Search results for query: *

Thank you, Mr168. Your definitive answers are also very helpful to my understanding to the process and Code.

Thank you gtaw and DVWE. Great response posts from both of you.

I have seen, respect and value previously posted comments from both you guys. Maybe I'm just becoming a bit old fashioned, but you would think that by the 21st century, Code rules would be more in sync to the real parameters/variables that affect the metallurgy and structural integrity of a...

Thank you, DVWE, for taking the time to respond. You are correct, as this is not a pre-qualified situation. So based on what is listed in ASW D1.1 Par. 7.6.1 and again for the manufacturer's qual test in 7.9.10, the arc shield, the combination of ferrule and flux, is an essential variable, and...

When qualifying a stud welding procedure per AWS D1.1, using a particular manufacturer's equipment and set-up, may the subsequent stud welding WPS utilize any manufacturer's equipment with the same parameters? It is noted in ASME IX that a change in power source or stud gun model number...

I have a couple of German welding procedure specifications that refer to weld process numbers 135 and 141. Based on the welding parameters, they are both spooled wire processes, running at 2-7 meters/minute, DC - positive polarity. 135 uses inert gas 100% Ar 141 uses "active" gas 99% Ar - 1%...

Would someone know what welding process numbers 135 and 141 refer to? Based on the welding parameters, they are both spooled wire processes, running at 2-7 meters/minute, DC - positive polarity. 135 uses inert gas 100% Ar 141 uses "active" gas 99% Ar - 1% Oxygen. Given that it is a positive...

Thank you Metengr and Edstainless for your helpful responses.

Would someone know of a source/link to data on the elastic modulus and Poisson's ratio for AISI 304 and Ductile Iron at 1400°F. Thanks.

I'm not sure I am following your suggestion, Metengr. "weld corrosion overlay can be deposited with no final PWHT because austenitic stainless steel filler metal requires no PWHT" PWHT, depending on code and base thickness, could be required for the P11 base metal, but not for austenitic...

That is a good heads-up, metengr. What does that change do to welding PQRs?

Buttering the P5 is the process change I was alluding to. I'm not sure that the lower alloy material dictates the PWHT. It is more critical metallurgically to make sure that a P91 alloy for example, gets the proper PWHT with the P1 chips falling where they may. In most cases with this...

Thank you all for your responses; they have been helpful. the pipe is a welded construction, 12 ft diam discharge line back to the ocean. So the "ditch" comparison is more like no pressure, but plenty of flow.

Depends on what Code you are using. ASME Section III, NB-4360 imposes many more requirements on the seal weld than a simple fillet.

Thank you, Brimmer. I'm looking for a Star to give you. I was getting bogus info from an EE who had concerns about crossing potentials. So now I'm really interested in your "no comment" on the sac anodes on the inside. The pipe is 12 ft. diameter, essentially a covered ditch with coal...

I have long had the same concern as 5pointslow since metallurgically we know that the steel softens over time at temperature. So if your production piece just barely made minimum mechanical properties, there is a possibility that the described PWHT lowered these properties to below minimum...

I inadvertently posted this to another question on the forum; so here it is again. I'm looking to protect a coated carbon steel pipe that carries seawater. In addition to the inside coating, the design calls for sacrificial anodes placed strategically on the inside, and an impressed current...

I'm looking at protecting a coated carbon steel pipe that carries seawater. In addition to the inside coating, the design calls for sacrificial anodes placed strategically on the inside, and an impressed current cathodic protection system on the outside for the buried segment of the pipeline...

Thank you, Metengr. Your response has been helpful, and I appreciate your opinion; and I believe it is on firm footing. So in this case the PQR must try to use apply corrosion resistant weld overlay clad criteria of Section IX, where it does not conflict with either CC N638 or ASME III and XI...

Thank you for your response, Metengr. However, Qw-290 states: "When the applicable Code section specifies the use of this para. for temperbead welding, QW-290.1-.6 applies." Part of the problem is that no where in ASME III, XI or CC N-638 does the Code specify the use of QW-290, although...