WeldUK
Materials
- Jan 20, 2012
- 21
I'd like to pick your brain of some AWS D 1.1 users on this.
We intend to use E81T1-Ni1 filler wire (AWS SFA-5.29, min YS 468MPa, min UTS 550MPa) to weld an EN S355 grade (min YS 355MPa), the reference code is AWS D1.1:2010.
The loading is classified as 'tension normal to the effective area', hence according totable 2.3 in AWS D1.1, "matching filler metal shall be used".
The filler metal we propose is overmatching the tensile strength of the base metal and our client is not accepting it on this basis, they require the use of E7X... wire.
I could not find a definition of 'matching' in AWS D1.1, hence even a 70ksi wire (min YS 399MPa) could be seen as overmatching! If 'matching' means 'tensile strength equal to or greater...', then both E7X.. and E81.. wires would comply with the code.
In conclusion, I do not see why E81... should not be accepted, provided we carry out the welding procedure qualification and meet all mechanical test and NDT requirements.
Can anyone shed some light?
We intend to use E81T1-Ni1 filler wire (AWS SFA-5.29, min YS 468MPa, min UTS 550MPa) to weld an EN S355 grade (min YS 355MPa), the reference code is AWS D1.1:2010.
The loading is classified as 'tension normal to the effective area', hence according totable 2.3 in AWS D1.1, "matching filler metal shall be used".
The filler metal we propose is overmatching the tensile strength of the base metal and our client is not accepting it on this basis, they require the use of E7X... wire.
I could not find a definition of 'matching' in AWS D1.1, hence even a 70ksi wire (min YS 399MPa) could be seen as overmatching! If 'matching' means 'tensile strength equal to or greater...', then both E7X.. and E81.. wires would comply with the code.
In conclusion, I do not see why E81... should not be accepted, provided we carry out the welding procedure qualification and meet all mechanical test and NDT requirements.
Can anyone shed some light?