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


Welding 2205 , 3/4 " Thickness, GMAW OR FCAW

Welding 2205 , 3/4 " Thickness, GMAW OR FCAW

Welding 2205 , 3/4 " Thickness, GMAW OR FCAW

if anybody weld 2205 by FCAW compare with GMAW.
Any advice.


RE: Welding 2205 , 3/4 " Thickness, GMAW OR FCAW

On a recent 2205 project (small vessels and small/medium piping) we some trouble with the GTAW root passes (ASTM A923), but GMAW turned out to be very reliable on medium diameter piping and vessels (horizontal-rotated position), in terms of ferrite/austenite balance and corrosion testing. We did not attempt FCAW but I would recommend synergic pulsed GMAW with 0.045 or 0.035" wire. If you want to avoid Far East sources, which can be mandatory in the USA, Sandvik is the only way to go.
UNS S32205 has become the de facto standard for 2205 base metal, and it means freedom from nitrogen-bearing shielding gases that were necessary with S31803.
My very broad experience is that the higher you go up the CRA ladder, the more cost incentive there is to use GMAW, while FCAW seems to grow more challenged technically (though more user-friendly).
Hope this helps.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

RE: Welding 2205 , 3/4 " Thickness, GMAW OR FCAW

I would concur with the experience provided by ironic metallurgist.

RE: Welding 2205 , 3/4 " Thickness, GMAW OR FCAW

We have had issues meeting ferrite number ranges with an otherwise reliable brand name of FCAW. I also recommend the pulsed GMAW process.

RE: Welding 2205 , 3/4 " Thickness, GMAW OR FCAW

Make sure that he raw material is UNS S32205 (widely available in Europe and the US) and weld with 2209 filler.
I also would rather see GMAW used. FCAW welds may look nice but I have seen more than a few issues.
I would suggest including ASTM A923 in your qualifications, it is a test for secondary phases. This is usually only a problem when inter-pass temps are too high.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, Plymouth Tube

RE: Welding 2205 , 3/4 " Thickness, GMAW OR FCAW

Agree with with all the above. We too had much difficulty meeting ferrite/austenite balance with FCAW and had abandoned FCAW for dubplex ss welding.

RE: Welding 2205 , 3/4 " Thickness, GMAW OR FCAW

Hi Stan000,
A few additional resources may help you in correct evaluations of the above processes for welding DSS. Both FCAW and GMAW are proven processes for DSS, with pros and cons.
For FCAW: Pros,very adaptable process for all welding positions. The Cons- when it comes to impact properties, FCAW welds are grossly inferior than GMAW and many other process, due to excess oxygen in the weld metal. Also the presence of CO2 in the shielding gas may impair corrosion resistance.
Please go tough the explanation of clause 4.4 of API Technical Report 938 C and the following docs from TWI UK for guidance.


Vis a Vis the following document from Metrode explains the nice features about this process:- http://www.nickelalloys.com.br/Metrode%20CD%202011...

By and large GTAW & GMAW are vastly superior proceses for welding any DSS grades. However FCAW also has it's share also for welding of DSS.

Pradip Goswami,P.Eng.IWE
Welding & Metallurgical Specialist

RE: Welding 2205 , 3/4 " Thickness, GMAW OR FCAW

Thanks, all of you .

RE: Welding 2205 , 3/4 " Thickness, GMAW OR FCAW

I guess I'll be the odd man out here but we've had good success using FCAW on 2205 Duplex. I'm basing that on achieving % Ferrite in the range of 35 - 65. Some procedures run a little tighter. I ran a procedure last fall with ferrite running 49.9 to 59.1, but in my experience most customers will accept ferrite in the 35-65 range. Most applications will also require impacts at -40F, Hardness testing and a corrosion test.
Others may have had success with GMAW but beware of the potential for non - fusion.

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!


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close