American Welding Society Forum
my boss called me with a question about a filler metal today, said he had a guy welding on a job that required 70xx low hydrogen, and the rod he was using was marked "80T AC PLUS". He said the guy told him it was 7018, the box it came out of had no AWS spec or class #, the coating was blue. Boss said he called BS on it
I can find nothing on this particular product, can anyone enlighten us?
he said the manufacturer was MG systems, apparently they make maintenance fillers.
if it doesnt have a classification on the rod per 5.1 or 5.5 its non conforming yes?
the contractors WPS stated 7018
I think he's gonna be grinding it out
If the electrodes are not marked 7018 then its definately not 7018.
The rod should be marked with the classification as you indicated and the packaging should indicate the filler metal specification.
It appears to be a 7024 equivalent.
thanks for your comments and the link.
Kindly advice if we can use E8018 electrode in substitution for E7018 without doing any Procedure Qualification Testing??? Also, what if the required electrode in the Welding Procedure is E8018, but the available electrode on site is E8018-B2, I know there is a difference in chemical contents for this electrode, but do we need to prequalify it as well??? Thanks to all.
Always follow the WPS. If it says 7018, than 8018 is the wrong choice.
If you are in a pinch and 8018 is all you have, you may revise the WPS to allow 8018, provided there is no prohibition against it (A numbers are the same). This should never be done indiscriminately. You should always verify with engineering or the client when you want to swap filler metals, even if it seems like it would obviously be allowed.
The use of 8018-B2 where 8018 is specified is not allowed without re-qualification of the WPS since the A numbers of the two electrodes are different (and the A number is an Essential Variable).
if the tow electrodes have the same F number and A.number you can substitute the electrodes without qualification (SEE ASME IX QW-404.4/5)
Remember that the welding code is stictly a cook book for "how to do" procedures and performance qualifications.
The filler metal selection should always suit the application (a decision made by competent authority - typically an engineer).
Just because the F & A numbers may match, does not mean substitution is appropriate. Would you indiscriminately use E7018 for carbon steel material with 80ksi strength (just because the F & A numbers are the same)? Section IX may allow it, but the appropriate construction code would not.
Thanks for the information. You are very helpful. Actually, we are currently doing some welding repairs and some steel replacements. Are you familiar with weldability or compatibility for welding of steels for various international standard. The structure that we are dealing on right now is made up of American materials (i.e A36, A500 Gr.B, A441, AISI 4130 Y85, etc.). Originally the WPS we used here indicates E8018 to use. We also have a latest update for the WPS which now indicates E7018. I'm pretty sure we can still use our old WPS which uses E8018. We will replace A36 material with BS4360 Gr.43A and SS400; we will replace A441 with BS4360 Gr.50B; and we will replace A500 Gr.B with S355J2H. As per mill certificates, all these replacement materials are stronger than the old and has lower carbon equivalent which means that they have lower welding group. This is my question, can I still use the WPS (E8018) eventhough the materials specified in the WPS are only American standard, considering the equivalanet materials I have are stronger and at the same time have relatively low Carbon Equivalent (or CE). By the way, what is F & A???
You're facing a purchasing nightmare or loss of contract if you can't supply the designed specified materials. The owners Engineer is going to have fun and long hours over this dilemma if you are not able to use OEM materials.
I'm curious to see the outcome of this .
Our engineering group has approved these materials as equivalent materials and the customer are aware on this. The thing is the customer needs the thing very urgent. We are talking about 1 week time and we need to make some quick decision and be realistic. I'm just trying to verify the issues relating to welding. That is why I'm asking you guys 'coz you are expert on this.
Unfortunately I do not have my cross reference materials with me. I will be away from the office until the week after next.
Most of the time you can get a good cross reference if you do a google search of the materials and add the phrase "cross reference" to the seach item.
There are a variety of cross reference guides commercially available. CASTI has a couple of good ones (RED & BLACK BOOKS).
If you have doubts you can take a sample and do an "all weld" tensile test on the electrode.
just in case , even though this is very old, i hope the guy DID NOT have to grind out an 80,000lb weld to replace it with 70k. i have been welding with these rods for , ah , well, over 20 years, maybe 30. these are one of the best all position rods out there. expensive at times , depending on the guy behind the counter. like all prices in the welding stores. but thats another topic. ive welded with these rods on anything from light welds to building trailers and welding hitches on mobile homes. great beginner rod. also i have a couple 50lb 7018 cans sitting around just in case i run out of mg 80t ac plus rods.
I think the problem was that it was not a lohy rod like the job specs called for.
Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill