Steve, glad to see you did some extra research from last time we chatted.
Many will disagree with this statement but historically, some FCAW materials have had difficulties meeting low temperature impacts. Since you'll be running in the 3G, watch your heat inputs closely.
I think you've made a decent filler selection and as js55 mentioned, if your deposit meets -50F you're good to go. I also would recommend heat/lot control but as mentioned by js55, it isn't a code requirement.
The one concern I have is you seem to be banking quite a bit on the PWHT bringing you down to the lower temperatures, do you intend to use the WPS only in the PWHT condition?
Also, keep in mind your range of thickness is not governed by ASME IX in this case, you will only get 1/2t - t + 1/4" for your range iaw B31.3.
Js55,
I have thoroughly examined Table 323.3.1 (I believe this what you where referring to) and I am looking for clarification on how to interpret it. :-) I am receiving a different interpretation from my customer and I want to sound somewhat knowledgeable during our discussion since I have not applied B31.3 in the low temperature environments.
I am trying to get a WPS in place quickly and I don't believe that I have the time to get filler material that has been tested with certs in a reasonable amount of time. I would like to use filler that is readily available for the PQR and be qualified for production use based on the classification.
Does that make sense? Any hang ups per the code?
Have him show you where it says that filler needs to be supplied with impacts.
323.3.2 says "each product form", however it also ties into the list of product form specifications below. So how would you test filler metal to a pipe or forging spec? Which one would you choose if you tried?
Table 323.3.1 B-5 says "One piece from each lot of material", but Note 4 ties back into para. 323.3.2.
And A-4 still makes it clear, the only place that mentions filler metal at all clearly states "each type of filler metal (i.e., AWS E-XXXXclassification)", not each lot of filler metal.
Anybody have an interpretation stating otherwise?
By Nanjing
Date 10-01-2008 23:22
I would be very wary of using this rutile flux cored wire if there is a requirement for PWHT (Note in A5.29 there are only property requirements for the as welded condition). Have a word with a consumable manufacturer and ask if he will guarantee the impacts after PWHT.
Filler metal manufacturers are not going to garantee anything. However, keep in mind the PWHT time temp limitation kicks in with impacts.
js55, you are 100% correct, as usual! You do NOT have to get impacts from the producer (even though it's a good idea) your PQR will qualify the whole shooting match; even in the nuclear world with ANI's, QA types and Auditor's breathing down my every movement I was permitted to operate this way but I did so with the clear understanding the my engineering judgment would be pushed down my throat (or elsewhere) if my impacts failed...
Boy thats a fact jon. No matter what the code says someones gonna have to make an engineering decision and your feet will be in the fire.
By Nanjing
Date 10-02-2008 22:20
I am amazed at this statement. I think you would have to be down right stupid not to put the consumable manufacturer on the spot and tell him that you need at least typical properties for his product. I get the impression that a number of people on this forum believe that if you do not deviate from the code everything will be OK. Try telling that to your management or your client when your production tests go t*ts up and the consumable manufacturer tells you that his wire is no good at -40 or you should not have stress relieved it as it's properties will degrade during PWHT.
Have you been able to resolve your concerns?
I noticed a comment about low temperature service, The Code is pretty clear about the requirements for impact testing on cold temperature WPS/PQR qualification. some call it cryogenic but the temperature is specific.
I was just curious!
By Nanjing
Date 03-17-2009 13:01
Probably been fired!