1/4" + rod

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 02-22-2008 14:40

Time saver?

FCAW

By bozaktwo1 (***)

Date 02-22-2008 17:44

Hell, even GMAW over all that chip n grind. SMAW will always be around, but FCAW and GMAW are proving faster for more of the traditional stick applications every day.

By darren

Date 02-22-2008 22:00

now thats funny.
we are very aware of the fcaw process and we are working on a customer specified smaw only project. i quite enjoyed the pic, and have saved it on the puter for future use
some of that vast experience of yours would prove helpful lawrence,
and of course others would be welcome to post your hilarious pics as well, some info that wont get me kicked out of the production managers office would be good too.
darren
p.s. what do they burn at 1000 or more?

By IRWelder (*)

Date 02-23-2008 01:44

Hi Darren,
Are you referring to Air Liqiude 1/4" 7018 plus?? If so it is less prone to spatter loss than regular Air Liquide 1/4" 7018. Esab 1/4" 7018 is not too bad either. Not sure of the deposit rate of either rod but the plus and Esab rods seem to go further as there is less spatter loss. That is what i have experienced anyway. Been burning way too much 1/4" 7018 lately on heavy wall pipe spooling.

By darren

Date 02-23-2008 07:47

i agree esab is way better but they say the costs are prohibitive.
and the vessels we build are worth enough that we never have had the rod stub length questioned if a rod is extinguished we grab a new one only on non ndt welds do we ever light a rod twice.

By IRWelder (*)

Date 02-23-2008 01:46 Edited 02-23-2008 01:48

Those look way too big, the smoke and heat generated must be unreal. The amount of power required to burn them would be phenomenal as well. I'm not sure if it was on this forum or another welding forum where that guy was gouging out and rewelding those giant castings or die stamping hammers?? He was using rods like that.

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 02-23-2008 05:06 Edited 02-23-2008 05:12

Not only that, if one were to actually use the same size electrodes as the ones shown in the picture, then the use of a larger stinger would be required instead of the one shown. ;)
Besides, those electrodes shown in the image are obviously larger than 1/4" diameter!!! Heck! they look around 1/2" to 3/4" in diameter from these tired pair of spectacles!!! ;)

Respectfully,
Henry

By welderdude (**)

Date 02-23-2008 21:56

yeah, do you really think that skinny guy could hold that much steel in his hands and still be smiling???

By IRWelder (*)

Date 02-24-2008 01:36

Here is a link to a thread showing a forging hammer repair. Must be the guys from Michigan?? Big honkin' rods.
http://www.hobartwelders.com/weldtalk/showthread.php?t=17891

By welderdude (**)

Date 02-23-2008 02:17

what about 7024 (Jet rod)?

By Superflux (****)

Date 02-23-2008 06:57

Ringo,
When moving up to the 7/32" and 1/4" rods, often times, the savings aren't realised due to welders not burning down to an acceptable stub length. It doesnt take many 5" stubs of 1/4" to make a pound of waste. If lo-hydrogen characteristics aren't mandatory, find some 1/4" 7024 (as welderdude suggested), run on Straight Polarity and lay down some pounds per hour! Don't forget a good supply of Cool Hands glove protectors and a bucket of water to cool the stinger off every couple of rods. I guess the XX2X rods are still made??? Haven't used or seen any since Fred Flinstone was a kid....

By Cole Welding (**)

Date 02-23-2008 07:08

I use 1/4 7018 weeky and there only 24 inch i habe never seen rods like what that guy is holding

By Superflux (****)

Date 02-23-2008 07:22

I want to see him weld vertical up with one of those fence posts! Heaven help if you happen to stick one, you'll need a cheater pipe to gitter broke loose.

By darren

Date 02-23-2008 07:50

there are very stringent controls on the process and rods size was not indicated on the pqr and i am hoping to speed things up cause staring at the same nozzle prep for two days as you pour rod to her gets excruciatingly boring.
1/4" @340/350 amps all day for every shift
darren

By Mat

Date 02-23-2008 08:35

I can't remember where I found it, but this looks fun.

Attachment: core.jpg (57k)

By welderman1 Date 02-23-2008 14:09

Look up Weld-Mold that is where them rods are used. I knew the owner a long time ago. They are mostly used for large repairs of forging dies I belive.

By welderdude (**)

Date 02-23-2008 22:09

have you ever stood next to the sun? I'm sure that's what that would be like!

By 803056

Date 02-24-2008 00:55

Hello Darren;

The reason most people limit the welding process to SMAW (or any particular process) is because they may have had a bad experience with the alternate process they prohibit. Many times the bad experience is a case of improper execution rather than a "bad" process and the bad experience is historical rather than recent.

FCAW electrode development has been nothing less than impressive over the last ten years. There is little reason not to consider the use of FCAW provided the proper electrode is selected.

SMAW can be a real problem if the wrong electrode is selected. For instance, if one was to use an E6010 electrode to weld a quench and tempered steel, delayed cold cracks would be a problem. However, low hydrogen electrodes that have been properly conditioned will provide the results required to ensure good service and freedom from delayed cracks.

Likewise, selecting the wrong FCAW electrode can provide unacceptable results. However, there are FCAW electrodes available that will provide excellent mechanical properties, good low temperature toughness, and low hydrogen characteristic. Their deposition rates can be several times that expected using SMAW.

It may be worthwhile to find out why your customer insists on using SMAW. Find out what your customer objections are relative to using either GMAW or FCAW. You may be able to present them with persuasive argument in favor of an alternate welding process if you have the proper information to substantiate your proposal to use an alternative welding process.

Best regards - Al

By darren

Date 02-24-2008 05:56

we are allowed to use E71T-12MJ H8, E71T-1MJ H8, E71T-9MJ H8 designation flux core but the shape of the joint preparation is limiting to the fcaw process. so smaw it is. we have done quite a bit of flux core on this job with no failures but there are some rejections so it is now only a stick show. we have some customers who would reject a whole vessel if there has been any fcaw used at all even for attachments.

i agree with you Al that fcaw has gotten a bad rap and is comparable to smaw for performance of the weld when done correctly. but when a company like suncor or china gas and oil specify a procedure and the project is in the 40 million dollar range we just say yes sir how high.
darren

By 803056

Date 02-24-2008 22:26

Let me understand the rational behind the decision to limit the welding to SMAW, because there were some rejected welds that were made with FCAW, only SMAW will be used hence forth.

There is no expectation of rejected welds if SMAW is used? This I have to see. Keep us informed of the reject rate using SMAW. This should be very interesting.

Best regards - Al

By aevald

Date 02-24-2008 23:38

Hello Al, quite some years ago there were some code limitations(don't remember which specific one) with regard to process limitations for welding rebar and weld studs on structural shapes. As I recall, you were not allowed to use any other process for attaching these than SMAW. Have you ever encountered this or possibly know if this was really the case? and possibly is this where some of this topic has come from? I believe that most people consider that no process guarantees success, only the proper implementation of a process within the capabilities of that same process will lead to a sound weld without exceeding allowable levels of flaws. Just curious. Best regards, Allan

By darren

Date 02-25-2008 06:53

they've moved a little in that repairs can only be smaw, the rest can still be wire. we were told that its our stamp on the weld and we can choose what we want to use.
unless its TOTALLY accessible i use stick.
we are using .045 ultracore 712a80 with 75 argon/25co2
we have almost no rejections for smaw from our top welders, very very rarely
i still havent gotten a response of any one using bigger than 1/4" rod yet, the 1/2" and the 3/4" rods in Lawrence's picture.
i would definitely like to try and give those rods a go, you could carry a puddle as big as an orange
darren

By Sean

Date 02-24-2008 23:57

I've heard about the project you are describing and the issues encountered. Are these on some tanks by any chance? If there is a schedule issue perhaps they would bend a little.

Have you considered having your project folks submit an RFI to the owner to change your joint prep or to avoid SMAW, with some additional QC if FCAW is used? Perhaps some changes to your procedure - eg increasing preheat or your voltage and perhaps changing your wire supplier may help limit your issues? On a somewhat recent project of mine the production guys kept getting slag caught in the toes of the welds during fill layers. The issues were typically in the same locations (not related to one specific welder). There are some spectacular, easy to use FCAW wires on the market too.

For example there is a FCAW wire made by Nittetsu (Nippon Steel) that we use on our projects out east. The wire SF-1A or 3A depending on your mechanicals is extremely friendly to use in all positions. The tubular wire is sealed so it supposedly cannot pick up moisture. The wire also has 3.1 traceability which is a great bonus for QC folks. I've also had some good feedback regarding Lincoln's new Ultracore wire.

Sean

By 803056

Date 02-25-2008 01:39

I know there were several states that frowned on the use of FCAW in the past because of problems in the early years. In the years since they have dropped their objections because of the improvements in FCAW electrodes.

However, the customer holds the check and he makes the rules. As long as they are willing to pay the price, I have no objections to meeting their requirements. I like to know the ground rules before starting a project however and will fight tooth an nial if the rules are changed during the project. We call them "extras" and they will cost the client.

Best regards - Al

By darren

Date 02-25-2008 07:01

our production controls are not conducive to innovation or change.its more along the lines of shut up and weld sometimes management reads this forum so ill just leave it at that.
and yes they are vessels 4"thick ,
just out of curiosity what has been the scuttlebutt about this project if you don't mind me asking , its always interesting to hear what others in the industry are hearing about a project
thanks
darren