Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / substituting of electrode / filler metal
- - By Quality0537 (*) Date 03-17-2005 21:52
I do not have a code book avail at this moment . Can someone let me know if under any circumstances an of A A5.18 or A5.28specification filler metal be substituted for a A.517 or A5.23 specified electrode, without requalification?

example can ER70s ( gmaw ) A5.18 filler metal be used in a SAW process by a welder who was previously qualified using SAW and a A5.23 classified electrode?
Parent - By MBSims (****) Date 03-18-2005 03:39
Not under any code I'm familiar with.
Parent - - By chall (***) Date 03-18-2005 12:47
If the procedure is qualified in accordance with ASME Section IX, all of the filler metals you list are F6 (see QW-432). So, assuming the welder is qualified for the process with F6, all may be used provided the WPS is qualified with the various filler metals.

Charles

ps: I read the original question a second time. It sounds like you are asking if a GMAW filler may be used in a SAW process. I must admit I've never heard that question before. F number aside, there must be a number of other essential variables that apply that would invalidate the substitution.

Sorry for the quick answer MBS.

CH
Parent - - By - Date 03-19-2005 00:29
CH,
What is the problem using a GMAW wire, depending on the diameter, in the SAW process. I would think that the wire/flux combination would have to be qualified, but at what diameter does GMAW and SAW break? In welding stainless steel, 1/16" diameter wire is used in both GMAW and SAW process. GMAW is qualified using an inert gas as shielding and SAW is qualified with a flux. The same wire can be used for both process as long as both are qualified by different PQR's. I hope I'm understanding the question correctly. <smile>
Parent - By MBSims (****) Date 03-19-2005 16:07
I don't think there is any problem using GMAW solid wire for SAW and getting good results. I was addressing the "without requalification" part of the question.

If the wire has dual certification from the manufacturer under both specifications (such as SFA 5.17/SFA 5.18), then it should not be a problem.

In ASME IX, QW-404.9 (essential)requires a change in the flux-wire combination to be requalified, with a few exceptions/conditions.

If notch toughness requirements apply, then QW-404.35 (supplementary essential) requires a change in flux/wire combination to be requalified.

If notch-toughness requirements do not apply and QW-404.9 is reviewed and it is determined that the change is within those exceptions/conditions, then QW-404.33 (non-essential) would permit the change without requalification. However, QW-404.5 must still be met where it requires the A-No. to be determined from the weld deposit analysis for SAW.

So, there are several opprtunities for "gotchas" to bite you in the butt.

Bottom line is the wire certs will need to be reviewed for each different wire classification and compared to the applicable code variables to determine if it is permitted or not.
Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / substituting of electrode / filler metal

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill