Welding-based manufacturing and joining processes are extensively used in various areas of industrial production. While welding has been used as a primary method of joining in many applications, its capability to fabricate metal components such as the Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing (WAAM) method should not be undermined. WAAM is a promising method for producing large metal parts, but it is still prone to defects such as porosity that can reduce structural reliability. To ensure these defects are found and measured in a consistent way, inspection methods must be tied directly to code-based acceptance limits. In this work, a three-pass WAAM joint specimen was made in a welded-joint configuration using robotic GMAW-based deposition. This setup provided a stable surface for Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing (PAUT) while still preserving WAAM process conditions. The specimen, which was intentionally seeded with porosity, was divided into five zones and inspected using the 6 dB drop method for defect length and amplitude-based classification, with AWS D1.5 serving as the reference code. The results showed that porosity was not uniform across the bead. Zones 1 and 3 contained the longest clusters (15 mm and 16.5 mm in length) and exceeded AWS length thresholds, while amplitude-based classification suggested they were less critical than other regions. This difference shows the risk of relying on only one criterion. By embedding these results in a DMAIC (Define–Measure–Analyze–Improve–Control) workflow, the inspection outcomes were linked to likely causes such as unstable shielding and cooling effects. Overall, the study demonstrates a code-referenced, dual-criteria approach that can strengthen quality control for WAAM.
Irtiza et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: