×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Classification ER70S-6

Classification ER70S-6

Classification ER70S-6

(OP)
Hi,
Issue with classification ER70S-6 - SF 5.18 and A No.1 classification.
ASME IX QW-442 says maximum 1.60 Mn and Si 1.0 for A No.1
ASME II C SFA 5:16 says Si 0.80-1.15 and Mn 1.40-1.85 (same as AWS 5.18)
Why these 2 differences and what should I use?
We have a 2.4 mm LNT 26 Lincoln filler material with Si 0.82 and Mn 1.47

Patrick

RE: Classification ER70S-6

If you are doing a procedure you will use both. The SFA 5.18 is the material specification. Most ( I did not review 5.18 for this) compositions in 5.18 will meet A No. 1 which is a grouping of similar composition filler metals. When filling out the QW482 or QW483 forms you will have Spec No. SFA5.18, AWS Class ER70S-6, F No.6 and A No. 1. Composition of the filler must meet what is shown in 5.18 ER70S-6. ER70S-2 has a different composition but the class is the only thing that changes. If you had a filler with 1.65 Mn, for example, which was classed as ER70S-G, your A No. would be listed as NONE since it doesn't fall into the A No. 1 range.

RE: Classification ER70S-6

Also, I have seen many ER70S-6 filler metals meet the ASME A-No 1 classification, while other filler metals were formulated that resulted in not fitting an A-No classification, and as such, the procedure was qualified with as deposited filler metal with no A-No reported or N/A.

RE: Classification ER70S-6

In the past 15 years, I have seen no ER70S-6 filler metal heat chemistries that did not meet A-1 analysis. You can specify a 1.6% max Mn content in your WPS and obtain verification chemistry to the A-1 analysis if you so desire. You can also qualify the procedure with ER70S-6 and the PQR is valid for all ER70S-6 purchased filler metals and specify None or N/A for the A No. analysis as per metengr and jwhit.

RE: Classification ER70S-6

further caveat: the "A" really stands for 'Analysis of Weld Puddle'. The alloy content of unused wire is not the official analysis. What you need is the "As-Welded" analysis; the act of welding changes a lot of the bare-wire constituents, especially depletes the deoxidizer elements like Si and Al.

Fillers with flux; SMAW, FCAW, and especially SAW have dramatically different As-Welded chemistries when compared to the bare wire used. The flux supplies most of the alloying elements.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources