Can Any one help me ? LTCS welding

admin

Dear Friends, I have a problem and hence was looking for solution on net and found this infomative forum. I hope I'll get proper answer to my problem.We have  tested successfully a PQR for LTCS  ( A333 -6) using ER 80S Ni1 and E 8018 C1, with out PWHT  Using this WPS/PQR good amount of welding has been done. The problem is that a objection has been raised that ASME Sec IIC recommends E 8018 C1 for PWHT cases.My argument is that if  we have qualified the PQR at the specified variables ( including impact testing ) and if the procesure is good , so it is good for the job too.Please recommend me how I can answer his objections and prevent plenty of joints being cut.Thanks in advance.
Reply:I got to figure out what ya said first DewayneDixieland WeldingMM350PLincoln 100Some torchesOther misc. tools
Reply:I would argue as you have that the procedure was properly qualified and it should stand as is.  If ASME recommends a particular filler, I would not interpret that as a requirement, but only a recommendation.  I'd double check the fine print on the filler recommendation.
Reply:Originally Posted by pulserI would argue as you have that the procedure was properly qualified and it should stand as is.  If ASME recommends a particular filler, I would not interpret that as a requirement, but only a recommendation.  I'd double check the fine print on the filler recommendation.
Reply:Not my area but have been involved in a similar situation. The company I worked for was certifying to some European spec and I was the one doing the test. Long story made short, if the engineer making the decisions on the other end is the chief engineer you will wind up re-working what you already have done. If (you're lucky) that engineer isn't the head man in that department and you have a chance to change their decision by going over his head. They don't like overruling their own people but will if you can prove your case. It's really the only chance you have because the person you're dealing with has to stand pat or risk being questioned by his superiors every time he makes a tough decision. His superiors have to rely on his prowess and he won't risk that by changing his initial decision. It's either go over his head or forgetaboutit and start the rework.In our case the head engineer overruled and we didn't have to change anything. Good LuckAnything worth doing is worth doing RIGHT
Reply:Several issues are here (but not an answer... sorry):First, in Sec IX, you will find the essential variables chart, listing all relevant variables for the common processes, indicating whether it is an essential variable for the PQR for each process, and the relevant paragraphs regarding how to treat it if it is.The other issue is if the filler is ONLY qualified with the PWHT, then it *may* be required, as without it, the filler isn't being used appropriately within it's class and no longer meets the spec.  There may be any number of metalurgical concerns over the long term (which is beyond my knowlege to go into... I listen to the specialists for this). I don't have the reference books available for a few days, so unless someone else pipes in with the appropriate expertise (there are a few that work this board that are likely to know), I think you are going to need a specialist. I see only properties for this filler in the stress relieved condition (example: see page 26 of http://content.lincolnelectric.com/p...ature/c210.pdf or http://www.hobartbrothers.com/pdf/da...loy8018C1.pdf), whereas many fillers are specified without PWHT, or both with and without.You might try calling Lincoln or Hobart filler metals division and asking them. This is what they worry about all day long, and they want you to do it right.