Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

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

Consumables not tested in the PWHT condition

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jdebeer

Jdebeer

Materials
Aug 30, 2004
4
When qualifying a WPS to ASME IX, for example using E7018-1 on P1 and giving the weld a PWHT for a cold service application. My understanding is that the classification E7018-1 will then be qualified to do this weld as per WPS with a PWHT. My problem is when purchasing new consumables to ASME II C (AWS 5.1-91), consumables is tested in the as welded condition by the manufacturer. We know that there will be a loss of mechanical properties during PWHT, thus consumables close to the minimum values might dip below during PWHT. What need to be done to prevent this? Extreme measures like asking the manufacture to test the electrodes in the PWHT’ed condition for both the minimum and maximum times and temperatures possible, for every lot produced, have been proposed. Is this necessary? How does the codes allow for this possibility?

Thank you
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

Sort by date Sort by votes
Don't make it more difficult. Per SecIX---
see QW-100.1,QW200.2(c),QW-404,QW-430

Did you qualify P-1,7018 with PWHT? If so,all 7018 qualifies. Check your varibles in SecIX. Check the construction code. There may be other eng. concerns-but not code reqs.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yes we have used E7018-1 on P1 base metal with a PWHT, thus all other E7018-1 qualifies. However I would like to know how the concern is addressed that if E7018-1 is very close to the minimum mechanical properties it might fall below during PWHT, because of the scatter of properties obtained within a classification. We work in a maintenance environment and cannot realistically use production test plates for heat treatment and impacts. Up to now we thought the PQR was sufficient.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
deanc is correct - don't make it more complicated. We have qualified many welding procedures with PWHT on carbon steel base material, and I have never dealt with a question or problem related to mechanical properties of an E7018 weldment falling below the mechanical properties of the plate, if I understand your question. The weld metal properties must be equal to or exceed the properties of the base material, as verified with the PQR.

The PWHT affects the base metal mechanical properties more so than the weld deposit mechanical properties for E7018. As such, the real concern regarding PWHT is a loss in base metal strength or toughness as a result of PWHT. The weld metal will have higher strength than the base metal after PWHT. Toughness of the weld metal is a separate issue.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Try ESAB 7018-SR, or another manufacturers 7018 that is designed to maintain strength after stress relief. We have used ESAB 7018-SR with good results before, and even though thier catalog does not mention it, they did classify it as 7018-1 for us. (as opposed to just 7018)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

JohnWE
  • Question
Number of thermocouples during PWHT according to ASME section I and B31.1
Replies
2
Views
535
JohnWE
JohnWE
jayinwww
  • Locked
  • Question
PWHT Question B31.3
Replies
2
Views
250
WE91
WE91
G
  • Question
HRSG ASME Stamping Issue - Manufacturer has cert. Installer does not.
Replies
5
Views
2K
weldstan
weldstan
LouisLac
  • Locked
  • Question
ASME section IX PWHT Stainless steel type 410
Replies
6
Views
175
DVWE
DVWE
Sajjad2164
  • Locked
  • Question
Hello friends! In the 2023 edition
Replies
0
Views
57
Sajjad2164
Sajjad2164

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top Bottom