Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / General Welding Discussion / carbon to stainless
- - By tito (**) Date 11-07-2005 20:58
Is it acceptable to weld A36 to stainless(not sure of exact type) with 7018 rod? The shop I recently hired on with, has for years welded stainless expanded metal to a carbon steel ring (welds are basically tack welds), with this practice. I thought this was supposed to be done with 309. When questioning the welder about this, he said "it'll hold". To me, that doesn't mean that it is acceptable. This shop has never had a QC department before so there is no WPS. We are in process of getting code stamps, so WPS' will come. Im sure if we make a WPS for this it will be with 309, but I just wanted to know if it is o.k. to "tack weld" with this rod. The welds will not be removed.
Parent - By jon20013 (*****) Date 11-07-2005 21:06
No, absolutely not! You welder is flirting with RUINING perfectly good stainless steel by tack welding with E7018 just to make it "hold." There are a MYRIAD of reasons why this is not acceptable and I'm sure you'll get an earfull from the others of the Forum. If you are in any position to be able to STOP this practice you need to do so at once!
Parent - - By chuck meadows (***) Date 11-07-2005 21:36
tito,
Heed Jon's words. Unfortunately, your welder is assuming a lot to make the statement that "it'll hold". That is absolutely not a true statement in all circumstances. 309/309L is a good choice. If you guys are in the process of getting a Code Stamp, I'm sure this practice will soon stop, right??

Chuck
Parent - - By tito (**) Date 11-07-2005 22:34
Yes, all practices that will be in violation of ANYTHING will be stopped, eventually. These guys have run free for almost 15 years without any QC of any kind. Now I have to come in and clean house by starting a QC department and getting stamps. I know that 309 is "best practice" but dont know long term effects, etc. of welding with what they are doing. The real easy fix is to go back to c.s. expanded metal (these are repair jobs, and replacing c.s. with s.s) and save alot of time by not making new WPS'. Anyway, thanks for info. I know that it is wrong, just don't exactly know why it is wrong, as far as the possibility of failure is concerned.
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 11-08-2005 09:58
tito, being an employee of a multistamp holder company, I can advise you that the all statement you made "practices that will be in violation of ANYTHING will be stopped, eventually" SHOULD read "practices that will be in violation of ANYTHING will be stopped, and corrective actions put into practice, BEFORE the stamp will be issued."

Good luck with your survey, it's very expensive, best to get your program completely in order NOW unless your company wants to pay for follow up visits by the survey team!

By the way (please correct me if I'm wrong Chuck!) the long term effects are the ss will corrode in the area where E7018 was used and eventually FAIL in those areas. I hope this isn't an application where people lives could be in jeopardy!!!
Parent - By tito (**) Date 11-08-2005 12:14
I have been through a joint review before with another company, so I am familiar with the process. The statement I made "...eventually" was meant to mean just that. I don't expect to change the shop in a day, or week, or a month. But yes, it will be all correct before the review. Thanks for the info guys.
Parent - - By chuck meadows (***) Date 11-08-2005 13:54
Jon is absolutely correct in his statement of the SS corroding in the areas where it is joined to the CS. How long will it take to corrode? Anybody's guess depending on the corrosive environment. Another factor to consider is the strength of the weld using a 7018 to SS. I realize this is just CS tacked to a SS ring, but anything worth doing (especially when welding) should be worth doing right. Also, as Jon said, and you already realize, it is very important that you get your shop COMPLETELY in order before going after the Stamps. From my personal experience, Survey Teams tend to dig just a little deeper when they start finding discrepencies in the shops they survey. Starting out on the right foot can only benefit you in the future.

Chuck
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 11-08-2005 15:38
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Chuck. Myself having been involved in ASME "Stamp" work for more than 24 years now, you are absolutely correct when you mention they tend to dg a little deeper once skeletons are uncovered.

tito, my best advice to you is to sit down with Senior Management at your company and start by putting some TEETH in your Quality Program. If the program isn't supported at the highest level of your company then you are just wasting your time and your companies money.

I don't think you expect to get your company program cleaned up over night but for God sake, start with the fundamental stuff!!!

Good luck!
Parent - - By tito (**) Date 11-08-2005 17:34
I completely understand the "dig deeper" theory, im an inspector, i do the same thing. Upper management does support a quality program, thats why i was hired. Its just a matter of educating everyone at my facility about QC and all of its responsibilities and purposes. QC is not new to the company, just to this facility. We are kinda the "step child" and need to get up to par. I am starting with fundamentals, and i hope i don't sound like a dummy for such a simple "rule", its just that ive never dealt with someone thinking 7018 to weld s.s. to c.s. was ok. I have a feeling there will be many more practices performed that are not correct, as i stated before this is new to them and most have the "if it'll fit, it'll work" mentality.
Parent - By jon20013 (*****) Date 11-08-2005 17:53
Best of luck to you tito, come back and let us know of your progress!
Parent - - By Jim Hughes (***) Date 11-09-2005 00:52
Tito,
where in south Texas are you? I was a QA/QC manager for Fluor for a number of years in south Texas and might know some of the people you know
Thanks
Jim
Parent - - By tito (**) Date 11-09-2005 13:01
Victoria.
Parent - By chuck meadows (***) Date 11-09-2005 13:49
tito,
If you ever would like for someone with a little experience in SS welding, technology, and Engineering to come and speak to your management about SS, please keep me in mind. I'm the Welding Engineer for Avesta Welding Products (we only make SS welding consumables, no carbon steel) and would be more than happy to help you in your SS needs. It won't cost you anything, and it might be something your people can learn about SS. If you're interested, you can contact me at chuck.meadows@avestawelding.com or reach me by cell phone at (972) 800-6150. I have an office in Houston and Dallas, so Victoria is easy for me.

Chuck
Parent - - By chuck meadows (***) Date 11-09-2005 13:40
Hey Jim,
Victoria...Right in your old stomping grounds...

Chuck
Parent - - By tito (**) Date 11-09-2005 15:20
Thanks Chuck. I appreciate your offer, but it seems the only s.s. welding we do is what this thread is about. Very minimal. A s.s. expanded metal "screen" welded to a c.s. ring. I do have one question for you though, what f# is the 309L electrode? 4 or 5. I might have to make a new procedure and possibly retest the welders for this. I don't think my easy fix of going back to c.s. exp. metal will get any votes.

By the way, I think I have contacted you once before about 3 years ago for something. I was refered to you by Kevan Klubertanz, don't know if that name is familiar to you.

Thanks
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 11-09-2005 17:42
F6
Parent - By tito (**) Date 11-09-2005 17:47
Looks like I was way off.
Parent - - By chuck meadows (***) Date 11-09-2005 19:41
Jon,
Isn't the F# for a 309L stick electrode a 5?
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 11-09-2005 20:15
Sorry, I was thinking of ASME Section II, SFA-5.9 which would be for uncoated Stainless Steel rods and electrodes, in which case F6 would be correct. For coated electrodes, SFA-5.4, F5 would be correct. Thanks for following up on that Chuck! Just goes to show ya one can always make mistakes!
Parent - - By tito (**) Date 11-09-2005 20:59
Man, you almost had me all confused. I dont have my sec II's in yet but I was looking in sec IX and couldn't figure out what F# it was. F#'s 4 and 5 both have EXXX(X)-15,16,17, so I assumed it was one of those. Then you told me F6, I was about ready to pack my stuff up and go home for the day. Ha.
Parent - - By chuck meadows (***) Date 11-09-2005 21:27
tito,
In Sec. IX, it shows SFA-5.4 (austenitic and duplex) as F#5. 309L is an austenitic SS. SFA-5.4 lists anything "other than austenitic and duplex" as F#4.

Chuck
Parent - By jon20013 (*****) Date 11-09-2005 21:48
Sorry for the confusion I caused tito and thanks again for catching that brain f*rt, Chuck! It's only hump day and already too long of a week!!! I'm thinking me and my friend, Mr. Beam may catch up with each other this evening!
Parent - - By tito (**) Date 11-09-2005 22:26
Thank you Chuck. That's what I was unsure of, if it(309L) was aust. & duplex or other than aust. & duplex.
Parent - - By Jim Hughes (***) Date 11-10-2005 00:39
Hey Tito,
I worked in Victoria for Fluor. What project are you on.
Jim
Parent - - By tito (**) Date 11-10-2005 12:39
Project? I work for a gas compressor company. I had worked out at Formosa for a few years. I am assuming you worked out at a plant with Fluor?
Parent - By Jim Hughes (***) Date 11-10-2005 14:50
Hey Tito,
yes I worked at the BP Chem. site. I was a QC manager for them for almost 9 years. I know Formosa well and that whole area well. Worked for Alcoa for a while also.
If you don't mind I would to E-mail you off forum. My e-mail is jimhughes71@hotmail.com
Thanks
Jim
Parent - - By Skiddy (*) Date 11-14-2005 19:49
You wouldn't by chance be welding in mist pads in a scrubber would you? We build gas compressors here also. We have built some for Flour Danials and BP also.
Parent - - By tito (**) Date 11-14-2005 20:35
Correct. I'm new to this product but they are replacing original c.s. expanded metal with stainless, as they have for years. When they cut the caps off, in the past they have noticed the c.s. expanded metal has corroded away, sometimes leaving holes in it. They figured the s.s. would hold up better over time.
Parent - By jon20013 (*****) Date 11-14-2005 21:02
tito, I hope you now realise after reading all of these posts that the stainless will now corrode away leaving holes in it where your welders have tacked it with E7018....
Parent - By Skiddy (*) Date 11-15-2005 15:58
Cool we caught our welders trying to do the same the mist pads would just fall down to the bottom or just break loose. If you want you can email me with any questions about compressors or pressure vessels would like to know what type you all do build. Hope to hear from ya ramseyk@ccc-ces.com
Kenny
Parent - - By srw2506 (*) Date 11-14-2005 20:26
For all you long winded people who wrote answers,the correct answer is
NO,NEVER!
Parent - - By - Date 11-15-2005 02:29
Long winded? Maybe some people like to know why....not just a yes or no answer.
Parent - By Skiddy (*) Date 11-15-2005 15:59
Yes long versions are always good because you learn the why. A lot of people like to know why and also helps them in the future. just my .02
Up Topic Welding Industry / General Welding Discussion / carbon to stainless

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill