Intentionally faulty welds reportedly found on US Navy ships

[WLJ]

Saying they were found on non-critical components on in service ships including subs.
Shouldn't be too hard to traced back who did them I would think IF the paperwork ducks are in a row.

Newport News Shipbuilding suspects intentionally faulty welds on multimillion-dollar Naval vessels
https://www.foxnews.com/us/newport-news-shipbuilding-suspects-intentionally-faulty-welds-multimillion-dollar-naval-vessels

[Hawkmoon]

Faulty welds doesn't surprise me. I'd like to know what makes them think the questionable welds were intentionally bad.

[griz]

Faulty welds doesn't surprise me. I'd like to know what makes them think the questionable welds were intentionally bad.

Yea, I'm thinking they really mean knowingly instead of intentionally.  I've known some welders at NN shipyard.  The level of double checking and final inspections is staggering.  I can see some guy who has quit caring if he'll be fired doing a shoddy job, but he would know he's very likely to get caught.  Intentional (to me) means sabotage, and that's a crime instead of a firing offense.  So why sabotage non-critical welds?

[WLJ]

  The level of double checking and final inspections is staggering. 

Maybe that's why they're calling them intentionally as in they were done in such a way they would be hidden.
IDK, I'm just relaying the story

[230RN]

"Faulty welds doesn't surprise me. I'd like to know what makes them think the questionable welds were intentionally bad."

Just based on the contents of this thread:

They suspected it, and I think that suspicion would be natural WRT matters of this possible importance. Supposedly, the "suspect everyone" concept is part of the investigative process, although folks tend to forget that.

However, with my long-term well-developed suspicion about information handed out "officially," I wonder if the specification that they were non-critical really means that some were found on more critical areas.

But we can't tell you that since it would cause an unwelcome fuss which would interfere with our further investigation into a continuing "sabotage" possibility beyond this one case and we'd be tripping all over reporters and other busybodies claiming some fictitious "right to know."

That's what my long-term well-developed suspicion about information handed out "officially" says.

Terry, 230RN

[Cliffh]

I was employed at the Mare Island Naval Shipyard for over 14 years, (until they closed it), working as a Metals Inspector.  It was mostly radiography but I'd also do mag particle and dye penetrant testing..  We normally only worked on subs, but sometimes we'd get sent to Alameda to work on a carrier.  We never inspected non-critical welds, such as non-pressure hull welds.  We did inspect the hell out of critical welds such as pressure hull and sub-safe piping/components.  Pressure hull welds would get mag particle inspections during the welding process, then x-rayed after completion. 

It's entirely possible someone did a shitty job welding non-critical components and they (the person and/or the welds) weren't caught until the weld failed.  Investigating the failed weld should determine if it was intentionally crappy or not.

In my shop, they didn't keep track of who was assigned to which job per se, but there were signatures and/or other ID required on the paperwork for each job performed.  Chasing down the welder shouldn't be too hard.  And, if intentional, charges should be filed.

[MechAg94]

Could be as simple as the welder knowing the weld wouldn't be inspected and just not putting the effort into the job.  Just didn't care that day and quitting time coming up fast.

I have seen industrial plant welders get upset finding out welds would be xray-ed after doing them. 

[MillCreek]

I know nothing about welding, and especially not welding in the maritime setting. Would faulty welds be immediately apparent upon visual inspection, or can you have a good looking weld that only proves to be faulty upon additional testing?

[Cliffh]

If there is more than one layer of weld, the top layer can look great while the deeper layers can be unacceptable.  In that case a visual inspection would pass the weld, but it's probably not going to last long.  Even a single layer weld can look good on the surface but have sub-surface defects.

Even magnetic particle and dye penetrant testing can pass a defective weld if the defect is below the surface.  Magnetic particle can detect sub-surface defects, if the magnetic field is strong enough, the defect large enough and the inspector has some experience.  Dye penetrant can only detect defects that are open to the surface of the weld.

There are some surface defects that will cause a weld to be rejected via visual inspection; porosity, undercut, cracks, etc.

[French G.]

Even single pass welds can look awesome but be defective.  See any Instagram weld ever. We use weld appearance as a proxy for weld quality or welder skil but that's not the way to do it. Intentionally faulty could also be evidence that the welder used rod or a process not approved or out of spec, no documentation on multiple pass temperatures etc. Lots of ways to do it wrong.