Stainless/stainless welding E309L-16

[BoomerSooner7]

Hi guys,

I think this is the correct forum for this question, if not I apologize.

History:
We had some pressure vessel welding done in shop from a state licensed welder who used weld rod E309L-16 to weld A182/316L stainless to A312/TP316L stainless. The inspector that comes in to check the work says that E309L-16 is not acceptable and that the welder should have used E316L-16.

My question is: is E309L-16 not an acceptable weld rod to use. I have searched online finding numerous articles saying it is okay to use. Can someone help me verify this with a web link or ASME code. I am looking into ASME B31.3 now.

Please Help!!!

 

[metengr]

The Inspector is correct in flagging this filler metal. The 309 is formulated for welding 309 stainless steel to itself in wrought or cast form, Type 304 and for dissimilar metal welding between 304 to carbon steel. Review ASME Code Section II, Part C, SFA 5.4. E308L, E308MoL or E316L would have been suitable.

 

[stanweld]

While E309L is most capable of meeting the mechanical requirements (tensile strength and ductility) of 316L (though not at cryogenic temperature) for the involved joint, it does not provide similar corrosion resistance to 316L with regard to pitting, for which reason the 316L was no doubt selected.

 

[BoomerSooner7]

Does it say in the code that you specifically can not use E309L-16 for this joint. I am trying to find a "free" article on ASME IIC, probably not going to happen though.

thanks.

 

[metengr]

Here is the issue, you need to review the contract or engineering specification requirments for this project to determine if a specific filler metal was required. My guess is that the welder had made a mistake by selecting 309 rod regardless if it can meet mechanical property requirements.

If the engineering specification for this project specified 316L or equivalent you have a nonconformance and this means remove the filler metal. If there was no specification for filler metal, you can leave it but I would discuss this with the Purchaser. If it was me, I would tell you to remove it. A vessel that is constructed of 316L stainless is not for aesthetic purposes!

 

[stanweld]

What did the WPS specify? If the WPS specified E316L to be used when joining 316L SS, the weld is nonconforming and the welder erred. It should never be the welder's perrogitive to choose the welding filler on his/her own initiative. Since this is a pressure vessel subject to ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, the manufacturer must comply with its Code Quality Manual, which I am sure would require controls on WPS and weld filler metal issuance.

Did the manufacturer violate its Code Manual? If so write a nonconformance report and obtain the Owner/Engineer's acceptance of a use as is disposition.

 

[metengr]

stanweld;
The WPS for P-No 8 base material does not need to specifically identify a filler metal composition, it can be E3XX.

 

[stanweld]

I fully understand that A-analysis is the governing essential variable and that the use of E309 would meet Code requirements for the joint; however, most of the vessel manufacturer's welding procedures (and I have reviewed thousands of them in the past 35 years) specify the use of E316 for welding type 316 ss, E308 for type 304, E347 for 321 ss & 347 ss, etc.; in which case the weld is still nonconforming to the WPS even though the WPS conforms with ASME IX with regard to the essential variables.