×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Contact US

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!

*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

E7018, E7018-1

E7018, E7018-1

E7018, E7018-1

(OP)
I am planning a double super-PQR qualified using dual-certified SA-516-60/70 with GTAW and SMAW. With impacts, PWHT/No PWHT, high Q, etc. Finishing qualifying PQRs for all time is the goal.
I am interested in the possibility of dual-certified E7018/E7018-1, but does such a creature exist? Google was no help at all (although it seems fine with stalking me, but I digress).
The ASME IX rules around supplementary essential variables are quite clear; however in ASME II Part C, SFA5.1, the requirements for E7018-1 are not at all well defined. Table 3 is of little help. Composition limits are not given for E7018-1, although the commentary (A7.6.7.4) mentions that manganese is in the upper end of the E7018 range, so it seems reasonable to think it could be dual-certified with E7018.
Any thoughts/experiences on this question?
.


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

RE: E7018, E7018-1

E7018-A1 has the addition of 0.5% Molybdenum for high temperature applications.

The additional of molybdenum may affect your A-number, so it would require a separate PQR from E7018.

Be aware that you need to review the requirements of the construction code to see what if any modifications to the requirements of Section IX are involved.

Best regards - Al

RE: E7018, E7018-1

(OP)
Not E7018-A1, E7018-1.
The construction codes do not complicate my question in any way that affects procedure qualification.

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

RE: E7018, E7018-1

Most I've come across are dual certified. Lincoln dual certifies the E7018/E7018-1 Excalibur line even on their Q1 Lot/Typical certs.

RE: E7018, E7018-1

Why can't you do the PQR with E7018-1 and write a WPS using E7018?....classification is supplementary.

RE: E7018, E7018-1

(OP)
david339933,
Supplementary essential variables mean I can change in one direction but not the other. ASME IX, QW-404.12(e).
Of course I could just qualify with E7018 and take my chances at a lower Charpy test temperature.

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

RE: E7018, E7018-1

(OP)
Thanks Mr168,
It still would be nice to see requirements for E7018-1 explicitly stated in ASME II-C.

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

RE: E7018, E7018-1

They are - it's Table 3 in SFA 5.1. The only difference between the two is that the E7018-1 has to meet CVN's at -50°F as opposed to -20°F for E7018, which is typically accomplished by tightening up the chemistry ranges a bit.

RE: E7018, E7018-1

QW-404.12(e) states you don't have to requalify if you go from E7018 to E7018-1...which makes sense as you are going with a filler metal tested at a colder(lower) temperature than the original E7018. It was proved satisfactory with E7018, so will certainly be good with E7018-1.
This paragraph is not applicable when impacts are not needed...so I see no reason you can't switch from E7018-1 to E7018 when there are no impacts.

RE: E7018, E7018-1

My bad.

I found Lincoln E7018 MR N appear to be dual certified to meet E7018-H4R and E7018-1 H4R according to Lincoln literature.

Best regards - Al

RE: E7018, E7018-1

(OP)
david339933, I believe you have it the wrong way round. When impacts are in play, I can go from E7018 to E7018-1, but not vice versa.
.
Staring at Table 3 a bit more, it appears E7018-1 is an 'Electrode Designation', perhaps implying a sub-category of E7018? I find the lack of clarity from AWS unusual.

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

RE: E7018, E7018-1

That's what I stated..you can go from E7018 to E7018-1 with impacts. But..hang on a sec. Are you attempting to qualify with dual certified filler metal, so you can use E7018 only with the WPS with impacts?

RE: E7018, E7018-1

(OP)
Yes, I am asking if that is legit.
At the end of the day, it probably makes sense to buy only E7018-1 for production.

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

RE: E7018, E7018-1

Agreed, E7018-1 is the way to go. IMO dual is not legit and violates QW-404.12(e)...at the end of the day, you are qualifying with an impact tested filler metal, then not using one in production....in violation of QW-404.12(e).

RE: E7018, E7018-1

There are a number of E7018 electrodes that consistently met impacts at -50F prior to the classification of E7018-1. In fact Lincoln largely was responsible creating the classification because its E7018 electrodes could not consistently meet the -50F impacts. And they could charge a bit more for its E7018-1. The old Chemtron Atom Arc 7018 ALWAYS met -50F impacts and is currently manufactured by anotherr company to the same standards.

RE: E7018, E7018-1

(OP)
I think you've all convinced me this approach is not legitimate, as well as violating the 'spirit of the Code'.
Not all electrodes are equal, and the spirit of the Code should dictate that any E7018 used subsequently for production should meet the standard established in procedure qualification.
This settles the question for me, thanks to all.

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

RE: E7018, E7018-1

Hope this helps

Interpretation: IX-92-21
Subject:
Date Issued: October 7, 1991
Section IX, QW-404.12; Change in Filler Metal
File: Bal-397
Question: May existing WPS’s using the SMAW process with E7018 electrodes which were
qualified at - 50°F utilizing the essential and supplementary essential variables of QW-253 be revised to specify E7018-1 classification without requalification?
Reply: Yes.

RE: E7018, E7018-1

(OP)
Interesting, thanks for this DekDee.
Look like the logic ASME followed was that -50°F is the Charpy test temperature called out for E7018-1 in Section II-C. If the inquirer had qualified at any temperature higher than -50°F the answer would have been No.

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

RE: E7018, E7018-1

Probably not since the E7018-1 has the superior impact toughness properties at low temperature as demonstrated by test.

RE: E7018, E7018-1

The answer would be yes if tested at any temperature equal to or warmer than -50F....that is the point of paragraph QW-404.12(e). E7018-1 is tested at a lower temperature than E7018 (-50F vs -20F)as required by QW-404.12(e).

RE: E7018, E7018-1

David,
A bit confused here.
You have " equal to or warmer than -50F "
Should that not be equal to or colder than -50F ?

My understanding of the interpretation is - 48F would be a No and -52F would be a Yes

RE: E7018, E7018-1

The -50F is really irrelevant. There is no mention of the actual test temperature of the PQR Coupon in QW-404.12(e).

QW-404.12(e) states you do not have to requalify if you use a filler metal in production that is required to be impact tested per spec at a temperature colder than the same spec requires for the filler metal used in qualification.

E7018 impact tested per SFA 5.1 at -20F
E7018-1 impact tested per SFA 5.1 at -50F

What I am saying is, if the spec (5.1) required a test temp of anything equal to or warmer than -50F, you could switch to E7018-1, since it is tested at -50F.

If SFA 5.1 required a filler metal to be impact tested at -52F, you could not switch to E7018-1 since it is only tested at -50F.




RE: E7018, E7018-1

Thank you for the explanation,
Cheers,
Shane

RE: E7018, E7018-1

(OP)
I misread the interpretation first time around (the structure of these things is a bit like Jeopardy 'answers').
So basically the answer is: follow the test temperature given in SFA5.1 for an electrode, to align with a PQR tested at that temperature (or lower). Which I knew, but the unusual status of E7018-1 as a 'designation', without specific composition requirements, still puzzles me.
Thanks again!

Next up: A discussion of Mandatory Classification Designators in SFA5.36. Specifically, how the heck does ASME think the metal cored process resembles FCAW more than it does GMAW?

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

RE: E7018, E7018-1

Quote (ironic metallurgist)

follow the test temperature given in SFA5.1 for an electrode, to align with a PQR tested at that temperature (or lower)
Can you explain this?...something doesn't seem right.

Next up: ASME groups them all into GMAW. Structural Codes (CSA W59) groups MCAW/FCAW together as well.

RE: E7018, E7018-1

(OP)

Quote (david339933)

Can you explain this?...something doesn't seem right.
It's Friday and my brain is coffee-addled and stressed out from a week's worth of loud neighbours, so maybe I'm not communicating effectively.
I mean you can qualify impacts for E7018 (for example) as low as you like, but that it should not be called out for temperatures lower than II-C rates it at.

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

RE: E7018, E7018-1

Fair enough...but the Code does not prohibit it.
If I qualify a PQR with E7018 at -30F that is fine. I can then weld with E7018 when -30F is the MDMT or I can then change to E7018-1 without re-qualifying since it is tested colder than E7018 per spec (-50F vs -20F).

RE: E7018, E7018-1

(OP)
I know I can switch to E7018-1 at any time.
The thing is, with such a PQR, if I switch to E7018 electrode supplier B, their product may not give equivalent values. Even though that may be permitted I would not do it.

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

RE: E7018, E7018-1

Quote:

The thing is, with such a PQR, if I switch to E7018 electrode supplier B, their product may not give equivalent values.

Most customer specifications address this issue. Something to the effect of, "Electrodes used for impact tested fabrications shall be from the same manufacturer and brand as used in the PQR."

Most that I've seen anyway...

The devil is in the details; she also wears prada.

RE: E7018, E7018-1

(OP)
DVWE,
That's a prudent clause to include, and as a constructor exercising sound engineering judgment I would make that my practice.

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

RE: E7018, E7018-1

In our case, where procedure qualification requiring impacts was done with E7018 electrodes, we amended our WPSs to require E7918-1 a couple of years after E7018-1 was classified under SFA5.1. This simply made it logistically easier to procure and use the appropriate electrode without requiring the same manufacturer of the E7018 as was used in qualification. When multiple construction projects (as many as 30) are ongoing at any time, it pays to be correct, rather than have some purchaser, including the Owner, buy/provide an inferior product due to perceived cost saving.

RE: E7018, E7018-1

(OP)
Agree weldstan,
At the end of the day, buying only E7018-1 makes the most sense. The difference is probably only pennies, and it's 3 or 4 items less to stock.

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

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! Already a Member? Login


Resources

Low-Volume Rapid Injection Molding With 3D Printed Molds
Learn methods and guidelines for using stereolithography (SLA) 3D printed molds in the injection molding process to lower costs and lead time. Discover how this hybrid manufacturing process enables on-demand mold fabrication to quickly produce small batches of thermoplastic parts. Download Now
Design for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM)
Examine how the principles of DfAM upend many of the long-standing rules around manufacturability - allowing engineers and designers to place a part’s function at the center of their design considerations. Download Now
Taking Control of Engineering Documents
This ebook covers tips for creating and managing workflows, security best practices and protection of intellectual property, Cloud vs. on-premise software solutions, CAD file management, compliance, and more. Download Now

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