Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / Purging gas
- - By gpnaban2000 Date 01-11-2007 06:44
Can i use Nitrogen as purging gas for welding SS 300 series materials.
Parent - By Shane Feder (****) Date 01-11-2007 09:29
Yes
Parent - - By SWP (**) Date 01-11-2007 15:21
What I have read, and it makes sense to me, is that it is ok to use nitrogen for back purging of 300 series SS because the nitrogen is not exposed to the arc.  I believe the concern is that if nitrogen is introduced into the arc, the diatomic molecule dissociates and atomic nitrogen can enter the weld pool and drastically affect the austenite/ferrite balance.
Parent - - By gpnaban2000 Date 01-12-2007 04:24
I have read in one article that if we use nitrogen as purging gas, there is no change in microstructure,only more fluctuating hardness distribution in the weld metal region.what my question is if nitrides enter into weld metal what will be the effects.
Parent - - By chuck meadows (***) Date 01-12-2007 19:47
Nitrogen is considered acceptable as a purge gas with some limitations. One, consideration should given to the high propensity of tungsten breakdown when welding open butt pipe or plate. The exposure of the nitrogen to the tungsten during the root pass should be considered. Secondly, nitrogen aids in resistance of pitting corrosion, but does lower the ferrite phase. Not all 300 series SS contains ferrite (310), so generally, nitrogen is acceptable while recognizing the limitations.

Chuck
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 01-13-2007 04:36
My personal experience is just as Chuck explained.

Good purge gas but the fitups must be perfect touching butts. Any nitrogen getting mixed with arc plasma will roast the tungsten and send yellow smoke and debris into bad places.
Parent - - By gpnaban2000 Date 01-13-2007 09:46
ok,we have qualified PQR with argon gas.Any requalifiaction of PQR required with nitrogen gas.
Parent - - By chuck meadows (***) Date 01-13-2007 13:09
I believe you will find that changing from one single gas mixture to another single gas mixture is an essential variable and will require requalification.

Chuck
Parent - - By Shane Feder (****) Date 02-07-2007 06:37
Hello Guys,
Chuck,
I have been checking ASME IX on this subject as we have a huge amount of piping to purge and our application to use TGX wire has been denied.
QW408.5 states "The addition or deletion of gas backing, a change in backing gas composition, or a change in the specified flow rate range of the backing gas." This is a non essential variable.
QW 408.9 Deletion of backing or change in composition is an essential variable but it is only applicable to P41 through P47 and all welds of P10I,P10J,P10K, P51 through 53 and P61 through 62.
A change in shielding gas requires requalification but a change in backing  (purge) for certain metals does not require requalification.
Can somebody please correct me if I am reading this wrong.
Regards,
Shane
Parent - - By chuck meadows (***) Date 02-07-2007 13:25
Shane,
  I'm here in Missouri on business, so I did not bring my Sec. IX on this trip, so I cannot verify your post. I thought that changing from one single gas mixture to another single gas mixture as a purge gas (for 310 SS) was an essential variable. It certainly would not be the first time I was wrong. I'm sure someone in here will have access to Sec. IX who can verify your post. Sorry...

Chuck 
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 02-07-2007 13:37
Chuck, Shane, Shane is correct.  There is an essential variable that requires requalification (QW-408.2) but it is for shielding gas, not backing gas.  Changing the composition or gas type for gas backing is a nonessential and only requires an amendment to the WPS.
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 02-07-2007 15:24
This is iffy territory. And I think Seciton IX has chosen a liberal approach in this one. I think evidence demonstrates purge gas effects on mechanical properties (see Kotecki). But what is the significance. This certainly warrants greater discussion.
Parent - - By chuck meadows (***) Date 02-07-2007 16:12
I definitely agree. For example, look what just a little nitrogen does to the mechanical properties when using it as a purge gas with argon as opposed to pure argon when welding a Duplex stainless steel. Agree with Sec. IX or not, it's what we have to adhere to. Nitrogen, even in small percentages, affects the austenite/ferrite balance, the pitting corrosion resistance, and hardness of the Duplex as opposed to straight argon.
Parent - - By ssbn727 (*****) Date 02-07-2007 18:04
Well said Chuck!

Respectfully,
Henry
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 02-07-2007 18:30
But aren't the deleterious concerns of N (as a purge gas-not a shielding) on duplex more corrosion related than mechanical? Section IX does not concern itself with corrosion issues. Also, correct me if I'm wrong (its been awhile) but isn't purge an essential variable for P-10H materials? I'm not meaning to be an apoligist for Section IX, just trying to figure out the logic of some very smart fellows.
Parent - By ssbn727 (*****) Date 02-07-2007 21:06
Hi Js55!

Check out this .pdf article attached:

Respectfully,
Henry
Parent - - By chuck meadows (***) Date 02-07-2007 21:59
I agree that the Code does not concern itself to corrosion resistance directly. I respectfully disagree that nitrogen is more related to corrosion resistance than mechanical properties. In the case of nitrogen in Duplex steels, corrosion resistance and mechanical properties go hand in hand. For example, nitrogen enhances the pitting corrosion resistance capabilities in the root pass (corrosion resistance), but also affects the hardness (mechanical properties). Also, nitrogen, a strong austenite former, can alter the austenite/ferrite balance..both a corrosion related issue and a mechanical issue. I do not agree, again respectfully, that the deleterious concerns of nitrogen are more corrosion related than mechanical. Mainly corrosion directly affects mechanical properties. When welding Duplex, the main thing that needs to be considered if using nitrogen as a purge gas is the percentage of the nitrogen. Too much and it will wear on the tungsten and will also cause too much austenite for form, thus reducing the ferrite capabilities.  
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 02-07-2007 22:40
Chuck-I suppose for me in this context the issue is (not disputing your grasp of the metallurgy at all), does a percentage of N in the purge effect a Duplex SS mechanically in a manner that renders it unsuitable for its intended services in general? This would be a issue of concern for a code body pertaining to qualification. I've always been of the opinion that code bodies cannot possibly idiot proof everything. Is this an instance of an assumed sound engineering judgment?
N hardens to be sure, is this enough to nullify it mechanically as far as a qualification requirement is concerned. I'm not trying to be argumentative here. I don't have an answer. I'm hoping that we can somehow extract the logic of Section IX. I know this subject has received considerable attention from the committee members and we have this status quo. I'm hoping we can try and understand why. I know trying to glean committee logic can often be an exercise in futility, since group consensus often waters down logic, but logic is logic, metallurgy is metallurgy. Is there metallurgy to justify the liberal approach?
Parent - - By chuck meadows (***) Date 02-07-2007 23:47 Edited 02-07-2007 23:51
Lets look at it from an actual welding aspect. We know that a purge gas normally affects the root pass to the greatest extent. Duplex, already considered a high nitrogen alloyed steel, definitely is altered by a high percentage of nitrogen in the purge gas. High percentages of nitrogen in the purge gas can certainly render the Duplex out of specification requirements. Being a strong austenite former, it can lower the ferrite to levels not acceptable to the applicable specification. Below approximately 25% ferrite, the duplex is at a loss of strength and corrosion resistance. This is a definite mechanical and corrosion detriment. Up to approximately 2-3% nitrogen in the purge gas is sometime recommended to compensate for the loss of nitrogen in the weld arc. On the same hand, that is why filler metals are over alloyed to the base metal...to compensate for the loss of chemistry in the weld arc. Duplex is noted for it's chloride stress corrosion resistance. That is directly tied to it's austenite/ferrite balance. If the balance is out of kilter, so is it's mechanical and corrosion resistance altered. We know that in Duplex specifications, or all that I've been associated with over the last 15 years, ferrite and hardness values have been taken at the root, mid-weld, and cap of the weld, and most of the time in the HAZ. Excessive nitrogen can alter these values to unacceptable ranges. I guess you could say that it could be rendered unsuitable to service, depending what that service is. Sec. IX, as we all know, does not set the requirements for acceptability of Duplex steel for any application. That logic is decided by the metallurgical values that are achieved by proper welding techniques (heat input, interpass temperatures, gas mixture, cooling rate, etc). Those are all things that needed to be recognized or the Duplex can certainly be rendered as unsuitable for service. But, speaking strictly of nitrogen, I think it needs to be closely monitored, even if it is a purge gas, or a percentage in the purge gas. 
Parent - - By ssbn727 (*****) Date 02-08-2007 02:59
Chuck!
Have you read the .pdf article I attached in my previous post on this thread?

Now correct me if I'm wrong but, the individual who wrote the article is suggesting that one should'nt even attempt to use Nitrogen as a purging gas when GTAW Duplex or Super Duplex. From what I've interpreted in the article, only a very high purity grade of argon should be used as the "purging gas."

Now as far as a shielding gas is concerned, a combination or "Tri-mix" of 20% He - 1.1% N2 - Balance Ar for Duplex stainless is suggested... Super Duplex stainless, the combination would be 20% He - 2.25% N2 - Balance Ar as suggested in this article... Is this the way to go???

I ask this because according to this article it seems to cover both the mechanical and corrosion issues related to both Duplex & Super-Duplex stainless with respect to controlling both arc energy input & N2 loss which are directly related the two main issues... Is there any new articles regarding these issues when welding both Duplex & Super-Duplex Stainless steels???

Anywho, please let us know what you think because it's been awhile since i even thuoght about these types of stainless steels!!! Look foward to your response.

Respectfully,
Henry
Parent - By chuck meadows (***) Date 02-08-2007 04:08 Edited 02-08-2007 04:30
Hi Henry,
  I have just now read the article you attached. As has been discussed in both printed and recommended articles, shielding gases of the following are recommended by Avesta. For the Duplex and Super Duplex, a shielding mixture of Ar or Ar + 2% N2 or Ar + 30% He + 2% N2 is listed. As has been stated, a purge gas of up to 2-3% nitrogen is allowable. Many Engineering specs. specify the nitrogen in that range as purge gas. This is primarily because fo the added pitting corrosion resistance to the root pass, plus the added benefit of replacing the nitrogen that is lost in the weld arc. Actually, the only "down side" of using nitrogen as a purge gas is the fact that it lowers the ferrite balance. Duplex and Super Duplex are both considered nitrogen alloyed steels. Argon has a tendency to deplete the nitrogen, so many use the added nitrogen in both the shielding and purge mixture. I don't think there is any "absolute" way to weld Duplex except to say that it has to maintain the proper austenite/ferrite balance. Nitrogen is very important in the successful welding of Duplex to maintain the chloride stress corrosion cracking resistance that it is known for.  
Parent - - By chuck meadows (***) Date 02-08-2007 04:57
Henry,
  It is late at night and after a long day of meeting with Welding Engineers on various topics concerning stainless steels, I must admit that I am somewhat oblivious to reading more articles. But, I re-read the .pdf article you posted and I cannot find anything that says anything about purge gas, only shielding gas. Again, maybe it's just my tired old eyes. But regardless, I think that a small addition of nitrogen added to the purge gas has a positive effect on pitting corrosion resistance on the root pass. I think the positives outweigh the negatives. Sorry if I overlooked anything in the article.
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 02-08-2007 14:30
AWS D.10 is currently putting together a document on the welding of Duplex SS. The effort began about 5 years ago with a gathering of as many articles as were possible to bring together. The stack was about two feet high. Much of it of course was redundant, and some of it dated. The recommendations on both purge and shielding gas was astonishingly diverse. This data was collated and a draft of approximately 80 pages was created. At the current stage, as far as I know, this rough draft has been considerably reduced. The problem is the constant changing of technology with regards to Duplex, although some things remain quite stable. Perhaps someof th erelucatnceof Section IX to get aggressive in qualification revisions has to do with the dynamic character ofthe technology to date.
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 02-08-2007 16:35
Some observations from the article: 1) Chuck is right they only address shielding gas not purge gas. 2) They recommned some N to be added per shield gas in order to try and achieve a weld metal N content the same as the BM. 3) They also confirm earlier work that stated N over ~2% may lead to porosity as the solubility of the N is reduced upon solidification.
Therefore, if their recommendation is a N shield gas content of 1% to 1.2% for DSS and 2% to 2.5% for SDSS and anything over these amounts may lead to porosity outgassing, would the minimal addition 'to the solidifying puddle' in the absence of porosity, of N in a purge gas reduce strength to a level below that which is necessary for qualification? I'm guessing that the effect of a N addition to a purge gas will be more significant in the absence of N in the shield gas as opposed to N already being added to the shield gas given the limits of solubility and the inherent limitation of purge gas finding its way into the puddle. And isn't there an issue with the type of N? I believe Kotecki had a discussion of this in regards to SS. Indicating the N2 must pass through the arc (become ionized) in order to become a part of the weld metal. Maybe it is the lack of a definitive conclusion that is responsible for Section IX's reluctance. There is a lot of qualifying language in this article. Even at its late date.
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 02-08-2007 16:41
One more thing. The article also brings to our attention the significant effect on phase balance of the cooling rate in the range from 1200degF to 800degF. And yet we haven't even attempted to open the can of worms recommending that ASME IX make cooling rate an essential variable for DSS. The cooling rate issue may be even more significant than N in the purge gas.
Parent - - By chuck meadows (***) Date 02-08-2007 23:23
The cooling rate is of the utmost importance to gain the proper austenite/ferrite balance. In my opinion, it is the most important factor. Cooling through the temperature ranges of sigma and sensitization are important, but under normal welding conditions this is almost a non factor. It passes through that temperature range quickly enough so that this is not normally a factor. Just my opinion,  but I cannot imagine the cooling rate ever becoming an essential variable. I cannot imagine how Sec. IX could address that. There are way too many scenarios that affect the cooling rate. 
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 02-09-2007 16:11
Chuck,
I think we actually have two conversations going on here at the same time. The viability of DSS, and Section IX's philosophy towards assuring some minimal standard of qualification for the ever widening variety of alloys in need of special consideration. Without going back over each of your posts I do not believe I would disagree with anything you said on the importance or metallurgy of DSS's. On the other issue I can foresee a time in the not to distant future, should each individual alloy consideration generate a code response, where ASME Section IX is the size of the Encyclopedia Britannica. This I do believe is always in the minds of the committee members, and the fact that each code revision ends up generating more questions than the concerns it intends to resolve. Good business for consultants.
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 02-09-2007 16:46
Just a quick note in defense of ASME IX and others; in virtually every one of the ASME Codes there is a statement that "the code is not a handbook and cannot replace education, experience and the use of engineering judgment."  It seems to me that there is plenty of that in this Forum!
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 02-09-2007 17:21
And I would recommend anybody involved in ASME work to attend Code Week (taking place 4 times a year) if possible. The committee meetings are open. And the experience to be gained is invaluable. Interpretations are helpful but the meetings are the only way to truly understand the thought behind the requirements. The same is true of AWS committee work.
Parent - - By chuck meadows (***) Date 02-09-2007 17:21
EXCELLENT !!! I agree 100%. The Code books are minimum requirement compliances, not a step-by-step outline on how to achieve final results. Engineering specs. are outlined pertaining to shielding gas, heat input, and other proven processes to make a Procedure successful. Very good points, Jon. Thank you.
Parent - - By ssbn727 (*****) Date 02-09-2007 19:18
Excellent conversation & expression of different perspectives!!!
This is why I keep coming back to this forum!!!

Respectfully,
Henry
Parent - - By chuck meadows (***) Date 02-09-2007 19:53
Henry,
  I, personally, value all of your input. Please keep up the good work.

Chuck
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 02-09-2007 20:08
This is the best info source goin. The collective knowledge in here is invaluable.
Parent - By chuck meadows (***) Date 02-09-2007 20:22
Knowledge not shared is wasted knowledge. Opinions, gained from experience, is what makes us who we are.
Parent - - By ssbn727 (*****) Date 02-09-2007 20:13
Hey Chuck!
Right back at you Friend;)

I'm always learning or being reminded about something with respect to stainless or nickel alloy materials when I come across your posts, and I'm eternally greatful for your advice, sharing of knowledge and your dedication in assisting others when it has something to do with stainless or nickel alloys...
I know that you've heard it countless times before but, Chuck! You are invaluable to this forum -PERIOD!!!

Respectfully,
Henry
Parent - - By chuck meadows (***) Date 02-09-2007 20:26
Thank you very much..I need to let my wife read this. She is constantly reminding me how useless I am. LOL
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 02-09-2007 21:24
Chuck
Its good that they think that. Minimizes the amount of stuff around the house they ask us to do. There is just no way I can negotiate a washing machine or an oven. I may get whooped on for this..
Parent - By chuck meadows (***) Date 02-09-2007 22:19 Edited 02-09-2007 22:48
LOL..I know the feeling, Bro. When did they start putting on/off switches on vacuum sweepers? How are we suppose to know garbage disposals don't work on cat litter..My wife calls me stupid, but who has to do all the housework...Maybe we're not so dumb after all..LOL
Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / Purging gas

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill