ASME and AWS B2.1

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 07-31-2012 05:32 Edited 07-31-2012 21:22

js3106, welcome to the Forum.

Not exactly sure what you mean by your question?

Not everyone knows this but filler metal specifications are developed and assigned by AWS Committee and then ASME reviews and adopts those filler metal specifications by adding an "S" in front of the specification after its been adopted. Sometimes (extremely rarely) ASME decides to change something by the addition of notes or additional detail.

Naturally this is a highly abbreviated description.

Similar happens with base metals; i.e., ASTM designations are given an "S" in front of the designator.

Now, could you please say exactly what your question really is?

Edited: typo correction

By js55

Date 07-31-2012 16:46

The answer is yes and no.
Materials other than the 'S' materials, as jon accurately described, can be used for ASME specified projects. But ASME does not specifically accept B2.1.

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 07-31-2012 21:29

That said (and I agree completely with js55), it would be an extremely rare instance where B2.1 would list a filler metal CLASSIFICATION that ASME IX would not accept. In fact, I am unaware of any such conflict in CLASSIFICATIONS?

Obviously, there is a reason for my capitolization of "classification" and hoping the original poster will clarify his question?

By js3106 Date 08-03-2012 01:09

I am new to looking at WPS's and I see in the filler metal section of the WPS that I am reviewing that the SFA Spec. for E6010 is A5.1/A5.5. I have been told that AWS B2.1 classifies E6010 as A5.1/A5.5. When I look into ASME Section IX E6010 is not classified as A5.5. That's why I asked if ASME accepst AWS B2.1. I do not have the code books in front of me but I think Section IX clasifies E7018-A1 as A5.5. This filler metal rod is different than E6010 or E7018.

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 08-03-2012 01:43

Dude, the fillers would not be under different Specifications; i.e., A5.1 for E6010 or A5.5 for E7018-A1.

Might be misreading B2.1? I am looking at the Spec., A5.5 and I see E7010 all the way up to E12010 but not E6010. I believe you will ONLY find E6010 in A5.1 and if B2.1 shows it as A5.5 I think its a mistake ~ maybe one of our other members can correct me if I'm wrong?

Take another look, there should be ZERO difference between B2.1 and ASME IX in this matter.

Regards

Jon

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 08-03-2012 05:24

Hi Jon,
I have got AWS B2.1 2009 but it only contains Base Metals.
Is there another edition with filler metals as well ?
Cheers,
Shane

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 08-03-2012 05:26

Sorry mate - answered my own question. Doooooooh !!!
I have AWS B2.1 BMG,
Cheers,
Shane

By fschweighardt (***)

Date 08-03-2012 10:07 Edited 08-03-2012 10:15

B2.1:2009 assigns 6010 to F3, and the AWS specification of A5.1. ASME will call the A5.1 specification SFA 5.1. The A# for a 6010 is A1

7018 and 7018-1 are both F4, AWS A5.1 and A1

7018-A1 is and F4, AWS A 5.5, and it looks like A2

By js55

Date 08-03-2012 12:49

If you are working to ASME you do not need B2.1. It is getting in the way. If your filler is 6010 all you need is Section IX, Section IIC, and the code of construction wherein 6010 is acceptable. You're confusing yourself by utilizing an inapplicable code.

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 08-03-2012 20:31

I used to think there was a reason so many ASME members were also B2.1 members, maybe there actually is, I don't know... silly me, I was actually thinking B2.1 would be the "ASME IX" for instances where ASME IX doesn't really fit all that well; like the structural codes, bridge codes, aerospace codes, moving equipment codes, etc ad infinitum, ad nausea...

Probably just cynical in my old age and semi retirement but am beginning to have my doubts that the AWS committee members will ever get so aligned as the ASME committee members and bring this stuff under one umbrella, like B2.1.... rant over, off soapbox.

By 803056

Date 08-03-2012 21:31

I'm hoping they never make the mistake of aligning perfectly with ASME Section IX.

:razz:

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 08-03-2012 22:51

Al, you should know I have an ENORMOUS respect for you but I have to ask, have you ever wondered why ASME IX (and many ((most)) other ASME Standards) have been considered as defacto International Standards while most AWS Standards have not (aside from filler metal standards and "possibly" D1.1)?

A very, very wise friend of mine summed it up nicely: "Unless there is government interference, standards become international because people choose to use them, not because they are called "international."

If people do not use standards they will eventually die away.... or be replaced. Just give it some thought.

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 08-04-2012 01:26

Just getting AWS D1.1 and AWS B2.1 "under the same umbrella" would be a huge improvement in itself,
Cheers,
Shane

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 08-05-2012 18:16

Copied below (in part) from a ballot in my inbox this morning. Only posting to show there is in fact a relationship between B2.1 and ASME IX.

BALLOT SUMMARY: This is the first main committee ballot for Table B.2, Classification of Ferrous Weld Metal for Procedure Qualification.

The information within ballot draft B2.1-E6-CD-BM (Table B.2) has been modified to be in technical conformance with ASME QW-442, as approved for the 2013 issue of Section IX.

By 803056

Date 08-06-2012 00:59

We haven't had a really interesting conversation in a good while. I have to use a stick to stir up the mud once in a while.

In all fairness, I have to say that B2.1 was more useful before they decided to go the ASME route. It used to serve as a great guide for people that were not experts in writing and qualifying WPSs. It provided a reasonable, rational method of qualifying and writing a WPS. It served as a bible for many projects that were not required to comply with AWS D1.1 or ASME Section IX. I used to use it for projects were I was tasked with teaching an individual the fundamentals of developing reasonable, rational WPSs, now, not so much. I haven't used B2.1 in the better part of 10 years. So the comment that standards that don't fill a need wither and die is fitting. Sadly, B2.1 has lost its way.

Sometimes people forget that not everyone tasked with developing in-house welding programs, i.e., welding procedures and welder performance qualifications, are experienced welding engineers. Many of the smaller shops doing the work are too small to support the infrastructure of an engineering staff of experienced people. There are a good number of "welding engineers" that are given the title with very little understanding of how to write a WPS with reasonable ranges for nonessential variables. Sometimes people seem to forget that the intent of the WPS is to provide the welder with the information he/she needs to set up the welding machine and make welds that will meet the requirements of the applicable code. Reading WPS that is written for another engineer is just a waste of time and paper to the average welder.

ASME WPSs are fine for the engineer, but most of them collect dust in the weld shop. A WPS that simply meets Section IX or B2.1 provides very little useful information to the welder.

We've had the conversations before; the philosophical differences between ASME and AWS are great. ASME doesn't tell the user how to do anything. AWS B2.1 "used" be a cook book of how to qualify and write a WPS. It is sad to have to say good bye to a good friend. Who is writing the eulogy for B2.1?

Gotta run.

Best regards - Al

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 08-06-2012 05:58

Gosh Al, somehow I expected a better technical discussion from you but you do hit some high points and we agree one at least 1 point; WPS's, whether ASME or AWS tend to gather dust in the shop. Sad when many or most of us "bang the drum" that WPS are intended as direction to the welder... probably better described now days as providing direction on how to make "code compliant" welds and even then only when good supervision is present.

As for B2.1, I worked for AWS Technical Services from 1996 until 1998 under Chuck Fassinger and at that time Len Conner was B2.1 Secretary, and one helluva great engineer (in my opinion), anyway even back as far as 1996 B2.1 was becoming an ASME IX clone, thats why I opened with the seemingly snide remark about a better technical discussion.

To be completely honest, I don't know, after more than 26 years working on Code Committee's exactly what the future holds but I am pleased we have people like Walt Sperko who has relentlessly lead the charge to get us all on a level playground... maybe someday... at this point, I believe ISO 9606 is the "new way" but who knows?

Keep up the good work Al, your one of the few who truly know.... :eek:

By 803056

Date 08-06-2012 12:45

Hello Jon;

I was hoping to get someone else to jump in on the discussion other than you and few other "die hards" (me included). A few new faces in the dialogue would be interesting.

We have a lot of good inspectors that participate in the Forum discussions, but when it comes to ASME/AWS welding standards they don't seem to jump in. Maybe it is because they don't work with both codes on a regular basis.

All I can do is stir up the mud to see who will jump in and voice their opinions. Everyone knows where you, Scott, and I stand.

I will admit that I am not familiar with ISO 9606.

As for harmonizing B2.1 with ASME Section IX, if I want to use Section IX I don't need B2.1. What set B2.1 apart was that B2.1 included more of the rational of D1.1 and D1.5 regarding the "usable" ranges for the welding parameters such as voltage, travel speed, etc? To an "Old Salt" such as you, determining a reasonable range based on your experience is not that difficult, but for someone that isn't that familiar with welding, it isn't easy. Let's face facts; there are a lot of people out there that are thrust into positions for which they are ill prepared by their employers. They are looking for guidance. ASME Section IX and B2.1 do very little in the way of providing any guidance for those individuals. To sit back and take a position that it's their problem is like hiding one's head in the sand and humming a simply tune. The employer isn't going to hire a consultant to work with the newbie unless a serious problem arises and it costs serious money to rectify the problem. While the smaller contractors are ill prepared to develop WPSs, there are some larger corporations that are just as ill prepared to review and properly assess the WPSs and PQRs they are charged with reviewing.

I used to use B2.1 on many of my military projects. B2.1 served as a rational guide for clients that needed the guidance to write a cohesive WPS with reasonable ranges for their welding parameters. Some take the position that the welders should know how to set their machines for the task involved. Let's not forget that many of the welders in today's market place did not learn their skills in a classroom. Even those that attended some type of vocational training did not learn the technical aspects of welding in the classroom. It isn't covered in most vocational settings. Welders are looking for information on how to set up for the particular job. What amperage is required, what wire feed settings are appropriate, what polarity (this comes up time after time when using FCAW with nickel additions in the electrode), what travel speeds are appropriate, etc. AWS B2.1 provided limitations that coerced the writer to include such information and the ranges were based on the values used when the procedure was qualified. Now that much of the information is considered to be nonessential, there is no need to record the information on the PQR.

Opinions are often derived from our experiences. If one works with engineers most of the time their view point and opinion is based on the needs of the engineer. If one works with welders on a daily basis their opinions and view points are influenced by responding to the needs of the welder. WPSs should provided the welder with the information they need in order to get their job done. A case in point is the P number or the M number: both ASME Section IX and AWS B2.1 require that information on the WPS, Section IX the former and AWS the latter. The welder has no clue what either the P or M number means and rarely could they look at a length of pipe or a piece of plate and identify it as a P1/M1 or P8/M8. Yet they look at the WPS and there it is the WPS is qualified for PX.

You hit the nail on the head stating the welders need supervision, but there is another weak link in the process. Rarely is line management prepared for the tasks given to them. Unless the company is one of the few Mega Corps left actually doing the welding in-house, most line supervisors are more knowledgeable of machining than welding. It all goes back to the WPS; it must be written with the welder in mind. It has to serve a useful purpose for the welder. If it doesn't, it isn't serving the purpose for which it is intended.

What are the thoughts of the rest of us that serve in the trenches?

Best regards – Al

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 08-06-2012 13:10 Edited 08-06-2012 13:54

Jon / Al,
I hold both of you two gentlemen in high esteem and I value both of your inputs to this forum but jeeeeeeez !
My question is why can one group of highly qualified people on the B2.1 committee realise that an Australian steel is no different to an American steel but a group of equally highly qualified individuals on the AWS D1.committee refuse to accept this.
I am working in Asia with all my contractors being conversant with AWS D1.1 and all the project specs being AS/NZS.
AWS need to get their head out of the sand and start looking at the real world - There is approx AU$ (equivalent to $US) 30 billion of work coming up ( and a high percentage will be work that could fall under AWS D1.1) and anyone with the slightest sense of foresight should be embracing Australian steels and incorporating them into the codes.
If the AWS D1.1 committee refuse to acknowledge the Australian steels.............
I give up, rant over,
Cheers,
Shane

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 08-06-2012 13:59

I edited my post to highlight work that "could" fall under the AWS D1.1 umbrella.
If AWS want to keep their heads in the sand then all the work performed in Asia for Australian projects will fall under AS/NZS 1554 which is the most poorly written code I have ever had the misfortune to stumble across.
Cheers,
Shane

By 803056

Date 08-06-2012 14:13

Hello Shane;

Sometimes there is simply no rhyme or reason as to why a code does this or that. More than likely it is a case where no one has presented a formal request and supporting data to include particular base metals for consideration. The code committees do not go looking for more work. They are all volunteers.

If you have a concern or suggestion, consider placing it on their agenda as a formal request for consideration. I am certain they would be interested in hearing from a foreign user such as yourself. You are on the mark with regards to expanding foreign markets. This sounds like a reasonable concern.

Best regards - Al

By js55

Date 08-06-2012 14:39

Al/jon/shane,
I believe I might be in the middle here but I will say this. I am not a fan of dumbing standards down because there is a lot of poeple out there that struggle with them. Clarity yes, dumbing down, no. I believe that to a certain extent they should be experience driven prohibitive. Also, I am not a fan of standards being guidelines. Perhaps some notes to assist in some ways. But at some point when you are dealing with structures that contain people and structures of pressure boundaries there needs to be some level of expertise or you shouldn't be in the game.
I just don't want to be standing next to a pressure vessel built by somebody that needed a kindergarten version of the code. The place for remedial information is other literature, courses, and of course consultants.
Also, there is always a rhyme and reason to what the codes do. It just may not come out in the wash during the consensus building process, or it may be lost in the mists of history, or, it just may be plain wrong, biased, or of a special interest. It happens.

By 803056

Date 08-06-2012 15:32 Edited 08-06-2012 15:40

I was waiting for you to jump in. As expected you offer some compelling arguments. To an extent I am in agreement. The extent of my agreement is in regards to a code such as ASME's B&PV code. However, B2.1 is not a code; it never was and most likely never will be since it is not directed toward any particular product type.

AWS B2.1 was a more of a guide that provided the user with a "road map" of how to qualify a WPS and how to qualify welders when the work involved didn't have to meet a specific code requirement such as the ASME B&PV Code or one of the AWS D1 Structural Welding Codes. In that respect, B2.1 has lost its way. The train has been derailed. Every man for himself - Jump!

We have a plethora of codes that are in code speak the extent the experts cannot use them without squabbling and arguing just what requirements apply and when. Just open any of the British Standards and my point is made. I do not agree that every user has to be a code expert to read and follow a code if it is well written. You may take the position that it provides the engineer latitude and I say that it allows the inexperienced to drill a hole in the bottom of the boat so he drowns himself and everyone that has the misfortune to be in the boat with him.

ASME has a belt and suspender system where the manufacturer has a code expert involved in their QA/QC system, i.e., AI. Whether the AI is really in a position to say they are experts in all matters, well, that is open to debate. The system works, how many people are killed or injured by exploding pressure vessels? The number is insignificant compared to the incidences that occurred prior to the adoption of the boiler code in the 1920's. ASME is recognized for their accomplishment of making the world a safer place to live.

That isn't to say any code or standard cannot be improved upon and made more user friendly to mitigate mistakes by the inexperienced. Dummy down, kindergarten version of the code? I don't believe that is what I have advocated.

Back to my statement that AWS B2.1 isn't a code, it is a standard. The base metals listed are more inclusive than those listed by the ASME B&PV Code or the AWS D1 Structural Welding Codes. It isn't intended to replace Section IX nor is it intended to replace any of the D1 Structural Welding Codes. In my humble opinion, the AWS welding standards have a long history of providing the user a cookbook approach to welding. That is the basic premise of prequalification. I believe that is why AWS welding codes and standards have been successful in part because they offer the user a prescriptive approach to welding. The user doesn't have to be an engineer to use an AWS code and if the requirements are followed, the AWS codes and standards provide a reasonable level of assurance the welds will perform as intended.

The ASME B&PV Code has been adopted or adapted worldwide. It was the first consensus code that addressed the needs of industry where every boiler and pressure vessels are used. With that I have no argument. It provides me with a steady income stream and I am thankful for that. However, that doesn't mean that I have march lockstep with the code committees with the blind assumption that their codes cannot be improved.

I take issue with a few premises of ASME as well as AWS codes and standards. I don't believe it should be necessary to wear a tall pointed black hat, wear a long flowing black robe, and wave a short wooden stick to use them. Many AWS codes and standards can be used without being a welding engineer. The AWS codes and standards are in general easier to use than ASME codes. The hat doesn't have to be as tall or as pointed. It is a philosophical difference that separates ASME from AWS. Long live the difference.

Stir the water......

Best regards - Al

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 08-06-2012 20:01

Shane, you know I was involved in getting B2.1 acceptance of Australian Steels, thanks to request from and fantastic assistance of Blue Scope Steels and Bruce Cannon. During that process I asked D1 to consider parallel acceptance but was literally told "don't hold your breath." Now, nearly 10 years later, I'm hearing D1 is considering acceptance of steels other than ASTM/AISI etc., Too little, too late, Australia as you mention has developed Au/NZ 1554 so why would they consider D1? As mentioned, when codes get stale they will die, sad.

By js55

Date 08-06-2012 20:33

Al,
No, you did not advocate kindergarten dumming down. I exaggerated for rhetorical effect.
Also, I do not think you will find a single committee member in ASME that believes they cannot be improved. The list of ways that are currently being considered for improvement is overwhelming.

By 803056

Date 08-06-2012 20:39

I knew it! I was too easy with my comments. Nary a raised eyebrow!

Maybe we've beat this subject to death in the past. :grin:

Grading examinations for welder workmanship training and VT inspectors for NAVSEA TP278 and 1688 work. My least favorite task.

Al

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 08-06-2012 21:17

One of my very favorite quotes when instructing people on ASME Codes is they are not intended to be cookbooks and can never take they place of sound engineering judgment. These are Code words not my words.

A commentary I agree whole heartedly with but it's often hard to get the Quality side of the house on board though... <sigh>...