Your right, it does require proper marking, and maybe my original response was not clear, so I will clarify it now.
Look at it this way.
What does it take for a company to affix that proper marking? After the rod is burned, What documentation
is reviewed. The rod is long gone, how do you document what material was used, and
that it was compatible and right with the base material specified?
I may be wrong here, but for traceability, it's an entire system, not just the welder checking to see if the rod is marked
properly. I can mark a coat hanger wire with legitimate looking markings, but does that make it a documented filler material?
Now maybe I'm wrong, but there is a reason the codes require marking.
In D1.1 for instance:
3.3 Base Metal/Filler Metal
Combinations
Only base metals and filler metals listed in Table 3.1
may be used in prequalified WPSs. (For the qualification
of listed base metals and filler metals, and for base
metals and filler metals not listed in Table 3.1, see
4.1.1.)
This requirement goes to the listed filler materials such as A5.5, but as most know,
it just doesn't end there. Under A5.5 the following references are listed as
Normative.
Excerpt from A5.5
"2. Normative References
2.1 The following standards contain provisions that,
through reference in this text, constitute provisions of
this AWS standard."
This means that A5.5 as is the mirrored versions of this in other standards
do not stand alone, but rather are intend and required to be used with
the normative standards of which the following are included for A5.5
AWS 5.01 filler metal procurement guide
AWS A4.3 standard methods for determination of the diffusible hydrogen content of martensitic, bainitic, and ferritic steel weld metal produced by arc welding
AWS A4.4M standard procedures for determination of moisture content of welding fluxes and welding electrode flux coverings
AWS B4.0/M standard methods for mechanical testing of welds.
There are other relevant direct specs listed, ISO 544 for instance. "welding consumables-technical delivery conditions for welding filler metals, types of product, dimensions, tolerances, markings"
A5.01 is in that same realm, and both indirectly and directly other API Navsea and others are listed.
Without getting overly anal, that marking isn't just some company painting numbers on a rod, there is a whole host of requirements for that marking to be legitimate and traceable.
As with most things, the devil is in the details.
Under 5.5
3. Classification
a list of requirements are given, one of which is chemical composition of the weld metal and a reference to Table 2.0
Under Table 2.0 is listed as "CHemical Composition Requirements for Weld Metal"
Thats a clear statement that the weld metal should be within the listed requirements.
That leaves the question of how do you assure and document that?
Which kicks you back to documents such as AWS 5.01 and ISO 544 and others as listed in the normative reference section.
Going to AWS 5.01
Underneath 4.1 of 5.01 the following excerpt
"For identification purposes.. each manufacturer assigns a unique designation to each quanity (in reference ot heats, lots, blends, batches, and mixes) This designation usually consist of a series of numbers or letter which will enable the manufacture to determine the date and time of manufacture, the type and source of the raw materials used, and the details of the procedures employed in producing the filler material"
Then comes a key statement
"This designation stays with the filler metal and can be used to identify the material later, in thoses cases in which identification is necessary."
There in is a little more detail as to why the ""MARKINGS" are required.
To summerize, when the markings are required, as most codes specify, then the traceability is by default required, and hence the requirements for traceability in general. (including heat)
I could see the situations in which "traceability" would be helpful. But the requirements for manufacture address just that. The user must use filler metals that have met the applicable specification.
Is Material Traceability from end product to filler metals when no documents other than the applicable code are governing?
I understand the system that must be in place for a company to manufacture and sell filler metals in accordance with a specification. I also undersatnd the requirements for the Heat,Lot, batch identification. These are all used by the manufacturer and the end user may find these useful if the need arises. I am just not aware of any situations involving AWS D1.1 or ASME Sec I, VIII, or B31.1/3 in which the code of construction required filler metals to be traceable to the manufacturer.
As you said, once the rod is burned, there is no evidence. All the MTR's and heat numbers in the world will not help if each location in which a specific Heat/Lot/Batch was used. That would be some pretty serious weld mapping .
At some point, the "SYSTEM" must be trusted. A lawyer may very well question a weld without an MTR. I however feel that he would have a difficult time showing fault if a product was built in accordance with a certain specification and that specification indicated that filler metals manufactured in accordance with a certain specification were all that was required. It is my opinion that the end user would not have the burden of proof to show that that manufacturers system was in compliance or that the chemical compositions were in accordance with the filler metal specification.
Obviously in situations in which a product needs to maintain objective quality evidence that allows all componenents to be traceable to their origin, MTR"s and detailed mapping of where those filler metals were used would be needed.
We may both be thinking along two different lines. All I know is GERALD IS RIGHT :). I think some of these ideas we are discussing were addressed in the rest of this thred. I sometimes post before reading the entire thread. This keeps my brain from hurting!
Have a good day.
Gerald
As a post script, The quality assurance plan of the company in question should address all these matters.
But as listed in the previous post, if an auditor, inspector, AI ect wanted to be anal, or if your sued
for a failure or other mishap (most especially the later) A weld shop can be brought to task on that issue.
If a lawyer ask you as the QA manager "How do you know it was the right material" telling him "well
the rods had the right markings" will be found as patently insufficient as an answer.