Why this restriction FCAW Filler Metal-Table 4.6 #5?

Date 06-07-2009 17:35 Edited 06-12-2009 20:35

Nalla,

I have a copy of the 2006 D1.1 code. Are you referring to Table 4.6 (5)?

Table 4.6 is used for Supplementary, Charpy V-Notch, applications.

With that being said, does the project require notch toughness? (Section 2.2.2)

For future reference, try to keep your terminology consistent. Your posting is stating FCAW, but you start talking about AWS A 5.1 classification. I see two problems there. A 5.1 is not a classification. It is a specification. FCAW filler metals do not fall under the A 5.1 specification. They are under A 5.20 and A 5.29, since you are using D1.1.

Hope that helps.

By Nalla

Date 06-10-2009 08:16

Morgar
Apologies for the error
Yes, Table 4.6(5)
Base Materials EH36 ( CVN -40 deg celcius )
Pls explain why this restriction in imposed by AWS D1.1?
Thanks

By HgTX

Date 06-10-2009 18:14 Edited 06-10-2009 22:46

In D1.5, the restriction is on any cored wire and also on SAW flux. The idea is that since chemistry of metal is controlled more closely than flux (or I suppose metal core filling), every flux could be different and get you different results. I don't know why this restriction would be in D1.1 for FCAW but not SAW. Here's the D1.5 commentary on the topic:

"Fluxes and FCAW electrodes are considered individual products based upon manufacturer’s brand and type, regardless of AWS filler metal classification. Operating characteristics of these types of products may vary between manufacturers, even though generically classified the same."

Oddly, D1.1 commentary says this:
"it is appropriate to consider additional essential variables which have an influence on fracture toughness—e.g., specific brand wire/flux combinations"
even though it doesn't include SAW brand as an essential variable. Weird.

By motgar

Date 06-10-2009 22:07 Edited 06-12-2009 20:35

Nalla,

Base meterial is a whole other variable. So for now, we will not worry about it. Your concern is about this supplementary essential variable, 4.6 (5).

Some of these concerns are addressed, because of disasters that have happened over the years. Fracture Critical work is not something to slack, and so we have learned from some of these costly mistakes.

FCAW welding consumables will not perform the same across the board. The voltage, current, and stick out for one specific welding consumable (i.e. trade name) will generally not be the same for another. Due to some of these variances the weld make-up can certainly change. A change in the weld make up can change impact values. How much?? Well, that is why the CVN testing is imposed to verify that the change is okay.

To further prove my point, here is some information from a few wire manufacturers. Some products are made by the same manufacturer. All trade names are different. The specification and classification are the same.

See or note any differences??

Now I know these values do not match your base metal. That is not my job. This is to show you how slight variances can change the outcome.

A WPS is certailnly more meaningful if it is tailored specifically for the application, then doing the minimum requirements.

These are just my thoughts and interpretation. FWIW.....

Attachment: FluxCor2.pdf (27k)

Attachment: FluxCor7.pdf (27k)

Attachment: TM_11.pdf (33k)

Attachment: US13100_20090430.pdf (255k)

Attachment: Outershield70pg1.jpg (0B)

Attachment: Outershield70pg2.jpg (543k)