Funny thing - the "steel" weld looks so incredibly similar to some of
my own macros - for laser+MIG/GMAW-hybrid... About 3kW to 4kW of
laser additional to MIG/GMAW (can't be bothered to look, but doubt
ever laser+FCAW as would have had to deal with the slag when already
difficult enough going in and out of a locked & interlocked vault to
deal with the test-welds).
See
http://weldsmith.co.uk/big_files/thesis_fatgproj_rev111029/fatigue_perform_Tjoint.pdf
sequential page 25 of 48 (numbered page 17) top right-hand-side two
"Monster" penno. not in general useful as engineering design basis -
the strength calculations - would usually be penetration / fusion to
fillet corner.
The cheapness of fillet welds is not just how readily done and robust
of conditions to achieve they are, but also you are very satisfied
with visual inspection only. You are not asking anyone to believe
there is something complex going on deep inside the weldment which
would need and expensive volumetric inspection test to see (typically Ultrasonic Testing). [there's no way to "pocket" money for not doing
what you are contracted to do with fillet welds - as the external size
you can measure at the surface dictates how much metal you must
deposit, which forces a cost, and you cannot "trouser" money in any
way (you could vindictively do a "not weld" by doing a machine setting
which likely gives only "kissing contact" and weld metal there but no
weld but that wouldn't "trouser" you any money - and that would
show-up on mag-part, which would have you thrown off the job with no
pay having run up expenses)]
Anyway, I'm just looking bemused at the similarity - no suggestion of
anything at all...
Rich S
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
