A welder has substituted an e7014 electrode for the specified e7018 (low hydrogen) electrode for welding new A36 steel to existing gr 30 (older) steel. AWS A5.1 shows that the E7014 and E7018 have similar strength properties but the E7014 has no charpy v notch limits, unlike the E7018. Also E7014 can be susceptible to hydrogen embrittlement of the welds. The welds are fillets joining pieces less than 3/4" thick. The welds are fillets, 3/8" max to 5/16" min. The loads are static. The welds have been visually inspected and look ok, no cracks visible. Has anyone any experience about using E7014 in structural applications? All comments appreciated.
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations TugboatEng on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
e7014 electrode used instead of specified e7018 1
- Thread starter samdamon
- Start date
-
1
- #6
This appears to be an issue with proper training and a failure in supervision.
The welder should understand the differences between E7014 and E7018. That is a training issue.
The issue with supervision is another issue. We don't know all the details that would point the finger to someone that didn't do their job.
Was the welder a contractor working on a job site? If he was, did he have his own or was he provided with a WPS that provided the needed information? Was this job governed by a code such as an AWS structural welding code or ASME construction code? If the project was required to meet a code, who was responsible to review the WPS the welder used (or didn't use). Was the welder an employee? If the welder was an employee, who was the immediate supervisor?
The issue I'm attempted to circle around to is what is going to be done to ensure the same problem doesn't happen in the future. Additionally, what is going to happen to rectify the mistake that did occur. If the project is required to comply with a code, there may be ramifications other than whether the electrodes are equivalent. The simple answer is they are not equivalent in all respects. Many of the differences have been noted, but one has not been addressed. That difference is the F numbers assigned by either AWS or ASME. The two electrodes have different F numbers. The F number is an essential variable. Ouch! Again, if the project is required to comply with a code, there are code issues that have to be rectified.
It would be nice to know the whole story rather than interesting tidbits.
Best regards - Al
The welder should understand the differences between E7014 and E7018. That is a training issue.
The issue with supervision is another issue. We don't know all the details that would point the finger to someone that didn't do their job.
Was the welder a contractor working on a job site? If he was, did he have his own or was he provided with a WPS that provided the needed information? Was this job governed by a code such as an AWS structural welding code or ASME construction code? If the project was required to meet a code, who was responsible to review the WPS the welder used (or didn't use). Was the welder an employee? If the welder was an employee, who was the immediate supervisor?
The issue I'm attempted to circle around to is what is going to be done to ensure the same problem doesn't happen in the future. Additionally, what is going to happen to rectify the mistake that did occur. If the project is required to comply with a code, there may be ramifications other than whether the electrodes are equivalent. The simple answer is they are not equivalent in all respects. Many of the differences have been noted, but one has not been addressed. That difference is the F numbers assigned by either AWS or ASME. The two electrodes have different F numbers. The F number is an essential variable. Ouch! Again, if the project is required to comply with a code, there are code issues that have to be rectified.
It would be nice to know the whole story rather than interesting tidbits.
Best regards - Al
In addition to Al's comments, E7014 has different penetration characteristics. While the surface may appear sound, did full penetration occur? Are there bridged roots and lack of fusion unseen? The use of the wrong electrode is a nonconformance and should be fully evaluated.
pradipgoswami
Materials
Hi Samdamon,
The whole issue is a failure of Q.A system. No welder should indiscriminately change welding electrodes , without consultation with the welding or Q.A personnel. Small extract on E-7014 electrodes from Sec-II, Pt-C SFA 5.1 is as follows. The rest you may find in SFA 5.1 in the following clause.
[highlight #FCE94F]A7.5 E7014 [E4914] Classification[/highlight]
A7.5.1 E7014 [E4914] electrode coverings are similar to those of E6012 [E4312] and E6013 [E4313] electrodes, but with the addition of iron powder for obtaining higher deposition efficiency. The covering thickness and the amount of iron powder in E7014 [E4914] are less
than in E7024 [E4924] electrodes (see A7.10).
In a nutshell these electrodes are Non-Low Hydrogen type electrodes. If the specification calls for "Low Hydrogen Electrodes" irrespective of the steels used then welds with these electrodes may be unacceptable,subject to the discretion of the client.
Thanks.
Pradip Goswami,P.Eng.IWE
Welding & Metallurgical Specialist
Ontario,Canada.
ca.linkedin.com/pub/pradip-goswami/5/985/299
The whole issue is a failure of Q.A system. No welder should indiscriminately change welding electrodes , without consultation with the welding or Q.A personnel. Small extract on E-7014 electrodes from Sec-II, Pt-C SFA 5.1 is as follows. The rest you may find in SFA 5.1 in the following clause.
[highlight #FCE94F]A7.5 E7014 [E4914] Classification[/highlight]
A7.5.1 E7014 [E4914] electrode coverings are similar to those of E6012 [E4312] and E6013 [E4313] electrodes, but with the addition of iron powder for obtaining higher deposition efficiency. The covering thickness and the amount of iron powder in E7014 [E4914] are less
than in E7024 [E4924] electrodes (see A7.10).
In a nutshell these electrodes are Non-Low Hydrogen type electrodes. If the specification calls for "Low Hydrogen Electrodes" irrespective of the steels used then welds with these electrodes may be unacceptable,subject to the discretion of the client.
Thanks.
Pradip Goswami,P.Eng.IWE
Welding & Metallurgical Specialist
Ontario,Canada.
ca.linkedin.com/pub/pradip-goswami/5/985/299
You've got two separate problems here.
(1) a non-conformity with the specs
(2) a practical problem: the consequences of using a lower quality consumable than specified.
For (1), you need all documentation to see what exactly was asked. We can only give suggestions on what is commonly applicable, but the only way to know for sure is with all documentation on the table.
For (2), you can assess if what is actually performed, can be accepted or not. Depending on the circumstances, the weld may perfectly be accepted, even though 7014 was used.
We don't have enough information to assess either problem.
(1) a non-conformity with the specs
(2) a practical problem: the consequences of using a lower quality consumable than specified.
For (1), you need all documentation to see what exactly was asked. We can only give suggestions on what is commonly applicable, but the only way to know for sure is with all documentation on the table.
For (2), you can assess if what is actually performed, can be accepted or not. Depending on the circumstances, the weld may perfectly be accepted, even though 7014 was used.
We don't have enough information to assess either problem.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question