Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / WPS 316L for 309
- - By Boon (**) Date 04-03-2007 01:21
We have done PQR test for groove butt weld procedure with 316L plates, 3G position, GTAW process.
Can this procedure covers fillet weld with AISI 309 welded to AISI 321 materials.
Alternatively, we have another PQR procedure with square butt joint, 321 to 321. Can this also covers 309 to 321 fillet?

Thanks
Boon
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 04-03-2007 02:12
Whats the code you are trying to comply with Boon?
Parent - - By Boon (**) Date 04-03-2007 03:11
Lawrene,

Complying to ASME Section IX code.

Thanks
Boon
Parent - - By KWELD Date 04-05-2007 10:56
Dear Boon,

As you mentioned that you are following ASME Sec IX, The following points are valid.

1. All austenitic SS are classified under P8. As long as P number is same you can use your 316L procedure to weld any P8 material such as 321 to 309, 304, 316L  with   thickness limitations of QW 451 governs.

2. A WPS qualified on any position is qualified to weld in all positions as Position of welding is Non essential Variable.Position  of welding governs for Welder qualification.

3. A WPS qualified on groove joint is quaified to do Fillet weld on All sizes and all thicknesses and all positions.

Result:

Either of the procedure what you have qualified can be used.But keep one thing in you mind that thickness qualification governs.

Kuppusamy M V
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 04-05-2007 11:07
Kuppu;

You are correct and the only thing I would add is if notch toughness were an issue then additional limitations would be placed under the Supplementary Essential variables.  Not very likely for stainless, but good to make mention anyway.
Parent - - By KWELD Date 04-09-2007 11:55
Hi Jon,

I am expecting that when a question is posted on forum, we are under the impression that all requirements from questioner's side has been clearly mentioned.

If at all notch toughness is the requirement, let the questioner to mention it.

We cannot take everything granted.

Have a nice day.
Parent - - By ssbn727 (*****) Date 04-09-2007 15:11
That's not always the reality here KWELD...

All one has to do is look at the multitude of previous posts going back a few years where on countless occasions insufficient information would be present within the queries... Unfortunately NOT all of the "requirements" are clearly mentioned so sometimes as a courtesy to ALL who may have some interest in the discussion, other pertinent information will be included in the responses.

Btw, "Weldcome" to the AWS Forum!

Respectfully,
Henry
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 04-09-2007 15:14
Especially when your talking about someone with the experience o Jon, who has seen enough to anticipate things that the questioner may not.
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 04-09-2007 15:48
Awww jeez, Jeff! Yer making me blush!!!  Thanks for the kudos though, after this past weekend I need it!  I've got a very funny story I'm going to post in the Off-topic section to give everyone a good laugh....
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 04-09-2007 16:46
No problem Jon. There's a lot of experience in this forum. Sometimes some of the best info is stuff thats offered beyond the strict scope of the original question.
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 04-09-2007 20:22 Edited 04-09-2007 20:25
Since the applicable code is ASME, the one problem that might apply here is a change in the A number.

If I remember correctly (and it was a long time ago that I worked with 309/310), it was either 309 or 310 alloy that had an A number of 9. In reading the applicable paragraph in the code, it allows that a sample of the weld deposit taken from the PQR coupon can be used to determine the P number. The A number may change depending on the  dilution obtained in welding the PQR versus the production welds, i.e., grooves versus fillets.

The alternative would be the A number determined as per the filler metal specification.

One consideration, and I haven't looked at it, is what is the anticipated ferrite number? Can it change due to differences in dilution between the single pass groove weld, the fillet weld, and the multiple pass groove weld? Will hot cracking be a potential problem? I guess that's where it may pay off to look at the WRC diagram ( DeLong diagram) to calculate the ferrite number.

Best regards - Al 
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 04-09-2007 20:41
Al really hits upon the thing. Even if the code does allow all this switchin around amongst the AISI 300's it doesn't mean that sound engineering judgment should be ignored.
You may have a WPS in place that will allow you to weld it, but will be viable for the service intended?
Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / WPS 316L for 309

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill