Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / F7A2 wire on HPS 70W to HPS 70W
- - By Tommyjoking (****) Date 07-16-2020 00:00
Pretty basic question I thought i would run by yall. Code applied D1.5 2015  Other specs applied do not address this...

I have a SAW WPS for Automatic, DCEP, 2F.   HPS 70W to HPS 70W.  Filler is being stated as Lincoln LA-75 F7A2-Eni1k-Ni1-H8.

Is this not verboten per Table 4.1?

I could see this in a 50W to 70W....but not in this case without EOR approval.   What am I missing here?
Parent - By welderbrent (*****) Date 07-16-2020 00:23
Good Day Tommy,

Hope all is well with you.

Hopefully some more expert at SAW guys are looking at this but I will pull out my D1.5 and notes and see what I can find out. 

Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 07-16-2020 00:32 Edited 07-16-2020 13:31
Do they have a WPS supported with a valid PQR? Was it reviewed and approved by the Engineer?

As you point out, table 4.1 lists the matching filler metal for the HPS 70W as being F9A0 or F9A2 for the flux. The flux is a determinant for the mechanical properties of the weld. However, this is a weathering steel, so you need to look at the notes. I don’t see an easy out.

Parent - - By Tommyjoking (****) Date 07-16-2020 01:02
Thanks Brent....Look forward to your disposition!

Al there is a supporting PQR which I do not currently have.  Others in my company reviewed and approved the procedures for the client.  So EOR did not necessarily even look at them.  I am thinking this one fell through the cracks....  I have another WPS for the same material in the 1f position that has the appropriate filler/flux combination, different PQR.

The only applicable footnote in this scenario "Electrode specifications with the same yield and tensile properties, but with lower impact test temperature, may be substituted."  I do not think will fly in this case.
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 07-16-2020 01:42
Having the PQR I think is the only chance for a loop hole.

Since you mention another procedure with the correct wire/flux combination.....  It may be possible, however remote that the correct flux/wire was used in the PQR and the WPS writer just made an editorial error.

Totally grasping at straws....  But a little Sherlocking never hurts.
Parent - By Tommyjoking (****) Date 07-17-2020 07:08
Sherlocking  .....Right.

To other responders please do not make a big effort researching on my part.   I am very confident I have my answers.  Commentary is still welcome though.

Well with little left before me I dove into this little mess further.  Another review through unapproved preliminary drawings reveals related other conflicts and discrepancies.  Boring run of the mill mistakology and overlookyness .......So.....

I will unsheath my somewhat mighty pen from its well worn scabbard and proceed to cut away the dried mud from the bestie at hand.  So it may be reshaped and relieved of it's errant and putrid lesions.  I will not rest nor tire until it may stand under the brilliant and blistering light of righteous, intelligent and well informed scrutiny.

Grateful an arc has not been struck at this point. 

Hopeful the multiple (at this point) resolutions/solutions will be low key and non dramatic.

Trying not to be negative about feeling like I am the only person paying attention (just sometimes).  Most of these folks make a lot more coin than me.

LOL  :grin:   It is a job I guess, grateful to have one, especially these days.
Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / F7A2 wire on HPS 70W to HPS 70W

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill