’s ever been.
Shaun Huibsch, Metal Arts LLC:
Maintaining your team can be more
difficult than building it. Unemploy-
ment is low, and everyone is looking
for talented people. Controlling
turnover is key in our current environ-
ment, and if you don’t find a way to
control it, you will find yourself unable
to compete, buried in retraining costs,
and unable to maintain your quality
standards.
Rob Goncalves, G2 Metal Fab: The
quality of the finished product is the
most difficult aspect to control. There
are many places where mistakes can be
made during the project, and it is chal-
lenging to try to minimize and elimi-
nate all defects. We are constantly seek-
ing to improve our quality so that our
clients receive the best product possible.
Robert P. Mudge, RPM & Associates:
The most difficult item for us to man-
age is the change in expectations —
customer expectations and vendor ex-
pectations. A close second is finding
qualified and reliable workers. Cus-
tomers have more rules and regula-
tions to adhere to than they did in
past years. The net result to RPM is
more complex contracts, rather than
simple purchase orders, that transfer
as many risks as possible associated
with the work RPM is performing for
them, from them to RPM all the while
demanding quicker deliveries, lower
prices, longer life, and longer pay
terms. Regarding the vendor expecta-
tions, stock inventories are becoming
a thing of the past. Deliveries are ex-
tended while many orders require a
percentage of prepayment. Combine
this with the change in customer ex-
pectations and it creates a perfect
FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 41
storm that management faces every
day. RPM has an intensive training
program that takes time and money.
Recruiting and retaining qualified and
reliable workers requires constant at-
tention. If it was easy, everybody
would be doing it.
Scott Lord, WesLor Enterprises: I feel
the most difficult thing to control for
us is the level of employment vs. the
amount of work. Sometimes we are so
busy that there isn’t enough hours in
the day, and other times we are debat-
ing having the shop swept for the
third time today. Our work is based on
capital investment of our customers,
and that seems to coincide with the
national economy.
Jason Yantus, J&J Truck Bodies &
Trailers: Lead times of incoming mate-
rials from vendors.
Conclusion
Sharing valuable information about
their businesses, these industry lead-
ers shed light on some of the key as-
pects associated with managing a suc-
cessful job shop. Many pointed out the
importance of having a talented team
that works well together and commu-
nicates effectively to get a job done.
They also emphasized that producing
high-quality products that meet cus-
tomers’ specifications in a timely man-
ner is crucial for any job shop. Their
collective voices further highlighted
the difficulty many job shops face in
attracting and maintaining employees
with the skills set needed. Other chal-
lenges included vendor lead times,
retraining costs, meeting customers’
expectations, and maintaining high
quality standards. WJ
References
1. Inc. Job shop. inc.com/
encyclopedia/job-shop.html.
2. Thomas Publishing Co. Oct.
2017. 6 mistakes that doom job shops.
blog.thomasnet.com/6-mistakes-that-
doom-job-shops.
KATIE PACHECO (kpacheco@aws.org) is
associate editor and ROLINE PASCAL
(rpascal@aws.org) is education editor of
the Welding Journal.
COMING EVENTS
AWS-SPONSORED EVENTS
RWMA/WEMCO Annual Meeting. Feb. 26–28. Omni La
Mansion del Rio Mokara, San Antonio, Tex. Jointly held, the
RWMA meeting will discuss key issues related to resistance
welding. The three-day WEMCO forum is open to WEMCO
and non-WEMCO members. Executives and thought leaders
will discuss key issues impacting welding equipment manu-
facturers. Visit aws.org.
FABTECH Mexico. May 12–14. Centro Citibanamex, Mexico
City, Mexico. This event will be held jointly with AWS Weld-
mex, Metalform Mexico, and Coatech México. The combined
event will bring together 575 exhibitors and more than
13,000 attendees from Mexico and South America to find
solutions, network, learn, and experience first-hand the lat-
est innovations in the metal forming, fabricating, welding,
and finishing industries. Visit mexico.fabtechexpo.com.
FABTECH Canada. June 16–18. Toronto Congress Centre,
Ontario, Canada. Meet with more than 300 world-class sup-
pliers; see the latest industry products and developments;
and find the tools to improve productivity, increase profits,
and discover new solutions for all of your metal forming,
fabricating, welding, and finishing needs. Visit
canada.fabtechexpo.com.
42 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020
FABTECH 2020. Nov. 18–20. Las Vegas Convention Center,
Las Vegas, Nev. This event provides a one-stop shop venue
where attendees can meet with world-class suppliers; see the
latest industry products and developments; and find the
tools to improve productivity, increase profits, and discover
new solutions to all of your metal forming, fabricating,
welding, and finishing needs. Visit fabtechexpo.com.
U.S., CANADA, MEXICO EVENTS
Coatings+2020. Feb. 3–6. Long Beach Convention Center,
Long Beach, Calif. This event is comprised of protective, ma-
rine, and industrial coatings programming featuring technical
sessions and workshops that focus on surface preparation, ap-
plication, coating formulation, testing, inspection, and sus-
tainable coatings solutions. The Society for Protective Coat-
ings training and certification programs will be offered in con-
junction with the event, in addition to standards committee
meetings and networking opportunities, as well as a trade
show with more than 150 exhibitors. Visit sspc.org/events.
ShipTech 2020. March 26, 27. Charleston Marriott,
Charleston, S.C. This two-day event targets the domestic
shipbuilding industry, its supplier base, U.S. Navy Program
Offices, and Navy-sponsored shipbuilding research pro-
grams. A forum to exchange information on the develop-
ments generated by Navy ManTech, as well as the related
initiatives conducted by the National Shipbuilding Research
Program, industry, and academia, the conference mission is
to reduce acquisition and total ownership costs of naval
ships, accelerate the delivery of capabilities to the warfight-
er, and enhance the competitiveness of the U.S. shipbuilding
industry. Visit onlineregistrationcenter.com/ShipTech2020.
INTERNATIONAL EVENTS
Global Industrie. March 31–April 3. Paris-Nord Villepinte,
France. The exhibition will bring together the whole industri-
al ecosystem, value chain, and user sectors. This event will al-
low visitors and exhibitors to find the product, equipment,
know-how, or the solution they are looking for to improve
their process, from design to production and including servic-
es. The event will also include the Golden Tech challenge, a
new competition aimed to draw attention not only to the va-
riety of professions in industry but also to the men and
women who embody it on a daily basis. Visit global-
industrie.com.
2020 International Conference on Defence Technology.
April 20–24. International Youth Convention Hotels, Nan-
jing, China. This event brings together many presentations
covering basic research in the fields of defense science and
technology from all over the world. Theme categories in-
clude energetic materials; explosion and impact (armor and
protection); novel manufacturing processes and manage-
ment (additive manufacturing, 3D printing, metals with
nanostructures, and casting technology); autonomous tech-
nology; application of composite materials; directed energy
and pulsed power; modelling and simulation in defense sci-
ence and technology; and photoelectronic information tech-
nology. Visit icdt-conf.com.
documents developed are applicable to AWS and ASME as
well as other standards that include NAVSEA standards,
other military standards, and commercial welding stan-
dards. For more information, contact Albert Moore at
amoore999@comcast.net.
Penetrant and Magnetic Particle Testing Seminar. The
AWS Connecticut Section is hosting a four-day seminar on
the subject of penetrant and magnetic particle testing in
preparation for the AWS endorsement examination. This
seminar covers the principles of the test methods and pro-
vides laboratory time to become familiar with the use and
applications of the test methods. The training provided com-
plies with the recommendations of ASNT SNT-TC-1A. The
seminar is being offered March 16–19. For more informa-
tion, contact Albert Moore at amoore999@comcast.net.
Resistance Welding Seminar. T. J. Snow Co. Subjects cov-
ered include basics of resistance welding, resistance welding
terms, pneumatic systems and troubleshooting, welding
transformer operation and troubleshooting, basic resistance
welder setup and weld lobe development, electrode selection
and maintenance, quality assurance, operator safety, and
identifying problems and solutions. Dates/locations are
March 11, Ft. Wayne, Ind.; March 25, Chicago, Ill.; April 8,
East Mich.; April 22, Cleveland, Ohio; May 6, Frankfort, Ky.;
June 24, Charlotte, N.C.; July 22, Montgomery, Ala.; Aug.
12, Dallas, Tex.; Aug. 26, Nashville, Tenn.; Sept. 9, Omaha,
Neb.; Sept. 23, Grand Rapids, Mich.; and Oct. 14, Phoenix,
Ariz. To sign up, contact Cheryl McDonald, (423) 308-3214,
CherylMcDonald@tjsnow.com. WJ

PaintExpo. April 21–24. Exhibition Center Karlsruhe, Rhe-

instetten, Germany. The trade fair for industrial coating
technology will cover a range of topics including systems
and equipment for liquid painting, powder coating, and coil
coating; application systems and spray guns; wet paints and
powder coatings; automation and conveyor technology;
compressed air technology; accessories; measuring and test
technology; and more. Visit paintexpo.de/en/.

EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

The Atlas of Welding Procedure Specifications. This

three-day seminar/workshop on the subject of developing
welding procedure specifications, procedure qualification
records, and welder qualification records is being offered
once again for early 2020 in Simsbury, Conn. The seminar
provides a rational basis for developing welding procedure
specifications that meet AWS and ASME codes. In-class ex-
ercises cover the process of writing prequalified WPSs and
the mechanics of qualifying WPSs by testing. The welding

FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 43

CERTIFICATION SCHEDULE
CERTIFICATION SEMINARS, CODE CLINICS, AND EXAMINATIONS

Note: The 2020 schedules for all certifications are posted online at 9-Year Recertification Seminar for CWI/SCWI
aws.org/w/a/registrations/prices_schedules.html. For current CWIs and SCWIs needing to meet education re-
quirements without taking the exam.
Certified Welding Inspector (CWI) Location Seminar Dates
Seminar covers Parts A, B, and C of the CWI exam. Only Part B Houston, TX Feb. 9–14
of the exam is taken following the conclusion of the seminar. San Diego, CA Feb. 16–21
Parts A and C are given at Prometric testing centers. New Orleans, LA March 8–13
Dallas, TX March 22–27
Location Seminar Dates Part B Seattle, WA April 19–24
Exam Date Las Vegas, NV April 19–24
Los Angeles, CA Feb. 9–14 Feb. 15 Denver, CO May 3–8
Pittsburgh, PA Feb. 9–14 Feb. 15
Miami, FL Feb. 9–14 Feb. 15 Certified Welding Educator (CWE)
Orlando, FL Feb. 16–21 Feb. 22 Seminar and exam are given at all sites listed under Certified
New Orleans, LA Feb. 16–21 Feb. 22 Welding Inspector. Seminar attendees will not attend the Code
Seattle, WA Feb. 23–28 Feb. 29 Clinic portion of the seminar (usually the first two days).
San Diego, CA Feb. 23–28 Feb. 29
Cleveland, OH Feb. 23–28 Feb. 29
Atlanta, GA March 1–6 March 7 Certified Welding Sales Representative
Roanoke, VA March 1–6 March 7 (CWSR)
Omaha, NE March 1–6 March 7 CWSR exams are given at Prometric testing centers. More
Annapolis, MD March 8–13 March 14 information at aws.org/certification/detail/certified-welding-
Houston, TX March 8–13 March 14 sales-representative.
Salt Lake City, UT March 8–13 March 14
Fargo, ND March 15–20 March 21
Philadelphia, PA March 15–20 March 21 Certified Welding Supervisor (CWS)
Chicago, IL March 15–20 March 21 CWS exams are given at Prometric testing centers. More infor-
Phoenix, AZ March 15–20 March 21 mation at aws.org/certification/detail/certified-welding-supervisor.
Boston, MA March 22–27 March 28
Portland, OR March 22–27 March 28
Cleveland, OH March 22–27 March 28 Certified Radiographic Interpreter (CRI)
Minneapolis, MN March 29–April 3 April 4 The CRI certification can be a stand-alone credential or can
Benicia, CA March 29–April 3 April 4 exempt you from your next 9-Year Recertification. More in-
Mobile, AL April 19–24 April 25 formation at aws.org/certification/detail/certified-radiographic-
Dallas, TX April 19–24 April 25 interpreter.
Las Vegas, NV April 19–24 April 25
Bakersfield, CA April 26–May 1 May 2 Location Seminar Dates Exam Date
St. Louis, MO April 26–May 1 May 2 Dallas, TX March 30–April 3 April 4
Tulsa, OK April 26–May 1 May 2 Las Vegas, NV June 1–5 June 6
Miami, FL April 26–May 1 May 2 Pittsburgh, PA Aug. 3–7 Aug. 8
Baton Rouge, LA May 3–8 May 9 Houston, TX Oct. 5–9 Oct. 10

Certified Welding Inspector (CWI) Part B

Course covers only Part B of the CWI exam. Part B exam fol- Certified Robotic Arc Welding (CRAW)
lows conclusion of the three-day course. OTC Daihen Inc., Tipp City, OH; (937) 667-0800, ext. 218
Lincoln Electric Co., Cleveland, OH; (216) 383-4723
Location Seminar Dates Part B Wolf Robotics, Fort Collins, CO; (970) 225-7667
Exam Date Milwaukee Area Technical College, Milwaukee, WI;
(414) 456-5454
Las Vegas, NV Feb. 19–21 Feb. 22
College of the Canyons, Santa Clarita, CA; (661) 259-7800,
Miami, FL April 27–29 April 30 ext. 3062
Dallas, TX June 17–19 June 20 Ogden-Weber Applied Technology College, Ogden, UT;
Houston, TX Aug. 5–7 Aug. 8 (801) 627-8448
Minneapolis, MN Oct. 21–23 Oct. 24 Genesis Systems IPG Photonics Co., Davenport, IA;
Louisville, KY Dec. 6–11 Dec. 12 (563) 445-5688

IMPORTANT: This schedule is subject to change without notice. Please verify your event dates with the Certification Dept. to confirm your course status before
making travel plans. Applications are to be received at least six weeks prior to the seminar/exam or exam. Applications received after that time will be assessed a
$395 Fast Track fee. Please verify application deadline dates by visiting our website at aws.org/certification/docs/schedules.html. For information on AWS seminars
and certification programs, or to register online, visit aws.org/certification or call (800/305) 443-9353, ext. 273, for Certification; or ext. 455 for Seminars.

44 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020

BY KATIE PACHECO — kpacheco@aws.org
SOCIETY NEWS
Industry Leaders Recognized at FABTECH

The AWS 2020 board of directors recently assembled at FABTECH in Chicago, Ill.

Class of 2019 Fellows and Counselors Announced

The 2019 class of American Welding Society (AWS) Fel- residual stress and distortion. He is also recognized for de-
lows and Counselors were recognized during FABTECH in veloping and applying integrated computational materials
Chicago, Ill. engineering models to solve industrial problems.
The Fellows are Marie Quintana, Antonio Ramirez, Du- AWS Counselors are recognized for “serving the welding
san P. Sekulic, and Yu-Ping Yang. The counselors are Bernard community and industry with distinction and organizational
Banzhaf, Anthony Blakeney, Jean-Paul Boillot, John R. Bray, leadership that has enhanced the image and impact of the weld-
Jorge J. Perdomo, Donald J. Tillack, and Leland Vetter. ing industry.”
AWS Fellows are cited for “serving the welding community Bernard Banzhaf is recognized for his widely known con-
and industry with great distinction as individuals whose careers tributions and more than 40 years as a welding professional.
have contributed significantly to the knowledge, science, and ap- He has served the machinery and equipment manufacturing
plication of welding.” industry with a focus on safety first, then quality and
Marie Quintana is recognized for her work on hydrogen efficiency.
cracking and her measurement of diffusible hydrogen, which
led to changes in the industry’s hydrogen measurement
methodology. She is also recognized for advancing welding
technology and consumable design.
Antonio Ramirez is recognized for 25 years as an engineer
and researcher who has made contributions to structural
materials joining, welding metallurgy, and materials charac-
terization. He has also unveiled fundamental aspects of bulk
and nanostructured materials phase transformations.
Dusan P. Sekulic is recognized for his international scien-
tific contributions supporting the art of brazing, and for
promoting visualization of the processes of joint formation.
He is also recognized for his scholarly work involving braz-
ing of similar and dissimilar materials.
Yu-Ping Yang is recognized for his research contributions
Pictured (from left) are Fellows Dusan P. Sekulic, Marie
to the development and advancement of welded structure
Quintana, Antonio Ramirez, and Yu-Ping Yang.
modeling, weld process modeling, and controlling weld

FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 45

SOCIETY NEWS
Anthony Blakeney is recognized for
his dedication to academia and AWS,
and as a professor at Southeastern
Louisiana University, where he helped
create a welding technology program.
Jean-Paul Boillot is recognized for
his activities in the areas of technolo-
gy, education, and training as it relates
to welding and automation for more
than 50 years. He has had an impact
on the industry, emphasizing the need
for trained engineers, technicians, and
operators.
John R. Bray is recognized for his
continued service to the welding in-
dustry for more than 50 years. As seen
in all aspects of his career, his passion
for positive support of bringing people
together to help promote the future
leaders of the welding family is widely
recognized.
Jorge J. Perdomo is recognized for
his practical approach in the develop-
ment and implementation of novel
welding methods in industrial applica-
tions related to both new fabrication
Achievement Awards Presented at FABTECH
Pingsha Dong Boian T. Alexandrov
Comfort A. Adams Lecture
Award
This award is presented to an out-
standing scientist or engineer for a lecture
describing a new or distinctive develop-
ment in the field of welding. The lecture is
presented during FABTECH.
“The Emergence of Quantitative
Defect Acceptance Criteria as the
Enabler from Dissimilar Materials
Joining to Additive Manufacturing”
Pingsha Dong, an AWS and IIW Fel-
low, is a professor of naval architecture
and marine engineering, as well as me-
chanical engineering, at the University
of Michigan. His research interests in-
clude advanced fatigue and fracture
46 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020
and repairs of aged pressure-and-ro-
tating equipment via failure analysis,
materials selection, and life assess-
ment/prediction in the oil and gas, re-
fining, petrochemical, and pulp and
paper industries.
Donald J. Tillack is recognized for
his original contributions to AWS and
the global welding and metallurgical
communities for more than 50 years.
He was also instrumental in creating
Pictured (from left) are Counselors Anthony Blakeney, John R. Bray, Leland Vetter,
Jean-Paul Boillot, Donald J. Tillack, Jorge J. Perdomo, and Bernard Banzhaf.
Adrian Gerlich
assessment methodologies, and com-
putational methods for integrated
manufacturing process simulation. He
has published more than 200 peer-
reviewed papers in journals and con-
ference proceedings.
Adams Memorial Membership
Award
This award recognizes educators for
outstanding teaching activities in under-
graduate and postgraduate engineering
institutions.
Boian T. Alexandrov, an AWS and
ASM International Fellow, is a research
associate professor in the welding en-
gineering program and director of the
new subcommittees that published
guides for joining stainless and nickel-
based alloys.
Leland Vetter is recognized for his
long and distinguished service to the
welding industry and AWS for more
than 35 years. He has taught special-
ized weld training for industry at the
collegiate level and brought widely
known welding classes and programs
to the community.
John Knapp Jan Frostevarg
Center for Weldability Evaluation at
The Ohio State University. He has ad-
vised eight postdoctoral researchers
and 41 graduate students, and involved
more than 60 undergraduate students
in industry-supported research.
Adrian Gerlich is an associate pro-
fessor at the University of Waterloo in
Canada. He is also the NSERC/Trans-
Canada industrial research chair in
welding for energy infrastructure. He
has published more than 150 journal
papers, more than 30 conference pa-
pers, and one book chapter. He has
also trained more than 32 graduate,
postdoctoral, and undergraduate
students.

Alexander Kaplan Jonas Näsström
Howard E. Adkins Memorial
Instructor Membership Award
This award recognizes instructors for
outstanding teaching accomplishments at
the high school, trade school, technical in-
stitute, and community college levels.
John Knapp is a welding coordina-
tor and instructor at Northeast Com-
munity College, where he mentors
welding instructors and lab assistants.
He is also an AWS Certified Welding
Inspector (CWI) and Certified Welding
Educator (CWE), providing testing and
customized training for students,
businesses, and industry. He also
serves on the AWS Nebraska Section
board and the SENSE Committee.
Robert J. Conkling Memorial
Award
This award is presented to the schools
that trained the two first-place winners
in the SkillsUSA welding competition.
2019 SkillsUSA Championships
Gold Medalist First-Place Schools
High School: Jackson River Technical
Center, Covington, Va.
Postsecondary School: Wallace
State Community College-Hanceville,
Hanceville, Ala.
A. F. Davis Silver Medal Award
This award recognizes authors of pa-
pers published in the Welding Journal
during the previous calendar year that
represent the best contributions to the
progress of welding in the categories of
machine design, maintenance and surfac-
ing, and structural design.
Machine Design
“Arc Formation in Narrow Gap Hot
Wire Laser Welding”
Jan Frostevarg is an assistant pro-
fessor at Luleå University of Technolo-
gy in Sweden. His research interests
are laser beam welding and laser-arc
hybrid welding, as well as other laser
SOCIETY NEWS
Neil Anderson Rangasayee Kannan
applications including surface struc-
turing of medical implants, cutting,
cladding, and additive manufacturing.
He has authored more than 60 scien-
tific publications.
Alexander Kaplan is professor and
chair of manufacturing systems engi-
neering at Luleå University of Tech-
nology in Sweden. He has experience
in mathematical modelling and high-
speed imaging of laser materials pro-
cessing, particularly for laser welding,
cutting, and additive manufacturing.
Jonas Näsström is a PhD student
focusing on joining and additive man-
ufacturing laser materials processing
technologies at Luleå University of
Technology in Sweden. He also teaches
computer-aided design and manufac-
turing as well as robot and discrete
event simulation.
Maintenance and Surfacing
“Development of Nickel-Added,
Iron-Based Slag-Free, Self-Shielded
Metal-Cored Wire”
Neil Anderson is a failure analysis
engineering specialist in the research
and development team at EVRAZ
North America. In 2016, he completed
a bachelor of science in materials engi-
neering from the University of Alber-
ta, Canada, and a master in materials
engineering from the same university
in 2018.
Rangasayee Kannan is a postdoc-
toral research associate in the Depart-
ment of Chemical and Materials Engi-
neering at the University of Alberta,
Canada. He has a bachelor’s degree in
metallurgical engineering from the
National Institute of Technology in In-
dia and a PhD from the University of
Alberta.
Leijun Li is a professor of materials
engineering at the University of Alber-
ta, Canada. A professional engineer, he
teaches welding metallurgy and stud-
ies microstructure characterization
FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 47
Leijun Li
and properties evaluation of alloys and
structures used for the energy indus-
try. He is also a Fellow of ASM Interna-
tional, AWS, and the Canadian Weld-
ing Bureau/Association.
Dashuang Liu is an associate profes-
sor at Jiangsu University of Science
and Technology in China. He is work-
ing on the development of self-shield-
ed flux-cored wires for arc additive
manufacturing, narrow groove weld-
ing, laser welding, and other special
applications.
Weimin Long is a professor at
Zhengzhou Research Institute of Me-
chanical Engineering Co. Ltd. in China.
He has invented flux-cored brazing
materials, created a manufacturing
method for flux-cored brazing materi-
als, and made developments in the
brazing of dissimilar materials and
diamond tools. He has supervised 18
PhD students and 32 master’s degree
students.
Ping Wei is an assistant researcher
at the School of Naval Architecture
and Ocean Engineering at Jiangsu
University of Science and Technology
in China. She earned a bachelor’s de-
gree from Lanzhou Jiaotong Universi-
ty, and a master’s degree from Nanjing
Technical University. Her research in-
terests include welding materials and
welding chemical metallurgy.
Mingfang Wu is a professor at
Jiangsu University of Science and
Technology in China. He has super-
vised nine PhD students and more
than 40 graduate students. His re-
search interests include brazing, diffu-
sion bonding, compound welding, arc
welding of nonferrous metals and high
strength steel, and numerical simula-
tion of welding residual stress and
deformation.
Structure Design
“Exploring the Cooling Process
for Residual Stress Reduction in
SOCIETY NEWS
Dashuang Liu Weimin Long
Jeffrey Bunn Paris A. Cornwell
Dissimilar Welds”
Daryush Aidun teaches welding
metallurgy and additive manufactur-
ing at Clarkson University. He has also
been director of the university’s Weld-
ing Research Lab since 1982. He was
the editor of chapter 3, “Heat Flow in
Welding,” for the AWS Welding Hand-
book, Vol. 1 (2019). His areas of re-
search include weld process modelling
and additive manufacturing of duplex
stainless steels and nickel-based
superalloys.
Jeffrey Bunn is the lead instrument
scientist at the residual stress diffrac-
tometer located at the High Flux Iso-
tope Reactor (HFIR) at Oak Ridge Na-
tional Laboratory (ORNL). His inter-
ests are within applied research of en-
gineering materials. He has a bache-
lor’s degree in engineering and a PhD
in civil engineering from the Universi-
ty of Tennessee.
Paris A. Cornwell is a scientific as-
sociate for the HB-2B (residual stress)
and CG-1D (imaging) beam lines at
the HFIR at ORNL. He has spent nine
years maintaining the beam lines for
functionality, reliability, experiment
support, and engineering upgrades.
Hamid Eisazadeh is an assistant
professor in engineering technology at
Old Dominion University and holds a
PhD in mechanical engineering from
48 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020
Ping Wei
Hamid Eisazadeh E. Andrew Payzant
Clarkson University. His research area
is focused on dissimilar welding as well
as wire and arc additive manufacturing
processes. His work has been mainly
published in the Welding Journal.
E. Andrew Payzant is a distinguished
R&D staff member and materials engi-
neering group leader for the Neutron
Scattering Division at ORNL. He is
also an instrument scientist on the
NRSF2 engineering beamline at HFIR.
His research focuses on the develop-
ment and application of neutron and
x-ray in-situ diffraction methods.
Excellence in Robotic and
Automatic Arc Welding Award
This award recognizes significant in-
dividual achievements in the area of ro-
botic arc welding.
Vernon L. Mangold Jr. is a principal
consultant for Kaysafety, an engineer-
ing and safety consulting practice. He
began his involvement with AWS in
1985, becoming a member of the D16
Committee in 1989 and holding vari-
ous leadership positions over the past
30 years.
Dalton E. Hamilton Memorial
CWI of the Year Award
This award recognizes AWS members
participating in the SCWI/CWI programs
Mingfang Wu Daryush Aidun
Vernon L. Mangold Jr.
whose inspection, Society, and civic activ-
ities have enhanced public awareness of
the Society and the CWI program or who
have otherwise made an outstanding
contribution to the science of welding
inspection.
Jeff Redding, an AWS CWI, has
worked almost exclusively in the man-
ufacturing industry for 24 years. Since
being exposed to welding in 1987, he
has had opportunities to work with and
learn from some of the greatest men-
tors while continuing to teach welding
at every opportunity. His favorite part
of being a CWI is the opportunity to
develop himself and others.
W. H. Hobart Memorial Award
This award is presented to the authors
of the paper published in the Welding
Journal during the previous calendar
year that describes the best contribution
to pipe welding, the structural use of pipe
or similar applications, excluding the
manufacture of pipe.
“Welding Technology Development
for an Erosion-Resistant Slurry
Pipeline Steel”
Timothy Anderson has worked for
ExxonMobil since 2008, and currently
serves as the materials and fabrication
technology advisor for the company’s
Upstream Integrated Solutions group.
 SOCIETY NEWS

Jeff Redding Timothy Anderson Doug Fairchild HyunWoo “Howie” Jin Ning Ma

Andrew Wasson Xin Yue Patrick Hochanadel Muralidhar Tumuluru Tao Dai

He previously graduated from Lehigh
University with a PhD in materials sci-
ence and engineering.
Doug Fairchild has worked with
ExxonMobil since 1982. His areas of
expertise include welding, metallurgy,
fracture mechanics, and failure analy-
sis. He is credited with about 70 publi-
cations and 12 patents. He holds bach-
elor’s, master’s, and PhD degrees in
welding engineering from The Ohio
State University.
HyunWoo “Howie” Jin joined Cor-
porate Strategic Research of ExxonMo-
bil in 2001, where he has been leading
research projects to develop advanced
materials and joining technologies for
the oil/gas and petrochemical indus-
tries. He has authored/coauthored
more than 25 U.S. patents and is the
recipient of the 2018 Thomas Alba
Edison Patent Award.
Ning Ma is a member of the techni-
cal staff of ExxonMobil Research and
Engineering Co. His research interests
include developing advanced materials
and joining technologies for the oil
and gas industry. He holds a bachelor
in materials science from Tsinghua
University in China and a PhD from
The Ohio State University.
Andrew Wasson joined ExxonMobil
in 2010, and has worked on a variety
of materials R&D projects during his
time. His areas of expertise include
materials development, metallurgy,
welding, and manufacturing. He re-
ceived his bachelor’s, master’s, and
PhD degrees in materials science and
engineering from the University of
Florida.
Xin Yue is a senior research engi-
neer at ExxonMobil Upstream Re-
search Co., where he has been leading
research projects on the development
of novel high-performance materials
and welding technology for challeng-
ing applications in the oil and gas in-
dustry. He received the AWS Warren F.
Savage Award in 2013, authored 11
publications in peer-reviewed journals,
and holds two U.S. patents.
International Meritorious
Certificate Award
This certificate recognizes an individ-
ual who has made significant contribu-
tions to the worldwide welding industry.
Patrick W. Hochanadel has worked
with Los Alamos National Laboratory
since 1997. Serving AWS for more
than 25 years, he is the chair of the
AWS C7C Laser Beam Welding and
Cutting Subcommittee, advisor for the
Technical Papers Committee, reviewer
for the Welding Research Supplement
in the Welding Journal, and recipient of
the R. D. Thomas Award.
William Irrgang Memorial
Award
This award recognizes the individual
who has done the most to enhance the
Society’s goal of advancing the science
and technology of welding over the last
five years.
Muralidhar Tumuluru, an AWS Fel-
low and Life Member, is an independ-
ent welding consultant and a lecturer.
He has worked in the steel industry for
the past 23 years. The primary focus
of his research during this time has
been characterizing the joining behav-
ior of the advanced high-strength
steels developed for automotive appli-
cations. He also serves on several AWS
technical committees and is a principal
reviewer for the Welding Journal.
Charles H. Jennings
Memorial Award
This award is presented for the most
valuable paper written by a college stu-
dent or faculty representative published
in the Welding Journal during the previ-
ous calendar year.
“The Effect of Post-Weld Heat
Treatment on Hydrogen-Assisted
Cracking of F22/625 Overlays”
Tao Dai is a postdoctoral research
associate in the Materials Joining
Group of ORNL. He received the War-

FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 49

SOCIETY NEWS
John Lippold Yang Cao
Yue Zhao Majid Pouranvari
ren F. Savage Memorial Award (2016)
and the William Spraragen Memorial
Award (2018) in recognition of his pa-
pers published in the Welding Journal.
He holds a PhD in welding engineering
from The Ohio State University.
John Lippold is emeritus professor
in the welding engineering program at
The Ohio State University, retiring in
2016 after more than 20 years. He
continues to advise graduate students
and supports welding metallurgy
courses offered to undergraduate and
graduate students. He has published
three textbooks and more than 300
technical papers and reports.
McKay-Helm Award
This award is presented for the best
contribution to the advancement of
knowledge of low-alloy steel, stainless
steel, or surfacing welding metals involv-
ing the use, development, or testing of
these materials, as represented by arti-
cles published in the Welding Journal
during the previous calendar year.
“Fiber Laser Welding of 1700-MPa
Ultrahigh-Strength Steel”
Yang Cao is a PhD candidate at
Tsinghua University and the Central
Iron and Steel Research Institute in
China. His research focuses on struc-
ture material science and processing,
including welding and joining science
50 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020
Chong Luo
Thomas Sparschu Dennis De Smet
and technology. He has published six
papers on the microstructure and me-
chanical properties of steel and alloys.
Chong Luo is a PhD candidate in
the Department of Mechanical Engi-
neering of Tsinghua University in Chi-
na. His research centers on the laser
welding of martensitic steel and the
laser heat treatment of steel. He has
published five papers on welding as
well as joining science and technology.
Jiguo Shan is a professor and doc-
toral supervisor at Tsinghua Universi-
ty in China. He is also the vice chair-
man of the Beijing Mechanical Engi-
neering Society, has presided over four
projects for the National Natural Sci-
ence Foundation of China, and has
published more than 120 papers and
70 articles.
Lin Zhao has been a professor with
the Central Iron and Steel Research In-
stitute, China, since 2016. His re-
search focuses on laser welding, laser
cladding, and additive manufacturing.
He has seven patents and has pub-
lished more than 80 papers. He earned
a bachelor in engineering and a PhD
from Tsinghua University, China.
Yue Zhao is an assistant professor
in the Department of Mechanical En-
gineering at Tsinghua University, Chi-
na. She achieved her bachelor’s and
PhD degrees from Tsinghua Universi-
Jiguo Shan Lin Zhao
Richard Grant
ty, China, and her master’s from To-
hoku University, Japan. Her research
interests include welding metallurgy,
welding mechanics, and metallic addi-
tive manufacturing.
Professor Koichi Masubuchi
Award
This award is presented to an individ-
ual who has made significant contribu-
tions to the advancement of science and
technology of materials joining through
research and development.
Majid Pouranvari is an assistant pro-
fessor in the Department of Materials
Science and Engineering at the Sharif
University of Technology, Iran. His re-
search focuses on the improvement of
joint properties through an under-
standing of phase transformations dur-
ing joining processes. He is the au-
thor/coauthor of more than 100 scien-
tific articles in peer-reviewed journals.
Samuel Wylie Miller
Memorial Medal Award
This award is awarded for meritorious
achievements that have contributed con-
spicuously to the advancement of the art
and science of welding and cutting.
Thomas Sparschu is the retired pres-
ident of Craft-Line. An AWS member
for more than 50 years, he has served

Alice Kilgo Bonnie McKenzie
John DuPont Robert Hamlin
the AWS Detroit Section in multiple
capacities, including establishing and
teaching the Section’s Automotive
Welding School as well as the Sheet
Metal Welding Conference’s Welding
Tutorial Series. Additionally, he was the
Section’s chair and member of its Schol-
arship Committee. He has also served
on the AWS J1 Committees as well as
the D8D and D8F Subcommittees.
Robert L. Peaslee
Memorial Brazing Award
This award recognizes the paper con-
sidered to be the best contribution to the
science or technology of brazing pub-
lished in the Welding Journal during the
previous calendar year.
“Interface Reactions Responsible
for Run-Out in Active Brazing:
Part 1”
Dennis De Smet is a mechanical
technologist at Sandia National Labo-
ratories’ Metallurgy & Materials Join-
ing department. For the past eight
years, he has been engaged in conven-
tional and active brazing, materials
joining in vacuum, hydrogen or inert
gas environments, and heat treating.
Richard “Dick” Grant has been a
principal technologist in the Materials
Characterization and Performance de-
partment at Sandia National Laborato-
ries for 25 years. He runs the Electron
SOCIETY NEWS
Paul T. Vianco Charles A. Walker
Sindo Kou
Probe Microanalysis Microprobe Lab.
Alice Kilgo was a technologist at
Sandia National Laboratories for more
than 33 years prior to her retirement.
Her work focused on metallography,
failure analysis, and image analysis.
Bonnie McKenzie is a technologist
at Sandia National Laboratories, and
has worked as a scanning electron mi-
croscopist in the Materials Characteri-
zation and Performance department.
Her career with the company has
spanned more than 33 years.
Paul T. Vianco, a Fellow of AWS and
ASM International, is a member of the
technical staff at Sandia National Lab-
oratories, where he has worked since
1987. He is the author of Soldering
Handbook, third edition (2000), and
Guideline for Hand Soldering Practices
(2016), both of which are published by
AWS.
Charles A. Walker has been with
Sandia National Laboratories since
1984, where he is a member of the
technical staff in the Metallurgy and
Materials Joining department. His
responsibilities include the day-to-day
hydrogen and vacuum furnace opera-
tions. His work focuses on metal-
nonmetal brazing processes and
process development, especially active
brazing. He is also a member of the
AWS C3 Brazing Committee.
Daniel Turner
Jon McCarthy Keith Thompson
Plummer Memorial
Education Lecture Award
This award recognizes outstanding
contributions to the national education
lectures presented at FABTECH.
“Innovative Approaches to Welding
Education”
Daniel Turner is a Yuba College fac-
ulty member with 25 years of teaching
experience. He is credited with start-
ing the school’s Weld Camp and Weld
Olympics events 11 years ago. In
2008, he became a Weld-Ed partner
and chaired the Welding Counsel of
the Fabricators & Manufacturers Asso-
ciation. He has also served the AWS
Education Committee and his local
AWS Section as an officer.
Warren F. Savage
Memorial Award
This award recognizes the paper pub-
lished in the Welding Journal Research
Supplement the previous calendar year
that best represents innovative research
resulting in a better understanding of the
metallurgical principles related to welding.
“Influence of Multiple Gleeble®—
Simulated Weld Thermal Cycles on
Maraging 17–4 and 13–8+Mo”
John DuPont is the R. D. Stout dis-
tinguished professor of materials sci-
ence and engineering at Lehigh Univer-
FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 51
SOCIETY NEWS
Ping Yu Robert Cohen
sity; associate director of the universi-
ty’s Energy Research Center; and site
director for the National Science Foun-
dation Manufacturing and Materials
Joining Innovation Center. He has pub-
lished more than 300 technical articles,
written one book, edited seven books,
and authored four book chapters.
Robert Hamlin is a welding engi-
neer at Naval Nuclear Laboratory. He
holds bachelor’s, master’s, and PhD
degrees in materials science and engi-
neering from Lehigh University. His
published dissertation focused on the
precipitation and hardening response
of maraging stainless steels 17–4 and
13–8+Mo during multipass welding.
William Spraragen
Memorial Award
This award recognizes the best paper
published in the Welding Journal Re-
search Supplement during the previous
calendar year.
“Microstructure Evolution and
Solidification Cracking in
Austenitic Stainless-steel Welds”
Sindo Kou, a Fellow of ASM Inter-
national, is a professor in the Depart-
Candidates Sought to Receive the MIT Masubuchi Award
The Prof. Koichi Masubuchi award,
with a $5000 honorarium, is present-
ed to one person, 40 years old or
younger, who has made significant
contributions to the advancement of
52 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020
ment of Materials Science
and Engineering at the
University of Wisconsin-
Madison. Kou’s research
interest has focused on
the fundamentals of weld-
ing metallurgy and their
effect on weldability. He
has also authored two
texts, Welding Metallurgy
and Transport Phenomena
and Materials Processing,
and received multiple
awards from AWS and
other organizations.
Jon McCarthy retired in 2014 as
emeritus senior scientist and adjunct
professor of materials science at the
University of Wisconsin. He has been
active in analytical electron mi-
croscopy development for 40 years,
and is a Fellow and past president of
the Microbeam Analysis Society. He is
the holder of ten U.S. patents and has
published more than 50 peer-reviewed
scientific papers. He continues to work
with students as a mentor.
Keith Thompson is the director of
sales at Nelson Global Products. He
has published more than 100 peer-
reviewed scientific articles and has
worked in the field of scientific instru-
ments for 20 years. He received his
PhD in electrical engineering from the
University of Wisconsin-Madison, and
holds a project management profes-
sional certification from the Project
Management Institute, where he is an
active member.
Ping Yu received her master’s and
PhD degrees with the Material Sci-
ence and Engineering Department at
Xi’an Jiao Tong University in China.
She worked at the University of Wis-
materials joining through research and
development.
Send a list of your candidate’s expe-
rience, publications, honors, awards,
and at least three letters of recommen-
consin-Madison as a scientist from
2017 to 2018, and has 37 published
papers and one patent. Her research
included flux-cored wires for carbon
and high-strength steels, and solidifi-
cation cracking in stainless steels.
R. D. Thomas
Memorial Award
This award recognizes a member of
the American Council of the Internation-
al Institute of Welding (IIW) or an AWS
member who has made a substantial con-
tribution to the IIW activities.
Muralidhar Tumuluru (See bio un-
der William Irrgang Memorial Award.)
Elihu Thomson Resistance
Welding Award
This award recognizes an outstanding
contribution to the technology and appli-
cation of resistance welding, including
equipment innovations, unique applica-
tions in production, a published paper, or
other activity of merit.
Robert Cohen, CEO of WeldCom-
puter Corp., has devoted his career to
the research, development, and com-
mercialization of new sensor, monitor-
ing, and control technologies that con-
tinue to push the state of the art and
quality assurance in resistance welding
processes. He was also the inventor of
the first commercially viable adaptive
control for resistance welding. His
work on the AWS C1 and D17 Com-
mittees was instrumental in updating
the Recommended Practices for Resist-
ance Welding and MIL-SPEC standards
to recognize monitoring and adaptive
control as accepted alternatives to de-
structive testing. WJ
dation from fellow researchers to Prof.
Todd Palmer, tap103@psu.edu. This
award is sponsored annually by the
Massachusetts Institute of Technolo-
gy, Dept. of Ocean Engineering.

TECH TOPICS
Opportunities to Contribute to
AWS Technical Committees
The following committees welcome
new members. Some committees are
recruiting members with specific inter-
ests in regard to the committee’s scope,
as marked below: Producers (P), Gener-
al Interest (G), Educators (E), Consult-
ants (C), and Users (U). For more infor-
mation, contact the staff member list-
ed or visit aws.org/library/doclib/
Technical-Committee-Application.pdf.
S. Borrero, sborrero@aws.org, ext.
334. Definitions and symbols, A2
Committee (E). Titanium and zirco-
nium filler metals, A5K Subcommit-
tee. Piping and tubing, D10 Commit-
tee (C, E, U). Welding practices and
procedures for austenitic steels,
D10C Subcommittee. Aluminum pip-
ing, D10H Subcommittee. Chromium
molybdenum steel piping, D10I
Subcommittee. Welding of titanium
piping, D10K Subcommittee. Purg-
ing and root pass welding, D10S
Subcommittee. Low-carbon steel
pipe, D10T Subcommittee. Orbital
pipe welding, D10U Subcommittee.
Duplex pipe welding, D10Y Subcom-
mittee. Joining metals and alloys,
G2 Committee (E, G, U). Reactive al-
loys, G2D Subcommittee (G).
R. Gupta, gupta@aws.org, ext. 301.
Filler metals and allied materials,
A5 Committee (E). Magnesium alloy
filler metals, A5L Subcommittee.
P. Portela, pportela@aws.org, ext.
311. High energy beam welding
and cutting, C7 Committee (C, E, G).
Hybrid welding, C7D Subcommittee
(G). Robotic and automatic weld-
ing, D16 Committee (C, E). Additive
manufacturing, D20 Committee (C,
E, G). The D1N Subcommittee on Tita-
nium Welding is recruiting all interest
groups.
J. Molin, jmolin@aws.org, ext. 304.
Structural welding, D1 Committee
(E). Sheet metal welding, D9 Com-
mittee (C, G). The D1 Committee is re-
cruiting educators and general interest
members. The D9 Committee is re-
cruiting producers, consultants, and
general interest members.
K. Bulger, kbulger@aws.org, ext.
306. Methods of weld inspection,
SOCIETY NEWS
B1 Committee (C, E). Brazing and
soldering, C3 Committee (C, E, G).
Welding in marine construction,
D3 Committee (C, E, G, U). Welding
of machinery and equipment, D14
Committee (C, E, G, U).
M. Diaz, mdiaz@aws.org, ext. 310.
Resistance welding, C1 Committee
(C, E, G, U). Friction welding, C6
Committee (C, E). Automotive weld-
ing, D8 Committee (C, E, G, U). Re-
sistance welding equipment, J1
Committee (C, E, G, U). Welding in
the aircraft and aerospace indus-
try, D17 Subcommittee (C, E, G).
S. Hedrick, steveh@aws.org, ext.
305. Metric practice, A1 Committee
(C, E). Mechanical testing of welds,
B4 Committee (E, G, P). Joining of
plastics and composites, G1 Com-
mittee (C, E, G). Safety and health
committee, SHC Committee (E, G).
Welding in sanitary applications,
D18 Committee.
J. Rosario, jrosario@aws.org, ext. 308.
Procedure and performance qualifi-
cation, B2 Committee (E, G). Thermal
spraying, C2 Committee (C, E, G, U).
Oxyfuel gas welding and cutting, C4
Committee (C, E, G). Welding iron
castings, D11 (C, E, G, P, U). Railroad
welding, D15 (C, E, G, U).
Technical Committee
Meetings
All AWS technical committee meet-
ings are open to the public. Contact
the staff members listed or call
(800/305) 443-9353 for information.
Feb. 4. D15D Subcommittee on Re-
sistance Welding for Railroad Applica-
tions. McDonough, Ga. Contact: J.
Rosario, jrosario@aws.org, ext. 308.
Feb. 5. D15 Committee on Railroad
Welding and D15A Subcommittee on
Cars and Locomotives. McDonough,
Ga. Contact: J. Rosario, ext. 308,
jrosario@aws.org.
Feb. 6. D3B Subcommittee on Un-
derwater Welding. New Orleans, La.
Contact: K. Bulger, kbulger@aws.org,
ext. 306.
Feb. 11. Technical Activities
Committee. Sacramento, Ca. Contact:
P. Portela, pportela@aws.org, ext. 311.
FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 53
Feb. 12, 13. C4 Committee on Oxy-
fuel Gas Welding and Cutting. Miami,
Fla. Contact: J. Rosario, ext. 308,
jrosario@aws.org.
Feb. 25, 26. B2F Subcommittee on
Plastic Welding Qualification. Miami,
Fla. Contact: S. Hedrick, ext. 305,
steveh@aws.org.
Feb. 25, 26. G1A Subcommittee on
Hot Gas Welding and Extrusion Weld-
ing. Miami, Fla. Contact: S. Hedrick,
steveh@aws.org, ext. 305.
March 18, 19. C3 Committee and
Subcommittees on Brazing and Solder-
ing. Santa Fe, N.Mex. Contact: K. Bul-
ger, kbulger@aws.org, ext. 306.
March 31–April 2. B2 Committee
and Subcommittees on Procedure and
Performance Qualification. San Diego,
Calif. Contact: J. Rosario, ext. 308,
jrosario@aws.org.
March 31–April 3. D1 Committee
and Subcommittees on Structural
Welding. Miami, Fla. Contact: J.
Molin, jmolin@aws.org, ext. 304.
New Standards Projects
Development work has begun on
the following new or revised stan-
dards. Affected individuals are invited
to contribute to their development.
Participation in AWS technical com-
mittees is open to all persons.
D15.1/D15.1M:2019-AMD1, Rail-
road Welding Specification for Cars and
Locomotives. This specification estab-
lishes minimum welding standards
for the manufacture and maintenance
of railcars, locomotives, and their com-
ponents. It is intended for North
American railroad service. Clauses
4–17 cover the general requirements
for welding in the railroad industry.
Clauses 18–23 discuss specific require-
ments for the welding of base metals
thinner than 1⁄8 in. (3 mm). Addenda.
Contact: J. Rosario, jrosario@aws.org,
ext. 308.
Standards for Public Review
AWS was approved as an accredited
standards-preparing organization by
the American National Standards In-
SOCIETY NEWS
stitute (ANSI) in 1979. AWS rules, as
approved by ANSI, require that all
standards be open to public review for
comment during the approval process.
This column also advises of ANSI ap-
proval of documents.
The following standards are sub-
mitted for public review. A draft copy
may be obtained by contacting the list-
ed staff secretary of the committee.
D1.5/D1.5M:20XX, Bridge Welding
Code. Revised Standard. $440.00. ANSI
public review expired 1/27/20. Contact:
P. Portela, pportela@aws.org, ext. 311.
D18.1/D18.1M:20XX, Specification
for Welding of Austenitic Stainless Steel
Tube and Pipe Systems in Sanitary (Hy-
gienic) Applications. New Standard.
$34.00. ANSI public review expires
2/10/20. Contact: S. Hedrick, ext. 305,
steveh@aws.org.
D18.2/D18.2M:20XX, Guide to Weld
Discoloration Levels on Inside of Austen-
itic Stainless Steel Tube. New Standard.
$32.00. ANSI public review expires
2/10/20. Contact: S. Hedrick, ext. 305,
steveh@aws.org.
ISO Draft Standards for Public
Review
Copies of the following draft inter-
national standards are available for re-
view and comment through your na-
tional standards body, which in the
United States is ANSI, 25 W. 43 St.,
Fourth Floor, New York, NY, 10036;
telephone (212) 642-4900. Any com-
ments regarding ISO documents
should be sent to your national stan-
dards body.
In the United States, if you wish to
participate in the development of in-
ternational standards for welding,
contact Andrew Davis at AWS, 8669
NW 36 St., #130, Miami, FL 33166-
6672; telephone (305) 443-9353, ext.
466, email: adavis@aws.org. Otherwise,
contact your national standards body.
ISO/DIS 18595 — Resistance weld-
ing — Spot welding of aluminium and
aluminium alloys — Weldability, welding
and testing.
Revised Standard Approved
by ANSI
D1.1/D1.1M:2020, Structural Weld-
54 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020
AWS Director at Large Honored for 40 Years of Volunteer Service
The American Welding Society (AWS) Standards Development Department pre-
sented Richard Holdren (center) with an award for his 40 years of service as an
AWS Standards Committee volunteer.
ing Code — Steel. Approval Date:
12/9/2019.
Addendum
Standard: AWS A4.3:1993
Purpose: Addition of “Standard Hot
Carrier Gas Extraction Method”
Detail: This addendum adds a third
standard method of analysis and
should be used in the same context as
the two other standard methods of
analysis prescribed in Clauses 7 and 8.
For more information, visit
https://s3.amazonaws.com/tech-
www.aws.org/amend-addenda/A4.3-
1993-ADD1.pdf.
AWS C7.2M Interpretation
Subject: Use of a laser for limited
penetration, or a partial-depth cut
used for surface marking of materials
Code Edition: C7.2M:2010
Code Provision: Subclause 9.2.1 (1)
and (9)
AWS Log: C7.2-10-I01
Inquiry: (1) Can “blind” or partial-cut
identification numbers and/or the
marking of an outline for locating a
component be considered as equiva-
lent to “decorative patterns” in some
materials?
(2) If so, is it then considered as
acceptable to use it for precision com-
puterized layout and marking of com-
ponent locations for fabrication
purposes?
(3) Because laser beam cutting is
considered a low-heat-input process,
wouldn’t the limited depth or partial
depth cut ultimately be considered as
an even further reduced heat input
condition, making the heat-affected
zone a nonissue?
Response: (1) These questions are
not covered by the scope of this docu-
ment. Nothing in this document su-
persedes the end-user or customer-
supplied specification.
Taken from the following foreword
in C7.2:
“It should be noted that the operat-
ing and processing parameters given
in the Standard may not be the only
parameter combinations that can be
employed for successfully processing
the materials and thicknesses shown.
Changes in material chemistry, dimen-
sional tolerances, laser beam charac-
teristics, machine calibration, and oth-
er factors can produce different re-
sults. Therefore, the procedures pre-
sented here are simply meant to pro-
vide a setup and design guide to help
users to organize and learn the process
of developing and refining a particular
application.”
AWS Member Counts
January 1, 2020
Sustaining.................................597
Supporting ...............................361
Educational...............................835
Affiliate.....................................622
Welding Distributor ...................65
Total Corporate ........................2480
Individual ...........................57,077
Student + Transitional ...........11,234
Total Members .......................68,311
 SOCIETY NEWS
MEMBERSHIP ACTIVITIES

New AWS Supporters Sustaining Members received 5 points for each Individual
Member and 1 point for every Student
Greybeard Steel Member they recruited.
Affiliate Corporate Members 4080 W. Grange Ave. For more information, please see
Post Falls, ID 83854 page 65 of this Welding Journal or call
Anderson Bryant LLC the AWS Membership Dept. at (800)
333 Cardinal Lane RTW Stainless Contractors 443-9353, ext. 480.
Abilene, TX 79602 1813 Willow Hill Dr. V. Craven, Pascagoula — 420
Harrisonburg, VA 22801 M. Krupnicki, Rochester — 89
J. T. Mfg. J. W. Morris, Mobile — 75
60b Pulpit Rock Rd. Terex Aerial Work Platforms — A. D. Dillon, Detroit — 70
Pelham, NH 03076 Genie Industries D. S. Beecher, San Diego — 54
6464 185 Ave. NE Bldg. 33 B. William, West Michigan — 51
Precision Fabricated Components Redmond, WA 98052 L. A. Liles, Greater Huntsville — 47
840 Second St. D. P. Thompson, Southwest
Orange City, FL 32763 Western Allied Mechanical Virginia — 46
1180 O’Brian Dr. T. W. Zablocki, Pittsburgh — 45
Quality Testing & Inspection Menlo Park, CA 94025 B. A. Cheatham, Columbia — 45
Services J. J. Russell, Fox Valley — 44
No. 32 First St., Union Hall Settlement D. Perkins, Pascagoula — 40
Duncan Village, San Fernando Educational Institution D. A. Saunders, Lakeshore — 40
Trinidad and Tobago G. T. Rolla, Los Angeles/Inland
Members Empire — 39
ReadyFab Steel Works W. H. Wilson, New Orleans — 39
Center Point ISD
16004 Kitzman Rd. J. Napier, Cleveland — 38
P.O. Box 377
Cypress, TX 77429 C. A. Donnell, Northwest Ohio — 30
Center Point, TX 78010
B. Newcomb, Madison-Beloit — 30
Serch Ltda. H. A. Browne, New Jersey — 29
Commercial Diving Technologies
Av. David Perry 0531 M. A. Centeno, Nevada — 28
Institute
Temuco 1770 D. E. Newman, Ozark — 28
17212 U.S. 19
Araucania 4780869 Chile C. A. Galbavy, Idaho/Montana — 28
Hudson, FL 34667
H. H. Hughes, Mahoning Valley — 25
Slater Steel Welding Inc. X. Rios, El Paso — 25
Delaware County Technical School
9359 Lamar St. M. Ball, Canada — 25
200 Yale Ave.
Spring Valley, CA 91977 M. D. Box, Pascagoula —24
Morton, PA 19070
B. P. Brandmeir, Lehigh Valley — 22
Southern Machine Works Inc. O. N. Boylan, Cleveland — 21
Mineola Independent School Dist.
P.O. Box 1226 T. N. Jumper, St. Louis — 21
1695 W. Loop 564
Duncan, OK 73534 S. H. Slagle, Cleveland — 20
Mineola, TX 75773
S. P. Siviski, Maine — 19
United Equipment Service LLC O. Ortiz, Los Angeles/Inland
SBCS Global Learning Institute Ltd.
3879 Old Sylacauga Hwy. Empire — 18
53-54 Sagan Dr.
Sylacauga, AL 35150 R. K. McClure, Los Angeles/Inland
Champs Fleurs, Trinidad and Tabago
Empire — 17
Wegmann USA J. P. Theberge, Boston — 17
Wortham Independent School Dist.
30 Millrace Dr. E. R. Cooper, Indiana — 17
P.O. Box 247
Lynchburg, VA 24502 R. Fugate, Drake Well — 16
Wortham, TX 76693
W. S. Winchester, Mid-Plains — 16
R. L. Richwine, Indiana — 15
J. C. Durbin, Tri-River — 15
Supporting Company 2019 Membership Challenge C. Consentino, Pittsburgh — 14
Members V. O. Harthun, Northern Plains — 14
Listed here are the members who C. D. Spitzer, Tri-State — 13
Ampco Metal Inc. participated in the 2019 Membership D. R. Jacobs, Mahoning Valley — 12
1221 Grandview Pkwy. Challenge — point standings as of G. J. Smith, Lehigh Valley — 12
Ste. 100 Nov. 19, 2019. The campaign ran from M. D. Stein, Detroit — 11
Sturtevant, WI 53177 Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 2019. Members D. L. McCart, Indiana — 11

FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 55

SOCIETY NEWS
AWS Employees Commemorated for 40 Years of Service
Celebrating 40 years of dedicated service to AWS are Julio Borges (left), senior ship-
ping and fulfillment specialist, and Sharon Campbell (right), receptionist. Also pic-
tured is Ray Shook, AWS interim executive director.
AWS D14 Committee Members Meet in Chicago
Members of the American Welding Society (AWS) D14 Commit-
tee on Machinery and Equipment posed for a group photo dur-
ing their meeting held November 12 and 13, 2019, at the
FABTECH show in Chicago, Ill.
Nominate AWS Members to be Profiled
The Welding Journal is celebrating the diversity of its
membership by profiling AWS members each month in its
Society News section. John Chen and Zack Sanders are pro-
filed on the next pages.
To nominate an AWS member, submit a short statement
56 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020
On December 18, 2019, the Ameri-
can Welding Society (AWS) honored
Julio Borges and Sharon Campbell for
their 40 years of dedicated service.
They were each presented with a cer-
tificate of appreciation and enjoyed
a buffet breakfast alongside their
colleagues.
Borges has worn many hats for
AWS since he first came on board in
1979. Beginning in the print shop, his
role has evolved to shipping supervi-
sor, shipping and receiving supervisor,
mailroom supervisor, senior coordina-
tor of shipping and receiving, and
manager of shipping and receiving. He
is currently AWS’s senior shipping and
fulfillment specialist.
Campbell’s employment trajectory
also started in 1979. In her four
decades at AWS, she has served as an
accounting clerk, secretary, standards
coordinator, technical coordinator, ed-
ucation services coordinator, and
SENSE and office coordinator. She is
currently AWS’s receptionist.
The AWS D14 Committee on Machinery and Equipment also
held a service pin presentation during their FABTECH meeting.
Pictured (from left) are Rob Larsen, James Slipke, and Joe
Campbell receiving their ten-year service pins.
about what makes the nominee a noteworthy member,
along with the nominee’s contact information, to Katie
Pacheco, kpacheco@aws.org.
Visit aws.org/about/page/diversity-inclusion to see
member profiles from previous issues.

AWS Member Profile
John Chen
John Chen inherited his interest
in science and engineering from his
father.
“Being a scientist has always been
my dream since I was a child,” he re-
called. “I grew up watching my dad
work. He was quite a hands-on person,
as well as being intelligent. He built a
welding machine by himself, starting
with raw materials such as cable wires
and an iron core from a transformer.”
When it was time to go to college,
Chen knew the career path he wanted
to take. Securing a spot at Xi’an Jiao-
tong University in China, he earned a
bachelor’s in mechanical engineering
in 1995 and a PhD in materials science
and engineering in 1999. Chen consid-
ers himself lucky that he was able to
attend such a prestigious school.
“Back at that time in China, most
students could not choose which col-
lege or university they went to. It was
‘assigned.’ I was fortunate to be able to
get into a pretty good engineering
school,” he said.
Looking to further expand his
knowledge, Chen joined the welding
engineering program at The Ohio
State University as a visiting scholar.
In 2005, he attained his second PhD in
welding engineering.
“I always knew this was one of the
best welding engineering programs
out there. Considering my potential
SOCIETY NEWS
career path, I thought I needed some-
thing to prove to people my capabilities
because I was never one of the more
talented people who was naturally in-
telligent,” he explained. “My first PhD
was in ultrasonic testing, focusing on
the procedure side of inspection. So I
chose a direction that is focused a little
bit more on the instrumentation side.
My second PhD was on the monitoring
of welding processes.”
Today, Chen is an American Weld-
ing Society (AWS) Certified Welding
Inspector and an ASNT nondestructive
testing level III in electromagnetic,
magnetic particle, liquid penetrant, ra-
diographic, and ultrasonic testing. For
nine years, he was a materials engi-
neer at Schlumberger, an oil field serv-
ices provider in Houston, Tex., reaching
the principal level in 2018. The part of
the company he worked in was recent-
ly purchased by Wellbore Integrity So-
lutions, an oil field equipment supplier
in Harris, Tex. Chen’s work entails de-
veloping procedures, training person-
nel, and validating technologies for oil
field material engineering challenges,
including nondestructive examination,
welding, brazing, coating, heat treat-
ing, and materials selection. He has
performed hands-on inspection tasks
in refineries and chemical plants with
alternating current field measurement,
pulsed eddy current, and a range of
ultrasonic techniques from thickness
gauging to high-temperature hydrogen
attack assessment.
What Chen enjoys most about his
job is the ability to help others accom-
plish their tasks. Despite his many
years of experience, he stresses that
there will always be more for him to
learn.
“The most rewarding part of my job
at Schlumberger was I was able to help
people out with their day-to-day work
by rendering an immediate solution to
their tasks at hand,” he affirmed. “This
did not happen immediately after I
started the job. It took several years of
on-the-job learning and training to get
there. Of course, just like anybody
else, I am still in the learning mode; I
learn something new and realize many
more things I didn’t know every day.”
His career has given him the oppor-
tunity to work on many diverse proj-
ects. He cites brazing tungsten carbide
FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 57
with steel for a downhole steel casing
milling tool as the most interesting
project he has ever worked on, partly
because it involved both brazing and
inspection of the brazed joint.
A member of the American Welding
Society (AWS) since 2002, Chen has
served the Society in many capacities,
taking on various roles in committees,
including the B1 Committee on Meth-
ods of Inspection, and in the Greater
Houston Section, where he has served
several years as the director, then 2nd
vice chair, and 1st vice chair. He is cur-
rently the Section’s chair and a princi-
pal reviewer for the Welding Journal.
His dedication to the Society has gar-
nered him three Section Meritorious
Awards.
Additionally, he has dedicated
many years of service to the American
Society for Nondestructive Testing
(ASNT), earning him the ASNT Fellow
Award in 2016 and the Greater Hous-
ton Section’s Jerry Fulin Technician of
the Year — Level III Award. He has
served as the technical editor of Mate-
rials Evaluation, associate member of
the Certification Management Coun-
cil, member and chair of various com-
mittees, conference session chair, and
many other roles. He has also reviewed
eight books for the organization.
His volunteer work extends to guid-
ing children. He has acted as a volun-
teer judge several times for student
engineering projects at the Science
and Engineering Fair of Houston; he
has coached several youth sports
teams in basketball and soccer at the
local YMCA; and he volunteers at the
local Katy Independent School Dis-
trict. Chen views his volunteer work as
an opportunity to give back.
“I believe many people do volunteer
work. It is just my volunteer time has
been spent with AWS and other sci-
ence and engineering organizations,
such as ASNT and Houston Science
and Engineering Fair,” he said. “I re-
ceived a lot of guidance from many
mentors along the way. Volunteering
with AWS allows me to come into con-
tact with others who might be in need
of suggestions or comments.”
A prolific writer, Chen has pub-
lished 29 journal papers and delivered
multiple technical presentations and
speeches at conferences.
SOCIETY NEWS
AWS Member Profile
Zack Sanders
Giving validity to the old proverb
“like father, like son,” Zack Sanders
learned how to weld from his father,
who is a welder. Using his grandfa-
ther’s old welding machine, he wielded
his first torch at the age of nine and
has not stopped since.
“I was pretty hooked after that,” he
said. “Being able to build amazing
things, super-hot molten metal, a cool
helmet that makes you feel like Darth
Vader, all added to my excitement! Lit-
tle did I know at the time that welding
can also lead to an amazing career and
being able to support my family.”
Throughout his formative years,
Sanders continued to hone his craft,
and by high school, he was convinced a
successful career in welding was in
store for him.
“I took every welding class that I
could in junior high and high school,”
he recollected. “I knew I wanted to
have a career in welding. In fact, in my
high school senior yearbook, I was
quoted saying that I wanted to be a
welding engineer!”
Sanders also started to earn an in-
come from his welding skills as a high
schooler by taking on different jobs
throughout his community.
“These jobs varied from aluminum
sprinkler pipe, to metal bars for a
pawn shop’s windows, to making met-
al roses and selling them at Valentine’s
Day,” he said.
After high school, Sanders started
working as a welder and machine oper-
ator at Loosli Farms, Ashton, Idaho,
58 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020
where he welded corral gates.
“This is where I feel I gained the
most hands-on welding experience. For
about 12 months, I was outside in the
heat of summer and the cold of winter
welding corrals. These corrals were
5.5-ft tall and made from 3- and 2.5-
in.-diameter oil drill pipe. I was using
mostly 6010 electrodes,” he explained.
“This was an amazing experience for
many reasons, including being in
charge at times of a small crew of
workers.”
In 2015, Sanders enrolled in
Brigham Young University-Idaho,
where he attained a bachelor’s in weld-
ing engineering technology. During
this time, Sanders served as vice chair-
man of the university’s American
Welding Society (AWS) Student Chap-
ter, which he helped grow.
“A few AWS members and I thought
we could help other students get more
opportunities with internships and ca-
reers if we could help them get more
real welding engineering experience,”
he recalled. “So, we decided to start
doing AWS projects.”
Sanders also completed three weld-
ing engineering internships with
Caterpillar Inc., one in Wisconsin and
two in Illinois. After graduation,
Sanders joined the Caterpillar team as
a senior associate welding engineer,
where he provides welding engineering
support to facilities across the globe.
“My day-to-day varies quite a bit,
which is one of the reasons I like it so
much. One week I am in Mexico or Ger-
many helping a facility improve their
weld quality, and the next I am working
on a research project involving robotics.
The next day I might be in a meeting
with several design engineers, helping
them with things like manufacturabili-
ty with welding in mind,” he explained.
There are a multitude of things
Sanders appreciates about his job, in-
cluding the variety it offers him and
the ability to make a difference. Being
both a welder and an engineer, he also
relishes the knowledge that he can
help facilitate communication between
welders and engineers.
“I enjoy not knowing what kind of
issues and problems I am going to
have to solve in a given day. I also real-
ly enjoy having the opportunity to
make an impact. The decisions that I
am a part of making have influence on
our facilities around the world and, in
turn, our customers around the
world,” he said. “Lastly, I enjoy being a
liaison between different types of en-
gineers and welders on the shop floor.
My father was a welder and rarely had
anything good to say about engineers.
Many welders feel that engineers
make their lives more difficult than is
necessary. I enjoy helping other engi-
neers understand the needs of the
welder and vice versa.”
Adding to his tool belt of expertise,
in 2019, Sanders became an AWS Cer-
tified Welding Inspector (CWI).
“Becoming a CWI has been some-
thing I have wanted to do for a long
time. With the current position I hold,
I have to make decisions in which be-
ing a CWI helps add credibility and
gain trust. It is similar to why I put
such an emphasis on learning and un-
derstanding different welding codes
and specs. Having a welding code to
back up your position during discus-
sions adds authority to your argu-
ment. I look at becoming a CWI simi-
larly,” he said.
Looking to the future, Sanders plans
to change misconceptions about weld-
ing, thus attracting younger genera-
tions to the industry.
“People who have spent time in the
welding industry are aware of the mas-
sive shortage of new skilled welders. I
plan to make a large part of my career
trying to get rid of negative stereotypes
many people have, especially young
people, about welding,” he affirmed.
He also hopes to unite welders and
engineers so they see each other as
partners, not adversaries.
“I also feel that one of the best ways
to get people more involved and also
improve welding quality is education on
some of the science and engineering in-
volved with welding, or ‘the why.’ Often
welders are told what they need to do,
but are not told why. On the flip side,
engineers don’t always have welders in
mind when they are making decisions,”
he said. “Helping them both to under-
stand why we do things reduces frustra-
tion between engineers and welders
and also improves quality and work en-
vironment. Helping bridge these gaps is
something that I hope to accomplish
professionally.”
BY CINDY WEIHL — cweihl@aws.org
CWEIHL@AWS.ORG
District 1
Douglas A. Desrochers, director
(508) 763-8011
dadaws@comcast.net
CONNECTICUT
November 19
Location: Elks Club, Groton, Conn.
Summary: The Section held a joint
meeting with the ASNT Connecticut
Yankee Section. Guest Speaker Richard
Hoffman spoke on the subject of the
Apollo lunar excursion module used to
transport astronauts to the surface of
the moon 50 years ago.
GREEN & WHITE MOUNTAINS
September 12
Location: Tunbridge World’s Fair,
Tunbridge, Vt.
Summary: Members of the Section as
well as from Vermont, New Hamp-
shire, Massachusetts, and Rhode Is-
land created and staffed the “AWS
Welding Info Booth” for the second
year in a row during the 147th Tun-
bridge World’s Fair. More than 35,000
people attended the four-day agricul-
tural fair. The booth was aimed at edu-
SECTION NEWS
cating the public on the American Henderson II for supplying the tent.
Welding Society and its mission. One The booth was awarded 3rd place for
side of the booth included AWS info, best concession booth.
weld samples, test pieces, code books,
and a Lincoln Electric virtual welding
simulator. The other side presented
District 2
live welding/cutting demonstrations. Harland Thompson, director
The Section is grateful to all its dedi- (631) 546-2903
cated members who spent countless harland.w.thompson@ul.com
hours staffing the booth. It is especial-
ly thankful to Burt Riendeau from Air- LONG ISLAND
gas who supplied the virtual reality December 4
welding machine; Jim Blanchard from Location: SONOTEC, Islandia, N.Y.
Northland Jobs Corps for donating Summary: The Section held a joint
plasma cut outs as prizes; Geoff Put- holiday meeting with the local ASNT
nam for supplying the equipment chapter. Held at the SONOTEC Is-
trailer, welding equipment, code landia facility, the event included a
books, and a bend tester; and Ray holiday raffle.
CONNECTICUT — Seen at the Section’s joint meeting with the Connecticut Yankee
Section of ASNT are (from left) Rachel Taylor, Richard Hoffman, and Albert Moore.

GREEN & WHITE MOUNTAINS — A fam-

ily checked out the virtual reality weld-
ing machine inside the AWS booth at GREEN & WHITE MOUNTAINS — Section members volunteered their time at the AWS
the 147th Tunbridge World’s Fair. booth during the 147th Tunbridge World’s Fair.

LONG ISLAND — Section members celebrated the holiday season as guests of the NY/NJ ASNT Section.

FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 59

SECTION NEWS
board members gathered to discuss and how it has adapted to laser and
District 3 changes and preparation tips for the electron beam welding.
Sean Moran, director AWS Certified Welding Inspector
(717) 885-5039 exam. Presenters Robert Trudelle and NORTHERN NEW YORK
sean.moran@ahydro.com Tom Flynn gave suggestions and December 10
shared links to help members prepare Location: Aggressive Metalworks,
for the exam. Central Bridge, N.Y.
District 4 Presenter: Mike Cataldo, owner,
Mr. Lynn Showalter, director Aggressive Metalworks
Summary: Section members and 13
(757) 848-8029
lynneshowalter@gmail.com
District 6
Ronald Stahura, director
TRIANGLE (716) 207-7869
October 24 rstahura@esab.com
Location: The Innovation Center,
Sanford, N.C. NIAGARA FRONTIER
Summary: The Section’s October November 21
meeting focused on a stainless steel Location: Buffalo Manufacturing
presentation by Damian Kotecki. Fol- Works, Buffalo, N.Y. NIAGARA FRONTIER — Section Chair
lowing the presentation, members Summary: Members toured Buffalo Kevin DeVault (center) presented an
toured the Innovation Center shop. Manufacturing Works. Additionally, award to Michelle Bulan and Alex Kitt
Alex Kitt from EWI gave a special pres- from EWI.
entation on additive manufacturing

District 5
Howard Record, director
(352) 816-0835
howard@rtdtools.com

ATLANTA
November 21
Location: Mechanical Trades Institute, NIAGARA FRONTIER — Meeting attendees posed during the Buffalo Manufacturing
Atlanta, Ga. Works facility tour.
Summary: The Section’s executive

TRIANGLE — Guest Speaker Damian Kotecki (third from right) posed with members during a facility tour of The Innovation Center.

ATLANTA — Section members are seen at the Mechanical Trades Institute.

60 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020

 SECTION NEWS
students attended a live blacksmithing COLUMBUS group at The Ohio State University
demonstration at Aggressive Metal- December 2 dedicated to aiding sponsoring indus-
works. Attendees witnessed one of the Location: The Ohio State University, tries and government agencies by en-
oldest known forms of metalworking Columbus, Ohio hancing gear and power transmission
and how it has evolved while still stay- Presenter: Ahmet Kahraman, director, technology through fundamental and
ing true to its past. Raffle tickets for a GearLab applied research and transfer research
new Lincoln Electric welding helmet Summary: Section members joined results providing graduate and under-
were sold to benefit the newly estab- with other organizations from the graduate students with applied educa-
lished Robert J. Christoffel scholarship Columbus Technical Societies to tour tional and research opportunities in
fund. The Gear and Power Transmission Re- gear and power transmission related
search Laboratory, formerly the Gear disciplines, and keeping sponsors up-
ROCHESTER Dynamics and Gear and Power Trans- dated on latest gear and transmission
November 20 mission Laboratory. It is a research technologies.
Location: Optimation Technology Inc.,
Rochester, N.Y.
Summary: Members went on a plant
tour at Optimation Technology Inc.
The company provides mechanical and
process engineering and design, au-
tomation, and systems integration,
and skilled trades fabrication for a va-
riety of industries. Members are ap-
preciative to Jack Burke, vice presi-
dent, and Jennifer Palumbo, director
of marketing.

District 7
Larry Heckendorn, director
(614) 292-1220 COLUMBUS — Guest Speaker Ahmet Kahraman (burgandy sweater) spoke to members
about the equipment and testing in the GearLab.
heckendorn.4@osu.edu

NORTHERN NEW YORK — Attendees of the Section’s December meeting at Aggressive Metalworks gathered for a photo.

ROCHESTER — Members are seen during the Optimation Technology Inc. tour.

FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 61

SECTION NEWS
PITTSBURGH
November 12
Location: Bado’s Pizza Grill & Ale
House, Mt. Lebanon, Pa.
Presenter: Ed Capozzi, account manag-
er, TEAM Industrial Services
Summary: Capozzi spoke to members
about hot tapping and line stops.
The technique is used during the
installation of branch connections to
a system without interrupting the
flow of product and is commonly
used in the oil and gas as well steel
and food processing industries. Bag
and line stops used to stop the flow of
product in a section of the line to
allow for repairs or replacement of
line section were also shown. The
PITTSBURGH — Section members are seen at their November meeting.
CHATTANOOGA — Members enjoyed dinner at STIR Chattanooga.
62 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020
process of fitting manufacturing was tanooga and the surrounding commu-
also presented. nity through the creation, education,
and celebration of science, technology,
engineering, art, and manufacturing
District 8 based learning for children. Addition-
aly, membership awards were given
James Thompson, director
(256) 347-6481
jim.thompson@wallacestate.edu
CHATTANOOGA
November 20
Location: STIR, Chattanooga, Tenn.
Summary: During a dinner at STIR
Chattanooga, Kate Warren, founder
and executive director of Art 120, gave PITTSBURGH — Section Chair Ray
a presentation about the nonprofit or- Knobbs (right) presented a speaker
ganization aimed at enriching Chat- certificate to Ed Capozzi.

out during the meeting. Awards were
presented to Alex Hockman, Section
Meritorious; Garth Land, CWI of the
Year; and C&C Oxygen, Section
Meritorious.
NASHVILLE
November 21
Location: TCAT Smyrna/Nissan Train-
ing Facility, Smyrna, Tenn.
Presenter: Joy Rich, director of experi-
ential learning, Tennessee Board of
Regents
Summary: The Section’s Annual Stu-
dent Night was a huge success due in
part to Rich’s presentation about her
passion and goals for SkillsUSA. She
also introduced attendees to the
SkillsUSA state officers. There seemed
to be a consensus that the Nashville
Section along with other Sections
across the state would be supporting
SkillsUSA with greater participation of
SECTION NEWS
resources. After the presentation, at-
tendees enjoyed a Whitt’s Barbecue
dinner, fellowship, and giveaways. The
Section is appreciative to Holston Gas-
es and Wire Wizard (member Heath
Jackson) for donating prizes. The Sec-
tion is also grateful to Marshall Brown
and the team at TCAT Smyrna for the
hospitality in hosting the event.
December 12
Location: Logan’s Roadhouse, Mount
Juliet, Tenn.
Summary: After Marion Brown asked
for a blessing on the food and the
night, 16 Section members and guests
enjoyed a Dutch-treat dinner in The
Garage at Logan’s Roadhouse. Atten-
dees discussed a little business after
dinner, but mostly enjoyed the gifts
they received in the giveaway through
a drawing. All ladies in attendance left
with a gift bag of goodies. Past Section
Chair David Porter, of TCAT
Hartsville, presented special gifts to
Bob O’Neal for his many years of serv-
ing the Section and to Curtis Duncan
for his hard work and dedication as
current Section chair. The Section is
appreciative to Curtis Duncan, David
Porter, and Heath Jackson for their
gift donations for the giveaways.
District 9
Michael Skiles, director
(337) 501-0304
michaelskiles@cox.net
AUBURN-OPELIKA
November 6
Location: Wilmore Lab, Auburn Uni-
versity, Auburn, Ala.
Summary: Guest Speaker Reese Rush-
ton gave an overview of the LECO cor-

NASHVILLE — Guest Speaker Joy Rich (far right) is seen with the SkillsUSA Tennessee committee.

NASHVILLE — Student attendees are seen at the Section’s November meeting.

NASHVILLE — Seen are (from left) Cur-

tis Duncan, David Porter, and Bob AUBURN-OPELIKA — Meeting participants are seen with Guest Speaker Reese
O’Neal. Rushton.

FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 63

SECTION NEWS
poration and branch companies dis-
tributed in different countries, as well
as products sold to different countries,
including tensile and hardness testing
equipment. After the presentation, a
demonstration about the mobile lab
bus was given. The testing equipment
included a carbon/sulfur determina-
tion system for ferrous and nonfer-
rous alloys, microhardness tests, and
an automatic polisher.
BATON ROUGE
November 21
Location: Mistras, Geismar, La.
Summary: George Fairbanks called the
November meeting to order and there
CENTRAL LOUISIANA — Deston Garon
(far left) was presented a check for
$1000 for ASH High School’s welding
program. Pictured with Garon (from left)
are Tom Malo, Misty Slayter, Don
Sanders, and Lisa Doney.
BATON ROUGE — Guest Speaker T. J. Hoyt (far right) is seen with November meeting attendees.
MOBILE — Attendees of the GE Renewables plant tour gathered for a group photo.
64 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020
was a round-table introduction of all
present. The scheduled speaker,
Jimmy Quaid, was unable to attend so
Fairbanks introduced T. J. Hoyt and Dan
Fridge who stepped in to give a presen-
tation. Hoyt spoke on advanced corro-
sion under insulation inspections using
automated radiographic testing crawlers
that can inspect 4 to 60 in. of pipe with-
out removing insulation. The process
can eliminate unnecessary removal of
insulation and can focus only on prob-
lem corrosive areas, which can save a
company man hours. Fridge gave an
overview of phased array flaw detection.
CENTRAL LOUISIANA
December 5
Location: Central Louisiana Technical
Community College (CLTCC), Alexan-
dria, La.
Summary: The Section sponsored 47
high school students from 13 high
schools for a welding competition
hosted by CLTCC’s Alexandria River-
side Campus. Students competed in
three divisions — beginner, advanced,
and winner takes all. Prizes were
awarded for the first three top spots in
each division with the first-place win-
ner in the “Winner Take All” category
receiving $1000 for their high school’s
welding program. The participants
ranged from grades 9 to 12 and had a
very spirited competition.
MOBILE
November 21
Location: GE Renewables, Pensacola,
Fla.
Presenter: Matt Harold, facilities engi-
neer, GE Renewables
Summary: Section Chair Jody
Heusman opened the meeting by wel-
coming all attendees. He provided a
brief reminder about upcoming meet-
ings and suggested everyone apply on-
line for the Section’s new Workforce
Development Grant. The Cutting
Board catered an excellent dinner for
all attendees. Harold gave a brief pres-
entation on the GE Renewables facility
and its products. Immediately follow-
ing the presentation, the group went
on a 45-min tour of the manufacturing
plant. Harold explained the current
process flow as well as advancements
the company has made over the years
to improve efficiency. Following the
tour, attendees regrouped for a ques-
tion-and-answer session regarding
what was seen during the tour. The
Section presented a speaker apprecia-
tion plaque to Harold at the conclu-
sion of the evening.
NEW ORLEANS
September 20
Location: Pellerin Milnor Corp.,
Kenner, La.
Summary: The Section held its nine-
American Welding Society®
MEMBERSHIP

SPPA
ARKING CONNEC
CTIONS –
2020 AW
WS MEMBERSHIPP CHALLENGE

What
h it is:
Be the spark
p that ignites
g s the people you know to
beecome AW
WS members, and get rewards.


Ho
ow it woorks:
Buuild up points throug hout the year for each
AWS
W Member you recr uit: 5 Points per Individual
Meembership and 1 Pointt per Student Membership.


What
W you get:
Grand Prize Winnner: $200 gift card
2nd Plaace: $100 gift card
3rd Plaace: $100 gift card
4th Plaace: $100 gift card
Alll other participants earnning 10 or more points will get
WS branded merchandisse based on points accrued
AW
thrroughout 2020.

The Fine Print: All AWS members in good standinng may participate and are eligiblle to receive rewards based on points accrued
Januarry 1 – December 31 31, 2020
2020. Paarticipant eligibillity is determined at the sole discre
retion of AWS program administrators. AWS staff
members and administrators of commercial / corrporate or educational packaagges that inccllude AWS memberships in the pricing
structure are not eligible to participate. Foor more innformation, visit aws.org/be-the-sppark
 8669 NW 36 ST. #130 | Miami, FL 33166-6672
American Welding Society®
MEMBERSHIP
T: 800.443.9353 | F: 305.443.5647 | aws.org Application for Membership
PRIMARY CONTACT INFORMATION (Please Print)
 Mr.  Ms.  Mrs.  Dr.
Last Name: First Name: M.I: Birthdate:

E-Mail: Mobile Phone: ( ) Secondary Phone: ( )  Home  Work

Company/School (if applicable):
Mailing Address:
City: State/Province: Zip/Postal Code: Country:
 Check here if you would prefer to not receive email updates on AWS programs, Member benefits, savings opportunities and events.
Technical Interests (Circle All That Apply)
A Ferrous Metals F High Energy Beam Processes L NDT R Automotive X Structures
B Aluminum G Arc Welding M Safety and Health S Machinery Y Other
C Nonferrous Metals Except H Brazing and Soldering N Bending and Shearing T Marine Z Automation
Aluminum I Resistance Welding O Roll Forming U Piping and Tubing 1 Robotics
D Advanced Materials/Intermetallics J Thermal Spray P Stamping and Punching V Pressure Vessels and Tanks 2 Computerization of Welding
E Ceramics K Cutting Q Aerospace W Sheet Metal

STUDENT MEMBERSHIP  New  Renewal, Member #:

 1 Year-Digital Welding Journal ........................................... $15  1 Year-Print and Digital Welding Journal............................. $85
 1 Year-Print and Digital Welding Journal (US, Canada, and Mexico) $35
(outside of US, Canada, and Mexico) $

INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP  New  Renewal, Member #:

Were you referred to AWS by an AWS Member?  Yes  No

Member’s Name: Member’s # (if known)
DOMESTIC (INCLUDES US, CANADA, AND MEXICO)
New Member
 Initiation Fee ...................................................................... $12  2 Year - Print and Digital Welding Journal ....................... $151
 1 Year - Print and Digital Welding Journal .......................... $88 $
Renewing Member
 1 Year - Print and Digital Welding Journal .......................... $88  2 Year - Print and Digital Welding Journal ........................ $163 $
INTERNATIONAL (OUTSIDE OF US, CANADA, OR MEXICO)
New Member
 Initiation Fee ...................................................................... $12  2 Year - Digital Welding Journal ....................................... $151
 1 Year - Digital Welding Journal ......................................... $88  2 Year - Print and Digital Welding Journal ........................ $251
 1 Year - Print and Digital Welding Journal ........................ $138 $

Renewing Member
 1 Year - Digital Welding Journal ......................................... $88  2 Year - Digital Welding Journal ....................................... $163
 1 Year - Print and Digital Welding Journal ........................ $138  2 Year - Print and Digital Welding Journal ........................ $263 $

NEW MEMBER OPTIONAL BOOK SELECTION (Not available to renewals. Choose ONE option ONLY.  Domestic .................... $35
Includes shipping & handling.) Visit aws.org/memberships/page/new-member-book-offer to view  International ............... $85 $
selections and write your choice here:
TOTAL $
Business (Circle ONE Letter Only)
A Contract Construction F Machinery Except Electric J Transport Equip. — Boats, Ships O Educational Services R Government (Federal, State, Local)
B Chemicals & Allied Products (Incl. Gas Welding) K Transport Equip. — Railroad (Univ., Libraries, Schools) S Other
C Petroleum & Coal Industries G Electrical Equipment, Supplies, L Utilities P Engineering & Architectural
Electrodes M Welding Distributors & Retail Trade Services (Including Assns.)
D Primary Metal Industries H Transport Equip. – Air, Aerospace N Misc. Repair Services Q Misc. Business Services
E Fabricated Metal Products I Transport Equip. — Automotive (Including Welding Shops) (Including Commercial Labs)
Job Classification (Circle ONE Letter Only)
01 President, Owner, Partner, 04 Purchasing 10 Architect Designer 08 Supervisor, Foreman 15 Educator
Officer 05 Engineer — Welding 12 Metallurgist 14 Technician 17 Librarian
02 Manager, Director, 20 Engineer — Design 13 Research & Development 09 Welder, Welding or Cutting 16 Student
Superintendent (Or Assistant) 21 Engineer — Manufacturing 22 Quality Control Operator 18 Customer Service
03 Sales 06 Engineer — Other 07 Inspector, Tester 11 Consultant 19 Other

PAYMENT INFORMATION
Payment can be made (in U.S. dollars) by check or money order (international), payable to the American Welding Society.
 Check  Money Order
 AMEX  Diners Club  MasterCard  Visa  Discover  Other Application Date:
Name on Card: CC#: / / /
Expiration Date (mm/yy): / CVV: Applicant Signature:

OFFICE USE ONLY Source Code: WJ Account #: Check #: Amount:

Date: AWS Staff:
Rev. 11/2019

year AWS Certified Welding Inspector
course at the Carpenters Training Cen-
ter in Metairie, La. Students from the
course were also treated to a plant tour
of the Pellerin Milnor Corp. manufac-
turing facility. The company manufac-
tures commercial and industrial laun-
dry equipment.
District 10
Mike Sherman, director
(216) 570-9348
mike@shermanswelding.com
SECTION NEWS
Summary: Section members along
with members of the Oil Region Stu-
dent Chapter attended a dinner and
tour at the Ellwood National Forge.
The company provided dinner and an
in-depth view of it products. Atten-
dees were then taken on a plant tour.
December 6
Location: Pittsburgh Technical Col-
lege, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Summary: Members of the Venango
Technology Center’s welding class par-
ticipated in the 39th Annual AWS Pitts-
burgh Section Weld Off. Each individ-
ual in the competition was required to
weld V grooves in both the uphill (3G)
and the overhead positions (4G). Once
their plates were welded they went
through visual inspection, and if they
passed they were sent to x-ray inspec-
tion. Normally the x-rays are not com-
pleted until February. Participants in-
cluded Charlie Nicholson, Tyler See,

DRAKE WELL/OIL REGION

STUDENT CHAPTER
November 14
Location: Ellwood National Forge,
Irvine, Pa.

MOBILE — Matt Harold (right) accepted
a plaque of appreciation from Section
Chair Jody Heusman.
NEW ORLEANS — Instructor and AWS Past President Ed Bohnart (fourth from left) is
seen with Certified Welding Inspectors who toured commercial laundry equipment
manufacturer Pellerin Milnor Corp. Led by Bruce A. Hallila (white shirt), past AWS district
director and welding manager of the company, the group is standing in front of a six-
module, continuous-batch washer.

DRAKE WELL/Oil Region Student Chapter — Members enjoyed a tour of Ellwood National Forge in Irvine, Pa.

DRAKE WELL/Oil Region Student Chapter — Charlie Nicholson, Tyler See, Emmett McDonald, Cole Harvey, and Dakota Urey partici-
pated in the AWS Pittsburgh Section’s 39th Annual Weld Off.

FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 67

SECTION NEWS
Emmett McDonald, Cole Harvey, and
Dakota Urey. All four students are
members of the AWS Oil Region Stu-
dent Chapter and were accompanied
to the competition by Drake Well Sec-
tion Chair Travis Crate and Secretary
Robert Fugate. The results and the
awards dinner will be held February 11
at the Steamfitters Technology Center
in Harmony, Pa.
District 11
Phillip Temple, director
(734) 546-4298
nwcllc_ptemple@att.net
November 21
District 12 Location: Milwaukee, Wis.
Dale Lange, director Summary: MATC Weld Club members
(715) 732-3645 were given a tour of Helgesen Indus-
dale.lange@nwtc.edu tries. Led by Senior HR Generalist
Brittany Klipps, attendees learned
MILWAUKEE/MILWAUKEE about the making of hydraulic tanks.
AREA TECHNICAL COLLEGE
STUDENT CHAPTER
November 1
Location: Super Steel, Milwaukee, Wis.
District 13
Summary: Milwaukee Area Technical Ronald Ashelford, director
College (MATC) Weld Club students
toured Super Steel’s Milwaukee plant.
(815) 218-8766
r.ashelford@rockvalleycollege.edu
The tour was led by HR Manager Tam-
my Frahm, Marketing Representative CHICAGO
Emily Hoefler, and Plant Manager November 6
Pat Nowak. Location: Primal Cut Steakhouse,
Tinley Park, Ill.
Summary: The Section’s board mem-
bers gathered to discuss old and new
business, the 2019 FABTECH show,
and upcoming meeting schedules.

November 13
Location: McCormick Place, Chicago,
Ill.
Summary: Member Marty Vondra re-
ceived the AWS Life Member Award
MILWAUKEE/MATC STUDENT CHAPTER — Members are seen outside of Super Steel from 2019 AWS President Thomas
Inc. following a facility tour. Lienert.

MILWAUKEE/MATC STUDENT CHAPTER — Section members posed for a photo while touring Helgesen Industries.

CHICAGO — Pictured at the Section’s November board meeting are (sitting, from left) CHICAGO — Marty Vondra (right) re-
Chair Cliff Iftimie, Anghelina Iftimie, Rita Vondra, Kim Tichelar, Vicky Darnell, and Cathy ceived his AWS Life Member Award
Hesseltine. Standing (from left) are Dave Viar, Jeff Darnell, Jeff Stanczak, Craig Tichelar, from 2019 AWS President Thomas
Marty Vondra, and John Hesseltine. Lienert.

68 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020

 SECTION NEWS
of Melvin Price Locks and Dam. The
District 14 construction of the dam constituted District 15
Tony Brosio, director the first replacement of an original in- Michael Hanson, director
(765) 215-7506 stallation of a nine-foot channel proj- (763) 221-5951
tbrosio@yahoo.com ect. The original Lock and Dam 26 was mikhan318@comcast.com
demolished in 1990 because it was
INDIANA plagued with structural deficiencies.
November 11, 12 Throughout the new dam’s design and
Location: McCormick Place, Chicago, construction, the Marine Corps en- District 16
Ill. gaged in an extensive program of com- Karl Fogleman, director
Summary: The Section conducted the puter-assisted design, testing, and eval- (402) 677-2490
2019 Welding Competition for AWS uation to create a structure that repre- fogleman3@cox.net
during the 2019 FABTECH show. In sents state-of-the-art river navigation
two days, 225 contestants competed control works. Members are apprecia-
for money and prizes. tive of Chris and Zach for the tour.

LEXINGTON
November 21
Location: American Welding & Gas
Inc., Lexington, Ky.
Presenter: Grant Baker, Miller Electric
Mfg. Co.
Summary: Baker spoke to Section
members about process improvements
for metal core wires.

ST. LOUIS
November 21
Location: East Alton, Ill.
Summary: Members were given a tour ST. LOUIS — Members are seen during their tour of the Melvin Price Locks and Dam.

INDIANA — Members of the Section ran the AWS Welding Competition at the 2019 FABTECH show. Seen (from left) are Tim Kinnaman,
Gary Tucker, Josiah Miller, Eric Cooper, Erin Fromson, Andy McKerrow, Gary Dugger, Gabby Bettegnies, Ladonna Dugger, Brian Gerkin,
Paige Stroup, Bennie Flynn, Pat Richwine, and Bob Richwine.

LEXINGTON — November meeting attendees are seen at American Welding & Gas Inc.

FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 69

SECTION NEWS
KANSAS
November 21
Location: Heartland Welding Academy,
Wichita, Kans.
Summary: The Section held its first
meeting of the 2019–2020 season at
the Heartland Weld Academy. Atten-
dees toured the facility and learned
about what it has to offer new welders
entering the field, and the experience
of the instructors.
District 17
J Jones, director
(832) 506-5986
KANSAS — Section members are seen during a tour of Heartland Welding Academy.
ALASKA — Members toured the Sheet Metal Workers Local Union Training Facility in Anchorage, Alaska.
70 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020
District 18
Thomas Holt, director
(409) 721-5777
tholt@techcorr.com
HOUSTON
October 25
Location: Houston, Tex.
Presenters: Mark Hinderliter, execu-
tive coach, Third Way Inc.; Mike Lang,
global director of corporate welding
services, Flour Corp.; Dennis Eck, AWS
vice president; and Frede Maxwell,
general manager of welding and ma-
chining, Westinghouse Electric Corp.
Summary: The Section hosted an educa-
tional seminar with presentations on
the topics of becoming a leader worth
following, welding economy, managing
generational differences, and evolution
in project management and welding
technology. The seminar was well at-
tended and the Section plans to host an-
other similar meeting in the spring.
District 19
Shawn McDaniel, director
(509) 793-5182
shawnm@bigbend.edu
ALASKA
November 14
Location: Sheet Metal Workers Local
Union Training Facility, Anchorage,
Alaska
Presenter: Bruce Bold, training coordi-
 SECTION NEWS
nator; and Randy Goldin, president/ COLORADO Presenters: Matt Maczuzack, chief de-
chairman December 12 sign officer; and Jeff Wager, lead
Summary: Members gathered to dis- Location: Alchemy Bicycles, Denver, welder
cuss student chapter involvement, Colo. Summary: Section members enjoyed a
AWS scholarships, Section direction/ presentation offering an overview of
viability, the treasury report, future bike building as well as a tour of Alche-
events and activities, and the Section’s my Bicycles.
hosting of the annual District 19 Con-
ference in the spring. Attendees also
enjoyed a tour of the Sheet Metal
Workers Local Union Training Facility District 21
and a presentation of sheet in the in- Sam Lindsey, director
dustry, forming, connections, and (858) 740-1917
welding processes. All attendees built a slindsey@sandiego.gov
metal hand tool tray to take home.

District 20 District 22
Robert Purvis, director
Denis Clark, director (916) 599-5561
(208) 357-6626
COLORADO — Section members purviswelds@gmail.com
denis.clark.51@gmail.com
learned about what goes into welding
and constructing a bicycle.

ALASKA — Meeting participants built their own hand tool trays.

COLORADO — Section members are seen during their tour of Alchemy Bicycles.

FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 71

 GUIDE TO AWS SERVICES
American Welding Society® Section News Editor Kevin Bulger..kbulger@aws.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(306)
8669 NW 36 St., #130 Cindy Weihl..cweihl@aws.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(256) Brazing and Soldering, Methods of Weld In-
Miami, FL 33166-6672 spection, High-Energy Beam Welding, Welding in
(800/305) 443-9353; Fax: (305) 443-7559 Inspection Trends Editor Marine Construction, Welding of Machinery and
Phone extensions are in parentheses. Carlos Guzman..cguzman@aws.org . . . . . . . . . .(348) Equipment

AWS PRESIDENT MEMBER SERVICES Jennifer Rosario.. jrosario@aws.org . . . . . . . . . .(308)

Robert W. Roth. . . . . . . .rroth@romanmfg.com
President and CEO, RoMan Manufacturing Inc.
SENIOR LEADERSHIP TEAM
Interim Executive Director
Ray Shook.. rshook@aws.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(207)
Dept. information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(480)
Director of Membership
Nici Banks...nbanks@aws.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(270)
Serves as a liaison between members and AWS
headquarters.
Oxyfuel Gas Welding and Cutting, Railroad
Welding, Thermal Spraying, Welding Iron Castings,
Welding Qualification
Welding Handbook Editor
Kathy Sinnes.. ksinnes@aws.org . . . . . . . . . . . .(255)

Chief Financial Officer/ Senior Manager, Volunteer Engagement and CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT
Chief Administrative Officer Support Customer Service...customerservice@aws.org . .(280)
Gesana Villegas.. gvillegas@aws.org . . . . . . . . . .(252) Darrill A. Gaschler.. dgaschler@aws.org . . . . . . .(260)
AWS FOUNDATION INC.
Senior Vice Presidents CERTIFICATION SERVICES aws.org/w/a/foundation
Cassie Burrell.. cburrell@aws.org . . . . . . . . . . . .(253) Dept. information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(273) General Information
Research, Strategy, and Membership (800/305) 443-9353, ext. 212, jdouglass@aws.org
Managing Director
John Gayler.. gayler@aws.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(472) Denny Smith.....dsmith@aws.org . . . . . . . . . . . .(263) Chairman, Board of Trustees
Welding & Technology William A. Rice.. brice@oki-bering.com
ACCREDITATION
Vice President Senior Manager Executive Director, Foundation
Annette Alonso.. aalonso@aws.org . . . . . . . . . . .(299) Emil Pagoaga..epagoaga@aws.org . . . . . . . . . . . .(448) Monica Pfarr.. mpfarr@aws.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(461)
Publishing & Education
EDUCATION & TRAINING Associate Director, Foundation Services
EXECUTIVE OFFICE Director John Douglass.. jdouglass@aws.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(212)
Associate Director Alicia Garcia..agarcia@aws.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(229)
Chelsea Steel.. csteel@aws.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(294)
CONFERENCES & EVENTS The AWS Foundation is a not-for-profit 501(c)(3)
Program Administrator, National Awards Director charitable organization established to provide support
Malisa Mercado.. mmercado@aws.org . . . . . . . .(293) CaLae Browne..cbrowne@aws.org . . . . . . . . . . . .(213) for the educational and scientific endeavors of the Amer-
ican Welding Society. Promote the Foundation’s work
HUMAN RESOURCES SALES & PUBLISHING with your financial support.
Associate Director Managing Director
Alex Diaz.. adiaz@aws.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(209) Michael Walsh...mwalsh@aws.org . . . . . . . . . . .(350)

GOVERNMENT LIAISON SERVICES Senior Sales Executive, Corporate

Hugh Webster .... hwebster@wc-b.com Sandra Jorgensen.....sjorgensen@aws.org . . . . .(254)
Webster, Chamberlain & Bean, Washington, D.C.
(202) 785-9500; Fax: (202) 835-0243 STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT
Monitors federal issues of importance to the Dept. information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(340)
industry.
Director — Standards Development
CONVENTION AND EXPOSITIONS Peter Portela.. pportela@aws.org . . . . . . . . . . . .(311)
Director, Expositions Technical Committee Activities, Additive
Matthew Rubin.....mrubin@aws.org . . . . . . . . . .(239) Manufacturing, High-Energy Beam Welding, Ro-
botics Welding, Welding in Sanitary Applications,
Senior Sales Executive, Expositions Structural Subcommittees on Bridge Welding and
Sarah Dickson.....sdickson@aws.org . . . . . . . . . .(297) Titanium

ITSA — INTERNATIONAL THERMAL Director — International Activities

SPRAY ASSOCIATION Andrew Davis.. adavis@aws.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(466)
Program Manager International Standards Activities, American
Alfred Nieves....anieves@aws.org . . . . . . . . . . . .(467) Council of the International Institute of Welding

RWMA — RESISTANCE WELDING MANUFACTUR- Program Managers

ING ALLIANCE Stephen Hedrick.. steveh@aws.org . . . . . . . . . . .(305)
Program Manager Metric Practice, Safety and Health, Joining of
Adrian Bustillo....abustillo@aws.org . . . . . . . . . .(295) Plastics and Composites, Personnel and Facilities
Qualification, Mechanical Testing of Welds, Weld-
WEMCO — ASSOCIATION OF WELDING ing in Sanitary Applications
MANUFACTURERS
Program Manager Stephen Borrero... sborrero@aws.org . . . . . . . . .(334)
Keila DeMoraes....kdemoraes@aws.org . . . . . . .(444) Definitions and Symbols, Structural Subcom-
mittees on Reinforcing Steel and Stainless Steel,
INFORMATION SYSTEMS Joining of Metals and Alloys, Piping and Tubing
Managing Director
John Perry .. jperry@aws.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(247) Rakesh Gupta.. gupta@aws.org . . . . . . . . . . . . .(301)
Filler Metals and Allied Materials, International
PUBLISHING & EDITORIAL Filler Metals, UNS Numbers Assignment, Computa-
Dept. information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(275) tional Weld Mechanics

Welding Journal Jennifer Molin.. jmolin@aws.org . . . . . . . . . . . .(304)

Publisher/Editor
Annette Alonso.. aalonso@aws.org . . . . . . . . . . .(238)
Society News Editor
Katie Pacheco.. kpacheco@aws.org . . . . . . . . . . .(275)
Structural Welding, Sheet Metal Welding
Mario Diaz..mdiaz@aws.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(310)
Automotive, Resistance Welding, Resistance
Welding Equipment, Welding and Brazing in Aero-
space, Friction Welding

72 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020



0/.-,+*)(,+)'&%%-($#-*")
! -)-/.(,)-%+.,$)&.-).,))-*(%.* -+) -) &,&/)&)0-%%&)&) -)&.-)&)/-&$,.-)
--/*)&/)+.*.,$#.* -+)&,/.#.&,*)&) -).-%+)&)-%+.,$)*.-,-)(,+)- ,&%&$)(,+)&/)
/&&.,$)(,+)
, *#*(.,.,$) -)/&--**.&,(%)*(#/-)&) -).-%+)%-.&,)(*)()0-%%&)&) -)&.-).*)
(*-+)&,)&#*(,+.
, ,$)(&%.* -,*)(,+) -)- ,.(%).()&)) -).,+.
.+#(%)# )
(&%.* -,*).%%) (
-)(+
(,-+) -)*.-,-)- ,&%&$)(,+)(%.(.&,)&))-%+.,$)/(.,$)&/)
*&%+-/.,$)(*)-
.+-,-+)")
)
•
#*(.,-+)*-/
.-)(,+)-/&/& (,-).,) -)(+
(,--,)&)-%+.,$)(,,+)&.,.,$)
*.-,-)(,+)- ,&%&$)
•
#%.(.&,)&)(-/*)(/.%-*)(,+)&&
*) . )-, (, , -)
,&%-+$-)&&)-%+.,$)(,+)
(%%.-+)/&-**-*)))
•
,,&
(.
-)+-
-%&-,)&)-%+.,$)(,+)(%%.-+)- ,&%&$.-*)
•
&.-)(,+)-.&,)&,/.#.&,*)
•
/&-**.&,(%)/-&$,..&,*)
)
)(,)&)-,&#/($-)&#)&)*#.),&.,(.&,)(
($-*)&/) &*-).,+.
.+#(%*) &)&#)--%) (
-)()
.*&/)&)(&%.* -,*)(,+)&,/.#.&,*)&)&#/)/&-**.&,)&,*.*-,). ) -)*(,+(/+ / * )* - )  )
 -)-.*.,$)
)
) ,)(/.#%(/) )&#%+)(
-)()*-.(%)/-#-*) ().,)&,*.+-/.,$)--/*)
&/),&.,(.&,)&#)%&&
)&) -)&*)*-,.&/)--/*)&)&#/)-.&,)&/).*/.) ,)(,)(*-*) -)
&%%-($#-*)(,+)--/*)&) -*-).,+.
.+#(%%*) &)(/-) -)&*)((.%.(/). ) -../)&,/.#.&,*)(,+) &)
&#%+),&/(%%),&.,(-) -)(,+.+(-)(/-),&)%&,$-/). )#*) )((,)&)-)*#/-) ()-)(
-) -)
-/()-&/)/-#./-+)&)-,*#/-) () &*-)/#%)&/ )(/-),&)&
-/%&&
-+)-(#*-),&)&
.&#*)
.,+.
.+#(%)(*)((
(.%(%-)&)*(/) -),&.,(.,$)/&-**))
)
0&/)*-..*)&,),&.,(.&,)/-#./--,*)%-(*-)&,()' -%*-()--%)()*--%( *&/$)())
-(+#(/-/*).,).(.)&/)*.%)&&%%&) -).,*/#.&,*)&,) -)0-%%&),&.,(.&,)&&/)%&(-+)()
(*&/$-%%&)%-(*-)/---/)-)(%%)-,-.).,) -) &,&/.,$)&) &*-) &) (
-)(+-)(&/)
&,/.#.&,*)&)&#/) &*-,)/&-**.&,)(,+)
, %.
-%. &&+)! -)+-(+%.,-)&/)*#.**.&,).*)#$#*))
)! -)0-%%&*)'&.--)%&&
*)&/(/+)&)/--.
.,$),#-/&#*)0-%%&),&.,(.&,*)&/))
&,*.+-/(.&,))
)
.,-/-%))
/)#+((/*(,(
, )
(#))
' (./))0-%%&*)'&.--)
PERSONNEL
FIRST® Names President
FIRST®, Manchester, N.H., a robot-
ics community that prepares young
people for the future, has hired
Lawrence Cohen as president. In his
role, he will work with the board of di-
rectors to advance the organization’s
strategic objectives, collaborating with
the senior management team to con-
tinue scaling FIRST programs to make
74 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020
hands-on learning opportunities avail-
able to more students around the
world, especially in underserved and
underrepresented communities. Cohen
has more than 30 years experience in
various leadership roles. He has served
in executive management capacities at
Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, and
UBS, and was most recently partner
and global head of operations and tech-
nology at AllianceBernstein (AB). Dur-
ing his 13 years at AB, he served as ex-
ecutive vice president, global head of
technology and chief technology offi-
cer, where he led strategic planning,
governance, and management of tech-
nology programs, business operations,
enterprise infrastructure, application
development, information security,
data management, client services, and
business continuity. Prior to that, he
served as an information technology
executive at several global financial
services firms.
Laboratory Testing Inc.
Appoints President
Brandon McVaugh has been pro-
moted president of Laboratory Testing
Inc. (LTI), Hatfield, Pa., a materials
testing and
metrology labora-
tory. McVaugh
succeeded his fa-
ther, Michael J.
McVaugh, who re-
tired from the po-
sition following 25
years of service.
McVaugh began
working part time
at the family-run
business while still
B. McVaugh
in high school and
college. He earned
a bachelor’s degree
in business from Delaware Valley Uni-
versity, and then took a position with
The Vanguard Group in Valley Forge,
Pa., for the next five years, where he
held various leadership positions in
operations. He returned to LTI in 2010
as the customer service supervisor. He
then spent five years managing the
mechanical testing department and
the Machine Shop and three years as
director of operations with responsi-
bility for overseeing all testing, ma-
chining, and calibration departments.
He also led the efforts to acquire the
FTA and TACTIC divisions.
Reed Adds Regional Manager
for Midwest U.S.
Reed Manufacturing, Erie, Pa., a
producer of fine tools for trades, has
welcomed Shannon Lessner as region-
al manager for the Midwest markets.
 She will serve key east, and regional he opened new
accounts, work manager, where he markets interna-
with manufactur- managed the sales tionally. He began
er’s representa- of welding alloys his career at Ho-
tives, and focus on and equipment bart Brothers Co.,
developing new from 1990 to Troy, Ohio, where
business in the 2002 in Florida, he worked as a
area. Before join- Georgia, and Ala- sales representa-
ing the company, bama. He moved tive for the south-
Lessner held vari- on to Uniweld east United States,
ous positions at Products as na- and later as assis-
Werner Co., Spec- tional/regional tant to the vice
S. Lessner T. McCormack R. E. Roediger
trum Brands, and sales manager un- president of sales.
Fiskars & Gerber. til his retirement He moved on to
She brings a back- in October 2019. TekTran, Newark,
ground in customer partnerships, rep He is currently a recruiting assistant Ohio, as general manager; then Arcair,
agency management, plus strategic vi- with the U.S. Department of Com- Lancaster, Ohio, as president. During
sion to drive sales and marketing pro- merce, Census Bureau. his time at TekTran and Arcair, he did
grams with the company’s distributor Additionally, McCormack served in business all over the world, including
network. the U.S. Navy where he was honorably Belgium, Brazil, the Middle East,
discharged. He is an American Welding Poland, the Soviet Union, China, and
Society (AWS) Life Member, joining in Japan. Afterwards, he went on to work
Dengensha America Hires 1980, and is serving as chairman of for Stoody Delorite Stello, St. Louis,
Sales Engineer the AWS District 5 board of directors. Mo., as executive vice president of
marketing. He was a Life Member of
Dengensha the American Welding Society, joining
America, Bedford, Obituary in 1955. Additionally, he served on the
Ohio, a resistance city council in Troy, Ohio, and as a
welding equip- Edgar Bryant Reed member of the Kiwanis, The Troy Ro-
ment provider, tary Club, the Troy Historical Society,
has added Shan- Edgar Bryant Reed passed away on and Troy Concern. Roediger is sur-
dell Monge as December 5, 2019. He was 79. Reed vived by his wife of 67 years, Marjorie
sales engineer in spent more than “Mitzie,” son, daughter, grandson, and
Atlanta, Ga. Mon- 60 years in the two brothers. WJ
ge will add prod- welding and weld-
uct application en- ing supplies indus-
gineering depth to try and was a Life
S. Monge the company’s Member of the
customer base in American Welding
the south. He will Society. He is sur-
work closely with Dengensha’s Japan- vived by his wife
ese service engineer in its recently Patricia “Patty”
opened Atlanta office. He has more Pebbles, three
than 18 years of practical work experi- sons, stepson,
ence as an applications engineer and E. B. Reed
stepdaughter, five
as a sales manager in the industrial grandchildren, five
electrical field. great grandchil-
dren, two sisters,
and many nieces and nephews. Memo-
rials may be presented in his name to Follow AWS on
National Sales Manager the Salvation Army or the American Social Media
Retires from Uniweld Heart Association.
Facebook: Find us at
Thomas McCormack has retired facebook.com/
from Uniweld Products Inc. after 17 Robert E. “Bob” Roediger americanweldingsociety.
years with the company. McCormack
began his welding career in 1970 as Robert E. “Bob” Roediger passed Instagram: Look at our photos
district manager with Hobart Brothers away on November 11, 2019, after a @americanweldingsociety.
in Vero Beach, Fla. He bought compa- long battle with cardio disease and
ny assets and inventory, and later cancer. He was 90. Roediger attended Twitter: Tweet us @AWSHQ.
opened Florida Welding Supply in the University of Cincinnati where he YouTube: Watch our videos at
1985. He sold his shares of the busi- received his bachelor’s degree in eco- youtube.com/awsorg.
ness in 1990, then went on to work for nomics. He was a retired marketing ex-
Techniweld as district manager, South- ecutive in the welding industry, where

FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 75

THE AMERICAN WELDER
Get to Know Your Abrasives Options
An overview on abrasives is provided to
optimize weld finishes
W
elders have an abundance of
abrasives to choose from to
finish welds. Being knowl-
edgeable about the abrasive options
available can be helpful when choosing
the right solution for the application
at hand. This article discusses the dif-
ferent families of abrasives, along with
their applications and considerations,
to help you get the best results.
Grinding Wheels
Bonded abrasive thin wheels, or
grinding wheels, are made up of two
main components: bond and abrasive.
The powder-like bond and abrasive are
Selecting the right type of abrasive for a particular job will lead to better results.
76 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020
mixed, pressed in a mold, and then
baked to make a rigid wheel. Changing
the quantity or type of bond or abra-
sive will affect the performance of the
grinding wheel. More bond will create
a harder wheel and improve life, while
less bond will lead to a softer wheel
and produce a freer cutting action in
the grind zone. Coarser grit abrasives
will improve cut rate and life, while
finer grit abrasives will produce a bet-
ter finish and require less pressure.
Fiber Discs
Fiber discs are a coated abrasive
made up of a thin backing material
BY PATRICK CARROLL
coated with two layers of a resin. Be-
tween these two layers of resin are the
abrasive grains, which are exposed and
visibly protruded from the disc. The
same principles apply here with coars-
er and finer grit abrasives as in grind-
ing wheels, but they have a more dra-
matic effect on the weld due to this
high exposure. Grain types are best
matched to the material being ground.
The backing plays a role in the cutting
action and life as well. A thicker and
more rigid backing will improve life
and cut rate, while a thinner and more
flexible backing will conform more to
the work and produce better finishes.
These guidelines also apply when
choosing a hard or soft backup pad.
 Fig. 1 — Smaller welds can be removed with smaller diame-
ter grinding wheels, fiber discs, or even some nonwoven Fig. 2 — Grinding wheels and coarser grit fiber discs are
discs. suitable for this heavy weld.

Flap Discs
Flap discs are versatile grinding and
finishing tools that have four main
components: abrasive flaps, flap density
(how the flaps are stacked), backing
plate shape (flat or conical), and backing
plate material (fiberglass or plastic). All
flap discs have flaps that are overlapped
and glued to the backing plate. The
flaps wear during use, exposing new
abrasive grain. The different variations
of the components above provide a
variety of application choices ranging
from heavy stock removal to blending to
finishing. Flap discs are designed for
portable grinder applications and can
be the preferred choice over depressed
center wheels or fiber discs.
Nonwoven Discs
Nonwoven abrasive discs are com-
posed of nylon, polyester, or other
fiber material where the abrasives are
bonded to the fiber material by a resin.
This random assortment of grain and
fiber gives the discs a compliant cut-
ting action as it conforms to the point
of contact more readily. The result is a
better surface finish or a lower surface
roughness average. Coarser grit non-
woven abrasives, while not as aggres-
sive as fiber discs, flap discs, or grind-
ing wheels, can still provide an aggres-
sive cut that may be sufficient for the
application.
Applications
Each of these abrasive product fam-
ilies has a place in the postprocessing
of a weld. Now that each has been de-
fined, the following highlights product
instances and application examples
where they would be most useful.
For bonded abrasive thin wheels
(grinding wheels),
• Use 5 in. diameter or larger grind-
ing wheels for welds larger than ½ in.
wide × ½ in. high to reduce the num-
ber of wheel changes needed;
• Use 5 in. diameter or smaller
grinding wheels for welds smaller than
½ in. wide × ½ in. high to reduce the
weight and improve ease of use for
smaller welds — Fig. 1;
• Frequent abrasive product changes
are not practical, such as when work-
ing in areas (e.g., scaffolding) that are
secluded or where there are limitations
on how many tools the welder can
bring;
• One wheel is needed to bevel and
notch, in addition to weld grinding;
• Grinding action is aggressive
(interior/exterior corner welds, etc.);
• Rigid wheels allow for control at
the point of contact to avoid grinding

S/C A/O
ABRASIVE
SHARPER, FINER/BRIGHTER SCRATCH PATTERN MORE DURABLE, LONGER LASTING, POLISHED FINISH

XC (24–36) C (50–80) M (100–150) F (180–220) VF (240–360)

GRIT SIZE
FASTER, AGGRESSIVE CUT, ROUGHER FINISH REDUCED CUT RATE, FINER FINISH

2 9
DENSITY
SOFT, OPEN, CONFORMABLE, LESS BURNING/LOADING HARDER, MORE DURABLE, FASTER CUTTING, BETTER FINISH

Fig. 3 — Guidelines for nonwoven abrasive disc selection.

FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 77

 Fig. 4 — Flap wheels perform debur-
ring, blending, and finishing better
than other products because of their
unique structure and ability to provide
a uniform cut rate.
into nongrind areas; and
• Surface finish is not critical.
When using coated abrasive fiber
discs,
• Cut rate is the primary concern;
• Discs can be readily changed;
• Overhead work, where the weight
of the grinder is important, is
possible;
• Less pressure is required to grind,
which reduces fatigue;
• Confined spaces, where grinding
wheel breakage can occur, pose more
of a risk;
• Blending the weld to the parent
material is possible without over
grinding; and
• Working in small work areas,
where a small angle grinder is the tool
of choice, is possible.
Coated abrasive flap discs
• Are used when product life and
cut rate combination is of importance;
• Conform to the weld to blend into
the parent material when grinding on
either side of the weld is allowable;
• Are suitable for confined spaces
where grinding wheel breakage could
pose more of a risk;
• Provide forgiving cutting action
and avoid large gouges;
• Offer a better finish than a grind-
ing wheel or fiber disc, grit for grit;
• Are suitable for overhead work
where the weight of the grinder is im-
portant; and
• Remove weld spatter without over
grinding (50 grit or finer) — Fig. 2.
Nonwoven abrasive discs are suit-
able for
• Small welds ¼ in. wide × ¼ in.
78 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020
Fig. 5 — Pictured are different shapes for specialty abrasives.
high, where over grinding is a concern,
such as for thin-walled sheet metal;
• Cleaning up discoloration;
• Cleaning up weld spatter;
• Difficult to reach welds, such as
fillet welds that require clean up; and
• Decorative surface finish require-
ments.
Figure 3 provides additional tips for
selecting nonwoven abrasive discs.
Consider Ergonomics
When striving to produce parts
with fine finishes, having more control
for less “gouging” of parts and im-
proved ergonomics is very beneficial.
“Small” abrasives providing more con-
trol include quick-change discs and
flap wheels, mini flap discs, specialties
such as cartridge and spiral rolls,
square pads, harder mounted points,
and more. In addition, there are non-
abrasive products available today, such
as carbide burrs and wire wheels, that
provide advantages, including extend-
ed life, better control of stock removal
in intricate areas, and the ability to be
used in higher temperature applica-
tions. Along with these abrasives are
complementary tools such as mini an-
gle sanders and die grinders to accom-
plish more intricate work.
Flap wheels. Flap wheels are avail-
able in coated abrasives, nonwoven
abrasives, and a combination of both,
popularly called interleaf flap wheels.
All flap wheels have abrasives wrapped
around the core. This construction al-
lows the flap wheel to conform to in-
tricate shapes and contours while pro-
viding a uniform rate of cut through-
out the grind. A key characteristic of
flap wheels is that they wear away
evenly, exposing fresh abrasive cutting
points. Coated flap wheels are best for
deburring, nonwoven flap wheels are
ideal for finishing, and interleaf flap
wheels are best suited for blending ap-
plications. The most popular flap
wheel sizes include 1 × 1, 2 × 1, and
3 × 1 in. with ¼-in. hole. They have
options for 60, 80, and 120 grit. Most
flap wheels use aluminum-oxide abra-
sive grain for good cut rate and life,
and the most popular backing is cot-
ton for flexibility.
Figure 4 provides an example of
where flap wheels are best used. Flap
wheels deburr, blend, and finish better
than other products due to their unique
structure and ability to provide a uni-
form rate of cut. However, flap wheels
do not provide the life and overall cut-
ting performance of bonded-abrasive
mounted points or carbide burrs.
Specialty abrasives. Specialty
abrasives (specialties) are also avail-
able in coated and nonwoven abra-
sives. Specialties are used in corners
where larger diameter shapes like flap
wheels can’t be applied. They remove
flash and machine tool marks, and are
used for general polishing, edge break-
ing, and removing parting lines.
Figure 5 provides a sampling of spe-
cialty shapes that are available, includ-
ing coated spiral bands, cartridge rolls,
tapered cartridge rolls, square pads,
cross pads, overlap slotted discs, bore
 Fig. 6 — The pictured ball-nosed cone
shape carbide burr is used for appli-
cations requiring fine finishes.
polishers, and nonwoven cross pads.
Each has the unique ability to get into
hard-to-reach areas and provide close
tolerances, as well as deburr and finish
small-hole areas. An example of this
functionality is found in cross pads
that allow operators to see through
the coated area while grinding, result-
ing in better view of the workpiece and
control for the operator.
Specialties wear evenly, exposing
sharp cutting points. The coated abra-
sive specialties are best for deburring,
while nonwoven specialties have better
finishing properties. The most popular
specialties sizes are ¼ × 1 ½ × ¼ in. and
½ × 1 ½ × ¼ in., and are significantly
smaller than flap wheels. Most special-
ties use aluminum-oxide abrasive grain
for good cut rate and life. Popular grits
used are 60, 80, and 120. Like coated
specialties, the most commonly seen
backing is cotton for flexibility. Unlike
flap wheels, the downside of specialties
is they are not functional on larger
scale areas of contact.
Specific to finishing stainless steel,
superior ceramic grain abrasives are
most advantageous, providing faster
cutting and longer life over traditional
aluminum-oxide products. A poly cot-
ton backing for longer life vs. a tradi-
tional cotton backing is also helpful.
If small abrasives are being used, a
pneumatic small and lightweight die
grinder can quickly and comfortably
accomplish weld finishing without the
need to change machines. Complete,
precise control of the surface finish is
done by adjusting the speed regulator.
An ergonomic and streamlined non-
slip grip achieves better tool handling,
increased comfort, and reduced grind-
ing fatigue. Another option is to use a
small, compact mini angle sander for
getting to those hard-to-reach areas,
as well as for fast, efficient finishing.
Fig. 7 — This reference guide can help you select the right wire brush for a particular
workpiece material.
Changing out sanding and nonwoven
finishing discs is a speedy process.
Carbide burrs. Although especial-
ly designed for surface removal on de-
manding applications, carbide burrs,
and specifically the ball-nosed cone
shape, are excellent for imparting fine
finishes, including on weld finishes
and for making concave cuts — Fig. 6.
There are a few key tips for properly
using carbide burrs, such as adjusting
the machine speed rate to achieve op-
timum performance. Smaller burrs re-
quire faster speeds, and running below
the optimum speed will encourage
chipping. Harder materials or sticky
metals (e.g., titanium) require slower
speeds, and running above optimum
speed will cause tooth wear. Addition-
ally, allowing the tool to become too
hot might cause the braze to melt and
detach the head of the shank. It is ad-
vised to not sink the burr for more
than one third of its periphery, and to
apply constant movement and light
pressure when in use.
Wire Brushes
Wire brushes are also a good choice
FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 79
when trying to remove weld spatter,
rust and oxidation, paint, slag, and
other unwanted surface contaminants
without removing any base material.
When choosing the right wire
brush for the job, there are four main
factors to consider: type of wire, diam-
eter of the wire, filament configura-
tion, and trim length.
Type of wire. Wire brushes are
available in carbon steel, stainless
steel, brass, and nylon. Brass and ny-
lon are fairly versatile and can be used
on most any workpiece, while carbon
steel and stainless steel are best paired
with specific material types. Selecting
the right one is based on the type of
workpiece material. Figure 7 provides
additional recommendations for se-
lecting a wire brush.
Diameter of the wire. A good rule
of thumb to follow would be to select
very fine to fine wire for light-duty
jobs and medium to coarse wire for
heavy-duty jobs. Table 1 provides
more information on matching wire
diameter to grade.
Filament configuration. Wire
Table 1 — Guidelines for Matching Wire Diameter to Grade

Wire Coarse Medium to Coarse Medium Fine Very Fine

Dia in in. .032 .020 .020 .015 .012 .0104 .010 .008 .006 .005
Dia in mm 0.80 0.50 0.50 0.37 0.30 0.26 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.13

cup, wheel, and end brushes come
with three options for filament config-
urations, and each has its own bene-
fits. These are crimped wire, standard
twist knot wire, and stringer bead
twist knot wire brushes.
Crimped wire brushes are individual
filaments that are supported only by
each other, creating extra flexibility.
They are ideal for work on irregular sur-
faces, finer surface finishing, and light-
to-medium-duty contaminant removal.
Standard twist knot wire brushes are
made with straight wire filaments that
are twisted together to make more rigid
rope or cable-like pieces. They are the
choice for more aggressive applications
requiring higher-impact action and a
rougher surface finish.
Stringer bead twist knot wire
brushes are filaments that are more
tightly twisted to the end of the knot
compared to standard twist knot
brushes, creating a narrower face and
highest-impact action. Stringer bead
and twist knot are the choice for tough
weld scale cleaning; removing the bead
scale that occurs at the initial joining
of two sections of pipe; root and hot
weld pass cleaning; and the most ag-
gressive brushing applications.

Trim length. Trim length equals

the amount of usable filament on your
wire brush. To choose the right trim
length, the following best practices
will come in handy:
• Irregular surface — Choose longer
trim lengths for more flexibility.
• Sever applications — Choose
shorter, more rigid trim lengths for
faster action.

Belts
Belt grinders are often used for
weld removal, weld blending, polish-
ing, and graining (textured surface).
For tips on belt tensioning and pre-
ventative maintenance practices for
weld finishing, see the article written
by Douglas Jensen in the October
2018 issue of the Welding Journal. WJ

Conclusion
Familiarizing yourself with the dif-
ferent abrasive options listed in this
article can help you choose the best
type of abrasive for a particular job.

PATRICK CARROLL (patrick.h.carroll@

saint-gobain.com) is the product/market
manager at Norton | Saint-Gobain
Abrasives, Worcester, Mass.

80 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020

 THE AMERICAN WELDER

Fast, Easy
Robotic Grinding
BY THOM RECORD
Integrators can automate grinding
processes to help achieve higher
productivity and quality

“One of the things that we learned

while we were talking to people on the
floor at FABTECH 2019 is that nobody
likes to do grinding, and nobody wants
to do it,” said KUKA Senior Sales Ap-
plication Engineer Pat Duda.
Indeed, falling into the three “D’s”
of traditional manufacturing jobs —
dirty, dull, and potentially dangerous
— grinding is a demanding occupation
that often presents workers with sev-
eral ergonomic challenges.
Like other sectors of manufactur-
ing, it is becoming more difficult to
find workers with the skills and expe-
rience needed to successfully support
grinding and finishing applications for
welds.
One solution to this problem may
be to use robots to automate part of
the processes. While robotic welding is
fairly established, few system integra-
tors have the experience and knowl-
edge required for success with robotic
grinding and finishing applications.
“There are only a select few integra-
tors that have deep expertise in both
grinding and automation, and they
are too busy to keep up with the mar-
ket demand,” observed Scott Barnett,
robotic application engineering
manager, 3M.

Putting the Two Sides

Together
Both KUKA and 3M heard from nu-
merous frustrated customers and sys-
tem integrators that had tried to tack-
Fig. 1 — For system integrators with limited experience in abrasive applications, le robotics on their own and found it
there can be a lot of trial and error that can potentially waste both time and money.
to be too expensive and laden with a

FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 81


Fig. 2 — KUKA ready2_grind helps save time and reduces the risk of assembling the
components of a robotic grinding system separately.
high risk of failure — Fig. 1. So the
two companies worked together and
developed a solution that could bridge
the knowledge gap and better serve
end users.
The result of the collaboration is
KUKA ready2_grind, a preconfigured
robotic grinding system that combines
the necessary hardware, software, and
assistance to better help system inte-
grators implement their projects in a
faster manner while also helping to
82 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020
reduce risk — Fig. 2.
The system supports a wide range
of fabricated metal parts, from racks
and enclosures to trailers and nonsur-
gical medical devices.
Designed to handle a range of met-
als with different processing condi-
tions (like stainless and carbon steel),
the system works optimally on welds
that have been applied robotically and
have less variation.
“It’s also able to handle manual
welds where there is more variation
but the programming becomes more
complex,” said Barnett. “Simpler
geometries are always easier to work
with.”
Greater Than the Sum
of Its Parts
The strength of the system is that it
blends the expertise and product
knowledge of two experienced organi-
zations into one solution, helping to
reduce the risk associated with assem-
bling various components together.
The system comes furnished with a
KUKA KR 60 robot and preconfigured
controller. The six-axis robot provides
the high stiffness needed to compen-
sate for process forces over long peri-
ods of time, especially at forces re-
quired by weld grinding applications.
“If you’re running something like a
right angle fiber disc, the robot can
run it at a much shallower angle than a
person can because it can hold the tool
rigidly. This means you will be using a
lot bigger part of the abrasive, which
can actually improve the life of the
disc,” said Barnett.
Robotic weld grinding relies on con-
sistent, long-lasting abrasive perform-
ance to meet finish requirements, but
few integrators on the automation
side have enough experience working
with abrasives to choose the correct
one for an application. To help them
get started, the package includes a
choice of starter kits designed for use
on either carbon or stainless steel.
As important as each part is to the
solution, the 3M™ Active Compliant
Tool that attaches to the end of the ro-
bot is perhaps the most critical. The
active compliance in the tool enables
the system to apply a consistent force
independent of the orientation of the
tool while still maintaining contact
with the part.
“It [the tool] adapts for variations
in a part and programming, allowing
the media to float in and out to adjust
to the part. It really makes the pro-
gramming a lot more forgiving and en-
ables the system to work properly,
even when the parts vary up to 10
mm,” said Duda.
The tool comes integrated with a
3M™ Servo Rotary Tool, which is
equipped with a servo motor that
maintains programmed speeds to opti-
mize abrasive performance. The rotary
tool also includes a built-in tool chang-
ing function for applications that re-
quire multiple abrasives, saving inte-
grators the time of changing them
manually.
Electric Tool Enables
Maximum Performance
One of the most important parame-
ters for running an optimum abrasive
process is ensuring that the abrasive
is operating at the right speed for the
product.
Most pneumatic tools, under any
reasonably applied force level, will re-
duce in speed. The tools tend to bog
down, so their actual speed is typically
less than the free running speed of the
tool. That is not the case with an ap-
propriately sized servo tool. If a per-
son chooses to run it at 6000 rotations
per minute (RPM), it will run at ap-
proximately 6000 RPM under typical
forces that are applied, whereas a
pneumatic tool may only run at half
that speed under a reasonably applied
force.
“The benefit of a rotary tool is that
it is electric, as opposed to pneumatic
hand tools, which are most commonly
used by manual operators in our mar-
ket. This means that the servo tool is
able to retain speed much more effec-
tively than pneumatic tools, which rely
on air. This translates to, not only,
longer abrasive life and less consum-
able cost, but also higher productivity
via faster cycle times,” said Barnett.
Intuitive Human-Machine
Interface Reduces
Complexity
A big concern in any process for
both integrators and end users alike is
programming complexity. For an ap-
plication like automated grinding,
where there is often little experience,
ease of use becomes even more critical
to ensuring a successful adoption.
The system’s intuitive user inter-
face was designed to focus on the most
important parameters of an abrasive
application in a simplified way, en-
abling the integrator or operator to
concentrate on the abrasive process
parameters — Fig. 3.
“Rather than worrying about [hard-
ware] inputs and outputs or anything
that low level, they can turn their at-
tention to things like what force they
want to use or what RPM they want
the tool to operate at,” said Duda.
One of the most important
parameters for running an optimum
abrasive process is ensuring that the
abrasive is operating at the right
speed for the product.
From an integrator perspective,
they receive feedback as to how the
system is performing. If they need to
adjust a setting, they have the visible
information in the palm of their hand
to know what needs to change. For the
end user, it provides the peace of mind
of knowing that their operators will
have the ability to manage the process
over time after it’s been implemented.
Fig. 3 — The intuitive user interface
provides integrators and end users
with an easy way to handle normally
complex tasks, such as tool changing.
Saving Time and
Minimizing Risk
Given the complications of the
process and lack of industry experi-
ence in handling both disciplines at
once, 3M and KUKA worked together
with a number of their integrator part-
ners to develop a community that sup-
ports manufacturers that want to im-
plement the system.
As part of the package, integrators
receive proof-of-concept engineering
FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 83
support, where they can send parts to
3M’s Customer Abrasive Methods
Center in St. Paul, Minn., to obtain
recommendations for attaining an op-
timal abrasive process for their appli-
cation. This helps save time and ex-
pense in finding the right mix of abra-
sive and process parameters, and pro-
vides the confidence of knowing it’s
being done right.
“In many cases, people that are less
familiar with these processes will sim-
ply look to replace a human arm with a
robot arm without considering all of
the benefits that a robot can bring to
the application. When we help a cus-
tomer, we look less at what they are
currently doing and more at what they
want to achieve from a results stand-
point,” said Barnett.
In addition, customers have access
to the integrators that both companies
work with, as well as KUKA’s on-call
services.
While the collaboration is still in its
early stages, the community that both
organizations have created with some
of their integrators continues to grow.
Many integrators took part in the first
Robotic Grinding and Finishing Con-
ference hosted by the Robotics Indus-
tries Association last year and are
looking forward to this year’s event on
April 27 and 28 in St. Paul, Minn.
“A lot of the people that come to the
event have automation experience and
others are more familiar with grinding
processes,” concluded Duda. “So, this is
the perfect environment for everyone
to come together and share ideas as to
how we can collaborate.” WJ
THOM RECORD (thom.record@kuka.com) is
copywriter, KUKA Robotics, Shelby
Township, Mich.
THE AMERICAN WELDER
Post-Spray Treatments: Grinding
Fig. 1 — Generic thermal spray device with close-up view
of spray deposit. (Source: Adapted from Sandia National
Laboratories.)
Thermal spraying encompasses a group of processes in
which finely divided metallic or nonmetallic materials are
spray-deposited in a molten or semimolten condition onto a
substrate to form a coating or to build up a free-standing
shape on a mandrel — Fig. 1.
It is common in many applications, especially cylindrical
shafts, to deposit an extra thickness of material and then
grind the surface to achieve a tight tolerance dimension or a
specific surface finish. While it is possible to achieve excel-
lent results with a wide range of materials and geometries,
improper grinding techniques may severely damage a
sprayed coating, so the proper selection of grinding wheels
and speeds is very important.
Wet Grinding Metal Deposits
Wet grinding with large, wide wheels is the preferred
method of grinding metal deposits. Wet grinding avoids
heat buildup in the workpiece and permits closer tolerances
than dry grinding. Grinding wheel manufacturers can rec-
ommend wheel types and grinding procedures for various
metal deposits based on a particular type of grinding
machine.
If it is necessary to dry-grind metal deposits, as is done
with portable grinders mounted on a lathe, most of the
material to be removed should be removed first by machin-
ing. The deposit is then ground to the required dimensions
and final finish. Wheels used for dry-grinding operations
may be either aluminum oxide or silicon carbide, depend-
ing on the metal. The factors to be considered in selecting
Excerpted from the Welding Handbook, Ninth Edition, Volume 3, Welding Processes, Part 2.
84 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020
FACT SHEET
a wheel for grinding a spray deposit are similar to those for
grinding the same metal in wrought or cast form. The
grinding technique should be designed to minimize heat
buildup in the deposit. The structure of the wheel should
be as open as possible, and the grain size as coarse as pos-
sible, consistent with finish requirements. The wheel
should be narrow, the infeed light, and the traverse as fast
as possible without spiraling.
When grinding equipment is not available, metal de-
posits can be machined to within 0.002 to 0.006 in. (50 to
150 m) of final size. Then they can be finished to size with
a belt polishing unit. Close tolerances and fine finishes are
possible using belt polishing with the proper selection of
abrasive type and grit size.
Fused Deposits
Because most fused deposits (sprayed deposits that are
remelted, or fused, after they are deposited) are designed for
hardfacing purposes, grinding is usually the most economi-
cal method of finishing them. Although most fused deposits
can be machined with the proper type of cutting tool, close
tolerance work is difficult because of rapid tool wear and the
excessive heat generated. Dry grinding may be suitable for
some operations, but the heat and fast wheel wear make it
difficult to achieve close tolerances. Wet grinding can pro-
duce close tolerance components, fine finishes, and econom-
ical stock removal rates. Nickel-base alloys are best ground
with silicon-carbide grinding wheels, and cobalt-base alloys
with aluminum-oxide grinding wheels.
Grinding wheel manufacturers should be consulted for
recommendations of the appropriate type for the job. Good
practice usually suggests the coarsest wheel consistent with
finish requirements, an open structure or soft bond, as large
a wheel as possible, and good wheel-dressing techniques.
The surface finish of fused coatings can often be improved
after grinding by polishing with fine-grit belts.
Ceramic Deposits
Although individual particles of a thermally sprayed ce-
ramic coating may have extreme hardness, sprayed ceramic
coatings usually can be finished by conventional grinding
techniques with standard equipment. Successful finishing
requires selecting the proper grinding wheel, in some cases a
diamond wheel, and following correct procedures. Flood-
cooling should be employed during grinding, and water cool-
ing is generally preferred; however, some water-soluble
coolant additives may stain light-colored ceramic deposits.
General recommendations for grinding ceramic deposits are
available from grinding wheel manufacturers. WJ
 1
1
0/.-,+*1),++1('&&-)%$-*#1
1
"!-1 -/..),1-&+.,%1'.-1-  *)&.*!-+1!-1!','/1'1('$,*-&'/1'1!-1'.-1'1/-'%,.-1
--/*1'/1)1)/--/1'1+.*.,%$.*!--+1&-)+-/*!.1',/.$.',*1.,1!-1)+),--,1'1 -&+.,%1
*.-,-1),++1-!,'&'%11&-.',1)*1)1('$,*-&'/1.*1)*-+1$',1),1.,+..+$)&*1)/--/1'1
'$*),+.,%%%1)!.---,*1),+1)' &.*!-,*11"!-1*-&-.',1'.--1.*1*--.,%1$
% $)&..-+1
.,+..+$)&*1!'1),1+-',*/)-1!-./1&-)+-/*!.1.,1!-1-&+.,%1.,+$*/1)*1-.+-,-+1#1
1
•
$*).,-+1*-/.-1),+1-/'/),-1.,1!-1)+),--,1'1-&+.,%1*.-,-1),+1
-!,'&'%1
•
$&.).',1'1)-/*
1)/.&-*1),+1''*1!.!1-,!),-1,'&-+%-1'1-&+..,%1
•
,,').-1+--&'-,1'1-&+.,%1-!,'&'%1
•
'.-
1).',)&1),+1-.',1',/.$.',*1
•
/'-**.',)&1/-'%,..',1
•

-)+-/*!.1.,1 1'/1'!-/1'/'/)-1&--&*
1)/.$&)/&1)*1.1.)*1!-1
)+),--,1'1-&+.,%1-!,'&'%1
•
0).&.).,%1'!-/*1'1)/..)-1)*1)1'&$,--/1.,1!-1)+),--,1'1-&+.,%1
,
-!,'&'%1
1
0'/1*-..*1',1!-1,'.,).',1/-$./--,*
1&-)*-1',)1(!-&*-)1--&1)1*--& )*'/%1)1
1!-)+$)/-/*1.,1.).
1'/1*.&1'&&'1!-1.,*/$.',*1',1!-1('$,*-&'/1,'.,,).',1
'/1&')-+1)1)*'/%'$,*-&'/1&-)*-1/---/
1-1)&&1-,-.1.,1!-1!','/.,,%1'1
!'*-1!'1!)-1)+-1)'/1',/.$.',*1'1'$/1!'*-,1/'-**.',1),+1&.-&.!''+11"!--1+-)+&.,-1
'/1*$.**.',1.*1$&1
111"!-1('$,*-&'/1('.--1&''*1'/)/+1'1/--..,%1,$$-/'$*1
('$,*-&'/1,'.,).',*1'/11',*.+-/).',1
1
.,-/-&
1
1

).+11),%&-1
(!)./
1('$,*-&'/1('.--1




9



 

87654325749130/3.-,9+7*9)('9&7%4,-$7*9,#7%$"90$-3*$!9"-674,2*32-92#-9034"5"32- ,9
7%2,234"54.90742*5%257492792#-93"340-6-4297+9-$"54.9,05-40-934"92-0#47$7.!99497*"-*9+7*92#-9
&7%4,-$7*9'-$-025749&766522--9279+35*$!93,,-,,92#-9034"5"32- ,9%3$5+5032574,92#-947654325749
130/3.-96%,29$5,2934"90$-3*$!9"-,0*5-92#-9034"5"32- ,9,1-05+509300761$5,#6-42,9#792#-!9
0742*5%2-"92792#-93"340-6-42,97+9-$"54.92-0#47$7.!934"92#3292#-,-90742*5%2574,9-*-9
,%,2354-"99,,-4253$9549"-674,2*3254.92#-9034"5"32- ,956130293*-92#-9+7$$754.9
9

-,0*51257497+9,5.45+5034292-0#4503$93"340-6-42,99#5,9,#7%$"9-939*5-+9
,%663*!97+92#-9034"5"32- ,967,29,5.45+5034290742*5%2574,92792#-93"340-6-4297+9
-$"54.9,05-40-934"92-0#47$7.!9

%$503257497+977/,9131-*,93*250$-,97*972#-*9,5.45+5034297*/,9

4-42574,934"9132-42,9

*7+-,,5743$9*-07.4525749540$%"54.933*",934"9#747*,9+*769)('972#-*9
1*7+-,,5743$97*.34532574,954"%,2*!97*972#-*9*-07.45-"97"!9


-3454.+%$913*25051325749549)('90766522--,9'-02574,97*972#-*9)('97$%423*!9
0742*5%2574,9

&742*5%2574,9279#34"77/,934"9,234"3*",9

*-,-4232574,963"-93292-0#4503$9,-,,574,9540$%"54.9'-0257496--254.,9


&74,%$2340!95492-0#4503$96322-*,97*9-$"54.954"%,2*!9%,54-,,96322-*,9

-3"-*,#519549)('97*972#-*907*17*32-9$--$,913*250%$3*$!93,9529561302,92#-9
3"340-6-4297+9-$"54.92-0#47$7.!9

3*250513257497497*.34554.90766522--,9+7*92-0#4503$91*7.*36,9

)"7030!9549,%117*297+9)('92#*7%.#954,252%25743$917$52503$97*972#-*96-34,9

305$523254.972#-*,927913*2505132-93,9397$%42--*95492#-93"340-6-4297+9-$"54.9
2-0#47$7.!9

872-9130/3.-,9+7*947654--,92#329"794729,#7913*25051325749549,--*3$97+92#-93025525-,937-95$$9
#3-939$791*735$52!97+9,%00-,,9
9
'89'9
9
-22-*,97+9,%117*29+*76954"55"%3$,9/47$-".-3$-97+92#-9034"5"32-,934"9#5,
#-*90742*5%2574,93*-9
-407%*3.-"99#-,-9$-22-*,9,#7%$"93""*-,,92#-96-2*50,9$5,2-"937-934"91*75"-91-*,743$954,5.#29
542792#-90742*5%2574934"9,232%*-97+92#-9034"5"32-99-22-*,97+9,%117*292#329,561$!9-4"7*,-92#-9
034"5"32-95$$9#3-9$522$-956130297492#-9,-$-0257491*70-,,99
9
  


9 9




 

@?
>@=<;:98765847321:;0658
@/8.---,8+*)87()'&%$/8#)"!&/ 8=%&)+8)+$"&*)!8+*)8*/'883/)"'8+8')% /&)8&/!&&!$"8
()()'8'8$8%$'))'88!&+&/ &*)!8' $/&$+&/$"8")$!)'*&8+*$+8*$8)/*$/%)!8+*)8&($ )8$/!8
&($%+88+*)8)"!&/ 8&/!+'?88")%+&/8$8$83/)"'8*$""8)8$)!8/8$/8&/!&&!$"8%$'))'88
++$/!&/ 8$%%("&*()/+?8
8
<8)8)"& &")8'8$&/+()/+,8$/8&/!&&!$"8*$""8*$)8!)(/+'$+)!8*&8'8*)'8")$!)'*&8&/8+*)8
)"!&/ 8&/!+'8$8)&!)/%)!88
•
=+$&/)!8)'&%)8$/!8)''($/%)8&/8+*)8$!$/%)()/+88)"!&/ 8%&)/%)8$/!8+)%*/" 8
•
"&%$+&/88$)',8$'+&%")8$/!88*&%*8)/*$/%)8/")! )88)"!&/ 8
•
@//$+&)8!))"()/+88)"!&/ 8+)%*/" 8
•
=%&)+,86$+&/$"8$/!8=)%+&/8%/+'&+&/8
•
')&/$"8')% /&+&/8
8
@@?
:0=8
7?
3$/!&!$+)8'83/)"'8*$""8*$)8$+8")$+8.8)$'887#=8()()'*&8
4?
$%*8%$/!&!$+)8*$""8)8/(&/$+)!88$+8")$+8&)8()()'887#=8
3?
6(&/$+&/8*$""8)8(&++)!8/8+*)8&%&$"8'(,8$$&"$")8'(87#=8>)$!$'+)'8
5?
6(&/$+&/8(+8)8(&++)!8+87#=8*)$!$'+)'8/8"$+)'8+*$/8 "8.88+*)8)$'8'&'8+8
+*$+8&/8*&%*8+*)8$$'!8&""8)8'))/+)!8
?
6(&/$+&/8*$""8')($&/8$"&!8'8+*'))8)$'8
?
7""8&/'($+&/8/8/(&/))8&""8)8*)"!8&/8+'&%+8%/&!)/%)8
1?
7""8')&')!8($/!$+'8&/'($+&/8&8+8)8&/%"!)!8&/8+*)8/(&/$+&/8$%$ )8'8+*)8
$%$ )8&""8)8')+'/)!8$/!8/+8%/&!)')!88+*)8=)")%+&/83((&++))8
>?
3$/!&!$+)8*8*$)8))/8)")%+)!8$8)""887#=8*$""8/+8)8)"& &")8'8)")%+&/8$8
3/)"'?883/)"'8($8/+8)8/(&/$+)!8'8+*88+*))8$$'!8$+8+*)8$()8+&()?8
8
@@@?
604:8;83;06=;:=8<;848=3<58
$
&((88.83/)"'8)")%+)!8)$%*8)$'8
8



 





3*)")$8?8=+))" ($&"8%+))" $?' 88
7%&$+)85&')%+',8 <)")*/)8-8
+?8-8

)%+&)8;&%)8 8888888888888888888-8
+?8-8
-86#8+*8=+'))+,8
8.8 $
888888888888.-8
&$(&,88.8 8
8
 


@?>==<;:<9897<
@;65=4?;3<5;215>01;5<:;32<
<
/.-,< < < < < < < 5.+,<*)<@.('&'.-,<< < < < < < <
>%=<2,+$,#<5"+$,#<< < < < < < < !,.# <*)<2,+$,# &<< < < < < < <
*+,<>''#, < < < < < < <
@&-<< < < < < < < =-.-,< < < < < < < &<@*',<< < < < < < < *(,<< < < < < < <
4+.&< < < < < < < <
#, ,(-<4+*,#< < < < < < <
0&-,* &-&*(< <<<<<<
" &(, <>''#, < < < < < < <
@&-<< < < < < < < =-.-,< < < < < < < &<@*',<< < < < < < < *(,<< < < < < < <
>.',+&<.#*"('<> <>&.$,<< <<<<<<
1( -&-"-&*(<< < < < < < < 2.*#2&(*#< < < < < < <
/,#,,@,#-&)&.-&*(!,.#< < < < < < <
<
10<1=<10/.0-,+*<0>0<><@10>01;5<8<0;<788<%;3/=<>5/<><<<<4>/<
<=;6?/43=<
;0; 3><;:<04<5;21544<4<15@?6/4/<<6=4<><=4>3>04<=440<15/1@>0115 <%!<04<
5;21544<=;6?/<4<=4?4@04/<>=<>5<>%=<@;65=4?;3<<04<@10>01;5<1=<0;<4<><>30<;:<04<
5;215>01;5<>@> 4<04<;0;<=;6?/<>?=;<4<;5<><=4>3>04<=440<<
)
(''(/-&0%)$,+)-#()/,1&/0-&,/)"0! 0(<
<
0,<@*"( ,*#<=,,-&*(<@*++&--,,<#&-,#&.<.#,< -#*(<$. ,'<"*(<.('<,-#.-,'<)#*+<-,<.-,*#&, <&('&.-,'<*(<-,<
,*('<.,<*)<-& <.&.-&*(<<1-<& < -#*(<#,*++,(','<-.-<-,<(*+&(.-*#<#,.#,<.<*+,-,< "++.#<*)<-,<
(*+&(,, <& -*#<. <.(<.--.+,(-<-*<-& <.&.-&*(<-*<,( "#,<-.-<-,<*++&--,,<. < "))&&,(-<&()*#+.-&*(<-*<',&$,#.-,<
.('<+.,<-,<.#*#&.-,< ,,-&*( <*)<@*"( ,*#<(*+&(,, <
<
=621004/<!< <
3;;=43< < < < < < <
>%=<2,+$,#<5"+$,#< < < < < < <
<
0,<#** ,#<&< ,#,<. <-,<*(-.-<&)<-,<=,,-&*(<@*++&--,,<#,
"&#, <)"#-,#<&()*#+.-&*(<<0,<#** ,#<& <,(*"#.,'<
-*<&("',<.<',-.&,'<$&*#.<*)<-,<.('&'.-,<.('<,--,# <*)<#,*++,('.-&*(<)#*+<&('&&'". <', #&$&(<-,< ,&)&<
.*+& +,(- <*)<-,<.('&'.-,<<=&(.-"#, <*(<-,<(*+&(.-&(<)*#+<*#< "*#-&(<,--,# <)#*+<,.<(*+&(.-*#<.#,<
#,
"&#,'<)#*+<)*"#<>%=<+,+$,# <&(<.''&-&*(<-*<-,<#** ,#<<=&(.-"#, <+.<$,<.
"&#,'<$<*-**&(<-,<*#&&(.<
.&.-&*(<.('<-#.( +&--&(<-*<,.<(*+&(.-&(<+,+$,#<<;(,<-,< &(.-"#, <.#,< ,"#,'<-,<-*-.<..,< *"'<$,<
"$+&--,'<
<

5;215>015 <24243< < < < < < < #&(-<(.+,< <<<<<<
>%=<2,+$,#<5"+$,#<< <<<<<< <
5;215>015 <24243< < < < < < < #&(-<(.+,< <<<<<<
>%=<2,+$,#<5"+$,#<< <<<<<< <
5;215>015 <24243< < < < < < < #&(-<(.+,< <<<<<<
>%=<2,+$,#<5"+$,#<< <<<<<< <
5;215>015 <24243< < < < < < < #&(-<(.+,< <<<<<<
>%=<2,+$,#<5"+$,#<< <<<<<< <
<
'1&''&,/).(0.%&/()&')%*)))
-)))) )

))0 ')
)) 
))
 CLASSIFIEDS

FOR SALE OR RENT

MITROWSKI RENTS
Made in U.S.A. JOE FULLER LLC
We manufacture tank turning rolls
Welding Positioners 3-ton through 120-ton rolls
1-Ton thru 60-Ton joefuller.com
Tank Turning Rolls

email: joe@joefuller.com
Phone: (979) 277-8343
Fax: (281) 290-6184
Used Equipment for Sale Our products are made in the USA
mitrowskiwelding.com

sales@mitrowskiwelding.com
(800) 218-9620
(713) 943-8032

ADVERTISER INDEX
Arcos Industries, LLC IBC Cormet 17
arcos.us (800) 233-8460 cor-met.com (800) 848-2719

Atlas Welding Accessories 22 Diamond Ground 13, 15

atlaswelding.com (800) 962-9353 sales@diamondground.com (805) 498-3837

AWS Administration 7 Electron Beam 14

aws.org (800) 443-9353 electronbeam.com (815) 935-2211

AWS Foundation 74, 80 Fischer Engineering Company 42

aws.org/foundation (800) 443-9353, ext. 250 fischerengr.com (937) 754-1750

Bluco 19 Flexovit 30
bluco.com (800) 535-0135 flexovitabrasives.com (800) 689-3539

Bohler Welding GmbH 23 Gedik Welding 21

www.voestalpine.com/welding gedikwelding.com (855) 245-1607

Camfil Air Pollution Control 2 Gullco International Inc. USA 13

CamfilAPC.com ((800) 479-6801 ussales@gullco.com (440) 439-8333

FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 89

ADVERTISER INDEX

Hobart Institute 43 Select-Arc Inc. IFC

welding.org (937) 332-9500 Select-arc.com (800) 341-5215

Hodgson Custom Rolling 5 Triangle 42

hcrsteel.com (800) 263-2547 trieng.com (781) 878-1500

IMPACT 1 Welder Training and Testing Institute 14

impact-net.org (202) 393-1147 wtti.com (800) 223-9884

Lincoln Electric Co. OBC

lincolnelectric.com/dual-maverick (888) 935-3877

Red-D-Arc 35
reddarc.com (866) 733-3272

90 WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020


SUPPLEMENT TO THE WELDING JOURNAL, FEBRUARY 2020
Sponsored by the American Welding Society
Quantitative Weld Quality Acceptance Criteria: An Enabler
for Structural Lightweighting and Additive Manufacturing
Recent developments in fracture-mechanics based defect acceptance criteria, as
well as robust computational techniques, are higlighted
BY P. DONG
ABSTRACT
Most of the existing weld quality acceptance criteria
stipulated in various codes and standards, as well as in
recommended practices, are empirical in nature. Historical-
ly, these workmanship-based criterias have been adequate
for quality control purposes in construction of welded
structures. However, as the competition for achieving struc-
tural lightweighting intensifies, more quantitative quality ac-
ceptance (also known as fitness-for-purpose based) crite-
ria are increasingly called for. This is because various new
forms of discontinuities and joint configurations (e.g., dis-
similar materials joints) cannot be readily related to existing
acceptance criteria. Even if existing criteria can be made
applicable, recent research findings have shown that exist-
ing criteria can be excessively conservative for some and
unconservative for others when dealing with thin gauge and
lightweight construction. A similar situation exists for addi-
tively manufactured metallic components, which can be
viewed as “all weld metal” components containing random-
ly distributed discontinuities over the entire component vol-
ume. In this paper, some of the recent developments in
quantitative weld quality acceptance criteria will be first
highlighted, some of which are made possible by advanced
fracture mechanics analysis techniques. Applications in
structural lightweighting and additive manufacturing will
then be demonstrated with some real-world examples.
Finally, implications on a broader application of the method-
ologies presented for ensuring both structural integrity and
cost-effectiveness in construction will be discussed in light
of these developments.
KEYWORDS
• Weld Quality • Lightweighting • Additive Manufacturing
• Applied Fracture Mechanics • Fitness-for-Purpose
• Dissimilar Metal Joining • Defect Assessment
https://doi.org/10.29391/2020.99.004
WELDING RESEARCH
Introduction
Various forms of geometric discontinuities or imperfec-
tions, such as pores and inclusions, are always present in
welded components (Refs. 1–4) — Fig. 1A. The same can be
said about other manufacturing processes like forged com-
ponents (Fig. 1B), or even in plain materials, which are just a
matter of length scale. In the construction of modern light-
weight structures, lightweight aluminum alloys are increas-
ingly being used in the automotive industry. Due to produc-
tivity requirements, resistance spot welds or laser welds
tend to contain a more pronounced porosity, depending on
materials and welding parameters used — Fig. 2 (Ref. 1).
Although friction stir welding (FSW) has many advan-
tages over the traditional fusion welding processes, some
unique discontinuity forms (such as kissing bonds and
“hook-like” defects — Fig. 3) can pose significant challenges
to nondestructive examination (NDE) techniques due to po-
tential implications on the structural integrity of such joints
if missed in production. As 3D printing (or additive manu-
facturing [AM]) gains popularity in the metal manufactur-
ing industry, quality acceptance criteria have become one of
the key technological hurdles for the adoption of safety-crit-
ical applications. AM parts’ “all weld metal” nature in terms
of randomly distributed discontinuities over a bulk build is
illustrated in Fig. 4 for a 3D printed Ti-6-4 round bar (Ref.
5). One key question here is how to determine what level of
discontinuities, both in size and distribution, is acceptable
for a given product application. Similar questions have also
been repeatedly asked for dealing with dissimilar metal
joints such as aluminum to steel joints in which brittle inter-
metallic compounds typically develop, often accompanied by
microcracks.
To address the questions posed above, fracture mechanics
methods can be used. The power generation and petrochem-
ical industries have widely adopted these methods as a post-
construction assessment method for demonstrating struc-
FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 39-s
WELDING RESEARCH
A B
Fig. 1 — Representative defects at a different length scale: A — Fillet weld; B — forged component.
A B
Fig. 2 — Representative defects in resistance spot welds and
laser welds: A — Resistance spot weld; B — laser welds.
tures or pressure equipment’s fitness for continued service
when a defect (hypothetical or real) is considered (Refs. 6
and 7). These methodologies are often referred to as engi-
neering criticality assessment (ECA) or fitness-for-service
assessment procedures, representing practical application
procedures as fracture mechanics continue to advance. Some
of these advancements are particularly suited for applica-
tions in establishing the quality acceptance criteria dis-
cussed earlier. The paper starts with some simple illustra-
tions on the structural significance of geometric discontinu-
ities to show that fatigue performance is the key measure of
effects of discontinuities for which fracture mechanics con-
siderations become essential. Then, some of the relevant
fracture mechanics developments are highlighted. These in-
clude both direct techniques for assessing structural signifi-
cance of discrete or randomly distributed defects and an in-
direct method for fatigue performance evaluation of compo-
nents containing various forms of discontinuities. Various
real-world examples were used to demonstrate how some of
the fracture mechanics techniques can be used to effectively
establish quantitative quality acceptance criteria for engi-
neering applications.
Structural Significance of Discontinuities
Static vs. Fatigue Strengths
It has been well-established in the literature that the
detrimental effects of geometric discontinuities associated
with typical manufacturing processes can be related to com-
ponents’ fatigue performance under cyclic loading condi-
tions. As long as there is no significant load-carrying area
40-s WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020, VOL. 99
reduction, structural strengths under quasi-static loading
conditions are typically not noticeably impacted. This can be
clearly illustrated by considering a set of simple tension
specimens containing different notch radii, resulting in dif-
ferent stress concentration factor Kt (Ref. 8), as shown in
Fig. 5. The resulting static strengths obtained from these
tests showed essentially the same load capacity (see peak
values of the load-displacement curves in Fig. 5B), even
through the local stress concentration varies significantly
from Kt  2.5 to Kt  20. However, the fatigue tests on two
specimen types with different stress concentration factors
(Fig. 6A) yield two distinct S-N curves resulting in signifi-
cantly different fatigue strengths defined by the two hori-
zontal lines in Fig. 6B.
Illustration of Quantitative Quality Acceptance Criteria
To demonstrate the major differences between empirical
based weld quality acceptance criteria and fracture mechan-
ics based quantitative quality criteria, consider a structural
steel beam welded onto a base plate as shown in Fig. 7. In
traditional quality acceptance criteria, as long as any discon-
tinuities, for example a defect size of a0, are less than an al-
lowable limit through a nondestructive inspection tech-
nique, a simple beam bending theory can be used to calcu-
late maximum beam depth H needed for carrying a static
load F without exceeding the steel yield strength SY, i.e.,
Mc 6FL
 max = = < SY ( 1)
I tH 2

A B
Fig. 3 — Friction stir welds of aluminum extrusions: A — View
of overall friction stir zone; B — local view of defects at
nugget root.
Then, the beam height required can be calculated as:
6FL
H > (2)
tSY
However, the weld connecting the beam to the base may
contain potential manufacturing defects that might not al-
ways be detected during a required NDE inspection due to
inherent limitations in a given NDE technique. Then the
question becomes: Is the beam structure still capable of car-
rying design load F if a crack-like defect of a0 is missed dur-
ing NDE inspection? To answer this question, a fracture me-
chanics parameter KI (referred to as stress intensity factor)
needs to be introduced, which relates stress in Eq. 1 to de-
fect size a0 in the following manner as long as a0 is small
compared to H:
KI = max C  0 < K IC ( 3)
where C is a constant. The critical condition can be deter-
mined by comparing KI with material fracture toughness KIC
measured from laboratory tests. Then, for a given initial de-
fect size a0, we can determine the beam height requirement
for carrying the required load F without causing an unstable
fracture by an initial defect of size a0:
6FL
H >  C  0 (4)
tK IC
By comparing the beam height calculated from Eq. 2 and
4, the largest H should be the final design height for pre-
venting the beam both from reaching SY (developing plastic
deformation) and developing an unstable fracture. For de-
fect sensitive materials, e.g., high-strength steel, Eq. 4 often
prevails. This can be demonstrated by rearranging the right-
hand side of Eq. 3 after substituting SY in place of max as:
WELDING RESEARCH
2
K 
 0 < A  IC  ( 5)
 SY 
in which A  1/(C2). Although a rather simple exercise, the
implications of Eq. 5 are significant as summarized in the
following:
 The maximum tolerable defect is inversely proportional
to the second power of material yield strength SY. As higher
strength materials are increasingly used, the maximum tol-
erable defect size rapidly decreases;
 In structural metals, it is typical that as yield strength
increases, fracture toughness KIC decreases;
 The compound effects of high yield strength and low
fracture toughness make FFS or defect assessment increas-
ingly important in manufacturing quality control, particu-
larly modern lightweight structures.
Equation 5 illustrates that fracture mechanics not only en-
ables a quantitative defect acceptance criterion, but it also es-
tablishes an important relationship between acceptable defect
a0 based on its significance to structural performance (in this
case, propensity to brittle fracture) and other materials prop-
erty (i.e., yield strength SY) in addition to fracture toughness
KIC through Eq. 5.
Advanced Applications of Fracture Mechanics
Methods
In view of the importance of fracture mechanics princi-
ples previously discussed, some of the relevant recent ad-
vances in adopting fracture mechanics principles for applica-
tions in complex structures are briefly highlighted.
FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 41-s
WELDING RESEARCH

A B

Fig. 4 — Randomly-distributed discontinuities in a 3D printed titanium bar (Ti-6-4): A — Bar specimen; B — CT scan image.

A B

Fig. 5 — Tensile strength test results of specimens containing a varying degree of stress concentration: A — Tensile specimens
containing various forms of stress concentrators; B — tensile test results.

Hybrid Polygonal Element (HPE) Method
A rather novel hybrid polygonal element method was de-
veloped decades ago (Ref. 9) and has been widely used for
composite materials due to its robustness for dealing with
randomly distributed geometric features, e.g., cracks, inclu-
sions, and voids. Figure 8 illustrates a thin plate containing
about 27 randomly distributed cracks under remote tension.
A simple polygonal element model (Fig. 8B) is all that is
needed to accurately calculate stress intensity factors at each
of the crack tips for all cracks. As a result, the stress intensi-
ty factor KI for the main crack is increased by about 200% in
comparison to KI0 corresponding to the situation in which
only the main crack is present. The maximum stress intensi-
ty factor value among all 27 microcracks occurs at Crack 17
(Fig. 8B) and is about 96% of KI0.
This method has been adapted for performing fracture me-
chanics assessment of aluminum spot welds with randomly
distributed pores and microcracks, as shown in Fig. 9 (Ref. 10).
Finite Element Alternating Method (FEAM)
A finite element alternating method (FEAM) has been
implemented for fracture mechanics applications in complex
welded components (Refs. 11–14). This method is particu-
larly advantageous in that it only needs a regular finite ele-
ment model without the need to model the presence of a
crack. It is relatively mesh size insensitive because it is based
on an alternating procedure between a closed form solution
for an embedded elliptical crack in an infinite body and a fi-
nite element stress solution for an actual component — Fig.
10. Its applications for modeling a variety of crack problems
in welded components, including the treatment of welding-
induced residual stresses, are given (Ref. 14).

42-s WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020, VOL. 99

 WELDING RESEARCH

A B

Fig. 6 — Comparison of fatigue test results presented in S-N curve forms (log-log scale): A — Notch geometry and stress concen-
tration factors (Kt); B — comparison of S-N curves and fatigue strengths.

A B

Fig. 7 — Illustration of conventional strength-based design and fracture mechanics based design methods: A — Conventional
beam theory based design; B — fracture mechanics based design considering a small crack-like imperfection (ao).

A Traction Structural Stress K Solution
Method
Mesh Insensitive Traction Stress Method
Over the past decade, a traction stress calculation proce-
dure (Refs. 2, 15–17) has demonstrated its ability to provide
a simple and effective stress intensity factor (K) estimation
for complex joints, in addition to its mesh insensitivity in
charactering stress concentrations. The traction stress defi-
nition (Fig. 11) is based on fracture mechanics considera-
tions. By considering a hypothetical crack plane (e.g., a line
cut along A-A in Fig. 11A or a curvilinear surface cut along
C-C in Fig. 11B) at the weld toe, the Mode I stress intensity
factor KI is determined by the normal traction component
s, Mode II KII is determined by the transverse shear compo-
nent z , and Mode III KIII by the in-plane shear component s
(Refs. 18–20). For most applications, only s and s are dom-
inant, and z is typically negligible. The traction stress proce-
dures are given in a number of papers and in the 2007
ASME FFS-1 Fitness-for-Service, Section VIII Division 2
Code and 2007 API-579-1 (Ref. 2).
With the traction stress method, the traction stress com-
ponent of interest at any given through-thickness cross sec-
tion cuts along an arbitrary weld line can that be calculated
with a great deal of consistency, or referred to as mesh in-
sensitivity. One example is summarized in Fig. 12. The nor-
mal traction stresses calculated along a curvilinear surface
cut, along the weld toe on the chord, are also given in Fig.
12C. The traction stress is normalized by applied nominal
stress on the brace. The stress concentration factor (SCF) re-
sults are clearly shown being mesh size insensitive as ele-
ment size varies from 0.25 to about 2t (t is chord wall thick-
ness), as shown in Fig. 12B.
Rapid K Solution Technique
In addition to its mesh insensitivity in traction stress cal-
culation for complex joints, the properties of the traction
stress method greatly simplify stress intensity factor solu-
tion. As illustrated in Fig. 13, the very definition of traction
(Fig. 11) is consistent with the far-field stress definition ()
in fracture mechanics. Therefore, the traction stress calcula-
tion process can be viewed as a stress transformation
process from an actual complex joint in a structure under ar-
bitrary loading to a simple fracture problem, in which the
complex loading and geometry effects are captured in the
form of membrane and bending. As a result, K for any crack
size along the weld can be estimated by using the existing K
solution for a simple plate fracture mechanics specimen sub-
jected to both membrane tension and bending, by consider-
ing either an edge crack or a surface elliptical crack.
The detailed derivations and validations can be found in
Ref. 3 For demonstration purposes, Fig. 14 shows the vali-

FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 43-s

WELDING RESEARCH

A B A

Fig. 8 — Application of a HPE method in evaluation of a cracked B

body (2D) containing a total of twenty microcracks: A — Prob-
lem definition; B — HPE model.

Fig. 9 — Application of a HPE method in evaluation of alu-

minum spot weld containing randomly distributed pores: A —
a representative spot weld cross section; B — HPE model.

Fig. 10 — Illustration of FEAM.

dation for considering both an edge crack and a semiellipti-

cal surface crack situated at the weld toe in a T fillet weld. In B
Fig. 14A and B, attention should be given to the case labeled
as “W/ notch effects” and its comparison with the solutions
represented by symbols, which were given by Glinka et al.
(see discussions given in Ref. 3) based on a weight function
method. Other solutions (dashed lines) are based on other
forms of approximation methods and plotted here only for
comparison purpose. It can be seen that the traction stress
based K solution compares well with the weight function so-
lution over the entire crack size range considered. The same
can be said about the traction stress based K solutions corre-
sponding to semielliptical crack — Fig. 14C. Fig. 11 — “Free-body cut” illustration of mesh-insensitive
structural stress method: A — 2D cross section cut along
Quantitative Quality Acceptance Criteria Line A-B; B — curvilinear area cut between A-A and C-C.

Aluminum Alloy Resistance Spot Welds
Figure 15 shows typical spot weld cross section macro-
graphs exhibiting a significant level of pores and microc-
racks. After some preliminary examination, the HPE model
shown in Fig. 15B was constructed containing a total of six
pores of variable size, orientation, and location. After a to-
tal of 242 parametric (242 cases) analyses over these param-
eters, a total of four characteristic distributions (or cases)
were found (Fig. 16) under the two most severe loading sce-
narios — lap tension (also referred to as coach peel) and lap
shear.
The fracture mechanics analysis results corresponding to
the four characteristic cases in Fig. 16 are summarized in Fig.
17, normalized by the stress intensity factor for the main in-
terfacial crack K0. As can be seen in Fig. 17, as long as defects

44-s WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020, VOL. 99


B
C
Fig. 12 — Demonstration of mesh-insensitivity of traction
structural stress along weld toe on chord in a tubular T joint:
A — Overall T joint geometry and loading conditions; B — FE
models with different element sizes; C — comparison of
structural stress results calculated along weld toe.
are confined within the middle of the weld nugget, approxi-
mately within 50% of the nugget radius, there exists no
noticeable detrimental effects. As a result, the first two types
(to the left of Fig. 17A and B) are considered equivalent to per-
fect welds (i.e., without any pores).
The results in Figs. 16 and 17 also provide an effective
means for performing validation testing by grouping speci-
mens in terms of porosity distribution types, rather than
based on specific defect size and location, (such as those in Fig.
16, which are practically impossible to repeatedly reproduce in
practice. Such a validation testing effort is summarized in Fig.
18. As long as the 50% nugget radius criterion is satisfied, Fig.
18 shows that the corresponding S-N test data form essential-
ly the same scatter band, indicting no detrimental effects of
pores as long as they are within the 50% radius of the weld
nuggets. For cases in which pores are widespread or near the
nugget edges, there exists a significant degradation of fatigue
WELDING RESEARCH
A
C
B
Fig. 13 — Traction structural stress based mapping for rapid
stress intensity factor (KI) calculation in complex welded
components: A — A 3D plate T joint; B — edge crack solution
(2D); C — semielliptical surface crack solution.
performance, e.g., for the cases labeled with “edge pores”
shown in Fig. 18B. As a result, a shop floor implementation at
a major automotive company is illustrated in Fig. 19, repre-
senting radiographies of periodic inspection results.
Metallic AM Parts
As illustrated in Fig. 4, in AM parts, two types of discon-
tinuities are of concern as far as fatigue performance is con-
cerned: (a) surface roughness and surface defects and (b) in-
ternal defects.
Surface and Subsurface Defects
Even under machined and polished surface conditions,
the round bar specimens (Ti-6-4) still showed significantly
lower fatigue performance than wrought conditions — Fig.
20. This is because although overall surface roughness can
be improved by machining and polishing, the subsurface
discontinuities shown in Fig. 4 are exposed as surface dis-
continuities. Such effects are clearly illustrated, as summa-
rized in Ref. 21, by detailed examination at a local machined
and polished V notch tip of fatigue test specimens — Fig. 21
(Ref. 21). Here, geometric features are not that different
from typical welded joints, say at the weld toe position, as
shown in Fig. 1A.
The effectiveness of the mesh insensitive traction struc-
tural stress method previously described (see Figs. 11 and
12) has been demonstrated effective in collapsing fatigue
test data into a single narrow band for welded joints (Ref. 2).
Given the similarities in notch root discontinuities shown in
Fig. 21, it is conceivable that the mesh insensitive method
could work equally well for correlating fatigue test data for
metallic AM parts if different machined notch geometries
are considered. Such test data were recently published by
Solberg and Berto (Ref. 21), as summarized in Fig. 22 for
which typical notch tip surface conditions are given in Fig.
21. A total of four notch types are considered as shown in
Fig. 22A. The test data are shown in Fig. 22B in terms of
nominal stress range in log-log scale, showing four distinct
trend lines. By using the traction stress method previously
FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 45-s
WELDING RESEARCH
A B
Fig. 14 — Validation of traction stress based stress intensity factor solutions for a T joint: A — Edge crack; B — semielliptical crack.
A B
described, the traction stress based SCFs are then calculated
using the FE models shown in Fig. 22C. It should be noted
that the conventional local stress based SCF or Kt doesn’t ex-
ist due to the ill-defined notch geometries shown in Fig. 21,
while the traction stress based SCF can be computed in a
mesh insensitive manner, thanks to its equilibrium basis
with respect to the cross section cut plane (i.e., fatigue crack
propagation plane). The resulting S-N data correlation in
Fig. 22D shows a significant improvement over Fig. 22B,
suggesting a good transferability S-N test data among differ-
46-s WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020, VOL. 99
Fig. 15 — HPE model for modeling distributed pores in alu-
minum spot welds: A — Representative macrographs of spot
welds showing distributed pores; B — HPE model for repre-
senting effects of pores on stress intensity factor of interfa-
cial slit modeled as a crack.
ent notch geometries. Additional results are presented in
(Ref. 22), including detailed discussions on computational
procedures for SCF calculations.
The traction structural stress method has the advantage
of simplicity since it is mesh size insensitive. It would be
useful to compare with a more elaborate method developed
specifically for correlating the same data shown in Fig. 22
(Ref. 21) in which local strain energy change with respect
to a control volume surrounding the notch root. Such a
comparison is given in Fig. 23. Note that in the original
plot taken from Ref. 21 (see Fig. 23B here), the test data
corresponding to “smooth” were not included in Fig. 23B.
With the same three sets of test data taken directly from
Fig. 22C, in terms of traction stress range, are plotted in
Fig. 23A. It can be seen that the correlation based on trac-
tion stress range in Fig. 23A seems better than that shown
in Fig. 23B, in addition to the method’s simplicity. The key
reason for the good correlation in terms of traction stress
lies in the fact that the traction stress was specifically de-
veloped for treatment of crack propagation dominated fa-
tigue lives, e.g., in welded joints. The similarities between
AM parts (see Fig. 21) and welded joints (see Fig. 1A) seem
obvious.

Fig. 16 — Characteristic porosity distributions identified by
parametric analysis using HPE model given in Fig. 15B.
A B
Fig. 18 — Fatigue test results for validating the computational results given in Fig. 17, based on characteristic porosity distribution
types given in Fig. 16: A — Cases 1 and 2; B — Cases 3 and 4.
Internally-Distributed Defects
Consider the randomly distributed indications shown in
Fig. 4B. A finite element alternating model previously dis-
cussed was generated as shown in Fig. 24 by considering a
transverse cross section normal to bar’s longitudinal axis
(Fig. 24A). Within such a cross section, any number of ellip-
tical crack-like defects (with minor axis represented as a and
major axis as b — Fig. 24A) can be analytically defined for
examining stress intensity factors along a crack front under
given loading conditions. For the present study, three cases
are investigated: a single elliptical crack-like defect (Fig.
24B); two coplanar elliptical cracks (Fig. 24C); and three
coplanar elliptical cracks (Fig. 24D). Note that the single
crack case shown in Fig. 24B is for evaluating crack location
effects by changing the crack position from the center of the
bar to the edge. This represents a unique advantage of the
FEAM technique, for which one FE mesh (Fig. 24A) is all
that is needed for examining both the crack location effect
(Fig. 24A) and the effects of multiple crack interactions (Fig.
24C and D). Due to space limitation, we only consider re-
mote tension loading conditions i.e., tensions along z axis)
WELDING RESEARCH
A B
Fig. 17 — Stress intensity factor results corresponding to
characteristic distribution types given in Fig. 16: A — Lap ten-
sion (i.e., coach peel); B — lap shear.
here. For other loading conditions, results and conditions
are given in Ref. 22. The ellipses with dashed lines in Fig.
24C and D represent the equivalent crack size stiputed in
FFS Codes and Standards, e.g., see API 579 (Ref. 6) or BS
7910 (Ref. 7).
The stress intensity factor (K) results for single elliptical
crack case are shown in Fig. 25. Note the all computed K re-
sults are normalized by 0 a where 0 represents remote
applied tension stress. At a given crack position, the maxi-
mum K occurs at   90 deg, corresponding to the minor
axis position as shown in Fig. 25A. As crack position is
moved closer to the bar edge, i.e., d/R  0.9, the maximum K
shows a rapid increase. At d/R  1, the elliptical crack be-
comes a semielliptical surface crack, representing the most
severe defect condition.
Two coplanar elliptical cracks are considered in Fig. 26.
The purpose is to evaluate the existing equivalent crack size
(see dashed ellipse) criterion when the two crack-like defects
are situated close to each other with a spacing of s  2a. The
stress intensity factor results along the two crack fronts are
shown as Crack 1 (C1) and Crack 2 (C2) in Fig. 26. Separate
FEAM analyses were also performed for single equivalent
FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 47-s
WELDING RESEARCH
Fig. 19 — Shop floor implementation.
A B
Fig. 21 — Notch geometry details of a V-notched fatigue specimen made by a 3D print process (Ref. 21).
crack corresponding to s  0.5a, 1a, 2a, respectively. All
these K results are compared in Fig. 26B–D. The results
show that any interactions between the two coplanar cracks
becomes insignificant when their spacing becomes larger
than 1a or s  1a and that existing s  2a criterion in today’s
codes and standards, e.g., Refs. 6 and 7, seems excessively
conservative, particularly for AM applications (see Fig. 4).
The same can be said about three coplanar cracks, as shown
in Fig. 27. The excessive conservatisms associated with ex-
isting defect interaction criteria shown in Figs. 26 and 27
(see the results labeled as “equivalent”) often lead to unnec-
essary weld repairs that can cause unintended conse-
quences, e.g., high biaxial or triaxial residual stresses (Refs.
23 and 24).
Conclusion
After a brief overview of some of the recent needs for de-
veloping quantitative defect acceptance criteria in support-
ing structural lightweighting and additive manufacturing,
some of the recent developments in applied fracture me-
chanics as well as robust computational methods are high-
lighted. The emphasis is given to their engineering applica-
tions for enabling the development of quantitative defect
acceptance criteria for ensuring structural integrity and
48-s WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020, VOL. 99
Fig. 20 — Strain-life results of 3D printed titanium alloy Ti-6-4
bar specimens (Ref. 5).
C D
Incomplete
fusion
cost-effectiveness in engineering construction. A series of
case studies are presented, spanning from aluminum spot
welds to metallic AM parts. The following may be considered
as the key messages of this paper:
1) Quantitative quality acceptance criteria supported by
fracture mechanics principles and recent computational
modeling techniques become increasingly important for ef-
fectively supporting today’s increasingly stringent light-
weighting requirements.
2) Existing defect interaction criteria seem excessively con-
servative in dealing with randomly distributed discontinuities
often occurring in joining lightweight metals, e.g., aluminum
alloys and metallic AM parts. The quantitative results present-
ed in this paper suggest that these criteria in relevant codes
and standards should be updated by taking advantages of re-
cent developments in some of the computational methods.
3) In today’s quality control, industry tends to put more
emphasis on acquiring high-tech and high-resolution nonde-
structive techniques that have been advancing at a much more
rapid pace than our understanding of the structural signifi-
cance of various forms of manufacturing defects, particularly
those from newer joining and AM processes. The hope is that
this paper has provided rationales for the importance of taking
a parallel path for establishing what to look for and where to
look when using these advanced NDE techniques, as well as
how to interpret a defects’ significance to structural integrity.
 WELDING RESEARCH

A B

C D

C D

Fig. 22 — Analysis of fatigue test results of notch geometry effects on fatigue behaviors in 3D printed metallic specimens: A —
Specimen geometry; B — nominal stress range vs. cycles to failure; C — FE models for computing SCFs; D — traction stress.

A B

Fig. 23 — Comparison of fatigue test data taken from Fig. 22 between traction stress range and a local energy based fatigue
parameter: A — Traction stress range; B — local energy parameter taken from (Ref. 21).

2. Osage, D. A., Dong, P., and Spring, D. 2018. Fatigue assess-

Acknowledgments
The author acknowledges the financial support of some
of the work reported in this paper through a grant from
CRRC Qiqihar Rolling Stock Co. Ltd. at the University of
Michigan (Grant No.: N025456). The author would like to
express special thanks to CRRC Qiqihar project representa-
tive Dr. Xiangwei Li for his technical support and encourage-
ments during the preparation of this article.
References
1. Dong, P. 2017. Defect assessment, University of Michigan NA
513 Coursepack.
ment of welded joints in API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 2016-existing
methods and new developments. Procedia Engineering (213):
497–538. DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2018.02.049
3. Dong, P., Hong, J. K., Osage, D. A., Dewees, D. J., and Prager,
M. 2010. The master SN curve method: An implementation for fa-
tigue evaluation of welded components in the ASME B&PV code,
Section VIII, Division 2 and API 579-1/ASME FFS-1. Welding Re-
search Council Bulletin 523.
4. Dong, P., and Hong, J. K. 2004. Fracture mechanics treat-
ment of residual stresses in defect assessment. Welding in the World
48(5–6): 19–27. DOI: 10.1007/BF03266428
5. DebRoy, T., Wei, H. L., Zuback, J. S., Mukherjee, T., Elmer, J. W.,
Milewski, J. O., and Zhang, W. 2018. Additive manufacturing of
metallic components–process, structure and properties. Progress in
Materials Science 92: 112–224. DOI: 10.1016/j.pmatsci.2017. 10.001

FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 49-s

WELDING RESEARCH

B
A B

C
D
C

Fig. 24 — FEAM model for examining defect position effects
and multi-defect interaction effects: A — FEA model; B —
centrally-located elliptical internal defect; C — two coplanar
defects; D — three coplanar defects.
Fig. 25 — Stress intensity factor as a function of defect loca-
tion – one defect: A — Centrally located defect vs. near-edge
defect; B — stress intensity factor distribution along defect
front; C — maximum stress intensity factor as a function of de-
fect location.

A B

C D

Fig. 26 — Stress intensity factor as a function of defect location – two coplanar defects and equivalent defect (dashed line): A — Posi-
tions of defects studied; B — stress intensity factor distribution along defect fronts with defect spacing s=0.5a; C — stress intensity
factor distribution along defect fronts with defect spacing s=a; D — stress intensity factor distribution along defect fronts with de-
fect spacing s=2a.

6. American Petroleum Institue. ASME/API: API 579-1/ASME
FFS. 2007. Fitness-for-service, American Petroleum Institute,
Houston, Tex.
7. British Standards Institution. 2015. BS 7608: Code of Practice
for Fatigue Design and Assessment of Steel Structures. British Stan-
dard, London, U.K.
8. Socie, D. F., Dowling, N. E., and Kurath, P. 1984. Fatigue life
estimation of notched members. Fracture Mechanics: 15th Sympo-
sium. ASTM STP 883, 284–289.
9. Zhang, J., and Katsube, N. 1995. International Journal for Nu-
merical Methods in Engineering 38: 1635–1653. DOI: 10.1002/
nme.1620381004
10. Zhang, J., and Dong, P. 1998. A hybrid polygonal element
method for fracture mechanics analysis of resistance spot welds

50-s WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020, VOL. 99


Fig. 27 — Stress intensity factor as a function of defect location – three coplanar crack-like defects and one equivalent defect
(dashed line): A — Positions of defects studied; B — stress intensity factor distribution along defect fronts with defect spacing
s = 0.5a; C — stress intensity factor distribution along defect fronts with defect spacing s = a.
containing porosity. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 59(6):
815–825. DOI: 10.1016/S0013-7944(97)00151-3
11. Dong, P., and Brust, F. W. 2000. Welding residual stresses
and effects on fracture in pressure vessel and piping components:
A millennium review and beyond. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technol-
ogy 122(3): 328 and 329. DOI: 10.1115/1.556189
12. Zhang, J., Dong, P., Brust, F. W., Shack, W. J., Mayfield, M.
E., and McNeil, M. 2000. Modeling weld residual stresses in core
shroud structures. Nuclear Engineering and Design 195(2): 171-187.
DOI: 10.1016/S0029-5493(99)00251-4
13. Dong, P. 2008. Length scale of secondary stresses in fracture
and fatigue. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping
85(3): 128–143. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2007. 10.005
14. Dong, P. 2018. On repair weld residual stresses and signifi-
cance to structural integrity. Welding in the World 62(2): 351–362.
DOI: 10.1007/s40194-018-0554-1
15. Dong, P. 2005. A robust structural stress method for fatigue
analysis of offshore/marine structures. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng.
127(1): 68–74. DOI: 10.1115/1.1854698
16. Dong, P., and Hong, J. K. 2004. The master SN curve ap-
proach to fatigue evaluation of offshore and marine structures.
ASME 23rd International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering, 847–855. American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Digital Collection. DOI: 10.1115/ OMAE2004-51324
17. Dong, P., and Hong, J. K. 2012. Fatigue of tubular joints:
Hot spot stress method revisited. Journal of Offshore Mechanics and
Arctic Engineering 134(3): 031602. DOI: 10.1115/1.4005188
18. Dong, P., and Hong, J. 2007. A robust structural stress pa-
rameter for evaluation of multiaxial fatigue of weldments. Fatigue
and Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 35. DOI: 10.1520/STP45516S
19. Dong, P., Wei, Z., and Hong, J. K. 2010. A path-
dependent cycle counting method for variable-amplitude multi-axi-
WELDING RESEARCH
al loading. International Journal of Fatigue 32(4): 720–734. DOI:
10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2009.10.010
20. Mei, J., and Dong, P. 2016. A new path-dependent fatigue
damage model for non-proportional multi-axial loading. Interna-
tional Journal of Fatigue 90: 210–221. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfa-
tigue.2016.05.010
21. Solberg, K., and Berto, F. 2019. Notch-defect interaction in
additively manufactured Inconel 718. International Journal of Fa-
tigue 122: 35–45. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2018.12.021
22. Song, S., and Dong, P. 2019. A rapid fracture mechanics
evaluation method for assessing structural significance of random-
ly distributed defects in metallic AM parts.
23. Dong, P., Hong, J. K., Zhang, J., Rogers, P., Bynum, J., and
Shah, S. 1998. Effects of repair weld residual stresses on wide-pan-
el specimens loaded in tension. J. Pressure Vessel Technol. 120(2):
122–128. DOI: 10.1115/ 1.2842229
24. Dong, P. 2018. On repair weld residual stresses and signifi-
cance to structural integrity. Welding in the World 62(2): 351–362.
DOI: 10.1007/s40194-018-0554-1
PINGSHA DONG (dongp@umich.edu) is director, Welded Struc-
tures Laboratory; professor, Department of Naval Architecture
and Marine Engineering; and professor, Department of Mechan-
ical Engineering at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Based on the 2019 Comfort A. Adams Lecture delivered Novem-
ber 11, 2019, following the AWS Business Meeting during FABTECH.
FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 51-s
WELDING RESEARCH
Steel-Reinforced Polyethylene Pipe: Extrusion
Welding, Investigation, and Mechanical Testing
The effects of welding methods, with and without preheat
conditions, on weld quality were investigated by visual and
radiographic inspections,and crystalline analysis
BY C. TIPPAYASAM AND A. KAEWVILAI
ABSTRACT
This work presents extrusion welding with a square butt
joint of V-shaped steel-reinforced polyethylene (SRPE) cor-
rugated pipe. The SRPE pipe was welded in a single pass on
the inside of the pipe. The welding temperature was
controlled at 190°–200°C. The welding extruder was
modified for controlling the travel speed and preheating
conditions for welding. A high-density polyethylene (HDPE)
rod was used as the welding filler metal, which was
inserted into the extruder with a speed of 2.20 m/min.
Welding progressed downhill from the overhead position
with a travel speed of 3.0 cm/min. The effects of welding
methods, with and without preheat conditions, on the weld
quality were investigated by visual and radiographic inspec-
tions. From the results, the preheated welding condition
showed complete fusion of the weld without any defects,
while that of the nonpreheat exhibited a great number of
voids inside the weld. The crystal structures of the
preheated and nonpreheated welds were analyzed with an
x-ray diffractometer and compared with the HDPE base ma-
terial. From mechanical testing, the weld from the preheat
condition showed a good ability to endure the tension force
of 46 MPa and compressive stress of up to 0.41 MPa at 5%
deflection. In addition, it was found the welded SRPE could
tolerate hydrostatic pressure of up to 0.18 MPa without any
water leakage when being used as a water-containing tank.
KEYWORDS
• Steel-Reinforced Polyethylene Pipe
• Extrusion Welding • Preheat
Introduction
High-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe, well known as a
type of thermoplastic pipe, is used instead of concrete and
steel pipes for many applications, such as gas and fluid trans-
fers, water/sewage drainages, and electrical and communica-
tion conduits (Refs. 1–3). The HDPE pipe shows many excel-
lent properties, such as light weight, chemical resistance, and
tolerance for decomposition (Ref. 4). Although HDPE pipe has
52-s WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020, VOL. 99
Fig. 1 — Steel-reinforced polyethylene corrugated pipe (double-
wall V-shaped profile).
been appropriate for underground applications, it also has
high ductility and low stiffness, which causes an unstable
shape when it receives highly compressive forces (Refs. 3, 4).
Recently, the strength of HDPE pipe has been improved by
methods such as increasing the wall thickness, spiral shape de-
signs, and reinforcements such as fiberglass and ceramic, etc.
(Refs. 3–5).
Steel-reinforced polyethylene (SRPE) corrugated pipe is a
kind of sandwich composite consisting of HDPE and galva-
nized steel (Refs. 6, 7). The internal and external walls are cov-
ered by HDPE, and the center layer is reinforced with galva-
nized steel with V and U spiral shapes (Refs. 8, 9), as shown in
Fig. 1. The SRPE has many advantages from the combined
properties of HDPE and reinforced steel, such as high stiff-
ness, high corrosion resistance, and better flexibility with
steady structure (Refs. 8–10). As a result, there has been inter-
est in using SRPE for underground applications such as
drainage/sewage pipes and water storage tanks (Refs. 8–10).
For fabrication and connection uses, SRPE is simple to weld at
the HDPE joint by heating-fusion processes such as electrofu-
sion belt, elastomeric seal, and heated tool welding (Refs.
11–14). However, these techniques are suitable for butt-joint
welding on the outside of the pipe. It is difficult for completely
welding on the inside of the pipe and other joints such as lap,
corner, and T-shaped joints.
Extrusion welding is a thermal technique developed from
hot gas/air welding for melting and joining thermoplastics and
their composites (Refs. 14–18). The filler rod-based thermo-
plastic material is heated and extruded into a molten form at
the joint area, which is welded after cooling. It also allows a
large welding area with a single pass and good penetration
(Refs. 19–20). Hot melt extrusion welding can be performed
https://doi.org/10.29391/2020.99.005

Fig. 2 — Welding extruder (Ref. 21).
by a manual welder or with semiautomation, and can weld on
both the inside and outside of the pipe with various joint de-
signs. The weld quality from extrusion could be controlled by
welding parameters such as welding temperature, flow rate,
and extrusion speed (Refs. 19, 20).
Based on our knowledge, the effects of preheating condi-
tion on weld quality, crystallinity, and strength of SRPE in ex-
trusion welding have not been reported. Therefore, this work
presents welding of V-shaped SRPE pipe (1200 mm diameter)
by manual extrusion with preheat. The modified extruder
with the preheat function was used for controlling heating
conditions before welding. The effects of welding methods,
with and without preheat conditions, on weld quality and the
crystalline structure were also studied. In addition, the me-
chanical properties of the weld were further tested for consid-
ering the possibility of using welded pipe in unground applica-
tions such as water storage and sewage/drainage pipes.
Experimental Procedures
Materials and Instruments
Steel-reinforced polyethylene corrugated pipe (V-shaped
double-wall pipe) with a diameter of 1200 mm (Refs. 8, 9)
and 3.5-mm-diameter HDPE rod were supported by SR.PE
GROUP Co. Ltd. The welding extruder produced from
Metabo was modified with a servomotor and preheat func-
tion (Refs. 20, 21) as shown in Fig. 2. An infrared ther-
mosensor (PROSKIT, MT-4612) was used for detecting the
actual temperature of welding. The x-ray radiographic tester
was a product from General Electric Co. The crystal struc-
tures of the welds were analyzed by an x-ray diffractometer
(XRD; a Philips X-Pert-MPD x-ray diffractometer). The ten-
sile strength and stiffness of the welded specimens were
tested, respectively, by a universal testing machine (UTM;
Chengde Precision) and compressive tester (JINGMI).
Welding and Investigation
The SRPE pipes were prepared in a squared butt-joint con-
figuration with a root opening of 5.0 mm and welded by extru-
sion at the tacking positions of 0, 90, 180, and 270 deg, re-
spectively. Before welding, the joint was prepared in the fol-
lowing two conditions: 1) welding with preheating at 150°C
and 2) welding without preheating. The HDPE rod was insert-
ed into the hot air extruder with the rate of 2.20 mm/min and
the controlled temperature of 190°–200°C during the welding
period. The travel speed and extruder speed were controlled at
WELDING RESEARCH
3.0 cm/min and 200 rpm, respectively. After that, the SRPE
was welded in a single pass on the inside of the pipe from an
overhead position with downhill progression.
After welding, the shape, dimension, and quality of the
welds were inspected by visual testing (VT) according to Amer-
ican Welding Society (AWS) Standard G1.10M:2001, Guide for
the Evaluation of Hot Gas, Hot Gas Extrusion, and Heated Tool
Butt Thermoplastic Welds (Ref. 22). The inside welds were in-
vestigated by radiographic testing (RT) using a phosphor imag-
ing plate (D7 class) and the exposure parameters of 20 kV, 2
mA, 40 s, and the FFD of 700 mm. The radiographic images
were developed by a computed scanner. After that, the welded
specimens were characterized by XRD using Cu-K as the radi-
ation source ( = 1.54 Å) and 2 ranging from 10 to 40 deg
with a scanning rate of 0.2 1/s. The crystallinity was deter-
mined from the integrated area of amorphous and crystalline
as follows: %crystallinity (XC) = AC/(AC + AA), where AC and AA
are the crystalline and amorphous areas, respectively (Refs.
23–25). The crystalline thickness of the lamella was calculated
by Scherrer equation as follows: t = K/cos where t is the
mean size of the ordered (crystalline) domains, which may be
smaller or equal to the grain size; K is a dimensionless shape
factor, which has a typical value of 0.89;  is the x-ray wave-
length; and  is the line broadening at half the maximum in-
tensity after subtracting the instrumental line broadening in
radians. This quantity is also sometimes denoted as D(2);  is
the Bragg angle (Ref. 26).
Mechanical Testing
The tensile specimen was prepared from SRPE welded in
the conditions of preheating and nonpreheating. The welded
specimens were prepared as a rectangular strip with the di-
mensions of 25 × 150 × 10 mm (three samples were used per
each condition), which was used to analyze the tensile
strength of the weld (Ref. 20). The tensile strengths of the
welded specimens were tested by UTM, and then the broken
areas and types of fracture of the welded specimens were con-
sidered to determine the quality of the weld (Refs. 20, 27, 28).
For the stiffness test, the welded SRPE pipes were applied
by a compression load at 5% deflection according to American
Society for Testing Materials Standard F2435-15 (ASTM
F2435-15) and Thai Industrial Standard 2764-2559 (TIS
2764-2559) for considering the strength of the welded SRPE
(Refs. 8, 9). The pipe stiffness was calculated from the equa-
tion as follows: Stiffness = F/(L × DY), where F = compressive
force (N), D = length of specimen (mm), and DY = changes in
vertical deflection (mm) (Refs. 8, 9). Finally, the welded pipe
was sealed at both ends and then filled with water into the lid-
ded pipe for testing water leakage and hydrostatic pressure.
Results and Discussion
Welding and Investigation
From visual inspection, the welded pipes from the pre-
heat and nonpreheat conditions exhibited good welds and
displayed complete joint penetration without defects and
discontinuities at the surface — Fig. 3. The size of the
width, convexity, and root of the weld were found to be ap-
proximately 32.0, 5.0, and 1.0 mm, respectively. The average
FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 53-s
WELDING RESEARCH

sizes of the welded pipes were measured and summarized in

Table 1 and were in the range according to TIS 2764-2559 A
and AWS G1.10M:2001 (Refs. 9, 22).
From the radiographic tests (Fig. 4), the x-ray images of
welded specimens from the preheat and nonpreheat condi-
tions showed the three contrast zones, such as dark black,
black, and bright black, which were assigned as the areas of
HDPE, steel-reinforced HDPE, and weld, respectively. The x-
ray image of the preheated welded specimen (Fig. 4A)
showed the complete weld without any defects observed
along with the welded areas. For the x-ray image of speci-
mens from the nonpreheat welding, it was found the HDPE
and steel-reinforced HDPE zones had no defect and a
smooth surface, but the welded area showed the discontin-
ues that formed inside the welded material as shown in Fig.
4B. These volumetric indicators inside the nonpreheated B
weld were assigned as a void that came from impurities such
as moisture, as well as volatile and processing additives (in-
cluding the immediate shrinkage of the weld). This caused
the high cooling rate in nonpreheat welding and generated
the void in the material at a high temperature. From the RT
result, it indicated the preheated condition could eliminate
these impurities and also soften the material during the
welding process, which solved the problems of any defects
inside the weld.
Phase components of the welded SRPE at the welded area
and HDPE base were characterized by x-ray diffraction. The
XRD patterns of the HDPE base and welds obtained from
preheated and nonpreheated welding exhibited the diffrac-
tion peaks as shown in Fig. 5A–C, respectively. C
The characteristic peaks of all specimens appeared at the
2 of 21.4 and 23.7 deg corresponding to the diffraction
planes of (110) and (200), respectively. These diffraction
peaks agreed with the orthorhombic structure of HDPE as
reported elsewhere (Refs. 23, 29). In addition, the XRD
showed the broad peak at 2 approximately 20 deg, which
was typically assigned to the amorphous phase of HDPE. It
confirmed that the structure of the HDPE base before and
after welding consisted of the semicrystalline structure of
both amorphous and crystalline phases. Moreover, it was
found that the broad peak of the specimens after being
welded was significantly changed into the more sharper
shape, similar to the other crystalline peaks in the pattern.
It indicated the hot extrusion welding changed the crys-
tallinity and lamellar crystalline size of HDPE. Therefore,
the amorphous characteristics and crystallinity of the welds, Fig. 3 — The generality of welded SRPE: A — Cross section;
including the size of lamellar crystalline, were considered. B — inside; C — outside.
The % crystallinity and lamellar crystalline size of the weld-
ed SRPE and HDPE base were calculated and summarized in (64.65%) than that of the preheated (65.80%) and nonpre-
Table 2. heated welds (70.15%). By the Scherrer equation, the calcu-
From the crystallinity calculation results, it was found lated size of lamellar at the plane of (111) of the HDPE base,
that the HDPE at the base showed lower crystallinity for both preheated and nonpreheated welds, were found to

Table 1 — Visual Inspection of Welded SRPE Pipe

Welding Conditions Inside Diameter Outside Diameter Pitch Range Wall Thickness Weld Size (mm) Weld
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Convex Width Root Defect
Internal Total

Preheat 1201.0 1332.0 154.7 5.20 10.09 5.15 32.20 1.00 No defect
Nonpreheat 1201.1 1332.2 154.7 5.25 10.10 5.05 32.50 0.95 No defect

54-s WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020, VOL. 99

 WELDING RESEARCH

A B

Fig. 4 — X-ray images of welded SRPE from welding with the following: A — Preheat; B — nonpreheat.

HDPE base, which might indicate the welding process with-

out preheating condition could not control the crystallinity
and crystallite size of materials. In the case of the preheated
weld, it was found that the crystallinity and crystallite size
were close to those of the HDPE base, which might demon-
C strate that the preheated welding could control the crystal
structure by reducing heat loss and the cooling rate during
welding.

B
A found to be 46.04 and 31.01 MPa, respectively. The elonga-
Fig. 5 — XRD patterns of welded SRPE: A — HDPE base; B —
preheated weld; C — nonpreheated weld.
be 29.70, 28.72, and 24.30 nm, respectively. At the plane of
(200), the crystallite size of the HDPE base, preheated and
nonpreheated welds, was found to be 28.76, 27.45, and
22.94 nm, respectively. These results indicated the lamellar
size of the weld was decreased after welding while the crys-
tallinity was increased. The crystallinity and crystallite size
of the nonpreheated weld was extremely changed from the
Mechanical Testing
The tensile testing results of the welded specimens from
preheating and nonpreheating were compared as shown in
Fig. 6. The tensile strength (Fig. 6A) of the welded speci-
mens from the preheated and nonpreheated conditions was
tion at the break (Fig. 6B) of the welded specimens from
welding with and without preheat was found to be 98.53
and 64.13%, respectively.
In addition, the types of failures (ductile and brittle rup-
tures) in the welded specimens after testing were considered
for the weld quality of the joint (Refs. 20, 27, 28). The results
showed the welded specimens from the preheated condition
had good joint quality because they showed ductile ruptures
after breaking at the base position of the test specimens, out-
side the welding area — Fig. 7A. It indicated preheat welding
could control weld quality, crystallinity, and crystallite size of
the weld. For the welding without the preheat condition, it was
found that the specimens exhibited brittle ruptures and were
broken at the welding area, which indicated the joint in the

Table 2 — XRD Result of Welded Pipe

Specimens 2 (deg) Plane Lamellar Crystallite Size (nm) % Crystallinity

Base 21.4 (110) 29.70 64.65%
23.7 (200) 28.76

Preheated Weld 21.4 (110) 28.62 65.80%

23.7 (200) 27.45

Nonpreheated Weld 21.4 (110) 24.30 70.15%

23.7 (200) 22.94

FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 55-s

WELDING RESEARCH

A B
g

g
Fig. 6 — The tension testing results: A — Tensile strength; B — elongation of specimens from welding conditions of preheat and
nonpreheat.

A B

Fig. 7 — The welded specimens after tension test: A — Preheated specimens; B — nonpreheated specimens.

nonpreheated specimens had poor quality as shown in Fig. 7B.
This was due to the void that formed inside the weld, which
decreased the strength of the welded specimens. From the
compressive test (Table 3), the pipe specimens from welding,
with and without preheat conditions, revealed stiffness of 0.41
MPa at the stress of 5% deflection according to ASTM F2412-
15 and TIS 2764-2559 (Refs. 8, 9). Moreover, the test speci-
mens were further tested at the high stress of 40% deflections,
and it was found the welded specimens could stand without
cracking at the weld and base areas. This could explain that the
compressive force was dispersed by the strength of the rein-
forced steel; therefore, the weld and HDPE base received no
damage.
For the water leak and hydrostatic pressure tests, the
SRPE pipe welded at both cover lids was filled with water
and kept for four weeks. The sealed tank showed no leakage
at the weld and base material observed by water leakage
testing. In addition, we found the welded SRPE pipe could
endure hydrostatic pressure up to 0.18 MPa without any wa-
ter leakage — Fig. 8. After testing by using the pressure over
0.18 MPa, it was found the water was able to leak out from
the internal pipe wall near the reinforced steel. From these
results, it might be concluded the welded SRPE pipe could be
used for water drainage, sewage, water supply industrials,
and nonpressure applications.
Conclusions
Steel-reinforced polyethylene (SRPE) corrugated pipe
was welded by extrusion welding in preheated and nonpre-
heated conditions. From visual and radiographic inspec-
tions, the welded SRPE from the preheated condition exhib-

Table 3 — Pipe Stiffness Testing Result

Welding Conditions Specimen Size (mm) Load at 5% ID after Test Pipe Stiffness at
ID Length Deflection (N) (mm) 5% Deflection (MPa)
Preheat 1201.0 500.5 15,000 1128.0 0.41
Nonpreheated 1201.1 500.3 14,996 1128.8 0.41

56-s WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020, VOL. 99


Fig. 8 — Hydrostatic pressure test.
ited a complete-joint-penetration weld without defects while
that of the nonpreheated weld had a void formed inside. By
x-ray diffraction (XRD) characterizations, the welds from
preheated and nonpreheated conditions exhibited diffrac-
tion patterns that agreed with the orthorhombic structure.
The crystallinity and crystallite size of the preheated weld
was similar to unwelded high-density polyethylene (HDPE)
while the nonpreheated weld was extremely changed. From
the tensile results, the preheated weld specimens showed
ductile ruptures at the HDPE base. In the case of the non-
preheated weld, the specimens showed brittle ruptures at
the welding area because the void formed inside the weld.
For compressive testing, superior results were presented due
to the steel reinforcement. The preheated specimens could
also endure the stress of 40% compression without cracking
at the base and welding areas. Moreover, no leakage at the
weld and the base was observed after water leakage and hy-
drostatic pressure tests under a pressure of 0.18 MPa. From
the overall results, it was clearly concluded that preheated
welding was able to control the weld quality, crystallinity,
crystallite size, and mechanical properties of the welded
SRPE.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Mr. Siwawut Sornnil
and SR.PE GROUP Co. Ltd. for the supporting materials and
instruments.
References
1. Schaaf, F. J. 2008. Development of Code Case N-755: Use of
Polyethylene (PE) Plastic Pipe for Section III, Division 1, Construc-
tion and Section XI Repair/Replacement Activities, 16th Interna-
tional Conference on Nuclear Engineering, ICONE16-48495, pp.
963–969. DOI: 10.1115/ICONE16-48495
WELDING RESEARCH
2. Walsh, T. 2016. The Plastic Piping Industry in North America,
Applied Plastics Engineering Handbook: Processing, Materials, and Ap-
plications: 2nd Ed., pp. 697–716. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-323-39040-
8.00033-X
3. Terzi, N. U., Yılmazturk, F., Yıldırım S., and Kılıç, H. 2012. Ex-
perimental investigations of backfill conditions on the perform-
ance of high‐density polyethelene pipes. Experimental Techniques
36(2): 40–49. DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-1567.2010.00691.x
4. Yu, K., Morozov, E. V., Ashraf, M. A., and Shankar, K. 2017. A
review of the design and analysis of reinforced thermoplastic pipes
for offshore applications. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Compos-
ites 36(20): 1514–1530. DOI: 10.1177/0731684417713666
5. Lee, B. Y., Kim, Y. K., Hwnag, W. G., Kim, J. S., and Lee, S. Y.
2012. Improvement of butt-welding characteristics of double wall
polyethylene pipes. Metals and Materials International 18(5):
851–856. DOI: 10.1007/s12540-012-5016-5
6. Zheng, H. W., Xiang, S. H., and Chang, L. 2013. Study on pro-
duction technique of the metal reinforced polyethylene spiral cor-
rugated pipe. Advanced Materials Research 634–638: 2040–2043.
DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.634-638.2040
7. Khatri, D. K., Han, J., Parsons, R. L., Young, B., Brennan J. J.,
and Corey, R. 2013. Laboratory evaluation of deformations of
steel-reinforced high-density polyethylene pipes under static loads.
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 25(12): 1964–1969. DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000779
8. ASTM F2435-15, Standard Specification for Steel Reinforced
Polyethylene (PE) Corrugated Pipe. 2015. West Conshohocken, Pa.:
ASTM International. DOI: 10.1520/F2435-15
9. TIS 2764-2559, Standard Specification for Steel Reinforced Poly-
ethylene Corrugated Pipe. 2016. Bangkok, Thailand: Thai Industrial
Standards Institute.
10. Hongtao, H., and Hickey, T. 2017. Steel Reinforced Polyethyl-
ene Corrugated Pipe Applications & Inspection Standards. Sichuan
Goldstone Orient New Material Equipment Co. Ltd., pp. 1–17,
pdf.directindustry.com/pdf/sichuan-goldstone-orient-new-material-
equipment-co-ltd/steel-reinforced-polyethylene-corrugated-pipe-appli-
cations-inspection-standards/123361-721834.html, accessed 29 May,
2019.
11. Sun, Y., Jia, Y. F., Haroon, M., Lai, H., Jiang, W., and Tu, S. T.
2019. Welding residual stress in HDPE pipes: Measurement and
numerical simulation. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology 141(4):
FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 57-s
WELDING RESEARCH

041404-1–041404-9. DOI: 10.1115/1.4043463
12. Niou, S., Chaoui, K., Azzouz, S., Hamlaoui, N., and Alimi, L.
2018. A method for mechanical property assessment across butt
fusion welded polyethylene pipes. International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology 97: 543–561. DOI: 10.1007/s00170-018-
1908-y
13. Rojek, M., Stabik, J., and Muzia, G. 2010. Thermography in
plastics welding processes assessment. Journal of Achievements in
Materials and Manufacturing Engineering 41: 40–47.
14. Balkan, O., Demirer, H., and Yildirim, H. 2008. Morphologi-
cal and mechanical properties of hot gas welded PE, PP and PVC
sheets. Journal of Achievements in Materials and Manufacturing Engi-
neering 31(1): 60–70.
15. Grewell, D. A., Benatar, A., and Park, J. B. 2013. Plastics and
Composites Welding Handbook. Hanser Publications, Ohio.
16. O’Brien, A. 2015. Welding Handbook, 9th ed., Vol. 5, Plastics.
Miami, Fla.: American Welding Society. pp. 517–566.
17. Haque, M. S., Kumar, M., and Khan, A. 2015. Hot gas weld-
ing of plastic: Fundamentals & importance. Invertis Journal of Sci-
ence and Technology 8(4): 1–4.
18. Rotheiser, J. 2009. Hot Gas Welding, Joining of Plastics, 3rd
ed. Carl Hanser Verlag, Munich, Germany. pp. 321–334. DOI:
10.3139/9783446445956
19. Troughton, M. J. 2008. Handbook of Plastics Joining: A Practi-
cal Guide, 2nd ed., Extrusion Welding. William Andrew Inc., N.Y., pp.
73–79.
20. Chaichawalit, A., Tippayasam, C., Yingsamphancharoen, T.,
Sornnil, S., and Kaewvilai, A. 2018. A semi-automatic welding ma-
chine based on hot air extrusion with preheating function for join-
ing of steel reinforced PE corrugated pipe. The 1st MRS-Thailand
2017 Int. Conf. Proc., pp. 114–119.
21. Chaichawalit, A., Kaewvilai, A., Yingsamphancharoen, T.,
and Tippayasam, C. 2018. Semi-Automatic Welding Machine based
on Hot Air Extrusion for Plastic Pipe, TH-Petty Patent, No.
1803002088.
22. AWS G1.10M: 2001, Guide for the Evaluation of Hot Gas, Hot
Gas Extrusion, and Heated Tool Butt Thermoplastic Welds. 2001. Mia-
mi, Fla.: American Welding Society.
23. Pelto, J., Verho, T., Ronkainen, H., Kaunisto, K., Metsäjoki,
J., Seitsonen, J., and Karttunen, M. 2019. Matrix morphology and
the particle dispersion in HDPE nanocomposites with enhanced
wear resistance. Polymer Testing 77: 105897. DOI: 10.1016/j.
polymertesting.2019.105897
24. Shirkavand, M. J., Azizi, H., Ghasemi, I., and Karabi, M.
2018. Effect of molecular structure parameters on crystallinity and
environmental stress cracking resistance of high‐density polyethyl-
ene/TiO2 nanocomposites. Advances in Polymer Technology 37(3):
21719. DOI: 10.1002/adv.21719
25. Dai, H., and Peng, J. 2017. The effects of welded joint char-
acteristics on its properties in HDPE thermal fusion welding. Mod-
ern Physics Letters B 31(15): 1750185. DOI: 10.1142/
S0217984917501858
26. Srisuwan, N., Kumsri, N., Yingsamphanchareon T., and
Kaewvilai, A. 2019. Hardfacing welded ASTM A572-based, high
strength, low-alloy steel: Welding, characterization, and surface
properties related to the wear resistance. Metals 9: 224. DOI:
10.3390/met9020244
27. ASTM F2634-15, Standard Test Method for Testing of Polyeth-
ylene (PE) Butt Fusion Joint Using Tensile-Impact Method. 2015. West
Conshohocken, Pa.: ASTM International. DOI: 10.1520/F2634-15
28. BS EN 1555-1: 2010, Plastic Piping Systems for the Supply of
Gaseous Fuels Polyethylene. 2010. London, UK: British Standards
Institute.
29. Sami, A., David, E., and Fréchette, M. 2010. Procedure for
evaluating the crystallinity from x-ray diffraction scans of high and
low density polyethylene/SiO2 composites. Annual Report — Con-
ference on Electrical Insulation and Dielectric Phenomena: 5724069.
DOI: 10.1109/CEIDP.2010.5724069
CHAYANEE TIPPAYASAM and ATTAPHON KAEWVILAI (attaphon.
k@cit.kmutnb.ac.th) are with the Department of Welding Engi-
neering Technology, College of Industrial Technology, King
Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok, Bangkok,
Thailand.

Authors: Submit Research Papers Online

Peer review of research papers is now managed through an online system using Editorial Manager soft-
ware. Papers can be submitted into the system directly from the Welding Journal page on the AWS website
(aws.org) by clicking on “submit papers.” You can also access the new site directly at editorialmanager.com/wj/.
Follow the instructions to register or log in. This online system streamlines the review process, and makes
it easier to submit papers and track their progress. By publishing in the Welding Journal, more than 70,000
members will receive the results of your research.
Additionally, your full paper is posted on the American Welding Society website for FREE access around
the globe. There are no page charges, and articles are published in full color. By far, the most people, at the
least cost, will recognize your research when you publish in the world-respected Welding Journal.

58-s WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020 VOL. 99


Geometry-Dependent Solidification Regimes
in Metal Additive Manufacturing
This work provides a simple analytical framework for determining the
conditions under which a system transitions between two regimes
BY A. PLOTKOWSKI
ABSTRACT
Recent modeling and experimental work in additive
manufacturing has suggested cross-sectional geometry
may play a significant role in the local development of the
solidification structure through its influence on the heat
source path. This effect has been rationalized as the transi-
tion from a quasistatic point heat source regime to a
regime dominated by the quasistatic motion of an equiva-
lent line source. This work provides a simple analytical
framework for determining the conditions under which a
system transitions between these regimes. A transient
semianalytical heat transfer model is used to examine a
wide range of process conditions and material properties. A
simple analytical expression is derived and shown to accu-
rately predict the transition between solidification regimes
over these conditions. The functional form of this expres-
sion is then used to help understand the importance of var-
ious material properties, process parameters, and geomet-
ric factors on the characteristics of the solidification con-
ditions. This approach may be used as a simple guideline
for optimizing process conditions in response to variations
in cross-sectional geometry to produce more consistent
microstructural distributions in additively manufactured
components.
KEYWORDS
• Additive Manufacturing • Solidification • Heat Transfer
• Process Modeling
Introduction
Selection of appropriate process parameters and design
of scan patterns for metal additive manufacturing (AM) is
critical for producing defect-free components with a desired
distribution of microstructure and properties. When applied
appropriately, process manipulation in AM can enable pro-
duction of geometries that are impossible to produce with
conventional manufacturing techniques, and even allow for
detailed control of the local microstructure development
(Refs. 1–4). However, heat transfer effects in complex
https://doi.org/10.29391/2020.99.006
WELDING RESEARCH
geometries can also result in unintended variations in mi-
crostructure and defect development. Frederick et al. recent-
ly showed changes from columnar to equiaxed grain mor-
phologies in Rene N5 produced by electron beam melting
(EBM) as a function of the scan line length (Ref. 5). They hy-
pothesized that changes in the melt pool behavior as a func-
tion of the scan pattern and geometry resulted in a dramatic
localized change in the solidification conditions. Similarly,
Plotkowski et al. (Ref. 6) observed dramatic shifts in grain
size and crystallographic texture is laser powder bed fusion
(LPBF) of high aspect ratio thin walls of Fe-Si that influ-
enced their soft-magnetic properties. They found that these
differences were correlated to a shift in the melt pool shape
for very short scan lengths, resulting in slower solidification
cooling rates and an increased grain size. In selective elec-
tron beam melting of Ti-6Al-4V, Juechter et al. (Ref. 7)
found the microstructure and defect structure were depend-
ent on the relative difference between the return time of the
heat source between two neighboring raster segments and
the characteristic thermal diffusion time over the scan
length. Development of simple guidelines for the selection
of appropriate process conditions as a function of geometry
and material properties is, therefore, a critical challenge for
reducing trial and error and improving uniformity in mi-
crostructure and properties.
One simple method of selecting process parameters is the
use of process maps. These maps relate process or micro-
structural features to the heat source power and velocity
helped guide parameter selection in both welding (Refs. 8,
9) and AM (Refs. 10–13). However, this two-dimensional
representation of process space is limited when considering
the increasing complexity of additive manufacturing. Inher-
ent to this approach is an assumption that the melt pool
achieves a quasistatic condition well defined by only these
two process parameters and the material properties. Unfor-
tunately, the thermal response to complex heat source paths
in additive manufacturing may be highly transient, making
it more difficult to easily estimate reasonable process condi-
tions, particularly for complex geometric cross sections.
A variety of modeling techniques have been developed to
predict the transient thermal response on the length scale of
the melt pool, including extensions of computational fluid
FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 59-s
WELDING RESEARCH

Table 1 — List of Test Case Variants in Terms of Linear Beam

Velocity, Hatch Spacing, and Preheat Temperature*

Parameter Levels
L (mm) 4, 5, 6, 7
h (mm) 0.2, 0.3
T0 (K) 300, 500
𝑣𝑏 (m/s) 1, 1.5, 2
Alloy IN718, SS316, Ti-6Al-4V

*Each variant was computed for each material with absorbed powers ranging from 100 to
1000 W in 50-W increments.

the lateral motion of a point heat source but the transverse

motion of an equivalent line heat source in the direction of
the hatch increments. This hypothesis is supported by simi-
lar observations of the thermal profiles resulting from weav-
ing in conventional welding processes, which deviate from
the Rosenthal point source model (Ref. 27). In welding, this
effect led to research by Grong and Christensen (Ref. 28) to
mathematically describe these thermal distributions by ap-
proximating the weaving motion with a line heat source.
Fig. 1 — A schematic of the domain used. The orange box in- The purpose of this work is to utilize a similar approach
dicates the region within which the solidification conditions to develop a simple closed-form equation for estimating
were recorded.
the conditions under which a transition occurs between
these regimes under conditions relevant to additive
dynamics approaches for modeling Marangoni driven flows manufacturing.
and latent heat evolution (Refs. 2, 14–16), and more sophis-
ticated models for tracking the evolution of the liquid free
surface (Refs. 17, 18). However, these models are computa-
Mathematical Models
tionally expensive (often limited to only a few millimeters of
melt track) and ill-suited for developing simple functional Transient Analytical Model
relationships to guide process parameter selection.
As an alternative to computationally expensive numerical The transient solution for a moving semiellipsoidal heat
models, several researchers have recently adopted transient source was derived by Nguyen et al. (Ref. 20). This equation
semianalytical heat conduction models from the welding is implemented here for additive manufacturing by consid-
community (Refs. 19–21) to additive manufacturing (Refs. ering a complex heat source path, similar to that described
22–24). Although these models include a variety of assump- previously by Plotkowski et al. (Ref. 22) and Stump and
tions (conduction only, no latent heat evolution, simplified Plotkowski (Ref. 29). The temperature, T, at time t, may be
boundary conditions), they are able to quickly calculate the expressed as the following:
transient thermal history as a response to complex heat
2qabs t
source paths and over long length and time scales. The T  T0 =
purpose of this work is to use one such model to delineate c(  / 3)3/2 0
different heat conduction regimes as a function of material 1
properties, process parameters, and cross-sectional
geometry. 12 ( t
t') + ah2 12 ( t
t') + bh2
For long scan line lengths, heat conduction behavior dur-
ing welding and additive manufacturing may be reasonably 12 ( t
t') + ch2
approximated using the quasistatic point source solution de-
rived by Rosenthal (Refs. 25, 26) in which a moving refer-
ence frame is coincident with the axis of the heat source. In 3x 2 3y 2 
 2
 
additive manufacturing, it is common to fill an arbitrary 12 ( t
t  ) + ah 12 ( t
t  ) + bh2
geometry using a raster pattern, alternating the heat source exp   dt 
 
trajectory and incrementing by a hatch spacing for each sub-  3z2 
sequent pass. As the line length of this raster pattern be- 
12 ( t
t  ) + c 2 
h
comes shorter, the quality of this quasistatic assumption de-
teriorates. Based on the aforementioned experimental ob-
servations (Refs. 5–7), it is hypothesized that under certain (1)
circumstances, once the line length becomes short enough, a
new quasistatic regime is established that depends not on where T0 is the initial temperature, qabs is the heat source

60-s WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020, VOL. 99

 WELDING RESEARCH

qabs
z2L 
T  T0 = exp  
vh L c 4 t L  4 tL 

L
x  L 
  xL + 2   L 2  .
erf   erf  4 t 
  4 tL   L 

  
(2)
where xL, yL, and zL are coordinates measured relative to the
midpoint of the line source. For the present situation, only
the midpoint of the line source (x = 0) at the surface (z = 0)
is of interest. Furthermore, the time can be expressed as an
equivalent position in the y-direction using the velocity of
the line source,

tL = yL/vh, (3)

where vh is the effective velocity in the hatching direction

and can be expressed relative to scan and geometric parame-
ters and the linear beam velocity,
Fig. 2 — Comparison of transient thermal fields and melt pool vh = vbh/L, (4)
shapes for SS316 with a linear beam velocity of 1.5 m/s, 0.2-
mm hatch spacing, ambient preheat temperature, and with where vb is the linear velocity of the beam and h is the hatch
three different beam powers. The black line indicates the spacing (see Fig. 1).
transient melt pool shape and the dashed blue line shows Using the above relationships, and setting the y-location
the predicted melt pool shape using the quasistatic line to be some multiple of the hatch spacing, yL = nh, the tem-
source approximation in Equation 2. Note that the quasistatic perature equation may be simplified as follows:
line source does not predict any temperatures above the liq-
uidus for a beam power of 100 W.
2qabs
L 
power absorbed by the material,  is density, c is specific T – T0 = erf  . (5)
vh L c 4 t L  2 4 tL 
heat, t' is an integration variable, x, y, and z are spatial coor-
dinates written relative to the moving heat source and are
therefore time dependent, and ah, bh, and ch are the dimen-
sions of the volumetric Gaussian heat source in the x, y, and Substituting in Equation 3
z directions, respectively.
While analytical, Equation 1 is not easily integrable due

to the piece-wise nature of the beam path captured by the 
2qabs 1 
time dependence of the spatial coordinates. As a result, a T – T0 = erf  . (6)
numerical approach to performing the integration has been h c 4
nLvb  4 n
adopted. The details of the integration scheme and verifica-  2 Lv 
b
tion of this approach to modeling heat conduction is sum-
marized in a previous study (Ref. 29).
The thermal diffusivity in the denominator inside the er-
Quasistatic Line Source Model ror function will tend to be comparatively small relative to
the other values in the second term, meaning the error func-
For a heat source traveling rapidly in alternating direc- tion may be well approximated as unity. The error function
tions over a distance L, it may be expected that, under cer- only becomes important for very large thermal diffusivities
tain conditions, the linear motion of the heat source may (e.g., commercial pure Al), or when the line length or beam
be well approximated by the transverse motion of an velocity are very small. For most practical cases, Equation 6
equivalent line source of length L (as shown schematically can be reasonably simplified as follows:
in Fig. 1). The quasistatic solution for a line source with a
constant velocity was described by Grong and Christensen 2qabs
(Ref. 28) in reference to approximating the heat transfer T – T0 = (7)
conditions related to weaving during welding. For a line h c 4 nLvb
source extending from x = –L/2 to L/2, the transient tem-
perature response in the x-z plane at time tL after the line
heat source passes is Finally, Equation 7 may be nondimensionalized by using

FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 61-s

WELDING RESEARCH
Fig. 3 — The normalized average solidification velocity as a
function of the nondimensional temperature at n = 2, show-
ing the average solidification velocity converges to trans-
verse hatch velocity at n = 2 = 1 for wide variety of cases
with changes in material properties, process conditions, and
geometric variables.
the difference between the liquidus temperature, TL, and the
preheat temperature as the characteristic temperature
difference
T – T0 2qabs
n = = . (8)
TL – T0 (TL – T0 )hc 4nLvb
Equation 8 may be interpreted as the nondimensional
temperature at a distance y = nh behind the path of the
equivalent line source. For a raster pattern in which the lin-
ear beam velocity alternates directions, the symmetry of the
path repeats every two hatches. Therefore, it might be ex-
pected that the solidification conditions may transition be-
tween a quasistatic point source regime and a quasistatic
line source regime when n = 2 = 1. That is, as the tempera-
ture two hatch distances behind the transverse motion of
the equivalent line source begins to exceed the liquidus tem-
perature of the alloy.
Test Case
A simple test case was designed to probe the transition in
heat conduction regimes from a point heat source to an
equivalent line source. A simple raster pattern was designed
to fill a rectangular cross section of width L and 10 mm in
height, moving from bottom to top. The solidification con-
ditions within a subregion of this cross section were evaluat-
ed. The subregion was 0.5 mm wide and 2 mm in height,
centered at L/2 and with the bottom of the region located 4
mm from the beginning of the scan pattern — Fig. 1. The
purpose of sampling from the subregion only is to limit the
results to a region expected to exhibit quasistatic behavior
approaching an equivalent line heat conduction mode. For
this reason, the subregion was located near the center of the
scan pattern to reduce the influence of edge effects, and
slightly farther from the bottom of the scan pattern to mini-
mize the effect of the initial conditions. Note that the heat
conduction models are both fundamentally three dimen-
sional, but data was only extracted from the x-y plane at the
surface (z = 0). The data taken from the subregion was col-
62-s WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020, VOL. 99
Fig. 4 — Example of changing melt pool shape with the value
of n = 2 for SS316, with vb = 1.5 m/s, L = 5 mm, h = 0.2 mm,
and T0 = 300 K. Black lines in the melt pool contour plots cor-
respond to the liquidus isotherm, while the vertical dashed
lines over the contour indicate the center line of the raster
scan pattern.
Table 2 — Thermophysical Properties Estimated for Three Selected
Alloys
Property IN718 SS316 TI-6Al-4V
Thermal conductivity (W/m2K) 26.6 16.3 6.7
Specific heat (J/kg-K) 600.0 500.0 526.3
Density (kg/m3) 7451 7990 4430
Thermal diffusivity (m2/s) 5.95 × 10−6 4.08 × 10−6 2.87 × 10−6
Liquidus temperature (K) 1610 1673 1933
lected at a resolution of 5 m in the x-direction and 6 m in
the y-direction. All simulations were performed with a time
step of 0.2 ms and parallelized on 32 cores.
To encompass the two heat conduction regimes, a wide
range of process conditions was examined. Based on Equa-
tion 8, the absorbed power is the simplest parameter to vary
as it is expected to have a direct, linear influence on the
transition between solidification regimes. A range of ab-
sorbed power from 100 to 1000 W in 50-W increments was
applied for each of a large number of combinations of other
input parameters. The levels for line length, hatch spacing,
preheat temperature, beam velocity, and alloy are shown in
Table 1. Every permutation of these combinations of input
parameters was considered, resulting in a total of 2736 sim-
ulations. The three selected alloy systems, IN718, SS316,
and Ti-6Al-4V, are common additively manufactured alloys.
The thermophysical properties used for each are given in
Table 2. The present analysis does not consider alloys, such
as aluminum, that have very high thermal diffusivities and
low laser absorption. In these cases, the power input re-
quired for full transition to a quasistatic line source regime
does not fall within a practical operating range.
The output of interest from each case is the average solid-
ification velocity within the subregion outlined in Fig. 1.
The reason for the selection of this quantity is the solidifica-
tion velocity is expected to be intimately linked to the heat
conduction regime. For the quasistatic point source condi-
tion, the maximum solidification velocity is equal to the
beam velocity (Ref. 30). However, as the line source quasi-
static condition is approached, the solidification velocity is

A B
Fig. 5 — A — The value of the nondimensional temperature for n = 2 as a function of the fraction change to each of the inputs,
varied by ±50% around a test case of SS316 with absorbed power of 500 W, hatch spacing of 0.2 mm, beam velocity of 1.5 m/s,
and line length of 5 mm; B — examples as a function of scan line length for the process parameters described in Table 3.
expected to decrease until it is equal to the transverse hatch
velocity defined in Equation 4. Therefore, the ratio of the
average solidification velocity to the transverse hatch veloci-
ty may be used as an indicator of the solidification regime.
The solidification velocity is extracted at each point from
the transient semianalytical heat conduction solution at the
time that the point decreases from above the liquidus tem-
perature of the alloy to below. The thermal gradient compo-
nents in each direction are first calculated at this time by an-
alytically taking
. the partial derivatives of Equation 1. The
cooling rate, T, is then calculated using a linear approxima-
tion of the temperature history. The local solid-liquid inter-
face velocity, Vs, may then be calculated
T T
Vs = = . (9)
G Gx +G 2y +Gz2
2 which is the instantaneous location of the heat source in this
This procedure was performed for each point within the
selected subregion, and the average solidification velocity,
Vs,avg, was calculated.
Results
To demonstrate the transition between heat conduction
regimes, an example using SS316 at three different absorbed
power levels is shown in Fig. 2. The linear beam velocity was
1.5 m/s, with a 0.2-mm hatch spacing, 5-mm line length,
and ambient preheat temperature. The transient thermal
field is shown at 0.0965 s into the scan pattern when the
beam is just completing a scan in the positive x-direction at
y = 5.8 mm. The transient liquidus isotherm is shown in
black, and the quasistatic line source liquidus isotherm is
shown by a dashed blue line.
For an absorbed power of 100 W, n = 2 = 0.208, and the
melt pool is small and roughly elliptical, equivalent to the
thermal field under quasistatic point source conditions.
Here, the computed thermal field for the equivalent quasi-
static line heat source does not exceed the liquidus tempera-
ture, so it does not predict any melt pool formation at all. At
WELDING RESEARCH
an absorbed power of 500 W, the nondimensional tempera-
ture is slightly larger than one, n = 2 = 1.04. The result is an
oblong melt pool that wraps around the left corner of the
raster pattern. This situation results in a highly transient
melt pool motion that is clearly not consistent with a quasi-
static point source. The quasistatic line source approxima-
tion roughly predicts a similar size of the melt pool, but does
not capture the transient pool motion as the beam changes
directions, so the shape does not accurately represent the
melt pool behavior.
At 1000 W of absorbed power, n = 2 = 2.08, and the melt
pool is now very large compared to the hatch spacing. In this
case, the quasistatic line source approximation predicts a melt
pool shape that is almost perfectly coincident with the tran-
sient melt pool prediction. The melt pool shape only deviates
from the quasistatic line source at the upper-right corner,
example. Here, the heat very near the center of the beam has
not had time yet to diffuse over the hatch spacing. As can be
seen at the opposing left edge of the melt pool, the pool shape
quickly approaches the line source approximation with in-
creasing time after the beam has visited a specific location.
Note that a similar phenomenon is present for the lower pow-
er cases at isotherms below the liquidus temperature. The av-
erage solidification velocity under these conditions is expected
to approach the hatch velocity (Equation 4), as the quasistatic
evolution of the thermal field will closely follow the velocity of
the equivalent line source.
The average solidification velocity within the subregion
shown in Fig. 3 was recorded for each of the cases described
in the test case section. These velocities, each normalized by
the hatch velocity, are plotted as a function of the nondi-
mensional temperature in Equation 8 with n = 2. For values
of n = 2 < 1, there is significant scatter between cases. How-
ever, generally, the normalized velocity initially decreases
with increasing power and increasing nondimensional tem-
perature, but then reaches a local minimum and begins in-
creasing at approximately a value of n = 2 = 0.5. This upward
trend continues until the value of n = 2 exceeds unity, where
the normalized average solidification velocity quickly con-
FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 63-s
WELDING RESEARCH
Table 3 — Summary of Example Process Conditions
Parameter IN718 IN718
LPBF (Ref. 32) EBM (Ref. 33)
Power (W) 170 1000
Absorption 0.3 0.82
Velocity (m/s) 1.2 2.0
Hatch spacing (mm) 0.1 0.2
Preheat (K) RT 1173
verges to one for all cases as the solidification velocity ap-
proaches the transverse hatch velocity. When the normal-
ized average solidification velocity is equal to the hatch ve-
locity, it may be concluded that the solidification conditions
have transitioned to a new quasistatic regime that can be
reasonably approximated by an equivalent line source. n = 2
= 1 may, therefore, be used as a condition that delineates
these two regimes.
Discussion
The general trends in the normalized solidification veloc-
ity as a function of the nondimensional temperature may be
understood in terms of variation in the melt pool behavior
by isolating a single case and examining the details of the
melt pool shape as a function of only the applied power. The
same case shown in Fig. 2 was selected, with the variation in
the solidification velocity and selected melt pool shapes
shown in Fig. 4. For absorbed powers ranging from 100 to
150 W, a quasistatic point source regime is established and
the normalized solidification velocity decreases with in-
creased absorbed power. As the melt pool length increases
within this regime, the angle between the solid-liquid inter-
face and the beam travel direction becomes increasingly se-
vere, tending to decrease the local solidification velocity
(Ref. 31). However, once the melt pool length becomes
longer than half the line length of the raster pattern (indi-
cated relative to the melt pool contour by a vertical dashed
line), the solidification behavior is influenced by the tran-
sient scan pattern effects and the normalized average veloci-
ty begins to increase. This reversal occurs due to the influ-
ence of the heat conduction from the previous scan line
causing the trailing edge of the melt pool to become increas-
ingly rounded (rather than tear-drop shaped). The angle be-
tween the melt pool boundary and beam travel direction be-
gins to decrease, causing an increase in the solid-liquid in-
terface velocity. The increasing trend continues until ap-
proximately 400 W, when the melt pool length begins to ex-
ceed the line length of the scan pattern. The transient be-
havior of the melt pool begins to transition to a line-like be-
havior, and the solidification velocity quickly decreases to
approach the transverse hatch velocity. By 750 W, the quasi-
static line source regime is fully established and the normal-
ized average solidification velocity is equal to one.
As shown in Fig. 4, this pattern of melt pool behavior
clearly establishes three separate solidification regimes. The
first, at low values of the nondimensional temperature, cor-
responds to the quasistatic behavior of a point heat source
moving at vb. Roughly in the range of 0.5 < n = 2 < 1.5, the
64-s WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020, VOL. 99
SS316 Ti-6Al-4V Ti-6Al-4V
LPBF (Ref. 34) LPBF (Ref. 35) EBM (Ref. 7)
250 375 1200
0.4 0.3 0.8
1.5 1.029 4.0
0.1 0.12 0.1
RT RT 923
melt pool behavior is highly transient. Within this region,
the transient behavior may be further subdivided into point-
like and line-like categories on either side of n = 2 = 1. Final-
ly, for n = 2 > 1.5, the heat transfer conditions may be well
approximated by a quasistatic line source moving at vh.
Given Equation 8 may be successfully used to determine
the transition between point and line heat source conduc-
tion regimes, it is interesting to consider the dominant fea-
tures of this relationship. First of all, it is clear that more
than simply the heat source power and velocity control the
thermal behavior of the system. The line length, hatch spac-
ing, and preheat temperature all contribute as well. It is im-
portant to note that the line length is often dependent on
the part geometry, meaning the heat conduction regime
present during processing may vary as a function of geomet-
ric features. This finding is consistent with experimental ob-
servations of Frederick et al. (Ref. 5) who showed significant
changes in the grain morphology of Rene-N5 in response to
local changes in the line length, and with the observations
of Plotkowski et al. (Ref. 6) who found an increase in grain
size in Fe-Si for short line length. Furthermore, the influ-
ence of both the hatch spacing and the preheat temperature
suggest process conditions must be selected with care and as
a function of geometry. Selecting parameters based on sin-
gle line experiments or quasistatic point source simulations
may be misleading.
The relative influence of each input parameter may be com-
pared by considering the functional form of Equation 8, and
simply visualized by varying each input by some fraction
around a mean value and plotting the resulting change in the
nondimensional temperature. The central test case is the same
as shown in Fig. 2A with an absorbed power of 500 W. This
case was used as the nondimensional temperature was very
close to one, showing it is on the verge of transitioning be-
tween solidification regimes. For visualizing the functional re-
lationships, each of a set of input parameters was varied by
±50% its mean value and the resulting nondimensional tem-
peratures were calculated as shown in Fig. 5A.
As can be seen from Equation 8 and Fig. 5, the absorbed
power and preheat temperature have a direct influence on the
nondimensional temperature, while the liquidus temperature
and hatch spacing show an inverse dependence, and the beam
velocity, line length, and thermal diffusivity exhibit an inverse
square root relationship. The absorbed power is clearly a domi-
nant factor in the transition between conduction regimes.
However, it is also very interesting to note the line length,
which depends on the geometry and scan pattern, is just as
important as the thermal diffusivity of the material. Further-
more, the hatch spacing has an even greater influence. Perhaps
counterintuitively, an increase in beam velocity decreases the

nondimensional temperature, but this effect may be under-
stood as having a greater influence on narrowing the width of
the melt pool than increasing the length of the melt pool un-
der conditions of constant power.
However, understanding the behavior of the variables in
Equation 8 in isolation is not sufficient, as they interact de-
pending on the processing window for a particular alloy within
a specific process. For the three alloys considered here, com-
mon process characteristics were pulled from the literature,
and are summarized in Table 3. IN718 and Ti-6Al-4V are com-
monly processed using both laser powder bed fusion (LPBF)
and selective electron beam melting (EBM) technologies, so
both are included. The value of n = 2 as a function of line length
is given in Fig. 5B for these five cases. The results show that
owing to the high preheats, velocities, and power absorption
for EBM processing, for IN718 and Ti-6Al-4V, the transient
regime is approached for line lengths in the range 0.5–1.0 mm.
The low thermal diffusivity of Ti-6Al-4V also causes the transi-
tion to occur for short line length in laser processing. On the
other hand, laser processing of IN718 and SS316 are not par-
ticularly susceptible to this phenomenon. These effects have
important implications for thin wall structures and geometries
with sharp corners.
Finally, while the present approach does help explain cer-
tain experimental observations and provides a simple means
of understanding solidification regimes for welding and addi-
tive manufacturing, its application is limited by several of the
underlying assumptions that must be understood for proper
interpretation of the results. First, the underlying mathemati-
cal solutions for both the transient heat conduction and quasi-
static line source neglect nonlinear effects such as tempera-
ture-dependent properties, latent heat release, and vaporiza-
tion. Recent work on similar analytical approaches has shown
that reasonable solutions are still obtained under these as-
sumptions (Ref. 24). In addition, the engineering value of the
present work is derived from the simplicity of Equation 8,
which can only be arrived at under these approximations, is in-
tended to be used as a simple metric for understanding
process characteristics. The present analysis also neglects lag
time between laser passes that is often used in practical situa-
tions to avoid development of transient keyhole porosity at
the edges of the scan pattern. The analysis may be simply
modified to account for this situation by a suitable reduction
in the line source power and effective velocity, but is expected
to lose some accuracy. Lastly, detailed experimental validation
of this approach is still required. Ideally, high-speed infrared
thermography of melt pool behavior for various process pa-
rameter and geometry combinations for several alloys would
allow for a detailed understanding of the variations in solidifi-
cation regimes. However, it is also acknowledged that proper
analysis and interpretation of such data is a significant chal-
lenge (Ref. 36).
Conclusions
It was demonstrated that under appropriate conditions,
heat conduction and solidification in additive manufactur-
ing may transition from a quasistatic point source regime to
a quasistatic line source regime. This transition carries with
it a dramatic change in the solidification conditions that
helps to explain observed localized variations in microstruc-
WELDING RESEARCH
ture during processing. A simple closed-form analytical ex-
pression was derived to approximate the conditions under
which the thermal behavior transitions between these two
regimes. A transient semianalytical heat conduction model
was used to test a total of 2736 combinations of process
conditions and material properties. The results showed that
the simple analytical expression accurately predicts the tran-
sition between these two regimes and defines the region of
highly transient behavior between them. The functional
form of this expression showed the line length and preheat
temperature have a linear, direct influence on this transi-
tion, while the liquidus temperature and hatch spacing show
an inverse dependence, and the line length, thermal diffu-
sivity, and linear beam velocity exhibit an inverse square
root relationship. This simple nondimensional quantity is,
therefore, proposed as a criterion for aiding in the optimiza-
tion of scan patterns and process parameters to account for
variations in geometry.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to acknowledge Ryan Dehoff and
Suresh Babu for valuable discussions that led to the concep-
tion of this work, and Jamie Stump for assistance in imple-
menting the transient heat transfer model.
This manuscript has been authored by UT-Battelle LLC un-
der Contract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725 with the U.S. Depart-
ment of Energy. Research was cosponsored by the U.S. Depart-
ment of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, Advanced Manufacturing Office, and the Office of
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) – Transformer
Resilience and Advanced Components (TRAC) Program. The
publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowl-
edges that the U.S. government retains a nonexclusive, paid-
up, irrevocable, world-wide license to publish or reproduce the
published form of this manuscript, or allow others to do so,
for U.S. government purposes. The Department of Energy
(DOE) will provide public access to these results of federally
sponsored research in accordance with the DOE Public Access
Plan (energy.gov/downloads/doe-public-access-plan). This re-
search used resources of the Compute and Data Environment
for Science (CADES) at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
which is supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Depart-
ment of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725.
References
1. Dehoff, R. R., Kirka, M. M., Sames, W. J., Bilheux, H., Trem-
sin, A. S., Lowe, L. E., and Babu, S. S. 2015. Site specific control of
crystallographic grain orientation through electron beam additive
manufacturing. Mater. Sci. Technol. 31: 931–938. DOI:
10.1179/1743284714Y.0000000734
2. Raghavan, N., Simunovic, S., Dehoff, R. R., Plotkowski, A.,
Turner, J., Kirka, M. M., and Babu, S. S. 2017. Localized melt-scan
strategy for site specific control of grain size and primary dendrite
arm spacing in electron beam additive manufacturing. Acta Mater.
140: 375–387. DOI: 10.1016/j.actamat.2017.08.038
3. Dinda, G. P., Dasgupta, A. K., and Mazumder, J. 2012. Evolu-
tion of microstructure in laser deposited Al-11.28%Si alloy. Surf.
Coatings Technol. 206: 2152–2160. DOI: 10.1016/j.surfcoat.
2011.09.051
FEBRUARY 2020 / WELDING JOURNAL 65-s
WELDING RESEARCH
4. Helmer, H., Bauereiß, A., Singer, R. F., and Körner, C. 2016.
Grain structure evolution in Inconel 718 during selective electron
beam melting. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 668: 180–187. DOI: 10.1016/
j.msea.2016.05.046
5. Frederick, C. L., Plotkowski, A., Kirka, M. M., Haines, M.,
Staub, A., Schwalbach, E. J., Cullen, D., and Babu, S. S. 2018. Geom-
etry-induced spatial variation of microstructure evolution during
selective electron beam melting of Rene-N5. Metall. Mater. Trans. A
49: 5080–5096.
6. Plotkowski, A., Pries, J., List, F., Nandwana, P., Stump, B.,
Carver, K., and Dehoff, R. R. 2019. Influence of scan pattern and
geometry on the microstructure and soft-magnetic performance of
additively manufactured Fe-Si. Addit. Manuf.: 29.
7. Juechter, V., Scharowsky, T., Singer, R. F., and Körner, C.
2014. Processing window and evaporation phenomena for Ti-6Al-
4V produced by selective electron beam melting. Acta Mater. 76:
252–258. DOI: 10.1016/j.actamat.2014.05.037
8. Dye, D., Hunziker, O., and Reed, R. C. 2001. Numerical analy-
sis of the weldability of superalloys. Acta Mater. 49: 683–697. DOI:
10.1016/S1359-6454(00)00361-X
9. Gäumann, M., Bezençon, C., Canalis, P., and Kurz, W.
2001. Single-crystal laser deposition of superalloys: Processing-
microstructure maps. Acta Mater. 49: 1051–1062. DOI:
10.1016/S1359-6454(00)00367-0
10. Gockel, J., Beuth, J., and Taminger, K. 2014. Integrated con-
trol of solidification microstructure and melt pool dimensions in
electron beam wire feed additive manufacturing of Ti-6Al-4V. Ad-
dit. Manuf. 1: 119–126. DOI: 10.1016/j.addma.2014.09.004
11. Vasinonta, A., Beuth, J., and Griffith, M. 2007. Process
maps for predicting residual stress and melt pool size in the laser-
based fabrication of thin-walled structures. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 129:
101–109. DOI: 10.1115/1.2335852
12. Gockel, J., Fox, J., Beuth, J., and Hafley, R. 2015. Integrated
melt pool and microstructure control for Ti–6Al–4V thin wall addi-
tive manufacturing. Mater. Sci. Technol. 31: 912–916. DOI:
10.1179/1743284714Y.0000000704
13. Fox, J., and Beuth, J. 2013. Process mapping of transient
melt pool response in wire feed e-beam additive manufacturing of
Ti-6Al-4V. Proc. 2013 Solid Free. Fabr. Symp.: 675–683.
14. Mukherjee, T., Wei, H. L., De, A., and DebRoy, T. 2018. Heat
and fluid flow in additive manufacturing — Part I: Modeling of
powder bed fusion. Comput. Mater. Sci. 150: 304–313. DOI:
10.1016/j.commatsci.2018.04.022
15. Knapp, G. L., Raghavan, N., Plotkowski, A., and Debroy, T.
2019. Experiments and simulations on solidification microstruc-
ture for Inconel 718 in powder bed fusion electron beam additive
manufacturing. Addit. Manuf. 25: 511–521. DOI: 10.1016/
j.addma.2018.12.001
16. Raghavan, N., Dehoff, R., Pannala, S., Simunovic, S., Kirka,
M. M., Turner, J., Carlson, N., and Babu, S. S. 2016. Numerical
modeling of heat-transfer and the influence of process parameters
on tailoring the grain morphology of IN718 in electron beam addi-
tive manufacturing. Acta Mater. 112: 303–314. DOI: 10.1016/
j.actamat.2016.03.063
17. Khairallah, S. A., Anderson, A. T., Rubenchik, A., and King,
W. E. 2016. Laser powder-bed fusion additive manufacturing:
Physics of complex melt flow and formation mechanisms of pores,
spatter, and denudation zones. Acta Mater. 108: 36–45. DOI:
10.1016/j.actamat.2016.02.014
18. Qiu, C., Panwisawas, C., Basoalto, H. C., Brooks, J. W., and
Attallah, M. M. 2015. On the role of melt flow into the surface
structure and porosity development during selective laser melting.
Acta Mater. 96: 72–79. DOI: 10.1016/j.actamat.2015.06.004
19. Eagar, T. W., and Tsai, N. S. 1983. Temperature fields pro-
duced by traveling distributed heat sources. Welding Journal 62(12):
346-s to 355-s.
20. Nguyen, N. T., Ohta, A., Matsuoka, K., Suzuki, N., and Mae-
66-s WELDING JOURNAL / FEBRUARY 2020, VOL. 99
da, Y. 1999. Analytical solutions for transient temperature of semi-
infinite body subjected to 3-D moving heat sources. Welding Jour-
nal 78(11): 265-s to 274-s.
21. Komanduri, R., and Hou, Z. B. 2000. Thermal analysis of
the arc welding process: Part I. General solutions. Metall. Mater.
Trans. B 31: 1353–1370.
22. Plotkowski, A., Kirka, M. M., and Babu, S. S. 2017. Verifica-
tion and validation of a rapid heat transfer calculation methodolo-
gy for transient melt pool solidification conditions in powder bed
metal additive manufacturing. Addit. Manuf. 18: 256–268. DOI:
10.1016/j.addma.2017.10.017
23. Forslund, R., Snis, A., and Larsson, S. 2019. Analytical solu-
tion for heat conduction due to a moving Gaussian heat flux with
piecewise constant parameters. Appl. Math. Model. 66: 227–240.
DOI: 10.1016/j.apm.2018.09.018
24. Schwalbach, E. J., Donegan, S. P., Chapman, M. G., Chaput,
K. J., and Groeber, M. A. 2018. A discrete source model of powder
bed fusion additive manufacturing thermal history. Addit. Manuf.
DOI: 10.1016/j.addma.2018.12.004
25. Rosenthal, D. 1941. Mathematical theory of heat distribution
during welding and cutting. Welding Journal 20(5): 220-s to 234-s.
26. Rosenthal, D. 1946. The theory of moving sources of heat
and its application to metal treatments. Trans. Am. Soc. Mech. Eng.
68: 849–866.
27. Christensen, N., de L. Davies, V., and Gjermundsen, K.
1965. Distribution of temperatures in arc welding. Br. Weld. J.: 12.
28. Grong, O., and Christensen, N. 1986. Effects of weaving on
temperature distribution in fusion welding. Mater. Sci. Technol. 2:
967–973.
29. Stump, B., and Plotkowski, A. 2019. An adaptive integration
scheme for heat conduction in additive manufacturing. Appl. Math.
Model. 75: 787–805.
30. Rappaz, M., David, S. A., Vitek, J. M., and Boatner, L. A.
1990. Analysis of solidification microstructures in Fe-Ni-Cr single-
crystal welds. Metall. Trans. A 21: 1767–1782. DOI: 10.1007/
BF02672593
31. David, S. A., and Vitek, J. M. 1989. Correlation between so-
lidification parameters and weld microstructures. Int. Mater. Rev.
34: 213–245. DOI: 10.1179/imr.1989.34.1.213
32. Caiazzo, F., Alfieri, V., Corrado, G., and Argenio, P. 2017.
Laser powder-bed fusion of Inconel 718 to manufacture turbine
blades. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 93: 4023–4031. DOI:
10.1007/s00170-017-0839-3
33. Körner, C., Helmer, H., Bauereiß, A., and Singer, R. F. 2014.
Tailoring the grain structure of IN718 during selective electron
beam melting. MATEC Web Conf.: 14. DOI: 10.1051/matecconf/
20141408001
34. Wu, A. S., Brown, D. W., Kumar, M., Gallegos, G. F., and
King, W. E. 2014. An experimental investigation into additive man-
ufacturing-induced residual stresses in 316L stainless steel. Metall.
Mater. Trans. A Phys. Metall. Mater. Sci. 45: 6260–6270. DOI:
10.1007/s11661-014-2549-x
35. Xu, W., Brandt, M., Sun, S., Elambasseril, J., Liu, Q., Latham,
K., Xia, K., and Qian, M. 2015. Additive manufacturing of strong
and ductile Ti-6Al-4V by selective laser melting via in situ marten-
site decomposition. Acta Mater. 85: 74–84. DOI: 10.1016/
j.actamat.2014.11.028
36. Heigel, J. C., and Lane, B. M. 2018. Measurement of the
melt pool length during single scan tracks in a commercial laser
powder bed fusion process. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 140: 051012. DOI:
10.1115/1.4037571
ALEX PLOTKOWSKI (plotkowskiaj@ornl.gov) is with the Manu-
facturing Demonstration Facility, Oak Ridge National Labora-
tory, Knoxville, Tenn., and Materials Science & Technology
Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn.