Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / Qualifying a Procedure to AWS B2.1
- - By CC4846 (*) Date 06-10-2018 18:27
We have been tasked with qualifying a couple of procedures to AWS B2.1. I have some questions that I hope some of you can help clear up. B2.1 lists “supplementary filler metal” twice in the filler metal section of table 4.14 Procedure Qualification Variables:

4.14.1 (11)Addition or deletion of supplementary filler metal (powder or wire), or a change of 10% in the amount.

4.14.3 (14)Addition or deletion, or a change in the nominal amount or composition of supplementary metal (in addition to filler metal) beyond that qualified.


B2.1 does not define what supplementary filler metal is, I looked it up in AWS B3.0 Standard Welding Terms and Definitions and it was not listed there either. I am assuming that supplementary filler metal would be like the metal powder in a metal core GMAW electrode, Iron powder flux on a SMAW Electrode, and metal powder in SAW flux. Is this correct?

   The other question that I have is the big one, when I look at Table 4.14 under Electrical Characteristics it gives only one criteria, 4.14.8, and it is only applicable when there are toughness requirements.

4.14.8 An increase in heat input, or an increase in volume of weld metal deposited per unit length of weld, over that qualified…

Am I missing something, or is there no criteria for variations in amperage, wire feed speed, or voltage? I have looked through the book several times, and I do not see any limitations on these variables when writing a WPS, this seems crazy to me. If this is the case then the PRQ would have no bearing at all on the WPS that you write from that PQR. One could qualify a procedure welding at 300 amps, and then write a procedure that calls for 100 - 150 amps. Is this actually the case, or am I totally missing something?

Thanks for the help!
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 06-11-2018 21:10
Welcome to the wonderful world of ASME Section IX; the basis of AWS B2.1. There are many parallels between the two standard, however Section IX provides more detailed information. For example, how an A-number is determined is pretty well explained in ASME Section IX. AWS B2.1; not so much.

The weakness of ASME Section IX and AWS B2.1 is the welder is not given much consideration. Section IX is written by engineers for engineers. So, variables like voltage, amperage, etc. are largely ignored unless notch toughness is a consideration.

The saving grace is that the code lists the minimum requirements that must be met or in this case, the minimum information that must be recorded or presented by the PQR and WPS. There is nothing preventing the user from recording more information. I personally think it is pretty silly to go through the effort of qualifying a WPS and not record the welding variables used, i.e., groove angle, root opening, voltage, wire feed speed, amperage, travel speed, etc. After, those variables might come in very handy when writing the WPS.

I cannot remember how many times I received phone calls or emails with the question, "I qualified my procedure, but where do I find the voltage and amperage for my WPS?"

I usually ask, "Didn't you record that information while the welder welder the coupon?"

The response, "The code doesn't require a witness, so I didn't witness the welding, so how could I record that information?"

"Silly boy." is my usual reply.

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By CC4846 (*) Date 06-12-2018 17:33
Thanks for the reply, Al.
I thought for sure that I was missing some obscure footnote somewhere, but I guess not. I am going to use the values from the PQR +/- 10% for the ranges on the WPS.

Can you give any insight as to what the supplementary filler metals are?

Also I would love to attend your Atlas of Welding Procedures seminar, will you be offering that at FabTech in November?

Thanks again.
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 06-12-2018 18:18
Supplementary filler metal is simply additional filler metal added to the weld pool while welding. It could be continuous wire, i.e., GMAW filler metal, that is added to the weld pool. It is in addition to the metal introduced into the weld pool via the welding electrode.

No, the course isn't offered at FabTech. This course is usually offered through the local section of AWS as an educational opportunity. It is a way of supporting the local AWS section or district financially since none of the money has to funnel through to National.

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By CC4846 (*) Date 06-12-2018 19:49
Al, Thanks again for your input. Just one last question, if you don't mind. Would changing from a solid GMAW wire electrode to a metal cored GMAW electrode constitute an increase in supplementary filler metal? There is no additional filler metal (filler that is not the electrode itself), but the cored electrode does contain additional filler materials.
I will certainly attend your WPS conference it is offered within driving distance from me, and I can get approval form the powers that be.

Thanks again for the excellent advise!
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 06-13-2018 01:09
I believe it would have to be addressed by the WPS since one electrode is tubular and the other is solid. If it has an affect on the A-number, it would most likely require a new PQR to determine whether the A-number was changed.

Al
Parent - - By CC4846 (*) Date 06-14-2018 21:03
OK, Al. Thanks again for your input, it is much appreciated.
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 06-14-2018 21:31
Both metal core and solid wire are considered to be GMAW electrode. However, switching from one to another is a change in product form. Since they are added to the weld pool without interacting with the welding arc, I suspect the chemistry of the metal core will be different from that derived using solid bare wire.

If for no other reason than to protect the contractor, I would make samples using the additive of choice and send a sample out for chemical analysis as a minimum. I would likely opt to qualify the procedure via bends and tensile tests to verify the mechanical properties are acceptable. I would not be at ease that the materials in the core of the metal core would not respond differently because they have not passed through the welding arc.

Al
Parent - By CC4846 (*) Date 06-17-2018 23:33
OK, I did not intend to qualify the procedure with a solid wire electrode and write a WPS for a metal core electrode, or the other way around. I am just trying to understand the concept of the supplementary filler metal criteria. That is a good point about the possibility of a change to the as welded filler metal composition moving from one A number to another due to the metal core electrode.

Thanks for this great resource of technical information.
Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / Qualifying a Procedure to AWS B2.1

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill