A-106 CS Piping Joinned With SMAW E6013

Date 05-21-2007 13:40

Nobody can answer that without knowing what the service or design stresses are. However, the minimum specified tensile strength of the E6013 matches that of the A106. I have no idea what ER50-4 is. You might check that classification again.

By G.S.Crisi (****)

Date 05-21-2007 22:21

js55, I agree with you when you say that it's impossible to give a sound opinion without knowing the service conditions the material will be subjected to.
However, I have a different thought regarding the second part of your posting.
ASTM A-106 is the specification for carbon steel pipe for use in high pressures and temperatures. On the other hand, E-6013 is, as we all know, a low penetration electrode.
So, in a preliminary manner, I'd say that E-6013 isn't the right electrode to weld A-106 pipe.
Now, this opinion is just preliminary and as you (js55) said, the service conditions of the material must be known before giving a final one.
Giovanni S. Crisi
Sao Paulo - Brazil

By js55

Date 05-22-2007 13:54

Giovanni,
We're cool. 6013 would not be my choice either. But it is possible that with good engineering it could be used. And I emphasize, good engineering.
And I think, though there is better materials guys in here than myself, that A106 is spec'd for high temp due to low S and P, and a generally larger grain size. If 6013, as a weld material can achieve matching S and P levels the inherent basic chemistry (Fe, Mn, Si, C) is there to accomodate a similar service. Personnally though, as you indicated, I wouldn't mess with it.

By gaydonat (*)

Date 05-23-2007 06:13

According to A-106 base material both E-6013 and E-7018 can be used but if you need better mechanical properties you should prefer E-7018 as it is basic type electrode means low hydrogen electrode better cracking resistance. E 6013 is rutile type electrode and contains higher lewels of hydrogen which causes cracking means lowers design life span. I think you meant to say with ER50-4 = ER48S-4 GMAW wire which gives equal mechanical values as E-6013. If you need further explanation waiting for your reply.

By G.S.Crisi (****)

Date 05-23-2007 21:00

Gorkem,
js55 lives in the USA and I live in Brazil (South America), where American standards are used throughout. As I said, and js55 confirmed,
E-6013 is not the electrode that would be used to weld A-106 steel. Now, this apply to the USA, and hence to Brazil.
In Europe is different. In Europe E-6013 is widely used also to weld pressure containing parts.
Back in my days of project engineer, I took part in the design of an ammonia plant whose basic engineering was done by M.W. Kellogg, a well known (at least in those days) process engineering company.
The Piping Specifications issued by Kellogg forbade to weld pressure containings parts with E-6013 eletrodes. But there was an exception written in the specifications: if the plant was to be constructed in Europe, then E-6013 could be used after Kellogg's approval.
Giovanni S. Crisi
P.S. Does Kellogg still exist? So many engineering and construction companies went bankrupt in the last years ..........

By js55

Date 05-23-2007 21:16

Giovanni,
Good info. I did not know that. Maybe I should get out more.
And I do remember Kellogg. Just not anything recently.

By pang_cs Date 05-24-2007 09:11

Thank a lot to all. Sorry for having any input in the discussion as i am on travelling.

Some of the concerns has been shown in the fact that the root penetration of the joint made are in question as we have spotted some incomplete penetration joints visually and carried out some spot RT on joints and proven.

Based on the above discussion, it can be concluded that the major different between E7018 & E6013 are the strenght, root penetration matters and cracking probability due to higher hydrogen level in consumable. But both can serve for the steam medium without problem (if put aside the strenght, hydrogen embrittlement cracking). We also asked vendor to guarantee on the product from the design point of view which shall fit for its pourpose. What you guys will suggest?

By G.S.Crisi (****)

Date 05-24-2007 19:11

Pang,
both E-7018 (low hydrogen) and E-6013 (rutylic) are low penetration electrodes, and this is their main disadvantage.
Back in my days of erector engineer (along my life I've been an erector first, a project engineer after and a college professor nowadays that I'm retired and old), well, back in my days of erector engineer,as I was saying, the root pass in a carbon steel piping was given with E-6010 (or E-7010) for good penetration, and subsequent passes with E-7018.
E-6012 and 13 were used for platework not subjected to pressure or high temperatures. Example: the casing of a boiler, i.e., the platework that "wraps" the boiler furnace to keep a small positive pressure in pressurized boilers, was welded with those electrodes.
As between the waterwalls and the casing there's the refractory lining, the casing temperature is around 120 - 150 Celsius (you translate into Farenheit), a temperature that E-6013 withstands perfectly.
Giovanni S. Crisi

By gaydonat (*)

Date 05-24-2007 12:40

Giovanni,

I am from Turkey. If you produce your pressure vessel with 6013 of couse you are not able to catch required EU standard values, but I was trying to help and explain it in metallurgical way (which is universal) not in EU standard way of thinking. I am advising him to use E 7018 not to use 6013 in my mail.

By pang_cs Date 01-15-2008 07:26

Hi All,

it seems the vendor has give out and not able to guarantee for it services and admitted did not carry oujt close supervise on the job due to lots of imcomplete root penetration. All joints have been destroyed and refabricated with proper supervision and control.
Once again, Sincerely Thanks to ALL for you inputs.

By new tito (***)

Date 05-24-2007 19:48

Seems Kellog is still going strong and based out of the UK. Got to wondering if it could be the same Kellog as in KBR (Kellog Brown & Root), and their website says KBR is their parent company.

By G.S.Crisi (****)

Date 05-24-2007 20:36

Tito,
I think you're right. What's KBR's website? Thanks
Giovanni S. Crisi

By new tito (***)

Date 05-24-2007 21:07

here's the site for kbr http://www.kbr.com/

I did a search for MW Kellog and came up with this http://www.mwkl.co.uk/

By weldgault (**)

Date 01-15-2008 22:40

Kellogg Brown & Root are the same as KBR div of HALLEBURTON out of Houston .

By 803056

Date 01-16-2008 22:41 Edited 01-16-2008 22:43

This is case where the numbers don't tell the entire story.

Either E6013 or E7018 meet the mechanical properties of the base metal, i.e., ASTM A106 pipe, but the operating characteristics of the electrode leave something to be desired.

I've welded A53 with both electrodes and I've qualified procedures with both electrodes. In my case, impact properties were not a concern. The operating systems were for hydraulic systems where high temperature was not an issue.

My recollection is that A106 is a carbon-manganese-silicon steel which doesn't have the same problem with graphitization from operating at higher temperatures as would ASTM A53 pipe material. This is a case where the composition of the weld deposit may make the difference as to which electrode to use. I would look to use the electrode with higher manganese to match the A106, thus the E7018 with the higher manganese would be my favored choice. In this case, it would be beneficial to stipulate the specific manufacturer and trade name of the electrode of choice.

As was noted in a previous post, the manufacturer and the specific trade name of the electrode are not mandatory per ASME, but where it makes a difference, the welding engineer should list it on the WPS.

Just my thoughts on the question.

Best regards - Al