X52 Pipe 1

[soulglo]

Hello all,

I need some information regarding a welding procedure for X52 pipe 25mm thick for a vessel's helideck legs

Our current procedure is for A333 material and uses ER80S-D2 tig wire and ER7018 electrodes.

I have 2 questions

Can this procedure be used for the X52 pipe as both are P-1 materials?
Can the ER80-D2 be substituted for ER70S-6 as both have the same F-No

Many thanks

 

[metengr]

What standard is the WPS qualified under - ASME Section IX or AWS?

 

[soulglo]

The procedure was qualified under ASME IX

Thanks for the response

 

[metengr]

Ok, look at Section IX QW-250 for the SMAW process and for the GTAW process essential variables, and determine if the change in A-No for the filler metal for the GTAW process is permitted or will require requalification of your current WPS. I am not going to provide the answer, this is to learn.

 

[soulglo]

From what at I have looked up,

According to Table QW-256 the change in A-No is an essential variable so I would need to re-qualify a procedure if i wanted to chance the GTAW filler wire.

 

[metengr]

Look at QW-404.5 for A-No change for filler metals pertaining to the GTAW process.

QW-404.5 (Applicable only to ferrous metals.) A
change in the chemical composition of the weld deposit
from one A-Number to any other A-Number in table
QW-442. Qualification with A-No. 1 shall qualify for
A-No. 2 and vice versa.

 

[soulglo]

Thanks for the help with this metengr.

So with the A-No's being 1 & 11 they are still interchangeable because they are in table QW-442.

ER70S-6 F-No6 A-No1
ER80S-D2 F-No6 A-No11

And for ferrous materials. A-No's 1-12 are interchangeable if in the same F Group?

Apologies for the continued questions, I've hit the wall with this one.

Many thanks

 

[metengr]

soulglo;
Not quite right. The ER80S-D2 is an A-No 2 classification because it contains Mo, while the ER70S-6 is an A-No 1 classification. Therefore, for these two filler metals, they are permitted without re-qualification of the WPS based on the above QW-404.5. Any other A-No substitutions are not permitted.

 

[soulglo]

Thanks for the reply.

Our welderqual software has this as A-No 11

Please see below link.

http://pnumbers.com/onlinePackages/fmc/csp-fmc-material.asp?classId=1564

 

[metengr]

Yes, my error, I was thinking of the older classification for this filler metal as A-No 2, versus Mn-Mo, A-No 11. Go back and re-read QW-404.5. Then read the second sentence. You cannot indiscriminately substitute A-No classifications other than A-No 1 qualifies for A-No 2 and vice versa.

 

[soulglo]

Many thanks metengr

So only A-No's 1 & 2 can be interchangeable, in my case A-No's 1 & 11 cannot, so we have to qualify another procedure if we wish to change the filler metal from ER80-D2 to ER70S-6.

Thank you

Soulglo

 

[Guest102023]

X-grade steels are specified for yield strength, so check whether your purchase spec demands a matching filler metal to meet minimum yield as well as tensile.

 

[Guest102023]

Boy (and don't take this as a personal knock), I hope your management does not believe that a software package is a substitute for experience and Code knowledge. I've not built one but I would assume the legs of a vessel helideck are fairly critical components.


"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"

 

[Kiwi2671]

Metengr,
Can I possibly ask for assistance with understanding the chemical composition requirements please.
SFA 5.18 ER70S-6
SFA 5.28 ER80S-D2
Both wires comply with QW 442 A-1, A-2 & A-11 for C, Cr, Mo & Ni
A-1 & A-2 list a maximum Mn of 1.60
SFA 5.18 ER70S-6 lists an allowable range of 1.40 to 1.85 for Mn which is above the maximum for A-1 & A-2
However, A-11 lists a range for Mn of 1.25 to 2.25

Does that mean ER70S-6 & ER80S-D2 are both A-11’s ?
A-1, A-2 & A-11 list a maximum Si of 1.00 but SFA 5.18 ER70S-6 lists 0.80 to 1.15 – is 0.15 considered “not important” ?

Your thoughts,
Regards,
Kiwi

 

[stanweld]

You can readily purchase ER70S-6 with chemistry meeting A-1 analysis.

 

[Kiwi2671]

Stanweld,
Thank you for the response but it hasn't helped me understand.
If I qualify a PQR with an electrode (ER70S-6) that has a batch certificate showing Mn of 1.40 then I can class it as an A-1 or A-2 (how do you decide if it is actually A-1 or A-2 ?)
What if I have a PQR/WPS that states A-1 or A-2 but the batch certificate for my supplied electrode shows an Mn of 1.85.
I can't reject it as it complies with SFA 5.18 ER70S-6 but it does not comply with QW 442 A-1 or A-2
Cheers,
Kiwi

 

[metengr]

Kiwi;
From what I know with Section IX, the electrode classification for ER80S-D2 was re-classified into a Mn-Mo category way back when and this is the reason for the A-No 11 electrode classification. The Mn, Mo contents are what separated this electrode from an A-No 2 classification to an A-No 11. Mn and Mo both increase hardenability of the weld deposit combined with C.

 

[Kiwi2671]

metengr,
Thanks for the response but what about my questions regarding the ER70S-6 ?
Cheers,
Kiwi

 

[metengr]

Kiwi;
The ER70S-6 has a maximum content of only 0.15% Mo by mass per SFA 5.18, Table 1. The Mn content is stated as a range of 1.4 to 1.85. The higher Mn is needed for deoxidation purposes as solid wire and the wire is formulated to meet A-No 1 classification. The more important alloying element is the Mo content and this is limited as previously mentioned. This is why it is classified as A-No 1.
Sometimes it is much easier to discuss over the phone versus an internet forum.

 

[stanweld]

Kiwi2671,
Please read closely QW-404.5
(a) "...from the chemical analysis of the weld deoposit..."
(b) "...or from the chemical composition as reported in the filler metal specification or the manufacturer's or supplier's certificate of complaince."

In the US we have no problem in obtaining ER70S-6 filler metal with Mn < 1.60%.

As metengr has indicated, excess Mn will be diluted with the base metal and as a deoxidizing agent.