First I would like to thank everyone for taking the time to type out all this very valuable information. This is my first post on the forum but I know it wont be my last, I am very impressed with everyone that has taken valuable time to help me out!
Otto Nobedder wrote:Welcome, mdlimy,
High-vacuum work is what I do, and I can suggest several things.
The first that comes to mind is the "aerodynamics" of what you're welding. The laminar flow from the gas-lens I see in one of the pictures will tend to draw air in from the sides with a weld in that configuration. I'd suggest going to a standard collet and cup (#8, if that's a -20 torch or similar, as it appears to be). I'd also tape up some aluminum foil dams to trap enough argon that it must "spill out" of the weld area. I've even done one particular problem weld inside a sandblast cabinet purged to nitrogen to get all the moisture and oxygen out of the equation.
Second, you should take time to prove your gas line completely leak-tight. I won't go into the explanation, but any leakage in your gas system after the flow-meter WILL draw atmosphere into the line.
Third, it's not uncommon to have moisture in your argon. As Braehill will tell you, not every bottle filler will evacuate the bottle at each fill. Consider adding an inline dessicant cartridge (rated for compressed air at 150 psi... your argon after the flow-meter will be between 30-75 psi). It's also possible for the gas to be contaminated with CO2 or other gasses if your local filler must use the same manifold for different mixes.
Just some thoughts...
Steve S
Steve, Thank you for the advice. I did previously dam up around the weld area for the shielding gas, but I did not see much of a difference in weld quality so I stopped doing that, I will try again with tin foil. I will also swap to a standard collet instead of the gas lense, I have heard this is better for aluminum welding anyways.
I have had issues with bottles not being completely evacuated, I did not know i could add an inline desiccant cartridge, I will definitely do this!
LtBadd wrote:Otto Nobedder wrote:Welcome, mdlimy,
The first that comes to mind is the "aerodynamics" of what you're welding. The laminar flow from the gas-lens I see in one of the pictures will tend to draw air in from the sides with a weld in that configuration. I'd suggest going to a standard collet and cup (#8, if that's a -20 torch or similar, as it appears to be). I'd also tape up some aluminum foil dams to trap enough argon that it must "spill out" of the weld area.
Just some thoughts...
Steve S
Along this thought I believe turning your gas down to at least 15cfh could be helpful, especially if you're going to go to a standard collet body.
Another thought is the weld wire, did you clean this right before welding? Also after cleaning the wire watch where you're laying it so it's not contaminated. Use a new clean sst wire brush. And last but not least watch your torch angle.
Richard
Richard, I will try lowering the flow rate to 15cfh with the standard collet body.
I wipe down the filler material with a brand new cleanroom texwipe with acetone right before welding and do not set it down, I have been very meticulous with this as I know how much of a headache dirty filler can cause.
With this particualr part, the torch angle is very critical, maybe I could do better. I am trying to keep as close to 90* angle as possible, If i start to add angle it gets hard to feed the filler quickly without blowing it away. Any tips here? I give it a jab of heat when I add filler, and I try to get in and out as quick as possible.
big gear head wrote:What is the parent metal? Is it a casting or 6061, or 7075?
You may need to use a dam to keep air from pulling in from the back side.
Unfortunately I have no idea what the casting material is
I think creating a dam for the argon will help, Ill give it a shot!
dave powelson wrote:welding porous al casting
-There's porosity in the parent casting, revealed by the groove machining.
-Porosity is normal in 'normal' castings and can be more prevalent in the thinner
sections.
-Castings can be made to a higher level of minimum porosity--at added expense.
X-ray of the machined area prior to machining would help define the extent and
degree of porosity. Yup, all of this costs bux--but your rework is costly as well.
(Your's truly, contracted 3x with same casting house for production of an A356 investment
cast, exquisitely thin, hollow and detailed turbine engine part---to Mil Spec's, meeting an
X-ray standard for porosity, 100 % penetrant inspect., post cast machining and processing. It can be done.)
An possible option is to have the groove cast in.
-Are you trying to save castings that you contracted to have made or is this work
and re-work being done for others?
Either way--you've been supplied with castings that really aren't acceptable for
the end function. Those lettle holes can create much larger air/argon gas bubbles
in the puddle when subjected to thousands of degrees of intense heat.
Ditto all the comments on setup and changing various aspects of the welding.
For damming, try flat blockoff plate set inside a tad, flat plating on the outside wall,
set below the cutout.
Cranking the 40% DCEP down to 30 (equivalent of 70% balance in 'Miller' terms)
--for more heat input, playing with the AC freq.--cranking it just high enough to get stiff arc, will help.
(I had a 300 GTSW for 15 years until it died)
Make a very thin overlay on the cutout, brush it and look with magnification if needed for any porosity holes.
Cheater glasses or inserts can help.
Gently, lightly, wash over them with a tad more filler.
(You've got to either boil it out or try to trap this stuff--below).
The other option is to wash with no filler, a tad and see if the hole has filled.
Carbide burring out any holes and washing over again and repeating as needed is another way.
Any subsequent passes need to be low heat & thin. It's really easy to pull up a porosity bubble, thru the filler puddle.
Slamming on one big, thick pass after overlay, hoping that it doesn't bubble, doesn't work.
PM me if you wish.
dave powelson wrote:welding porous al casting
-There's porosity in the parent casting, revealed by the groove machining.
-Porosity is normal in 'normal' castings and can be more prevalent in the thinner
sections.
-Castings can be made to a higher level of minimum porosity--at added expense.
X-ray of the machined area prior to machining would help define the extent and
degree of porosity. Yup, all of this costs bux--but your rework is costly as well.
(Your's truly, contracted 3x with same casting house for production of an A356 investment
cast, exquisitely thin, hollow and detailed turbine engine part---to Mil Spec's, meeting an
X-ray standard for porosity, 100 % penetrant inspect., post cast machining and processing. It can be done.)
An possible option is to have the groove cast in.
-Are you trying to save castings that you contracted to have made or is this work
and re-work being done for others?
Either way--you've been supplied with castings that really aren't acceptable for
the end function. Those lettle holes can create much larger air/argon gas bubbles
in the puddle when subjected to thousands of degrees of intense heat.
Ditto all the comments on setup and changing various aspects of the welding.
For damming, try flat blockoff plate set inside a tad, flat plating on the outside wall,
set below the cutout.
Cranking the 40% DCEP down to 30 (equivalent of 70% balance in 'Miller' terms)
--for more heat input, playing with the AC freq.--cranking it just high enough to get stiff arc, will help.
(I had a 300 GTSW for 15 years until it died)
Make a very thin overlay on the cutout, brush it and look with magnification if needed for any porosity holes.
Cheater glasses or inserts can help.
Gently, lightly, wash over them with a tad more filler.
(You've got to either boil it out or try to trap this stuff--below).
The other option is to wash with no filler, a tad and see if the hole has filled.
Carbide burring out any holes and washing over again and repeating as needed is another way.
Any subsequent passes need to be low heat & thin. It's really easy to pull up a porosity bubble, thru the filler puddle.
Slamming on one big, thick pass after overlay, hoping that it doesn't bubble, doesn't work.
PM me if you wish.
Dave, thanks for the tips, the process you described at the end of your post is what I am currently doing but I will try playing with the balance and frequency. I have found that a lower frequency seems to agitate the puddle less and I end up with less pinholes appearing. This thin part that I am welding doesn't require a hell of alot of heat so I am OK to keep the DCEP on the higher side(tungsten is in good shape), but will I see any advantages if I use more DCEN
This is work for a customer, they are old parts that are no long available and quite expensive, so the repair is well worth the money to them. Unfortunately they are parts that need to be fixed and I have committed to doing that repair. Fortunately, I have successfully repaired one and I know it can be done again, and the customer is happy at the end of the day. My goal now is to perfect this process.
I received another one today for repair, I will take pictures from start to finish for you guys to see the process. Wish me luck!