New AWS Standard for Welding Consumables

A few things I find interesting;

This "new" standard is already 3 years old, it first appeared in ASME Section II Part C in 2013.

The article was posted some time ago, and as of Jan 01 of this year, it is mandatory for filler metal manufacturers.

From now until the end of 2015, manufacturers may list both the old and new AWS classifications on their packaging. As of Jan 1, 2016, classification to AWS A5.36/A5.36M will be required.

Click to expand...

I don't foresee how ASME cannot adopt it.

Well I no longer fabricate so I'm out of that loop. The dates don't matter as much as the implications.

"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"

What implications? A guy has to revise his weld procedures? That's not so bad...

The new AWS filler metal specification for flux cored electrode is someone's wet dream. It is too cumbersome for anyone to remember what all 10 alpha-numeric designations mean. There might be two people that can actually look at the new designation and tell you what each letter or number means. Just consider the shielding gas portion of the classification. There are 14 different "standard" shielding gases designations that can be part of the classification.

As for usability, AWS and the boys from ISO missed the boat. If the classification system isn't usable, the system fails. This train has derailed and the purpose of having the classification system completely forgotten. I hope the folks at ASME are smarted than those sitting on the AWS filler metal committee. Maybe they were fed the same "smart" pills offered to the boys that put together the "New Farm Code" (AWS D1.1:2015). We might as well go back to the system of colored dots and bands used by Lincoln back in the "old days." I really wish those boys would forego the wacky weed when they get together.

By the way, AWS A5.36 is in place and completely replaces A5.20 and A5.29 by 2018. I wish I could support this move, but I can't. It is stupid. I remember when my mother would say, "If all the other boys jumped off the cliff, would you follow them?" Just because ISO does something doesn't make it better. Just look at Europe's economy.

My rant is done for the day.

Best regards - Al

Couldn't agree more my friend.
I am working on a project at the moment using ISO standards and it is a joke.
You need a university degree to just work out which standard you need - let alone understanding what is actually written in it.
Here is an example for a basic SMAW WPS

DIN EN ISO 15607:2004-03, Specification and qualification of welding procedures for metallic materials — General rules

DIN EN ISO 15609-1:2005-01, Specification and qualification of welding procedures for metallic materials — Welding procedure specification — Part 1: Arc welding

DIN EN ISO 15614-1 Specification and qualification of welding procedures for metallic materials – Welding procedure test –
Part 1: Arc and gas welding of steels and arc welding of nickel and
nickel alloys

Then you have separate standards for materials, welding positions, consumables (gas), consumables (electrodes),acceptance criterias etc etc

And then you have the PED .................. !
I better stop now.

I just refuse to recognise the ISO designations - luckily I am usually working for the client so we make the rules.
Cheers,
DD

A caricature of the committee members voting on this would be a lemming headed toward a cliff. The fact that the New Farm Code blindly included the new filler metal specification is a disservice to the industry. They included 12 pages in the New Farm Code in their attempt to explain how to decipher the convoluted classification system specified by AWS A.36.

Dissecting the classification: Ten variables, count them! E S P TX - G H I - C -D Hx I substituted letters for "Xs" used by AWS' legend.

E- electrode - no brainer
S - tensile strength - 8 groupings
P - position - 0 or 1, no change
TX usability - 1 through 17 plus G if the electrode does not fall into a standard usability grouping
G - shielding gas - 17 different recognized gases and "Z" for any gas that is not included in a recognized gas or mix grouping. Includes 7 foot notes - really?
H - post weld heat treatment - they couldn't figure it out, so they refer the reader to A5.36 to figure it out on their own
I - notch toughness - 10 possible test temperatures, with Z indicating no impact testing is required, G if it is by agreement between supplier and user.
C - weld deposit chemistry - 38 different groupings
D - supplemental mechanical testing - low heat input / high heat input
Hx - diffusible hydrogen

How many different combinations are possible? How many WPSs will have to be written to cover the possible combinations? Will any welder really have a clue of what they are using? Are the electrode manufactures expected to test each electrode with each gas, in each post weld heat treated condition, will they actually test each electrode with high and low heat input? It boggles the mind.

How does this help anyone? I have not heard one answer from anyone that is in the "loop" that could explain the rational other than to harmonize with ISO.

The current system that is in place works. When I have a project that requires more specificity, I list the manufacturer and the "brand name". The new classification system included in A5.36 is simply too unwieldy. How many different classifications will be listed on the label? Unwieldy is as generous as I can get, but unusable is probably more accurate.

It is one more reason to toss the New Farm Code (formally AWS D1.1) into the circular file. Besides allowing one to weld on surfaces with residual oil, grease, water, and other hydrocarbons, the New Farm Code impose limitations of A5.36 as a condition for prequalified WPSs. Maybe the two committees were riding in the same bus that was involved in a horrible accident and they voted on these provisions while suffering head injuries. How else can one explain it? I just pray ASME doesn't fall down the same rabbit hole.


Best regards - Al