Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations waross on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

GMAW for piping / pressure vessels applications

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ariuri

Petroleum
Nov 6, 2018
2
0
0
NO
Hi guys, I've been through some welding spec for piping/pressure vessels and was curious about one requirement:
GMAW may be used for fill passes provided the transfer mode is globular or spray arc and the completed thickness is of the weld is no greater than 9.5 mm.

Does anybody know what can be the reason for that? Is it due to reliability (defect rate) of GMAW?
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

Spray is the preferable transfer mode for GMAW in thicker plates.
This is a reasonable statement from the client.
I'd avoid globular transfer where possible, but it is a suitable option when welding in position.

No idea about the 9.5 mm, the only reasonable explanation I have would be that SAW should be used for thicker plates. But that's just a guess, because lots of 10 mm plates get welded using GMAW. I don't think the client should be dictating how to weld 10 mm plates to the fabricator. Again, just my $0.02.
 
Ariuri said:
Is it due to reliability (defect rate) of GMAW?

I am going to say yes to this. More than likely, your client had a bad experience with GMAW. Either that or their specifications have carried this requirement over from years past.

GMAW is not a bad process to use for piping or pressure vessels as long as it is set-up properly, just like any other welding process.

The devil is in the details; she also wears prada.
 
The TS writer probably doesn't want short arc GMAW.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."
 
Ironic metallurgist, the spec additionally says that short arc GMAW might only be used for root pass.

Weldstan, you are right. The spec is a bit old (prepared in 1995 and revised in 2005).

Thanks everyone for your inputs. Still have no idea why there is 9.5 mm (3/8'') thickness limitation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top