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!

Register Log in
  • Congratulations MintJulep on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Upgrading SAW wire+flux combination according to AWS A5.17

Status
Not open for further replies.
kingnero

kingnero

Mechanical
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
1,783
Location
BE
I got a client (ASME III project + lots of client specs that are a combination of ISO and ASME/AWS points) that requires a qualification of the filler material according to A5.17.
So far so good, this can easily be arranged.
But - how do I document this? I am asked to write an "upgrading plan", which I am not familiar with.
I was hoping that, with a A5.17 test and an ASME IX PQR, it would suffice. But no.

Is this described somewhere, should I be using a certain template, what is the contents of such an "upgrading plan" ?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
That's a term I'm not familiar with, "upgrade".

Is this a requirement listed in the project specification, ASME Section IX, Section III, where does it come from?

Al

Best regards - Al
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thank you Al, for confirming that this isn't standard ASME lingo.
This is indeed a client requirement.

Apart from what I'm starting with (documentation of SAW wire and flux that we're going to use) and what I should end up with (chemical analysis and mechanical values), should I include any other info in such documentation?
I will ask the client, but I want to prepare a first version as complete as possible in order to have something to discuss in detail and to work further on.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Sounds like the client wants all weld metal tests with specific flux filler metals that you will use in production welding.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Correct, hence the A5.17 test (tensile and charpy values out of 100% filler metal).
I'm more concerned with completely documentating all of this, as I have never done this (the administrative part of it) before.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The filler metal specification should provide you with the information that is generally required the the test methodology. Your customer may be looking for additional information that is above and beyond that required by the standard.

Al

Best regards - Al
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I only supervised this type of testing a couple of times and not for an ASME III application.
I documented manufacture of flux and batch number plus manufacturer an heat number of filler metal as well as flux filler classification. Documented electrical parameters and travel speed. Included welding operator and took photos of coupon set up and final welded coupon. Coupon was sent to an independent lab for machining and mechanical testing assuring that lab had proper documention of charpy test equipment. Witnessed measurement of test coupons and mechanical tests thereof.

For other such requirements, I had the manufacturer perform the welding and testing of the flux filler batches to be used in our production welding and they reported results.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
@ gtaw, yes, I believe I have all the necessary information based on the designation of the wire/flux combination (regarding to tensile strength, charpy values, ...)

@ weldstan, thanks for your experience. I'm planning to work very similar to your approach.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Does anybody know why only the chemical analysis is required from the solid wire, but not from an all-weld metal specimen unless it's a tubular cored wire?
The flux, used for solid wire, also contributes to the chemical analysis of the deposited weld metal, and hence, to the mechanical values and so on.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Finally, the "upgrading plan" as requested by the customer was nothing more than a formal list of all steps (purchase of materials + specs, welding, NDT and material testing) and acceptance criteria ( = a lot of copy & paste from the standards) that needed to be done, in the form of a test & inspection plan (with hold, monitor and witness points).
Communication is key, but the customer sure made it difficult to reach them (each question needed a separate RFI and traceability number, ...). No "verbal/telephone" communication whatsoever. Not pleasant to work like that. Best of all, when witnessing the welding test, they (5 persons!) took of for coffee after taking pictures of the material stamps/filler material batches and after three welding passes. No more interest for amperage, interpass temp, ... because sub-arc welding is "boring"...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

JT0202
  • Question Question
AWS D1.1 2020 Group I to Group II Material PQR
Replies
0
Views
2K
JT0202
JT0202
ThaiVu
  • Locked
  • Question Question
AWS D1.1 - FILLET WELD BREAK TEST
Replies
7
Views
3K
ThaiVu
ThaiVu
JONI101
  • Locked
  • Question Question
AWS D1.1 : 10.25.2 - Tubular Connection Requirement (RT acceptance criteria)
Replies
0
Views
1K
JONI101
JONI101
Karik87
  • Locked
  • Question Question
Welder Qualification with AWS A5.14 ERNiCrMo-3 according to AWS D1.1
Replies
2
Views
562
weldstan
weldstan
naquib
  • Locked
  • Question Question
WPS Qualification AWS D1.1 2020, Box to Box WPS Sample
Replies
0
Views
2K
naquib
naquib

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top