Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / Trying to achieve -40 MDMT
1 2 Previous Next  
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 08-06-2012 12:02 Edited 08-06-2012 12:24
nantong,
Thats pretty weak.  :lol:

PS: Thought I might add.
Been offered a dozen or so opportunities overseas over the years, saudi, nigeria, egypt, bahrain, kazakstan, and most recently a friend of mine is expanding his welding supply business into thailand and south korea and needed some welding engienering assistance in setting up fab shops. But I turned em down. But if you like I'll be sure and recommend you to them next time, should you need work. Send me your resume' and I'll be sure and forward it.
Parent - - By nantong (**) Date 08-06-2012 17:01
Been to two countries adjoining the US (extensively in Canada!) sounds like to me you are a bit short in international experience. Lot of talk but did nothing. In the last 35 years I have worked in 27 countries. I see you failed to comment on my last post about using ER70S-G and A333Gr6 for qualification. BTW where is Kazakstan? or do you mean Kazakhstan?

Shane, I see that you have now a senior position in Quality Management in Malaysia. Don't follow this idea about qualifying on non-impact tested material just because ït "always passes". My first bad experience with A106 was in Malaysia in 1981. 6J Average in the HAZ held the job up for a few weeks. my boss was not happy.
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 08-06-2012 18:05
nantong,
You have every reason to be justifiably proud of such a prestigious accomplishment as frequent flyer miles.
Keep up the good work.  :lol:
I once had a nice chat with a young lady at LAX who's parents worked for Continental. She was maybe 18 years of age and had already visited well over 20 countries and was waiting for a seat on a flight overseas for yet another. I'm guessing by now she has chalked up more than you.
So if countin countries is your criteria for success I know of at least one teenage girl that is leaving you in her dust.
Better get crackin.
Parent - - By nantong (**) Date 08-07-2012 07:35
JS55, visiting? you must be confused. I am not talking about tourism I am talking of working. Do you not understand the difference?
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 08-07-2012 12:25
nantong,
You're beginning to bore me.
Parent - - By nantong (**) Date 08-07-2012 13:45
JS55  you lost every round.

"Your beginning to bore me"- sounds like you are punch drunk. You cannot respond to technical comments and now you hide behind being "bored".

If you cannot address technical issues on this subject such as using 0.8% Ni ER70S-G (which manufacturers guarantee below -40C) I do not want to hear anymore on this subject from you especially about young girls you personally know who travel the world on holiday. Totally irrelevant.
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 08-07-2012 21:26
Nantong, I know you are friends with Shane, whom I have a deep respect for, but mate, everytime you post in the forum its always drenched in negativity.  Honestly, it reflects badly on you.

I also have a comment on your post "Don't follow this idea about qualifying on non-impact tested material just because ït "always passes".

Maybe just semantics but if you "qualify" something then it has passed.  Not sure where we'd be in this world if we were all afraid of what thew boss might think... guess there wouldn't be much innovation aye?

Please, lets get back to the OP point instead of just bickering of who has more international exposure?

Cheers, Jon
Parent - - By 46.00 (****) Date 08-08-2012 02:25
Is that not what I asked way back? :confused:

Anyhow, I have a question. Why on several major LNG projects and also a couple of refinery new build contracts I have worked on do we use ASTM A333 G6 for the low-temp C/S applications? Why not just use the three times cheaper, and much more available ASTM A106B if this material can be used? I'm confused! What is the purpose of having this material?
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 08-08-2012 07:42
Beaten to death.

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=128577

A333 is specifically intended (even by title) as low temp stuff.  That doesnt mean by any stretch that A106 isnt as good...... or maybe even better.
Parent - - By 46.00 (****) Date 08-08-2012 08:44
Hi Jon!

Interesting link!

Correct me if I am wrong,(I can be very thick at times!) but your link would seem to suggest that ASTM A355 would be the material of choice for low temp applications, at least when C/S was involved? I am not a piping engineer/designer, so please take it easy with me! But ASTM A106 is better? and cheaper but requires testing to a level greater than A355 bought 'off the shelf'? Am I missing something? Is that what is being said here?
I think we are all missing something in communication here, hence some of the off-track comments.

What does "beaten to death mean"?
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 08-08-2012 12:45 Edited 08-08-2012 12:50
46,
I hesitate to jump back into this but you have a sincere question.
The answer is contained in the posts above.
The primary difference between 333-6 and SA-106 IS NOT chemistry. Gr 6 chemistry is essentially identical to Grade B 106. Its the processing. SA-333 G6 is processed to result in a fine grained microstructure which is suitable for cold temp applications (quenched and tempered). The welding procedure qualification is an entirely different consideration. If you were to take a nominal SA-106 and process it as 333 grade 6 you would essentially have the exact same stuff. There is nothing inherent in the chemistries that make the difference. Even though the specification in Grade 6 shows lower S and P, even 106 is produced every day with far lower S and P than that. In fact steel manufacturers are so good at removing S and P they created the now infamous fusion problems of stainless steels back in the 70's before they started offering higher S materials.
As far as the welding procedure qual is concerned once you run the material through the weld procedure regime the SA-333 Gr 6 is essentially gone, the Q and T in the HAZ is gone. But you do still have an essentially normalized microstructure if you keep the heat input down, which is the emphasis of any good procedure qual for a CVN regime.
And this is why you cannot improve the Gr 6 HAZ by low heat inut procedures (you will still get grain growth no matter what) but you can improve the large grained hot finished SA-106. And since the chemistries are essentially identical the base metal dilution is not going to effect the weld metal AT ALL.
Now, having said this, there is nothing wrong with using 333 G6 for quals. Its just that it doesn't help. And in fact, is detrimental if your qualifying for nuclear where the HAZ has to beat the unaffected base metal. Try doing that with 333 6. It ain't easy.
The boiler code and the pressure piping codes recognize these facts.  And in fact, I learned these lessons the hard way many moons ago, and was enlightened by one of the finest gentlemen in the industry, now the Chaiman of Section IX and a member of the B31 committee as well.
Parent - By DaveBoyer (*****) Date 08-09-2012 04:28
Good description. I was able to follw it and only now understand what this thread has been about.
Parent - By 46.00 (****) Date 08-09-2012 08:13
Thank you for a good answer and explanation!
I can see and have come across, several 'on-site' QA/QC problems with these low-temp materials. But that is another story.
Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / Trying to achieve -40 MDMT
1 2 Previous Next  

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill