Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / Hydrogen embrittlement concerns with water based antispatter
- - By Mwccwi (***) Date 06-03-2014 15:12
We are considering changing from an aerosol anti-spatter spray to a water based spray.
Our customer has in the past expressed concerns for the use of anti-spatter spray that we countered with the fact that D1.1 allows its use and our customer required us to do macro-etch and PT testing in order to approve its use in the aerosol.
My concern now is, will the water based spry increase the chance of having problems with hydrogen embrittlement and porosity? We are already using a weldable primer and we believe that the primer has lead to increased occurrences of problems with porosity.

Any help or suggestions would be a good thing.
Thanks
Parent - - By TimGary (****) Date 06-03-2014 16:23
Question -

If your parts are already coated with a weldable primer, what benefit do you get from using anti-spatter spray?
Doesn't the primer already help prevent spatter from sticking to the part?

Tim
Parent - By Mwccwi (***) Date 06-03-2014 17:06
Only the joint interface surfaces that can't be primed after welding get the weldable primer, per drawing specifications. The rest of the part does not get the weldable primer and the parts are sand blasted/ descaled prior to welding which makes the spatter stick aggressively to the non coated areas.
Parent - By Len Andersen (***) Date 06-03-2014 19:25
Ladies and Gentlemen,
        Five patents in welding with hydrogen embrittlement focus.  It is the money I. e. cost of more reworks opposed to splatter removal. One big shop lost heaters on sub arc flux and they were scared on what they sent cracking out. They went out. Hope this is helpful.
    Sincerely
        Len Andersen     weld@spemail.org
          914-536-7101
www.lenandersen.com
       PS - http://lenandersen.com/personal_info/resume.html

PS - I am looking for a job !
- - By 803056 (*****) Date 06-03-2014 17:06
I would hope that you are allowing the water based anti-spatter to completely dry before you weld and you are not applying the anti-spatter to the groove face or surfaces immediately adjacent to the weld toe. That being the case, there should not be a problem.

Al
Parent - - By Mwccwi (***) Date 06-03-2014 17:11
We have not used the water based anti-spatter as of yet. It was and option offered to save money. the production rate on these parts will not allow for a lag time between application of the spray and welding and as for not applying the anti-spatter to the groove face or surfaces immediately adjacent to the weld toe this would be challenging to control, all I could do is warn the welders not to.
Parent - By 803056 (*****) Date 06-03-2014 22:57
If you cannot allow the water to evaporate, I would be hesitant to use the water based anti-spatter compound.

Al
- - By rshanks (**) Date 06-03-2014 18:03
This is what gets me, It sounds like the job was bid to D1.1 and we all know how 5.30.2 reads regarding spatter. (unless removing it for NDE purpose). Than as we read through executed contract documents / specifications and etc. we see a one line sentence "All slag and spatter shall be removed", The slag is a know brainer, but what gets me, is when sells and estimating do not bid accordingly and there is not time  for production to perform specified requirements. I have a work order going know that requires NiCrMo filler and they  (sells) thought we could weld it with E71T1?? There killing me
Parent - By Mwccwi (***) Date 06-03-2014 19:27
Rshanks,
That is kind of the story here.
After the bid was accepted we get a customer audit and the requirement for us not to use anti-spatter spray because the customer feels that the spray can lead to welding discontinuities.
All is good I bring up D1.1:2010 clause 5.15 that allows “or anti-spatter compound may remain with the following exceptions” and additional cost associated with spatter removal, then the anti-spatter is acceptable after submitting testing pictures demonstrating no discontinuities with the aerosol.
The concern that I personally have is I've already stepped on toes (maybe) and don’t want to push it in risking the water based formula that might lead to hydrogen embrittlement problems with the armor and HSLA steels that have higher carbon equivalencies, thus I was looking for expeienced comments from the forum.
- - By rshanks (**) Date 06-03-2014 22:23
I know in welding AR 400 and  A387 on a couple projects for a power generation equipment with the spec calling for "No Spatter", I qualified the WPS with 75 A / 25 Co2, knowing from past experince how the B2 performed with 100% Co2. This helped along with short pieces of 1/8 x 4 A36 strips, I would have the FCAW welders lay them jusy adjacent of the joint and they picked up most of the spatter. Just a recommendation in aiding clean up. The customer had issues with anti spatter as well.
Parent - - By ssbn727 (*****) Date 06-04-2014 05:19
Wait just dog gone, cotton picking minute here...

Am I the only one in here thinking that if they are having such a problem with spatter on the joints, this tells me point blank that your welding parameters aren't even close to being set to produce optimal results - plain and simple... You either have too much wire feed speed and not enough voltage, or your voltage is set right in, or near the transition zone and your method of transfer is globular... I would suggest that you post your settings for your complete welding parameters and maybe we can get to the bottom of this because that sounds more like a process problem... I mean, I know I'm just speculating here but, for this project, are you using a pre-qualified WPS or did you go per section 4 and qualify it yourselves? When you tested the weldable primer (If you did?), were the welding parameters the same as what you're using now?

I ask this because if you qualified the WPS with everything included - especially the weldable primer, then you just need to duplicate those optimal conditions in order to fine tune your settings so that there's only a fraction of the amount of spatter you're currently experiencing... Is this shop work or is the welding being done in the field? Are the power sources checked and the input power in good working order and pumping out the necessary voltage and current to run your power sources correctly? Did you double and triple check your shielding gas delivery circuits (source of gas, quality, hoses, fittings, etc.) completely? What are the condition of the guns/torches and are their CTWD's where they should be? Are the wire feeders working properly and are the conduits inside the gun cables changed regularly, and are the gun/torch cables as straight as possible so as not to impede a consistent feed rate to the gun/torchs? What are your base metals, and their thicknesses? Have you tried GMAW-P? I'll stop here, but you get what I'm asking-Details.

I personally think that weldable primer is questionable @ best... I may be reaching for straws here by writing this but, it smells like a process issue to me and yet much more details are required in order to visualize your situation with better focus than what's currently available... Just my 2 scheckels worth.:grin::lol::wink::cool:

Respectfully,
Henry
Parent - - By Mwccwi (***) Date 06-04-2014 09:05
Henry,
The WPS was qualified (with the primer) in conformance with D1.1:2010 clause 4 because the MIL-12560 armor, Mil-46100, and 4130 CR are not listed materials, it is in-shop welding, the machines are calibrated and parameters are verified regularly with tongs. The parameters used produce welds without much spatter with the mill scale intact most of the spatter wipes off with the glove, but since we are required to sand blast/descale the base metal prior to welding, then even the fine spatter adheres aggressively and is undesirable per customer.
The WPS are also a compromise (I agree the parameters should be optimized to each combination of material and thickness) because of the varying thicknesses used on the weldment and the shop's desire to use 1 set of parameters for the entire weldment.
The aerosol anti-spatter has helped considerably, but now purchasing heard that the 55gal. drums are cheaper and is trying to push this down or throats. Now I’m all for saving pennies but I am concerned of the “water based” anti-spatter because of these hard and high strength materials and the introduction of water sounds like it could lead to problems with hydrogen embrittlement and since the customer resisted the anti-spatter in the first place, (how will they react to us changing to a water base formula?).
In reality the probability of totally controlling careful application of the spray in production is a concern. We truly care about quality but the penny pinchers push hard and those of us in the production/quality liaison area have a constant battle to mediate the push effect.
Parent - - By Tyrone (***) Date 06-04-2014 10:44
Martin,
Hydrogen embrittlement is a huge concern with 46100.  It's already highly susceptible to cold cracking.  You are correct in being wary.

The only way to prove the anti-spatter is through testing.  Lots of testing.
UT and RT will not detect these fine cracks, so lots of high magnification macro examinations.

This testing is not cheap, but I think necessary if you are going to approve its use.

Tyrone
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 06-04-2014 12:14
I think maybe a little common sense is due here.
As Al stated, and I would add, if you are not spraying it in the groove its a who cares. Exactly how is it going to get into the weld if its on the base metal surface outside of the groove?
And any remaining 'water', even in the time frame of spray and welding would almost immediately vaporize under arc heat conditions.
This is not how hydrogen gets into the weld. The biggest, and almost exclusive problem is not surface moisture but hydrogen in the fillers that finds its way into the arc and then the puddle, and then the base metal.
Parent - By TimGary (****) Date 06-04-2014 12:28
Lots of good points here.
You could ask the manufacturer of the product for their testing conclusions, but they probably don't have tests on your materials.
js55 is right about the common sense issue, but that leads to operator control, which is hard to confirm for every weld.
Every time I hear a Welder say " I can't use anti-spatter because it gives me porosity.", I feel like smacking him and screaming "You're not supposed to soak the joint with it until you're welding in a puddle, dumb ass!"
All things considered, I think you should not make the change.

Tim
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 06-04-2014 13:08
I would also agree with henry that spatter indicates a parameter imbalance.
In this day and age of extolling the virtues of these fancy azz (and ridiculously priced) controlled wave form machines we often forget the good old CV's can still give a spatter free weld if used properly.
Parent - - By ssbn727 (*****) Date 06-04-2014 13:31
Well now!

That changes everything!!! Now we got something to work with...:roll::smile::lol:

I agree with Js55 regarding the over paranoia that will go on when welding those classes of metal... You could assemble a simple cover that's dimensioned and fabricated so that the grove of the joint itself is covered yet the two members of base metal are exposed precisely where you want the anti-spatter to land on... Afterwards, you simply lift the cover and locate it on the next groove, or you can design the cover so you can also cover the members of joint requiring a fillet weld deposit... Or just make one for groove and one for fillet weld... Either way, it's only a suggestion... Js is right about the anti-spatter vaporizing from the intense heat of the arc...

That reads like you're in between a rock and hard place... Here's a thought... Invite the head honcho's, and purchasing to your own daily seminar, and show them what your concerns are because I'm guessing here, yet I'd say that none of those folks have any real time arc welding experience or exposure and they need to be initiated and educated... So that they can really get a feel for why you're always having to battle them with in order to get the work done in the best, and most efficient manner possible... So that the quality doesn't suffer and there's less and less re-work required... To do this you're going to need your many hats worn on your head to convince them to play ball with you.:eek::roll::wink::cool:

GOOD LUCK!

Respectfully,
Henry
Parent - - By Mwccwi (***) Date 06-04-2014 13:51
Thanks to evryone for the input.
The powers that be didn't like the idea of me asking the customer for thier input on the water based desicion, we now are looking for non water based formulas.
Based on the suggestion for protecting the weld joints from the spray I'm prottyping a cover for the not welded portions of our weldment. We have this stack of thin sheet stuff it looks sort of like aluminum but it is not, it's not weldable and extremly hard to melt and this is a good way to get rid of the ugly stack of sheet.
Parent - By fschweighardt (***) Date 06-04-2014 14:43
If they want to worry about this, don't worry about water, worry about hydrogen anywhere in the proposed treatment
Parent - - By ssbn727 (*****) Date 06-06-2014 02:36
Hi Martin,

Recently, I was reading an advertisement in current "Practical Welding" magazine issue of this: "ABI Shield Ceramic Protective Spray" made by Abicor Binzel...
This spray is a non-conductive ceramic coating that supposedly been proven (Probably Advert hype) to extend the life of consumables up to 5 times (?) by creating a protective, durable layer of powder that welding spatter won't adhere to...  i'm waiting for Abicor to get back to me about where it's available for purchase if at all because, apparently it hasn't even been listed in their catalogs as of today... I'll get back to you when I receive a response from Abicor ASAP.

Respectfully,
Henry
Parent - - By Mwccwi (***) Date 06-06-2014 11:22
Thanks Henry,
We already use a similar product from Locktite – SF 7900 Ceramic Shield for welding.  This product works well on the tooling and fixtures as well on the consumables nozzles, tips, etc.
The stuff is not designed to protect the actual weldments.
Parent - By ssbn727 (*****) Date 06-06-2014 22:59
Hello Martin,

I just got off the phone with John Esposito, Northeast District Sales Manager with the Binzel Corporation... He explained to me in no uncertain terms that "ABI Shield" is not similar to the Locktite - SF7900 product you're referring to @ all...

Martin, I went over with him specifically regarding your dilemma with all of the details you included in this thread so far, and he described to me two of his customers having similar problems and fears regarding possible hydrogen contamination from the water based anti-spatter sprays as well as the residue based with hydrocarbons found in the aerosols...

After listening to his "schpeal" regarding the applications for ABI Shield, and how it would work for you... I suggest at the very least to go ahead and contact him so that he can refer you to the District Sales Manager in your region in order to give you all of the details you need to make an informed decision as to whether or not you should pursue this product any further by insisting on an in-house product demonstration... And see how it works for your manufacturing process in real-time...

Here's his telephone #: 609-251-2024... The part # for the product is: "192.0196..." John is going to send me a .pdf sometime this weekend with all of the details regarding this product named "ABI Shield" which I'll post just as soon as I receive it...

Btw, have you tried out my earlier suggestion of fabricating a prototype cover for the surfaces & portions not to be welded on the weldment you're concerned with yet? I would be interested to know how that worked out for you.:grin::roll::twisted::lol::cool: I'll be in touch soon enough.:smile::grin::twisted::lol::cool:

Respectfully,
Henry
Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / Hydrogen embrittlement concerns with water based antispatter

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill