Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / In D17.1 is tungsten an essential or noessential variable
- - By walkerjw Date 04-05-2017 19:29
I want to change from 2% to ceriated tungsten, I am just looking at the welder performance qualification and I can't find where it is a essential variable,
if anybody has had any dealings with that I would appreciate your thoughts on it. I see it for the wps but not for the welder.
Parent - - By Maggs47 (**) Date 04-05-2017 20:48
Paragraph 5.2.2.1 identifies the correlation factors between qualification and production welds.  Tungsten alloy is not listed, so you are free to qualify your welders with any tip you'd like per D17.1.
Parent - By walkerjw Date 04-05-2017 21:16
thanks for the post, this will help me get started.
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 04-06-2017 13:12
Not so fast.

Welder performance qualification may not be sensitive to tungsten electrode doping... But WPS qualification certainly is.

Changing the tungsten may not trigger welder performance testing... .But unfortunately it does trigger the requirement for new procedure qualification ( PQR's)

I'm not a fan of this essential variable... But it exists.
Parent - - By Maggs47 (**) Date 04-06-2017 15:11
Lawrence, I completely agree.  The paragraph I referenced was related to welder performance testing.  For PQRs, essential variables are listed in paragraph 5.4.2, which includes "(8) electrode type/geometry."
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 04-06-2017 15:32
I'm mostly blasting a chip on my shoulder here Maggs, and shamelessly using this thread to editorialize   :)

The AWS A5 group will *never* be able to keep up with the giant variety of alloying profiles of the various tungsten electrode manufacturers.

99% of DC GTAW work happens in such a fashion that the operator could not tell the difference between one electrode type or another....

Some last a bit longer, some have low current arc start improvements, some work a little better with alternating current... But I see no reason for any of this type of difference between electrodes as cause to requalify a WPS.

I only note the fact that it is essential for a WPS to recognize tungsten electrode doping because I think it should not be on that list.
Parent - - By Maggs47 (**) Date 04-06-2017 20:18
Well, there's a typo in the paragraph 5.4.2 list with two item 8's.  What better time to drop that requirement.  They wouldn't have to re-number the rest. ;-)
Parent - By jwright650 (*****) Date 04-07-2017 10:46
Well, there's a typo in the paragraph 5.4.2 list with two item 8's.  What better time to drop that requirement.  They wouldn't have to re-number the rest. ;-) - Maggs47

Yup! :cool:
Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / In D17.1 is tungsten an essential or noessential variable

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill